hey, i didn't write those. sorry, i'll be more specific next time. i must admit, though. i used to think atheists were brain dead idiots, but you seem to have disproven that. now i just consider you all to be mislead, intelligent beings.:)

Indeed. As it stands now, you are absolutely correct. One of group of people accepts this while another group has a completely fabricated answer that they feel is infallible. If you choose to believe in a doctrine that claims to have answers but provides none, then that's certainly your right. However, such a choice seems rather foolish.

The Bible does have answers, and i was refering to the fact that no one can go back in time, and watch the creation of the universe, whether by "big bang"(such a sophisticated and developed term:)) or God.

when did you chose to believe in atheism?

hey, i didn't write those. sorry, i'll be more specific next time. Actually, I was quoting the section that you wrote :)

i must admit, though. i used to think atheists were brain dead idiots, but you seem to have disproven that. now i just consider you all to be mislead, intelligent beings.:) I'll take that as a compliment.

The Bible does have answers Well, I think we should first establish the question first before presume that we have answers. The bible has a lot of stories about the world and the universe, but those stories conflict with what we can observe empirically. Some attempts are made at modernity, however they usually involve a lot of mental gymnastics and rational people tend to prefer simpler answers rather than complicated ones, so they reject religion.

and i was refering to the fact that no one can go back in time, and watch the creation of the universe, whether by "big bang"(such a sophisticated and developed term:)) or God. No we can't. Not in the way that you're describing. Consider the speed of light. It is a measurable constant and as far as we can tell, is the fastest thing in the universe (nothing, not even gravity, travels faster than light).

When we look at the moon, we don't see it as it is now rather as it was 1 second ago. If the moon magically disappeared, we wouldn't notice until 1 second after it happened. This is because it take the light from the moon 1 second to travel down to earth and into our eyeballs.

Now, let's take a look at the other bright thing in our sky: the Sun. The sun is so far away that it takes the light 8 minutes to travel here. Same thing as before; if the sun were to magically disappear it would take 8 minutes for us to find out (btw, make those 8 minutes count because at 8:01 you can kiss your @$$ goodbye).

So we play this "what's the next brightest things we can see in our sky" game until we get to stuff that is thousands of light years away (a light year is a measure of distance signifying the amount of space light will traverse in a year). Using observatories and Hubble (but mostly Hubble) we can see billions of years into the past. The further out we look, the further into the past we can see because just as the light that leaves the sun takes 8 minutes to get here, light from far away places take years...billions and billions of years. So we see these things, not as they are now, but as they were billions of years ago.

With spectroscopy and Doppler Effect, we know that these bodies are moving away from us and those that are further away are moving faster than those that are closer to us. In other words, the universe is expanding. If you run the movie backwards, then eventually all the time, matter, and energy in the universe are condensed into a single point, called a singularity.

What caused this singularity is unknown. It very well may have been a god, but since we can't test for it and the physical laws of our universe rule out the need for one, it makes absolutely no sense to arbitrarily decide that this is the correct answer. It could have just likely been the collision of two branes as hypothesized by M-theory, the natural progression of a big crunch as hypothesized by the Big Crunch theory, or some other things that none of us will be able to comprehend for a thousand years.

Just as we could make predictions with the ToE, we can make predictions with BBT. Increase rate of expansion, background radiation, dark matter, etc are all predictions that came out of BBT. Predictions that were later found to be true.

So after all that: yes. Maybe god. But not very necessary, not even slightly likely, and impossible to prove.

PS: "Big Bang" was a label tacked on by a detractor. For whatever reason it stuck and that's what we call it today. It's a little bit of a misnomer though because there was no "bang" (it wasn't an explosion like you see in all those documentaries). It would be much more accurate to call it the "Big Expansion" or even the "Big Suck" :D

when did you chose to believe in atheism?Right after I realized that almost all the religions that have ever existed are pretty much exactly the same and that christianity was the equivalent of a new version of AOL.

well, wadaya know, it was me. oops. my bad.:(

as you well should:)

are you calling me irrational?? huh????? i will now go stick gum in my ears so i don't have to read this.:jester1:

Right after I realized that almost all the religions that have ever existed are pretty much exactly the same and that christianity was the equivalent of a new version of AOL.

well, lets say God DID create the universe, but by, instead of going to each and every place in the universe, just created that "expansion" and made it expand, much as one would program a computer. and let's say that same God created all living things, and gave them the ability to adapt, and therefore survive(cause if we(every living thing) were incapable of adaptation, we would die pretty fast). it seems reasonable to me, and satisfies me pretty well, your thoughts?

then YOU get to be windows "security":)

well, lets say God DID create the universe, but by, instead of going to each and every place in the universe, just created that "expansion" and made it expand, much as one would program a computer. and let's say that same God created all living things, and gave them the ability to adapt, and therefore survive(cause if we(every living thing) were incapable of adaptation, we would die pretty fast). it seems reasonable to me, and satisfies me pretty well, your thoughts? That's one possible explanation, but it's way too unnecessarily complex.

Let's examine our three options:

supernaturalism (aka theism/deism)

Inefficient - Which system is more efficient: one that needs to be monitored or one that is self-correcting within the laws of the system? Sure, it's possible that a supernatural being could hypothetically create a perfect system that doesn't need to be monitored, but that creates a couple of problems. First, it eliminates the need for a gods continued presence ("my work here is done, guess I'll head home and catch Infinite Idol"). Second, this option is makes the existence of a god even more improbable (as I will point out shortly).

Highly improbable - Ok which of these two things are more likely: that the universe just happened all by itself or that a perfect, supernatural being capable of creating the universe just happened all by itself and then created the universe? At some point, you have to accept that "something" happened without a first cause. Why does it make more sense that that "something" is a perfect supernatural being? Not only would the existence of god be orders of magnitude more improbable than a self-creating universe, it's also an incredibly sloppy explanation. Hypothesizing that this being has sufficient complexity to create a perfect system just makes that being statistically more impossible.

Untestable - Because this option is supernatural, it is therefore untestable. It exists outside the realm of the universe therefore we could not possibly know its nature which makes it even more irrational that some of us pretend to. Accepting this option means that we will never, ever get to know the whole story, which would directly contradict the centuries of scientific progress that we have made which seem to indicate that we can.

naturalism (aka science)

Efficient - The first law of thermodynamics is extremely efficient considering that only a (relatively) small amount of energy is lost to heat when energy and matter are converted. Stars, planets, comets...everything is recycled. Little is wasted. If the system were perfect, then it might actually be an argument of a deity. That it is not tells us that it is a natural system.

