@DopeSpotJoe Ask questions? Yes! Try to answer them with "common sense" and other nonsense that a sophomore math and physics majors can refute as a homework? No!
Search youtube for "Feynman on Scientific Method" to have Richard Feynman explain why dilettantes like Stein and Sproul have no business discussing this topic.
@mariner499 no business discussing this topic? I guess no one outside of those who have a science degree should ask questions. The scientists will take care of it, they will produce our genetically modified foods, find the best ways to keep people ignorant and doped up with chemicals, and then tell us we came from nothing so it doesn't matter
@ultrakool Einstein's theory is not a theory of origin of the Universe. That one is called the Big Bang theory. They are consistent. If you think that scientists somehow missed the argument you're making, you are wrong.
Not conflating religion and science, as I said, means the following. Scientists MUST find naturalistic explanations for things, otherwise it's not science. Religious people MUST accepts God on faith. Religion cannot use science to prove God any more than science can use God.
@mariner499 but that's where you're mistaken. religion can and has used science to prove god, i mean, did you even watch the video above? no, you didn't or you'd have noticed that the big bang theory was dismantled in the above vid. you just came here to spout slogans and rhetoric. incidentally, science depends on god, in fact, science is operating on borrowed capital courtesy of the creator of the universe. no mets (matter, energy, time, space)--courtesy of the creator...no science
@mariner499 and for the record, the big bang theory and einstein's mass-energy equivalence (e=mc2), are most definitely not consistent. big bang hypothesizes you can get something from nothing, while e=mc2 states that no thing is created nor destroyed, it merely changes form from matter to energy, and vice versa. so, based on einstein's theorem, it shouldn't be possible for creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) to occur. these two theories, in fact, diametrically oppose one another
ID and creationism are strange bedfellows, and are very different in their philosophies. ID would say that "something/someone" created homo sapiens, while creationists would say yhwh created mankind. my question to ID would be, "but who created the "something/someone"? ID just keeps pushing the question back
@tallliza c'mon, money talks and bullshit walks, you know that. that still doesn't change the fact that yhwh created the universe, for...ex nihilo nihil fit
This is an amazing discussion of ultimate truth and its consequences in life. Would that more such information (food for thought) were available on our college campuses and in the mainstream media... but I am not holding my breath. Let God be true, and every man a LIAR. Praise God for HIS TRUTH and HIS WORD!
Consider this...God has had trillions of years to contemplate his creation. It is obvious (to me) in nature that there is an order to creation. It shold be obvious to all. Man and his puny brain refuses to believe in something he cannot see. Therefore he shows his own ignorance. 1 celled organisms exist! Bfore we could "see" them, did they? (before the microscope) Condemnation prior to COMPLETE investigation is madness, insanity. They don't want you to believe in God. They don't want you to bel
Ben, thank you again for your wisdom. These are the intelligent people we need to be listening to. Not the so-called "scientists". They have deluded themselves by thinking they are the above all and end all of scientific inquiry. They don't have any real answers about ANYTHING only "theories" which in the words of another you-tuber that theories are the truth!!! ? Than you Ben for sticking up for God. This is getting harder and harder because of these kinds of evil influences on contemporary stu
@mariner499 philosophy is the beginning of science, cuz the laws of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, modified by albert einstein's theory of mass-energy equivalence (i.e., e=mc2), state that no thing is created nor destroyed, it merely changes form from matter to energy, and vice versa. based on einstein's theorem, it should not be possible for creation ex nihilo to take place
oh wow i just read alot of slavery talk down there..i think people are confusing slavery in which theres a good master or bad master..we are all truly slaves/servants/employees to our master/employers...but how will a master treats their servant is something else. what took place not long ago or even to the ancient of days was not always good nor as is our workforce always.
Oh MY LORD IS GREAT! for those who dont know what law of inertia is amazing! God bless you rc sproul that was the deepest truth outside the bible i have ever heard!
excellent interview - I find it very difficult to talk about this subject because the concept upon which evolution is based are so insulting to my intelligence - God bless those that have the patience to rise above the rhetoric and present sensible well contructed counterarguments.
I love when he talks at the end about all information for the universe was organized into one single "atom" or "piece of matter" (for lack of a better term) then all of a sudden on one Tuesday afternoon it exploded into chaos. Thats rediculous!!!!
If this is true then how come random "atoms" aren't just randomly exploding everyday?
If you want to kill brain cells, watch any video by Purushadasa. if you want to see an angry, pathetic, tiny troll of a man who is too much of a pussy to accept so much as one differing viewpoint on his channel, visit Purushadasa's channel. If you want to see what it is like to be a grown up who never learned the difference between "fact" and "opinion" - visit his channel.
This dude almost makes VenomFangX look "manly" - if such a thing is possible.
Purushadasa blocked me for asking one question on a video of his about moral relativism. I wasn't rude, aggressive or disrespectful in any way (at least I didn't think I was).
That is EXACTLY what he did to me - after he SENT ME THE VIDEO to watch. I didn't even know who he is, had never had any dealings with him before, and my comment was completely benign. He replied "fuck you asshole." Then blocked me.
lol, He only called me a chump. You have to admit, though, He has an interesting outlook. He supports all Religions equally and makes them compatible by ignoring most of thier doctrines. He won't engage in discussion about his views but I find his comments all over these creationist videos.
Sproul misunderstands Husserl. Intentionality, in the context of phenomenology, refers to the quality of "aboutness" that thoughts have. It has nothing to do with purpose.
I'm not a professional philosopher, but I'm a philosophy student with a bit of knowledge of phenomenology (primarily through my studies of existentialism).
When we personally loose civility we corporately loose civilization. Intentionally act like a evolved person if you subscribe to the Darwinian position. Intentionally act like a theist in walk humbly before your deity.
Bible neither said slavery was good or bad in that sense luker, Jesus worked through paul in Philemon to transform people. He tried to change relationships within the existing system. A master and slave treating one another as brothers was revolutionary. Read up on Philemon and you will learn about repentence and the means of facing the past and not running away from it, as Onesimus wanted to do in PHilemon.
language and race did not occur until after the tower of babel, at which point god looked at it and said it was very bad, indeed (babel - the glory of man). lol
please cite scripture for where "SLAVERY" is condoned. Yes there are many references to servants, but not forced brutal slavery. We have servants today they are called butlers. It is never condoned to mistreat a servant in the bible for no reason.
flory100 is right.Slavery in the Bible doesn't mean what most think today.Think more indentured servant,or bondman,and God gave very direct instructions as haw they were to be treated,as family.
@dynkblade So do you just ignore the bad parts of the bible and embrace the good? Just because there are good things in the bible, it doesnt change the fact that there are barbaric and despicable things. You can't just ignore them and pretend they aren't there.
Why do you have a problem with slavery if god condones it? Do you disagree with the morals of god?
@luker4459 what scripture says God condones slavery. Most slaves were slaved by choice and other were slaves due to punishment, wickedness of a nation (such as individuals who break the law are slaves to the state while they are in prison).
@prn72271 "Slaves were also not for life but free to go after seven years."
Oh so that makes it ok?
"Your idea of God condoning slavery is one from a bad understanding of scripture"
I dont beleive in god. I'm saying the bible contains slavery and your idea that it doesnt is because brainwashed people like you convince themselves its not there by "interpereting" it differently.
How about exodus? It provides explicit instructions. Not once int he bible does it say slavery is wrong.
@flory100 You have got to be kidding. Have you even read the old testament? Leviticus? Exodus? They are not talking about butlers. They are talking about slaves.
@luker4459 yes. under the old law of the old testament of the bible, slavery was acceptable under the auspices of the breaking of that law. canaan, ham's grandson, was an example of a group cursed by god into servitude. we, however, are now under the new testament that would question the injustice of slavery.
@luker4459 why question your maker? yhwh is the infallible, holy (above reproach) creator of the universe. who are we to question his ways? we'd might as well howl at the moon. he doesn't involve himself in false dilemmas and semantic debates, cuz they are in the end...illogical. he is omnipotent. his old testament was a foreshadow of his new testament. read them and learn his glorious splendor...or don't
@ultrakool No, its all bullshit otherwise it would be a perfect book with no errors or contradictions and completely aligned with scientific discoveries.
@luker4459 i'll say it again...philosophy is the beginning of science (to know). do you know every language? prolly not. do you know every syntax and idioms of those languages? prolly even more not. there is a divine code, seen as you read it and unseen between the lines, if you will, that demonstrates the accuracy and completion of god's word. you just haven't investigated it. stop chasing whirlwinds and discover the majesty
@ultrakool Science leads to concrete answers - philosophy does not. Devine code? Read between the lines? In other words - read the book and make up your own conclusion about what it says/means?
