Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[Blake]

When will the creatures we have today evolve into something else?

Lol rob 2.0

[xmas1997]

science and faith are unrelated. science fundamentally requires evidence and observation, whereas faith by definition does not deal with evidence in the slightest

I and you already knows what science requires, that was also established in earlier posts.
So you do not have to belabr that issue.

You are clearly avoiding the issue now, and that is that you have faith in something, without any evidence of your own that you can produce.
That is the issue. I could care less if it were God, science, fruitcakes, or lugwrenches.
What "proof" do you have?
None.
Thus you are relying on your "faith" that someone somewhere actually does have it.

[spurraider21]

.

[silverblk mystix]

That's another lie.

Truth is, you're an idiot.



Sorry Charlie,


it is all too fuckin true and fuckin' hilarious:




I normally avoid laying out my personal stuff on the internets, but hell, I'm reeling so much right now, I'm asking everyone/anyone in sight what to do.

I had some nukes dropped on me this past week regarding the wife, which after looking back the past 1-2 years I should have seen it and I realize I am a fucking idiot. I've mulled over everything a billion times and there's no where to go but to get a divorce.

I have a 7 year old and some have already told me I need to go all out to get full custody. Any other practical advice? Step 1? Step 2?

Fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

:depressed







:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

[spurraider21]

you, like robdiaz, do not have an understanding of the theory of evolution.

your idea of evolution is that one day a fish laid an egg and a lizard magically hatched. or one day an ape gave birth and a human emerged.

it doens't go ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-human!

nobody ever claimed such

[Avante]

are we talking specifically about the parrot you owned? it was born a parrot, and it died a parrot

Wow, you honestly thought I thought...hahaha!!!!!!!!

Ok man since the obvious doesn't work with you.

I was looking at that parrot and trying to imagine how the parrot (IN GENERAL) could have ever came from some sea whatever..ok?

Dude, whoa!

[Blake]

^ spiritually enlightened prison guard

[spurraider21]

I and you already knows what science requires, that was also established in earlier posts.
So you do not have to belabr that issue.

You are clearly avoiding the issue now, and that is that you have faith in something, without any evidence of your own that you can produce.
That is the issue. I could care less if it were God, science, fruitcakes, or lugwrenches.
What "proof" do you have?
None.
Thus you are relying on your "faith" that someone somewhere actually does have it.
i'm not avoiding any issue. you keep telling me science has no evidence or proof, when science is entirely based on evidence and observation. you keep trying to mash a square peg into a round hole

[RD2191]

you, like robdiaz, do not have an understanding of the theory of evolution.

your idea of evolution is that one day a fish laid an egg and a lizard magically hatched. or one day an ape gave birth and a human emerged.

it doens't go ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-human!

nobody ever claimed such
you keep saying the same thing

[Avante]

you, like robdiaz, do not have an understanding of the theory of evolution.

your idea of evolution is that one day a fish laid an egg and a lizard magically hatched. or one day an ape gave birth and a human emerged.

it doens't go ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-ape-human!

nobody ever claimed such

Key word....theory.

[spurraider21]

you keep saying the same thing
as do you. you keep saying "how did a fish become a monkey"

you dont understand evolution and you keep mocking it

[Blake]

you keep saying the same thing

lol magic

[xmas1997]

Sorry Charlie,


it is all too fuckin true and fuckin' hilarious:




I normally avoid laying out my personal stuff on the internets, but hell, I'm reeling so much right now, I'm asking everyone/anyone in sight what to do.

I had some nukes dropped on me this past week regarding the wife, which after looking back the past 1-2 years I should have seen it and I realize I am a fucking idiot. I've mulled over everything a billion times and there's no where to go but to get a divorce.

I have a 7 year old and some have already told me I need to go all out to get full custody. Any other practical advice? Step 1? Step 2?

Fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

:depressed







:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

Pretty much says it all.
Probably the only time in his pathetic life he ever told the absolute truth, about himself, his situation, and his existence.

[spurraider21]

Key word....theory.
theory in the realm of science is different than theory in the colloquial sense.

in everyday life, we see gravity as fact. in science, gravity is theory.

[Blake]

Key word....theory.

smh lol

[Blake]

Pretty much says it all.
Probably the only time in his pathetic life he ever told the absolute truth, about himself, his situation, and his existence.

^ troll

[spurraider21]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method), and repeatedly confirmed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility) through observation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation) and experimentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimentation)

Theory is a contemplative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemplation) and rational (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason) type of abstract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction) or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking

[xmas1997]

as do you. you keep saying "how did a fish become a monkey"

you dont understand evolution and you keep mocking it

And you don't understand you, blake, and others have "faith" (belief without evidence) in something, as much as Rob or I do.

[spurraider21]

And you don't understand you, blake, and others have "faith" (belief without evidence) in something, as much as Rob or I do.
this is a false statement yet again. liar

[xmas1997]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method), and repeatedly confirmed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility) through observation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation) and experimentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimentation)

Theory is a contemplative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemplation) and rational (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason) type of abstract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction) or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking

This is true about science.

BUT IT IS NOT TRUE ABOUT YOU.

You accept it on faith.

[spurraider21]

This is true about science.

BUT IT IS NOT TRUE ABOUT YOU.

You accept it on faith.
not at all. you are a liar

[xmas1997]

this is a false statement yet again. liar

Oh really, then you do not believe in science?

[Chinook]

It's a non answer because it stops short. You prefaced your diesm statement by saying you only believe what science has discovered to be likely true, yet you believe in a god and science hasn't touched that one.

Not true. I said (and have said numerous times) that I believe in no other causal chain other than the one science is trying to piece to getting. That doesn't mean all by beliefs are governed by scientists. I make plenty of evaluations based solely on my experiences. Like if I believe my neighbor to be a jerk, it's not because I've done the tests and run the numbers. Beliefs are simply ways we paint the world based on our experiences. They're working theories we have about things that allow us to live life.

The idea that withholding belief is possible and especially that it's prudent doesn't jive with me. You can't do science without initial belief. If you have to belief about the beginning of existence, it's because you either haven't thought about it or are resisting doing so. And that's fine. But you'll never learn that way.


Why are you going back "before" time. Don't you realize that's a nonsensical concept?

Why do you need to consider that the Big Bang ends halfway through a cycle? Do you think time was linear during the Big Bang? It's not like you had space, and then a singularity, and then the BB happened. It's like the Big Bang happened. There's no "and then". I realize it's difficult to wrap your mind around it, but we are not programmers of the universe and we cannot view it from a remote perspective though we pretend we can. Our thoughts are time based, we cannot think of anything that isn't also time based (except concepts).

You make it sound like the actual beginning is well understood and supported it's not. The time after the Bang are, but there are many competing theories about the first instants. I've seen proposals that an atom-sized particle containing all the mass and energy in the universe showed up moments before the bang. If that's the case, then there was time before. For all we know, that particle of universe was sitting out there for ages, condensing until the forces became too coiled up for gravity to hold it down any longer. There's a ton of speculation about those first instants, and I wouldn't feel confident in making any strong assertions about them if I fancied myself a conservative intellectual.



So you believe in Newtonian time? Time is absolutely a gap between events. Otherwise, I'd like to see you describe it without using events. I'd like to see even a concept of an eventless time existence.

It can just be the duration something exists. I know you may call the beginning and end of something events. But I don't think that's accurate. Space is only measurable as the distance between objects, but objects themselves take up space. To say the start and stop of an event are separate events is like saying extreme of an object is actually a separate object.

Things exist in time just like they do in space. They exist because they take up a certain number of moments the same way they take up a certain number of atoms. Just because we perceive time in a negative sense (gaps) doesn't mean that's all it is.

[Chinook]

Not really. The god of the gaps is how theists tend to regress their god back into the shadows of the unknown as science reveals the previously unknown, that was attributed to god. It's how the church recognized evolution only after it was irrefutable, and accredited it to god whereas before it was against the concept of a god.

In the OT God was in the skies, Satan was in the ground. In the NT Jesus ascended to heaven but only after he descended into hell. Now that we know what's inside the Earth and what's above the planet, God suddenly exists in a different realm, as does Satan. The supernatural always regresses back to the shadows of the unknown. They must, else they go poof.

Well that's what you get with religion (and any other type of static world-view). Thanks for the clarification.

I don't see what I'm saying to be in that same vein. That certainly seems to be a, "How can science explain this?" type of argument. In that regard, it's a horrible failed scientific argument. However, my argument is more philosophical than scientific. It won't ever be testable empirically. So it's just a battle of reasoning until people start attributing unnecessarily qualities to god like location, intelligence, mortal status, morality.

[Chinook]

how about David Hume?

Just curious, what do you think of the way he craps all over your watch maker belief?

I enjoyed reading Hume when I was in school. A lot of the critique I'm giving to your understanding of logic comes from the work he and other empiricists did. I'm curious to see exactly what critique he gave to my belief. I don't want to answer generically when he may have actually said something interesting.

[Chinook]

On what basis do you say the "prime mover would probably be sentient"? How do you know?

I argued that for there to really be a causeless effect, it would probably need to be the result of sentience. I mean sentience in the ideal sense (the sense which we like to think of ourselves having), not in our sense where it's just an effect. As you said, wind does not choose to blow dust. It just does due to it being an effect of temperature differences, and so on. The closest thing we see to uncaused effects are the decisions made by sentient creatures.

I say "probably," because I'm not asserting it to be an inevitability. I'm willing to accept being wrong readily as soon as I see why I would be. I don't know. I also don't believe it to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that's the working theory I'm running with until/unless it runs aground.

[Avante]

theory in the realm of science is different than theory in the colloquial sense.

in everyday life, we see gravity as fact. in science, gravity is theory.

The theory of gravity, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do I really need to send you to a ton of places totally ripping the ..theory..of evolution to shreds?

[silverblk mystix]

Pretty much says it all.
Probably the only time in his pathetic life he ever told the absolute truth, about himself, his situation, and his existence.




:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin


And it bit him in the ass and destroyed his trolling forever - no one can ever take him seriously again.

[spurraider21]

Oh really, then you do not believe in science?
yes. that is different than having faith though

[Avante]

We used to take salt tablets at football practice, so what happened?

Why hasn't anyone typed.....All those things science got wrong...?

[spurraider21]

The theory of gravity, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!
why is that funny?

[xmas1997]

i'm not avoiding any issue. you keep telling me science has no evidence or proof, when science is entirely based on evidence and observation. you keep trying to mash a square peg into a round hole

That is an obvious ad hominem statement.
I never said any of that about "science".
Go reread the posts if you do not believe me.
Or I can quote them next time to prove it to you.

I SAID IT ABOUT YOU, not science.
Get it right.

[Chinook]

science and faith are unrelated. science fundamentally requires evidence and observation, whereas faith by definition does not deal with evidence in the slightest

I think that's inaccurate and is a view that actually damages the good work science does. Science is faith-based, because it is ultimately unprovable. Science deals with beliefs, which is why it can change. Mathematical relations don't change; only our understanding of them do. So math isn't faith-based. Logical principles aren't faith-based. Science is.

But not all faith is equally well-founded. That's why we set up empiricist conventions through which we can decide which things we should take on faith and which things we shouldn't. Even if that wasn't true, you probably don't test everything you believe to be true yourself. So you certainly take at least some things on faith.

[spurraider21]

That is an obvious ad hominem statement.
ad hominum means im arguing to appeal to emotion rather than reason. i have done no such thing

I never said any of that about "science".
Go reread the posts if you do not believe me.
Or I can quote them next time to prove it to you.

I SAID IT ABOUT YOU, not science.
Get it right.
any scientific equation is verifiable. any scientific observation is verifiable. all experimental methods are divulged to the final letter. there isn't any secrecy. the evidence is there to see for anybody who is interested.

when maxwell's equations came about, its not as though clark maxwell said "hey i have some equations about electronics and magnetism. they're correct, just trust me."
no. everything in science is peer reviewed and goes through harsh skepticism, investigation, and criticism before being accepted

[spurraider21]

I think that's inaccurate and is a view that actually damages the good work science does. Science is faith-based, because it is ultimately unprovable. Science deals with beliefs, which is why it can change. Mathematical relations don't change; only our understanding of them do. So math isn't faith-based. Logical principles aren't faith-based. Science is.

But not all faith is equally well-founded. That's why we set up empiricist conventions through which we can decide which things we should take on faith and which things we shouldn't. Even if that wasn't true, you probably don't test everything you believe to be true yourself. So you certainly take at least some things on faith.
faith implies the belief of something without evidence. this does not hold true for what is considered to be scientific.

belief in something because evidence suggests it is very different than faith. this is not to say everything that science has ever "found" has been proven too be true and accurate. you could have plenty of evidence and still be wrong. but evidence/observation is a requisite for science, not an option. this is why i do not confuse it with faith

[Chinook]

faith implies the belief of something without evidence. this does not hold true for what is considered to be scientific.

Where did you get that implication from? That's like saying atheists believe there is not possibility that a god can exist. And anyway, "evidence" itself is murky. According to Xmas, he has a ton of internal evidence to hold his theistic belief.

[xmas1997]

yes. that is different than having faith though

No, it isn't.
What proof do YOU have, what evidence do YOU have.

YOU do not have any? No. But science does.
But You are not science. You are you, and science is science.

So you are dependent on what you believe of what science is telling you, yet you possess no evidence other than someone else' word.
You don't do any experiments, you don't posit theories, you don't do any of the work involved at all except for "listening" to someone else or "reading about" someone else' work.
So you are taking their word for things and relying on faith they are right.

[spurraider21]

Where did you get that implication from? That's like saying atheists believe there is not possibility that a god can exist. And anyway, "evidence" itself is murky. According to Xmas, he has a ton of internal evidence to hold his theistic belief.
Faith is confidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence) or trust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(social_sciences)) in a person, thing, deity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity), view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion). It can also be defined as belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief) that is not based on proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth))

i guess i'm just going with the latter part

[spurraider21]

No, it isn't.
What proof do YOU have, what evidence do YOU have.

YOU do not have any? No. But science does.
But You are not science. You are you, and science is science.

So you are dependent on what you believe of what science is telling you, yet you possess no evidence other than someone else' word.
You don't do any experiments, you don't posit theories, you don't do any of the work involved at all except for "listening" to someone else or "reading about" someone else' work.
So you are taking their word for things and relying on faith they are right.
i can look at the fossil records. i can look at the derivations that led to such equations/formulas. although pretty menial, i have conducted experiments in labs that reflect or verify scientific teachings.

[Blake]

I enjoyed reading Hume when I was in school. A lot of the critique I'm giving to your understanding of logic comes from the work he and other empiricists did. I'm curious to see exactly what critique he gave to my belief. I don't want to answer generically when he may have actually said something interesting.

Basics of what he said about it are on wikipedia, iirc.

I'll post later

[Chinook]

No, it isn't.
What proof do YOU have, what evidence do YOU have.

YOU do not have any? No. But science does.
But You are not science. You are you, and science is science.

So you are dependent on what you believe of what science is telling you, yet you possess no evidence other than someone else' word.
You don't do any experiments, you don't posit theories, you don't do any of the work involved at all except for "listening" to someone else or "reading about" someone else' work.
So you are taking their word for things and relying on faith they are right.

I get where you're coming from (besides anthropomorphizing science) . Epistemology is a hard thing for folks to grasp. People like thinking they know things, when really, we take almost everything on faith, both classically and directly. There's very little ironclad in all this, which is why anyone professing their beliefs to be absolute truth lacks perspective.

[xmas1997]

faith implies the belief of something without evidence. this does not hold true for what is considered to be scientific.

belief in something because evidence suggests it is very different than faith. this is not to say everything that science has ever "found" has been proven too be true and accurate. you could have plenty of evidence and still be wrong. but evidence/observation is a requisite for science, not an option. this is why i do not confuse it with faith

No one here is confusing science with faith.
They are separate issues and subjects.

I am saying that YOU have faith. And that "faith" is in science, or faith in someone who taught you science.

[Chinook]

Basics of what he said about it are on wikipedia, iirc.

I'll post later

Okay. What I loved about Hume in school was that his writings where a lot less ornate than his predecessors. It was much easier to understand what he wrote than Descartes or Locke. Looking forward to seeing more of his work.

[xmas1997]

I get where you're coming from (besides anthropomorphizing science) . Epistemology is a hard thing for folks to grasp. People like thinking they know things, when really, we take almost everything on faith, both classically and directly. There's very little ironclad in all this, which is why anyone professing their beliefs to be absolute truth lacks perspective.

Thanks.

[Blake]

I think that's inaccurate and is a view that actually damages the good work science does. Science is faith-based, because it is ultimately unprovable. Science deals with beliefs, which is why it can change. Mathematical relations don't change; only our understanding of them do. So math isn't faith-based. Logical principles aren't faith-based. Science is.

But not all faith is equally well-founded. That's why we set up empiricist conventions through which we can decide which things we should take on faith and which things we shouldn't. Even if that wasn't true, you probably don't test everything you believe to be true yourself. So you certainly take at least some things on faith.

It's not illogical to hold that type of faith in science.

It is illogical to have faith in something completely unobservable or untestable.

[Avante]

why is that funny?

It's become the Law of Gravity.

I cannot believe all the totally..DUH!...I see here. Hell. look at how things have changed in the last 100 years. Yet, a 100 years ago they thought they knew, hahaha!!!!!!!! As we can see, no they didn't.

[spurraider21]

belief and faith are different things, particularly with the definition of faith that i use

[xmas1997]

belief and faith are different things, particularly with the definition of faith that i use

How so

[Avante]

belief and faith are different things, particularly with the definition of faith that i use

I pity those with in faith in anything, why would anyone want to live like that?

[spurraider21]

It's become the Law of Gravity.
i cant discuss science with somebody who doesn't understand it

[xmas1997]

It's not illogical to hold that type of faith in science.

It is illogical to have faith in something completely unobservable or untestable.

Says who?
You?
No dictionary or encyclopaedia makes that distinction.

[Chinook]

Faith is confidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence) or trust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(social_sciences)) in a person, thing, deity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity), view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion). It can also be defined as belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief) that is not based on proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth))

i guess i'm just going with the latter part

It still describes science. Evidence is not proof. Real proof is infallible. Evidence just suggests things. The only things provable in the world are relations of ideas (not even the ideas themselves). That's why math has proofs, while science has confidence intervals. That's not a huge thing when going about regular life, but it's kind of a big distinction when having an epistemlogical argument with someone.

[RandomGuy]

I argued that for there to really be a causeless effect, it would probably need to be the result of sentience. I mean sentience in the ideal sense (the sense which we like to think of ourselves having), not in our sense where it's just an effect. As you said, wind does not choose to blow dust. It just does due to it being an effect of temperature differences, and so on. The closest thing we see to uncaused effects are the decisions made by sentient creatures.

I say "probably," because I'm not asserting it to be an inevitability. I'm willing to accept being wrong readily as soon as I see why I would be. I don't know. I also don't believe it to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that's the working theory I'm running with until/unless it runs aground.

An argument from ignorance fallacy then.

Respectfully, as long as you are comfortable believing in a theory without any evidence, I guess that is your prerogative.

Such a theory still has the infinite regression problem. At some point, there must be an unsentient cause, if you want to follow that line of reasoning to its conclusion.

[spurraider21]

How so
belief is acceptance that a statement is true

faith is belief that is not based on proof

[Chinook]

It's not illogical to hold that type of faith in science.

