Scientists Say the Laws of Physics May Be Changing
By: Abby Lee Hood (Futurism)
I admit I was sucked in by the title. The article seems to drift off into a metaphysical eye-roller of philosophical debate about a sentient universe. But the article does pose an interesting question, at least to me.
Has physics evolved with the universe? Our understanding of physics is naturally constrained by our limited view of both space and time. And our understanding of physics is based on that limited view. We have extrapolated our understanding of physics into the past (and the future) of the universe and everything seems to fit. But how do we know that our understanding of physics really describes the universe throughout its evolution?
We're pretty sure of the cosmology of the universe that there was a Big Bang, as we have named it. That cosmology has led to the obvious question, 'did the universe come from nothing?' The only thing we can say with any degree of certainty is that the universe emerged from a different state described by different physics. So it's not an unreasonable ponder that physics has evolved with the universe. And it's not an unreasonable surmise that the physics of the universe is dependent upon the state of the universe. The question is how do we know?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
You know the old saying: the only thing constant is change.
But we'd wager most people don't think that line applies to the actual rules of the universe itself. As it turns out, though, researchers at Microsoft, along with scientists at Brown University and even one expert who consulted for Disney's "Wrinkle in Time" think the laws of physics might actually be slowly changing, complicating our quest to understand the cosmos.
Popular Mechanics published a lengthy explainer this week about a paper, titled "The Autodidactic Universe" and published earlier this year, in which the team argued for that precise mind-bending hypothesis. An autodidact, of course, is someone who learns without a mentor or teacher — and, these researchers say, the universe itself may be one.
"We ask whether there might be a mechanism woven into the fabric of the natural world, by means of which the universe could learn its laws," the authors wrote in the paper, which has not yet been peer reviewed.
Over time, the theory goes, the universe has sought stability. PopMech draws parallels to animal evolution, too. There are no trilobites or dinosaurs anymore, but cats and dogs have survived because they adapted to the environment around them — and the cosmos may have done the same.
In an early version of the universe, for example, Newton's laws of gravity — that all matter in the universe attracts other matter with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers — might not have been true yet.
"Over time, that system will teach itself, and some fundamental laws will arise, and that's really what they're talking about [in the paper]," Janna Levin, a professor of physics and astronomy at Barnard College of Columbia University who wasn't involved in the research, told PopMech. "If the universe can compute with a given set of algorithms, then maybe it can do the same kind of thing we see in artificial intelligence, where you have self-learning systems that teach themselves new rules. And by rules, in cosmology we mean laws of physics."
The paper's authors also acknowledge their own skepticism and wrote their conclusions with caution, warning that their work is only a baby step in the formation of a new theory and requires additional research.
"Of course, this is just a first step," the authors write. "There are varied potential spin-offs from our approach."
It's mind-bending to imagine that the laws of physics might learn and adapt over time. But it reminds us that the universe is stranger than we'll ever know.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
449 visitors
Has physics changed with the state of the universe? How would we know?
Well we already know that it was different during the "big Bang" (no actual bang involved). Initially space expanded, at a speed greater than the speed of light, which is why the universe is larger than the age.
To be clear, this expansion is akin to two vehicles traveling at 60 mph away from each other. The expansion of the space between them is 120 mph yet each vehicle is going at 60 mph.
Space, in this way, can expand faster than the speed of light even if matter is limited to the speed of light.
Not quite.
So even edge to edge, max size could only be 27.8 billion light years across if the current speed of light was the limit.
God knew what he was doing when He created the universe and authored the laws of science.
Reality is of course not that simple. Space itself is expanding — so even if two galaxies were stationary, they would continue to grow further apart.
Although no longer an intuitive analogy, imagine again the space between the two cars expanding (even if the cars were stationary). Now imagine the entire planet expanding while the vehicles move. The end result is that the two vehicles will be substantially more distant than their velocities alone would explain.
Space continues to expand making the distance between objects greater and giving the illusion that these objects actually did move faster than the speed of light (but they did not). Also, the expansion of space cannot be considered movement so it is not accurate to think of space moving faster than light.
You (indirectly) spoke of the Guth inflation theory but that resulted in a universe the size of about a grapefruit. It is the ongoing expansion of space that accounts for the counterintuitive size of the known universe.
Is that your scientific contribution for this seed?
[delete]
Interesting read....
All of this stuff is fascinating, is it not?
It just emphasizes the old saying of "truth is stranger than fiction".
But as far as bizarreness goes, quantum makes the universe seem almost boring in comparison.
Physics addresses the question of how we got here; not why we are here. The physics of the universe doesn't depend upon the universe being created or the universe being the result of random chance. How we got here really doesn't depend upon God creating the universe.
And if physics changes with evolution of universe we may not know as much as we think we do about how we got here.
The only reason that God creating the universe is important is because God intended the universe be here. God created the universe for a purpose. Creation of the universe by God addresses the question of why we are here. So, God really doesn't fit into a discussion of how we got here.
It is my contribution to it and that you don’t like it is a net plus as far as I’m concerned. Human science trying to box into their definitions an all powerful, all present, all knowing God of the universe who created it and defined all that it is is the ultimate in the secular humanists condescending know it all arrogance.
Unless we believe that He is how we got here. That when he created our planet and solar system to make them livable He created us in His image at that time. I personally hold to that belief.
Childish
Incoherent and misguided. Science does not have a 'god' hypothesis. The reason is that there has been no evidence to even formulate such a hypothesis. If credible evidence arises, science will be all over it.
You probably presume that science would try to downplay or resist credible evidence of a sentient creator. And, of course, this is yet another case of preconceived biases leading you down the wrong path. Science would be thrilled by a genuine hypothesis of a sentient creator.
Belief ≠ fact or truth
Does every religion believe in the same purpose? If not, besides proving your God exists, how do you prove you believe in the right God with the accurate purpose?
I agree. So why do believers feel the need to inject their unproven opinion of why we are here into every discussion about how we got here, often contradicting evolution, the big bang or other scientific theories that focus on the how and aren't at all addressing the "why"?
Condescending know it all arrogance is one of the major characteristics of theocratic dominionists as is demonstrated by some of the comments posted here.
Likely because non-believers disparage believers by focusing attention on a literal reading of the Biblical creation story. Non-believers seem to believe that disproving the description of how the universe came into being refutes God.
But the importance of God is to understand the purpose of the universe and our existence. The creation story doesn't just say God did it. The message is that God did it for a purpose.
Some believer take the biblical creation story literally. Are they wrong to do so?
How do you know for sure?
But in religious Bizarro "logic," it does.
I thought you once claimed god created science. So isn't "human science" the same as the science god created?
Maybe by going to school and studying physics.
Who says the state of the universe has changed?
Thinking that we have it all figured out, is the epitome of arrogance.
Indeed, and that is exactly what Religion has been claiming since the beginning of recorded human history.
Science, on the other hand, welcomes testing and verification and will always accept the best working theories as they are tested and verified. Because our testing methods are still imperfect science accepts that after more rigorous testing and verification using newly developed testing methods its theories may need to be updated and or clarified dozens perhaps hundreds of times as the scientific theory is better understood. Science is far more humble than religion.
Religion and Science
Doubtful there are many people here who have been more successful with both than i. The key is knowing when to separate the two. When to use one and not the other. For me it's been rather simple. I don't use religion do do my scientific engineering calculations and i don't use scientific engineering calculations in my religion. I'm not the one who has my knickers in a knot of this stuff. That's usually the atheists.
I could care less what you/they believe or don't believe and will gladly join in for a robust Festivas airing of grievances if invited and then sleep like a baby that night.
Speaking of "the epitome of arrogance"...
Nice of you to use "I" "my" and "I'm" seven times when trying not to make it all about you and place the apparent blame on "atheists".
Your original comment was clearly accusing science and scientists of being arrogant. I pointed out how out here in reality it's obvious who is far more conceited and arrogant when it comes to understanding truths about the universe around us. Your next post just proved my point better than I could have so thank you.
You say that but your comment clearly says otherwise.
and we're off!
Touchy touchy ...... i was speaking for myself only. Care to share what pronoun you would use when talking about yourself in this manner?
Yes, atheists clearly tend to be more arrogant as shown above. No doubt about it. As clearly noted earlier and thoughtfully left out by you, i could care less what atheists think but many have the temerity to allude people of faith are somehow less intelligent than people of no faith? The arrogance just oozes out of people like that. Oozes .....
Well, you would be wrong once again. I speak my mind here to a gaggle of unhappy atheists and they don't like it.
SOSDD and too bad!
Yippe ki yay mofo's.
This is what makes people think you are disagreeable. What makes you think the atheists here are unhappy? They are the funniest people here and they don't seem unhappy to me.
Lol ... people here think i am disagreeable because i have the temerity to have a different opinion about a lot of things than they do.
My opinion about atheists is that they do tend to be a pretty unhappy lot. That's my experience, no point lying about it. That is not a generalization. It's what i've observed over the years.
So perfectly well stated.
There is no doubt as to the truth of your comment. Thanks for making it clear for all to see.
🏅🥳👍
we share these beliefs and experiences over the years
It's the way you say it. And the fact you constantly repeat it. We know....you like to mock atheists/liberals/democrats. It's your favorite pastime
Actually, no it is not but i can't help it if people take it that way.
Well that depends on how you measure 'happy', doesn't it? It's kinda like the topic of the seed; are the laws of physics changing? Depends on where you're at and when you are looking.
Atheists seem to be very funny and happy to other atheists which is a limited observation.
Well usually it's not wise to go around bragging that you "have been more successful" with religion and science than virtually anyone else here, especially with a subject that is so subjective as religion, at least not while you're accusing others of being arrogant.
Shown where? In the seed? They even admit that "their work is only a baby step in the formation of a new theory and requires additional research." How is that being arrogant?
Seems strange then that the second comment on this seed and your first, without any prompting, would be an attempt to call atheists arrogant.
So they don't say it, but "allude" to it? Sounds like you care very much what atheists think and clearly those are your knotted knickers.
Seems more like your follow up comments just added credence to my posit.
I spent the first three decades of life as a blind theocrat reading the bible over and over and pretending that all the scientific evidence that was counter to my religious beliefs were just fake or inspired by Satan to confuse us and divert believers from the righteous narrow path. Then after spending several years deeply studying a half dozen other major religions and deciding for myself that I was an agnostic atheist I can honestly say I've never been happier. It's like my whole life didn't really even start until I got away from religious indoctrination.
You claiming that through your "experience" "observed over the years" is that atheists are unhappy is truly the height of hubris. It's a moronic anecdotal conclusion being decided upon by one desperately trying to prove your own theism somehow makes you better, happier and more fulfilled than non-believers because that's what YOU need to believe in order to not feel your faith is nothing but a waste.
So very adult of you. Once again your comment proves my point better than I could.
Okay Nerm, clarify what is on topic here. As seeder you seem to encourage changing what was a fine seed of science into a debate on the 'happiness' of atheists.
To be fair, Nerm isn't at fault for the change of topic. That would be Sparty and me
Yes but note the comment by Nerm to which I replied. Note what I quoted. When the seeder chimes in, he/she sanctions the change of topic and that was my point.
If this is going to be an atheist discussion then I want Nerm to be clear and then I will opine accordingly to this 'happy' nonsense.
got it
And I am supposed to respond to that meta, how?
My comment directed discussion back to the topic. If you hadn't snipped what you wanted to make a meta complaint you would have noticed.
All one has to do is say God is real and that He exists is certain ( He is and He does) and the whole happy atheist facade is cast aside
He and I have something in common then!
I was asking you as the seeder to clarify the topic. Just answer the question without the snark.
If there were those here that almost daily proclaimed, without evidence, God doesn't exist, what do you think the reaction by believers might be? Do you think there's a good chance some might ask them for proof of their claim?
There are many who I have heard openly admit they don't see any reason they should believe a God exists because of the lack of evidence, but they all seem rational enough to keep from making the claim that God definitely doesn't exist.
The ratio of gnostic theists to agnostic theists is almost the exact opposite to that of gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists.
There are FAR more gnostic theists, those who claim to know for certain God definitely exists versus agnostic theists who say they believe in God or a higher power but know they can't prove it or disprove it so admit it's possible God doesn't exist.
And there are FAR more agnostic atheists, those who don't believe in a God because they see no evidence of one but are willing to admit they can't prove it or disprove it so admit it's possible a God does exist, versus the gnostic atheists who claim to know for certain God definitely doesn't exist.
Agnostic theists and agnostic atheists get along just fine, it's only when you have a large number of gnostic theists that we get some angry bitter aggressive comments towards non-believers who are simply asking for evidence with as much desire for a God to be proven as to not. I'd love it if some faith finally presented empirical hard evidence of their supernatural fantastic claims, it would turn the world on its head and everyone would have to re-assess their position in the universe and likely have to re-assess their effectively inherited family religion and traditions if the evidence proved it was Vishnu or Allah or some rarely heard of African tribal God.
I doubt that your comment will be even read. And if read, it will be ignored. The reason is because your opening point ...
... is and has been so utterly obvious yet the whining continues.
You nailed it. It's quite predictable if not inevitable at this point.
But, OTOH if you say that God doesn't exist...then what happens?
(Hehehe
)
Let's find out. *Ahem*
God doesn't exist!
[putting my hand to my ear]
It's not arrogant to know that I am superior to those who believe in mythology and superstition and who don't believe in science.
I'm glad you see it that way, I pretty much know that I'm superior to every other being on the planet no matter what they believe in... Just because they don't think so is irrelevant to me...
Does that work for you as well?
Well let's just see if you apply what you imply you now know.
And a child's imaginary friend exists for them. Your point?
It makes no sense to claim or believe a god exists when there is no evidence or proof.
When one makes a claim of certainty like "god exists," then they invite the challenge to prove it.
Just because one wants to believe something or thinks it is real doesn't make it so. Clearly that point eludes you.
Boy you are touchy these days. It wasn't bragging, it was a statement of fact via observation of this place and elsewhere.
You can try to rationalize it away all you want. If i had a nickel for every atheist who looks down their nose at people of faith. I'd be a rich man
Not strange at all since this seed is not the only empirical evidence i was speaking of but you keep picking nits. I guess that's all you have.
More nits picked ... keep it up ......
Opinions do vary
The only moronic supposition here is that you apparently don't want people to believe, that you think you are superior in some way to people of faith. Such open arrogance on display, it's clear as day DP ......
Only to the terminally triggered ....
Don't make me defend Texan, but I think his belief in God is based on faith since there is no real concrete evidence God exists. If there were concrete evidence faith would not be required and then what would be the point of a higher power?
A very cogent post TG
thank you
Of course belief is based on faith and when someone says it's just a belief, there is no requirement of proof. But when an affirmative claim is made, as certain individuals here sometimes make, then that invites the burden of proof.
Once again, Gordy, you're making me defend him (ggrrr). In his statement that "he exists for me" is not making an affirmative claim. It's based on his faith.
Notice that I did not specifically challenge his claim by demanding proof. But you know as well as I there are certain individuals here who do make affirmative claims, which do invite the challenge.
Fair enough. You know I respect you, right? And you're always fun to discuss theological issues with
Thank you. I appreciate that.
As soon as someone makes an affirmative claim, then they'll be challenged to prove it. That's how logical debate works.
You should probably quit now. He already told me he didn't ask for proof from you
The concept known as burden of proof is nothing new. And it IS so. It is basic logic. To assert something (a conclusion) as truth requires a sound proof. Asserting a truth without the proof is simply an opinion.
Thus, as has been explained countless times, “I believe God exists” is not stated as truth but rather only expresses a personal belief — an opinion. However, “God exists” is a statement of truth and thus bears the burden of proof (or at least persuasive evidence).
