YEC part Trois

(407 Posts)
PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 12-May-13 09:15:49

So we're still going, perhaps not as YEC as originally, but there's some good debate still occurring! Can we link from previous again?

BestValue Sun 12-May-13 09:37:38

I knew I could count on you, Pedro. smile

I'll definitely have to cut back my time on here but it is deliciously addictive. I'm happy to move on from the YEC topic but will still answer questions when they arise. We seemed to be attracting an entirely new type of MumsNetter, though, which I find refreshing.

Happy Mother's Day (if you even have that over there). Today is Mother's Day here in Canada. And although I am male and have no children (my wife and I do have 10 embryos, though), I've occasionally been called a "muther" from time to time so I feel somewhat of a kinship with you all. wink

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 12-May-13 09:53:32

Not Mother's day here. But with cutting irony in relation to the content of the thread, in the UK it falls on the 4th Sunday of Lent! So we had it on March 10th.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 12-May-13 09:55:40

Perhaps we should have a muther's day though. There's a few people I'd buy cards for......

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 11:56:10

What is a 'muther'? Or shouldn't I ask? blush

Januarymadness Sun 12-May-13 14:32:54

hellooooo.

Best not to ask....

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 15:44:58

Towards the end of the YEC 2 thread the nature of freedom / free will was considered as it relates to freedom of choice.

What do people think of a model of freedom that encompasses finding meaning in life (as opposed to feeling alienated.) That is that many people want to find purpose in their lives, if they feel they are fulling this purpose they feel liberated from a sense of meaningless/pointlessness to their actions. Regarding prophecy this could mean fulfilling a destiny.

In this way free choice is not the only factor to consider when aiming to have true freedom.

The above consideration for me, as a Christian, is an important one for me, when defining my life. I just wondered how atheists view finding this type of purpose in life.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 12-May-13 16:09:09

It's certainly a very human trait to want to find purpose in your life. Personally, the only thing I strive for is my own happiness. I achieve this through a number of means including partaking in activities which I enjoy and doing things to make those around me happy, this increasing the overall level of happiness and wellbeing around me.

I don't have a sense of purpose in terms of feeling like I'm supposed to achieve or fulfill anything in particular, I think that would make me fairly depressed, especially if I didn't achieve what I thought I was supposed to. Life is a journey with no destination. I enjoy it as it happens.

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 16:36:32

Pedro, the pursuit of happiness sounds good to me but not if it is aimless.

For example, I might like the sensation of a fairground ride and find my friends do also. We all have a great time but then find we become desensitized to that initial thrill. We then need to constantly find bigger and better rides to satisfy our hunger...what have we achieved?

EllieArroway Sun 12-May-13 16:38:34

Towards the end of the YEC 2 thread the nature of freedom / free will was considered as it relates to freedom of choice

"Considered"? No, it wasn't. It was pointed out to you that omniscience and free will are logical contradictions and therefore an impossibility. "Oh, but God is beyond time and space", was your claim. a) That makes no sense and b) so what?

This WAS a discussion about evidence for God, using logic and science, not an opportunity for people to preach.

Yes, yes...you love God and want to spread the word. He's in personal contact with you and magically given you information not accessible to ordinary folks unless they just take your word for it hmm

Can you prove a single one of your outlandish claims?

<tumbleweed>

No. So why have you hijacked a thread that was supposed to be about evidence?

Oh - and to save you time. No, I'm not seeking out your God - just like you're not spending any time seeking out Allah, Lord Vishnu, Zeus or Odin. What I have done is research the claims made by Christians about Yahweh & Jesus and found them to be a) wrong b) illogical & c) impossible.

EllieArroway Sun 12-May-13 16:42:07

the pursuit of happiness sounds good to me but not if it is aimless

Er....pursuing something and then achieving it is not "aimless". The aim is happiness - if you achieve it, you've achieved the aim.

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 16:49:16

Ellie Sorry I didn't know the thread was supposed to be purely about evidence. I didn't actually read the whole thread, just pitched in about half way through.

To be honest for me, due to the subjective nature of humanity, I have a problem with people stating they can be truly objective, observe and interpret evidence, entirely objectively. Even in our biology, in the way we perceive the information received from our sensory organs is subjective. I know I can get a bit Post Modern, apart from The Bible which is truth for me.

So that was where I was coming from regarding evidence, so it was, in my view relevant. However by all means steer this thread in any way you want.

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 16:50:12

Ellie re. the happiness long term or short?

EllieArroway Sun 12-May-13 17:02:21

I know I can get a bit Post Modern

Grrrr. Don't get me started on post-modernism. Had all that hoo ha at university.

To be honest for me, due to the subjective nature of humanity, I have a problem with people stating they can be truly objective, observe and interpret evidence, entirely objectively

You're right. They can't - none of us can be truly objective, we all interpret things our way. It's called confirmation bias, and each and every one of us is subject to it.

That's why the scientific method was devised - to tell us what is what, REGARDLESS of how we might personally feel about it.

