| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
Tankhead, Interesting bit about gravity. I agree with it BTW. The same sort of thinking can be applied to the origin of life. In fact it has. It's called Intelligent Design Theory. I have little interest in debating it here. It is far too involved to do it justice in this format. What I would suggest, assuming you have the interest and an open mind on the subject (I'm making no judgement on that, only you can answer that for yourself), is to get a copy of a book called /i{Signature in the Cell} by Stephen C. Meyer. It's a quite interesting look at current theories of the origin of life vs. the scientific theory of intelligent design. Please note that I said scientific theory, not theological theory. From a scientific aspect there is no attempt made whatsoever to explain who the designer is. It simply examines the scientific evidence that there is/isn't a creator. Interestingly, when I've see ID refuted, it has always been misrepresented, at least as it is represented by Meyer. I've even seen this in reviews that refute his book. These people either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or they are just dishonest. The point here is that just as there is strong evidence that the force of gravity is real, there is also strong evidence that there was the force of an intelligent designer in the origin of life. Neither theory can point to the exact origin of that "force" at this point in time, yet they both have plenty of evidence showing the theories to be true. Unfortunately, one of these theories gets unfairly demonized simply because of the implications that some people don't like. Anyway, I would recommend the book to anyone who seriously wants to understand what ID theory really is. That should be the first step in refuting the theory. | ||
| Blake |
I fail to see anything "brilliant" or even any kind of answer to the question raised concerning gravity, namely "what is its explanation?". I'm sure though that there is one. What causes the distortion of space-time? An explanation does not yet exist, does it? | ||
| Aesquire |
Gravity? What if, instead of an attractive force, where one mass pulls on another, ( as current theory says ) it is a repulsive force, perhaps put out by the remnants of the big bang, ( from every direction) and mass blocks the force. The larger the mass the more gravity blocked and the higher the observed gravity. ? I've been trying to think of an experiment to disprove this, and have for a while. ( I don't lose a lot of sleep over it. The science is NEVER settled. I take comfort in that. ) In other words, the Earth does not Suck, the Universe Blows. (Message edited by aesquire on September 14, 2011) | ||
| Tankhead |
I have posed questions regarding her pulling out, never said I knew why she did, I was just stating what I read without coming to conclusions myself. I also never said the debate I listed was about is there a god just that that was the title. It was about objective morality like you listed. I have never inferred or stated this: but your objection has no relation whatsoever to the question of god's existence. Your objection is questioning the validity of a certain religion or religions. But yet you have put those words in my mouth. I have responded to this thread to get people to think and tried my best to keep my opinions, besides the man in the WTT, to myself. Please do not assume you know my objections. You are not even close. Sifo, my brother I do believe has that book I will ask him to borrow it. Thanks for that reference brother. | ||
| Aesquire |
It was thought long ago that the sun rose over a plate-like Earth, passed overhead, and went behind the mountains at night, to pass through the underworld and re-emerge in the morning.... A better fit to reality came with the idea of Earth as sphere, floating at the center of the celestial spheres. Earth's size was fairly accurately calculated by Greek and Egyptian philosophers. Columbus used a wrong, smaller, figure for the size of the planet, and, if America hadn't been in his way would most probably never been heard from again as his crews died from lack of water and food. An even better fit was the Earth as orbiting the Sun, though that one had resistance from religious leaders who disliked Earth not being the center of reality. Galileo is the classic example of science vs. faith, but it's not that clear cut. He didn't have an explanation for what he observed. That came later. ( also he was, by all accounts, a jerk ) Religious dogma does not disprove the existence of gods. Just proves the desire of men for order. Not until Newton did the elliptical nature of orbits get explained properly, and he invented Calculus to do so. ( sort of a side effect of answering a friend's question ) I still contend ID is philosophy, not science. ( I also feel that way about almost all the humanities ) Often, that which is as yet unknown, falls under faith. Origins of the universe, species, etc, all have theories, and all the theories are incomplete. Sometimes miracles happen. ( that means we don't understand ) Sometimes science is just lied about. Like the tens of millions of polynesians who had to evacuate their low lying islands and escape the rising waters, good thing Barack made that not happen with the force of his will, right?  | ||
| Superdavetfft |