You really couldn't be more wrong. You're not even bothering to read what Gordy wrote. You're letting your anger and bias get in the way of forming a rational thought
Whatever gave you the idea I was attempting to sway anyone? I certainly never said that was my purpose.
Proabably because people of other faiths here aren't always proclaiming God exists or proselytizing to the rest of us. When they do speak of their faith they are talking about their own personal belief system and don't care if you believe or not. They only ask that you don't ridicule them or throw God in their face and tell them their faith is evil, false, and/or wrong headed
I can see the anger and bias in your words. Your bias towards Gordy won't allow you to actually read and fully comprehend what he's writing. He never asked you for proof in this thread.
Has he done that in other seeds/threads? To you, I can't remember, but I know he has asked for proof from at least one other person.
You're not being picked on no matter how much you think you are
There is no tactic. This is basic logic. The problem is that you keep making comments that misrepresent Gordy's position because you cannot or refuse to comprehend basic logic.
What makes you think I see Christian beliefs any different from any other belief system such as Islam, Hindu, Judaism, etc.? In all cases, I am not convinced that the belief is true. It might be true, but I see no evidence of it so I am not a believer.
Christianity is the dominant class of religion in the USA so naturally we will have Christian-centric debates. Why is this not obvious to you?
Do you see any of our Native American members writing posts asserting that their beliefs are the ONLY TRUE beliefs and that those (the rest of the planet) who do not hold their beliefs are doomed? For that matter, do you see our Native American members even pushing their beliefs? Seriously, Texan, you could have figured that out by yourself. Why ask such obvious questions?
You presume too much. Better to reason than to presume.
Hint: "I believe X exists" vs. "X exists!".
Then your conclusion is flawed. I have repeatedly said only the affirmative claim carries the burden of proof. If one states a belief, that does not carry the burden of proof. There is a difference between saing "God exists" as matter of fact and saying "I believe God exists." And if someone makes an affirmative claim, why wouldn't you require proof? I'll bet if an affirmative claim was made of something other than God, you might want proof of the claim.
From that I conclude that you are hallucinating. Either that or you did not bother to read my answer.
Exactly. This has been explained to you in great detail and still, another day, you come back with the same uber-simplistic complaint as if not a single bit of the explanation sunk in. And then you blame everyone else who has seriously provided explanations.
The problem is you.
It is not that you proselytize but rather that you whine about the fact that those who do indeed claim that their God exists as a statement of certain truth are challenged.
And the whining, along with defensiveness, continues.
Look Texan, you raised your complaint (again ... endlessly) and you received yet again a detailed and thoughtful explanation. You then raised more complaints and received more thoughtful explanations.
And now that you have run out of complaints and have no real rebuttal, you resort (of course) to trolling tactics.
The problem is you.
Did I say you did in any of my comments? Please. Calm down. Stop letting your bias towards me (this time) color your perception when reading comments.
As far as ridiculing, I don't think you ever did. But you have to got stop thinking that all of these comments are about you. They're not.
That seemes to be the standard repetitive tactic. As someone here is fond of saying, SOSDD, right?
No, Texan, that was not a personal comment. It means that you have created the problem here. Your questions have been answered and you continue to behave as though nobody wrote anything.
The problem (this continued controversy) is you (i.e. you alone are perpetuating the problem).
More like you're taking things personally. Your irate responses and defensiveness is indicative of that.
Then you're the only one who thinks so. You keep claiming it's the atheists that are arrogant but keep proving otherwise.
And if I had a penny for every time a Christian has looked down their nose at atheists, non-believers or people of other faiths I'd be even richer.
If you believe this seed is "empirical evidence" that atheists are arrogant then your screw is looser than I could have imagined.
As I've said many times before, I don't give a crap about what you believe, believe in invisible sky wizards or sky fairies all you want. I only give my two cents when I hear arrogant believers claiming there definitely is a God, they know who that God is and what that God wants for mankind and are advocating everyone believe like they do yet they have exactly ZERO evidence of their claims and get all bitter and butthurt when asked for proof. Talk about terminally triggered. Oh, and sorry for the delay, I'm not here 24/7 as I have a very happy life with my wife and two daughters so i spend far more time with them than the sour puss believers here who claim I must be unhappy because I don't suck up to their brand of fantasy deity and don't participate in their religious LARP'ing.
So you are a sociopath?
Opinions do vary on that ... my opinion is ..... it ain't bragging if its the truth. The triggered tend to have a problem with that. I don't. Not in the least.
If i've said it once i've said it a hundred times, i could care less what someone else does or doesn't believe in. In my case i have NEVER engaged an Atheist first to tell them their lack of faith, belief system is silly or stupid. Because again, i could care less, it isn't my business. Look no further than NT for a plethora of proof of how much different the opposite is. Atheists seem to love making people of faiths business, their business and are quick to engage first. If NT is a good indicator of Atheists mentality, and imo it is, Atheists do tend to be angry, arrogant people. Hard wired to engage folks of faith, to tell they how silly or illogical their beliefs are. Again, look no further than NT for evidence of that. It is what it is. I have an opinion as to why that is but you won't like that either.
Once again opinions do vary but if it helps define your chosen path in life, by all means keep thinking that.
Lol many times eh? Don't give a crap huh? Invisible sky wizards and sky fairies? Bitter and butthurt? .... yeah right ....
The DP doth protest to much methinks ......
Why do you insist on deeming a lack of faith a belief system? How is not being convinced of something a belief system?
Apparently claiming your opinions are truth without any tangible evidence is to be expected of pompous believers.
So when you first commented on this seed, not in reply to anyone and said "Thinking that we have it all figured out, is the epitome of arrogance" you were talking about believers not atheists?
In my opinion that is a patently false characterization and from what I've seen describes believers far better than any atheists here. You don't have to look far for the next "bash secular atheist/liberal/progressives" seed as they pop up nearly daily, even hourly some days. Believers who aren't actually able to defend their beliefs with anything resembling evidence might feel atheist's who ask them questions they can't answer are "arrogant" because the believer is always left holding the empty bag of faith, but that's not the atheists fault. I'm sure the guy in the mental hospital who claims he's Abraham Lincoln thinks those who laugh at his claim are "arrogant", especially when they ask him for proof that he's Lincoln which he of course is unable to provide.
When there is clear empirical evidence of facts should those who know the facts stay quiet when someone else is out making claims that are directly contradicted by reality? Should we just leave the claims that the earth is flat unchallenged? Should we leave the claims that the earth is only 6,000 years old unchallenged when we have hard evidence to the contrary? Do we just accept the alternate reality that some have created where they believe crazy conspiracy theories like population controlling fluoride in the water, a faked moon landing, a fantasy 'deep state' running everything, Lizard people living among us, mind controlling vaccines, Democrats eating babies, pizza parlor child trafficking sex rings, widespread election fraud and mind controlling airplane contrails. Should those who know better stay silent for fear of coming off as arrogant?
Yes, conspiracy theorists and those who are incapable of providing any evidence, let alone solid evidence, to back up their claims and beliefs tend to get bitter and butt hurt when others question them and don't just accept their beliefs as truth.
What is that supposed to mean? That line was indicating what Queen Gertrude saw as insincerity on the part of the Queen in the play she was watching. Do you think my position that believers are clearly more arrogant than atheists to be insincere?
Lol ..... you need the routing numbers to my 401k and bank accounts? Perhaps a financial statement for my company? Maybe a listing of my hundreds of successful designs and jobs over the years. Hell, why not. I'm sure i can trust everyone on the internet with that info ......
Well, that's like 90 posts ago ..... but lets see .... yeah you got it right and i quote again:
What part of "we" are you having trouble with?
Opinions do vary .....
Your last sentence says it all. So it appears you are alluding that you know better than i? On a freedom of choice issue? If you can't grasp how that sounds arrogant there really isn't any point in continuing this conversation
Well, in my opinion you're projecting. You say you don't give a crap and then post a hyperbolic post like that clearly intending to insult. You're the one who has his tightie whities in a bunch not me.
Don't want or need to see them as they would make no difference in your attempt to prove yourself better than everyone else at "science and religion" as you claimed. Trying to have a financial dick measuring contest with others on the internet does say a lot about you though.
Like I said in my initial response to that comment, "Indeed, and that is exactly what Religion has been claiming since the beginning of recorded human history.". I was agreeing with you and could only assume when you said "we" you meant you and others with similar religious beliefs that claim to know the who, how and why humans exist on this planet as well as what our purpose is all without a shred of actual reliable evidence which is pretty much the very definition of "epitome of arrogance".
It wasn't until your follow up comment where you made it exceedingly clear who was being arrogant when you said "Doubtful there are many people here who have been more successful with both than I." and then you went on to say "I'm not the one who has my knickers in a knot of this stuff. That's usually the atheists". Clearly more than just atheists get their "knickers in a knot" when having to listen to arrogant bags of hot air.
Yes, they do, but most rational humans tend to rely on actual evidence to support many of their beliefs and don't just accept that someone is Abraham Lincoln even though he claims he is. It's also true that the vast majority of humans on the planet are religious and thus do believe in things without any evidence to support some of their beliefs.
I never said I know better than anyone. However, if you support conspiracy theories and make claims about God that you're unable to back up without evidence, should those who disagree with your claims simply stay silent when they have clearly contradictory evidence to submit? Should we just take all claims from believers as truth and fact simply because they made the claim and we should walk on eggshells trying not to upset them or contradict their claim? Is their faith so weak that it cannot stand under any challenge or scrutiny?
And you're welcome to your opinion.
Now that's the kind of insincere and insecure comment that earns a reply from Queen Gertrude, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"...
Aw and now i'm just really feeling the love DP. Thx!
Hugs and kisses always there buddy and Merry Christmas!
True, now who thinks we have it all figured out? Do you have an example of this?
Lol ....... okay i'll take one swing at your bait ...
People who try to use a scientific approach/method to prove or disprove the "by definition" unprovable.
Beyond that, i have no desire to get into a "faith" debate with you again Tig.
You won't agree with me and i won't agree with you. No point to it that i can see ......
[delete]
It was a question / a challenge to your point. You feel baited when someone challenges a point you make??
Again, who does that? Who are these 'people'? Who uses a scientific approach to disprove the existence of our presumed sentient creator?
You answered my question by describing a set of people yet I asked you for examples in this set. I will take your answer to be that you do not know anyone who meets your description.
Isn't that a political question?
No.
This reminds me of the Ken Ham and Bill Nye religious debate. I am para-phrasing the Q and A's here.
At 1 point a question was asked, "What evidence presented would make you question the existence of god"?
Ham's answer was, "nothing can make me question god".
The question was then asked of Nye about what evidence would cause him to question his dis-belief of god.
Nye's answer was, "1 piece of real evidence".
Which of the 2 of them thinks they have it all figured out?
Excellent example.
True, now who thinks we have it all figured out?
Well, of course that would be God herself!
( Omniscient, definition )
The great thing about science is that we will never run out of questions to ask.
Nor answers to find.
Lol .... in here? It happens all the time.
Really don't care how you take it but i'm not going to call out anyone here on NT and yield the pleasure of another a ticket.
I'll take your comment to be that you don't want to admit that it happens here and elsewhere all the time. It is in fact, a mainstay of many atheists non belief, belief system.
Nye is an Engineer, just like me. Nothing special, a dime a dozen if you will. And a lot of people seem to like to hold him up as some sort genius when it comes to this topic.
To me, there is nothing dumber, than trying to prove something that is by definition, unprovable.
Nye is dumber than a half a can of rocks in this regard.
And what is Ham?
I don't know, to me it is dumber to believe in something which you cannot prove, something which you cannot even provide any evidence of.
Do you believe in Santa Claus? Why not?
Don't know, don't care. That's the point.
You think faith is dumb. Got it. However, you might be surprised how much faith you actually have without even realizing it.
A red herring unless you have some belief system based solely off jolly Saint Nick that i'm not aware of. I'll be happy to consider it if you share.
If not i'll assume your Airing of Grievances is complete.
Then your claim is no better than bullshit.
I have yet to see anyone here try to use the scientific method to disprove God (as in sentient creator). So there is nothing to admit to. Certainly in a world of 7.9+ billion people someone somewhere is doing whatever we might imagine. But I did not claim it never happens on the planet, I asked you to give me examples that indicate this is some kind of norm for atheists. You could not do so.
Atheists do not have a belief system. Clearly you do not understand atheism. Atheism is simply not being convinced a god exists. That is it, end of story. Atheism itself is not the belief that there are no gods; that is a form of atheism known as gnostic or strong atheism and only a tiny minority of atheists take that position — and that position, by the way, is irrational. Atheists in general simply are not convinced a god exists but remain open to persuasive evidence. I do not personally know any gnostic atheists.
You spoke of:
I have yet to see someone attempt to use the scientific method to prove or disprove God (as in sentient creator). I am not sure how anyone would even design the experiment unless they have some very special definition of 'god'. You made the claim that these people commonly exist. So unless you can deliver some example, your claim remains bullshit.
Now, assuming your phrasing was simply poor, there are people who will attempt to prove of disprove the existence of a sentient creator using formal logic. Typically these are proofs provided by theists (e.g. the Thomasian arguments, the Kalam Cosmological argument, etc.).
Where does Nye attempt to prove an unprovable?
If you are going to call him dumb for doing this then surely you have a link that shows him making this attempt.
Also Ozzwald was noting how the science side of the Ham-Nye debate stated a willingness to consider evidence that a god exists whereas the religious side stated that NOTHING would convince him that his beliefs were wrong.
That was his point, after all.
So you do not even know what Ozzwald was referring to yet you disparage Nye.
Blind faith? I have none. Can you list even 1 other item which you have blind faith about?
Another question you are unwilling to answer because it exposes a hypocritical belief.
There have been thousands of other gods worshipped through history, all with the same amount of evidence as yours. Why do you believe in this one and not any (all) of the others?
Not in the least but think what you want. Again, i could care less what you think.
You got your examples. Not my problem if you don't accept them. How many times here has someone here asked for proof of God's existence? Countless times. Verification with proof is the basis for virtually all scientific method. Try harder Tig ......
Clearly i do understand Atheism. I stated it correctly. Non belief is a belief system. Otherwise how can you believe in what you don't believe? You can't
Nah, see above. Your claims here are complete horseshit as pointed out above. Complete horseshit.
My "phrasing" was spot on. Now assuming you keep wanting to make you invalid point about Atheists having no belief system, there isn't really much more productive to say here.
He's asking for proof of God existence. Which is by definition, iunprovable.
Surely you read the post by Ozz above that quoted him asking for one piece of evidence.
Nye is absolutely being obtuse, asking for evidence of something that is by definition, unprovable.
Nope, what part of my comment are you having trouble with?
The part where i say it doesn't matter what Ham does or the part where i said that was the point?
Do you drive a car?
Another misrepresentation of my response. As i pointed out, your example was irrelevant unless you could show me some similarity. And entire religion/belief system based on Santa if you will. Which you didn't, so your comment is still irrelevant.
Why not?
That's a cloud of generalization. Technically Hindus and Buddhists are atheists. And Hindus and Buddhists certainly have a belief system. Humanists certainly have a belief system that is not based upon a deity as god, so technically, humanists are atheists. The overly generalized popular use of the term 'atheist' has become a disbelief in the God of Abraham and a rejection of Abrahamic religions. In popular culture those holding pagan beliefs (not a disparaging term) are considered to be atheists.
In today's culture someone claiming to be atheist doesn't necessary mean they don't hold religious beliefs or practice religion. In today's pop culture those who hold pagan beliefs consider themselves atheists. And that's the danger of using science to dispute the Abrahamic religions. There's a real risk that science becomes a system of pagan religious belief.
That's a bit of a red herring. The scientific method doesn't do anything other than provide a methodology to conduct empirical testing of hypotheses. The methodology (scientific method) has difficulty utilizing anecdotal or circumstantial observations and evidence to empirically test hypotheses. The scientific method is an empirical methodology and is not a method of logic; the scientific method does not provide deductive or inductive logical conclusions.
