moon landing skepticism (ASMO)

[Linguofreak]

In creationism terms, yes. In monotheistic religious terms, their idea of God is empirically testable, and has so far failed all such tests.

Creationists fall into two camps, those who believe the Genesis account is factual (and that the world is between 6 and 10 thousand years old), and those who believe that God initially set the universe in motion. The people in the first category are clearly wrong because (a) evidence from multiple sources show that the earth is 4.55 billion years old, (b) evidence shows how the Big Bang and the formation of the universe is nothing like that depicted in the Genesis story,

But with an omnipotent God involved, that tells us nothing. The "history of the universe" we get from running the laws of physics backward will invariably be different from the actual history of the universe if God has interfered. (If a divine act didn't change anything, it wouldn't be divine interference, would it?)

I tend to be more of an old-Earth creationist myself, but I do see young-Earthism as viable. I've become more neutral on the subject over the years because I see the most important doctrine in the creation account in Genesis to be *that* God created the universe, and I don't want to quibble too much over details, and also because other doctrines in other parts of the Bible are even more important, such as the death and resurrection of Christ.

(c) the Genesis story is internally inconsistent - two different accounts in subsequent chapters,

Which chapters, specifically?

and (d) the elements of the creation story can be found in far older myths from other cultures around the region.

Which also tells us nothing, one way or the other. Arguably, the fact that it appears in multiple accounts makes it *more* likely to be true, but it doesn't prove anything. How widely told a story is can do nothing to prove its accuracy one way or the other. The Moon Landing story is true no matter how many or how few cultures it appears in, or when it dates to in a given culture, and the Moon Hoax story is false.

The idea of the Abrahamic God setting off the universe is probably untestable since, as you say, he's outside the universe. Having said that, read Victor Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis" to see how the idea of an intelligent creator is not necessary to explain the beginning of the universe.

I browsed it once at the local Barnes and Noble. I think I recall that one of the things he used as evidence for the fact that God is not necessary for the universe to exist was that the Big Bang theory says that the universe has a beginning, and thus we don't have to explain away a universe that has existed for an infinite time. I find this rather ironic seeing as before relativity proved a universe finite in time necessary, the preferred cosmology was that of an eternal universe, since it got around having to explain the beginning of time and the origin of the universe. Einstein even made his cosmological constant "error" trying to get rid of the necessity of a beginning. (Though the concept of a consmological constant now seems to fall out of quantum mechanics, and the big question now is "why is the CC so small?")


But in any case, whether or not God is necessary to explain the existence or beginning of the universe has no bearing on whether he exists or actually did create the universe. Just because a river's course *can* be explained by natural causes doesn't mean that it wasn't altered by human activity. Likewise, just because the universe *could* have "just happened" (if indeed it could have) doesn't mean that God didn't create it.

But the idea of the Abrahamic God then interfering in our daily lives is most certainly testable.

If it is testable, then there must be some way to force the God you are testing for to act. If you can force the God you are testing for to act, he is not omnipotent, and if you are testing for a God that is not omnipotent, you are not testing for the Abrahamic God.

But this is supposed to be about the MLH.

So I won't press the issue if you don't. But please, don't try and put creationism and MLH on the same level.

EDIT:
-------------------------------

To get things back in an MLH-ish direction, don't put MLH and the Moon Does Not Exist Hoax on the same level either.
The MDNEH author is obviously quite sane and intellegent, but seems to have a debilitating case of Tongue-In-Cheek Disease. Don't put the poor sufferers of TICD and other diseases of overactive humor on the same level as the madmen and village idiots that believe MLH...

 

[movieman]

I would certainly rate creationism as more rational than Apollo-denial; I can far more easily believe that 'God' created the Earth 4,000 years ago and made it look exactly as though it had evolved naturally, than I can believe that NASA could keep a hoaxed Moon landing secret for over forty years. 'God' may be infallible, but the US government is nothing of the kind.

 

[jedidia]

what you tend to see is that the claim that God has answered prayers is taken from a very narrow viewpoint, and the claimant never thinks fully about what the implications are if God really HAD answered their prayers.

There are those of us who do. You just don't hear alot from us, because our faith is a major enigma to ourselfes, so we don't go about spewing dogmas about how God works. He doesn't really act the way I would if I were God, but I guess that is majorly due to the fact that he IS and I am not.

There IS such a thing like "empiric theology" btw, but you couldn't call it scientific. Anyways, it's interesting how this thread is deteriorating. :lol:

Well they were also geologists or lunar geologists. They used the hammer to break of pieces of moon rock.

of course, silly me! :huh:

 

[bujin]

So I won't press the issue if you don't. But please, don't try and put creationism and MLH on the same level.

Neither will I, because it's obviously such an emotive topic, other than to say that your reading of Stenger's book is a little incomplete, as he says a lot more than just that the Big Bang happened.

But to me, creationism and the MLH are both on the same level, and I believe that just as much as you believe in the particulars of your religion.

 

[chudsosoft]

It's simple anti-authority paranoia with frightening retard focus. Logic and reason really have nothing to do with it. It's a bunch of people who want to believe that they're smarter than "The Man". That's why it's fruitless to argue with them.

