I'm less certain than you are about that... The axiom that God doesn't exist is exactly on the same level as the one that he does. Both of them require the same type of assumption. As for being falsifiable, there still isn't any evidence for macro-evolution, so it isn't beyond the state of hypothesis (yet?). Evidence of that kind would certainly falsify the predictions of creationism. However, there is no evidence for the "natural" origin of new species at this point, only for adaptation.
> The axiom that God doesn't exist is exactly on the same level as the one that he does.
Yes, generally, P and ~P are either both claims subject to empirical investigation, or both claims not subject to empirical investigation. "God exists" and "God does not exists" are not in the class of claims subject to empirical investigation.
That doesn't contradict anything I said (in fact, its barely even relevant to anything I said; Creationism, after all, is not the same thing as the claim that God exists, though it necessarily assumes that claim; to the extent its relevant to what I said, it supports my note that Creationism isn't an empirically falsifiable position.)
> As for being falsifiable, there still isn't any evidence for macro-evolution
Not only is there abundant evidence of macro-evolution, theories about macro-evolution make specific predictions about future observations which are falsifiable. Creationism does not make any falsifiable predictions.
> Evidence of that kind would certainly falsify the predictions of creationism.
No, evidence of macro-evolution (which exists, abundantly) doesn't falsify predictions of Creationism, because Creationism has no predictions to falsify. Evidence of macro-evolution is readily explained within the interpretive framework of Creationism (as is pretty much anything within any interpretive framework which presupposes the existence of an all-powerful supernatural entity.)
>>"God exists" and "God does not exists" are not in the class of claims subject to empirical investigation.
That depends very much on your definition of God and on whether you require the empiricism to be [universally] objective or, for example, would consider that a personal experience of your own with God to be evidence on which to base your own belief.
>>Creationism does not make any falsifiable predictions.
Again that depends entirely on the definition of Creationism.
As an aside I find it interesting to speculate as to what might become falsifiable [to some extent or other] in the future. Imagine we make contact with an alien race and they have photos of the Earth showing it was/wasn't ever in any significant flood in the region of the Eastern Mediterranean.
> That depends very much on your definition of God
Well, sure, but for any of the usual definitions, the point (with the note below) holds.
> on whether you require the empiricism to be [universally] objective or, for example, would consider that a personal experience of your own with God to be evidence on which to base your own belief.
True, I should have referred to scientific empiricism which includes objectivity (for which "universally" is superfluous).
> Again that depends entirely on the definition of Creationism.
Yes, any claim depends on the definition of the words used in it. Creationism, however, like God, has a fairly well-established meaning for which the statement holds (with the note above.)
> As an aside I find it interesting to speculate as to what might become falsifiable [to some extent or other] in the future. Imagine we make contact with an alien race and they have photos of the Earth showing it was/wasn't ever in any significant flood in the region of the Eastern Mediterranean.
1. We know of significant floods near the region of the Eastern Mediterranean,
2. In terms of Biblical literalism, the claim is of a global flood, not a flood in the region of the Eastern Mediterranean,
3. I will note again that any evidence can be rationalized in the context of an interpretive framework that includes an all-powerful supernatural being (of course, "Aliens have an equivalent of Photoshop" doesn't even require invoking an all-powerful or supernatural being.)
>The axiom that God doesn't exist is exactly on the same level as the one that he does. Both of them require the same type of assumption.
I'm with you on this. On some level, something caused the universe to exist. The explanations are: a Creator did it; or causality has no meaning outside of existence, so a first cause isn't necessary.
Either of those axioms requires an assumption, and once you make such an assumption, everything else is filtered through that lens.
But those are not any kind of axiom, because neither is a self-evident or clearly correct version of truth.
Two poor examples of an axiom are not "on the same level" as axioms.
>Either of those axioms requires an assumption, and once you make such an assumption, everything else is filtered through that lens.
What assumption does atheism make? None.
From the cosmologists' point of view, it is not clear that the cause of our observable universe need be available to our study within that observable universe. There is no assumption being made; it is simply an unanswered question, about which we are unsure we will ever have a useful answer.
>Atheism makes the assumption there is no God (read creator).
>Creationism makes the assumption there is a creator.
No. You are using the word "assumption" incorrectly.
In the scientific sense, I am using both the hypothesis that the creator exists and that the hypothesis creator does not exist to interpret the data of the world, comparing the results, and choosing the one as being more logical and likely. I assume nothing, though, being an inherently imperfect being, I recognize I must make some educated guesses to interpret the data before me -- but that is necessary for employing either hypothesis in the real world.
In a subtle sense, one could say that any hypothesis is a "working assumption" or a "tentative assumption". But, no, it is not the same as a just plain "assumption" as found in any dictionary.
It may be true that some people cut this short this process by making assumptions from the get go. But that is not intrinsic to atheism. Arguably, it is not even intrinsic to theism.
Atheism makes the assumption there is no God (read creator).
