Three Claims of Uniformitarian Naturalism

[SetiAlpha6]

I hate it when that happens.

Which one?

Well they were christianity for a long time...I can't point to anything they do or have done that entitles me to say that in so far as I have no factual references..I don't think it would take one too long to assemble a list of bad things but I can't be bothered...I think one could poke holes in their saint thing from the little I have heard...what makes you think it is a wicked institution?

You did not comment on the whale story.

Alex

The Whale Story of Jonah exists.

If God exists then it is completely possible.
If God does not exist then it is highly unlikely, but not impossible. After all, life is supposed to be able to create itself, which I regard as being even more unlikely.

The exquisite beauty and design of a woman, alone, causes me to praise God instead of praising primordial soup.

I can’t prove God exists.
You can’t prove God doesn’t exist.

We look at the same data and reach different conclusions. The same thing happens in Science all the time.

I appreciate the conversation, don’t have all the answers, and am always challenged to think harder about things, when I come here.

I understand your concerns Alex, and I know you have a heart to help others learn and grow in truth.
I believe that it is because of your beautiful heart that many of your concerns about Christianity even exist in the first place.

Alex, you are always a great blessing to me!!!

I am going to pause and see what I can learn about the Sumerians. Coming from zero knowledge at the moment.

Thanks So Much Alex!!!

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The Whale Story of Jonah exists.

Good but having established that it does let me use it to demonstrate why faith is a very dangerous thing, faith is not a virtue, to follow its direction that leads you to casually disregard the grave implication of the inclusion of this story, and many others, and then to let faith let you accept that such a flaw can anyway be attributed to Devine inspiration. You need to consider this not just shrug it off...you are a father you can not demonstrate bad behavior such that will in the future be times two...it is your duty to teach them to be rational and not proceed on faith..bad investments follow faith.

And there is no need to get into any discussion as to the existence of God but only to ask if the claims that this generally flawed book should be held up as having Devine relevance...I like the book..I open it from time to time at random for wisdom or stupidity but never to look for god.

Your faith has you seeking to prove it's stories as evidence of God and yet here is but one example that in itself clearly demonstrates that the bible could not have been inspired by God or it's production and editing could be guided by the Devine.

Faith should not be used to abandon reason nor should it be used to enable the perpetuation of faulshood.

If there is a God is not the issue..my observation is simply that faith is a terrible thing in its application...simply consider your casual approach to this matter but when it comes to mountains and rocks that you feel support the story you are most diligent..the question I ask is why do you have your reasoning turned all the way up to establish the validity of the story and yet, as you demonstrate, be entirely casual and fail to consider the inescapable conclusion that the whale story, and many others, exclude the bible from the claim that is was inspired by the Devine.

We can all find good ideas in the bible but it would be honest to accept that the words written are written by men and to claim Devine inspiration can only be wrong.

You can’t prove God doesn’t exist.

If it were a matter before a court where well tested rules of evidence apply I say that I certainly could prove what you say I can not...in criminal matters a high test is required..beyond a reasonable doubt..do you not think that the non existence of God can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
I had a thread here where I demonstrated the idea but as I recall I backed off because those I argued with were incapable of being reasonable.
Anyways given that it can't be proved and given that if true everything is about god and we are about god could one not expect that the presence of God would be physically obvious, that suffering and inequity was not common place, that instead of a miracle being claimed because a child survived an Earthquake that the thousands of deaths that happened as a result of that same Earthquake could have been avoided...that a god could have put something in our wiring that just makes it impossible for us to kill each other, after all could we not find an example in the animal world of species that simply do not kill another in that species...if one were to use faith in a decent way could one not say I have faith that if there were a god that he would not stand by and let things happen that if I or you or any decent person would be morally bound to stop,..domestic violence, human and animal cruelty, war, cancer, starvation, mental illness, homelessness, murder, rape etc etc...but no..free will..tell me why is it that victims have no free will not to be victims? Rational thinking sees all gods disappear.

We look at the same data and reach different conclusions. The same thing happens in Science all the time.

Come on now it is nothing like that...I look at the "data" with a rational mind..you look at the data and armed with faith cherry pick to support your belief... me I look at the data, whale story and call it for what it is..you look at the whale data and say " oh well"..do you see the difference?
To suggest the same think happens in science is running close to the edge in the lieing department and it is only ignorance that saves you..think about it ..I just ask you to think about data analysis in science..and if interested look up Sigma ratings...honestly Set I can you not see how this faith destroys your ability to think reasonably and rationally.

I appreciate the conversation, don’t have all the answers, and am always challenged to think harder about things, when I come here.

I certainly appreciate the conversation..I have no other.. I have virtually nil contact with other humans in the real world and no opportunity to chat like we do here...it has dragged my brain out of a 25 year storage..I retired at 50..so 23 year storage...well I still made money but got out of running a full on business...a big change from living like a playboy to living like a peasant...peasants have the best life I find...but demonised as governments and business men hate them.

I understand your concerns Alex, and I know you have a heart to help others learn and grow in truth.
I believe that it is because of your beautiful heart that many of your concerns about Christianity even exist in the first place.

Honestly my claims re the history seem to be the way of it...you should watch that last vid..Laurence K said something so very very profound, but I have been saying it for years, ...science unites humanity but religion perpetuates the us and them thing that all wars are driven by...
Please watch it..I was for once extremely impressed by this chap and believe me that is rare..but I was impressed by V with his reply, rather that he replied re extinctions.

Alex, you are always a great blessing to me!!!

If that is true I am happy...I want to help your kids and if you gain some thing that will make you a better father I can only be very happy.
Truth has many enemies so please be it's friend.

I am going to pause and see what I can learn about the Sumerians. Coming from zero knowledge at the moment.

Thanks So Much Alex!!!

Good luck. Good bye ...

Alex

 

[paddoboy]

The Whale Story of Jonah exists.

Yes as a myth and in an ancient non scientific book.

The exquisite beauty and design of a woman, alone, causes me to praise God instead of praising primordial soup.

Nature has had 13.83 billion years to go from primordial soup, to life as we know it.

I can’t prove God exists.

That's true and factual.

You can’t prove God doesn’t exist.

It is illogical to try and prove a negative. Prove to me that Unicorns don't exist?

We look at the same data and reach different conclusions. The same thing happens in Science all the time.

Yes, but in the course of time, science generally reaches a conclusion. And of course no discipline ever has a 100% agreement rate, remember?

And thanks for some honest answers.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Nature has had 13.83 billion years to go from primordial soup, to life as we know it.

Have you put this up yet?
https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/ingredients-life-appear-stellar-nurseries-long-stars-are-born
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

That's true and factual

I think you could prove god does not exist if only armed with the rules of evidence actually.
And if nothing else that it is a baseless claim.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

Have you put this up yet?
https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/ingredients-life-appear-stellar-nurseries-long-stars-are-born
Alex

Nice, thanks Alex.....

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Nice, thanks Alex.....

I see it as clear evidence that God has destroyed many worlds and what we see is the sad remains of sinners or it could be one of the greatest discoveries of all time suggesting that life will be absolutely everywhere ..if you buy that nonsense that life "happens by chance" unregulated by a chemical process that no doubt we will discover when we create life in the lab.
What will creationists see in this I wonder.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Seti here is a hint at some of the things from the Sumerians...so much of them is with us today...

https://mesopotamia.mrdonn.org/inventions.html

Alex

 

[James R]

I'm coming to this thread late, so please excuse the data dump.

Please prove all of the following claims scientifically.

Claim 1
Nature is all that exists.

Claim 2
Everything can, and indeed must, be explained by time plus chance plus the laws of nature working on matter.

Claim 3
Processes of geological change have always been operating in the past at the same rate, frequency and power as today.

Please take your pick and prove absolutely, one or all, of these claims using only the
Empirical Scientific Method and Repeatable Experimentation.

Oh... and please show your work.

Thanks, SetiAlpha6

Why do you want these things proven?

Or is it that you think that if they can't be proven, then God Did It is somehow proven?

 

[James R]

My thought is that, if Science is ever based on unprovable assumptions, whatever they are, and however they are best stated, then the particular conclusions that have been based substantially on these assumptions could actually be wrong, if the assumptions are wrong.

If you dig deep enough, you'll probably find that everything is based on unprovable assumptions, sooner or later.

The proof of the pudding with science is in its results. Has science led to the most productive models of the natural world? Answer: yes. Has science given us technological advances that no religion has ever begun to approach? Answer: yes.

Could it possibly be that electricity isn't real? Not really. Your computer and your toaster both do what they were designed to do, based on the scientific theory of electricity. Is electricity real? It's real enough for your toaster to work. What else matters? Is the theory of electricity built on "unprovable assumptions"? Probably it is, but they sure seem to produce useful results!

And if that happens I would think that people could be deliberately or unintentionally manipulated or deceived into believing a great number of wrong things. This seems like a kinda fair statement to me at least.