 

[Urwumpe]

MLH has some features, Creationism in its purest forms has not: It is always testable. Every theory these guys throw at you, finally crashes at the argument: wouldn't it have been cheaper to just drop some unlucky guys on the moon?

Real good Creationism is based around the idea of an omnipotent god, to create tautologies. God can explain anything. You lack socks? God took them away for each little sin you did last week. Football results? God likes entertainment just like all of us.

Same with fossiles, stars, stratas and isotopes. In the moment you include some factor, which does not have to play by ANY rules and is allowed to contradict himself... anything goes. That is of course not scientific. You can't have any meaningful science without naturalism.

 

[simonpro]

I dropped a stone in my garden this morning. That was god, and it's testable: The stone fell.

 

[thomasantony]

I dropped a stone in my garden this morning. That was god, and it's testable: The stone fell.

No no, it doesn't work that way... The stone should have been levitated by God. :rofl:

 

[Ghostrider]

No no, it doesn't work that way... The stone should have been levitated by God. :rofl:

God doesn't do the levitation stuff anymore. He doesn't want to be mistaken for that Harry Potter bloke.

 

[Messierhunter]

If you want to see how there would be evidence for the existence of an interfering God...

That's all I need to read. You can't assume there WOULD be evidence in one particular circumstance, that's why your hypothesis is flawed. You assume it would manifest itself in a certain way. How about I assume that if there was really a moon landing, I should be able to see the descent stage of the lander with my telescope... oops, it's not there, there must not have been a landing because NASA tells me they left equipment behind but I do not see it there. See how that works? My hypothesis actually failed because of a false assumption about the way in which Apollo should manifest itself. Hypotheses about God intervening are similarly flawed because of false assumptions about our ability to force Him to appear. God is not a testable hypothesis.

 

[bujin]

That's all I need to read. You can't assume there WOULD be evidence in one particular circumstance, that's why your hypothesis is flawed. You assume it would manifest itself in a certain way. How about I assume that if there was really a moon landing, I should be able to see the descent stage of the lander with my telescope... oops, it's not there, there must not have been a landing because NASA tells me they left equipment behind but I do not see it there. See how that works? My hypothesis actually failed because of a false assumption about the way in which Apollo should manifest itself. Hypotheses about God intervening are similarly flawed because of false assumptions about our ability to force Him to appear. God is not a testable hypothesis.

While I could respond to this, I have no wish to. I have grown pretty weary of discussions on religion and science on other message boards across the internet, and they always go exactly the same way. No-one is going to convince the opposite side of their arguments, so it is a bit pointless.

I'd rather get back to discussing Orbiter.

 

[Messierhunter]

While I could respond to this, I have no wish to.

I'd like to drag you back into this to find out what you'd say, but seeing as how I was banned from the previous iteration of the orbiter forum I probably shouldn't. In fact, I think I'll stop posting before someone notices.

 

[jedidia]

I have grown pretty weary of discussions on religion and science on other message boards across the internet, and they always go exactly the same way.

then maybe you shouldn't have brought up the topic!

 

[bujin]

then maybe you shouldn't have brought up the topic!

This wasn't what I had in mind when I mentioned creationism. Surely even the most religious person out there should understand that it is not something that should be discussed in the science class - that's the point I was making originally.

 

[jedidia]

Surely even the most religious person out there should understand that it is not something that should be discussed in the science class

You know that many don't. Throwing creationism into any debate will imediately draw the focus towards it. If you don't want to discuss it, don't mention it. I'm not saying this to criticise you, I don't mind. It's just a good advice for saving you from further discussions on the topic.

 

[Ghostrider]

This wasn't what I had in mind when I mentioned creationism. Surely even the most religious person out there should understand that it is not something that should be discussed in the science class - that's the point I was making originally.

Well I went to a Catholic school, and creationism was NEVER discussed in any science class (I must add that the science curriculum there was way more advanced than in the statal high school I attended later).

Even in religion class, the Creation was treated as a non-literal interpretation of how the Universe came to be.

 

[bujin]

Well I went to a Catholic school, and creationism was NEVER discussed in any science class (I must add that the science curriculum there was way more advanced than in the statal high school I attended later).

Even in religion class, the Creation was treated as a non-literal interpretation of how the Universe came to be.

Excellent. Glad to hear it.

It doesn't mean that certain groups are not trying though, particularly in America.

Anyway. Enough of this subject.

 

[Urwumpe]

It doesn't mean that certain groups are not trying though, particularly in America.

Certain groups also attempt it in Germany. But so far, not even demands by all teachers and 95% of all parents managed to change the state standards what to teach in school in 10 years.

Germany is usually a bad place for religious cultists, as the two major religious fractions defend their definition of religion and science carefully...

 

[Pilot7893]

Buzz had the right idea...

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

BOOM HEADSHOT!!:rofl:
I get pissed by that too. Alot of those claims could be solved with a little logic. For example, they're NASA! Would they honestly forget to paint on stars?

 

[pilotpercy]

ive mentioned this in another thread but i have a friend who actualy believes that space travel is not real!!!!! ie, he does not believe that an orbit can be established. it just beggers belief. i have tried to talk him round several times but he is adament that he is right so wont listen.:chair: