DAC Posted July 3, 2004 Report Share Posted July 3, 2004 DAC, you have just replaced faith with the scientific method. No, I have replaced blind faith with reasonable faith. Let me say that there are a number of medical doctors (and science doctors) in my congregation. The medical doctors would all agree that medical science is not nearly as absolute as you make it out to be. There is a far greater element of going by faith than you suggest. But arguing that would take away from the point. Let me try instead a courtroom analogy. A man is charged with some offence. The jurors listen to the presentation of the evidence. Rarely if ever is the evidence such that it is absolutely certain, proven beyond any vague possibility of error that the man committed the crime. Jurors are to look for evidence that goes beyond reasonable doubt. I believe that we have that kind of "proof" for the authenticity of the Bible and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, enough to make it reasonable to put your trust in him. And when you turn to him in faith, you find abundant confirmation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digby Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 http://www.cemnetwork.com/essay/essay.php?eid=54 A GOOD ESSAY on hell fire , for all those wondering what the bible does teach on the subject Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elder Posted July 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Wow, this has definitely gone a little off track. Actually, Rev., thank you for your question (which put us back on track significantly). I'm going to try to answer your question as best I can. My idea of the traditional family (it's pretty close to that of others) involves a mother and a father, and if they are there yet, children. However, this is less important than the attitude of the care-taker/parent. That first part is important as gender roles are concerned in my oppinion, as women in general (not always, but usually) have some talents that men do not (that quite often I wish I had), such as quite often being more sensitive, kind, and more patient (important for raising children). Men quite often have the more stern hand, and also can make excellent role-models (isn't it really cool when you see a little boy who wants to be just like his dad). Honestly, I could hardly care less about working circumstances. Both my parents had to work (they had a dozen mouths to feed). I think that it can work if either or both parents works as needed. Like I said, the more important aspect of the traditional family is the attitude of the parent. Both parents, no matter how big of a career they have, no matter what their circumstance is need to remember that the most important work that they do is in the walls of their very own home. They need to realize that it is more important to build relationships with their spouse and children, that they need to make sure they raise their children well. I firmly believe that this would solve a great deal of problems, especially if children know right and wrong at a young age. Now, I learned these things about the family at church, but I've actually been around enough to see that it's true. I have my own knowledge of this. A testimony of it if you will, and I know that it's true, and I'll stand as a witness of it in any court in this world or the next. I don't expect you to take my word for it though. People need to know these things for themselves, so I encourage you to seek this knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 The simple fact is that the "loving and stable home" you seek is less available in single-parent households or in same-sex parent households. The correlation has been clearly documented. The statistics suggest this, yes. But you cannot leap from those statistics to say that it is BECAUSE they are single parent families. We know, for example, that single parent situations are common among the urban poor. So ... how do you know if the problems of the children are from the poverty or from the lack of parent. Furthermore, many of the 'Family Values' crowd seem to believe that two-opposite-sex-parent families are becoming less the norm thru some sort of moral deficiency. But this understanding implies a lack of parsimony in explanation. Why seek into moral causes when socio-economic forces explain the pressures very well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 The statistics suggest this, yes. But you cannot leap from those statistics to say that it is BECAUSE they are single parent families. This was already dealt with earlier in the thread. Parental neglect and poverty are definitely factors in creating less well-adjusted children who are more likely to become criminals, welfare cases or other "bad citizens." However, if you want a great way to guarantee lack of parental attention and/or material poverty, single parenthood will do that. See further back in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 What it Comes Down too, is there a God ? Or is there not a God ? Actually, no. Centuries ago we realized that society only damages itself when it attampts to act according to any of the various religious interprateations and we adopted constitutional separation of church and state to avoid these problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 What it Comes Down too, is there a God ? Or is there not a God ? Actually, no. Centuries ago we realized that society only damages itself when it attampts to act according to any of the various religious interprateations and we adopted constitutional separation of church and state to avoid these problems. Centuries? Are you exaggerating a little bit? Please give supporting evidence, since Canada isn't 'Centuries' old =p Also you twist the facts, our country was actually founded on Biblical principles as was the USA. Church and state union was at the heart of Democracy, and in my opinion it would greatly help if it was there again. What I challenge people to do is tell me what is wrong with religion, specifics. Not generalizations like 'look at ALL the wars that happened because of religion blah blah blah' I want specifics and details or dont waste my time. If you dont know enough about the issue to know the basis of your only defence you shouldn't be debating in this area. I know that religion encourages moral values, principles, and reason. I challenge any of you to disprove me, and if you can't then how can you expect me to believe that having a moral, principled, and reasoned government in power would hurt Canada? =p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 I meant "centuries" since the need for the separation was recognized by institutions in western democracies. The U.S. for example did so over two centuries ago. It is absolutely and simply incorrect to say Canada or the United States were "founded on biblical principles". It is more correct to say that their founding documents contain vague nods to even vaguer deities. Waht is wrong with religion? Specifics: 1-the central element of religion in general is that it requires of its adherents the disavowal of reason and therefore the disavowal of what makes us human; 2-because of the disavowal of reason, religions are open to untrammelled extremism and they tend to lead their followers away from detecting and determining the truth about the world; 3-because religions have dealt with numinous, unknowable, or difficult to observe matters in unreasonable ways, many of them have accumulated ludicrous and/or harmful dogmas and attached inordinate importance to them, e.g. immaculate conception. You will note that we differ on one especially important point. You seem to believe that religion encourages reason whereas I say specifcally that religion and reason are entirely incompatible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Excellent someone stepped up to the plate =) Now we can get started... It is absolutely and simply incorrect to say Canada or the United States were "founded on biblical principles". It is more correct to say that their founding documents contain vague nods to even vaguer deities. I will address this when I get on my computer at home, I have a few quotes from certain founding fathers that say otherwise 1-the central element of religion in general is that it requires of its adherents the disavowal of reason and therefore the disavowal of what makes us human; What?? Disavowal of reason? Pray tell do explain. To me reason is understanding that an entire universe with exquisite laws doesn't just 'happen', no matter how many zeros you add for timeline =p It is a disavowal of reason to NOT know that something supernatural DOES exist, I can't believe you just stated that as your first point lol 2-because of the disavowal of reason, religions are open to untrammelled extremism and they tend to lead their followers away from detecting and determining the truth about the world; Wrong wrong and more wrong. First off your starting statement about reason is simply borrowing from your previous point, keep them seperate or join the points. As for extremism, certain SECTS may be extreme but go sit in a church service. You obviously dont know much about religions if you think they promote extremism, its the sects that promote extremism. As for leading away from detecting and determining the truth about the world check this link out: http://www.godandscience.org/ Read through some of that stuff, particularly the Authenticity of the Bible. Perhaps you are the one being misled about the truth of the world hmm? Also if you are talking about scientific technological discoveries you are also wrong, because religion was the foundation of many a research that ended up with learning something new about our universe. 3-because religions have dealt with numinous, unknowable, or difficult to observe matters in unreasonable ways, many of them have accumulated ludicrous and/or harmful dogmas and attached inordinate importance to them, e.g. immaculate conception. This point is well.. pointless. What are you trying to prove? You fail to make reference to anything I can refer to, all you do is spill out your own 'dogma' and expect me to stomach it. You will note that we differ on one especially important point. You seem to believe that religion encourages reason whereas I say specifcally that religion and reason are entirely incompatible. I stated earlier regarding this, reason and religion walk hand in hand. What do you believe? Evolution? Atheism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 I have a few quotes from certain founding fathers that say ... I am familiar with this particular dispute from prior go-arounds with others. I can equally offer you quotes from other Founders denying religious intent in the foundations. The views of various Founders, however, are not really the important matter. What they placed in the founding documents is the relevant concern. Disavowal of reason? Pray tell do explain.To me reason is understanding that an entire universe with exquisite laws doesn't just 'happen', no matter how many zeros you add for timeline =p I don't have to explain, because you just provided an example. Your understanding of reason is not even remotely related to reason. Reason is the application of the discerning faculty to available evidence in a manner consistent with the laws of relevance and causation (otherwise known as 'logic'). The appeal that a particular opinion may hold to you does not convert it into Reason. But, nevertheless, I will explain what I meant by 'disavowal of reason'. Fundamentalist (supposedly) believe that the Bible is literally true. It is not a metaphor, it is not man's attempt to understand the divine. It is (to them, supposedly) simply True. So, a Fundamentalist is required to believe both 1) that God is omnipotent; and 2) that God can attempt to do something and yet not succeed (Exodus 4:24). As these beliefs are inconsistent in reason, and the Fundamentalist is required to believe both of them, he must be required to disavow reason. ... certain SECTS may be extreme but go sit in a church service. You obviously dont know much about religions if you think they promote extremism, its the sects that promote extremism. I have been to numerous religious services. (I would actually appreciate if you would stop imputing ignorance or inexperience to my positions in the absense of you having any real knowledge about me. I'll extend you the same courtesy.) I willingly admit that most religious organizations do not promote extremist behaviour among their members. But that was not my point. My point was that religions are susceptible to extremism because they implicitly call upon absolute authority and explicitly deny subjection to the testable realities of reason. In short, they can be led to behave unreasonably because they deny reason. 3-because religions have dealt with numinous, unknowable, or difficult to observe matters in unreasonable ways, many of them have accumulated ludicrous and/or harmful dogmas and attached inordinate importance to them, e.g. immaculate conception. This point is well.. pointless. What are you trying to prove? You fail to make reference to anything I can refer to, all you do is spill out your own 'dogma' and expect me to stomach it. I don't understand what your complaint is about. My 'point' is to answer your question about what is wrong with religion. One thing that is wrong with religion is that it generates ludicrous and/or harmful dogmas. I gave an example of a ludicrous one. An example of a harmful one is 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'. I explained that these dogmas are ludicrous because they are made up without good reason about things there can be no certainty about. Sorry you didn't get that. I stated earlier regarding this, reason and religion walk hand in hand. But that statement is merely your assertion. You make no reference to the general elements of what reason is, and simply state that religion is reasonable, seemingly solely because it's claims appeal to your tastes. What do you believe? Evolution? Atheism? I don't see how my beliefs are relevant to this discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 I will address this when I get on my computer at home, I have a few quotes from certain founding fathers that say otherwise Thomas Jefferson: I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS, by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short Jefferson again: Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus. More Jefferson: The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. Jefferson's word for the Bible? Dunghill. John Adams: Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days? Also Adams: The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states: The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. To me reason is understanding that an entire universe with exquisite laws doesn't just 'happen', no matter how many zeros you add for timeline =p It is a disavowal of reason to NOT know that something supernatural DOES exist, I can't believe you just stated that as your first point lol This is bogus. Belief in the supernatural is the ultimate denial of reason since supernatural phemenon, by definition, can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Claims of supernatural phenomena conflict directly and fundamentally with scientific understanding. leading away from detecting and determining the truth about the world check this link out:http://www.godandscience.org/ Anything that starts with a conclusion (ie. God exists) cannot be considered scientifically sound. Certainly, you can point out that science and humanism have not offered explanations for everything that is. There's much we don't know. HOWEVER, this is not evidence of the existence of god. I I stated earlier regarding this, reason and religion walk hand in hand. What do you believe? Evolution? Atheism? Sinc eyou are so rigorous in your demands from others, I'd like to see you elaborate on your claim regarding teh corelation between reason and religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 I am still not at my home comp or I would post some quotes of my own. This is bogus. Belief in the supernatural is the ultimate denial of reason since supernatural phemenon, by definition, can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Claims of supernatural phenomena conflict directly and fundamentally with scientific understanding. 'scientific understanding' conflicts directly with 'scientific understanding', even you should know this. So the problem is how do you trust something that cant even support its' own existance as something that disproves the existance of a being that wouldn't even be held under the laws of science? A supernatural being is the only answer, something with no bounds or limits. Failure to realize this is not 'reason', if you are so 'reasoned' please do tell me how energy was created =) Anything that starts with a conclusion (ie. God exists) cannot be considered scientifically sound. I believe I made my case against scientific 'soundness' on the previous point Certainly, you can point out that science and humanism have not offered explanations for everything that is. There's much we don't know. HOWEVER, this is not evidence of the existence of god. Ok, so tell me what makes your lack of ability to explain things, right, and our ability to explain things, wrong? Sinc eyou are so rigorous in your demands from others, I'd like to see you elaborate on your claim regarding teh corelation between reason and religion. Reason is linked with Logic, and religion is a logical thing. A supernatural entity's existance is logically supported, how else could our universe come into being? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 'scientific understanding' conflicts directly with 'scientific understanding', even you should know this. That's a meaningless statement if there ever was one. So the problem is how do you trust something that cant even support its' own existance as something that disproves the existance of a being that wouldn't even be held under the laws of science? A supernatural being is the only answer, something with no bounds or limits. Failure to realize this is not 'reason', if you are so 'reasoned' please do tell me how energy was created =) Are you saying science does not exist? Or are you saying that because we cannot confirm with 100 per cent certainty the scientific theories concerning the origins of the uninverse, they are incorrect and, therefore, "proof" God exists? That's total sophistry. All you've done is pulled an arbitrary and exceedingly implausible explanation (lieterally) from thin air. Simply put, a supernatural being with no bounds or limits is not a reasonable explanation, given that being cannot itself be reasonably shown to exist. Energy cannot be created. That's basic thermodynamics. I believe I made my case against scientific 'soundness' on the previous point No you didn't. It's jibberish. To fill you in: A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics. On the other hand, theists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. If you don't know, then God did it. It's the kind of thinking primitive man adopted to explain that which he could not comprehend. However, we've progressed enough to the point where, even if a scientific explanation currently eludes us, a naturalistic explanation remains a possibility. Ok, so tell me what makes your lack of ability to explain things, right, and our ability to explain things, wrong? I've already told you. Your problem (aside from mangled syntax) is that you begin your quieries with a presumption that cannot be proven. As I said, pointing out the obvious gaps in scientific knowledge is not evidence god exists. Reason is linked with Logic, and religion is a logical thing. A supernatural entity's existance is logically supported, how else could our universe come into being? First: it's not necessary that all things exist must have had a beginning. But, even if we accept that assumption, your logic is still flawed because if all things must have a beginning, so too must god. So, how did god come into being? The answer, according to theirts, is that God always existed. Which, of course, contradicts the basis for their statement that all things must have a beginning. Therefore, the existence of a supernatural supreme being cannot logically be supported. At this point, the arguments for God boil down to "because I said so"... If you can believe that God has no beginning, why is it so hard to believe that the universe itself had no beginning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 That's a meaningless statement if there ever was one. How nice of you to give me your opinion, how about giving me some proof? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, then explain to me scientifically how it was created. I proved my point, prove yours. Are you saying science does not exist? No, I am proving it is flawed and incapable of judging the existance of a supernatural being since it can't even seem to line up with its own teachings. Or are you saying that because we cannot confirm with 100 per cent certainty the scientific theories concerning the origins of the uninverse, they are incorrect and, therefore, "proof" God exists? All you have is theories, and theories aren't scientific proof of anything. I could come up with 30 theories off the bat, and until you empirically proved each one false it is a theory. So technically God's existance is a theory since you can't disprove his existance, just as theoretical as your theories and therefore what makes your theory plausible and mine wrong? That's total sophistry. All you've done is pulled an arbitrary and exceedingly implausible explanation (lieterally) from thin air. Its better than expecting me to believe the whole universe came from nothing scientifically Simply put, a supernatural being with no bounds or limits is not a reasonable explanation, given that being cannot itself be reasonably shown to exist. Reason dictates logically, and logic tells us process of elimination works. Therefore if all other paths but one prove invalid that last path must be the correct one. Evolution - Can't explain the beginning so how can they expect us to believe the end? Atheist - Where did we come from? Secularist - Where did we come from? Christianity - A supernatural being capable of anything created us, something that is fully possible given the lack of bounds a supernatural being has. So therefore even logically at least we have a plausible beginning, you can't prove scientifically that the universe created itself because the science you use to prove it says itself that it is impossible to do just that 'Energy cannot be created or destroyed'. Energy cannot be created. That's basic thermodynamics. Good for you, then you should understand how self-creation of the universe is impossible scientifically. No you didn't. It's jibberish. Resorting to that already? Haha just stop posting then, I want intelligent and well-thought answers, not someone who will simply pick a word war because he can't be bothered to debate a hot topic. To fill you in: A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics. Seeks to explain doesn't mean it explains, not to mention this reminds me of a joke I heard once: " One day in the far future human scientists figured out the secrets of the universe, so they met with God one day and decided to challenge him to a contest. They wanted to see who could create a human being the fastest, and the winner would become 'God'. So God agrees and the scientists hunch down and start scooping together dirt to form a man but God stops them and says, 'Hey hey hey, use your own dirt!' " No matter what experiments they do on an existing universe it can't prove how nothing came into something, that is the fundamental flaw in every one of these kinds of experiments. They dont prove what you want them to prove. On the other hand, theists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. If you don't know, then God did it. It's the kind of thinking primitive man adopted to explain that which he could not comprehend. However, we've progressed enough to the point where, even if a scientific explanation currently eludes us, a naturalistic explanation remains a possibility. Our God is supernatural, yours is restricted by the laws of the universe. Yours can't do what it needed to have been able to do to create the universe, ours can. What is primitive about that? I am a Software Developer, I can assure you I am not primitive in my thought patterns and am extremely good at Boolean Logic. To denounce me as illogical is in itself primitive =p I've already told you. Your problem (aside from mangled syntax) is that you begin your quieries with a presumption that cannot be proven. I would prefer you to tell me more on this presumption that cannot be proven, is that because you refuse to face the truth. You can't explain the beginning of the universe, am I right or wrong? If I am right and you can't my point was proven As I said, pointing out the obvious gaps in scientific knowledge is not evidence god exists. Then why do you think it is evidence that he doesn't? =p First: it's not necessary that all things exist must have had a beginning. LOL really, please ellaborate. But, even if we accept that assumption, your logic is still flawed because if all things must have a beginning, so too must god. So, how did god come into being? The answer, according to theirts, is that God always existed. Which, of course, contradicts the basis for their statement that all things must have a beginning. Therefore, the existence of a supernatural supreme being cannot logically be supported.At this point, the arguments for God boil down to "because I said so"... If you can believe that God has no beginning, why is it so hard to believe that the universe itself had no beginning? Actually it can be logically supported, I was waiting for you to throw out this card First off, take into account your scientific explanation, it is based on scientific principles which must be at least somewhat in line with scientific laws. So you are limited, you can't create something from nothing, no matter how advanced you are something must exist for something else to be created from it. The universe CANT have been created from nothing, it NEEDS to have been created and since it couldn't have been created with science (as science is flawed and contradictory in that area) that leaves one possiblity... that the universe didn't create itself, that a supernatural being created it that was OUTSIDE the laws of the universe. Now your point on God always existing is a pitfall, because you see with a supernatural being with no limits how can you say with confidence that it doesn't have the capability to have always existed. It isn't held constrained by the laws of physics, it isn't held by any constraints or limits. Whereas your god is, and disproves itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 Energy cannot be created or destroyed how it was created. I proved my point, prove yours. Actually you contradict yourself: if energy cannot be created or destroyed, then how could God create it? No, I am proving it is flawed and incapable of judging the existance of a supernatural being since it can't even seem to line up with its own teachings. The existence of supernatual beings, by definition, is unprovable, since proof of their existence requires that they conform to existing laws of nature. However, their violation of accepted and proven laws of nature is ipso facto proof of their non-existence. All you have is theories, and theories aren't scientific proof of anything. I could come up with 30 theories off the bat, and until you empirically proved each one false it is a theory. So technically God's existance is a theory since you can't disprove his existance, just as theoretical as your theories and therefore what makes your theory plausible and mine wrong? OHwere's one of the most common and fundamental flaws of theistic belief: a simple misunderstanding iof the word "theory" In science, a thory is not arbitrary; scientists don't pull "theories" out of their hats. Scientific theory is defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth. Scientific theories, especially in cosmology or advanced theoretical physics, can be speculative at best, but they are based on existing empirical knowledge. As I stated before, the gaps in scientific knowledge are not themselves proof of God. Failure to fully demonstrate one does not logically necessitate the other. It's much simpler, and much more consistent with our knowledge of how the univerese works, to say "we don't know right now" than to create a god whose very existence is, at best, unprovable. Its better than expecting me to believe the whole universe came from nothing scientifically No. It's simpler and therefore more appealling. But the scientific approach is backed by a stunning amount of emprical evidence. Reason dictates logically, and logic tells us process of elimination works. Therefore if all other paths but one prove invalid that last path must be the correct one.Evolution - Can't explain the beginning so how can they