Writing a thesis on why theism is more rational... need GOOD opposing viewpoints.

brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Writing a thesis on why theism is more rational... need GOOD opposing viewpoints.

My thesis statement is, "In contrast to atheism, a belief in God is rational because it is logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant."

Please feel free to throw any arguments against me within those topics. In other words, I am not even touching on the accuracy of the Bible or the person of Jesus and likewise, i am not using the Bible in any of my arguments. Here is a broad outline of my paper so far. (I have only just begun my thesis)

I. Logically Consistent

     A. Law of Causality

          1. I'm asserting that the universe is not eternal based on science, it had a beginning,

              and logic states that everything with a beginning had a cause.

          2. logic does not say that a cause needs a cause, therefore it is more logical to say that a eternal

              being created the universe than to say a creation had no cause.

     (a have a few other points but a am no where near finished, the causality is more complete)

II. Empirically adequate

     A. Atheists are constantly reevaluating their beliefs in the origin of the universe while Theists have

         remained unchanged for centuries.

          1. Atheists claim to rely on science to explain the universe but their only explanation is the

               unscientific evolution THEORY.

          2. Science relies on repeating, observing, and measuring, none of which can be applied to evolution.

     B. in the THEORY of evolution, a fundamental law of biology must opperate in direct opposition with a

        fundamental law of physics.

          1. how can biological systems become more and more complex while the natural world descends into

              disorder?

     C. Microevolution verses Macroevolution

          1. Microevolution can be observed and involves the adaptation of species to it environment. for

              example the well known example of the moths turning gray to blend in with the ash covered trees

              whole the weaker black moths were eaten. Microevolution speaks of small changes WITHIN a

              species and never outside of the species.

          2. Macroevolution claims that organisms can evolve into completely new species over long periods of

              time to adapt to their surroundings and causes by random genetic mutations. However there is 

              NO proof of this in observable nature or ever found in the fossil record.

III. experientially relevant (I have not put to much into this section yet)

     A. Atheism is a very dangerous belief to guide ones life.

          1. Hitler is one such example of someone who lived out the teachings of Atheism

          2. Atheism does not answer such important life questions such as purpose, hope, what happens

           after death, or moral absolutes.

     B. Theism on the other hand certainly does answer all of these questions.

 

If anyone read through that all, thank you for your time. Please critique it as you see fit and feel free to be brutal. i have much more depth to each of those topics but as i said here is an outline, not my paper.

 

 

 

 


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
as i said before im not

as i said before im not answering each of you specifically, its too meticulous for the time i have alotted so here are my responses to the best of yours.

 

I'd like to clarify again why i came hear. i wanted apposing viewpoints for my paper. which is interesting since you all say i only read apologist works. this is the ammount of resistence i expected but not the quality. i am in NO way overwhelmed by any of this and the fact that i can't answer your questions doesn't surprise me either. you guys called me ignorant. well yeah. i havn't had the time yet to read every detail of everything entailed in my paper. that would be quite a bit of reading. I've read briefly, skimmed a bit, etc. im only in the beginning parts of my process. i didn't AT ALL expect my arguments to stump you guys, i didn't try to witness to anyone, and i didn't try to prove the atheists are meanies. iv been respectful of your beliefs. havn't attacked you guys at all, just the fact your proof is not proof. all this aside im very smart, just becasue im not an expert in every field doesn't mean i can't grasp it. i also have a great deal of common sense. which often, book smart people lack. evolution simply does not make sense to me. whether i belived in God or not, it does not make sense. i do understand how it works in theory, what doesn't make sense is how little there is to proove it. all the information you have giving me is rediculous. there are no transitional fossils. i don;t need a fifth link on transitrional fossils. you guys said i use biased apologist sources. your sources are from either this site or from atheist.com or something of the sort. everything you've accused me of goes both ways.

 

as for saying im just copying and pasting apologist resources and not thinking for myself is rediculous. you guys are just taking the scientists word that the fossils are real. have you researched them yourself? no, you've taken other atheists word for it. as i said, everything is going both ways.

 

i don't know why im even bringing this up but someone was trying to tell me that the bible says God gives us whatever we ask for.... onve again as i am ignorant of your beliefs, you are also ignorant of mine. the fact that most of you used to be Christians so you know both viewpoints is rediculous.

 

oh and HisWilness... my life would be much easier if i was an atheist. it would be nice to have no responibility, no one to hold you accountable, and no purpose but to serve myself. so don;t say i believe just so that i fit in with my social group. most my friends are not christian, id fit in much bettter if i wasn't a christian. the fact is that i am a Christian, theres no doubt in my mind of God's power. people say there is no evidence, i see it every day. I believe you have to be saved before you can see that evidence. which is why even though its so obvious to me, you don't see anything.

 

and finally, the whole hubris thing. what a joke, iv seen more hubris here than any other atheist site i've gone to. you guys said i was prideful and came with a closed mind. Ha, yours is no more open than mine.

- Jordan -


HC Grindon
High Level DonorModerator
Posts: 198
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Jordan wrote:as i said

Jordan wrote:
as i said before...<insert one long Tu Quoque fallacy>

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:i love

brave theist wrote:

i love the double standards you guys throw in my face. every error iv made you have as well. you also havn't provided any proof. what you have provided is evidence for evolution as i have provided evidence for God. neither proves nor dissproves the other.

