Formal logic
Genesis 1:1* describes the following logic
Informally
Premise P1: God exists.
Premise P2: If P1 then "the universe is as old as the earth**".
Conclusion C1: The universe is as old as the earth.
Formally
P1 → C1, P1
C1
This form of logic is called Modus Ponens.
The truth of C1 doesn't imply the truth of P1 because there may be other explanations for C1.
Lets look at the following classical example
Premise P3: It rains
Premise P4: If P3 then "the streets are wet".
Conclusion C2: The streets are wet
There are other possible explanations for wet streets: A cleaning crew just passed, there were games with water, the dikes were broken, etc ...
However, we can say that, if the streets are not wet then it doesn't rain.
Formally
P3 → C2, ¬C2
¬P3
This form of logic is called Modus Tollens and is the inverse of Modus Ponens.
To return to Genesis 1:1. C1 is false and Modus Tollens applies.
P1 → C1, ¬C1
¬P1
The god of Genesis 1:1 does not exist.
Proof that the universe is not as old as the earth
Astrophysics concludes that the universe is about 13,77 (± 0,059%) billion years old.
Geology concludes that the earth is about 4,54 (± 1%) billion years old.
13,77 (± 0,059%) ≠ 4,54 (± 1%)
Q.E.D.
* "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
**Interpreting 'heavens' as 'universe', a modern interpretation.
Updated: Improved formatting as suggested by @hackenslash1
You should look too at the numerous hidden premises that all major sciences takes.
ReplyDeleteMost of them work on circular logic where experiments are interpreted in previously defined precondition and reinforce it.
Multiple models can explain a set of facts, being able to have a descriptive model of fact doesn't mean all the underlying suppositions are good.
It's just a model, science go from model to supposed better model.
For me, the lesser preconditions, the better the model.
If you do study for example of the dependency graph between geology, astronomy, evolution, astrophysics and genetics, you will see a model proposed on certain materialist and continuity presuppositions.
It provides a model of interpretation, that's all.
People always think that, because science can build complex stuff that do works, all that "science" says is pure truth.
That's not it, according to honest scientists themselves.
Some branch of science can provide stuff that works, it doesn't mean that
1/ all branch get it rights
2/ the branch where there is actual application have all their underlying presuppositions rights.
Science is supposed to be testable, you can for example verify the existence of micro-adpatation (by losing genetic material in specialization scheme), it happens, we can see it.
But you can't prove in any way (better than saying that's our best materialistic scheme), macro-evolution or inter-species evolution.
You can't test it, you can't see it, you can guess it according to your presuppositions, but that is no proof.
Another smaller set of presuppositions can be taken to explain it.
Who got it right, who knows ? There is no conclusive experiment that can decide it at this point.
I don't have a problem with science, quite the contrary, i have a problem with science as a religion where you hide purposely (or most of the time not even knowing it) an enormous set of preconditions of interpretations.
This is reinforced with specialization and increasing "knowledge" due to model being more and more complex (perhaps because they got something wrong).
You can work your whole life as a "scientist" without even realizing that your "science" might be based on false presuppositions, therefore you can fill entire libraries of big book of false interpretation which doesn't get you closer to the truth, quite the contrary in fact.
I think that's quite sad.
Thanks for your opinion, Mediug.
DeleteLet me first say that religious people presuppose gods, to use your own terminology; gods cannot be tested.
Secondly, the scientific framework is not circular at all. It is based on observable facts and the models produce testable predictions. When the predictions fail, the model must be adapted. When religious predictions fail, it's time for excuses; "gods will".
Thirdly, you clearly misrepresent evolution. Micro evolution is not "losing genetic material", it is "change in allele frequency in populations over generations". Genetic material can change in any possible way, form gene loss to gene duplications, to point mutations. Macro evolution is the "interruption of gene flow between populations" and has been observed both in nature and in the lab.
Creationists don't really deny evolution. They use the word "adaptation" to mean the exact same thing. That is dishonest. "Adaptation refers to variation within created kinds of organisms" (ICR).
Macro evolution has been tested scientifically by Douglas Theobald in 2010. You should read his paper.
Your claim that you have no problem with science is undermined by the misrepresentation of science.
Lastly, your comments do not address the blog post you are commenting on. This is a Red herring logical fallacy.
