Bill Nye #2: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
762

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Deism negates freewill, that’s the problem with it.
[/quote]

I don’t necessarily disagree, but how how?

As an addendum, I should say that I was in a hurry while writing that response. If I’d thought more carefully I would have said that Occam’s razor would make us agnostic theists: we’d accept that human reason cannot explain the natural without the supranatural, but we’d be entirely agnostic with regard to the properties, characteristics, wants, and activities of said supranatural power/entity/being/whathaveyou.

This, by the way, is exactly what I believe.[/quote]

I’m not sure if you are interested, but I was really fascinated by this Lawrence Krouse video on why there is something rather than nothing:

Spoiler alert: there’s some cheap shots against religion in it and I’m not endorsing the cheap shots but I thought the information presented was relevant and interesting.
[/quote]

I am certainly interested. I’ve been wondering about this question since I was twelve years old, and my mind never tires of it. Thanks for the video, I’ll watch it later today.

763

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< Show me why faith is unnecessary because your worldview is demonstrably true without a shade of doubt. >>>[/quote]No, we ARE back to square one. I have repeatedly and without equivocation denied exactly what you here report me as saying. Please reread my posts. There is no such thing as what you are demanding, for ANYTHING. Including 2+2 equaling 4, nevermind the biblical philosophical presentation of the triunity of the God of historic Christianity as the solution to the problem of the one and the many AND source of certainty for all of His creation. Start readin here: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/claiming_moral_authority?id=5421917&pageNo=15 to that end of that thread.

You’ll see where to start. We are in the middle of it now. It will take me a few days to answer Kamui just like it took him a few to answer me. If you don’t want to do all that reading then maybe this just isn’t your thing. By which I honestly mean to imply no denigration of your intelligence. The things of the Lord are at once fully accessible to a 6 year old AND beyond the whole body of the highest erudition of all the ages. Knowing Him like I do, that’s exactly what I would expect.
[/quote]

You’ve essentially said what I’ve been hoping you’d say–that you can’t prove that your worldview and all of its particulars are inevitably and necessarily true. Or at least you haven’t denied this. And if I’m right about this, you would do well to remember it when you’re engaged in discussion with a nonbeliever.

Without meaning to insult, Tirib, these are concepts that keep thoughtful adolescents up at night. There is nothing particularly difficult to understand here. What makes it difficult–not in an over-the-head kind of way, mind you–is the rambling, the Socratic method, the ambiguity, the allusions to supreme truths that will be revealed in time. Your argument can be made in just a few short sentences, in a single post (KingKai summarized your point and answered my question for you in three sentences above).[/quote]Nevermind

764

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< Show me why faith is unnecessary because your worldview is demonstrably true without a shade of doubt. >>>[/quote]No, we ARE back to square one. I have repeatedly and without equivocation denied exactly what you here report me as saying. Please reread my posts. There is no such thing as what you are demanding, for ANYTHING. Including 2+2 equaling 4, nevermind the biblical philosophical presentation of the triunity of the God of historic Christianity as the solution to the problem of the one and the many AND source of certainty for all of His creation. Start readin here: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/claiming_moral_authority?id=5421917&pageNo=15 to that end of that thread.

You’ll see where to start. We are in the middle of it now. It will take me a few days to answer Kamui just like it took him a few to answer me. If you don’t want to do all that reading then maybe this just isn’t your thing. By which I honestly mean to imply no denigration of your intelligence. The things of the Lord are at once fully accessible to a 6 year old AND beyond the whole body of the highest erudition of all the ages. Knowing Him like I do, that’s exactly what I would expect.
[/quote]

You’ve essentially said what I’ve been hoping you’d say–that you can’t prove that your worldview and all of its particulars are inevitably and necessarily true. Or at least you haven’t denied this. And if I’m right about this, you would do well to remember it when you’re engaged in discussion with a nonbeliever.

Without meaning to insult, Tirib, these are concepts that keep thoughtful adolescents up at night. There is nothing particularly difficult to understand here. What makes it difficult–not in an over-the-head kind of way, mind you–is the rambling, the Socratic method, the ambiguity, the allusions to supreme truths that will be revealed in time. Your argument can be made in just a few short sentences, in a single post (KingKai summarized your point and answered my question for you in three sentences above).[/quote]Nevermind
[/quote]

You see, Tirib: when the time comes for you to make a simple claim and stand by it, you become uncharacteristically reticent.

