Atheism

[David777]

Back to ItinerantLurker.

Please read the following few paragraphs.


Have you heard of Tolkien and the "Lord of the Rings".
Are you aware of "Chronicles of Narnia", C.S. Lewis.
Both Professors at Oxford University.

Then read on.

Lewis's interest in the works of George MacDonald was part of what turned him from atheism. This can be seen particularly well through this passage in Lewis's The Great Divorce, chapter nine, when the semi-autobiographical main character meets MacDonald in Heaven:

...I tried, trembling, to tell this man all that his writings had done for me. I tried to tell how a certain frosty afternoon at Leatherhead Station when I had first bought a copy of Phantastes (being then about sixteen years old) had been to me what the first sight of Beatrice had been to Dante: Here begins the new life. I started to confess how long that Life had delayed in the region of imagination merely: how slowly and reluctantly I had come to admit that his Christendom had more than an accidental connection with it, how hard I had tried not to see the true name of the quality which first met me in his books is Holiness.
​

He slowly re-embraced Christianity, influenced by arguments with his Oxford colleague and friend J.R.R. Tolkein, whom he seems to have met for the first time on 11 May 1926, and by the book The Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton. He fought greatly up to the moment of his conversion, noting that he was brought into Christianity like a prodigal, "kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance to escape."<sup id="cite_ref-28" class="reference"></sup> He described his last struggle in Surprised by Joy:

You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.<sup id="cite_ref-29" class="reference">[30]</sup>
​

After his conversion to theism in 1929, Lewis converted to Christianity in 1931, following a long discussion and late-night walk with his close friends Tolkien and Hugo Dyson. He records making a specific commitment to Christian belief while on his way to the zoo with his brother. He became a member of the Church of England – somewhat to the disappointment of Tolkien.

From Wikipedia.

 

[misesfan]

Except for really small particles. . .and according to the big bang the entire universe was once as small as a really small particle.

As it stands, all the seems to be necessary is for the laws governing quantum mechanics to be in place.

You mean by YOUR definition. Surely you must realize that other people have lots of different ideas about god and/or about supernatural entities existing "outside" time and space. Even if your previous claims were right (which they aren't) all this would prove was that something outside of what we now know as energy and time could have caused the expansion of our universe.

Who cares? The universe, after all, is not under any obligation to conform to our notions of logic or common sense.

Ahh, so you can tell that other religions are wrong because they aren't consistent with what you already believe. That's certainly interesting, but I'm actually more interested in what evidence exists that what you already believe is actually true. Since the leading factor in what religious belief's most people will have as adults is the geographical location of their birth, this seems like a pretty important question to ask.

Lurker

Except for the facts that:
1) quarks really have never been observed to be created ex nihilo
2) logic must exist universally or every scientific principle in which your previous arguments rely are false
3) Having internal logical consistency is certainly perferable than intellectual dishonesty.

 

[misesfan]

I think the JudeoChristian god is evil (based on the book he allegedly wrote describing himself), therefore I conclude that he does not exist. This is not my actual argument, but it is just as valid as yours.

I guarantee you that if you find a community similar to this one, but composed of Muslims, they will have testimonies about how Allah performed miracles and changed their lives.

Using prophecy as proof of a text is hugely problematic, because prophecies are so vague. By this logic, Nostradamus was a prophet because his prophecies can be interpreted as having come true.



Then by what evidence can you conclude that Christianity is correct? Everything you have used so far could easily be applied to any other religion. If you just happened to believe in Hinduism, you could make the exact same argument in reverse: that you disbelieve Christianity because it contradicts Hinduism, which you (in this hypothetical) believe.

Many people agree that Jesus existed. I said it is debatable. Not everyone agrees.

Many of those figures have historical writings about them recorded during their own lifetimes, or by first-hand witnesses. Jesus does not have such records. Records written long after their lives tend to be very consistent. The gospels contain many inconsistencies.

There is an important distinction to be made here. We see the results of these men's actions. Caesar changed the nature of an empire. Archimedes made important scientific discoveries. Plato and Aristotle contributed to philosophy. The later impact of these actions depends on the fact that these actions occurred. In the case of Jesus, the later impact depended on belief in Jesus, not whether or not he actually lived. Imagine a hypothetical world in which the Biblical authors wrote what they did, completely absent a historical person, and people accepted it. Nothing today would be different. The historical impact of Jesus does not depend on his actual existence.

We don't know that at all. Most scholars do not think those people actually wrote the books.

If they had actually observed the facts, which would require them to have actually occurred. And if they had sufficient reach to make their voices heard objecting.

I am an atheist. I do not believe that God exists. This DOES NOT mean that I explicitly deny the existence of God. I am not sure whether or not God exists. I am an agnostic. Atheist and agnostic are by no means contradictory. They do not answer the same question. There is much confusion about these terms, and the definitions I just used are probably not universal. However, most atheists I know would probably find those agreeable.

I propose a natural process that exists outside of time and space capable of creation ex nihilo. I now use that same argument as proof of its existence. Also, things come from nothing all the time (virtual particles). And what is so impossible about an infinite regress?

This is a variation of a classic argument known as Pascal's Wager. There are a number of problems with it.
1) A benevolent god would not send anyone to hell (as typically understood) for any reason. Particularly not a decently moral person. (I'm alright, not perfect)
2) Can you really believe something just as "fire insurance?" What if I tell you that unless you believe there is an invisible pink unicorn on your head, it's going to get angry and spear you with its invisible pink horn? Can you do it?
3) This can be applied in many ways. What if another religion is right and you go to hell for believing the wrong one? There are countless religions. What if God created rational beings, and rewards us for not believing in him when he provided us with no evidence, sending believers to hell? You've created a false dichotomy.


I will abide by the rules here, since it is your community and I do not wish to be an unwelcome intruder.

Heh -A natural process that is capable of creation ex nihilo simply pushes the argument back one step - what created this process? Or is this natural cause a eternal, timeless, all powerful thing? Sound a little like God to me.

Regarding your argument that Jesus never existed and such. We must simply disagree. The fact is that experts do agree that He existed. There really is no argument. There is more evidence for His existence than any other historical person that has lived. You deny this, then your proclamation that you have any conformation to the scientific method is demonstrably false.

Thus, as you stated, your atheism makes you smarter than any other man on the planet, since you know that beyond any evidence to the contrary that God does not exist. The intellectual audacity of such a statement is in itself beyond reason.

 

[Chad]

Heh -A natural process that is capable of creation ex nihilo simply pushes the argument back one step - what created this process? Or is this natural cause a eternal, timeless, all powerful thing? Sound a little like God to me.

Regarding your argument that Jesus never existed and such. We must simply disagree. The fact is that experts do agree that He existed. There really is no argument. There is more evidence for His existence than any other historical person that has lived. You deny this, then your proclamation that you have any conformation to the scientific method is demonstrably false.

Thus, as you stated, your atheism makes you smarter than any other man on the planet, since you know that beyond any evidence to the contrary that God does not exist. The intellectual audacity of such a statement is in itself beyond reason.

Amen!

I don't believe atheists exist...do I need proof?

Atheists come to a Christian community like ours here, to argue against GOD. Why? Nothing better to do with their time? Persuading people to reject GOD (and if so, what for to their benefit?)...shame. What they're really doing is TRYING to persuade *themselves* that GOD doesn't exist (But they are hard wired by GOD knowing He exists), to defend themselves.

Its amazing how atheists purposely reject GOD's love. Which other religion offers a GOD of love, a Savior who paid for their sins and continually shows them grace? None.

 

[namith]

Heh -A natural process that is capable of creation ex nihilo simply pushes the argument back one step - what created this process? Or is this natural cause a eternal, timeless, all powerful thing? Sound a little like God to me.

Your first sentence is equivalently usable against your argument for God's existence. And how would an "eternal, timeless, all powerful thing" have to be God? I said it's something natural and unintelligent. I also did not give it those properties. Time would likely not apply to it, since time is a property of the universe. And it doesn't have to be all-powerful, just powerful enough to create a universe. And there's no evidence to support the fact that this natural process ever begat a son.

