Pascal's Wager: What Have I Lost?

[Tassman]

[37818]

Not all interpreters of the Genesis account take as mere Hebrew poetry. It is held by some to be historically true.

Taken as historically true what scientific experiment falsifies it? The universe appears to have a beginning (Genesis 1:1). Now if those 6 days (Genesis 1:3-31) took place historically [forming earth, creating life and making its sky] by direct acts of God, how can you test that? You cannot.

[Tassman]

Not all interpreters of the Genesis account take as mere Hebrew poetry. It is held by some to be historically true.

Taken as historically true what scientific experiment falsifies it? The universe appears to have a beginning (Genesis 1:1). Now if those 6 days (Genesis 1:3-31) took place historically [forming earth, creating life and making its sky] by direct acts of God, how can you test that? You cannot.

How can you test that god-did-it? You cannot.

Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable.

[Doug Shaver]

Now if those 6 days (Genesis 1:3-31) took place historically [forming earth, creating life and making its sky] by direct acts of God, how can you test that? You cannot.

I cannot prove that it all happened without any supernatural intervention. However, the notion that only six days elapsed between the formation of the world and the appearance of human beings on it is inconsistent with the current state of our scientific knowledge.

[Sparko]

How can you test that god-did-it? You cannot.

so you have to be able to test every fact or it is not science?

How do you test that Washington was the first president?

[37818]

I cannot prove that it all happened without any supernatural intervention. However, the notion that only six days elapsed between the formation of the world and the appearance of human beings on it is inconsistent with the current state of our scientific knowledge.

The scientific [knowledge of] knowledge is man must have evolved from another kind or species. Not a direct act of God.

[Faber]

so you have to be able to test every fact or it is not science?

How do you test that Washington was the first president?

The first president was John Hanson, appointed under the Articles of Confederation in November, 1981.

(Washington, however, was the first person elected as President of the United States.)

[Tassman]

so you have to be able to test every fact or it is not science?

How do you test that Washington was the first president?

Historical-Critical methodology will check the available evidence...including the number of reliable, independent sources and records, artefacts, historical consistency etc...and reliably conclude that Washington was the first president. So, how do you test that in 6 days God formed the earth, created life and made its sky by direct fiat...as per 37818's argument? You cannot.

[Tassman]

The scientific [knowledge of] knowledge is man must have evolved from another kind or species. Not a direct act of God.

Yes! Does that worry you?

Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor and diverged from one another c. 13 million years ago.

http://www.livescience.com/46300-chi...mutations.html

[37818]

Yes! Does that worry you?

No. There is nothing in the scientific evidence which disallows a direct creation of humans by God, the Creator of the very laws which govern what is scientifically possible.

Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor and diverged from one another c. 13 million years ago.

That is an unproven hypothesis. We should list the things in common and key differences in the DNA. Such as the size of the jaw bone from the same code. And how it affects the size of the skull capacity.

http://www.livescience.com/46300-chi...mutations.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evoluti...ever-knew.html

[Sparko]

Historical-Critical methodology will check the available evidence...including the number of reliable, independent sources and records, artefacts, historical consistency etc...and reliably conclude that Washington was the first president.

that's not testing. That is relying on documents and artifacts and believing them without testing.

So, how do you test that in 6 days God formed the earth, created life and made its sky by direct fiat...as per 37818's argument? You cannot.

so basically testing is only required when you don't agree with a claim, then. Good to know.

[Tassman]

No. There is nothing in the scientific evidence which disallows a direct creation of humans by God, the Creator of the very laws which govern what is scientifically possible.

There is not a shred of substantive evidence that God directly created humans or even that God exists. OTOH there is considerable evidence supporting Evolution and Common Descent, namely that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor. This is beyond reasonable doubt.

[Tassman]

that's not testing. That is relying on documents and artifacts and believing them without testing.

No, it's "testing" the available documents, artefacts, independent sources and records as to their authenticity and reliability.

[Sparko]

No, it's "testing" the available documents, artefacts, independent sources and records as to their authenticity and reliability.

OK then, show me what you did to test their reliability and authenticity.

[Tassman]

OK then, show me what you did to test their reliability and authenticity.

Certainly! Just as soon as you show me substantive evidence that God directly created humans or even that God exists. When you do this I will point you in the direction of the available documents and artefacts that show beyond reasonable doubt that George Washington existed.