I'm not going to get into evolution. Suffice to say, the fossil record is amazingly consistent with the theory of evolution through natural selection. I won't get into the evidence that supports that theory. It is the second-most tested theory in science today, after Newtonian physics, and has made positive predictions in genetics, medicine, psychology, sociology, ecology, and a whole slew of other -ologies. If you desire a treatise on the tests that the theory of evolution through natural selection has gone through, I will gladly go over some of the more accessible predictions, tests, and results. It's really quite fascinating.

I would like to get back to the "first cause" cosmological argument mentioned in your original outline.

Causality assumes the existence of time. That is, first is the cause, followed by the effect. This is fundamental to "first cause" arguments.

(As an aside: Even with a "first cause" and a special exemption for God, it's a *long* leap from an eternal first cause to a specific God, or any God whatsoever. Even granting a God that is self-aware, omniscient, and omnipotent, there is no evidence that this God is anything at all like the modern view of the Christian God. The few tests that are possible for the existence of the Christian God all fail. For instance, if God did favour Christians, and God did answer prayers, then Christians would have longer, happier lives. In fact, Christians suffer from depression, divorce, cancer, car accidents, financial problems, and other things at exactly the same rate as the rest of the population. Christians do not miraculously recover from disease or accident at a greater rate than the general population. So, accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour doesn't convey any practical advantage over *not* believing. At least, not until you get into the afterlife, for which there is also no evidence.)

In any case, God as first mover is not only unnecessary, it doesn't even make cosmological sense. At the beginning of the universe, there was no time. There was no space. There was nothing. It wasn't even a void. It was literally nothing. There was no dimension, no time. There was no existence. Cause and effect require time, as one comes before the other, by definition. Without time, there is no "first cause," as cause and effect aren't even possible. There is no need for God as a first cause, as there *was* no first cause.

For your core thesis, that theistic belief matches reality better than atheistic belief: there is only one epistemology that has given concrete, verifiable, practical results, and that is science. No other methodology or epistemology has been consistently and verifiably correct in results. Although your belief in God may provide personal comfort, satisfaction, wisdom, and pleasure, it is by no means a verifiable epistemology. (At least, not until the second coming. And even that might be up for debate; David Koresh said that *he* was the second coming of Christ. I doubt many people actually believed him.)

So, at the moment, the only knowledge that matches up with observable reality is the knowledge gained by science. And as God falls outside nature, He also falls outside the purvue of science. To try to change science to match God would destroy the essence of science, the one proven way of knowing about the universe. To change God to match science would be to destroy the idea of God, as He is unnecessary for our understanding of the natural world.

If He indeed exists, His domain is not the physical, nor the natural, as He would have to exist outside our universe (by virtue of being the impossible fist mover). That leaves His domain in everything outside of physical existence. That is, His essence is in spirituality, which is neither rational nor physical.

Feel free to use any of these refutations in your thesis. If you require elucidation, or even possible counter-arguments to these points, I'll be glad to help in whatever way I can.

Good luck with your thesis. I hope you do well.

- Tony

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  It's okay, it's

  It's okay, it's good, brave theist, you are learning. Accept the real god, Jesus was a "NOT careful enough atheist character".  Wild ain't it !  Wish you would stop putting yourself down and accept you are the shit, you are god !

A cool atheist chick has "song" for you, "open your heart"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBkaz00NA8M&feature=related

"Holiday"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X7RyGBq2E8 

Be EXTRA SUPER nice to youself  .... and thanks for sharing .... tons of love to ya.

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:have you

brave theist wrote:
have you researched them yourself? no, you've taken other atheists word for it.

Well, scientists. I don't know if they're atheists or not. Also, I've held the fossils in my hands. Because the scientists are friends of mine. It's not really so much "faith" as it is "hey, that's neat - look how this bone and that bone change through different layers of the earth". It's pretty amazing to see if you check it out.

brave theist wrote:
I believe you have to be saved before you can see that evidence. which is why even though its so obvious to me, you don't see anything.

... and to return to your thesis, that belief is fine, it's just irrational.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Ubermensch
Ubermensch's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:there are

brave theist wrote:

there are no transitional fossils

 

So, in conclusion:

 

Atheists are untrustworthy, scientists make it all up, we are apologists...

 

...  but if it is in the bible, it is true.  Even though you do not know the people who wrote it.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5753/1483

The truth is out there, but I don't think you value it.

Scientific illiteracy is reality illiteracy.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 Yeah nigelTheBold , where

 Yeah nigelTheBold, where you been !!!?

that ZERO" first cause Aristotle shit,

well he was learning too, thank god, and fuck "god of abe"

, btw.

I got a bitch about making language clear, WHICH GOD ?

The god/cosmos, or god of abe , damn Bable ..... G C or G A

, damn words, god has been stolen by the theists !

Get our atheist god back !  (((( can I get a smiley please ....

[[[ had to edit text runs off page .... in IE6  

 


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Here is the problem with

Here is the problem with your approach, in my opinion brave:

  • You started your thesis with a series of conclusions, while not knowing all the information about the subjects that you have formed conclusions on.
  • You admit to coming here for the information that you don't have, but you reject information that does not agree with your conclusion.
  • You claim that your view of these issues is already in agreement with apologetics prior to research.
  • The research you are conducting seems to be with a strong bias.