Regarding your argument that Jesus never existed and such. We must simply disagree. The fact is that experts do agree that He existed. There really is no argument. There is more evidence for His existence than any other historical person that has lived.

I made a legitimate argument, and your reply is that you just don't believe it? Can you refute any of the points I brought up? Not all experts agree on Jesus's existence. There is definitely less evidence for his existence than many other historical figures.

My argument is not that he definitly did not exist. It is that it is plausible that he did not exist.

You deny this, then your proclamation that you have any conformation to the scientific method is demonstrably false.

Wait, isn't your definition of the scientific method that you have to test something in a lab?

Edit: my bad, this was someone else. Ignore this point.

Thus, as you stated, your atheism makes you smarter than any other man on the planet,

I never said that.

since you know that beyond any evidence to the contrary that God does not exist.

I said the exact opposite of that. I do not know that God does not exists, I simply see no reason to accept that he does.

I don't believe atheists exist...do I need proof?

I am an atheist. Here is your proof that we exist.

Atheists come to a Christian community like ours here, to argue against GOD. Why? Nothing better to do with their time?

To be honest, no, I really don't have anything better to do with my time. Part of the reason is that I simply dislike that other people hold positions that I find to be unreasonable. In particular, I dislike seeing poor arguments rehashed, as was the case in the original post here.

Another reason for arguing is that religion does, in certain cases, cause actual harm. It can harm a person's development with feelings of guilt. It can harm relationships with backwards ideas about sex and submission. It holds back the progress of science and education. Sometimes it encourages violence.

What they're really doing is TRYING to persuade *themselves* that GOD doesn't exist (But they are hard wired by GOD knowing He exists), to defend themselves.

I assume the reason you argue against Islam is that you know deep down that Allah exists, but you are uncomfortable with this fact. A silly statement to make, but no different than yours.

Which other religion offers a GOD of love, a Savior who paid for their sins and continually shows them grace?

You could say that Zoroastrianism offers something similar.

What religion other than Buddhism offers an 8-fold path to nirvana? What religion other than Bahai offers a God who presents a progressive revalation? What religion other than Rastafari offers so much illicit drug use? The answer I give to all these questions: so what?

Please, no more references to Islam. It is a pirated copy of the Hebrew Old Testament.

I mean, so is Christianity...

I read the last ten letters of the Koran out of curiosity, how do people believe that nonsense.

I'm reading the Bible, and I'd say the exact same thing.

 

[Chad]

I'm reading the Bible, and I'd say the exact same thing.

Due to your lack of knowledge and understanding.

Read a book called A Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel. He was a hardcore atheists and studied Bible and evidence for many years before becoming a Christian.

 

[namith]

Due to your lack of knowledge and understanding.

You ridicule the Koran due to your lack of knowledge and understanding, too, right?

Read a book called A Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel. He was a hardcore atheists and studied Bible and evidence for many years before becoming a Christian.

I've read it. It utterly fails to present a convincing case. He never interviews any skeptics, he doesn't ask the kinds of questions a skeptic would, fails to address many of the arguments raised against the historicity of the gospels, and many of the points made are in complete contradiction with the consensus held by most legitimate scholars (not just secular ones).

 

[ItinerantLurker]

The scriptures do offer evidence, but not itself, rather the things of nature. The fact that we exists, and are "fearfully and wonderfully made" and that " the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse".

The fact that we exist is a product of a series of natural processes that doesn't appear to require the interposition of a deity. How does this provide evidence that Jesus was God?

Prophecy has a twofold purpose, aside from warning the immediate interested parties of events to come. One, it does prove yje existence of God, for only God knows the end from the beginning, and knows things to come. Second, prophecy proves that the scriptures are inspired of God.

Prophesies that are found in the Bible. That means that one would have to already accept the Bible to be true in order to assert that prophecies are evidence that the Bible is true. Don't you see a problem with that? Didn't you just say that the Bible isn't, in an of itself, evidence?

therefore, your choice not to accept the gospels as accurate is tantamount to calling God a liar, not believing His own word. That is more serious than a simple critique of a written work.

