Am I the only Athiest who Thinks the Debate was a Bad Thing?

High Pope
High Pope's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Am I the only Athiest who Thinks the Debate was a Bad Thing?

I obviously have more thoughts on this subject, but this was my initial response that I posted on my myspace blog. (My name is High Pope there as well.) I state at the end that this is an opinion. Maybe Im Looking at this all wrong, or playing (for lack of a better metaphor) Devils Advocate?

 

This was absolute rhetoric for atheists and a clear victory for Way of the Master. I will explain:


1) Way of the Master sales of their DVDs and Books will triple because of this "debate" and followers of this cult receive a bonus by the unveiling of a face and organization to target.

 

 

2) Kirk and Ray looked like imbeciles to us long before the debates took place. So, nothing new in the stupidity department.

 

 

3) The message, when boiled down, is age old: you cannot rationalize with the irrational! Trying to prove the existence or non-existence of god is impossible albeit the two hypotheses are not on equal footing.

 

 

4) RRS was bated and used by the agents of Kirk and Ray (they are actors/ celebrities with agents) by picking a fight using the baseless claim that "the existence of god is actually easy to prove, and not only that, Kirk and Ray can do it scientifically, and without mention of the Bible." (C'MON GUYS WE KNOW BETTER!) This was all free publicity for their new show!

 

 

5) SOLUTION? The only way to truly get these guys is in court. We have to wait until someone on their show sues them for harassment or defamation or what have you. Until then every mention of whom won, or who lost, in my mind, is based on the dollar amount and publicity that is gained by one group or the other. And in this case I think it all goes to Kirk and Ray.*(although Im sure RRS Membership may have boomed a little because of the debates by now.)

The courts are truly our last refuge as freethinkers to attain justice, not nightline abc.

 

 

This is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

High Pope

*this part I just added and is not in my initial blog.


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
IzzyPop wrote: Musicdude

IzzyPop wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
I didn't say science was a religion. I said evolution and the big bang are. Any unproven theory with such avid followers sounds like a religion to me.

There is more eveidence supporting these theories than there is supporting the existance of Jesus Christ, much less his divinity.

Musicdude wrote:
f the election had "unfairly" gone the other way, you wouldn't have said a word. Let it go. You lost. There's always next time. Eye-wink

I know that the talking heads refer to 'godless liberals' quite frequently, but we ain't all liberal. I voted for GW in 2000. I left the party in 2002 due to the Moral Mafia's take over of party and the rampant corruption. I still believe quite stongly in a fiscally responsible government which is limited in scope, size, and power and one that interferes with our daily lives as little as possible. Oh, and I am a pretty strict constructionist where the Constitution is concerned.

Remember, when you make an assumption, you are really making an ass out of Uma Thurman.- David Letterman ;P

 

 

There are thousands of copies of the bible that date back to the early church, and from many different origins. They are copies of the original manuscripts and copies of the copies. And they are all extremely close in accuracy. How many copies do we have to have of a historical account in order to believe it is true? I dare say we accept the Greek philosopher's writings and true, and there are far less copies of them. Why do we assume the bible isn't a credible source? Because it may have an agenda? What historical document doesn't have an agenda? There were a ton of people who saw Christ crucified. Deity? Well, that is another issue. But Christ certainly considered Himself deity.

But the bible is a "religious" document, so we must discount anything and everything is says as true, when it contains historical records. This is way too big to be a conspiracy. The only agenda Christians have is saving other people from the condemnation they were saved from. Any other agenda is non-biblical.

The bible sums up the agenda of Christians with one mandate. This mandate superceeds all others. And if it is followed, all the others will naturally be followed as a result. "Love your neighbor as yourself." That includes your enemies. Neighbors are just the people in your social circles, friends, enemies, casual acquaintences, people you see but don't talk to, etc... Is that really so bad? Granted most Christians don't do this. But don't fault Christ for the disobedience of some of His followers.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
High Pope wrote: Nero

High Pope wrote:

Nero wrote:
The debate alerted me to your existence; so, from my perspective, it was an excellent move for this cause. lol

 

You officially nudged me off the fence. The debates did some good for athiests. I cant blame Brian and Kelly for being angry. I'm angry as well. Even in hostility this type of discourse, in time, will eventually lead the majority of humanity to actually review all of the evidence at hand. At least thats my hope, but on a long enough timeline, if we as athiests and freethinkers dont do our part to keep the hordes of superstitious radicals out of our government, state federal and local, I feel I can safely predict that scientific findings, theories, and evidence that oppose their beliefs will never reach our ears. (ie. the Human to Ape genome connection)And will be substituted with their alternate verisions of reality. (ie. Intelligent Design)

 

One Quick note of the THEORY OF GRAVITY.