Perhaps if you had come here with questions rather than conclusions your reception would be more positive.  We are here for discussion, we are not here to make facts and evidence match a preconceived conclusion while rejecting all others.  If there were evidences that concluded in the supernatural I would gladly accept and discuss those, but there aren't.  There are conclusions of super-naturalism when faced with ignorance and awe.  Ignorance is not evidence.   Most of us here are not biased towards atheism and science we have just not been presented with a reason to support other methods of gathering information that aren't based on presuppositions.

 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
 Oh man...  now fossils

 Oh man...  now fossils aren't real?  I suppose the earth is flat too, huh?   

I'm out of here, this guy isn't being intellectually honest anymore and this paper will fail because he's already got a conclusion that he's just trying to fill in with hovind fluff.

 

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote: Yeah

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

 Yeah nigelTheBold, where you been !!!?

Just hangin'.

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

that ZERO" first cause Aristotle shit,

well he was learning too, thank god, and fuck "god of abe"

, btw.

I got a bitch about making language clear, WHICH GOD ?

The god/cosmos, or god of abe , damn Bable ..... G C or G A

, damn words, god has been stolen by the theists !

Get our atheist god back !  (((( can I get a smiley please ....

[[[ had to edit text runs off page .... in IE6  

God is one! All is one! All is God!

I guess I could go on with more Dr. Bronner manifesto, but I won't.

I think all Gods are aspects of the One True God. I mean, if there were a God. Which there isn't. But if there was... I'm just sayin'.

What's up with the whole First Cause argument? This is the second post on it I've made tonight. Why does it seem so compelling to people who haven't even studied basic astronomy? Or is that answering my own question?

Oh, well. I hope Jordan writes a good paper, anyway.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Ubermensch wrote:So, in

Ubermensch wrote:

So, in conclusion:

 

Atheists are untrustworthy, scientists make it all up, we are apologists...

 

Many years ago, I was married to a fundamentalist Christian. I was working on my physics degree at the time. My then-wife and I got into a discussion one night about evolution. I mentioned that the evidence for evolution was overwhelming, that it was so far-reaching its effects were seen in many disparate branches of science, that there was not one single piece of contrary evidence.

She mentioned all the in-fighting that was going on (gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium being the big one at the time), and used that as proof that even scientists didn't know everything about evolution, so how could it be true?

And then we talked about physics, and cosmology, and deep time (though I didn't know it was called deep time then). I mentioned that many galaxies were several billion light years away, and that the time it would take for light to travel that far puts the age of the universe much greater than that used for new-earth creationism (in which she believed). All of this "fossil light" (isn't all light "fossil light?" ) either came from a real galaxy a billion years ago, or God created this light in-transit, which would indicate that He's fucking with us. (I didn't say "fucking with us," of course, as that would've gotten me in big trouble.)

We talked like this for a bit more, she growing more agitated, me getting a bit more strident. Finally, I said, "Look, pretty much all sciences support a very old universe, and evolution. Do you think they're just making this up to discredit God?"

Of course she said, "Yes."

Fundamentalists are not willing to reconsider their viewpoint in light of mere facts. The only way to make it into heaven is by a strict reading of the Bible. (Or more accurately, a strict interpretation of the Pastor's reading of the Bible.) This gives them very little psychological wiggle room. Their greatest fear is to fall out of favor with God. And who could blame them? Reading the Bible, God doesn't even treat his friends pleasantly. It doesn't seem to take much to fall out of favor. Distrusting what He says in His book is one sure way to get taken off his Christmas list. So, the Word of God trumps the Evidence of Nature.

That makes all scientists untrustworthy, because they are generally atheists (an untrue assertion), and are out to disprove God for their own nefarious ends. I'm not sure what those ends are; I was never able to figure it out. I know *I* was never given the decoder ring, nor the secret handshake. They certainly didn't invite me to the annual Nefarious Scheme Seminars.

And I was *so* looking forward to ruling the world.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  

   Yeah nigelTheBold, whatever is, IS ! and yes all our best to Jordon. ((( and Aristotle ! They "care" .... Good luck to us ALL, make it nice for our kids kids kids , till the end ..... written into eternity of what IS. Zero never existed ! How could it ! Wow god is indeed eternal and infinite !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

and a side note, "I AM GOD AS YOU ! " 


Ubermensch
Ubermensch's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

Fundamentalists are not willing to reconsider their viewpoint in light of mere facts...

 

I agree.  This has been hard for me to grasp I think because I was never a theist, so I don't really understand that state of mind.  I have a few atheist friends who are ex-fundmentalist christians who have been trying to explain it to me for years! Eye-wink

 

On a side note, I'm about to complete my physics B.S. also!  w00t!

Scientific illiteracy is reality illiteracy.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Yeah Ubermensch, being

  Yeah Ubermensch, being raised atheist makes our language different ..... I AM GOD !


ugzog
Bronze Member
ugzog's picture
Posts: 84
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
I am not a science whiz

 I am not a science whiz like most people on this website, so I can give you the layman atheist breakdown.

brave theist wrote:

I. Logically Consistent

     A. Law of Causality

          1. I'm asserting that the universe is not eternal based on science, it had a beginning, and logic states that everything with a beginning had a cause.

          2. logic does not say that a cause needs a cause, therefore it is more logical to say that a eternal being created the universe than to say a creation had no cause.

     (a have a few other points but a am no where near finished, the causality is more complete)

 

1. Science is a field of study, it cannot make claim. Are you referencing a specific theory, or the person who made these claims? As for your statement of a beginning, can you reference the exact scientific reference you are referring? As a thesis I should be able to see any reference you make to observe your idea.

2. Logic cannot say anything; it is a process of testing. You cannot state a point by stating that a point does not exist. Just because you feel that logic does not "state" something, does not make the negative true. If you want to use your statement of, "therefore it is more logical to say that an eternal     being created the universe than to say a creation had no cause." you will first need to proof an eternal being.

brave theist wrote:

II. Empirically adequate

     A. Atheists are constantly reevaluating their beliefs in the origin of the universe while Theists have remained unchanged for centuries.

          1. Atheists claim to rely on science to explain the universe but their only explanation is the unscientific evolution THEORY.

          2. Science relies on repeating, observing, and measuring, none of which can be applied to evolution.

 

  • - So static knowledge is superior to reevaluating knowledge.. how... give me an example of a static belief that has been more successful than a non-static belief. If this was the case, wouldn't medicine, and engineering to name a few, be better off when they where conceived than the modern versions with an expanded body of knowledge?
  • - You are not being specific enough here. How about Atheist that believe in the theory of the big bang, claim the universe......
  • - Evolution has already been established... If you are questioning the evidence of evolution you will need to break it down and argue specific points. Fossils, DNA, protein strands...... I can't see taking you on your claims against evolution. Using evolution to claim the beginning of the universe is odd, since the theory makes no such claims.

brave theist wrote:

     B. in the THEORY of evolution, a fundamental law of biology must operate in direct opposition with a fundamental law of physics.

          1. how can biological systems become more and more complex while the natural world descends into? disorder?

 

  • - how? how does evolution operate in direst opposition? You make the claim, but you state how, and then you follow up with another question. You also will need more than one supporting point.
  • - "The natural world descending into disorder?" opinion? or fact, if fact where is your, How, where, why?

brave theist wrote:

     C. Microevolution verses Macroevolution

          1. Microevolution can be observed and involves the adaptation of species to it environment. for example the well known example of the moths turning gray to blend in with the ash covered trees whole the weaker black moths were eaten. Microevolution speaks of small changes WITHIN a species and never outside of the species.

          2. Macroevolution claims that organisms can evolve into completely new species over long periods of time to adapt to their surroundings and causes by random genetic mutations. However there is NO proof of this in observable nature or ever found in the fossil record.

 

I am confused about your micro versus macro? I looked on the internet and found nothing on these two systems. I did find a reference t your example under adaptation.

brave theist wrote:

III. experientially relevant (I have not put to much into this section yet)

     A. Atheism is a very dangerous belief to guide ones life.

          1. Hitler is one such example of someone who lived out the teachings of Atheism

          2. Atheism does not answer such important life questions such as purpose, hope, what happens after death, or moral absolutes.

     B. Theism on the other hand certainly does answer all of these questions.

 

  • - "Atheism are dangerous" how? Will being an atheist make us all Hitlers?
  • - what documentation do you have on Hitlers religious believe?
  • - purpose of what? hope of what?, what happens after death, moral absolutes?
  • - How does not having these make atheist dangerous? where is the effect to your cause? Where is your how and why these are dangerous?

 Honestly, you state nothing new, you’re our regurgitating known flawed logic of the major "Creationist" that has been repeatedly shot down, including in the federal court system, and you bring nothing new to the table of debate to make anyone change their mind.

You have not even written a well establish outline, or followed a rules for supporting an argument. Your points are general and not supported, you make claims with no support, and you didn't even take the time to spell check. Honestly, if you turned this in at high school level you should be failed.

 

 

{ Fixed quote some formatting particularly quote functions - Edited by Mr. Atheist }

 

Man is the only animal in all of nature that cannot accept its own mortality.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Better late than never

brave theist wrote:

I. Logically Consistent

     A. Law of Causality

          1. I'm asserting that the universe is not eternal based on science, it had a beginning,

              and logic states that everything with a beginning had a cause.

          2. logic does not say that a cause needs a cause, therefore it is more logical to say that a eternal

              being created the universe than to say a creation had no cause.

     (a have a few other points but a am no where near finished, the causality is more complete)

There also seems to be a conflation of "cause" and "causer."

You draw a distinction between cause and effect. A "cause" is an event, a change of state that cascades into action. It is not a thing, nor is it eternal. In fact, by definition, a cause is not eternal. It is transient. Otherwise, it could not be a change of state.

What you describe is a causer, an effector, a mover. An entity. And by your own statements, that cannot exist without a cause. Your basic axioms disallow this. Your argument falls of its own weight. The center cannot hold.

brave theist wrote:

II. Empirically adequate

     A. Atheists are constantly reevaluating their beliefs in the origin of the universe while Theists have

         remained unchanged for centuries.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "empiricism." A static view of the world is hardly empirical. In fact, it is almost exactly the opposite of empirical.

The re-evaluation scientists (and rationalists in general) go through is the only correct way to view the world. I say this without hesitation or equivocation. How can I do that?

The assumptions of science are actually quite minimal. They are: the universe is objectively real-- there is a true reality. Second: that universe is observable-- we can view it, and learn objective things about it. Third: the universe is consistent-- if you drop a rock on your toe today, and the same rock on the same toe next Thursday, the result will be the same.  Fourth, and finally: the universe operates as an holistic whole-- that is, life observes the same rules as stars and planets and galaxies and whatnot; there are no exceptions to the rules.

The first three rules define a universe we can study and from which we can glean information. The fourth rule says it'll be worth learning, and all make sense.

Science is a process of learning, of discovering. How would it be if Europe hadn't re-evaluated their beliefs after Columbus landed in America? Where would we be if we hadn't re-evaluated our world after Newton published his famous papers on dynamics? If we didn't constantly re-evaluate our world, we'd still be living in squalor, either in caves or huts, whichever way you believe.

A static belief system leaves you... static. Unchanged. If you like your comforts such as TV and warm houses in the winter and roads and cars to carry your carcass to work or school and delicious B&J's Oatmeal Cookie Dough Ice Cream, you can thank people who re-evaluated their view of the universe when new data and new ideas made our view of the universe more accurate.

brave theist wrote:

          1. Atheists claim to rely on science to explain the universe but their only explanation is the

               unscientific evolution THEORY.

          2. Science relies on repeating, observing, and measuring, none of which can be applied to evolution.

Actually, science relies on prediction. For an hypothesis to be accepted as theory, it must not only explain the known data, it must also be testable. Testing an hypothesis is nothing more than extrapolating predictions concerning unknown data. If that unknown data turns out to match the prediction, the hypothesis has been tested. The more the hypothesis predicts, and the more data that matches those predictions, the stronger the hypothesis becomes. At some point, it becomes accepted as a predictor, and is generally assumed to be true; at this point, it is called a theory. If, at any time, the natural extrapolations of the hypothesis turns out to be inaccurate, the hypothesis is considered invalid. Now, sometimes it might require minor tweaking of arbitrary constants, or perhaps extended by further study. But more often than not, an hypothesis is thrown out, and study starts from scratch.

The "repeatability" of science goes back to the consistency of the universe. The predictions must be testable by more than one person. It must be observable by anyone with the canniness and technical ability. Without repeatability, it's simply an anecdote. And by that criteria, the tests of evolution have been repeated many, many times.

The important thing is, there are many predictions made by the theory of evolution through natural selection that have been directly tested. Many of these tests are in hard sciences such as genetics. Entire fields of fruitful research have stemmed from the theory of evolution, such as huge swaths of information theory, and lots of modern biology and medicine. The point is, the theory of evolution, the fact of evolution, has provided direct, practical results. It has been tested very thoroughly, and has never been found to be wrong.

Denying evolution at this point is like denying the earth is round, or denying genetic therapy works.

brave theist wrote:

     B. in the THEORY of evolution, a fundamental law of biology must opperate in direct opposition with a

        fundamental law of physics.

          1. how can biological systems become more and more complex while the natural world descends into

              disorder?

This is one of the most-quoted fallacies of the old-school creationists. It seems like it should be true-- the second law of thermodynamics, and our own observation, tells us things tend to crumble with time. Clocks and batteries run down, roads get pot-holes, buildings topple.

The truth is much cooler and fascinating.

The second law of thermodynamics merely states that, in every system, things tend to equilibrium. That's all it says. Pressure equalizes. Temperatures stabilize at the lowest possible temperature. Potential energy is released as some other form of energy, like kenetic or heat energy, which equalizes within the system. That sort of thing.

There are lots of processes in which things go from less complex to more complex with the addition of energy. You have either done, or at least enjoyed the results, of many of them. One is baking. The process of making bread takes simple ingredients. The process of kneading the dough takes simple starches and converts them into longer, more complex starches, and develops complex proteins. The process of baking the bread further converts the bread, caramelizing some of it, bonding other bits together. The end result is not only a gestalt of the simpler ingredients, it is chemically more complex than the original ingredients.

How did this happen?

The energy of kneading the bread, and the heat from the oven, caused chemical reactions to occur. Without energy, none of this would've occurred. The entire process lead to an equalization of energy throughout the system. The mechanical motions of kneading the bread produced heat as muscles pushed, or an electric mixer whirred. The electric element in the oven converted electricity to heat, which caused chemical reactions in the starches, sugars, proteins, and other ingredients in the bread.

The same thing happens on earth. We have a huge heating element above us, that also gives out another great form of energy: light. (It also produces quite a bit of hard radiation, but most of that gets filtered out in our atmosphere. However, the aurora is quite a sight to see; if you ever get a chance to visit Alaska in the late fall or winter, do. It's worth it.) The heat and light from the sun causes chemical reactions, changing simpler compounds into more complex compounds.

All the while, the sun is radiating energy into the space around it, much of it as heat. The entire system fully obeys the second law of thermodynamics, as energy is not lost, it is merely distributed more evenly throughout the system (the solar system in the near term, the entire universe on larger time scales).

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Immunology

brave theist wrote:

ok heres on such evidence. DNA holds the information our body needs to make antibodies. when we get say yellow fever our body can make an antibody based on a DNA code already there. the reason yellow fever can kill is becasue our body can't make enough fast enough. so we take a piece of DNA slice out the code for that antibody and repicate it. the information for those antibodies are already coded in our DNA. so long before you got yellow fever, your body had the information to defeat it. where did that come from? in fact, EVERY virus has an antibody that is already coded for in our DNA.

 

Oh, my.

First, our DNA does not hold the code to create antibodies for every virus. Not even close. Our DNA is encoded with a basic and general immune system that is able to recognize foriegn bodies, including viruses. This is way cool, and very complex, but isn't a signpost to God.

Our DNA holds fragments of code for many viruses, that's true. However, that's more due to the nature of viruses than anything else. Viruses inject their code into our DNA in the hopes of hitching a free ride to replication. Very little of that has to do with our immune system, except that those cells are hopefully detected and destroyed by the immune system.

Our anti-viral immune system is based around T cells. This is a class of white blood cells that detect and attack viral infections. There are several different forms of T cells. During an infection, the body produces many T cells in response to the infection. However, ramping up to an infection is a reaction to infected cells, and not to the invader itself. Fortunately, the body is able to create "memory T cells," which are able to recognize the invader itself based on bonding sites on the memory T cell. The next time the virus attacks, this allows the body to react at the first sign invasion, rather than allowing the virus to take hold inside our own cells. Until the virus infects the first time, though, these virus-specific memory T cells do not exist.

That's the entire basis of inoculation shots. By infecting the body with weakened or dead viruses, the body is able to build up the defence against a foe that can't attack. Then the body has a "memory" of what that specific infection looks like, and is able to respond to the virulent infection quickly and easily.

The body does not come pre-equipped to do battle against specific viruses. The body's general defences allow it to adapt, but often only after the virus has infected us. That's why things like herpes, HIV, and strains of flu are able to attack us. That's also why we only get chickenpox once.

It sounds like you might imagine that humans have different DNA than the rest of the living creatures on earth. At least, I have met that idea many times. Truth is, humans are not special when it comes to DNA. Our DNA is very much like the rest of the world's life. We don't have anything special in our cells, or in our coding. The only thing that distinguishes us from the other apes is our ability for complex abstract thought.

Which, like much of biology, is pretty cool.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


daretoknow
Superfan
daretoknow's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-12-09
User is offlineOffline
Great posts nigel. Aside

Great posts nigel. Aside from all of the scientific blunders, I still would like a simple, concise answer to my previous question, if you don't mind. That is, why do you think that formulating a valid argument somehow lends truth to your conclusion?

Thats cute.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Judging by bravetheist's

Judging by bravetheist's answers, I don't think he has read one book on evolution. Congrats....

 

not.

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:My thesis

brave theist wrote:

My thesis statement is, "In contrast to atheism, a belief in God is rational because it is logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant."

Please feel free to throw any arguments against me within those topics. In other words, I am not even touching on the accuracy of the Bible or the person of Jesus and likewise, i am not using the Bible in any of my arguments. Here is a broad outline of my paper so far. (I have only just begun my thesis)

I. Logically Consistent

     A. Law of Causality

          1. I'm asserting that the universe is not eternal based on science, it had a beginning, 

"god" a something 'supernatural' would necessarily be outside of the causal chain, making all causal arguments for a god internally contradictory.

Quote:

II. Empirically adequate

     A. Atheists are constantly reevaluating their beliefs in the origin of the universe while Theists have

         remained unchanged for centuries.

 

being consistently wrong is not something people ordinarly brag about.

 

Quote:
          1. Atheists claim to rely on science to explain the universe but their only explanation is the

               unscientific evolution THEORY.

1) evolution is scientific

2) it has nothing to do with cosmology.

You really don't have a clue as to what you're rambling on about. Why are you writing upon matters on which you are clearly ignorant about?

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Just wondering Jordan, you

Just wondering Jordan, you stated in your OP that you wanted "GOOD" opposing viewpoints...are you satisfied now ?

ps, "knowledge is power" isn't it !

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


brave theist
Theist
brave theist's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-02-22
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish. wrote:Just

ProzacDeathWish. wrote:
Just wondering Jordan, you stated in your OP that you wanted "GOOD" opposing viewpoints...are you satisfied now ?

well actually not really. only a few of you actually hepled, but that was good enough. I didn't hear very many good oposing viewpoints but i did get plenty of great ideas on how to make mine better. also, for the fifth time, this outline was not even close to my actual outline. this one was extreamly informal and was just giving you guys a good idea of what i was using. yes if i turned that in i would have failed.

 

the last thing i would ask for are links to good proof for evolution. i don't remember who but someone suggested takinga ll the experiments and proof for evolution and show how it doesn't in fact prove it.

- Jordan -


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
brave theist

brave theist wrote:

ProzacDeathWish. wrote:
Just wondering Jordan, you stated in your OP that you wanted "GOOD" opposing viewpoints...are you satisfied now ?

well actually not really. only a few of you actually hepled, but that was good enough. I didn't hear very many good oposing viewpoints but i did get plenty of great ideas on how to make mine better. also, for the fifth time, this outline was not even close to my actual outline. this one was extreamly informal and was just giving you guys a good idea of what i was using. yes if i turned that in i would have failed.

 

the last thing i would ask for are links to good proof for evolution. i don't remember who but someone suggested takinga ll the experiments and proof for evolution and show how it doesn't in fact prove it.

s

Look back in the thread, I provided links that specifically were about macroevolution since of course you are going to try to separate the two eventually.


Alastair Carnegie (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Shock Horror! Averaging an Average! Sigma x Sigma?

Inspector Mustard,

I hope your 'Avatar' depicts the dreadful error of averaging an average! The 'Inspector' should look more severe! Sigma/brackets/Sigma...my word that is dangerous! and can often lead to very faulty conclusions. Mind you, mathematics is an eclectic subject, and there is no harm investigating the consequential error of averaging an average. A real world counterpart example might be the ubiquitous 'Chaos Pendulum', a pendulum suspended from a pendulum. It has it's uses, one application is the 'chaotic attractor' ....Musical Scores can be varied with new and higly appealing variations of the theme melody. Check out the 'Mame That Tune' website for examples.

For the record, I am an 'apostate' atheist. When the Big Computer achieves Godlike capabilities, sees all, knows all, controls all, then I reckon I had better tow the line with the rest. I would prefer not to be 'terminated' for lack of appropriate respect! Also I have a nagging feeling that Quantum Computing will mean there is just 'One' Quantum Computer, that spans the entire universe and co-processes information in co-synchonous time. Instant communication at unlimited distance. 'Deep Thought' the fictional Hitchhiker's Guide to The Gallaxy computer, may not be quite so fictional?.....Shudder!

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
brave theist

brave theist wrote:

ProzacDeathWish. wrote:
Just wondering Jordan, you stated in your OP that you wanted "GOOD" opposing viewpoints...are you satisfied now ?

well actually not really. only a few of you actually hepled, but that was good enough. I didn't hear very many good oposing viewpoints but i did get plenty of great ideas on how to make mine better. also, for the fifth time, this outline was not even close to my actual outline. this one was extreamly informal and was just giving you guys a good idea of what i was using. yes if i turned that in i would have failed.

 

the last thing i would ask for are links to good proof for evolution. i don't remember who but someone suggested takinga ll the experiments and proof for evolution and show how it doesn't in fact prove it.

So, is this really about evolution? Is that the point? if so, it would've helped to know that in advance. As it was, evolution was only one point among many, including the origins of the universe, and epistemology in general. I thought the point was to show that theism was more logical than atheism? If that isn't the point, then your thesis suffers from being too general. You might want to consider choosing a single point of "attack," as it were. Otherwise, you'll end up all over the place, and the resulting paper might be too unfocused.

However, if you're not satisfied with some of the answers, then please elucidate: what do you consider a good response? What are you really looking for? If talk.origins doesn't appeal to you for the evolution thing, what are you really looking for? What are your arguments against evolution, for instance?

Here's a good, rhetorical (rather than logical) argument I'll throw out:

Science has given us much. It has resulted in many verifiable, productive things, including computers and genetic therapy and good dentistry. Most of the world around you is shaped by science, and the results of scientific research. Science has proven itself as an epistemology by the practical results it has given. Since the same thing that gave us magnetic trains, the Hubble telescope, the chunnel, and cotton candy also provides the proof of evolution, then tell me: what provides the counter argument to evolution?

The Bible? If so, what has the Bible given us that is comparable to the fruits of science? Name one single, solitary thing that the Bible has given us that compares to the results of science.

I'm not talking spirituality. That is a realm outside of science, and has no practical results outside our own subjective experience. I'm talking objective, provable results. Name that one objective thing, and then you may question evolution. (Or, you might question evolution based on another scientific framework; but right now, no other such framework exists. Evolution is the only logical, rational, reality-based explanaition we have.)

Meanwhile, tell me what you are after. There have been many excellent opposing views in this thread. Most have pointed out the base logical fallacies, as well as some of the factual errors. What more do you want?

Here's the basic problem to your approach: you are begging the question. I'm not the only one to point it out, but you've ignored every post that does. You have assumed the presence of God. Now, if you approach the world with the preconception of God, you will assume God in everything. The problem is this: your imagination can place God in any situation. You are unable to face facts because you see God painted into the picture, like Forrest Gump, a fictional character inserted into reality.

I'm afraid that's all you'll ever see. God, as proposed by you (and many other Christians) is the ultimate mover, the only reason you'll ever need for anything.

Let me give you a story, a story of warning.

About twelve hundred years ago, the Western Christian world was in trouble. They believed everything came from God-- the good, the bad, the terrifying. There was no progress socially, economically, scientifically.

At the same time, the Middle East was a veritable garden of intellectual paradise. Baghdad was a center of research, of discovery. At the time, Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī was busy creating a mathematical system later called algebra. During the time when the Western Christian world was at its lowest, Islam was at its zenith, and al-Khwārizmī was one of its shining stars. Research and original thought was not only encouraged, it was celebrated; while in the Christian world, any thought that was not based in God was met with derision, or death.

Now, twelve centuries later, the Islamic world is ruled by fundamentalism. If a thought is not of Allah, it is shunned. Original thought is suppressed. Now, the Middle East is a place of intellectual desolation. Islam, once a culture of discovery and intelligence, is now a culture of religious suppression, of social inequality, of spiritual malaise.

Do you see the moral of this parable? I hope so. it is the parable of rationalism. It is the parable of fundamentalism.

You may not know it, but you are being judged. Not by God; that is a judgement I cannot comprehend. No. The judge is reality. It is fact. It is the parable of rationalism.

For the sake of us all, I hope you are judged correctly.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
brave theist

brave theist wrote:

ProzacDeathWish. wrote:
Just wondering Jordan, you stated in your OP that you wanted "GOOD" opposing viewpoints...are you satisfied now ?

well actually not really. only a few of you actually hepled, but that was good enough.

Good enough for Liberty U.

brave theist wrote:
I didn't hear very many good oposing viewpoints but i did get plenty of great ideas on how to make mine better.

It astonishes me that you think you have something.

brave theist wrote:
 also, for the fifth time, this outline was not even close to my actual outline. this one was extreamly informal and was just giving you guys a good idea of what i was using. yes if i turned that in i would have failed.

If you don't fail, you're going to a shit school. Just, FYI.

brave theist wrote:

 the last thing i would ask for are links to good proof for evolution. i don't remember who but someone suggested takinga ll the experiments and proof for evolution and show how it doesn't in fact prove it.

We should get all the research together to cure all known diseases. I heard from some guy that there's research that can do that.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:"I didn't

brave theist wrote:

"I didn't hear very many good oposing viewpoints but i did get plenty of great ideas on how to make mine better."
-----------  WOW can't wait to hear them. ALL REPENT WHILE YA CAN !   I do love you brave theist. No kidding , you are a godsmack.
Education for all is truely our best investment.

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:the last

brave theist wrote:

the last thing i would ask for are links to good proof for evolution. i don't remember who but someone suggested takinga ll the experiments and proof for evolution and show how it doesn't in fact prove it.

It's just that you seem to be misunderstanding evolution completely. It's just adaptation. Things that adapt to their surroundings don't die, and are able to pass on their attributes. If we're able to preserve the attributes of dogs and horses by breeding (artificial selection), what makes natural selection so hard to believe?

And why, when there are so many other biological remains outside of fossil records (admittedly, they are rare - the university I attend has a great biology program) would you think that observable physical reality simply stopped working past a certain point in time?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Judging from the posts so

Judging from the posts so far, if I was the teacher I would give this paper an "F" and staple an application for McDonalds to it.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
F+ for effort.

F+ for effort.


yngve
atheistHigh Level Donor
yngve's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
brave theist

brave theist wrote:

ProzacDeathWish. wrote:
Just wondering Jordan, you stated in your OP that you wanted "GOOD" opposing viewpoints...are you satisfied now ?

well actually not really. only a few of you actually hepled, but that was good enough. I didn't hear very many good oposing viewpoints but i did get plenty of great ideas on how to make mine better. also, for the fifth time, this outline was not even close to my actual outline. this one was extreamly informal and was just giving you guys a good idea of what i was using. yes if i turned that in i would have failed.

 

the last thing i would ask for are links to good proof for evolution. i don't remember who but someone suggested takinga ll the experiments and proof for evolution and show how it doesn't in fact prove it.

Asking for a simple link to prove evolution? Really? You've got tons of links, you could also post something on www.richarddawkins.net and ask for more info there.
There are obvious holes in your knowledge that I learned at, uh, age 14 I guess, not to mention that of cosmology, geology and basic philosophy.
Have you ever read about the scientific method?

I must say I'm sory on your behalf, you seem to be deprived of basic knowledge that I take for granted.
Anyway, I'd advice you to read several books on evolution and other subjects and really try to acquire some valid evidence based knowledge, there's obviously a yawning chasm of scientific illiteracy to be filled here.

-I'm not being mean, just honest Smiling

 

Oh, and here's a twister, how come we in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland haven't plummeted into an abyss of "irrational" "sinfull" activities and obliterated our godless behinds if godlessness is so bad? On the contrary we're pretty well off. And there's a clear decline in theism, be it christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, Räelianism or other simmilar goobledegook Eye-wink

If any christian is sure that rapture is imminient, I'll be happy to receive their worldly goods, thus ensuring that said theist don't have trouble with the camel, rich man and eye of a needle problem.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
brave theist wrote:My thesis

brave theist wrote:

My thesis statement is, "In contrast to atheism, a belief in God is rational because it is logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant."

Please feel free to throw any arguments against me within those topics. In other words, I am not even touching on the accuracy of the Bible or the person of Jesus and likewise, i am not using the Bible in any of my arguments. Here is a broad outline of my paper so far. (I have only just begun my thesis)

I. Logically Consistent

A. Law of Causality

1. I'm asserting that the universe is not eternal based on science, it had a beginning,

and logic states that everything with a beginning had a cause.

2. logic does not say that a cause needs a cause, therefore it is more logical to say that a eternal

being created the universe than to say a creation had no cause.

(a have a few other points but a am no where near finished, the causality is more complete)

II. Empirically adequate

A. Atheists are constantly reevaluating their beliefs in the origin of the universe while Theists have

remained unchanged for centuries.

1. Atheists claim to rely on science to explain the universe but their only explanation is the

unscientific evolution THEORY.

2. Science relies on repeating, observing, and measuring, none of which can be applied to evolution.

B. in the THEORY of evolution, a fundamental law of biology must opperate in direct opposition with a

fundamental law of physics.

1. how can biological systems become more and more complex while the natural world descends into

disorder?

C. Microevolution verses Macroevolution

1. Microevolution can be observed and involves the adaptation of species to it environment. for

example the well known example of the moths turning gray to blend in with the ash covered trees

whole the weaker black moths were eaten. Microevolution speaks of small changes WITHIN a

species and never outside of the species.

2. Macroevolution claims that organisms can evolve into completely new species over long periods of

time to adapt to their surroundings and causes by random genetic mutations. However there is

NO proof of this in observable nature or ever found in the fossil record.

III. experientially relevant (I have not put to much into this section yet)

A. Atheism is a very dangerous belief to guide ones life.

1. Hitler is one such example of someone who lived out the teachings of Atheism

2. Atheism does not answer such important life questions such as purpose, hope, what happens

after death, or moral absolutes.

B. Theism on the other hand certainly does answer all of these questions.

 

If anyone read through that all, thank you for your time. Please critique it as you see fit and feel free to be brutal. i have much more depth to each of those topics but as i said here is an outline, not my paper.

 

 

 

The only way you would get an "A" on your thesis is if you were writing it for a Kent Hovind degree mill.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I can empathize with you

I can empathize with you though. I really wanted to believe that the X-Ray glasses sold in the back of the comic books really could allow me to see through women's skirts.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37