I’m not trying to bully you here (I like you and, contrary to what militant atheists conducting fly-by’s believe, I know you’re very knowledgeable), and if you’d like me to let up I will. But I truly want to know whether you believe I’m mistaken in this:

Your worldview and all of its particulars are neither evidentially provable beyond doubt nor logically inevitable. There does not exist a point-by-point positive argument which leads necessarily to an affirmation of the entirety of Christian doctrine. Consequently, religiosity is contingent upon faith. Therefore, you cannot say that I, as a nonbeliever, am demonstrably wrong.

I’m not asking you to take a significant chunk of time to explain anything to me. Im asking whether you believe the above propositions to be true or false.

765

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
God told me to tell you gents to end this thread. He says he gave you brains and eyes and so forth for you to do SCIENCE. He did NOT give you these gifts to believe in fantasyland bullshit.

Study science. Use your brains or He will send us the way of the dinosaur. He has spoken.[/quote]

lol My goodness, HH, you are still the biggest bigot I’ve ever known. Please, tell me you see the irony in the above…

“GOD TOLD ME to tell you gents to end this thread. HE SAYS… he did not give you these gifts TO BELIEVE IN FANTASYLAND BULLSH*T.”

You LIVE in a fantasy land, HH. Funny how, despite all your attacks on the God who won’t reveal himself clearly, YOU claim that he reveals himself through you! What kind of obscure deity would do that???[/quote]

Only personal revalation is valid. There is no contradiction in anything I’ve written.
[/quote]

I didn’t know we can use mere testimony as a valid form of argumentation with you, HH. God reveals to me that the Scriptures are valid and authoritative every time I read them. Point, set, and match.[/quote]

God provided these to you as palliatives. He knows that many people are weak and need things of this sort, to give them comfort. But you forget that those were given to people 2000 years ago. He expects you guys to grow up sometime.

He, in all generosity, gave you science as a means to grow up. He now expects us to ‘put away childish things’ and be men. Being an expert at palliatives is NOT what He wants of us. Time to grow up.

That’s not what God says to me. He says exactly the opposite - that all of our scientific methodology is the real palliative, that it makes us feel like we are self-sufficient and able to control this unruly world. Science provides an illusory sense of certainty.

766

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

I understand your point, Pat; I just disagree with the notion that all religions are essentially phone connections with varying degrees of static. That’s not a biblical notion, and you do us no favors as Christians by making someone “religious” without leading them specifically to Christ and the faith he came to reveal. Getting them to be religious isn’t enough; if it was, Christ really did die for nothing. And if you present the faith in a way that says, at the end of the day, every religion still gets you to God (though maybe not as well as others), then you are doing a disservice to the faith. [/quote]

Tell me if you get my PM. It has not been working…[/quote]

What is wrong with the PM’s on here? No I didn’t get it. This is getting frustrating.

767

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Deism negates freewill, that’s the problem with it.
[/quote]

I don’t necessarily disagree, but how how?

As an addendum, I should say that I was in a hurry while writing that response. If I’d thought more carefully I would have said that Occam’s razor would make us agnostic theists: we’d accept that human reason cannot explain the natural without the supranatural, but we’d be entirely agnostic with regard to the properties, characteristics, wants, and activities of said supranatural power/entity/being/whathaveyou.

This, by the way, is exactly what I believe.[/quote]

I’m not sure if you are interested, but I was really fascinated by this Lawrence Krouse video on why there is something rather than nothing:

Spoiler alert: there’s some cheap shots against religion in it and I’m not endorsing the cheap shots but I thought the information presented was relevant and interesting.
[/quote]

Dark Energy is not ‘nothing’ technically, which is his claim.

768

[quote]pat wrote:

Deism negates freewill, that’s the problem with it.
Christian doctrine isn’t as crazy as some of it’s practitioners. Like I said it’s a means. Further it’s not a one sided affair if it were, it would have expired quickly. Something about it works. It’s the feedback mechanism that keeps it going. You only know it when you do it.

In the end you are right, I can prove God must exist by necessity, but it says nothing about the accuracy of faith and religion. [/quote]

Not in all cases.

769

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Deism negates freewill, that’s the problem with it.
[/quote]

I don’t necessarily disagree, but how how?