Feel free to continue this discussion.
Hi hans,
Deletethanks for your reply.
I erred a little in my response to your blog post linking it to related subject from my point of view. I will do it again today ^^
Since i don't have much time tonight to reply on all your points today, i would like to share a few background related ideas with you.
For me, there is no cohabitation problem at all between religion (at least christianity properly studied, which is clearly not the majority today as roman catholicism for example is clearly a pagan religion) and sciences, quite the contrary in fact.
Big name in science were christian (Newton and Pascal for example), and they studied nature to better understand how it works to understand better what God created. I would even dare to say that christian were behind some of the biggest science advancement.
Today, lot of christians work as scientist at high level and there is no problem at all between faith and science in their life.
I think even that for most of them, seing the complexity and beauty of life, they learn all the more to respect their creator.
As for the fact that God can't be tested, maybe not in scientific method (not even sure on that), but i think you can experience a big difference when people really change their life.
Of course, most people with explain this away this with psychological factors (as i would have when i was younger).
As a person which was really into psychology, i think there is a big differences in comportment changes between going new age or any other religion/philosophy and becoming christian. Of course, that is no proof, that is my personal experience and the pattern i saw in all the true christians i met.
And psychology being not a "hard science", i am not trying to convince you of anything, just sharing thought.
I would add too another factor, science can study the "natural", and religion recognize "supernatural" elements exist.
If you take christianity view on this, it will accept that some spiritual entity exists (which can impact thing in the physical realm).
Some are good, some are bad (the one that will try to lie to you, manipulate you by fear or seduction).
After studying this a long time, i arrive at the conclusion that most supernatural modern manifestation are either trick on fragile peoples (maybe the majority), either real manifestation.
In the real case, most of the time, it's just bad entity wanting to spread lies by impressing people with "supernatural" stuff. I won't go in the detail but when you study the main esoterism traditions of all religions, you will find a coherent pattern of lie, suggesting a common goal of these entities (which make sense from a christian worldview).
I don't know if you have encounter people which had some supernatural experience, i encounter a lot of them (and they were not crazy people at all ^^).
I think you would agree that because you can't understand a thing doesn't mean you must accept or reject before studying in seriously.
One precision, to be precise, i think science can even study some "supernatural" stuff as they do interact with tangible reality. But scientific won't go there to be considered crazy by their peer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI do think that there is circular/confirmation logic in some modern science, and that science is often biased by multiple factor (money, fear of being rejected by peers, lack of capacity to challenge fondamental beliefs to really advance science paradigm...).
DeleteTo be honest, my primary qualification is in architecture/modeling of IT systems. The key to that domain is to learn to cut properly complexity and reducing inter-dependency between objects (i love design patterns and other stuff like that).
That is why when i look at a foreign domain, i look at the core belief that sustain it. Of course, this way, you see the "foundation" of it, without looking at all the details. For me, that is like a tree of knowledge, if the root is good, it won't collapse. If the root is bad, it is not necessary to look at every leaf to know they will be deficient.
To be honest, the more i study some "science" subdomain, the more my faith is increased. Faith is not being stupid and not using your mind if you think God gave it to you, it is for using it !
Maybe i wasn't precise enough on some points, if you like i will clarify them another day.
My main idea today was to clarify my worldview and paradigm of analysis.
I think it is important to know our preconceptions in life, otherwise, science become a form of religion sometime.
And in my humble view, scientist that shifted science in the good direction are the one who knew to challenge some foundations that other wouldn't even think to or want to move.
"Christianity properly studied" ... What might that be? Christians don't even agree with themselves.
Delete"Big name in science were Christian". Keyword *were*. Today, they're not and besides, that's an appeal to authority logical fallacy.
"Christians were behind some of the biggest science advancement". These advancements show there are no gods. Ironic, wha?
"Christians work as scientists". As long as they don't insert deities into their research, that is not a problem.
"God can't be tested". By its nature, the "supernatural" cannot be tested, otherwise it would be "natural". It's in the definition of the word.
Hi hans, let me respond to your first point because it is indeed one that make a lot of people "throw the baby with the bath water".
Delete"Christianity properly studied" is simple :
1/ Study, study, study having a consistent and honest hermeneutic (where you don't put your presupposition in but let the text speaks on its own).