And it's not about "interpreting" anything. You can't, for example, interpret logic anyway you choose - it wouldn't work if we did. The God defined by Christianity is logically impossible - and if something's impossible, it can't exist.

Ellie re. the happiness long term or short? Both. It's a continuum.

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 17:15:44

Ellie as I talked about on the last thread, scientific method always involves assumptions and prior assumptions. These involve a kind of subjectivity as assumptions and priors are the same as faith, the question is where do you place your faith?

Hope all goes well with pursuing a continuum of happiness. How are you getting on? You sound a bit peeved...

EllieArroway Sun 12-May-13 17:16:23

Just to throw this in about the logical impossibility of free will/omniscience, so we're clear.

I don't know what I'm going to have for breakfast on March 18th, 2015. God does. He might not care much, but he knows - he knows everything. So, God knows I'll have Weetabix & toast.

Now then - whose choice will it actually be when I do indeed eat Weetabix & toast? Mine? It might feel like it's mine - but actually, simply because God already knows about it, then my breakfast menu is preordained and I have absolutely no choice in the matter. If I really had a choice, God couldn't know what I was going to have....my "freedom" to choose is therefore non-existent. If I surprise God and have Cornflakes instead, then I disprove his omniscience.

So, it's not possible. There's nothing "free" about our will if our choices are preordained in any way - and they HAVE to be if God is omniscient.

Now, your response was "God is outside of space and time". And, I take from that, that logic doesn't apply to God in the same way it does to us? This is a cop out of epic proportions - but, OK, let's follow it through.

God is not subject to logic. You can abandon all logic when you talk about God and his properties.

So, on this basis, when talking about whether God exists, we have three choices:

1) God exists
2) God doesn't exist
3) God exists and doesn't exist at the same time

Without logic - all three of these choices have equal weight.

In two out of these three choices, God does not exist. By following your logic, we show that God is more likely not to exist than to exist.

Deploying Occam's Razar, "The simplest explanation tending to be correct" - we must rationally conclude that God does not exist, since that is more likely.

So, you see - writing the argument off as "God is outside of space and time" does not help. It makes things worse.

EllieArroway Sun 12-May-13 17:24:47

Ellie as I talked about on the last thread, scientific method always involves assumptions and prior assumptions. These involve a kind of subjectivity as assumptions and priors are the same as faith, the question is where do you place your faith?

Then you don't understand the scientific method. It does not work like that at all. Incidentally, you might want to research how a scientific theory IS a fact, and it's not "paradoxical" to refer to it as such. The National Academy of Sciences explains HERE

I don't have "faith". It's a childish notion invented to allow people to believe whatever they like without being laughed at. If you could show that I believe anything based on "faith" & not evidence - I'll stop believing it. Immediately.

I'm not peeved. Neither do I hate God or Christians (although there are some I am rather less than fond of, for good reason). I just have this very odd habit of expecting someone who claims that the creator of the universe has imparted information to them to back up their claim. You have a problem with this? Why?

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 17:44:33

Your source re. science as fact is biased, they have a vested interest in 'proving' the irrefutability of the scientific method. If indeed they are attempting that, I have not read the link - it doesn't really matter either way: they're either biased or recognise their limitations.

What I am saying is that the physical evidence for something that surpasses the physical realm (ie that is spiritual) would be incomplete since you can not measure what is spiritual with physical measures.

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 17:49:53

Ellie it's why people use narrative (in the Bible) to inform about God. Since the narrative can show His hand in events, you see where He has been. Physically, as humans, we are tied up in the linearity of time, a spirit is not.

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 17:59:22

Ellie school girl error there re God existing scenarios: In two out of the three choices God exists as well as not existing. Equal odds if you were employing simple probability, could you also do a Bayesian Probability Analysis?

Januarymadness Sun 12-May-13 18:40:21

why would scientists have a vested interest in proving the scientific method. Scientists love showing other scientists wrong

daftdame Sun 12-May-13 18:57:02

Januarymadness because the scientists could not prove / show anything without validity of method...

BestValue Sun 12-May-13 19:10:40

The scientific method is very good but it is limited and if we are honest we will acknowledge those limitations. To believe the scientific method is the only way to truth is to fall victim to scientism which is self-refuting and thus false.

Snorbs Sun 12-May-13 22:25:07

The scientific method is very good but it is limited and if we are honest we will acknowledge those limitations.

Indeed. And relying on religious faith to explain the universe is also very limited and we should acknowledge those limitations as well.

The difference is that science is aware of its limitations and a built-in part of it is to constantly strive to refine the predictions it makes. If necessary, entire chunks of scientific thought will be thrown out if it is shown that evidence contradicts it.

Religious faith has no such awareness. It teaches us to be satisfied with answers that boil down to "I have no evidence whatsoever that what I believe is true, but I'm going to believe it anyway."

Jaynebxl Sun 12-May-13 23:20:28

What's YEC?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now