2 of 3
2
[post title]
Posted: 24 January 2011 09:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2011-01-09

“Gut feeling” is just an emotional response. It isn’t Reason. “Jesus (or any imagined Deity)” isn’t “the reason for the season”, but merely a reaction to what seasons symbolize, which is Change (or constant and evolving flux). A “true” science (not necessarily everyday “scientific materialism”) changes with every new discovery. Of course, due to the fact that science only discovers what already exists, it’s discoveries are inevitably “after the fact”, but this is the nature of the analytical brain-function of man. A fuller human being has functional balance of analysis-emotion. Religion tends to weigh too heavily on the emotional side (“dopermine d4” presumably) and, as a consequence, does not seem to recognize the analytical/reasoning brain-function of a more advanced mind (“advanced” merely in evolutionary terms). A reasoning mind will inevitably, once it receives information about itself, arrest it’s emotional function in order for emotion to become subordinate to reason. While reason is subordinate to emotion we get the concepts of deities and religion.

Good day.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 January 2011 05:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
IAMWHOIAM - 24 January 2011 11:03 PM

What is very odd with your argument is that in general, if not all the time, atheists contend that science basically disproves religion and makes an atheistic view of the world the only valid one.


That’s possible, of course, but more likely it’s a straw man. The actual argument, generally, is that science offers far better explanations and backs them up with evidence, and religion doesn’t—just presumes. So science is far more honest and credible. Aside from some tenets that are simply nonsensical (like the alleged “supernatural”) many religious explanations could be true in theory, just as could a small football-shaped spaceship orbiting Neptune containing an entire species of tiny aliens who control each and every human thought. It’s about intellectual integrity and credibility and rigor.

IAMWHOIAM - 24 January 2011 11:03 PM

The arguments given in this thread point exactly to the opposite, this is that science strongly points to the need of a a deity who created the universe and disproves or makes the atheist argument very difficult to sustain.


It can seem that way to those sufficiently invested in the theistic conclusions, anyway ...

IAMWHOIAM - 24 January 2011 11:03 PM

In view of this evidence all you manage to do is ramble some linguistic convolutions that are a clear evidence about the lack of argument.


... for example.

Intellectual integrity, honesty, rigor. Religious belief must shun those things, and science requires that we embrace them.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 January 2011 07:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

That’s possible, of course, but more likely it’s a straw man. The actual argument, generally, is that science offers far better explanations and backs them up with evidence, and religion doesn’t—just presumes. So science is far more honest and credible. Aside from some tenets that are simply nonsensical (like the alleged “supernatural”) many religious explanations could be true in theory, just as could a small football-shaped spaceship orbiting Neptune containing an entire species of tiny aliens who control each and every human thought. It’s about intellectual integrity and credibility and rigor.

No straw man here at all.  In the same way that science has been ruthless against creationists’ religious position, science is ruthless against atheists’ positions which try to explain a Universe without a cause, that is without a creator and that necessarily entail the idea that either the universe is eternal or that it sprang spontaneously out of nothing or in the absence of anything as gragor would probably prefer.

The main scientific evidences are the universality of the second law of thermodynamics, the universality of causation in the natural world and the record we have of the big bang as the best cosmological theory the scientific community has developed.  There are other interesting observations for which the best explanation we have is the intervention of a deity, such as the fact that things in nature are discrete as opposed to continuous (quanta), the unlikeness of the existence of carbon in the universe, the cosmological constant, the evolution of the universe from disorder to a more orderly state, the existence of laws such as gravitation and evolution (where did these laws come from?), the extremely low odds that just by chance you and I are involved in this discussion and the existence of life itself.


The problem is that you are used to argue with creationist and in that case science serves you well;  but now given all of the above, you cannot maintain an honest all out atheist position;  you could argue, by shutting your eyes and ears, you don’t know, but that would not be a case of intellectual integrity and credibility and rigor as you would want it to be.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 January 2011 11:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2011-01-09

Our existence maybe due to “extremely low odds” but this observation is only founded on an idea of atempting to repeat “existence” as if it is an experiment. Its not an experiment in any case, so to compare whatever it is now, that is being experienced (our brains), to repeating it by some scientific or philosophical means, does not make “extremely low odds” a reasonable or conclusive statement. We are “existence” and however odd or extreme it may seem, it does not necessitate that it should also be low, high, or sideways.

“Absence of anything” does sound fine to me, but I would extend that to be “absence of anything until we find some new explanation”. I don’t see how by filling the current gap in our knowledge with myths written in times when hardly any cosmic event could be understood could be helpful. I only understand that religious leaders like these old myths because such myths keep them at the top of the “hog in trough” food chain.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2011 06:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Our existence maybe due to “extremely low odds” but this observation is only founded on an idea of atempting to repeat “existence” as if it is an experiment. Its not an experiment in any case, so to compare whatever it is now, that is being experienced (our brains), to repeating it by some scientific or philosophical means, does not make “extremely low odds” a reasonable or conclusive statement. We are “existence” and however odd or extreme it may seem, it does not necessitate that it should also be low, high, or sideways.


In my previous comment I mentioned the extremely low odds that surround the existence of intelligent life anywhere in the universe as proof of the likelihood of the need of someone outside space time intervening in the creation of the universe and of mankind; obviously it is not a definite proof, but in light of the other scientific evidence we have, and mentioned in my previous post, it does add to the argument.  Another strange coincidence for instance, if life evolved for billions of years in the ocean, how come intelligent life did not appeared in the oceans at all?  the odds there seem to have been much better than in the surface yet it just didn’t emerge.