As an addendum, I should say that I was in a hurry while writing that response. If I’d thought more carefully I would have said that Occam’s razor would make us agnostic theists: we’d accept that human reason cannot explain the natural without the supranatural, but we’d be entirely agnostic with regard to the properties, characteristics, wants, and activities of said supranatural power/entity/being/whathaveyou.

This, by the way, is exactly what I believe.[/quote]

Well, while deism acknowledges that something cannot come from nothing, it runs on the basic philosophy that God set everything into motion once and has not interfered since. Meaning that us sentient creatures with an apparent will are just following a predetermined script and hence have no will. Deism deals with the universe nicely, but it does not deal with the human element which is a complication.

If you follow a purely deductive motif for living your life, then yes, to a certain extent it could lead you in that direction. There is the problem that the nature of an uncaused-cause must have something like a will which further indicates something of a consciousness. That’s what I meant when you think about what properties an Uncaused-cause must have to be what it is.
The other problem is also that you have is that not a whole lot can be deductively reasoned out. We live an empirical existence, which relies mainly on induction. I don’t think it would be wise way to live because literally trust nothing tactile. I don’t think you can just compartmentalize it to God, faith, religion, and allow everything else like science to get a pass.
It’s a useful tool for understanding what you can know and what you think. Everybody lives their lives trusting things they cannot know for certain. It doesn’t mean things are or are not true, it just means we cannot know for certain.

770

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

I understand your point, Pat; I just disagree with the notion that all religions are essentially phone connections with varying degrees of static. That’s not a biblical notion, and you do us no favors as Christians by making someone “religious” without leading them specifically to Christ and the faith he came to reveal. Getting them to be religious isn’t enough; if it was, Christ really did die for nothing. And if you present the faith in a way that says, at the end of the day, every religion still gets you to God (though maybe not as well as others), then you are doing a disservice to the faith. [/quote]

Tell me if you get my PM. It has not been working…[/quote]

What is wrong with the PM’s on here? No I didn’t get it. This is getting frustrating. [/quote]

I don’t know what to do to address it. They used to have tech support. My profile is definately set up to receive, but it’s not worked in months.

771

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Deism negates freewill, that’s the problem with it.
[/quote]

I don’t necessarily disagree, but how how?

As an addendum, I should say that I was in a hurry while writing that response. If I’d thought more carefully I would have said that Occam’s razor would make us agnostic theists: we’d accept that human reason cannot explain the natural without the supranatural, but we’d be entirely agnostic with regard to the properties, characteristics, wants, and activities of said supranatural power/entity/being/whathaveyou.

This, by the way, is exactly what I believe.[/quote]

I’m not sure if you are interested, but I was really fascinated by this Lawrence Krouse video on why there is something rather than nothing:

Spoiler alert: there’s some cheap shots against religion in it and I’m not endorsing the cheap shots but I thought the information presented was relevant and interesting.
[/quote]

I am certainly interested. I’ve been wondering about this question since I was twelve years old, and my mind never tires of it. Thanks for the video, I’ll watch it later today.[/quote]

I’ll give you the summary, he says dark energy created the universe out of nothing. If you fast forward to I think about the 40 minute mark, he finally gets down to it. He didn’t solve the problem, if by chance he’s right with his theory all he serves to do is kick the can down the road. Where the hell did the dark energy come from? There’s the problem. While he may be a brilliant physicist he solved nothing with regards to cosmology.

Further, it’s misunderstanding of cosmology. We’re concerned with existence itself, not “the universe”.
If you want to get right down to it, we cannot actually prove the physical universe exists. It’s the inherent problem with empiricism. It’s likely true, not absolutely true.

772

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
God told me to tell you gents to end this thread. He says he gave you brains and eyes and so forth for you to do SCIENCE. He did NOT give you these gifts to believe in fantasyland bullshit.

Study science. Use your brains or He will send us the way of the dinosaur. He has spoken.[/quote]

lol My goodness, HH, you are still the biggest bigot I’ve ever known. Please, tell me you see the irony in the above…

“GOD TOLD ME to tell you gents to end this thread. HE SAYS… he did not give you these gifts TO BELIEVE IN FANTASYLAND BULLSH*T.”

You LIVE in a fantasy land, HH. Funny how, despite all your attacks on the God who won’t reveal himself clearly, YOU claim that he reveals himself through you! What kind of obscure deity would do that???[/quote]

Only personal revalation is valid. There is no contradiction in anything I’ve written.
[/quote]

King Kai is right. Personal revelation isn’t exactly kosher for the Deism you claim to follow.