If you are not really interested in truth above all things (your pride, your intellectual habit and conditioning included), don't even start, you will be disappointed. If you are sincere, you are in for a surprise.
Logic exist to be used, reading the Bible doesn't mean at all disconnecting your brain.
Don’t let pride or fear stands in the way of your thinking.
2/ If you want to deepen/clarify a subject, compare traductions and go to original sources if necessary (LXX, masoretic, Qumran ... using greek/hebrew tool to analyze the original meaning of the word).
Don't let a meaning be forced to you because most traduction/tradition introduce theological deformations (forcing non biblical ideas into the text by bad study or voluntary manipulation …).
In a world of computer, this isn't so hard, software exists with thousand of books indexed in the original languages which provide capacity to search across 4500 years of civilisation in an instant.
No more excuses to not study seriously !
When you do this on our own, you will find later reading honest theologian (keyword is honest !) across the last 2000 years span, that they will express the exact same understanding on all foundamentals doctrines (understanding of the world, of God, of meaning of life, of how to get saved, of the cause of suffering, of what’s coming ...).
And if you can believe me, it's quite astonishing to read book written 500 or 1800 years ago in a completly different time and culture where you feel like the guy is reading your thoughts and reach the same exact conclusion on major doctrinal issue.
There is of course non essential doctrine where there is room for discussion, but they are secondary to your daily life and relation to God.
They should not be divisive and a sufficient reason to create a "new church" as long as key doctrine are shared.
So to answer your questions, yes there is a lot "christians" who says a lot of contradictory things.
DeleteThis can be explained by a composition of the following factors :
A- most of so-called christian are not real christians, if you meet God, your life change, your behaviour change, everything changes.
As a humanly comparison, let's say you met the perfect girl of your dream and you begin to build a life together, wouldn't it change your life ? With God, that's this principle amplified greatly.
False christians, not being differents from others peoples discredit the gospel by not living it, and are rightfully mocked by atheist as hypocrite people.
B- most of christians don’t study the Bible at all and i mean at all. Most of the time they didn't even read the new testament once, let alone the whole Bible as a coherent book.
All they have left is bad propaganda from bad preachers (who repeat what they have been taught in seminary which is in 95%+ of the case a false gospel, human created ideology).
Therefore they can’t present nor defend the truth of the gospel properly, making christianity look like a cult for stupid people who don’t think and are afraid of "real science".
C - real christianity is not an easy path, it is not the prosperity gospel you hear by tele-evangelist.
Your esperance is real but not centered primarly on earth and earthly thing.
This is not ascetism either where everything pleasurable is by nature evil.
In christian theology, int the coming world, christian won't be ghost like on cloudy background but have a renewed tangible body (minus the actual physical and spiritual corruption of our current one) in a renewed world (without the actual "curses" plaguing our world).
Christianity is not easy path nor a seductive one at first sight, real christian know they will have tribulation in this world.
Therefore, most people will choose water-downed christianity which is just another paganism. They want a reassurance on death without repenting nor changing their life, it doesn't work this way.
D - everything and i mean every thing in this world is working contrary to the gospel values.
Modern culture is just an « anti-gospel », but that's not news at all, all major civilizations since the antiquity has been this way, but as the time pass, it get worse and the degradation curve is exponential.
I think truth is often not what we would like to hear but is what we need to hear.
You might at least agree on this :)
"Big name in science were Christian". Keyword *were*. Today, they're not and besides, that's an appeal to authority logical fallacy.
DeleteYour are being provocative :p, a lot of modern scientist are christians, but since less people are true christians in proportions, maybe less so than in earlier period. I don't agree on what you're implying, but that's your opinion.
"Christians were behind some of the biggest science advancement". These advancements show there are no gods. Ironic, wha?
I don't agree on this, true sciences (which can be experimented and tested) and proper christianity are not in conflict.
But as science advance in potential impact for society, it does raise ethic issues (for exemple on genetics manipulation with potential impact of uncontroled modification, crossing genes across species, and some transhumanist propositons which are no more science fiction material anymore).
"Christians work as scientists". As long as they don't insert deities into their research, that is not a problem.
I would even think that proper christianity should increase scientist capacity to remove unconscious preconditioning, therefore facilitating the advancement of science to better paradigms.
"God can't be tested". By its nature, the "supernatural" cannot be tested, otherwise it would be "natural". It's in the definition of the word.
To be more precise, God by definition can act outside or in the natural laws he established.
And "supernatural" activity can be detected by it's implication on the material realm even if the prior act can be fully understood.
Some thing qualified as "supernatural" today might just be spiritual entity doing stuff by way the science can't yet explained (but might one day).
The problem is often agreeing on a precise semantics of the word we used, and most of the disagreement often goes away.
Replying at last to your first message :)
Delete---Let me first say that religious people presuppose gods, to use your own terminology; gods cannot be tested.
Not at this time in the way you mean it surely.
But its existence can be infered from subjective (experiencial) and objective factors (funny fact is that most of the science people try to use to refute God can be used as a proof of a common designer that transcend our limitations).
---Secondly, the scientific framework is not circular at all. It is based on observable facts and the models produce testable predictions. When the predictions fail, the model must be adapted.
Yes for real science, that's true.
We can predict the trajectory of a projectile, that's real science.
We can predict magnetic/electric/material properties and build complex structure on it that works like computers, that's real science.
We can't know what happens billions of year away when a supposed big-bang created stuff from nothing, that's theory.
You can try to take continuity hypothesis and try to get back in time but we can't prove it. If we are honest, we can say : "it's our best theory at this time but we still haven't figure it out completly".
Science in most case is not a hard science like mathematic where answer is definitive. It's a more complex scheme of truth and error done by human people with limitation, beliefs, conditioning. It's a kind of living organism, it's complex.
Saying that because it is science, it is undeniable truth is just mixing most of the time hard science (the very minority) and "soft" science (most of it whether people like it or not).
I have no problem with science, i have problem with scientific theories which can't be undeniably validated but are imposed to you because "its science".
No, it's the best theory a field has.
---When religious predictions fail, it's time for excuses; "gods will".
It is linked to the point i spoke about earlier, don't throw the baby with the bath water.
Most so-called christians aren't christians.
And false prophets and manipulators are as old as the world.
It's easy to impress people with lie saying it's from god (all the more when you tell what people want to hear or play with their fears).
3500 years ago, the Bible warned already about false prophet and said to verify two things : that what they say come true and that what they say is not contrary to what has been revealed in the Bible.
So, on this, i totally agree with you, this kind of person are a shame.
---Thirdly, you clearly misrepresent evolution. Micro evolution is not "losing genetic material", it is "change in allele frequency in populations over generations". Genetic material can change in any possible way, form gene loss to gene duplications, to point mutations. Macro evolution is the "interruption of gene flow between populations" and has been observed both in nature and in the lab.
DeleteI did over simplified, but the main mechanism of micro-evolution is still genetic specialization that can in the end result in a definitive loss of dna information.
I don't believe that mutation is a mechanism of enhancement of information, in every experience of "forced" mutation, it kills more than it does good.
Yet, we are so degenerate in our dna in our days that you can have rare case where a mutation desactivate a gene that became previously malignant (due to previous mutation of it).
I don't believe in macro-evolution, have nothing against it but i am not convinced at all.
---Creationists don't really deny evolution. They use the word "adaptation" to mean the exact same thing. That is dishonest. "Adaptation refers to variation within created kinds of organisms" (ICR).
Adaptation exists and can be proven, that is real science.
Macro-evolution is a big big big extrapolation on that, the best solution science can provide at this time in a materialist worldview.
Your entitled to believe it of course, for me the proof are not sufficient.
--- Macro evolution has been tested scientifically by Douglas Theobald in 2010. You should read his paper.
I did looked at it, it's the same paradigm of analysis as usual, i understand that some like this theory but saying it is "the truth" is pushing it too far in my opinion.
Commonalities in design, genetics, multiple variations of basic structure to fill a similar function aren't conclusive of anything. This can be reversed to defend a common designer.
Make me think a video where dawkins has no problem with "intelligent design" done by ETs to explain problems like the cambrian explosion.
If it's the ET, it's ok, but no way it could be God :)
That's where i find where the line between science and religious belief type is thin.
--- Your claim that you have no problem with science is undermined by the misrepresentation of science.
I am not doing an article for nature here, just discussing point that seems to me important.
--- Lastly, your comments do not address the blog post you are commenting on. This is a Red herring logical fallacy.