It is a "LAW" of physics

There is REAL EVIDENCE that proves its existence! This EVIDENCE can be tested in controlled setting! And the results are always CONCLUSIVE and can be PREDICTED.

(Thats why its called a "Theory&quotEye-wink

a THEORY obeys LAWS!

very much in the same way the THEORY OF GRAVITY obeys Newtons "LAWS" based on the theory of gravity.

ergo:Newtons Laws of Motion, Newtons Laws of Inertia and Mass, the state of motion and the laws of Balanced and Unbalance forces.

These are all LAWS that are undisputed, based on a Theory.

Anything less is called an idea or a hypothesis.

One of the worst things christianity has done in the last century or so, is ramp up the campaign to change the definition of the word "Theory".

"Well, thats just your theory.." Really doesnt make any sense.

High Pope

What if there is no theory that applies to most of the universe? I mean the laws are only applied to observable Byronic matter.  Science at this time offers no real quarter or comfort for the God question and should not be used to debate the believer in a creator.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


IzzyPop
IzzyPop's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: There are

Musicdude wrote:

There are thousands of copies of the bible that date back to the early church, and from many different origins. They are copies of the original manuscripts and copies of the copies. And they are all extremely close in accuracy. How many copies do we have to have of a historical account in order to believe it is true? I dare say we accept the Greek philosopher's writings and true, and there are far less copies of them. Why do we assume the bible isn't a credible source? Because it may have an agenda? What historical document doesn't have an agenda? There were a ton of people who saw Christ crucified. Deity? Well, that is another issue. But Christ certainly considered Himself deity.

But the bible is a "religious" document, so we must discount anything and everything is says as true, when it contains historical records. This is way too big to be a conspiracy. The only agenda Christians have is saving other people from the condemnation they were saved from. Any other agenda is non-biblical.

The bible sums up the agenda of Christians with one mandate. This mandate superceeds all others. And if it is followed, all the others will naturally be followed as a result. "Love your neighbor as yourself." That includes your enemies. Neighbors are just the people in your social circles, friends, enemies, casual acquaintences, people you see but don't talk to, etc... Is that really so bad? Granted most Christians don't do this. But don't fault Christ for the disobedience of some of His followers.

Using the Bible to prove the existance of Christ is like me using The Lord of the Rings to prove elves and orcs exist. But this topic is covered much better then I could do here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/2889

 

"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
IzzyPop wrote:Musicdude

IzzyPop wrote:
Musicdude wrote:

There are thousands of copies of the bible that date back to the early church, and from many different origins. They are copies of the original manuscripts and copies of the copies. And they are all extremely close in accuracy. How many copies do we have to have of a historical account in order to believe it is true? I dare say we accept the Greek philosopher's writings and true, and there are far less copies of them. Why do we assume the bible isn't a credible source? Because it may have an agenda? What historical document doesn't have an agenda? There were a ton of people who saw Christ crucified. Deity? Well, that is another issue. But Christ certainly considered Himself deity.

But the bible is a "religious" document, so we must discount anything and everything is says as true, when it contains historical records. This is way too big to be a conspiracy. The only agenda Christians have is saving other people from the condemnation they were saved from. Any other agenda is non-biblical.

The bible sums up the agenda of Christians with one mandate. This mandate superceeds all others. And if it is followed, all the others will naturally be followed as a result. "Love your neighbor as yourself." That includes your enemies. Neighbors are just the people in your social circles, friends, enemies, casual acquaintences, people you see but don't talk to, etc... Is that really so bad? Granted most Christians don't do this. But don't fault Christ for the disobedience of some of His followers.

