Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An alternative, admittedly speculative view of YEC

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
    and where did I ever state such a thing oh fabricating Beagle?

    Sorry if announcing the defeat of your Methodological naturalism philosophies has your underwear all wedgied up but it is what it is or you can actually make an effective refutation (well I mean if you could)
    Stinky,

    Methodological Naturalism is THE philosophy of science.

    Being that you're an ignorant fool, you probably meant Ontological (or Philosophical) Naturalism.

    Now to get some Febreze...

    Comment


    • #17
      Thanks for the welcome, although we've seen in this thread already the reason why I'm just passing through.

      And far from being designed to give a false impression, I agree fully that the wonders of creation proclaim God's handiwork and are reason to believe. Those who reject the world's Creator are without excuse. I'm just saying that from a purely observational perspective, both options are open, and God has done what is necessary to avoid completely slamming shut the door to a naturalistic explanation, so as to ensure that our trust in God is anchored on faith and not solely because there was no other option. Anyone, believer or unbeliever, could look at this world and conclude it is just too incredible to arise by chance, I just don't think God wants anyone to look at this world and conclude that the evidence proves it couldn't arise in any other way than by a Creator's hand. But creating a world where no evidence will ever be found that absolutely proves the naturalistic theory of origins is incorrect will by default be one that seems to strongly support a naturalistic origin, if for no other reason than that reason prefers the non-miraculous explanation, and the deductive principles of science only work efficiently if you rule out the miraculous by default.
      Imagine the world's origins are a jigsaw puzzle. If you put it together correctly, and I think in the most beautiful, reasonable way, it will give you a picture of God, its Creator. But there's always another way to fit the pieces together. And God intended that to be the case. Maybe you have to pound them in place occasionally to make them fit, but they fit. And eventually, when scientists have found a way to fit together thousands and thousands of pieces without finding a single piece that rules out naturalism and can't possibly fit (other than a few anomalous pieces that are just thrown away), they think they have proven their reconstruction is the right one. And mankind's confidence in that reconstruction grows until people are looked at as if they are idiots when they suggest there might be a different answer, one that only requires that you do not begin with the assumptions of naturalism.
      Creation proclaims its Creator, and sometimes God graciously peels back the veil to show his children things they had no right to demand to see, but absolute proof for all the world to see would not serve God's purposes.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        My apologies for singling this out to address to the exclusion of the rest, but Scripture informs us that "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge" (Psalm 19:1-2). And in Romans 1 Paul informs us that we are held accountable by the evidence provided through an examination of nature. Are you saying that this evidence is deliberately designed to give a false impression?

        And welcome to Tweb.
        Omphalos...?

        If so, the YEC apologists have been there, done that, and most have rejected it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post

          Methodological Naturalism is THE philosophy of science.

          Being that you're an ignorant fool, you probably meant Ontological (or Philosophical) Naturalism.
          No I meant Methodological Naturalism and it is demonstrably wrong as an explanation for all of reality

          I wouldn't expect a fool to realize it but at least some fools who are more A+ fools at least try to address the issue

          D- kind can't comprehend that's why you are lost.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post


            See? Just like I said...Still no answer. just one sentences rants of Spittle and foaming at the mouth
            I smell a loose moose in here.
            A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
            George Bernard Shaw

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Just Passing Through View Post
              Thanks for the welcome, although we've seen in this thread already the reason why I'm just passing through.
              Wise decision


              Creation proclaims its Creator, and sometimes God graciously peels back the veil to show his children things they had no right to demand to see, but absolute proof for all the world to see would not serve God's purposes.
              Theres a couple of problems with that and probably the biggest one is that God proclaims that people that do not see things are blind so it presupposed that theres much to see. what blinds people are there assumptions and presuppositions. Those are the key reasons for blindness. To be fair that happens while reading Genesis 1 and 2 as well not just looking at nature.

              As for the heavens and earth declaring - They already do. Even one of the most dogmatic of atheists in Dawkins has admitted that the world has what would be considered designed things. He just choose to them ignore that and categorize them as designoids.
              Last edited by Mikeenders; 02-03-2016, 01:26 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                I smell a loose moose in here.

                Seems to have smelt that way for well over a year or beyond

                Comment


                • #23
                  Omphalos...?

                  If so, the YEC apologists have been there, done that, and most have rejected it.
                  I certainly expect most to reject my theory, and it’s just a theory I’ve been playing with out of curiosity; I may reject it myself, though I have no intention of rejecting YEC.