It is illogical to have faith in something completely unobservable or untestable.

I said nothing about logic. Is this just going to be a thing in our future exchanges?

[xmas1997]

i cant discuss science with somebody who doesn't understand it

Oh, you are running from it now, because you know you are wrong.
That is okay.
I can easily say I have faith in science, to a degree.
Because I am accepting someone else' word for it that science has evidence, even though I have no evidence of my own.
Own it, you have faith in something, and in this instance it just happens to be science.
You could easily say you have faith in motherhood even though you do not have evidence of it in hand.

[RandomGuy]

Let's try this:

Faith can be distinguished from earned trust.

Science has earned my trust because it tests theories, makes predictions about evidence, and can explain available evidence. These explanations are then subjected to review, and test results are ideally reproducible for verification.

It does not take faith to trust a process that you can discover and do for yourself.

Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have a good reason to believe something.

[Avante]

i cant discuss science with somebody who doesn't understand it

I totally agree, is there anything you do know about?

[spurraider21]

Oh, you are running from it now, because you know you are wrong.
That is okay.
I can easily say I have faith in science, to a degree.
Because I am accepting someone else' word for it that science has evidence, even though I have no evidence of my own.
Own it, you have faith in something, and in this instance it just happens to be science.
You could easily say you have faith in motherhood even though you do not have evidence of it in hand.
no. i'm not running. avante asserted that the theory of gravity has since become the law of gravity. he does not have an understanding of science. newton's laws of gravity exist, and have existed since newton first published them. his laws of gravity are expressed with formulas and equations. the theory of gravity is a different entity which is an attempted explanation of the phenomenon of gravity

[Avante]

Let's try this:

Faith can be distinguished from earned trust.

Science has earned my trust because it tests theories, makes predictions about evidence, and can explain available evidence. These explanations are then subjected to review, and test results are ideally reproducible for verification.

It does not take faith to trust a process that you can discover and do for yourself.

Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have a good reason to believe something.

Then ya look at how many times science got it wrong and what's left?

[xmas1997]

belief is acceptance that a statement is true

faith is belief that is not based on proof

Exactly, I agree.
Thus you have faith.
Why?
Because you do not have any proof.
Pay close attention: the person know as spurraider has faith, simply because he does not have any proof, yet still believes even without that proof in his possession, that something else is true.
The person

[RD2191]

as do you. you keep saying "how did a fish become a monkey"

you dont understand evolution and you keep mocking it
You're just being dishonest now. I have already shown that I have at least a basic understanding on evolution.

[RandomGuy]

He didn't. I don't think he commented on it. As far as I know most slaves were captives of wars and such. Even the Israelites were slaves at one point.

So, slavery is moral then?



If you wanna talk about morals you must first admit that humans are not animals and therefore did not evolve from an ape. Otherwise shut the fuck up.


You are the one saying the bible has all the answers. Surely your expert scholarship has introduced you to the topic.

I would not care to admit to anything I didn't think was true any more than you would.

Is slavery moral or not?


Let's see how long it will take to answer this one. Took about four days and five times to finally find a bullshit excuse that amounted to "but that was before Jesus".

I guess I can shrug off that much for now, but that still doesn't leave bible God off the hook for being evil psychopath.

Jesus thought slavery was perfectly fine, as far as I could tell, as long as you didn't kill your slaves.


Still waiting on this one.

[spurraider21]

I totally agree, is there anything you do know about?
please, enlighten me as to your scientific educational history... high school physics?

[spurraider21]

Exactly, I agree.
Thus you have faith.
Why?
Because you do not have any proof.
Pay close attention: the person know as spurraider has faith, simply because he does not have any proof, yet still believes even without that proof in his possession, that something else is true.
The person
what proof or evidence are you referring to?

[spurraider21]

You're just being dishonest now. I have aleady shown that I have at least a basic understanding on evolution.
no, you haven't. "how did a fish become an ape" or "lol when did a chimp become a human" or any sort of "when did x become y LOL" while spamming pictures is not demonstrating an understanding of evolution

[xmas1997]

Here is a scientific fact proven false:
Static universe: Prior to the observations made by astronomer Edwin Hubble during 1920s, scientists believed the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Hubble found that distant objects in the universe were moving more quickly away than nearby ones. Very recently, in 1999, scientists unexpectedly found that not only was the universe expanding, but its expansion was accelerating.

[RandomGuy]

You're just being dishonest now. I have already shown that I have at least a basic understanding on evolution.

Then explain atavisms without evolution.

[RD2191]

no, you haven't. "how did a fish become an ape" or "lol when did a chimp become a human" or any sort of "when did x become y LOL" while spamming pictures is not demonstrating an understanding of evolution
tf outa here. successful mutations, no purpose, random, blah blah blah.

[Chinook]

An argument from ignorance fallacy then.

Respectfully, as long as you are comfortable believing in a theory without any evidence, I guess that is your prerogative.

Such a theory still has the infinite regression problem. At some point, there must be an unsentient cause, if you want to follow that line of reasoning to its conclusion.

We can obviously agree to disagree. I do think it makes sense to take what one thinks to be the most reasonable stance on a question and look for a reason reject that stance. I don't see it as merely saying, "God exists because you can't prove he doesn't." I see it as more, "I believe god most likely exists because I find it to be the most reasonable explanation for the following reasons, but I am willing to amend that view if a better explanation comes along." I'd rather it be characterized as a "God of Gaps," argument than an "Argument From Ignorance", although I disagree with both evaluations.

[spurraider21]

Here is a scientific fact proven false:
Static universe: Prior to the observations made by astronomer Edwin Hubble during 1920s, scientists believed the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Hubble found that distant objects in the universe were moving more quickly away than nearby ones. Very recently, in 1999, scientists unexpectedly found that not only was the universe expanding, but its expansion was accelerating.
which fact was proven false? nowhere did they claim the static universe was fact

[xmas1997]

what proof or evidence are you referring to?

I don't think you, spurraider, has any proof whatsoever, thus you are relying on your faith that someone somewhere out there does have the proof or evidence, however you yourself do not.

[Avante]

please, enlighten me as to your scientific educational history... high school physics?

I had that and a couple classes at COS. I came away thinking that if science has it already all figured out then why do we still have sientists?

Trust me 100 years from now a lot of what science says today will be inaccurate just like it was 100 years ago.

[spurraider21]

tf outa here. successful mutations, no purpose, random, blah blah blah.
do you understand that it doesn't go something like fish-fish-fish-fish-fish-lizard-lizard-lizard-mouse-mouse-mouse-mouse-small monkey-small monkey-small monkey-chimp-chimp-chimp-chimp-human-human, etc...

there is no "generation x" where suddenly you get new species. at least not according to the theory of evolution

[spurraider21]

I don't think you, spurraider, has any proof whatsoever, thus you are relying on your faith that someone somewhere out there does have the proof or evidence, however you yourself do not.
specifically. what don't i have proof or evidence in?

[RD2191]

do you understand that it doesn't go something like fish-fish-fish-fish-fish-lizard-lizard-lizard-mouse-mouse-mouse-mouse-small monkey-small monkey-small monkey-chimp-chimp-chimp-chimp-human-human, etc...

there is no "generation x" where suddenly you get new species. at least not according to the theory of evolution
Sure it does, and that's what it teaches.

[RandomGuy]

You're just being dishonest now. I have already shown that I have at least a basic understanding on evolution.

You don't. You repeatedly say things about it that are provably false.
Your understanding of evolution is "basic" but gets the science and evidence wrong in many respects.

If you want me to show that, I would be happy to step you through why I say that.

If you really wanted to understand the theory of evolution, you could spend time on a few videos that outline the evidence for the theory of evolution.

More basically, you should first understand what "theory" means in the scientific sense.

[xmas1997]

We can obviously agree to disagree. I do think it makes sense to take what one thinks to be the most reasonable stance on a question and look for a reason reject that stance. I don't see it as merely saying, "God exists because you can't prove he doesn't." I see it as more, "I believe god most likely exists because I find it to be the most reasonable explanation for the following reasons, but I am willing to amend that view if a better explanation comes along." I'd rather it be characterized as a "God of Gaps," argument than an "Argument From Ignorance", although I disagree with both evaluations.

I agree with this also, especially the part I put in bold, and most especially the underlined part.

[spurraider21]

I had that and a couple classes at COS. I came away thinking that if science has it already all figured out then why do we still have sientists?

Trust me 100 years from now a lot of what science says today will be inaccurate just like it was 100 years ago.
it doesn't. the greatest moments of science are when they destroy old scientific stances.

[RD2191]

Then explain atavisms without evolution.
:lolThink about what you're asking. If you think hard enough this can be used against evolution.

[spurraider21]

Sure it does, and that's what it teaches.
no. no. and just. no. this is why i say you dont understand the theory of evolution.

[RandomGuy]

tf outa here. successful mutations, no purpose, random, blah blah blah.

Did someone say RANDOM?

Evolution isn't random at all. Mutations are, evolution is not.

[xmas1997]

specifically. what don't i have proof or evidence in?

In this case, anything scientifically proven.
Science has it, but you do not.

[RD2191]

no. no. and just. no. this is why i say you dont understand the theory of evolution.
Explain

[Avante]

it doesn't. the greatest moments of science are when they destroy old scientific stances.

BINGO BANGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So tell us all again about how science has things figured out.

[RandomGuy]

:lolThink about what you're asking. If you think hard enough this can be used against evolution.

Feel free to present an alternative theory about atavisms. The theory of evolution explains this phenomena quite well.

[spurraider21]

BINGO BANGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So tell us all agaun about how science has things figured out.
where did i say that in the first place, so that i can tell you "again"

[RD2191]

Did someone say RANDOM?

Evolution isn't random at all. Mutations are, evolution is not.
:lolWhat is evolution then? Give me your definition.

[RD2191]

Feel free to present an alternative theory about atavisms. The theory of evolution explains this phenomena quite well.
:lmao

[Chinook]

:lolWhat is evolution then? Give me your definition.

Change in the genetic makeup of a population. That's literally what it means.

[Avante]

where did i say that in the first place, so that i can tell you "again"

I could have sworn you were backing what science says about all this.....no you aren't?

[spurraider21]

In this case, anything scientifically proven.
Science has it, but you do not.
i'm asking for a specific example.

Explain
thats a very long explanation. i would recommend a textbook. or if you want later i can search for a source which will at least present the theory to you, whether you agree or not, i think its important you understand what the actual theory is instead of those stupid pictures you copy-paste

[spurraider21]

I could have sworn you were backing what science says about all this.....no you aren't?
i never claimed that science has it all figured out. if you are putting words in my mouth, its a different story

[DMC]

What other gods? Are there other gods out there that you are aware of?

According to your god when he "wrote" the 10 Commandments.. there are.

[RD2191]

"Evolutionarily, traits that have disappeared phenotypically do not necessarily disappear from an organism's DNA. The gene sequence often remains, but is inactive."

"Such an unused gene may remain in the genome for many generations."



:lmao

[RandomGuy]

:lolWhat is evolution then? Give me your definition.

We aren't discussing my understanding, we are discussing yours.

First you have to understand what a theory is.

To you, what is a theory in the scientific sense?

[xmas1997]

Another scienticic fact proven false:

A young Earth: In the mid-1800s many scientists, including Lord Kelvin, believed the Earth to be just 20 million to 40 million years old. It was around that time that geologists such as Charles Lyell began to believe that the Earth was much older, and this conformed to the views of biologists such as Charles Darwin, who needed a much older Earth for evolution to unfold. It wasn’t until the middle of the 20th century that scientists came to the accepted conclusion today that the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old.

[Chinook]

If anyone is really wondering about the progression of things, it goes: mutation, evolution, natural or human selection (or random events like catastrophes), evolution, speciation, evolution ... (repeat thousands of times) Evolution.

[RD2191]

i'm asking for a specific example.

thats a very long explanation. i would recommend a textbook. or if you want later i can search for a source which will at least present the theory to you, whether you agree or not, i think its important you understand what the actual theory is instead of those stupid pictures you copy-paste
Okay so you laugh at me for using a book and now you're recommending a book? Smh.

[spurraider21]

Another scienticic fact proven false:

A young Earth: In the mid-1800s many scientists, including Lord Kelvin, believed the Earth to be just 20 million to 40 million years old. It was around that time that geologists such as Charles Lyell began to believe that the Earth was much older, and this conformed to the views of biologists such as Charles Darwin, who needed a much older Earth for evolution to unfold. It wasn’t until the middle of the 20th century that scientists came to the accepted conclusion today that the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old.
why do you keep saying "fact" proven false, when the segment you copy-pasted says "believed"

[spurraider21]

Okay so you laugh at me for using a book and now you're recommending a book? Smh.
peer reviewed. has an author we can identify. books based on evidence. books who's contents are allowed to changed and do change when proven wrong

[RD2191]

We aren't discussing my understanding, we are discussing yours.

First you have to understand what a theory is.

To you, what is a theory in the scientific sense?
Answer my question. Give me your definition of evolution. It is a simple question.

[spurraider21]

If anyone is really wondering about the progression of things, it goes: mutation, evolution, natural or human selection (or random events like catastrophes), evolution, speciation, evolution ... (repeat thousands of times) Evolution.
you could argue that human selection is still an extension of natural selection

[RD2191]

peer reviewed. has an author we can identify. books based on evidence. books who's contents are allowed to changed and do change when proven wrong
Atheists and their "peer reviewed", you know, the same peers that once thought smoking was beneficial.:lol

[spurraider21]

Atheists and their "peer reviewed", you know, the same peers that once thought smoking was beneficial.:lol
am i atheist? i dont claim that god doesn't exist. and anybody, even a priest, can be part of the "peer review"... if he can back it up and actually refute it

[Chinook]

you could argue that human selection is still an extension of natural selection

Certainly, it makes not difference to the math. Dogs being what humans wanted really helped their fitness. The nice thing about human selection is that it happens a lot faster. So we can see a population of foxes go from wild to tame in the span of one lifetime. Or we can see the radiation of dog breeds occur much faster than the radiation of species.

[RD2191]

am i atheist? i dont claim that god doesn't exist. and anybody, even a priest, can be part of the "peer review"... if he can back it up and actually refute it
No, and I doubt that.

[xmas1997]

According to your god when he "wrote" the 10 Commandments.. there are.

Did He, or did man?
Your implication assumes that God has limitations, which I do not believe by the way, and that He was, is , and will, impart His knowledge strictly from a book, and in this case a particular book.
I believe God probably has many books, why limit Him to one, some of which repeat the same things, others of which impart other knowledge, and that He in no way is limited to merely authoring books, but can and most probably does impart His knowledge in whatever method and medium He so desires.

What you are referring to are not Gods per say, but gods i.e. money, idols, people, etc., anything, or any lifestyle, or anyone, or any concept, other than the One true God.

[RandomGuy]

There are very very few fossils of anything really, especially ape/men or common ancestors or whatever bullshit. Truth is most people just go with it because they're afraid of being made fun of or mocked if they believe anything else. Most people just wanna fit it, even if that means believing in something that has very little evidence.

http://naturalhistory.si.edu/fossil-hall/


From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. With the rapid pace of new discoveries every year, this impressive sample means that even though some early human species are only represented by one or a few fossils, others are represented by thousands of fossils. From them, we can understand things like:

how well adapted an early human species was for walking upright
how well adapted an early human species was for living in hot, tropical habitats or cold, temperate environments
the difference between male and female body size, which correlates to aspects of social behavior
how quickly or slowly children of early human species grew up.


While people used to think that there was a single line of human species, with one evolving after the other in an inevitable march towards modern humans, we now know this is not the case. Like most other mammals, we are part of a large and diverse family tree. Fossil discoveries show that the human family tree has many more branches and deeper roots than we knew about even a couple of decades ago. In fact, the number of branches our evolutionary tree, and also the length of time, has nearly doubled since the famed ‘Lucy’ fossil skeleton was discovered in 1974!



There were periods in the past when three or four early human species lived at the same time, even in the same place. We – Homo sapiens – are now the sole surviving species in this once diverse family tree.



While the existence of a human evolutionary family tree is not in question, its size and shape - the number of branches representing different genera and species, and the connections among them – are much debated by researchers and further confounded by a fossil record that only offers fragmented look at the ancient past. The debates are sometimes perceived as uncertainty about evolution, but that is far from the case. The debates concern the precise evolutionary relationships - essentially, ‘who is related to whom, and how.’ Click here to explore information about different early human species.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/default/files/imagecache/medium_banner/images/banner/STS5_Fishhoek_Sangiran_halfbanner_0.jpg

The evidence grows year by year. Phylogeny, genetics, fossils, physics, geology, hell, even astronomy.

All weave together to form a pretty coherent picture.

The only way to say there is no evidence is not to read any of it.

[RandomGuy]

Answer my question. Give me your definition of evolution. It is a simple question.




He didn't. I don't think he commented on it. As far as I know most slaves were captives of wars and such. Even the Israelites were slaves at one point.

So, slavery is moral then?



If you wanna talk about morals you must first admit that humans are not animals and therefore did not evolve from an ape. Otherwise shut the fuck up.


You are the one saying the bible has all the answers. Surely your expert scholarship has introduced you to the topic.

I would not care to admit to anything I didn't think was true any more than you would.

Is slavery moral or not?


Let's see how long it will take to answer this one. Took about four days and five times to finally find an excuse that amounted to "but that was before Jesus".

I guess I can shrug off that much, but that still doesn't leave bible God off the hook for being evil psychopath.

Jesus thought slavery was perfectly fine, as far as I could tell, as long as you didn't kill your slaves.

Maybe I will answer your simple question, maybe I won't.

http://uploads.neatorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/quidProQuo.png

Is slavery moral in your bible based moral system?

[RandomGuy]

Atheists and their "peer reviewed", you know, the same peers that once thought smoking was beneficial.:lol

Funny you should mention that.

IT is rather a good example of how peer review quickly weeds out bad ideas.

Why has evolution been around so long?

If the evidence were so thin, surely we would have noticed.

[Chinook]

People should understand that evolution wasn't something that just sprang up one day. It took years (and years) of vetting for it to become the leading scientific theory. It still gets vetted everyday. But we're not going to stop teaching it just because people disagree. There needs to be strong evidence against evolution, not just some guy trying to poke holes in it.

EDIT: Got RG'd.

[xmas1997]

am i atheist? i dont claim that god doesn't exist. and anybody, even a priest, can be part of the "peer review"... if he can back it up and actually refute it

So then you actually do agree you have "faith" in something?

[DMC]

Not true. I said (and have said numerous times) that I believe in no other causal chain other than the one science is trying to piece to getting. That doesn't mean all by beliefs are governed by scientists. I make plenty of evaluations based solely on my experiences. Like if I believe my neighbor to be a jerk, it's not because I've done the tests and run the numbers. Beliefs are simply ways we paint the world based on our experiences. They're working theories we have about things that allow us to live life.

But do you believe he's a jerk because there's an invisible man whispering into his ear? You're disregarding the difference between a god claim and a "jerk" claim. I can believe your neighbor is a jerk and don't even need to know him. I cannot believe there's an invisible man whispering in his ear. That doesn't mean I could never believe it, but you'd need more evidence to overcome the bullshit factor. These seem like self-evident concepts that you already latch onto with other things, just not with the god thing.


The idea that withholding belief is possible and especially that it's prudent doesn't jive with me. You can't do science without initial belief. If you have to belief about the beginning of existence, it's because you either haven't thought about it or are resisting doing so. And that's fine. But you'll never learn that way.

I never mentioned withholding belief. You make it sound as if I should believe, and I could believe, but I refuse to. You didn't answer the question on whether you could choose to believe the Earth doesn't exist, or are you withholding belief?


You make it sound like the actual beginning is well understood and supported it's not.

That takes us even further from the god answer though.


The time after the Bang are, but there are many competing theories about the first instants. God isn't one of them though.

I've seen proposals that an atom-sized particle containing all the mass and energy in the universe showed up moments before the bang. Moments before the 1st event? How is that possible? That creates a paradox. Hawking says it's pointless to go back prior to the Big Bang because it's unknowable. At singularity, the laws of physics as we know them cease to exist, so there's no reason why you should apply them before the initial event.


If that's the case, then there was time before. For all we know, that particle of universe was sitting out there for ages, condensing until the forces became too coiled up for gravity to hold it down any longer. There's a ton of speculation about those first instants, and I wouldn't feel confident in making any strong assertions about them if I fancied myself a conservative intellectual.

What is it about time and the Big Bang don't you get? Beginning of time means there couldn't have been "ages" before it, and no "before" it either. The term "before" implies a time before, but to say time before time is nonsensical.


It can just be the duration something exists. I know you may call the beginning and end of something events. But I don't think that's accurate. Space is only measurable as the distance between objects, but objects themselves take up space. To say the start and stop of an event are separate events is like saying extreme of an object is actually a separate object.

The "exists" part has an event to begin existing and an event to end existing. Those are two reference points and between those time is measured.


Things exist in time just like they do in space. They exist because they take up a certain number of moments the same way they take up a certain number of atoms. Just because we perceive time in a negative sense (gaps) doesn't mean that's all it is.
That doesn't make any sense to me. It's not science.

[RandomGuy]

Answer my question. Give me your definition of evolution. It is a simple question.

But, hell, since I value intellectual honesty:

"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

This seems workable enough.

I would put it into my own words as "the process through which species change and diversify over time".

[DMC]

Did He, or did man?
Your implication assumes that God has limitations, which I do not believe by the way, and that He was, is , and will, impart His knowledge strictly from a book, and in this case a particular book.
I believe God probably has many books, why limit Him to one, some of which repeat the same things, others of which impart other knowledge, and that He in no way is limited to merely authoring books, but can and most probably does impart His knowledge in whatever method and medium He so desires.

What you are referring to are not Gods per say, but gods i.e. money, idols, people, etc., anything, or any lifestyle, or anyone, or any concept, other than the One true God.

Put you, Mouse, Avante and Bob together and you couldn't get a single cogent thought in years of offerings.

[RD2191]

People should understand that evolution wasn't something that just sprang up one day. It took years (and years) of vetting for it to become the leading scientific theory. It still gets vetted everyday. But we're not going to stop teaching it just because people disagree. There needs to be strong evidence against evolution, not just some guy trying to poke holes in it.

EDIT: Got RG'd.
Why teach something that isn't true? All it is is assumptions.

[xmas1997]

But, hell, since I value intellectual honesty:

"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

This seems workable enough.

I would put it into my own words as "the process through which species change and diversify over time".


Put you, Mouse, Avante and Bob together and you couldn't get a single cogent thought in years of offerings.

Then it can be logically assumed that you two along with spurraider all have "faith" (1. confidence or trust in a person or thing, 2. belief that is not based on proof) in science, even though none of you have any evidence or proof of your own, it is someone else' evidence and proof you are relying on and taking the word for.

[RD2191]

My problem with evolution is that it is taught as an absolute truth. Which is far from the truth. The only reason it is taught as truth is because the other alternative would be God/Creator/ID. Now before someone says well refute evolution people should know that plenty of scientist do and have. Yet the theory is simply expanded or twisted to fit around it. Any scientists that disagrees is quickly mocked/made fun of/labeled an idiot.

[Chinook]

But do you believe he's a jerk because there's an invisible man whispering into his ear? You're disregarding the difference between a god claim and a "jerk" claim. I can believe your neighbor is a jerk and don't even need to know him. I cannot believe there's an invisible man whispering in his ear. That doesn't mean I could never believe it, but you'd need more evidence to overcome the bullshit factor. These seem like self-evident concepts that you already latch onto with other things, just not with the god thing.

The appropriate term is convention. The idea that assertions need to have support to be believed is a convention that we all agree upon, just like parsimony is a convention. Don't assign them power they don't have.


I never mentioned withholding belief. You make it sound as if I should believe, and I could believe, but I refuse to. You didn't answer the question on whether you could choose to believe the Earth doesn't exist, or are you withholding belief?

I didn't? Well, I don't think I could. I think it's possible for someone to be able to if they lack the experience. A belief in the Earth does not have the power Descartes' Cogito has. That said, you most likely aren't compelled to believe a good deal of what you believe, which was kind of my point with the neighbor thing. You can believe that after one meeting with him, even though that's clearly an insufficient sample to be considered strong evidence. We usually call those types of beliefs assumptions, and they are necessary for any form of reasoning.

For a counter question, where do you think the line is between being able to chose to believe something and being compelled to do so?


That takes us even further from the god answer though.
God isn't one of them though.
Moments before the 1st event? How is that possible? That creates a paradox. Hawking says it's pointless to go back prior to the Big Bang because it's unknowable. At singularity, the laws of physics as we know them cease to exist, so there's no reason why you should apply them before the initial event.

What is it about time and the Big Bang don't you get? Beginning of time means there couldn't have been "ages" before it, and no "before" it either. The term "before" implies a time before, but to say time before time is nonsensical.

First off, yeah, god is certainly something people propose for the beginning of the universe. None of these theories has any mathematical support (since there's clearly no empirical support to be found).

What I am saying is that the Big Bang may not have actually been the first event. That's only the first event we know of. While I believe in the causal chain as you do, I don't think that insulates your argument. We know things happened after the Bang, but we don't know for sure that nothing happened before. We have no reason to believe nothing happened before, either. There may have been an atomic bit of matter that appeared before it started to expand. The gap of time between that and the explosion may have been really long.

Essentially, I'm calling BS on you making logical extensions based on theoretical reasoning. The Big Bang is not necessarily defined as the beginning of the universe. It's just known as such. Because there's no necessary equivalency between the two concepts, your extensions lack power. Since there "could" have been matter before the Bang, there "could" be time.


The "exists" part has an event to begin existing and an event to end existing. Those are two reference points and between those time is measured.

Measured. I've consistently conceded that time may only be measurable as a negative, just as space is. But just as a object occupies space, it occupies time. Nothing can simply be a negative.


That doesn't make any sense to me. It's not science.

No, it's not. It's a logical concept. "Matter is extended," is one of the a priori truths.

[Chinook]

Why teach something that isn't true? All it is is assumptions.

You couldn't teach anything besides math, then. You couldn't teach kids out to read, or speak, or eat or anything. None of that is undeniably true.

[RD2191]

You couldn't teach anything besides math, then. You couldn't teach kids out to read, or speak, or eat or anything. None of that is undeniably true.
Weren't you saying math wasn't necessarily an absolute truth either?

[Blake]

I said nothing about logic. Is this just going to be a thing in our future exchanges?

frankly it's the only question I want answered.

"what's the logic in believing in the supernatural?"

[DMC]

My problem with evolution is that it is taught as an absolute truth. Which is far from the truth. The only reason it is taught as truth is because the other alternative would be God/Creator/ID. Now before someone says well refute evolution people should know that plenty of scientist do and have. Yet the theory is simply expanded or twisted to fit around it. Any scientists that disagrees is quickly mocked/made fun of/labeled an idiot.

You have no idea how it's taught. I highly doubt you've ever sat though even a HS biology class without falling to sleep.

[spurraider21]

So then you actually do agree you have "faith" in something?
I haw no clue how you got that inference

[Chinook]

frankly it's the only question I want answered.

"what's the logic in believing in the supernatural?"

It's not like I've dodged it. I've been pretty open with the fact that your question is nonsensical. As far justifications go, that's pretty much been discussed throughout this thread.

[spurraider21]

Weren't you saying math wasn't necessarily an absolute truth either?
yes... thats why he said you couldn't teach anything BESIDES math

[xmas1997]

I haw no clue how you got that inference

Are you saying you don't?

[spurraider21]

My problem with evolution is that it is taught as an absolute truth. Which is far from the truth. The only reason it is taught as truth is because the other alternative would be God/Creator/ID. Now before someone says well refute evolution people should know that plenty of scientist do and have. Yet the theory is simply expanded or twisted to fit around it. Any scientists that disagrees is quickly mocked/made fun of/labeled an idiot.
to refute it is to prove that it is wrong and false. please, do tell. how has evolution been proven to be wrong and false?

[spurraider21]

Are you saying you don't?
i have been adamant that i am not a man of faith

[Chinook]

Weren't you saying math wasn't necessarily an absolute truth either?

I was saying that it's incomplete. Like it can't explain everything. People can also misinterpret it. But what's true in math is undeniably true. That's because it's just different ways of saying "X equals X," which isn't so much taught as it is realized to be self-evident.

[Blake]

It's not like I've dodged it. I've been pretty open with the fact that your question is nonsensical. As far justifications go, that's pretty much been discussed throughout this thread.

you have no empirical evidence to lead you to believe there's a watch maker, yet you do.

Why even bother holding that belief?

[DMC]

The appropriate term is convention. The idea that assertions need to have support to be believed is a convention that we all agree upon, just like parsimony is a convention. Don't assign them power they don't have.

So you choose to address my terminology instead of the point I was making?


I didn't? Well, I don't think I could. I think it's possible for someone to be able to if they lack the experience. A belief in the Earth does not have the power Descartes' Cogito has. That said, you most likely aren't compelled to believe a good deal of what you believe, which was kind of my point with the neighbor thing. You can believe that after one meeting with him, even though that's clearly an insufficient sample to be considered strong evidence. We usually call those types of beliefs assumptions, and they are necessary for any form of reasoning.

Name something you think I believe that I am not compelled to believe. Unless you have a different definition for "believe" than I do, then you're wrong. I consider "believe" to accept that a premise or statement is true. Obviously the more extraordinary the statement the harder to accept it as true.


For a counter question, where do you think the line is between being able to chose to believe something and being compelled to do so?

When a person is presented with evidence for or against a proposition, that person cannot simply go either way on the belief scale based on choice. They might deny their belief, but if you see the murder happen, and the murderer who happens to be your spouse tells you "it wasn't me", can you simply choose to believe it wasn't them? If you can, you are delusional. Sanity and rationality is the line between being able to believe whatever you like and being forced to believe based on evidence presented.


First off, yeah, god is certainly something people propose for the beginning of the universe. None of these theories has any mathematical support (since there's clearly no empirical support to be found).

There's never been a scientific theory put forth that suggests god started the universe. Since you only follow the causal chains supported by science, then that leaves god out of it. People can propose any number of things, but those proposals are not theories and have nothing to do with science if they include the supernatural.


What I am saying is that the Big Bang may not have actually been the first event. That's only the first event we know of. While I believe in the causal chain as you do, I don't think that insulates your argument. We know things happened after the Bang, but we don't know for sure that nothing happened before. We have no reason to believe nothing happened before, either. There may have been an atomic bit of matter that appeared before it started to expand. The gap of time between that and the explosion may have been really long.

You're now using the infinite regression concept again. It doesn't matter what the 1st event was. There either was or or there was not one. Your position thus far has been that there was a 1st event and that an uncaused cause is what initiated it, and that could only happen by a prime mover and you call it god. You cannot just back up another step and overcome the paradox here. If there was not a beginning of time, then there's no need for a god. If there was a beginning of time, there's no time for a god, at least not the one you propose.


Essentially, I'm calling BS on you making logical extensions based on theoretical reasoning. The Big Bang is not necessarily defined as the beginning of the universe. It's just known as such. Because there's no necessary equivalency between the two concepts, your extensions lack power. Since there "could" have been matter before the Bang, there "could" be time.

So it's known as such but not defined as such? How does that work exactly?

Again, it doesn't matter if the BB was or was not the beginning. It only matters if there was a beginning, at least for your argument, which by the way relies heavily on the BB being the 1st event. Without need for a prime mover, there's no need for a god.


Measured. I've consistently conceded that time may only be measurable as a negative, just as space is. But just as a object occupies space, it occupies time. Nothing can simply be a negative.

It doesn't matter whether time is a negative. It exists as a concept and it's measurable between events only. You're using special pleading to suggest new rules for time and space and the initial event. There's no reason to go there. The paradox of time without time is very problematic for your approach. You either needed a god to start the universe or you did not.


No, it's not. It's a logical concept. "Matter is extended," is one of the a priori truths.

Yes I know about that, but what does it have to do with you concluding that a supernatural god created the universe?

[DMC]

It's not like I've dodged it. I've been pretty open with the fact that your question is nonsensical. As far justifications go, that's pretty much been discussed throughout this thread.

The question should be then not how do you justify it, but why does the prime mover need to be considered god, and why just one?

It seems like a huge leap, a melding of religion and science to conclude that, since you cannot figure it out, it must be god.

[Chinook]

you have no empirical evidence to lead you to believe there's a watch maker, yet you do.

Why even bother holding that belief?

Because it best fits what I see.

People like to think that the early humans who invented religion were somehow irrational. They weren't. They applied trends of their beliefs into making a world-view. The same is true for folks who thought the sun rotated about the flat Earth. Ptolemy was just as rational as Copernicus. People have to believe things initially in order to test them. You don't just believe things for which you have sufficient evidence; you prioritize evidence when deciding which belief makes sense.

I believe in the watch-maker theory because it fits in best with the causal chain. I have yet to see a more compelling theory. If I did, I'd be inclined to believe in it. That's what reasonable people do.

[DMC]

Because it best fits what I see.

People like to think that the early humans who invented religion were somehow irrational. They weren't. They applied trends of their beliefs into making a world-view. The same is true for folks who thought the sun rotated about the flat Earth. Ptolemy was just as rational as Copernicus. People have to believe things initially in order to test them. You don't just believe things for which you have sufficient evidence; you prioritize evidence when deciding which belief makes sense.

I believe in the watch-maker theory because it fits in best with the causal chain. I have yet to see a more compelling theory. If I did, I'd be inclined to believe in it. That's what reasonable people do.
How can you know it best fits? That would suppose that a god exists, then you look at all the possibilities including the already existing god and say "it must have been that one".

There's simply not enough time in our lives to dismiss every other more rational explanation where we are left with god as the only answer.

Also, there's a difference between allowing that a proposition might be true and forming a belief that it is. Also, the god answer isn't a theory. It's just a WAG that's unfalsifiable under any conditions. If you cannot live with "I don't know", then you probably were forced to put something in that spot. I don't think that makes you theist.

[Chinook]

The question should be then not how do you justify it, but why does the prime mover need to be considered god, and why just one?

It seems like a huge leap, a melding of religion and science to conclude that, since you cannot figure it out, it must be god.

To believe god created existence, the only thing one must necessarily attribute to god is that he created existence. That's why god must be consider the prime-mover. Obviously, people can believe in a god or gods who didn't create the universe, but that's irrelevant to this topic.

So besides being the PM, nothing else is can be attributed to god by logical extension. Not number, or level of intellect, or goodness, or power. All of those questions are irrelevant.

[DMC]

To believe god created existence, the only thing one must necessarily attribute to god is that he created existence. That's why god must be consider the prime-mover. Obviously, people can believe in a god or gods who didn't create the universe, but that's irrelevant to this topic.

So besides being the PM, nothing else is can be attributed to god by logical extension. Not number, or level of intellect, or goodness, or power. All of those questions are irrelevant.

Why god? Why not a human who could be in another realm affecting this one? Why not any number of magical answers? Why a god?

Without the attributes you describe, how can it be considered a god? Doesn't the term "god" imply something other than prime mover?

[xmas1997]

i have been adamant that i am not a man of faith

How can you not be if you believe science, but do not do science?
You are obviously accepting someone else' word for things, because you do not possess any proof or evidence.
Science does, but you don't.

[DMC]

god noun \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe
: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions
: a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired










Full Definition of GOD1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship;specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3
: a person or thing of supreme value

4
: a powerful ruler

http://www.merriam-webster.com/styles/default/images/reference/external.jpg See god defined for English-language learners » (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/god)

See god defined for kids » (http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=god)

Examples of GOD

Does she believe in God?
I pray to God that no one was seriously injured in the accident.
the gods and goddesses of ancient Egypt
a myth about the god of war
an offering for the gods
a professor who was regarded as a kind of god
a guitar god like Jimi Hendrix



Which of these best defines the god you're referring to as the prime mover?

[RD2191]

Chinook has done answered your questions like 6 different times. Fucking atheists.

[xmas1997]

Chinook has done answered your questions like 6 different times. Fucking atheists.

This is what happens when people want to put limitations on curiosity and imagination solely for the sake of empiricism only. This type of closed mindedness which IMHO defeats the purpose of discovery, should have been eradicated at the end of the dark ages.

[spurraider21]

How can you not be if you believe science, but do not do science?
You are obviously accepting someone else' word for things, because you do not possess any proof or evidence.
Science does, but you don't.
what do you mean that I do not do science?

is it "having faith" to say that world war 2 occurred?

[RD2191]

This is what happens when people want to put limitations on curiosity and imagination solely for the sake of empiricism only. This type of closed mindedness which IMHO defeats the purpose of discovery, should have been eradicated at the end of the dark ages.
The problem with RG, phyzik, and DMC is that they're trying to win a debate that is impossible to win. All of us here know about the theory of evolution, some even believe in it but also believe in a God/Creator. I don't wanna speak for anyone but Chinook is simply saying that to him a Creator is the most reasonable cause for the universe/life. In my case I simply believe science has an agenda and is full of shit just like the theory of evolution. Who knows/ maybe tomorrow new information will be found that changes everything, then again maybe not. But as for now given what we know we believe in a Creator/God.

[Chinook]

So you choose to address my terminology instead of the point I was making?

I addressed it in my response to your next quote. I would have concatenated the quotes, but I thought it was important to clarify.


Name something you think I believe that I am not compelled to believe. Unless you have a different definition for "believe" than I do, then you're wrong. I consider "believe" to accept that a premise or statement is true. Obviously the more extraordinary the statement the harder to accept it as true.

I certainly do have a different definition. I only accept things to be true if they are. The rest, I "believe to be truth", meaning that I consider them to be the working assumptions. That difference would obviously lead to dramatically different extensions. I will go ahead and believe you as a result and withdraw what I said.


There's never been a scientific theory put forth that suggests god started the universe. Since you only follow the causal chains supported by science, then that leaves god out of it. People can propose any number of things, but those proposals are not theories and have nothing to do with science if they include the supernatural.

That's absolutely not true. Have you read any classical or early-modern philosophy? They are full of scientific theories with what they assert to be evidence. Just because you dismiss them doesn't mean that they weren't scientific.

As for the chain, it doesn't leave god out it. It hasn't ruled on god or supplanted his role in creating the universe. Therefore, I'm allowed to believe in him freely while still accepting the chain. There's no conflict.


You're now using the infinite regression concept again. It doesn't matter what the 1st event was. There either was or or there was not one. Your position thus far has been that there was a 1st event and that an uncaused cause is what initiated it, and that could only happen by a prime mover and you call it god. You cannot just back up another step and overcome the paradox here. If there was not a beginning of time, then there's no need for a god. If there was a beginning of time, there's no time for a god, at least not the one you propose.