@luker4459 now, don't misconstrue my intent. philosophy was the beginning of wisdom (or science, or knowledge), or in other words...knowing. now where did that science come from? surely not from nothing, but from something. and that something is, the self-existent, creator of the universe. not man's occultic demigods (man's pride or influential rebellious creatures, emphasis on creatures and not evolved entities...cuz there is no such thing within the natural laws of physics). don't be fooled
@ultrakool The science (scientific method) came from generations of brilliant minds coming up with answers to mysteries that can be clearly demonstrated, tested and repeated
@luker4459 and you're right, that has happened, however, we've gone back to a scientific "dark age", if you will, when we exclude the mysteries of god's word. the theory of evolution (i.e., atheism, the excluding of the creator of the universe, in our scientific endeavors) has become the inquisitors of heresy in our modern day world. i'm breaking out of that oppression. you wanna stay and be a slave, a serf? then be my guest. you'd be foolish not to investigate their agenda. now...who is they?
@ultrakool Scientific dark age? Science is advancing further and further every day... what are you talking about?
Science excludes "the mysteries of gods word" because there is no word. If you're talking about the bible then science contradicts some of what it says - it was truly written by god then you would expect it to contain no errors whatsoever.
@luker4459 alright, i'll admit i got off on a bit of a tangent. all that i'm saying is that there are paradoxes and mysteries in this universe that include the bible and creation, as well. we don't know everything about everything in this universe and that's why we construct hypotheses, whether they be through theoretical physics or theology. for the sake of knowledge, it would be disingenuous to exclude either. btw, there is in fact an object known as "the word". it's the all-time, best seller
@luker4459 everything. it's what carl sagan was too scared to discuss with sproul, i.e., things at rest (point of singularity) stay at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force (god). watch above discussion 6:54 thru 7:34
@ultrakool Just because we do not understand something, does not mean we can conclude anything from it. We do not know yet what caused the big bang - it is that simple. Maybe we will be able to actually know one day with actual evidence and not superstition
All Christians should own a copy of expelled. Ben has done more than anyone to further creation, intelligent design and exposing those that would keep us in the dark. Just buy a copy and tell someone to buy one too.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sproul is correct when he explains that there's an important difference between self-creation and self-existence. But that raises two questions that he ignores: 1) Why can't the universe itself be such a self-existent entity? and 2) By granting the assumption that self-existence is possible, he grants the possibility of existence without creation—which contradicts his entire thesis that the existence of the universe requires a Creator.
Great interview...go Sproul! I think its time the "science" behind the origination of the universe starts getting questioned. Once the laws of this universe start contradicting the theory of beginning (unaffected by a Designer) then we must really question what they teach in our universities.
It's called a transcendental question. It's like a bunch of microbes asking wother or not humans exist...
If 500,000,000 of them were in agreement one way or the other with their lack eyes, ears, est, Even with all the evidence they could ever conjure up; they still couldn't prove one or the other.
Now I know you say that I assume that God exists first and that leads me in that direction.
How is it though that you who assume God doesn't exist aren't doing the same exact thing I'm doing?
The fact that there are such things as crackers and that they exist is a faith based claim.
It's something you assumed.. now you make sense out of your experiment from that.
However lets look at this.. since you want/dontwant the crackers to exist in your subconscious and the question transcends your ability to answer.
When ever evidence is displayed proving/disproving the answer you like/dislike you like, then you revert back to any assumptions that favor the ones you do subconciously
When the question is too big for your own pressupositions to understand you will generally simply default back to your presuppositions.. your assumed ciphers
You really cant abandon all assumptions when that's all that is in the limited scope of your mind in ordor to understand the machinations of a world far more vast and complex than your brain has room to make sense out of in it's inerrant totality.
You are bound to make error in truth claims when the truth is too vast to comprehend with out making some mistakes.
You can account for 99% of something from your own perception, but when you might only be looking at .0001% It doesn't mean much.
" The "Three Mile Island" power plant was said to be working fine in 1979 as well as said to be having a partial core meltdown. Are either assumptions true?"
That's a very mild example.. that's like comparing wother mice stole cheese to wother or not global warming is happening and what it would lead to if it were.
When the question your asking is more along lines of a microbe "with no eyes, ears, est." trying to prove humans exist or not.
If you were living in a county nearby to "The three Mile Island" and it was said over a radio broadcast that there are plumes of radioactive gas released from the power plant, because of a possible core meltdown beginning. However, you receive other information suggesting that there is no such plume, and nor is there problem.
What is your basic assumption? Do you seek to validate your assumption? How do you validate your assumption and why does this validate your assumption?
When you seek this pantry with crackers in it, you can make the probable assumption that there are crackers. Assumptions based on prior knowledge, or probable reasoning that leads you to think there are crackers. However, if the pantry reveals no crackers, do you make the assumption that the crackers are invisible? If you can't feel for them, are they thus intangible? Do you resort to making unfalsifiable claims about these crackers? why or why not?
You missed the point.. you are thinking of terms of the ability to validate, or investigate.
You make the rhetorical(wother you meant it or not) statement "however, if the pantry reveals no crackers" that you've some how manage to open the pantry..
You dont have the ability to open that pantry, because the ability to do so transcends your own.
To say that you need to approach evidence with a "open mind" when you dont have one pretty much sets you up from the get go to whatever moosh is already in there.
That is you overlook the brain's ability to self serve according to emotional and much assumed(but not infalible) limited incomplete concepts of what you think, but can't possibly know as a 100% inerrant fact unless you have FULL knowledge of the mechanic you observe.
I'm no acception to the rule, but neither are you.
There really is no gap for your "open mind theory" to exist, if that is what you are looking for.
It's cause and effect at such a massive scale that we act exactly like objects in motion according to newtons laws, cause it's exactly what you are made up of; objects in motion.
Think "Inertia" in terms of the way we think and reason with one another.
This seems to imply that humans can not be open to new ideas, suggesting that they cannot produce new ideas to begin with.
Are you suggesting we are a PC that is completely unwilling to install new software? Upgrade software? Download patches? Constantly update our anti-virus? Unwilling to go anywhere other then your website homepage and moreover, never update the homepage? (your analogy, not mine)
Slightly.. we are a PC.. we DO upgrade, Download, Constantly update anti-virus.
However we are less compatible with each other than PCs. Short of Hypnosis we generally contine you to do things based on whatever ciphers are originally in our system.
Where PCs are universally compatible, every brain has it's own language it speaks.
You might fuction on C++ while I operate on a different one.
It takes more time for us to relate concepts to each other.
"How do you determine what assumptions about the world are true?"
This is by far the best statement I've heard from you. However if it was rhetorical then you will be hitting a deadend.
For example a skeptic might say that it is wrong to assume something first then approach evidence. However I would retort that the brain carries too much baggage in ordor to clear the mind of assumption (which I consider impossible cause it's the bread and butter of how we understand what we perceive)
It was not rhetorical, I was asking you. You seem to be avoiding the question of how you determine what assumptions are true, false and unknown about the world. What methods do you use?
Pointing out that there really is no inerrant answer yup.
trust/belief/faith is as close as anyone comes to approaching truth claims.
Yes that can lead to error, but you can't avoid the fact you do it.
Even in all of coherentism you can still fall short in that something you already assumed isn't exactly true. Specially when truth is so hard too vast to comprehend.
Do you think humans cannot tell the difference between dreams and reality? What about patients who suffer from vivid hallucinations, that for some neurological reason, they can differentiate between what is real and what is a hallucination. You do not need faith to differentiate between awake and dreaming. This innate differentiation is already there, and we just happen to experience it.
Yes we share some core ciphers, but so much changes for a human in early development.
Dont forget many many other factors play in the roll of cognitive development. From genetic makeup, chemicals in the brain. electromagnetic fluctuation and all types of radiations.
The base ciphers (hearing, seeing est.) are in general the same.
The second cipher is developed through interpretation of the first. For example (In ordor to better remember something we saw, we use a picture) why is that?
Now think of a computer.. can you install microsoft windows programs on a MAC? No.. the only way your mind is going to be fully compatible with "ALL" incoming information is if you reformat the harddrive. Thus there is a limit.
Now I realize that was a rudimentary example. The brain doesn't act EXACTLY alike, but let's not get distracted from the point like a dog chasing a frisbee, it still sums up in a rudimentary fashion how the brain fuctions.
Well, you can have 'Windows' on a mac now. What does that say for the analogy, I don't know.
Of course there is a limit to how a brain can think. We cannot exceed the limitation granted to us by nature and physics. We are an operating system that has limitations, but I do not think our limitations fall in the area you are suggesting.
Are you saying that humans can be Mac or PC?
A person who is MAC is 'very likely' not be become a PC or use PC operating systems?
You should read V.S Ramachandran and Giacomo Rizzolatti before you make claims about neurology in the way that you are. Your claims are bias, and simply untrue.
To suggest that views held by the conscious person do not change 180 is of course evidently untrue. Ramachandrans basic example of a phantom limb patient convinced of having a painful phantom limb, through practice, can convince himself otherwise. Are you saying that the brain is not ever changing?
The brain 'can't' break to laws of physics. Who said it was breaking the laws of physics?
You are suggesting that someones can't change their mind. I'm saying that people can change their mind and often do. What does changing ones mind, in the conventional sense, have to do with breaking the laws of physics?
