A non-creationist interpretation of Genesis

And how does the Wikipedia page disprove what I had just said? Are premises not based on observation?

 

There’s more than just one form of logic, just as there’s more than just one epistemology, not just empiricism. Nothing wrong with deductive logic. But you don’t observe what you deduct.
And you cannot possibly observe nothing. You also cannot possibly observe that there always was something. Eternity is a bit out of our scope. You can however rationally ponder questions such as “why is there something rather than nothing?”. Whether you’ll be able to arrive at a conclusive answer is another question.

 

You observe the premises. The example I gave you was an example of a deductive argument. Are those premises not reliant on observation?

 

It was very easy for people to believe in history when one of the religious believers wrote a passage because God told them to write it. How many people today would believe those people if they wrote it today that God told them to write it? None! Why because all of us can read and write today and most of those people in history could not.

 

With better communication and record keeping a couple thousand years ago, there'd have been no way to pull off the entire resurrection fraud, or pretend that there'd been that "census", a magic star and etc in Bethlehem.

 

I doubt that. The availability of information doesn't mean people will even read it, much less believe it. We have this very thread to point that out. Things like exorcisms or the face of Jesus appearing on sheets and blankets, near-death experiences, ghosts, or manifestations of the Seven Signs in the world, although all of them have been proven false, frauds, or have been shown to have a scientific basis, people will reject them on the mere basis that science can not account for the supernatural, and so the supenatural is always possible.

 

?
We all believe that the universe did, indeed, have a beginning now, because we have learned it is true.

We all realize that once "all the water under heaven was collected into one place, together," because we discovered the truth about Pangea.

We know that the Plants kingdom was developed before the Animal Kingdom appeared.

What was written has stood the test of time as we discovered it is true.

 

The problem is that you want to make the discussion of „nothingness“ reliant on observation. I should think observational empiricism won’t get you very far when it comes to “nothing”. But rationalism might help your reflections along.

 

If this is true, that just means that we have no way to make a claim about "nothing" in the first place.

 

Only if you think observational empiricism is the only way to make a claim. If you ask me that would give you a rather narrow self-castrating perspective, not just on "nothing" but on a whole lot of other questions.

 

It's the only way to make a claim and then verify the claim, unless you have another method?

 

Rational thought, the kind that tells me that - philosophically speaking - nothing is really verifiable, not just "nothing".

 

In regards to empiricism, verifiability doesn't mean verifiable to the level of absolute certainty, so I'm not sure how what you said really is relevant. You seemed to be saying that there was an alternative method of epistemological thought that was just as good or better than empiricism.

 

It's not so much a question of better or worse epistemology, but of which epistemology fits best to which questions. When pondering about "nothing" and its implications, I'd probably go for this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

 

Eh, I have a problem with rationalism since it relies on "intuitive", i.e, a priori knowledge. Are you familiar with rationalism in the sense that you could debate the philosophical merits of it? I'd be super interested in having a conversation like that... maybe a new thread?

 

What you have posted in nonsense.

I could be called an expert in Particle Physics, Multiversal Theory, Quark/Gluon Numerical Existence in Hadrons specific to Probability....and I have a very informed base of knowledge in Cosmology.

Now you have posted above what amounts to a incoherent partial discussion that would be specific to WAVE FUNCTION....Quantum Mechanics as it is specific to how in any Quantum System a VALUE is INDETERMINATE until observed.

Now if you wish to discuss this in depth I am MORE than qualified to do so but PLEASE....do not make the mistake of incorrectly assuming as you have above that either I do not know what I am taking about or your assumption that I would not immediately know what you have posted is simply a bit of this and a bit of that where you have not connected the dots.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

NOTHING....is an impossibility as just discussing NOTHING provides proof there is SOMETHING.

AboveAlpha

 

Ah ha! admitted it ! lol! Well maybe not the exact words, what I mean is you are saying what I have lamented in this thread and in hundreds of other debates. Invariably a nonbeleiver* will ask for empirical evidence only. I assume they are hoping none will be forthcoming and they may be correct. Or maybe they really want to believe. Who knows. In any case I am not discussing God but the types of evidences that we can present that are valid and reasonable to support the existence of God, God in the philosophical sense, not Zeus or the ‘personal Christian God’ the deity that I selected for being the most reasonable to assume exists. The latter is material for another thread. So onward, and I do apologize for the length of my replies but short answers are for pure argument in most cases we are dedicated to productive debate eh?

Empiricism I.e. observation and experiment isn’t foolproof, however it’s one of the best if not the best type of evidence for proving or lending validity to phenomena and those things that possess physical attributes. Nevertheless, empirical evidence is in some instances useless for things (events or objects) even things that exist in the physical world (at least we think they are mostly in this universe)**. So in debate or in argument as in philosophical argument, all valid evidences should be considered. That is because nothing can be proven with 100% certainty.

Notes;

* unbeliever ; (can anyone suggest a better name for someone that rejects religion etc) ?

** Things of science that may or may not be of this universe means objects like black holes. We know nothing beyond the event horizon, but speculation is it the BH can be seen as a gravity well whirlpool it may tear a hole in space time fabric and exit in a new universe. Personally I don’t think that is a good guess but even science requires faith sometimes.


reva

 

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein
quote.

