The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-12-2017, 08:47 AM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 08:34 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  
(19-12-2017 07:49 AM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  I don't think that this is what religion does. I don't think that it is what it is intended to do. It certainly isn't something that I do with religion. Your description of religion is a strawman.

Don't be dense. Of course this is what religion does. It is an essential component of any religion that suggests an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being or beings as a creator or creators of the universe.

Strawman. There are only a handful of zany Creationists who are actually trying to use religion as a way to understand the natural world. The rest of us use science to understand science.

I sometimes have passionate arguments with myself that almost come to blows.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2017, 08:51 AM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 08:44 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(19-12-2017 05:23 AM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  

Do you understand that when you say stuff like this, what you're saying at root is that you've never felt the need to use reason to understand religion. Because science is the consistent application of reason to the task of understanding what we observe.

I think that you are conflating reason with science. We certainly apply reason to science, but we apply reason to other things as well.

I sometimes have passionate arguments with myself that almost come to blows.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2017, 09:10 AM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 08:51 AM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  
(19-12-2017 08:44 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Do you understand that when you say stuff like this, what you're saying at root is that you've never felt the need to use reason to understand religion. Because science is the consistent application of reason to the task of understanding what we observe.

I think that you are conflating reason with science. We certainly apply reason to science, but we apply reason to other things as well.

Yes I am, in general terms. Without reason there is no science. All applications of reason are science. The special sciences apply reason to specific areas of study such as physics. Metaphysics is the science that studies the the fundamental nature of the universe including questions such as the relationship between subject and object of consciousness which identifies the distinction between the real and the imaginary. We use the science of epistemology to study the nature of knowledge and how it is acquired. Ethics is the science that studies the values required by man's nature for his proper flourishing. These are sciences in the general sense of reason applied to the task of knowing. They don't involve test tubes and rats in a cage but that's because they deal with the readily observable facts. Once we get beyond the readily observable facts to higher and higher level inference, that's when we need the test tubes.

We can not apply reason to understanding "the supernatural" because it violates those readily observable facts that reason rests on, namely the axioms and the primacy of existence. Religion is outside the realm of reason which places it in the realm of the imagination.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
19-12-2017, 09:18 AM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 03:33 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  An interesting paper on how the work by creationist "geologists" to prove the Flood happened, actually proves quite the opposite.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Flood%20geology.pdf

As my academic background is in earth sciences I've always found it profoundly idiotic for anyone to claim the Genesis Flood occurred, let alone those who purport to have studied geology and call themselves geologists.

I was taught Torah is truth. If we can see and demonstrate that something is true in the natural world and it doesn't match what we understood in Torah, then we misunderstood the Torah. The Earth shows evidence of being millions and millions of years old, yet it does not show evidence of a global flood in that time frame. The story of Noah is then just a parable, and there's no reason to force a false narrative into our science studies.

I agree with a previous post that Torah and science don't need to be studied together at all, but if they are, you have to take at least one of them* with a grain of salt.



*To be clear, the one of them I was referring to was the bible. You take the bible with a grain of salt. Tongue

My strategy of ignoring my problems until they disappear never seems to work out for me. ...I'll try to get around to dealing with that in the near future.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Aliza's post
19-12-2017, 09:22 AM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 09:10 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(19-12-2017 08:51 AM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  I think that you are conflating reason with science. We certainly apply reason to science, but we apply reason to other things as well.

Yes I am, in general terms. Without reason there is no science. All applications of reason are science. The special sciences apply reason to specific areas of study such as physics. Metaphysics is the science that studies the the fundamental nature of the universe including questions such as the relationship between subject and object of consciousness which identifies the distinction between the real and the imaginary. We use the science of epistemology to study the nature of knowledge and how it is acquired. Ethics is the science that studies the values required by man's nature for his proper flourishing. These are sciences in the general sense of reason applied to the task of knowing. They don't involve test tubes and rats in a cage but that's because they deal with the readily observable facts. Once we get beyond the readily observable facts to higher and higher level inference, that's when we need the test tubes.

We can not apply reason to understanding "the supernatural" because it violates those readily observable facts that reason rests on, namely the axioms and the primacy of existence. Religion is outside the realm of reason which places it in the realm of the imagination.

You had me at 'Yes I am'. Then you went on to talking about science. But when you shifted to religion in your last paragraph, you also shifted your terminology to 'reason', and declared that we can't use reason to understand it. That is not true. Religious people accept certain axioms as being true. They apply these axioms to their understanding of religion, and they don't apply them to science. In science, we accept certain axioms as true, and we don't apply them to religion. In my opinion, that doesn't present me with a paradox that I must resolve.

I sometimes have passionate arguments with myself that almost come to blows.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2017, 09:36 AM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 08:47 AM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  
(19-12-2017 08:34 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  Don't be dense. Of course this is what religion does. It is an essential component of any religion that suggests an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being or beings as a creator or creators of the universe.

Strawman. There are only a handful of zany Creationists who are actually trying to use religion as a way to understand the natural world. The rest of us use science to understand science.

Here you are cherry-picking.

The "zany Creationist" accepts more of what a particular holy book claims about the universe than you do.

Do you subscribe to a belief that an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being is responsible for the existence of our universe? If so, then you are not using science. You are using a religious belief to explain the universe.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2017, 09:49 AM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 09:36 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  
(19-12-2017 08:47 AM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  Strawman. There are only a handful of zany Creationists who are actually trying to use religion as a way to understand the natural world. The rest of us use science to understand science.

Here you are cherry-picking.

The "zany Creationist" accepts more of what a particular holy book claims about the universe than you do.

Do you subscribe to a belief that an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being is responsible for the existence of our universe? If so, then you are not using science. You are using a religious belief to explain the universe.

I am not cherry picking. I believe that their was a flood, just as much as the zany Creationists do.

I sometimes have passionate arguments with myself that almost come to blows.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2017, 10:10 AM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 09:49 AM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  
(19-12-2017 09:36 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  Here you are cherry-picking.

The "zany Creationist" accepts more of what a particular holy book claims about the universe than you do.

Do you subscribe to a belief that an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being is responsible for the existence of our universe? If so, then you are not using science. You are using a religious belief to explain the universe.

I am not cherry picking. I believe that their was a flood, just as much as the zany Creationists do.

Heartened you agree that a belief in the flood is "zany".

I also assume that you agree that you subscribe to a belief that an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being is responsible for the existence of our universe? Can you confirm this?

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2017, 10:12 AM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
The biblical flood is how Creationists (and apparently a few other nuts Rolleyes ) explain the Grand Canyon. It's insane. If the flood caused the Grand Canyon there should be grand canyons everywhere.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
19-12-2017, 10:14 AM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 10:10 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  
(19-12-2017 09:49 AM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  I am not cherry picking. I believe that their was a flood, just as much as the zany Creationists do.

Heartened you agree that a belief in the flood is "zany".

I also assume that you agree that you subscribe to a belief that an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being is responsible for the existence of our universe? Can you confirm this?

What is zany is their attempt to use science to prove religious things. Like I keep saying, I use religion to understand religion and science to understand science, and mixing the two is zany.

I sometimes have passionate arguments with myself that almost come to blows.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: