Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #1

Post by Diogenes »

Resolved: Christian apologists only use scientific evidence and conclusions when they believe those conclusions verify some Biblical claim.
Sub-issue:
It is intellectually biased and inconsistent to claim "science provides convincing evidence" only when such evidence appears to favor the Christian fundamentalist POV, then to turn around and favor "divine revelation" over science, when the scientific evidence does not support a Biblical literalist POV.
Last edited by Diogenes on Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #31

Post by Difflugia »

Eloi wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:27 pmAnyway, I don't think atheism is having no evidence for the existence of a Creator. I think atheism is not wanting to accept that we had a Creator, and no matter how much proof you give them, they're not going to change their minds.
Purple Knight wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:10 pmAt least for me, Eloi has a point, and there is something no evidence would make me believe, but it's not whether or not all those things in the Bible literally happened. Maybe they did. Probably not, but maybe they did. I wasn't there. This point of closed-mindedness occurs for me if someone is trying to present evidence for God's actions in the Bible being morally correct. I won't believe that. Ever.
This is the difference that would make some irrefutable bit of evidence for a god interesting. Unless the universe is way weirder than anybody thinks right now, any evidence for a god, irrefutable or not, would have to be consistent with the other evidence we've collected so far in all of the disciplines. The fundamentalist interpretation of the rest of the evidence isn't going to somehow become true. The Bible won't suddenly become internally consistent as literal truth and no form of creationist framework will start making sense even with a god, so I'd guess that far less might actually change for most atheists than for most Christians.

It kind of depends on the nature of the evidence and to whom it's irrefutable. Will it include such details about the universe that would force literalists and creationists to understand what's wrong with their understanding of the evidence we already have? If so, I'd suspect that that would be a harder pill to swallow than just a new bit of evidence that affirms the existence of a god. Will the evidence tell us the nature of Jesus and early Christianity? The Gospels aren't going to somehow harmonize with each other or Paul, so who's going to be more surprised? If the evidence is just some thing that forces physicists to acknowledge the existence of a god, it's really not going to change much. Apologists will still attach to a raft of flawed arguments that the god is their God and the Bible's all true and most atheists will still recognize that no gods have interacted with humanity for at least a few millennia, so the argument would just shift from "we've no evidence for any god" to "we've no evidence for your god."
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #32

Post by Eloi »

Difflugia wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 2:14 pm (...) so the argument would just shift from "we've no evidence for any god" to "we've no evidence for your god."
I think what you say makes a lot of sense. I just want to clarify something: every time a forum user uses WE / US to express his own personal point of view, he speaks on behalf of a group to which he literally belongs. A given group IS NOT NECESSARILY representative of the universal set. In other words: what a person says makes sense to those who agree with him, but it does not have to be so for the rest; otherwise that person would have to talk about actual universal facts.

What determines the reason why a person is an atheist or not, is particular to that person, perhaps to his group ... but no more. He is atheist only because he denies the existence of God and nothing else; that says nothing about his own justification for such an attitude. Actually, it's more personal than anything else, because it's about what the person speaking is feeling or thinking, and the others are probably very far from those intimate personal aspects; That could happen even if any other person belongs to his own group.

When a person tries to limit the reasons for "atheism" to his own point of view by speaking as if it were that of a group, he is only trying to make believe that his own point of view is universal, which is false; In the best of cases, it would only be what a small group to which he belongs thinks.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #33

Post by Clownboat »

Eloi wrote: What determines the reason why a person is an atheist or not, is particular to that person, perhaps to his group ... but no more. He is atheist only because he denies the existence of God and nothing else
I like your style! Let me give it a shot...
A Christian is only a Christian because they worships a book and nothing else. This book, has become a God.

Why do you worship paper Eloi?
***No fruitful discussion will be available if I were to be like you.***
I do so only to illustrate, as I allow Christains to define for themselves what it means to be Christian.

It is ridiculous for you to define what it is to be an atheist, especially when you have been corrected so many times already. Your claim is as silly as claiming that an adult is denying the existence of Santa Claus. Will you correct your thinking, or continue in your straw-maning ignorance? Readers will take note.

What is the root word in atheist?
It comes from the Greek áthe(os), meaning “godless.” In atheist, the beginning part a- means “without” and the main root is based on a word meaning “god”

Therefore a theist is 'with god'.
An atheist would be 'without god'.
There is no denial at play, and this is where you error. Churches do like to foster this Us vs Them mentality though from my experience. So projecting such an argument does help to foster this Us vs Them thinking that helps to unify and retain members. Cults use the same device, but should you?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #34

Post by Difflugia »

Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 3:35 pm
Difflugia wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 2:14 pm (...) so the argument would just shift from "we've no evidence for any god" to "we've no evidence for your god."
A given group IS NOT NECESSARILY representative of the universal set. In other words: what a person says makes sense to those who agree with him, but it does not have to be so for the rest; otherwise that person would have to talk about actual universal facts.
By "we," I mean all of us that have access to the same evidence. I maintain that the set of people reading this post currently has no evidence of the existence of any god. I suppose it's more technically correct that we have no evidence that is explained better by the existence of a god than by any other explanation (the cat toy on my floor could be considered evidence that a god exists to have put it there, but the more likely explanation is the existence of my cat), but I still say we are in that same set.

The interpretation of that lack of evidence is what separates us into different groups.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #35

Post by Eloi »

Difflugia wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 4:15 pm
Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 3:35 pm
Difflugia wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 2:14 pm (...) so the argument would just shift from "we've no evidence for any god" to "we've no evidence for your god."
A given group IS NOT NECESSARILY representative of the universal set. In other words: what a person says makes sense to those who agree with him, but it does not have to be so for the rest; otherwise that person would have to talk about actual universal facts.
By "we," I mean all of us that have access to the same evidence. I maintain that the set of people reading this post currently has no evidence of the existence of any god. I suppose it's more technically correct that we have no evidence that is explained better by the existence of a god than by any other explanation (the cat toy on my floor could be considered evidence that a god exists to have put it there, but the more likely explanation is the existence of my cat), but I still say we are in that same set.

The interpretation of that lack of evidence is what separates us into different groups.
I don't know what you think is "to have access to the same evidence" in a way that it leads to "nobody have evidence for the existence of God".

I got a lot of evidence that God exists, and you have access to the same evidence. Maybe the problem is what you consider "evidence" yourself. Someone talked about that before. You are just you, in singular.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #36

Post by Difflugia »

Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 4:29 pmI got a lot of evidence that God exists, and you have access to the same evidence. Maybe the problem is what you consider "evidence" yourself.
One of us has a problem, anyway. That's what the question in the OP is asking about.
Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 4:29 pmSomeone talked about that before. You are just you, in singular.
If this is the definition you'll be using, I assume that you'll be correcting this statement, then?
Eloi wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:27 pmAnyway, I don't think atheism is having no evidence for the existence of a Creator. I think atheism is not wanting to accept that we had a Creator, and no matter how much proof you give them, they're not going to change their minds.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #37

Post by Eloi »

Difflugia wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 4:39 pm
Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 4:29 pmI got a lot of evidence that God exists, and you have access to the same evidence. Maybe the problem is what you consider "evidence" yourself.
One of us has a problem, anyway. That's what the question in the OP is asking about.
Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 4:29 pmSomeone talked about that before. You are just you, in singular.
If this is the definition you'll be using, I assume that you'll be correcting this statement, then?
Eloi wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:27 pmAnyway, I don't think atheism is having no evidence for the existence of a Creator. I think atheism is not wanting to accept that we had a Creator, and no matter how much proof you give them, they're not going to change their minds.
Exactly: when I talk about what I think or how I feel, I don't use WE. When I talked about what we, Jehovah's Witnesses think or do, I just say it like that: WE, Jehovah's Witnesses.

You can not say WE, ATHEISTS, because there is not such thing as a group of all of atheist people, or anything like that. You are just you.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #38

Post by Difflugia »

Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 4:44 pmExactly: when I talk about what I think or how I feel, I don't use WE. When I talked about what we, Jehovah's Witnesses think or do, I just say it like that: WE, Jehovah's Witnesses.
But you're claiming that atheists have evidence that from a scientific standpoint, atheists objectively don't. Whether you're including them in a "we" or not, you're claiming knowledge about the evidence they have.

