Hey guys. I've been debating creationism and related topics on a Topix forum for Jehovah's Witnesses. I was raised in that cult.

One guy recently put up a post titled "Recent discovery adds to proof of God's existence" ( http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jeh ... AG77C83I01 ). I took issue with that, and a JW apologist tried to defend Noah's Flood and so forth. He invoked Paley's Argument from Design, with which I took issue.

The debate soon evolved into what causes things to happen in the universe: forces or energy (post #6). The JW apologist argued that energy is fundamental and causes forces; I argued that he has things backwards, that forces are fundamental and energy is merely a means of accounting for what forces are observed to do. I quoted Feynman in support.

I would like to get comments from people about the arguments that I and the JW apologist set forth about forces and energy.

Thanks,
Alan

It's difficult and frustrating to try use logic and facts in discussions with people, when those people do not yet have the minimal cognitive skills necessary to understand and utilize logic and facts. Isn't it?

Not only that, the apologists aren't bound by reality. They have no requirement to stick to that which can be shown. You can't win an argument with such a person, when they get to resort to "magic man", and you don't.

AlanF wrote:Hey guys. I've been debating creationism and related topics on a Topix forum for Jehovah's Witnesses. I was raised in that cult.

One guy recently put up a post titled "Recent discovery adds to proof of God's existence" ( http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jeh ... AG77C83I01 ). I took issue with that, and a JW apologist tried to defend Noah's Flood and so forth. He invoked Paley's Argument from Design, with which I took issue.

The debate soon evolved into what causes things to happen in the universe: forces or energy (post #6). The JW apologist argued that energy is fundamental and causes forces; I argued that he has things backwards, that forces are fundamental and energy is merely a means of accounting for what forces are observed to do. I quoted Feynman in support.

I would like to get comments from people about the arguments that I and the JW apologist set forth about forces and energy.

Thanks,
Alan

Blimey. There's an awful lot of CAPITALISATION going on in that discussion.

Paley's argument proceeded from it's conclusion - it was a teleological argument which relied on the naive view that as things are not other than what they are then some immortal hand or eye must have made it thus. This can only ever make sense if one first accepts the existence of the immortal hand or eye, and so proceeding from one's conclusion in this way the argument represents an exercise in confirmation bias rather than 'proof' (which should really be reserved for maths and alcohol imo).

I would suggest that it debating with creationists you endeavour to keep the focus on claimant, emphasising, and re-emphasising, and re-re-emphasising (etc, etc) that the burden is on them to justify their claims and assertions in their own terms. It is fact plainer than jam on toast the only real discursive tactic open to creationists is to shift the burden of evidence and explanation onto those challenging their views. In other words, if you are not careful you will find yourself spending far too long justifying your objection to the creationists satisfaction (and they are never, and can never be, satisfied), and all the time you are engaged in that they are not actually addressing objections and challenges to their claim.

A cursory glance at some of the 'debates' in this section of forum will show you what I mean.

AlanF wrote:

The debate soon evolved into what causes things to happen in the universe: forces or energy (post #6). The JW apologist argued that energy is fundamental and causes forces; I argued that he has things backwards, that forces are fundamental and energy is merely a means of accounting for what forces are observed to do. I quoted Feynman in support.

I would like to get comments from people about the arguments that I and the JW apologist set forth about forces and energy.

Thanks,
Alan

I see that no one's given this a pop, so I shall shove my oar in on it!

I'd say meh.

For there to be a universe, there must have been some kind of energetic transition from one state to another, but the universe itself is the laws which make it; they are its warp and weft.

So it's pretty much arguing past each other; you can both be right depending on how you wish to define it.

Burn the heretic!!

"....but the universe itself is the laws which make it; they are its warp and weft."

Getting a bit poetical in your old age eh Mr Thrower?

It's like I is da voice of da new generashun, innit?

AlanF wrote:Hey guys. I've been debating creationism and related topics on a Topix forum for Jehovah's Witnesses. I was raised in that cult.

One guy recently put up a post titled "Recent discovery adds to proof of God's existence" ( http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jeh ... AG77C83I01 ). I took issue with that, and a JW apologist tried to defend Noah's Flood and so forth. He invoked Paley's Argument from Design, with which I took issue.

The debate soon evolved into what causes things to happen in the universe: forces or energy (post #6). The JW apologist argued that energy is fundamental and causes forces; I argued that he has things backwards, that forces are fundamental and energy is merely a means of accounting for what forces are observed to do. I quoted Feynman in support.

I would like to get comments from people about the arguments that I and the JW apologist set forth about forces and energy.

Thanks,
Alan

I wouldn't want to argue either position.