expect us to believe the end? Atheist - Where did we come from? Secularist - Where did we come from? Christianity - A supernatural being capable of anything created us, something that is fully possible given the lack of bounds a supernatural being has. So therefore even logically at least we have a plausible beginning, you can't prove scientifically that the universe created itself because the science you use to prove it says itself that it is impossible to do just that 'Energy cannot be created or destroyed'. First: you continue to ignore existing empirical evidence regarding the origins of the univerese. Second: even if you arbitrarily decide to create a supernatural being that violates all known laws, what makes you so sure your sky-fairy is the right one? Resorting to that already? Haha just stop posting then, I want intelligent and well-thought answers, not someone who will simply pick a word war because he can't be bothered to debate a hot topic. I'm completely prepared to debate it. But I expect responses that make sense and are in some way supported. Your jibberish statement regarding scientific reasoning was: 'scientific understanding' conflicts directly with 'scientific understanding', even you should know this. Which would seem to indicate that some types of scientific knowledge disagree. Which is true, but a complete simplification and distortion. Just because one one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Indeed, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable. No matter what experiments they do on an existing universe it can't prove how nothing came into something, that is the fundamental flaw in every one of these kinds of experiments. They dont prove what you want them to prove. Of corse, cosmological explanations of the origin of the univerese don't state the universe "came from nothing". Simple relativity shows that matter can be created from energy and can dissapear into energy. Our God is supernatural, yours is restricted by the laws of the universe. Yours can't do what it needed to have been able to do to create the universe, ours can. What is primitive about that? I am a Software Developer, I can assure you I am not primitive in my thought patterns and am extremely good at Boolean Logic. To denounce me as illogical is in itself primitive =p It is primitive, in that it creates something out of nothingness: a supernatural entity that cannot be observed. As I indicated in another thread, if we were talking about a theoretical god, an abstract god, the best you can do is break even with atheism. However, from a Judeo-Christian standpoint, such a God becomes even less likely. Basically, any caveman can pull supernatural explanations out of nowhere. But human histrory has shown that naturalistic explanations do a far better job of explaining how the world works. You can't explain the beginning of the universe, am I right or wrong? If I am right and you can't my point was proven Wrong. Then why do you think it is evidence that he doesn't? Gaps in scientific knowledge are evidence of nothing but the existence of gaps in scientific knowledge. You can use god to fill in the blanks if you want, but that doesn't make it so. LOL really, please ellaborate. Cosmological explanations describinmg the beginnings and function of th euniveres apply on any side of the time axis. therefore, its possible that this (observable) univeres appeared from a pre-existing one. For example, the Inflationary Universe model indicates our universe started out as a rapidly expanding bubble of pure vacuum energy, with no matter or radiation. After a period of rapid expansion, or inflation, and rapid cooling, the potential energy in the vacuum was converted through particle physics processes into the kinetic energy of matter and radiation. The Universe heats up again and we get the Big Bang. First off, take into account your scientific explanation, it is based on scientific principles which must be at least somewhat in line with scientific laws. So you are limited, you can't create something from nothing, no matter how advanced you are something must exist for something else to be created from it. The universe CANT have been created from nothing, it NEEDS to have been created and since it couldn't have been created with science (as science is flawed and contradictory in that area) that leaves one possiblity... that the universe didn't create itself, that a supernatural being created it that was OUTSIDE the laws of the universe. Already adressed this fallacy. Now your point on God always existing is a pitfall, because you see with a supernatural being with no limits how can you say with confidence that it doesn't have the capability to have always existed. It isn't held constrained by the laws of physics, it isn't held by any constraints or limits. Whereas your god is, and disproves itself That's simply irrational, in that it dispenses with the accumulated knowledge of mankind's entire history in favour of an arbitrary, unprovable and illogical construct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 Please read my posts in the future and use some logic, stop wasting my time. However I will repeat some of my previous explanations yet again for you. Actually you contradict yourself: if energy cannot be created or destroyed, then how could God create it? Actually I dont, if you read carefully I explained that is why YOUR god can't have created the universe, because it isn't capable of creating itself =p The existence of supernatual beings, by definition, is unprovable, since proof of their existence requires that they conform to existing laws of nature. However, their violation of accepted and proven laws of nature is ipso facto proof of their non-existence. Alright then, lets see you facto proof your own existance with those laws of nature and I will accept them as suitable evidence to disprove God =) OHwere's one of the most common and fundamental flaws of theistic belief: a simple misunderstanding iof the word "theory" In science, a thory is not arbitrary; scientists don't pull "theories" out of their hats. Scientific theory is defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth. Thanks for the science class, I knew that already =p I fail to see the point to that whole section. Scientific theories, especially in cosmology or advanced theoretical physics, can be speculative at best, but they are based on existing empirical knowledge. Your problem is you still are believing science as infallible, think outside the box. Science is far from perfect, and if we can't even dictate our own weather then you can't expect me to believe science can dictate the existance of God a supernatural being. As I stated before, the gaps in scientific knowledge are not themselves proof of God. Failure to fully demonstrate one does not logically necessitate the other. It's much simpler, and much more consistent with our knowledge of how the univerese works, to say "we don't know right now" than to create a god whose very existence is, at best, unprovable. Oh I see, so basically 'create' a god so you dont have to admit one exists. Yeah your coming across loud and clear xD Takes more blind faith to believe in that than it does to believe in God. No. It's simpler and therefore more appealling. But the scientific approach is backed by a stunning amount of emprical evidence. God created the universe. period. How hard is that? Simpler was just disproven, because no matter how complex you make it science has still been unable to find proof as to how the universe created itself. Your 'stunning amount of emprical evidence' is still lacking, I would like to see some since all that I see is scientific conflicts First: you continue to ignore existing empirical evidence regarding the origins of the univerese. Wow, you like using this anonymous and mysterious 'empirical evidence'. Sorry but you are going to have to be a little more specific =p Second: even if you arbitrarily decide to create a supernatural being that violates all known laws, what makes you so sure your sky-fairy is the right one? Does it matter? Dont try and shift the matter from 'is there a supernatural being' to 'which God is the true God'. That is another argument, and to go there betrays your acceptance at the possiblity of one existing =) I'm completely prepared to debate it. But I expect responses that make sense and are in some way supported.Your jibberish statement regarding scientific reasoning was: 'scientific understanding' conflicts directly with 'scientific understanding', even you should know this. Which would seem to indicate that some types of scientific knowledge disagree. Which is true, but a complete simplification and distortion. Just because one one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Indeed, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable. So it wasn't jibberish then? One second before you say it is and then you agree with it... hmmm, what a confusing person you are =o You yourself just admited Science contradicts itself, and yet you still attempt to use it as somethin infallible enough to judge the non-existance of a being that isn't even held by the laws of science. Interesting logic you use there lol Of corse, cosmological explanations of the origin of the univerese don't state the universe "came from nothing". Simple relativity shows that matter can be created from energy and can dissapear into energy. And as I have said countless times where did the energy come from? You still can't answer that, so to me and most of the world its the 'enlightened' people who seem to think energy and matter can disobey its own rules that seem a little craaaazy =D It is primitive, in that it creates something out of nothingness: a supernatural entity that cannot be observed. As I indicated in another thread, if we were talking about a theoretical god, an abstract god, the best you can do is break even with atheism. However, from a Judeo-Christian standpoint, such a God becomes even less likely. Atheisn and Christianity are as different as a car and an orange. Comparing the two as having simliar beliefs is in itself completely primitive and you know it. Basically, any caveman can pull supernatural explanations out of nowhere. But human histrory has shown that naturalistic explanations do a far better job of explaining how the world works. But it takes a SCIENTIST to pull obvious lies out of nowhere eh? History has shown that people will do almost anything to refuse having to admit God exists, and until Science has proven to me how the world began from nothing I will consider it nothing more than a bedtime story... albeit a hard to swallow bedtime story. Wrong. Oh so you CAN explain the beginning of the universe? Speak it, I am DYING to hear this =) Remember, scientifically, I wont take it easy on your explanation so make sure you go into details Gaps in scientific knowledge are evidence of nothing but the existence of gaps in scientific knowledge. You can use god to fill in the blanks if you want, but that doesn't make it so. You are using circle logic, same as an evolutionist that determines the age of a fossil by the layer it is in and determines age of the layer by the fossil =p The gaps in scientifc knowledge destroys the authenticity of what you are trying to prove, you yourself have admitted science has no explanation, can't explain it, there are gaps, etc etc etc. Yet you are trying to get me to believe this flawed and contradictory system that isn't even able to determine its own origins somehow can disprove the existance of a supernatural being? Gimme a break dude xD lol Cosmological explanations describinmg the beginnings and function of th euniveres apply on any side of the time axis. therefore, its possible that this (observable) univeres appeared from a pre-existing one. For example, the Inflationary Universe model indicates our universe started out as a rapidly expanding bubble of pure vacuum energy, with no matter or radiation. After a period of rapid expansion, or inflation, and rapid cooling, the potential energy in the vacuum was converted through particle physics processes into the kinetic energy of matter and radiation. The Universe heats up again and we get the Big Bang. Ok I highlighted a few things in this first paragraph I would like to ellaborate on: time axis: What is time? Time is existance, time is not existing in a universe that isn't existing. So tell me how a time axis could somehow affect the starting of a non-existing universe? pre-existing one: A pre-existing universe? Alright, then how did that one start? =) pure vacuum energy: oooooh, I get it... so before energy was created energy created it =D It all makes so much sense now lol As for your final few sentances regarding kinetic energy you made a fatal flaw. Kinetic energy is the energy of motion, impossible if there is no matter Its the same as temperature change is impossible without mass, because mass has specific heat capacities and allows the transfer of heat =) Oh yeah and the grand finale, the Big Bang. Energy that was created by non-existant energy, coupled with the energy of motion in a non-existant universe, and boosted with heat that magically came out of nothing and was somehow stored in a matterless void of space, suddenly explodes and creates a finite universe made up of impecable laws and balances that even us with all our technological know-how are unable to grasp. Wow, who coulda known lol Already adressed this fallacy. No you didn't, stop avoiding please. I am not the gloating type, if you can't address a point just say 'point taken' and move on =) That's simply irrational, in that it dispenses with the accumulated knowledge of mankind's entire history in favour of an arbitrary, unprovable and illogical construct. 'mankind's entire history ' is an exaggeration, this 'no God' belief has only been popular in this last century. Before that is was common knowledge that a supernatural being existed, how ironic that those peasants knew more than our great and glorious scientists of today (who, incidently, can't even explain their own beginning and attempt to disprove mine). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 I had a fairly lengthy reply completed that vanished into the ether when I tried to post it (I'm not sure why that happened: god must have done it.) Rather than redo it, I'll address what appears to be the main arguments of the previous poster. Some of the quotes below are, in fact, paraphrases. Your problem is you still are believing science as infallible, think outside the box. Science is far from perfect, and if we can't even dictate our own weather then you can't expect me to believe science can dictate the existence of God a supernatural being. This is coupled with the assertion that science contradicts itself, though, since no examples or instances of such contradictions are given, I’ll just speak to the former point. No where did I claim science was infallible. I have explicitly stated that science, through the scientific methods of experimentation, evaluation and duplication, is open to changes and revisions to existing theories. The poster above seems to be labouring under the misconception that, because science cannot at this point, fully explain the origins of the universe or predict the winning lottery numbers, it is inherently unable to do so. Of course, this narrow view ignores science's role in the progression of human civilization over the past several thousand years. Science and methodological naturalism (that is: the search to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms) has been, and continues to be, our best hope for revealing those mysteries of the universe we're not currently privy to. Blind adherence to religious dogma (which the poster above has in spades) adds nothing of intellectual value to these efforts. God created the universe. period. Such absolutist claims completely defy logic. Using a similar line of thinking, I could just as easily say that I created the universe. However, logic demands proof, proof demands evidence. The poster has yet to offer any evidence as top the existence of god. Indeed, the poster simply defers to the notion that "god" is a supernatural entity that exists outside of physical laws of space and time. At this point, the argument breaks down into the abstract. Since supernatural phenomenon, by definition, cannot be shown to exist, the existence of said phenomena is pure speculation (blind faith). Which is all well and good, given that religion for most people is a personal decision. However, given the ongoing efforts of creation "science" movement to subvert evolutionary and cosmological science to promote a sectarian viewpoint, it's important to highlight the glaring and obvious logical failings of the god hypothesis. Science cannot conclusivly prove how the universe began, therefore, God created it. This is a classic example of a false dichotomy. It's a logical fallacy that ignores the ever-growing body of cosmological knowledge that offers theories as to how the universe began that are wholly consistent with existing knowledge. I won’t highlight them here (as I could not possibly do justice to the complexities of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics), but the inflationary universe theory I mentioned is one example. However, even if all the science indicating a naturalistic explanation for the origins of the universe are incorrect, that does not leave divine, supernatural creation as the only possibility (why not believe in, say, aliens creating the universe or something? There’s just as much evidence of that as there is of God.) time axis: What is time? Time is existance, time is not existing in a universe that isn't existing. So tell me how a time axis could somehow affect the starting of a non-existing universe? pre-existing one: A pre-existing universe? Alright, then how did that one start? =) pure vacuum energy: oooooh, I get it... so before energy was created energy created it =D It all makes so much sense now lol Time is actually a concept: it’s just ticks on a clock. It need not have a finite beginning or end. Indeed, if you count backwards long enough, you can end up with a very big, but not a mathematically infinite number. All the above arguments rely on one flawed assumption: that all that exists must have a beginning. However, this itself runs contrary to the physical observations (for example, particles emitted in nuclear radiation have no “cause”; they simply pop into existence) and quantum theory. Under quantum theory, “nothing” is something, since probability, not absolutes, rule any physical system. It is impossible, even in principle, to predict the behavior of any single atom; all physicists can do is predict the average properties of a large collection of atoms. Quantum theory also holds that a vacuum, like atoms, is subject to quantum uncertainties. Therefore, it remains completely within the realm of possibility that a low probability event such as the spontaneous formation of a singularity, could have led to the formation of the universe. Again, such theories (backed by mathematical modeling and physical observation) can twist the brain, making fantastic theories such as the existence of God seem comforting, even if they continue to fail the logic test. Finally: 'mankind's entire history ' is an exaggeration, this 'no God' belief has only been popular in this last century. Before that is was common knowledge that a supernatural being existed, how ironic that those peasants knew more than our great and glorious scientists of today (who, incidently, can't even explain their own beginning and attempt to disprove mine). Atheism and secular humanism have a long and distinguished tradition in human civilization dating back to ancient Greece and likely beyond. The ”common knowledge” you speak of is borne from the ignorance of primitive peoples, who lacked the means and knowledge to adequately explain their world without resorting to supernatural explanations. As humanity has progressed, science, not religion, has led to the greatest advances in human civilization and knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 This seems germane to these discussions (and may serve to amuse, some at least). Proofs of God's Existence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 ARGUMENT FROM CREATION(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists. (2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable (3) Therefore, God exists. I found that one particularly amusing, I highlighted the particularly biased area. I would think it to be more like this: since I lack the mental ignorance to accept it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be contradictory and rely on blind faith. This is coupled with the assertion that science contradicts itself, though, since no examples or instances of such contradictions are given, I’ll just speak to the former point. No examples or instances? You refuse to answer my most basic of questions then, since I have asked countless times for you to explain how energy was created. That is an example of a contradiction, which you wont answer. Another contradiction I pointed out was how did matter that didn't exist suddenly exist? How did an explosion (if you believe in the ridiculous theory of the big bang) create such a meticulous universe (hey didn't you hear about that nuke that was dropped on Hiroshima creating a Ferrari?) No where did I claim science was infallible. I have explicitly stated that science, through the scientific methods of experimentation, evaluation and duplication, is open to changes and revisions to existing theories. Beep beep backpeddling detected. Never did I say you claimed it, I said you 'believed' it. Which you just admitted yet again, so my point remains. The poster above seems to be labouring under the misconception that, because science cannot at this point, fully explain the origins of the universe or predict the winning lottery numbers, it is inherently unable to do so. 'Since science can't at this point explain anything about how we got here we might as well all believe blindly that we popped into existance somehow scientifically and laugh at those religious people for their blind faith' rofl, hypocrisy anyone? Only difference is that your religion makes less sense than mine, people have no purpose, have no point, have no beginning, and have no soul according to the religion you defend... so tell me, if we have no beginning and no point and purpose and no soul, then how and why are we here? =) Of course, this narrow view ignores science's role in the progression of human civilization over the past several thousand years. Science role has only been in human civilization since around 1200 AD, and you can thank religion for that =) Source: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/sci...nce_origin.html Science and methodological naturalism (that is: the search to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms) has been, and continues to be, our best hope for revealing those mysteries of the universe we're not currently privy to.Blind adherence to religious dogma (which the poster above has in spades) adds nothing of intellectual value to these efforts. I have scientifically proven religion as superior to evolution and self-creation, your failure to rebuttal any of my arguments and continually avoid the issues while simultaneously throwing around your own 'scientific dogma' (which you seem to have in spades) shows how you even realize this. Such absolutist claims completely defy logic. Using a similar line of thinking, I could just as easily say that I created the universe. However, logic demands proof, proof demands evidence. The poster has yet to offer any evidence as top the existence of god. No you couldn't because using logic its impossible, you aren't old enough, you also are bound by laws of physics same as the rest of the physical universe. You lack the logic required to understand the concepts I put forward, I have debated with professors and they understand what I am saying and many admit that evolution and atheism take more blind faith and are blatantly illogical, but they refuse to admit the existance of a supernatural being. That is simply stubborn ignorance, especially since they just admitted none of the other explanations work xD Also, since you can't prove the existance of the universe and your the one attacking the existance of God the burden of proof is on you. Not me So far by simple logical deduction you are fighting a losing battle, you have no proof, only dogma and unproven theories. Indeed, the poster simply defers to the notion that "god" is a supernatural entity that exists outside of physical laws of space and time. At this point, the argument breaks down into the abstract. Since supernatural phenomenon, by definition, cannot be shown to exist, the existence of said phenomena is pure speculation (blind faith). Which is all well and good, given that religion for most people is a personal decision. However, given the ongoing efforts of creation "science" movement to subvert evolutionary and cosmological science to promote a sectarian viewpoint, it's important to highlight the glaring and obvious logical failings of the god hypothesis. Since Evolution thinks it is ok to take a pigs jawbone and use it as proof for a missing link I am rather pleased that they are uncomfortable with Creation Science. At least we dont intentionally lie for a paycheck =p As for your 'claim' that 'Since supernatural phenomenon, by definition, cannot be shown to exist, the existence of said phenomena is pure speculation (blind faith).' I would argue that I have not even close to as much blind faith as do you. Since you are determined life or death to believe that a contradictory and unexplained beginning to the universe created you unimportant, without purpose, without a soul, and as a single cell that evolved into a human (using documented lies as supporting evidence, such as the pigs jawbone I mentioned previously) I am inclined to believe YOU are the one that has issues with blind faith This is a classic example of a false dichotomy. It's a logical fallacy that ignores the ever-growing body of cosmological knowledge that offers theories as to how the universe began that are wholly consistent with existing knowledge. I won’t highlight them here (as I could not possibly do justice to the complexities of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics), but the inflationary universe theory I mentioned is one example. Here is my theory, a supernatural being created the universe since it couldn't create itself. Now, disprive me using the scientifc process =) To be fair you may also post a theory and I will attempt to disprove it using the scientic process. Also dont use the inflationary universe because it uses as a model a universe that is post-creation, I am talking about the coming-into-existance of all matter and energy from literally nothing (not the nothing of space, true nothingness) However, even if all the science indicating a naturalistic explanation for the origins of the universe are incorrect, that does not leave divine, supernatural creation as the only possibility (why not believe in, say, aliens creating the universe or something? There’s just as much evidence of that as there is of God.) Well its about time you fled from your sinking evolutionist defence =) But your new defence of aliens is flawed as well, because you are still thinking in terms of a post-creation universe. Who created the 'aliens'? You see, my logic and thought patterns aren't constricted to Darwinism and his obsession with the Evolutionary process (which can be proven no more than the creation of the universe coincidently) Time is actually a concept: it’s just ticks on a clock. It need not have a finite beginning or end. Indeed, if you count backwards long enough, you can end up with a very big, but not a mathematically infinite number.All the above arguments rely on one flawed assumption: that all that exists must have a beginning. By definition of course time is a concept, however time itself without definition is simply existance. If nothing existed would there be time? If nothing at all existed would time exist? Also everything that exists obviously must have a beginning, and your claim that counting backwards has a limit is pointless simply because there is no way for us to determine the finite value of infinity =p That is the whole reason it is called 'infinite', and I would also like to point out that your argument worked against itself seeing as how you yourself just admitted that a timeline has a beginning Here is a challenge, point out one thing in the known universe that doesn't have a beginning. Just one, come on with all that scientific knowledge of yours and all those imaculate evolutionist scientists of yours should be able to tell me one thing that has no beginning However, this itself runs contrary to the physical observations (for example, particles emitted in nuclear radiation have no “cause”; they simply pop into existence) and quantum theory. Under quantum theory, “nothing” is something, since probability, not absolutes, rule any physical system. It is impossible, even in principle, to predict the behavior of any single atom; all