Using the Bible to prove the existance of Christ is like me using The Lord of the Rings to prove elves and orcs exist. But this topic is covered much better then I could do here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/2889

 

No, it's not at all like that.
The Lord of the Rings is not 2000 years old, and it does not claim to be a true story.

I see a bunch of very uninformed people here, trying to justify their unbelief in God.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude,

Musicdude,

 

You truly don't see the circular logic in saying that god exists because the bible says so and we know the bible is right because it says god says so?

 

Edit:

Also, you didn't answer any of my questions from a post previously, why not? 


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote:Musicdude

Maragon wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
Well, maybe gravity hasn't been proven either. The physical phenomenon that gravity proposes an explanation for is certainly proven. But whether or not that explanation is the correct one probably can't be proven. Gravity: 1. the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth. That is just a description, not a reason. I say God holds us to the earth. Prove me wrong. Eye-wink

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Let me ask you a few questions.

 

Why do you oppose the theory of evolution? I don't mean why do you think it's wrong, I mean why do you personally dislike the theory?

What is your interest in disproving this theory? What do you think disproving this theory will accomplish?

Would you still oppose the theory of evolution if it did not conflict with your theistic beliefs?

Are there other scientific theories that have nothing to do with evolution or the big bang that you oppose?

There are scientific theories that are far more controversial, why do you not debate those?

 

 

And as to your....'ideas' about scientific theories;

 

Science is the study of the natural world. In order to derive conclusions scientists utilize the scientific method. Any scientific fact has been tested multiple times using the scientific method.
The scientific method is comprised of several separate steps, namely Hypothesis, Test, Conclusion and the experiments are subject toPeer Review.
Hypothesis is an idea about how something works. The scientist sees a natural phenomena and postulates an idea as to how said phenomena could work.
Test is when the scientist gathers evidence that would support the hypothesis. This is achieved through scientific experimentation in a controlled laboratory setting and a lot of research.
After testing, the scientist arrives at a Conclusion. In a conclusion the scientist verifies that the collected evidence supports his/her original hypothesis. If the evidence does NOT support the hypothesis, the hypothesis is thrown out. It can also be revised, but if it is, the scientist must go back to step one.
Peer Review occurs is the scientist has concluded that his evidence supports his hypothesis. He then submits his findings to a peer reviewed scientific journal. Then, accredited scientists worldwide attempt to disprove the original hypothesis. If the hypothesis can not be disproved by any scientist in the world, then the hypothesis becomes a scientific theory.
When you say "working hypothesis", I can't help but laugh a little. For that is what ANY scientific theory is; the working hypothesis that has been proven by scientific research.

The misconception is that when you use the word 'theory' in layman's terms, it means 'idea you made up'. However, when it is used in a scientific context, the word 'theory' takes on a much more serious meaning.
Theory, when used in a scientific context is an explanation that best fits all of the evidence available. A theory can take years to prove, and it must be agreed upon by the scientific community.
The reality is, that if evolution were erroneous, then it would have been thrown out again years ago. Scientists don't play favorites with their theories. In example, Newton's laws of Gravity were revised by Einstein when they were found to not adequately explain gravity in many adverse situations; this was Einstein's theory of relativity.
Gravity is "only" a theory.
Heliocentrism is "only" a theory.
In general, a theory is a collection of smaller scientific facts that are placed together to allow for an explanation of a larger topic.

Theory refers to a "logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts." - National Center for Science Education.

 

 

Sorry, I guess I missed your post. I have been bombarded with questions in this thread. I'm trying to answer them all. I am not intentionally avoiding any of them. Am I joking? Absolutely not. I don't know what the actual official theory of gravity states. But just looking up the definition of gravity as I quoted earlier, it doesn't seem to explain anything at all about the cause of gravity, but just states the phenomenon, but not the cause. Of course I don't disagree with the concept that matter is drawn toward the earth. Does science offer an explanation as to why? Centrifugal force would seem to make me think that we would be pushed away from the earth, but we are not. Or if we are, the gravity overcomes it. I don't know, and it doesn't really have much to do with my argument. Why do I personally dislike the theories of the big bang and evolution? Because I think they are a satanic attack against Christianity. I think they were custom designed to offer people a seemingly scientifically correct alternative to God. These two theories get shoved down our throats constantly, and lots of big scientific words are used in order to persuade people. Most people not knowing a ton about science are easily convinced. I approach these theories knowing up front that they cannot be correct. Because they disagree with the bible's account of creation. God created the earth in a matter of days, not millenia. He created mankind in a day as well. Even if you buy into the "a day is a thousand years to God" argument (which I think is a serious stretch) it still fall way short of the supposed time of evolution of mankind offered by the theory of evolution. So either the bible is wrong, or evolution and the big bang are wrong. They both can't be right, because they are contradictory.