Moderately improbable - Yep, no matter what we can't escape that fact that we are still dealing with a universe that just seems to have appeared out of nothing. We don't have an answer for this one yet, but considering that we've only had electricity for about 150 years (out of 4.5 billion), I'm willing to give it some more time. So, yes, it is still improbable but if it were impossible we wouldn't be here to talk about it, would we? It's also far more probable than the invisible skydaddy hypothesis.

Testable - We've been able to empirically test just about everything we've discovered in the universe thus far. We still bewildered by quantum mechanics, but again, we're still sucking our thumbs as a civilization so this shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

something else entirely (aka "wow, never saw that comin'")

Efficiency - ???
Probability - ...actually not half-bad now that I think about it.
Testable - I certainly hope so.

Is naturalism a "perfect" answer? No and it really doesn't need to be. It only needs to be a little more probable than impossible until we mature enough as a civilization to become better acquainted with the natural laws that govern our universe. Thus far we seem to be well ahead of that curve.

To presume to know something that you cannot and to accept as fact that which cannot be tested seems like intellectual dishonesty to me, therefore I subscribe to the option that embraces discovery and rejects dogma.

Thanks for reading.

All right, folks, general note to everyone here: keep it civil. I'm not feeling well enough at the moment to stay up late to edit out the rudeness and/or issue flame warnings--I'll evaluate that tomorrow, likely after I get home late from work so it'll be nearly 24 hours before I can get to the egregious parts.

However, do not add to the rudeness unless you really want to end up on the warned user list, and I'll lock it if this doesn't get under control now. Read the general forum rules and Kavar's Corner rules if you have not already done so.

This is supposed to be a 'friendly discussion' place that's safe from flaming. The moderators intend on keeping it that way.

I certainly don't feel like Mr. Lee is flaming and I don't get the impression that he feels as though I'm flaming him. If our tone is too informal, then I'm sure we can just merge this is with the PM dialog that we've already established and save you some heartache :)

Either way, I'm sure you'll do what's right.

The way I see it, neither Evolution nor Creationism, in the context of the beginnings of life, will ever be scientifically proven, so I choose to believe the one that isn't so "scientifically based." My question is, why trust in "proof" so heavily when the theory in question can never be proven?

I actually find supernaturalism to be very much more believable than naturalism. Ever since the first time I heard about Evolution, which was before I became a Christian, I always though it was incredibly far-fetched. The universe simply creating itself by blind chance? I uphold the belief that God has existed forever - He had no beginning and will have no end, so it's not like He suddenly appeared and thought, "Hey, I'm bored, why don't I create a universe I can rule over."

The way I see it, neither Evolution nor Creationism, in the context of the beginnings of life, will ever be scientifically proven, so I choose to believe the one that isn't so "scientifically based." My question is, why trust in "proof" so heavily when the theory in question can never be proven?uh huh... (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=9952573C-E7F2-99DF-32F2928046329479&chanID=sa004)

I actually find supernaturalism to be very much more believable than naturalism. Ever since the first time I heard about Evolution, which was before I became a Christian, I always though it was incredibly far-fetched. Fair enough. Which part specifically do you find hard to believe? Which part of the theory do you feel is not sufficiently supported by the evidence? If (and I do mean if) you're just forming your opinion based on...well...nothing, don't you think you should make some effort to understand it before you sign it off as preposterous?

The universe simply creating itself by blind chance? I uphold the belief that God has existed forever - He had no beginning and will have no end, so it's not like He suddenly appeared and thought, "Hey, I'm bored, why don't I create a universe I can rule over." So the universe (which we can see) couldn't have possibly "just happened" but a perfect intelligence capable of creating the universe with its will (which we can't see) happening by chance makes sense to you? The idea that time did not exist before the big bang is too much (as it should be. It's a whopper to wrap your head around), but the idea that god has existed "forever" is perfectly within the realm of reason?

This seems very much like special pleading. "That can't possibly be true". "It's true within your belief". "Well that's different".

Can't have it both ways, my friend :D

Another thing to keep in mind: Even if we were to accept that the universe has supernatural causation, you have absolutely zero evidence to support the hypothesis that it's your god that did it. Pastafarians (http://www.venganza.org/images/wallpapers/noodlycreation.jpg), ftw!!!

All right, folks, general note to everyone here: keep it civil. I'm not feeling well enough at the moment to stay up late to edit out the rudeness and/or issue flame warnings--I'll evaluate that tomorrow, likely after I get home late from work so it'll be nearly 24 hours before I can get to the egregious parts.

However, do not add to the rudeness unless you really want to end up on the warned user list, and I'll lock it if this doesn't get under control now. Read the general forum rules and Kavar's Corner rules if you have not already done so.

This is supposed to be a 'friendly discussion' place that's safe from flaming. The moderators intend on keeping it that way.

He's right, we're just...animately discussing the differences in our points of view, though we will take it to pm. as to not frustrate your work of keeping the threads civilized.

He's right, we're just...animately discussing the differences in our points of view, though we will take it to pm. as to not frustrate your work of keeping the threads civilized.

You and Achilles obviously thought it was good-natured ribbing, but other readers (including me) didn't have that same reaction initially, especially when reading up from the bottom rather than from earlier to later posts. If you all make it clear when you're joking (especially if you're fake-harassing someone else), it'll help prevent misunderstandings. Thanks for clearing that up, too.

i looked back at the posts, and you're right, it does look rather...agressive. i'll keep what you said in mind, thanks.

They went from barely being able to create fire to building the wheel, socializing, then becoming pharoes and more advanced civilizations within 10,000 years or so.Mankind uses fire for much longer than just 10000 years. Also socialising happened since before the existence of humans, simply because they and their ancestors tend to live in groups like since forever now. And if you take a look on what we've achieved within the last 100 or even 50 years, then that's the I don't know how much fold of what happened within the last 10000 years. I mean it took not even 10 years of manned "space travel" for us to go to the moon.

I don't think technological advance and social development contradict the theory of evolution.