Only if you assume that the gospels are the actual words of God which, as I've already explained, requires one to already believe them. Ergo the only way I appear to be able to avoid hell is if I grow up already believing that the gospels are the actual words of God - if I don't grow up with this pre-established faith there doesn't appear to be any evidence for me to rely upon seeing as your first argument doesn't specify an actual deity and your second argument requires me to already believe in the reliability of the gospels.

However, I do not agree with you regarding choice. As I pointed out above, nature itself is sufficient evidence for the existence of God.

Except that it isn't, of course. Nature does not require anything supernatural to occur - all it requires is for the laws of quantum mechanics to be in effect. How does that show that Jesus is God?

What would convince you?

It seems to me that it would have been incredibly easy for God to give us evidence in the Bible for its reliability. Something along the lines of, "Hey Jeremiah, you know how it seems like objects don't move unless a force pushes or pulls them? That's actually kind of backwards, in actuality objects will continue to move until a force acts against that motion. I know that doesn't make any sense now but it will so make sure not to forget it." or "Hey Moses, just a heads up but the earth actually orbits the sun. . .oh and stars are just suns that are reeeeeeaaaaly far away. I know that doesn't make much sense but remember that, it will later." couldn't hurt.




Lurker

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Except for the facts that:
1) quarks really have never been observed to be created ex nihilo

Physicists seem to disagree. You might want to start looking up virtual particles.

2) logic must exist universally or every scientific principle in which your previous arguments rely are false

Logic is not an objective object that actually "exists", it's basically just a set of rules that are usually true. Lots of perfectly logical notions about how the universe should operate have been found to be completely wrong. How we think the universe should work does not inform how the universe actually does work.

3) Having internal logical consistency is certainly perferable than intellectual dishonesty.

True, but when notions of what is logical are contradicted by observed reality it's just plain silly to maintain that our notions somehow take precedence over that reality.




Lurker

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Heh -A natural process that is capable of creation ex nihilo simply pushes the argument back one step - what created this process? Or is this natural cause a eternal, timeless, all powerful thing? Sound a little like God to me.

Why does a process require a cause? That might simply be the way whatever existed prior to our universe was. Could that be a god? Sure. Might that even have been the Christian God? Of course. But what about that actually demonstrates that it was the God of Christianity? At best, all this argument does is postulate that God is one of a virtually infinite range of possible causes.

Regarding your argument that Jesus never existed and such. We must simply disagree. The fact is that experts do agree that He existed. There really is no argument.

I have to go with misesfan on this one - we have independent accounts of Christ's life and death outside of the Bible that make it very clear he was an actual person.





Lurker

 

[namith]

I have to go with misesfan on this one - we have independent accounts of Christ's life and death outside of the Bible that make it very clear he was an actual person.

Not meaning to be critical, but what are some examples? All the ones I have seen are at least decades later, and written by people who did not witness the events, but simply report either what they've heard or what Christians believe.

I make these points not to actually argue that Jesus never existed. I think it's fairly likely that he did, and the stories about him have been wildly exaggerated. But to assert that the evidence for his existence is proven and obvious is unfounded.

 

[s.i.e.]

Do you have any means to refute them? Or are you baldly asserting your opinions?

I was providing evidence, not explanation.

I personally find it at least somewhat humorous that you would hold out your stated evidence as strong enough to even warrant a refuting. For evidence to be reasonably refuted, it would first have to be shown to actually be supporting evidence in the first place. The evidence you cited --- homogeneity of the universe, the expanding nature of the universe, microwave background --- even if it may be suggestive, is certainly not proof-work, nor would it be mutually exclusive to supporting just the big-bang theory only. Indeed, your cited evidence has never been tested as causal to your theory. You can't repeat the big-bang in a science lab, because it isn't repeatable (perhaps because it never happened in the first place, perhaps not). As such, there is truly no scientific test that supports the theory, which is also why it can never actually pass from theory to something more than a theory. Personally, I downgrade it to something below a theory --- I put it in the category of reasonable speculation.