The reason why it matters is because your argument doesn't have the power you think it does. We don't have a remotely comprehensive theory on how things worked back then, not even the concepts of time or space. We don't even have a "best guess". We only know what happened some time after the Bang.


So it's known as such but not defined as such? How does that work exactly?

Known being in the colloquial sense. The important part was "necessarily". I mean that there's nothing about the Big Bang that means it had to have been the first event. It's not just a code word for the beginning. It was an actual event we can determine estimate with math. That gives it the power of not being speculative, but also denies it the power to logical equivalency.


Again, it doesn't matter if the BB was or was not the beginning. It only matters if there was a beginning, at least for your argument, which by the way relies heavily on the BB being the 1st event. Without need for a prime mover, there's no need for a god.

If you can reasonably argue there wasn't a first event, I'd love to see it. I'm of the assumption that the casual chain will get there eventually.


It doesn't matter whether time is a negative. It exists as a concept and it's measurable between events only. You're using special pleading to suggest new rules for time and space and the initial event. There's no reason to go there. The paradox of time without time is very problematic for your approach. You either needed a god to start the universe or you did not.

Yes I know about that, but what does it have to do with you concluding that a supernatural god created the universe?

It does matter if time is a negative. Negatives are bad for science, hence why the Kelvin scale was invented. Arguing that time is just the gaps between events is like arguing space is just the gaps between objects. You'll go Achilles paradox trying to justify it.

Anyway, the "time without time" isn't all that strong. It would be if we were trying to measure something. But just as time is relative for individuals depending on their speed or what forces get exerted upon them, it is also relative to the universe. Time as we experience it can't exist without our universe, but that doesn't mean that time as a concept can't make sense anywhere else. It should be possible for scientists to one day create their own universes, and they will know of a time before it existed. But that universe would never experience it, since it would have its own time and space.

[Chinook]

Doesn't the term "god" imply something other than prime mover?

Nope. RG and I were talking about whether PM implied other things like sentience. I don't believe it does, but that the PM was likely sentient. "Implication" in logic is a very powerful word.

[Chinook]

Which of these best defines the god you're referring to as the prime mover?

Closest to the second one.


a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people

Both those are still unnecessary extensions. If we found out the universe was planned out and created by some dude named Frank who lives in an apartment one universe over, does that somehow negate theism?

[xmas1997]

what do you mean that I do not do science?


You are not a scientist, is what I mean. I would trust the opinion of a working cosmologist or a molecular physicist over your opinion. They are the evidence gatherers, they are doing the everyday work of science. It is a matter of degrees of involvement.




is it "having faith" to say that world war 2 occurred?

It is if you were not there to know that it happened. If so, you have to take it on faith that it did.

We all take lots of things on "faith" (assuming something to be true although we have no "tangible" proof to show for it) everyday, even though we are passionate about those things we believe and disbelieve.

And we "take things for granted" as being commonly known and shared.

We all "assume" certain things and make certain judgements in order to coexist with each other, just to get along with others in a civilized, constructive, and practical way every day.

Faith (believing something is true without having proof) is just one of the vehicles we use to get through daily life.

[Chinook]

It is if you were not there to know that it happened. If so, you have to take it on faith that it did.

We all take lots of things on "faith" (assuming something to be true although we have no "tangible" proof to show for it) everyday, even though we are passionate about those things we believe and disbelieve.

And we "take things for granted" as being commonly known and shared.

We all "assume" certain things and make certain judgements in order to coexist with each other, just to get along with others in a civilized, constructive, and practical way every day.

Faith (believing something is true without having proof) is just one of the vehicles we use to get through daily life.

Truth, and it's sad that so many people have forgotten that.

[spurraider21]

but there is evidence and proof that World War 2 occurred. its not faith at that point

[RD2191]

but there is evidence and proof that World War 2 occurred. its not faith at that point
What if in 2000 years all the evidence has been destroyed and all that remains is a book with no pictures in it but just words? Then what, how will someone be able to prove that it happened?

[spurraider21]

What if in 2000 years all the evidence has been destroyed and all that remains is a book with no pictures in it but just words? Then what, how will someone be able to prove that it happened?
they wouldn't be able to

[xmas1997]

but there is evidence and proof that World War 2 occurred. its not faith at that point

Sure there is evidence out there. You and I wouldn't believe it if there weren't.

But that is the point. We believe it, despite the fact that we, "ourselves", have no physical proof that it happened, other than we saying it does, we believe it because someone or something told us it was true and that it happened.

We"accept" that person/thing for being an authority on the subject, and thus on "faith" alone we believe that persons'/things' testimony, that it is indeed the truth, that it happened.

Because otherwise we must show tangible evidence in our hands, for it to be solid proof that we "know it to be true".

[spurraider21]

Sure there is evidence out there. You and I wouldn't believe it if there weren't.

But that is the point. We believe it, despite the fact that we, "ourselves", have no physical proof that it happened, other than we saying it does, we believe it because someone or something told us it was true and that it happened.

We"accept" that person/thing for being an authority on the subject, and thus on "faith" alone we believe that persons'/things' testimony, that it is indeed the truth, that it happened.

Because otherwise we must show tangible evidence in our hands, for it to be solid proof that we "know it to be true".
my claim is that belief is not the same as faith. faith is a specific type of belief which does not rely upon evidence or proof

[xmas1997]

my claim is that belief is not the same as faith. faith is a specific type of belief which does not rely upon evidence or proof

Then tell me what you think it is, if it is not trust that something is true?

Because if you trust something is true, even though you do not have proof in your possession that it is true, then you are having "faith" that it is true.

It is beside the point the whereabouts the evidence is if you don't have it, the simple facts are that unless you have them personally, then you are accepting someones or somethings word for it, and that is "second hand knowledge" not "first hand knowledge", because you do not "directly" experience the evidence.

[spurraider21]

Then tell me what you think it is, if it is not trust that something is true true?

Because if you trust something is true, even though you do not have proof in your possession that it is true, then t you are having "faith" that it is true.

It is beside the point the whereabouts the evidence is if you don't have it, the simple facts are that unless you have them personally, then you are accepting someones or somethings word for it, and that is "second hand knowledge" not "first hand knowledge", because you do not "directly" experience the evidence.
if you are going to argue that almost all knowledge is faith then you are distorting what faith really means... is it "faith" to say that a hydrogen atom only has 1 proton? i wouldn't say so

[xmas1997]

if you are going to argue that almost all knowledge is faith then you are distorting what faith really means... is it "faith" to say that a hydrogen atom only has 1 proton? i wouldn't say so

You might not say so, but you provide no proof that it is, you are just "saying" it is.

However if you "believe" that it is, rather than just "think" it is, then you are having "faith" because you have provided no proof other than your word.

I have to have "faith" that you know what you are talking about, that you have the evidence handy in order to prove it, and that I can replicate it myself to prove it further, that is what so far you have not given any tangible proof or evidence of.

I have to accept your word for it, just as you have to accept someone else' word for it. That takes trust, and once you believe, then it is faith.


Belief, is trust that something "most probably exists" and you can get the tangible evidence that it exists when you are required to prove it to be true.

Belief can lead to faith, once that tangible evidence is no longer in your possession, and all you have left to fall back on is your memory of it.

Faith, is trust that something exists, but without tangible proof that it does, and doesn't require that you get the truth in your possession in order to know that it is true..

[xmas1997]

if you are going to argue that almost all knowledge is faith then you are distorting what faith really means... is it "faith" to say that a hydrogen atom only has 1 proton? i wouldn't say so

I am not saying that knowledge is faith.

I am saying that what it takes is the vehicle, faith, in order for you to believe the knowledge to be true when you do not have the evidence to prove that it is.

Thus I am also saying that you have faith that what science says is true because you believe it to be, even though you have no proof that it is.

I believe in science too, but I personally have no evidence to prove that science is true, so it is faith.

We all do this, with just about everything we believe to be true, but have no proof of.

Only those who are actually working in the science fields have the proof, and the rest of us trust they do to the point of believing they do, but for us, it is based on faith, while for the scientists providing the evidence, it rests on their proof.

We have no proof, other than what they tell us to believe, thus we have faith it is true.

I also believe there is God, but I have no evidence to prove God to be true, thus my belief is based on faith too.

[pgardn]

I am not saying that knowledge is faith.

I am saying that what it takes is the vehicle, faith, in order for you to believe the knowledge to be true when you do not have the evidence to prove that it is.

Thus I am also saying that you have faith that what science says is true because you believe it to be, even though you have no proof that it is.

I believe in science too, but I personally have no evidence to prove that science is true, so it is faith.

We all do this, with just about everything we believe to be true, but have no proof of.

Only those who are actually working in the science fields have the proof, and the rest of us trust they do to the point of believing they do, but for us, it is based on faith, while for the scientists providing the evidence, it rests on their proof.

We have no proof, other than what they tell us to believe, thus we have faith it is true.

I also believe there is God, but I have no evidence to prove God to be true, thus my belief is based on faith too.

This is actually some of the most reasonable stuff I have seen you write. Probably why you are one of the few I don't choose to ignore.

I would add that once one learns science, it appeals to common sense. I do not exactly know how to describe why I find it so reasonable. But I do know that I don't necessarily want a hydrogen atom to have 1 proton. I understand the basic reasons why the scientific model says an H atom has one proton. And it makes sense to me. But I have no personal stake in it.

I believe some posters believe the religious folks WANT there to be a God, NEED there to be a God. But the other posters don't NEED for evolution to be true. IF another idea fits the evidence better, they would change their view. This is a really big difference.

There is a perceived personal necessity built into some beliefs. This leads to faulty reasoning imo.

Think about Heaven and Hell. I think it's pretty obvious many people like the most popular idea of what heaven is supposed to be. But not Hell, they don't like it. So they believe in one, and not the other, out of personal necessity. This does not go over well with people who believe reasoning should definitely NOT involve personal necessity. And does not go over well with some who WANT hell for bad people.

It is what it is, in the parlance of our times. For people who reason without needing a destination for where the reasoning might lead them, necessity or wanting something to be because it might make them comfortable is not honest reasoning.

[DMC]

I addressed it in my response to your next quote. I would have concatenated the quotes, but I thought it was important to clarify.



I certainly do have a different definition. I only accept things to be true if they are. The rest, I "believe to be truth", meaning that I consider them to be the working assumptions. That difference would obviously lead to dramatically different extensions. I will go ahead and believe you as a result and withdraw what I said.

The classical definition for belief, and how it's used in theology, is that the believer has faith that something is true. You distance yourself from that by saying you believe only what causal chain science has proven.

I don't accept that there's any real difference between what you accept as fact and what you believe to be fact. Either or both can be wrong. I can allow that there might be dead bodies buried under my home, but I don't believe there is. If someone dug them up and showed them to me, I would believe there was. If I found out later they were brought in from elsewhere and I was duped, I'd have been wrong. I believe there is absolute truth, but I don't think we can actually know it for certain (there will always be room for alternatives) unless it's regarding our own personal feelings.

I am not sure the way you "believe" a god exists is the same as how theists believe a god exists. You allow that a god might not exist, but might have at one point. That to me isn't theism at all.


That's absolutely not true. Have you read any classical or early-modern philosophy? They are full of scientific theories with what they assert to be evidence. Just because you dismiss them doesn't mean that they weren't scientific.

They are not scientific at all, as they did not predict outcomes from experiments and they were not falsifiable. Please show me one scientific theory relating to god. Please also show how a god claim can be falsified.


As for the chain, it doesn't leave god out it. It hasn't ruled on god or supplanted his role in creating the universe. Therefore, I'm allowed to believe in him freely while still accepting the chain. There's no conflict.

Have you ever heard of PSR (Principle for Significant Reason)? Are you using this here for everything except god? You are allowed to do that of course, it's just inconsistent and non sequitur (and employs special pleading). But you are allowed to do it.


Known being in the colloquial sense. The important part was "necessarily". I mean that there's nothing about the Big Bang that means it had to have been the first event. It's not just a code word for the beginning. It was an actual event we can determine estimate with math. That gives it the power of not being speculative, but also denies it the power to logical equivalency.

Again, it doesn't matter what the first event was, time began with the 1st event. There's no different requirement for the big bang than for the sudden appearance of an atom sized whatever. It just moves the problem back one more step.


If you can reasonably argue there wasn't a first event, I'd love to see it. I'm of the assumption that the casual chain will get there eventually.

There is no edge to a circle, no beginning and no end. Like Hawking says, you can walk around the planet without falling off. Your walk will have a beginning and an end but the Earth's surface just goes on and on, back onto itself. That removes the need for a first cause and doesn't employ a magical being to do so. That doesn't make it correct, but I'd consider it before considering a god.


It does matter if time is a negative. Negatives are bad for science, hence why the Kelvin scale was invented. Arguing that time is just the gaps between events is like arguing space is just the gaps between objects. You'll go Achilles paradox trying to justify it.

Gods aren't that great for science either. You violate every scientific principle when you invoke god as the missing piece.


Anyway, the "time without time" isn't all that strong. It would be if we were trying to measure something. But just as time is relative for individuals depending on their speed or what forces get exerted upon them, it is also relative to the universe. Time as we experience it can't exist without our universe, but that doesn't mean that time as a concept can't make sense anywhere else. It should be possible for scientists to one day create their own universes, and they will know of a time before it existed. But that universe would never experience it, since it would have its own time and space.

It doesn't mean a host of other things either, but you have the onus of proof if you wish to make that assertion.

What you're describing is called science fiction. God is the least plausible hypothesis for the fact that the universe exists, if for no other reason than it's the most complicated answer that could possibly exist. If you're going to mentally allow that mini-universes can exist, why can't you find a less complex way around infinite regression? If science can one day create a universe, will scientists one day be gods? Why not just consider an advanced, futuristic scientist created the universe?

[DMC]

I am not saying that knowledge is faith.

I am saying that what it takes is the vehicle, faith, in order for you to believe the knowledge to be true when you do not have the evidence to prove that it is.

Not really. There's also the weight of the outcome. There's no weight to whether or not a stop light in France is working, so if someone says it's not, we don't need faith to believe it. We just need apathy. Where god and eternal life are concerned (face it, without eternal life the god concept is pointless), there is weight so we need more evidence in order to cross over that line, not all of us possess the credulity that others do.


Thus I am also saying that you have faith that what science says is true because you believe it to be, even though you have no proof that it is.

You don't need faith to accept what science says because science polices itself. I don't need to believe what a scientist says is true. People are out there every day trying to disprove the theory of evolution, and I mean scientists. You don't see theists out trying to disprove the Bible. Faith is only required when the story is not otherwise believable, and don't equate faith in the supernatural to faith in a process like science.


I believe in science too, but I personally have no evidence to prove that science is true, so it is faith.

Really? You aren't typing on a computer that uses the electronics that were invented and manufactured using the basic tenets of science? Or is God writing this stuff for you?


We all do this, with just about everything we believe to be true, but have no proof of.

According to you there is proof for nothing. That makes me nervous about going to bed since it might not exist.


Only those who are actually working in the science fields have the proof, and the rest of us trust they do to the point of believing they do, but for us, it is based on faith, while for the scientists providing the evidence, it rests on their proof.

Horseshit. That's an argument from ignorance. The proof is there, all you have to do is stop being lazy and learn how to interpret it.


We have no proof, other than what they tell us to believe, thus we have faith it is true.

They... lol


I also believe there is God, but I have no evidence to prove God to be true, thus my belief is based on faith too.
You're trying to give your faith credibility using tu quoque fallacy.

[spurraider21]

Xmas if I have a degree in science can you include me as part of "they"

[pgardn]

DMC I believe you have a number of interesting takes that I would humbly elaborate on in pieces.

God is the least plausible hypothesis for the fact that the universe exists, if for no other reason than it's the most complicated answer that could possibly exist. If you're going to mentally allow that mini-universes can exist, why can't you find a less complex way around infinite regression?


I would argue it is not even an answer. Invoking the supernatural is giving up on using science as a method, when the method can be very useful. Or you could indeed mean complicated because invoking the supernatural allows individual fanciful explanations which are really not subject to any real testing, therefore lead to useless debate.

[pgardn]

Horseshit. That's an argument from ignorance. The proof is there, all you have to do is stop being lazy and learn how to interpret it.


I have witnessed some debates on evolution in front of large audiences where a eloquent expert in debate can take apart a science type that really does not get science. So you have to be very careful with more complex ideas. I personally feel it is always best to emphasize what science is, and is not.

Then the the debate becomes clear.

I feel science naturally appeals to humans. So anyone can read about it and feel a deeper sense of satisfaction. But when arguing it, there are twisters waiting to use debating techniques that are very disingenuous. Which is probably why some of the science types on this board continue to try to appeal for the reasonableness of science as a way of understanding the universe.

[pgardn]

Xmas if I have a degree in science can you include me as part of "they"

Based on your responses I personally feel you know the ways of science as a method very well.
Not that I really count as a judge. Just my opinion. No one on this board can adequately explain all that science has discovered and modeled. And of course the models can change or are still heavily debated.

[DMC]

DMC I believe you have a number of interesting takes that I would humbly elaborate on in pieces.

God is the least plausible hypothesis for the fact that the universe exists, if for no other reason than it's the most complicated answer that could possibly exist. If you're going to mentally allow that mini-universes can exist, why can't you find a less complex way around infinite regression?


I would argue it is not even an answer. Invoking the supernatural is giving up on using science as a method, when the method can be very useful. Or you could indeed mean complicated because invoking the supernatural allows individual fanciful explanations which are really not subject to any real testing, therefore lead to useless debate.

I see it as having your cake and eating it too. You get to accept what science discovers yet you still have the "because god did it" as the reason.

Consistency would be using god to plug all the holes in science.

Alien life? God
Cure for cancer? God
Time travel? God
Speed of light travel? God
Light particle/wave duality? God


In fact, some seem to think it's progressive to invoke God for things they feel we might not ever know. If you go back 100 years and do that, you'd very well use God as the answer for things we've since figured out without the need for a god. Even just speculating, you don't need to invoke a god. Have you ever taken two mirrors and set them in front of each other and seen the "tunnel" effect? In your mind you realize that it goes on seemingly forever, but it only goes on as far as the light as traveled in that amount of time. Our mind just allows that we can only resolve a portion of it though. Like driving in fog, you see the lines on the highway but you don't see into the distance. You aren't using faith to continue driving, and you aren't invoking that god is creating road as you move forward. You are ok with not seeing it until you get there because you understand the limitations of human senses.

[Chinook]

The classical definition for belief, and how it's used in theology, is that the believer has faith that something is true. You distance yourself from that by saying you believe only what causal chain science has proven.

I don't accept that there's any real difference between what you accept as fact and what you believe to be fact. Either or both can be wrong. I can allow that there might be dead bodies buried under my home, but I don't believe there is. If someone dug them up and showed them to me, I would believe there was. If I found out later they were brought in from elsewhere and I was duped, I'd have been wrong. I believe there is absolute truth, but I don't think we can actually know it for certain (there will always be room for alternatives) unless it's regarding our own personal feelings.

There's quite a big difference between believing something to be true and believing that it's the best explanation given the current information. I actually find it to be a severe logical problem to assert something as true while also allowing that it may be false. In the very least, I don't think it has much power. What it amounts to is a convention (the method by which scientific findings are converted into belief) co-opting of the power of the truth and using it to quash out other ideas. That's exactly what religion has done.