In the physical world according to causality its not possible for something to begin to exist without a cause. So if you think I am wrong please give a few examples of anything in the physical world beginning to exist without a cause. As far as reality goes, its subjective! Lol! In the quote I pasted Big E was saying that reality is a fabrication and can not readily be defined for everyone. Then you comment about my understanding of science. I would argue that until someone can show otherwise my knowledge of the scientific method and science is as good as anyone’s. With all due respect maybe the problem is that you misunderstand or don’t know basic science principles etc.

Utterly untrue, lol. In the overwhelming amount of cases the opposite is true. I believe it’s you that's not well read or lacking formal education in some areas of science. Take your statement about logic. Logic is not the same or in the same ballpark as common sense. Logic is the first step and therefore an integral part of science*. Perhaps you were thinking of intuition? Again the above is true except for some sciences such as QFT (quantum field theory and quantum mechanics) where intuition is a bane rather than an asset.
So I beg to differ with your entire rebuttal.

* “The” Scientific Method versus Real Science - Av8n.com
www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm - Cached - SimilarWhen sensible people speak of «the scientific method», what they really mean is
.... Meanwhile, physical-science results are sometimes validated by logic, but
may ... In science, as in everyday life, it is often necessary to make
approximations.



reva

 

Just because science cant test 'nothing' with experiment does not mean that it can not exist. It like infinity is an interesting bewildering concept but it is indeed something that can be considered. T he concept of 'nothing' strains the ability of language too! It may be easier to wrap your mind around if you think of it this way. Nothing of the physical world. There was something before the big bang. There was the cause that caused the big bang to bang. Think of a thought or a dream, neither have substance. So maybe a new term or word should be invented for nothing physical existed before the big bang etc. One last comment. When philosophies and cosmologists and theoretical physicists etc speak of big bang cosmology they do not say that something happened 'before' the BB. That is technically incorrect and is only used for ease of communication. The correct way to say that something happened before the big bang is to say 'something happened outside time' This is where things get interesting!


Disclaimer; the following is speculation and guesswork so those that only like hard science may want to stop here.

Could God be an entity from another universe with properties that we would not even recognize or that are so different physics that we would say is the spirit world? Now your own beloved science tells us the latter may be true (M theory) not religious belief. However I am beginning to have a new awaking just like the awaking I had before God chose me (we do not chose God God chooses us) to be born again (into a new paradigm). And that is the new discoveries from Hubble and some spacecraft that are inspecting our universe as never before. The information coming from these probes and from cutting edge advanced mathematics are beginning to fit my religious beliefs like a puzzle piece fits its neighbor. Maybe the next great shift (the first was from atheist to believer) will come with a few more discoveries that parallel spirituality ! I have no qualms with the Christian God being something that science can explain. In fact scripture tells us that some things will remain a secret of Gods alone from the time of the creation. Hmmm’ ~

* [Rom 16:25] Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.





reva

 

Soon as you understand that the term 'falsify" applied to science is not of the 21st century you will have a bit more credibility.


What we can know by "logic" or common sense or intuition or any of those other poor tools can over and over be shown to be utterly mistaken.

Explain the "logic' of something being "utterly" untrue, and then saying the same thing I did in slightly different words.


Do you think, btw, that there really was a world wide flood, 6-day poof creation, and the ToE is phony?

This relates to any claims you have to a beginners understanding of science.

 

I'm sick of asking you this without you answering it: what other valid methods of evidentiary procedure are there? I've already asked you this in my previous posts directed at you, so why don't you go back and actually respond to them?

 

]I'm sick of asking you this without you answering it: what other valid methods of evidentiary procedure are there? I've already asked you this in my previous posts directed at you, so why don't you go back and actually respond to them?[/QUOTE]


All VALID "evidences" means, "Everything he thinks is valid".

Dont forget to ask how this "So in debate or in argument as in philosophical argument, all valid evidences should be considered"

is explained by this: [I]That is because nothing can be proven with 100% certainty.[/I]

And whether all "evidences"* includes anecdotal evidence, spurious evidence, irrelevant evidence, fraudulent evidence, hearsay / second hand, dreams and the like.

* isnt "evidences" a verb?

 

I would almost certainly disappoint you in such a thread – I’m certainly not a great philosopher and half of the time I’d just be talking out of my arse. That ‘s probably why I bombard you with superficial little Wikipedia articles

Here I go again:
What’s your problem with a priori knowledge?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
Maybe you misunderstood what ‘a priori’ and ‘intuitive’ knowledge means here. According to the rationalist philosopher Leibniz mathematics are ‘intuitive’. As somebody who certainly struggled with mathematics at school I would vehemently disagree with him if I understood this in the common use of the word ‘intuitive’.

Concerning the philosophical merits of rationalism: While not being very good at it myself, I value reason. Supposedly it was reason that made Higgs think of the Higgs-Boson long before the Large Hadron Collider was built. Reason helps us to think about where to look and to conceive of things that will probably always remain beyond our actual vision. It also helps us to continue to critically question what we believe to be true, for example to question “scientism” as Keith Ward does when he states that “scientism is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting, as the truth of the statements "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

But to get halfway back to topic: You may be interested in this article: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology-theology/#1

 

Sorry, but that it nonsense. Us discussing anything might provide some 'proof' that we are existing. It in no way proves that we or anything else always existed.

 

It's always been funny to me how people imagine themselves capable of even beginning to understand how this universe works. It's human nature to be impressed with our accomplishments and accumulated knowledge, but it's not as though human brains have evolved over the past hundred thousand years or so. We are still the same animal from Africa equipped with the same barely evolved chimp brains, reacting and rationalizing in the same ways we always have.