Bill O'Reilly gives his "premium" members an insightful treat!

[DarrinS]

Damn, sounds like Isaac Newton (THE most influential scientist in history) was on the same page as Bill O'Reilly

Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.

[MiamiHeat]

Still doesn't legitimize ID, since it has no basis in fact or evidence. It's just a belief. That doesn't classify.... or else anyone, from mental patients to PhDs could throw their 2 cents. The mental patients belief would be just as valid as the PhD's.

So using quotes as a way to validate your belief in ID, is merely a logical fallacy.... trying to gather "popular opinion".... be honest with yourself on that. You are wasting everyone's time by doing that.

Until anyone can submit ID to a legitimate scientific review of evidence and facts, it's just a personal faith so just keep it to yourself.

[Yonivore]

I'm an atheist. Einstein was not.

You guys are using Einstein quotes and didn't post a very relevant one.

and now, after trolling me very hard, and making me defend myself, you continue to insult me. You're a spineless poster. You should be ashamed of yourself, really.

be gone, pest.

you.

So, back to the original question. What created?

[MiamiHeat]

I have no idea why the universe exists. Human science hasn't reached that far yet.

The fact that we do not know will just have to remain as any other annoying cir stance that we have to deal with in our lives.

Trying to profess Intelligent Design when you have absolutely no evidence or fact, is illogical. You don't know. I don't know. That will have to be good enough until we find out.

[DarrinS]

Trying to profess Intelligent Design when you have absolutely no evidence or fact, is illogical. You don't know. I don't know. That will have to be good enough until we find out.

Evidence is all around you, if you're looking for it.

[Yonivore]

I have no idea why the universe exists. Human science hasn't reached that far yet.

I never asked the question why but, how.

The fact that we do not know will just have to remain as any other annoying cir stance that we have to deal with in our lives.

Or, we can seek to discover...

Trying to profess Intelligent Design when you have absolutely no evidence or fact, is illogical. You don't know. I don't know. That will have to be good enough until we find out.

Yeah, let's just quit wondering and seeking an answer. That's what we should do. Let fate have her way because, there's no way we'll ever answer the unanswerable.

[SnakeBoy]

it's just a personal faith so just keep it to yourself.

Odd statement from someone who keeps proclaiming their faith.

[MiamiHeat]

Evidence is all around you, if you're looking for it.

Are you talking about the workings of evolution, ex. human body?

Quantum mechanics and how all things work?

Because if you are, they have other explanations.

This is cause ----> effect.

NOT effect -----> cause.

You were vague, but I will assume you will repeat what I have heard before. "Look at the earth, it's a perfect distance from the sun, not too far, not too close. Abundant water that we need, great atmosphere to protect us! It's so perfectly suited for us, that is must have been made for us to live in"

This is an easily spotted flaw in thinking...

We need certain temperature range on Earth to survive BECAUSE evolution adapted to this climate. We need water because water on earth is abundant when life was evolving. etc....

If life evolved on Mars, or Pluto, or somewhere else, those people would be saying "Oh man, this Pluto is perfect for us! It's so cold, with barely any sunlight reaching us! It's great!"


Cause comes first, then effect.

[MiamiHeat]

Odd statement from someone who keeps proclaiming their faith.

what faith?

I don't believe in anything that can't be proven. Seems like the most logical stance, imo.

[MiamiHeat]

Or, we can seek to discover...

We can do both. Accepting the fact that we don't know and still trying to advance human science is the most logical thing to do.

but proclaiming ID as the answer is not "seeking to discover" because it has no basis in fact. You haven't sought anything. You just couldn't explain why everything is, so you plastered religion's "God" on it and claim that you don't know what "God" is but he's out there. It might as well be a religion. That's not seeking to discover anything because there is no evidence to discover.

[Yonivore]

We can do both. Accepting the fact that we don't know and still trying to advance human science is the most logical thing to do.

That's an agnostic view, not an athiest view.

but proclaiming ID as the answer is not "seeking to discover" because it has no basis in fact. You haven't sought anything. You just couldn't explain why everything is, so you plastered religion's "God" on it and claim that you don't know what "God" is but he's out there. It might as well be a religion. That's not seeking to discover anything because there is no evidence to discover.

But, recognizing there is an order that speaks to the possibility of intelligent design is seeking to discover.

From where did the laws of physics originate? I think that's a legitimate question.

[SnakeBoy]

what faith?

The one you keep proclaiming.

I don't believe in anything that can't be proven.

You don't believe in dark matter or dark energy?

[Yonivore]

what faith?

Atheism is a faith; it's the belief there is no God -- something you can't prove.

[MiamiHeat]

That's an agnostic view, not an athiest view.

No, because I said we don't know why the universe exists as we see it. That is to say, we don't know what the scientific explanation is yet.

I didn't say we don't know if a "designer" made it or not, because we know that there is no evidence of God's, or designers, or whatever you want to call it. Might as well be religion.

If you can prove that we DO have scientific evidence of a God, let the human population know, because we don't have any.

From where did the laws of physics originate? I think that's a legitimate question.