No, atheism makes no initial assumptions, and through reason and experimentation comes to the conclusion there is most likely (to a high degree of certainty) no God, at least not as defined by most religions.
Now, your final two sentences...
Both make assumptions. Both have the possibility of being incorrect.
...do not imply the third from last:
There is no difference between the two.
There are many other sorts of differences beyond assumptions and possible incorrectness. From a rational perspective, the evidence supporting one is much more rigorous (i.e. evidence has a higher prior probability and more supporting data to raise posterior probability).
You could assume that if I turn the key in my car's ignition it will start. I could assume that it won't. Both have the possibility of being incorrect. However, one of us has actually tested this, so one of us has better information.
The burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim. The null hypothesis would be that god (or the tooth fairy) doesn't exist until we have sufficient evidence to prove it does exist.
As for macro-evolution, there is a mountain of evidence including the genetic similarity, the geographic distribution of animals, the fossil record, etc. "The Greatest Show on Earth" would be a good read as it details many of the proofs of evolution and dismantles the Creationist's pseudo-science.
> As for macro-evolution, there is a mountain of evidence including the genetic similarity, the geographic distribution of animals, the fossil record, etc.
genetic similarity: When (if) you code, do you invent a new language for every project you do, or do you use the same toolset for several - if not all - of the things you do? Genetic similarity, as the use of a common genetic code for all known life, can be an argument for a creator. It simply depends on what assumptions you make - and this isn't rationalization any more than the mainstream interpretation is, it simply depends on what lens you use.
geographic distribution: Most of that is just adaptation, with which I have no problem at all. (assuming I understand your argument correctly)
fossil record: There are more "missing links" than there is a chain. We don't even have a nearly complete representation for the evolution that led to a few species known today, and there's even less evidence for the development of the larger features...
Genetic similarity is more precise than a generic toolset. We can tell relationships based on how similar their genes are (assuming you don't deny paternity tests). Genetic evaluation tells us that dogs are 100% descendant from wolves, not wolves and coyotes like previously thought. Genes also tell us that we are distant cousins to chimps. Genes are passed on through descendants and you can trace genes back through their family tree.
Animals on islands are completely unique. That's because they've been cut off from the mainland for millions of years and evolved completely differently. 100% of the mammals native to Australia are marsupials (excluding bats which can fly), and 100% of all marsupials are native to Australia, evolution took a different branch there. Galapagos and Madagascar also have animals that are very different, but they are most similar to the animals closest the island, and those animals are most similar to the animals geographically close to them.
Yes, the fossil record is incomplete (as we should expect), but it completely supports evolution. If you want to disprove evolution, find a single mammal fossil below the Devonean layer. Find a single human fossil that is 10 million+ years old. Why do we see the progression in the fossil record at all? Why are there no vertebrates beyond a certain layer?
Macro-evolution is what happens when micro-evolution has millions of years. They aren't as distinctly different as you seem to think.
You can read more in-depth evidence in the book, "The Greatest Show on Earth. Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a fact. It's not even debated among biologists. If you have some evidence against it (or for creation), submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If you can throw evolution into question, you'll win a nobel prize for sure.
In the case of the tooth fairy you ask your parents and they confirm that they paid you money for your teeth in some sort of [weird] ritual. Then the onus is on those who consider the parents to be lying to establish that.
I don't think you can honestly say that is akin to the questions of the existence of a personal God or of a controlling mind or of [merely] a creative deity.
There is equal evidence for both god and the tooth fairy. Just because your parents paid for your tooth, doesn't mean there isn't a tooth fairy out there. A parent's word alone is pretty weak evidence compared to the overwhelming evidence against a young earth and creationism.
Here, I usually ask people not to conflate the existence of a God with creationism. (Perhaps that is a particular U.S. thing?) Ditto with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
I was raised and schooled in a religious environment, and no-one believed in creationism. Heck, some of the Jesuit priests were paleontologists. And to give them their credit, irrespective of my beliefs now, the J's were awesome teachers.
For me there isn't. I've had physical experiences of God; the tooth fairy on the other hand is just a thing people tell their kids to make losing teeth more, er, palatable.
God explains creation. There are no competing hypotheses with support (that I can recall just now anyway). I don't mean, big-bang/big-crunch/branes or the like but prime-mover explanations. One might consider perpetual/infinite explanations but they don't avoid the necessary question of how such universes were made. [Subjectively I have as much evidence as I have that the world is real.]
Parents actions explains the tooth fairy, it's considered to be true [appeal to authority] except in a cohort that are known to have been lied to, is agreed on globally [appeal to majority] with a possible infinitesimal opposition. [The science bit:] There are no records of instances that contradict the Parent/Guardian theory and no support has been presented for alternate hypotheses.
Invoking a god for creation creates more problems than it solves, because now you have to ask, who created god? Since a god must be more complex than his creation, you created a bigger problem to solve.
