NOW POST!
Thank you.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
This image shows a simplified version of how an eye could develop through evolution.
Irreducible Complexity is an argument used by people who don't understand Evolution...
My 2 cp?
Irreducible Complexity is an argument used by people who don't understand Evolution...
Well the God in the Gaps and Arguement from Ignorance are two of the biggest problems I've stumbled into when discussing the subject with believers. I only discovered the subject two years ago when a couple of friends when to a lecture on the subject, and then came back raving about how right on it was. For some reason they didn't want to discuss the subject anymore when I pointed out how Michael Behe's arguements about Blood Clotting were disproven in a existing species of whale.
Behe has had to admit to the problems with his arguements also, so it's a small victory.
My 2 cp?
Irreducible Complexity is an argument used by people who don't understand Evolution...
Actually Irreducible Complexity was acknowledged by Darwin himself as the possible weakness to his theories. If it could be shown that a system could not have developed over time, requiring rather to be complete in order to function in any manner, then his ideas would "absolutely break down."
However, I'm too tired to be inspired to write long-winded statements that my opponents will simply dismiss without reading half of it, as is usually the case when I argue on the internet.
And String Theory Invalidates Religion and Evolution because:
(a) Change in Possibility can only be created from outside the limits of that possibility - thus there is no God.
(b)Time is a consequence of change in Possibility - thus evolution (dependant on the existance of time) is not occuring.
The Universe is Debris of change in Possibility, Black holes are moments of change in Possibility and as Debris in our universe "orbits" a black hole, Our Universe also orbits a moment of change.
Consequently The rules by which we exist and function are solely due to the need for those rules to exist - They validate our reality.
Actually Irreducible Complexity was acknowledged by Darwin himself as the possible weakness to his theories. If it could be shown that a system could not have developed over time, requiring rather to be complete in order to function in any manner, then his ideas would "absolutely break down."
I would not dispute this. The problem is invoking Darwin's name is an Arguement from Authority. Just because Darwin didn't have an answer doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist. A real world example I would use is my Knowledge of Internal Combustion Engines. I know the basics, but just because I can't explain the entire process of how it works does not mean that my car is running on magic. I'd have to prove evidence that my Care is running on magic. Likewise Evidence would have to be provided to refute the Evolution of the eye.
However, I'm too tired to be inspired to write long-winded statements that my opponents will simply dismiss without reading half of it, as is usually the case when I argue on the internet.
And this is why I chose to post a topic intead of continuing in PM. Too many times have I had an offer to continue a discussion in PM, and then it never happens.
Beats both factions to Death with Hammer.
And String Theory Invalidates Religion and Evolution because:
(a) Change in Possibility can only be created from outside the limits of that possibility - thus there is no God.
(b)Time is a consequence of change in Possibility - thus evolution (dependant on the existance of time) is not occuring.
The Universe is Debris of change in Possibility, Black holes are moments of change in Possibility and as Debris in our universe "orbits" a black hole, Our Universe also orbits a moment of change.
Consequently The rules by which we exist and function are solely due to the need for those rules to exist - They validate our reality.
And how does this relate, in general terms, to the Eye and if it's evolved or not? Use small words, I confuse easily.
I suppose the question is whose I do we look through...because there is only one of us and we are suffering from a terrible case of multiple personality.
And this is why I chose to post a topic intead of continuing in PM. Too many times have I had an offer to continue a discussion in PM, and then it never happens.
This reads as kind of a snarky response on my part. It's not meant to be. It's just I've gotten used to people wanting to continue a discussion in PM, and then it not happening.
I say, "Item A cannot have evolved in a creature that did not already have need of it."
You say, "Not that you know of. We don't know exactly how it works."
I say, "But authorities in the field have admitted that such an example is strong evidence."
You say, "Just because they don't know how to handle that information doesn't make it proof."
OR
You say, "Scientists have determined that X evolved from Y."
I say, "Scientists can have all the consensus they want; it's just a huge circle-jerk without a drop of proof."
I will say this, just because I'd like to know what the answer is supposed to be:
The Earth/Solar System cannot be old enough to support Darwinian evolution, for the following reasons.
• The moon moves away from Earth at a rate of 1.5 inches per year. Current distance from Earth to the moon (center to center) is about 238,857 miles. That's 15,133,979,520 inches. If the moon started out rolling on Earth's surface, it would take 27,241,163,136 years to reach it's current distance. Life only needs a few hundred billion more years of tides and winds under the current theories.
• The Astronomical Unit, used by Astronomers, is the distance from Earth to the Sun, approximately 93 million miles. However, the Sun is shrinking at a rate of about 10 inches per day. Assuming this rate to be constant, we would need to go back only 1,612,620,000 years to see the Earth rolling on the surface of the sun. Now, we know this rate is probably not constant, so let's look at some alternatives. Let's say, that over the course of the Sun's lifetime, its reduction in size has been, on average, one percent what it is now. That's 1 inch every 10 days. It would still fall several hundred trillion years off schedule. Adjust the figures as needed to make it work, if you want.
Do you ever find it strange that "scientists" can look you dead in the eye, with a straight face, and tell you how a star is formed? This, in light of the fact that no one has ever observed a star forming or has any solid evidence that a star actually can form in nature, seems to project some doubt on the credibility of the "scientists say" argument. Hundreds, maybe even thousands of observed star deaths, but no star births.
However, you can watch specials on the Discovery Channel about how stars are formed. Nothing but guesses, all of them, but they'll present it as indisputable fact.
• The moon moves away from Earth at a rate of 1.5 inches per year.
Yes, now it does, but it hasn't necessarely always been nor will it necessarely always be that same rate.
Life only needs a few hundred billion more years of tides and winds under the current theories.
Uh, what?
• The Astronomical Unit, used by Astronomers, is the distance from Earth to the Sun, approximately 93 million miles. However, the Sun is shrinking at a rate of about 10 inches per day. Assuming this rate to be constant
Stop right there. This rate is not constant (and I'm not even sure it's true right now to begin with...).
It would still fall several hundred trillion years off schedule. Adjust the figures as needed to make it work, if you want.
Off schedule for what exactly?
Not only are both of your points wrong, but they don't even appear to be at all relevant to the discussion. What exactly were you trying to prove?
EDIT:
Food for thought (certainly not intended as evidence in any way):
Do you ever find it strange that "scientists" can look you dead in the eye, with a straight face, and tell you how a star is formed? This, in light of the fact that no one has ever observed a star forming or has any solid evidence that a star actually can form in nature, seems to project some doubt on the credibility of the "scientists say" argument. Hundreds, maybe even thousands of observed star deaths, but no star births.
However, you can watch specials on the Discovery Channel about how stars are formed. Nothing but guesses, all of them, but they'll present it as indisputable fact.
It seems to me you misunderstand how science works...
My 2 cp?
Irreducible Complexity is an argument used by people who don't understand Evolution...
Of course it is. All it is is an argument from lack of imagination.
Actually Irreducible Complexity was acknowledged by Darwin himself as the possible weakness to his theories. If it could be shown that a system could not have developed over time, requiring rather to be complete in order to function in any manner, then his ideas would "absolutely break down."
Indeed. This is why evolution is a scientific theory - it can be disproven, in theory.
As it turns out, no structure in any naturally occuring living organism on Earth contains an irreducibly complex structure.
Darwin was pretty certain he was right, though, and with good reason; natural selection is incredibly obvious.
• The Astronomical Unit, used by Astronomers, is the distance from Earth to the Sun, approximately 93 million miles. However, the Sun is shrinking at a rate of about 10 inches per day. Assuming this rate to be constant, we would need to go back only 1,612,620,000 years to see the Earth rolling on the surface of the sun. Now, we know this rate is probably not constant, so let's look at some alternatives. Let's say, that over the course of the Sun's lifetime, its reduction in size has been, on average, one percent what it is now. That's 1 inch every 10 days. It would still fall several hundred trillion years off schedule. Adjust the figures as needed to make it work, if you want.
Ah, creationist propaganda. More commonly known as "lies".
The Sun is actually getting gradually LARGER, not smaller, though at a very slow rate. This is due to the nuclear reactions within the sun; as it fuses hydrogen into helium, the temperature and density of the core rise, which allows the energy to radiate from the center of the sun to its surface more quickly, which causes the surface to heat up. Now, as we all know the gas laws, the pressure must rise or the volume must increase. As it turns out, the outer layer of the sun slowly becomes "puffier".
Anyone with a basic comprehension of astronomy knows about this due to red giants; these are what happens when stars burn up too much of their hydrogen. Anyone with a knowledge of nuclear physics and gas laws understands why the Sun is expanding, not shrinking.
Do you ever find it strange that "scientists" can look you dead in the eye, with a straight face, and tell you how a star is formed? This, in light of the fact that no one has ever observed a star forming or has any solid evidence that a star actually can form in nature, seems to project some doubt on the credibility of the "scientists say" argument. Hundreds, maybe even thousands of observed star deaths, but no star births.
False. The only person who would say THIS is someone who has never looked up at the sky.
Ever looked at a nebula? Maybe you should.
It takes a very long time for a star to go from a tiny little ball slowly accreating to a big old fusion reactor, but fortunately, we have trillions upon trillions of stars to watch and see many, many stages of stellar evolution.
There has never been an observation of a fish turning into a lizard (except for a pregnant lizard eating a fish)
It would have been smarter to post DNA and the protein factory system as an example of Irreducible complexity. You have Nanotechnology working there that is far more advanced than any machinery made by man. A hard-drive and CPU, controlling machines that arrange amino acids into complex machine parts, and then more machinery that puts those parts together.
Not to mention that many these chemicals break down under the wrong PH of temperature and need controlled environments, and the factory requires other systems to gather raw materials.
And as to peer review, Evolution has been in the system long enough to become dogma.
*Words*
-Joni
Evolution is a theory.
Which means there's enough evidence to advance it from Hypothesis to Theory.
Creationism/Intelligent Design, on the other hand, doesn't even get to be a theory.
Theroy > Not a Theory.
Which means there's enough evidence to advance it from Hypothesis to Theory.
Creationism/Intelligent Design, on the other hand, doesn't even get to be a theory.
Theroy > Not a Theory.
Actually, it means all of jack. Global Warming, for example, is accepted as fact by too many without there being any evidence for it at all. Anything can become theory, fact, or whatever nowadays just by being popular enough.
Intelligent Design is not science, and so does not fall into the purview of the theory/not theory classifications. That is not to say it is scientifically unacceptable, but merely not within the scope of science (science being only the study of the natural world, and Intelligent Design referring to something outside that natural world).
Evolution is a theory, not fact, remember that.
I don't think you understand what a theory is, or else you wouldn't seriously be considering this as an argument.
There has never been an observation of a fish turning into a lizard (except for a pregnant lizard eating a fish)
This shows me you don't understand how evolution works.
Anyways, natural selection HAS in fact been observed in many animals, so...
Actually, it means all of jack.
Again, I don't think you quite understand what a theory is...
Global Warming, for example, is accepted as fact by too many without there being any evidence for it at all.
...REALLY? See what Joni-san said...
...That was a really poor attempt at proving your point.
Intelligent Design is not science, and so does not fall into the purview of the theory/not theory classifications. That is not to say it is scientifically unacceptable, but merely not within the scope of science (science being only the study of the natural world, and Intelligent Design referring to something outside that natural world).
You misunderstand what science is. If Intelligent Design did turn out to bu true (har har), it would in fact fall under the scope of science.
I don't think you understand what a theory is, or else you wouldn't seriously be considering this as an argument.
This shows me you don't understand how evolution works.
Anyways, natural selection HAS in fact been observed in many animals, so...
Again, I don't think you quite understand what a theory is...
...REALLY? See what Joni-san said...
...That was a really poor attempt at proving your point.
You misunderstand what science is. If Intelligent Design did turn out to bu true (har har), it would in fact fall under the scope of science.
You could also, just spitballing here, disprove his arguments rather then going with the gradeschool mentality of "if you disagree with me you must be uninformed".
You could also, just spitballing here, disprove his arguments rather then going with the gradeschool mentality of "if you disagree with me you must be uninformed".
I could do that, but what fun would it be? :D
If I must, however, here is the definition of a Theory:
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable.
In other words, "Scientific Theory" mean quite a great deal more than "all of jack," and only those without a clear understanding of what a scientific theory actually is would claim so.
EDIT: For further umph:
For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.
Frack Science -- God does it all!
Let's all go back to the Dark Ages when people died of cholera. What great times those were when mysticism ruled the world.
I'm convinced.
Frack Science -- God does it all!
Let's all go back to the Dark Ages when people died of cholera. What great times those were when mysticism ruled the world.
All things in moderation, friend.
Evolution is a theory, not fact, remember that.
You do realize that evolution IS a fact as well as a theory, right?
And that theory is the highest degree of certainty possible in the real world?
The only higher degree of certainty is the proof in mathematics, which requires assumptions we cannot make in the real world.
Indeed, evolution is one of the scientific theories we are most certain of. More so than stuff like gravity.
It would have been smarter to post DNA and the protein factory system as an example of Irreducible complexity. You have Nanotechnology working there that is far more advanced than any machinery made by man. A hard-drive and CPU, controlling machines that arrange amino acids into complex machine parts, and then more machinery that puts those parts together.
Its actually incredibly simple if you understand how it works. Remember, DNA is self-assembling and made up of pretty simple molecules.
DNA isn't really all that complex, ultimately, and RNA even less so. Its very easy to see a self-replicating RNA molecule forming without any intervention.
Not to mention that many these chemicals break down under the wrong PH of temperature and need controlled environments, and the factory requires other systems to gather raw materials.
Not really. The early ocean was full of naturally occuring organic molecules.
Actually, it means all of jack. Global Warming, for example, is accepted as fact by too many without there being any evidence for it at all. Anything can become theory, fact, or whatever nowadays just by being popular enough.
And people wonder why I advocate spending more money on education. Clearly, we didn't spend enough on you.
You know nothing. Global warming is incredibly obvious and there is enormous evidence for it.
Intelligent Design is not science, and so does not fall into the purview of the theory/not theory classifications. That is not to say it is scientifically unacceptable, but merely not within the scope of science (science being only the study of the natural world, and Intelligent Design referring to something outside that natural world).
Yes and no. Arguably, many forms of ID DO fall under science, in that they make claims which can be falsified. As such, you basically have to resort to FSM-level diety before you get to non-falsifiable.
And people wonder why I advocate spending more money on education. Clearly, we didn't spend enough on you.
You know nothing. Global warming is incredibly obvious and there is enormous evidence for it.
[sarcasm]Thank you for discussing this politely.[/sarcasm] I personally advocate the abolition of government schools.
• Over the last 100 years, the average temperature in the United States has increased by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit. That's not exactly conclusive.
• This previous winter set numerous record low temperatures all over the world. In a planet under green-house warming, extreme lows should be especially rare.
• As of right now, the polar ice caps are... exactly the size they are supposed to be. They are not smaller than usual for this time of year.
• Meteorologists can't predict the weather accurately 24 hours in advance. How am I supposed to believe they can predict anything years in advance.
I personally advocate the abolition of government schools.
. . . No, I shouldn't. It would be too easy. Must not veer THAT much off topic.
• Over the last 100 years, the average temperature in the United States has increased by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit. That's not exactly conclusive.
• This previous winter set numerous record low temperatures all over the world. In a planet under green-house warming, extreme lows should be especially rare.
• As of right now, the polar ice caps are... exactly the size they are supposed to be. They are not smaller than usual for this time of year.
• Meteorologists can't predict the weather accurately 24 hours in advance. How am I supposed to believe they can predict anything years in advance.
Yes, that's nice, doll.
Hey, you know what might be fun? Make a new topic out of this, because it has nothing to do with Irreducible Complexity at all.
All I'll say is, I'm tired of the attitude that if you don't accept evolution, you're "obviously" dumb, and it can't possibly be because every time you look at anything and everything, the evidence stacks against the idea. You might be surprised how many scientists (ones with doctorates and all) now and in the past (some before lots of doctorates) had real, logical belief in something else, not just because it was the "only game in town".
All I'll say is, I'm tired of the attitude that if you don't accept evolution, you're "obviously" dumb,
You're probably right, but the fact remains that the vast majority of people with objections to evolution are poorly informed on the matter. I haven't met a single person myself who both objected to it and actually understood it (though they often pretend they do). If you'd like to prove me wrong (aka, you both completely understand evolution and object to the idea for logical reasons (aka, non-religious reasons)), then please PM me, and we'll have a completely open-minded, non-hostile discussion about the matter.
You might be surprised how many scientists (ones with doctorates and all) now and in the past (some before lots of doctorates) had real, logical belief in something else, not just because it was the "only game in town".
Yes, it's often brought up that there are many credible scientists with objections about evolution, but have you ever heard of Project Steve?
Wikipedia info.
Here's the home page.
Here's the list.
There are more scientists specifically with the name Steve who support evolution than scientists total who oppose it. However, it's worth noting that the list is simply supposed to be parody of creationist lists, and it does not in any way suggest that science is based on majority vote.
The Lord gave us a brain and rational thoughts, let's use it well.
Evolution is a theory, not fact, remember that.
There has never been an observation of a fish turning into a lizard (except for a pregnant lizard eating a fish)
It would have been smarter to post DNA and the protein factory system as an example of Irreducible complexity. You have Nanotechnology working there that is far more advanced than any machinery made by man. A hard-drive and CPU, controlling machines that arrange amino acids into complex machine parts, and then more machinery that puts those parts together.
Not to mention that many these chemicals break down under the wrong PH of temperature and need controlled environments, and the factory requires other systems to gather raw materials.
And as to peer review, Evolution has been in the system long enough to become dogma.
Now, I am no scientist. In fact, I am only a college freshman as of this weekend. Now, I have taken the first half of a pre-med biology course, and, apparently, the people who graded my exams thought I did so well I got credit for the entire course. So I have "taken" pre-med college biology. Luckily, the portion we covered in my high-school class was focused on biochemistry. I had one of the highest grades in-class. So I feel I am somewhat qualified to give an answer to your oh-so brilliant rebuttal of the entire establishment of biology as we know it.
First, your concept of DNA is wrong. In fact, I am sure your entire concept of biochemistry is wrong. DNA is not, in fact, a nano-super computer. DNA is more like a giant magnetic erector set constructed in such a fashion that if you add the right piece in the right place it sets of a magnetic chain reaction that changes the entire shape of the system and then resets it as soon as the trigger piece is removed. In fact, all of biochemistry could said to be systems of these erector sets working in tandem, most of it relying on a single molecule know as ATP. These systems came about mostly due to basic physical properties of matter interacting in increasingly complex ways. Eventually these reactions reacted with one another creating a self-organizing system. Life. Once this self organizing system came about it set about making itself last and replicating. From there this system began down a path of orderly self-optimization until you finally reach the crown gem of the pile, a rational entity that can look back and via use of logic, understand how all of this crap happened. You see, the big secret that you anti-evolution wack-bags keep missing out on is that this is not chance. We are not nothing more than mud and miracles, which is, by the way what your books say. Life happens. Life is bound to happen, and once it happens, it will keep happening until it can no longer happen. From what I can see of physics and chemistry right on up to the cosmic forces of time and stars, life is bound to happen. Life is, almost, it seems, a function of the universe. You can't just say "God did it your wrong because of this syllogism." You need evidence. Facts concurrent with reality (what other facts are there?). Repeatable, observable, ideas that are, in fact sequitur.
[sarcasm]Thank you for discussing this politely.[/sarcasm] I personally advocate the abolition of government schools.
Many uneducated people in the United States are anti-intellectual and don't understand the value of a good education.
Over the last 100 years, the average temperature in the United States has increased by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit. That's not exactly conclusive.
Go to Antarctica or look at the glaciers.
This previous winter set numerous record low temperatures all over the world. In a planet under green-house warming, extreme lows should be especially rare.
That's like saying global warming is obviously real because it gets hot during the summer.
The fact that it was an unusually cold winter was due to a confluence of factors which the climatologists predicted in advance, along with an increase in piracy.
In short, claiming a cold winter as odd during global warming is false.
In fact, one of the things global warming causes is erratic climatic conditions.
As of right now, the polar ice caps are... exactly the size they are supposed to be. They are not smaller than usual for this time of year.
This is just blatently false. Do you know anything on the subject?
The ice caps are:
Shrinking.
Too thin.
Too small (there isn't supposed to be a northwest passage)
Ect.
In short, the only person who would claim the ice cap is correct is someone who did nothing but listen to propaganda and who had never even once taken a look at the actual data.
The ice on the north pole is mostly from this last winter.
Meteorologists can't predict the weather accurately 24 hours in advance. How am I supposed to believe they can predict anything years in advance.
First off, you're wrong. They can predict the weather fairly accurately.
And meteorologists DON'T predict the weather years in advance. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of climate science would know that. Those are climatologists.
All I'll say is, I'm tired of the attitude that if you don't accept evolution, you're "obviously" dumb, and it can't possibly be because every time you look at anything and everything, the evidence stacks against the idea.
Well, you are either dumb or uneducated, there aren't other options I'm afraid. And if you've "looked around" then there's really only one possibility.
You might be surprised how many scientists (ones with doctorates and all) now and in the past (some before lots of doctorates) had real, logical belief in something else, not just because it was the "only game in town".
I know how many there are. The answer, incidentally, is very nearly none, and none of them are competant in the field.
Most creationist "scientists" aren't actually in biology at all, and many aren't even scientists.
Evolution is not a weapon to destroy religion...
Quoted for Truth
I'm a paleontology graduate student with a knack for and interest in phylogeny (studying the relationships of organisms). As you might expect, I spend a lot of time studying and thinking about evolution. Often times my friends and I in the department will be in the graduate office late into the night discussing evolution (not if it is true but relationships, mechanisms, rate, etc...). As far as I am aware, none of us has a desire to take down religion, in fact I happen to be a (fairly strict) Roman Catholic, one friend is a Protestant Christian, another is a Deist, and another is an agnostic. Obviously our collective goal is not to destroy religion because their are several religious people amongst us.
This is sometimes one of the most frustrating parts of being a paleontologist. Many people seem to think we are studying fossils with some kind of political/social/theological agenda. There are certainly some biologists and paleontologists for whom this is true, but the vast majority I have met have a different goal entirely.
Why do we do paleontology? Not for money or power certainly - we do it because we love it. We love fossils, we love to find them and study them. We love to prep them, to remove them from their rocky prisons and by doing so bring to light some trace of an animal that no living human has seen, often an animal that hasn't walked the Earth for millions of years! Sometimes I even feel like I am peeking into an alien world, finding tantalizing clues to mentally bring to life so many strange and wonderful creatures that no human has ever seen. I can personally promise you, I have no desire to hide the truth from anyone, tear down religion, or make God irrelevant. I only want to study my beautiful animals and, as a believer in God myself, sometimes thank him for choosing to create such a magnificent, evolving universe with old species to be discovered and new forms yet to appear.
I would like to end with a quote.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
All I'll say is, I'm tired of the attitude that if you don't accept evolution, you're "obviously" dumb...
The reason this attitude exists is because "irreducible complexity", and its parent concept, "intelligent design" aka "creationism", are non-concepts dressed-up as science with the goal of stopping rational thought.
It isn't even science--it's philosophy or theology. At no point does science stop and say, "Hmmm...must be elven magic!"
I'd participate, but I can see the environment is too hostile.
All I'll say is, I'm tired of the attitude that if you don't accept evolution, you're "obviously" dumb, and it can't possibly be because every time you look at anything and everything, the evidence stacks against the idea. You might be surprised how many scientists (ones with doctorates and all) now and in the past (some before lots of doctorates) had real, logical belief in something else, not just because it was the "only game in town".
Great Science is often done against the prevailing opinion, its true. But what, if anything, do your maverick scientist have to offer as an alternate theory to evolution. What do they offer up instead? You see, good Science - real theories - have to have a predictive power. Any bozo can say God did it. It takes a real scientist to say here is how I think God went about it. So, your maverick scientists are only getting the model half-right. They are like the so called "civil disobedience" proponent who is surprised when they get arrested. They seem surprised when they are asked to do science, nevermind that they call themselves scientists.
And why do the ID crowd deny God's splendor. He created a magnificent system that is brilliant in its simplicity that leads to such elegant solutions. And he revealed it to us, and all the ID guys can do is spit on it. Ungrateful and irreverent. Do you really think God is so insecure that he has to test our love by throwing out a slew of red-herrings on evolution? You honestly think God says: "If you really love me, you won't believe you eyes and senses and what logic shows you."?
And why do the ID crowd deny God's splendor. He created a magnificent system that is brilliant in its simplicity that leads to such elegant solutions. And he revealed it to us, and all the ID guys can do is spit on it. Ungrateful and irreverent. Do you really think God is so insecure that he has to test our love by throwing out a slew of red-herrings on evolution? You honestly think God says: "If you really love me, you won't believe you eyes and senses and what logic shows you."?
See, this is a theistic point-of-view with which I cannot argue. A pity it hasn't thorougly driven-out creationism.
And String Theory Invalidates Religion and Evolution because:
(a) Change in Possibility can only be created from outside the limits of that possibility - thus there is no God.
(b)Time is a consequence of change in Possibility - thus evolution (dependant on the existance of time) is not occuring.
String theory does not disprove evolution. There is still always forward motion in time. Also, string theory is far from factual, it is just the latest in a long string of theories attempting to describe the fabric of space-time.
Consequently The rules by which we exist and function are solely due to the need for those rules to exist - They validate our reality.
The anthropic principle does not disprove evolution either.
The reason this attitude exists is because "irreducible complexity", and its parent concept, "intelligent design" aka "creationism", are non-concepts dressed-up as science with the goal of stopping rational thought.
It isn't even science--it's philosophy or theology. At no point does science stop and say, "Hmmm...must be elven magic!"
If science is degrading others because they don't agree with your ideas, you can keep your science over in the corner. The world doesn't need any more arrogance. It's got a more-then-healthy supply of it.
EDIT: And for the record, I do in fact believe Evolution is the most likely. I also believe God was responsible for it. I do not wish to mislead you into thinking that I am calling you arrogant, but merely that I believe to insult others for their beliefs is flat-out wrong.
Evolution is not a weapon to destroy religion...
Science in general isn't a weapon to destroy religion.
However, science destroys religion by its very nature.
People say the two can get along. They're liars or misguided.
The two modes of thought are utterly incompatible. Religion is all about faith, whereas science has no place for faith. No need for it.
That's why science kills religion. You can replicate science. You can be sure of science. And when science explains something religion once held, religion loses. Their God shrinks. But their god isn't hiding in any of the gaps; he never existed. He isn't getting smaller, its just that our understanding of reality is expanding.
Sience can be demonstrated. Science can be shown. Science gets better over time.
Religion doesn't. It relies on faith, and by its very nature it cannot survive scrutiny. Why do you believe in your god, when you don't believe in any of the others?
There's a good answer to that - that's what you were indoctrinated into. But that doesn't make your choice valid. It simply makes it what happened to you.
Science is not the enemy of religion so much as it is something which simply eradicates it without thought. Science isn't a thinking, feeling thing. It isn't a weapon. It is simply a methodology for better undestanding reality. That's why it is dangerous to religion - religion, too, is concerned with describing reality, but does it poorly indeed.
I'm not a scientist/engineer because I am antireligious. I don't really put thought into what religious impact anything I say or do has when I'm dealing with scientific issues. Well, unless it is science about the origins of religion and whether it is a glitch or a survival mechanism.
The anthropic principle does not disprove evolution either.
The anthropic principle is perhaps the most misunderstood principle there is.
It ultimately comes down to simple past probability. For us to question how likely it is for us to exist, we must be in a universe which supports the existance of intelligent life.
If science is degrading others because they don't agree with your ideas, you can keep your science over in the corner. The world doesn't need any more arrogance. It's got a more-then-healthy supply of it.
Would you like to actually try to refute my characterization of Intelligent Design instead of resorting to name-calling?
There are more scientists specifically with the name Steve who support evolution than scientists total who oppose it. However, it's worth noting that the list is simply supposed to be parody of creationist lists, and it does not in any way suggest that science is based on majority vote.
I'll admit I didn't look into "Project Steve" with the greatest of detail, but you know as well as I do that "Project Steve" allows for people not named Steve (or any form of the name) to join the list.
Secondly, these lists are meaningless. They are certainly not comprehensive. As a result, the only thing these lists prove is that there are more atheist scientists paying attention to these stupid things than theological scientists.
Nevertheless, I probably won't participate much here since the attitude of some of the more frequent posters is, as described above, too condescending for me.
Science in general isn't a weapon to destroy religion.
However, science destroys religion by its very nature.
People say the two can get along. They're liars or misguided.
The two modes of thought are utterly incompatible. Religion is all about faith, whereas science has no place for faith. No need for it.
That's why science kills religion. You can replicate science. You can be sure of science. And when science explains something religion once held, religion loses. Their God shrinks. But their god isn't hiding in any of the gaps; he never existed. He isn't getting smaller, its just that our understanding of reality is expanding.
Sience can be demonstrated. Science can be shown. Science gets better over time.
Religion doesn't. It relies on faith, and by its very nature it cannot survive scrutiny. Why do you believe in your god, when you don't believe in any of the others?
There's a good answer to that - that's what you were indoctrinated into. But that doesn't make your choice valid. It simply makes it what happened to you.
Science is not the enemy of religion so much as it is something which simply eradicates it without thought. Science isn't a thinking, feeling thing. It isn't a weapon. It is simply a methodology for better undestanding reality. That's why it is dangerous to religion - religion, too, is concerned with describing reality, but does it poorly indeed.
So, basically what you're saying is "Cause we can't explain it, it can't be true?"
I'm sorry that's just patently wrong. Ability to see, scan, observe, etc. does not affect the absolute truth of the universe. Water was H2O during Ancient times as much as it is now. Their inability to see and understand that didn't make water something else.
Being able to explain the universe in no way disproves the existence of a God (for either side)
However, you can watch specials on the Discovery Channel about how stars are formed. Nothing but guesses, all of them, but they'll present it as indisputable fact.
That's because much of modern 'science' is based around the idea of 'law by consensus'. In other words, scientific Truth is determined not by the scientific method and reasoning, but instead what the largest groups of scientists all agree upon, regardless of the methodology used (or indeed, if there was any methodology used at all).
A true scientist would not only never be in a rush to declare an axiom, he would be in a rush to never accept one.
This has been made much worse in recent years as scientists are also tied heavily to political movements (such as the obvious "Global Warming" controversy, "Eugenics", as well as others).
And, at the end of the day, the universe is quite vast enough, I believe, for there to be a God who made up the rules of evolution.
you know as well as I do that "Project Steve" allows for people not named Steve (or any form of the name) to join the list.
Really? I'm looking at the list right now, and I see Steve, Steven, Stephen, Stephan, Stephanie, Stefanie, Steffen, Stefan, Stephane... Though I admit I only got through half the list before getting bored, they all pretty much seem like "Steve" names to me...
Secondly, these lists are meaningless.
Yes, dearest, that was exactly the point. :P
If you'll note...
"We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!"
They come right out and say the list is a parody and that such lists are completely meaningless, so claiming that many scientists object to evolution is on its own a fairly meaningless statement.
Nevertheless, I probably won't participate much here since the attitude of some of the more frequent posters is, as described above, too condescending for me.
I don't know what else to tell you except that usually when people are condescended to, they start to wonder why instead of avoiding the issue. "I refuse to participate in this discussion" is exactly the reason so many would-be helpful people end up with that condescending attitude instead. When people are unwilling to engage in serious discussion and cannot accept when they are wrong, I start condescending to them. I also condescend to children who believe in Santa Clause, but they at least eventually get it...
So, basically what you're saying is "Cause we can't explain it, it can't be true?"
Try not to hurt yourself knocking around that straw man...
i find it difficult to believe that I can know everything there is to know about anything. with study and time all i can do is hope to know more. i don't know how my car works, it involves gas or something dangerous exploding alot. i have faith that the person who made my car did it in such a way that i don't die a horible death when i turn the key. i feal my circulatory system is fairly complex and i have faith that it will keep on working till it stops (hopefully soon).
i guess what i'm saying is that you always need to have faith (in something) because eventualy you will find there is still more than you can know. so.... logic is a waiste of time?
*confused myself*
*confused myself*
Not surprising. That made pretty much no sense to me either.
Really? I'm looking at the list right now, and I see Steve, Steven, Stephen, Stephan, Stephanie, Stefanie, Steffen, Stefan, Stephane... Though I admit I only got through half the list before getting bored, they all pretty much seem like "Steve" names to me...
Maybe you should read your own resources, then because it explicitly states it in the Wikipedia article you provided. Try again next time.
Yes, dearest, that was exactly the point. :P
Yeah, and I was agreeing with you dearest. Keep that sarcastic bull crap to yourself, it's not helpful or constructive. On top of which, it's really poor rhetoric.
I don't know what else to tell you except that usually when people are condescended to, they start to wonder why instead of avoiding the issue. "I refuse to participate in this discussion" is exactly the reason so many would-be helpful people end up with that condescending attitude instead. When people are unwilling to engage in serious discussion and cannot accept when they are wrong, I start condescending to them. I also condescend to children who believe in Santa Clause, but they at least eventually get it...
Actually, generally when people are condescended to they get ticked off and stop listening to you. It's a basic rhetorical skill that ticking off your target audience is a really bad way to open them to your ideas.
Try not to hurt yourself knocking around that straw man...
I'm aware it was a simplification, but good job pointing that out so you could avoid actually responding to my argument.
Your point was that science destroys religion. You support this by saying that being able to explain facts about the universe does away faith. What you fail to address is why being able to collect facts about the functionality of the universe necessarily removes God from the picture.
Maybe you should read your own resources, then because it explicitly states it in the Wikipedia article you provided.
Really? Where? Mind you, even if it did, it wouldn't change anything...
Yeah, and I was agreeing with you dearest.
So what's the problem? :P
Actually, generally when people are condescended to they get ticked off and stop listening to you. It's a basic rhetorical skill that ticking off your target audience is a really bad way to open them to your ideas.
It's also basic logic that if you're the only one not laughing, maybe you just don't get the joke. That doesn't mean you pretend it's not funny.
I'm aware it was a simplification, but good job pointing that out so you could avoid actually responding to my argument.
That was actually the point. I didn't need to respond to your argument because it was entirely a logical fallacy. All I needed to do was point out that it was a logical fallacy.
Your point was that science destroys religion.
...Are you still talking to me? Because that wasn't my argument. That was Titanium Dragon.
If science is degrading others because they don't agree with your ideas, you can keep your science over in the corner. The world doesn't need any more arrogance. It's got a more-then-healthy supply of it.
So, can I have your computer?
Really? Where? Mind you, even if it did, it wouldn't change anything...
I went a re-read that line from the article, and I mistook its meaning. For that, I apologize (although the line was slightly ambiguous).
So what's the problem? :P
The problem was your condescending attitude.
It's also basic logic that if you're the only one not laughing, maybe you just don't get the joke. That doesn't mean you pretend it's not funny.
Actually logic would dictate there's quite a few explanations:
Your sense of humor doesn't line up with the joke.
The joke touched on a painful and sensitive subject for you.
Your really angry at the moment and are particularly disposed to laughter.
You don't get the joke.
Just to name a few.
That was actually the point. I didn't need to respond to your argument because it was entirely a logical fallacy. All I needed to do was point out that it was a logical fallacy.
Um. no? Pointing out logical fallacies only defeats an argument if the argument is dependent on that fallacy, which mine wasn't. As my further explanation which you conveniently cut out from my post showed, I grasped that argument that I was responding too and my counter point still applied.
...Are you still talking to me? Because that wasn't my argument. That was Titanium Dragon.
That's true and I hadn't remembered that since you responded to my post, appologies.
The problem was your condescending attitude.
No, that couldn't have been it. That happened after the mention of Project Steve.
Actually logic would dictate there's quite a few explanations:
Your sense of humor doesn't line up with the joke.
The joke touched on a painful and sensitive subject for you.
Your really angry at the moment and are particularly disposed to laughter.
You don't get the joke.
Just to name a few.
...Okay, I'm trying to convince myself that you knew that was a metaphor, but if you did, why would you have responded like that?
Um. no? Pointing out logical fallacies only defeats an argument if the argument is dependent on that fallacy
Which yours did. The rest of your post which I cut exactly addressed the straw man you threw out in its beginning. I didn't quote the rest of it because I didn't feel there was the need, as it was all absolutely correct but addressed the straw man instead of TD's actual argument.
So, can I have your computer?
No.
I'm keeping this bit of science to...uh, de-arrogancify!
No, that couldn't have been it. That happened after the mention of Project Steve.
I'm pretty sure that happened when you started posting.
...Okay, I'm trying to convince myself that you knew that was a metaphor, but if you did, why would you have responded like that?
You were making the point of: if everyone but you is in the same boat for a train of thought, you are probably wrong. I was showing why that's not true. There are usually many different, perfectly reasonable positions for anything that's debatable.
Which yours did. The rest of your post which I cut exactly addressed the straw man you threw out in its beginning. I didn't quote the rest of it because I didn't feel there was the need, as it was all absolutely correct but addressed the straw man instead of TD's actual argument.
I'm sorry but, no it didn't. If you think it did I suggest you explain what part of my arguement here was a straw man:
(Titanium Dragon's) point was that science destroys religion. (He) supports this by saying that being able to explain facts about the universe does away faith. What (he) fails to address is why being able to collect facts about the functionality of the universe necessarily removes God from the picture.
I didn't state some over-simplified, half-truth about TD's argument. If I forgot something you find to be critical to TD's argument, please point it out. Otherwise, stop slapping my arguments with incorrect labels so that you don't have to address the issue.
Why not post a link to an appropriate board as there are millions of them out there on subjects like evolution or religion or whatever and continue your discussion there?
To my mind it would have been more appropriate to discuss it there in the first place rather than dragging it here.
I'm pretty sure that happened when you started posting.
Not towards you and not yet in that particular line of the discussion.
You were making the point of: if everyone but you is in the same boat for a train of thought, you are probably wrong.
No, I was making the point that if everybody but you is in the same boat for a train of thought, then maybe you should question whether or not you actually understand what's going on.
I'm sorry but, no it didn't. If you think it did I suggest you explain what part of my arguement here was a straw man:
I will do just that, but that quote you have there isn't what you posted up there to TD. This is what you posted:
So, basically what you're saying is "Cause we can't explain it, it can't be true?"
I'm sorry that's just patently wrong. Ability to see, scan, observe, etc. does not affect the absolute truth of the universe. Water was H2O during Ancient times as much as it is now. Their inability to see and understand that didn't make water something else.
Being able to explain the universe in no way disproves the existence of a God (for either side)
You've already admitted that the first sentence you have there is an oversimplification which would fall under straw man if the rest of your argument depends on addressing it instead of TD's actual argument.
You then move on to say that human perceptions do not change the truth and use water being H2O as an example. However, TD never claims that scientific perception is reality, only that it attempts to understand reality. This argument would do very well against your first sentence straw man, though.
As to your last sentence, TD never actually said that science disproves god, only that as science advances, god becomes "smaller," because it becomes less and less necessary to explain reality, and that he believes eventually god will become a completely unnecessary idea due to the current trend. TD does say that science destroys religion, but religion is not necessarely synonymous with god... However, your argument here may hold up against your first sentence straw man.
No.
I'm keeping this bit of science to...uh, de-arrogancify!
Damn, worth a shot.
Not towards you and not yet in that particular line of the discussion.
The "dearest" comment? It comes of as arrogant and condescending. If that's not what you intended, then I'm sorry.
I will do just that, but that quote you have there isn't what you posted up there to TD. This is what you posted:
Yeah and then I rephrased it to make it more clear what I'm getting at, but I'll go ahead and address your response to my old post.
You've already admitted that the first sentence you have there is an oversimplification which would fall under straw man if the rest of your argument depends on addressing it instead of TD's actual argument.
You then move on to say that human perceptions do not change the truth and use water being H2O as an example. However, TD never claims that scientific perception is reality, only that it attempts to understand reality. This argument would do very well against your first sentence straw man, though.
As to your last sentence, TD never actually said that science disproves god, only that as science advances, god becomes "smaller," because it becomes less and less necessary to explain reality, and that he believes eventually god will become a completely unnecessary idea due to the current trend. TD does say that science destroys religion, but religion is not necessarely synonymous with god... However, your argument here may hold up against your first sentence straw man.
Well, that accepting the definition of "religion" as an explanation for the universe rather than the worship of of deity (which is more what it is like today). But accepting that, yes it does do away with religion (if we're taking God's existence out of the argument).
I find religion to be much more than explanations for phenomena, however.
Edit: TD's post also seems to address the existence of God since he talks about the broad topic of "faith." Something that a belief in God requires, so that part of my argument is still relevant in that sense
So, basically what you're saying is "Cause we can't explain it, it can't be true?"
No. I'm saying "Because we can demonstrate your explanation to be false, it isn't true". Or at times, "Because your statement has no predictive value, it is worthless."
Science finds the truth by chipping away everything that isn't true. It can never prove something absolutely, but it can demonstrate something to be wrong.
In short, it bounds the ways things work.
We know the Bible is not literally true because we know that many of the things in it are untrue. God did not create the Earth in seven days. The Earth is more than 5000 years old. God did not create humans out of mud. God did not flood the Earth. Ect.
It does the same for other religions as well.
Being able to explain the universe in no way disproves the existence of a God (for either side)
It disproves all but a deist or FSM god; in other words, it destroys all religion with predictive value.
That's because much of modern 'science' is based around the idea of 'law by consensus'. In other words, scientific Truth is determined not by the scientific method and reasoning, but instead what the largest groups of scientists all agree upon, regardless of the methodology used (or indeed, if there was any methodology used at all).
This stems from a misunderstanding of how science works.
The reality is that science still works via the scientific method. One important feature to understand is that repeatability is very important. In short, if you come up with something (like, say, Cold Fusion), a bunch of other scientists will repeat your experiment. If they can't repeat your results, then they'll be discarded.
In short, "science by consensus" really is simply an extension of the scientific method. If you come up with results, other people need to be able to validate those results on their own; if they can't, then they're tossed out.
This is what many people simply do not understand. Science doesn't tell you the captial-t Truth. It tells you want ISN'T true. And it tells you so with X amount of confidence.
So for instance, with Global Warming, it tells us that the global temperature has not remained steady over the last 100 years, and it hasn't fallen, and it hasn't risen more than X amount. It knows that the sun is not causing this warming, and it knows that carbon dioxide (among other things) traps heat, and that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen as a result of human activity. Ect. Ect.
Eventually we come to the conclusion that it is exceedingly likely that humans pumping CO2 and similar into the atmosphere has had a large impact on the global climate and is causing the world to become warmer and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, with various likely consequences with such and such bounds. This is a (very simplified) version of the theory of the cause of current climactic trends.
Now, this is not to say the label of "science" is not abused today. A good example would be creationists and ID folks. They claim to use "science", but they don't. They simply use the word to try to add weight to their beliefs. I've seen plenty of commercials which use science or scientific as a buzzword or just uselessly or uninformatively (scientifically forumulated, for instance).
And, at the end of the day, the universe is quite vast enough, I believe, for there to be a God who made up the rules of evolution
So you believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster waved his noodly appendages to create the rules of evolution?
That's fine, but don't expect anyone to believe you or respect you for it.
There was absolutely no need whatsoever to insult GOD just to prove how mean spirited you can be to your fellow posters.
And the moment that you, without any shadow of a doubt, can explain now just HOW evolution occurs, but exactly why, in every last detail, is the very same moment I stop thinking of you as a 'college-age know-it-all prat'.
There was absolutely no need whatsoever to insult GOD just to prove how mean spirited you can be to your fellow posters.
Is there even a difference between the how and the why? Why did bats evolve wings? Because it gave them greater reproductive success.
I will look it up later was rather interesting...
Anyhow...
All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration and we are all one consciousness adhering itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is but a dream, and we are the imaginations of ourselves. Now here's Tom with the weather.
No. I'm saying "Because we can demonstrate your explanation to be false, it isn't true". Or at times, "Because your statement has no predictive value, it is worthless."
Science finds the truth by chipping away everything that isn't true. It can never prove something absolutely, but it can demonstrate something to be wrong.
In short, it bounds the ways things work.
We know the Bible is not literally true because we know that many of the things in it are untrue. God did not create the Earth in seven days. The Earth is more than 5000 years old. God did not create humans out of mud. God did not flood the Earth. Ect.
#1. I'm not sure where you're getting the 5000 years figure, because most biblical scholars I've heard have projected closer to 8-10,000 years.
#2. God did not create humans out of mud? Well, actually, it was dust (implying dryness).
#3. There is overwhelming evidence for some sort of global catastrophe that took place about 6,000 years ago, of the nature of a flood.
#4. The Smithsonian Institute actually uses the Bible as an historical guide, and has accredited its extraordinary accuracy to the finding of many archeological findings.
#3. There is overwhelming evidence for some sort of global catastrophe that took place about 6,000 years ago, of the nature of a flood.
#4. The Smithsonian Institute actually uses the Bible as an historical guide, and has accredited its extraordinary accuracy to the finding of many archeological findings.
3. Yeah, but then, it's science who influences myths, then.
4. I really doubt that.
Christians are some of the craziest paganist you will ever meet.
#1. I'm not sure where you're getting the 5000 years figure, because most biblical scholars I've heard have projected closer to 8-10,000 years.
6,000 to 10,000 years ago it the estimated range by Creationists.
#2. God did not create humans out of mud? Well, actually, it was dust (implying dryness).
Well, thats silly. We all know it was the space aliens. (according to Scientologists, at least)
#3. There is overwhelming evidence for some sort of global catastrophe that took place about 6,000 years ago, of the nature of a flood.
I've seen no evidence of this. Please provide a link to this.
#4. The Smithsonian Institute actually uses the Bible as an historical guide, and has accredited its extraordinary accuracy to the finding of many archeological findings.
And evidence of this?
#1. I'm not sure where you're getting the 5000 years figure, because most biblical scholars I've heard have projected closer to 8-10,000 years.
This is an example. And its actually like 6500 according to them.
#3. There is overwhelming evidence for some sort of global catastrophe that took place about 6,000 years ago, of the nature of a flood.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this assertion. Everyone with any knowledge of geology, history, biology, ect. knows this. Indeed, according to the Bible the Flood occurred in roughly 2700-2800 BCE - we have continous civilizations reaching back long before that point (Egypt, for instance, as well as mesopotamian civilizations). Not to mention the distribution of animals - the last land bridge to the New World disappeared over 10,000 years ago. Not to mention Australia.
There was no global catastrophe.
Four is sound for trying to find archaeological sites.
Christians are some of the craziest paganist you will ever meet.
Ahem... Paganists? what...?
Now, 'local' floods, as the sea levels raised and changed over the ages, like possibly in Mesopotamia and the Black Sea (what I meaned)....
Ahem... Paganists? what...?
Now, 'local' floods, as the sea levels raised and changed over the ages, like possibly in Mesopotamia and the Black Sea (what I meaned)....
Yup paganism. The church in the good old days took a bunch of paganistic practices from older religions and incorporated them so that they would be better able to convert more people. I guess the funny thing is they later persecuted the religions that they burrowed from.
There was no global catastrophe.
Except for the space monsters that Atlantis had to fight off, or course
Actually there is evidence that the Mediterranean broke through and created the black sea around that time. There would have been numerous people living in that area and that could be attributed to the "Great Flood."
The reality is that this very likely has nothing to do with the flood myth. Especially not the biblical one, which was actually stolen.
Not to mention the fact that the idea that the flow from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea was fast or catastrophic isn't really regarded as true by the scientific community at large. The Pittman theory hasn't met with much acceptance; instead, more gradual flow between the two bodies of water appears to be the general consensus.
People like coming up with ways to explain flood myths, but really, the two likliest are simply "People live by rivers, and rivers flood" and "People noticed fossil seashells up in mountains and came up with the idea that water once flowed over the entire surface of the Earth", both obvious reasons for the flood myth and far more plausible.
That is not true at all...There is geological evidence to suggest that it was fast because the channel flows to the left. If it had been slow, it would follow the normal rules and flow to the right.
Look, read about it. The long, the short, and the middle of it is that the Ryan-Pittman theory doesn't have widespread acceptance. There's other data which suggests that the water flowed both ways over the course of like 10,000 years.
Look, read about it. The long, the short, and the middle of it is that the Ryan-Pittman theory doesn't have widespread acceptance. There's other data which suggests that the water flowed both ways over the course of like 10,000 years.
Hey at least we are arguing over two "real" theories...
No. I'm saying "Because we can demonstrate your explanation to be false, it isn't true". Or at times, "Because your statement has no predictive value, it is worthless."
You can't demonstrate my view of Christianity to be false, so your statement falls short.
We know the Bible is not literally true because we know that many of the things in it are untrue. God did not create the Earth in seven days. The Earth is more than 5000 years old. God did not create humans out of mud. God did not flood the Earth. Ect.
Yeah, and the Bible isn't supposed to be literally true. It's the fundamentalist Christians which preach that nonsense, and they are flat out wrong. The Bible doesn't even really say what they preach anyway, they are basing their position off of a translated, heavily copied version of the actual text.
For example, the word translated as "Day" in the creation story of the Bible doesn't mean a 24 hour day. It means "a period of time." So really the creation story in the Bible could allow for any duration.
It disproves all but a deist or FSM god; in other words, it destroys all religion with predictive value.
And based on what I said above, this statement isn't true. Also, can you clarify exactly what you mean by "predictive value?"
So you believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster waved his noodly appendages to create the rules of evolution?
That's fine, but don't expect anyone to believe you or respect you for it.
Yeah I've heard this arrogant FSM crap before. Explain to me how "Oh well, there are INFINITE universes each of which have different laws that govern their universes, so ours HAS to exist" sounds any more credible, because that's the most common explanation I get from atheists for that.