Where did you post the examples?
That is not what you claimed. You claimed that someone tried to use the scientific method to prove/disprove the unprovable (the existence of god).
Challenging a claim of certain truth is not using the scientific method to disprove. It is a basic logic: burden of proof, not science. Buy a vowel.
You prove your ignorance of atheism.
Are you convinced that exolife exists in our solar system? No? Does that mean that you believe exolife does not exist in our solar system? Does the fact that you are not (yet) convinced exolife exists in our solar system mean that you have an exolife belief system? Or does it mean that the evidence thus far is not persuasive?
Brilliant argument.
In the debate, Nye always maintained that he does not believe a god exists because there is no supporting evidence. He never argued that God does not exist. However, when faced with a claim of certainty: "God exists" which by definition carries the burden of proof, it is basic logic to ask for that proof (or at least persuasive evidence). Why do you have a problem with that?
(see above) You should actually watch the debate so that you know what you are talking about.
(see above)
Several, and another refusal by you to answer the question...can't wait to see this false comparison...
Are you serious? Do you not have TV, movies, books where you live? The life and non-death of Kris Kringle (aka Santa Claus), is available for anyone to see. There is an entire mythology built up over it.
Be good and Santa will reward you, be bad and Santa will punish you. Sound familiar?
Another refusal to answer a question.
Wrong. Hinduism is theistic with clearly named deities. Buddhism can be deemed atheistic but it is closer to pantheism than atheism.
Focus on Buddhists. Let's pretend Buddhists properly can be called atheists. You argue that they have a belief system. Okay, granted. So now by virtue of the fact that a type of atheism (presumed) has a belief system, you generalize into 'atheism is a belief system'.
Your hasty generalization fallacy is showing.
Strawman.
So, Nerm, did you notice that I am not the one claiming that someone can use the scientific method to prove / disprove God? Read the comment thread so that you know what is taking place.
Depends on the faith, right? YECs believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs coexisted with human beings. They believe that evolution is pseudoscience (bullshit) and that the tectonic plates of the planet are arranged as they are due to Noah's flood.
On and on with all sorts of complete distortions on well-founded scientific knowledge ....
And they actively attempt to discredit science and teach utter crap to the next generation.
Contrast that with the belief (faith) that a sentient creator exists. I have no problem with people believing that there must be something 'up there' but I most definitely have a problem with beliefs (and actions) such as I have described.
I would call Buddhism more of a philosophy since they don't have a "God" in their teachings
Most of us don't where the faith doesn't try to counter scientific facts like TiG says then try to convince others to disbelieve what is right in front of their faces
Which brings up the question of what other life decisions do you base purely on blind faith?
I could care less about any religion. Just don't keep knocking on my door.
We agree 100%. Unfortunately in this country, you are always having christianity being pushed on you.
Good for you. So it shouldn't bother you that others don't appreciate the Saturday 8 AM knocks on the door to discuss someone else's lord and savior.
It should bother if this what some people base their scientific conclusions on. I don't trust a biologist who's a YEC and yes I have worked with them. I don't know how they can make a scientific decision based on that belief
tell them that
So it won't bother you if your cardiac surgeon believes the earth is only 6000 years old. Ah...what the hell surgeons are only mechanics any way who cares what they believe
Like I said they're mechanics, right?
You're really not saying anything though
Making decisions based on faith is akin to gambling. One is hoping to hit the jackpot. It's better to hedge one's bets with facts or evidence.
Tell you what, every time i see when someone do that here i'll PM you a note. I can PM you right?
That is not what i said and please stop trying to change what i di say. i said, and i quote:
It was general statement. People who ask for proof of God existence are using a scientific approach.. Every time.
[[Don't make it meta personal.]]
Nah but it is more proof of that very inconvenient truth about Atheism.
Another red herring which has nothing to do with the question at hand. Slightly better than the Santa Cl;aus gambit but only slightly.
Well see, there you go. Perhaps you can buy another vowel and solve the puzzle .....
Yes, it is and it's just as valid as yours
I made the reference to mechanic first way back up in comment 2.2.47. I thought you caught that.
I guess it really doesn't make a difference.
For believers, God exist on faith. But you already know that and you also know we won't agree on it because you had to ignore an accepted definition of "faith" last time to act like you won the debate.
I don't, i just don't agree with it.
See above
See above
You might not have noticed but I'm done with this conversation
[deleted]
I agree, but I was trying to work with Nerm's example.
Pantheism basically equates all of reality (nature) with 'god'. That is why I consider Buddhism a form of pantheism. I am far from alone in this regard.
There is no supreme deity in Buddhism ... the supreme entity is nature itself.
How about their beliefs pushed on society? Do you have a problem, for example, with an organized campaign to discredit evolution — the foundation of modern biology?
Then that is the end of debate. Nye tacitly admits that God is a matter of belief. There isn't any need for a discussion of science because God is a matter of belief.
The claim of certainty is a belief and Nye has already tacitly admitted that God is a matter of belief. So, the burden of proof is for those who believe that God exists provide evidence of genuine belief. The debate is not testing the existence of God; the debate is testing whether or not belief in God is genuine.
Yes.
The more realistic faiths are those that make fewer assumptions.
For example, deists basically assume a sentient creator. They do not make any further assumptions. Seems rational to me.
Pantheists hold that 'god' is essentially nature. I find that to be realistic ... they are certainly following the evidence.
In contrast now, we have the literalists and the YECs are my favorite example. These folks believe whatever the words of the King James Bible state. Literally and absolutely. And when the words contradict reality, they deem reality to be wrong.
One could make a continuum of religion starting with almost no assumptions (e.g. deism) and ending with religions rich with all sorts of stories, claims and other details about their god or gods. The further away from no assumptions, the more unrealistic the beliefs will be (generally).
Crazy people.
The debate was "Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?" So, no, that did not (and does not) end the debate.
Nobody has to prove that they believe something. What a stupid declaration. The burden of proof comes with a claim of truth. Not the expression (or the mere holding) of a belief.
You clearly did not watch the debate and have absolutely no clue what the debate was about. Go watch the debate before trying to analyze it.
If my doctor believed that the Earth is 6,000 years old then my doctor would be demonstrably irrational in this regard. I would be very concerned about the cognitive processes of the individual because that belief is so outrageously at odds with modern knowledge.
Similarly, if my doctor started talking about the flat Earth, I would be out of the office on my way to find a rational person from whom I will take medical advice.
Tacit admission that you have no example.
You do not recognize basic logic? If a statement of truth is claimed and challenged based on burden of proof, you think that is a scientific approach? If so, you have a lot to learn.
If someone tells you that they are not convinced a god exists, do you tell them that this means the are claiming that no god exists?
Yeah, those probative questions are a bitch aren't they? Cannot answer them so call them a red herring (etc.) and run away.
Now you are just making shit up. Pathetic.
Not only would I be out of there myself, I would give a bad yelp review, lol
Not only the more unrealistic the beliefs, but the more irrational the holder of those beliefs is likely to be.
Yes. The reason is that it is easy for laypersons to believe that based on the controversy at play. The powers that be have done a fine job of confusing the public.
So let's use a different example. The auto mechanic believe the Earth is flat. I would consider the mechanic to be capable of very irrational thoughts but I would not be concerned about working on my car. The downside risk is minimal. But my position would be very different if this were my medical doctor thinking the Earth is flat.
I still have to see it. No spoilers please.
Past experiences do not make for blind faith, you have a history you are falling back on. Similarly "gut feelings" generally come from your subconscious making connections that your consciousness hasn't yet.
Blind faith is your belief when you have no reason to believe. So once again, what life decisions have you made on blind faith?
It was not my goal to demonstrate that. Not sure how to demonstrate that in the abstract. One would need a specific case to do that.
I disagree. I told you that if my medical doctor believed the Earth is 6,000 years old then I would not be able to trust him to give me advice on my health. Same would be true if the doctor believe the Earth is flat. Or any other absurdly ridiculous belief that is easily shown to be false. An M.D. that cannot be trusted has an impaired ability to do their job.
If someone can be this irrational about something so demonstrably false, then my confidence will be shaken because the individual could then easily be irrational about many other things.
I would let the person move furniture for me, pick up weekly trash, clean my car, etc. but such an individual capable of such levels of irrational thinking will not be entrusted to do anything for me of a serious nature.
It's worse than that. With gambling you at least have an idea on what the odds are in your favor. Blind faith would be gambling with all your money, without knowing what the game will be, how to play it, and even if there is a game and not just someone taking your money.
It's like playing a game of Fizzbin when your opponent is the only one that knows the rules.
No it isn't. It's an offer to show you examples as they happen. Your comment however does seem like a dodge..
Lol ..... yeah i have a lot to learn .... nearly 40 years as a successful, practicing engineer and i have a lot to learn about the scientific approach. Hilarious!
Why would i tell them that. I've already told you could care less what you or they might think about it. It's unimportant to the scheme of things in my life. However, it appears to be very important to you. Interesting .....
Lol ... run away? You need to stop believing your own press. Again, I'll never "run away" from the likes of you. It is however funny watching you fall back on that one time and time again. Your "probative" questions do stink like rotten fish no matter how hard you try to rationalize that they don't. Like so much of your spiel, when someone has the temerity to disagree with you, slip into sanctimonious mode almost every time. It's nice that you keep demonstrating for everyone here, just how arrogant you really are.
What if instead of a doctor, it is a baker?
There you go again, resorting to sophomoric insults regarding the truth.
Sad, just sad.
Then give examples where it has happened ... that was your claim.
Yeah, Sparty, that is why your comments are so absurd. You surely should be able to distinguish the burden of proof concept of logic from the scientific method.
Running from the question again.
Exactly. And you did it again.
Of course my opinion. What the hell else would it be?
As I stated, if I do not trust my M.D. then that takes away from his abilities. He may be entirely competent as an M.D. but he will no longer be my M.D. because the necessary trust that an M.D. must have with his patient has been compromised. And I would predict that if this M.D. informed all of his patients that he believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, his practice would indeed by compromised. Trust in one's M.D. is a critical part of the equation.
In other words, I am more inclined to question the capabilities of an M.D. who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old than an M.D. who does not irrationally blot out the cross-disciplinary fact that our planet is billions of years old.
Depends on the job and the belief.
Can you imagine a professional geologist working effectively with a belief that the planet is only 6,000 years old? Funnier still, a flat-Earth geologist.
That is a very excellent reference and example. Well done good sir, I salute you
He. Cannot. Perform. His. Job. If. His. Patients. Do. Not. Trust. Him.
Well, good. So, as I have stated, it depends upon the belief and the job.
Sometimes.
Already asked and answered. I'm done holding your hand on that one
Nah but what really amazes me though is how you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about but claim that you do.
Nope
See above
Okay, Texan, obviously you are going to just repeat your denial. I am sure you have plenty of examples of M.D.s running successful practices with patients who do not trust them.
No doubt, if an M.D. came clean about being a flat-Earther the practice would be replete with eager patients.
Just had...overwhelming...urge...for ...Star Trek...reference. In a James T. Kirk vocal cadence.
Do you have anything of value to offer? Your last few comments have been replete with meta and snark and not a shred of substance.
No doubt, if an M.D. came clean about being a flat-Earther the practice would be replete with eager patients.
A rather key part of an M.D.s job is gaining and keeping the trust of their patients. But since you are just going to continue to ignore that, I will give another example for an M.D. that is a bit more blatant.
Imagine an M.D. who was a Jehovah's Witness who thus believed that a blood transfusion poisons one's soul.
I've been waiting for you to offer up something more as well and have been sorely disappointed.
But i shouldn't be though since i know this is just how it goes with you on this particular topic.
By the way, you shouldn't ask for less snark and meta in the same post you are offering up the same.
Bad form my man .... very bad form.
My example of the auto mechanic (which has been deleted) was to highlight a contradiction in beliefs being imposed upon a system of merit.
The problem is imposing a belief system onto a system of merit. What happens is a belief becomes a measure of merit. In the case of a cardiac surgeon, the merit of the surgeon is being measured by a system of belief unrelated to surgery.
In your example, it doesn't matter if the auto mechanic is the best mechanic on the planet. A belief unrelated to auto mechanics disqualifies the merits of the mechanic. The same is true for the example of the cardiac surgeon; a belief unrelated to heart surgery disqualifies the merits of the surgeon.
That's no different than a religious belief disqualifying the merits of evolution.
I put forth a more blatant example and you ignored it:
Imagine an M.D. who was a Jehovah's Witness who thus believed that a blood transfusion poisons one's soul.
Would you or would you not trust an auto mechanic who believes in a 6,000 year old Earth to maintain your brakes?
Move along Sparty, you are clearly trolling.
Again that imposes a system of beliefs onto a system of merit. Aren't you expressing concern that a system of belief will interfere with the merits of medical treatment?
In your example of a Jehovah's Witness M.D., the doctor is practicing medicine based upon beliefs rather than merits. A system of belief is disqualifying a system of merit. The obverse example would be a doctor treating a Jehovah's Witness. Does the doctor give a blood transfusion to a Jehovah's Witness patient without the patient's consent? Does merit disqualify belief?
What is the place for belief in the debate? What is the place for merit in the debate? And does one disqualify the other?
I would trust an auto mechanic to be capable of doing mechanical work. That's the measure of merit. And that's the extent of the relationship between myself and the mechanic.
I would trust a cardiac surgeon to be capable of doing heart surgery. That's the measure of merit. And the reputation of the surgeon in performing heart surgery is a measure of merit. I wouldn't base my choice of a heart surgeon upon whether or not they believe in a young earth. I would be more concerned about their ability to perform heart surgery.
Or an MD who's a YEC that believes sin is the cause of illness and/or prayer can cure it?
Good grief man, I asked you a question. Who do you think you are fooling by claiming a direct question is spin?
Nevermind Nerm, there is no communicating with you.
I would not trust a YEC, as they are at least somewhat irrational by default. Who knows how extensive that irrationality influences other aspect of their life. They might be brilliant in their particular field of expertise, but they do not illicit trust from me. They would probably have to work harder to earn my trust.
It is a hypothetical.
What is the point of you replying to me if all you are going to do is dodge?
I asked a question too and got a dodge.
And, as I have noted, I would be okay with a mechanic working on my car even if he/she believes in a 6,000 year old Earth. The utter ignorance of the mechanic in science is explainable. The mechanic would not be expected to have been formally educated in the sciences.
I would not, however, pick a heart surgeon who believes in a 6,000 year old Earth. No way that a heart surgeon got through med school without a ton of science so this would be a conscious rejection of a fundamental, cross-disciplined verified fact that the Earth is billions of years old. If I were picking heart surgeons and somehow I knew (hypothetically of course) that one believed in a 6,000 year old Earth, I would focus on the others. If one can actually believe the Earth is 6,000 years old then I am quite concerned about the rationality of the mind.
Always the same stupid game. To what end?
Perhaps to avoid admitting or being called out for not knowing what they're talking about?
I put forth a different example rather go in circles with you about M.D. trust. This is the alternative I proposed:
Do you see a problem with an M.D. (especially a surgeon) who believes blood transfusions poison one's soul?
It is trolling. 'Why troll?' is the question.
Well good. Then you see with geologists and M.D.s how religious beliefs can impact their professions. I am sure after a few hours we might be able to get you to see how this works with other professions. Maybe.
In summary, per your question @2.2.94:
The answer is "yes, one's religious beliefs could have a profound effect on their ability to perform a job".
That does not mean that this is a commonplace occurrence. Just to make this clear, nobody has argued that. But there are indeed religious beliefs that contradict reality and are thus unsuitable for select jobs.
I can think of several possibilities.
I am looking forward to it.