                  I only started this thread with two things I felt like discussing. One: the idea that a quantum waveform collapse could have been a part of creation, such that the cosmic age of the universe might not merely be deceptive appearance, but an actual age, even within a YEC framework. My grasp of quantum mechanics is minimal, to say the least, so I was quite ready for someone to tell me what’s wrong with the idea. It just seemed like an intriguing notion.
                  The other is: if God simply desired to withhold any proof positive, how could he do it without creating at least a plausibly naturalistic origin, and would doing so be a lie if his only purpose was not to deceive but to withhold the truth? Yes, the omphalos theory has been debated before, but in my limited exposure, I haven’t seen any satisfying conclusions as to whether or not it goes beyond what a God of truth could or would do.

                  Exactly what constitutes a lie is something I’m curious about, and have no final answers. It’s clear that God is capable of doing things that mislead. There were incidents in the Old Testament where God caused the rising sun shining on the water in a city’s moats to look like blood (2 Kings 3:22), which fooled the enemy besieging the city, or the enemy heard the sound of an approaching army though there was none (2 Kings 7:4). Some would say those were both deceptive. I wouldn't. I’ve thought a lot about the true nature of a lie and deception, and when it is or isn’t evil, but this isn’t the forum for that discussion.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                    and where did I ever state such a thing oh fabricating Beagle?

                    Sorry if announcing the defeat of your Methodological naturalism philosophies has your underwear all wedgied up but it is what it is or you can actually make an effective refutation (well I mean if you could)
                    Explain; " . . . announcing the defeat of your Methodological naturalism philosophies . . ."

                    As far as I experience as a scientist, Methodological Naturalism has not been practically refuted.

                    In your view Napoleon also won the Battle of Waterloo.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Just Passing Through View Post
                      I certainly expect most to reject my theory, and it’s just a theory I’ve been playing with out of curiosity; I may reject it myself, though I have no intention of rejecting YEC.

                      I only started this thread with two things I felt like discussing. One: the idea that a quantum waveform collapse could have been a part of creation, such that the cosmic age of the universe might not merely be deceptive appearance, but an actual age, even within a YEC framework. My grasp of quantum mechanics is minimal, to say the least, so I was quite ready for someone to tell me what’s wrong with the idea. It just seemed like an intriguing notion.
                      The other is: if God simply desired to withhold any proof positive, how could he do it without creating at least a plausibly naturalistic origin, and would doing so be a lie if his only purpose was not to deceive but to withhold the truth? Yes, the omphalos theory has been debated before, but in my limited exposure, I haven’t seen any satisfying conclusions as to whether or not it goes beyond what a God of truth could or would do.

                      Exactly what constitutes a lie is something I’m curious about, and have no final answers. It’s clear that God is capable of doing things that mislead. There were incidents in the Old Testament where God caused the rising sun shining on the water in a city’s moats to look like blood (2 Kings 3:22), which fooled the enemy besieging the city, or the enemy heard the sound of an approaching army though there was none (2 Kings 7:4). Some would say those were both deceptive. I wouldn't. I’ve thought a lot about the true nature of a lie and deception, and when it is or isn’t evil, but this isn’t the forum for that discussion.
                      I do not consider anything in the Bible as specifically 'lying.' They wrote for the most part what they believed. I was simply how they viewed the world and their relationship with God from an ancient perspective.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I understand your perspective. I don't accept it, but I understand it. However I come from a perspective of inspiration and inerrancy, and that the God revealed in Scriptures is who God truly is (within the limits of what can be understood of his transcendence). And for me that is non-negotiable and non-debatable, so you'll excuse me if I don't follow that train of thought of ancient worldviews and ignorant perspectives of God.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Explain; " . . . announcing the defeat of your Methodological naturalism philosophies . . ."

                          As far as I experience as a scientist, Methodological Naturalism has not been practically refuted.

                          In your view Napoleon also won the Battle of Waterloo.
                          In my view you aren't capable of engaging the point or probably even comprehending it( as really none of you are...plus I dont recognize you as any authority on science anyway - anyone can proclaim themselves anything on an anonymous forum so its a fools game).

                          As stated Methodololgical Naturalism cannot possibly be a scientific explanation for all of reality since it requires natural causes and effects. Stating anything is natural without a cause is gibberish. However as even a person of meager intelligence would understand with a little thought everything cannot have a cause

                          and so Methodological naturalism is defeated as an explanation for reality - just as previously stated.