Luckily, science is self-correcting. It's more a collection of methods than a collection of dogma. Quite unlike many religions in that respect, to take one comparison that probably interests you. Science doesn't rely on authority in quite the same way that religion does. When it comes to science, nature itself is the ultimate arbiter of what works and what doesn't.

Uniformitarian Naturalism seems to be an assumed foundation that at least part of science is based on, and which seems to make the three Claims I stated above.

Oh, then you've just made a mistake, easily corrected. Let me help you.

Claim 1
Nature is all that exists.

No such claim is made by scientists. Science deals with what is testable, what is evidenced, what is natural. That doesn't imply that nature is all there is, necessarily. There's no good evidence for anything else, but we haven't ruled out the existence of something else.

You might like to contrast a claim like "God exists". That would be an example of a claim without any good evidence. It is certainly one that has been used to manipulate and deceive many people, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Claim 2
Everything can, and indeed must, be explained by time plus chance plus the laws of nature working on matter.

Again, no such claim is made by scientists. It is part of the methodology of science to look for natural explanations of observable things, but science has very little, if anything, to say about what's left after you remove all the observable, testable things.

Claim 3
Processes of geological change have always been operating in the past at the same rate, frequency and power as today.

That doesn't sound like a general axiom of science to me. It sounds more like an error that a creationist might make. For starters, "always" is a long time. Secondly, "processes of geological change" covers a very broad range of things in a quite narrow sub-field of science.

Does that help you?

 

[James R]

So far, no one here has proven the foundational Claims of Science, which would certainly mean that they are being accepted on faith without proof.

And so.... ?

Are you suggesting there's some alternative, superior method for acquiring reliable knowledge about the natural world? Do you have anything that would give us the required level of "proof" you seem to want?

You're willing to accept that a random rock in the desert was split by a God, bringing forth water, without any special proof, so why are you so keen that scientific claims be proved all of a sudden?

I accept Evolution!

Evolution is going on everywhere, but everyone knows that it normally works in reverse and destroys more than it builds and improves. This was shown a long time ago.

Everyone knows that harmful mutations are much more common, by far, than beneficial mutations are.

Sure, but being the accepter of evolution that you are, you also accept that the rare beneficial mutations are sufficient to account for the diversity of life that we see today, don't you?

Any ideas why Diabetes still exists or Downs Syndrome, or why people need Glasses, or... (your inherited physical malady here)? Most of these conditions do not automatically affect our ability to reproduce and pass them on.

Why have they not been selected out of our Species?

You answered your own question. Most of these conditions do not automatically affect our ability to reproduce and pass them on.

See, you're picking this stuff up unconsciously while you're here, despite your best efforts!

 

[James R]

It's ironic when self-styled atheists attack the supposed evils of "religion" but then turn right around and put science on a pedestal as if it was their evangelical new religion, somehow synonymous with reason itself, a supposed source of ultimate truth that non-scientists must unhesitatingly believe based on nothing more than authority and faith, on pain of being denounced as "deniers" and "anti-science".

Who are these "self-styled atheists" you are referring to? Can you link me to some examples of statements from those people that support your contention that they view science as the ultimate truth, synonymous with reason itself and all that other rhetoric?

I mean, most of the time, atheists with some science education are merely urging religious people to start thinking a little critically about their beliefs and their holy books, in terms of things like evidence and reliability. It's really not about putting science on a pedestal. There might well be atheists somewhere who do that, but on the whole if you think that is representative of atheists in general I'd say you're misinformed.

David Hume defines 'miracle' to mean a violation of the laws of nature.

As far as I'm aware, a "miracle" is invariably assumed to be an act of a divine agent of one kind or another (often a God), subverting the expected "natural order" in some way. If, as per Augustine's argument, "miracles" are allowed to have natural causes, then you risk putting every unlikely coincidence down to divine intervention.

If you want to define "miracle" as simply any amazing or wonderful occurrence, then there's nothing in particular that would lead us to make a special connection between miracles and gods. Any fortunate coincidence would suffice to count as a miracle.

As I understand the word, miracles are supposed to be special acts of God, explainable only with reference to His Divine Will.

 

[James R]

How is it possible that two of the most influential historical people the world has ever known, Moses and Jesus, never existed?

Suppose that 2000 years from now, society were to follow the morals derived from the ancient texts known as the Harry Potter gospels. In the year 4020, Harry Potter is considered to be a paragon of virtue, cheeky yet an excellent role model. I can imagine the SetiAlpha6 of that future sitting in his holodeck chat room asking how it could possibly be that the great Harry Potter - one of the most influential figures known in his world - could not have existed in reality.