I have known people who are YECs. I think they're more numerous than it seems. Which is also sad commentary open society.
Not everyone, but those within the control of the YEC are most certainly influenced by their nonsense. The YECs are organized (see Ken Ham as the key case in point) and work full time to discredit any science that does not correspond with their literal reading of the Bible.
Note:
There is a lot more of this nonsense taking place than you might think.
Well let me introduce you to the mother lode:
Hopefully most do not, but I was not saying most or all, I was saying that this is a significant portion of the USA that believes this nonsense (in whole or in part). And this denial of well-founded science is intentionally driven from religious organization.
At least one active member here follows Ken Ham's Answers In Genesis and, although I doubt this member still believes the entire load of Ham bullshit, this individual maintains that human beings were created directly by God (denies evolution) and claims that the first human being was made by God 6,000 years ago.
Organizations like AiG perpetuate this crap and enable those inclined to be perpetually ignorant due to stubborn confirmation bias to hold nutty ideas like this as truth.
Wrong again but i am growing weary your usual spiel here.
I would go for the better credentials. The specifics of a given situation matter.
When you contrive an extreme situation to force a choice you have not illustrated anything.
Now, instead of comparing extraordinary with ordinary, a proper test would be something like choosing between two relatively equally reviewed surgeons where one believes the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Pick one.
I know who you mean.
Perpetual crap equals perpetual stupidity.
That was supposed to say "sad commentary on society," not open. Lousy typos!
Pretty sure that atheism is not a "belief system".
What if the person believes the planet is infested with aliens who have taken over the bodies of 10% of the human population?
Hypothetically speaking. I am checking to see if there is some limit or if you would accept a surgeon no matter what irrational notions s/he might have outside of their profession.
That was just another common tactic. The idea is to redefine atheism so that it has the flaws of theism as commonly practiced.
If one can redefine atheism to be: belief that there is no god then atheism would be subject to the same logical flaws as theism: belief that one's god exists.
When atheism is properly explained as: not being convinced any god exists the reaction is denial because that position is quite rational based on the current state of human knowledge.
My question was to see if there are beliefs that a doctor could hold that would cause you to lose confidence in the doctor. To see if there is a limit to what you would feel comfortable overlooking.
The fact that individuals have different limits does not surprise me.
My limits have nothing to do with conventional religious beliefs. Christian, Islamic, Hindu, etc. all fall under the category (to me) of common beliefs. However, extremes within belief systems (e.g. holding that it is a father's duty to kill a daughter who has dishonored the family) would provide exceptions; I cannot comprehend a mind that would hold such a view so I would steer clear.
Belief in a flat Earth, a 6,000 year Earth where dinosaurs and human beings coexist, exolife on Earth, etc. are examples of beliefs that I find to be utterly irrational since they directly contradict basic, well-founded modern knowledge.
My limit is different than yours. I doubt I could trust someone to perform a serious service for me (especially regarding my health) who could hold such irrational beliefs in my examples. I will mind that big waving red flag.
Again, this is not about religious beliefs in particular but rather irrational beliefs in general. The YEC examples are religious beliefs but it is not the religious underpinning that is the problem; the problem is that the belief is irrational ... at a truly nutty level.
Criminal behavior is not a belief. Neither is mental illness. So while I agree with you in avoiding the doctor, that is not really the point here.
Religious or not, it is holding a very irrational belief that creates the red flag.
Unbelievable. I have been stating in each post (and throughout this article) that my position is not based on religious belief but on profound irrational beliefs.
I have stated it as politely as I could, attempted to be very clear and have done so repeatedly.
Look at the very first sentence ⇣ in my most recent post to you:
How is this not clear? What words must I use to get across the point that my consideration is based on IRRATIONALITY not RELIGION?
But not questioning science from a point of scientific ignorance.
Seems most science deniers never even graduated high school.
Some will read what they choose to read, not what's on the screen.
Religious belief by definition is irrational. But I think TiG is referring more to religious beliefs which are directly contradicted or refuted by scientific evidence or proofs, such as YEC or flat Earth beliefs. It's a different level or degree of irrationality.
I don't like the broad-brush approach to this statement. Any belief system can be defined as irrational by anybody outside of that belief system. And the person who is defining any belief system as irrational already had their own belief system set up. It's kind of like that old beer commercial, "Tastes Great / Less Filling". Each side can point to the "proof" of their belief system and can excuse away the "proof" from the other side. So long as someone isn't forcing you to follow their belief system or that belief system is not causing global or local harm, what harm is there in just ignoring it? Might be a whole lot stress in the world if people would do that.
Yeah, i know what Atheists tell themselves.
Doesn't make it true.
TiG would not turn down a doctor who is religious just on the basis of the doctor being religious. He would do so on the basis of irrational beliefs. Flat Eartherism is not religious, but it is irrational. Homeopathy is not religious, but it is irrational.
You are disagreeing with what YOU have decided his position is.
In this article and directly to you I have explicitly and repeatedly stated that I do not care what religion my doctor holds to (if any) but that I do care if my doctor holds profoundly irrational beliefs like a flat Earth or a 6,000 year old Earth or exolife inhabiting human forms, etc.
Yet you seem to think you know me better that I know myself or that for some reason you think I am lying about my position.
Further, this sidebar discussion has not been about burden of proof on religious claims but rather the notion of a profoundly irrational belief being a red flag on the overall rationality of the individual.
So, Kathleen, if your physician told you that NASA, et. al. has been engaged in a conspiracy to make everyone think the world is not flat, would your confidence in your doctor be impacted?
Irrelevant. This is hypothetical, not some plan to test the rationality of others.
I absolutely do consider a well-founded scientific finding superior to what is claimed by a religion. And it is not based on proof but rather evidence and sound reasoning. I have consistently stated that science does not prove. In this forum alone I have stated my position on science dozens of times; well over a hundred times.
After all these years you write as though you still do not have an accurate understanding of my position. What is your position then Kathleen?:
But importantly, this has not been a discussion of science vs. religion so why do you even bring this up?
Belief sans evidence or fact is irrational, regardless of the religion behind it. It's essentially wishful thinking. But some beliefs like a flat or 6000 year old earth is even more irrational. While I agree that as long as people, regardless of religious beliefs, do not force their beliefs onto anyone, then there is no problem. But when people do push their religion onto others or try to pass off belief as fact or truth, then there's a problem and they deserve to get called out on it.
I am not convinced a god exists. I am not convinced no god exists. My position is that of an agnostic atheist — until I see persuasive evidence of some sentient creator, I will not be able to hold that there is such an entity (i.e. I will not have a theistic belief).
What, specifically, is my belief system? Not being persuaded in the truth of grand unsubstantiated claims is a belief system??
You do not believe in Santa Claus ... do you have a Santa Claus belief system? A little green men from Mars belief system? A flat Earth belief system?
This conflict will never get resolved for some. For me its simple.
I don't require science to reinforce my faith and don't require faith to reinforce my science
I don't find conflict between the two at all.
Not at all ....
I personally absolutely would go with science over religion, especially since science, unlike religion, is founded on evidence and reasoning. Why wouldn't someone go with science over religion?
People interpret the Bible in different ways, including the idea that the Earth is 6000 years old. I might be mistaken, but I think orthodox jews and 7th day Adventists, for example, believe the 6000 year old earth notion. So if someone in a scientifically based field like medicine ignores sound science in favor of dogma, that would give me pause regardless how skilled they are.
Well of course. But what if one can make a sound argument that a particular belief system (i.e. a specific religion with specific beliefs, rituals, stories, etc.) is irrational? That is quite a bit better than simply making the claim, right?
Let's take a belief system that most everyone will likely agree is irrational: Scientology. Do you think it is possible to make a sound argument that Scientology is an irrational belief system? Even by those who are not Scientologists?:
And if that is not enough, do you think that one could make a sound argument that the ancient gods (e.g. Greek gods) belief system is irrational for a modern human being in civilized society (i.e. having normal modern knowledge) to hold as true?
Yes. What does this have to do with what we are talking about? Believing in a 6,000 year old Earth is irrational given modern knowledge. Does not matter from where one gets that idea.
Most religious people do not believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. But tens of millions do. The easy label for these individuals is 'YEC' (Young Earth Creationists). But what does this have to do with what we were discussing?
At least you are on the point now. What if your doctor believed blood transfusions poison the soul? ... or believed evolution was a worldwide conspiracy of godless scientists?
Yeah, Kathleen, that is what I have repeatedly stated. My comments on profound irrational beliefs is not a religious comment but rather one about a red flag that brings into question the rationality of the individual. The fact that many examples of irrational beliefs happen to be religious is a reality over which I have no control.
You replied to yourself on a comment in which you replied to me.
Are you adding to your reply to me? If not, what is the context of this comment?
You believe something doesn't exist unless you can find prove that it exists. That, is a belief system. It is also an impossible standard for that which is presently considered unprovable. It's the exact opposite of a belief system that doesn't require proof of the existence of some God or supernatural Diety. Both require belief.
The second person that's unrolled the Atheists Santa Claus gambit here. That dog still don't hunt. You need proof, i don't. I'm not restricted by that impossible standard in my faith which requires proof of the unprovable. That said, on Christmas day, i believe there are millions, maybe billions of Santa's out there.
It's all in how one defines it ......
I think my primary care physician is Catholic. My wife is Catholic (albeit far from devout). My best friend is a convinced Christian.
Odd how some seem to ignore the fact that life is nuanced. The fact that most examples of irrational beliefs come from religions (a very fertile soil for irrational beliefs) does not mean that one holds every believer of a religion to be irrational as a human being.
One of my favorite living scientists is Dr. Francis Collins. Brilliant, accomplished and generally strikes me as a grounded, honest individual. Dr. Collins is a devout Christian.
If you did then you would be in constant conflict (and would have a very shaky foundation of science).
I have no idea what religion my doctor practices, if she has one at all. Nor does she ask me about my beliefs.
I do care that she follows evidence when she treats me, and she does. Scientific evidence is pretty important in medicine, and those who reject scientific evidence are likely not to be the best doctors. I don't want to be treated with prayer and woo. I want medicine if the evidence indicates that I need it. And when she tells me I don't need an antibiotic because I have something viral, I believe her, because she has evidence backing up that decision, too.
You are speaking of me so I will answer.
Religions are replete with irrational beliefs. But the fact that someone is religious does not ipso facto make the person irrational.
As I have stated here numerous times, a profoundly irrational belief (e.g. flat Earth, 6,000 year old Earth, ...) is a red flag on the rationality of the individual because the belief is demonstrably wrong ... major-league, without a doubt, wrong. The belief defies well-founded modern knowledge. Profound disconnects with modern knowledge of reality are a red flag on the rationality of the individual. IMO.
The key word here is 'profound'.
That depends on the religious belief. "There is a creator" is a religious belief, but it is not irrational. "The Earth is 6000 years old, and we know this because we added up all the generations in Genesis" is a religious belief, and is irrational in the face of current science.
Do you hold that the religious belief that thunder is caused by Zeus is rational, or irrational? Would you trust a meteorologist who advised people to prevent thunderstorms by worshipping Zeus? Or would you rather they told you when you need to seek shelter based on radar?
And yet i'm not and i don't
You are wrong on your opening sentence. I am not convinced something exists without persuasive evidence (not proof) that it exists. But that does not mean that I believe it does NOT exist.
I made this crystal clear ...
... and yet you still return with this ridiculous notion that lack of belief in the existence of χ means a belief in the non-existence of χ. No, Sparty, wrong. Absolutely wrong.
One can be unconvinced that exolife exists in our solar system without believing that NO exolife exists in our solar system.
So what is the problem here, Sparty? How is it that my clear statement @2.2.172 did not register? Did you ignore it or did you simply not understand my words? What words should I have used to express the very clear point made @2.2.172?
And, as usual, you deflected from my probative questions.
Yes, we agree on something. There are plenty of rational human beings walking about who hold religious beliefs. I consider my wife, for example, to be quite rational.
Well, that should be self-evident, to anybody who understands what science is, and what faith is. Science does not require faith, so I'm not sure why you felt this comment to be necessary.
Techy hint: if you type @2.2.171 the system will create a hyperlink to the comment. No space between the @ character and the first digit.
Think of Gordy's comment applied outside of religion (just to clear that bias from your mind).
Do you consider it rational to believe, without persuasive evidence, that the Earth is infested with exolife that is slowly taking over human bodies?
Do you consider it rational to believe, without persuasive evidence, the Earth is flat?
Do you consider it rational (for a modern, civilized human being) to believe, without persuasive evidence, that lightning stems from an angry god?
And as usual you have chosen sophomoric attacks instead of respectful debate. I can always tell when you think you are losing a debate when you start up with that nonsense or perhaps play a logic fallacy card or two. Next is reporting posts ... which is fully anticipated and expected
Whatever .... i like how Atheists had to create a couple new definitions which makes them sound slightly less harsh and more like an Agnostic. Agnostics are much easier to take and tend to more together and less angry ime. If what your saying here is true you sound confused, somewhere in between Agnostic and Atheist. I believe Atheists created the titles "Agnostic Atheists" and "Agnostic Theist" in an attempt to somehow quantify that confusion and still support their core Atheist beliefs. Interesting that Agnostic is in both definitions.
In the end i still don't agree with you at all on this topic and tire of this slap fight. So feel free to have the last word.
Enjoy and Merry Christmas!
Because some expect to be able to use science as a means to define their faith.
I thought i'd been pretty clear about that
Yeah Sparty, whenever I call out your dishonest tactics you whine 'sophmoric attack', etc. Your little game is obvious and old.
Losing debate? You ignore my point and instead portray a strawman, argue that and you think I am losing a debate to you?
You ignore my probative questions and consider that as me losing?
Who do you think you are fooling?
Is that what you believe? How nice. So you pretend to not understand the extremely common distinctions made that blend agnosticism with theism and deem it some plot by atheists to portray themselves differently. If that were true then those atheists would simply self-label as agnostics and be done with it. Your conspiracy theory is ridiculous.
And, just to be crystal clear, this is the common breakdown:
The gnostics are irrational positions. The agnostics are (categorically) rational. Almost every atheist is an agnostic atheist. Many (maybe most) theists are agnostic theists.
That's rich.
It is a common tactic too. Instead of standing up and honestly dealing with a challenge we find individuals playing dishonest games. Trying to present a facade that they are in some way correct while dancing about in a smoke screen. It is pathetic.
And my comment was trying to help you understand what he is talking about by removing the religious component to get to the root.
I get the impression that you do not want to understand Gordy's position but want to just wrongly complain at a superficial level. If you seriously wanted to understand then you would not have ignored my comment @2.2.198
How does that translate to anybody needing faith to support their science? It doesn't, and therefore, pointing out that you don't need faith to support science is just not necessary. It's like boasting about having four fingers and a thumb on each hand. Nothing extraordinary at all. Certainly not something anybody who claims to have great success in science should really even think to say, because of course science is not supported by faith, and any real scientist already knows that.
Indeed, if anything the scientific method seeks to remove faith (belief sans persuasive supporting evidence) from the pursuit of science.
Yeah, too bad you're too biased to see it
Seems as though you believe there is 'something' of a supernatural sentient nature. If so, you have expressed agnostic theism.
Are you being serious? You need to go back and read my original comment again.
Get it now? I can't explain it in any simpler terms
No it is not. Not even close.
Who we talking about here?
No we are not limited to doctors. We are talking about irrational beliefs and doctors was simply one of the examples. We also spoke of auto mechanics, car washers, financial advisors, etc.
Well of course not. That was never the point. Good grief. The point has been a profound irrational belief being a red flag on the rationality of the individual.
Profoundly irrational — such as believing the Earth is flat or 6,000 years old or that aliens are infesting Earth right now or that blood transfusions poison the soul, or ...
Exactly so.