You should read some books on neurology and brain function, maybe that is your mirror box for seeing the world in a 180 degree new way.
Pretty much your idea of it is; you cut your arm off and you dont even have a phantom limb instantaneously.
Now I'd love to see you accomplish that, but we know it to be impossible.. WHY?Because the brain TAKES TIME to get used to the idea that there is no limb there.
People dont change their minds at the flip of a coin or are you that naive?
Depending on the experiment, someones view can be changed on the drop of a dime. Either way, how does this relate to your view that someones assumptions are "very likely" not to change? Your assumption that people are 'less likely'(which is a vague assessment) to change their mind, views, understandings is an assumption about neurology.
Tell a kid(with belief) that there is no Santa Claus. A change can be! and it can be made fairly quickly. His presupposition on Santa Claus can be changed.
Upon immediate use of a mirror box the person in seconds changes their view that the limb exists and is in pain, they in fact experience immediate relief. Through constant use of the mirror box their view that their limb is nonexistent and not in pain becomes their consistent understanding.
Your presupposition is that people do not have the freedom to change their views of the world. It takes a second with a mirror box for someone to understand that their phantom limb that is in pain(they've had for 10 years) is 'non existent' and NOT in pain.
This simple experiment demonstrates how quickly a mind can adapt to certain situations. The brain has evolved this system of development and adaption to new views and is fairly malleable.
The same rules apply to a object in motion; it likes to stay in motion.
Your mindset agrees with a certain way, so you do everything to keep it that way. Changing your mind is always bound to be harder; specially when the concept of the subject under examinion is something that doesn't favor the way you live your life.
Neurological training occurs from early childhood development. It takes a myriad areas of your brain to function doing various tasks. The more you practice and make use of particular neurological connections, the better developed these neurological areas will be. You make a claim that you can not validate, but you think it merely sounds nice.
What do you mean by 'mindset agrees a certain way' in terms of neurology and what evidence do you have for 'you do anything to keep it that way'?
I can validate it.. it's called cause and effect. Happens all the time around you. Tell me why Electrons move one way through a conductor? Cause they're pushed by those behind them. Action = Reaction.
More "commen" neurological pathways will be used more often as they take less resistance to build upon. It's iike a tree.. branches grow from the trunk.
It takes less effort for the brain to build upon a trunk that it does to start anew. Same goes for everything in life.
You still do not answer the question. You seem to take a philosophical approach to neurology, rather then a scientific one. You make a multitude of 'presuppositions' about how the brain is structured not considering the full meaning of what you are suggesting.
Changing ones view is in itself a neurological activity.
You dont "like" the idea of God therefor you turn your head and whistle when evidence is given.
It's not a problem of evidence, its a problem of your mindset befor you even see the evidence. Of course the same goes for me, but I never claimed to have an "open mind" which is complete BS.. NO ONE is with out biases. No one is with out a opinion about a subject short of erasing their mind completely. You can do so if you have a gun and a bullet handy.
In an empty room where an individual claims the existence of an invisible intangible chicken. Are you thus suggesting that your immediate presupposition is to accept this claim?
My immediate approach to such a claim would be to assess the claim, and the one making the claim. If it cannot be falsified then there is an issue with the claim and the claim maker. In fact, the claim maker by definition of his claim is making an unmakeable claim. It is more probable he is merely mistaken.
No, the idea of God is a man-made idea. In it's earliest forms, it was used to explain the goings on of a world we knew very little about. The very concept of God evolves along with cultures and better understanding learned about the goings on of the world. Evidence found in this natural world which all people seemingly share in, is the best evidence we have for determining truths. What type of evidence do you put forward for the existence of a divinity? Are you proposing supernatural evidence?
That's your assumption, and it's a over simplistic one at that.
I'm proposing you look at the same evidence I do and come up with a different answer based on your presuppositions. Like a object in motion you take the path with least resistance. Evidence has little effect if all you do with that evidence is find the easiest way to build upon your own pressuposions.
You will always take the explaination that takes the least resistance to your presuppositions.
What evidence do you propose? What evidence do you put forward?
You keep saying, 'presupposition' and 'objects in motion' as if this somehow wins you an argument about truths. To hold the presupposition that leprechauns exist does not validate whether they exist. You can have a presupposition that Dogs have feathers but this does not have any bearing on whether dogs have feathers or not. Do you think whether dogs have feathers is merely a difference of presuppositions?
You are simply avoiding having to make a point. Your use of presuppositions has long since failed you.
Do you think that holding a presupposition that God exists is a valid argument for whether he exists or not? To suggest that it is merely our presuppositions that differ, therefore I'm under the misapprehension that God does not exists is far fetched. You have to do more then merely presuppose the existence of something. You have to actually prove that something.
My point as I originally stated is that you look at the same evidence I do through a presuppositinal lense.
Presuppositions are by definition "Assumptions".. You have them, I have them. No one is above having them. Thus the openmind you say you have is based on your presuppositional worldview.
You are "LESS LIKELY" not impossible "LESS LIKELY" to change foundational presuppositions.
Yes I realize people change their minds, but once agains they are "LESS LIKELY" going to do so.
You are claiming that people are 'less likely' but I'm claiming that depending on the person and the persons brain development, they can be 'Very Likely' to have a mind willing to explore new ideas and understand new views. Being young is not just a physical desire but a desire to have a malleable brain that can adapt and develop to different situations and environments.
How is it you manage to escape Presuppistions? How do you not presuppose things unlike the rest of the world?
Cause lets face it.. the only way you are going to attain a real open mind is if you put a bullet through it. Cause that's the only way you're going to reformat the harddrive that sums the make up that is you
In an empty room, you stand there with another individual, and that individual claims that there is an invisible, intangible three headed chicken. Your presupposition would be that the claim is true until otherwise? and how could an unfalsifiable claim be proven false?
You can't prove a universal negative. Philosophy 101
It's like saying you have omniscience. Of course I'm not talking about a 3 headed chicken. What is to say you do no deceive your self to the evidence that is there, because of the biases you've created in your mind.
Now explain to me what an open mind is and how one is possible?
If you live in a world of cause and effect (like I and the rest of the world do) then tell me how causation hasn't shaped your worldview to what it is?
Tell me how physiological makeup, infuential upbringing and perception hasn't shaped the way your brain functions? Then tell me how newton's laws of motion dont play a complete roll on your thought patterns.
ID is a very old set of simple arguments that has been proven wrong or/and unscientific, it just has new wording.
Creationists were successful in churches, but not in the classroom. ID proponents just removed any kind of testable hypothesis that creationism had so that they get directly into the classroom through policy makers, but not through the scientific community.
ID is not a theory, is not a hypothesis, is not science, it's religion and politics.
it hasnt been proven wrong, you think it has because you've probably only looked at one side of the argument. the only reason the Evolution is a science and ID isnt, is because of its atheistic implications and scientists love that, so does the media and the literalistic side of society. evolution is just as much a religion as ID is.
-ID cannot be falsified; so it cannot qualify as a scientific hypothesis.
-ID allows the super natural, so is not science but a religious idea. Science is about explaining the natural with natural causes. If scientists just give up and say: "God did it and we don't know why or how" we are doomed.
- ID has NO practical uses. Will someone with HIV benefit from the "findings" of ID? No, with ID we would stop looking for explanation.
its about half and half by the way that was the 2007 consensus.
ID allows for supernatural yeah we know, but so does evolution, to say that we all came from a rock billions of years ago is a fairy tale, you can beleive that if you want but don't call it science. You say we give up and say God did it, well you give up and say time did it.
Evolution has no practical uses for the same reasons no one will benefit from ID
"ID is not a theory, is not a hypothesis, is not science, it's religion and politics." so is evolution its the THEORY of evolution not fact or law, theory. and its a fairy tale, now where has any scientist be able to fully prove it, thats why its still called the theory of evolution, and ill gladly debate you over email about it, i hate writing 500 word comments
1-Evolution doesn't say we came from a rock. It needs genetic info to work on.
2-ID proponents deny some implications of Evolution, but NOT EVEN THEY deny that it plays a role in nature.
3-A scientific theory does NOT have the same definition you hear in the street. Theories hold MUCH more than facts and explain them. Laws are rules and theories are EXPLANATION, they NEVER become laws.
4-Practical uses of Evolution: Bioinformatics, HIV treatment, etc, etc
1-Evolution does say you came from a rock if you go back far enough 2-yeah i know, speciation/natural selection/micro evolution is OKAY but macro evolution is a stupid theory 3- theories are ideas that have been put forward to explain something that needs to be proven by the facts 4- bioinformatics can be done without evolution HIV treatment is only possible if you have certain inert immunities to it in the first place.
1-Evolution is about the diversity of life, not origins of life, that's Abiogenesis.
2-I see you accept Natural selection (NS). Macro-evolution is the same process as micro-evolution. I can give you examples of observed speciation.
3-A theory is not a hypothesis. They have a large body of evidence, have been thoroughly tested, and unify facts, laws, hypothesis and other theories.