And the moment that you, without any shadow of a doubt, can explain now just HOW evolution occurs, but exactly why, in every last detail, is the very same moment I stop thinking of you as a 'college-age know-it-all prat'.
I'm not quite sure that I understand your question. The word Why doesn't really have a meaning in that context. Still I'll try to answer as best I can.
Evolution occurs because there's nothing in place to stop it.
There's nothing to stop DNA from mutating as background radiation interacts with it.
There's nothing to stop DNA from getting shuffled around through sexual reproduction.
There's nothing to stop a child from inheriting traits from the parent.
There's nothing to stop a threat, like a predator, from killing those animals that are weaker than the others of their kind.
Thus evolution occurs. Does that answer your question?
Yeah, and the Bible isn't supposed to be literally true. It's the fundamentalist Christians which preach that nonsense, and they are flat out wrong. The Bible doesn't even really say what they preach anyway, they are basing their position off of a translated, heavily copied version of the actual text.
For example, the word translated as "Day" in the creation story of the Bible doesn't mean a 24 hour day. It means "a period of time." So really the creation story in the Bible could allow for any duration.
On the second point, I'll say that that idea is considered fairly valid among many "fundamentalist Christians" (such dirty words, eh?)
On the first point...huh? We have complete manuscripts back to 200 A.D. That's within a century or so of the completion of the original books. From there, there's a vast line of textual copies, with a large majority varying in minor errors (misspells, dropped words [some as simple as a "the"]) with each other. Certainly you can't make a credible claim of vast, sweeping changes in Scripture through time.
As well, Old Testament copies, though possessing a larger gap, are equally well preserved, and the methods of Hebrew copying make mistakes incredibly rare. As in, a lost consonant every several hundred words.
The Bible presents itself as, well, itself. At times using figurative language, many times literal language, and sometimes a blend. Danger lies in painting every bit of it with one brush.
On the first point...huh? We have complete manuscripts back to 200 A.D. That's within a century or so of the completion of the original books. From there, there's a vast line of textual copies, with a large majority varying in minor errors (misspells, dropped words [some as simple as a "the"]) with each other. Certainly you can't make a credible claim of vast, sweeping changes in Scripture through time.
Yeah but if the right word gets dropped (and it often does) it can have pretty massive changes in the meaning. I went to hear a Professor speak on the topic (he was a specialist in Biblical manuscripts) and he says that there are tons and tons of errors and difference between manuscripts from around the same time period.
I'm not saying that the Bible is filled with completely incorrect information. What I am saying is: It's not supposed to be taken literally, and even in the places where it is, there can be errors, so trying to disprove God's existence through disproving the Bible isn't a sound method.
Thus evolution occurs. Does that answer your question?
No, and you explicitly did not answer my question. You cannot answer the 'why'.
I'm not saying that the Bible is filled with completely incorrect information. What I am saying is: It's not supposed to be taken literally, and even in the places where it is, there can be errors, so trying to disprove God's existence through disproving the Bible isn't a sound method.
With the exception of when debating/discussing the existance of God with those who use the bible to prove god's existance.
No, and you explicitly did not answer my question. You cannot answer the 'why'.
No, he actually did answer your question. Perhaps you should be more specific.
No, and you explicitly did not answer my question. You cannot answer the 'why'.
Science is not about the philosophic why. It is the how and what.
For instance...Judas betraying Jesus. In every other instance where the word appears in the bible it was translated to hand over except in that instance.
Hm. Of course, I'd have to see the context of the same word. I'm not a translation expert, certainly. But, I think I can say that the meaning "hand over" certainly applies. Thing is, I bet it was written as "betrayed" because there was more than just handing over. There was, in fact, betrayal. Context can be an important tool in translation and exegesis.
Also, which translation/version uses it in that way? Different translations read differently, not even getting into paraphrases.
The problem I have is people take the Bible as the word of God and fail to understand that many came together and decided what went in and what was left out. There is also little effort to look at other religions before the time like the various mysteries to see how they influenced this religion, nor do they realize that later on many Christians persecuted "paganists" for their beliefs when their beliefs spring from the same source.
If you look at the big picture there is a lot of good information riddled throughout. The allegories could have various meanings as well, though, which comes from the fact that as you progress farther into the mysteries you unlock deeper understandings. Sadly, though, most people take it at face value.
Yes but if you were to look at the Gospels of Judas then the term hand over makes perfect sense. It is a gnostic gospel from around 280AD. In it Judas is just doing as Jesus wanted him to do.
...When did Judas have a chance to write a Gospel?
Also, keep in mind that the Gnostic gospels are not seen as reliable or very informative by the vast majority of Christians, especially the ones who really know about them. Gnositicism is old; but it's been rebutted by the core authors and apostles of the Bible for just as long (see the works of the Apostle John). Primary among the tenants that separate them is the rejection of the physical nature of Christ.
I'm not saying don't talk about them. I am saying keep in mind they're not going to be a basis of authority to most Christians.
Science is not about the philosophic why. It is the how and what.
Then don't look to science for religion, and don't look to religion for science.
Aseneth and Thecla would be neat to look into.
#1. I'm not sure where you're getting the 5000 years figure, because most biblical scholars I've heard have projected closer to 8-10,000 years.
Which is proof only that the word "scholar" has lost much of its meaning.
#2. God did not create humans out of mud? Well, actually, it was dust (implying dryness).
Humans were not "created".
#3. There is overwhelming evidence for some sort of global catastrophe that took place about 6,000 years ago, of the nature of a flood.
Even if there were overwhelming evidence - which there is not - for a global disaster, that does not means myths that superstitious people with a very limited world-view and understating of natural forces made up to explain that disaster are true. It is kind of like saying the fact the pyramids exist is proof of the moronic belief that aliens built them.
]4. The Smithsonian Institute actually uses the Bible as an historical guide, and has accredited its extraordinary accuracy to the finding of many archeological findings.
My firm works with the Smithsonian, we have done many exhibits and galleries for them, we are in close contact with their curators and scientists on a daily basis, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that this is 100% grade-A free-range bull****.
Then don't look to science for religion, and don't look to religion for science.
But then, when religion bring things about the material world, science may make remarks...
Like Creationism.
No, and you explicitly did not answer my question. You cannot answer the 'why'.
Hmmm. In that case I miss your meaning. Could you please elaborate on your question and perhaps provide a different phrasing, it's a little ambiguous.
But then, when religion bring things about the material world, science may make remarks...
Like Creationism.
But Creationism isn't religion, it's bad science, since it's trying to explain the 'how' of things by using religion and not any scientific method. It violates the precept I set up above.
But Creationism isn't religion, it's bad science, since it's trying to explain the 'how' of things by using religion and not any scientific method. It violates the precept I set up above.
It's a religious idea disguised as science, to be precise.
Intelligent Design, specialy; how to sneak God back.
But Creationism isn't religion, it's bad science, since it's trying to explain the 'how' of things by using religion and not any scientific method. It violates the precept I set up above.
Then shouldn't be debating against the Creationist instead of those opposing the creationists?
There isn't a debate...it is not science nor is it real. It falls in with the world being flat, the sun revolving around the earth, big foot, and unicorns.
Yeah if your an absurd believer who thinks that God made the world through MAGIC!!!
The rest of us, down here on earth with our head out of the clouds, realize that just because creation happened in an explainable, scientific way, doesn't negate the existence of God.
Then shouldn't be debating against the Creationist instead of those opposing the creationists?
I would, except for the fact that what's been put forward is the notion that any religious belief automatically equates to Creationism and Literalism.
Yeah if your an absurd believer who thinks that God made the world through MAGIC!!!
The rest of us, down here on earth with our head out of the clouds, realize that just because creation happened in an explainable, scientific way, doesn't negate the existence of God.
Agreed.
Intelligent Design/Creationalism is fallacy.
I would, except for the fact that what's been put forward is the notion that any religious belief automatically equates to Creationism and Literalism.
Well, the entire premise of the thread, which I started, was to debate creationism. Irreducible Complexity is creationism all prettied up.
Well, the entire premise of the thread, which I started, was to debate creationism. Irreducible Complexity is creationism all prettied up.
Not really, but it's a logical fallacy. They're skipping many steps in order to reach a conclusion that the steps may not actually lead.
Let's say that God deliberately designed the eye in such a way. For this purpose, this is an axiom. Given that, it does not then follow that evolution must not have occured (as the Irreducible Complexity argument went). For all we know, God uses evolution as his design tool. Because even if the 'eye' was designed, at some point, doesn't mean that evolution didn't occur in that design, or that nothing else ever evolved.
In their experiments, the scientists showed that flies without this structural protein develop a more primitive eye. This outcome was reversed in the laboratory when researchers supplied the missing protein to a more primitive eye system, inducing it to “evolve” into the more advanced eye.
Not really, but it's a logical fallacy. They're skipping many steps in order to reach a conclusion that the steps may not actually lead.
Let's say that God deliberately designed the eye in such a way. For this purpose, this is an axiom. Given that, it does not then follow that evolution must not have occured (as the Irreducible Complexity argument went). For all we know, God uses evolution as his design tool. Because even if the 'eye' was designed, at some point, doesn't mean that evolution didn't occur in that design, or that nothing else ever evolved.
But the entire arguement of Irreducible Complexity is that evolution did not occur. Everything was placed on Earth in it's current state. God creating evolution would be a different discussion completely.
That's not evolution, that's genetic modification. And, in truth, it lends more to the idea that eyes were DESIGNED to a set of parameters more then actually just developing that way. :P
Biologist A: "Hey! If we switch this one protein in the genome, we can effect a substantial change in the physiological aspects of the creature!"
Biologist B: "Say...what's the probability of that happening in the wild?"
Biologist A: "You mean a random genetic mutation effecting a specific change in a single structural protein? I wonder..."
Summary: When a single protein controls an important aspect of an animal, it is much more likely for that aspect to change than one that is controlled by a large number of proteins which all must "align," so to speak.
I direct you to xkcd 326 if you think my use of "effect" is incorrect.
There are also forms of life on earth that have even more complex eyes...look at the mantis shrimp for example. Being able to sense your environment is a awesome step towards survival, be it through sight, smell, touch, etc. The greater your detection the more likely you will be able to find food or be able to not become food.
But the entire arguement of Irreducible Complexity is that evolution did not occur. Everything was placed on Earth in it's current state. God creating evolution would be a different discussion completely.
Yes it would be. But, I just pointed out that the premise of the thread itself, whether or not you believe in Creationism or Evolutionism, falls apart because the original argument is based in a logical fallacy. The argument is flawed, and neither proves nor disproves either belief.
IE, the original poster lost the debate.
Biologist A: "You mean a random genetic mutation effecting a specific change in a single structural protein? I wonder..."
But that follows a train of logic outside the box we're limited to.
Within the box, getting specific result 'b' would imply that that result was predetermined by design and NOT a random mutation favoring evolution. That result was there all along, just not unlocked.Yes it would be. But, I just pointed out that the premise of the thread itself, whether or not you believe in Creationism or Evolutionism, falls apart because the original argument is based in a logical fallacy. The argument is flawed, and neither proves nor disproves either belief.
IE, the original poster lost the debate.
Except, as the original poster, the purpose of the thread was to discuss how the eye could have developed, as carried over from another thread. As far as I know, said discussion hasn't been disproved by anyone.
IE, the original poster hasn't gotten anyone to debate the specific topic.
the original poster hasn't gotten anyone to debate the specific topic.
You didn't present a debate, just the old post which was a debate which, again, had a logical fallacy.
COULD the eye have evolved naturally? Well, if we accept that the brain could, then the eye would be 'peanuts' by comparison. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of evidence of the eye's evolution since it's part of tissue-matter that doesn't last long once dead.
Strict Creationism is a bizzare belief anyway, since it's wholly dependant on which version of the Bible you're reading. And, even then, Genesis in the King James version conflicts itself more than once.
Yeah if your an absurd believer who thinks that God made the world through MAGIC!!!
The rest of us, down here on earth with our head out of the clouds, realize that just because creation happened in an explainable, scientific way, doesn't negate the existence of God.
Actually, invoking Clarke's Law and the degree to which science still does not have the ability to explain everything about the creation of the universe, it would indeed qualify as magic, even for those down here on earth with their heads out of the clouds.
You didn't present a debate, just the old post which was a debate which, again, had a logical fallacy.
Well, the entire debate started on another thread. We wanted to continue it off that thread, so as to not derail it, I started this one. He never refuted my post from the other thread. I also posted a link to a picture of how an eye could develop through evolution. No one I've seen has disputed that one piece of evidence. So I could say I won. But in reality, no one took that bait, so to speak.
COULD the eye have evolved naturally? Well, if we accept that the brain could, then the eye would be 'peanuts' by comparison. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of evidence of the eye's evolution since it's part of tissue-matter that doesn't last long once dead.
Strict Creationism is a bizzare belief anyway, since it's wholly dependant on which version of the Bible you're reading. And, even then, Genesis in the King James version conflicts itself more than once.
In all honesty, I tend to find the whole thing bizarre.
No one I've seen has disputed that one piece of evidence. So I could say I won. But in reality, no one took that bait, so to speak.
I didn't even bother looking at it to be honest.
Arguments against evolution are either exercises in sophistry or ignorance and require about as much awareness of the facts to discuss as arguing whether the sky is pink.
I didn't really think I needed to look at the handout.
It's an uphill battle, to be sure.
I think most people don't truely understand how Evolution works. It's too complicated, and no one has been able to explain it to them in simple terms that they are able to understand. Throw on top of that, people they trust, they're religious leaders, who they think is more knowlegable that they are, also reject it, because they don't understand it, and they're higher ups are telling them the same thing.
It's an uphill battle, to be sure.
While I learned about evolution well before I learned about the creationism, the experience that made evolution obvious and unquestionable to me was watching it happen.
At the time my boyfriend was a microbiologist. He prepared an agar plate and grew some bacteria on it. Then dosed them with antibiotics and transfered some to another plate, etc over a few iterations (this took about a week).
Seeing evolution occur with my own eyes as the bacteria became immune to this particular antibiotic was enough to move it from, "well evolution sounds right and explains things well" to clearly established fact.
Oh plus the documentary "Island of the Vampire Birds" which shows decades of camera footage of the birds of the galapagos (sp?) and the changes that occured over a long drought. Good chance to see some smaller evolutionary changes on a larger scale.
lol ever heard of the deer that kill birds and eat their heads?
No but they are officially the coolest animals I've heard of today. Way cooler than mini-cows.
Yeah, and the Bible isn't supposed to be literally true. It's the fundamentalist Christians which preach that nonsense, and they are flat out wrong. The Bible doesn't even really say what they preach anyway, they are basing their position off of a translated, heavily copied version of the actual text.
No, it is supposed to be, its just that most halfway intelligent modern people can't take it seriously as such because it is so incompatible with reality.
There's a reason that religion often fights back against science which shows their dogma to be false. Evolution is a good example.
For example, the word translated as "Day" in the creation story of the Bible doesn't mean a 24 hour day. It means "a period of time." So really the creation story in the Bible could allow for any duration.
The word "yom" does indeed mean day.
Many people have tried to twist this, claiming it means period of time. This is true, but also misleading. Our word day, for instance, can be used to mean a time, such as "in the days of our forefathers" or "back in the day".
The word "yom" appears a large number of times in Genesis. So how do you know what it means?
Context. And in the context, it very clearly means day as in "24 hour span". "Thus evening came, and morning followed - the first day" is very clear in what it means.
People only reinterpreted it when it became obvious and apparent that "day" was incompatible with reality.
The Biblical story of creation is mythology, and has no bearing on reality. People deny it, people try to reinterpret it, but the reality is that it was made up by a bunch of ignorant people in the desert four thousand years ago. Expecting accuracy from them is just plain old silly. Its the same as all other creation mythology.
I'm sorry if you have been lied to, told that it really means an indefinite span of time, but those people who told you that were liars or were misinformed.
And based on what I said above, this statement isn't true. Also, can you clarify exactly what you mean by "predictive value?"
Predictive value = something which can be falsified. For instance, "Jesus will return at some indefinite time in the future" = no predictive value. "Jesus will return tommorrow" = predictive value. You cannot disprove the former (well, not easily anyway) but the latter is readily falsified - wait a day and see if Jesus shows up.
Yeah I've heard this arrogant FSM crap before. Explain to me how "Oh well, there are INFINITE universes each of which have different laws that govern their universes, so ours HAS to exist" sounds any more credible, because that's the most common explanation I get from atheists for that.
Are you saying we don't exist?
See, the anthropic principle basically states that any universe we see must appear "fine tuned" for intelligent life to exist in it because if it wasn't, we wouldn't exist to note that the universe doesn't appear to be "fine tuned".
This doesn't require there to be multiple universes. It simply states that because we are multicellular intelligent carbon-based lifeforms the universe must be such that it can support such life.
A simpler way of explaining it is thus:
I flip a fair coin. What are the odds I get heads? 50%, right?
Now, I've flipped a coin and gotten heads. What are the odds that I got heads on this flip? Many people will say 50%, but that's incorrect - I got heads, so the odds of it are 100%.
The universe is the same way. We already flipped, so the results are known.
No, and you explicitly did not answer my question. You cannot answer the 'why'.
He's explained why, you just don't understand his answer.
Science is not about the philosophic why. It is the how and what.
If you mean "why" as in making concious choices, the idea that there is conciousness behind it is silly. Its like believing there is reason behind gravity. Did gravity decide to get uppity and kill thousands of people on 9/11?
I don't think any reasonable person believes that.
But Creationism isn't religion, it's bad science, since it's trying to explain the 'how' of things by using religion and not any scientific method. It violates the precept I set up above.
Creationism is religion. Creation Science/ID/ect. are all religion dressed up as science.
Its kind of sad really, like a cargo cult.
Well, the entire premise of the thread, which I started, was to debate creationism. Irreducible Complexity is creationism all prettied up.
Well, irreducible complexity is a means of falsifying evoltuion, and as such, creationists desperately want to believe in it.
Nothing in any lifeform has been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex, and it is becoming increasingly unliekly we will see such a demonstration until humans learn how to do it themselves or we start running into non-human intelligences.
The reality is that arguments that X is irreducibly complex are actually arguments from lack of imagination/personal incredulity, as proven when someone comes along and is like "This is how it goes".
The eye, for instance, is readily reducible, and indeed we've seen all sorts of eyes, showing that the idea is false indeed. More recently people have cited flangella, and then of course people are like "No, look here".
Let's say that the flying spaghetti monster deliberately designed the eye in such a way. For this purpose, this is an axiom. Given that, it does not then follow that evolution must not have occured (as the Irreducible Complexity argument went). For all we know, the flying spaghetti monster uses evolution as his design tool. Because even if the 'eye' was designed, at some point, doesn't mean that evolution didn't occur in that design, or that nothing else ever evolved.
Fixed that for you.
In short, FSM and deist gods don't have any predictive value.
That's not evolution, that's genetic modification. And, in truth, it lends more to the idea that eyes were DESIGNED to a set of parameters more then actually just developing that way.
Apparently you don't understand something called "science".
The idea is to figure out what genes control what. In this case, they found a gene which is necessary for complex eye formation. I do not know that they have proven that it is sufficient.
Now, if they demonstrated sufficiency (that is to say, having just this protien plus the basic eye genes = complex eye), then they can go and look at the evolution of the gene, and thus of the complex eye.
In short, if this gene and this gene alone created the complex eye, it'd be very easy to see how the complex eye arose from the simple one - you just get this gene to mutate into something which allows for its present functionality, and presto, compound eyes!
However, I doubt it is quite so simple as all that, and more than likely the gene activates other genes which exist to help form the eye as well. Of course, its possible I'm wrong, and I can certainly see how it'd be possible for a single gene to cause large conformational changes such as that - if, for instance, the walls of the eye are controlled by a certain gene, this gene could mess with it, interspersing it throughout the eye and causing it to form the complex eye rather than a single one.
I don't know if that's the case, though.
A perhaps better example would be genes which cause cell apoptosis in the webbing between people's fingers. Sometimes, this gene gets turned off, and the resultant child has webbed fingers. Sometime in the past, we evolved that gene to get rid of webbing between fingers, but its basically "strapped on" - its not that we don't grow such webbing, its that the webbing grows then goes away.
A lot of evolution works this way, actually - you mess around with extant structures. Its very interesting.
Developmental genes have great potential for vast morphological changes, though most are fatal. Those which aren't fatal are interesting, though, precisely because they demonstrate that you can end up with significant cosmetic changes with only very minor genetic ones.
COULD the eye have evolved naturally? Well, if we accept that the brain could, then the eye would be 'peanuts' by comparison. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of evidence of the eye's evolution since it's part of tissue-matter that doesn't last long once dead.
This is simply false.
First off, we have some sort of fossilized eyes. Not really good for fine structure or what have you, but...
Second, we have the eye sockets. Observing how the muscles attached to the skull, where the nerve ran, ect. are all valuable information.
Third, we have living creatures with all sorts of intermediary eyes which demonstrate many, many stages in eye evolution are indeed viable.
Fourth, we have the genetic code.
Most people don't really understand just why genetics is so important, but the reality is that, today, even if we had no fossils at all, we'd know evolution occurred. Why? Because of genes. Mutations happen at such and such a rate, and you can run that process backwards. You can see how similar two organisms' genomes are, and you can estimate based on mutation rates about how long ago it was that the two were one species. This is an absurdly powerful tool.
When applied to specific genes, we can figure out when a certain mutation took place. So when we find, say, an eye gene, we can go find it in other mammals and see if they have that same mutation. If they do, then it is likely our LCA (last common ancestor) had it as well. This way we can crudely map when certain mutations occurred and thus when certain events occurred.
There is enormous evidence for how the eye evolved, and indeed the intermediary steps aren't all that complex - you can see the progression.
As we learn more about genetics, and learn which genes control what, we will even learn when various types of eyes first came to be.
Funny thing about that little concept. It's not purely religious. It can be applied to many things. Christians have faith that there is a God. Atheists have faith there is no God. Without some sort of faith, existence becomes meaningless in all forms, whether they be scientific or not.
However, there are people who will try to disprove a religion such as the base form of Christianity, which is wholly impossible. Religions such as ancient Greek paganism, Celtic druidism, and the Egyptian pantheon are easily disproved, as they attempt to apply a spiritual meaning of "why" to answer the physical question of "how?". Christianity in its base form, however, does not make this attempt, at least not overtly. It can be twisted in many ways, hence all the denominations. I highly doubt there is a church that follows the practices followed by early Christians. So, it is often acceptable to say "god created life using evolution." And TD, as much as I'm inclined to agree with you, I have to bring up a topic that I as such have not found a completely acceptable answer to, despite my attempts. The Bible (if we're arguing biblical concepts might as well argue with biblical concepts, no?) has a passage in which it is said that a second to God is the equivalent to millions of years to humans. Taken figuratively, this is hyperbole designed to demonstrate the timelessness God is attributed with. Taken literally, this provides an explanation of how a day of "God's time" would equate to much longer in "our time". Unfortunately, I know of know scholars who are able to concretely clarify that point. Perhaps you could help?
My last point (I think, I tend to forget them all during these long-winded posts). A true debate, or even a healthy discussion, between people arguing for religion and science is virtually impossible on a level any deeper than a philosophical one. This is simply because there are (to my knowledge) virtually NO credible sources that are unbiased on the subject. You will find that this is an argument that almost everyone (and anyone of scientific or religious significance) has taken a side on. They are, almost always, either pro-evolution or pro-creation. And generally, the people who are in the middle, or follow tenets of both, are the ones who argue not with sources, but with ideas, which brings us back to the philosophy idea. An argument like this needs completely unbiased sources to be truly resolved, and as that is virtually impossible, we have just another reason this is an argument that can never be won. Sadly, there is evidence to both sides, but the evolution side is labeled as "liberal" or "atheist" propaganda, and the creation side is labeled as "fundamentalist" or "conservative" propaganda.
I will say, however, that it saddens me to hear people referring to others as "dumb" or "uneducated" simply because they are either misinformed or disagree. Name-calling is never a proper way to argue,as that in itself equates to a logical fallacy (if you really want me to look it up, I will, but I trust you'll see the logic in that statement). So please, if we're going to argue over the very fabric of the universe, our evolution/creation, and the implications of such things, lets do so in a way that doesn't involve what equates to third-grade insults with college IQs. Thank you.
People need to realize that a belief in science and a belief in God are not mutually exclusive.
Engaging in doublethink much? No, religion and science are incompatible, precisely because science doesn't require belief and is in fact opposed to it. It destroys the need for belief.
It seems people fail to realize that the general Christian acceptance of God (at least from what I've seen of it) is that of an all-powerful deity, not something that operates within the confines of the known universe. It (He?) is wholly an unknown, enough so that it requires faith.
No, its an interventionalist deity which clearly doesn't exist as presented. There is no god hiding in the gaps. He's either the FSM, a god who capriciously manipulates everything so it is impossible to observe them, or a deist, non-interventionalist deity. Neither fits in well with the Christian conception of God.
However, there are people who will try to disprove a religion such as the base form of Christianity, which is wholly impossible.