I am not sure the way you "believe" a god exists is the same as how theists believe a god exists. You allow that a god might not exist, but might have at one point. That to me isn't theism at all.

Allowing for things is just how reasonable people operate. I'm a theist because I believe that the existence of a god is the best explanation. I also believe evolution best explains the radiation of life on Earth. Both those beliefs are subject to change with further information. I am not asserting either as truth.


They are not scientific at all, as they did not predict outcomes from experiments and they were not falsifiable. Please show me one scientific theory relating to god. Please also show how a god claim can be falsified.

I'll look to see if I can find one that isn't crack-pot. But you seem to have something of a misunderstanding of a lot of science. A good deal of scientific information does not come from experiments. I haven't seen on experiment to support heliocentricism, for example.


Have you ever heard of PSR (Principle for Significant Reason)? Are you using this here for everything except god? You are allowed to do that of course, it's just inconsistent and non sequitur (and employs special pleading). But you are allowed to do it.

I hadn't heard of it. On its face, it seems reasonable. I can't imagine anyone believing in the causal closure of the physical not also accepting that all effects have a "knowable" cause. Otherwise, it's some voodoo stuff.


Gods aren't that great for science either. You violate every scientific principle when you invoke god as the missing piece.

Moving to this quote, since the rest of the quotes are all pretty much the same argument.

I don't agree with that. Science just doesn't deal with god. Doesn't need to. Will never come into conflict with god based on necessary principles. It can only conflict with extensions of god (both religious ones and the ones I've been asked to attribute in this thread). You have to pick: Either god is a bad answer to science or he's a non-answer.


Again, it doesn't matter what the first event was, time began with the 1st event. There's no different requirement for the big bang than for the sudden appearance of an atom sized whatever. It just moves the problem back one more step.

Technically, time began with the second event, according to you, since you need two events for time to exist. And moving before the Bang does a hell of a lot more than just adding another layer. It's one thing to say that there was this bang and then the universe showed up. It's quite another to say, this random ball just appeared from nowhere and chilled for some undisclosed period of time before going boom. It makes it quite a bit more obvious how little power people have in asserting the Big Bang as a satisfactory explanation for the beginning.


There is no edge to a circle, no beginning and no end. Like Hawking says, you can walk around the planet without falling off. Your walk will have a beginning and an end but the Earth's surface just goes on and on, back onto itself. That removes the need for a first cause and doesn't employ a magical being to do so. That doesn't make it correct, but I'd consider it before considering a god.

It doesn't mean a host of other things either, but you have the onus of proof if you wish to make that assertion.

"A circle has no ends." -- Second Foundation by Isaac Asimov

Anyway, don't confuse Hawking's attempt to rationalize things to himself as a satisfactory explanation or even a competing theory. He's just like me in the sense that he's looking for something that completes his world-view. In reality, the idea that the universe can be cyclical just another turtle, just another step back, as you call it. The only logical way for regression to end is at eternity. Hawking has to argue that the universe in a sense was always there, which does even less work than the idea that an eternal being started the whole thing.


What you're describing is called science fiction. God is the least plausible hypothesis for the fact that the universe exists, if for no other reason than it's the most complicated answer that could possibly exist. If you're going to mentally allow that mini-universes can exist, why can't you find a less complex way around infinite regression? If science can one day create a universe, will scientists one day be gods? Why not just consider an advanced, futuristic scientist created the universe?

There's nothing complicated about supposing a god made the universe. That's why such an idea exists and is/was so prevalent. It made sense to historic humans that some being made the world, since they themselves made things and the Earth itself is just one big thing. It was perfectly reasonable to assume that all things had to be made. That assumption is still a strong one, one that is still undisputed. Strong atheists (ones saying there is definitely no god, not more open-minded ones like yourself) have to argue that this cause and effect chain will eventually amount to a causeless effect, whether that means a first event or the forces which established a loop in the first place. They propose the existence of a unique and special case with neither evidence nor reason on their side. They only have the rejection of the trends we've observed throughout history.

And the term, "mini-universes" is inaccurate. Universes create their own space, and so they theoretically leave our space almost instantly and expand to be much larger. Anyway, from the perspective of that new universe, the scientist are god. From our perspective, they aren't, since they are not our prime movers.

[BacktoBasics]

Think about Heaven and Hell. I think it's pretty obvious many people like the most popular idea of what heaven is supposed to be. But not Hell, they don't like it. So they believe in one, and not the other, out of personal necessity. This does not go over well with people who believe reasoning should definitely NOT involve personal necessity. And does not go over well with some who WANT hell for bad people.

Which really leads down a path that further exposes modern day religion as something built out of emotion rather than evidence or knowledge. In its most basic form early Jesus was an apocalypticist, think early Harold Camping. End times harvest was just around the corner and those that did not sacrifice in the name of god were destined for sacrifice. It was all about savior, nothing personal, no individual gains or rewards. Simple salvation.

Whereas modern day faith is much more about success, happiness and good things will happen to you if you have faith. Savior and sacrifice have been replaced. Now if you follow christ and believe in god you will be rewarded with a good job, great family and happiness.

Nearly a complete about face from early interpretation. Because that's what people need most now. Not to be saved but to have their hopes and dreams fulfilled...all because of God. That inconsistency alone exposes Modern day religion for what it truly is.

[RD2191]

If it makes you guys feel any better, the UN will attack false religion and do away with it.

[DMC]

There's quite a big difference between believing something to be true and believing that it's the best explanation given the current information. I actually find it to be a severe logical problem to assert something as true while also allowing that it may be false. In the very least, I don't think it has much power. What it amounts to is a convention (the method by which scientific findings are converted into belief) co-opting of the power of the truth and using it to quash out other ideas. That's exactly what religion has done.


You and I agree on this. This is why I say you are not theist. You just think it's a decent argument, and that doesn't mean you believe it. It would be like saying you are Christian, because it makes more sense that Christ died for our sins, but you don't necessarily see it as fact. You're toying around with belief.


Allowing for things is just how reasonable people operate. I'm a theist because I believe that the existence of a god is the best explanation. I also believe evolution best explains the radiation of life on Earth. Both those beliefs are subject to change with further information. I am not asserting either as truth.

theist


the·ism [thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

Would you say 2 best describes you? Do you believe the prime mover exists today?


I'll look to see if I can find one that isn't crack-pot. But you seem to have something of a misunderstanding of a lot of science. A good deal of scientific information does not come from experiments. I haven't seen on experiment to support heliocentricism, for example.

However heliocentricism is falsifiable, is it not?


I hadn't heard of it. On its face, it seems reasonable. I can't imagine anyone believing in the causal closure of the physical not also accepting that all effects have a "knowable" cause. Otherwise, it's some voodoo stuff.

Which is why gods are not used as answers in science. What caused the god? (note: you cannot conveniently escape the causal chain by jumping from the physical to the metaphysical).


Moving to this quote, since the rest of the quotes are all pretty much the same argument.

I don't agree with that. Science just doesn't deal with god. Doesn't need to. Will never come into conflict with god based on necessary principles. It can only conflict with extensions of god (both religious ones and the ones I've been asked to attribute in this thread). You have to pick: Either god is a bad answer to science or he's a non-answer.

I don't see any reason to differentiate between a bad answer and a non-answer and I think that's a red herring to be quite honest.

Science doesn't deal with god because god is never the answer to a scientific question. The initial cause is a scientific question because it tries to solve the "how" in the causal chain. It doesn't solve the "why", and that's where theism comes into play. Science will never conclude that a god was the prime mover. It however might conclude that there was a prime mover.


Technically, time began with the second event, according to you, since you need two events for time to exist. And moving before the Bang does a hell of a lot more than just adding another layer. It's one thing to say that there was this bang and then the universe showed up. It's quite another to say, this random ball just appeared from nowhere and chilled for some undisclosed period of time before going boom. It makes it quite a bit more obvious how little power people have in asserting the Big Bang as a satisfactory explanation for the beginning.

1st event or second event, or 100th event. The beginning of time is it's beginning. To go back from that using time is nonsensical.

It only adds another step in the regression. You don't know what caused the Big Bang, so you put another event before it that you also don't know the cause of. Eventually you apply God and call it done. You could have done that without the need for the extra regression. In fact, the god could have simply created the universe as it is today, but our experimentation tells us it's changing. Couldn't the god be causing the change?


Anyway, don't confuse Hawking's attempt to rationalize things to himself as a satisfactory explanation or even a competing theory. He's just like me in the sense that he's looking for something that completes his world-view. In reality, the idea that the universe can be cyclical just another turtle, just another step back, as you call it. The only logical way for regression to end is at eternity. Hawking has to argue that the universe in a sense was always there, which does even less work than the idea that an eternal being started the whole thing.

Odd because 3000 years ago the notion was that an eternal being started the whole thing. You're saying that Hawking does less work than just accepting god as an answer?


There's nothing complicated about supposing a god made the universe. That's why such an idea exists and is/was so prevalent. It made sense to historic humans that some being made the world, since they themselves made things and the Earth itself is just one big thing. It was perfectly reasonable to assume that all things had to be made. That assumption is still a strong one, one that is still undisputed. Strong atheists (ones saying there is definitely no god, not more open-minded ones like yourself) have to argue that this cause and effect chain will eventually amount to a causeless effect, whether that means a first event or the forces which established a loop in the first place. They propose the existence of a unique and special case with neither evidence nor reason on their side. They only have the rejection of the trends we've observed throughout history.

It's easy mentally but not in science. It's easier to think aliens abducted a missing child than to do the legwork to find clues and catch the abductor. I disagree with the "undisputed" claim. You allow god didn't need to be made.

As a stand alone theory, the god concept falls flat on its face simply because regardless of future discoveries, it remains unfalsifiable. Even if it was discovered that the universe expands and contracts in a cyclical nature, god would still be right there making it expand and contract. Would it answer the question? Sure, it would answer any question in fact if it was allowed to be used.

How is the claim of god falsifiable now or ever? Yes it needs to be in order to be legitimate.



And the term, "mini-universes" is inaccurate. Universes create their own space, and so they theoretically leave our space almost instantly and expand to be much larger. Anyway, from the perspective of that new universe, the scientist are god. From our perspective, they aren't, since they are not our prime movers.

The Universe is all of spacetime and everything that exists therein, including all planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy. Similar terms include the cosmos, the world, reality, and nature.

Do you have a different definition for universe? It seems you're arguing from a position of amazing familiarity, or science fiction.

[johnsmith]

Then tell me what you think it is, if it is not trust that something is true?

Because if you trust something is true, even though you do not have proof in your possession that it is true, then you are having "faith" that it is true.

It is beside the point the whereabouts the evidence is if you don't have it, the simple facts are that unless you have them personally, then you are accepting someones or somethings word for it, and that is "second hand knowledge" not "first hand knowledge", because you do not "directly" experience the evidence.


You sure do throw in a lot of totally unnecessary quotation marks.

The other day you actually put the word 'get' in them.


I don't think you really "understand" "how" "and" "when" to use "them".

[pgardn]

This gets way philosophical and along with the vocabulary meaning different things to different people, less understandable.

If everyone was forced to accept that human beings are special compared to other forms of life, how would they describe how we are special? Make a list. I think this question exposes more about where people I don't know are coming from. I use it often.

And broad answers like, we make cars, require the answerer to get more basic.

[johnsmith]

What if in 2000 years all the evidence has been destroyed and all that remains is a book with no pictures in it but just words? Then what, how will someone be able to prove that it happened?

Isn't that pretty much what hieroglyphics were? We figured that shit out.

[pgardn]

I often use: we have the ability to empathize.
Mainly because at early ages we don't.
So it is helpful for me to use development within a human lifetime for some things on the list.

But then there are broader things we have done as a species, that can also be put on the list that are fundamental.

[pgardn]

Oh snap, symbolic language right above, rob and JS

[pgardn]

There's quite a big difference between believing something to be true and believing that it's the best explanation given the current information. I actually find it to be a severe logical problem to assert something as true while also allowing that it may be false. In the very least, I don't think it has much power. What it amounts to is a convention (the method by which scientific findings are converted into belief) co-opting of the power of the truth and using it to quash out other ideas. That's exactly what religion has done.











How has science squashed beliefs in other things?


Oh the method by which people convert scientific findings into belief. Late alteration.

So you don't find the method by which scientific findings are converted into belief any different than the method of converting religious ideas into belief?

[Chinook]

?


You and I agree on this. This is why I say you are not theist. You just think it's a decent argument, and that doesn't mean you believe it. It would be like saying you are Christian, because it makes more sense that Christ died for our sins, but you don't necessarily see it as fact. You're toying around with belief.

theist

the·ism [thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

Would you say 2 best describes you? Do you believe the prime mover exists today?

Probably the first one. I don't believe the prime mover exists in this universe.

I'm not sure you and I agree. If you believe evolution is a fact, but simultaneously acknowledge that it might not be a fact, then you have a logical quandary on your hands. So you have to weaken one of those two statements. You can either abandon the qualifier of potentially being wrong (essentially what you're saying I have to do to be like "real" theists) or you have to accept that you only believe that you are following the path of best guesses. If you take the former path, then you can never have any mental flexibility, and you thusly cannot be a scientist. If I do not accept the existence of god the prime mover as undeniable truth, it's because I am not illogical. It's not because I have a shaky grasp on what belief means.


However heliocentricism is falsifiable, is it not?

Indeed, but not through the scientific method.


Which is why gods are not used as answers in science. What caused the god? (note: you cannot conveniently escape the causal chain by jumping from the physical to the metaphysical).

Of course you can hop off the chain once it reaches the end. As I said, we'll all get to eternity eventually. It's just that strong atheists have no idea what to do once they get there. Essentially, it's going to end up being a statement like, "There has always been _____ ." eventually. That's the only way to get off the chain. The difference is that some folks will finish the phrase by saying, "something", while others will finish by saying, "nothing." There's no way around that unless you want to propose that your favorite turtle is legitimate starting place with no justification whatsoever.


Science doesn't deal with god because god is never the answer to a scientific question. The initial cause is a scientific question because it tries to solve the "how" in the causal chain. It doesn't solve the "why", and that's where theism comes into play. Science will never conclude that a god was the prime mover. It however might conclude that there was a prime mover.

We pretty much agree here, save for one thing: If you think my argument has a problem with "time without time," you can't possibly think that that doesn't destroy any empirical pursuit toward a prime mover. We're talking about our whole universe being the effect here. No matter how far we go, we're still going to be in that effect shadow.


1st event or second event, or 100th event. The beginning of time is it's beginning. To go back from that using time is nonsensical.

It only adds another step in the regression. You don't know what caused the Big Bang, so you put another event before it that you also don't know the cause of. Eventually you apply God and call it done. You could have done that without the need for the extra regression. In fact, the god could have simply created the universe as it is today, but our experimentation tells us it's changing. Couldn't the god be causing the change?

On one hand, the answer to that may very well be that there isn't a change from any perspective but our own. If the universe was inevitably going to change (which one has to believe to accept the causal chain), then it hasn't really changed at all

Anyway, from a certain standpoint, you're correct that the argument is just pushed back another step. But from a physical standpoint, it's not a clear. Essentially, everything we know about the universe is based on concepts which most physicists agree didn't really exist until some time after the Bang occurred. That's why no one has any idea how it started, or what exactly was going on before. So I wouldn't be as keen as you seem to be to bring up paradoxes when we don't even know if it was a paradox at all.


Odd because 3000 years ago the notion was that an eternal being started the whole thing. You're saying that Hawking does less work than just accepting god as an answer?

Hawking's assertion that existence is cyclical by itself does absolutely no work. It instead relies on the unstated assumption that such a cycle has always been around. But that only does marginal work. It's just another turtle. It's just where he's willing to plant his flag and call it a day, where he can leave it so he can die with a clear conscience.


It's easy mentally but not in science. It's easier to think aliens abducted a missing child than to do the legwork to find clues and catch the abductor. I disagree with the "undisputed" claim. You allow god didn't need to be made.

As a stand alone theory, the god concept falls flat on its face simply because regardless of future discoveries, it remains unfalsifiable. Even if it was discovered that the universe expands and contracts in a cyclical nature, god would still be right there making it expand and contract. Would it answer the question? Sure, it would answer any question in fact if it was allowed to be used.

How is the claim of god falsifiable now or ever? Yes it needs to be in order to be legitimate.

It's not easy. It's reasonable. It makes sense, and despite what you say, it doesn't prevent one from trying to understand how any of it works. I never got that extension that some people make. It's not like finding out someone built a computer all the sudden means you don't try to figure out how it works. The fact that you believe something was created can only improve the possibility of being able to find out how it works.

The claim that something has thusofar been undisputed is not the same as the claim that something is indisputable. If it's wrong, it's wrong. There's just never been a reason to doubt such a claim.

The god theory doesn't fail because it's unfalsifiable. That just means that science should ignore it. I've never claimed that science shouldn't do so, which is why I believe that it's not a big deal whether people believe in the existence of god or not. It's one of those things that's either true or false, and the answer has no effect on people. We're discussing it because we want to, not because our intellectual salvation depends on it.


The Universe is all of spacetime and everything that exists therein, including all planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy. Similar terms include the cosmos, the world, reality, and nature.

Do you have a different definition for universe? It seems you're arguing from a position of amazing familiarity, or science fiction.

We've both accepted the logic that led me to my statement. We know the universe is expanding, and the definition you quoted clearly as a universe contains its own spacetime and matter. So the only thing to conclude is that a new universe would create its own space and that we would keep ours; otherwise, they'd be just one big universe.

[Chinook]

How has science squashed beliefs in other things?

This thread is a perfect example. Some posters who feel that science carries with it the power of the truth are making the extension that god must be supported scientifically in order to be believed in. That's not true. Beliefs come from a ton of different avenues. There are some who argue evolution is the truth, and so they dismiss counter evidence without even bother to really understand either position.


So you don't find the method by which scientific findings are converted into belief any different than the method of converting religious ideas into belief?

Of course I do. That's not the issue. The issue is that agreeing with a convention still doesn't give it the power of truth. It's like with morality. We all implicitly agree that certain things are right and wrong, but it's not like there's a big cosmic judgement out there for us to compare with our view.

[xmas1997]

Not really. There's also the weight of the outcome. There's no weight to whether or not a stop light in France is working, so if someone says it's not, we don't need faith to believe it. We just need apathy. Where god and eternal life are concerned (face it, without eternal life the god concept is pointless), there is weight so we need more evidence in order to cross over that line, not all of us possess the credulity that others do.

By your use of "weight of the outcome" as your justification for your contention, you are giving equal support to "indirect" proof (that which is not in hand or directly verifiable), to that of "direct" proof (that which is jn hand and verifiable). But by their very definitions they are not equal and the same.
While it may be we are apathetic or lazy in your French stop light analogy as far as being able to believe, it only defines a degree of belief and not total belief, thus it has nothing to do with faith. Faith is simply knowing something (anything) to be true without "direct" evidence that it is.
For someone to completely believe in something that they are not "directly" involved with, this requires faith, that the thing or person believed in is trustworthy and beyond reproach.
Weight of outcome implies degrees and totality.


You don't need faith to accept what science says because science polices itself. I don't need to believe what a scientist says is true. People are out there every day trying to disprove the theory of evolution, and I mean scientists. You don't see theists out trying to disprove the Bible. Faith is only required when the story is not otherwise believable, and don't equate faith in the supernatural to faith in a process like science.

