Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 12/04/23 11:34
Newbie Questions
by AndrewAMD. 12/04/23 11:14
Square root rule
by Smallz. 12/02/23 09:15
RTest not found error
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 21:43
neural function for Python to [Train]
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 14:47
Xor Memory Problem.
by TipmyPip. 11/28/23 14:23
Training with command line parameters
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:42
Combine USD & BTC Pairs In Asset Loop
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:30
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Tactics of World War I
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (TipmyPip, izorro), 556 guests, and 2 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
fairtrader, hus, Vurtis, Harry5, KelvinC
19019 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: The Creation Museum [Re: NITRO777] #145734
08/07/07 16:47
08/07/07 16:47
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69 Offline OP
Senior Expert
fastlane69  Offline OP
Senior Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
Quote:

I also dont think I would take these casual observations as any sort of facts




I agree with Nitro.
Using this forum and the number of websites to account for Old vs Young creationists is hardly empirical. The forum cannot be considered a representative sample of the worlds religious beliefs and one person can create 100 OEC or YEC websites tommorrow and that would prove nothing. You can use these ideas for your personal worldview, JCL, but it doesn't stand up to a global worldview. After all, in all my experiences I've never met a religious soul who believed YEC even if they believed in adam and eve.

In order to be empirical, you'd have to first find the total number of fundamntalists.... who believe in a creation event... who are christian... and finally who follow the geneological arguement for the age of the earth. IMO, starting with the full fundamental population, each step could be a 10% reduction leaving with .1% of all fundamentalists belieivng in a YEC under this back-of-the-envelope calculation.

Quote:

awakening, I dont think this word of mouth data from 75% of the world's population ought




Here we disagree.
The basis of what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter ONE BIT what 75% of the world thinks or does. Since religion and spirituality are personal philosophies, personal worldviews, it matters not to my worldview what others have seen or experienced since I can't verify or reproduce those results. All that matters to my spiritual worldview is that my personal experiences are verifiable, reproducable, and understood by me and no one else.

Quote:



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

like Ken Ham who built the Creation Museum with the money he got from his followers, are well aware that their 6000 years belief is bunk by scientific standards


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, no proof, just your judgement of another person based on no knowledge of that person's intentions




And finally, just to be fair, I agree with JCL.
Ken IS aware that science considers his theory bunk... note that this is all that JCL said, "aware". However as per our falsification discussion, he CHOOSES to dismiss that and use it as proof that man was walked away from god/bible. So there is no judgement in JCLs statement, merely a statement of fact (since he addresses this point several tmes in the museum).

Re: The Creation Museum [Re: fastlane69] #145735
08/07/07 18:41
08/07/07 18:41
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
capanno Offline
Serious User
capanno  Offline
Serious User

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
More lolling on my part...

Re: The Creation Museum [Re: fastlane69] #145736
08/07/07 21:49
08/07/07 21:49
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:

And finally, just to be fair, I agree with JCL.
Ken IS aware that science considers his theory bunk... note that this is all that JCL said, "aware". However as per our falsification discussion, he CHOOSES to dismiss that and use it as proof that man was walked away from god/bible. So there is no judgement in JCLs statement, merely a statement of fact (since he addresses this point several tmes in the museum).



Right, Ken is definitely aware that the science community considers his theory bunk, but that is NOT what jcl said, he said:
Quote:

I think the more educated YECs, like Ken Ham who built the Creation Museum with the money he got from his followers, are well aware that their 6000 years belief is bunk by scientific standards . But this does not matter because religion is motivated differently



Which is incorrect and amounts to somehow jcl being able to judge what Ken Ham is aware of and what he is not aware of.

Ken Hamm does not believe that his young earth theories are against scientific standards, but no doubt he believes that his theories are considered bunk by most scientists.

Re: The Creation Museum [Re: NITRO777] #145737
08/07/07 22:16
08/07/07 22:16
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69 Offline OP
Senior Expert
fastlane69  Offline OP
Senior Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
Quote:

Ken Hamm does not believe that his young earth theories are against scientific standards,




He has to though, Nitro. Science standard says 5 billion, he says 6 thousand. Plain and simple, his theories are not standard and he knows it. He also knows what the standard scientific community thinks of his theories since we/they will tell him upfront that it's bunk.