773

[quote]pat wrote:

Well, while deism acknowledges that something cannot come from nothing, it runs on the basic philosophy that God set everything into motion once and has not interfered since. Meaning that us sentient creatures with an apparent will are just following a predetermined script and hence have no will. Deism deals with the universe nicely, but it does not deal with the human element which is a complication.
[/quote]

I disagree here. Deism sets the stage and the rules. This universe’s laws require there to be cause and effect. Free will is represented by the choice to believe and follow or not believe and do what you please.

That is what the concept of alternate universes is based on…the idea that at every decision you make, there is a reality where the alternate was also made…thus eliminating the idea that we are just following a script.

We may be following ONE VERSION of that script…but that is because we made the choices that led us here.

774

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
I understand your point, Pat; I just disagree with the notion that all religions are essentially phone connections with varying degrees of static. That’s not a biblical notion, and you do us no favors as Christians by making someone “religious” without leading them specifically to Christ and the faith he came to reveal. Getting them to be religious isn’t enough; if it was, Christ really did die for nothing. And if you present the faith in a way that says, at the end of the day, every religion still gets you to God (though maybe not as well as others), then you are doing a disservice to the faith. [/quote]

Well, I know it’s an oversimplification. It is an analogy not an explanation after all. By I stand by the fact that all relationships begin and end with communication. And just like any relationship, a relationship with God will transform you.

Now, I’d love to stand on the soapbox with my Christian flag and say “We’re the best!”, but I have no ground to say that to a non-believer. Certainly, I can make a case for Christianity, but others can make the cases for their faiths too. When dealing with the faithless, it would be disingenuous for me to not acknowledge that.
I think Christianity is the way, when asked to make a case for it, I will, but that’s not what I am being asked.

775

“That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call â??free willâ?? is your mindâ??s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.” Atlas Shrugged…P3C7

776

[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< Your worldview and all of its particulars are neither evidentially provable beyond doubt nor logically inevitable. >>>[/quote]Why am I doin this to myself?
On the basis of finite AND sinful human logic, (that’s us, myself included) NOTHING is evidentially provable AT ALL EVER. Not even 2+2=4. However we ALL, (that’s us, myself included) live and think every last second of our lives immersed in and surrounded by CERTAINTY. UTTER INESCAPABLE CERTAINTY. We, (that’s us, myself included) do work, pay bills, design, engineer and build stuff, carry on conversations, EVERYTHING, under the assumption and practice of, whatever makes 2+2=4 rules our lives.
Follow me. Since we, (that’s us, myself included) can neither account for nor escape this certainty. FAITH, that is, a by definition unprovable to us, (that’s us, myself included) first principle, IS IS IS, in every last specimen of the human race Presupposed to account for it. It is absolutely NOT a matter of having faith or not. For the one thousandth time. It’s only a matter of what in. I think you may even agree this far. [quote]smh23 wrote:<<< There does not exist a point-by-point positive argument which leads necessarily to an affirmation of the entirety of Christian doctrine. Consequently, religiosity is contingent upon faith. >>>[/quote] There does not exist ANY argument for ANYTHING, including 2+2=4 that DOES NOT ALREADY ASSUME the triune God of the bible before it even starts. The evidence is everyWHERE and in everyTHING. Teh problem is man’s blindness in sin. Not a lack of evidence. For a fuller exposition of my view on these things, see that thread http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/claiming_moral_authority?id=5421917&pageNo=15 starting down the page a bit with myself and Kamui. There just ISN’T a quick Sesame Street syllogism for the how and why of these kinds of topics on the philosophical level. Kamui is one of the most towering titanic intellects I have ever personally encountered. I’m going to risk sounding overly grandiose, but when he and I are done, there will be a stalemate, unless the Holy Ghost arrests his heart, wherein one of most definitive conversations ever between a Van Tilian Christian transcendentalist and anybody else has taken place. That is from me to him the highest intellectual compliment I can bestow upon an unbeliever. He DOES understand exactly why I believe what I believe about the triune God of the Christian FAITH being the answer to absolutely EVERYTHING. The dialog between he and I will be most instructive to you, but if you’re looking for t-Shirt slogans I’m not your guy and neither is he.