The Bible is not trying to force God to you by some undeniable math equation, its purpose is to give an history of God relation to man from the begining to the end.
It's a testimony, free to you to believe or not.
Faith can't be forced, that's the principle !
--- Feel free to continue this discussion.
i do :)
A lot of creationist talking points there. Too verbose for me, frankly.
DeleteLet me just say that a scientific theory is the explanation of scientific facts.
This means that "real science" *can* tell something about the past. Your ballistic example is good because forensic scientists can calculate where the projectile came from.
When scientists find a fossil, they can say something about it. Was it a tree? Was it an animal? Whatever it was, we know it *had to have lived*. That says something about the past.
You should look at Nicolas Steno, the Christian scientist and Bishop who discovered fossils and started geology.
Fossils and stratigraphy disprove the biblical flood myth. If you want to be honest, as a Christian, you should look at all the evidence against the flood myth... and discard it.
The big bang theory, as it's popularly known, tells us something about the past. We know that the universe is expanding and it is only logical that it must be contracting when you go back in time. To deny this is being dishonest.
All fields of science, "real science", work together to form a scientific framework and within this framework, the earth has been found to be old and the universe even older.
You need some dishonest apologetics to deny that.
By the way, feel free to read the rest of my blog. There are all kinds of frontal attacks against religion, mostly against Christianity as I have more interactions with Christians.
DeleteYou seem to suppose that thinking the way i do is due either to lying or being not educated/clever enough.
ReplyDeleteI get that you agree with evolution theory. As for me, this theory is not conclusive.
Everyone is entitled to its opinion and we can agree to disagree.
Your blog post show that you never studied the Bible but go on a crusade after christians saying their God don't exist.
Would you like that someone insult one of your loved one. Then what are you gaining to insult christian God ?
Sorry but i don't get what good can come of it for you or your readers.
I sincerely hope you will have a change of heart on this at some point.
I will pray that you find the peace and truth you are searching.
You have been lied to.
DeleteEvolution is both a fact and a theory.
Fact: Change in allele frequency in populations over generations.
Theory: Natural selection and genetic drift.
Scientific theories explain scientific facts.
Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature.
I have not read the bible. Genesis 1:1 is scientific nonsense, so why bother with the rest?
This is an atheist blog. The creation *story* of Genesis is basically the same for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These religions exist in spite of the scientific evidence against their deity. How odd is that?
Saying that Yahweh doesn't exist is hardly an insult. It's a scientific fact.
What good can come from it? If one person stops paying greedy priests because of what I have written here, that's good enough for me.
What good comes from scamming poor people out of their money?
Your prayer has not been heard. Sorry about that.
Hi Hans, i understand you denounce religious manipulations and false priests.
DeleteI agree wholeheartedly with that, they have kept me from true christianity most of my life too.
Christianity isn't about getting rich and stealing people, quite the contrary, it is to put yourself in the service of others freely, not out of pride (to look like a "nice guy") and for a benefit in return. Being a servant to the others is the exact opposite of what you are rightly denouncing.
Denounce false teachers as much as you want, they are indeed the great majority today.
But since you didn't study christianity enough, you are mixing false christian/priests/theologies with good ones.
This is just a bad induction logic due to the fact you didn't look close enough the topic. It's like saying, "all the people i met in this town are liers therefore all the other people living there must be too".
The world is indeed a place with 99% of liers (or not informed person) on this topic. You can cross 68 peoples, you still have less than 50% of chance of crossing one of the 1% not lying.
It's a shame since you are therefore working against people denouncing the same abuse as you.
As for praying, it doesn't work like that.
It's not like sending a charm to peoples to force them to do something against God, their will or for your own interest.
It's asking God to help people, the yes/no answer, the when and the how is let to God. And hopefully so, God being infinitly wise and timeless, he knows better than you what is good for everyone (our pride often doesn't like this part).
And sometime, what is the better for you isn't at all what you want on the moment (another thing false christian don't understand) !
Anyway, i hope you the better.
I reject Christianity (and Judaism and Islam and ...) because there is scientific evidence against it as I have described on this here blog.
DeleteThere is no need for me to study Christianity beyond that, as the whole supernatural claim is nonsense.
You might enjoy http://atyhans.blogspot.com.es/2014/01/fallacies-r-us.html
Have fun!