So he is full aware that his theory is not the standard science and instead is trying to make a new, non-standard science where the flood was cause by a massive (yet impossible) sea rift and dinosaurs co-existed with man (another scientifically standard impossibility)

Capanno: Thanks for you enlightening posts. Always appreciate your erudite response to these controversial topics.

Re: The Creation Museum [Re: fastlane69] #145738
08/07/07 22:30
08/07/07 22:30
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:

Nitro. Science standard says 5 billion, he says 6 thousand. Plain and simple, his theories are not standard and he knows it.


Oh yes, if you are talking about the standard in that context, then I would agree that he knows it. Yes.

Quote:

So he is full aware that his theory is not the standard science and instead is trying to make a new, non-standard science where the flood was cause by a massive (yet impossible)


Yes he would be adding the miraculous to this particular part of the theory, and probably adding a lot to it.

I have read some book by Dr, Deyoung, and a physicist Humpreys about the young earth ideas, and I admit that they do really divert quite a bit from things and they add a lot of the miraculous to their ideas. I guess I can understand your point.


Although I dont close my mind to the miraculous at all. Some of these things might have happened if God's miraculous hand interfered with nature during that time. God could certainly make the universe appear old, or puts the lights from the stars in transit, or certain things of that nature...but I dont know why He would.


Re: The Creation Museum [Re: fastlane69] #145739
08/07/07 22:48
08/07/07 22:48
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
M
Marco_Grubert Offline
Expert
Marco_Grubert  Offline
Expert
M

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
Quote:

My point is that they both search for truth. A spiritual truth is just as personally valid as a scientific one is globally valid. If I pray to cure my cancer and it goes away, it is my truth that my prayer caused cancer to go away. What will science say to that? Only that it can't be due to prayer but honestly, we don't know why it went away. This is hardly a scientific truth and thus the personal truth of prayer remains and is strengthend.


Are you sure you want to use the word "truth" here? Conviction or belief might fit, but truth implies objectivity something that is not present in your prayer example above. Another problem is that it seems unlikely we'll ever have complete knowledge so you can always squeeze a "spiritual truth" or "god of the gaps" in there: can't explain how the quantum states of cancer cells changed during the degeneration ? Well then my personal truth is valid...

Quote:

Besides, I have a more spiritual view of religion than you seem to espouse. I am agnostic and believe is "some" higher power but not because I feel less guilty or I need help...


That would be spiritualism and not agnosticism.

Quote:

This is why I say that you shouldn't use scientific style investigation for religion... that is to say that your results are reproducable and verfiable... but you can still use experiments and experiences to form your (personal) spiritual worldview.


I fail to follow you. What type of investigation would be appropriate for religion? Truth based on how good it feels? What are these experiments that you think can provide useful information despite not being reproducable or verifiable ? How do these experiences differ from delusions ?

Quote:

Science accept falsifications and uses them to modify their worldview...
Religion also accept falsifications but use it to strengthen their worldview.


Huh? The only religious response I have seen to falsification is grasping for straws ("there is a 0.1% chance that this measurement could be wrong therefore it's wrong!") and moving goalposts ("When I meant macro-evolution I meant evolution from cats to dogs, not from similar looking species to similar looking species").

Quote:

Science is dynamic; Spirituality is dynamic; Religion is static.


Maybe you can provide an example of how a spiritual person would act differently than a religious person then since I don't see any difference in these labels. The prayer example above would apply equally well to either group.

Re: The Creation Museum [Re: fastlane69] #145740
08/07/07 23:32
08/07/07 23:32
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
M
Matt_Aufderheide Offline
Expert
Matt_Aufderheide  Offline
Expert
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Quote:

Religion beliefs are most assuradly based on experience




You misinterpreted what I mean by "experience". By experience I mean observation, recording, etc. There are no reliable records or observations of supernatural occurences. One can not observe God or the supernatural.


Sphere Engine--the premier A6 graphics plugin.
Re: The Creation Museum [Re: Marco_Grubert] #145741
08/08/07 02:43
08/08/07 02:43
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69 Offline OP
Senior Expert
fastlane69  Offline OP
Senior Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
Quote:

That would be spiritualism and not agnosticism.




