4 ms·

> the battle between creationism and evolution I’ve always found any participation in this debate to be meaningless for reasons that last Thursdayism illustrat

> the battle between creationism and evolution I’ve always found any participation in this debate to be meaningless for reasons that last Thursdayism illustrates, but kinda misses at the same time. Any debate has to take place within an agreed upon set of axioms, if you don’t have that then any point raised by the other side is simply invalid no matter what. “Earth came to be naturally billions of years after the Big Bang” and “God created earth 6000 years ago” or “Earth came to be last Thursday” clearly don’t share any axioms on which to found a meaningful debate, it’s simply impossible. I also think it’s not necessary. If you believe earth was created last Thursday, instantaneously summoned into existence in a predetermined state (something you would expect an omnipotent being to be capable of), then studying the state of the universe is a still perfectly valid exercise. You can study what present day information reveals about points in time prior to creation, without compromising your faith that the universe was created last Thursday. In fact a th(ursday)eologian might argue that such study could further resolve your faith by revealing the intricacies of last Thursday’s creation. Another point (though not directly related to the young earth variety of creationist) is that if you have an omnipotent being, then you would expect such a being to be able to both: Summon the universe into existence in any state it wanted to, or if it preferred, initiate a Big Bang with the precise conditions required to eventually lead to any exact state (for instance the details of Islam’s creation story describe the latter scenario, according to some interpretations).

mannykannot 7y ago
At the risk of debating something you think is meaningless to participate in... Having axioms is not a problem if the parties are prepared to reconsider them. At the time Omphalos was published, there were people who were genuinely prepared to change their minds -- Darwin himself started as a creationist (interestingly, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, an influential scholar in his own right, was an evolutionist, and drew the analogy between domestication and evolution that was helpful for Charles) -- and the fact that Gosse was ridiculed by creationists suggests that the debate had not ossified. These days, all the arguments have been made, and the only sensible course would be to agree to differ. I think most evolutionists, aside from Dawkins and a few others, would be happy to leave it at that, if it were not for the repeated attempts by creationists to subvert education. More specifically, “Earth came to be naturally billions of years after the Big Bang” is not an axiom, it is a conclusion drawn from evidence, and the axiom is more like "physical evidence never lies (even if it can be misconstrued)." The creationist axiom is more like "This book never lies", and “Earth came to be last Thursday” appears to be a tongue-in-cheek and apparently counterfactual claim made to trigger debate.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  Being prepared to change ones mind about the axioms you put your faith in is not related to this contention. A scientific argument for why a religious idea is wrong is equally as irrelevant as a theological argument for why a scientific idea is wrong. If you want to challenge a scientific axiom, you do it using the scientific method, if you want to challenge a religious axiom, then you do it using the relevant theological framework. The idea that one set of axioms is better than another though is quite easily falsifiable. Axioms are the unprovable assumptions on which all domains of knowledge are built, and all unprovable assumptions are equal in their unprovable-ness. > These days, all the arguments have been made, and the only sensible course would be to agree to differ. Perhaps, but I’d say we just understand enough today to know when different ideas are trying to answer different questions. If you generalise science to be a method of explaining the nature of the universe, as we observe it, then I don’t think it’s a contentious point to say that religion generally attempts to answer a completely different set of questions, ones that cannot be explained with science. A religious answer to a scientific questions is equally as irrelevant as a scientific answer to a religious one, and even when they’re in contention, the contention is really only superficial. If you believed the universe was created last Thursday, that wouldn’t necessarily have any impact at all on the nature of the universe we observe today.
Jon_Lowtek 7y ago
> clearly don’t share any axioms they share a lot - for example both agree that currently there is "earth" which is the point where the "Boltzmann Brain", "Rene Descards malicious demon" and all other variants of "simulated reality" theorems come in. Those refute the existence of earth, and share the "consciousness in a box" idea, yet they can still argue with the aforementioned creationists and evolutionists, because all sides have the common believe that there is, at least, a consciousness that thinks that there is "earth". > if you have an omnipotent being you can really piss of creationists by sharing their believe in the existence of a creating entity, but refuting the idea of it being "omni-scient/omni-potent" or even the least bit competent. Think about it: there is ample evidence that life, the universe and everything else was created as a sixth year school project and has since been abandoned by its creator.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  > Think about it: there is ample evidence that life, the universe and everything else was created as a sixth year school project and has since been abandoned by its creator. I think a very short conversation with any physicist could straighten that one out for you. Go and google any examples of constants put forward to support a fine-tuned universe theory, and tell me how many sixth graders you think could conceive their own set of physical laws that would create a stable, life supporting universe.
  - Jon_Lowtek 7y ago
    > I think a very short conversation with any physicist ... You are completely missing the point O.o any such discussion would take hours and drive any physicist to the brink of insanity because at some point we get them to admit that they just might be a Boltzmann Brain. To clarify: i am talking a god like sixth grader and about annoying creationists by ridiculing their believes, why would i even want to talk to a physicist about that? Yet to entertain the point made: fine tuning is only relevant if the universe existed for longer then last thursday, which it did not, and "fine tuning to support life" is only perceived locally by fragile creatures who, by virtue of not having any other sane option, must believe that the current state they exist in is stable. That is the Boltzmann Brain thing: it leads no where if you assume you are a Boltzmann Brain. In the same way physicists believe that the universe is stable, because everything they do is completely pointless if the rules could change at any moment. Look at the galactic scale: the universe seems to be degrading rapidly. How is that "stable and life supporting"? An A+ universe would not degrade towards lower entropy. This is a C- universe at best! Then there is that "stuff that randomly starts existing" due to quantum, we are talking about brains phasing in and out of existence by mere chance, does that look "fine tuned" to you? That's just the stupid randomness a sixth grader would create. And then there is the "Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester" that pretty much shows the math is qwirky. And finally you tell me, because you believe that your garden eden today looks like you remember it looking wednesday (stable and life supporting) that somehow the universe must be finely tuned? You are a Boltzmann Brain floating in mid space arguing for empiricism :D

