A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

There is a reason it comes up on here. 2a and others (i believe Hessian) are Christians, who make the claim the Bible (and stories in it) are (roughly) 5000-6000 years old, since nothing existed before the verses in the Bible, the Earth couldnt have existed before that.

It may not be YOUR Christian belief, but it is definelty a Christian belief, made by Christians, using the Christian Bible to support this belief.

I'll agree with them that nothing we could comprehend existed before God created the heavens and the earth. If they believe that was roughly 6000 years ago, I personally think they really have no good Biblical standing for that. That's an assumption for sure. I don't think you'd find it a basic tenet of Christianity.

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

And yours relies on what? Nothingness. Events having a “specific series of events” that preceded it, but it all occurred out of nothing.

I made no such claim about nothingness. Part of my point is that we don't know everything about how the universe and life originated - we don't know what all the preceding events were. Admitting we don't know is not only acceptable, it's also intellectually responsible.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

But then you go on to say there is a possible intelligence. Can intelligence exist in a vacuum?

I'm saying that we cannot rule out the possibility of such an intelligence, however remote the possibility. But the burden of proof is on any claim that such an intelligence exists.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

And how can you claim God has no scientific basis when you said yourself “our senses aren't capable of perceiving all the preceding events”? Doesn’t God fall within this “senses” problem?

I'm not sure of your point. I'm saying that the question of the existence of gods is a scientific question. It's not a question of faith or a question of theology. For example, we cannot perceive black holes directly with our senses, but we can perceive their effects.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

Part of my point is that we don't know everything about how the universe and life originated - we don't know what all the preceding events were. Admitting we don't know is not only acceptable, it's also intellectually responsible.

This sets you apart from most arguing the scientific side of things!

Yes, the burden for any side of the argument is proof. None of us have it, or we wouldn't be having the discussion.

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by This_person

By "random", I meant without reason. No intelligence causing it to happen. No meaning behind it.

The word also means "chance" and "causeless," which is the meaning I was using.

Originally Posted by This_person

I don't see your point, honestly. I guess I see science and religion as very similar - in search of truth. Religion and philosophy searches for reason, for meaning. Thus, religion is a compliment to both philosophy and science. Religions attempt to answer by whom, and why. Science attempts to answer the specific detail of how.

There are two types of "truth" - objective facts about the physical universe, and subjective concepts about the "mental universe" of human experience. Meaning is something that we create ourselves through the experience of living. There is no evidence for meaning that exists outside the human mind. Similarly, there is no evidence for reasons for natural events. Any claims about "by whom and why" are claims about the physical universe, and thus amount to religion intruding on the realm of science. Religion shouldn't make any claims about the physical universe at all. Instead, religion should focus exclusively on the "mental universe."

Originally Posted by This_person

But, evolution doesn't attempt to answer the origin of the life. Why we're as tall as we are, or why we're bipeds is a science question for determining the details of HOW. Where life comes from isn't addressed by evolution.

True - it's really a topic for abogenesis. My point is that creationism mistakenly labels that as a flaw in evolution, and that the origin of life is a scientific question.

Originally Posted by This_person

Actually, it's attempting to explain the source of "natural" phenomena.

Again, faith and belief have no place in explaining anything about natural phenomena.

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by This_person

Yes, the burden for any side of the argument is proof. None of us have it, or we wouldn't be having the discussion.

We must not confuse possibility with probability. When dealing with an unexplained event, we cannot treat claims about supernatural causes as having the same probability as the possibility of some natural cause. The burden of proof is on the supernatural cause, partly because such claims insist on rejecting the possibility of some natural cause that hasn't yet been detected. Whereas the burden of proof doesn't reject supernaturalism, it simply requires evidence for it other than faith or belief. Creationism mistakenly claims that gaps in scientific knowledge amount to automatic proof for its position.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

The word also means "chance" and "causeless," which is the meaning I was using.

And, unless there's a hand guiding something with a reason, a meaning, a purpose - that's what the act would be - random, by chance, without a guiding cause.

There are two types of "truth" - objective facts about the physical universe, and subjective concepts about the "mental universe" of human experience. Meaning is something that we create ourselves through the experience of living. There is no evidence for meaning that exists outside the human mind. Similarly, there is no evidence for reasons for natural events. Any claims about "by whom and why" are claims about the physical universe, and thus amount to religion intruding on the realm of science. Religion shouldn't make any claims about the physical universe at all. Instead, religion should focus exclusively on the "mental universe."

Why? If the cause is a supreme being - the who and why (alpha and omega, as it were) - then why shouldn't religion report and record that?

