: : Yeah. Certainty is for believers. : : Scientists will never make a final statement on *anything*; witness the difference between the number of theorems (proved statements, of which there are a very few, like Pythagoras' Theorem) and theories (not finally proved statements but the best models that have yet been constructed to date; like the Theory of Gravity of the Theory of Special Relativity).
: That's why I trust God. He is a solid rock in a world of uncertainty. And now I'm back in the area of my personal faith.
Fair enough; but you can never use any logical terminology with reference to God; as it is a belief, not a logical theory. So you can never really use the words "proof", "evidence" or "logical" in conjunction with God. It's your belief; not a universal provable-or-disprovable concept.
: Ennos Wolthius puts it this way: "It must be clearly understood that such a statement of faith cannot be subjected to the rigorous proof of experimentation or logic." I whole-heartedly agree ...
Which is what I said in my original challenge; and what no-one has yet even come close to disputing; belief in God is alogical, since any God worthy of the name is not bound by logic. Thus you cannot use logical terms like "proof" and "evidence" and try applying them to belief in God.
: ... and contend that no study of the origin of matter or life can be anything but a personal faith, whether evolutionary or creationist in extent.
Wrong. Evolution is a) a process limited entirely to the physical measureable world; it does not require any special faith whatsoever; which means you can test it and falsify it; which is what makes it a scientific theory and b) an ongoing process; not a one-off process like a Creation; which means that you can look around the present-day world for evidence of it as an ongoing process. The Creation isn't still going on; evolution is; thus you can make predictions based on evolutionary theory and design experiments that would falsify the theory of evolution.
This is why "Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. Science is falsifiable; this is its defining point; creation can never be falsified; thus creation is not scientific.
: : Until something better and more accurate comes alongs, scientists go with existing theories as a truth; not the Ultimate Truth. Science is open to debate, criticism and revision.
: I contend that God's Word, the Bible, is His statement of Ultimate Truth; hence, we have something better regarding the theory of origins.
But you are using a physical object to justify your faith in the non-physical; ultimately, any physical object is subject to physical processes. To quote my original challenge;
"...you cannot cite physical phenomena as proof of the existence of God if you believe that such systems cannot ultimately determine God's existence. Any physical thing, whether it be the Earth, the Bible or the Universe cannot be used to provide "proof", because "proof" is a logical concept; and God is alogical; things like the Bible only provide compelling "proof" of God's existence if you accept the Bible as truth to begin with; which is a basic logical flaw."
So, after three days and 16 posts, you run into my original challenge; you've come around in a circle to where you started. Well done. Now you just have to try and answer the original challenge...
You can't provide any non-physical evidence to back up your religious beliefs. You *must* ultimately trust in your God; even if it means discarding the Bible.
(snip)
: I'm not that far out of the loop. But, what if an alien mining company took some of those minerals out and then used environmentally safe methods to return the planet's surface to a natural condition? Then the ratios would be out of whack because of an occurance that may have been unobserved. Could a natural phenomenon cause the same result somehow?
Not without leaving evidence; there are no perfect "locked rooms".
: NO, I don't believe in aliens.
Good. Although it is highly probable that aliens of some form or another exist, there is presently no credible evidence that provides any proof. Thus it is simpler to assume for now that they don't exist and revise opinions if necessary in the light of new evidence.
: : Take a fruit cake. Split it into four equal slices. Now, give it to someone who didn't see you cut it and ask them to examine the slices and tell you if the currants were distributed evenly when you cooked it.
: : They look at the distribution and amount of currants in each part; if one slice contains a lot more than another, then they have reason to believe that the initial distribution of currants wasn't equal. If all the slices contain much the same number of currants, they can say that it is likely that the distribution was equal.
: Suppose I don't want mom to know that I picked the currants out, so carefully replaced them with raisins. Then the distribution is no longer equal.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that this might be the case?
No.
Do not multiply causes unecessarily, to quote William of Ockham.
: An intelligent individual could artificially change the ratios. God may or may not choose to preserve the ratios in nature. I won't limit His choice.
You're basing a physical effect on a non-physical being; this is logically unsustainable. See my original challenge; you cannot use physical evidence to provide logical proof of the non-physical and alogical.
: Or someone with intelligence changes the ratio.
Evidence to support your hypothesis: zero.
: : In such a case, the best theory is the one that most simply explains the observed facts.
: But it may not be the CORRECT theory.
No. But by eliminating the patently absurd and provably wrong and refining the accurate theories, you come closer to a good model than you do by making wild guesses based on unprovables.
: : Quite true; but it's a reasonable assumption; and you could prove the assumption wrong by doing an experiment. It is falsifiable and therefore scientific, even if it isn't right.
: I'd rather be right than scientific if being scientific means I'm incorrect.
But since all physical evidence is irrelevant, you can never know that you're right; because proof and faith cannot co-exist. If you had logical proof your God existed, you would not need faith in the existence of God.
I may or may not be wrong; but I can make accurate predictions based on the theories I hold to be sound.
: : If you take a cake with evenly distributed currants and cut it up into slices, then it is likely that the slices will also have an even distribution of currants.
: : It's more reasonable to assume that the currants in the slices will be evenly distributed than it is to assume that the laws of nature will reshape themselves around to change a cake.
: But you haven't disproved Genesis. You've overlooked the fact that someone may pick out the currents.
Because this is unprovable one way or the other. I'm arguing physical processes; and you cannot cite physical processes as logical proof of the alogical, non-physical and unprovable; either you believe or you don't.
For what it's worth, as Floyd points out, Genesis contradicts itself. And since it is unfalsfiable, it isn't a matter of science; it's a matter of faith; and thus Genesis cannot be used to provide "proof" of anything; because proof is a logical concept, not a matter of faith.
The challenge still stands; and you're back to Square 1.
Gideon.