777

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< Your worldview and all of its particulars are neither evidentially provable beyond doubt nor logically inevitable. >>>[/quote]Why am I doin this to myself?
On the basis of finite AND sinful human logic, (that’s us, myself included) NOTHING is evidentially provable AT ALL EVER. Not even 2+2=4. However we ALL, (that’s us, myself included) live and think every last second of our lives immersed in and surrounded by CERTAINTY. UTTER INESCAPABLE CERTAINTY. We, (that’s us, myself included) do work, pay bills, design, engineer and build stuff, carry on conversations, EVERYTHING, under the assumption and practice of, whatever makes 2+2=4 rules our lives.
Follow me. Since we, (that’s us, myself included) can neither account for nor escape this certainty. FAITH, that is, a by definition unprovable to us, (that’s us, myself included) first principle, IS IS IS, in every last specimen of the human race Presupposed to account for it. It is absolutely NOT a matter of having faith or not. For the one thousandth time. It’s only a matter of what in. I think you may even agree this far.
[/quote]

I do agree thus far.

[quote]
There does exist ANY argument for ANYTHING, including 2+2=4 that DOES NOT ALREADY ASSUME the triune God of the bible before it even starts.[/quote]

This is the rub. The argument you’re making leads to a supranatural, uncontingent entity but not necessarily the triune God of the Bible. Nowhere in your argument do I see the need for Jesus to have been the Son of God.

778

[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< This is the rub. The argument you’re making leads to a supranatural, uncontingent entity but not necessarily the triune God of the Bible. Nowhere in your argument do I see the need for Jesus to have been the Son of God.[/quote]i haven’t made that argument here. I intend no personal insult, I mean that, but nothing can lead a sinful man (myself included) to a saving knowledge of the triune God of the bible except the Holy Spirit. THAT’S the kind of knowledge I wanna see in people. However, if you will look at the thread I linked you to, you will see an ongoing discussion between Kamui and myself where we are talking about the ancient “problem of the one and the many”. One of the oldest and most basic conundrums of the serious philosopher. He quite honorably conceded to me from day one that the triunity of the Christian God solves that problem. His omniscience, decrees and providence account for His non contingency which is the basis for the objective certainty of man which in turn makes his pragmatic certainty intelligible and so one. Kamui of course, as a sinner, has his own solutions that I as a Christian see as an EXTREMELY brilliant and well reasoned attempt to answer ultimate questions, but which in the end are simply the best yet still failed one I’ve seen to date.
Lemme put it to you like this. His in the only non Christian I’ve personally seen that even asks the right questions.

BTW, Why did you include non contingency in the quote above. I agree, you’ve just never mentioned it before.

779

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

That this sentence concludes with the word “here” clearly implies that the said argument does in fact exist.

My question is (and has been for ages now, and I know that you’re aware of this): does it? And if so, can you please reproduce it?

I’m sure you’ve got it written down somewhere or another, if you indeed have made it before. And I’ll preempt what I expect your response to be by saying that a sprawling conversation with another poster is not an argument, it’s a sprawling conversation with another poster. If you believe there exists a positive argument for the God of Christianity, I’m interested to see it reproduced here or in a single post in another thread if need be.

And one further thing: if you don’t have the time to get into it at the moment, I understand. But I’ll treat any variation of “you won’t be able to understand/you’ll be in over your head” as a pure and obvious cop-out. I can assure you that as long as what you write is in English, I will understand it.

780

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

BTW, Why did you include non contingency in the quote above. I agree, you’ve just never mentioned it before.[/quote]

I thought I’d mentioned it before.

I include it because I tend to find serious merit in the cosmological and from-contingency proofs of the existence of “God” (in quotation because neither says a word about Christian doctrine).

781

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

BTW, Why did you include non contingency in the quote above. I agree, you’ve just never mentioned it before.[/quote]

I thought I’d mentioned it before.

I include it because I tend to find serious merit in the cosmological and from-contingency proofs of the existence of “God” (in quotation because neither says a word about Christian doctrine).[/quote]

I have the same problem with getting my head around how you can get something from nothing, but I find that defaulting to a supernatural moral agent/creator is just as unsatisfying as some of the alternatives, like, for example, the possibility that there has always been “something”; or that we don’t fully understand what “nothing” is; or that true “nothingness” is in itself an impossibility as evidenced by the fact that there is something; or that our conception of time/infinity is simply inaccurate or too limited to get the full picture. Also, simply inserting a “supernatural” omnipotent being into the mix to “explain” the unexplainable doesn’t really explain where the supernal omnipotent being came from.