I don't think technological advance and social development contradict the theory of evolution.
It is part of cultural evolution since it implies learned behaviors which is a basic tenet for culture.

The way I see it, neither Evolution nor Creationism, in the context of the beginnings of life, will ever be scientifically proven, so I choose to believe the one that isn't so "scientifically based." My question is, why trust in "proof" so heavily when the theory in question can never be proven?
Uh evolution has not been disproven. In fact the evidence, the physical evidence that we have uncovered has given the theory of evolution more support.

I have said it before and I'll say it again: Man I love being a turtle. Wait wrong line!

Anyway the goal of science is to disprove not prove a hypothesis. Evolution becam a theory because it has explanation power and really I haven't seen anything that would contradict the idea of natural selection and differential reproductive success. In fact what I have seen in my local museum about the evolution of horses goes to support it. That and the information about the Pleistocene and a whole bunch of other things have been grounded into my brain since day one of my time spent in anthropology.

My question is, why trust in "proof" so heavily when the theory in question can never be proven?I think one might find life a bit difficult if we are to live by that tenet, as it would force us not to trust in pretty much anything and everything.

I also find it an odd conundrum that you would chastise scientific theories for being 'unprovable' and yet you choose to believe in things that can't even be TESTED. I find sometimes that I simply do not understand people.

I think one might find life a bit difficult if we are to live by that tenet, as it would force us not to trust in pretty much anything and everything.

I also find it an odd conundrum that you would chastise scientific theories for being 'unprovable' and yet you choose to believe in things that can't even be TESTED. I find sometimes that I simply do not understand people.

Well, because neither religion and science can be unprovable...or provable for that matter. Might as well trust in SOMETHING, by your standards. (And I am disappointed in telling people to rely on "tests", since they can be seen as basically being holy books, and some people may not like trusting tests, since there is no proof the tests are right)

Well, because neither religion and science can be unprovable...or provable for that matter. Might as well trust in SOMETHING, by your standards.But science incorporates new information as it comes to light, whether it helps strengthen the theory or requires it to change. "Trust" isn't really the right word for what science is trying to accomplish since it attempts to disprove existing theories in order to improve them. Trust or faith is a religious concept in this case.

(And I am disappointed in telling people to rely on "tests", since they can be seen as basically being holy books, and some people may not like trusting tests, since there is no proof the tests are right)For science, if it is determined that the tests are not right, then new tests are formulated.

As for those who do not like trusting tests, I don't understand the mentality of saying that theories are invalid because the tests could be wrong, and then turn right around and claim that religious teachings must be true without any tests at all at best or contradictory evidence at worst. Isn't that hypocritical?

But science incorporates new information as it comes to light, whether it helps strengthen the theory or requires it to change. "Trust" isn't really the right word for what science is trying to accomplish since it attempts to disprove existing theories in order to improve them. Trust or faith is a religious concept in this case.

But Science trust the framework is correct, and Science trust that the information it has gotten is correct. It trusts, for instance, that our senses can be relied on. This is all trust, this is all faith.

For science, if it is determined that the tests are not right, then new tests are formulated.

Science trusts that tests, in general, can prove certain stuff. There is no reason to assume this is all correct.

As for those who do not like trusting tests, I don't understand the mentality of saying that theories are invalid because the tests could be wrong, and then turn right around and claim that religious teachings must be true without any tests at all at best or contradictory evidence at worst. Isn't that hypocritical?

Because how in the world can you prove anything at all, as long as you can question the proof? You can't at all. People trust Science, but there is no proof Science is correct. If we really are so interested in gaining proof, we should trust nothing, we should believe in nothing. The fact that we don't shows that no matter if we believe in religion or in science, we still believe, and the act of believing is, in itself, must be wrong.

Because how in the world can you prove anything at all, as long as you can question the proof? You can't at all. People trust Science, but there is no proof Science is correct. If we really are so interested in gaining proof, we should trust nothing, we should believe in nothing. The fact that we don't shows that no matter if we believe in religion or in science, we still believe, and the act of believing is, in itself, must be wrong.Proof science is correct is that it doesn't contradict our senses. That's all it needs anyway - that's the whole point. Science is descriptive. It's not "truth" per se - it is our representation of what we see as truth. There's plenty of reason to use it, plenty of reason to find it more worthy than other options. The very fact that of all the alternate "explanations" cannot, by their very nature, come up with useful new ideas and applications of the natural world like science does already puts it far in the lead of other (religious or otherwise) descriptions of the world.

Proof science is correct is that it doesn't contradict our senses. That's all it needs anyway - that's the whole point. Science is descriptive. It's not "truth" per se - it is our representation of what we see as truth.

Why should we trust our senses? There is no reason to, at all.

I am not saying belief is wrong, far from it. If a person believes that the senses can give him what the truth is, then he should believe in the senses. But, if a person does not wish to believe in the senses, because there is no reason to believe, then why would you hold that against him?

There's plenty of reason to use it, plenty of reason to find it more worthy than other options. The very fact that of all the alternate "explanations" cannot, by their very nature, come up with useful new ideas and applications of the natural world like science does already puts it far in the lead of other (religious or otherwise) descriptions of the world.

1) "Want to heal yourself? Pray to God!"---Church Doctrine
2) "Everything must relate to 5 in some way, shape, or form! Just think, and you will be able to relate everything to the number 5!"---Rule of Five
3) "This Earthquake was caused by God, he wants to punish us for our sins!"---Pakistani preacher after an earthquake
4) "Aliens rule the media! Look at the media, you can determine what the media will say because that what aliens want you to believe!"--Conspiracy Theorist
5) "These stars indicate you will have a good life. Just wait, live your life, and you will have a good life. Oh, and want a palm reading before you go?"--Psychic

All of them are new ideas and applications of the natural world. To all these people, they seem to be "useful". Are they useful? I do not know. But all these things are NOT Science, that's for sure. I am not going to call them Science. But whatever framework generated this sort of nonsense/aboustley true truth, these things too can create these sort of random babble that could sastify what you say is correct.

Because how in the world can you prove anything at all, as long as you can question the proof?Much of the evidence cannot be questioned in a logical, rational way. For example, we can't question that 2+2=4 intelligently in any way I can think of.