4-As computer scientist I can tell you that NS if the basis for genetic algorithms.
Evolution is a crazy idea about how somehow we all came from a rock billions of years ago and evolution is supposed to work with abigenesis. Yeah of couse I would accept it it males sence we can test it and prove it, it has nothing to do with evolution NS selects it doesn't change anything, and no ice is the basis for the algorithms many HIV treatments use MEDICINE not evolution.
When you accept micro-evolution, you agree on the mechanisms of evolution. What you don't like I guess is common ancestry, though the process is the same.
Evolutionary research is used in several fields like mine (computer science), drug resistance, etc.
One of the problems of ID is that most of its arguments are against evolution, instead of on its own favor, that helps create a false dichotomy: "if evolution didn't do it, then it was designed". That's false as ignores any other alternative.
"When you accept micro-evolution, you agree on the mechanisms of evolution" no, i agree with the parts behind evolution but not the overall theory i do beleive that and i have a right to so dont tell me i have to beleive the rest of it.
evolutionary research is linked to those fields because of the idea of it. you like brushing your teeth to cleaning a car theyre not the same thing. and i would have to disagree, most ID videos and debates do both equally and effectively
Yeah he did make all of the bad things thisva fallen universe it's not perfectvanymore besides younneed the balance ofblufe andvdeath in the world in order to keep equalibrium, if there were no bacteria then there wouldn't be decay all dead things would pile up and that can't happen. Both make beleive in god and the idea we are here for no reason sounds impossible to me, I don't know about you but your welcoome to beleive what you want but get your facts right
of course God had to make the bad things, to balance the good things, its called equilibrium it needs to exists, too much of good thing is bad for you, besides we are a fallen creation the universe is falling apart, so yeah these things will exist. yeah there are Christians who believe that, but i don't know of a god who would have to slowly change and alter his creations that doesn't sound like the god of the bible to me, and i am a scientist thank you
No disrespect, but I don't believe you are a scientist. If you are one, shame on you. You have shown great ignorance about the most basic topics and have shown disrespect to the scientist profession.
If you are engaged in research activities don't give up and say, "it's too complex, we'll never be able to know how it works". If that day comes, maybe you have chosen the wrong carrier.
Let science be science and religion be religion and question both in their respective ground, but don't mix them.
Well i am, i have studied physics/chemistry and a some biology but im not a master in that field. I have not shown great ignorance, i have simply challenged the assertion of macro evolution, which is stupid and shouldn't be a theory. I don't simply give up and say god did it, i look at the beginning of creation and say "wow look what God has made for us" not " hey Jim look at this amoeba i don't understand it must have been god" thats not what i do thank you.
Religion is faith based, it's supposed divine truth is unsupported by facts and evidence. Science functions only on the facts and evidence that it discovers, it builds our understanding of the world from what we find in the world. Religion is the best antonym we have for science by definition. To suggest that you are a scientist at the same time as religious(theist) is to be completely and underly Unscientific.
You've not challenged any theories, only demonstrated an ignorance of those theories.
07:40 is hilarious.
wyclifdotnet 3 weeks ago
@DopeSpotJoe Ask questions? Yes! Try to answer them with "common sense" and other nonsense that a sophomore math and physics majors can refute as a homework? No!
mariner499 3 weeks ago
Search youtube for "Feynman on Scientific Method" to have Richard Feynman explain why dilettantes like Stein and Sproul have no business discussing this topic.
mariner499 2 months ago
@mariner499 no business discussing this topic? I guess no one outside of those who have a science degree should ask questions. The scientists will take care of it, they will produce our genetically modified foods, find the best ways to keep people ignorant and doped up with chemicals, and then tell us we came from nothing so it doesn't matter
DopeSpotJoe 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
OfAdoni 4 months ago
Comment removed
OfAdoni 4 months ago
Comment removed
OfAdoni 4 months ago
@ultrakool Einstein's theory is not a theory of origin of the Universe. That one is called the Big Bang theory. They are consistent. If you think that scientists somehow missed the argument you're making, you are wrong.
Not conflating religion and science, as I said, means the following. Scientists MUST find naturalistic explanations for things, otherwise it's not science. Religious people MUST accepts God on faith. Religion cannot use science to prove God any more than science can use God.
mariner499 5 months ago
@mariner499 but that's where you're mistaken. religion can and has used science to prove god, i mean, did you even watch the video above? no, you didn't or you'd have noticed that the big bang theory was dismantled in the above vid. you just came here to spout slogans and rhetoric. incidentally, science depends on god, in fact, science is operating on borrowed capital courtesy of the creator of the universe. no mets (matter, energy, time, space)--courtesy of the creator...no science
ultrakool 5 months ago
@mariner499 and for the record, the big bang theory and einstein's mass-energy equivalence (e=mc2), are most definitely not consistent. big bang hypothesizes you can get something from nothing, while e=mc2 states that no thing is created nor destroyed, it merely changes form from matter to energy, and vice versa. so, based on einstein's theorem, it shouldn't be possible for creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) to occur. these two theories, in fact, diametrically oppose one another
ultrakool 5 months ago
the fear of god = the beginning of wisdom = "common stuff". fear god...or don't
ultrakool 5 months ago
ID and creationism are strange bedfellows, and are very different in their philosophies. ID would say that "something/someone" created homo sapiens, while creationists would say yhwh created mankind. my question to ID would be, "but who created the "something/someone"? ID just keeps pushing the question back
ultrakool 5 months ago
The man made good money from his anti-evolution stand. Monetary profit is most probably his only motif
tallliza 7 months ago
@tallliza c'mon, money talks and bullshit walks, you know that. that still doesn't change the fact that yhwh created the universe, for...ex nihilo nihil fit
ultrakool 5 months ago
I hope Ben chooses Christ if he hasn't already, so that we can see him in heaven.
dougmoerhoffman 8 months ago
This is an amazing discussion of ultimate truth and its consequences in life. Would that more such information (food for thought) were available on our college campuses and in the mainstream media... but I am not holding my breath. Let God be true, and every man a LIAR. Praise God for HIS TRUTH and HIS WORD!
MrNorgebuns 9 months ago
Consider this...God has had trillions of years to contemplate his creation. It is obvious (to me) in nature that there is an order to creation. It shold be obvious to all. Man and his puny brain refuses to believe in something he cannot see. Therefore he shows his own ignorance. 1 celled organisms exist! Bfore we could "see" them, did they? (before the microscope) Condemnation prior to COMPLETE investigation is madness, insanity. They don't want you to believe in God. They don't want you to bel
bheadh 9 months ago
Ben, thank you again for your wisdom. These are the intelligent people we need to be listening to. Not the so-called "scientists". They have deluded themselves by thinking they are the above all and end all of scientific inquiry. They don't have any real answers about ANYTHING only "theories" which in the words of another you-tuber that theories are the truth!!! ? Than you Ben for sticking up for God. This is getting harder and harder because of these kinds of evil influences on contemporary stu
bheadh 10 months ago
A little masonic handshakeage at 8:35?
superfit33 1 year ago
@superfit33 It certainly looked like one! Im sad if it was because i enjoyed the interview.
Bewareofthewolves 1 year ago
Comment removed
superfit33 1 year ago
Those who conflate science and religion (like these two) don't understand either.
mariner499 1 year ago
@mariner499 philosophy is the beginning of science, cuz the laws of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, modified by albert einstein's theory of mass-energy equivalence (i.e., e=mc2), state that no thing is created nor destroyed, it merely changes form from matter to energy, and vice versa. based on einstein's theorem, it should not be possible for creation ex nihilo to take place
ultrakool 5 months ago
Evolution and godlessness is pretty funny.
9pt9 1 year ago
oh wow i just read alot of slavery talk down there..i think people are confusing slavery in which theres a good master or bad master..we are all truly slaves/servants/employees to our master/employers...but how will a master treats their servant is something else. what took place not long ago or even to the ancient of days was not always good nor as is our workforce always.
norcaljohnny 1 year ago
Oh MY LORD IS GREAT! for those who dont know what law of inertia is amazing! God bless you rc sproul that was the deepest truth outside the bible i have ever heard!
norcaljohnny 1 year ago
excellent interview - I find it very difficult to talk about this subject because the concept upon which evolution is based are so insulting to my intelligence - God bless those that have the patience to rise above the rhetoric and present sensible well contructed counterarguments.
sunshineuk1965 1 year ago
I love when he talks at the end about all information for the universe was organized into one single "atom" or "piece of matter" (for lack of a better term) then all of a sudden on one Tuesday afternoon it exploded into chaos. Thats rediculous!!!!
If this is true then how come random "atoms" aren't just randomly exploding everyday?
JULON42 1 year ago
According to Helen Balvatsky, Dawin got his ideas on evolution from the Hindu religion.I dont think ive heard anyone comment on this.
imsuckingwind 1 year ago
@imsuckingwind For complete information on that assertion, please see my video, "Evolution is a Fact."