You may ridicule my answer as you may view it as merely op-ed...but you are self-delusional if you believe that any of your "supporting evidence" is anything more than op-ed, put into a marketable framework. And yes, the theory has far more to do with marketing than science. I don't have a problem with you believing it...but I do have a problem with you calling it good science. Or even science at all. It's a belief system, nothing more. I guess that's one of your grievances you say you have with the "Faith community"...so perhaps you should expand the borders of your constituencies by which you want to share your grievances with?

Again, you don't understand what a theory is. The big bang makes predictions that are validated by observation. That's how it is tested.

Yeah? Where were you when you observed the big-bang?

Oh...you mean the "supporting evidence" to the big-bang? Well...again, while it's true that we may observe an expanding globe, that means nothing to observe it --- you first have to understand how and why it is a mutually exclusive and causal factor which alone supports your big-bang theory. Observe away...but until you make those connections, it is no valid test.

It is a theory that we stay on the earth because objects of mass attract each other. This is supported by much observation. An alternate theory could be that the world is expanding, thus creating a constant upward force on all objects on its surface. The theory of gravity better explains observations. Just as the theory of evolution is the best theory so far that explains the nature of living organisms. It fits the observations extremely well.

If you believe that your theory of big-bang is about as credible as the things we observe every day that support the theory of gravity, then you have edged on the delusional.

As for me, for all practical purposes, gravity is a law...so it's really a ridiculous exercise to discuss the nuances that split the concept of gravity between theory to law. Gravity is a law for all practical purposes. So, things we call "theories" travel across a wide spectrum of various degrees of credibility -- the big bang being about as far away from gravity as humanly possible, on that spectrum.

The big bang should be offensive to true scientists.

 

[David777]

Big Bang vs Creationism.

A very unusual argument, outside the boundary of Science.

Please read the following:

According to the Duhem-Quine thesis, after Pierre Duhem and W.V. Quine, it is impossible to test a theory in isolation. One must always add auxiliary hypotheses in order to make testable predictions.

For example, to test Newton's Law of Gravitation in our solar system, one needs information about the masses and positions of the Sun and all the planets. Famously, the failure to predict the orbit of Uranus in the 19th century led, not to the rejection of Newton's Law, but rather to the rejection of the hypothesis that there are only seven planets in our solar system. The investigations that followed led to the discovery of an eighth planet, Neptune. If a test fails, something is wrong. But there is a problem in figuring out what that something is: a missing planet, badly calibrated test equipment, an unsuspected curvature of space, etc.


One consequence of the Duhem-Quine thesis is that any theory can be made compatible with any empirical observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses.

This thesis was accepted by Karl Popper, leading him to reject naïve falsification in favor of 'survival of the fittest', or most falsifiable, of scientific theories. In Popper's view, any hypothesis that does not make testable predictions is simply not science.

Such a hypothesis may be useful or valuable, but it cannot be said to be science. Confirmation holism, developed by W.V. Quine, states that empirical data are not sufficient to make a judgment between theories. In this view, a theory can always be made to fit with the available empirical data. However, the fact that empirical evidence does not serve to determine between alternative theories does not necessarily imply that all theories are of equal value, as scientists often use guiding principles such as Occam's Razor.


One result of this view is that specialists in the philosophy of science stress the requirement that observations made for the purposes of science be restricted to intersubjective objects. That is, science is restricted to those areas where there is general agreement on the nature of the observations involved. It is comparatively easy to agree on observations of physical phenomena, harder for them to agree on observations of social or mental phenomena, and difficult in the extreme to reach agreement on matters of theology or ethics (and thus the latter remain outside the normal purview of science).

Thanks to philosophy you do not have to defend the Bible against Science. Our Bible is a revelation from God just as it says. It is not some theory without sufficient evidence to support it.

 

[namith]

I personally find it at least somewhat humorous that you would hold out your stated evidence as strong enough to even warrant a refuting.

So you still will not attempt to refute it? Then why continue the conversation?

For evidence to be reasonably refuted, it would first have to be shown to actually be supporting evidence in the first place. The evidence you cited --- homogeneity of the universe, the expanding nature of the universe, microwave background --- even if it may be suggestive, is certainly not proof-work, nor would it be mutually exclusive to supporting just the big-bang theory only.

I did not say it could only support the Big Bang theory. I said that the Big Bang theory is the best one that fits the evidence. If we develop a better theory, or new evidence comes to light that falsifies the theory, we will abandon it.

Indeed, your cited evidence has never been tested as causal to your theory. You can't repeat the big-bang in a science lab, because it isn't repeatable (perhaps because it never happened in the first place, perhaps not).

As I explained before, you don't understand what a scientific theory is.

As such, there is truly no scientific test that supports the theory, which is also why it can never actually pass from theory to something more than a theory. Personally, I downgrade it to something below a theory --- I put it in the category of reasonable speculation.

Again, you don't understand what a scientific theory is.

Or even science at all. It's a belief system, nothing more. I guess that's one of your grievances you say you have with the "Faith community"...so perhaps you should expand the borders of your constituencies by which you want to share your grievances with?

I accept something supported by evidence. You believe something contradicted by evidence. I don't see how I'm exercising "faith" here.

Yeah? Where were you when you observed the big-bang?

Oh...you mean the "supporting evidence" to the big-bang? Well...again, while it's true that we may observe an expanding globe, that means nothing to observe it --- you first have to understand how and why it is a mutually exclusive and causal factor which alone supports your big-bang theory. Observe away...but until you make those connections, it is no valid test.

I am beginning to feel that continued conversation with you will prove fruitless unless you educate yourself about how science works and what a scientific theory is.

If you believe that your theory of big-bang is about as credible as the things we observe every day that support the theory of gravity, then you have edged on the delusional.

You didn't read my explanation about gravity. I said that it is a theory that objects of mass attract each other. That is the theory of gravity. It is supported by observation. Alternate theories could be proposed to explain why things fall down. But the theory of gravity fits the observations better. Similarly, the big bang fits the observations about reality better than any other proposed theory.

The big bang should be offensive to true scientists.

Then why do almost all scientists in the field of cosmology (you know, the ones who actually know anything about the subject) accept it?

Duhem-Quine thesis.


Thanks to philosophy you do not have to defend the Bible against Science. Our Bible is a revelation from God just as it says. It is not some theory without sufficient evidence to support it.

The Bible makes predictions about the world which do not play out. It also makes significant claims and demands belief for them without providing any evidence. You can't dodge this just by saying "it doesn't need evidence". Anybody could say the same about any holy book. Why don't you believe the Koran? It's a revelation from Allah, not some theory without sufficient evidence to support it.

 

[s.i.e.]

namith: to your points...

- Why not refute, and why continue the conversation? Probably for the same reasons you continue the conversation. You see inherent problems in the thinking process of evangelical Christians, and you think that should be pointed out and corrected. Likewise, I see inherent flaws in the thinking you're showcasing here. Hence, the conversation.

- On your belief that the big-bang theory is the best-fit vs. observations and your willingness to abandon it should you witness future/better evidence: to use a well known historical fact, believing in a flat-earth or an earth-centric orbit pattern was also the best-fit vs. observations at the time too. Does that fact cause that generations folly to be less fallible? Is it a credit to them the fact that they may have held that view "lightly", being perfectly willing to abandon it if necessary?

- If you want to believe I don't know what a scientific theory is, I won't argue with you, as I'm not here to defend myself. Please enjoy whatever happiness you believe you may get from pointing this in your ad hominem assessment. This isn't about me, and I have believed it is also not about you. Perhaps I'm wrong.

- Yes, I know you don't see how you are using faith to believe what you believe. No, actually, there is much in the world that would point towards the idea that creation is how we got here, and no, evidence does not contradict the idea of creation.

- You again point out that I just don't know science, or its theories. See above.