Another religious thread? Well hello there... Just can't stop proselytizing eh? here we go... Anyway here's the simple answer; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhmsDGanyes and some additional food for thought; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9NlRKJBKt4 Do some homework before you believe anything on Fox News. At best they're frequently misleading. There isn't a creationist on this planet that could keep up intellectually with Hitchens or Dawkins. Especially that idiot Ray Comfort and his banana argument (look into it, it's pretty funny). Essentially debating a creationist is like arguing with someone who thinks the world is flat as Dawkins states in the above clip. That said you don't need to be a genius to debate a creationist, just ask politely - 'prove it'. Science can prove it, evolution is a fact, not theory and you can google that all you like to learn more. Science doesn't know everything but that does NOT give religions license to state 'god did it'. That merely states that science has not yet figured it out, but it will in time. If you really want to learn something truthful I recommend Neil Degrasse Tyson, American astrophysicist - director of the Hayden Planetarium. Here are a couple clips: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJyShsxMTeg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVk-2XAd-kI&feature =rellist&playnext=1&list=PL7C16E6C66503D336 If you're curious about the universe I recommend looking him up on Vimeo.com also. He's a brilliant man and a very entertaining speaker. Watch, learn, understand and sooner or later you'll start to see those bronze age beliefs for what they are. Silly superstitions that are no different from Zeus, Ra, etc... | ||
| Notpurples2 |
Watching the Craig/Hitchins debate on existence of God. It always boils down to that "prove it". In a debate on existence the atheist has the high ground in the fact that they're the defense. They only have to show that the prosecution's(theist) evidence is insubstantial. You can't prove non-existence of an entity beyond a shadow of a doubt. But you should be able to prove the existence of an entity if it actually exists or has existed. Craig goes to Hitchens asking for proof of non-existence but doesn't have any concrete proof of existence. He seemed to rely on biblical references, creationist theory, and personal belief. In a purely technical view, Hitchens didn't actually do a great job. He uses morality as his defense that God isn't needed and that religion is more false and immoral than moral and true, which doesn't really address the opposition's stance. But I think he's probably just hitting points from his book since he's states that he is doing the debate as part of a book tour. It doesn't mean that Craig was kicking butt... Hitchens just wasn't really fighting. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
But isn't the "prove it" defense also the undoing of much of the atheist position? "Prove it" would tend to either require an evidentiary preponderance beyond ANY doubt (which isn't even a standard criminal proceedings require) or would require a replicatable experimental standard. Due to the magnitude and time scale necessary to prove or disprove through experimental efforts, even the theory of evolution can't be proven. We are left with ONLY evidentiary processes. Although there is an extensive body of evidence that corroborates the bible, Jesus Christ, His life, death and resurrection, the standard to "prove it" can never be met. If God showed up in the room, Hitchens would STILL have doubts of God's existence. Love is a very familiar and concrete concept. We know what love is. We know that it exists. We know we need it and are willing to go to great lengths to receive it. Prove that you love your mother? What is the evidence that proves, to an outside, unrelated individual, that love without ANY doubt exists? How would you devise an experiment to prove the existence of love? | ||
| Superdavetfft |
Interesting point Notpurples2, I'll have to rewatch that video when I get a second and watch for that... You have hit the nail though regarding the proof point. You can't prove a negative and that's the hardest thing for theists to realize. Atheists have nothing to prove because we're not claiming anything. Atheists simply ask theists to put up proof for what they claim. Theists claim a 'god' exists thus the burden of proof lies solely on them. | ||
| Swordsman |
I always wondered about "the world is flat" thing. Any doofus can go to the beach and see that the horizon is curved.  ~SM | ||
| Sifo |
The "prove it" defense fails both sides. No doubt that the theist can't prove that God exists. At the same time the Atheist can't prove that creation happened without a God. Even the basics of the origins of life as a random occurrence is severely lacking in any proof. What's more is that if the proof did in fact exist, it still does nothing to prove the lack of a deity. It will forever be a matter of faith. Aesquire, I still contend ID is philosophy, not science. ( I also feel that way about almost all the humanities ) I know we've talked a bit about this before, but I'm still unclear about how you feel about a science such as geology. I don't think that falls under the humanities umbrella. Meyer draws many parallels between geology and ID as to how the two sciences user the same methodologies. This is something that he points out repeatedly throughout the book. So I'm still wondering if you would consider something like geology to be science or philosophy? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Sifo, I think that was the gist of the original big bang discussion. There is the theory that the universe began from a singular event, but there isn't any proof of from where the material that makes up the universe came. I also thought the odds of human evolution were interesting as well. Even with the extended periods of time involved, the probabilities of human evolution being true are infinitesimally small. So mall to make them practically impossible. Would that really be considered a preponderance of evidence? | ||