 

I believe the bible is correct for many reasons, personal experience not being the least of which. I have seen God work in my life in tremendous ways, ways that were far to unlikely to be attributed to coincidence. And the more I study the bible and adhere to it, the more I see Him work in my life. That assures me even more that God is real, and His word is real, and I am on the right track according to Him.

 

I was aware of scientific method before you posted your definition. It is pretty simple really. Your definition makes it sound complicated, but it isn't.

But what I did notice is that scientific conclusions are not accepted as theories because they are proven. They are accepted as theories because they cannot be disproven (or at least not yet.)

 

Knowledge changes all the time. We know things about the earth, our bodies, animals, etc. that we did not have a clue about 200 years ago. What you are basing your belief on is knowledge that has been around for not that long. What I am basing my belief on is (if I am correct) knowledge that has been around forever, and from the source of all knowledge.

I have a problem with those theories mainly because they are not presented as theories usually, but fact. And they obscure the truth as I know it.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
The only thing I have time

The only thing I have time to reply to right now is you last statement.

A scientific theory is based on a collection of facts.

You make it sound as if a theory is NOT a fact YET, when really it is a collection of several scientific facts.

So, a scientific theory IS a scientific fact, or at the very least based on them.

 

Although, from the other questions you've answered you're telling me that the primary reason that you oppose scinetific theories is because you dislike the theistic implications that they present. IS that correct? 


IzzyPop
IzzyPop's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: No, it's

Musicdude wrote:
No, it's not at all like that. The Lord of the Rings is not 2000 years old, and it does not claim to be a true story.

Okay. The Quar'an is an ancient text that purports to be true. Why not believe that? I'm about half way through it and I'm not finding near the inconsistancies that can be found in the Bible. Not a very lovey book to be sure, but fairly consistant, none the less.

Musicdude wrote:
I see a bunch of very uninformed people here, trying to justify their unbelief in God.

I find the people here to be very informed. I'm a pretty smart guy and there are a few threads on this board that go way past anything I know. Before I even read a post from deludedgod I have to open a tab sent to wikipedia and another to dictionary.com just to get the general idea of what he is talking about. But I do it. Why? Because I learn stuff. Fancinating, world-view-altering stuff.

You look at the world and see it through the glory of God and that is fine. I don't. I find it MORE magical and mysterious and awe-inspiring that we came to be without a Creator and a plan. Look at it this way. I have a caterpillar outside on my dill plant right now. It is in the process of cocooning itself as we speak. Now if God created the caterpiller, I'm impressed, it's kinda cool. But if it came about through mutation and selection...HOLY SHIT!! Partway through its life cycle reconstructs itself from this ugly, squishy wormy thing into a beautiful butterfly!! How fucking AWESOME is that!!

This is your one shot, your one chance, and if you want to spend it worshipping an invisible man in the sky, so be it. I will get on with what makes me happy and whole...just unfortunately for you, needling theists makes me happy.

"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote:   No,

Musicdude wrote:

 

No, it's not at all like that. The Lord of the Rings is not 2000 years old, and it does not claim to be a true story. I see a bunch of very uninformed people here, trying to justify their unbelief in God.

 

The number of copies of one document does not matter from an historical standpoint--it is the existence of other corroborating evidence. The LoTR analogy is valid by your criterium that number of copies equals historical accuracy. Find some extrabiblical evidence to support what that ONE source claims and then we'll talk. 


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote: Musicdude

kellym78 wrote:
Musicdude wrote:

 

No, it's not at all like that. The Lord of the Rings is not 2000 years old, and it does not claim to be a true story. I see a bunch of very uninformed people here, trying to justify their unbelief in God.