She was wrong about it being "Hindu," though. Actually, God revealed true evolution in the Vedic Scriptures, which have nothing to do with "Hinduism."
God bless you!
Purushadasa 1 year ago
@Purushadasa
If you want to kill brain cells, watch any video by Purushadasa. if you want to see an angry, pathetic, tiny troll of a man who is too much of a pussy to accept so much as one differing viewpoint on his channel, visit Purushadasa's channel. If you want to see what it is like to be a grown up who never learned the difference between "fact" and "opinion" - visit his channel.
This dude almost makes VenomFangX look "manly" - if such a thing is possible.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 1 year ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist,
Purushadasa blocked me for asking one question on a video of his about moral relativism. I wasn't rude, aggressive or disrespectful in any way (at least I didn't think I was).
CaptSardonicus 1 year ago
@CaptSardonicus
That is EXACTLY what he did to me - after he SENT ME THE VIDEO to watch. I didn't even know who he is, had never had any dealings with him before, and my comment was completely benign. He replied "fuck you asshole." Then blocked me.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 1 year ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist,
lol, He only called me a chump. You have to admit, though, He has an interesting outlook. He supports all Religions equally and makes them compatible by ignoring most of thier doctrines. He won't engage in discussion about his views but I find his comments all over these creationist videos.
CaptSardonicus 1 year ago
@CaptSardonicus
I am starting to think that Purushadasa is yet another sockpuppet account for MaximusArurealius.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 1 year ago
Very informative conversation. Both Stein and Sproul gave a very good assessment of just how religious Darwinism has become.
meanmopar426 1 year ago
Long Life, Health and Blessings to Dr Sproul!
God bless you, RC. You are the best teacher one could ever hope for! I thank the Lord for the wisdom in you which we're all benefited from..
mickytk 1 year ago
Cave people.
domaataajs 1 year ago
stein is very astute in his observation of sproul's intellect
ultrakool 1 year ago
That brings me Joy, the statement "If anything thing exists, something has ALWAYS existed."
studentofthegospel 1 year ago
THANK GOD! I will be one of the first to buy a ticket
BY5FZ 1 year ago
Sproul misunderstands Husserl. Intentionality, in the context of phenomenology, refers to the quality of "aboutness" that thoughts have. It has nothing to do with purpose.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Are you a philospher?
jnuser 1 year ago
I'm not a professional philosopher, but I'm a philosophy student with a bit of knowledge of phenomenology (primarily through my studies of existentialism).
ElasticGiraffe 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
These guys truly talk out of there asses!
philylennon 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Adopting "God" (or whatever you wanna call this thing) as a substitute for the lack of understandment in the scientific realm is oblivious.
TheBookArchive 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
sucking each others unevolved cocks
Geprodis 2 years ago
keeping is classy man... I'd expect nothing less.
adg1017 2 years ago
When we personally loose civility we corporately loose civilization. Intentionally act like a evolved person if you subscribe to the Darwinian position. Intentionally act like a theist in walk humbly before your deity.
willisadair 2 years ago
Bible neither said slavery was good or bad in that sense luker, Jesus worked through paul in Philemon to transform people. He tried to change relationships within the existing system. A master and slave treating one another as brothers was revolutionary. Read up on Philemon and you will learn about repentence and the means of facing the past and not running away from it, as Onesimus wanted to do in PHilemon.
JonnyBiz 2 years ago 2
look thru Genesis..
on the 6th day God created all the races so how are you going to talk about racism when he looked at it and it was GOOD!
loafybrown 2 years ago 2
@loafybrown
language and race did not occur until after the tower of babel, at which point god looked at it and said it was very bad, indeed (babel - the glory of man). lol
ultrakool 1 year ago
"Courts said slavery was fine"
So did the bible right?
luker4459 2 years ago
No it doesnt you fool. Go read it before opening that grave you call a mouth.
rightcleric 2 years ago 2
You're an idiot. Both the old and new testaments have passages condoning and even instructing on slavery.
I dont know what version of the bible you've been reading.
luker4459 2 years ago
please cite scripture for where "SLAVERY" is condoned. Yes there are many references to servants, but not forced brutal slavery. We have servants today they are called butlers. It is never condoned to mistreat a servant in the bible for no reason.
flory100 2 years ago
flory100 is right.Slavery in the Bible doesn't mean what most think today.Think more indentured servant,or bondman,and God gave very direct instructions as haw they were to be treated,as family.
dynkblade 2 years ago
@dynkblade As family eh?
How about exodus 21:20-21. Does that sound like they were treated as family?
luker4459 1 year ago
@luker4459
Read Deut. 15:7-18.And I recommend the
reading be done with a with a Companion Bible,and a Strong's concordence.Great tools to really help one understand.
dynkblade 1 year ago
@dynkblade So do you just ignore the bad parts of the bible and embrace the good? Just because there are good things in the bible, it doesnt change the fact that there are barbaric and despicable things. You can't just ignore them and pretend they aren't there.
Why do you have a problem with slavery if god condones it? Do you disagree with the morals of god?
luker4459 1 year ago
@luker4459
dynkblade 1 year ago
@luker4459 Posted on your channel.For some reason I could'nt get it to post here.
dynkblade 1 year ago
@dynkblade I cant see any comments or messages, so i dont know where you posted it.
luker4459 1 year ago
@luker4459 what scripture says God condones slavery. Most slaves were slaved by choice and other were slaves due to punishment, wickedness of a nation (such as individuals who break the law are slaves to the state while they are in prison).
prn72271 1 year ago
@luker4459 Slaves were also not for life but free to go after seven years. They were also not to be brutalized as was with slavery in America.
God is not biased at all as His own people were enlsaved and it was His doing due to their rebellion.
Your idea of God condoning slavery is one from a bad understanding of scripture.
prn72271 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@prn72271 "Slaves were also not for life but free to go after seven years."
Oh so that makes it ok?
"Your idea of God condoning slavery is one from a bad understanding of scripture"
I dont beleive in god. I'm saying the bible contains slavery and your idea that it doesnt is because brainwashed people like you convince themselves its not there by "interpereting" it differently.
How about exodus? It provides explicit instructions. Not once int he bible does it say slavery is wrong.
luker4459 1 year ago
@flory100 You have got to be kidding. Have you even read the old testament? Leviticus? Exodus? They are not talking about butlers. They are talking about slaves.
luker4459 1 year ago
@luker4459 yes. under the old law of the old testament of the bible, slavery was acceptable under the auspices of the breaking of that law. canaan, ham's grandson, was an example of a group cursed by god into servitude. we, however, are now under the new testament that would question the injustice of slavery.
ultrakool 1 year ago
@ultrakool We are now under the new testament? What, so god made a mistake in the first one?
luker4459 1 year ago
Comment removed
dynkblade 1 year ago
@luker4459 Have you never read the book of Romans?
dynkblade 1 year ago
@luker4459 why question your maker? yhwh is the infallible, holy (above reproach) creator of the universe. who are we to question his ways? we'd might as well howl at the moon. he doesn't involve himself in false dilemmas and semantic debates, cuz they are in the end...illogical. he is omnipotent. his old testament was a foreshadow of his new testament. read them and learn his glorious splendor...or don't
ultrakool 5 months ago
@ultrakool No, its all bullshit otherwise it would be a perfect book with no errors or contradictions and completely aligned with scientific discoveries.
luker4459 5 months ago
@luker4459 i'll say it again...philosophy is the beginning of science (to know). do you know every language? prolly not. do you know every syntax and idioms of those languages? prolly even more not. there is a divine code, seen as you read it and unseen between the lines, if you will, that demonstrates the accuracy and completion of god's word. you just haven't investigated it. stop chasing whirlwinds and discover the majesty
ultrakool 5 months ago
@ultrakool Science leads to concrete answers - philosophy does not. Devine code? Read between the lines? In other words - read the book and make up your own conclusion about what it says/means?
luker4459 5 months ago
@luker4459 now, don't misconstrue my intent. philosophy was the beginning of wisdom (or science, or knowledge), or in other words...knowing. now where did that science come from? surely not from nothing, but from something. and that something is, the self-existent, creator of the universe. not man's occultic demigods (man's pride or influential rebellious creatures, emphasis on creatures and not evolved entities...cuz there is no such thing within the natural laws of physics). don't be fooled
ultrakool 5 months ago
@ultrakool The science (scientific method) came from generations of brilliant minds coming up with answers to mysteries that can be clearly demonstrated, tested and repeated
luker4459 5 months ago
@luker4459 and you're right, that has happened, however, we've gone back to a scientific "dark age", if you will, when we exclude the mysteries of god's word. the theory of evolution (i.e., atheism, the excluding of the creator of the universe, in our scientific endeavors) has become the inquisitors of heresy in our modern day world. i'm breaking out of that oppression. you wanna stay and be a slave, a serf? then be my guest. you'd be foolish not to investigate their agenda. now...who is they?
ultrakool 5 months ago
@ultrakool Scientific dark age? Science is advancing further and further every day... what are you talking about?