Oh, its quite simple to disprove Christianity and their God.
There was no flood and the Earth is more than 6500 years old. See: continous tree ring record which extends further back in time than the supposed time of creation.
Done and done.
Religions such as ancient Greek paganism, Celtic druidism, and the Egyptian pantheon are easily disproved, as they attempt to apply a spiritual meaning of "why" to answer the physical question of "how?". Christianity in its base form, however, does not make this attempt, at least not overtly.
Christianity is no different from those religions, save in its number of present-day followers. It tries to make predictions about the world and fails. See: Old Testament. See: Egypt. See: Jesus.
The only reason people believe in Christianity is the same reason children believe in Santa Claus, but no one ever told them that it was just as imaginary.
The Bible (if we're arguing biblical concepts might as well argue with biblical concepts, no?) has a passage in which it is said that a second to God is the equivalent to millions of years to humans.
Yeah, people love to bring it up. But its irrelevant to the passage.
-traeplien
Compare reaction to discovery of a new fossil that is a missing link between two species.
Scientists: "Score! One less missing link!"
Creationists: "Score! Two NEW missing links!"
Religions such as ancient Greek paganism, Celtic druidism, and the Egyptian pantheon are easily disproved, as they attempt to apply a spiritual meaning of "why" to answer the physical question of "how?". Christianity in its base form, however, does not make this attempt, at least not overtly.
Christianity is built from those religions...along with others. Even the concept of Jesus came before. So if the foundation is easily disproved...which I am not saying it is, then there is a major problem.
That was a key part of both Muhammed, Jesus and the Buddha. Miraculous events may have hapepend, they where not actualy emphased and even downplayed.
Spiritual leaders, not mages.
Explaining the evolution/creationism 'controversy' in one short example.
Compare reaction to discovery of a new fossil that is a missing link between two species.
Scientists: "Score! One less missing link!"
Creationists: "Score! Two NEW missing links!"
"Missing links" are largely mythical anyway.
But yes, the latter does sum up creationists nicely.
That was a key part of both Muhammed, Jesus and the Buddha. Miraculous events may have hapepend, they where not actualy emphased and even downplayed.
Christianity is focused on miracles. Ever notice all those crucifixes? Ever been to a mass? They talk about miracles all the time, and they are pretty heavily emphasized. Heck, their two major holidays are both based around miracles - the Virgin Birth and the Ressurection.
Engaging in doublethink much? No, religion and science are incompatible, precisely because science doesn't require belief and is in fact opposed to it. It destroys the need for belief.
You're almost there. Science (skepticism, really) is incompatible with mysticism. But there's nothing that says a belief in god must entail mysticism--hence deism.
Also knowledge is a subset of belief. I think you mean unjustified or demonstrably false beliefs.
You're almost there. Science (skepticism, really) is incompatible with mysticism. But there's nothing that says a belief in god must entail mysticism--hence deism.
Also knowledge is a subset of belief. I think you mean unjustified or demonstrably false beliefs.
It is not incompatible...look at buddism/quantum physics for example.
Christianity is focused on miracles. Ever notice all those crucifixes? Ever been to a mass? They talk about miracles all the time, and they are pretty heavily emphasized. Heck, their two major holidays are both based around miracles - the Virgin Birth and the Ressurection.
I lives in Quebec, a region that used to be before the 60s a catholic 'Bible Belt'. So....
The emphasis is not really on that. The 'miracles' are there to underline, push the 'truths' there. The sugar in coffee. Points.
Your comprehension of religion is a bit stereotypal.
(For the infos, I am betwen chairs there.)
Then the sun begins to lend more hours to the day until the summer solstice at least.
Now, the thread is long and many points have already been covered. I only want to offer a few points of interest for thoughtful reflection from the reader.
1. Consider this: everyone who argues against evolution is religious. This has been, in my experience, true nearly 100% of the time. If there are serious arguments against evolution, wouldn't anti-evolutionary "theory" be secular at this point? Yet it remains a religious contention.
Further, not all religious people deny evolution. Many of them accept it, just as many religious folk in the past have accepted the fact that the earth revolves around the Sun, rather than the other way around-- just as Galileo, a Roman Catholic Christian, pointed out.
2. Does it really make sense that all scientists across the world are in a global conspiracy to "trick" people into believing evolution? Especially consider that the majority of scientists, at least in the United States, believe in God or a Higher Power. Despite what some right-wing religionists would have you think!
What would be the point in "tricking" everyone into accepting evolution? So they can pull a huge "HAHA! Gotcha!" on us? Why would Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and other religious folk be in on this as well?
Maybe, just maybe, evolution and religion don't conflict.
Maybe, just maybe, arguments against evolution don't have any substance (or else there would be secular arguments against evolution rather than religious ones, which there aren't).
Maybe, just maybe, there isn't some totally silly "conspiracy" to trick our children into acception evolution just for the sake of some global "prank." "Hahahaha! I made you think your ancestors were kinda like monkeys! Wooo!" Yeah right.
Okay, so my bias showed through pretty clearly there. And maybe I was a little harsh in mocking the anti-evolutionists.
However, I think these are good points to think on. Do they prove evolution is true? No, of course not. But a thread on the internet, by itself, isn't going to convince very many people. The best thing to do is to look things up yourself (and might I suggest starting at www.talkorigins.org ). I simply wanted to offer some reflective thought on the matter and perhaps some motivation for a few lurkers to actually look this stuff up for themselves, and come to a real conclusion on the matter.
It was long-winded, but my 2cp.
*Polite, well-presented post*
I would say that the issue for many of us isn't "there's no evolution at all", it's "your God is dead, haha!". Theistic evolution has a strong backing in the Christian community. By the same token, I think there are some scientists out there who aren't Christians, yet who question at least some levels of purely self-sustaining evolution. I know it's a shoddy movie in a lot of respects, but Expelled does highlight a couple of non-Darwinian-random-chance-evolutionist scientists. The point being it's not "every scientist" who believes strictly in evolution. Maybe it's more prevalent among biologists, who knows. I do get tired of this false dichotimy of scientist/creationist.
My point is that, yes, we've got believers who believe in theistic evolution right alongside what are typically called Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists. Our common ground is the causer of each of these scenarios. *Shrugs* There's only so much that can be easily and clearly presented and discussed over this kind of format, I suppose.
On the second point, I'll say that that idea is considered fairly valid among many "fundamentalist Christians" (such dirty words, eh?)
On the first point...huh? We have complete manuscripts back to 200 A.D. That's within a century or so of the completion of the original books. From there, there's a vast line of textual copies, with a large majority varying in minor errors (misspells, dropped words [some as simple as a "the"]) with each other. Certainly you can't make a credible claim of vast, sweeping changes in Scripture through time.
As well, Old Testament copies, though possessing a larger gap, are equally well preserved, and the methods of Hebrew copying make mistakes incredibly rare. As in, a lost consonant every several hundred words.
The Bible presents itself as, well, itself. At times using figurative language, many times literal language, and sometimes a blend. Danger lies in painting every bit of it with one brush.
This is very untrue. We have copies that are very different from each other. Entire stories are added (Jesus and the prostitute for example). Words are changed. Words are added or removed. Lineages are modified. The scribes were no where near as accurate as people like to claim. Translation is hard enough but when we have King James actually making demands on what should be in the Bible we can genuinely question its authenticity.
My Bible, the New American Standard, has notations throughout that mention passages are added or different from other Bibles. When I compare it to other commonly used Bibles it is very similar but not exactly the same. Some passages take on very different meanings and I have had to compare two or more Bibles just to follow along. One of my friends who does devotionals at her church uses several Bibles to make sure she is saying what she means. The Bible is far from consistent has has been far from consistent for centuries.
What has remained mostly the same is the general concept of each story. This means, to me at least, that there is no way to even attempt to take things literally. One must read the entire story and keep everything in context. This is a huge failing on too many of the faithful (it applies to nearly every religion not just Christianity).
This is very untrue. We have copies that are very different from each other. Entire stories are added (Jesus and the prostitute for example). Words are changed. Words are added or removed. Lineages are modified. The scribes were no where near as accurate as people like to claim. Translation is hard enough but when we have King James actually making demands on what should be in the Bible we can genuinely question its authenticity.
My Bible, the New American Standard, has notations throughout that mention passages are added or different from other Bibles. When I compare it to other commonly used Bibles it is very similar but not exactly the same. Some passages take on very different meanings and I have had to compare two or more Bibles just to follow along. One of my friends who does devotionals at her church uses several Bibles to make sure she is saying what she means. The Bible is far from consistent has has been far from consistent for centuries.
What has remained mostly the same is the general concept of each story. This means, to me at least, that there is no way to even attempt to take things literally. One must read the entire story and keep everything in context. This is a huge failing on too many of the faithful (it applies to nearly every religion not just Christianity).
No one knows for sure when exactly the New Testament was completed in its modern form. It is likely all of the books of the NT were written by at least 170 CE, but not necessarily in their modern form. The end of Mark, for instance, was not written when the rest of it was, and parts of John are known to be later additions (though, very interestingly, the story of the adulterous woman, while added to John centuries after the completion of the gospel, very likely was originally written down in another gospel and then later was moved to John for unknown reasons, though the original gospel has been lost as far as I know; we only know of it due to references in other writings).
However, this really has nothing to do with Irreducible Complexity, beyond "Yes, the Bible was written over the course of at least a century, and the gospels were all written over 40 years after the death of Jesus, and yes, obviously it isn't the "Word of God" or what have you or the literal truth given how much of it is demonstrably untrue."
It is not incompatible...look at buddism/quantum physics for example.
Like what specifically? Anatta, kharma, nirvana...there are no scientific foundations for these. Its parent religion, Hinduism, was invented as a way for light-skinned men from the Persian region to control the darker-skinned people living in and around the subcontinent. What's scientific about that? That's exactly what I'm talking about: mysticism enslaves people, reason frees them.
Intelligent Design/Creationism is bull.
Fixed.
No, it is supposed to be, its just that most halfway intelligent modern people can't take it seriously as such because it is so incompatible with reality.
You should really lay off the intelligence insults towards religious people. It makes you look arrogant, and it doesn't help your argument at all.
That having been said, I retort with the obvious: No it's not supposed to be. Exactly where do you get the authority to claim that the Bible is supposed to be taken literally? Because it's convenient for your argument?
I can say it's not because the Bible makes sense and works when you can take some things in it figuratively. Sure, if taken completely literally, the Bible is wrong. But, it's not supposed to be, because it doesn't work.
There's a reason that religion often fights back against science which shows their dogma to be false. Evolution is a good example.
Ha. I'm going to laugh if atheists ever become the dominant belief system, and then they have a bunch of stupid people making half-cooked arguments for their side. Please, just because there are some people making these stupid arguments against science, doesn't mean that's it the correct belief under the religion.
The word "yom" does indeed mean day.
Many people have tried to twist this, claiming it means period of time. This is true, but also misleading. Our word day, for instance, can be used to mean a time, such as "in the days of our forefathers" or "back in the day".
The word "yom" appears a large number of times in Genesis. So how do you know what it means?
Context. And in the context, it very clearly means day as in "24 hour span". "Thus evening came, and morning followed - the first day" is very clear in what it means.
People only reinterpreted it when it became obvious and apparent that "day" was incompatible with reality.
Hardly. If you actually read the story, the things which govern the "day" you're talking about weren't even created until the 4th "day." The context makes way more sense taking day to mean a "period of time" rather than 24 hours.
The Biblical story of creation is mythology, and has no bearing on reality. People deny it, people try to reinterpret it, but the reality is that it was made up by a bunch of ignorant people in the desert four thousand years ago. Expecting accuracy from them is just plain old silly. Its the same as all other creation mythology.
I'm sorry if you have been lied to, told that it really means an indefinite span of time, but those people who told you that were liars or were misinformed.
I'm sorry you've been misinformed on how to interpret the Bible and been slapped with dogma by a bunch of blind-faithed hellfire Christians who don't know the first thing about the truth of their own beliefs. But, you have yet to offer a true disproof of my beliefs.
Predictive value = something which can be falsified. For instance, "Jesus will return at some indefinite time in the future" = no predictive value. "Jesus will return tommorrow" = predictive value. You cannot disprove the former (well, not easily anyway) but the latter is readily falsified - wait a day and see if Jesus shows up.
Actually, until the next day they have the same predictive value with different waiting periods. One is "wait for a day" and one is "wait until the Earth is destroyed."
Not to mention falsifiability has no bearing on truth, it's dependent on technology and our senses. A million years ago, water being H2O wasn't falsifiable, but that wouldn't make it a false belief. Just because something can't be detected now, doesn't mean it's not there. Falsifiability has nothing to do with truth.
Are you saying we don't exist?
See, the anthropic principle basically states that any universe we see must appear "fine tuned" for intelligent life to exist in it because if it wasn't, we wouldn't exist to note that the universe doesn't appear to be "fine tuned".
This doesn't require there to be multiple universes. It simply states that because we are multicellular intelligent carbon-based lifeforms the universe must be such that it can support such life.
A simpler way of explaining it is thus:
I flip a fair coin. What are the odds I get heads? 50%, right?
Now, I've flipped a coin and gotten heads. What are the odds that I got heads on this flip? Many people will say 50%, but that's incorrect - I got heads, so the odds of it are 100%.
The universe is the same way. We already flipped, so the results are known.
Yeah, except there are, conceptually, other ways that sentient life could exist. That concept still doesn't explain why we are seeing this particular instance of the universe.
Simply it'd be something like this:
Roll a d6 to determine the state of the universe. Sentient life can only exist on even numbers. A 4 is rolled.
So yes, we can look back and say, well of course an even number was rolled because we exist. That still doesn't explain why a 4 was rolled rather than a 2 or 6, or even how we managed to get so lucky that an odd wasn't rolled and that the universe contains no sentient life.
Atheists get around that problem by playing fast and loose with the concept of infinity, because it gives them a mathematical certainty, without having to justify the number they picked. Unfortunately, this infinite universe stuff comes with a a whole load of problems, which deserves it's own thread.
You should really lay off the intelligence insults towards religious people. It makes you look arrogant, and it doesn't help your argument at all.
That having been said, I retort with the obvious: No it's not supposed to be. Exactly where do you get the authority to claim that the Bible is supposed to be taken literally? Because it's convenient for your argument?
I can say it's not because the Bible makes sense and works when you can take some things in it figuratively. Sure, if taken completely literally, the Bible is wrong. But, it's not supposed to be, because it doesn't work.
Ha. I'm going to laugh if atheists ever become the dominant belief system, and then they have a bunch of stupid people making half-cooked arguments for their side. Please, just because there are some people making these stupid arguments against science, doesn't mean that's it the correct belief under the religion.
Hardly. If you actually read the story, the things which govern the "day" you're talking about weren't even created until the 4th "day." The context makes way more sense taking day to mean a "period of time" rather than 24 hours.
I'm sorry you've been misinformed on how to interpret the Bible and been slapped with dogma by a bunch of blind-faithed hellfire Christians who don't know the first thing about the truth of their own beliefs. But, you have yet to offer a true disproof of my beliefs.
Actually, until the next day they have the same predictive value with different waiting periods. One is "wait for a day" and one is "wait until the Earth is destroyed."
Not to mention falsifiability has no bearing on truth, it's dependent on technology and our senses. A million years ago, water being H2O wasn't falsifiable, but that wouldn't make it a false belief. Just because something can't be detected now, doesn't mean it's not there. Falsifiability has nothing to do with truth.
Yeah, except there are, conceptually, other ways that sentient life could exist. That concept still doesn't explain why we are seeing this particular instance of the universe.
Simply it'd be something like this:
Roll a d6 to determine the state of the universe. Sentient life can only exist on even numbers. A 4 is rolled.
So yes, we can look back and say, well of course an even number was rolled because we exist. That still doesn't explain why a 4 was rolled rather than a 2 or 6, or even how we managed to get so lucky that an odd wasn't rolled and that the universe contains no sentient life.
Atheists get around that problem by playing fast and loose with the concept of infinity, because it gives them a mathematical certainty, without having to justify the number they picked. Unfortunately, this infinite universe stuff comes with a a whole load of problems, which deserves it's own thread.
Well said.
People need to realize that a belief in science and a belief in God are not mutually exclusive.
They are not mutually exclusive, but a belief in science and a belief in Creationism are.
Ha. I'm going to laugh if atheists ever become the dominant belief system, and then they have a bunch of stupid people making half-cooked arguments for their side.
You should really lay off the intelligence insults towards non-religious people. It makes you look arrogant, and it doesn't help your argument at all.
You should really lay off the intelligence insults towards non-religious people. It makes you look arrogant, and it doesn't help your argument at all.
Oh please, you know as well as I do that I did not say that all atheists are stupid. I said I was going to laugh if the atheists become dominant have have a bunch of stupid people obscuring their good arguments with half-baked truths loosely based in science, IN CONTRAST to how it is right now.
If I was saying anything, I was saying that all atheists were quite intelligent, so don't try and twist my words, thanks.
Funny thing about that little concept. It's not purely religious. It can be applied to many things. Christians have faith that there is a God. Atheists have faith there is no God. Without some sort of faith, existence becomes meaningless in all forms, whether they be scientific or not.
I don't want to get too much into the semantics, but not all atheists make the positive claim, "no god exists." Atheism, broadly defined, is a lack of belief in gods, not a belief that no gods exist. (This, by the way, is not the same as agnosticism, which addresses a different question -- whether or not it can be known if gods exist.)
As for faith, yes, it is required for life to have any sort of meaning, to the extent that it requires a leap of faith to deny solipsism (though one can still accept solipsism as a credible possibility, while choosing to believe that it isn't true for pragmatic reasons). Once you buy into the idea that the world is real and that what your senses report (more or less) corresponds with reality, I don't think it's accurate to say faith is required find meaning in life. All that it requires is reason and/or emotion.
I don't want to get too much into the semantics, but not all atheists make the positive claim, "no god exists." Atheism, broadly defined, is a lack of belief in gods, not a belief that no gods exist. (This, by the way, is not the same as agnosticism, which addresses a different question -- whether or not it can be known if gods exist.)
As for faith, yes, it is required for life to have any sort of meaning, to the extent that it requires a leap of faith to deny solipsism (though one can still accept solipsism as a credible possibility, while choosing to believe that it isn't true for pragmatic reasons). Once you buy into the idea that the world is real and that what your senses report (more or less) corresponds with reality, I don't think it's accurate to say faith is required find meaning in life. All that it requires is reason and/or emotion.
This is getting off-topic, but that depends largely on how you define "faith," and where you draw the line between what faith is, and what it isn't.
Personally I try to use "faith" the way it's intended to be used. For example, I have faith in the people I know to be good to me, to do good for themselves, etc. It doesn't mean I have no precedent for believing so, but faith doesn't mean you "don't have evidence." I have plenty of "evidence" that they're good people to me, which is why they're my friends, and why I have "faith" in them.
Often, when Christians talk about having "faith" in God, this is the sort of faith they're referring to. Not "blind faith," belief with no evidence whatsoever, which is what some people believe faith is.
You should really lay off the intelligence insults towards religious people. It makes you look arrogant, and it doesn't help your argument at all.
Modesty is for the mediocre.
That having been said, I retort with the obvious: No it's not supposed to be. Exactly where do you get the authority to claim that the Bible is supposed to be taken literally? Because it's convenient for your argument?
Because that's what the religion has been propagating for a couple millenia.
If you tell Christians that the crucifixion of Jesus was a metaphor and never really happened, they really won't be happy with you.
I can say it's not because the Bible makes sense and works when you can take some things in it figuratively. Sure, if taken completely literally, the Bible is wrong. But, it's not supposed to be, because it doesn't work.
Ah, but people took the creation story, the story of the flood, ect. literally for millenia.
In short, you're claiming that God dwells in the gaps of human knowledge.
Ha. I'm going to laugh if atheists ever become the dominant belief system, and then they have a bunch of stupid people making half-cooked arguments for their side. Please, just because there are some people making these stupid arguments against science, doesn't mean that's it the correct belief under the religion.
Atheism isn't a belief system, which is something many people simply don't comprehend. Atheism is the lack of a belief system. Saying someone is an atheist only tells you what they don't believe, not what they DO believe.
Hardly. If you actually read the story, the things which govern the "day" you're talking about weren't even created until the 4th "day." The context makes way more sense taking day to mean a "period of time" rather than 24 hours.
I've read the story. It does indeed mean 24 hour period. The fact that there weren't "evening" and "morning" is irrelevant, and indeed directly contradicted by the text.
I'm sorry you've been misinformed on how to interpret the Bible and been slapped with dogma by a bunch of blind-faithed hellfire Christians who don't know the first thing about the truth of their own beliefs. But, you have yet to offer a true disproof of my beliefs.
Those "hellfire Christians" know more about your religion than you do, apparently.
Actually, until the next day they have the same predictive value with different waiting periods. One is "wait for a day" and one is "wait until the Earth is destroyed."
No. "Jesus will return at some indefinite time in the future" HAS no end. Period. Its indefinite by definition. That's EXACTLY what I wrote. I didn't write "until the end of the Earth". I didn't write "Until the heat death of the universe". I didn't write "Within a hundred universal oscillations". I wrote "indefinite".
In any event, "wait until the Earth is destroyed" is a bad experiment, and also depends on your definition of Earth.
Not to mention falsifiability has no bearing on truth, it's dependent on technology and our senses. A million years ago, water being H2O wasn't falsifiable, but that wouldn't make it a false belief. Just because something can't be detected now, doesn't mean it's not there. Falsifiability has nothing to do with truth.
It has bearing on information value.
Something which isn't falsifiable tells us absolutely nothing of value.
"There are invisible pink unicorns running around us all the time, but they're totally undetectable" is not falsifiable but is also worthless. It doesn't really tell us anything, and accepting it as true doesn't change anything, nor does accepting it as false.
Yeah, except there are, conceptually, other ways that sentient life could exist. That concept still doesn't explain why we are seeing this particular instance of the universe.
Simply it'd be something like this:
Roll a d6 to determine the state of the universe. Sentient life can only exist on even numbers. A 4 is rolled.
So yes, we can look back and say, well of course an even number was rolled because we exist. That still doesn't explain why a 4 was rolled rather than a 2 or 6, or even how we managed to get so lucky that an odd wasn't rolled and that the universe contains no sentient life.
Atheists get around that problem by playing fast and loose with the concept of infinity, because it gives them a mathematical certainty, without having to justify the number they picked. Unfortunately, this infinite universe stuff comes with a a whole load of problems, which deserves it's own thread.
This shows you didn't understand my post and don't really understand the anthropic principle or statistics. And please note that I did not use the word infinity, nor the concept of infinity, once in my post, therefore any claims of "playing fast and loose with the concept of infinity" must be a strawman.
You gain no useful information about the probability of your own existance from the fact that you exist, because for you to ask the question, you must exist.
There is no "playing fast and loose with infinity" here.
Religious kind are as inteligent, sensible, logic, respectful as you can be (or not).
No one knows for sure when exactly the New Testament was completed in its modern form. It is likely all of the books of the NT were written by at least 170 CE, but not necessarily in their modern form. The end of Mark, for instance, was not written when the rest of it was, and parts of John are known to be later additions (though, very interestingly, the story of the adulterous woman, while added to John centuries after the completion of the gospel, very likely was originally written down in another gospel and then later was moved to John for unknown reasons, though the original gospel has been lost as far as I know; we only know of it due to references in other writings).
However, this really has nothing to do with Irreducible Complexity, beyond "Yes, the Bible was written over the course of at least a century, and the gospels were all written over 40 years after the death of Jesus, and yes, obviously it isn't the "Word of God" or what have you or the literal truth given how much of it is demonstrably untrue."
Of course it has nothing to do with Irreducible Complexity but neither does most of this thread. I was correcting the previous poster's claims that the Bible was accurately copied by scribes.
This isn't directed at you, it's just a general question:
If something is Irreducibly Complex and therefore created does this mean that god would need a creator?
As for the anthropic principle, when you combine it with natural selection, you really do get a pretty satisfactory explanation for how our incredibly complex universe came to be as we now perceive it. There are likely billions of billions of planets in our universe alone (never mind the possibility of a multiverse) that fall within the parameters necessary to support life. Suppose there is a 1-in-a-billion chance of life developing on any one of them. Now, to us, 1-in-a-billion odds are practically impossible. But given a billion billion opportunities, on average, we're looking at a billion planets in our universe where life has evolved. The fact that we are thinking about it means that, of course, we are fortunate enough to have won the astronomical lotto and find ourselves on the one planet in a billion that life evolved on. Given this scenario, the need for a supernatural explanation for reality disappears. It is an uneccessary hypothesis, the kind of thing that we usually apply Ockam's razor to. Once we figured out a little bit more about atmosphere and weather, we no longer needed to explain thunder as the sound of Thor's chariot rolling by. To say that a supernatural entity who has always existed and always will exist finally decided at some point in the "middle" of infinity to create reality is a lazy shrug of the shoulders ("Um, I don't know, and I don't want to think too hard about it anymore -- God must've done it.") If reality was designed, the designer would have to be even more complex than the things designed, and that brings us to the question, how did such a complex designer get here? Who designed God? God does not stop the ongoing problem of infinite regress, he only delays it long enough for us to wonder who created God.