Of course science polices itself, so does medicine, art, literacy, physical education, etc. to some degree, and even religion does this, so no one disputes that. Faith is not solely the domain of theology. Although a sub definition of faith can be used to denote and differentiate between religions, that is not the definition we are using here.
Faith in this case defines the vehicle we use everyday to be able to justify our beliefs in anything we totally believe in without direct evidence within our grasp or experience.


Really? You aren't typing on a computer that uses the electronics that were invented and manufactured using the basic tenets of science? Or is God writing this stuff for you?

Of course I am, but my computer is direct (first hand) evidence and as such requires no faith to believe it is true because the proof of it is being directly used by me.
However, you have to take my word "on faith" that I am indeed using my computer, instead of lets say my cell phone since you are not with me, nor observing me.


According to you there is proof for nothing. That makes me nervous about going to bed since it might not exist.

I never said that, you inferred that. There most definitely is proof for me, my computer is my irrefutable proof, so is my cell phone. But it is not your irrefutable proof because you are not here in my presence experiencing it. Your proof of me using my computer is second hand knowledge and only if I tell you I am using it, and only if you trust I will not lie to you. The degree to which you believe what I say is true, establishes the strength of your faith that I am doing as I say I am.


Horseshit. That's an argument from ignorance. The proof is there, all you have to do is stop being lazy and learn how to interpret it.

Not true. I never said the evidence was not there as you are trying to imply. I said the evidence was not in our possession, and thus it is only direct proof for those who possess it. You possess only a hypothetical, whereas they (scientists, researchers, etc.) possess the actual evidence. I can interpret what they say and write about it, and thus believe them to whatever extent I trust them to imparting the truth, but until I actually do the experiments myself to experience it as truth, I am merely accepting their word for things. And if I accept it completely without any doubt, it is through the vehicle called faith.


They... lol

"They" are explained above. Why you find them (scientists, researchers, etc.) to be funny escapes me.


You're trying to give your faith credibility using tu quoque fallacy.

I know exactly what tu quoque fallacy is and in no way was I implying any sort of ad hominen. In fact I never drew any sort of conclusion from having faith in God and having faith in science, or history, or the price of tea in China whatsoever.
The closest you can say I did was draw a parallel, but even that is not accurate because I never equated the two, rather it was an independent statement unto itself except for the commonality of "faith".

[xmas1997]

About the only thing you can use the "weight of the outcome' argument on is; no one ever wins or loses message board debates, and especially here.
:lol

[xmas1997]

Xmas if I have a degree in science can you include me as part of "they"

It is all a matter of degrees, not necessarily a science degree per say.
For example, DMC pointed out my computer as being evidence and as such proof.
It is, for me.
And it is direct evidence, for me and anyone else who is here observing me. For you and everyone else on this site it is indirect evidence (second hand knowledge) and you have to take my word for whether I am telling you the truth for you to believe without a shadow of doubt.
You could be "they" if you are actively performing the experiments, or have performed, or even experienced the experiments being performed by others, etc. as the basis for your belief.
But even said, you need to be careful in drawing extensions from there when it comes to all of science in general.

[pgardn]

This thread is a perfect example. Some posters who feel that science carries with it the power of the truth are making the extension that god must be supported scientifically in order to be believed in. That's not true. Beliefs come from a ton of different avenues. There are some who argue evolution is the truth, and so they dismiss counter evidence without even bother to really understand either position.



Of course I do. That's not the issue. The issue is that agreeing with a convention still doesn't give it the power of truth. It's like with morality. We all implicitly agree that certain things are right and wrong, but it's not like there's a big cosmic judgement out there for us to compare with our view.

I approach your first paragraph from a completely different starting point. I ask why people see evidence for a God knowing full well (me knowing full well) science itself has no say in the matter. So I ask why people believe in a god and one clear reason is a need for some purposeful existence. For many, a fear of mortality. They need for a purpose, a reason for their own existence. So they invent a system in which they lower their basic standards of reasoning for THIS need. And if evolution interferes... Well they use standards of reason they think are of the same standard as used in science. But it's not. Science does not invent complex models when they are not needed. Because there is no ability to refute models that use untestable components.

Have you not observed this?

Morality and Philosophy (not all of it) are human endeavors to answer questions that require judgements of completely different phenomena. Human behavior examined from an older easier to use method. Easier in that these can cover many diff human situations, provide answers to very different types of questions and most importantly can be used for a wider range of questions. Science is a very restricted practice, there is so much it can't answer. But when it comes to explaining physical phenomena, it's the best we have at present. And the predictive quality gives it a high level of validity.

If you or anyone else comes up with a better explanation of the diversity of life without using the supernatural, I'm all ears. Because this means you have used testable ideas. Ideas that can be investigated without magic. No poof necessary.
Implying there has to be a watchmaker is using magic. You see a complex organism and give up on science and invent a watchmaker. When you don't have to...

[Chinook]

I approach your first paragraph from a completely different starting point. I ask why people see evidence for a God knowing full well (me knowing full well) science itself has no say in the matter. So I ask why people believe in a god and one clear reason is a need for some purposeful existence. For many, a fear of mortality. They need for a purpose, a reason for their own existence. So they invent a system in which they lower their basic standards of reasoning for THIS need. And if evolution interferes... Well they use standards of reason they think are of the same standard as used in science. But it's not. Science does not invent complex models when they are not needed. Because there is no ability to refute models that use untestable components.

Have you not observed this?

Of course I've observed this. I've known atheists who push for god's non-existence in order to feel like they control their own fate. Hell, look at Freud and Marx for examples of that. That's why you can't cling to anything too tightly.

I agree on the virtues of science. I majored in multiple sciences in college, one of them being evolutionary biology. You're preaching to the choir about that. But I still feel you're dramatically overstating the power science has. It has the power of best fit and the power of agreement. That's why it's important. But it's still just one philosophical expression, only one way by which we go about generating belief. It's also incompletely in what it can find, not just because of our current technology, but also because of its nature. There are things that science logically can't explore. These things are obvious and don't actually need to be tested to realize. This isn't like the rain or the rotation of the planets.

As far as the consistent mentions of "magic" and "poof" go, that's not a fantasy brought up by theists. It's just a way to describe the existence/non-existence barrier. There was nothing, and then there was something. The only way to get around that is to appeal to eternity, like Hawking does. But eternity without a prime mover is no stronger than non-eternity. It still supposes the same ex-nihlo "magic". Why would one of the greatest scientists ever hold a theory that has no scientific backing (and can't ever have it)? Because he knows it's not a scientific question.

[DMC]

I believe in science too, but I personally have no evidence to prove that science is true, so it is faith.




Of course science polices itself, so does medicine... :lmao



Of course I am, but my computer is direct (first hand) evidence and as such requires no faith to believe it is true because the proof of it is being directly used by me.
However, you have to take my word "on faith" that I am indeed using my computer, instead of lets say my cell phone since you are not with me, nor observing me.


I never said that, you inferred that. There most definitely is proof for me, my computer is my irrefutable proof, so is my cell phone.



Just shut up already.

[DMC]

It is all a matter of degrees, not necessarily a science degree per say.
For example, DMC pointed out my computer as being evidence and as such proof.
It is, for me.
And it is direct evidence, for me and anyone else who is here observing me. For you and everyone else on this site it is indirect evidence (second hand knowledge) and you have to take my word for whether I am telling you the truth for you to believe without a shadow of doubt.
You could be "they" if you are actively performing the experiments, or have performed, or even experienced the experiments being performed by others, etc. as the basis for your belief.
But even said, you need to be careful in drawing extensions from there when it comes to all of science in general.

Standard argument from ignorance. You don't know so then you suppose no one really does.

[phyzik]

this whole thread pretty much boils down to this, because we cant prove something yet " God" did it.

How lame on the "Goders" part. Is it REALLY so hard to just say "We don't know" other than "it must be God"?

I Still don't get how these faith believers reconcile with reality these days.... It can only be categorized as a mental disorder akin to the likes of Charles Manson. We have Sports figures and shit claiming "god" helped them win.... well, what about the other guy? Did God think he was unworthy? Let's take it a step further... "god" helped the Spurs win, but thousands of children starved to death in South Africa....

Yeah... That is not someone I would follow as my "Lord".

[2pac > Kobe]

God is real

[pgardn]

Of course I've observed this. I've known atheists who push for god's non-existence in order to feel like they control their own fate. Hell, look at Freud and Marx for examples of that. That's why you can't cling to anything too tightly.

I agree on the virtues of science. I majored in multiple sciences in college, one of them being evolutionary biology. You're preaching to the choir about that. But I still feel you're dramatically overstating the power science has. It has the power of best fit and the power of agreement. That's why it's important. But it's still just one philosophical expression, only one way by which we go about generating belief. It's also incompletely in what it can find, not just because of our current technology, but also because of its nature. There are things that science logically can't explore. These things are obvious and don't actually need to be tested to realize. This isn't like the rain or the rotation of the planets.

As far as the consistent mentions of "magic" and "poof" go, that's not a fantasy brought up by theists. It's just a way to describe the existence/non-existence barrier. There was nothing, and then there was something. The only way to get around that is to appeal to eternity, like Hawking does. But eternity without a prime mover is no stronger than non-eternity. It still supposes the same ex-nihlo "magic". Why would one of the greatest scientists ever hold a theory that has no scientific backing (and can't ever have it)? Because he knows it's not a scientific question.

So on the subject of evolutionary biology, you have no problem using the existence/non existence barrier you describe, and then extending that further as a watchmaker to explain evolution?

Do you know what watchmaker implies and how it was first used as an argument against the science way of explaining evolution? Perfection of design. The idea that something so perfect could not arise from a known process. And yet again, Poof and Humans existed with perfection of design explanation, another existence/non existence barrier crossed perfectly...

This is like 3 different leaps. And a number of major religions realize this and have paired down their leaps.

[xmas1997]

Just shut up already.

No, you should, if you are not going to do this in a logical manner and resort to an emotional response.
By resorting to your emotions then you obviously do not know what you are doing.
What you are replacing logic with (emotion) is maybe not the epitome of ignorance, but it sure is akin to it.
Next you will probably throw out some insults, that will probably be your last ditch resort method.

[xmas1997]

Standard argument from ignorance. You don't know so then you suppose no one really does.

This is your logic? :lmao
There is no logic there, just a worthless statement of opinion, and from your post preceding it, one based in emotion.
It is becoming more and more obvious with each one of your posts that you really have no idea of what you are talking about.
And then you have the gall to criticize others for their beliefs, when you cannot even carry on a coherent logical debate?
Your emotion will never trump logic, and to try to use it to do so shows the real ignorance going on here.
Good luck with that tactic.
:lmao

[mouse]

this whole thread pretty much boils down to this,.
I hate God and I don't respect the Bible.

Dude we get it already, open another beer and explain to us all how your here because two apes were fucking.

[xmas1997]

I don't see how DMC gets along with people in the outside world if this is an example of how closed his mind is on this forum.
He even gives respectable atheists a bad name.
:lmao

[RD2191]

Dude we get it already, open another beer and explain to us all how your here because two apes were fucking.
:lmao

[Avante]

Obviously I or nobody else is going to read all this, but.....I gurantee we did see..."ya know something, I've changed my mind, you are right and I was wrong"

[Chinook]

Do you know what watchmaker implies and how it was first used as an argument against the science way of explaining evolution? Perfection of design. The idea that something so perfect could not arise from a known process. And yet again, Poof and Humans existed with perfection of design explanation, another existence/non existence barrier crossed perfectly...

This is like 3 different leaps. And a number of major religions realize this and have paired down their leaps.

I think you have mistaken the theory I'm proposing with the classic watch analogy for intelligent design. I originally used the term "clock-maker" rather than "watch-maker", since the former is the term deists use. Some folks, notably Blake, don't care about being precise with their diction, and so they continued to refer to it as the latter even after my objections. Because those of us engaging in the debate knew what I meant, I let it go. But it seems you were confused.

Essentially, I hold the view that the thing we know as existence is a complex machine created and then set free. The clock-maker is the classic analogy because a clock once set up ideally needs no more instruction. It just goes along as designed.

Don't confuse me with an intelligent-designist. I studied evolution, philosophy and psychology well enough to discuss each at a high level. Although I do believe their stance was reasonable, I also believe they had no idea of scope. They didn't understand proximate mechanisms the way we do now. They didn't realize that conditions can create things just as direct intervention can.

I don't believe the same thing at the barrier, however.

[Blake]

About the only thing you can use the "weight of the outcome' argument on is; no one ever wins or loses message board debates, and especially here.
:lol

False.

Problem here is that the losers don't know they're losing

[spurraider21]

I think you have mistaken the theory I'm proposing with the classic watch analogy for intelligent design. I originally used the term "clock-maker" rather than "watch-maker", since the former is the term deists use. Some folks, notably Blake, don't care about being precise with their diction, and so they continued to refer to it as the latter even after my objections. Because those of us engaging in the debate knew what I meant, I let it go. But it seems you were confused.

Essentially, I hold the view that the thing we know as existence is a complex machine created and then set free. The clock-maker is the classic analogy because a clock once set up ideally needs no more instruction. It just goes along as designed.

Don't confuse me with an intelligent-designist. I studied evolution, philosophy and psychology well enough to discuss each at a high level. Although I do believe their stance was reasonable, I also believe they had no idea of scope. They didn't understand proximate mechanisms the way we do now. They didn't realize that conditions can create things just as direct intervention can.

I don't believe the same thing at the barrier, however.
Just out of curiosity, what has been your main area of study?

[Chinook]

Just out of curiosity, what has been your main area of study?

Biology is the short answer.

The longer answer is that I wanted to study animal communication, but they didn't have that major. So I had to major in ecological/evolutionary biology to get the animal part (the main part), cog-sci to get the linguistics and logic part, and philosophy to get a lot of the formal reasoning.

[spurraider21]

Biology is the short answer.

The longer answer is that I wanted to study animal communication, but they didn't have that major. So I had to major in ecological/evolutionary biology to get the animal part (the main part), cog-sci to get the linguistics and logic part, and philosophy to get a lot of the formal reasoning.
Triple major? good grief that must've been fun...

[Chinook]

Triple major? good grief that must've been fun...

Honestly, I mismanaged my time. I could have fit another one in had I started my freshman year.

It actually was fun being a triple major, because one of the coolest things I've ever experienced is when concepts in one field start to apply to a completely separate field (like German economic philosophy to American race relations or forestry to linguistics). It really helps reinforce the idea that all disciplines of study are really just different paths toward trying to understand the same thing: how all this works. It's like those IBM commercials where they talk about the ways some random things are connected through the global economy.

If you still have time, I'd totally recommend trying to balance your schedule between humanities and science classes if you don't already. Not only does it make the workload easier/more diverse, but it also grants unique perspective.

[spurraider21]

Honestly, I mismanaged my time. I could have fit another one in had I started my freshman year.

It actually was fun being a triple major, because one of the coolest things I've ever experienced is when concepts in one field start to apply to a completely separate field (like German economic philosophy to American race relations or forestry to linguistics). It really helps reinforce the idea that all disciplines of study are really just different paths toward trying to understand the same thing: how all this works. It's like those IBM commercials where they talk about the ways some random things are connected through the global economy.

If you still have time, I'd totally recommend trying to balance your schedule between humanities and science classes if you don't already. Not only does it make the workload easier/more diverse, but it also grants unique perspective.
I've already branched. Focused mostly on science classes in undergrad, yet about to start law school in about a week.

[Chinook]

I've already branched. Focused mostly on science classes in undergrad, yet about to start law school in about a week.

Cool. Good luck with that. My East Coast friends all got dissuaded by their bosses after they did stints as paralegals. However, one of my good local friends is now a DA's assistant in Chicago, so it's not like it can't be done.

[xmas1997]

Problem here is that the losers don't know they're losing


Being the biggest loser here, you would have lots of experience along those lines.
:lmao

[xmas1997]

I've already branched. Focused mostly on science classes in undergrad, yet about to start law school in about a week.

Be prepared to be a slave once you are hired by a firm. Most all new law interns have to pay their dues this way, but science should give you a great perspective in law IMHO.

[xmas1997]

Biology is the short answer.

The longer answer is that I wanted to study animal communication, but they didn't have that major. So I had to major in ecological/evolutionary biology to get the animal part (the main part), cog-sci to get the linguistics and logic part, and philosophy to get a lot of the formal reasoning.

:lol
I changed majors a few times. I started out pre-med, but early on my pre-med adviser, my biology prof., pulled me aside one day and asked me how I liked biology so far.
Although I was making good grades, I told him honestly that biology bored me to tears so naturally he recommended I change my major which I did to a dbl. major in physics and psychology.:lol
A couple of years later I became disenchanted with how nebulous a science psychology was and dropped that major, but not before absorbing many upper level courses, and picked up philosophy to go along with the physics.
That was when things really got interesting because on my own I was playing music, involved with university theatre, and dabbling in metaphysics.
Theatre and rock-n-roll music began to take off big time, so after 5 semesters of college life and broke the whole time, I pursued that and made lots of money.

20 years later I decided to go back and finish my degree.
After receiving a scholarship (even though I was financially secure) based on grades I made 20 years earlier, and from the advice of an attorney friend of mine, I majored in pre-law this time, with an emphasis in physics.
It was a fantastic feeling when I finally graduated after that 20 year hiatus, one I cannot describe, and I loved every minute of the whole collegiate experience, both times.

[pgardn]

I think you have mistaken the theory I'm proposing with the classic watch analogy for intelligent design. I originally used the term "clock-maker" rather than "watch-maker", since the former is the term deists use. Some folks, notably Blake, don't care about being precise with their diction, and so they continued to refer to it as the latter even after my objections. Because those of us engaging in the debate knew what I meant, I let it go. But it seems you were confused.

Essentially, I hold the view that the thing we know as existence is a complex machine created and then set free. The clock-maker is the classic analogy because a clock once set up ideally needs no more instruction. It just goes along as designed.

Don't confuse me with an intelligent-designist. I studied evolution, philosophy and psychology well enough to discuss each at a high level. Although I do believe their stance was reasonable, I also believe they had no idea of scope. They didn't understand proximate mechanisms the way we do now. They didn't realize that conditions can create things just as direct intervention can.

I don't believe the same thing at the barrier, however.

Ok, my bad on that.

But, and this is a huge but, you believe the clock moves on as designed? Was the clock designed with randomness thrown in? Because if it was not, then you don't thoroughly understand evolution. So maybe more like an avalanche? Clock implies time and when you throw in the word designed...

And excuse my negligence for failing to read the whole thing. This has become so long... repetition and summaries are not a bad thing along the way.

And then of course we may have a different definition of random. This thread gets bogged down quite a bit because we use words differently. All of us.

[RD2191]

Being the biggest loser here, you would have lots of experience along those lines.
:lmao

[pgardn]

Chinook.

If you did study philosophy, specifically logic and it's application to math (I did not), you have to read about Godel. You just have to. I can't understand all of it but I do understand the implications.

And if we throw in education, BS Molecular Biology UT, Masters Biochem UT.
But I must emphasize that I believe this was just guidance to allow me to read on my own.
It got me a great flexible job but, the job is narrower work.
I seriously would like everyone to post a picture of their libraries.
This tells me much more than degrees if they actually read the stuff.

[xmas1997]

I will also echo your recommendation of Kurt Godel, and his "incompleteness theorem".

[Chinook]

Ok, my bad on that.

But, and this is a huge but, you believe the clock moves on as designed? Was the clock designed with randomness thrown in? Because if it was not, then you don't thoroughly understand evolution. So maybe more like an avalanche? Clock implies time and when you throw in the word designed...