Science excludes "the mysteries of gods word" because there is no word. If you're talking about the bible then science contradicts some of what it says - it was truly written by god then you would expect it to contain no errors whatsoever.
luker4459 5 months ago
@luker4459 alright, i'll admit i got off on a bit of a tangent. all that i'm saying is that there are paradoxes and mysteries in this universe that include the bible and creation, as well. we don't know everything about everything in this universe and that's why we construct hypotheses, whether they be through theoretical physics or theology. for the sake of knowledge, it would be disingenuous to exclude either. btw, there is in fact an object known as "the word". it's the all-time, best seller
ultrakool 5 months ago
@luker4459 incidently, name one. biblical error, that is
ultrakool 5 months ago
don't disobey the law of inertia. you just might get arrested and land in jail. don't do it...you will regret it
ultrakool 5 months ago
@ultrakool What does inertia have to do with anything?
luker4459 5 months ago
@luker4459 everything. it's what carl sagan was too scared to discuss with sproul, i.e., things at rest (point of singularity) stay at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force (god). watch above discussion 6:54 thru 7:34
ultrakool 5 months ago 2
@ultrakool Just because we do not understand something, does not mean we can conclude anything from it. We do not know yet what caused the big bang - it is that simple. Maybe we will be able to actually know one day with actual evidence and not superstition
luker4459 5 months ago
All Christians should own a copy of expelled. Ben has done more than anyone to further creation, intelligent design and exposing those that would keep us in the dark. Just buy a copy and tell someone to buy one too.
davidgran1967 2 years ago 2
Excellent.
L.
Lekozza 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sproul is correct when he explains that there's an important difference between self-creation and self-existence. But that raises two questions that he ignores: 1) Why can't the universe itself be such a self-existent entity? and 2) By granting the assumption that self-existence is possible, he grants the possibility of existence without creation—which contradicts his entire thesis that the existence of the universe requires a Creator.
Logical fail, Sproul.
highverbalfan 2 years ago
6:45 to 7:57
R.C. Sproul adds just about the final thing of the video.
Good series.
KanineKruizer 2 years ago 2
R.C. is one of the "Big Guns"! "The fool has said in his heart there is no God" ! Psalm 14:1 Look at creation itself!
melvinhartwinkle 2 years ago 2
R.C. Sproul is one of the most intellectual thought provoking people ive ever heard.
mytuber81 2 years ago 17
because his basis is scripture, and God's word is the basis of all knowledge!
stevestutz 2 years ago 17
Great thoughts.
ahsenabro 2 years ago
Great interview...go Sproul! I think its time the "science" behind the origination of the universe starts getting questioned. Once the laws of this universe start contradicting the theory of beginning (unaffected by a Designer) then we must really question what they teach in our universities.
dimafed 2 years ago 3
It's called a transcendental question. It's like a bunch of microbes asking wother or not humans exist...
If 500,000,000 of them were in agreement one way or the other with their lack eyes, ears, est, Even with all the evidence they could ever conjure up; they still couldn't prove one or the other.
Now I know you say that I assume that God exists first and that leads me in that direction.
How is it though that you who assume God doesn't exist aren't doing the same exact thing I'm doing?
MRKetter81 2 years ago
The fact that there are such things as crackers and that they exist is a faith based claim.
It's something you assumed.. now you make sense out of your experiment from that.
However lets look at this.. since you want/dontwant the crackers to exist in your subconscious and the question transcends your ability to answer.
When ever evidence is displayed proving/disproving the answer you like/dislike you like, then you revert back to any assumptions that favor the ones you do subconciously
MRKetter81 2 years ago
When the question is too big for your own pressupositions to understand you will generally simply default back to your presuppositions.. your assumed ciphers
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Realize that even in investigating we are lead by nose through our own assumptions.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
You really cant abandon all assumptions when that's all that is in the limited scope of your mind in ordor to understand the machinations of a world far more vast and complex than your brain has room to make sense out of in it's inerrant totality.
You are bound to make error in truth claims when the truth is too vast to comprehend with out making some mistakes.
You can account for 99% of something from your own perception, but when you might only be looking at .0001% It doesn't mean much.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
You seem to be suggesting agnosticism.
Gwisss 2 years ago
" The "Three Mile Island" power plant was said to be working fine in 1979 as well as said to be having a partial core meltdown. Are either assumptions true?"
That's a very mild example.. that's like comparing wother mice stole cheese to wother or not global warming is happening and what it would lead to if it were.
When the question your asking is more along lines of a microbe "with no eyes, ears, est." trying to prove humans exist or not.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
If you were living in a county nearby to "The three Mile Island" and it was said over a radio broadcast that there are plumes of radioactive gas released from the power plant, because of a possible core meltdown beginning. However, you receive other information suggesting that there is no such plume, and nor is there problem.
What is your basic assumption? Do you seek to validate your assumption? How do you validate your assumption and why does this validate your assumption?
Gwisss 2 years ago
Well I can investigate in that case, but when calling in to question something you lack the ability to investigate.
No where does anyone do something so simple as open the pantry and look for the box of crackers.
So when I investigate something that transcends my own ability to investigate; I can do nothing but make assumptions.
However you are no acception to the rule.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
When you seek this pantry with crackers in it, you can make the probable assumption that there are crackers. Assumptions based on prior knowledge, or probable reasoning that leads you to think there are crackers. However, if the pantry reveals no crackers, do you make the assumption that the crackers are invisible? If you can't feel for them, are they thus intangible? Do you resort to making unfalsifiable claims about these crackers? why or why not?
Gwisss 2 years ago
You missed the point.. you are thinking of terms of the ability to validate, or investigate.
You make the rhetorical(wother you meant it or not) statement "however, if the pantry reveals no crackers" that you've some how manage to open the pantry..
You dont have the ability to open that pantry, because the ability to do so transcends your own.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
To say that you need to approach evidence with a "open mind" when you dont have one pretty much sets you up from the get go to whatever moosh is already in there.
That is you overlook the brain's ability to self serve according to emotional and much assumed(but not infalible) limited incomplete concepts of what you think, but can't possibly know as a 100% inerrant fact unless you have FULL knowledge of the mechanic you observe.
I'm no acception to the rule, but neither are you.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
There really is no gap for your "open mind theory" to exist, if that is what you are looking for.
It's cause and effect at such a massive scale that we act exactly like objects in motion according to newtons laws, cause it's exactly what you are made up of; objects in motion.
Think "Inertia" in terms of the way we think and reason with one another.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Therefore, all humans are dogmatic thinkers?
This seems to imply that humans can not be open to new ideas, suggesting that they cannot produce new ideas to begin with.
Are you suggesting we are a PC that is completely unwilling to install new software? Upgrade software? Download patches? Constantly update our anti-virus? Unwilling to go anywhere other then your website homepage and moreover, never update the homepage? (your analogy, not mine)
Gwisss 2 years ago
Slightly.. we are a PC.. we DO upgrade, Download, Constantly update anti-virus.
However we are less compatible with each other than PCs. Short of Hypnosis we generally contine you to do things based on whatever ciphers are originally in our system.
Where PCs are universally compatible, every brain has it's own language it speaks.
You might fuction on C++ while I operate on a different one.
It takes more time for us to relate concepts to each other.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
"How do you determine what assumptions about the world are true?"
This is by far the best statement I've heard from you. However if it was rhetorical then you will be hitting a deadend.
For example a skeptic might say that it is wrong to assume something first then approach evidence. However I would retort that the brain carries too much baggage in ordor to clear the mind of assumption (which I consider impossible cause it's the bread and butter of how we understand what we perceive)
MRKetter81 2 years ago
It was not rhetorical, I was asking you. You seem to be avoiding the question of how you determine what assumptions are true, false and unknown about the world. What methods do you use?
Gwisss 2 years ago
Avoiding? Nope
Pointing out that there really is no inerrant answer yup.
trust/belief/faith is as close as anyone comes to approaching truth claims.
Yes that can lead to error, but you can't avoid the fact you do it.
Even in all of coherentism you can still fall short in that something you already assumed isn't exactly true. Specially when truth is so hard too vast to comprehend.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
So assumptions that if I drop a ball on earth, it will fall. This is an assumption made on faith?
Gwisss 2 years ago
Yup.. you have to have faith you aren't asleep and actually dropping a ball..
You have to have trust/believe you senses.
Something Rene Decartes asked long ago.. the only answer he could come up with for saying he actually existed or not was "I think, there for I am"
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Do you think humans cannot tell the difference between dreams and reality? What about patients who suffer from vivid hallucinations, that for some neurological reason, they can differentiate between what is real and what is a hallucination. You do not need faith to differentiate between awake and dreaming. This innate differentiation is already there, and we just happen to experience it.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Yet people with Near Death Experiences claim the so called dream is this one and death is far more lucid.
However that's a evidence based claim you and I both make based on faith/believe/trust.
Again you are overlooking your own minds ciphers which are the reason you accept/trust/believe what you do.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Yes we share some core ciphers, but so much changes for a human in early development.
Dont forget many many other factors play in the roll of cognitive development. From genetic makeup, chemicals in the brain. electromagnetic fluctuation and all types of radiations.
The base ciphers (hearing, seeing est.) are in general the same.
The second cipher is developed through interpretation of the first. For example (In ordor to better remember something we saw, we use a picture) why is that?
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Now think of a computer.. can you install microsoft windows programs on a MAC? No.. the only way your mind is going to be fully compatible with "ALL" incoming information is if you reformat the harddrive. Thus there is a limit.
Now I realize that was a rudimentary example. The brain doesn't act EXACTLY alike, but let's not get distracted from the point like a dog chasing a frisbee, it still sums up in a rudimentary fashion how the brain fuctions.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Well, you can have 'Windows' on a mac now. What does that say for the analogy, I don't know.
Of course there is a limit to how a brain can think. We cannot exceed the limitation granted to us by nature and physics. We are an operating system that has limitations, but I do not think our limitations fall in the area you are suggesting.
Are you saying that humans can be Mac or PC?
A person who is MAC is 'very likely' not be become a PC or use PC operating systems?
Gwisss 2 years ago
Now look at your entire worldview and everything in your brain as a phantom limb, and the picture should be crystal clear.
Only as the mind is more complex.. so are the phantom limbs that help decipher thoughts.
You are more likely to continue to keep the phantom limbs than you are to lose them.
Same way a object in motion will stay in motion until an outside force is applied.
This is basic physics.. and yes it applies to everything; including the brain.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
You will keep your phantom limb except upon immediate 'reflection'. This is basic neurology.
Gwisss 2 years ago
As I said befor; you will be only as willing as a object is to change it's direction, and changing your worldview is like taking a 180.
Thus you take the path of least resistance in life.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
You should read V.S Ramachandran and Giacomo Rizzolatti before you make claims about neurology in the way that you are. Your claims are bias, and simply untrue.
To suggest that views held by the conscious person do not change 180 is of course evidently untrue. Ramachandrans basic example of a phantom limb patient convinced of having a painful phantom limb, through practice, can convince himself otherwise. Are you saying that the brain is not ever changing?
Gwisss 2 years ago
No, but it's like taking a 180. Your more likely not to change than you are too.
It's called inertia. I dont need to look up a bunch of neurologist to know that the brain can't break the laws of physics..
You can dance around the subject all you like. The brain is more likely to repeat the use of a neural network that it is to create new ones.
I never said it was impossible to change. Only alot less likely.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
The brain 'can't' break to laws of physics. Who said it was breaking the laws of physics?
You are suggesting that someones can't change their mind. I'm saying that people can change their mind and often do. What does changing ones mind, in the conventional sense, have to do with breaking the laws of physics?
You should read some books on neurology and brain function, maybe that is your mirror box for seeing the world in a 180 degree new way.
Gwisss 2 years ago
You were suggesting it broke the law of physics.
Pretty much your idea of it is; you cut your arm off and you dont even have a phantom limb instantaneously.
Now I'd love to see you accomplish that, but we know it to be impossible.. WHY?Because the brain TAKES TIME to get used to the idea that there is no limb there.
People dont change their minds at the flip of a coin or are you that naive?
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Depending on the experiment, someones view can be changed on the drop of a dime. Either way, how does this relate to your view that someones assumptions are "very likely" not to change? Your assumption that people are 'less likely'(which is a vague assessment) to change their mind, views, understandings is an assumption about neurology.
Tell a kid(with belief) that there is no Santa Claus. A change can be! and it can be made fairly quickly. His presupposition on Santa Claus can be changed.
Gwisss 2 years ago
As usual you miss the point. "through practice, can convince himself otherwise."
Through what? "practice" and what does it take? "convincing"
In otherwords they were more likely to continue having the phantom limbs were it not for much needed effort.
Thank you for proving my point again for me.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Upon immediate use of a mirror box the person in seconds changes their view that the limb exists and is in pain, they in fact experience immediate relief. Through constant use of the mirror box their view that their limb is nonexistent and not in pain becomes their consistent understanding.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Right.. through effort they lose their need for the use of a mirror box.. How can you be so damn slow at this?
The fact they have a phantom limb alone proves my case.. try to keep up.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Your presupposition is that people do not have the freedom to change their views of the world. It takes a second with a mirror box for someone to understand that their phantom limb that is in pain(they've had for 10 years) is 'non existent' and NOT in pain.
This simple experiment demonstrates how quickly a mind can adapt to certain situations. The brain has evolved this system of development and adaption to new views and is fairly malleable.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Comment removed
MRKetter81 2 years ago
The same rules apply to a object in motion; it likes to stay in motion.
Your mindset agrees with a certain way, so you do everything to keep it that way. Changing your mind is always bound to be harder; specially when the concept of the subject under examinion is something that doesn't favor the way you live your life.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Neurological training occurs from early childhood development. It takes a myriad areas of your brain to function doing various tasks. The more you practice and make use of particular neurological connections, the better developed these neurological areas will be. You make a claim that you can not validate, but you think it merely sounds nice.
What do you mean by 'mindset agrees a certain way' in terms of neurology and what evidence do you have for 'you do anything to keep it that way'?
Gwisss 2 years ago
I can validate it.. it's called cause and effect. Happens all the time around you. Tell me why Electrons move one way through a conductor? Cause they're pushed by those behind them. Action = Reaction.
More "commen" neurological pathways will be used more often as they take less resistance to build upon. It's iike a tree.. branches grow from the trunk.
It takes less effort for the brain to build upon a trunk that it does to start anew. Same goes for everything in life.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
You still do not answer the question. You seem to take a philosophical approach to neurology, rather then a scientific one. You make a multitude of 'presuppositions' about how the brain is structured not considering the full meaning of what you are suggesting.
Changing ones view is in itself a neurological activity.
Gwisss 2 years ago
You dont "like" the idea of God therefor you turn your head and whistle when evidence is given.
It's not a problem of evidence, its a problem of your mindset befor you even see the evidence. Of course the same goes for me, but I never claimed to have an "open mind" which is complete BS.. NO ONE is with out biases. No one is with out a opinion about a subject short of erasing their mind completely. You can do so if you have a gun and a bullet handy.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
In an empty room where an individual claims the existence of an invisible intangible chicken. Are you thus suggesting that your immediate presupposition is to accept this claim?
My immediate approach to such a claim would be to assess the claim, and the one making the claim. If it cannot be falsified then there is an issue with the claim and the claim maker. In fact, the claim maker by definition of his claim is making an unmakeable claim. It is more probable he is merely mistaken.
Gwisss 2 years ago
No, the idea of God is a man-made idea. In it's earliest forms, it was used to explain the goings on of a world we knew very little about. The very concept of God evolves along with cultures and better understanding learned about the goings on of the world. Evidence found in this natural world which all people seemingly share in, is the best evidence we have for determining truths. What type of evidence do you put forward for the existence of a divinity? Are you proposing supernatural evidence?
Gwisss 2 years ago
That's your assumption, and it's a over simplistic one at that.
I'm proposing you look at the same evidence I do and come up with a different answer based on your presuppositions. Like a object in motion you take the path with least resistance. Evidence has little effect if all you do with that evidence is find the easiest way to build upon your own pressuposions.
You will always take the explaination that takes the least resistance to your presuppositions.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
What evidence do you propose? What evidence do you put forward?
You keep saying, 'presupposition' and 'objects in motion' as if this somehow wins you an argument about truths. To hold the presupposition that leprechauns exist does not validate whether they exist. You can have a presupposition that Dogs have feathers but this does not have any bearing on whether dogs have feathers or not. Do you think whether dogs have feathers is merely a difference of presuppositions?
Gwisss 2 years ago
You can keep hammering on the point of evidence all you like. Once again you refused to deal with point I made.
You are simply following the path I predicted in my point which only validates my claim; the one with least resistance to your own presuppositions.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
You are simply avoiding having to make a point. Your use of presuppositions has long since failed you.
Do you think that holding a presupposition that God exists is a valid argument for whether he exists or not? To suggest that it is merely our presuppositions that differ, therefore I'm under the misapprehension that God does not exists is far fetched. You have to do more then merely presuppose the existence of something. You have to actually prove that something.
Gwisss 2 years ago
My point as I originally stated is that you look at the same evidence I do through a presuppositinal lense.
Presuppositions are by definition "Assumptions".. You have them, I have them. No one is above having them. Thus the openmind you say you have is based on your presuppositional worldview.
You are "LESS LIKELY" not impossible "LESS LIKELY" to change foundational presuppositions.
Yes I realize people change their minds, but once agains they are "LESS LIKELY" going to do so.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
You are claiming that people are 'less likely' but I'm claiming that depending on the person and the persons brain development, they can be 'Very Likely' to have a mind willing to explore new ideas and understand new views. Being young is not just a physical desire but a desire to have a malleable brain that can adapt and develop to different situations and environments.
Gwisss 2 years ago
How is it you manage to escape Presuppistions? How do you not presuppose things unlike the rest of the world?
Cause lets face it.. the only way you are going to attain a real open mind is if you put a bullet through it. Cause that's the only way you're going to reformat the harddrive that sums the make up that is you
MRKetter81 2 years ago
In an empty room, you stand there with another individual, and that individual claims that there is an invisible, intangible three headed chicken. Your presupposition would be that the claim is true until otherwise? and how could an unfalsifiable claim be proven false?
Gwisss 2 years ago
You can't prove a universal negative. Philosophy 101
It's like saying you have omniscience. Of course I'm not talking about a 3 headed chicken. What is to say you do no deceive your self to the evidence that is there, because of the biases you've created in your mind.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Hook line and sinker..
Now explain to me what an open mind is and how one is possible?
If you live in a world of cause and effect (like I and the rest of the world do) then tell me how causation hasn't shaped your worldview to what it is?
Tell me how physiological makeup, infuential upbringing and perception hasn't shaped the way your brain functions? Then tell me how newton's laws of motion dont play a complete roll on your thought patterns.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
ID is a very old set of simple arguments that has been proven wrong or/and unscientific, it just has new wording.
Creationists were successful in churches, but not in the classroom. ID proponents just removed any kind of testable hypothesis that creationism had so that they get directly into the classroom through policy makers, but not through the scientific community.
ID is not a theory, is not a hypothesis, is not science, it's religion and politics.
cperez1000 3 years ago
it hasnt been proven wrong, you think it has because you've probably only looked at one side of the argument. the only reason the Evolution is a science and ID isnt, is because of its atheistic implications and scientists love that, so does the media and the literalistic side of society. evolution is just as much a religion as ID is.
tetralophodon 3 years ago
Most scientists are theists.
Let me give you some info about ID:
-ID cannot be falsified; so it cannot qualify as a scientific hypothesis.
-ID allows the super natural, so is not science but a religious idea. Science is about explaining the natural with natural causes. If scientists just give up and say: "God did it and we don't know why or how" we are doomed.
- ID has NO practical uses. Will someone with HIV benefit from the "findings" of ID? No, with ID we would stop looking for explanation.
cperez1000 3 years ago
Comment removed
tetralophodon 3 years ago
its about half and half by the way that was the 2007 consensus.
ID allows for supernatural yeah we know, but so does evolution, to say that we all came from a rock billions of years ago is a fairy tale, you can beleive that if you want but don't call it science. You say we give up and say God did it, well you give up and say time did it.
Evolution has no practical uses for the same reasons no one will benefit from ID
tetralophodon 3 years ago
"ID is not a theory, is not a hypothesis, is not science, it's religion and politics." so is evolution its the THEORY of evolution not fact or law, theory. and its a fairy tale, now where has any scientist be able to fully prove it, thats why its still called the theory of evolution, and ill gladly debate you over email about it, i hate writing 500 word comments
tetralophodon 3 years ago
1-Evolution doesn't say we came from a rock. It needs genetic info to work on.
2-ID proponents deny some implications of Evolution, but NOT EVEN THEY deny that it plays a role in nature.
3-A scientific theory does NOT have the same definition you hear in the street. Theories hold MUCH more than facts and explain them. Laws are rules and theories are EXPLANATION, they NEVER become laws.
4-Practical uses of Evolution: Bioinformatics, HIV treatment, etc, etc
5-Look for the terms and the info above
cperez1000 3 years ago
1-Evolution does say you came from a rock if you go back far enough 2-yeah i know, speciation/natural selection/micro evolution is OKAY but macro evolution is a stupid theory 3- theories are ideas that have been put forward to explain something that needs to be proven by the facts 4- bioinformatics can be done without evolution HIV treatment is only possible if you have certain inert immunities to it in the first place.
tetralophodon 3 years ago
Nope.
1-Evolution is about the diversity of life, not origins of life, that's Abiogenesis.
2-I see you accept Natural selection (NS). Macro-evolution is the same process as micro-evolution. I can give you examples of observed speciation.
3-A theory is not a hypothesis. They have a large body of evidence, have been thoroughly tested, and unify facts, laws, hypothesis and other theories.
4-As computer scientist I can tell you that NS if the basis for genetic algorithms.
Many HIV treatments use NS.
cperez1000 3 years ago
Evolution is a crazy idea about how somehow we all came from a rock billions of years ago and evolution is supposed to work with abigenesis. Yeah of couse I would accept it it males sence we can test it and prove it, it has nothing to do with evolution NS selects it doesn't change anything, and no ice is the basis for the algorithms many HIV treatments use MEDICINE not evolution.
tetralophodon 3 years ago
When you accept micro-evolution, you agree on the mechanisms of evolution. What you don't like I guess is common ancestry, though the process is the same.
Evolutionary research is used in several fields like mine (computer science), drug resistance, etc.
One of the problems of ID is that most of its arguments are against evolution, instead of on its own favor, that helps create a false dichotomy: "if evolution didn't do it, then it was designed". That's false as ignores any other alternative.
cperez1000 3 years ago
"When you accept micro-evolution, you agree on the mechanisms of evolution" no, i agree with the parts behind evolution but not the overall theory i do beleive that and i have a right to so dont tell me i have to beleive the rest of it.
evolutionary research is linked to those fields because of the idea of it. you like brushing your teeth to cleaning a car theyre not the same thing. and i would have to disagree, most ID videos and debates do both equally and effectively
tetralophodon 3 years ago
You are free to believe what you want, but please think about this:
-Is God capable of smartly "designing" nature autonomous enough without having to intervene all the time?
-Did God intentionally designed deadly things like the bacteria that caused the Black Plague?
-Does extinction of species make a good design?
If it were up to you ¿can you think on ways how to improve the human body?
-Contradicting one thing makes another one true?
-Is complexity or is faith that makes you believe in God?
cperez1000 3 years ago
Yeah he did make all of the bad things thisva fallen universe it's not perfectvanymore besides younneed the balance ofblufe andvdeath in the world in order to keep equalibrium, if there were no bacteria then there wouldn't be decay all dead things would pile up and that can't happen. Both make beleive in god and the idea we are here for no reason sounds impossible to me, I don't know about you but your welcoome to beleive what you want but get your facts right
tetralophodon 3 years ago
That version of God makes him kind of perverse and limited.
Who said we are here for no reason? There are good Christians who accept evolution as God's pathway for life. Many atheists are good people.
The good thing about all this, I think, is that with my help you've learned something about science.
Please look for: science, theory, law, fact, methodological naturalism, evolution, natural selection, speciation, abiogenesis, panspermia, Paley's watchmaker, ID, Dover trial, religion, creationism
cperez1000 3 years ago
of course God had to make the bad things, to balance the good things, its called equilibrium it needs to exists, too much of good thing is bad for you, besides we are a fallen creation the universe is falling apart, so yeah these things will exist. yeah there are Christians who believe that, but i don't know of a god who would have to slowly change and alter his creations that doesn't sound like the god of the bible to me, and i am a scientist thank you
tetralophodon 3 years ago
No disrespect, but I don't believe you are a scientist. If you are one, shame on you. You have shown great ignorance about the most basic topics and have shown disrespect to the scientist profession.
If you are engaged in research activities don't give up and say, "it's too complex, we'll never be able to know how it works". If that day comes, maybe you have chosen the wrong carrier.
Let science be science and religion be religion and question both in their respective ground, but don't mix them.
cperez1000 3 years ago
Well i am, i have studied physics/chemistry and a some biology but im not a master in that field. I have not shown great ignorance, i have simply challenged the assertion of macro evolution, which is stupid and shouldn't be a theory. I don't simply give up and say god did it, i look at the beginning of creation and say "wow look what God has made for us" not " hey Jim look at this amoeba i don't understand it must have been god" thats not what i do thank you.
tetralophodon 3 years ago
For ID to have a chance to become a theory it has to:
-be testable and falsifiable
-develop lots of evidence
-unify hypothesis, theories, facts and laws
-get submitted to peer review journals
-play under science rules
I'm sure you are not a master in biology. Actually no ID proponent is an expert in evolutionary biology fields (maybe in other fields).
Note that you mix your religious views with science and try to make it fit somehow, using that to assert that micro-evolution is stupid.
cperez1000 3 years ago
Religion is faith based, it's supposed divine truth is unsupported by facts and evidence. Science functions only on the facts and evidence that it discovers, it builds our understanding of the world from what we find in the world. Religion is the best antonym we have for science by definition. To suggest that you are a scientist at the same time as religious(theist) is to be completely and underly Unscientific.
You've not challenged any theories, only demonstrated an ignorance of those theories.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Like wise you claim ignorance in the matters of the theist worldview. Your arguement is circular at best.
Science does not contradict the theism. Science is a mere tool.
Unless you want to put it on the same pedistal and call science a religion (which it isn't) than the two are arbitrary and thus dont conflict.
Skepticism does.. cause it's based on a substandard epistemology which borderlines existentialism in it's methods of procuring facts.
MRKetter81 2 years ago