No scientist who is worth his or her salt would brag about science not being bolstered by faith, because he or she would know that that's pretty much what science is about.
We have read how nice and respectable you are many times now in your comments.
Yes, and that means you are either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. If you believe that a sentient creator is more likely than not then you probably are an agnostic theist. If the evidence does not persuade you to think a sentient creator is more likely then you probably are an agnostic atheist.
Yes, according to Gordy, belief is irrational as it is based on wishful thinking (or emotion) and not on evidence. It is what it is. If you or anyone disagrees, then feel free to explain how religious belief is rational.
BTW, TiG is free to explain my posts, as he usually understands them and can convey much more eloquently than I. If he happens to misunderstand my post, then he knows I will simply correct him.
And instead of standing up and dealing with my comments you choose to resort to snarky meta.
It's not even good meta. A man can't "mansplain" another man. It's something some men do to women.
That is entirely irrelevant. This is hypothetical.
So what? Who cares? Irrelevant.
Correct. Again, irrelevant.
No it is not. It is irrelevant. The point is about profound irrational beliefs being a red flag on the rationality of the individual.
What is the purpose of all this nonsense, Kathleen? You seem to be doing everything you can to NOT deal with the point.
Always the same crap with some, Sandy. Instead of honestly addressing challenging questions they resort to dishonest tactics. Perpetually. Same stupid game every time.
Bazinga!
All you do is make bullshit claims. Back up your claims.
Gordy agreed with my interpretation. So are you now saying that Gordy is lying?
Buy a vowel, Texan, you do not know what you are blabbing about.
No, Kathleen, I do not think that is a profoundly irrational belief. I think a good example of a profoundly irrational belief is believing that the Earth is flat. That defies modern empirically based, highly verified knowledge at such a grand level that one should question the rationality of one who holds such a belief.
Do you not see that??
Well look above.
What do YOU actually think it means? Is my statement inaccurate? If so, then how? Or are you automatically taking offense at it?
Note the word ' profoundly '. Do you know why I have inserted that adjective ... why I use the phrase ' profoundly irrational ' rather than simply ' irrational '? Before you accuse someone of lying maybe you should get your facts straight.
It is, as I have explained to you repeatedly, to distinguish between beliefs that contradict well-founded knowledge . For example, the belief that the planet is 6,000 years old.
Many religious beliefs are irrational (unqualified). Note the meaning of the word ' irrational ': " not logical or reasonable ." A religious belief such as Jesus coming back from the dead is not reasonable based on the evidence (the lack thereof). Best one can tell is that this is merely a story invented by ancient men. Believing this story is, IMO, not reasonable and thus irrational.
But I do not consider this belief to be profoundly irrational. There is no modern knowledge that states Jesus could not have existed and returned from the dead. I personally have no such belief and I would need some pretty impressive evidence to believe such a story, but the fact that someone believes this (given how common the belief and the level of indoctrination that has taken place) is not profoundly irrational.
Stated differently, I do not consider people who believe in the resurrection to be ipso facto irrational. I would not, for example, refuse treatment from a doctor who is Christian. (I think I have mentioned that I think my doctor is Catholic. Did you miss that?)
Now, in contrast, if my doctor told me that he is going on an exploratory cruise to the edge of the world, I would find another doctor.
So what? Irrelevant. Why toss this in other than to demonstrate that you have entirely missed the point? I look at skills and knowledge too Kathleen. And I do not interview my doctors to see if they believe in profoundly irrational notions. This is a hypothetical question about how a profoundly irrational notion is a red flag on the individual's rationality. It is not a discussion on how we pick our doctors.
If you find out that your doctor believes the planet is infested with intelligent exolife that is slowing taking over the bodies of human beings, would you continue to trust this physician with your health?
I would be out the door in a heartbeat.
Do have anything thoughtful at all to contribute or are you going to keep engaging in drive-by snark?
What is the point of this incessant trolling? Is it somehow fun? A release of emotion? What drives one to take pathetic little pot shots rather than engage in thoughtful discourse?
If you disagree with the statement, then explain why you disagree rather than feeling insulted and getting defensive!
Is it logical or reasonable to believe any claim that lacks supporting evidence?
I claim that intelligent exolife exists in our solar system. Is it logical or reasonable to believe my claim as truth given no evidence of said exolife exists?
I suppose that would depend on the claim and why one would be willing to accept it readily.
As you know, some claims are more "out there" than others. I would say it is not logical to simply believe (in other words, accept as truth or fact) a claim made without at least something to support the claim. But to go further, it also depends on how reasonable the claim itself is. To use your exolife example, we should not simply accept a claim of it, as there is no evidence yet. That's not to say there could not be exolife. However, given what we do know about the myriad of environmental conditions which life can evolve and even thrive, along with the vast laboratory that is the universe for life to develop, the claim of exolife is not unreasonable. Compare that to a claim that said exolife has come to Earth and is taking over our bodies, and you see the difference in reasonability between them. Invasion of the body snatchers becomes much less reasonable.
The same is true regarding religious claims of god/s. Again, it is illogical to make a claim for god/s as there is no evidence. Again, that is not to say there couldn't be one or more. The claim becomes less reasonable when someone or religion tries to pass off god/s and their thoughts, motivations, attributes, ect as truth when it is impossible to know such things.
Does that help explain things? I'm not sure if I'm being clear enough.
Because I would think you might be interested in thoughtful dialog. Clearly you are not.
At least he's willing to engage in a conversation and not whine or troll.
Yes, I think we're all aware you believe I'm God. But instead of explaining why you think my statement regarding belief is wrong, you instead and predictably become defensive and dismissive. So it's obvious you're the one without any interest in a dialog.
Good. We can do without your incessant whining! It contributes nothing to the discussion.
Depends upon your actual belief.
Belief that a sentient creator (in the abstract, no further attributes) might exist is not irrational IMO because there is nothing illogical or unreasonable about the belief other than being unevidenced. Since a sentient creator is a logical possibility, the belief is purely speculative / wishful thinking but falls short, in my view, of irrational.
Belief that the Bible is the divine word of a perfect God, however, is irrational. Belief that a worldwide flood occurred as described in the Bible is irrational. Belief that a perfect, omniscient , omnipotent God could be surprised or disappointed is irrational. I could go on with a long list here but possibly you get the point.
Finally, the fact that someone holds an irrational belief does not ipso facto make the individual irrational.
You know, Texan, all you need do is engage honestly and thoughtfully and all the 'problems' you are 'experiencing' would not exist. Other than disagreement.
Belief in the absence of evidence is irrational. But many rational people hold some irrational beliefs.
My mom won't pick up a coin that is tail's up. She puts a coin in cooked cabbage on New Year's Day for luck. But overall, she is a rational woman.
My sister believes in ghosts, and thinks of herself as sensitive to the afterlife. She has seen things that she attributes to supernatural causes - evidence, to her mind. Overall, she is a rational woman.
If I spill salt, I throw some over my left shoulder - an old habit. I'd like to think that overall, I'm a rational woman.
In a forum, we all get to chime in whenever and wherever we see fit. No need to get your panties in a bunch simply because someone opines on a comment on a forum.
Good grief man, you keep badgering me because I chose to ignore one of your petty demands.
I ignored it because it was blatantly obvious. I responded to the very comment of yours @2.2.224 — that comment made unsubstantiated claims (yet another after a very long history of same from you):
This is just bullshit from you. I am not pretending anything and did not spin anything. You were the one spinning Gordy's words and I simply interpreted them using common sense and basic English.
And, of course, you will deny the obvious so there was and is no point showing you the obvious. Hint: why I ignored your demand in the first place.
You know, Texan, all you need do is engage honestly and thoughtfully and all the 'problems' you are 'experiencing' would not exist. Other than disagreement.
Exolife in the universe is logical and reasonable IMO for the reasons you stated.
My example, however, was intelligent exolife in our solar system. While possible, given the proximity of the planets in our solar system, we would expect to have seen signs of intelligent exolife it it existed. Further, the conditions for life as we know it are not likely except here on Earth. Thus I do not find belief in sentient exolife in our solar system to be logical or reasonable. Possible, yes, but to actually hold that as a belief would be irrational, IMO.
Given the vastness of space and thus the increased likelihood of suitable conditions for life and even intelligent exolife, coupled with the fact that even if intelligent exolife exists, the distances between us and them are so vast that we could very easily not have any evidence they exist. So I would find a belief that exolife exists in the universe to be speculative but not illogical or unreasonable.
That said, a certain belief (i.e. holding that it is 100% true that intelligent exolife exists in the universe) is irrational.
You haven't offered any counter argument as to why it is rational and/or why my statement is wrong. It's been just nonstop whining and complaining from you.
I am perfectly calm. And if you understand the rules of a forum quit complaining when members do what is normal and routine.
Yes, badgering means repeatedly making the same demand. Which you did. I have noticed that you often respond as if you do not understand the meaning of operative words. And when I explain this to you, you cry 'condescension'. If you have a problem being corrected then I suggest you look up the meaning of words before you use them. (Yeah, I know, whine 'condescension' again.)
And of course you deny the obvious just as I stated. And such a brilliant rebuttal too: nuh 'uh. You bring this on yourself Texan because you are always adversarial and attacking. If you cannot deal with a return punch, find a different way to engage.
Clearly you did not understand his meaning.
Honest and thoughtful (and topical) would yield more replies that reciprocate.
Why is it that I have to explain everything to you?
Apparently you do not understand that it is possible for an individual to understand what another has written even if the views differ slightly.
How can you not know that?
We agree that exolife, intelligent or otherwise, is possible. And holding that to absolute certainty is illogical. As you said, we can only speculate at this time that exolife exists in the universe. We might say "I 'believe' exolife exists in the universe," as a common form of expression. But I do not consider that as an actual belief. Speculation does have some foundation in information that is already known or by what process or pattern we can observe. We can speculate exolife might exist in the universe because Earth itself harbors life in the universe and demonstrates the diversity of environments hosting life. Belief, in the true sense of the word, doesn't even have that. It's a blind acceptance of something without any objective basis. Rather, it is often based on emotion or personal opinion. As such, it is illogical or irrational.
That is just beyond stupid. If that were true then Gordy would hold that the vast majority of the planet is irrational.
One can hold an irrational view and still be a rational individual as a whole.
Gordy has stated, consistently, that it is the belief that is irrational. He has not claimed that the person holding an irrational belief is ipso facto irrational as a person. That is your strawman.
I offered you the opportunity several times to explain why you think my statement is wrong. Each time you simply complain rather than engage in further discussion. The only one being dismissive (and trollish) here is you!
So, here is another opportunity. Feel free to explain why my statement is wrong or why you think belief is rational. Simple. Are you going to engage in an actual discussion or are you going to whine and complain again?
And here we have faux obtuseness — pretending to not understand plain English.
When one has egg on one's face, just go for the intellectually dishonest tactics.
Okay, so you see belief as acceptance simply because someone made a claim.
Read @2.2.254:
This ⇡ is me offering a thoughtful reply to you. It is difficult to offer a thoughtful reply when dealing with intellectually dishonest tactics or common trolling.
Make a thoughtful / honest reply and posts like @2.2.254 will be seen from me.
If you can't see the analogy, nobody will be able to help you see that describing beliefs as irrational is not the same as calling people irrational.
Yes. Because of a (baseless) claim made or because of one's personal desire or opinion.
Indeed. And as we have seen, there are also those who hold irrational beliefs and are irrational themselves.
Yes, she did. She illustrated an example that is not extreme and showed a YEC belief wouldn't stop anyone from choosing the better surgeon in spite of their belief. In other words, what the YEC surgeon believed would not factor into the decision between which surgeon to choose.
The only thing the alternate situation you set up does is select for bias toward a belief unrelated to the actual question of which surgeon to pick, since both surgeons are equal in skill, indicating that what they believe about the age of the Earth is irrelevant.
Her example was extreme in that it offered no real choice. She compared a superb surgeon with a so/so surgeon. Note that my answer is that I would pick the superb surgeon who was a YEC. The difference in skills overrides the red flag.
Then I noted an example where we did not have a dramatic difference in skills.
Not an extreme (superb vs. so/so) skill differential. Now, pick. Do you see no relevant difference between a surgeon who, against all modern knowledge, believes the Earth is 6,000 years old and one who recognizes the planet is billions of years old?
Of course, you will claim that you have no concern. As long as the skills are there you are not concerned that the surgeon holds an irrational belief (if it is religious-based).
The whole point of the examples in this thread have been to illustrate that a profoundly irrational belief will of course raise a red flag.
And if you (I am confident you will to defend religious-based beliefs in principle) tell me that you really do not think that believing the Earth 6,000 years old is profoundly irrational then let's use a secular example that you will recognize:
If you find out that your doctor believes the planet is infested with intelligent exolife that is slowly taking over the bodies of human beings, would you continue to trust this physician with your health?
How about if you are choosing between two equivalent doctors but one believes the Earth is flat?
And here is another one (albeit religious based):
What if one of two equivalent doctors believes (Jehovah's Witness) that blood transfusions poison the soul?
The point is about a profoundly irrational belief (if you will honestly acknowledge anything being profoundly irrational) being a red flag about the rationality of the individual.
One can contrive all sorts of examples where additional factors override the severity of an irrational belief if one is trying to illustrate that there are situations where the red flag is not sufficiently significant. But that intentionally misses the point. "All other things considered equal ..." is rather important in these comparisons.
Her example showed that the issue would not be relevant, not that there would be no real choice. That was the point. The same goes with the one you thought more realistic.
No, I do not because there's no logical reason for choosing between equally skilled surgeons on such a basis. I do not see a difference between Kathleen's example and yours at all. A surgeon who's also YEC simply doesn't have any relevance unless you can demonstrate how being YEC would inform his medical decisions. I can't even hypothesize such an example, can you?
Now, imagine you wanted to hire a cartographer. Two people answer your ad. One is a Flat Earther. That would be an example where your concern would have relevance. You more or less state the same thing with the following.
No, I wouldn't trust that physician because what he believes directly impacts the issue. My medical care. That's entirely different and nothing like a YEC physician.
It wouldn't matter to me. How could it if both are equal? To think otherwise would be to reject the one simply because I don't like what he thinks and not because of his qualifications. Obviously his beliefs about the earth doesn't prevent him from being just as competent as the physician who believes the earth is a globe.
I'm assuming that you mean that one would therefore not give me a needed transfusion or some similar peculiarity of their religion. I would not use that doctor because I would not agree with his or her belief and the possible effect it could have on my health. But again, this isn't the same sort of example as Kathleen gave. This is an example where beliefs do impact the subject as opposed to what Kathleen illustrated.
Or the red flag is not significant or relevant under any circumstances given the subject. That is something you do not seem to recognize. While you may not believe a particular belief someone holds to be rational that doesn't mean the person themselves are irrational. That seems to be what you are promoting, though, no matter whether the belief is relevant to the subject.
Speaking for yourself, you've said that in the case of the surgeon, if the difference were great enough between the other surgeon, you'd go with the YEC surgeon in spite of you apparently considering him to be an irrational person on the whole. And don't say you don't because your illustration proves that you do. Between two equally skilled surgeons, the one that had a YEC belief would be a red flag to you, in spite of the fact they are equally skilled. Literally no medical difference between them. In both cases being YEC makes no difference whatsoever but to you it's a red flag. That seems irrational to me.
I knew you would stick to the 'does it affect me' angle as a way to side-step the point.
But that does not work. Here is why:
The profoundly irrational belief causes you to be concerned that it would affect the quality of the medical care the physician provides. So we have found an example of something that you consider to be a profoundly irrational belief that raises a red flag (aka a concern) with you about the physician as an individual providing medical care.
But you do not know if this doctor's beliefs will affect the care provided. S/he may hold this profoundly irrational belief privately and have no impact whatsoever on his/her care. You do not know if the belief matters yet you have a concern. Why do you have a concern? Because your trust in the physician has waned. That, Drakk, is and has been the point. All that you know is that this individual holds a profoundly irrational belief and that raised a red flag which caused you to question the individual's medical care.
You do not know that this impacts his/her medical care but you still have a concern due to the single profoundly irrational belief of which you know.
The point was that a profoundly irrational belief is a red flag on the rationality of the individual. A profoundly irrational belief causes concern about what else might be going on in the mind of the individual. Now I fully expect you to come back and claim that a belief in exolife infesting human bodies does not cause you to question the rationality of an individual holding that belief. I wonder if you can bring yourself to actually type that.
Addressing something you must have missed:
I will assume you just did not see where I have stated this. The presence of a profoundly irrational belief does not ipso facto mean the person is irrational. But it does raise a red flag; it causes a normal, reasonable individual to be concerned that this individual might not be rational.
Now on this oddity:
"Don't say you don't"??? Why would I say that I don't? I explicitly and immediately stated that I would go with the YEC. Why do you imply I would contradict myself when I willingly stated this upfront? Seriously, Drakk, what goes through your mind when you engage me?
Summary:
If a person holds a profoundly irrational belief (pick one that suits you), does that raise a red flag ... a question about the rationality of the individual? A concern that this individual might hold other profoundly irrational beliefs?
A profoundly irrational belief is one that contradicts well-founded modern knowledge (i.e. what most rational people would consider a hard, indisputable fact).
If the 'you' you are referring to in all of this is actually me and not the plural, general you, you have either not understood what I've said or distorted it intentionally. Same goes for the rest of your post if all the 'you's refer to me.
And this corrects what I said how? You yourself stated that two surgeons of equal competence and skill but one of which holds YEC beliefs would be a red flag for you, which can only mean a concern about his competency. That's completely irrational. You can only know the two are equally skilled and competent medically because of past performance. How does suddenly learning one of them is YEC change any of that? What? Do you think that because she's YEC she might suddenly decide to remove a pancreas because she believes the earth is only six thousand years old? Or that suddenly she's just going to make incompetent medical decisions at all because of them? On what basis?
What's more, it's irrational to say that you'd go with the YEC surgeon if he was sufficiently more skillful than the alternative, since the concerns of the red flag would still be there for you. All the arguments you provide about irrational beliefs don't go away simply because the surgeon has greater skill.
Seriously? That you don't stand by what you say. That what you say changes when I point out the fault in your reasoning. That you don't present my argument in it's true form until about thirty posts later when I've made it so obvious that you've misquoted me to the point even a blind person can see it. That when I make a point you can't dismiss you subtly or outright change the subject. That you can't recognize that an argument has two sides and instead characterize the other side's argument as a mischaracterization of yours rather than a completely different idea by itself.
So basically you tell me that I am wrong and do not explain why. A categorical dodge of my entire post. Interesting tactic.
Yes!! Glad you got at least that correct.
I said a concern about rationality. Many times. But the rationality certainly would cause a concern of competency too. My trust in the YEC physician is less than my trust in the non-YEC. Here I would go with the individual who has not demonstrated the ability to hold a profoundly irrational belief. Just like I would pick a physician who did not believe that little green martians are engaging in mind control of the population over one who did. Pick your example, should be easy to comprehend.
Because believing that the planet is 6,000 years old is a profoundly irrational belief. If someone can hold a profoundly irrational belief that raises a red flag with me; I lose confidence. So if I were choosing between two equal physicians (based on performance metrics), I would choose the one who did not also hold a profoundly irrational belief. Seems pretty darn reasonable to me.
How in the world could you possibly NOT see that I am standing exactly by what I stated? I am stating the same thing I stated before. I would choose the YEC in her example.
If a person holds a profoundly irrational belief (pick one that suits you), does that raise a red flag ... a question about the rationality of the individual? A concern that this individual might hold other profoundly irrational beliefs?
A profoundly irrational belief is one that contradicts well-founded modern knowledge (i.e. what most rational people would consider a hard, indisputable fact).
Forgot to address this (... even though I must be redundant again ...)
I explained this upfront. In a scenario where we have a super surgeon compared to a so/so surgeon I would make the choice to downplay my concerns about the YEC super surgeon. The concerns would still be there ... the red flag would still be there ... but the difference in skills is too great and that, in this specific example, would outweigh the concern. The details in a contrived example matter, Drakk. Just as I noted upfront.
Now I just wrote the same answer I gave upfront. What is the difficulty in understanding that?
Make the surgeons equivalent and the red flag now makes the decision — I would go with the one who did not believe our planet is 6,000 years old.
And do not forget this ... cannot wait to see your answer (doubt if it will ever come):
If a person holds a profoundly irrational belief (pick one that suits you), does that raise a red flag ... a question about the rationality of the individual? A concern that this individual might hold other profoundly irrational beliefs?
A profoundly irrational belief is one that contradicts well-founded modern knowledge (i.e. what most rational people would consider a hard, indisputable fact).
It was thoroughly explained in my second post to you.
Yes, I know. That's why I said competency rather than rationality or there's no point to it, right?
Obviously it is your opinion that it is. However, is it rational to base your choice between equally demonstrated skill and competence of two surgeons? My opinion is that makes as much sense as basing it on whether one surgeon likes lima beans or not.
So, it's rational to choose a YEC surgeon who is the best in her field in spite of her beliefs but it's rational to choose between equally competent and skilled surgeons based on those same beliefs, even though they are demonstratably indistinguishable professionally? Okay.
I already addressed all this in my second post to you. Go read it.
You do not believe, are convinced of or whatever way you want to put it, that God exists and is deserving of your devotion. I do not consider you very rational. Does that mean you can't be trusted to be competent in your profession? No. Not unless you attempted to be in some profession related to religion.
I wasn't referring specifically to this engagement. Your question was rather general so I replied in the same manner.
In any case, I can see this is going where it always goes, so, have a Merry Christmas. See you around, maybe.
No you did not. You are dodging (as I expected):
If a person holds a profoundly irrational belief (pick one that suits you), does that raise a red flag ... a question about the rationality of the individual? A concern that this individual might hold other profoundly irrational beliefs?
A profoundly irrational belief is one that contradicts well-founded modern knowledge (i.e. what most rational people would consider a hard, indisputable fact).
Didn't see this one but thought it deserved an answer. That answer is that what we would each consider 'a profoundly irrational belief' is unlikely to be the same concerning religious beliefs so there's no point in even getting started on it. We would not be starting from the same place.
My question was designed so that there was no issue on our differing views and had nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It was all focused on what YOU consider a profound irrational belief. Certainly you can come up with examples of beliefs that YOU would consider profoundly irrational.
I left it abstract on purpose. This is a probative question that intentionally does not have examples.
You continue to dodge.
(Sigh)
And.
But for beliefs that are relevant I stated...
Can you not see the difference between the first examples and the second set? In the first, what you object to has nothing to do with the surgeon's skill or competency. In the second, what the cartographer or the surgeon believes most certainly does.
As for the rest of your question, whether the person holds other 'irrational beliefs' would be unknowable. What? Will you interview everyone you conduct business with to determine their rationality? What if the atheistic surgeon believed that religious people were the major fault for the problems of the world? How would I know that? What if he thought it would be a great idea to eliminate the one's under his knife in undetectable ways or something?
What I think you are doing is trying to say people who you personally think hold irrational beliefs should not be considered rational people.
What a pathetic dodge. I was purposely abstract to avoid these pointless distractions and you go there anyway.
And instead of standing up and addressing the question, you queue up a bunch of quotes and continue with the baffle with bullshit game.
No. I have explicitly stated that is NOT the case.
If a person holds a profoundly irrational belief (pick one that suits you), does that raise a red flag ... a question about the rationality of the individual? A concern that this individual might hold other profoundly irrational beliefs?
A profoundly irrational belief is one that contradicts well-founded modern knowledge (i.e. what most rational people would consider a hard, indisputable fact).
Obviously you are not going to directly and honestly answer this question since you would then be directly addressing the point I made. Horror.
Of course. A dodge. Right. So, let's see what I was responding to, shall we?
So, your position appears to be that because a person has what you personally consider a 'profoundly irrational belief' it may mean that they have other 'profoundly irrational beliefs' as well. And that is enough. No fair determining whether the person actually does, whether they're actually irrational let alone profoundly or whether they actually have any relevance to the subject. Is that about it? It's simply enough that the person has one verifiable belief you consider 'profoundly irrational' and that justifies the rest.
Which led to my question, which you call a 'dodge.' What if your auto mechanic was a YEC? Goodness gracious! Best to assume the man is completely irrational and take your car somewhere else, in spite of the high reviews his business gets.
Nope. Rember my first reply?
So, really, if there's any bullshit here it's coming from you. If your decision to choose the non-YEC of two equally qualified, skilled and competent surgeon is because of a "concern that this individual might hold other profoundly irrational beliefs" then this must also be true of the YEC surgeon who is the superior surgeon in his field but you'd still go with anyway in spite of the fact that said surgeon is just as likely to "hold other profoundly irrational beliefs" as the YEC surgeon in the first example. Somehow, in your mind a sufficient percentage of difference allows you to ignore your concerns that the surgeon may be completely irrational. Yep, definition of rationality right there.
So, what's the percentage? Let's say one of the top two surgeons in a particular field, one of whom is a YEC, is going to do surgery on you. How much of a percentage point difference would there have to be before you'd pick the YEC surgeon? 3%? 10%? 30%? Would you feel like you're risking your life in selecting the YEC surgeon?
You see, the fact that you'd pick the YEC if he was the better surgeon tells me all I need to know about what we're talking about. That the fact he's YEC wouldn't actually be relevant to you but, rather, whether he was more competent and skillful than the other guy. The only reason you make it an issue when the skill levels are the same between two surgeons of equal skill and competence is that you're making a point based simply on your philosophical politics and not practical rationality. If you truly believed otherwise, you would not choose the YEC simply because she was the best surgeon. Your argument would remain the same for both situations. Since you don't that's called not putting your money where your mouth is.
Yes 'may mean' ... red flag. Profoundly irrational belief ⇒ question about rationality
You just cannot bring yourself to answer a direct question. Any analysis/review/confirmation/verification would be a result of the red flag.
I am not asking you what you would do if you had a red flag, I am asking you if there is a red flag.
No, Drakk, your entire post continues to dodge the question.
You continue to put on a baffle-with-bullshit show. Going back to your strawman examples and refusing the abstract question I have asked where the profoundly irrational belief is of your choosing and no examples from me.
Direct Question in the Abstract:
If a person holds a profoundly irrational belief (pick one that suits you), does that raise a red flag ... a question about the rationality of the individual? A concern that this individual might hold other profoundly irrational beliefs?
A profoundly irrational belief is one that contradicts well-founded modern knowledge (i.e. what most rational people would consider a hard, indisputable fact).
In Essence:
DOES A PROFOUNDLY IRRATIONAL BELIEF RAISE A RED FLAG?
This is a yes or no question.
Drakk, Tig never went to YEC, I did. I was the one who talked about Ben Carson. And yes, I don't understand how someone who studied DNA, can then deny that the earth is older than 6,000 years old, since in the DNA record, it shows that humans go back over 300,000 years. If you have a gripe with anyone, it is with me.
What Tig asked you, and you keep dodging and apparently this is a great tactic since your friends voted you up, is this:
That question has nada to do with YEC. Tig keeps making a point of asking you if there is ANY irrational belief. He even asks you to pick one of your choice. This is just an exercise in what you will or will not tolerate with rational thought.
I went to YEC too, as an example of a profoundly irrational belief. I think it is a fine example, but to avoid nonsense over whether or not the belief in a 6,000 year old Earth is profoundly irrational or applicable to care (as in surgeon) I have gone example-free and have now repeatedly asked a purely abstract question.
My question goes directly to the original point I made and avoids tangents via examples.
First, it's irrelevant whether anyone votes me up. Second, his question does not address the subject of the discussion but is, in fact, an attempted distraction.
The evidence.
At which point I make my first comment.
The point Kathleen was making was that regardless of whether or not TiG, or anyone else, believes about the rationality in YEC beliefs, it wouldn't stop someone from going to the better surgeon. That is the subject of this discussion. TiG actually proves Kathleen's point by agreeing that he would go with the better surgeon, in spite of the irrationality of the rest of his argument.
How is it irrational? Look at the question you both claim I'm dodging.
Regardless of what the answer is, even if TiG answers it himself, it still wouldn't stop TiG from choosing the better surgeon. Logically, then, one must conclude that simply holding what one thinks is a "profoundly irrational belief" is not actually a factor in choosing the surgeon unless that belief actually relates to the subject, which I point out in a subsequent post and repost when he falsely accuses me of not answering the question, as you can see in 2.2.294 .
Surgeon is YEC? What relevance does that have to the competency of the surgeon? None and is demonstrated by TiG saying he would choose him.
What relevancy does a Flat Earther have when you want to commission a map of the world? It is very relevant.
Everything I've said is obviously true and without stretching anything. What TiG is pissed about is that his actual goal is wanting to paint anyone with what he considers a "profoundly irrational belief" as unable to be trusted to be competent in anything but shoots down his own argument when he admits it doesn't actually matter when he'd choose the highly competent YEC surgeon over the so/so surgeon who believes the earth is a lot older. After all, the surgeon's YEC beliefs obviously didn't prevent him from being better than the so/so surgeon. Right?
So that's why I'm not going to give a simple yes or no to his question, because it misleads what the actual subject is, which I will remind you that whether or not one thinks another person's beliefs are 'profoundly irrational' doesn't mean anything concerning their ability to function rationally as a whole. This was the point Kathleen was making and the one TiG tried to twist into something else.
Bullshit Drakk. That is a blatant lie. I made my point and Kathleen responded. The point / subject is not hers, it is mine. My point was and is that a profoundly irrational belief raises a red flag.
I used examples to illustrate the point. The examples, as is true for all examples, were for clarity.
Kathleen took one of my examples and put in a special condition that forced one to pick the individual with the profoundly irrational belief. Instead of all things being equal, she imposed a condition of the doctor with the profoundly irrational belief being a super doctor whereas the other doctor was so/so.
My response was that I would pick the so/so doctor because the difference in skills outweighs the concern of the red flag.
I directly responded ⇡ to her example and even explained exactly why it does not test my point and you claim that I am the one doing the 'twist'.
Does Kathleen's scenario test the point that a profoundly irrational belief raises a red flag or does it twist it? If one is even remotely intellectually honest one would acknowledge that this and all of your variants are strawman arguments that do not address the actual point I made.
You repeatedly refuse to honestly stand up and address the point. The fact that you have spent all this effort posting deflection instead of answering a simple question that I have made absolutely clear illustrates without a doubt that you are yet again engaging in your usual game of theatrics rather than honestly facing a direct probative question.
Direct Question in the Abstract:
If a person holds a profoundly irrational belief (pick one that suits you), does that raise a red flag ... a question about the rationality of the individual? A concern that this individual might hold other profoundly irrational beliefs?
A profoundly irrational belief is one that contradicts well-founded modern knowledge (i.e. what most rational people would consider a hard, indisputable fact).
In Essence:
DOES A PROFOUNDLY IRRATIONAL BELIEF RAISE A RED FLAG?
This is a yes or no question.
Do you recall asking me the following?
Part of my response was...
You can't recognize when someone else is making their own point. The point she was making was not your point. It was her own point. That point was that your point was erroneous and she proved it when you said you'd take the better surgeon in spite of YEC beliefs. Two sides to an argument, TiG, but you don't operate on that principle, apparently.
In what way does it force one to pick the surgeon? It doesn't. What it actually does is force you to either stand by your point or abandon it as irrational. You think you solve the problem by posing something that changes the parameters but actually does no such thing. You propose that two equally skilled and qualified surgeons, one of whom is YEC would produce a different outcome. Well, for you it does but not a logical or rational one.