 

The number of copies of one document does not matter from an historical standpoint--it is the existence of other corroborating evidence. The LoTR analogy is valid by your criterium that number of copies equals historical accuracy. Find some extrabiblical evidence to support what that ONE source claims and then we'll talk. 

What about the gospels not included in the bible? What about Polycarp's writings? There are other sources that validate Jesus Christ's existence as a human, and claims as deity. The LOTR analogy was a jab, and a weak one at that. The LOTR stories were fiction from the get-go. They were never intended to be taken as a serious account of historical events. And 2000 years ago people did not write fictional novels and make thousands of copies just for entertainment purposes. It took too much effort to make a copy (especially of a book that long) it was not a luxury they had then. They didn't have a printing press. People sat down and copied every word by hand, and did it thousands of times. And of all those copies there is less than 1% difference in text, and the differences that do exist do not affect the meaning. That would lead me to believe that the copies we have are accurate to the original manuscripts. Whether the originals were true or not is a different issue, but I see no reason that they would make up this huge story and perpetuate it as long as it has been around. What would be the point? You may say that the bible isn't proof that Jesus was the son of God, and I'll give you that. Hey, I've already said that there is no proof of that. But I think it is perfectly acceptable as proof that He was a living breathing person and He was a Jew and He was crucified. There is no reason to doubt the historical accounts of the bible. Even when it claims He was resurrected. You may think some one robbed the tomb, but I think it's safe to say that He wasn't in there, whether resurrected or taken either way. Again, we don't place such high standards of authenticity on any other historical document. Primarily the bible is a spiritual guidebook, which some people believe and some don't. But it does contain a lot of historical recorded events as well, and I see no reason to doubt it's historical records just because you disagree with the spiritual aspects of it.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote:The only

Maragon wrote:

The only thing I have time to reply to right now is you last statement.

A scientific theory is based on a collection of facts.

You make it sound as if a theory is NOT a fact YET, when really it is a collection of several scientific facts.

So, a scientific theory IS a scientific fact, or at the very least based on them.

 

Although, from the other questions you've answered you're telling me that the primary reason that you oppose scinetific theories is because you dislike the theistic implications that they present. IS that correct? 

They are an explanation of facts. The facts they attempt to explain may be true, but the explanation itself can still be false. A theory is based on facts, but it is not a fact. It is a proposed, tested to a certain extent and not yet disproven hypothesis.

Think of it as a trial. Trials have evidence too. Let's say Bob is accused of murdering his wife. The prosecuting attourney submits several pieces of evidence. Exhibit "A" the murder weapon, which belonged to Bob and was registered in Bob's name. "B" he had just been in a big argument with his wife the day before, as his neighbors in the adjacent apartment heard them shouting through the walls. "C" his car was seen in the driveway the night she was murdered. A, B and C are all true facts, undisputable. He even admits to them being true. The prosecution makes a theory that he killed his wife. That theory is false, because he didn't do it. It was her jealous boyfriend who killed her. But all the evidence points to Bob doing it. And that evidence is all true facts. But the reality is he didn't do it. So would you say the statement "Bob killed his wife" is a fact, or a supposition? Evidence and proof are not the same thing. There can be tons of evidence and many different theories, but the creation of the universe only happened one way. And one of those theories may be right, or none of them may be right. The fact is we do not know for sure. Even when I say I know, my certainty is based on faith. Faith is just as valid a means of human perception as rationalism or impericism.

 

I oppose anything that is false, be it a scientific theory or a religious doctrine. I don't oppose science in general.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


High Pope
High Pope's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Hey Musicdude,

Hey Musicdude,

Trials in what country follow the scientific method? Very bad analogy.

(EditSmiling I know they obtain and observe evidence with somewhat of a scientific method, but they cant follow the scientific method unless every possible variable is available to and permitted by the judge. 


High Pope
High Pope's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
What if there is no


What if there is no theory that applies to most of the universe? I mean the laws are only applied to observable Byronic matter. Science at this time offers no real quarter or comfort for the God question and should not be used to debate the believer in a creator.

"What if there is no theory that applies to most of the universe?"

This question really makes no sense.

But.....

It’s nice to hear you say in a round about way that there is no God. (Scientists are working really hard to unify physical sciences.)