You can't at all. People trust Science, but there is no proof Science is correct.There's plenty of proof to those of us who don't carry around this eternal fear that we may live in some unproven, undetectable Matrix. There are so many billions of corresponding observations of our world that there's no way we can honestly wonder if it's all just faulty senses. There's also no evidence at all for it being an illusion, and thus there's no reason to believe it.

If we really are so interested in gaining proof, we should trust nothing, we should believe in nothing.And this would gain us proof how?

The fact that we don't shows that no matter if we believe in religion or in science, we still believe, and the act of believing is, in itself, must be wrong.Shades of grey. Believing in God without any evidence at all is vastly different from believing in gravity because we observe it every single milliseconds of our lives, from birth to death, and have massive amounts of evidence supporting it. You eventually reach a point where you know more than you believe. I don't believe that the Sun exists. I know it.

Why should we trust our senses? There is no reason to, at all.Nonsense. We all, you included, trust your senses, or you'd be unable to carry out any action at all. You'd be unable to get up in the morning because you wouldn't trust your senses of sight and feeling to tell you where the bed, floor, etc. were. Not to mention that you'd be unable to feel your arms and legs and thus wouldn't be able to move them, or know how they moved. If your senses were null and void, you'd live in the Vacuum of Indescribable Boredom.

We all trust our senses. And no one has given any evidence whatsoever that we are currently in a state of mass psychosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis). On the other hand, the idea that we all see the world as it is... is backed up by billions of observations every single millisecond.

Technically we may live in a computer simulation and be harvested for electricity by aliens. Technically I could in reality be a smelly iron-skin monster with sixteen eyes, seven heads, eighty armpits and twenty thumbs. But do I hear anyone say, 'nah, I can't trust people, we don't know they're not smelly iron monsters'? Of course not.

there is no proof Science is correct.The computer you're typing on begs to differ. The airplanes you may or may not have flown in, satellites that orbit the earth, and any other technological or medical marvel you can possibly think of implies the opposite.

The results of scientific study and progress have quite obviously yielded results. I feel fairly confident that no amount of praying would have created cellular telephones.

No, but some of us pray that they'd never been invented, especially after I have a patient sitting in the middle of an exam taking a phone call to discuss pizza toppings with her boyfriend.

I also find it an odd conundrum that you would chastise scientific theories for being 'unprovable' and yet you choose to believe in things that can't even be TESTED. I find sometimes that I simply do not understand people.As for those who do not like trusting tests, I don't understand the mentality of saying that theories are invalid because the tests could be wrong, and then turn right around and claim that religious teachings must be true without any tests at all at best or contradictory evidence at worst. Isn't that hypocritical? Well put!

Sorry I missed all the great dialog last week. I finally got Oblivion working and lets just say I've been preoccupied. I'm leaving for Vegas in about an hour and won't be back until next Friday. I'm looking forward to catching up on all the goodies in Kavar's Corner when I get back.

Everyone have a great week.

But Science trust the framework is correctBut there isn't a trust element there in the first place. All the Scientific Method framework really says is "attempt to explain what you observe." What is the trust here? That we trust we are going to attempt to explain what we observe?

Science trust that the information it has gotten is correct. It trusts, for instance, that our senses can be relied on. But that is exactly what it doesn't do. It doesn't trust that the information that was observed was correct. It doesn't trust that someone's senses are reliable. That is why it has to stand up to peer scrutiny. That is why results need to be reproducable. Now, if you are going to say that we trust that everyone's sense are accurate, then that is outside the realm of science and moving into the realm of philosophy.

Science trusts that tests, in general, can prove certain stuff. Science doesn't attempt to prove anything. Mathamatics does. All science attempts to do is to construct a working model to explain current observations and predict future ones.

People trust Science, but there is no proof Science is correct. If we really are so interested in gaining proof, we should trust nothing, we should believe in nothing. But that would apply equally to religion as well.

Why should we trust our senses? There is no reason to, at all.The reason is that they have been shown to allow us to function in the world we percieve.

I am not saying belief is wrong, far from it. If a person believes that the senses can give him what the truth is, then he should believe in the senses. But, if a person does not wish to believe in the senses, because there is no reason to believe, then why would you hold that against him?Because that in essense makes them hypocritical, IMO, since they say that they cannot trust or do not believe what their senses tell them, and then go right on to rely on them.

In any event, this is kind not really a relevant point, since if saying trusting incorrectly in our senses invalidates science (which it doesn't anyway), it equally invalidates religion and people's trust in that. The mere knowledge of religion was obtained through the senses in the first place.

1) "Want to heal yourself? Pray to God!"---Church Doctrine
2) "Everything must relate to 5 in some way, shape, or form! Just think, and you will be able to relate everything to the number 5!"---Rule of Five
3) "This Earthquake was caused by God, he wants to punish us for our sins!"---Pakistani preacher after an earthquake
4) "Aliens rule the media! Look at the media, you can determine what the media will say because that what aliens want you to believe!"--Conspiracy Theorist
5) "These stars indicate you will have a good life. Just wait, live your life, and you will have a good life. Oh, and want a palm reading before you go?"--Psychic
All of them are new ideas and applications of the natural world. To all these people, they seem to be "useful"...But whatever framework generated this sort of nonsense/aboustley true truth, these things too can create these sort of random babble that could sastify what you say is correct.But these are great examples that show the point! Each of these are not based on observations, nor do they attempt to disprove the theories they have put forward. They do not attempt to explain all evidence, nor do they allow alterations to their theories when conflicting observations are presented. They do not seek to be peer reviewed and refuted. Their ideas are not useful precisely for that reason. They cannot be used to predict future observations.

The difference is that science takes what is observed and attempts to construct a theory. The above takes a theory and attempts to make the observations fit, and ignores those observations if they do not.

But IIRC the original point was that science can't be trusted because our senses/observations can't be trusted. But if that is true, then it could be argued that equally invalidates religion as well as science. So let's move on. :)

All the Scientific Method framework really says is "attempt to explain what you observe."
Isn't that what it is?

Science doesn't attempt to prove anything. Mathamatics does. All science attempts to do is to construct a working model to explain current observations and predict future ones.
It thought Science was a means to disprove things? I know with math you can prove things which is why we have these things called proofs. I remember how much I hated writing them. I thought that by using the scientific method, it can disprove the hypothesis that was established through observatin. Under a categorization scheme it is considered a natural science like the others like chemistry and biology. So doesn't that make math a science?