physicists can do is predict the average properties of a large collection of atoms. Quantum theory also holds that a vacuum, like atoms, is subject to quantum uncertainties. They do have 'cause' they are part of nuclear radiation, stop thinking post-creation for justification of pre-creation self-creation =p Not to mention just because we aren't able to see the smallest particles that doesn't mean they dont exist so those particles that are emitted from nuclear radiation are made up of smaller particles. I would also like to point out that the Quantum theory is a THEORY, as I have been pointing out your reliance on theories is yet again self-evident. Therefore, it remains completely within the realm of possibility that a low probability event such as the spontaneous formation of a singularity, could have led to the formation of the universe. Oh yeah, completely possible for something that doesn't exist to create a reaction on the atomic level (which doesn't exist) which would in turn spontaneously form a singularity (which couldn't exist) which would then somehow miraculously create enough power to explode (which would be impossible) an entire next-to-endless universe that we still are unable to fathom (with all our extremely 'wise' scientists) =p Your sooooo believable xD Again, such theories (backed by mathematical modeling and physical observation) can twist the brain, making fantastic theories such as the existence of God seem comforting, even if they continue to fail the logic test. Actually the Quantum theory is mathematically challenging (and next to pointless), however that is about it. Observation is impossible since our microscopes as you said can't model what is happening and we dont know what is happening, kind of hard to find physical supporting evidence when you can't figure out why stuff is happening. The existance of God is obvious in my mind and in the minds of alot of scientists as well, simply because, as I have stated and supported, all other avenues of explanation have GLARING problems and contradictions. No matter how many scientific theories you make wont change the fact that scientifically the universe couldn't have created itself =) Atheism and secular humanism have a long and distinguished tradition in human civilization dating back to ancient Greece and likely beyond.The ”common knowledge” you speak of is borne from the ignorance of primitive peoples, who lacked the means and knowledge to adequately explain their world without resorting to supernatural explanations. As humanity has progressed, science, not religion, has led to the greatest advances in human civilization and knowledge. Your talking about the ancient Greece we get Zeus and them from? The one responsible for one of the first religions? Thats the one your talking about right? As I posted that source before I will post it again, it explains how us 'primitive' Christians are responsible for the scientific utopia we all enjoy today. Source: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/sci...nce_origin.html Knock yourself out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 No matter how many scientific theories you make wont change the fact that scientifically the universe couldn't have created itself =) I wonder if you would please address the following points: 1) Accepting for the moment that your above statement is correct, how scientifically, could anything create itself? In other words, how does 'God' appearing out of nothing make any more sense than 'universe' appearing out of nothing? 2) Science posits an accumulation of evidence tested by a consistent methodology based on demonstrability to acheive the theories that become operating facts in our society. The 'evidence' for scientific conclusions, whether you agree with it or not, is available for you to challenge on defined terms. Compared to this, the posits of religion fall short for the rigour with which they are established, scrutinized and upheld, as well as for their demonstrability. 3) Different theistic groups make different claims about propriety, observance, and even right and wrong. They all claim to have the sanction of celestial authority. How should society slect from among such competing claims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 1) Accepting for the moment that your above statement is correct, how scientifically, could anything create itself? In other words, how does 'God' appearing out of nothing make any more sense than 'universe' appearing out of nothing? I post this earlier, please read previous posts so we dont keep returning to points already discussed "Actually it can be logically supported, I was waiting for you to throw out this card First off, take into account your scientific explanation, it is based on scientific principles which must be at least somewhat in line with scientific laws. So you are limited, you can't create something from nothing, no matter how advanced you are something must exist for something else to be created from it. The universe CANT have been created from nothing, it NEEDS to have been created and since it couldn't have been created with science (as science is flawed and contradictory in that area) that leaves one possiblity... that the universe didn't create itself, that a supernatural being created it that was OUTSIDE the laws of the universe. Now your point on God always existing is a pitfall, because you see with a supernatural being with no limits how can you say with confidence that it doesn't have the capability to have always existed. It isn't held constrained by the laws of physics, it isn't held by any constraints or limits. Whereas your god is, and disproves itself. " 2) Science posits an accumulation of evidence tested by a consistent methodology based on demonstrability to acheive the theories that become operating facts in our society. The 'evidence' for scientific conclusions, whether you agree with it or not, is available for you to challenge on defined terms. Alright then, bring some forward and I will challenge it scientifically as I have been doing. I have yet to see any proof as to how the universe created itself and there never will be any because the very concept of scientifc self-creation is blatantly contradictory. Compared to this, the posits of religion fall short for the rigour with which they are established, scrutinized and upheld, as well as for their demonstrability. Again stop generalizing and give me specifics, because last I knew the Bible is the most authentic books in history (and its several thousand years old) whereas science is not even a thousand yet and already is so full of holes in the fundamentals that it is amazing anyone would believe in this no-God sentiment. 3) Different theistic groups make different claims about propriety, observance, and even right and wrong. They all claim to have the sanction of celestial authority. How should society slect from among such competing claims? This is totally up to the individual, the FACT of the matter is that a supernatural being must exist... its up to you to decide which one is real. Personally I believe the Christian God, I have studied alot of the other major religions and found them pathetically lacking, sometimes moreso than science-based religions, in important areas but the Christian God makes sense and sounds the most authentic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udawg Posted July 18, 2004 Report Share Posted July 18, 2004 As far as what's happened (to traditional families), it's a two-part answer. 1. Historically, it was advantageous to have a wife to care for your children, who in turn, helped with your work when they became capable. You took care of your wife and family, and raised your children well because they carried on your name. More recently, it has become normal to look out for number 1, as it were. Parents do what is best for themselves...not always best for the family. (Seen "Cheaper by the Dozen"?) 2. Traditionally, strict religious beliefs held families that might today be split, together. There was no such thing as divorce for most of history, and so people just stuck it out. And of course, nobody mentions in the history books about the husband and wife who didn't speak for weeks at a time, but had no choice except to keep on keepin' on. History is not always the best indicator of the past. Now, when religion is losing its authority across the board, and no longer soley dictates a person's mores, people feel more free to do as they wish, and pursue personal happiness. Also, family is largely a cultural thing, and culture changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted July 18, 2004 Report Share Posted July 18, 2004 1) Accepting for the moment that your above statement is correct, how scientifically, could anything create itself? In other words, how does 'God' appearing out of nothing make any more sense than 'universe' appearing out of nothing? ... scientific principles which must be at least somewhat in line with scientific laws. So you are limited, you can't create something from nothing, ...universe CANT have been created from nothing, it NEEDS to have been created ... that leaves one possiblity... that the universe didn't create itself, that a supernatural being created it that was OUTSIDE the laws of the universe. Okay, again accepting that the universe needs to have been created, and that by defiinition the thing that creates it must lie 'outside' of the universe (i.e. outside of nature, i.e. 'super-natural'), there is still no reason to assume 'a being' is responsible. Now your point on God always existing is a pitfall, because you see with a supernatural being with no limits how can you say with confidence that it doesn't have the capability to have always existed. This one takes you nowhere. I can make the same argument about a non-Divinity-based origin. 