“Absence of anything” does sound fine to me, but I would extend that to be “absence of anything until we find some new explanation”. I don’t see how by filling the current gap in our knowledge with myths written in times when hardly any cosmic event could be understood could be helpful. I only understand that religious leaders like these old myths because such myths keep them at the top of the “hog in trough” food chain.

This is foul play!  Atheists have had their day smearing evolution, paleontology, carbon dating and scientific evidence on the face of creationists.  Now. in the face of evidence you not only not concede that science leans toward the idea that god exists as you should, but you punch back!

Your line of reasoning should also make room for creationists argument that god made things look as they do (carbon dating, the big bang, buried the fossils for us to find them, but the real story is genesis as written and the universe was created 6,000 years ago, “until we find a new explanation”.

And think of the hundreds of bright physicists spending their entire lives for more than a hundred years now and they haven’t been able to explain the universe without god; and the theories which have proved to be universal scientific evidence, more and more, prove tend to prove the existence of god.  And those who insist in models without god come out with preposterous ideas such as branes, at which many physicists laugh at, or taking time out of their models, or setting all the energy of the universe equal to zero, or disregarding causality and the second law of thermodynamics.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2011 09:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2011-01-09

Universe created 6000 years ago? I see. I thought you might be a nutcase but I didn’t realise as to what extent until now. Thankyou for your time. Good day to you sir.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2011 03:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

gragor;

Do READ the post please !!!!.  I am not arguing that at all.  For me the universe was created some 13,7 billion years ago.

Your statement,  “until we find a new explanation”,  with respect to scientific evidence pointing to the existence of god,  should allow creationist to argue the same, this is that the universe was created 6,000 years ago,  despite the known scientific evidence “until we find a new explanation”;  you should accept their argument since it is your argument too.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2011 04:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
IAMWHOIAM - 31 January 2011 08:54 AM

Your statement,  “until we find a new explanation”,  with respect to scientific evidence pointing to the existence of god,  should allow creationist to argue the same, this is that the universe was created 6,000 years ago,  despite the known scientific evidence “until we find a new explanation” ...


Except for that little complete lack of evidence to begin with problem, sure.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2011 06:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Lack of evidence for what?  That the universe was created 13,7 billion year ago?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2011 06:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
IAMWHOIAM - 31 January 2011 11:17 AM

Lack of evidence for what?


A creator.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2011 06:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

You are saying that the Universe was not created then?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2011 06:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
IAMWHOIAM - 31 January 2011 11:27 AM

You are saying that the Universe was not created then?


Close, but not quite.

I’m saying there’s no epistemically sound basis upon which to believe the cosmos was created.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2011 09:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

I’m saying there’s no epistemically sound basis upon which to believe the cosmos was created.

Then what would the alternative be?

The universe is eternal since it was not created, did not have a beginning?

or

The universe sprang spontaneously out of nothing?

The scientific evidence though does give us information which I would say is pretty much epistemic with respect to the idea the universe was created.

-The universality of causation in the natural world
-The universality of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
-The scientific evidence we have of the big-bang as the beginning of space-time.

You can now argue against this evidence and cling to the ideas that the universe is eternal or that it sprang spontaneously out of nothing;  what’s the epistemically sound basis for this?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2011 10:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
IAMWHOIAM - 31 January 2011 02:02 PM

I’m saying there’s no epistemically sound basis upon which to believe the cosmos was created.

Then what would the alternative be?

The universe is eternal since it was not created, did not have a beginning?

or

The universe sprang spontaneously out of nothing?

The scientific evidence though does give us information which I would say is pretty much epistemic with respect to the idea the universe was created.

-The universality of causation in the natural world
-The universality of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
-The scientific evidence we have of the big-bang as the beginning of space-time.

The evidence merely tells us the cosmos is here—it exists. Positing something else exists that violates the same things you’re arguing are impossible for the cosmos gets us nowhere. I suspect you’ve heard that before though.

 

IAMWHOIAM - 31 January 2011 02:02 PM

You can now argue against this evidence and cling to the ideas that the universe is eternal or that it sprang spontaneously out of nothing;  what’s the epistemically sound basis for this?


Why, exactly, would I bother?

Okay, I guess I took part in initiating this dialog ... (the comment and quote immediately above were the totality of my response, initially).

The best an apologist can do is to posit something that shares those very same issues (which we have to presume to actually be issues) but is presumed to be magic, effectively, thus making them go away—at least in the mind of the apologist and anyone else sufficiently invested in the apologetic. It ultimately boils down to; “We don’t know how it happened, therefore we know God did it.”

[ Edited: 31 January 2011 11:03 AM by SkepticX]
 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2011 04:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2011-01-09

Mr IAMWHOIAM, if you would like me to merely speculate about whether the universe has a beiginning or not, I would speculate not. Apparently using logarithms there is mathematical calculations showing “happenings” or “events” prior to the, so called, “big bang”. So yeah, no end or beginning. Just an unfolding and folding process (like in-breath an out-breath I suppose). Afterall, the origins of the crucifix symbol (which Christianity stole. People were “crucified” on straight poles hung by their wrists tied above their head dislocating shoulders) is a cube, representing the manifest universe, and when the cube is unfolded it forms the cross shape, representing an unmanifest universe.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed