This is a continuation of the long conversation with with Christian creationist James McKenzie. I am answering his post found in the previous thread here. James begins:
It seems that we are near reaching an impasse on our “science/ foundations/ philosophical/ beginning of the world argument. You seem bent to tell me that a mathematical consequence is all I should need to trust the theories and field equations. I am trying to tell you that a field equation that works on paper does not dictate or prove what happens in real life. While I admit I do not understand the field equations frontwards and backwards, your inability or lack of agreeing to explaining them to me further does not help me.
Hey there James,
The problem is not that you “do not understand the field equations frontwards and backwards” – the problem is that you don’t understand them at all. You don’t even understand the concept of experimental verification which is the very foundation of science. The equations do not merely “work on paper!” I’ve explained this to you a billion times, and you still do not understand. The equations have been TESTED by comparing their predictions with OBSERVATIONS. This is how science works. E.g. the field equations explain the real world measurements of the perihelion of mercury, the real world measurements of the gravitational bending of light around (first confirmed in eclipse of 1919), the real world measurements of time dilation (confirmed a trillion times a day by the GPS system), etc., etc., etc. Your ignorance of such basic facts makes conversation with you impossible. It’s like trying to talk to a freaking rock. You are thick as a brick.
Furthermore, you have not demonstrated that you understand them enough to understand the weight of your own justified or not justified argument and position. It is one thing to say that I know long division and I know that x/y=Z, the long division proves it. But just as a teacher would want a student to demonstrate that he/she actually “knows” the math and would expect the student to show his work, I also am curious if you could show “the work.” Instead of just copying and pasting some graphic of an equation, can you demonstrate and explain how the real life values are inserted into the equation and how the values correspond to the big bang theory at large (time and starting point).
James, those graphs and links to the experimental tests are the very proof you asked for. You have not written a word challenging any of the evidence I presented. You just keep repeating the ludicrous assertion that the scientific evidence derived from real life measurements does not count as “real life evidence”. Nothing could be more absurd. I have presented the evidence and you have not shown any understanding, let alone refutation, of it.
Bottom line, I want you to see your double standard, Richard. You start off that the theory is right unless I or someone else can prove or demonstrate that it is wrong.
Not true. I have never begun with any such assumption. Ironically, you describe your own position with perfect clarity since you have nothing but blind faith in your ignorant superstitions inherited from primitive pre-scientific men.
You also say that your acceptance of the big bang theory is based on science, but you and I know both know the actual good science used as evidence for the big bang do not require or proof a big bang. There is no proof for the big bang, only circumstantial evidence.
I never said there was any “proof” in an absolutely sense. That’s not how science works. I said the Big Bang is the best fit to the evidence (which is much more than mere “circumstantial evidence” as you would know if you understood the science).
But at the same time, you say that the Bible is wrong and God should not be taken to likely exist unless there is demonstrated evidence.
I say exactly the same thing about the Big Bang. We use evidence (logic and facts) to discern between truth and error. If you think you have a better way, please let me know what it is.
I have no concrete evidence that the God of the Bible is real and that His Word is true, I have basis for that evidence.
You have nothing but philosophical arguments based on metaphysical speculations and religious dogmas inherited from ignorant primitive men. You have not shown me any evidence, let alone any “basis” for any evidence.
But your starting position for God is that He is not real unless there is reliable evidence or proof.
A more accurate statement would be that I start with the idea that everyone should demand evidence before believing in any of the gods and/or metaphysical speculations invented by humans, including but not limited to Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Karma, Astrology, Cosmic Consciousness, the philosophers’ “Pure Being”, Tarot Cards, the Tooth Fairy and the Almighty Invisible Pink Unicorn.
I really don’t understand how you could continue to misconstrue my position given the thousands of words I have written explaining it (especially since it seems so simple and common-sensical).
You make fun of creation because it does not sound scientific even though endless energy from no where and with no cause is about as scientific as God did it. When it comes to the actual mechanics of how and why they work and do what they do, no one really knows.
The fact that science is not omniscient does not make it equal to your ignorance.
I mock creationism because of its gross absurdity and blatant dishonesty. You are a poster boy of all that is wrong with creationism. You reject vast domains of science such as Evolution and General Relativity when in fact you understand none of it. You have been deceived by utterly corrupt creationist conmen. There is no excuse. They are not merely ignorant. They are deliberately deceiving simple minded gullible Christians, filling their heads with lies.
Why are you so easily accepting of the big bang theory without any real concrete evidence but not God?
I am not “so easily accepting of the big bang theory”. It’s just the best fit to the data, as I’ve explained to you approximately 2.3 trillion times now.
You might ask me the same thing. This is the normal rebuttal of an atheist. It goes like this: why am I so accepting of God and not the big bang? But there is a problem with your rebuttal. Your starting and accepted position is pushed that yours is of science and mine is of faith. But in reality, your position is of faith as well. You require an element of faith to accept the big bang theory.
Your false assertion is based on an equivocation of the word “faith.” This is a matter of epistemology (the study of knowledge). One of the better definitions of knowledge is “justified true belief.” So yes, true knowledge and your religious fantasies share a comment element called “belief” or “faith.” But that’s as far as the equivalence goes. You cannot justify your dogmas and many of them have been proven false. Therefore, you religion is by definition “not true” whereas science is by definition “true” inasmuch as it has met the burden of justifying the truth of its beliefs.
Your rebuttal would have so much more significance to me if you admitted we are debating one acceptance, assumption, faith versus another.
Nothing could be more absurd. You are equating blind belief in Allah/Yahweh/Zeus with science!
Nobody knows how the first stars formed, nobody knows where biological life came from, nobody knows how planets formed around stars without colliding into each other and into the star. Nobody knows why there is something rather than nothing.
The fact that nobody knows some things means that you don’t know those things either, so they are utterly irrelevant to the discussion. You cannot prove the truth of your fairy tales by appealing to ignorance. But this is what you must do because there is no place for you god in the real world.
You cannot just mock a Christian for using a catchall phrase like “God just created it.” When you say, it just evolved, it just naturally selected that way, it just… It is a double standard.
There is no double standard. Your comment is an absurd caricature. Evolutionary scientists do not say idiotic things like “it just naturally selected that way.” It is painfully obvious you have never read any scientific literature about evolution.
Now, if you were to admit that your theory has an element of faith required, then we can debate which position sounds more logical, congruent, is more consistent with itself etc.
I’ve already admitted that. The epistemological definition of knowledge as “justified true belief” shares one element with your blind, ignorant, and unjustified superstitions – namely, “belief.” That’s it. You cannot justify your ignorance by appealing to more ignorance about where everything came from! You need to understand this fact.
And if you think the big bang is more consistent and logical, I can say, okay for you. But if you try to tell me that you reject the Bible because I cannot prove it is true it is not scientific at points but your entire theory is, I say bologna. I am calling your bluff out.
Don’t be absurd. You have done nothing but reveal the emptiness of your own hand. You have nothing but bluff, bluster, and blatant creationist bullshit. You don’t even understand the elementary terms of the sciences that you reject in favor of the ignorant superstitions you inherited from primitive men.
So please understand, you can hold to any position you want to and realize that you are blindly accepting something by faith. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot reject the Bible because it requires faith and accept science saying that it does not require faith.
Say what? You are now claiming that modern science – based fundamentally on experiment, observation and replication – is “blind” like your religion? Seriously? Wow. Religion and the damage done.
The heavens “do” declare the glory of God and the earth shows His handiwork. Psalm 19:1
It seems more accurate to say that the “heavens” – via General Relativity and the age of the universe – have conclusively declared the absurdity of your fundamentalist creationism.
You can believe that a being created it all and has out smarted everyone. Or you can believe that hydrogen and helium somehow came into existence from energy and took over from there, out smarting everyone today observing all that has been formed, for no reason.
Yes, everyone is free to believe what they want concerning things for which there is no evidence. But that seems pretty inconsequential since no one has any way to know anything about that God, if he/she/it/they actually exist.