"I mean the laws are only applied to observable Byronic matter."

Laws are applied to theories. Matter obeys the Laws. (and youve been dying to use that word.)

"Science at this time offers no real quarter or comfort for the God question and should not be used to debate the believer in a creator."

It’s because science deals with reality and doesn’t work well with things that dont exist. i.e.; fairies, gnomes, medusa, unicorns, gods etc... But it’s nice to hear you say in a round about way that there is no god.

We will continue to use science to debunk a creator hypothesis. Science proves the existence of many things, including you, but not god.

So what you’re saying is that your omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent god actually NEEDS something as feeble as human science to PROVE its existence?

High Pope

 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
High Pope wrote: What

High Pope wrote:

What if there is no theory that applies to most of the universe? I mean the laws are only applied to observable Byronic matter. Science at this time offers no real quarter or comfort for the God question and should not be used to debate the believer in a creator.

"What if there is no theory that applies to most of the universe?"

This question really makes no sense.

But.....

It’s nice to hear you say in a round about way that there is no God. (Scientists are working really hard to unify physical sciences.)

"I mean the laws are only applied to observable Byronic matter."

Laws are applied to theories. Matter obeys the Laws. (and youve been dying to use that word.)

"Science at this time offers no real quarter or comfort for the God question and should not be used to debate the believer in a creator."

It’s because science deals with reality and doesn’t work well with things that dont exist. i.e.; fairies, gnomes, medusa, unicorns, gods etc... But it’s nice to hear you say in a round about way that there is no god.

We will continue to use science to debunk a creator hypothesis. Science proves the existence of many things, including you, but not god.

So what you’re saying is that your omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent god actually NEEDS something as feeble as human science to PROVE its existence?

High Pope

 

The point I was making: The laws of physics apply to only 4% of the universe and therefore no one can use today's laws of physics to ban a god from the universe. Theist don't need science to prove anything because they are ok with having faith. Atheist have a no god concept that cannot be verified by any science known today.

The laws of physics DO NOT apply to most of what the universe is made of. It is irrational to use today's laws of physics for anything other than the normal matter of the universe. 

You cannot defeat the God question with science at this time and probably anytime.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I should note that byronic

I should note that byronic matter is not really the norm anymore.  dark Matter and dark energy make up most of the contents of the universe.

It is confusing because the dark "matter" and "energy" are just place holder names for now.  They are not the matter and energy that we all think about and they don't follow the rules of physics as far as we can tell.

We do know they have some effect on gravity (keeping the spinners of space from spinning out of control) and that is about all we know.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


lao tzu
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Before I tear what's left of my hair out ...

It's "baryonic" as in "baryons."  Please make a note.

Byronic matter shows up in poetry journals. 

There is no lao tzu


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
lao tzu wrote: It's

lao tzu wrote:

It's "baryonic" as in "baryons."  Please make a note.

Byronic matter shows up in poetry journals. 

Noted and corrected

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
High Pope wrote:Hey

High Pope wrote:

Hey Musicdude,

Trials in what country follow the scientific method? Very bad analogy.

(EditSmiling I know they obtain and observe evidence with somewhat of a scientific method, but they cant follow the scientific method unless every possible variable is available to and permitted by the judge. 

Every KNOWN variable you mean. Because scientists are not omnipotent. Scientific method is thorough, but not flawless. How can a scientist take into account variables he is unaware of? He can't. Sometimes those variables have not been thought of, or even discovered yet. Just as a legal trial does not cover every single base, neither does science. They make a good effort, but not perfect. If they really covered every possible variable as you say, evolution would've been proven long ago and not still a theory. And every other theory would be proven as well.

 There are some variable that cannot be accounted for, because we don't have enough information and there is no way (with today's technology) to obtain it.

My main point with that analogy was that evidence does not equal proof. And to that extent I think my analogy fits perfectly. You can have tons of evidence which seems to point to a certain conclusion and that conclusion still be wrong, because you don't have all the facts. Just because he argued with his wife doesn't necessarily mean he killed her. Just because the murder weapon belonged to him, doesn't mean he was the one that pulled the trigger. Just because his car was in the driveway, doesn't mean he was there. All the evidence is true, but the conclusion drawn is nothing more than a supposition. It may be right, and it may be wrong. There may be more evidence discovered later that proves him innocent, or maybe guilty. But the evidence available now only suggests his guilt, it doesn't prove it.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


IzzyPop
IzzyPop's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: There are

Musicdude wrote:
There are some variable that cannot be accounted for, because we don't have enough information and there is no way (with today's technology) to obtain it.

Technology grows at an exponential rate. Eveyday new things are discovered and theories are revised. The gaps in our knowledge, and therefore room for God in that knowledge, shrink. To honestly answer a question with "I don't know" is not neccesarily a bad thing, ignorance is a curable condition. To answer "I don't know, so it must have been God" adds an additional layer of complication to the question and even helps stifle the search for an answer.

"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
IzzyPop wrote:Musicdude

IzzyPop wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
There are some variable that cannot be accounted for, because we don't have enough information and there is no way (with today's technology) to obtain it.

Technology grows at an exponential rate. Eveyday new things are discovered and theories are revised. The gaps in our knowledge, and therefore room for God in that knowledge, shrink. To honestly answer a question with "I don't know" is not neccesarily a bad thing, ignorance is a curable condition. To answer "I don't know, so it must have been God" adds an additional layer of complication to the question and even helps stifle the search for an answer.

Only from your perspective. I've seen no proven scientific fact that disproves God. In fact to me, science gives me an even greater respect and appreciation for God. Learning about the complexity of His creation is very humbling. I didn't invent God. The concept has been around as long as mankind has been around to think about it. That alone should lend it some credibility. Then Christianity has been around a long time too. Not only Christianity, but Judaism. Judaism was infant Christianity, and it has existed for thousands of years. In any other field of study, that level of longevity would lend much credibility, but with Christianity it is overlooked or rationalized away. I don't believe only what the bible tells me, but I do believe all of it.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I agree with Musicdude and

I agree with Musicdude and will take it a step further. 

There is NO evidence available from baryonic matter (stars, planets, people) that suggests it was a bigger player in creation than dark matter or energy. 

The stuff that is "out there" is indeed strange and almost beyond human understanding,

Carl Sagan - "A galaxy is composed of gas and dust and stars - billions upon billions of stars..."

Carl Sagan - "Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."

Carl Sagan - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Carl was right. To prove something you need extraordinary evidence. Sagan left no room for any faith that does not embrace the conclusions of a scientific materialism.  A personal choice with the door wide open for discovery and drawing no conclusions from the unknown. 

I think he would agree however, it is a question of faith. Faith that the answers are out there to be discovered.  Here is where science and religion can and DO co-exist.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
  Faith means assuming

 

Faith means assuming something is true without evidence. Assuming something is false with no evidence is rational.

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


IzzyPop
IzzyPop's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: I didn't

Musicdude wrote:
I didn't invent God. The concept has been around as long as mankind has been around to think about it. That alone should lend it some credibility.

But the God of Abraham has not been around since people have been around to worship him. The first gods were gods of nature and unexplained occurences. So, unless God evolved as cultures grew more complex, the argument that the idea of God has been around for a long time means God exists is fallacious.

Musicdude wrote:
I don't believe only what the bible tells me, but I do believe all of it.

So you believe that pi=3, that bats are really birds, insects have 4 legs, rabbits chew their cud, and the sun revolves around the earth? All these are stated in the Bible. The way I see it, the Bible is one of 4 things:

1. It is the infallible Word of God. There are way too many factual errors, inconsistancies in the story, and inconsistancies in the nature of God for this to make any rational sense. This invalidates the Bible in it's entirety.

2. It is written by men, but divinely inspired. This option is probably the most problimatical. Which parts are divine and which parts are just the writings of men? Without a biblical rosetta stone of some sort, people are allowed to pick and choose their way through the book to support whatever presuppositions they already have. I find it very hard to accept that a perfect God would allow for imperfect readings of His words in such a manner. Kinda defeats the whole purpose of having it written down in the first place.

3. It is a book of moral teachings by wise men. We have surpassed many of the moral teachings of the Bible. It is no longer acceptable to impose the death penalty on people for working on the Sabbath. It is no longer considered 'the right thing' to toss your daughter to the mob so they don't rape a man you just met. The edicts of how to treat slaves and who can be a slave are now moot points. And how do these moral teaching prove or disprove the existance of God? In this way the Bible is becoming less and less relevent to today's world.