If something is Irreducibly Complex and therefore created does this mean that god would need a creator?
Indeed. This has been referred to as the "floating skyhook" problem.
Modesty is for the mediocre.
Better make sure you don't belong in that group then.
Because that's what the religion has been propagating for a couple millenia.
Oh and CLEARLY duration of belief has a bearing on truth. Well by that reasoning I guess science says that water is an element, since that's what they've believe for millenia. Please...I know you're smart enough to see through that.
If you tell Christians that the crucifixion of Jesus was a metaphor and never really happened, they really won't be happy with you.
Probably not, good thing I'm not saying that.
Ah, but people took the creation story, the story of the flood, ect. literally for millenia.
In short, you're claiming that God dwells in the gaps of human knowledge.
Same fallacy as above, duration of a belief or doctrine has no bearing on it's truth.
And no, I'm saying that knowing something doesn't take God out of it. Who's to say God isn't science itself?
Atheism isn't a belief system, which is something many people simply don't comprehend. Atheism is the lack of a belief system. Saying someone is an atheist only tells you what they don't believe, not what they DO believe.
Yeah I've heard that before to. Semantics aside: a belief in nothing is still a belief. It does tell you what they believe (religiously): nothing. That is all encompassing. Atheism tells you from the very get go that they DO believe is nothing.
I've read the story. It does indeed mean 24 hour period. The fact that there weren't "evening" and "morning" is irrelevant, and indeed directly contradicted by the text.
Here let me fix that for you:
NUH UH!!!!!
There we go.
You basically offered no counterargument.
I argued: I can't be a 24 hour day because 4 of those "days" went by before the concept of a 24 hour day could have even existed.
You responded: No it WAS a 24 hour day.
Please try again.
Those "hellfire Christians" know more about your religion than you do, apparently.
Ah another classic fallacy in arguing. When you don't have a retort, insult your opponent on an unfounded basis.
Apparently not, because my interpretation makes sense, and is still consistent with the principles of my religion, whereas there's is not.
No. "Jesus will return at some indefinite time in the future" HAS no end. Period. Its indefinite by definition. That's EXACTLY what I wrote. I didn't write "until the end of the Earth". I didn't write "Until the heat death of the universe". I didn't write "Within a hundred universal oscillations". I wrote "indefinite".
In any event, "wait until the Earth is destroyed" is a bad experiment, and also depends on your definition of Earth.
Since Jesus' return is based on the existence of humanity, there is an endpoint. It's not indefinite. "Wait until humanity is destroyed." works just as well.
It has bearing on information value.
Something which isn't falsifiable tells us absolutely nothing of value.
Now your arguing abstract ideas. That depends on an individuals idea on what is valuable. Ask any economist about value. Value, as a whole, can't be measured. I consider the unfalsifiable belief in God to have immense value, as do a great deal of other people. You may not, but that doesn't mean the information, as a whole, is worthless.
"There are invisible pink unicorns running around us all the time, but they're totally undetectable" is not falsifiable but is also worthless. It doesn't really tell us anything, and accepting it as true doesn't change anything, nor does accepting it as false.
Yeah well, good thing Christianity doesn't tell us nothing. You can accept the gift of salvation to get to be in paradise forever after death is something that has impact to a person, and it changes quite a bit. Maybe not for this life, but then Christianity argues that's not all that matters. If you're view is limited to this life, then yeah, you're argument holds, and make perfect sense.
This shows you didn't understand my post and don't really understand the anthropic principle or statistics. And please note that I did not use the word infinity, nor the concept of infinity, once in my post, therefore any claims of "playing fast and loose with the concept of infinity" must be a strawman.
I was talking about atheists on the whole, not just you. Although I'm not fully surprised that you weren't able to extend your view past that. However, most atheists I've talked to have given me the "infinite universes" crap.
You gain no useful information about the probability of your own existance from the fact that you exist, because for you to ask the question, you must exist.
I get that, but that principle fails to take into account the probability of other options with intelligent life. It doesn't explain why life is like it is, rather than some other way.
This isn't directed at you, it's just a general question:
If something is Irreducibly Complex and therefore created does this mean that god would need a creator?
Well, beside the fact that IC doesn't really work, we'll take it as a given right now.
At some point, everyone from the most atheistic scientists to the most fundamentally religious have to assume that something has always existed, that something exists without having been created.
Oh and CLEARLY duration of belief has a bearing on truth. Well by that reasoning I guess science says that water is an element, since that's what they've believe for millenia. Please...I know you're smart enough to see through that.
I never said duration of belief has a bearing on truth. Also, science functions differently from religion; religion operates on faith, whereas science does not. Religion does not believe it can be wrong; science knows it often is and, in fact, is in and of itself an iterative mechanism for better learning the truth.
Probably not, good thing I'm not saying that.
Why not?
You're claiming other arbitrary parts of the Bible which contain supernatural phenomena which were previously believed to be literally true to be metaphorical in nature, why not Jesus's death and ressurection itself?
Answer: denial.
And no, I'm saying that knowing something doesn't take God out of it. Who's to say God isn't science itself?
I dunno, the English language?
God is a supernatural being.
Science isn't a being, nor supernatural.
Semantics aside: a belief in nothing is still a belief.
Incorrect. By your claim, baldness is a hair color.
Or I could simply define Christianity as not believing in Shiva, Thor, Zeus, ect.
You basically offered no counterargument.
Incorrect.
You claimed that "yom" in the genesis story doesn't refer to "day".
I pointed out that this was blatently false, and gave evidence why: context. It says "evening" and "morning", and uses that in conjunction with yom.
You see, your problem is that you didn't actually read the text. Evening and morning clearly give context. You claimed there was no such thing as evening and morning at that point, but the text clearly and explicitly uses those terms in conjunction with yom.
In short, you're wrong, and you have erected no viable counterargument to my point that the context is clear and that evening and morning in conjunction with yom clearly means that yom = 24 hour period.
Since Jesus' return is based on the existence of humanity, there is an endpoint. It's not indefinite. "Wait until humanity is destroyed." works just as well.
This is not a viable experiment. Who says mankind will ever be destroyed?
And more to the point, without an observer...
Now your arguing abstract ideas. That depends on an individuals idea on what is valuable. Ask any economist about value. Value, as a whole, can't be measured.
Two points:
1) You don't understand economics. Value in economics can be measured, and indeed very often IS measured. Read about value in economics before you make such absurd claims. Value is simply how much someone is willing to give up in exchange for a product or service. This is very easily measured, and people do it all the time.
2) You don't understand English. The word "value" has multiple meanings, and I clearly did not mean economic value. People make scads of money off of religion, so clearly, selling religion has economic value. I meant value as in importance/significance. A non-falsifiable statement is valueless because it doesn't tell us anything by definition. It doesn't give us any useful information, and thus has no value because it doesn't make any predictions about the world.
You can accept the gift of salvation to get to be in paradise forever after death is something that has impact to a person, and it changes quite a bit. Maybe not for this life, but then Christianity argues that's not all that matters. If you're view is limited to this life, then yeah, you're argument holds, and make perfect sense.
There isn't evidence of an afterlife, and indeed, there is reason to believe there isn't one. However, there is evidence of this life. Because you are sacrificing something (your time, energy, reason, ability to make as much money as possible, ect.) for nothing, I come out ahead.
I was talking about atheists on the whole, not just you. Although I'm not fully surprised that you weren't able to extend your view past that. However, most atheists I've talked to have given me the "infinite universes" crap.
If it has nothing to do with me, there is no reason to bring it up as part of an argument with me.
I get that, but that principle fails to take into account the probability of other options with intelligent life. It doesn't explain why life is like it is, rather than some other way.
The probability of you having existed is irrelevant to the anthropic principle, and indeed that's exactly what it points out. You DO exist, therefore the probability of you having existed is irrelevant and unknowable from simple self observation.
Like what specifically? Anatta, kharma, nirvana...there are no scientific foundations for these. Its parent religion, Hinduism, was invented as a way for light-skinned men from the Persian region to control the darker-skinned people living in and around the subcontinent. What's scientific about that? That's exactly what I'm talking about: mysticism enslaves people, reason frees them.
Two types of main styles of buddism...
One with everything...
One with nothing...
Also...you are fairly off on Hinduism, which was based of off Dravidianism and is the oldest recorded religion in the world. What I listed for buddism are just two examples... and Sunyata is another...if you do not see the relation I will pm you or something and we can discuss it more.
=P
There isn't evidence of an afterlife, and indeed, there is reason to believe there isn't one. However, there is evidence of this life. Because you are sacrificing something (your time, energy, reason, ability to make as much money as possible, ect.) for nothing, I come out ahead.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I am sorry but there is some form of afterlife...regardless of whether we can comprehend it.
I honestly believe there to be truth in religion. The problem is its been through so many hands it is hard to find the kernel of truth here and there. From everything I have read religion is compatible with science. Problem is...some religious people are very close minded...as are some scientist. Regardless there are individuals who will think out side of the box...be called crack pots...and later...just maybe some find that this or that crack pot was right...or just crazy.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I am sorry but there is some form of afterlife...regardless of whether we can comprehend it.
Nice arguement from Ignorance. Where's your evidence.
What type of "energy" are you saying exist of humans after their death. And if you say Soul or Spiritual Energy, then you, of course, must be able to tell us how that energy is measured since Energy is a scientific term used in reference to measurements not a thing, despite the Alt. Med. attempts to change it.
So, what are we measuring?
Also...you are fairly off on Hinduism, which was based of off Dravidianism and is the oldest recorded religion in the world.
Right, the caste system is just an illusion. Does that make it one with everything...or nothing?
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I am sorry but there is some form of afterlife...regardless of whether we can comprehend it.
That's absolutely ridiculous. The energy you speak of just bio-electrical energy or metabolic energy. It is produced by our body when we consume resources, and it is expended every second. We die when our bodies break down and stop producing this energy so that it can no longer be expended.
None of life or death involves the creation or destruction of energy. Energy is just converted from one form to another.
Semi-Related Fun Fact: The notion that hair and fingernails continue to grow after death is pure myth. What actually happens is that the skin loses moisture and tightens, producing the illusion that the hair and fingernails are longer than they were before death.
This post is rather long and quotes multiple people, so I thought I'd list them here so they can pay particular attention to this post:
Titanium Dragon
Encara
Maulorn
Titanium Dragon, you're up first.
Modesty is for the mediocre.
Some of the greatest minds in history were had by modest people. I suppose they were all "mediocre?"
Modesty and mediocrity are in the eyes of the beholders. Be careful you aren't beholden in the eyes of others as mere mediocrity, regardless of your "lack of modesty."
And further, to lack modesty, you must have something with which you can lack modesty in. An idiot who thinks he's smart is simply an idiot who thinks he's smart; not a man who "lacks modesty." I'm not calling you unintelligent, simply showing where your logic fails in this case.
Quote:
That having been said, I retort with the obvious: No it's not supposed to be. Exactly where do you get the authority to claim that the Bible is supposed to be taken literally? Because it's convenient for your argument?
Because that's what the religion has been propagating for a couple millenia.
This not only falls in the realm of argumentum ad populum (a logical fallacy), it simply isn't verifiable.
If you tell Christians that the crucifixion of Jesus was a metaphor and never really happened, they really won't be happy with you.
It's funny that you say this, because I've had a few Christians tell me exactly that. You seem very unfamiliar with Gnosticism and several other Christian traditions. Further, you're falling prey to another "logical fallacy" of sorts (albeit an informal one): anecdotal evidence.
Ah, but people took the creation story, the story of the flood, ect. literally for millenia.
Did they? Again, your saying it's true doesn't make it so. Some (not many, granted) historians believe that taking such stories literally has been relatively recent phenomena. Again, I point out Gnostic Christianity.
Atheism isn't a belief system, which is something many people simply don't comprehend. Atheism is the lack of a belief system. Saying someone is an atheist only tells you what they don't believe, not what they DO believe.
Just wanted to point out to everyone else that what TD says here is true. I know his vitriolic online personality makes it difficult to agree with him, but this bit right here is absolutely positively 100% true. Don't try to argue it down just because you don't like TD. That'd be a mistake, because I'll argue right alongside TD on this point right back at you.
I've read the story. It does indeed mean 24 hour period. The fact that there weren't "evening" and "morning" is irrelevant, and indeed directly contradicted by the text.
My money says you read the story in English. Double or nothing says you read the King James translated version, which is a notoriously bad translation.
Those "hellfire Christians" know more about your religion than you do, apparently.
You have absolutely no authority to say this, TD. This is an example of creating a straw man, which is disingenuous. Further, it's an example of poisoning the well and hasty generalization. Finally, it's anecdotal, yet again.
Encara, you're up next.
Not to mention falsifiability has no bearing on truth, it's dependent on technology and our senses. A million years ago, water being H2O wasn't falsifiable, but that wouldn't make it a false belief. Just because something can't be detected now, doesn't mean it's not there. Falsifiability has nothing to do with truth.
Actually, water being H2O has always been falsifiable. However, long enough ago we simply didn't have the methods to discover it.
Falsifiability just means, "Is there any way to show that this isn't the case?" Or, taken differently, "Is it possible to show otherwise?"
There has never been a time where water being H20 wasn't falsifiable. There has been a time, however, where it simply wasn't discoverable.
Atheists get around that problem by playing fast and loose with the concept of infinity, because it gives them a mathematical certainty, without having to justify the number they picked. Unfortunately, this infinite universe stuff comes with a a whole load of problems, which deserves it's own thread.
No. Simply no. An atheist is, and is only, someone who holds no belief in a god-concept. That is the beginning and the end of atheism. I've met atheists that believe in ghosts or at least consider the possibility (my wife and both of my brothers instantly come to mind, in fact). Buddhists, for example, are atheists who believe in Nirvana, Karma, a vague "soul" concept, etc. You're committing a hasty generalization, here.
Also, if you're talking strictly about physicalists/materialists, I don't know of any (personally) that posit an "infinite" universe. I'm not denying their existence, just that I don't know of any.
Same fallacy as above, duration of a belief or doctrine has no bearing on it's truth.
This. +1.
And no, I'm saying that knowing something doesn't take God out of it. Who's to say God isn't science itself?
Occam's Razor, but Spinoza disagrees.
Yeah I've heard that before to.
Well get used to hearing it, because you'll hear a lot of it in this thread if you continue to posit anything other than that definition.
Semantics aside: a belief in nothing is still a belief.
Certainly. However, atheism is not a belief in "nothing." It is not a belief in a very specific thing: a god or gods. Saying atheism is a belief in "nothing" is like saying not believing in Santa Claus is a belief in nothing.
It does tell you what they believe (religiously): nothing.
No it doesn't. Here's a list of religions that either explicitly include atheists, only, as a rule, or that are clearly dominated by atheists:
Taoism
Shintoism
Confucianism
Buddhism
LaVeyan Satanism
And I know I'm forgetting some. And those are only religions. Many people consider animists to be "religious" (they are certainly spiritual) and they're yet another example of atheists.
That is all encompassing. Atheism tells you from the very get go that they DO believe is nothing.
Bollocks. Pure bollocks. I'm an atheist, and I believe in lots of things. This is a flat-out insult to me and others like me. I believe in my wife, I believe in my marriage, I believe in my friendships, and I believe in my family. I believe I'm sitting in a chair typing up this message. I believe I exist, and I believe that I have the capacity to think. I believe I graduated high school and I believe I have the diploma to prove it.
That doesn't even scratch the surface on the number of things that I believe.
I was talking about atheists on the whole, not just you. Although I'm not fully surprised that you weren't able to extend your view past that. However, most atheists I've talked to have given me the "infinite universes" crap.
Anecdotal evidence. If your argument is to hold, then you must also accept TD's argument that all Christians are of the damning, bigoted, "hellfire" type, which both of us know is clearly untrue.
Now please retract your meaningless, fallacious, and insulting statement.
Maulorn, your turn.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I am sorry but there is some form of afterlife...regardless of whether we can comprehend it.
What you mean to say is that you believe that there is some form of afterlife. I don't care that you believe this; you can have that belief, it doesn't affect me. Just please be careful not to tout it as some kind of fact. The way you stated it, starting with, "I am sorry but.." has a condescending tone. I'm not offended or trying to be mean to you, I'm just letting you know, so that you don't get off on the wrong foot with anyone else.
Also, that you believe there is an afterlife has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed. That bit was totally irrelevant, and only added to the condescending "feel" of your following text.
Final Notes:
I apologize in advance if I came off rather "harsh" or intimidating to some posters. I saw a lot of things I felt were being misrepresented and/or needed correction, and sometimes I get a little passionate in these things.
As I've admitted earlier in this post, I'm an atheist. I was hoping this wouldn't come out, because I want people to judge my arguments strictly on the basis of the arguments themselves, but alas, it did indeed come out. Some of you will handwave away my arguments because of this; that's fine, it only means you are a lost cause, and we simply won't deal with each other in the future.
Here's a fun fact, though. Just as not all black people are the same, not all gays are the same, not all Americans are the same, etc; not all atheists are the same. TD and I are very different people (as I'm sure he'll agree) and rarely agree on anything (with a few exceptions; notably that we probably agree that we disagree often xD).
I like to think that I'm more likable, though posts like this one have me worry that people will judge me as too critical, and perhaps I am. I don't mean to have a harsh tone, but it happens sometimes.
In any case, argue on.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I am sorry but there is some form of afterlife...regardless of whether we can comprehend it.
Well, first off, it is matter energy which cannot be created or destroyed. You can convert one into the other, or vice-versa.
Second, and perhaps more to the point, this is garbage. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Guess what? Dying doesn't involve any energy being created or destroyed.
Indeed, you don't lose energy to some unknown place when you die, which indicates that no, there isn't an afterlife for -exactly this reason-. We know where all the matter energy is - in your decomposing corpse.
Some of the greatest minds in history were had by modest people. I suppose they were all "mediocre?"
I never said that all modest people were mediocre. I simply said that it is for the mediocre.
The point is that I'm not modest because there's no reason for me to be. False modesty is bad, and obsfucating your points is worse. I'd rather be frank, insulting, and easily understood.
This not only falls in the realm of argumentum ad populum (a logical fallacy), it simply isn't verifiable.
You're arguing that I cannot verify that the Christian religion has been propagating a literal understanding of the Bible for a couple millenia?
This is readily verifiable via examinations of past decrees by Christians, writings by them, ect. Just read a history book if you're too lazy to bother.
I'm sorry, arguing that it isn't verifiable is outright bizzare. It is readily verified via documents written at the time.
It's funny that you say this, because I've had a few Christians tell me exactly that. You seem very unfamiliar with Gnosticism and several other Christian traditions. Further, you're falling prey to another "logical fallacy" of sorts (albeit an informal one): anecdotal evidence.
First off, Gnosticism died over a thousand years ago, even if some of the heresy still remains (though not nearly as much as Marcion). Second, when you make a generic statement about a group, typically you're saying "most", and you can assume they're saying "most". That's the way the English language works. Third, anecdotal evidence is not a logical fallacy, its a weakness of information; anecdotal evidence is simply a very weak form of evidence and it is invalid to generalize from it most of the time. Its not a logical fallacy so much as a very weak argument. However, the point wasn't anecdotal evidence at all; it was really more of a suggested experiment as well as a rhetorical statement.
Did they? Again, your saying it's true doesn't make it so. Some (not many, granted) historians believe that taking such stories literally has been relatively recent phenomena. Again, I point out Gnostic Christianity.
Read documents from the Middle Ages, treasties on biology, ect. Read about catastrophism and the emergence of modern geology and biology.
Biblical literalism is not at all new, and the idea that it is is quite silly and was invented by modern apologists who wanted to make their religion look less stupid.
My money says you read the story in English. Double or nothing says you read the King James translated version, which is a notoriously bad translation.
Wrong on both counts, interstingly. I actually bothered to look up the original Hebrew because I wanted to prove my point (though I don't understand hebrew, so I had to rely on a dictionary and commentary from several soruces). The easier to read English translation I'm most familiar with isn't the KJV, either. Why I don't have a KJV bible I don't know, but I have some other translation, the name of which I'm too lazy to look up at 4:50 am. If you care, I can look it up some other time. I rather prefer the KJV wording of the creation story, though, as I feel it is more poetic; my translation is kind of... dull.
Gnosticism has some neat stuff in it and I think it is very valid to look at and take into account. Not saying that you should believe everything you read...cause that would be dumb.
I just feel that it is our lineage. There are so many parallels between all religions...Christianity, Buddism, Islam, Judaism, Bacchic and Dionysiac Rites, Eleusinian Mysteries, Asar-Hapi Mysteries, Cult of Mithras, Zarathustra, Tammuz and Ishtar, list goes on and on...
Our ancestors possessed a more intuitive knowledge then what we possess today. While a lot of these stories seem fantastic in religion they contained multiple hidden meanings.
I think the whole reason early religions and philosophies came about was for man to become aware and consciously be reunited with the divine source of himself without tasting physical dissolution.
I never said duration of belief has a bearing on truth.
Um...
Because that's what the religion has been propagating for a couple millenia.
What is this supposed to mean then?
Also, science functions differently from religion; religion operates on faith, whereas science does not. Religion does not believe it can be wrong; science knows it often is and, in fact, is in and of itself an iterative mechanism for better learning the truth.
You are only partially correct. Religion (or at least Christianity), operates on faith and knowledge. Even the Bible describes knowledge as a necessary and critical part of the growth of a person's spirituality.
Religion may not believe that it is wrong most of the time, but then again religion doesn't make that many claims about the universe's functionality.
Why not?
You're claiming other arbitrary parts of the Bible which contain supernatural phenomena which were previously believed to be literally true to be metaphorical in nature, why not Jesus's death and ressurection itself?
Hey, here's a shockingly obvious point for you:
The Bible's metaphorical or literal nature isn't a boolean variable!!!!
OMG REALLY?
Just in case you aren't familiar with "boolean":
The Bible metaphorical-ness is not either "all metaphorical" or "all literal." It changes and varies at times, and it's up to the reader to figure that out. I know it's not easy, and I'm sorry that reading actually requires effort in this case, but that's how it works.
God is a supernatural being.
Says who? Just cause he hasn't been explained yet, doesn't mean it's impossible.
Incorrect. By your claim, baldness is a hair color.
Or I could simply define Christianity as not believing in Shiva, Thor, Zeus, ect.
Fair enough, I see your point.
Incorrect.
You claimed that "yom" in the genesis story doesn't refer to "day".
Yup.
I pointed out that this was blatently false, and gave evidence why: context. It says "evening" and "morning", and uses that in conjunction with yom.
And I gave a counter argument. Your interpretation of the context is flawed. While I don't happen to know the Hebrew word for "evening" and "morning" there, it doesn't change the fact that without the day and night established in the 4th "day," "evening" and "morning" are just as ambiguous as "day" is. There was no such thing as a 24 hour day, so I couldn't have existed.
You see, your problem is that you didn't actually read the text.
Wow, I actually laughed out loud at this. Seriously?
Evening and morning clearly give context. You claimed there was no such thing as evening and morning at that point, but the text clearly and explicitly uses those terms in conjunction with yom.
See above.
In short, you're wrong, and you have erected no viable counterargument to my point that the context is clear and that evening and morning in conjunction with yom clearly means that yom = 24 hour period.
And I just showed how the context isn't clear.
1) You don't understand economics. Value in economics can be measured, and indeed very often IS measured. Read about value in economics before you make such absurd claims. Value is simply how much someone is willing to give up in exchange for a product or service. This is very easily measured, and people do it all the time.
Actually I do, and you missed my point (hopefully not intentionally). Economists give theoretical value to things. Yes they can attempt to measure it, but whatever criterion they use never fully encompasses how people value things.
For instance: Economists sometimes measure the value of something by it's practical use.
The ashes of a dead family member serve no practical use, yet people find them highly valuable.
Value (as a whole) goes beyond monetary value, as you suggest.
2) You don't understand English.
Another lol-worthy statement.
The word "value" has multiple meanings, and I clearly did not mean economic value. People make scads of money off of religion, so clearly, selling religion has economic value. I meant value as in importance/significance. A non-falsifiable statement is valueless because it doesn't tell us anything by definition. It doesn't give us any useful information, and thus has no value because it doesn't make any predictions about the world.
That's blatantly not true. If I say, "Hey if you don't play D&D today, you'll die tomorrow." That's not falsifiable. You can experiment and prove that wrong other than waiting.
Of course, you'll probably argue that waiting until tomorrow is the falsifiable part. Well, in that case:
If you believe in God, and accept Jesus' salvation, you'll go to heaven.
By your definition, that statement is also falsifiable because all you have to do is wait until you die.
Now, if you're going to say it's worthless because it gives no predictions for this life, then that's just your atheist bias showing. That's you being unable to expand your view past this life.
There isn't evidence of an afterlife, and indeed, there is reason to believe there isn't one.
Oh really? What reason is that, and how is it more viable than a reason to believe there is one?
However, there is evidence of this life. Because you are sacrificing something (your time, energy, reason, ability to make as much money as possible, ect.) for nothing, I come out ahead.
And who says that my spending that time, reason, and money isn't worth it outside of a religious context.
I'm filled with great pride and joy when I can make someone else's life better. Are you saying that you'll live a better life than me because you never wasted your time doing these things?
If it has nothing to do with me, there is no reason to bring it up as part of an argument with me.
Well, at the time, I didn't know for sure that it had nothing to do with you.
The probability of you having existed is irrelevant to the anthropic principle, and indeed that's exactly what it points out. You DO exist, therefore the probability of you having existed is irrelevant and unknowable from simple self observation.
You keep missing the point. The point that I'm making isn't that I do exist. It's about how I exist. It's that I exist in this form and not one of the myriad of other conceptually possible forms that sentient life could have taken.
Encara, you're up next.
*Get's out his D&D soundtrack and queues the battle music* ;)
Actually, water being H2O has always been falsifiable. However, long enough ago we simply didn't have the methods to discover it.
Falsifiability just means, "Is there any way to show that this isn't the case?" Or, taken differently, "Is it possible to show otherwise?"
There has never been a time where water being H20 wasn't falsifiable. There has been a time, however, where it simply wasn't discoverable.
Oh well, that was actually sort of my point, although it takes a different bend to get there.
Sure, in that case I'll simply claim that God's existence isn't falsifiable, it just isn't discoverable so far.
Occam's Razor, but Spinoza disagrees.
Hmm, interesting. I had never read Spinoza's philosophy before now. I don't think I'd go quite as far as he did with "substance," but it's certainly an interesting philosophy.
Where Occam's Razor is concerned:
Can you explain to me how my explanation is less simple than the alternative?
Anecdotal evidence. If your argument is to hold, then you must also accept TD's argument that all Christians are of the damning, bigoted, "hellfire" type, which both of us know is clearly untrue.
Well I never meant to make the claim that all atheists believe that. Still, I see your point.
Also, if it seems like a deleted a lot, that's because I already withdrew the statement you were referring to.
But, still I'd like to address this:
I'm an atheist, and I believe in lots of things. This is a flat-out insult to me and others like me. I believe in my wife, I believe in my marriage, I believe in my friendships, and I believe in my family.
Okay, I tried to make a point about this, perhaps it wasn't clear enough. But, I was speaking religiously, not about ALL aspects of life when I said that (despite the fact that I withdrew the statement anyway).
I believe I'm sitting in a chair typing up this message. I believe I exist, and I believe that I have the capacity to think. I believe I graduated high school and I believe I have the diploma to prove it.
And these are facts, not beliefs.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I am sorry but there is some form of afterlife...regardless of whether we can comprehend it.
Bollocks. Humans are not energy (well, beyond the fact that matter and energy are the same thing).
We die, we rot. Out matter dissipates and we are consumed. There is nor more an afterlife for us than a deer is an afterlife for grass.
Until our understanding is complete there is no way to tell. You can guess that all that happens is we rot are broken down by microbes or you can guess that we may retain some semblance of sentience and go on to something else...maybe even something else. Yet as it sits we really don't know much...
I cannot wait to see the sorts of things the new Large Hadron Collider turns up...
And I gave a counter argument. Your interpretation of the context is flawed. While I don't happen to know the Hebrew word for "evening" and "morning" there, it doesn't change the fact that without the day and night established in the 4th "day," "evening" and "morning" are just as ambiguous as "day" is. There was no such thing as a 24 hour day, so I couldn't have existed.
Here is Merriam-Webster's definition of "morning:"
Main Entry:
morn·ing Listen to the pronunciation of morning
Pronunciation:
\ˈmȯr-niŋ\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from morn + -ing (as in evening)
Date:
13th century
1 a: dawn b: the time from sunrise to noon c: the time from midnight to noon
2: a period of first development : beginning
Here is the definition of "evening:"
Main Entry:
1eve·ning Listen to the pronunciation of 1evening
Pronunciation:
\ˈēv-niŋ\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English ǣfnung, from ǣfnian to grow toward evening, from ǣfen evening; akin to Old High German āband evening and perhaps to Greek epi on
Date:
before 12th century
1 a: the latter part and close of the day and early part of the night bchiefly Southern & Midland : afternoon c: the period from sunset or the evening meal to bedtime
2: the latter portion
3: the period of an evening's entertainment
Of course I don't know Hebrew and right now don't have the time to look up how those words were translated but this should be enough to get you started with some support.
Here is Merriam-Webster's definition of "morning:"
Main Entry:
morn·ing Listen to the pronunciation of morning
Pronunciation:
\ˈmȯr-niŋ\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from morn + -ing (as in evening)
Date:
13th century
1 a: dawn b: the time from sunrise to noon c: the time from midnight to noon
2: a period of first development : beginning
Here is the definition of "evening:"
Main Entry:
1eve·ning Listen to the pronunciation of 1evening
Pronunciation:
\ˈēv-niŋ\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English ǣfnung, from ǣfnian to grow toward evening, from ǣfen evening; akin to Old High German āband evening and perhaps to Greek epi on
Date:
before 12th century
1 a: the latter part and close of the day and early part of the night bchiefly Southern & Midland : afternoon c: the period from sunset or the evening meal to bedtime
2: the latter portion
3: the period of an evening's entertainment
Of course I don't know Hebrew and right now don't have the time to look up how those words were translated but this should be enough to get you started with some support.
Huh...I really should start reading the dictionary or something, I always get surprised by these alternate definitions.
Until our understanding is complete there is no way to tell. You can guess that all that happens is we rot are broken down by microbes or you can guess that we may retain some semblance of sentience and go on to something else...maybe even something else. Yet as it sits we really don't know much...
So then why assume some mystical, fantasy explanation?
So then why assume some mystical, fantasy explanation?
What makes it mystical and fantastic? Because you don't understand it? Isn't that the point of his post?
So then why assume some mystical, fantasy explanation?
It just falls into the unknown category...what you must understand that when it comes to things that cannot be observed there is guess work involved. It is a strong point of being human that lets us use our imagination and intellect to theorize and philosophize the unknown...sometimes we get it right...other times it is only partial...and other times it is completely wrong.
We still don't even know why a magnet sticks to the fridge. We still have a long way to go and if we don't destroy ourselves we will get there in time. All I know is we would not be where we are today without the philosophy of theology.
What makes it mystical and fantastic?
That fact it relies on mysticism and fantasy.
Because you don't understand it?
No. I understand it. Not believing mystic BS ≠ not understanding it.
Isn't that the point of his post?
Just cos we do not know something does not make all possible explanations equally possible or valid. One can safely dismiss fantasy from any rational argument. I may not know what is beyond a closed door but I can, with 100% surety, know that it is not a dragon.
It may be a bad example but fantasy can have truth to it.
I do get what you are trying to say...and all I am trying to say is that mysticism can have truth to it. Consider the value ancient people held in the solstices. It may have gotten some fantastic stories and there was a lot of mysticism tied to it. People also tended to hide ideas in allegories of these fantastic or mystical stories, whose secrets may have been lost through the passing of time, yet the story is still around.
We emit electromagnetic radiation
Can we detect all possible wavelengths?
Dragons came about because people found fossils of dinosaurs...
There is no proof of this. I myself think it a likely scenario, but there is not a single shreed of proof.
It may be a bad example but fantasy can have truth to it.
I do get what you are trying to say...and all I am trying to say is that mysticism can have truth to it. Consider the value ancient people held in the solstices. It may have gotten some fantastic stories and there was a lot of mysticism tied to it. People also tended to hide ideas in allegories of these fantastic or mystical stories, whose secrets may have been lost through the passing of time, yet the story is still around.
Doesn't mean the story is true, and it doesn't mean that every bit of nonsense rubbish labeled as fantasy is equally valid. Saying "I don't know what happens so I'm going to make up some
that has no basis in fact, science or reality" simply has no credibility or merit. It is better to admit ignorance of something then to create bigger, better, grander mounds of ignorance to hide the first bit behind. That's all the mystical life-after-death nonsense is, really - a gigantic steaming pile of collective ignorance designed to hide all the little insignificant personal ignorances.
The problem is...it could...
Consider the virgin birth. This concept has appeared many times in many forms, yet there is reality to it as it happens like clockwork every year.
There is some seemingly simple stuff that science cannot explain. Like magnetism...
What in science supports no life after death? In your opinion of course.
That fact it relies on mysticism and fantasy.
Which rely on the subject matter being false, which is completely unproven, so your assertion is flawed.
Just cos we do not know something does not make all possible explanations equally possible or valid. One can safely dismiss fantasy from any rational argument. I may not know what is beyond a closed door but I can, with 100% surety, know that it is not a dragon.
That's not true. You asserting with that statement that you know for certain that every species of creature in the entire universe has been discovered and what they are, which is most certainly not true.
You have to be able to prove that it doesn't exist, and saying "It hasn't been found." is not proof, only evidence.
Dying and death will be a unknown for some time.
Dying and death aren't very mysterious. We've observed many things, including humans, dying. We understand brain death, organ failure, cell death, ect.
I just feel that it is our lineage. There are so many parallels between all religions...Christianity, Buddism, Islam, Judaism, Bacchic and Dionysiac Rites, Eleusinian Mysteries, Asar-Hapi Mysteries, Cult of Mithras, Zarathustra, Tammuz and Ishtar, list goes on and on...
No more than would be expected.
And a lot of the "universiality" is due to stealing ideas from other religions. Why does Christianity resemble mystery religions such as Mithraism? Because it is itself a mystery religion and stole stuff from them. When you list a bunch of mystery religions, you're going to see that they're similar.
The idea that the similarities are "remarkable" is silly when you know WHY they're similar. Its like being suprised that Judaism and Christianity share a religious text.
What is this supposed to mean then?
It means that Christianity has been propagating it for two millenia, and it is thus a part of the Christian belief structure.
Religion may not believe that it is wrong most of the time, but then again religion doesn't make that many claims about the universe's functionality.
It makes tons of claims. For instance, the existance of a God and an afterlife.
The Bible metaphorical-ness is not either "all metaphorical" or "all literal." It changes and varies at times, and it's up to the reader to figure that out. I know it's not easy, and I'm sorry that reading actually requires effort in this case, but that's how it works.
People claimed the bible was literally true for centuries. As more and more of it was proven to be false, more and more of it was claimed to be metaphorical.
In short, its just a form of the God of the Gaps.
And I gave a counter argument. Your interpretation of the context is flawed. While I don't happen to know the Hebrew word for "evening" and "morning" there, it doesn't change the fact that without the day and night established in the 4th "day," "evening" and "morning" are just as ambiguous as "day" is. There was no such thing as a 24 hour day, so I couldn't have existed.
Day is being used as a unit of time, a 24 hour period. The context is very clear. That's why you say it that way, to make sure it isn't misinterpreted.
Language is dependent on context, and they didn't use the words for day, evening, and morning together by sheer happenstance - they did it to be clear.
Actually I do, and you missed my point (hopefully not intentionally). Economists give theoretical value to things. Yes they can attempt to measure it, but whatever criterion they use never fully encompasses how people value things.
For instance: Economists sometimes measure the value of something by it's practical use.
The ashes of a dead family member serve no practical use, yet people find them highly valuable.
Value (as a whole) goes beyond monetary value, as you suggest.
So in short, you're agreeing that you don't understand economics.
I already explained what value was in economics, and then you proceeded to babble out, not understand what value in economics means, and then demonstrate ignorance by claiming the ashes of a dead family member hold no value, when clearly people are willing to trade things in exchange for them.
If you believe in God, and accept Jesus' salvation, you'll go to heaven.
By your definition, that statement is also falsifiable because all you have to do is wait until you die.
Incorrect. It isn't empirically verifiable; therefore it isn't falsifiable.
Now, if you're going to say it's worthless because it gives no predictions for this life, then that's just your atheist bias showing. That's you being unable to expand your view past this life.
No, that's me not being gullible. There is no evidence for an afterlife, your belief in it is entirely arbitrary, and the reason for your belief is that your mind was unable to reject conditioning by percieved authority figures.
Oh really? What reason is that, and how is it more viable than a reason to believe there is one?
Because despite looking for ages, we haven't found a soul or anything similar. In fact, all we've found is complex bioelectric signals which rattle around in our bodies. When we mess with people's brains and brain chemistry, we observe changes in their behavior and personality exactly as we would expect if there was no soul and our conciousness was restricted to the matter which makes up our body.
And who says that my spending that time, reason, and money isn't worth it outside of a religious context.
Well, certainly the manipulation of people is valuable, and many atheists believe that the masses, on the whole, are too stupid to be atheists and thus they need religion to control them.
However, I tend to find that rather immoral and dangerous, as well as more than a little disingenous.
I'm filled with great pride and joy when I can make someone else's life better. Are you saying that you'll live a better life than me because you never wasted your time doing these things?
Making someone else's life better has nothing to do with religion.
You keep missing the point. The point that I'm making isn't that I do exist. It's about how I exist. It's that I exist in this form and not one of the myriad of other conceptually possible forms that sentient life could have taken.
I'm not missing the point; I understand what you're saying. The anthropic principle is the answer to your point. That's really the entire point OF the anthropic principle really.
Just cos we do not know something does not make all possible explanations equally possible or valid. One can safely dismiss fantasy from any rational argument. I may not know what is beyond a closed door but I can, with 100% surety, know that it is not a dragon.
Not 100% certainty. It also depends on your definition of a dragon.
The odds of a komodo dragon being behind a door, or someone who BELIEVES they are a dragon, or someone with the last name of dragon, or me, those are non-zero.
The odds of the Bible being correct, however, is exactly zero because it is self-contradictory and therefore it cannot possibly be true via proof by contradiction.
Dragons came about because people found fossils of dinosaurs...
Actually, no. Many people believe this to be the case, but in reality, the leading theories for the origins of dragons have nothing to do with fossils.
Dragons are drawn from a variety of extant sources, including crocodiles and snakes. For the western dragon in particular, snakes are very important. Ever wonder why they breath fire? Ever wonder about their poisonous breath? Ever wonder why they're reptilian? That's why. They're based on myths of snakes (and crocodiles, to some extent), exaggerated greatly. They also play on several universal mythic archetypes, which is why dragonish things appear around the world - Quetzecoatl, the Piasa, the eastern and western dragon.
Fossils didn't give rise to the idea of dragons; quite the opposite, fossils were often assigned to dragons, rather than fossils giving rise to such legends. Most "dragon bones" were actually mammilian fossils, rather than dinosaur fossils.
We emit electromagnetic radiation
Can we detect all possible wavelengths?
Yes, actually.
Also, remember that matter energy is conserved.
We actually have quite a good idea of how magnets work...
I mean, it's not even some new, groundbreaking science or anything. We learn about it in high school. You could probably just go to wikipedia or something and get the crash course...
EDIT: And furthermore, addressing his insistence on the existence of an afterlife, it's not that science disproves an afterlife; it's that science shows us that there's zero good reason to believe in an afterlife at all. All of the energy transfers are accounted for. There is zero creation or destruction of energy involved in life or death, and that's scientific fact. Are you trying to argue that life involves some kind of energy that nobody knows about yet? Because you're not going to win any logical argument with that...
Making someone else's life better has nothing to do with religion.
It's a system of believes, morals, etc... So yes, it have *everything to do* with religion. Or well,reverse.
Atheist and cie. can have a good life without it, yes.. and? Those atheists have some other system of believes, morals, etc...
Again, the religious ones are not dumb, foolish or mad. Please, respect their ideas.
Off-topic stuff about religion and morality
Morality doesn't come from religion, and the idea that it is is propaganda spread by religious people. Indeed, its quite the opposite; religious people commit more crimes, get divorced more often, ect. than atheists in the United States do.
And religions often have bad morals. Look at people like heaven's gate, who commit suicide due to their religion; people who refuse medical care such as blood transfusion (Christian Scientists, the religion, not scientists who happen to be Christians); people who reject modern technology... the list goes on.
The fact of the matter is that when your morality is arbitrary, you'll often end up with poor morals.
No. I don't have beliefs. I do have morals, but they're derived from models of reciprocal altruism as well as how I expect to be treated. In short, if I behave in a manner in which I would not want others to behave, it is unlikely I will be able to gain the moral high ground when I say others should behave in a given fashion.
Religion has a lot in common with mental illnesses. Take the belief you are a dragon, for instance. These people are known as otherkin - people who believe their souls are not human souls, but the souls of various other things (dragons, gryphons, wolves, elves, what have you). Many people would consider these people to be mentally ill, but it is as much of a religious belief and no less absurd than the belief that an invisible, unknowable God created the universe and has revealed the way you're supposed to live your life to some guy in the Middle East 2000 years ago and then didn't bother to come back again or make it clear that he even exists.
People have pointed out that all religion is is a mass delusion. If you had some guy who claimed that he had an invisible friend who was all seeing, all knowing, and said we needed to live our life in a certain way, we'd probably insititutionalize him. But if that invisible friend is named GOD, suddenly, we have to respect him?
I think not. I tolerate religious beliefs, but I have no need to respect them, and asking me to respect them is completely unreasonable.
It's a system of believes, morals, etc... So yes, it have *everything to do* with religion. Or well,reverse.
Morality doesn't come from religion, and the idea that it is is propaganda spread by religious people. Indeed, its quite the opposite; religious people commit more crimes, get divorced more often, ect. than atheists in the United States do.
And religions often have bad morals. Look at people like heaven's gate, who commit suicide due to their religion; people who refuse medical care such as blood transfusion (Christian Scientists, the religion, not scientists who happen to be Christians); people who reject modern technology... the list goes on.
The fact of the matter is that when your morality is arbitrary, you'll often end up with poor morals.
Atheist and cie. can have a good life without it, yes.. and? Those atheists have some other system of believes, morals, etc...
No. I don't have beliefs. I do have morals, but they're derived from models of reciprocal altruism as well as how I expect to be treated. In short, if I behave in a manner in which I would not want others to behave, it is unlikely I will be able to gain the moral high ground when I say others should behave in a given fashion.
Again, the religious ones are not dumb, foolish or mad. Please, respect their ideas.
Religion has a lot in common with mental illnesses. Take the belief you are a dragon, for instance. These people are known as otherkin - people who believe their souls are not human souls, but the souls of various other things (dragons, gryphons, wolves, elves, what have you). Many people would consider these people to be mentally ill, but it is as much of a religious belief and no less absurd than the belief that an invisible, unknowable God created the universe and has revealed the way you're supposed to live your life to some guy in the Middle East 2000 years ago and then didn't bother to come back again or make it clear that he even exists.
People have pointed out that all religion is is a mass delusion. If you had some guy who claimed that he had an invisible friend who was all seeing, all knowing, and said we needed to live our life in a certain way, we'd probably insititutionalize him. But if that invisible friend is named GOD, suddenly, we have to respect him?
I think not. I tolerate religious beliefs, but I have no need to respect them, and asking me to respect them is completely unreasonable.
I never said that all modest people were mediocre. I simply said that it is for the mediocre.
The point is that I'm not modest because there's no reason for me to be. False modesty is bad, and obsfucating your points is worse. I'd rather be frank, insulting, and easily understood.
Fair enough. I'm sure you already know this, but it does tend to make you unlikable, even by people in your own "camp." I guess I just don't see the reason for it. /shrug
You're arguing that I cannot verify that the Christian religion has been propagating a literal understanding of the Bible for a couple millenia?
No, no, nothing quite that obscene. Just that it's not quite verifiable that, for that entire span of time, it's been a majority of Christians, rather than a minority (as it definitely is in modern day).
First off, Gnosticism died over a thousand years ago, even if some of the heresy still remains (though not nearly as much as Marcion). Second, when you make a generic statement about a group, typically you're saying "most", and you can assume they're saying "most". That's the way the English language works. Third, anecdotal evidence is not a logical fallacy, its a weakness of information; anecdotal evidence is simply a very weak form of evidence and it is invalid to generalize from it most of the time. Its not a logical fallacy so much as a very weak argument. However, the point wasn't anecdotal evidence at all; it was really more of a suggested experiment as well as a rhetorical statement.
My point is that you're painting an unneeded bad picture of Christians in general. I don't deny that "bad Christians" exist-- heck, when I came out as an atheist I got an ugly backlash from some people in my own family. But the vast majority of Christians aren't so ugly; it's just a vocal minority (albeit not a particularly small minority, I'll admit).
Then again I'm not sure if I'm responding to the right thing, here-- the conversation is a bit lost at this point.
Wrong on both counts, interstingly. I actually bothered to look up the original Hebrew because I wanted to prove my point (though I don't understand hebrew, so I had to rely on a dictionary and commentary from several soruces). The easier to read English translation I'm most familiar with isn't the KJV, either. Why I don't have a KJV bible I don't know, but I have some other translation, the name of which I'm too lazy to look up at 4:50 am. If you care, I can look it up some other time. I rather prefer the KJV wording of the creation story, though, as I feel it is more poetic; my translation is kind of... dull.
Okay. It's just that I've been told by Jews that Genesis means something very different than what most Christians take it to mean, and I just kind of assume Jews know their own material, I guess.
Neither of us is really an authority on this particular issue so perhaps we should both drop it.
Encara:
Oh well, that was actually sort of my point, although it takes a different bend to get there.
Sure, in that case I'll simply claim that God's existence isn't falsifiable, it just isn't discoverable so far.
That's fine, I wasn't actually arguing against your point. I just wanted to make sure everyone was clear on the scientific terminology being used (in this case, "falsifiability").
Hmm, interesting. I had never read Spinoza's philosophy before now. I don't think I'd go quite as far as he did with "substance," but it's certainly an interesting philosophy.
Where Occam's Razor is concerned:
Can you explain to me how my explanation is less simple than the alternative?
Heh, I've only gone part-way through Ethics myself. Most of what I know of Spinoza is derived from summaries and such (and my very well-read friend).
But to answer your question, it isn't, necessarily (less simple than the alternative, that is). That's what I meant by "Spinoza disagrees."
The idea is that Occam's Razor comes into effect when you say something like "God is science" because calling science anything other than science is superfluous and unneeded.
However, Spinoza argues, in Ethics, that God is the universe. His argument actually gives Occam's Razor no wiggle room. Actually, from what I understand, Spinoza has the best argument for the existence of God to-date. I've rarely seen it tackled (and often, when it is, it's with the counter-premise that "existence does not predicate existence" whatever that means).
Well I never meant to make the claim that all atheists believe that. Still, I see your point.
Also, if it seems like a deleted a lot, that's because I already withdrew the statement you were referring to.
But, still I'd like to address this:
Well, I do admit that I played "victim" a bit in response to you. In my defense, however, I was getting pretty frustrated.
And these are facts, not beliefs.
Sure. But I can't know facts unless I believe them. Sure, it was a fact that I was sitting in my chair, but I could have conceivably believed otherwise.
Are you familiar with JTB at all? It stands for Justified True Belief. This gets into epistemology a bit but to summarize most philosophers (though certainly not all of them) agree that knowledge is "justified true belief." That is, if I hold a belief (e.g. "I am sitting in a chair") that is both justified (all evidence points to me sitting in a chair) and true (I am, in fact, sitting in a chair) then my belief is also knowledge (I know that I am sitting in a chair, because I believe I am sitting in a chair and this belief is both justified and true).
That's what I mean when I say that I hold lots of beliefs, but part of my point is that many atheists believe many different things. Some atheists even believe in an afterlife, or ghosts, or ki, or all sorts of "supernatural" things.
Really...what if time doesn't exist. We could potentially be "living" in numerous "nows."
It means that Christianity has been propagating it for two millenia, and it is thus a part of the Christian belief structure.
So, you ARE saying that duration of teaching has an effect on truth.
Just because it was propagated that way for a long time doesn't mean it's the correct teaching.
It makes tons of claims. For instance, the existance of a God and an afterlife.
Which has nothing to do with the actual functionality of the universe, which I specifically mentioned to take those claims out of the picture.
People claimed the bible was literally true for centuries. As more and more of it was proven to be false, more and more of it was claimed to be metaphorical.
In short, its just a form of the God of the Gaps.
Summary of your position based on what you have said so far:
Science makes incorrect claims all the time. They continuously think and come up with new ideas about how the universe works in order to discover the truth about the universe. When they find out they were wrong, they admit it and change their position, and this is intelligent and good science!
Christians makes incorrect claims all the time. They continuously think and come up with new ideas about how the universe works in order to discover the truth about the universe. When they find out they were wrong, they admit it and change their position, and this is a God of the Gaps fallacy committed by stupid Christians trying to cling to their silly religion.
Hmmm.........I smell a double standard here......
Day is being used as a unit of time, a 24 hour period. The context is very clear. That's why you say it that way, to make sure it isn't misinterpreted.
Language is dependent on context, and they didn't use the words for day, evening, and morning together by sheer happenstance - they did it to be clear.
I think you should go and read what Bob Loblaw (and atheist btw) put above. But, I'll post it here for convenience:
Here is Merriam-Webster's definition of "morning:"
Main Entry:
morn·ing Listen to the pronunciation of morning
Pronunciation:
\ˈmȯr-niŋ\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from morn + -ing (as in evening)
Date:
13th century
1 a: dawn b: the time from sunrise to noon c: the time from midnight to noon
2: a period of first development : beginning
Here is the definition of "evening:"
Main Entry:
1eve·ning Listen to the pronunciation of 1evening
Pronunciation:
\ˈēv-niŋ\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English ǣfnung, from ǣfnian to grow toward evening, from ǣfen evening; akin to Old High German āband evening and perhaps to Greek epi on
Date:
before 12th century
1 a: the latter part and close of the day and early part of the night bchiefly Southern & Midland : afternoon c: the period from sunset or the evening meal to bedtime
2: the latter portion
3: the period of an evening's entertainment
Whoa, holy crap, is this even possible? Words have multiple meanings???
So in short, you're agreeing that you don't understand economics.
No, in short I'm pointing out that you don't. What I was saying is taken straight from an economics class.
I already explained what value was in economics...
Yeah, incorrectly. Economics has a variety of "value" definitions.
Incorrect. It isn't empirically verifiable; therefore it isn't falsifiable.
Okay, so now that we're changing the definition of falsifiable to be able to require experiment other than waiting...
Now we're back to: falsifiability has no impact on value or truth.
No, that's me not being gullible. There is no evidence for an afterlife, your belief in it is entirely arbitrary, and the reason for your belief is that your mind was unable to reject conditioning by percieved authority figures.
First off, you don't know me or anything about my life. It's incredibly foolish and pretentious of you to tell me why I believe what I believe. For all you know, I became a Christian a week ago.
Secondly, there's no evidence that there isn't an afterlife either. So your lack of belief in one is entirely arbitrary. Not being able to prove something exists doesn't prove its non-existence.
Because despite looking for ages, we haven't found a soul or anything similar. In fact, all we've found is complex bioelectric signals which rattle around in our bodies. When we mess with people's brains and brain chemistry, we observe changes in their behavior and personality exactly as we would expect if there was no soul and our conciousness was restricted to the matter which makes up our body.
And why does a soul necessarily have anything to do with our behavior? Again, not being able to prove something's existence, doesn't mean it's not there.
Making someone else's life better has nothing to do with religion.
Sorry but it has everything to do with religion. Religion encourages this kind of self sacrifice and servant-hood.
I'll admit you can do so without religion, but I'll bet you'll find less people willing.
I'm not missing the point; I understand what you're saying. The anthropic principle is the answer to your point. That's really the entire point OF the anthropic principle really.
Every time you have stated that principle, you have made it about the probability of us existing, not about how we exist. Perhaps something has gotten lost, can you explain this to me?
The odds of the Bible being correct, however, is exactly zero because it is self-contradictory and therefore it cannot possibly be true via proof by contradiction.
Only if you demand a totally literal interpretation of the Bible, which isn't accurate, just convenient for your argument.
Which has nothing to do with the actual functionality of the universe...
I believe you are quite mistaken. A universe in which God and an afterlife exist is functionally different from a universe in which God and an afterlife do not exist. I don't understand how you could even begin to claim there is no difference... And if there is no difference, then that brings up further problems for believing in them without evidence.
Secondly, there's no evidence that there isn't an afterlife either. So your lack of belief in one is entirely arbitrary. Not being able to prove something exists doesn't prove its non-existence.
The lack of belief in an afterlife is not arbitrary at all. The fact that there is no evidence means exactly that there's really no good reason to believe in it. You can if you want to, but you don't have any good reason to. You therefore can't possibly claim that not believing in the afterlife isn't a valid position unless you want to slip into hypocrisy.
Sorry but it has everything to do with religion. Religion encourages this kind of self sacrifice and servant-hood.
I'll admit you can do so without religion, but I'll bet you'll find less people willing.
That's ridiculous. There are numerous human rights organizations out there that have absolutely no basis in faith, and there are numerous religious people who do not actively work towards helping others. There is ZERO correlation between being religious and wanting to help one's fellow man. The notion that there is ludicrous and completely unfounded.
Every time you have stated that principle, you have made it about the probability of us existing, not about how we exist. Perhaps something has gotten lost, can you explain this to me?
What exactly are you even asking?
That's ridiculous. There are numerous human rights organizations out there that have absolutely no basis in faith, and there are numerous religious people who do not actively work towards helping others. There is ZERO correlation between being religious and wanting to help one's fellow man. The notion that there is ludicrous and completely unfounded.
No. What you mean is there is not an absolute correlation. Many people do charity because of their religious beliefs. And I wonder what the ratio of faith-based to non-faith-based groups is. Dare I say, I also wonder about the total impact and effectiveness ratio. I don't have that data myself, but would be interested in seeing it.
The point being that some of us are called to a life that's less selfish because of our beliefs.
In fact, it could be reasonably argued that religious belief has caused far more exclusiveness, us-versus-them thinking, bloodshed, hatred, grief, fear, shame, and general ugliness than it has charity.
For those curious, I respond to comments made by Titanium Dragon, Encara, Crimson Concerto, and Knights Disciple.
Show
It's only fair to also wonder from whom such organizations get their funds. People tend to forget that because there are usually more faith-based charities in an area, they will generally draw many donations from those without faith (or with a different faith entirely).
For example, I've donated to my local Toys for Tots, a program to give poor children toys for Christmas (and thus arguably a Christian charity), and yet I don't even celebrate Christmas (because I'm not Christian).
I think there are too many variables to make any study on the matter completely irrelevant.
This isn't necessarily true. Unless you can demonstrate why a universe with God and an afterlife is functionally different from one without.
Certainly, some concepts of a universe in which God and an afterlife exist are strikingly different from one without, but that doesn't mean that, as a rule, a universe in which these things exist must be functionally different than one without them.
Given this statement, it's clear you don't know what falsifiability even is. Quit misapplying scientific terminology, please.
I get what you're saying (and I'm not attacking Christianity when I say this), but to be fair, Science (or rather, scientists) has never made an outright incorrect claim. For something to be a valid, agreed-upon scientific "fact," it has to go through so many loopholes that it's next to impossible for it to be completely wrong. Certainly, little things have been changed here in there (our idea of how exactly evolution works is a great example of this) but nothing has ever really been wrong.
Some people point to alchemy as an example of when science went wrong, but alchemy never was science.
Take evolution for example. Original Darwinian thought was that evolution takes place through natural selection-- minute, favorable changes throughout long periods of time. But now we understand that in addition to natural selection, a sort of selection takes place even at the genetic level. Also, original Darwinian thought was that evolution was a steady, gradual process, and some scientists argue that, in addition to this, evolution also takes place in "quick spurts" ("quick" meaning millions of years, that is).
Darwin wasn't wrong, but his original theory has been changed and upgraded.
Agreed.
Partially agree. I agree that there is no evidence that there isn't an afterlife, and I also agree that not being able to prove something exists doesn't prove its non-existence. However, I disagree that this makes non-belief in the afterlife "arbitrary." When there is no reason to believe in something (notice my wording; I didn't say "when there is a lack of evidence to believe in something" as TD would) then the default is to not believe in it.
For some people, such as TD, whether or not to believe in the afterlife comes down to the evidence for and against such a thing. And because there is no evidence, TD is left with no reason to believe in one; therefore, his lack of belief isn't arbitrary, it's a reasonable position.
This does not mean that belief in an afterlife is unreasonable per se; for TD, who has no reason to believe in an afterlife, belief in one would be unreasonable. However, it's possible to have a justifiable reason for belief outside the realm of "evidence."
Actually, more to the point, my own reason for lacking belief in an afterlife doesn't directly have to do with the lack of evidence for one; but rather a deeper, philosophal position that such a thing is unknowable (I won't get into why), and the lack of evidence is simply a result of such unknowability.
This, also, is not an arbitrary reason for a lack of belief. It is a reasonable, well-thought out position on the matter.
I cannot know if your belief in an afterlife (assuming you even have such a belief; I can only guess by implication of your above statements to TD) is arbitrary, because I don't know your reasons for belief. You don't have to tell me. This is simply a-- comment.
I have to vehemently disagree. The nicest, most caring people I've met in my life have been areligious. This is a personal anecdote and I'm not saying that areligious folk are more caring that religious folk in general, but it does disprove your personal challenge (that you bet we'll find less people willing to help lives outside of religion).
I agree with TD (or whomever you were quoting): making someone else's life better has nothing to do with religion. With a few exceptions, the people who have helped me the most have been areligious (not necessarily atheists, just areligious; i.e. not having a religion).
(To sound redundant) this is personal experience, but again, you issued a personal challenge.
YMMV.
No. What you mean is there is not an absolute correlation. Many people do charity because of their religious beliefs. And I wonder what the ratio of faith-based to non-faith-based groups is. Dare I say, I also wonder about the total impact and effectiveness ratio. I don't have that data myself, but would be interested in seeing it.
The point being that some of us are called to a life that's less selfish because of our beliefs.
It's only fair to also wonder from whom such organizations get their funds. People tend to forget that because there are usually more faith-based charities in an area, they will generally draw many donations from those without faith (or with a different faith entirely).
For example, I've donated to my local Toys for Tots, a program to give poor children toys for Christmas (and thus arguably a Christian charity), and yet I don't even celebrate Christmas (because I'm not Christian).
I think there are too many variables to make any study on the matter completely irrelevant.
I believe you are quite mistaken. A universe in which God and an afterlife exist is functionally different from a universe in which God and an afterlife do not exist.
This isn't necessarily true. Unless you can demonstrate why a universe with God and an afterlife is functionally different from one without.
Certainly, some concepts of a universe in which God and an afterlife exist are strikingly different from one without, but that doesn't mean that, as a rule, a universe in which these things exist must be functionally different than one without them.
Incorrect. It isn't empirically verifiable; therefore it isn't falsifiable.
Given this statement, it's clear you don't know what falsifiability even is. Quit misapplying scientific terminology, please.
Summary of your position based on what you have said so far:
Science makes incorrect claims all the time. They continuously think and come up with new ideas about how the universe works in order to discover the truth about the universe. When they find out they were wrong, they admit it and change their position, and this is intelligent and good science!
Christians makes incorrect claims all the time. They continuously think and come up with new ideas about how the universe works in order to discover the truth about the universe. When they find out they were wrong, they admit it and change their position, and this is a God of the Gaps fallacy committed by stupid Christians trying to cling to their silly religion.
Hmmm.........I smell a double standard here......
I get what you're saying (and I'm not attacking Christianity when I say this), but to be fair, Science (or rather, scientists) has never made an outright incorrect claim. For something to be a valid, agreed-upon scientific "fact," it has to go through so many loopholes that it's next to impossible for it to be completely wrong. Certainly, little things have been changed here in there (our idea of how exactly evolution works is a great example of this) but nothing has ever really been wrong.
Some people point to alchemy as an example of when science went wrong, but alchemy never was science.
Take evolution for example. Original Darwinian thought was that evolution takes place through natural selection-- minute, favorable changes throughout long periods of time. But now we understand that in addition to natural selection, a sort of selection takes place even at the genetic level. Also, original Darwinian thought was that evolution was a steady, gradual process, and some scientists argue that, in addition to this, evolution also takes place in "quick spurts" ("quick" meaning millions of years, that is).
Darwin wasn't wrong, but his original theory has been changed and upgraded.
First off, you don't know me or anything about my life. It's incredibly foolish and pretentious of you to tell me why I believe what I believe. For all you know, I became a Christian a week ago.
Agreed.
Secondly, there's no evidence that there isn't an afterlife either. So your lack of belief in one is entirely arbitrary. Not being able to prove something exists doesn't prove its non-existence.
Partially agree. I agree that there is no evidence that there isn't an afterlife, and I also agree that not being able to prove something exists doesn't prove its non-existence. However, I disagree that this makes non-belief in the afterlife "arbitrary." When there is no reason to believe in something (notice my wording; I didn't say "when there is a lack of evidence to believe in something" as TD would) then the default is to not believe in it.
For some people, such as TD, whether or not to believe in the afterlife comes down to the evidence for and against such a thing. And because there is no evidence, TD is left with no reason to believe in one; therefore, his lack of belief isn't arbitrary, it's a reasonable position.
This does not mean that belief in an afterlife is unreasonable per se; for TD, who has no reason to believe in an afterlife, belief in one would be unreasonable. However, it's possible to have a justifiable reason for belief outside the realm of "evidence."
Actually, more to the point, my own reason for lacking belief in an afterlife doesn't directly have to do with the lack of evidence for one; but rather a deeper, philosophal position that such a thing is unknowable (I won't get into why), and the lack of evidence is simply a result of such unknowability.
This, also, is not an arbitrary reason for a lack of belief. It is a reasonable, well-thought out position on the matter.
I cannot know if your belief in an afterlife (assuming you even have such a belief; I can only guess by implication of your above statements to TD) is arbitrary, because I don't know your reasons for belief. You don't have to tell me. This is simply a-- comment.
Sorry but it has everything to do with religion. Religion encourages this kind of self sacrifice and servant-hood.
I'll admit you can do so without religion, but I'll bet you'll find less people willing.
I have to vehemently disagree. The nicest, most caring people I've met in my life have been areligious. This is a personal anecdote and I'm not saying that areligious folk are more caring that religious folk in general, but it does disprove your personal challenge (that you bet we'll find less people willing to help lives outside of religion).
I agree with TD (or whomever you were quoting): making someone else's life better has nothing to do with religion. With a few exceptions, the people who have helped me the most have been areligious (not necessarily atheists, just areligious; i.e. not having a religion).
(To sound redundant) this is personal experience, but again, you issued a personal challenge.
YMMV.
This isn't necessarily true. Unless you can demonstrate why a universe with God and an afterlife is functionally different from one without.
Certainly, some concepts of a universe in which God and an afterlife exist are strikingly different from one without, but that doesn't mean that, as a rule, a universe in which these things exist must be functionally different than one without them.
. . . That makes no sense to me at all. You're going to have to explain yourself. A universe with a god and an afterlife is different from a universe without a god or an afterlife, just a like a universe in which humans exist is different from a universe in which humans do not exist, just like a universe where gravity exists is different from a universe where gravity does not exist.
Please explain to me any possible way where a universe with a god and an afterlife would be exactly the same as a universe without a god or afterlife. This concept makes less than zero sense to me, and I have no idea how anybody could reach that conclusion.
No. What you mean is there is not an absolute correlation. Many people do charity because of their religious beliefs.
And many people do charity because of their lack of religious belief. It works both ways.
And I wonder what the ratio of faith-based to non-faith-based groups is. Dare I say, I also wonder about the total impact and effectiveness ratio. I don't have that data myself, but would be interested in seeing it.
It wouldn't be interesting indeed, but it wouldn't exactly be relevant unless you also consider other factors.
The point being that some of us are called to a life that's less selfish because of our beliefs.
And those beliefs might not include religion at all.
EDIT: (( Sorry for the double post... ))
EDIT: And furthermore, addressing his insistence on the existence of an afterlife, it's not that science disproves an afterlife; it's that science shows us that there's zero good reason to believe in an afterlife at all. All of the energy transfers are accounted for. There is zero creation or destruction of energy involved in life or death, and that's scientific fact. Are you trying to argue that life involves some kind of energy that nobody knows about yet? Because you're not going to win any logical argument with that...
My only question is what happens to our consciousness? Is that accounted for?
It's something I've always wondered. Where does it come from? How do all those cells produce intelligence and awareness? How did intelligence come about? When did we gain sentience? What's next in the evolutionary steps?
My personal opinion is that our consciousness just fades away as our brains die. I have no idea how to explain where it came from in the first place though.
Why does this guy keep saying we don't know how magnets work?
We actually have quite a good idea of how magnets work...
I mean, it's not even some new, groundbreaking science or anything. We learn about it in high school. You could probably just go to wikipedia or something and get the crash course...
I assume he's saying that he won't be happy until we have unified field theory and presumably he isn't happy with the standard model, nor one of the various string theory models.
My only question is what happens to our consciousness? Is that accounted for?
It's something I've always wondered. Where does it come from? How do all those cells produce intelligence and awareness? How did intelligence come about? When did we gain sentience? What's next in the evolutionary steps?
My personal opinion is that our consciousness just fades away as our brains die. I have no idea how to explain where it came from in the first place though.
Well you raise two things here. Intelligence and awareness.
Intelligence is well understood, dendrite connections between neurons grow and change over time allowing the brain to develop new patterns and thus learn.
Awareness... well, I'd like to know about that one myself. Though what I find a real paradox is our awareness of our awareness.
Well you raise two things here. Intelligence and awareness.
Intelligence is well understood, dendrite connections between neurons grow and change over time allowing the brain to develop new patterns and thus learn.
Awareness... well, I'd like to know about that one myself. Though what I find a real paradox is our awareness of our awareness.
What we don't really know is how all those cells produce intelligence. Yes we know how it improves but how did it happen in the first place?
I believe you are quite mistaken. A universe in which God and an afterlife exist is functionally different from a universe in which God and an afterlife do not exist. I don't understand how you could even begin to claim there is no difference... And if there is no difference, then that brings up further problems for believing in them without evidence.
I'll try to address this is a more clear fashion:
A universe in which God and an afterlife exist is different from the alternative, but it is not functionally different.
The laws of the universe in both cases behave the same way, the afterlife has no bearing on the functionality of the current life.
The lack of belief in an afterlife is not arbitrary at all. The fact that there is no evidence means exactly that there's really no good reason to believe in it. You can if you want to, but you don't have any good reason to. You therefore can't possibly claim that not believing in the afterlife isn't a valid position unless you want to slip into hypocrisy.
The fact of the matter is, inability to prove or even collect information about a topic means that ANY position on that topic is equally valid. So, if my belief in an afterlife is arbitrary, so is the lack of belief in one.
That's ridiculous. There are numerous human rights organizations out there that have absolutely no basis in faith, and there are numerous religious people who do not actively work towards helping others. There is ZERO correlation between being religious and wanting to help one's fellow man. The notion that there is ludicrous and completely unfounded.
I'll quote this for emphasis:
No. What you mean is there is not an absolute correlation. Many people do charity because of their religious beliefs. And I wonder what the ratio of faith-based to non-faith-based groups is. Dare I say, I also wonder about the total impact and effectiveness ratio. I don't have that data myself, but would be interested in seeing it.
The point being that some of us are called to a life that's less selfish because of our beliefs.
This is a pretty good response. He's not saying that people without religion are amoral, he's simply pointing out that religion encourages morality in a lot of people.
What exactly are you even asking?
I'm asking him to explain to me the anthropic principle so that I make sure that I understand what he understands that principle to mean.
Show
Well I'd say "The sun revolves around the earth" to be pretty much straight up wrong. Over all time, I guarantee you scientists have made blatantly incorrect claims, although I'm not going to go hunting for them at this time, that one just sprung to mind.
Can you clarify for me what you mean by "reason" when you say there isn't one? Do you mean definitive proof? If that's the case, there's a whole lot of scientific theory we're going to have to throw out:
Evolution
Relativity
Gravity
Just to name a few. These are all things for which there is overwhelming evidence, but are not proven. If you don't mean definitive proof, please clarify.
He may have chosen that position, but your assertion that the only reasonable position given exactly zero evidence is non-belief is incorrect. At the point at which you have NO evidence, you are guessing. When guessing all positions are equally likely and reasonable, so if my belief is arbitrary, so is his. If it's not, neither is his.
Hmm, I'm interested to hear, perhaps you could PM me?
Also a conversation better suited to a PM then? We could trade and compare philosophies.
Well, it wasn't meant to be a personal challenge, more like my own personal prediction about humanity as a whole over time.
Making someone's life better can have nothing to do with religion, but it doesn't always, and I was claiming that I believe (for a multitude of reasons that I will not go into here) that if there was no religion, you would find a lot less of that behavior.
I get what you're saying (and I'm not attacking Christianity when I say this), but to be fair, Science (or rather, scientists) has never made an outright incorrect claim. For something to be a valid, agreed-upon scientific "fact," it has to go through so many loopholes that it's next to impossible for it to be completely wrong. Certainly, little things have been changed here in there (our idea of how exactly evolution works is a great example of this) but nothing has ever really been wrong.
Some people point to alchemy as an example of when science went wrong, but alchemy never was science.
Take evolution for example. Original Darwinian thought was that evolution takes place through natural selection-- minute, favorable changes throughout long periods of time. But now we understand that in addition to natural selection, a sort of selection takes place even at the genetic level. Also, original Darwinian thought was that evolution was a steady, gradual process, and some scientists argue that, in addition to this, evolution also takes place in "quick spurts" ("quick" meaning millions of years, that is).
Darwin wasn't wrong, but his original theory has been changed and upgraded.
Well I'd say "The sun revolves around the earth" to be pretty much straight up wrong. Over all time, I guarantee you scientists have made blatantly incorrect claims, although I'm not going to go hunting for them at this time, that one just sprung to mind.
Partially agree. I agree that there is no evidence that there isn't an afterlife, and I also agree that not being able to prove something exists doesn't prove its non-existence. However, I disagree that this makes non-belief in the afterlife "arbitrary." When there is no reason to believe in something (notice my wording; I didn't say "when there is a lack of evidence to believe in something" as TD would) then the default is to not believe in it
Can you clarify for me what you mean by "reason" when you say there isn't one? Do you mean definitive proof? If that's the case, there's a whole lot of scientific theory we're going to have to throw out:
Evolution
Relativity
Gravity
Just to name a few. These are all things for which there is overwhelming evidence, but are not proven. If you don't mean definitive proof, please clarify.
For some people, such as TD, whether or not to believe in the afterlife comes down to the evidence for and against such a thing. And because there is no evidence, TD is left with no reason to believe in one; therefore, his lack of belief isn't arbitrary, it's a reasonable position.
This does not mean that belief in an afterlife is unreasonable per se; for TD, who has no reason to believe in an afterlife, belief in one would be unreasonable. However, it's possible to have a justifiable reason for belief outside the realm of "evidence."
He may have chosen that position, but your assertion that the only reasonable position given exactly zero evidence is non-belief is incorrect. At the point at which you have NO evidence, you are guessing. When guessing all positions are equally likely and reasonable, so if my belief is arbitrary, so is his. If it's not, neither is his.
Actually, more to the point, my own reason for lacking belief in an afterlife doesn't directly have to do with the lack of evidence for one; but rather a deeper, philosophal position that such a thing is unknowable (I won't get into why), and the lack of evidence is simply a result of such unknowability.
This, also, is not an arbitrary reason for a lack of belief. It is a reasonable, well-thought out position on the matter.
Hmm, I'm interested to hear, perhaps you could PM me?
I cannot know if your belief in an afterlife (assuming you even have such a belief; I can only guess by implication of your above statements to TD) is arbitrary, because I don't know your reasons for belief. You don't have to tell me. This is simply a-- comment.
Also a conversation better suited to a PM then? We could trade and compare philosophies.
I have to vehemently disagree. The nicest, most caring people I've met in my life have been areligious. This is a personal anecdote and I'm not saying that areligious folk are more caring that religious folk in general, but it does disprove your personal challenge (that you bet we'll find less people willing to help lives outside of religion).
I agree with TD (or whomever you were quoting): making someone else's life better has nothing to do with religion. With a few exceptions, the people who have helped me the most have been areligious (not necessarily atheists, just areligious; i.e. not having a religion).
(To sound redundant) this is personal experience, but again, you issued a personal challenge.
Well, it wasn't meant to be a personal challenge, more like my own personal prediction about humanity as a whole over time.
Making someone's life better can have nothing to do with religion, but it doesn't always, and I was claiming that I believe (for a multitude of reasons that I will not go into here) that if there was no religion, you would find a lot less of that behavior.
Show
Can you prove life after death?
Whenever we argue about whether a thing can be proved, we should distinguish five different questions about that thing:
1. Does it really exist or not? "To be or not to be, that is the question."
2. If it does exist, do we know that it exists? A thing can obviously exist without our knowing it.
3. If we know that it exists, can we be certain of this knowledge? Our knowledge might be true but uncertain; it might be "right opinion."
4. If it is certain, is there a logical proof, a demonstration of why we have a right to be certain? There may be some certainties that are not logically demonstrable (e.g. my own existence, or the law of non-contradiction).
5. If there is a proof, is it a scientific one in the modern sense of 'scientific'? Is it publicly verifiable by formal logic and/or empirical observation? There may be other valid kinds of proof besides proofs by the scientific method.
The fifth point is especially important when asking whether you can prove life after death. I think it depends on what kinds of proof you will accept. It cannot be proved like a theorem in Euclidean geometry; nor can it be observed, like a virus. For the existence of life after death is not on the one hand a logical tautology: its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, as a Euclidean theorem does. On the other hand, it cannot be empirically proved or disproved (at least before death) simply because by definition all experience before death is experience of life before death, not life after death.
If life after death cannot be proved scientifically, is it then intellectually irresponsible to accept it? Only if you assume that it is intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that cannot be proved scientifically. But that premise is self-contradictory (and therefore intellectually irresponsible)! You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. Thus scientism (the premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs) is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith, a religion.