                          its not even up for debate but you can try if you wish to refute it. So far just as I predicted though none of you have even tried - you have just ran to hand waving and pronouncements without addressing the issue naturalism has with ultimate cause and effects.
                          Last edited by Mikeenders; 02-03-2016, 02:22 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Just Passing Through View Post
                            I understand your perspective. I don't accept it, but I understand it.
                            and you have no obligation to anyway. What you have are some people in 2016 trying to tell you they know how people thousands of years ago writing the text of the Bible understood things separate from the text.

                            That's not science that's silliness and shows how fast they are to run with things not even scientifically based despite claiming they are only about science.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                              I suggest you keep passing through because you are not going to have an intelligent discourse withe the regulars here. They are fiercely non literalists even to the point of being entirely illogical (and high percentage of atheists which does not reflect the real world or authentic Christianity) and they confuse science with the opinion of what science is - two entirely different things. Historical sciences are never 100% science. They are science mixed in with assumption and inference. Methodological Naturalism is not science. it is a philosophical assumption that in reality is totally unproven and even counter to good logic - every thing in reality cannot have a naturalistic explanation because naturalistic explanations must have causes and not everything can have a cause.

                              consider a domino train (where one domino hits over another for thousands or millions of dominos. You have only two options logically and scientifically.

                              A) the ultimate cause of the dominos falling is a force not related to dominoes toppling over
                              B) there are an infinite amount of dominos

                              If you envision one domino hitting over the other as methodological naturalism (cause and effect) you will see it MUST come to a terminus where that chain ends and what was before it is not naturalistic cause and effect). This is just basic common sense and science. If you even chose B then you are saying that ultimately what causes the dominos to be falling over has no cause because infinite means you can never come to a such a point. Either way Methodological naturalism as THE explanation for reality falls on its face and loooooooong ago.

                              Methodological Naturalists do not want to face that reality. Every one of them runs away from it or tries to skirt around it (as you will no doubt see in responses to follow. NONE OF THEM will truly address that issue and the TOTAL defeat of "Methodological Naturalism" logically).



                              That will never happen and what a few of the "Christians" here don't get. Even though I lean more OEC I find YECs to hold their faith on a much firmer level than the average OEC or Theological evolutionists. Too often their prophets and priests are not real science or Biblical authority - they ARE as you said given to just following men's opinion even when its not solidly backed by repeatably verified science but mixed in with worldly inferences and assumption as dubious and provably wrong as methodological naturalism.
                              Gee sour grapes much?

                              You realize most of the staff are YEC's right? I am agnostic on the matter. But the OP's theory does make sense to me. Except that if it did collapse the wave function and create the past, then that means the past actually existed and was not just a "memory" so the reality would be that the universe really was 14 billion years old and had fossils and all that. And actually the entire future exists too, because otherwise how could God reveal to us what happens in the future (i.e. the book of Revelation) or how could he even know the future if he didn't already exist there to know it? I think God sees the entire universe, past, present and future as one object, his creation. We experience time as we move through it, but to God it all exists at once. He is outside time, so when he created the universe, it took no time at all from his perspective, since he was creating time at the same time as the universe and time is part of the universe, a dimension, like length, width and depth. Time is the dimension of duration.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Just Passing Through View Post
                                I certainly expect most to reject my theory, and it’s just a theory I’ve been playing with out of curiosity; I may reject it myself, though I have no intention of rejecting YEC.

                                I only started this thread with two things I felt like discussing. One: the idea that a quantum waveform collapse could have been a part of creation, such that the cosmic age of the universe might not merely be deceptive appearance, but an actual age, even within a YEC framework. My grasp of quantum mechanics is minimal, to say the least, so I was quite ready for someone to tell me what’s wrong with the idea. It just seemed like an intriguing notion.
                                The other is: if God simply desired to withhold any proof positive, how could he do it without creating at least a plausibly naturalistic origin, and would doing so be a lie if his only purpose was not to deceive but to withhold the truth? Yes, the omphalos theory has been debated before, but in my limited exposure, I haven’t seen any satisfying conclusions as to whether or not it goes beyond what a God of truth could or would do.

                                Exactly what constitutes a lie is something I’m curious about, and have no final answers. It’s clear that God is capable of doing things that mislead. There were incidents in the Old Testament where God caused the rising sun shining on the water in a city’s moats to look like blood (2 Kings 3:22), which fooled the enemy besieging the city, or the enemy heard the sound of an approaching army though there was none (2 Kings 7:4). Some would say those were both deceptive. I wouldn't. I’ve thought a lot about the true nature of a lie and deception, and when it is or isn’t evil, but this isn’t the forum for that discussion.
                                well I find your theory interesting. Welcome to theologyweb.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X