4. (And I know you will take issues with this one.) The Bible is a tool for power and control. Many of the lessons in the Bible have to do with doing what the guy in charge says, no matter what. For several centuries, the Bible was only allowed in Latin, and Latin was only taught to the ruling class. Very convenient.

"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Faith

MattShizzle wrote:

Faith means assuming something is true without evidence. Assuming something is false with no evidence is rational.

I agree with your first statement.  I part with your second however as it is not not science or sustainable.  It could be considered even irrational because it is one person adopting a personal postion that makes assumptions against what it considers another assumption.

 Verification I

Does the solution solve the problem? The first of three principles of verification involves the subjective test. Does the solution eliminate the quandary? Is the problem, in the light of the solution, no longer a problem?
 

Verification II: Are the elements of the solution self-consistent? Once the presuppositions that make up the statement of the solution (the theory) are articulated are they mutually coherent? A solution, which contains a contradiction, cannot endure as a solution through time. Eventually, the logical error will result in practical failure, and thus in the reemergence of the initial problem or some new problem.
 

Verification III: Are the elements of the solution logically consistent with existing paradigms? Since the solution to any problem must coexist with the myriad solutions to other problems, which we regularly confront, the same principle that applies internally, applies also externally. Where we employ two mutually exclusive theories to deal with different problems, one or both will eventually prove to be untenable, and their status as solutions will be invalidated in failure.

Since most of what needs to be tested is mostly out of our reach we cannot make any assumptions using the scientific methods to validate the origin of the universe let alone a creator. This is the universal epistemology and it applies to the practical, the scientific and the spiritual.  Where all differ is where we think the conclusion will end.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


lao tzu
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-01-12
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Faith

MattShizzle wrote:

Faith means assuming something is true without evidence. Assuming something is false with no evidence is rational.

Excuse me, Matt,  but this is sloppy thinking, not free thinking.  Any conclusion made without evidence is irrational.

There is no lao tzu


High Pope
High Pope's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Okay Kids I think its safe

Okay Kids I think its safe to say this thread has gotten off topic and ought to be moved somewhere more appropriate.

 

I answered my own original question by now without the aid of...well....anyone here! LOL!

 

I stated that I have been swayed enough by this thread, as well as others, to at least see a positive side (for athiests) of the debate.

Kudos to Brian and Kelly for at least stirring up a little more discussion. In our not to distant past these discussions were entirely taboo, and we can thank activists like Brian and Kelly for helping our cause make some headlines.

Id like to continue this lively discussion in a different thread with a different title, so as to attract other people into it. Right now this discussion is pretty closed. If you want to keep it closed I suggest exchanging emails or something.

One last note before I stop responding to this thread:

ive looked back through this discussion and anyone who has quoted me, and argued my points needs to do nothing more than go back and reread my points because you obviously missed it, or your arguing just because you like to type. With one quick clarification:

Musicdude, you argued away your own original point about the scientific method being imperfect, but then compared it to a trial, after you used the trial analogy to somehow argue the existence of god. (all I did was say you made a bad analogy)Your studies of your bible have obviously taught you well, because your ability to contradict yourself is outstanding! I hardly had to place out the tripping block and you fell over it before you even reached it.

Later,

High Pope


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
High Pope wrote: Musicdude,

High Pope wrote:
Musicdude, you argued away your own original point about the scientific method being imperfect, but then compared it to a trial, after you used the trial analogy to somehow argue the existence of god. (all I did was say you made a bad analogy)Your studies of your bible have obviously taught you well, because your ability to contradict yourself is outstanding! I hardly had to place out the tripping block and you fell over it before you even reached it.

Later,

High Pope

The trial example was not meant to prove the existence of God. It was meant to disprove the insane notion that evidence equals proof. The evolutionist crowd loves to point out how much evidence there is. And I was just pointing out by example that the existence of evidence does not necessarily prove the conclusions drawn from it.

What tripping block? I must've breezed right by it and didn't see it. I'll look for it on the next lap. Eye-wink

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18