- Going back to the gravity conversation: here's my point --- there have been many many instances throughout history, where it was the most logical/intuitive set of beliefs, to accept the things that can be 'most observed', and conclude various truths from those observations. Hence, we accept the theory of gravity...ok, fine. But again, there have been many times where those "most-logical" things were simply patently wrong, upon further light-shed on the situation(s). In other words...and perhaps this is especially true when it comes to the idea of God, or how things were originally incepted, etc...there may be a total disconnect between the truth and what we may observe. History has given us some valuable lessons of this. I think the lesson tell us that we would be well served to have the kind of humility to acknowledge that we are, and will always be, human...and as such, we do not have the kind of perspective necessary to know all things in the way we might like. At least, not yet. Of course, if you don't believe in God, you cannot believe this, so your brain is as far as you can ever get to know truth. Sorry if I missed where you were originally going at, with your gravity comments, and I similarly missed you on this point.

- As for why scientists seem to uphold the big-bang theory in a consensus way: well...that's a generalization, of course, and there are some scientists who actually do believe in Creation, but those scientists usually hold their tongues, as they generally get a bit of ridicule, and it can be hard on their careers. For whatever reason, the scientific commuity seems to operate in a bit of a group-think way. The answer as to why scientists uphold the big-bang, is the same reason they believed in flat-earth and earth-centric orbit.

 

[misesfan]

Amazingly enough, given the conversation - researchers at CERN have found particles that are faster than the speed of light. Something scientists stated was 'unexpected.' And here I thought that scientists knew with certainty that the speed of light was a constant through the cosmos.

And in other news, biologists with butterfly nets continue on their quest to find how chickens descended from velociraptors (or is it vice-verse?) and prove their worth in the scientific arena.

 

[namith]

namith: to your points...
- Going back to the gravity conversation: here's my point --- there have been many many instances throughout history, where it was the most logical/intuitive set of beliefs, to accept the things that can be 'most observed', and conclude various truths from those observations. Hence, we accept the theory of gravity...ok, fine. But again, there have been many times where those "most-logical" things were simply patently wrong, upon further light-shed on the situation(s).

This is indeed a good point. Scientific thought has been wrong before, and probably is now (in ways we don't know yet). But the beauty is that science is self-correcting. Science will advance our knowledge of the universe, and get rid of old ideas as necessary. Religion doesn't do either very well.

History has given us some valuable lessons of this. I think the lesson tell us that we would be well served to have the kind of humility to acknowledge that we are, and will always be, human...and as such, we do not have the kind of perspective necessary to know all things in the way we might like.

That's the point of science. Doing our best to figure things out in the best way we have available.

No, actually, there is much in the world that would point towards the idea that creation is how we got here, and no, evidence does not contradict the idea of creation.

What exactly do you mean by creation? Literal biblical account (7 days, 6000 years ago, etc.), God creating through natural processes, somewhere in between? And, what is this evidence pointing towards it?

Amazingly enough, given the conversation - researchers at CERN have found particles that are faster than the speed of light. Something scientists stated was 'unexpected.'

Well, they're not totally sure about it yet. But, if true, the implications will be significant. Hard to say exactly what this would imply for the field of physics. I'm not an expert.

And here I thought that scientists knew with certainty that the speed of light was a constant through the cosmos.

The speed of light is not at issue here. The possible "law" that might have been broken is whether anything can go faster than light. Again, these results are (so far) tentative, and the implications of them are unclear, but substantial.

And in other news, biologists with butterfly nets continue on their quest to find how chickens descended from velociraptors (or is it vice-verse?) and prove their worth in the scientific arena.

Evolution is much, MUCH, MUCH better understood than relativistic physics. It is based on very simple, very easy to understand principles. Mainly two: change between generations and natural selection. It is also supported by mountains of evidence. Human chromosome 2, retroviral DNA, transitional fossils, vestigial hind legs in whales, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, embryology, not to mention just observed speciation.

 

[s.i.e.]

This is indeed a good point. Scientific thought has been wrong before, and probably is now (in ways we don't know yet). But the beauty is that science is self-correcting. Science will advance our knowledge of the universe, and get rid of old ideas as necessary. Religion doesn't do either very well.

So, an inherent dilemma of the atheist and the scientist, is that

1) You will only choose to rely on that which you can know through a carnal brain...even though you may acknowledge that there may be many paradigm shifts in thinking processes along the way and throughout future time-frames that may completely disrupt any logic in support of the last-iterative premise/thesis/theory/hypothesis...

2) Yet, at any given point along the time continuum, you are content to believe in - with strong conviction manifesting through personal repulsion or vigilant argument against any who might believe differently - the currently prescribed system of beliefs put out by the scientific and academic community, and/or your own readings of such sources.


This is a dilemma that I consider narrowly minded, arrogant (i.e., thinking that there may be no greater source of knowledge other than what man may be able to come upon), and riddled with the problems inherent in group-think. It's also too institutionalized for my likings...but that's just me. Indeed, to me, the "dilemma" of faith is a far easier 'risk' to take than this kind of pill to swallow.

I'm not sure how you swallow it, with all due respect, and I mean that in all sincerity.



That said, in the end, even if the "big bang" theory were the truth here, I'm not sure why or how that necessarily builds an argument against the existence of God, or the idea that God may have possibly used the "big bang" as the means to accomplish some of which you may read about in Genesis 1. I don't personally believe that, but at the same time, I'm not sure why the two schools of thought need be mutually-exclusive to one another. Perhaps you have reasons why they are...and that's fine...but again, since none of us were there, and we can't repeat the exercise, nor observe it real-time, part of that discussion can get towards the realm of mental gyrations...and I lose enough brain-cells doing other stuff.

 

[namith]

1) You will only choose to rely on that which you can know through a carnal brain...even though you may acknowledge that there may be many paradigm shifts in thinking processes along the way and throughout future time-frames that may completely disrupt any logic in support of the last-iterative premise/thesis/theory/hypothesis...

We have nothing other than our brains to achieve any degree of understanding.

2) Yet, at any given point along the time continuum, you are content to believe in - with strong conviction manifesting through personal repulsion or vigilant argument against any who might believe differently - the currently prescribed system of beliefs put out by the scientific and academic community, and/or your own readings of such sources.

I would say arguing for science is more about arguing for the scientific point of view. Accepting things supported by evidence, rejecting old theories that no longer hold up, etc. Based on the evidence currently available, accepting the big bang theory is rational. I like arguing for rationality.

This is a dilemma that I consider narrowly minded, arrogant (i.e., thinking that there may be no greater source of knowledge other than what man may be able to come upon),

If there is some greater source of knowledge, the only way it would be at all useful to us is if we were able to come upon it. We have no means of understanding other than our own brains.

and riddled with the problems inherent in group-think.

I think this is more a problem that religion has. Science encourages discussion, debate, and the competition of ideas.

That said, in the end, even if the "big bang" theory were the truth here, I'm not sure why or how that necessarily builds an argument against the existence of God, or the idea that God may have possibly used the "big bang" as the means to accomplish some of which you may read about in Genesis 1. I don't personally believe that, but at the same time, I'm not sure why the two schools of thought need be mutually-exclusive to one another. Perhaps you have reasons why they are...and that's fine...

I'll agree with this point. I don't think the big bang constitutes evidence against God. It presents an explanation for the origin of the universe other than "God did it," which is useful for a non-theistic argument.

 

[David777]

Puzzled?

Dear namith I was rather puzzled by some of your post's.

Let's look at one and examine your reply.

"Not meaning to be critical, but what are some examples? All the ones I have seen are at least decades later, and written by people who did not witness the events, but simply report either what they've heard or what Christians believe.

I make these points not to actually argue that Jesus never existed. I think it's fairly likely that he did, and the stories about him have been wildly exaggerated. But to assert that the evidence for his existence is proven and obvious is unfounded."

Firstly your reply in red above:

Paul's letters are written by a direct witness of Jesus Christ, not decades later. What you claimed is simply a falsehood, you have
definitely not read the New Testament have you namith.

Now for the orange reply:

How can you make a statement like this, I think you will need to
supply the evidence that supports this wild statement.

Please reply namith, I wish to proceed further but I need your reply
in order to untangle the knots in your rational approach.