ARCHIVE: Burden of Proof

[fool]

I do.

And I care about ThePhy, fool, allsmiles, Calde-whatever, Granite and the rest. I do!

Awwww Knight, we care about you too!
You'd be a decent guy if it wasen't for all the killing and stuff.................

 

[ThePhy]

Earlier on this thread I asked you if you believed in perpetual motion machines. And without qualification you stated "no".

Would you like to change your answer?

What makes you think I might want to?

 

[Vaquero45]

Supernatural has been the bucket that religionists have dumped things they didn’t understand into for millennia. Had you lived a few hundred years ago, you would have found just as much comfort in labeling earthquakes, comets, diseases, volcanoes, and tsunamis as supernatural.

Since I believe that all of the natural world is ultimately caused by a supernatural cause, my explanations wouldn't have been entirely wrong. You otoh, ultimately appear to think those phenomena created themselves.

Not my pink elephant. Zeus told me there are no pink elephants.

lol, I stand corrected.

 

[Spenser]

Guess who's back!

Knight,

You claim Stephan Hawking was just speculating upon the laws of thermodynamics breaking down at the Big Bang. This is clearly untrue. You can do the math yourself, matter takes on infinite density. My point was that is what science says, that these laws do indeed break down or basically that they do not apply because the calculations become meaningless. This doesn't mean that is the truth, maybe matter cannot be created nor destroyed period. Whether most people here like it or not science is the study of the natural world, IOW it has nothing to say about what might be before (if there is a before since this when time is supposed to have started) the BB.

Here is where we reach a similar point, its just at this point I saw almost anything could be possible. You say it is God. You tend to use a lot of loaded questions at this point to make your case. I never stated that matter came from nothing. 'Nothing' should be taken literally, how can anything come from nothing if there was nothing for it to come from? Well I can't say for sure if that is impossible but it surely doesn't sound probable. I just find it strange you have no problem finding your God to be eternal but cannot accept that the universe might be (in one form or another).

 

[ThePhy]

Since I believe that all of the natural world is ultimately caused by a supernatural cause, my explanations wouldn't have been entirely wrong. You otoh, ultimately appear to think those phenomena created themselves.

No, you are replacing “We don’t know” with the more trendy “created itself” nonsense. Part of “we don’t know derives from the breakdown of the laws that govern the daily existence we live in. There is an understandable desire to demand that even at the earliest moments of existence that the world be the rational place we know. It wasn’t. Whenever we go to the extremes we find that we must give up our cherished comfort zone, and accept nature on her terms.

In a broader sense, even though I don’t personally feel a need to invoke the supernatural to create the world, I really don’t mind if others do. If “God” initiated the big bang, fine, then maybe we are discovering the laws he put in place. My objections start when Creationists turn to pseudo-science because they want their God meddling in numerous ways in which science does a fine job of understanding on its own.

lol, I stand corrected.

That’s Ok, I talked to Zeus and she said you are forgiven.

 

[noguru]

Challenge anything you want!

Knock yourself out! :thumb:

2+2 might equal 5, create a four sided triangle, determine the length of time it took before time came into existence. Knock yourself out! Everybody's got to have a hobby.

ThePhy.... to maintain your world-view you need to have faith that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics might be breakable. I realize that. And you have your own will. You are free to think whatever you want to think I am not going to try to force you to believe in the conclusions of science.

Could you please explain how ThePhy's worldview relies on the possiblity that the 1st and 2nd Law of thermodynamics are breakable? Which of these laws do you believe wins out in the end? Conservation of energy or total energy equilibrium throughout the entire universe? Could you give us the calculations on how you came to that conclusion?

 

[Turbo]

So often atheists pretend that their atheism is founded on science. But it's refreshing to see so many in this thread candidly acknowledge in this thread that they cannot even account for the existence of the natural universe from their worldview, and that they really don't care.

Caledvwlch's confession that his atheism is based on blind faith and willing ignorance is especially eloquent:

Ok, I can agree with that, but being raised a Christian, I was never given a good background in any of these plausible alternative, so I don't try to discuss them. What I'm left with is two thing. I don't know, and it doesn't matter that I don't know, because nobody really does. :thumb:

That last phrase, "because nobody really does," bothered me when I first read it. How could he possibly know what everybody else does and doesn't know? It's stated so dogmatically; it sounds like something PureX would write (but PureX's post would be at least 10 times as long ). But then I realized that this is but another belief that Caledvwlch bases on blind faith.

 

[Turbo]

The only folks willing to offer plausible explanations seem to be the Creationists. All the rest (including you) appeal to the "Singularity" of the gaps theory.

I don’t know what you mean by the “gaps theory”.

Haven't you ever heard the expression God of the gaps? It refers to the atheist argument that theists use "God did it" as a cop-out to explain anything that is a mystery to them. (There was some great discussion about this in Battle Royale VII... Check it out!)

Hopefully that will shed some light on what Knight means when he says that you (and other atheists) appeal to the "Singularity" of the gaps theory.

 

[noguru]

Haven't you ever heard the expression God of the gaps? It refers to the atheist argument that theists use "God did it" as a cop-out to explain anything that is a mystery to them. (There was some great discussion about this in Battle Royale VII... Check it out!)

Hopefully that will shed some light on what Knight means when he says that you (and other atheists) appeal to the "Singularity" of the gaps theory.

The God of the gaps methodology is still used. It will probably always be used. Since science will most likely never have all the answers. It is used regarding abiogenesis. This is why I find Christian apologetics based on the limitations of the naturalistic methodology to be misleading.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The God of the gaps methodology is still used. It will probably always be used. Since science will most likely never have all the answers. It is used regarding abiogenesis. This is why I find Christian apologetics based on the limitations of the naturalistic methodology to be misleading.

Science closes gaps and therefore science is a great asset.

 

[ThePhy]

From Turbo:

So often atheists pretend that their atheism is founded on science. But it's refreshing to see so many in this thread candidly acknowledge in this thread that they cannot even account for the existence of the natural universe from their worldview, and that they really don't care.

As an atheist and a scientist I can assure you that my atheism in something quite apart from my science. If I decided to take up the study of fine arts, nothing would change in my (non)theology.

You say that science cannot account for the existence of this natural universe? So? I am aware of a multitude of religious fables about how the universe came into being, but none that have much credibility scientifically. If you have a religious creation fable that you prefer, feel free to believe in it. For me, I have found immense satisfaction in watching science continually improve its understanding of how things work as we get closer to the extremes of time and speed and size. I just can’t see any benefit in adopting a mostly non-sensical religious creation story.

But I do care. At least, I care that we are progressing. That is much of the incentive for my enjoyment is watching this unfolding adventure in science.

Haven't you ever heard the expression God of the gaps? It refers to the atheist argument that theists use "God did it" as a cop-out to explain anything that is a mystery to them. (There was some great discussion about this in Battle Royale VII... Check it out!)

I am well aware of the concept of gaps you mention. I just had not heard that used in reference to science. I think it is a bit unfortunate that some feel we have to partition up the territory between God and science. Is science’s gap the same as God’s firm territory, and vv?

There is a big difference though, between the philosophy that science works under and that of religion in regards to what each knows. Science feels no shame in saying “we don’t know”. In fact, the world of “We don’t know” is the very lifeblood of the next generation of PhD candidates, who have to show that they can advance to the forefront of science and do good work in pushing back the unknown.

In one view, science is always getting dumber - The range of things we realize we don’t know is always increasing. Science is like an expanding bubble, continually getting bigger on the inside where our understanding is, but at the same time the edge of the bubble, where we are looking out into the unknown, is also getting bigger.

By contrast, as least for many dogmatic fundamentalist Christians, the Bible makes some declarations that are not to be questioned. When these doctrines fall within the realms in which science operates, then the problems start. And it is there that indeed the landscape is changing, the gaps in which the fundamentalist Christian god lives are becoming more and more remote. In contests over territory once solely god’s, like volcanoes, comets, and diseases, god got evicted from his territory. You can have the first gazillionth of a second after the big bang for one of your god’s gaps, at least for now. For the billions of years since science has done just fine without needing to invoke any flavor of religious voodoo.

 

[SUTG]

they cannot even account for the existence of the natural universe from their worldview,

This is actually kind of funny.

Sort of like saying "He's so dumb, he can't even explain the deepest mysteries of reality!"

Your confidence is unfounded. If you're counting yourself among those who have claimed to have accounted for the existence of the natural worldview, you're the member of a pretty large and diverse club. Creation myths and crackpot theories about the nature of reality abound. What's more, they're all absolutely certain. Go figure! :chuckle:

 

[Spenser]

So often atheists pretend that their atheism is founded on science. But it's refreshing to see so many in this thread candidly acknowledge in this thread that they cannot even account for the existence of the natural universe from their worldview, and that they really don't care.

First off, I don't know what is going on in your avatar picture but it is pretty amusing. It looks like one of those Gieco cavemen at an Easter tea party. "This tea is so good, even a caveman would drink it!"

Anyway, I think many theists here have a serious misunderstanding of what atheism is and how atheists think. Atheism is a lack of belief in God. Atheism is not founded on science. Science explains natural phenomenon and seeing as atheists tend not to believe in all the things that are asserted to exist outside of time and space, science is a good tool at explaining the things they do believe in. You accept most of science yourself most likely as you are already typing on a computer and chatting over the internet and I would wager you get to and fro in an automobile.

In fact most theists accept probably most things that science has to say. Atheists tend not to reject what the scientific community accepts as fact. Some theists reject anything that science has to say that goes against their particular religion. Somehow this makes many theists think that science is bias and atheistic in nature. Nope, they are just in agreement. Whether you like it or not, evolution is science, it is scientific in nature, uses the scientific method, is falsifiable and even makes predictions. Now it may not be true, maybe your ID is right, but it (evolution) is science. The majority of scientist who practice science agree, and the majority of them also believe it as fact. Atheists tend not to reject what science finds and therefore they are once again in agreement.

Now, science has nothing to say about what happened prior to the Big Bang. Tell me now why we need to account for the natural universe?

That last phrase, "because nobody really does," bothered me when I first read it. How could he possibly know what everybody else does and doesn't know? It's stated so dogmatically; it sounds like something PureX would write (but PureX's post would be at least 10 times as long ). But then I realized that this is but another belief that Caledvwlch bases on blind faith.

You are 100% sure that you know? Don't answer me because obviously you are just going to say yes. Ask yourself and answer yourself honestly, you know 100% that you are right? I got no problem saying that I don't know for sure...

 

[Caledvwlch]

So often atheists pretend that their atheism is founded on science. But it's refreshing to see so many in this thread candidly acknowledge in this thread that they cannot even account for the existence of the natural universe from their worldview, and that they really don't care.

Apathy, perhaps? My generation is notorious for it.

Caledvwlch's confession that his atheism is based on blind faith and willing ignorance is especially eloquent:

Why, Lionel... I didn't know you cared. And you spelled my handle correctly! I think I'm going to get emotional.

That last phrase, "because nobody really does," bothered me when I first read it. How could he possibly know what everybody else does and doesn't know? It's stated so dogmatically; it sounds like something PureX would write (but PureX's post would be at least 10 times as long ).

I know it sounds a little dogmatic, but it's what I believe. Even as a Christian, there are things that have to be taken on faith, not knowledge. You cannot know that the Genesis creation account is accurate. You believe that it is accurate. I've never encountered a Christian (in my Christian days, or otherwise) who could not concede that the creation is mainly a point of faith. Surety of faith is not the same thing as raw knowledge.

And as for atheists, most of us have admitted, quite honestly that we do not know, because of a lack of sufficient data, the true origins of the universe. Given that base, I feel comfortable saying that no living human knows for certain the true origin of the universe, or if the universe even has an origin.

But then I realized that this is but another belief that Caledvwlch bases on blind faith.

Not blind faith, as I explained above. Was it right for me to say that no living human knows? Perhaps not. I hope you can understand the difference when I say I believe that nobody knows. And as far as my beliefs concerning the origins of the universe, at least I have the honesty to admit that I do not know.