Human science does not know yet. I will just have to be content with not knowing until we know. To profess anything else is illogical because they don't know either. Faith does not count as "know".

[DarrinS]

Are you talking about the workings of evolution, ex. human body?

Quantum mechanics and how all things work?

Because if you are, they have other explanations.

This is cause ----> effect.

NOT effect -----> cause.

You were vague, but I will assume you will repeat what I have heard before. "Look at the earth, it's a perfect distance from the sun, not too far, not too close. Abundant water that we need, great atmosphere to protect us! It's so perfectly suited for us, that is must have been made for us to live in"

This is an easily spotted flaw in thinking...

We need certain temperature range on Earth to survive BECAUSE evolution adapted to this climate. We need water because water on earth is abundant when life was evolving. etc....

If life evolved on Mars, or Pluto, or somewhere else, those people would be saying "Oh man, this Pluto is perfect for us! It's so cold, with barely any sunlight reaching us! It's great!"


Cause comes first, then effect.

What is the "natural" in "natural selection"?

From your last sentense: What "causes" the cause?

[Proxy]

For posterity:
1) Our current understanding is the moon was created when a large object collided with the earth a long time ago. The sun was created from a swirling mass of matter that came from another star that exploded. The first amoeba came from an organism that was very similar to an amoeba. We're not sure how life first started on this planet, and we're not sure why matter simply exists in the first place.
But more importantly:
2) It seems like Bill O'Reilly is making use of the "God of the Gaps" argument for God. With this strategy you assume scientific understanding is static, and any unexplained phenomenon can only be explained by a higher being. But scientific understanding is constantly changing and improving. So far (since the beginning of the scientific method) we've been able to explain many events that were previously attributed to a higher being, and we will get better at explaining things as time goes on (and our understanding increases). Even when science has trouble explaining something, there's no reason to attribute that something to a higher power. It's perfectly ok to just say "we don't know what causes that phenomenon". That is the most accurate representation of our knowledge... we simply don't know.
I couldn't post this to his you-tube comments because commenting is disabled. =(

-quoted from chipbuddy

[Proxy]

Atheism is a faith; it's the belief there is no God -- something you can't prove.

You're just trolling now.

[Yonivore]

You're just trolling now.

No. Proclaiming yourself an atheist is an act of faith.

[MiamiHeat]

For posterity:
1) Our current understanding is the moon was created when a large object collided with the earth a long time ago. The sun was created from a swirling mass of matter that came from another star that exploded. The first amoeba came from an organism that was very similar to an amoeba. We're not sure how life first started on this planet, and we're not sure why matter simply exists in the first place.
But more importantly:
2) It seems like Bill O'Reilly is making use of the "God of the Gaps" argument for God. With this strategy you assume scientific understanding is static, and any unexplained phenomenon can only be explained by a higher being. But scientific understanding is constantly changing and improving. So far (since the beginning of the scientific method) we've been able to explain many events that were previously attributed to a higher being, and we will get better at explaining things as time goes on (and our understanding increases). Even when science has trouble explaining something, there's no reason to attribute that something to a higher power. It's perfectly ok to just say "we don't know what causes that phenomenon". That is the most accurate representation of our knowledge... we simply don't know.
I couldn't post this to his you-tube comments because commenting is disabled. =(

-quoted from chipbuddy

Good post, similar to the comments I have made in this thread.

[Proxy]

No. Proclaiming yourself an atheist is an act of faith.

No it isn't.

[Proxy]

http://yfrog.com/5lsy8z

this is a link... the Colbert Report on the issue.

[Yonivore]

No it isn't.

It's a belief there is no God. Frankly, I think it takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe there is a God.

[Proxy]

It's a belief there is no God.

It is rejection.... it is the opposite of belief.

[Yonivore]

It is rejection.... it is the opposite of belief.

Suit yourself.

[DarrinS]

For posterity:
1) Our current understanding is the moon was created when a large object collided with the earth a long time ago. The sun was created from a swirling mass of matter that came from another star that exploded. The first amoeba came from an organism that was very similar to an amoeba. We're not sure how life first started on this planet, and we're not sure why matter simply exists in the first place.
But more importantly:
2) It seems like Bill O'Reilly is making use of the "God of the Gaps" argument for God. With this strategy you assume scientific understanding is static, and any unexplained phenomenon can only be explained by a higher being. But scientific understanding is constantly changing and improving. So far (since the beginning of the scientific method) we've been able to explain many events that were previously attributed to a higher being, and we will get better at explaining things as time goes on (and our understanding increases). Even when science has trouble explaining something, there's no reason to attribute that something to a higher power. It's perfectly ok to just say "we don't know what causes that phenomenon". That is the most accurate representation of our knowledge... we simply don't know.
I couldn't post this to his you-tube comments because commenting is disabled. =(

-quoted from chipbuddy

You've can't see the forest for the trees.


If you and I stumbled upon an unihabited Earth and walked upon the pyramids at Giza. You could explain to me, using physics and engineering principles, why the structure is sound, stable, etc. I would completely agree with you, but I would also add that it appears that something intelligent designed it -- that it wasn't just a collection of stones that came together randomly in that form.