Not sure where to post this, I guess this place looks good as any.

I've recently been having the Creationism and Big Bang Theory debate. To save you guys from all the e-mails that we've been passing back and forth, it's basically come down to these points:

1. The origin of the universe is currently unknown
2. She chooses to believe in Creationism, I choose to believe in the Big Bang Theory.
3. She will only believe in the BBT if it is 100% certain that it happened.
4. As the origin of the universe is unknown, Creationism and the BBT are equally likely because neither are 100% certain.
5. She respects the BBT view and she wants respect for her view.

Now of course the reason I accept the BBT is because of the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports it. The same cannot be said of Creationism. She goes around this issue by claiming that "science cannot prove anything to a 100% certainty." I then say, you cannot prove Creationism to which she replies that she cannot, therefore BBT and Creationism are on a equal level.

She states even if the BBT was somehow 99.999999% correct, she still would not believe it unless it was "100% certain." Now this is just ridiculous and I tell her that 100% certainty is absurd, if not impossible to prove. But she doesn't care and says "You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe." Of course my beliefs are based on evidence while hers are not. She then goes into a tangent about Science can only explain some things, while religion explains other things and that they both are mutually exclusive.

So it's basically a stalemate at this point. Do you guys have any insights?

2. One MUST believe in creationism, because it has no evidence to support it. One need not believe in the big bang. One only need to see that there is evidence for it, and there is none whatsoever for creationism and accept that it's more likely the former is correct than the later. Also, the big bang need not be correct for creationism to be wrong. "God did it" is NOT the default explanation. The default explanation is, "I don't know." When someone claims that god did something, it becomes their responsibility to show evidence.

3.Science has error bars. There is no such thing as "100% certain." There are degrees of accuracy. To say The Earth is a sphere is more correct than to say that it is flat. But The Earth isn't a perfect sphere. Does that mean it's now valid to say The Earth is flat?

4. See above.

5. Reality doesn't care what she wants. All are ideas are not equally worthy of respect. Especially ones that have literally no supporting evidence and mountains of contrary evidence.

"God did it" is the placebo of answers. It allows you to pretend to know the answer even though you still don't. It's the ultimate non-answer. "God did it" was the reason for earthquakes at one time. Then we learned about tectonic plates. Before that, people could say "god did it" and feel better at pretending to know what caused it, but it didn't explain anything. The same goes for the existence of life. It might make your friend feel better to pretend to know why life is here, but that doesn't mean her imaginary reason is correct. Just like icicles form during the wintertime without intelligent intervention, and rivers run between their banks, life forms without intelligent intervention.

Is it really worth debating? I ask because it might lead to a hurt relationship. Just a thought.

Maybe you can respect her belief even if you do not believe in it and end it there. Or choose another topic to talk about when together.

VI The Sixth ,I don't understand , your belief in the BBT has nothing to do with the ultimate origin of the universe so your actual belief is that you don't know.
The same way she has to be clear ,if she believes a deity created the universe she has to specify if this being has always existed or had any existence in an exotic timeless fashion.
Anyway your real differences are epistemological in nature ,she doesn't seem to give a shit about rational beliefs and evidence based beliefs ,the 100% certainity is impossible because of the problem of induction .As you stated there are evidences for the BBT that go beyond rational doubt.
If you want to make progress in this discussion you should discuss how belief should be justified , since she seems to believe that anything below 100% certainity shouldn't be trusted you should show her the problem of induction and try to discuss solipsism .
If she cling to believing that every claims are equivalent regardless of evidences then she dismisses everything we usually call "knowledge" and is in a very impractical situation.

I am really curious to know in 4, on what basis they are equally likely just because neither are certain.

This sounds very much like the argument about rolling a die. When you make a roll there are 2 alternatives, either 6 will appear or it won't, therefore there is a fifty percent chance that 6 will be rolled. I would love someone to offer me that bet.

It sounds like all her arguments are irrational and will lead to frustration. Sometimes it is OK simply to walk away and preserve your sanity in order to fight another day.

John

z8000783 wrote:I am really curious to know in 4, on what basis they are equally likely just because neither are certain.

This sounds very much like the argument about rolling a die. When you make a roll there are 2 alternatives, either 6 will appear or it won't, therefore there is a fifty percent chance that 6 will be rolled. I would love someone to offer me that bet.

It sounds like all her arguments are irrational and will lead to frustration. Sometimes it is OK simply to walk away and preserve your sanity in order to fight another day.

John

There's the margin of error to consider when talking about science; so she really can't accept it if that's the case. It's better to save the relationship rather than talk about this, atleast that's what I believe. But the choice must be made by the thread starter.

The alternative is to teach her something related to science, but totally unrelated to the bbt or creationist topic. Like doing a research study involving a simple statistical analysis as a methodology.

This was her last response for those that are interested:

Some background, I told her that she should apply the same "100% certainty" to her own beliefs, if she's going to scrutinize science using that type of criteria.

"I do apply the same 100% certainty to my own beliefs. I know it's not 100% certain. I just prefer to believe in the creationist view, because I think it provides a more positive outlook on life. And yeah, I can't be dissuaded."

So yeah, I'm done here. Not really worth it to keep furthering the conversation if this is her reasoning for believing in Creationism.

You live and learn. Thanks for letting us know how it went.

John