And excuse my negligence for failing to read the whole thing. This has become so long... repetition and summaries are not a bad thing along the way.

And then of course we may have a different definition of random. This thread gets bogged down quite a bit because we use words differently. All of us.

I think that randomness is a matter of perspective. Believe me that I understand what you're talking about as far as random mutations go. (I did get a degree in evolution, and 90 percent of all mutations are supposed to be random. It would be a hard thing to over look.) But that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the fundamental causal chain of the universe, which is a concept that I accept along with atheists. It's the idea that everything has a proximate mechanism that causes it -- that nothing "just happens" from a physical sense. Random mutations are called such because they aren't developed with a purpose. They just happen to be carried through because they are beneficial, or even just because they get lucky. That doesn't mean there aren't actual physical causes that led to that mutation being formed.

For example, take a random number generator program. From our perspective, the numbers are random because we aren't telling the program to give a certain output. But from the computer's perspective, the numbers are just part of a "random" algorithm it's called upon to use. Certain programmers are familiar with this program, and thus they can use it to predict the numbers the program will generate. There are quite a few cases of online poker sites getting ruined because some people figured out their randomizer.

So no, I don't believe that the universe has true randomness in it. Rather, I just believe that it has a level of complexity in it that means that we aren't able to correctly predict many things. But as a believer in the causal closure of the physical, I don't believe any of these causes are truly unknowable (in the colloquial sense). We and our machines just have to become smart enough to figure it out.

[Chinook]

Chinook.

If you did study philosophy, specifically logic and it's application to math (I did not), you have to read about Godel. You just have to. I can't understand all of it but I do understand the implications.

And if we throw in education, BS Molecular Biology UT, Masters Biochem UT.
But I must emphasize that I believe this was just guidance to allow me to read on my own.
It got me a great flexible job but, the job is narrower work.
I seriously would like everyone to post a picture of their libraries.
This tells me much more than degrees if they actually read the stuff.

I have read about his incompleteness theorem (ironically enough in a writing class). I understand his point that not everything can be put into formal logic, that a system of reasoning cannot systematize itself. I haven't read his work directly, however, which is why I'm hesitant to say I actually know about his work with any conviction.

As far as libraries go, I think you might be a little behind on the times, no offense. I know at least in my case, I don't really have many physical books anymore. The ones I had to buy for classes were pretty much sold off once the classes ended, since a hundred dollars means a ton more to a college student than toting around reminders of all the late-night study sessions you had to pull. Even my entertainment books are often in digital form, whether those are E-books or audiobooks. There are times that I really wish that I had kept my textbooks. But I was a kid who traveled across the country to go to college. No way was it feasible for me to hold on to them.

[RD2191]

Chinook, how old are you?

[Blake]

I think you have mistaken the theory I'm proposing with the classic watch analogy for intelligent design. I originally used the term "clock-maker" rather than "watch-maker", since the former is the term deists use. Some folks, notably Blake, don't care about being precise with their diction, and so they continued to refer to it as the latter even after my objections. Because those of us engaging in the debate knew what I meant, I let it go. But it seems you were confused.

Essentially, I hold the view that the thing we know as existence is a complex machine created and then set free. The clock-maker is the classic analogy because a clock once set up ideally needs no more instruction. It just goes along as designed.

Don't confuse me with an intelligent-designist. I studied evolution, philosophy and psychology well enough to discuss each at a high level. Although I do believe their stance was reasonable, I also believe they had no idea of scope. They didn't understand proximate mechanisms the way we do now. They didn't realize that conditions can create things just as direct intervention can.

I don't believe the same thing at the barrier, however.

oh ok, who came up with the "classic" clockmaker analogy then?

[Chinook]

oh ok, who came up with the "classic" clockmaker analogy then?

Honestly? I have no idea. But it's clearly pretty old, since the best I can find so far says that Thomas Jefferson (definitely a man of no contradiction) subscribed to that analogy.

[Chinook]

Seems Benjamin Franklin was the guy who made it popular.

[spurraider21]

As far as libraries go, I think you might be a little behind on the times, no offense. I know at least in my case, I don't really have many physical books anymore. The ones I had to buy for classes were pretty much sold off once the classes ended, since a hundred dollars means a ton more to a college student than toting around reminders of all the late-night study sessions you had to pull. Even my entertainment books are often in digital form, whether those are E-books or audiobooks. There are times that I really wish that I had kept my textbooks. But I was a kid who traveled across the country to go to college. No way was it feasible for me to hold on to them.
precisely. i have still hung onto my first o-chem textbook though. i used it as a reference during the years, and never got around to selling that one. when i went back for my 5th year, i didn't have many requirements left, so i dabbled in some classes that i figured could be somewhat helpful in law (con law, political theory, etc), and i've hung onto most of the books in those classes

[Chinook]

precisely. i have still hung onto my first o-chem textbook though. i used it as a reference during the years, and never got around to selling that one. when i went back for my 5th year, i didn't have many requirements left, so i dabbled in some classes that i figured could be somewhat helpful in law (con law, political theory, etc), and i've hung onto most of the books in those classes

I dunno about you, but I used to have to buy these blue reading packets from the campus copy center. They would contain a bunch of different texts and excerpts from texts that covered the bulk of my course reading. I hated having to get those, because they were still expensive and had no resale value. I think I still have most of those somewhere, but I no I recycled at least a few looking for a catharsis at the end of semesters.

[spurraider21]

I dunno about you, but I used to have to buy these blue reading packets from the campus copy center. They would contain a bunch of different texts and excerpts from texts that covered the bulk of my course reading. I hated having to get those, because they were still expensive and had no resale value. I think I still have most of those somewhere, but I no I recycled at least a few looking for a catharsis at the end of semesters.
yeah, called them "course readers" here. usually had to buy them off campus in the westwood area. those were a pain, expensive as hell and you couldn't bargain hunt online. they were also very specific to that quarter of instruction since the professor tailor made them for their class. some classes just had those, some just had textbooks. some had both... ugh

[leemajors]

I kept very few of my textbooks. My North American Lit giant Omnibus one because it had Vonnegut's "Fates Worse than Death" Speech,m European Warfare from 1660-1815, Milton collections, all of the Lautreamont, all of the Borges and G.K. Chesterton.

[xmas1997]

precisely. i have still hung onto my first o-chem textbook though. i used it as a reference during the years, and never got around to selling that one. when i went back for my 5th year, i didn't have many requirements left, so i dabbled in some classes that i figured could be somewhat helpful in law (con law, political theory, etc), and i've hung onto most of the books in those classes

It's always best to keep those law books, I still have mine, especially my communications law.

[Blake]

Honestly? I have no idea. But it's clearly pretty old, since the best I can find so far says that Thomas Jefferson (definitely a man of no contradiction) subscribed to that analogy.

But you're going to call me out for not being precise?

Then let's be precise. "Watchmaker" is the classic term for the analogy:


William Paley*(July 1743*– 25 May 1805) was an English clergyman,*Christian apologist, philosopher, and*utilitarian. He is best known for his*natural theology*exposition of the*teleological argument*for the*existence of God*in his work*Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, which made use of the*watchmaker analogy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Paley

I'm not sure why you're bogging yourself in such petty details regardless. "watch" "clock" who gives a fuck.

It's a false analogy either way.

[xmas1997]

Honestly? I have no idea. But it's clearly pretty old, since the best I can find so far says that Thomas Jefferson (definitely a man of no contradiction) subscribed to that analogy.

As you can tell from his latest post, blake has no intention of debating or discussing.
His sole intention is to troll, that is all he ever does on here.
I am surprised you got DMC to debate because all he usually does is troll too.
It is what it is, we are used to it.

[RD2191]

As you can tell from his latest post, blake has no intention of debating or discussing.
His sole intention is to troll, that is all he ever does on here.
I am surprised you got DMC to debate because all he usually does is troll too.
It is what it is, we are used to it.

[RD2191]

As far as I'm concerned Chinook has been checking assholes. Blake getting destroyed. Nothing new, tbh.

[xmas1997]

As far as I'm concerned Chinook has been checking assholes. Blake getting destroyed. Nothing new, tbh.

Again it is very telling that some of us can respect diverse opinions like the way chinook and others feel and believe even though we might not agree with them, yet so many others on here seem to find it offensive and try to ridicule, or feel so threatened that they they have to pick holes in people's beliefs or opinions.
Chinook certainly destroyed DMC even though I doubt that was his intention, and it goes without saying he made mincemeat of blake's trolling.

[Blake]

As far as I'm concerned Chinook has been checking assholes. Blake getting destroyed. Nothing new, tbh.

lol you believe in magic

[pgardn]

Reaction to Chinook post:

Ok I have a somewhat better understanding of where you lie. We basically believe the same thing about the word random.

And I have a different view of what is knowable.

I don't believe human beings, evolved 100,000 years for a life on Earth and thus equipped with a set of senses that act and influence a nervous system set up for life on Earth, will ever understand everything. The machines follow our rules, our logic. We are too specialized for a particular environment. All of our understanding is based on incomplete models and metaphors and are in constant flux. We just refine the same stuff imo. We get closer to good descriptions for what we have access to.

We pretend math takes us into a different realm. We use the math now heavily in physics to make models and then we hunt for some experiment to test the model. Science is very powerful, but limited. Individuals that work outside of science and reason (math and logic), get further off course when answering questions that science can model imo.

Thats how I see it.

[pgardn]

And I am not a philosophy guy.
But I think about how we think.

The input we receive is filtered, altered, ignored... Brains are strange devices set for our Earth.

[Chinook]

But you're going to call me out for not being precise?

Then let's be precise. "Watchmaker" is the classic term for the analogy:



I'm not sure why you're bogging yourself in such petty details regardless. "watch" "clock" who gives a fuck.

It's a false analogy either way.

You still got it wrong. Paley is talking about intelligent design.


The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument). By way of an analogy (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy), the argument states that design implies a designer. The analogy has played a prominent role in natural theology (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology) and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) and for the intelligent design (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) of the universe.

Not the same thing as the clockmaker theory:


Franklin introduced the idea of the clockmaker theory which explained his new beliefs very well. This was the idea that God was like a clockmaker. God creates the universe, like the clockmaker makes the clock, and winds it up so to speak. But once it is completed, the clockmaker no longer has any interaction with the clock, just as God has no further interaction with human nature.

The reason I've been calling you out for your diction is that it's leading to you getting confused in almost every post. That's a big deal in a philosophical discussion. We're talking about two different concepts here, one we both agree is a false analogy and one on which we disagree. It does nothing for the discussion for you to constantly concatenate the two.

[Chinook]

Reaction to Chinook post:

Ok I have a somewhat better understanding of where you lie. We basically believe the same thing about the word random.

And I have a different view of what is knowable.

I don't believe human beings, evolved 100,000 years for a life on Earth and thus equipped with a set of senses that act and influence a nervous system set up for life on Earth, will ever understand everything. The machines follow our rules, our logic. We are too specialized for a particular environment. All of our understanding is based on incomplete models and metaphors and are in constant flux. We just refine the same stuff imo. We get closer to good descriptions for what we have access to.

We pretend math takes us into a different realm. We use the math now heavily in physics to make models and then we hunt for some experiment to test the model. Science is very powerful, but limited. Individuals that work outside of science and reason (math and logic), get further off course when answering questions that science can model imo.

Thats how I see it.

I see nothing wrong with that way of thinking, so long as it doesn't hinder us trying to figure everything out.

[Chinook]

As you can tell from his latest post, blake has no intention of debating or discussing.
His sole intention is to troll, that is all he ever does on here.
I am surprised you got DMC to debate because all he usually does is troll too.
It is what it is, we are used to it.

DMC and I have a lot of edifying conversations. He's quite a smart person, if his posts are any indication. He's confident in his views and often dismisses arguments that he considers to be unworthy of serious discussion, but he and I have never had that sort of issue. I've learned quite a bit from this thread, honestly.

[Chinook]

Again it is very telling that some of us can respect diverse opinions like the way chinook and others feel and believe even though we might not agree with them, yet so many others on here seem to find it offensive and try to ridicule, or feel so threatened that they they have to pick holes in people's beliefs or opinions.
Chinook certainly destroyed DMC even though I doubt that was his intention, and it goes without saying he made mincemeat of blake's trolling.

Weren't you the one saying that this was just a discussion and not a contest? I didn't "destroy" anybody. DMC and I pretty much got our views out there. We can both see that neither one is an idiot, and so we can agree to disagree in peace.

[RD2191]

Weren't you the one saying that this was just a discussion and not a contest? I didn't "destroy" anybody. DMC and I pretty much got our views out there. We can both see that neither one is an idiot, and so we can agree to disagree in peace.
Not true. DMC believes he is better than you. He also thinks you're stupid. You are obviously a very well educated man but if you can't see that then you still have a lot of learning to do.

[pgardn]

I have read about his incompleteness theorem (ironically enough in a writing class). I understand his point that not everything can be put into formal logic, that a system of reasoning cannot systematize itself. I haven't read his work directly, however, which is why I'm hesitant to say I actually know about his work with any conviction.

As far as libraries go, I think you might be a little behind on the times, no offense. I know at least in my case, I don't really have many physical books anymore. The ones I had to buy for classes were pretty much sold off once the classes ended, since a hundred dollars means a ton more to a college student than toting around reminders of all the late-night study sessions you had to pull. Even my entertainment books are often in digital form, whether those are E-books or audiobooks. There are times that I really wish that I had kept my textbooks. But I was a kid who traveled across the country to go to college. No way was it feasible for me to hold on to them.

I have not read it directly either. If I did, I would not understand it. Just the implications as described by others.

I like paper. I like writing notes, dogearing, and putting my own paper in. I can pick the book up and know what I'm looking for by thickness and folding along with paper stickin out. Not as comfy with ebooks yet, but will get there. Only read history and fiction on ebooks.

I guess just titles and thoughts that impact people the most in those books. A representative quote that summarizes something that encompasses a big idea. That's what I'd like to see.

[DMC]

?

Probably the first one. I don't believe the prime mover exists in this universe.

Then in this universe you are atheist. If we introduce hypothetical realms where anything goes, we could all believe different than we do now. In this universe, which is all we know to exist, you don't believe a god exists. That's atheist most likely but at least agnostic.


I'm not sure you and I agree. If you believe evolution is a fact, but simultaneously acknowledge that it might not be a fact, then you have a logical quandary on your hands. So you have to weaken one of those two statements. You can either abandon the qualifier of potentially being wrong (essentially what you're saying I have to do to be like "real" theists) or you have to accept that you only believe that you are following the path of best guesses. If you take the former path, then you can never have any mental flexibility, and you thusly cannot be a scientist. If I do not accept the existence of god the prime mover as undeniable truth, it's because I am not illogical. It's not because I have a shaky grasp on what belief means.

I don't necessarily believe evolution is a fact. I accept that it is a fact because the implications don't necessarily affect me. I have only read about it, I haven't gone out and done my own research. I do know what the ToE states, and I do know it's intentionally misrepresented here and among many theists as humans from monkeys.

I don't call myself an evolutionist simply because I allow that the Theory of Evolution might be true. I won't stand up to defend it in a debate because it's not that important to me.

It's not that you have a shaky grasp on belief, it's that you equivocate your belief (which is a notion) with the belief of theists (which is a conviction). I showed you the definition for theist, and none of them indicate that the theist allows for the possibility of a god. The atheist doesn't allow for the possibility of a god, meaning "god did it" isn't in their tool bag at all so they cannot use it, but the agnostic reserves judgement. He won't say god did it, but he won't say god did not do it. You seem more agnostic leaning toward theism than theist.


Indeed, but not through the scientific method.

So then what about god? Is god falsifiable?


Of course you can hop off the chain once it reaches the end. As I said, we'll all get to eternity eventually. It's just that strong atheists have no idea what to do once they get there. Essentially, it's going to end up being a statement like, "There has always been _____ ." eventually. That's the only way to get off the chain. The difference is that some folks will finish the phrase by saying, "something", while others will finish by saying, "nothing." There's no way around that unless you want to propose that your favorite turtle is legitimate starting place with no justification whatsoever.

You do the same with a god. It's more plausible to say "something has always existed" than to say "a supernatural presence that we know nothing about has always existed in another realm we know nothing about"

Both try to provide an answer instead of "I don't know", but there is simply no discovery after you allow a supernatural cause. Anything after that becomes just another event that the supernatural god caused. What discovery could be made if we allow that a god created the universe? How can we ever disprove it? Even if we could capture light from the beginning of time, we couldn't disprove the claim that a god did it. If you have the answer, you have to provide at least some plausibility for it. If you can say "was always" then you haven't exhausted the possibilities. Eternity with matter and energy is at least an answer, unlike eternity with a supernatural being in a supernatural world. I don't lean on it as if it's the right answer, but it's more plausible than a god, and if one day we discover that matter has a finite shelf life, we will have to abandon that remote possibility. What will we discover so that you abandon the god answer?


We pretty much agree here, save for one thing: If you think my argument has a problem with "time without time," you can't possibly think that that doesn't destroy any empirical pursuit toward a prime mover. We're talking about our whole universe being the effect here. No matter how far we go, we're still going to be in that effect shadow.

We cannot refer to time as having a beginning then refer to time before that. It's nonsensical and weighs down the conversation. I don't subscribe to the kalam cosmological argument because I see no reason to think a god is the cause of existence even if the universe has a cause, and I've not seen a good argument put forth by anyone to justify that premise.

There are other paths to take. Even if we do not consider the BB to be the beginning of time, it is the beginning of our universe (based on the current model). That doesn't mean big bounce isn't true, or that the universe isn't waxing and waning. If time is eternal then perhaps it's just the human mind that needs a starting point.


On one hand, the answer to that may very well be that there isn't a change from any perspective but our own. If the universe was inevitably going to change (which one has to believe to accept the causal chain), then it hasn't really changed at all

Anyway, from a certain standpoint, you're correct that the argument is just pushed back another step. But from a physical standpoint, it's not a clear. Essentially, everything we know about the universe is based on concepts which most physicists agree didn't really exist until some time after the Bang occurred. That's why no one has any idea how it started, or what exactly was going on before. So I wouldn't be as keen as you seem to be to bring up paradoxes when we don't even know if it was a paradox at all.

For sake of argument, and based on your reasoning for needing a god to fill the void for prime mover, the need for a previous event is indeed just pushing it back on step and does nothing to clear the table. It is a paradox based on how you are rationalizing it. If we can use a magical trump card, then everyone is right regardless of their reasoning since the rules don't apply inside that trump card slot.


Hawking's assertion that existence is cyclical by itself does absolutely no work. It instead relies on the unstated assumption that such a cycle has always been around. But that only does marginal work. It's just another turtle. It's just where he's willing to plant his flag and call it a day, where he can leave it so he can die with a clear conscience.

You don't seem keen on the "meanwhile the god answer requires much more work..." part though. Compared to "god did it", Hawking went down with jacks and timbers.


It's not easy. It's reasonable. It makes sense, and despite what you say, it doesn't prevent one from trying to understand how any of it works. I never got that extension that some people make. It's not like finding out someone built a computer all the sudden means you don't try to figure out how it works. The fact that you believe something was created can only improve the possibility of being able to find out how it works.

It should not come before understanding. No answer needs to be created before understanding of how it works. Putting god there skips over an eternity of discovery to arrive at a conclusion that can never be tested. If you don't feel like you need an answer right now, you can easily avoid it.