2) Science posits an accumulation of evidence tested by a consistent methodology based on demonstrability to acheive the theories that become operating facts in our society. The 'evidence' for scientific conclusions, whether you agree with it or not, is available for you to challenge on defined terms. Compared to this, the posits of religion fall short for the rigour with which they are established, scrutinized and upheld, as well as for their demonstrability. Again stop generalizing and give me specifics, because last I knew the Bible is the most authentic books in history .... You are avoiding the point which is that the quality of criteria and method used to establish a scientific 'truth' is better than that used for religious 'truths'. You want specifics? Consider: How are the dogmas of your religion developed and tested? Who makes the rules and by what criteria. If it is not by reference to the Bible, it is by a human fallibility surely as deep as sciences, right? If it IS by the Bible, who INTERPRETS it? Surely a human process as fallible as science, right? If the Bible is taken as the unaltered word of God, by what authority other than its own? My friend, you are stuck. 3) Different theistic groups make different claims about propriety, observance, and even right and wrong. They all claim to have the sanction of celestial authority. How should society slect from among such competing claims? This is totally up to the individual, the FACT of the matter is that a supernatural being must exist... its up to you to decide which one is real. Personally I believe the Christian God, ... The demands of various religious groups persistently engage the action and interest of the broader society. Western societies (supposedly) adopt official government secularism to respond to this. Would you recommend another way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted July 20, 2004 Report Share Posted July 20, 2004 Okay, again accepting that the universe needs to have been created, and that by defiinition the thing that creates it must lie 'outside' of the universe (i.e. outside of nature, i.e. 'super-natural'), there is still no reason to assume 'a being' is responsible. First off read my previous posts please, no wait I will just post it here but in the future please read my posts: "This is totally up to the individual, the FACT of the matter is that a supernatural being must exist... its up to you to decide which one is real. Personally I believe the Christian God, I have studied alot of the other major religions and found them pathetically lacking, sometimes moreso than science-based religions, in important areas but the Christian God makes sense and sounds the most authentic " I use 'being' as merely a word symbolizing a supernatural presence, sine something that created the universe needs intelligence it is only natural to call it a 'being' This one takes you nowhere. I can make the same argument about a non-Divinity-based origin. Excellent, then whats stopping you from posting it. If you had read my previous posts (which it is becoming apparent you did not) you would realize I have already asked for other explanations in detail so I can analyze them =) You are avoiding the point which is that the quality of criteria and method used to establish a scientific 'truth' is better than that used for religious 'truths'. Oh really, but if you had been following the debate (reading the posts) you would know that already it has been said that there is no 'scientific truth' that disproves God. If there is please do bring it to my attention Remember though, it must be a 'truth' and we already discussed the Quantum Theory You want specifics? Consider: How are the dogmas of your religion developed and tested? Who makes the rules and by what criteria. If it is not by reference to the Bible, it is by a human fallibility surely as deep as sciences, right? If it IS by the Bible, who INTERPRETS it? Surely a human process as fallible as science, right? If the Bible is taken as the unaltered word of God, by what authority other than its own? See you are judging something you do not know, have you ever once been at all religious? If so what religion? I have stated I support Christianity, and we base our beliefs and 'dogma' directly from the Bible (a piece of literature that after thousands of years remains almost entirely unchanged) So onto your followup on who 'interprets' it, let me ask you this... 'Thou shalt not steal' tell me how hard is that to interpret? 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' whoooaaa too many opportunities for misinterpretation =o The Bible is very clear on issues of creation and moral law, the only truly controversial areas have nothing to do with whether or not God created the universe. My friend, you are stuck. No my friend, your ignorance of religion saved me... but I can gaurantee you I am not ignorant of science =) The demands of various religious groups persistently engage the action and interest of the broader society. Western societies (supposedly) adopt official government secularism to respond to this. Would you recommend another way? This is a good point, because there is no right or wrong answer to it (sadly). While I personally would love a Christian government I understand the issues this could cause and also the problems that might occur should a radical Christian come to power. However on the other hand Secularism is a religion in and of itself, it is based on the non-belief of religion. So it has agendas as well, and that agenda includes the suppression or assimilation of all religions. I dont agree with that either =o So I guess what we need is a mix, to keep things balanced and so everyone's interests always have a voice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted July 20, 2004 Report Share Posted July 20, 2004 Okay, again accepting that the universe needs to have been created, and that by defiinition the thing that creates it must lie 'outside' of the universe (i.e. outside of nature, i.e. 'super-natural'), there is still no reason to assume 'a being' is responsible. ...I use 'being' as merely a word symbolizing a supernatural presence, sine something that created the universe needs intelligence it is only natural to call it a 'being' But you are only substitution one presumption for another, rather than supporting either one. What reason is there to presume that the 'supernatural' origins of the universe must be intelligent? You are avoiding the point which is that the quality of criteria and method used to establish a scientific 'truth' is better than that used for religious 'truths'. ...it has been said that there is no 'scientific truth' that disproves God. If there is please do bring it to my attention That is not responsive to my point. I'm afraid it is you who is not reading. You want specifics? Consider: How are the dogmas of your religion developed and tested? Who makes the rules and by what criteria. If it is not by reference to the Bible, it is by a human fallibility surely as deep as sciences, right? If it IS by the Bible, who INTERPRETS it? Surely a human process as fallible as science, right? If the Bible is taken as the unaltered word of God, by what authority other than its own? See you are judging something you do not know, have you ever once been at all religious?{1} If so what religion?{2} I have stated I support Christianity, and we base our beliefs and 'dogma' directly from the Bible (a piece of literature that after thousands of years remains almost entirely unchanged){3} So onto your followup on who 'interprets' it, let me ask you this... {4} 'Thou shalt not steal' tell me how hard is that to interpret? 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' whoooaaa too many opportunities for misinterpretation =o The Bible is very clear on issues of creation and moral law, the only truly controversial areas have nothing to do with whether or not God created the universe. Amazing. Nowhere in all of that did you address question directly. First, you accuse me of base ignorance while admitting you have not basis for it {1}. Then you veer off into the irrelevant question of my religiosity or lack thereof {2}. Next, instead of clarifying anything, you simply reiterate the very matter that is unclear {3}. FRom there, instead of answering the point you pose questions which do not indicate anything unless it is how deeply mired you are in assumptions which you refuse to acknowledge are examinable {4}. Finally, you reassert the very proposition that is under examination as if a child couldn't see you have answered nothing {5}. If the Bible is so clear, how come there are so many different varieties of Christians??? The demands of various religious groups persistently engage the action and interest of the broader society. Western societies (supposedly) adopt official government secularism to respond to this. Would you recommend another way? This is a good point, because there is no right or wrong answer to it (sadly). While I personally would love a Christian government I understand the issues this could cause and also the problems that might occur should a radical Christian come to power. However on the other hand Secularism is a religion in and of itself, it is based on the non-belief of religion. No... secularism is the response adopted by society to the problem you've just agreed with ... there is no way for society to sort between the claims of religions. So I guess what we need is a mix, to keep things balanced and so everyone's interests always have a voice. That seems unworkable to me. A mix of what? Will it be no pork one day, no beef the next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.