The reason your parameters don't actually work to support your point is this. Imagine you have two sets of surgeons.
You say that concerning B, you'd choose the surgeon that didn't hold the 'profoundly irrational belief' of YEC because who knows what other irrational beliefs that person holds? But this is a false criteria for making a rational, logical choice. This is because that criteria is just as true for the A surgeon. His level of skill and competence is irrelevant to your point. That is, if it applies to the B surgeon it must also apply to the A surgeon. If you really believed your own point then you wouldn't choose A, either.
Now, you can continue to claim that your point makes rational, logical sense when both surgeons are equal but you're deluding yourself. You are, in fact, only injecting what is mere bias and not rational, logical thinking. If being YEC actually affected the surgeon in any negative sense at all, then he wouldn't be equal in surgical practices to his non-YEC counterpart. Making decisions on a belief that has no connection whatsoever to surgery could hardly go undetected and so would not be the other surgeons equal. In fact, I doubt he'd even be a surgeon. Same goes for the "but what if he has other 'profoundly irrational beliefs?" Same thing. If they affected his medical profession it would be detected.
What's more, while the non-YEC surgeon may not hold that belief there is nothing to say he doesn't have other 'profoundly irrational beliefs' of his own, now does it? For all anyone knows he could be a Scientologist or we never landed on the moon type.
In short, if you believed your own point you'd never choose surgeon A because skill level wouldn't be a factor. With the B surgeons, since there is no difference between the two in medical competency you can afford to indulge your bias and fool yourself into thinking you're making a rational. logical decision when really you can just afford to exercise your bias.
No, it isn't. It depends on whether or not the belief is relevant to the subject, as I've repeatedly answered.
YEC surgeon? Not relevant to whether I go to her for surgery.
Flat Earther? Red flag if I'm looking for someone to make me a map of the world.
Don't know how I can make it more simple than that, TiG, but perhaps you find it entertaining to keep asking the same question over and over again. Have fun with that.
Yeah, for what good it will do. But thanks.
If you personally found someone with a belief that you considered to be profoundly irrational you would have no question whatsoever about that person's rationality?
If someone believed that the planet was infested with little green men from Mars who are silently taking over human bodies you would not see that as a red flag regarding their rationality ... a clue that something more might be amiss with this individual?
Bullshit.
Do you consider belief in a 6,000 year old Earth to be a profoundly irrational belief?
Do you consider belief that the Earth is flat to be a profoundly irrational belief?
§
If either of those are considered by you to be profoundly irrational beliefs, then answer this:
If someone came up to you and claimed (for example) that the Earth is flat (or the little green men ... scenario), would you see that as a red flag on their overall rationality? Would that cause you to wonder if this individual was all there?
One more time, it depends. In the example you give here I'm going to be more inclined toward a red flag given no more information. I would wonder what might such a belief cause such a person to do.
So, what about someone who believes we didn't land on the moon and he also happens to be a mechanic? He's never believed we have in all the years of his life, yet is record says he's an excellent mechanic. Why would I give him a red flag concerning maintenance on my truck? The rest of his life, unless that belief can be shown to actually negatively affect his performance in other areas?
Or perhaps that, 2,021 years ago a Jewish baby was born who would go on to heal the sick, raise the dead and die for our sins? How "profoundly irrational" is that belief? And what do you think of those who hold it? Can they be trusted to be scientists? Accountants? Astronauts? Waste management techs? Teachers? Parents?
I just produced one of the most ridiculous examples I could think of and you cannot bring yourself to admit that a belief in little green martians taking over human bodes is a profoundly irrational belief that would raise a red flag in your mind.
You can investigate all you want, Drakk, but before you investigate (ostensibly to be fair) you are telling me that this does not even raise a red flag with you.
How can you write such bullshit without being embarrassed?
I did not ask you that.
But note that you just used an example that I used early on when I was explaining that even with a red flag, it depends on the situation as to the weight of the red flag.
The red flag would be there, but it is not relevant in the situation at hand.
I have been asking you if the red flag appears. Hello?
Okay, Texan, then shall we all take that to mean that Drakk actually would answer my question as 'yes'?
Here is the question:
DOES A PROFOUNDLY IRRATIONAL BELIEF RAISE A RED FLAG?
Does Drakk answer 'yes'?
Seems to me that Drakk is trying to say that the answer depends on the specifics. But the question is about a belief that Drakk holds as a profoundly irrational belief. So regardless of the specifics, it would be the case that Drakk would be presented with a person holding a belief that Drakk personally considers to be profoundly irrational.
So when faced with a profoundly irrational belief, this does not raise a red flag until Drakk investigates? Bullshit. The mere fact that he considers it profoundly irrational is synonymous with a red flag.
No, I don't find it to be profoundly irrational, but I don't necessarily agree with it, either. What I would consider a profoundly irrational belief is that we're all unicorns but because the evil xtt'e of planet fffft have set the crystal of Queen Flappybottom in the heart of the earth, which makes us perceive ourselves as humans.
I wouldn't consider something like YEC as profoundly irrational because they actually have a rationale, something they can point to, for their belief. In the same way, I wouldn't call moon landing deniers profoundly irrational because they can point to reasons for their belief as well. I might find their reasons irrational but not profoundly so.
Yes, actually. That's one example I would consider profoundly irrational. It is simply too easy to prove that it is not flat.
You're probably going to claim I'm dodging the question again but, the answer is, it depends. If it were someone I just met, yes, I would wonder about their overall rationality until I got to know them better. For instance, if I happened to join a foursome I didn't know while playing golf and one of them waxed eloquent about how the earth is flat, I'd think he had a screw loose. If in subsequent conversation it was revealed that he was also a top flight, world class brain surgeon I would wonder how on earth such a person could hold such a belief, but I'd want him as my brain surgeon if I ever needed one, since his belief obviously doesn't interfere with the rational performance of his profession.
That is what I figured, moving to next example now.
Good!
Of course I am going to call out a dodge when you dodge. You are claiming that if someone walked up to you and claimed that the Earth is flat that you would not have even a notion that something might be awry with the wiring. No red flag at all?
I am not saying that the belief MEANS that the person is irrational. I am (and have been all along) saying that a profoundly irrational belief causes all of us to raise an eyebrow. Otherwise we would not consider the belief to be profoundly irrational.
Read @2.2.318
I have no desire to cherry-pick anything. My desire, and my intent, is to fight back against intellectual dishonesty.
I would prefer that Drakk simply answer my question: 'yes'. So clearly (think about it) I am not going to try to make it seem as though he is not answering my question truthfully. There is only one answer to my question. It was designed as such to prove a point. It is a probative question. There is no need for an example if Drakk considers the belief to be profoundly irrational. That is enough right there to honestly answer: 'yes'. It does raise a red flag.
My position has been the same from the start. The only reason we are in this long stream of nonsense is because of attempts to attribute to me a position that I have NOT taken and to ignore the position I HAVE taken.
If Drakk were to answer my question: 'yes', with no bullshit, just simply acknowledge that if he considers someone to hold a profoundly irrational belief that this alone means he would have a red flag about that person.
If anyone holds that someone has a profoundly irrational belief they will have a question about that individual.
There really is no debate here, Texan. This is about as obvious as it gets.
Use your brain. If Drakk answered my question 'yes' then I would have no objection.
Think more, troll less.
If you hold that someone has a profoundly irrational belief (you alone make the call) would that raise a red flag to you about the rationality of the individual?
Can you answer this question directly and honestly?
The only way I would not like his answer is if he did not answer 'yes'.
Hello? Truly how can you not see this? If Drakk answers my question 'yes' then I have no argument; all is well. That question IS the point I made when this all started.
Every time you are shown to be wrong you pull out that stupid card.
If you cannot handle being shown to be wrong then ensure you are right before you start typing.
Well I have not flagged you, so you must have been pretty busy elsewhere if you think you are up for suspension.
Um, yeah.
No, not in the sense you've been arguing. All sorts of people have irrational beliefs. Few of them hold profoundly irrational ones. But it doesn't automatically mean they can't otherwise live normal, rational lives. Of course, context matters. If I'm standing in line at the grocery store and one of the people there say they believe the earth is flat, it's not going to put up the sort of red flag you're talking about. Like, I have to suspect this person might be any more irrational than another person standing there I know nothing about. I mean, they're obviously rational enough to get to the store, dress to go to the store, have money to pay for what they're buying and all the other little clues to rationality.
But, if a homeless person comes up to me on the street and yells at me that the earth is flat while at the same time dragging a lead for a dog attached to a collar for a dog with no dog in it, then I'm going to have the sort of red flag moment you talk about. His flat earth belief, along with all the rest of the context, tells me this person is not very rational as a whole.
In any case, you've desperately dragged this down to stupid so, I think I'm done now. Better things to do and all that.
I have never suggested otherwise. Not once.
If someone in the line states the Earth is flat will you or will you not raise an eyebrow; would it cross your mind that something might be wrong with this person's ability to think rationally?
If that is truly how you see things then I suggest that you do not consider the flat Earth belief to be profoundly irrational. Seems you need more to hit the level of profoundly irrational.
After all, if you walked over to someone and told them that that guy over there has a belief that you consider to be profoundly irrational, surely you see that this ipso facto has raised a red flag. If not, you would not have considered it profoundly irrational.
Stated differently, if someone has a belief that I consider to be irrational, that does not cause me to suspect the individual is irrational. Why? It is because, as you noted, people routinely hold irrational beliefs. Irrationality is part of normal behavior.
But profoundly irrational was intentionally defined to cross the line. This is a belief that goes against that which is held as an obvious fact by virtually all rational human beings. I personally cannot see how anyone could NOT question the rationality of someone who literally believes the Earth is flat. That belief alone is so over-the-top nutty how could that not cause one to raise an eyebrow in response?
Now that is some major league projection on your part Drakk. You finally get to the point where you are actually discussing the point that I raised way back early in this thread and you have the temerity to say I am the one who has degraded the discussion.
Have you no shame anymore?
If you make absurd comments and engage in trolling, expect to be called out on same.
Texan, give it up. You claimed that Drakk answered my question 'yes' but that I am twisting his words because I do not like his answer.
I told you (as if this was not utterly obvious) that I expect an answer of 'yes' to the question I asked. An answer of 'yes' means I have no objection.
Your allegation makes no sense; it is logically flawed; it is confused; it shows that you did not spend sufficient time thinking it through.
Easy remedy. Think about what you write before you start typing. You can take that as condescending all you wish, but I am suggesting that if you do not make ridiculous allegations like you did, there would be no reason to show you to be wrong.
I will remind you that you interjected yourself into this thread and the preponderance of your comments have been sarcastic snark. It is not the case that you were in a long thread with someone and I interjected and made trollish comments along the way.
Do you think anyone (being objective and honest) would NOT find your allegation laughable?
Spot on! That is perfect for this thread.
Beliefs seem to have different degrees of irrationality. Someone simply saying "I believe this..." and they acknowledge its just a belief (closer to opinion) without anything objective to support it, that would be the weakest degree of an irrational belief. Such beliefs generally do not raise a red flag and say little or nothing about the rationality of the individual. Although, the actual belief being expressed should be taken into consideration. By contrast, when someone uses a profoundly irrational belief like flat earth, YEC, or equivalents, that would be very strong degrees of irrational beliefs and does raise a red flag. It might be more indicative of the the individual being mor irrational in general too. That is not to say they are completely irrational, but they might be at a greater chance of being so. It's a weak correlation, but noticeable and may warrant concern.
Excellent
I think the most irrational beliefs are those where well established facts contradict the belief.
A general belief in the supernatural is an example of a belief for which there is no persuasive evidence but, then again, there is no evidence suggesting this cannot be.
Contrast that with a belief in a flat Earth or a 6,000 year old Earth. This is profoundly irrational because it goes against a level of knowledge so well founded that we consider it essentially truth. It is essentially truth that the Earth is NOT flat and is billions of years old.
Interestingly, Dr. Ben Carson (the world-renowned surgeon) believes that human beings are not the result of evolution but were directly created.
Go figure. When I found that out, a red flag appeared for me. How can someone study so much biology and yet reject that which has a preponderance of cross-discipline highly corroborated evidence? Especially with our modern knowledge of DNA.
Amazing, is it not?
I agree. You put it much more eloquently than I. While profoundly irrational beliefs raise a red flag, how a believer of any particular belief reacts when their belief is challenged or even called out as false is probably more indicative of their general level of rationality or irrationality.
Tell me about it. I would have not predicted gross intellectual dishonesty from believers (since typically they are taught to be able to defend their beliefs ... presuming the defense would be honest) but after years of this stuff I am sorry to say that such is the norm in my experience.
Indeed. It is actually a very good example of irrationality too.
The focus of science is to try to understand reality.
Modern physics illustrates clearly that we cannot trust our intuition. Concepts that seem unquestionably true have been shown to be not as we thought.
Consider the empirically proven notion of superposition where a particle does not actually exist at a particular state but rather simultaneously exists across all states and the notion that this particle does not even have a single location but rather an infinite number of locations at various levels of probability.
And then extend this to us (since we are simply aggregations of quantum particles). We are all fluctuating with fuzzy particles yet we do not see this at our scale largely due to gravity bringing all that blurry quantum mechanics into a focus for us.
This is the tip of the iceberg of the counterintuitive reality in which we live. Our reality is but an illusion.
I suspect the true physics of the universe is not 'learning' or 'changing' but rather that our understanding is simply evolving. Our ignorance of the uber-complex reality in which we live is far more likely, IMO, than the notion that the underlying truth of reality is changing.
So basically we are buzzing, floating, quarks.
what's the smallest unit of matter discovered so far...cause that's what we are
We have yet to find anything to which a quark reduces. Thus the quark is currently the most elementary of known substances.
That's what I thought but I wasn't sure. Back in 1983 when I took physics in college I think the smallest particle was still an electron
Electrons, neutrinos and photons are smaller and are considered fundamental too.
Note that we are at a bizarre level where we are talking about packets of energy that are, in a sense, both particles and waves. Intuition, at this level, does not work.
I remember how important electrons were when I took my chemistry classes
They are the workhorses which manifest energy as we know it at our level of abstraction.
Well, some of us are quarkier than others, don't you think?
BTW, at the particle level, most of our bodies are empty space.
That is true even at the atomic level.
The space that our bodies do occupy is mostly water too.
Yep, that's my excuse on the bathroom scale.
The point is that with sexy physics size matters.
We may be too small to see the big picture. There may be mega-scale physics that we haven't considered yet. And as the universe expands that mega-scale physics could be changing and influencing our tiny slice of the universe. How would we know?
We would not know unless there were unexplained effects and even then the best we could state is: 'we do not know why this is happening, but it is happening'.
There are plenty of things that we cannot explain. Best to stick with: 'working on it' rather than simply invent a truth.
Curse you atomic mass of H2O.
You mean, like this:
I thought about seeding this article but perhaps you would like to host the discussion?
Wish I could go to the doctor and have a mole removed.
(That one deserves a
)
You should seed it if it appeals to you.
I blame it all on carbon.
Isn't that always the case with Science?
Something is "proven" scientifically....that someone proves that the original concept has flaws (if not being totally incorrect)...and they they Scientifically prove the way it actually is.
I was going to say that religion is different-- the teachings are the word of God and therefore never change.
But there are some exceptions. For example IIRC what the pope says is considered infallible.
Well, until another Pope comes along with a new dogma, over-ruling the previous Pope's ruling.
That may be true in some religions (or some denominations of some religions-- but not so in others).
Science does not prove truth, but it can prove falsehood (ergo falsifiability).
Ya gotta love the scientific method.
