Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1021

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
You deny anything anyone else can say by pointing out that anything revealed through the senses is essentially flawed, yet you yourself are unburdened by that flaw through faith.

[/quote]

Of course I take it on faith. You do too. Are you saying you don’t? Because, as bothered as you seem, you don’t actually deny the point. [/quote]

As I said before, I accept reality and existence as self-evident. That means that I don’t doubt my existence and I certainly don’t entertain the childish philosophical idea that we might merely be a dream.

Even if we were, it doesn’t change anything. Reality is still reality.
[/quote]

I haven’t raised doubt about my existence as a thinking intelligence. You’re not following. [/quote]

Why haven’t you? The ‘you’ you think you are exists solely due to the senses and brain. Are you taking yourself on faith too?
[/quote]

Be the universe existing as a separate entity, or simply as my own ‘delusion,’ I contemplate on it. I take that as sufficient evidence for my intelligence. What actually lies outside of my individual intelligence…

In our exchange so far, I’m having a hard time nailing down your objection.

You don’t seem to object to the conundrum as presented. You seem to object to me just taking it on faith (since it’s not something I can actually collect evidence on). If so, is it because you’re agnostic to the question of the universe actually existing outside of your ‘head?’ As upset as you are (and anyone else), the line of discussion ends up proving the point. After this many exchanges, has anyone tried to solve the problem with the scientific method?

1022

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Why haven’t you? The ‘you’ you think you are exists solely due to the senses and brain. Are you taking yourself on faith too?
[/quote]

Be the universe existing as a separate entity, or simply as my own ‘delusion,’ I contemplate on it. I take that as sufficient evidence for my intelligence. What actually lies outside of my individual intelligence…

In our exchange so far, I’m having a hard time nailing down your objection.

You don’t seem to object to the conundrum as presented. You seem to object to me just taking it on faith (since it’s not something I can actually collect evidence on). If so, is it because you’re agnostic to the question of the universe actually existing outside of your ‘head?’ As upset as you are (and anyone else), the line of discussion ends up proving the point. After this many exchanges, has anyone tried to solve the problem with the scientific method? [/quote]

That’s not the issue at hand. I have an issue with Pat’s assertion that because perception is inherently flawed we can’t come to any truthful conclusion about the nature of reality and existence.

While that makes a very interesting discussion on its own, Pat dismisses all other ideas and viewpoints based on that assertion but accepts on faith the truthfulness of his own beliefs.

If he and you would be consistent you’d admit that taking this on faith is merely deluding yourself and thus you both should forgo your religious beliefs.

1023

[quote]ephrem wrote:

If he and you would be consistent you’d admit that taking this on faith is merely deluding yourself and thus you both should forgo your religious beliefs.
[/quote]

I have no idea how you arrived at this.

Let’s back up so I can try to get where your objection lay.

  1. Are you agnostic about the reality of the material universe?

If not, what objective evidence are you able to provide for yourself?

If none, do you simply take it on faith and move on?

1024

In any case: the inherent uncertainty of the human condition notwithstanding, science is theory based on empirical evidence and experimentation (as best can be achieved) and religion is not. So no, creationism doesn’t belong next to Bernoulli’s principle.

1025

[quote]Sloth wrote:[quote]ephrem wrote:If he and you would be consistent you’d admit that taking this on faith is merely deluding yourself and thus you both should forgo your religious beliefs. [/quote]I have no idea how you arrived at this.[/quote]OOH OOH!!! Pick me, I do!!! LOL!!!

1026

[quote]smh23 wrote:
In any case: the inherent uncertainty of the human condition notwithstanding, science is theory based on empirical evidence and experimentation (as best can be achieved) and religion is not. So no, creationism doesn’t belong next to Bernoulli’s principle.[/quote]We have another pontiff of probability here folks. Cortes, I’ll leave you the honors. I won’t be back till later. (no I’m not trickin ya)

1027

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

In the physical world death is absolute.[/quote]

The physical world is void of absolutes. You cannot deductively prove the physical, therefore while physical death seems to be a certainty in the physical realm, you cannot conclusively prove the physical realm even exists. You all could be a figment of my imagination. As silly as that sounds, it’s true. Senses are crude instruments for interpreting reality. [/quote]

Semantics, nothing more.
[/quote]

Semantics? Prove it’s only semantics. Because I can prove that you cannot trust your senses, that what you perceive as physical reality may not be accurate in any way. The claim is yours, hence so is the burden of proof.[/quote]

It’s semantics for one simple reason: you don’t believe it yourself. If you truely believed the above how in earth could you ever entertain religious beliefs at all?
[/quote]
You’re are presuming to know that I don’t believe something I do believe and said so? We’re been over this a million times before. Metaphysics. The inescapable reality that the phyiscal is controlled by the metaphysical. And just because we can perceive it in a sensory way ,we have no way of knowing if we are perceiving it accurately. Hell, eye witness accounts bare this out. 10 people observe the exact same thing and everybody perceives it differently.
Don’t presume to think you know what I do and do not believe.
The fact is that I understand religion and you don’t, you are speaking from a disadvantage.

Everything I value in religion is metaphysical at it’s core. Religion works perfectly when it squares with reason. Besides, I didn’t say that sensory perception is not and never correct, I said we cannot know it to be true absolutely. It can be compelling, hell it can even be spot on right, but it we cannot know it for a certain. We can know it to a degree and that’s it.

I am saying it because it’s correct and there is nothing you can do about it.

1028

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

In the physical world death is absolute.[/quote]

The physical world is void of absolutes. You cannot deductively prove the physical, therefore while physical death seems to be a certainty in the physical realm, you cannot conclusively prove the physical realm even exists. You all could be a figment of my imagination. As silly as that sounds, it’s true. Senses are crude instruments for interpreting reality. [/quote]

Semantics, nothing more.
[/quote]

Semantics? Prove it’s only semantics. Because I can prove that you cannot trust your senses, that what you perceive as physical reality may not be accurate in any way. The claim is yours, hence so is the burden of proof.[/quote]

It’s semantics for one simple reason: you don’t believe it yourself. If you truely believed the above how in earth could you ever entertain religious beliefs at all?

Everything you value in a religious context has come to you through the filter of human existence. As such you must disqualify that context on the grounds that you can’t be certain it’s truthful, if you really believe what you’re saying in this post.

Here’s what I think: I think you’re just saying this without real conviction because it’s a nice stick to hit with.
[/quote]

You have it backwards. The religious are already comfortable with faith’s existence in the human condition. Heck, the problem isn’t even one for all atheists. It’s actually an issue for the new breed of atheists who must strangle any avenue of faith, so as not to give the religious any foothold as rational actors. However, in doing so they invite this line of argument. How does one falsify the reliability of the senses, and their perception of the Universe as we know it? Any and all evidence is processed by the organ in question, after all. There’s a simple answer, as infuriating as it is. It’s a matter of faith. An ‘assumption.’ There’s an assumption that our senses allow us to collect real evidence of a real universe. That we aren’t simply manufacturing our own evidence, to satisfy some…delusion. [/quote]

Spot on…
The neo-atheist now rely and untenable, and flat illogical positions to support their beliefs.

God didn’t make the universe it just happened. ← Yeah right. Not only is it a completely ridiculous, circular and therefore illogical proposition. It’s also arguing against a claim that doesn’t exist. Theists don’t claim ‘God poofed the universe into existence’. The theistic claim is that existence cannot come from non-existence. “The Universe” is technically an irrelevant point from which to argue. For instance, to claim to find the ‘cause’ of this universe, you only kick the can down the road as to what created that.
The atheist then claims “What created God” which is another ridiculous proposition because, by very definition, God cannot be caused or he wouldn’t be God. The Uncaused-cause cannot be caused or it’s not and Uncaused-cause.

The other other neo-atheist delusion is moral relativity. Giving up the notion that that morality has it’s based in metaphysics seems to trip them up in to thinking that automatically means God exists. That’s their flying leap not ours, morality is something other than God, not God himself. But if they give up that morality isn’t relative, then they leave a foot in the door for God. So they try to shut the door with another illogical position.

Third, and this is really a new one on me, is the flat denial of metaphysics itself. That’s just a flat denial of reality and that makes me just laugh.

1029

[quote]smh23 wrote:
In any case: the inherent uncertainty of the human condition notwithstanding, science is theory based on empirical evidence and experimentation (as best can be achieved) and religion is not. So no, creationism doesn’t belong next to Bernoulli’s principle.[/quote]

I agree.

1030

[quote]ephrem wrote:
It’s still bullshit. You deny anything anyone else can say by pointing out that anything revealed through the senses is essentially flawed, yet you yourself are unburdened by that flaw through faith.

Faith is nothing but you sell it as if it’s golden.
[/quote]

Everybody lives on faith, some admit it, others deny.
Give me anything you think you know and I will tell you why it’s a proposition of faith. Unless your dealing with deductive truths which would completely unhinge everything you are claiming not to be.

1031

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

If he and you would be consistent you’d admit that taking this on faith is merely deluding yourself and thus you both should forgo your religious beliefs.
[/quote]

I have no idea how you arrived at this.

Let’s back up so I can try to get where your objection lay.

  1. Are you agnostic about the reality of the material universe?

If not, what objective evidence are you able to provide for yourself?
[/quote]
I have asked this a million times. Never got a real answer.

1032

[quote]pat wrote:
Spot on…
The neo-atheist now rely and untenable, and flat illogical positions to support their beliefs.

God didn’t make the universe it just happened. ← Yeah right. Not only is it a completely ridiculous, circular and therefore illogical proposition. It’s also arguing against a claim that doesn’t exist. Theists don’t claim ‘God poofed the universe into existence’. The theistic claim is that existence cannot come from non-existence. “The Universe” is technically an irrelevant point from which to argue. For instance, to claim to find the ‘cause’ of this universe, you only kick the can down the road as to what created that.
The atheist then claims “What created God” which is another ridiculous proposition because, by very definition, God cannot be caused or he wouldn’t be God. The Uncaused-cause cannot be caused or it’s not and Uncaused-cause.

The other other neo-atheist delusion is moral relativity. Giving up the notion that that morality has it’s based in metaphysics seems to trip them up in to thinking that automatically means God exists. That’s their flying leap not ours, morality is something other than God, not God himself. But if they give up that morality isn’t relative, then they leave a foot in the door for God. So they try to shut the door with another illogical position.

Third, and this is really a new one on me, is the flat denial of metaphysics itself. That’s just a flat denial of reality and that makes me just laugh. [/quote]

Pat, what’s your take on this one from Carl Sagan? The intro sucks, if you click it, it should bypass it.

1033

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

In the physical world death is absolute.[/quote]

The physical world is void of absolutes. You cannot deductively prove the physical, therefore while physical death seems to be a certainty in the physical realm, you cannot conclusively prove the physical realm even exists. You all could be a figment of my imagination. As silly as that sounds, it’s true. Senses are crude instruments for interpreting reality. [/quote]

Semantics, nothing more.
[/quote]

Semantics? Prove it’s only semantics. Because I can prove that you cannot trust your senses, that what you perceive as physical reality may not be accurate in any way. The claim is yours, hence so is the burden of proof.[/quote]

It’s semantics for one simple reason: you don’t believe it yourself. If you truely believed the above how in earth could you ever entertain religious beliefs at all?

Everything you value in a religious context has come to you through the filter of human existence. As such you must disqualify that context on the grounds that you can’t be certain it’s truthful, if you really believe what you’re saying in this post.

Here’s what I think: I think you’re just saying this without real conviction because it’s a nice stick to hit with.
[/quote]

You have it backwards. The religious are already comfortable with faith’s existence in the human condition. Heck, the problem isn’t even one for all atheists. It’s actually an issue for the new breed of atheists who must strangle any avenue of faith, so as not to give the religious any foothold as rational actors. However, in doing so they invite this line of argument. How does one falsify the reliability of the senses, and their perception of the Universe as we know it? Any and all evidence is processed by the organ in question, after all. There’s a simple answer, as infuriating as it is. It’s a matter of faith. An ‘assumption.’ There’s an assumption that our senses allow us to collect real evidence of a real universe. That we aren’t simply manufacturing our own evidence, to satisfy some…delusion. [/quote]

Spot on…
The neo-atheist now rely and untenable, and flat illogical positions to support their beliefs.

God didn’t make the universe it just happened. ← Yeah right. Not only is it a completely ridiculous, circular and therefore illogical proposition. It’s also arguing against a claim that doesn’t exist. Theists don’t claim ‘God poofed the universe into existence’. The theistic claim is that existence cannot come from non-existence. “The Universe” is technically an irrelevant point from which to argue. For instance, to claim to find the ‘cause’ of this universe, you only kick the can down the road as to what created that.
The atheist then claims “What created God” which is another ridiculous proposition because, by very definition, God cannot be caused or he wouldn’t be God. The Uncaused-cause cannot be caused or it’s not and Uncaused-cause.

The other other neo-atheist delusion is moral relativity. Giving up the notion that that morality has it’s based in metaphysics seems to trip them up in to thinking that automatically means God exists. That’s their flying leap not ours, morality is something other than God, not God himself. But if they give up that morality isn’t relative, then they leave a foot in the door for God. So they try to shut the door with another illogical position.

Third, and this is really a new one on me, is the flat denial of metaphysics itself. That’s just a flat denial of reality and that makes me just laugh. [/quote]

Are you suggesting the Uncaused-cause is necessarily ontologically different from its creation?

1034

A bit of a family emergency, folks. Take care, and make me proud, PWI!

1035

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A bit of a family emergency, folks. Take care, and make me proud, PWI! [/quote]

Good luck.

1036

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A bit of a family emergency, folks. Take care, and make me proud, PWI! [/quote]

Good luck.[/quote]

Thanks, I’m about to hit the rack finally. Have to get up and head back to the hospital tomorrow. I’ve kind of become the caretaker for my Grandmother, and recently with A-fib (cardio-converison out of) and A-flutter ( received ablation, but didn’t clear the flutter), she’s been dealing with some heart issues. With her last procedure two days ago, the ablation, she also got a change to her medicine. She got real dizzy and weak about 7 hours ago, so I’ve been at the ER until about 30 minutes ago. She’ll stay the night, but they suspect it might just be the new heart med throwing her for a loop. The last med. did the same thing for a few days, just not as pronounced. Thanks again.

1037

You will both be in my prayers. Hope everything is okay, Sloth. Your grandmother is lucky to have a grandson like you to take care of her.

1038

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

In the physical world death is absolute.[/quote]

The physical world is void of absolutes. You cannot deductively prove the physical, therefore while physical death seems to be a certainty in the physical realm, you cannot conclusively prove the physical realm even exists. You all could be a figment of my imagination. As silly as that sounds, it’s true. Senses are crude instruments for interpreting reality. [/quote]

Semantics, nothing more.
[/quote]

Semantics? Prove it’s only semantics. Because I can prove that you cannot trust your senses, that what you perceive as physical reality may not be accurate in any way. The claim is yours, hence so is the burden of proof.[/quote]

It’s semantics for one simple reason: you don’t believe it yourself. If you truely believed the above how in earth could you ever entertain religious beliefs at all?

Everything you value in a religious context has come to you through the filter of human existence. As such you must disqualify that context on the grounds that you can’t be certain it’s truthful, if you really believe what you’re saying in this post.

Here’s what I think: I think you’re just saying this without real conviction because it’s a nice stick to hit with.
[/quote]

You have it backwards. The religious are already comfortable with faith’s existence in the human condition. Heck, the problem isn’t even one for all atheists. It’s actually an issue for the new breed of atheists who must strangle any avenue of faith, so as not to give the religious any foothold as rational actors. However, in doing so they invite this line of argument. How does one falsify the reliability of the senses, and their perception of the Universe as we know it? Any and all evidence is processed by the organ in question, after all. There’s a simple answer, as infuriating as it is. It’s a matter of faith. An ‘assumption.’ There’s an assumption that our senses allow us to collect real evidence of a real universe. That we aren’t simply manufacturing our own evidence, to satisfy some…delusion. [/quote]

Spot on…
The neo-atheist now rely and untenable, and flat illogical positions to support their beliefs.

God didn’t make the universe it just happened. ← Yeah right. Not only is it a completely ridiculous, circular and therefore illogical proposition. It’s also arguing against a claim that doesn’t exist. Theists don’t claim ‘God poofed the universe into existence’. The theistic claim is that existence cannot come from non-existence. “The Universe” is technically an irrelevant point from which to argue. For instance, to claim to find the ‘cause’ of this universe, you only kick the can down the road as to what created that.
The atheist then claims “What created God” which is another ridiculous proposition because, by very definition, God cannot be caused or he wouldn’t be God. The Uncaused-cause cannot be caused or it’s not and Uncaused-cause.

The other other neo-atheist delusion is moral relativity. Giving up the notion that that morality has it’s based in metaphysics seems to trip them up in to thinking that automatically means God exists. That’s their flying leap not ours, morality is something other than God, not God himself. But if they give up that morality isn’t relative, then they leave a foot in the door for God. So they try to shut the door with another illogical position.

Third, and this is really a new one on me, is the flat denial of metaphysics itself. That’s just a flat denial of reality and that makes me just laugh. [/quote]

Are you suggesting the Uncaused-cause is necessarily ontologically different from its creation? [/quote]
Yes one has necessary properties while the other has contingent properties. I know you are certainly influenced by kamui and his arguments so check out these two links and his arguments against pantheism and if you feel so bold maybe look at the evidence for the Resurrection of Christ using tools of historical inquiry, why Christian Particularism etc…

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-infinite-personhood-imply-pantheism

1039

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A bit of a family emergency, folks. Take care, and make me proud, PWI! [/quote]

Good luck.[/quote]

Thanks, I’m about to hit the rack finally. Have to get up and head back to the hospital tomorrow. I’ve kind of become the caretaker for my Grandmother, and recently with A-fib (cardio-converison out of) and A-flutter ( received ablation, but didn’t clear the flutter), she’s been dealing with some heart issues. With her last procedure two days ago, the ablation, she also got a change to her medicine. She got real dizzy and weak about 7 hours ago, so I’ve been at the ER until about 30 minutes ago. She’ll stay the night, but they suspect it might just be the new heart med throwing her for a loop. The last med. did the same thing for a few days, just not as pronounced. Thanks again.[/quote]

I’m sorry to hear that, good luck to you.

1040

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Are you suggesting the Uncaused-cause is necessarily ontologically different from its creation? [/quote]
Yes one has necessary properties while the other has contingent properties. I know you are certainly influenced by kamui and his arguments so check out these two links and his arguments against pantheism and if you feel so bold maybe look at the evidence for the Resurrection of Christ using tools of historical inquiry, why Christian Particularism etc…

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-infinite-personhood-imply-pantheism
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/pantheists-in-spite-of-themselves[/quote]

That first one just looked like wordplay and started to dabble with the problem of the one and the many but then left it.

That second one will take some time to read and digest properly.