Does that help you at all?

For Moses, there is extensive evidence sitting on the ground in Saudi Arabia for the Exodus Account.

Not that I'm aware of.

For Jesus, there is the evidence of the resurrection found within the 3D image of the Shroud of Turin and also the matching face cloth, the Sudarium of Oviedo.

The Shroud of Turin, as you're probably aware, is most likely a fake.

For Noah and the Flood, there are records of the Flood found in many cultures around the World.

Correction: there are records of floods.

There is evidence for the Flood and the Tower of Babel events embedded in the Chinese character symbols.

Only if you choose to interpret them that way. It's like the Bible Code. Seek out patterns and you'll find them, even when they aren't there.

And there is evidence for the Flood found in the rock layers deposited by water around the Globe.

No. The geological record utterly disproves Noah's flood, beyond any reasonable doubt.

Regarding the Bible...

Personally, I don’t think that every word in the Bible was ever intended to be taken absolutely literally.

Interesting. Tell me how you decide which parts to take literally and which to take metaphorically or as fiction. I'd really like to know.

If those difficult verses are the Arrows in the hands of the Atheist, or other Critics, my Shield is very simply my Trust in God regarding the hard things I don’t understand.

You're saying that you can always excuse away problems in the bible, because you are willing to believe no matter what.

 

[James R]

Faith can be blind and faith can also be based on experience and evidence.

You're conflating two different meanings of faith. I've walked you through this before, haven't I? On the one hand, there's the usage of the word "faith" to mean trust in a person or thing based on actual evidence, and then there's the usage to mean pretending to know stuff you don't actually know (i.e. for which there is no sufficient evidence). Religious faith is of the latter type.

Both kinds of faith exist in Science and in normal Life and are clearly possible.

The evidence-based kind of faith exists in science, but that is why "faith" is a very bad word to use in that context. Better to talk about evidence or knowledge in that case, to avoid confusion with the religious connotations of the word "faith".

As you likely know, Intelligent Design Theory is based on common sense, the shared experience of all mankind, and overwhelming evidence.

As you likely know, Intelligent Design may be "common sense" in the sense that uninformed religious people believe it on "faith", but in practice it's mostly a dishonest veneer painted over young-earth Creationism to try to give those ideas the semblance of scientific legitimacy.

There's no good evidence for ID. You've been fed a line on that.

 

[James R]

But also holds that Evolution alone cannot explain everything we observe in this world.

Why do you need something to explain "everything we observe in this world"? Do you think Intelligent Design can do that for you? If your ID explains everything, then I suggest it actually explains nothing, because it's most likely unfalsifiable. It would be equivalent to "God did it", explaining everything and nothing.

Do you understand why "God did it" isn't an explanation, on its own?

Abiogenesis has never been proven.

Touche. That God created life has also never been proven. So, where to from here?

Yes, there are Scientific Hoaxes aplenty...

One of the many current deceptions is the creation of the fairytale of the Multiverse, to expressly try and make the absolutely impossible seem less impossible, even probable!

Can you describe for me, in a couple of sentences, your understanding of the term "scientific hypothesis"?

Do you want your readers to think you're naive and ignorant, for some reason, or are you actually naive and ignorant?

Why did you bring up Piltdown Man again, when I walked you through that in a previous thread? Did you forget our previous discussion, or are you being dishonest and pretending it never happened? If it's the latter, that doesn't seem to me like something a good Christian should be doing.

Do you think it's acceptable to lie for your religion, SetiAlpha6?

Got any evidence for the Multiverse?

No. Got any evidence for the God?

The Whale Story of Jonah exists.

If God exists then it is completely possible.

If God exists, then magic merry-go-rounds falling from the sky is completely possible.

After all, life is supposed to be able to create itself, which I regard as being even more unlikely.

Is life supposed to be able to create itself? Do tell.

The exquisite beauty and design of a woman, alone, causes me to praise God instead of praising primordial soup.

I assume you're male. You're evolutionarily programmed to find female human beings attractive. You're praising the wrong thing.

I can’t prove God exists.
You can’t prove God doesn’t exist.

Well done. I call that progress. Let's make a note you wrote that, for future reference.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Why did you bring up Piltdown Man again, when I walked you through that in a previous thread? Did you forget our previous discussion, or are you being dishonest and pretending it never happened? If it's the latter, that doesn't seem to me like something a good Christian should be doing.