| Sifo |
I always wondered about "the world is flat" thing. Any doofus can go to the beach and see that the horizon is curved. This has me wondering about our schooling now. I was taught that from the early times of the Greeks, through the time of Columbus people thought that if they kept sailing they would eventually sail off the edge of the Earth. Why have our public schools chosen to teach us this falsehood? Atheists have nothing to prove because we're not claiming anything. Atheists simply ask theists to put up proof for what they claim. Theists claim a 'god' exists thus the burden of proof lies solely on them. Actually the atheists are claiming that creation has happened without input from a deity. The burden of proof is upon them to proof that this is feasible at least. Simply saying your opposition is wrong because there's not incontrovertible proof is as weak of an argument as there is. | ||
| Doerman |
A snippet of dialogue from the movie Contact between the scientist and the preacher man: Palmer Joss: [Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God] Did you love your father? Ellie Arroway: What? Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him? Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much. Palmer Joss: Prove it. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
Swordsman, that's an interesting point/observation that prompts this thought. The 'world is flat' point illustrates that many 'truths' change by observation. When a person is in a forest or a lake bed it looks perfectly flat so they'd likely assume it's all flat. When you go to a beach or mountain top that affords a view of a horizon with a bend in it, illustrating the curvature of the Earth, then that person gain the perspective, and knowledge, that it's not quite as flat as observer #1 thought. When applied to theists a similar statement can be made. A person with no knowledge of science or how the universe actually works will attribute it to a deity. Over the centuries each society has built civilizations with gods that fit their knowledge at the time. Primitive man had gods for everything or spirits in the Native American culture. As their knowledge grew their perspective changed and they realized fire wasn't magical, it was merely rapid oxidization of a combustible fuel. As man continues to strive intellectually this perspective will continue to expand and provide the observer with a more grand understanding of things. This is another reason why scientists are usually atheists as they have that very perspective that affords them insight into the workings of the universe. The scientist will continue to grow as he strives to answer other questions as well. However the theist will never grow because by placing 'god' at the end of every question they block themselves from gaining the very perspective they need in order to understand. Hopefully I phrased that properly and you get my drift... With perspective comes knowledge, understanding and growth of a culture. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
Sifo; Atheists don't claim anything and this is probably the #1 most misunderstood/misrepresented piece of info out there regarding atheism. Atheists simply state 'we do not know', that is all. Theists claim they DO know and that 'god did it' is the answer for everything. So then the atheist merely requests that the theist provide proof of their claim. Fact is that I don't know if a deity exists, you don't know, nobody does BUT that does not provide religion license just to say 'god did it' for every question science hasn't yet answered. Science provides the answers, provable, testable, reproducable, observable FACTS based on evidence and backed up by public & open peer review and discussion. Religion provides blinders, 'just do what the church says and don't ask any questions'. How well can a person learn and grow with blinders on? | ||
| Sifo |
There is the theory that the universe began from a singular event, but there isn't any proof of from where the material that makes up the universe came. This is where both sides of the issue fail to offer any "proof". Both sides ask for a leap of faith. I also thought the odds of human evolution were interesting as well. Even with the extended periods of time involved, the probabilities of human evolution being true are infinitesimally small. I agree on this point and Meyer gets into the mathematical proof of this point. I don't see this as the strongest case for ID however. A much stronger case for ID is what is predicted in various theories about what you should expect to see in the DNA information. Random composition of the information would imply huge amounts of useless random information being included. As we learn more about DNA we find that there is very little useless information contained, and what we see as useless today, we will likely find has purpose tomorrow as has been happening for decades now. A huge amount of unique and useful information just doesn't point to a process of random assembly. It points to design with a purpose. Compare it to a room full of monkeys in front of typewriters hoping to get the works of Shakespeare. Sure it's theoretically possible, but it's far more likely that you would get many, many, many iterations that contain the complete works of Shakespeare along with a huge amount of random garbage long before you would ever get a clean copy of Shakespeare. If DNA information assembled randomly then it would be most likely that we would see huge amounts of garbage information and relatively little of the unique, useful information. To me this is a huge body blow to theories of random chance and an almost irrefutable point for ID. | ||