I don't want to get into my personal beliefs but I believe it is agnostism since I belief that the higher power cannot be touched by science or the physical world. I guess to be a TRUE agnostic I would have to admit the possibility that there is no god and that all my spiritual experiences have been chemical mis/firings and I have no problem with that.

Quote:

What are these experiments that you think can provide useful information despite not being reproducable or verifiable ?




Karma is a great example. I do good, good happens to me. I do bad, bad happens to me. Not externally reproducable or verifiable (I can't save a kid from a car wreck and expect a million dollars the next day) but overall in my life I can tell that if I'm on the right path, life just seems easier. I can experiment with drugs and alcohol and use those experiences towards my spiritul viewpoint. I can experiment with meditation and use those experiences towards my spiritual viewpoint. Remember that an experiment just needs a hypothesis, procedure, data, and conclusion... all of which I can do with the above.

Quote:

How do these experiences differ from delusions ?




I can't answer that but then again nobody can. This is the great mystery and when we know that, we will know god (or not).

[quotes]Huh? The only religious response I have seen to falsification is grasping for straws




But that's what I mean. No matter if the hypothesis is proven or not, religion will use it to continue to reenforce their godly worldview by grasping for straws or just chucking it off to "god's will".

Quote:

Maybe you can provide an example of how a spiritual person would act differently than a religious person then since I don't see any difference in these labels.




A spiritual person will use their experiences to build up a personal and internal worldview. To them/us, it does not matter if the teachings come from Buddha, Allah, or Carson Daly... if it resonates within whatever we choose to call our "soul" and leads us to a better life for ourselve and those around us, we incorporate it.
A religious person will use their experiences to reinforce what a book or priest has told them to believe. Their worldview is not internal and open for debate but external and absolutely rigid. Tell a Jew to eat pork and they will balk for it is against their religion... tell a spiritual person to eat pork and they will make a unique decision based on their own internal view (some may, some may not, but none will do so because a religious text told them to do one or the other).


Matt: Yes, experiences would be a bad word for what you meant. With your correction I see what you mean and agree.

Re: The Creation Museum [Re: fastlane69] #145742
08/08/07 03:23
08/08/07 03:23
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,264
Wellington
Nems Offline

.
Nems  Offline

.

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,264
Wellington
excellent debate and response and very much the view I take.

Re: The Creation Museum [Re: fastlane69] #145743
08/08/07 06:56
08/08/07 06:56
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967
Frankfurt
jcl Offline

Chief Engineer
jcl  Offline

Chief Engineer

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967
Frankfurt
Quote:

Using this forum and the number of websites to account for Old vs Young creationists is hardly empirical. The forum cannot be considered a representative sample of the worlds religious beliefs and one person can create 100 OEC or YEC websites tommorrow and that would prove nothing. You can use these ideas for your personal worldview, JCL, but it doesn't stand up to a global worldview.



You're right of course, but as far as I know there aren't any statistics about the YEC/OEC ratio. The polls usually just check OEC belief, and apply for YEC as well. I'd be interested if someone knows a more precise figure than the poll on this forum. I'm pretty sure that most creationists are YEC. People that reject all scientific findings that contradict their bible interpretion often end up as YECs, because such bible interpretation usually includes belief in a human being built from dirt on the 6th day after creation.

Quote:

A spiritual person will use their experiences to build up a personal and internal worldview. To them/us, it does not matter if the teachings come from Buddha, Allah, or Carson Daly... if it resonates within whatever we choose to call our "soul" and leads us to a better life for ourselve and those around us, we incorporate it.
A religious person will use their experiences to reinforce what a book or priest has told them to believe. Their worldview is not internal and open for debate but external and absolutely rigid.



I don't think I agree to this differentiation. Religion is defined as belief in a god. By that definition you too would be a religious person. Books, priests, and a fixed world view are not ingredients of all religions, but only of some.

There is a large grey area between spirituality and religion. A spiritual person usually is influenced not only by their own experiences, but also by external teachings and experiences by other persons. And religious persons often tend to mix official teachings with their own world view and experiences. Besides, as you can see from this debate there is no such thing like rigid official teachings even in Christianity, which consists of thousands of different sects and churches, YEC and OEC only a few among many.

I think spirituality is not a counterpart, but a part of religion.

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1