When you get hold of a thread it can be hard to let go of it suits your story but it could alert one to look for similar cons played upon say... religion...maybe the shroud of Turin could be considered for example...I know it's only a slim chance but could it be a con?
Alex

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Why do you need something to explain "everything we observe in this world"? Do you think Intelligent Design can do that for you? If your ID explains everything, then I suggest it actually explains nothing, because it's most likely unfalsifiable. It would be equivalent to "God did it", explaining everything and nothing.

Do you understand why "God did it" isn't an explanation, on its own?


Touche. That God created life has also never been proven. So, where to from here?


Can you describe for me, in a couple of sentences, your understanding of the term "scientific hypothesis"?

Do you want your readers to think you're naive and ignorant, for some reason, or are you actually naive and ignorant?

Why did you bring up Piltdown Man again, when I walked you through that in a previous thread? Did you forget our previous discussion, or are you being dishonest and pretending it never happened? If it's the latter, that doesn't seem to me like something a good Christian should be doing.

Do you think it's acceptable to lie for your religion, SetiAlpha6?


No. Got any evidence for the God?


If God exists, then magic merry-go-rounds falling from the sky is completely possible.


Is life supposed to be able to create itself? Do tell.


I assume you're male. You're evolutionarily programmed to find female human beings attractive. You're praising the wrong thing.


Well done. I call that progress. Let's make a note you wrote that, for future reference.

James,

Many of your assumptions and philosophy seem to rely on a number of unproven, perhaps even unprovable things!

The basis of much of it seems to actually depend on you having a Rock as a Great, Great, Great, and on and on to billions of generations, Great Grandpa and stirring in Water and Lightning, etc, as additional Ancestors. A sort of hopeful, incomprehensibly improbable Chemical Soup.

My own father was healed by God, not by a Rock. There is no way I can prove that to you or to anyone else. I have no need to even try to do so. And I also have no need for anyone else to take my word for that or for anything else either. We all have to reach our own conclusions in life, we are all on our own.

So I choose to trust in the very real God who healed my own Dad, instead of trusting in made up fairy tales about mythical magical Rock Ancestors.

That is just me. No one else need do that.

Thanks so much for your comments!

Very Best Wishes,
Seti

 

[paddoboy]

My own father was healed by God,
So I choose to trust in the very real God who healed my own Dad,

So why has this God allowed other people to die horrible deaths, and why does he now ravage us with a virus...and why does he also chose to let infants, babies etc also die so prematurely in their lives, some quite painfully so.....
Why did this god not conduct another miracle and strike Hitler dead before he could cause the death of 6 million? I could go on and on and on.....

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Many of your assumptions and philosophy seem to rely on a number of unproven, perhaps even unprovable things!

James can answer that but I don't expect he relies upon things that are indeed not reasonably provable...at least say in the case of life from chemistry a truck load of credible evidence that is entirely supportive is available that beats a god modelling clay.. You saying otherwise really is a misrepresentation.
You have made the unfortunate choice to think ancient stories are more reliable than flawless reseach by well educated modern humans..that only makes sense to you because you want to believe a fantasy invented by humans making unsupported claims to give authority to their also invented laws. Your loss.
I guess your father was saved in a church and had no need of doctors.

There is no way I can prove that to you or to anyone else.

There is a good reason why you can't prove it.

I have no need to even try to do so.

Well here's the thing..if you make a claim you must be able to prove it.
I claim the god of the bible was invented and I can back up that claim with real evidence...and the thing is that evidence is not secret..If you after reading this took thirty minutes doing research you will find the evidence..will you no ..that's the problem right there.

So I choose to trust in the very real God who healed my own Dad, instead of trusting in made up fairy tales about mythical magical Rock Ancestors.

And yet you will not inform yourself as to who invented your god..that is available and it's in writing..clay tablets.

The claim that the god of the bible was invented is entirely supported by evidence it's just that you choose to ignore it because to inform yourself of the facts will bring down your fantasy house of cards. You can believe what you want of course but please realise that the facts of history absolutely prove you are wrong. You are keen to examine history but only what you feel supports your belief...so realise your unsupported claims are countered by real evidence. It is entirely unreasonable to suggest your side has anything going for it when you are ignorant of the history don't you think?
I hope you are well and safe.
Alex

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Hi Alex,

I have no need ultimately to convince anyone else of anything. I expect and want everyone to make up their own mind.

It is your mission, if you choose to accept it, to prove those two statements false.

This post will self destruct in 10 seconds.

Best Wishes,
Seti