I do not need to be a scientist to see the difference between a gun going off because it's trigger was pulled by a person aiming it at someone, and a gun going off because it fell just exactly wrong and the trigger was moved by what the gun hit. The bullet will leave the barrel at the same velocity either way. The cause of the explosion that provides the motive force will be the exact same. However, if the bullet from both instances hits someone, the result is very different - has a different meaning. I need to be a scientist to explain why the bullet flies as it does, how the trigger causes the explosion, what the impact actually does to the human flesh, etc. But, I don't have to be a scientist to understand the meaning behind the two actions are very different.

This is my view of science and religion. My religion has every ability to speak to the meaning of things, and what that caused. If scientist want to research the mechanism through which the Creator did His work, please feel free. I'm interested in that Truth as well.

True - it's really a topic for abiogenesis. My point is that creationism mistakenly labels that as a flaw in evolution, and that the origin of life is a scientific question.

Not flaw, per se. Omission. There is no scientific explaination that has any shred of credibility. Or, testability.

Again, faith and belief have no place in explaining anything about natural phenomena.

Then science should stay out of it until they have credible proof. Wait, you can't even attempt to prove it unless you have a belief as to how it could be, with still no proof. Thus, evolution is just a belief that people have faith in - like a religion without a supreme being. Are you saying science shouldn't be involved? (Yes, I know you're not saying that. I'm trying to make the point that EVERY unproven theory is just a belief, a faith in something that hasn't been proven yet)

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

We must not confuse possibility with probability. When dealing with an unexplained event, we cannot treat claims about supernatural causes as having the same probability as the possibility of some natural cause. The burden of proof is on the supernatural cause, partly because such claims insist on rejecting the possibility of some natural cause that hasn't yet been detected. Whereas the burden of proof doesn't reject supernaturalism, it simply requires evidence for it other than faith or belief. Creationism mistakenly claims that gaps in scientific knowledge amount to automatic proof for its position.

My point is that there are gaps in scientific AND religious knowledge. Neither side is any more credible with these gaps.

When it comes to life from lifelessness, EVERY action would be a supernatural action. There is no higher nor lower probablity of serendipitous lightening and chemicals than to a supreme designer's hand.

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by This_person

And, unless there's a hand guiding something with a reason, a meaning, a purpose - that's what the act would be - random, by chance, without a guiding cause.

A cause need not be a "guiding hand." Your example of the gun falling exactly wrong is what what I mean by "cause." True randomness would involve no causes at all, with no predictability or pattern for any natural events.

Originally Posted by This_person

Why? If the cause is a supreme being - the who and why (alpha and omega, as it were) - then why shouldn't religion report and record that?

To be specific, we're not talking about religion in general, we're talking only about religions that make claims about supreme beings. Such religions must show that these claims are more than simply ideas in someone's head.

Originally Posted by This_person

My religion has every ability to speak to the meaning of things, and what that caused.

Why does there have to be a meaning?

Originally Posted by This_person

(I'm trying to make the point that EVERY unproven theory is just a belief, a faith in something that hasn't been proven yet)

Beliefs are independent of evidence, while scientific theories are attempts to explain evidence. If new evidence contradicted a theory, then science comes up with a new theory that better fits all the evidence. But if new evidence contradicts a belief, then the belief pretends that the evidence doesn't exist.

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by This_person

When it comes to life from lifelessness, EVERY action would be a supernatural action.

What basis is there for that assumption? It rejects the possibility that some natural process was involved that we currently don't understand. And if we never truly know how life arose, so what?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

A cause need not be a "guiding hand." Your example of the gun falling exactly wrong is what what I mean by "cause." True randomness would involve no causes at all, with no predictability or pattern for any natural events.

We seem caught up in quite a semantics issue here. By my understanding of the words, there can be a cause, but it's still random (which molecule is where in a pressurized gas chamber, for example. There's a reason that each molecule is where it is - it's being held there by the others. However, there's no order to it, it's purely random WHICH molecule is where)

To be specific, we're not talking about religion in general, we're talking only about religions that make claims about supreme beings. Such religions must show that these claims are more than simply ideas in someone's head.

As is true of any scientific theory.

Why does there have to be a meaning?

There doesn't. I just believe there is. As have trillions of people for millenia.

Beliefs are independent of evidence, while scientific theories are attempts to explain evidence. If new evidence contradicted a theory, then science comes up with a new theory that better fits all the evidence. But if new evidence contradicts a belief, then the belief pretends that the evidence doesn't exist.

That may be a fair generality, but my beliefs do not deny any evidence. Show me evidence, and I believe it can fit into my belief. Any that can't, I'll change my belief based upon the evidence.