The claim that something has thusofar been undisputed is not the same as the claim that something is indisputable. If it's wrong, it's wrong. There's just never been a reason to doubt such a claim.

"It was perfectly reasonable to assume that all things had to be made. That assumption is still a strong one, one that is still undisputed. " -Chinook

The argument from contingency has been disputed for a long time.

"I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy. Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn't a mother -- that's a different logical sphere." - Bertrand Russell (1948)



The god theory doesn't fail because it's unfalsifiable. That just means that science should ignore it. I've never claimed that science shouldn't do so, which is why I believe that it's not a big deal whether people believe in the existence of god or not. It's one of those things that's either true or false, and the answer has no effect on people. We're discussing it because we want to, not because our intellectual salvation depends on it.

It cannot be false based on being non-falsifiability. That too is a paradox. It means it should be ignored. Science is what we use to understand the world around us. It's not a separate entity. I know you know this so I don't understand why you refer to it as if it is.

The claim fails because you cannot prove it, and because you cannot prove it I cannot disprove it. There is therefore no reason to consider it to be true, even for argument's sake.


We've both accepted the logic that led me to my statement. We know the universe is expanding, and the definition you quoted clearly as a universe contains its own spacetime and matter. So the only thing to conclude is that a new universe would create its own space and that we would keep ours; otherwise, they'd be just one big universe.

But the universe is all matter and energy. How can you have another all matter and energy? All is all. It's another paradox.

[xmas1997]

DMC and I have a lot of edifying conversations. He's quite a smart person, if his posts are any indication. He's confident in his views and often dismisses arguments, but he and I have never had that sort of issue. I've learned quite a bit from this thread, honestly.


That is what we all, or most of us anyway, who possess open but critical thinking minds can hope to achieve IMHO.
You never know where insight and clarification will come from.
I have nothing against DMC personally, I recognize his intelligence, that is, when he isn't trolling, and only when he attacks me first do I respond in kind.
If you get a chance, I recommend you engage in a discussion with SBM sometime too, he has much to offer, that is, when he isn't busy making fun of the trolls on here.

[xmas1997]

Weren't you the one saying that this was just a discussion and not a contest? I didn't "destroy" anybody. DMC and I pretty much got our views out there. We can both see that neither one is an idiot, and so we can agree to disagree in peace.

Yea, it was me, but I was saying this statement as an admonishment of the trolls who were trolling you.

[xmas1997]

Not true. DMC believes he is better than you. He also thinks you're stupid. You are obviously a very well educated man but if you can't see that then you still have a lot of learning to do.

I didn't realize this about DMC until he started trying to attack me in an emotional manner instead of using reason and civility.

It came as quite a surprise actually.

After which I began responding back somewhat the same as he was doing to me.

And then I was informed he was trolling, and it became pretty clear.

[Chinook]

Then in this universe you are atheist. If we introduce hypothetical realms where anything goes, we could all believe different than we do now. In this universe, which is all we know to exist, you don't believe a god exists. That's atheist most likely but at least agnostic.

Again, I love the attempt to introduce the concept or relative atheism. I can believe god exists, but if he doesn't exist in this universe, then I don't believe he exists at all. That's an error in formal logical.


I don't necessarily believe evolution is a fact. I accept that it is a fact because the implications don't necessarily affect me. I have only read about it, I haven't gone out and done my own research. I do know what the ToE states, and I do know it's intentionally misrepresented here and among many theists as humans from monkeys.

I don't call myself an evolutionist simply because I allow that the Theory of Evolution might be true. I won't stand up to defend it in a debate because it's not that important to me.

Coulda sworn you didn't have this distinction a couple of cycles ago. I'm glad you're coming around to my way of thinking in that regard.


It's not that you have a shaky grasp on belief, it's that you equivocate your belief (which is a notion) with the belief of theists (which is a conviction). I showed you the definition for theist, and none of them indicate that the theist allows for the possibility of a god. The atheist doesn't allow for the possibility of a god, meaning "god did it" isn't in their tool bag at all so they cannot use it, but the agnostic reserves judgement. He won't say god did it, but he won't say god did not do it. You seem more agnostic leaning toward theism than theist.

I don't believe there's really a continuum here. You either believe in god's existence or you don't. I think if you took all agnostics and interviewed them, you could put them into one of the two principle categories.


So then what about god? Is god falsifiable?

Nope. Only verifiable (theoretically). We agreed on that.


You do the same with a god. It's more plausible to say "something has always existed" than to say "a supernatural presence that we know nothing about has always existed in another realm we know nothing about"

Both try to provide an answer instead of "I don't know", but there is simply no discovery after you allow a supernatural cause. Anything after that becomes just another event that the supernatural god caused. What discovery could be made if we allow that a god created the universe? How can we ever disprove it? Even if we could capture light from the beginning of time, we couldn't disprove the claim that a god did it. If you have the answer, you have to provide at least some plausibility for it. If you can say "was always" then you haven't exhausted the possibilities. Eternity with matter and energy is at least an answer, unlike eternity with a supernatural being in a supernatural world. I don't lean on it as if it's the right answer, but it's more plausible than a god, and if one day we discover that matter has a finite shelf life, we will have to abandon that remote possibility. What will we discover so that you abandon the god answer?

Surprisingly enough, it's not. Something that existed for eternity is still bound by proximate mechanisms. An intelligence at least has the chance to not be.

You can keep acting like theism prevents science all you want, but it's just not true. Too many great thinkers have been theists for that assertion to really hold weight. Darwin believed god created the world, and still saw the need to figure out how life evolved. Descartes is pretty much the father or modern epistemology, and his second action on those lines was to create a proof for god's existence (a faulty one). Mendel (father of genetics) was a priest. Newton was a cultist. It just goes on and on.

As for your last question, we'd have to find an effect that doesn't logically need a cause.


We cannot refer to time as having a beginning then refer to time before that. It's nonsensical and weighs down the conversation. I don't subscribe to the kalam cosmological argument because I see no reason to think a god is the cause of existence even if the universe has a cause, and I've not seen a good argument put forth by anyone to justify that premise.

There are other paths to take. Even if we do not consider the BB to be the beginning of time, it is the beginning of our universe (based on the current model). That doesn't mean big bounce isn't true, or that the universe isn't waxing and waning. If time is eternal then perhaps it's just the human mind that needs a starting point.

For sake of argument, and based on your reasoning for needing a god to fill the void for prime mover, the need for a previous event is indeed just pushing it back on step and does nothing to clear the table. It is a paradox based on how you are rationalizing it. If we can use a magical trump card, then everyone is right regardless of their reasoning since the rules don't apply inside that trump card slot.

Of course we can if we stop being self-centered. Time as an innate property of our universe's existence began ... whenever. Let's just say the Big Bang for now. But if our universe was set into motion (which is theoretically possible to do ourselves, according to some scientists), then its creation as preceded by a different event, which can be understood just fine without fear of paradox. It's only when one is dead-set on us being the only existence that it's a logical issue. Essentially, it may well be as you said, and that the paradox is only due to our understanding of time.


You don't seem keen on the "meanwhile the god answer requires much more work..." part though. Compared to "god did it", Hawking went down with jacks and timbers.

Hawking did nothing. He just created another turtle. A poorly constructed one at that. Love the Big John reference, though.


It should not come before understanding. No answer needs to be created before understanding of how it works. Putting god there skips over an eternity of discovery to arrive at a conclusion that can never be tested. If you don't feel like you need an answer right now, you can easily avoid it.

Yeah, because the view totally prevented people from testing things... Again, this is and always has been a poor extension.


"It was perfectly reasonable to assume that all things had to be made. That assumption is still a strong one, one that is still undisputed. " -Chinook

The argument from contingency has been disputed for a long time.

"I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy. Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn't a mother -- that's a different logical sphere." - Bertrand Russell (1948)

:lol I'm quotable now. I've reached the big stage.

Shame on Russell for making such an egregiously bad example. All that does is demonstrate that he had a poor understanding of proximate mechanisms. And anyway, the human race DID have a mother. The first creature who could be called a true Homo sapien certainly did have one. Russell was clearly from the pre-evolutionary school of thought.


It cannot be false based on being non-falsifiability. That too is a paradox. It means it should be ignored. Science is what we use to understand the world around us. It's not a separate entity. I know you know this so I don't understand why you refer to it as if it is.

The claim fails because you cannot prove it, and because you cannot prove it I cannot disprove it. There is therefore no reason to consider it to be true, even for argument's sake.

Can you falsify "two plus two equals four"? Can you even think about how you would go about it?


But the universe is all matter and energy. How can you have another all matter and energy? All is all. It's another paradox.

Not really. We have a pretty good understanding of what our universe actually is from a physical sense. No need to act like a self-centered framing really ties up anything.

[DMC]

I didn't realize this about DMC until he started trying to attack me in an emotional manner instead of using reason and civility.

It came as quite a surprise actually.

After which I began responding back somewhat the same as he was doing to me.

And then I was informed he was trolling, and it became pretty clear.

The truth is I probably give you more credit than you deserve by considering you a troll. The alternative is to consider you an idiot.

[pgardn]

Pgardns footnotes to some of DMCs stuff.



I don't necessarily believe evolution is a fact. I accept that it is a fact because the implications don't necessarily affect me. I have only read about it, I haven't gone out and done my own research. I do know what the ToE states, and I do know it's intentionally misrepresented here and among many theists as humans from monkeys.

This disingenuous portrayal is very annoying and repetitive. And it is worth noting that some people will go to extremes to avoid having their worldview disturbed. I understand this, but it's intellectually lazy to use the same droning whatever seems disgusting-----> human.

And evolution makes sense across so many fields in the study of life. This is why it's so widely accepted... errr in most places.


So then what about god? Is god falsifiable?

No. Not the God presented by most on this board and most religions.

You do the same with a god. It's more plausible to say "something has always existed" than to say "a supernatural presence that we know nothing about has always existed in another realm we know nothing about"

Always existed implies time is finite (unlike the math idea) to me which seems strange. But I personally see nothing wrong with this idea. It's more palatable. But this idea really rattles the internal organs of some. When scientist say the Big Bang occurred. They are not necessarily implying that something occurred before, because before does not make sense.

Both try to provide an answer instead of "I don't know", but there is simply no discovery after you allow a supernatural cause.

It's lazy, I'm afraid to look...When dealing with questions that science has a shot at.



There are other paths to take. Even if we do not consider the BB to be the beginning of time, it is the beginning of our universe (based on the current model). That doesn't mean big bounce isn't true, or that the universe isn't waxing and waning. If time is eternal then perhaps it's just the human mind that needs a starting point.
Starting point implies an event, then if events cease, time does to. People really don't like this idea of finite events thus finite time. They must have a before time. But it does not fit the definition to even ask this. Time is a human construct. It's a very useful idea when things actually occur. And I have been repetitive here.


But the universe is all matter and energy. How can you have another all matter and energy? All is all. It's another paradox.


This goes with the conservation laws which have been very helpful in our understanding of the physical world.

[pgardn]

Oh yes, I'm not into classifying different types of belief systems.
I'm just mindful of what people need v. what we actually find out and interpret about our universe.

[xmas1997]

The truth is I probably give you more credit than you deserve by considering you a troll. The alternative is to consider you an idiot.

I rest my case. ^ What you meant to say was, if you knew the truth, then you would never resorted to an emotional statement in the first place that were false, accusatory, and insulting.
If you act like an ignorant asshole, that reflects on you, not me.
I am always willing to give the benefit of the doubt, I have no personal investment in this, rather I am just responding back as to what is throw my way.
And even then, I hold no grudge, nor ever meant offense.
The truth is you started this emotional shit, not me, as verified in the posts.
Thus we can stop any time you choose to act like a mature and reasonable adult.

[silverblk mystix]

I rest my case. ^ What you meant to say was, if you knew the truth, then you would never resorted to an emotional statement in the first place that were false, accusatory, and insulting.
If you act like an ignorant asshole, that reflects on you, not me.
I am always willing to give the benefit of the doubt, I have no personal investment in this, rather I am just responding back as to what is throw my way.
And even then, I hold no grudge, nor ever meant offense.
The truth is you started this emotional shit, not me, as verified in the posts.
Thus we can stop any time you choose to act like a mature and reasonable adult.


I would instead offer this;

Invite DMC to the gtg.

If DMC goes - I go.

This will tell you everything you need to know about DMC.

[DMC]

Again, I love the attempt to introduce the concept or relative atheism. I can believe god exists, but if he doesn't exist in this universe, then I don't believe he exists at all. That's an error in formal logical.

It's not whether or not he exists in this universe. It's whether or not you believe a god exists in this universe. You said you don't. How do you define "universe"? Doesn't the "uni" part mean anything?


Coulda sworn you didn't have this distinction a couple of cycles ago. I'm glad you're coming around to my way of thinking in that regard.

I consider evolution a fact, but the ToE I haven't researched well enough to have a real opinion on it, however I do believe in the process of scientific testing and there are thousands of scientists out there who would love to debunk that theory. I don't have a belief in scientific theories. I acknowledge them for what they are, even the theory of gravity, but I do feel confident that gravity exists.

I wouldn't be moved much to learn it's wrong.


I don't believe there's really a continuum here. You either believe in god's existence or you don't. I think if you took all agnostics and interviewed them, you could put them into one of the two principle categories.

You mean to say you believe something exists and you're labeling it "god", but it doesn't exist in the world we know. Is it the Christian God? Or is any being advanced enough to operate between realms good enough to consider a god? Again, why god?

You basically did with agnostics what I did with your claim of theism... you dismissed it by saying they really don't feel that way.


Nope. Only verifiable (theoretically). We agreed on that.

We did? How is something verifiable theoretically? Aren't you just changing "falsifiable" into "verifiable" and don't they basically mean the same things?

ver·i·fy verb \ˈver-ə-ˌfī\
: to prove, show, find out, or state that (something) is true or correct

Unless you mean "state that something is true or correct" then you're referring to the same thing as being falsifiable. How is a god theoretically verifiable?


Surprisingly enough, it's not. Something that existed for eternity is still bound by proximate mechanisms. An intelligence at least has the chance to not be.

How do you know that something bound by eternity (whatever that means) is bound by proximate mechanisms? How do you know an intelligence has the chance to not be? How are you differentiating between intelligence and other things? Is a bug an intelligence? Is a human? Do either of us have a chance to not be bound by proximate mechanisms?

These seem like things you want me to accept as a priori truths but they aren't.


You can keep acting like theism prevents science all you want, but it's just not true. Too many great thinkers have been theists for that assertion to really hold weight. Darwin believed god created the world, and still saw the need to figure out how life evolved. Descartes is pretty much the father or modern epistemology, and his second action on those lines was to create a proof for god's existence (a faulty one). Mendel (father of genetics) was a priest. Newton was a cultist. It just goes on and on.

Historically theists scientists have been shunned by other theists for their discoveries. The theists you mention are the forefathers of atheism, for the most part. What did Darwin get for making the claims he made, what did he get for his Origin of Species, from the other theists? Let's not revise history here. Deists have tip toed on the edges of belief, seemingly in fear of being labeled atheist in days when it would have been career suicide. Even today a professed atheist would likely not win the presidential race.


As for your last question, we'd have to find an effect that doesn't logically need a cause.

That's circular reasoning, as the term "effect" implies "cause". Is god an effect? Whatever makes god not an effect in your mind, apply that to non-god like matter and energy.


Of course we can if we stop being self-centered. Time as an innate property of our universe's existence began ... whenever. Let's just say the Big Bang for now. But if our universe was set into motion (which is theoretically possible to do ourselves, according to some scientists), then its creation as preceded by a different event, which can be understood just fine without fear of paradox. It's only when one is dead-set on us being the only existence that it's a logical issue. Essentially, it may well be as you said, and that the paradox is only due to our understanding of time.

Not so much as understanding of time, but understanding of the paradox created by applying time based things before time has started. It's not my problem, you're the one doing it. If you want to imply that time is nebulous, then do away with "beginning of time", and if you want to imply that time can having a beginning, then do away with "before the beginning of time". Before implies time, and unless you can show me an instance where the term "before" doesn't imply time, I'll probably maintain that stance. I know it can be used as a spatial reference "the road before you get to the interstate", but it is still implying time.


Hawking did nothing. He just created another turtle. A poorly constructed one at that. Love the Big John reference, though.

An uncaused prime mover is the only turtle in this conversation. It seems to be floating in space.


Yeah, because the view totally prevented people from testing things... Again, this is and always has been a poor extension.

You cannot test the view. When you presuppose the answer, you're always looking for the proof of that answer. So you're out there and you're looking for things this god created. You cannot be looking to validate your view, because it's not testable. If you presuppose a big bounce, for example, you could look at things around you and you might conclude "nope, not bouncing" but you cannot look and say "nope, no god" because it would be the picture of a cow eating grass thing... what? No grass? Cow must have eaten it... what? no cow? After he ate the grass he left, why stick around if there's no grass?

Here's the pic btw





So yeah.


:lol I'm quotable now. I've reached the big stage.

I needed to keep things in context.


Shame on Russell for making such an egregiously bad example. All that does is demonstrate that he had a poor understanding of proximate mechanisms. And anyway, the human race DID have a mother. The first creature who could be called a true Homo sapien certainly did have one. Russell was clearly from the pre-evolutionary school of thought.

It demonstrates that you were wrong, that it has been disputed. So now both Bertrand Russell and Stephen Hawking are lazy with poor understanding of their respective fields of expertise. I'm not one to use argument from authority, but let's not go down that road.

Do you think there was a first creature who could be called a true homo sapien? Do you not think it becomes a bit nebulous for a few thousand years? What if there were twins?


Can you falsify "two plus two equals four"? Can you even think about how you would go about it?

My grade school teacher did it all the time with a red ink pen.


Not really. We have a pretty good understanding of what our universe actually is from a physical sense. No need to act like a self-centered framing really ties up anything.
3000 years ago, probably could have gotten the same perspective from a nomad wondering around in the desert, that he has a good understanding of the world around him.

[xmas1997]

I would instead offer this;

Invite DMC to the gtg.

If DMC goes - I go.

This will tell you everything you need to know about DMC.

Of course he is invited, everyone who wants to go is. There is no reason I can think of to exclude anyone.

[DMC]

I rest my case. ^ What you meant to say was, if you knew the truth, then you would never resorted to an emotional statement in the first place that were false, accusatory, and insulting.
If you act like an ignorant asshole, that reflects on you, not me.
I am always willing to give the benefit of the doubt, I have no personal investment in this, rather I am just responding back as to what is throw my way.
And even then, I hold no grudge, nor ever meant offense.
The truth is you started this emotional shit, not me, as verified in the posts.
Thus we can stop any time you choose to act like a mature and reasonable adult.

You should make another pass, see how many fish you pick up.

[xmas1997]

You should make another pass, see how many fish you pick up.

This was pretty explanatory the first time, for a reasonable and intelligent person.
Are you implying you're not?

[DMC]

This was pretty explanatory the first time, for a reasonable and intelligent person.
Are you implying you're not?

Don't keep going for the same fish every time when you know they aren't going to bite when they see your leader. Switch to fluorocarbon, something from Seagar, 100lb class. I'd do a Bimini twist just in case you get a smoker.

[xmas1997]

Don't keep going for the same fish every time when you know they aren't going to bite when they see your leader. Switch to fluorocarbon, something from Seagar, 100lb class. I'd do a Bimini twist just in case you get a smoker.

:lmao

You're certain of this?