I'm claiming that from the scientific standpoint, you, I, the atheists, and the theists all share the same lack of evidence. I'm claiming that since you and I share that same lack of evidence, we are in the same group. That group is what I mean by "we."
Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 4:44 pmYou can not say WE, ATHEISTS, because there is not such thing as a group of all of atheist people, or anything like that. You are just you.
That depends on your criterion. We atheists all lack a theistic belief. I could include the other atheists and myself in that "we." That's not the "we" I meant earlier, though. I was referring to that group of us that is literate and has internet access that should have the ability to recognize from a scientific standpoint that we have no evidence of gods.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #39

Post by Eloi »

I don't know what you call "scientific standpoint". SCIENCE and EVIDENCE are not the same, and both of them are not intrinsically related. Even some "scientific theories" become false with time.

When someone says: "the Universe is too large, so it is reasonable to think that there is intelligent life somewhere else besides in our planet", it is not against science, is it? Well, I do think the same. Am I antiscientific?

Science is not atheist and many believers, who are men of science also, defend the intelligent design, use "scientific standpoint" (or at least some procedures and/or methods that scientists often use in their hypotheses) to prove the existence of God ...

Atheists have not "acceptable" (to them) evidence of the existence of God ... neither of the non-existence of God. Absence of evidence to them, should not be evidence of absence.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #40

Post by Difflugia »

Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:22 pmI don't know what you call "scientific standpoint". SCIENCE and EVIDENCE are not the same, and both of them are not intrinsically related.
They're not the same, but they're intrinsically related in the sense that the scientific method requires evidence. One can have evidence and draw unscientific conclusions from it, though.
Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:22 pmEven some "scientific theories" become false with time.
Sure. As scientists amass more evidence, their conclusions become better. If they were to find evidence for gods, then that may affect other theories, depending on whether we can determine the nature and properties of those gods.
Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:22 pmWhen someone says: "the Universe is too large, so it is reasonable to think that there is intelligent life somewhere else besides in our planet", it is not against science, is it? Well, I do think the same. Am I antiscientific?
The method's antiscientific, even if a scientific inquiry would match your conclusion. "Helium balloons go up, so the sun has a lot of helium in it," shares a scientific conclusion, but the path to get there isn't very scientific.
Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:22 pmScience is not atheist
Science is secular. That's slightly different.
Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:22 pmand many believers, who are men of science also, defend the intelligent design,
They may be scientists in the sense that they come to certain conclusions scientifically, even professionally, but intelligent design isn't scientific. Scientists that espouse intelligent design are doing so for unscientific reasons.
Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:22 pmuse "scientific standpoint" (or at least some procedures and/or methods that scientists often use in their hypotheses) to prove the existence of God ...
One doesn't have to be completely ascientific to draw unscientific conclusions.
Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:22 pmAtheists have not "acceptable" (to them) evidence of the existence of God ... neither of the non-existence of God. Absence of evidence to them, should not be evidence of absence.
That's why others have taken such pains to explain the difference between a lack of belief in a god and active disbelief. A proper scientific approach treats the lack of evidence for gods as exactly that: the lack of evidence. The corollary to that is that the scientific approach doesn't treat the mere lack of impossibility as a positive probability, though, and one with a properly scientific outlook won't believe something for which there's no evidence. That's where most Christian apologists diverge from the scientific approach.

As an aside, the "absence of evidence" saying is pithy, but wrong. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. What it's not is proof of absence. How good that evidence is depends on how comprehensive the search has been. The absence of tigers in my living room is poor evidence that there are no tigers anywhere. We (humanity overall, if you're going to get lost in what I mean by "we") have searched a much larger portion of the Earth and indeed have found tigers. We've searched the same space and found no leprechauns, however, so we draw a strong probabilistic conclusion that there are no leprechauns. We still have no proof that there are no leprechauns, so a proper scientist will accept the possibility, however remote, that we may find such evidence someday. The scientist probably won't waste much effort protecting her pot of gold from marauding leprechauns, though. In a practical sense, she will be aleprechaunist.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Post Reply