I believe the current thinking for the "cause" of the big bang is that there was none. That's not unreasonable given how randomness is inherit to quantum mechanics. Also, before there was matter/space, there was also no time for a cause to occur in. While scientists may not fully understand the big bang yet, I'd feel much better betting on a natural, simple explanation than a "god of the gaps" belief, which has been shattered every time science advances.
Any belief about the origins of the observable universe rest on a leap of faith. It doesn't matter if it's God or a quantum fluctuation, there is no way to know about anything prior to the origin of the universe (assuming there is one). So it's not a "god of the gaps" explanation, since there is not actually a gap there.
If you claim that the cause of the observable universe is a natural phenomenon like quantum mechanics, then it necessarily raises the question "where did the laws of quantum mechanics come from?"
The idea that quantum mechanics simply exist for no reason at all is no more plausible than the idea of a creator.
Well, where do physics come from? That's a huge problem right there.
As for the creator of God, that problem is easily solved with the bible: God is the one who is. He is the only one who always was, and always will be. He is everything and the cause of everything.
>There is equal evidence for both god and the tooth fairy.
Not really. There is no evidence for the actual existence of the (or any) tooth fairy. It could be argued however, that there is evidence of a god or gods specifically because every universe that we know to exist other than our own has creators. The universes created in computer simulations, dreams, imagination etc all have specific creators who are the gods of those universes. Why would our universe be any different from these?
You have a very curious definition of universe, not to mention you are reasoning by analogy.
Computer simulations are the interactions between transistors in a CPU, carried by electrons and photons. Dreams are impulses in the neurons of our brains that happen to get stored as memories when we awaken. Our imaginations are also physical processes that take place within our brains. All three of these are on a vastly smaller scale than the universe we inhabit.
Do you have some evidence that the actual universe is any of these things?
A computer simulation isn't coherent in any way without a program. That most certainly points to a creator. Same as with playdough or clay: no animal or farm is gonna make itself.
But what evidence is there that our universe, the one we live in that appears to be roughly 14 billion years old, is anything like a program or a clay farm?
You are describing the processes in our universe that allow the existence of the created universe. From within that universe, the actors would have no knowledge of these processes or even the existence of our universe unless the creators explicitly provided them with this information. To them, their universe would appear to be everything in existence just as ours does to us. That is why, to me, these universes are analogous to our own and since they are the only universes we know to exist besides our own (even though they exist within our universe), I think it makes sense to consider the possibility that our universe is no different and that our universe may exist within a parent universe and that our universe has a creator in the parent universe just as our child universes have creators in ours.
As far as evidence goes, there is no tangible evidence (and if the theory is correct, it would probably be impossible to get evidence unless the creator allowed it) but if you have 100 bags and in 99 of those bags there is an egg, it can be reasonable to assume that there is an egg in the 100th bag. That isn't really evidence though especially because that 100th bag is different from the other 99 as it contains them. It could be argued however, that this is is a type of evidence. I'm not sure how exactly but I think someone smarter than me could.
Regarding scale, I don't think that that is such an issue for three reasons:
1) If something is contained in something else, it is reasonable that it's container is larger so just as our universe is on a larger scale than our child universes, our parent universe could be on a larger scale to our own.
2) Only the actors and what they observe need to be simulated (I may be the only actor, maybe it's you) the rest can be approximated. Perhaps this is why it is so difficult for scientists to come up with a unified theory. Maybe macro and micro events within our universe are simulated in different ways and the simulator that runs our universe is inconstant when these two simulations need to be merged.
3) Perhaps it takes the equivalent of years in our parent universe to simulate a second in our universe maybe this very moment is the only one that has been simulated and the past is just the initial state.
edit: The bag/egg analogy isn't great but I am sure that you know what I mean.
Almost everything complex we see in the universe has a simple explanation. The galaxies/stars/planets formed because of gravity. Evolution is small gradual steps. Most science equations could fit on 1" of paper. Why would the universe's origins be infinitely complex rather than simple? Why is everything we've ever discovered natural, but the origins are super-natural?
The entire concept of the phylogenetic tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree) is based on the idea of speciation. That species evolve into new species is well accepted in evolutionary theory, and well supported.
When we talk about "Creationism" in the US, it generally means the young-Earth variety, with a belief in a 6000 year old universe, with history basically going: creation week, pre-fall, post-fall/pre-flood, Noah's flood, followed by all of post-Flood history (which we live in today).
This leads to all sorts of hypotheses one could make about geology, biology, speciation, etc.
I totally disagree. When I talk about "Creationism" I'm talking about a creation event that occurred (say 6000 years ago).
The implementation details aren't necessarily important.
The first 16 billion years could have been emulated and then placed on the live hardware to run after that.
The initial faith has a lot to do with our final outcomes.
Scientists are rather forced to believe in evolution (or some other form of something from nothing). How else could this wonder have happened?
Creationists start with the belief of something from God. This generally tends them to steer in a direction away from thinking evolution is true. Not necessarily though.
Either way, the point is, the creationists don't necessarily worry about implementation and so the young earth ideology shouldn't be tagged with them. That's my take anyways.
