The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

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

The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #1

Post by Diogenes »

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.
___________________________________

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

— Confucius

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #771

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to otseng in post #770]
Sure, you might be skeptical, but the point is cosmologists are proposing non-natural explanations.
How can something like string theory be called non-natural? It is an attempt at a mathematical framework to explain nature, and has yet to get over that hump, but it would be in the same category as something like calculus, or differential equations. Calculus is non-natural in the sense that it isn't something that can be touched and handled physically, but it has a useful purpose in solving all kinds of problems (just like quantum mechanics, general relativity, etc.). It is a mathematical tool.

Cosmologists propose things like multiverses in a similar way ... an attempt to explain nature via a mathematical formulism ... so it is non-natural in the same sense as calculus but may turn out to be a useful tool if it were confirmed to have any validity. Dark matter and dark energy are also inferred from observations, but we can't explain either of them yet as far as what they actually are, or even if they are valid inferences from the observations. They are hypothetical entities awaiting more study, but I think the general idea is that will have a natural explanation eventually.

These things are not supernatural in the same sense as gods, demons, spirits and that sort of thing. If someone tried to build a mathermatical framework for a god being how would they go about it? Gods are defined by humans as far as their characteristics, so a mathematical model to try and describe something like this would be futile. They are proposed as supernatural beings from the beginning and not subject to attempts to explain them with mathematical or physical models.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

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

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #772

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:02 am
Please present your case in the other thread. Also, I've addressed many things already so you should start reading what I've posted on the Shroud of Turin from post 1599.

Given that the test of the Shroud conclusively proved the artifact is from about 1300 CE, it seems pointless to continue the argument. It's a fake. The Church fought and wrangled and wanted fewer tests by fewer laboratories, but finally agreed to 3 labs. A cardinal announced the results:
Official announcement

In a well-attended press conference on October 13, Cardinal Ballestrero announced the official results, i.e. that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260–1390 AD, with 95% confidence. The official and complete report on the experiment was published in Nature.[1] The uncalibrated dates from the individual laboratories, with 1-sigma errors (68% confidence), were as follows:

Tucson: 646 ± 31 years;
Oxford: 750 ± 30 years;
Zürich: 676 ± 24 years old;
the unweighted mean was "691 ±31 years", which corresponds to calibrated ages of "1273–1288 AD" with 68% confidence, and "1262–1312, 1353–1384 AD cal" with 95% confidence.

As reported in Nature, Anthos Bray of the Instituto di Metrologia 'G. Colonetti', Turin, "confirmed that the results of the three laboratories were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the mean results was questionable."


If you want to copy this to your preferred subtopic, proceed. But I'm not interested in reviewing the reports by the usual highly biased sources promoting their unscientific 'Christian perspective,' any more than I will consult the various creation blogs for information on evolution.
___________________________________

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

— Confucius

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #773

Post by otseng »

DrNoGods wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:16 pm How can something like string theory be called non-natural?
Are other dimensions considered to be natural?

"Current versions of string theory require 10 dimensions total, while an even more hypothetical über-string theory known as M-theory requires 11."
https://www.space.com/more-universe-dim ... heory.html
Cosmologists propose things like multiverses in a similar way
As Diogenese quoted for a definition of naturalism:
Diogenes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:00 pm "Naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural."
Encyclopedia Britannica, Jun 14, 2017
If a multiverse proposes other universes besides ours, how is that considered to be natural?
They are hypothetical entities awaiting more study, but I think the general idea is that will have a natural explanation eventually.
So, in the meantime, non-natural explanations are acceptable?
These things are not supernatural in the same sense as gods, demons, spirits and that sort of thing.
Never said other universes are the same as gods or demons. All I'm saying is they all qualify as non-natural explanations.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #774

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:43 pm Given that the test of the Shroud conclusively proved the artifact is from about 1300 CE, it seems pointless to continue the argument. It's a fake. The Church fought and wrangled and wanted fewer tests by fewer laboratories, but finally agreed to 3 labs.
Interesting that nobody is willing to debate on the TS, except for Joey. I've offered a testable artifact and even a way to falsify Christianity. But, nobody except Joey accepts that challenge? Again, if it's a fake, it should be easy to demonstrate how a forger created it. Really, the only evidence to argue against the authenticity of the shroud is C-14 dating, as if a single data point proves that it's fake. But, yes, eventually I will be devoting a large section to discussing the C-14 dating.
But I'm not interested in reviewing the reports by the usual highly biased sources promoting their unscientific 'Christian perspective,' any more than I will consult the various creation blogs for information on evolution.
This is a bad excuse. Can you point to any of the sources that I've used that are "highly biased sources promoting their unscientific 'Christian perspective'"? If so, I'm willing to retract that evidence.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #775

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to otseng in post #773]
Are other dimensions considered to be natural?
String theory needs this formalism for the math to work, but who knows if extra dimensions that us humans can't experience actually exist or not. I don't know enough about string theory to know if there is claim that the 10 or 11 dimensions are actual spatial dimensions (even if most of them are vanishingly small but needed for mathematical consistency), but if such dimensions do exist at the scales of the incredibly tiny I'd think they would have to be counted as "natural." String theory is still a work in progress, and its 10-11 dimensions may turn out to be nothing but a flash in the pan.
If a multiverse proposes other universes besides ours, how is that considered to be natural?
It wouldn't unless there actually are other universes. It was only a measly 100 years ago or so that humans first discovered that other galaxies existed. Hubble and others thought the "fuzzy stars" that had been observed for centuries were nebula and the belief was that there was only one "universe" that consisted of all the stars that could be seen. It was completely unknown that our own galaxy was not the entire universe, but just a miniscule part of it, and that billions of other galaxies existed at distances so far beyond anything imagined at the time that it was hard to believe. But that turned out to be the case. We just don't know enough yet to claim our universe is the only one, or whether it is just the present condition in a sequence of big bangs and big crunches, or some other idea.
So, in the meantime, non-natural explanations are acceptable?
I would call them potential explanations, hypotheses, etc. that have some basis in mathematics, observation, etc. to justify spending time and effort on, with their goal being a natural explanation at the end of the day. String theory, multiverses, etc. are mathematical models attempting to explain the natural world, not explanations that are non-natural, or of the non-natural.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #776

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to otseng in post #774]
Interesting that nobody is willing to debate on the TS, except for Joey. I've offered a testable artifact and even a way to falsify Christianity. But, nobody except Joey accepts that challenge? Again, if it's a fake, it should be easy to demonstrate how a forger created it. Really, the only evidence to argue against the authenticity of the shroud is C-14 dating, as if a single data point proves that it's fake. But, yes, eventually I will be devoting a large section to discussing the C-14 dating.
You've made such a deep dive into TS it would require some real interest in the subject, and effort to catch up on knowledge to date, to get into the fray. But when the C-14 stuff comes along I may jump in as that subject is much more within my bailiwick.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #777

Post by brunumb »

otseng wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:27 pm
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:16 pm How can something like string theory be called non-natural?
Are other dimensions considered to be natural?
Why not? If there are 10 or 11 dimensions we can only speak from the one(s) that we occupy. If there were beings in other dimensions the same thing would apply. If they consider our existence as in the supernatural but we consider our existence in the natural, which is correct? The way I see it everything that has existence is part of the natural. The supernatural is just a placeholder for natural things that we have not yet identified.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #778

Post by otseng »

DrNoGods wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:10 pm I don't know enough about string theory to know if there is claim that the 10 or 11 dimensions are actual spatial dimensions (even if most of them are vanishingly small but needed for mathematical consistency), but if such dimensions do exist at the scales of the incredibly tiny I'd think they would have to be counted as "natural."
There is no size in our dimensions that relate to another dimension. So "vanishingly small" is not relevant when discussing other dimensions. It's either other dimensions exist or not. To claim that other dimensions is also natural is a special pleading fallacy. I might as well say heaven is in another dimension and is therefore also natural.
It wouldn't unless there actually are other universes.
The issue is not if other universes exist, but cosmologists have proposed an explanation that is non-natural. Other universes is not equivalent to understanding more about our own universe. There is no causal relationship between universes. Each are independent of each other and they even might have totally different laws of physics.
So, in the meantime, non-natural explanations are acceptable?
I would call them potential explanations, hypotheses, etc. that have some basis in mathematics, observation, etc. to justify spending time and effort on, with their goal being a natural explanation at the end of the day. String theory, multiverses, etc. are mathematical models attempting to explain the natural world, not explanations that are non-natural, or of the non-natural.
Yes, they are attempts to explain our world, but they need to resort to things outside our natural world to do it.

By saying "with their goal being a natural explanation at the end of the day" strongly implies these explanations are not natural.

Again, there is special pleading involved here if you say all these explanations are natural. How would you define "natural"?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #779

Post by otseng »

DrNoGods wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:18 pm You've made such a deep dive into TS it would require some real interest in the subject, and effort to catch up on knowledge to date, to get into the fray. But when the C-14 stuff comes along I may jump in as that subject is much more within my bailiwick.
Excellent. Just for you, I will then take up C-14 as my next topic to discuss.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #780

Post by otseng »

brunumb wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 12:02 am Why not? If there are 10 or 11 dimensions we can only speak from the one(s) that we occupy. If there were beings in other dimensions the same thing would apply. If they consider our existence as in the supernatural but we consider our existence in the natural, which is correct? The way I see it everything that has existence is part of the natural. The supernatural is just a placeholder for natural things that we have not yet identified.
I'll ask the same question I posed above... how do you define "natural"?

Post Reply