Our entire universe is nothing but a virus that is deep in the nasal cavity of an immense god who has no resemblance to the image of man. You think the laws of physics are changing? Just wait until he sneezes.
I thought we were inside some kid's marble?
Your universe maybe.
Fine! I live in a marble and your universe is destroyed in one sneeze! LOL!
Ah yes ..... the MIB theory ......
Yet God said He created us in His image.
Any chance you can link the audio on that? Was he caught on a hot mic at some point, perhaps when he was on the Hollywood Access bus?
Or provide a shred of evidence? I'm guessing no on both accounts.
Which god?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the one true god, of course. RAMEN!
It's no different than saying crap like "god exists" or something like that.
May his noodles always be al dente.
My question is usually good for driving xxxjeff.. away. He responds with "there is only one god", which is when I ask him what the 1st Commandment is. He usually disappears after that exchange.
I prefer the old testament FSM ..... UDON!
Don't forget the Holy Trinity...The Noodle, The Sauce, and The Meatball
Perhaps we're not in a nasal cavity at all. Maybe it's just a marinara soaked divot on the side of a meatball. Gotta love the steamy-gooey embrace of those wonderful pasta tentacles. Can I get a Raman?
I can go for some udon.
Raman!
Let's think about this for a sec. You consume the marinara soaked divot then the next day you expel it. What kind of God is that?
Don't muddle up my religion with facts.
LOL!
Now this is a theological discussion that sounds fun.
You're not expelling it. You're just making room for more
Ah, yes...the Left Behind Holy Trinity aka leftovers
I hear it can be quite...tribulating.
<snicker>
Stop your blaspheming! All hail angel hair!
Challenging a claim is not the same as belittling it.
Do you not read so many of your own responses?
But that is a statement of purpose. That statement says why God created us; it's not about how God created us.
Evolution does not provide a purpose for us being here. The why is as important, if not more important, than the how.
How is invoking the FSM belittling or trolling? It's no different than invoking God. They're both equally valid.
If you can't answer the question, just say so. At least that would be honest.
Been there, done that, he won't.
If you can't answer or explain, then your statement is just BS!
Indeed. Notice how the question remains unanswered? Just a lot of skirting around it.
And now he is at the point where he claims that he answered it, but will refuse to show where that answer is in any of his replies.
Exactly.
Claiming you can answer, but don't actually provide an answer to the question posed, is not answering. It's avoiding the question. Perhaps I need to repeat the question for you.
Here's the question again: how is invoking the FSM belittling or trolling?
Saying you can answer or saying what's the point isn't an answer. It's a cop out.
Which is a non answer. You're trying to avoid answering. So your "answer" is just FOS.
He claims you're belittling others beliefs by using the FSM as a comparison to their believed in deity. In reality he is belittling the zealous FSM believers by claiming their beliefs must be a joke belittling other believers because of how silly it sounds.
So basically he's calling Pastafarian's a "joke" meant to ridicule believers and essentially calling them crazy for believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster while refusing to accept that his beliefs, like man walking on water, talking snakes and donkeys, resurrections, sun standing still or the virgin birth, sound just as crazy to others.
Still dodging the question I see.
He can't even explain how I'm belittling anyone. He simply says he could tell me but that I can't see how or what's the point, as if that's supposed to be an answer to the question I asked. That's like a kid being asked a question by a teacher and responding "I can tell you but what's the point. You can't see it on your own." Did the kid actually answer the question? Of course not. The kid proved he's FOS and would probably be given a failing grade.
Thanks, but I didn't sneeze.
I didn't "speak for you", you said "the difference as me not needing to belittle someone else's beliefs" thus you were claiming he was "belittling" others beliefs with his comparison to the FSM. Are you saying that isn't what you said?
Then I characterized your statement as doing exactly the same thing as you claim he was doing, belittling FSM believers, which you did. What makes your beliefs any more valid or believable than someone else's belief in the FSM?
[Deleted]
Not to worry-- I've heard that Pfizer is working on a drug to fix that!
Problem is, it's an infinite dose regime .....
Humma Kavula!
We still haven't discovered the "Theory of Everything".
Even with a theory of everything (solving the quantum gravity problem), we would not have figured everything out. I suspect we are just scratching the surface of true reality.
I don't think we'll ever have it all figured out. Once you solve one problem a deeper, more complex problem presents itself...when we're talking the science of physics
I agree. It is funny how science has nailed the behavior of quantum mechanics (can predict the behavior at the quantum level better than in any other area of science) yet we remain mystified at what is going on underneath. Once we crack that level who knows what kind of counterintuitive behavior will be found?
Crack one level only to discover another level? And perhaps another and another....
That is what I would expect.
Consider this-- what if we never figure everything out?
(Perhaps it is God's will that mere mortals never figure everything out.
But of course OTOH, maybe......???
Pretty sure we will never figure out everything.
But we'll damn sure as hell try. Science is funny like that.
But they are working on it.. You can bet your bippy they have a theory....
The theory of which you allude is scientific speculation. Although it is called theory, it is technically not a bona fide theory of science since it is unfalsifiable. However, String Theory is the leading speculation towards a unified theory based on mathematical extrapolation of modern physics.
Isn't the word "theory", by definition, something that has not been proven?
(Because if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt-- then it wouldn't be called a "theory", but would instead be called "a fact"???)
Ah-- no wonder no one really understands it!
No theory of empirical science can ever be proven true, by definition. There is always the allowance for future evidence to falsify every theory.
It is intensely abstract.
"Theory" in scientific talk means something different than it does in layman speak.
Scientific "theory" is as good as it gets.
Indeed. How often have we heard someone say "it's just a theory?"
Gravity is just a theory.
We know gravity exists, but the how and why is what still eludes us. Einstein felt that gravity was from mass warping time and space causing a falling towards each other, but what is it about mass that causes that to happen? Science is looking towards the quantum existence of the gravity particle or string theory, but what about a mass that is moving near the speed of light causing the warp of time and space and all atoms have them, electrons.
But I have cracked the code of the "Theory of Everything Bagel"... "Yum...".
Don't forget the cream cheese :p
That's not a real bagel...its a "Theoretical Bagel"!
But I was wondering ,is that bagel actually a bunch of particles-- or is it actually merely a bunch of waves!
Any good Hindu could tell you its all about maya...the physical Universe is an illusion.
Yes-- on one level the entire Universe is "Fake News" if you will...
What Cream Cheese? Don't you realize that Cream Cheese is an illusion -- it doesn't exist!
Here's an article about Metaphysics I found on CNN (although it was mischaracterized as "CNN Business" it should've been filed under "CNN String Theory"...or at least "CNN Quantum Physics":
:
Is that a Big Bang bagel?
What? [slaps forehead] Silly me. The Everything Bagel fooled me.
I don't know, but it does look good.
If you look carefully, with those red onions sticking out the sides, it does kind of look like a galaxy...
I was told by Philly not to use cream cheese this year.
I thought it was 42. It's not 42? There's 40 years of math shot to hell.
42 is the answer to everything
And here I thought it was 69.
I think I need a joint for all of this...
that will definitely expand your inner universe... last time I burned the flower, I couldn't get off the couch for 2 hours.
It would help me that's for sure
Have you ever ordered from the world famous Russ and Daughters -- that a great joint for these sorts of things!
At night as I watch the city lights a few miles away "twinkle", how, exactly, does that tiny invisible speck of energy called a proton propagate through space to produce an image on my optic nerve? And how can it propagate through millions of light years of space apparently unchanged
It never encountered anything that absorbed its energy until it hit your eyeball.
Earth's atmosphere makes a star appear to "twinkle".
Yes, that is how we distinguish planets from stars with the naked eye.
I think you mean a photon. It is emitted from a source and travels until is reflected off of something or absorbed. Photons bouncing off an object is what forms the image on your retina, which the brain interprets. Thanks to telescopes like the Hubble, we can see light which has traveled from the most distant galaxies, not long after the Big Bang. That is both amazing and humbling.
This conversation usually turns into a circle jerk. It’s still not that complicated IMO.
I don’t try to use science to answer questions of faith and vice versa. Attempting to do so is a fools errand.
Nothing more
Who does? Who do you know that attempts to determine the existence or inexistence of a sentient creator using science? Have you ever seen a God hypothesis?
The 'proof' for the existence of a sentient creator always come from religious philosophy. Arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, etc. Pure philosophy, not empirical science.
So, again, who uses science to answer questions of faith? What would be an example of how someone would even do that?
Are you thinking about comparing faith-based claims to well-founded facts? Something like a claim of a 6,000 year old Earth? Is that what you mean by using science to answer questions of faith?
Everyone who needs proof to prove the (by definition) unprovable.
No need to disagree, I know you do. As I do with you.
Why is that science? Why is that not basic logic?
If someone makes a claim of truth, that claim bears the burden of proof. That is basic logic. Challenging a claim of truth by asking for proof (or at least persuasive evidence) is not science, it is logic.
Where does the science part come in?
Is the existence of God 'unprovable'? If God can do anything, wouldn't he be able to prove he exists?
Science attempts to study what exists through repeatable and verifiable testing. If God exists then science should eventually be able to measure that existence even if today we lack the tools or ability. Even a tiny imperceptible speck of dust on the vast ocean can be confirmed to exist if we had the right measuring devices, even the smallest particles in the universe that we know of, quarks, are measurable. God, if it is as described and defined by man, must exist somewhere other than in the realm of 'faith' unless God exists only as an idea in mans head. If God only exists in human minds then it still can have power like any fictional character can, that while not real in any true sense of the word, can inspire and empower simply by the idea of them. There is no measurable quark in the entire universe (that we know of) that proves batman exists, yet there are countless tales of how Batman has effected tens of thousands of people lives.
So if God exists only in faith and thus is 'unprovable' but exists in peoples minds that inspire and empower them to be good, to be better, then I completely support their choice to believe. But just like a batman fan that knows Batman isn't actually real and aren't going to go jump off a building thinking either batman will save them or that they are batman and will somehow fly with their flimsy plastic costume, hopefully those of faith recognize that the point of their faith is supposed to be making them into better people, more humble, more kind, more like their supposed hero, not bitter and angry with those who may laugh at them as they run around the neighborhood in their underoos.
You know why few if any ever confront superhero fans telling them their superhero isn't real? Because there are few if any superhero fans confronting others telling them they are dirty sinners unless they convert to 'Marvel-ism' and all must worship Professor X that they swear exists and is running some invisible school for super mutants that science can't find because it only exists in the very real invisible world of 'faith'...
So worship anyway you want, set an example by being a better person by emulating your ideal, God, Jesus, Deadpool, Superman, whoever inspires you to be better. Spend your time and energy setting that example, so far that appears to be the only way that things that only exist in the realm of faith are able to make real change in the real world. Faith without works is dead. A believer spending their time trying to prove their superhero is real is a fools errand. A believer proving their faith without words but with action, setting an example and being a better, kinder human while remaining humble is an example worth following. And accepting that everyone else's faith, everyone else's superhero is just as likely and just as valid as their own will prevent any uncomfortable confrontations.
There are many arguments over the meaning of 'day'. You have cited one of the Old Earth Creationist arguments.
I never could see that given the context of how day is used. Let me illustrate through example:
Note the contextual words in blue. As you know this pattern of evening, morning, day continues.
Also note this part:
Frankly I do not see how anyone can read these words and find a way to reasonably deem day, as used in this context, to mean anything other than the 24 hour cycle with morning and evening and the light from the sun and the moon.
On this point, if 1 day = 1,000 days then that would translate a 6,000 biblical year Earth into a 6,000,000 actual year Earth. Off by an order of magnitude. So even with that stretch, the math does not work. To be correct, each biblical day would have to be 75,716 actual days. And then, (see above), this still contradicts the blue.
That would put the age of the Earth at 2.19 billion years. Halfway there now.
Still, this makes no sense when you look at the actual words used in the text and the context with evening, morning. See @11.2.5
My own belief is that it shouldn't really matter all that much to the believer. It is commonly believed by Christians that the Bible was inspired, not dictated, by God. Our understanding is that the Holy Spirit moved the writers to write what they did, He worked through the personality and understanding of the person. This is why various books in the Bible don't all sound the same. They bear the personality and character of the person the Holy Spirit used to write what they did.
Given that, and further, given what the creation account was intended to communicate, it isn't too surprising the account doesn't read like a science text. Concepts the writer could not possibly know or even have a frame of reference for couldn't do otherwise. The point, I believe, is not only was God as creator depicted but that what He had created was good in every aspect. This was the idea on the writer's mind, not science.
Detractors like to point out that not only is the YEC timeline scientifically unsupportable but the sequence of events are out of order. Perhaps, according to science, it is but this ignores something rather remarkable in spite of that. First, that there was a beginning, which went against what was assumed to have been an eternal existence until Hubble came along and, also, that one thing preceded another, whether it was out of order or not.
Speaking for myself, I don't hold an opinion on either a young or old earth. There's no need to and doing so would make no difference in my passage through this world. Choosing one or the other wouldn't change a thing. So, I figure I'll just wait until I see Jesus and ask him. Beyond that, I think it's pointless to argue over.
Yes. It's why I seldom get involved in such a discussion beyond what I have said to you.
I understand but, at the risk of being censored, it may be more than simply living life in a better way. If there really is a God out there and He actually wants something from you, simply trying to find something that allows you to live what you consider a better way may miss the mark.
I've watched you on here for a long time. You're a very gentle and kind soul. You're probably the best of us when it comes to engaging others without malice or ill will. By far. Because of that, I've always been amazed that you aren't a Christian (assuming I've understood past comments correctly.)
As have I, but I think I've learned a lot about myself as well.
How is this 'my way'?
The Earth is ~4.5 billion years old. That is not 'my way', it is a fact.
And the calculations I performed were using the numbers you supplied.
And, finally, the quotes I provided are directly from the Bible. I did not write those words.
So what part of this is 'my way'?
Exactly. The authors were ancient men looking at the sky, looking at the soil and expressing a belief/story based on what they could extrapolate from what they could perceive with only their human senses and minds.
The key here is that the Bible should not be taken as fact. There should be no debate on the length of a day in an attempt to try to fit ancient words into our modern understanding of reality.
Just recognize the book was written by ancient men and thus cannot be reasonably held to be divine truth.
You don't?? Drakk, you do not hold that the Earth is billions of years old?? You see nothing factually wrong with the belief our planet is only 6,000 years old?? You have no opinion on this??
I find that hard to believe. Why would you write something like that?
That isn't necessary, either. You are going off of one interpretation of the Biblical account of creation. There are others.
TOP TEN Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism - YouTube
Then what are you saying?
In every case, we are talking about ancient men writing words. Best I can tell, you effectively stated the same basic notion:
If you truly meant what you wrote then you necessarily hold that the Bible cannot be taken as divine truth.
Please clarify.
I am not sure what point you are making with this. I agree that the YEC views are generally nutty and contradictory.
Makes me wonder again how you can have no opinion on whether the Earth is 6,000 or 4.5 billions years old.
Believe what you will, TiG.
I would like to believe what is true. If I am reading you wrong why do you not simply make the correction?
What is the point of making vague comments? If you have something to say then state it.
I expect that this latest cryptic comment is you telling me I am on ignore. If blinders makes you feel better then that is your option, but that has no impact on my responses.
What is the point of being so vague, Kathleen? Do you have something you wish to communicate? If not, why did you reply to me?
How could I possibly hope to correct your 'misunderstanding' when your response to this...
... was to ignore it and instead simply go with...
You completely ignored the first paragraph, as if I never wrote it, in order to write...
Why would I waste my time trying to correct someone who is intentionally doing something so disingenuous? I mean, even in the quote mined example you use to make your point you have to ignore the very first two words in the quote. "Given that..." Given what? The first paragraph.
So, what point trying to correct you?
What is the point of continuing to hound her? [delete]