mannykannot 7y ago

At the risk of debating something you think is meaningless to participate in... Having axioms is not a problem if the parties are prepared to reconsider them. At the time Omphalos was published, there were people who were genuinely prepared to change their minds -- Darwin himself started as a creationist (interestingly, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, an influential scholar in his own right, was an evolutionist, and drew the analogy between domestication and evolution that was helpful for Charles) -- and the fact that Gosse was ridiculed by creationists suggests that the debate had not ossified. These days, all the arguments have been made, and the only sensible course would be to agree to differ. I think most evolutionists, aside from Dawkins and a few others, would be happy to leave it at that, if it were not for the repeated attempts by creationists to subvert education. More specifically, “Earth came to be naturally billions of years after the Big Bang” is not an axiom, it is a conclusion drawn from evidence, and the axiom is more like "physical evidence never lies (even if it can be misconstrued)." The creationist axiom is more like "This book never lies", and “Earth came to be last Thursday” appears to be a tongue-in-cheek and apparently counterfactual claim made to trigger debate.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
Being prepared to change ones mind about the axioms you put your faith in is not related to this contention. A scientific argument for why a religious idea is wrong is equally as irrelevant as a theological argument for why a scientific idea is wrong. If you want to challenge a scientific axiom, you do it using the scientific method, if you want to challenge a religious axiom, then you do it using the relevant theological framework. The idea that one set of axioms is better than another though is quite easily falsifiable. Axioms are the unprovable assumptions on which all domains of knowledge are built, and all unprovable assumptions are equal in their unprovable-ness. > These days, all the arguments have been made, and the only sensible course would be to agree to differ. Perhaps, but I’d say we just understand enough today to know when different ideas are trying to answer different questions. If you generalise science to be a method of explaining the nature of the universe, as we observe it, then I don’t think it’s a contentious point to say that religion generally attempts to answer a completely different set of questions, ones that cannot be explained with science. A religious answer to a scientific questions is equally as irrelevant as a scientific answer to a religious one, and even when they’re in contention, the contention is really only superficial. If you believed the universe was created last Thursday, that wouldn’t necessarily have any impact at all on the nature of the universe we observe today.

Jon_Lowtek 7y ago

> clearly don’t share any axioms they share a lot - for example both agree that currently there is "earth" which is the point where the "Boltzmann Brain", "Rene Descards malicious demon" and all other variants of "simulated reality" theorems come in. Those refute the existence of earth, and share the "consciousness in a box" idea, yet they can still argue with the aforementioned creationists and evolutionists, because all sides have the common believe that there is, at least, a consciousness that thinks that there is "earth". > if you have an omnipotent being you can really piss of creationists by sharing their believe in the existence of a creating entity, but refuting the idea of it being "omni-scient/omni-potent" or even the least bit competent. Think about it: there is ample evidence that life, the universe and everything else was created as a sixth year school project and has since been abandoned by its creator.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
> Think about it: there is ample evidence that life, the universe and everything else was created as a sixth year school project and has since been abandoned by its creator. I think a very short conversation with any physicist could straighten that one out for you. Go and google any examples of constants put forward to support a fine-tuned universe theory, and tell me how many sixth graders you think could conceive their own set of physical laws that would create a stable, life supporting universe.
- Jon_Lowtek 7y ago
  > I think a very short conversation with any physicist ... You are completely missing the point O.o any such discussion would take hours and drive any physicist to the brink of insanity because at some point we get them to admit that they just might be a Boltzmann Brain. To clarify: i am talking a god like sixth grader and about annoying creationists by ridiculing their believes, why would i even want to talk to a physicist about that? Yet to entertain the point made: fine tuning is only relevant if the universe existed for longer then last thursday, which it did not, and "fine tuning to support life" is only perceived locally by fragile creatures who, by virtue of not having any other sane option, must believe that the current state they exist in is stable. That is the Boltzmann Brain thing: it leads no where if you assume you are a Boltzmann Brain. In the same way physicists believe that the universe is stable, because everything they do is completely pointless if the rules could change at any moment. Look at the galactic scale: the universe seems to be degrading rapidly. How is that "stable and life supporting"? An A+ universe would not degrade towards lower entropy. This is a C- universe at best! Then there is that "stuff that randomly starts existing" due to quantum, we are talking about brains phasing in and out of existence by mere chance, does that look "fine tuned" to you? That's just the stupid randomness a sixth grader would create. And then there is the "Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester" that pretty much shows the math is qwirky. And finally you tell me, because you believe that your garden eden today looks like you remember it looking wednesday (stable and life supporting) that somehow the universe must be finely tuned? You are a Boltzmann Brain floating in mid space arguing for empiricism :D