| Sifo |
Atheists simply state 'we do not know', that is all. It's agnostics that claim to not know. Atheists claim to know there is no deity. From what I have gathered to date, you fall into the atheist category. You seem to be quite convinced that there is no deity. (Message edited by SIFO on September 14, 2011) | ||
| Notpurples2 |
Maybe "prove it" was the wrong phrase. If theists or physicist had proved the origin of the universe then there would be no need to debate. And you're correct that in order to effectively argue against the creationist point of view the best one needs to A) Point out flaws and/contradictions in creationism and B) offer up a more logical and "provable" theory. It would be interesting to hear a debate between a theist philosopher and theoretical physicist. That I would LOVE to see. | ||
| Strokizator |
Are you sure scientists are "usually atheists"? I know that proper scientific procedure requires a physical explanation not a theological one but as scientists discover more and more, the universe becomes more complex not simpler. At some point they must think "Whoever designed all this was pure genius". As a kid I held magicians in high esteem (plus they all had pretty assistants; a fact not lost on a 10 year old boy). As I grew older I realized that magic didn't exist, it was all a trick. The more I learn about the universe the more I believe that it just didn't happen by accident. My view of God is that He is not the world's greatest magician but the world's greatest scientist. | ||
| Sifo |
If theists or physicist had proved the origin of the universe then there would be no need to debate. Only true for the theist. Even if a physicist were to prove the origin of the universe, that doesn't disprove the position of the theist that a deity was involved. That's the catch 22 for the atheist. The catch 22 for the theist is that there is no absolute proof for that which is to be taken on faith. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
Semantics ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist Point is we don't believe in things until they are proven by real evidence... If you want to go a step further let's engage Dawkins for some enlightenment ; Dawkins's formulation Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are: Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know." De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there." Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God." Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical." De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one." Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1", no thinking atheist would consider themselves "7", as atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher, he suggested he might be '6.9'[3]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_ probability | ||
| Superdavetfft |
one more thought before lunch (forgive the repost) Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller) recently released a book entitled 'God, NO!' which is definitely worth a look. His opening point is fairly simple 'If 'god' told you to kill your kid would you do it?' If you said no then you're already an atheist, you've just demonstrated that morality and love are more important than your faith. If you said yes... well ... seek help please... | ||
| Sifo |
His opening point is fairly simple 'If 'god' told you to kill your kid would you do it?' If you said no then you're already an atheist, you've just demonstrated that morality and love are more important than your faith. If you said yes... well ... seek help please... If you are an atheist after being directly spoken to by God then you are in denial of absolute proof of God. Interesting philosophy, bit nothing else. How about the proof I've pointed out about the information contained in DNA? Each theory is predictive about if there should be a lot of useless information or not. Examining actual DNA is in fact a proof of those theories, is it not? What is that proof telling you? | ||
| Tankhead |
Superdave: 1. Fox news for me is entertainment. 2. I have viewed the dawkins craig debate before many times. 3.Craig producing scripture as argument is (AS ALWAYS IN EVERY ARGUMENT) A MOOT POINT. 4. Is it quite the possibility that the atheist in the op thread takes Dawkins stand lately about not wasting time debating over and over and over again with both sides stating the same arguments? I would consider but I do not assume like Blake has. 5. Sifo yes I am aware of ID but have never read the book you listed. Hope to soon. 6. Superdave: This::::There isn't a creationist on this planet that could keep up intellectually with Hitchens or Dawkins. Especially that idiot Ray Comfort and his banana argument (look into it, it's pretty funny). Essentially debating a creationist is like arguing with someone who thinks the world is flat as Dawkins states in the above clip. That said you don't need to be a genius to debate a creationist, just ask politely - 'prove it'. Science can prove it, evolution is a fact, not theory and you can google that all you like to learn more. Science doesn't know everything but that does NOT give religions license to state 'god did it'. That merely states that science has not yet figured it out, but it will in time. I agree 100% 7. Saw the O'Rielly show with Dawkins. You could see Dawkins frustrations. I feel these frustrations reading, but never responding, to these religious threads on this site. Like banging your head against the wall. 8. Penn Jillette: A cool rational dude who seems to get it. I will look out for his book. Watched him on Pierce and he became frustrated also. 9. Sometimes the frustrations that are witnessed by those who watch Dawkins and Hitchens are that they come across, pretentious, angry and (excuse the term) holier than tho, but that (pretentious) attitude quickly can be realized to be frustrations in trying to empathize without agreeing if one could instead of blaming people for avoiding debates that have been done many many times. 10. Craig also talks about, in the debate that I listed, that no ever said that we should serve God, but rather work towards being like god. I have heard many Born again and or religious people say to me and in interviews that they are servants of the lord. Which is it. A is A. A can't be A sometimes and B other times. 11. Superdave: This:: Atheists don't claim anything and this is probably the #1 most misunderstood/misrepresented piece of info out there regarding atheism. Atheists simply state 'we do not know', that is all. Theists claim they DO know and that 'god did it' is the answer for everything. So then the atheist merely requests that the theist provide proof of their claim. I agree 100% | ||
| Tankhead |
Sifo didn't you get the monkey example from the very book you asked me to read. My brother has told me about that argument before? | ||
| Sifo |
Well, monkeys typing Shakespeare goes back a long ways. I don't know how far, but it certainly pre-dates Meyer's book. Meyer does make mention of this idea in the book, but quite in the way that I used it. The way that I used it shortens Meyer's presentation by at least a few chapters. I'm not sure my Readers Digest version does justice to the subject. The monkeys are just a common analogy when looking at a large amount of unique and useful information. | ||
| Davegess |
If you have faith you have no need to prove the existence of god. If you do not have faith than, well that also would mean you do not have to prove the existence of god. The debate is pointless. | ||
| Blake |
Tank, In hopes our debate can continue most efficiently and with as little confusion and as much clarity as possible. Please consider that some of your posts are very difficult to follow. First, it isn't always clear to whom you are responding; it really helps to address the target or at least preface with a quote of someone. Second, it's not always clear that you are quoting others; using quotation marks or a different font or color to indicate quoted statements here is mucho helpful. Back to the debate... It seems to me that you indeed did raise the point concerning religion as follows: Now for my take: Most athiests that I have researched (Dawkins for example "The God Delusion") would be a believer if it could be proven without faith that a god exists. Prayers would be granted every time could be the measure. As I watched Fox news 9/11 recap this weekend, which I thought was wonderfully produced, I watched a man tell his story about being pulled out of the burning rubble and he thanked the man (understandably) but then saying that God had sent him to save him. Meanwhile they showed many unfortunate Jumpers falling to their death and the viewer got to listen to a few bodies hit the ground. Now if their prayers did not get answered and the other 2900 people did not have their prayers answered I felt incredible saddness for the families of those who were of faith besides the obviously terrifying events that we all witnessed that day and again this weekend. Prayer is a fixture of religion. You thus raised the issue of religion, which is entirely separate and distinct from the question of origins. Thus my response stating that "your objection has no relation whatsoever to the question of god's existence. Your objection is questioning the validity of a certain religion or religions." Your rebuttal that I have never inferred or stated this,... but yet you have put those words in my mouth. "I felt incredible sadness for the families of those who were of faith" I don't think so. I think that your meaning was crystal clear, and I think it was an incredibly cheap shot. I don't play the passive aggressive game. I'm very much interested in debate. As far as what atheists claim, SDave's comment: Atheists simply state 'we do not know', that is all. To which you state 100% agreement. Good grief, look up the definition of the word. atheist: One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. By definition, there is no "I don't know" for an atheist concerning god. An atheist denies or disbelieves the existence of god. An "agnostic" holds that there can be no proof either that god exists or that god does not exist. Thus it is the agnostic, not the atheist, who professes that they "do not know." | ||
| Tankhead |
Should the parent of a child not respond to the child's stated desires, does the parent cease to exist? Of course not. Worst argument ever. Really? Come on Blake there is absolutely no logic in comparing that argument to the argument; Is there a God. You seem pretty intelligent but that was poor logic. |