No argument from me. But realize that we're now talking about evolution over time as a result of a changing envirornment. In other words, we're talking about evolution as a natural process. We see similar changed in plant and animal species. This is evidence of a process that does not need supernatural causation. Trying to attribute it to one is similar to forcing a healthy man to walk with crutches.
Simply due to the process being ongoing does not prove that it did not have a supernatural causation. For example, if I throw the switch on a simple lamp-switch-battery circuit (like the type you construct in primary school science- you know the ones), and leave it running for a time, the fact that it continues to run does not mean that I did not throw the switch, even if the electrons were sentient and incapable of determining it. Even if they could not to the satisfaction of science determine that I had flipped the switch, or that the switch existed, would that mean that I did not, or that both I and the switch do not exist?

Yes, I'm familiar with Russell :D

Steping outside the realm of science, we are then left with reason. Applying Occam's Razor, which makes more sense: That the universe actually is billions of years old or that it is magically generated in the not-too-distant past with all the evidence of being billions of years old?
That depends on your starting point.

IF:

a) There is no God, then situation two is impossible.
b) There may be a God, the situation is possible.
c) There is a God, the situation is possible.
d) The universe began, the situation is possible.
e) The universe did not begin, the situation is impossible

I believe I have covered all bases? Note that 'God' here refers to any supernatural origin/creator.

As an argument for God, even if we ignore Occam's Razor and accept Last Thursdayism, we're still assuming that the default answer is God. Based on the evidence, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as legitimate of an option. We can't have our cake and eat it too.
Absolutely. Faith does play an important role in religion :)

Nonetheless, I believe that through prayer, meditation and by observing the universe, the twist and turn of events in my own life and throughout history, that I have seen what sort of a mind God has, and it is one that best fits, IMO, with the Christian God, and not, for example, Iuppiter Optimus Maximus.

Yes, he may have. But we have no evidence that he did, so I don't understand why I should be inclined to entertain such a thought.
It all rests on the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God. If you find that you can't have faith in this for whatever reason, that's fine by me :)

It's happened before. We're done for the month though. :D
It's nearly a new month :)

Until we have some way to emperically measure God, I'm afraid it does.

Let me try this another way: no scientist can tell you with any degree of certainty that there is no God. What anyone can say with absolute confidence is that there is currently no evidence for God.

...Or against. On this we agree.
So it's not so much that scientists are trying to keep God out of science because they don't like Him, they just refuse to consider any explanation invokes Him because there is no evidence for His existence. If at some point that changes, then scientists will be able relax that stance to the degree that the evidence will allow them to do so.
No disputation of that in this camp :)

The rub comes in that once we have some emperical evidence for Him, he automatically loses His status as a Supernatural Being, and scientists will begin looking for a natural-world explanation for His existence and we can start the process over with God's creator.

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
'Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that' says God, and he disappears in a puff of logic.
'Oh, that was easy', says man, and for an encore he proves that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing."
I think we've exceeded our quota. Incidentally, I apologise for the long delay,I was under a hell of a lot of pressure to get first of all up to date on the 26th Dynasty, the Late Period, et al., and also to do some write-ups of some excavations last year.
Science is a process that can be used to tell us more about the natural world. That this seems to be lost in the current education system is a case for more science in our schools not less. I'm not sure what the numbers look like in Europe but 83% of U.S. citizens are scientifically illiterate.
Not sure of the numbers either, but we do teach the three sciences up until year 9 (at year 10 they choose), but the British petrochemicals industry is running short on science graduates, the government is pulling science teachers from wherever it can get them from, and we're certainly not pumping enough cash into research.
There are scientific laws and science is based on accepted facts, but no one that is familiar with science will tell you that any theory is impervious to scrutiny.
The problem is that science is often given to be infallible, at least over here. TV programmes, radio, websites, even some scientists all the time give scientific theory the aura of fact and elevate scientific theories - such as evolution - as absolute and undeniable fact.

With that said, I have no problem with ID being taught in school, however it should not be done in a science class. If schools want to include it as part of a philosophy course, then that's fine, but it has not earned the right to be considered science.
I agree that it isn't science.

People in the Middle Ages blamed the Bubonic plague on God's wrath. Surely you would agree that having the scientific explanation for the disease would have been more beneficial than the supernatural one.
I would posit that both have benefits, and that the one should not necessarily deny the other. Furthermore, at this point science had not developed. The ideas that would go into the foundation of the scientific method later on were still in their infancy. I'm not too sure about the dates of the bubonic plague, but IIRC it's barely two/three centuries after the death of Aquinas...?

I think if we lived in a world were everyone was an island unto themselves, it would be easier to just shrug and say, "well if he wants to believe that fairies make his plants grow, then that's his problem". Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in.

For example just over a year ago people that believe that killing infidels assures them a place in Paradise, complete with 72 virgins, decided to practice their religious beliefs on some public transit vehicles on your side of the pond.
I would posit that a) we cannot know for certain why they did it, and b) that it had far more to do with indoctrination in ideas quite separate from faith and morals, and that they might well have done it whether they were religious or not, because some people have that in them, regardless of belief.

On this side, we have people with similarly radical (similar in there degree of radicalness, not in their display) ideas creating public policy that affects everyone in our country. So the intense desire to dispell the supernatural is 1 part altruism and 3 parts self-preservation. The fact that we have Christian leaders publicly stating that recent natural disasters are evidence of God's displeasure with homosexuals and atheists should give you some insight into the dilemma.
I see a lot of idiots of all beliefs or non-beliefs. I don't think that it's just Christians and Muslims who have crackpots and extremists. And if they weren't Christian or Muslim, I'm sure they'd find something else to push.

Ok, then how would you categorize Exodus? Or G.John? Leviticus?
Exodus is an oral history. Leviticus is in effect a collation of laws ( I think - haven't read it, I must admit. When I tried to read through the whole Bible, I gave up during the numerous begattings...). John is possibly the hardest to classify. I would say it is a historical account, possibly drawing on numerous previous accounts and lists of sayings, miracles, etc to make a specific theological point. I would also say it is one of the greatest literary pieces ever.

I think you feel comfortable categorizing these books because of your modern viewpoints. The study of ethics has advanced much in 2000 years, but these books have not changed at all (KJV excluded). One has to be plied to provide context for the other while keeping both relevant. Luckily, we choose to bend our interpretation of the Bible to match our ethics and not vice versa (for the most part), but I don't think that's a testimony to value of the Bible.
For me, this is not an issue. The Sacred Tradition laid down by the Magisterium of the Church, being (we believe) inspired by God also, is of equal importance and relevance, and in a symbiotic relationship with the Sacred Scripture.

You seem rather comfortable identifying Genesis as fable, but accept The Sermon on the Mount as historically accurate (I'm assuming that you do anyway) even though there is no evidence that it ever took place. I don't understand how that works.
Very simply, for the same reason that I accept Tacitus, Suetonius, Thucydides, elements of Herodotos, etc etc etc.

I appreciate you taking the time to have this discussion with me. I've enjoyed reading your responses.
It has been a stimulating discussion so far :)

I have seen what sort of a mind God has, and it is one that best fits, IMO, with the Christian God,This quote doth confuse me some, as in nearly every debate I've ever had with religious folk one common thread seems to be that it is entirely impossible to understand the mind of god, and we cannot hope to begin to comprehend something as timeless and infinite as 'god'. Are you professing to have determined this, or simply stating that you've gotten a general gist from the way the world works? Just trying to clarify.

I would posit that both have benefits,I would LOVE to hear what possible benefit can be had from stating that a disease was caused because god is mad at his little childrens.

Nonetheless, I believe that through prayer, meditation and by observing the universe, the twist and turn of events in my own life and throughout history, that I have seen what sort of a mind God has, and it is one that best fits, IMO, with the Christian God, and not, for example, Iuppiter Optimus Maximus.Based on what? The "definition" (not sure of a better term!) of what God is and how he functions that were told to you? Every religion tells its followers the definition of their god. Every religious person claims that their version explains what they see in the world. Why is the Christian God more accurate than Buddha, Allah, or any other god? What have you experienced that eliminates (or makes less likely) all the other gods as possibilities and points to God?

...Or against. Well, the evidence against is really more the evidence against the claims of the church (generalizing of course) as being fact. I agree that there is no evidence against God in heaven and having created the universe and so on. The against part comes when the chuch says that the earth is 6000 years old and the Bible is a literal truth, when the observable evidence is against that.

The church claims that the Bible is the word of God (I have no issue with that) and everything in it is literal fact (I know not all do). When the Bible's explanation of certain events doesn't hold up to factual scrutiny, then that implies that God may be wrong in the sense that His version of events is inaccruate which shouldn't be possible. So in that sense the evidence is "against" him on the assumption that the Bible contains historical fact.

I would posit that both have benefits, and that the one should not necessarily deny the other. I have the same question as ET. What is the benefit of claiming that a disease is caused by God?

I would posit that a) we cannot know for certain why they did itWe can't see inside someone's head of course. We can only go by what they say. And we know for a fact that many say that they were going to do things because their religion taught them that there would be a benefit to doing so in the afterlife, or that they believed that what their victims were doing is evil. A Muslim may claim to perform suicide bombing because they believe infidels are evil on religious grounds, just as a Christian bay bomb a abortion clinic because they feel that is evil or attack gays because they feel they are evil on religious grounds.

b) that it had far more to do with indoctrination in ideas quite separate from faith and moralsBut by definition Christians are indoctrinated into their religion just like any other person is indoctrinated into theirs, and much of their morality is defined by the religion they belong to.

I would argue that their would be less suicide bombings if the teachings of their leaders didn't promote the notion that other people are infidels that their gods demand them to destroy. Similarly, many Christians may not view gays as immoral if their teachings did not claim them to be so. If you ask many Christians who oppose gays, most often the reponse to why they think that way is that God and the Bible tell them that they are evil, and not because they have logically come to the conclusion that they are.

and that they might well have done it whether they were religious or not, because some people have that in them, regardless of belief. Possibly. But if they claim that they are doing things on religious grounds, some weight has to be given to that.

There's a funny thing about Evolution... have you ever noticed that the order of Evolution, is the same as that of Creationism? You know God created this, and this, and this... (I don't remember what order, and I don't feel like looking it up, nor do I have the time to.) and that Evolution goes in the exact same order? That first there was this, then we "evolved" into this, then this?

I personally think it's funny... that the evolutionist don't believe in Creationism, but base their hypothesis' on the order of Creationism. Tell me... did they read a bible and not agree with what the apostles wrote? Or was it some freak accident that it ended up that way. I truely don't know... but I still think it's rather funny.

Nah. Evolution has no particular order. It's more like a logical reasoning. It's seems rather impossible to claim there were birds before the first lifeforms even left the oceans. And according to the idea that underwater had a somewhat more stable environment to provide than land, it makes only sense to assume life developed there first.

And basically even creationists should see a flaw in reasoning if they'd state mankind came before earth was made.

Rather funny is the thought, if man is made after gods image, does god make poo, too? What would he eat? People from heaven? And has he 'the manly attachment' there where it belongs? Why?

Since God is perfect, I doubt He has to worry about digestion and elimination. If I hadn't seen your name attached to that post, I'd still guess it could only be you asking the question 'Does God have a penis?" ;P

Yayaya you know me I gotta get paid. XD

But really, as far as I know, it says "god made the man after his image" or like that. So he must have a dongle, and also a negative end of the pharynx.

There's a funny thing about Evolution... have you ever noticed that the order of Evolution, is the same as that of Creationism? Actually no...I've noticed that creationism has quite a few things in very much the wrong order.

On the third day God creates vegetation, seed-bearing plants, and trees that bear fruit. Of course, fruit bearing plants are flowering plants, and they most certainly did not come before all animal life on the planet.

On the fourth day God creates the sun and the moon. I don't think I need to elaborate on that...

On the fifth day God creates the sea creatures and the birds. Again, birds most CERTAINLY came after land creatures.

Science most assuredly did not base the theory of evolution off of creationism.

Science most assuredly did not base the theory of evolution off of creationism.
I would say so considering that we have geological and fossil evidence of when say the bony fishes appeared and when the reptiles appeared. Personally I am more willing to believe in the geological evidence.

Besides the theory of evolution was based off of Darwin's observations on his famous trip to the Galapagos. He had other things like early genetics that he was aware of but mostly it stemed from observing his famous finches and the beak sizes.

But really, as far as I know, it says "god made the man after his image" or like that. So he must have a dongle, and also a negative end of the pharynx.


That is a hard... hard thing to discuss. God said we were made in his image, but that doesn't mean he "modeled" humans after him, if that makes any sense. When Adam and Eve were first created, they were made to be perfect... like God... but that doesn't mean he held a mirror up to his face and made us look exactly like him. God may not even look like a human, for all we know.

When Adam and Eve were first created, they were made to be perfect... like God...

Untrue. Without having eaten from the tree of life and the tree of knowledge they were extraordinarily different, never mind what they looked like.

I find the idea that Adam was conjured up from the earth and Eve from his rib it to be extremely silly, however. Sounds more like a spell from Dungeons & Dragons that something someone would actually believe.

God may not even look like a human, for all we know.

I would guess that a being supposedly capable of creating the universe could look however he so pleases.

That is a hard... hard thing to discuss.And why on Earth is that? So what if God has a penis? Who the Heck cares for a second? Should it change anyone's image of Him? Does it make him less divine?

Yes, humans were made in God's image, and thus look like God, and thus God has a penis. Problem solved.

God said we were made in his image, but that doesn't mean he "modeled" humans after him, if that makes any sense.Actually, I'd say it does. Even if you don't like it and it means God has a private organ. Not that it matters the slightest.

There's a funny thing about Evolution... have you ever noticed that the order of Evolution, is the same as that of Creationism?Order according to science:
1. Stars, including Sol. Other planets, moons, asteroids, etc.
2. The Earth.
3. More asteroids, moons, and so on.
4. Primitive one-celled organisms.
5. Primitive one-celled organisms evolve into plants, animals, bacteria, etc.
6. Primitive predecessor evolves into today's homo sapiens.

Order according to the Bible:
1. The Sun (light).
2. The Earth.
3. Plants.
4. The other stars.
5. Fishes, birds and animals (<- bacteria and viruses created here?).
6. Human male and female.
7. Human male.
8. Human female.

Yes, they are fairly similar. But no, the order is not the same, and quite frankly the Genesis Creation account makes it abundantly clear that astronomy was not exactly a big science at the time.

That's... that's not what I meant. What I meant was we may not LOOK like him...

and ED

Adam and Eve were created to be perfect... it's just when they ate from the "Tree of Knowledge" that Sin entered the world... but this is getting way off topic... I'll leave this discussion... sorry for takin it off topic.

My turn to apologize for the delayed response. I was out of town on business, and I'm just now getting back to "normal" after my trip (just in time to begin class on Tuesday :().

Looking at the thread, I see that about another page has been tacked on. I want to respond to your points even though, at a glance, I see that other have as well (no idea what they say, only that they responded). I don't do this in the spirit of "piling on" rather to address the points that you have made to me. If it seems like I'm ganging up, then please know this isn't my intention.

Ok....

Simply due to the process being ongoing does not prove that it did not have a supernatural causation. Agreed, it does not "prove". It makes the likelihood of supernatural causation (especially supernatural causation as defined by those that advocate it) extremely unnecessary and unlikely. If some supreme being were capable of creating every thing in the universe with a though, then surely he/she/it should have been capable of getting it right the first time. The fact that everything is changing an adapting would lend itself toward a world-view that doesn't require (or support) supernatural causation.

In other words: it's possible but not likely. And it certainly isn't support by evidence.

For example, if I throw the switch on a simple lamp-switch-battery circuit (like the type you construct in primary school science- you know the ones), and leave it running for a time, the fact that it continues to run does not mean that I did not throw the switch, even if the electrons were sentient and incapable of determining it. Even if they could not to the satisfaction of science determine that I had flipped the switch, or that the switch existed, would that mean that I did not, or that both I and the switch do not exist?But the switch doesn't evolve into a desklamp over hundreds of thousands of years. I take your point, but it's a poor analogy.


That depends on your starting point.

IF:

a) There is no God, then situation two is impossible.
b) There may be a God, the situation is possible.
c) There is a God, the situation is possible.
d) The universe began, the situation is possible.
e) The universe did not begin, the situation is impossible

I believe I have covered all bases? Note that 'God' here refers to any supernatural origin/creator.It looks as though you have. You haven't committed to a response though. If you believe in god, then some of these options are possible. The question is what's likely.

Absolutely. Faith does play an important role in religion :)

Nonetheless, I believe that through prayer, meditation and by observing the universe, the twist and turn of events in my own life and throughout history, that I have seen what sort of a mind God has, and it is one that best fits, IMO, with the Christian God, and not, for example, Iuppiter Optimus Maximus. I think this response largely misses my point though. It perfectly reasonable that your spiritual experience have led you to god in a judeo-christian society, just as they would have led you to allah if you lived in a muslim society. This is not a strong argument for the veracity of either "god" or "allah", rather a testimony of the importance of our spiritual experiences.

The nuts and bolts of the matter are unchanged: If you accept that god is real, then you have to accept the FSM too. Because your "test" is not emperical, then there is no evidence to show that your conclusion is the correct one. Personally, I think that you're entirely too intelligent to settle for conclusions based on such poor logic, but I understand that indoctrination is a powerful force.

...Or against. On this we agree. Indeed we do, however this leaves untouched the question of why it is wise to believe, with certainty, something for which we have no evidence. Trying to spin this into a "you can't prove he doesn't exist" argument is a fallacy because the burden of proof is on the believer, not the non-believer.

Not sure of the numbers either, but we do teach the three sciences up until year 9 (at year 10 they choose), but the British petrochemicals industry is running short on science graduates, the government is pulling science teachers from wherever it can get them from, and we're certainly not pumping enough cash into research. Sounds like you have similar problems over there also. Ouch.

The problem is that science is often given to be infallible, at least over here. TV programmes, radio, websites, even some scientists all the time give scientific theory the aura of fact and elevate scientific theories - such as evolution - as absolute and undeniable fact. At the risk of splitting hairs, I would say that people need to better understand what "science" is. It is a process. The process itself is infallable. The results (what people generally, erroneously refer to as "science") of the process are not. The problem comes when people forget about the GIGO principle (garbage in, garbage out). If some group tries to manipulate the process to achieve a specific result, they will succeed, but then, they aren't really doing science in the first place.

Any person committed to true science will tell you to question everything. They will also tell you that theories offer the best possible explanation that we have based on the evidence that available. Does that mean it's completely made up? Not at all. If/when evidence changes, then the theory might be subject to change. This lack of certainty is not a fallability of "science" rather an simple and honest admission that we don't know everything and therefore some things might be subject to change.

As for evolution specifically, there might be future revisions to the theory, but there is no better explanation that supports the evidence. It's possible that there may be a better explanation someday, but it will most likely be an enhancement of the current theory. By way of comparison, creationism can't even be considered science, so to say it's a superior explanation is simply incorrect.

I agree that it isn't science. Glad to hear we're of the same mind. We might give Jae a heart attack with all the agreement here.

I would posit that both have benefits, and that the one should not necessarily deny the other. Furthermore, at this point science had not developed. The ideas that would go into the foundation of the scientific method later on were still in their infancy. I'm not too sure about the dates of the bubonic plague, but IIRC it's barely two/three centuries after the death of Aquinas...? I have to disagree. I'm not sure what benefit could be gleened from thinking that god was punishing the human species...especially for those of us that do not believe in god. Might as well chalk up plane crashes to animal spirits.

I agree that science had not sufficiently developed to understand the true cause of the plague, but I'm not sure how they would have not benefitted from science if they had (which was my point). The alternative explanation did not help them at all.

I would posit that a) we cannot know for certain why they did it, and b) that it had far more to do with indoctrination in ideas quite separate from faith and morals, and that they might well have done it whether they were religious or not, because some people have that in them, regardless of belief. Of course we do. Many suicide bombers tape themselves before their acts.

Your indoctrination is preventing you from seeing that their acts were completely within the doctrine of their religions. Just as murdering people for working on the sabbath is within yours. You (hopefully) choose not to follow that doctrine, but some might say that's because you aren't as devout within your religion as these people are within theirs. I can't argue that their behavior is immoral, but I do disagree with the assertion that it's because their acts fall outside Islam.

Furthermore, I disagree that this is something that "they just have in them". Not all oppressed people people become suicide bombers, yet some oppressed muslims become suicide bombers and their holy text promotes such behavior. I do not consider this a coincidence. If it's not "nurture", then it has to be "nature" and I think you'd have a very difficult time building a case for an arab genetic pre-disposition for murder/suicide.

I see a lot of idiots of all beliefs or non-beliefs. I don't think that it's just Christians and Muslims who have crackpots and extremists. And if they weren't Christian or Muslim, I'm sure they'd find something else to push. No argument. However one should not put dangerous to themselves or others in room full of sharp things. Similarly, we shouldn't expose dangerous people to philosophical systems that promote murder, especially when the consquence of such murder is god's everlasting love.

The cultural eradication of religion won't rid the world of crackpots and lunatics, it will simply give them fewer places to hide.

Exodus is an oral history. Leviticus is in effect a collation of laws ( I think - haven't read it, I must admit. When I tried to read through the whole Bible, I gave up during the numerous begattings...). John is possibly the hardest to classify. I would say it is a historical account, possibly drawing on numerous previous accounts and lists of sayings, miracles, etc to make a specific theological point. I would also say it is one of the greatest literary pieces ever. Exodus is not an accurate history, Leviticus is a largly a collect of laws, and John is widely considered to be a gnostic work. My point was is that we seem to be pretty comfortable picking and choosing which part of the bible to take literally (like Exodus) and which to ignore (like Leviticus) and are fuzzy about others (like G.John). So how is it that we mere mortals think we have the ability to understand god's intent (remember that the opening lines of G.John are the ones that tell us that the bible is the literal word of god)?

It seems that "we cannot know the will of god" gets tossed around pretty comfortably whenever we find a question that stumps religion, however we presume to know it quite well when it suits our needs. You might be tempted to point to canonical updates via revelation, but I would have to ask you to present a logically-sound argument for why such meanderings should be taken seriously.

For me, this is not an issue. The Sacred Tradition laid down by the Magisterium of the Church, being (we believe) inspired by God also, is of equal importance and relevance, and in a symbiotic relationship with the Sacred Scripture.I will say nothing more than to point out that this is all based on supposition. In the mean time, the mental gymnastics remain.

Very simply, for the same reason that I accept Tacitus, Suetonius, Thucydides, elements of Herodotos, etc etc etc. None of them were contemporaries of Jesus and their references to Christ or Christianity only show their familiarity with the cult. They do not make (nor could they make) any statements regarding the validity of the story.

It has been a stimulating discussion so far :) Indeed. Take care :D

Adam and Eve were created to be perfect... it's just when they ate from the "Tree of Knowledge" that Sin entered the world...

That is entirely incorrect. But to avoid dragging the thread off-topic I'll just quote myself and drop this.

No, we would not have been better staying in the garden at all. One of the prime reasons is ignorance: before Adam and Eve ate from the tree, that is what they were. They didn't even know they were naked, for crying out loud.

But more importantly, they had no distinction between good and evil.

Thus, before consuming the fruit, man was not a moral agent. Logically, a rock, a tornado, or a dog cannot be considered moral agents. Intelligence is not the prime factor for such a thing, (great geniuses and fools can make moral decisions) but the ability to realize the morality of one's own actions. If a tornado destroys a house, did it commit an immoral act? No. It isn't a moral agent. Likewise, if a man set the same house on fire, would that have been immoral? Obviously, as he possessed the knowledge to know if it was immoral or not.

Thus, before they ate from the tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve could not be considered fully moral, fully human beings. If you can't tell what's evil and what's good, is it possible for you to condemn immoral acts? To a dog, Stalin's brutal tortures would be equal morally to punishing someone for rape.

Before Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, they were little different from a dog or a rock in terms of morals. The Bible itself says they only learned the distinction between good and evil upon consuming the fruit from it. As I explained earlier, being aware of the distinction between that is essential to being a moral person.

So what exactly was wrong with eating from the tree? Before they did, Adam and Eve were just as moral as a rock. After it, they were able to develop at least a basic set of ethics.

Well, ED, if ignorance is bliss, I guess they were "perfectly" happy (at least till the serpant got in on the act). ;)