Can you prove life after death?
Whenever we argue about whether a thing can be proved, we should distinguish five different questions about that thing:
1. Does it really exist or not? "To be or not to be, that is the question."
2. If it does exist, do we know that it exists? A thing can obviously exist without our knowing it.
3. If we know that it exists, can we be certain of this knowledge? Our knowledge might be true but uncertain; it might be "right opinion."
4. If it is certain, is there a logical proof, a demonstration of why we have a right to be certain? There may be some certainties that are not logically demonstrable (e.g. my own existence, or the law of non-contradiction).
5. If there is a proof, is it a scientific one in the modern sense of 'scientific'? Is it publicly verifiable by formal logic and/or empirical observation? There may be other valid kinds of proof besides proofs by the scientific method.
The fifth point is especially important when asking whether you can prove life after death. I think it depends on what kinds of proof you will accept. It cannot be proved like a theorem in Euclidean geometry; nor can it be observed, like a virus. For the existence of life after death is not on the one hand a logical tautology: its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, as a Euclidean theorem does. On the other hand, it cannot be empirically proved or disproved (at least before death) simply because by definition all experience before death is experience of life before death, not life after death.
If life after death cannot be proved scientifically, is it then intellectually irresponsible to accept it? Only if you assume that it is intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that cannot be proved scientifically. But that premise is self-contradictory (and therefore intellectually irresponsible)! You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. Thus scientism (the premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs) is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith, a religion.
Religion has a lot in common with mental illnesses.
As an actual sufferer of mental illnesses and a man who accept the possibility of Something Beyond, you really.... I have no words there.
But then, maybe you are right and I am batdung insane. Eh.
Death is the cessation of that process.
Hence, no life after death.
My favorite rebuttal of the Irreducible Complexity nonsense is Irrefutable Redundancy which, just as IC has its poster child in the human eye, so too has its representative organ in the form of the Human Appendix, the function of which can be summed up thusly:
Q: What does it do?
A: Nothing.
Q: What happens if it stops doing that?
A: You die.
Life is a biochemical process.
Death is the cessation of that process.
Hence, no life after death.
My favorite rebuttal of the Irreducible Complexity nonsense is Irrefutable Redundancy which, just as IC has its poster child in the human eye, so too has its representative organ in the form of the Human Appendix, the function of which can be summed up thusly:
Q: What does it do?
A: Nothing.
Q: What happens if it stops doing that?
A: You die.
....Actually, "nothing" would be incorrect. From what I've read, the prevailing theories are that it's either part of the immune system, or helps regulate intestinal bacteria, especially in cases of sickness.
So "nothing" is really not that true.
"I'm not sure", on the other hand, is fine.
....Actually, "nothing" would be incorrect. From what I've read, the prevailing theories are that it's either part of the immune system, or helps regulate intestinal bacteria, especially in cases of sickness.
So "nothing" is really not that true.
"I'm not sure", on the other hand, is fine.
All nothing more than guesswork. People who have had it removed suffer no ill effects, and those born without one likewise exhibit no ill effects, reduced immune system function, or any other health-issues beyond the norm. Indeed the appendix itself is highly susceptible to infection, often resulting in death if not treated quickly.
The actual prevailing theory is that, like the tail bone, it is simply a vestigial remnant of the evolutionary process.
Life is a biochemical process.
Death is the cessation of that process.
Hence, no life after death.
Completely true, given what you said.
However, you're going to have to do more than that to convince me that Life is ONLY a Biochemical process. I don't accept your premises as they stand now, so your argument fails.
Completely true, given what you said.
Yes. Life is nothing more than biochemistry. No soul, no spirit, not mystical force- just an elaborate system for keeping meat fresh.
However, you're going to have to do more than that to convince me that Life is ONLY a Biochemical process.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You are free to believe whatever you wish…
I don't accept your premises as they stand now, so your argument fails.
…a consideration you are seemingly apparently unwilling to extend to others.
You do not believe it ≠ "fail".
Humans are free to believe whatever fantasy they wish to make themselves feel less alone an meaningless in the universe, but belief in fantasy does not make it true.
More off-topic religion stuff
As long as Christianity exists, there will be bad Christians. Religion is not the root of all evil by any means, but it is the root of SOME evil - if you get rid of religion, many people will go ahead and be small-minded about something else. But many people won't as well.
The societal costs of religion are high, and the societal benefits at this point are low.
It depends on the Jew, really; there are plenty of fanatical Jews as well. Then there are the rabbis who say that God died in Auschwitz. There are a lot of pretty irreligious Jews, and because they're so educated on the whole its very difficult for them to take their holy text seriously in the same way as many Christians do.
I wouldn't be surprised if time operated in quanta, but saying we're living in a bunch of nows is pretty much meaningless.
No, I'm saying it is part of your religion, or at least, the religion called Christianity.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Nope, you just don't understand.
As time goes on, science becomes more and more certain of how the universe functions.
As time goes on, religion becomes less and less certain of how the universe functions.
In short, the predictive power of science increases, while the predictive power of religion decreases.
Its that simple.
I already pointed this out.
However, using ENGLISH definitions for HEBREW words is beyond stupid. Just because evening in Hebrew means evening in English doesn't mean that evening in English means evening in Hebrew.
In short, words have multiple meanings, but the word used to refer to "evening" in English does not have the same LIST of meanings as the word "evening" in Hebrew.
Indeed, if you look up the particular word used, you'll see many definitions, but "the latter portion" is not one of them. Evening, not so shockingly is.
Trying to argue that a word in another language, translated to English, means something else entirely different in English, really just isn't going to work, because the word is translated to mean a specific meaning. The fact that we use the same word for "jogging quickly" and "trying to get elected" doesn't mean other languages use the same word for it as well.
You can look up the passage yourself if you want, and painstakingly translate it yourself, but you won't get what you want out of it. It simply doesn't mean what you want it to mean. It very clearly is using day in the 24 hour period of time definition.
Then your economics class sucked. Was it "stocks for jocks"?
That's because the word value has multiple meanings. The economic meaning of value to which I was referring was a specific one, and I was using it to mean such, very clearly so. You're simply obsfucating.
You should read my post and understand my post before erecting a strawman that the quoted section of text directly addresses.
Pretentious, perhaps, but not foolish.
And no, you didn't become a Christian a week ago. If you did, you'd know more about your religion than you do.
There is no evidence that there aren't invisible, undetectable pink unicorns prancing around us either.
Your belief is exactly equivalent to that.
Though to be fair, there's actually evidence that there isn't an afterlife - there is no interaction with matter energy for the soul to be.
Because the way we behave fundamentally defines who we are, and indeed, it does so in pretty much everyone's religious beliefs as well.
Proving that it doesn't interact with the real world in any way pretty much does indicate it doesn't exist or isn't meaningful, but in the case of the soul, it is a strong indication of nonexistance because of what the soul represents.
Not really, no. Have you even read Christian doctrines? Christianity is partially so successful precisely because it doesn't. You just believe in Jesus and confess your sins and you're good. Pretty attractive, really.
Religion does encourage some self sacrifice, tis true. Look at the abortion clinic bombers and that guy who blew himself up on a school bus in Israel.
Oh, right, you wanted something that made religion look GOOD. These behaviors are bad. If you believe this world isn't so important, that's pretty bad for this world.
Well, given the two greatest philanthropists are atheists, I'm going to go out on a limb and say "not so much." Atheists are charitable.
Religion tells you that people are good because of their religion. But of course they're liars.
People are good because of natural selection. Its coded into us, because it helped our ancestors survive. Altruism isn't the result of religion, and religion doesn't create altruism.
Indeed, the organization in my community which most encourages high school students to do community service and similar is an entirely secular one. Of course, given where I'm from there's roughly a 10% church attendance rate, the lowest in the country, it probably shouldn't be surprising.
Yet my community has lots of community service projects despite being amongst the least religious ones in the United States. Indeed, I remember back in high school coordinators having to turn away volunteers because they didn't need so many.
We're also wealthy, have a low unemployment rate, a low crime rate, the second highest percentage of PHDs in the population, ect. ect. Its a really nice place to live, perhaps THE best in this country, and yet somehow, we have the lowest rate of church attendance in this country.
The absence of religion clearly isn't hurting my community, nor is it preventing us from finding volunteers. Earlier this week I tried to volunteer as part of a energy conservation project and was turned away because they didn't need more volunteers at the moment, and aren't sure when they will need more, though they have a meeting in two weeks and will tell me then if they need me.
How is evolution.
If you cannot empirically verify the results, then no, it isn't falsifiable.
Complex interactions of electrochemical signals are quite impressive. Remember, all a computer is is a series of transistors, yet they can do quite remarkable things.
We actually understand a great deal about it, much more than many people believe we do. However, it IS neuroscience, and without an understanding of how neurons work, you're probably not going to be able to understand even what we DO understand.
My point is that you're painting an unneeded bad picture of Christians in general. I don't deny that "bad Christians" exist-- heck, when I came out as an atheist I got an ugly backlash from some people in my own family. But the vast majority of Christians aren't so ugly; it's just a vocal minority (albeit not a particularly small minority, I'll admit).
Then again I'm not sure if I'm responding to the right thing, here-- the conversation is a bit lost at this point.
As long as Christianity exists, there will be bad Christians. Religion is not the root of all evil by any means, but it is the root of SOME evil - if you get rid of religion, many people will go ahead and be small-minded about something else. But many people won't as well.
The societal costs of religion are high, and the societal benefits at this point are low.
Okay. It's just that I've been told by Jews that Genesis means something very different than what most Christians take it to mean, and I just kind of assume Jews know their own material, I guess.
It depends on the Jew, really; there are plenty of fanatical Jews as well. Then there are the rabbis who say that God died in Auschwitz. There are a lot of pretty irreligious Jews, and because they're so educated on the whole its very difficult for them to take their holy text seriously in the same way as many Christians do.
Really...what if time doesn't exist. We could potentially be "living" in numerous "nows."
I wouldn't be surprised if time operated in quanta, but saying we're living in a bunch of nows is pretty much meaningless.
So, you ARE saying that duration of teaching has an effect on truth.
Just because it was propagated that way for a long time doesn't mean it's the correct teaching.
No, I'm saying it is part of your religion, or at least, the religion called Christianity.
Which has nothing to do with the actual functionality of the universe, which I specifically mentioned to take those claims out of the picture.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Science makes incorrect claims all the time. They continuously think and come up with new ideas about how the universe works in order to discover the truth about the universe. When they find out they were wrong, they admit it and change their position, and this is intelligent and good science!
Christians makes incorrect claims all the time. They continuously think and come up with new ideas about how the universe works in order to discover the truth about the universe. When they find out they were wrong, they admit it and change their position, and this is a God of the Gaps fallacy committed by stupid Christians trying to cling to their silly religion.
Hmmm.........I smell a double standard here......
Nope, you just don't understand.
As time goes on, science becomes more and more certain of how the universe functions.
As time goes on, religion becomes less and less certain of how the universe functions.
In short, the predictive power of science increases, while the predictive power of religion decreases.
Its that simple.
Whoa, holy crap, is this even possible? Words have multiple meanings???
I already pointed this out.
However, using ENGLISH definitions for HEBREW words is beyond stupid. Just because evening in Hebrew means evening in English doesn't mean that evening in English means evening in Hebrew.
In short, words have multiple meanings, but the word used to refer to "evening" in English does not have the same LIST of meanings as the word "evening" in Hebrew.
Indeed, if you look up the particular word used, you'll see many definitions, but "the latter portion" is not one of them. Evening, not so shockingly is.
Trying to argue that a word in another language, translated to English, means something else entirely different in English, really just isn't going to work, because the word is translated to mean a specific meaning. The fact that we use the same word for "jogging quickly" and "trying to get elected" doesn't mean other languages use the same word for it as well.
You can look up the passage yourself if you want, and painstakingly translate it yourself, but you won't get what you want out of it. It simply doesn't mean what you want it to mean. It very clearly is using day in the 24 hour period of time definition.
No, in short I'm pointing out that you don't. What I was saying is taken straight from an economics class.
Then your economics class sucked. Was it "stocks for jocks"?
Yeah, incorrectly. Economics has a variety of "value" definitions.
That's because the word value has multiple meanings. The economic meaning of value to which I was referring was a specific one, and I was using it to mean such, very clearly so. You're simply obsfucating.
Okay, so now that we're changing the definition of falsifiable to be able to require experiment other than waiting...
You should read my post and understand my post before erecting a strawman that the quoted section of text directly addresses.
First off, you don't know me or anything about my life. It's incredibly foolish and pretentious of you to tell me why I believe what I believe. For all you know, I became a Christian a week ago.
Pretentious, perhaps, but not foolish.
And no, you didn't become a Christian a week ago. If you did, you'd know more about your religion than you do.
Secondly, there's no evidence that there isn't an afterlife either. So your lack of belief in one is entirely arbitrary. Not being able to prove something exists doesn't prove its non-existence.
There is no evidence that there aren't invisible, undetectable pink unicorns prancing around us either.
Your belief is exactly equivalent to that.
Though to be fair, there's actually evidence that there isn't an afterlife - there is no interaction with matter energy for the soul to be.
And why does a soul necessarily have anything to do with our behavior? Again, not being able to prove something's existence, doesn't mean it's not there.
Because the way we behave fundamentally defines who we are, and indeed, it does so in pretty much everyone's religious beliefs as well.
Proving that it doesn't interact with the real world in any way pretty much does indicate it doesn't exist or isn't meaningful, but in the case of the soul, it is a strong indication of nonexistance because of what the soul represents.
Sorry but it has everything to do with religion. Religion encourages this kind of self sacrifice and servant-hood.
Not really, no. Have you even read Christian doctrines? Christianity is partially so successful precisely because it doesn't. You just believe in Jesus and confess your sins and you're good. Pretty attractive, really.
Religion does encourage some self sacrifice, tis true. Look at the abortion clinic bombers and that guy who blew himself up on a school bus in Israel.
Oh, right, you wanted something that made religion look GOOD. These behaviors are bad. If you believe this world isn't so important, that's pretty bad for this world.
I'll admit you can do so without religion, but I'll bet you'll find less people willing.
Well, given the two greatest philanthropists are atheists, I'm going to go out on a limb and say "not so much." Atheists are charitable.
Religion tells you that people are good because of their religion. But of course they're liars.
People are good because of natural selection. Its coded into us, because it helped our ancestors survive. Altruism isn't the result of religion, and religion doesn't create altruism.
Indeed, the organization in my community which most encourages high school students to do community service and similar is an entirely secular one. Of course, given where I'm from there's roughly a 10% church attendance rate, the lowest in the country, it probably shouldn't be surprising.
Yet my community has lots of community service projects despite being amongst the least religious ones in the United States. Indeed, I remember back in high school coordinators having to turn away volunteers because they didn't need so many.
We're also wealthy, have a low unemployment rate, a low crime rate, the second highest percentage of PHDs in the population, ect. ect. Its a really nice place to live, perhaps THE best in this country, and yet somehow, we have the lowest rate of church attendance in this country.
The absence of religion clearly isn't hurting my community, nor is it preventing us from finding volunteers. Earlier this week I tried to volunteer as part of a energy conservation project and was turned away because they didn't need more volunteers at the moment, and aren't sure when they will need more, though they have a meeting in two weeks and will tell me then if they need me.
Every time you have stated that principle, you have made it about the probability of us existing, not about how we exist. Perhaps something has gotten lost, can you explain this to me?
How is evolution.
Given this statement, it's clear you don't know what falsifiability even is. Quit misapplying scientific terminology, please.
If you cannot empirically verify the results, then no, it isn't falsifiable.
It's something I've always wondered. Where does it come from? How do all those cells produce intelligence and awareness? How did intelligence come about? When did we gain sentience? What's next in the evolutionary steps?
Complex interactions of electrochemical signals are quite impressive. Remember, all a computer is is a series of transistors, yet they can do quite remarkable things.
We actually understand a great deal about it, much more than many people believe we do. However, it IS neuroscience, and without an understanding of how neurons work, you're probably not going to be able to understand even what we DO understand.
All nothing more than guesswork. People who have had it removed suffer no ill effects, and those born without one likewise exhibit no ill effects, reduced immune system function, or any other health-issues beyond the norm. Indeed the appendix itself is highly susceptible to infection, often resulting in death if not treated quickly.
The actual prevailing theory is that, like the tail bone, it is simply a vestigial remnant of the evolutionary process.
The same about "no ill effects" could be said about any 1 non-thumb finger or non-big-toe toe. In fact, I know someone who was born with one arm very much not properly formed, and he lives just fine. The exact function of the appendix may not be critical, so much as helpful. Maybe it's meant to absorb infections? Hence the condition you referred to?
As for the tailbone, per wikipedia:"The coccyx provides an attachment for nine muscles, such as the gluteus maximus and those necessary for defecation. It also acts as something of a shock absorber when a person sits down, although forceful impact can cause damage and subsequent bodily pains." Yeah. No real use for that, there. ;) (sarcasm, sorry).
As for the comment about the soul...the point is, everything I believe and understand about the soul is that it's something that can't just be measured by electrical activity. Of course, I'll also throw in that what, 40 years ago, we didn't have MRI's? Who's to say that at some point in the future we won't find evidence for the soul existing as some other form of energy in the body? It's arrogant to assume we can measure everything measurable with what we have today.
At that same time, this is the point where faith intersects. "Substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen", and all. Just saying "it doesn't exist" isn't enough. We're at the point of saying "Uh-huh!" "Nuh-uh" back and forth, which is quite pointless, I suppose.
Show
A few individual scientiests may have made the claim that the sun revolves around the earth, but geocentrism was never considered science.
Same with the earth being round/flat. Actually, a little unknown fact to some (thanks to bad education in the states), very few people in the time of Columbus actually thought the earth was flat; most assumed at that time that it was round. In fact, the Spanish government would never have funded Columbus' expidetion if they honestly thought the world was flat. What people didn't know was just how big the world was.
Anyway that's a little off-topic. The point is that it was never considered "science" to say the earth was flat.
Let's take a modern-day example: quantum mechanics. You hear a lot of talk about quantum mechanics and perhaps many "common" people (for lack of a better term) consider it science, because it's scientists talking about it mostly. However, that would be wrong; quantum mechanics is not science. Some scientists advocate it as true but it has not made all the "loop holes" that bring a theory into the realm of "science." It may someday be science; and if it never does, I'm sure there will be people in the future pointing to QM as an example of when "science was wrong." However, it would be false to use that as an example, because so far "science" does not "accept" QM.
TD needs evidence to believe in an afterlife because he has no other reason to believe in one. If there were evidence, he'd believe, but lacking that, and lacking any other reason, he defaults to non-belief.
I believe my wife will never cheat on me. I don't really have any evidence for this, but I still have good reason to believe it. I suppose you could say I have some evidence (her strength of character, precendent for her loyalty to loved ones, etc) but this doesn't really qualify as the sort of scientific evidence we were discussing, and anyway such "evidence" is not really why I believe she won't cheat. I have other reasons (namely, I have faith in her).
I don't think one's reasons for beliefs should always come down to "evidence." That would be strictly impossible, in fact.
Many of our beliefs, for example, come from logical deduction. I believe I exist. Cogito ergo sum. I don't have any evidence for this (I know some will say I do but when you argue for base existence itself you can't use existence as evidence, that's circular), but it is logically undeniable, as Descartes pointed out. From here, I might make other pragmatic assumptions (for example, the "world" exists [this could all actually be in my head]) which also do not have any evidence. But I still have reason to make such beliefs, such it's not arbitrary.
I have faith in my friends and family, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with "evidence." Nor should it.
That's not my assertion. I said for lack of any other reason, when one also lacks evidence, then non-belief is the default, reasonable position.
Evidence does not have to be your only reason for believing something. In fact, if it were, your worldview would be incoherent, because you wouldn't even have a foundation for your own existence.
Wrong. I have NO evidence that 2 + 2 = 4. No one has evidence for that. But is 4 just a guess? No, it's math. 4 is the very definition of 2 + 2. All without evidence.
No math has any evidence behind it. It all starts with postulates and everything else is logical deduction. No evidence, yet there is no guessing, either.
I can believe that 2 + 2 = 4 without any evidence, and it's certainly not just a guess.
That's true, but simply lacking evidence does not equal "guessing."
By the way, when guessing, not all positions are equally reasonable; they are equally unreasonable. The only reasonable choice is not to guess at all; which is what TD is doing when he lacks belief. He's assuming (as you are) that everyone is just guessing, and if that were true (which he would have to prove), then he would be right that non-belief is the only reasonable position.
However, that all hinges on it being true that everyone is guessing. For him, however, he would just be guessing otherwise, so for him, lack of belief is the only reasonable position.
For you, belief may be the only reasonable position. I do not know.
Maybe you were held at gunpoint and forced to make yourself believe that an afterlife exists in order to stay alive. That would be a very reasonable reason to believe, IMHO. (I know that's a strange scenario but it illustrates my point, I hope.)
Then this is just anecdotal evidence and you have no reason for asserting it. I could just as easily assert the reverse.
However, I personally think that religion has little to do with encouraging people to do good. Rather, I think individuals are drawn to religions or philosophies that best suit their own personal behaviors (e.g. people who are inherently imposing, intimidating, etc. may gravitate to certain sects of Christianity that encourage that sort of behavior, whereas people who are selfless and such will gravitate to other sects of Christianity or other faiths or lack thereof that naturally encourages their own behaviors, as well).
I.E. people affect religions, not the other way around.
You like to say this a lot, but it's simply not true.
One, it's not true on the grounds that the inability to prove or collect information on a topic DOES NOT automatically render any position on that topic invalid.
Secondly, it's not true on the grounds that a lack of belief is inherently NOT a position, so if any position is equally invalid on a given topic, the lack of belief (being the lack of a position) is actually the ONLY non-arbitrary "position" (being that it isn't a position at all).
Lack of belief is just saying "Hey, I'm not taking a position on this, guys; you hash it out."
However, I'll repeat, that the lack of evidence (or the "inability to prove or even collect information about a topic" as worded in this case) does not automatically invalidate any position.
I've already brought up math earlier. But here's another doozy to think about: morality. People can take non-arbitrary positions on what is "good" or "evil" without any evidence (since there isn't any). You can take a position and argue for it, and even make a convincing argument, all without evidence (or rather, without the ability to prove or collect information about it).
Philosophers have been doing exactly that for centuries.
He's not "pointing it out" as if it were some objective fact. He's asserting it without any evidence. (And yes, this is one of those cases where it boils down to evidence, since he's making a "factual" claim.)
Well I'd say "The sun revolves around the earth" to be pretty much straight up wrong. Over all time, I guarantee you scientists have made blatantly incorrect claims, although I'm not going to go hunting for them at this time, that one just sprung to mind.
A few individual scientiests may have made the claim that the sun revolves around the earth, but geocentrism was never considered science.
Same with the earth being round/flat. Actually, a little unknown fact to some (thanks to bad education in the states), very few people in the time of Columbus actually thought the earth was flat; most assumed at that time that it was round. In fact, the Spanish government would never have funded Columbus' expidetion if they honestly thought the world was flat. What people didn't know was just how big the world was.
Anyway that's a little off-topic. The point is that it was never considered "science" to say the earth was flat.
Let's take a modern-day example: quantum mechanics. You hear a lot of talk about quantum mechanics and perhaps many "common" people (for lack of a better term) consider it science, because it's scientists talking about it mostly. However, that would be wrong; quantum mechanics is not science. Some scientists advocate it as true but it has not made all the "loop holes" that bring a theory into the realm of "science." It may someday be science; and if it never does, I'm sure there will be people in the future pointing to QM as an example of when "science was wrong." However, it would be false to use that as an example, because so far "science" does not "accept" QM.
Can you clarify for me what you mean by "reason" when you say there isn't one? Do you mean definitive proof? If that's the case, there's a whole lot of scientific theory we're going to have to throw out:
Evolution
Relativity
Gravity
Just to name a few. These are all things for which there is overwhelming evidence, but are not proven. If you don't mean definitive proof, please clarify.
TD needs evidence to believe in an afterlife because he has no other reason to believe in one. If there were evidence, he'd believe, but lacking that, and lacking any other reason, he defaults to non-belief.
I believe my wife will never cheat on me. I don't really have any evidence for this, but I still have good reason to believe it. I suppose you could say I have some evidence (her strength of character, precendent for her loyalty to loved ones, etc) but this doesn't really qualify as the sort of scientific evidence we were discussing, and anyway such "evidence" is not really why I believe she won't cheat. I have other reasons (namely, I have faith in her).
I don't think one's reasons for beliefs should always come down to "evidence." That would be strictly impossible, in fact.
Many of our beliefs, for example, come from logical deduction. I believe I exist. Cogito ergo sum. I don't have any evidence for this (I know some will say I do but when you argue for base existence itself you can't use existence as evidence, that's circular), but it is logically undeniable, as Descartes pointed out. From here, I might make other pragmatic assumptions (for example, the "world" exists [this could all actually be in my head]) which also do not have any evidence. But I still have reason to make such beliefs, such it's not arbitrary.
I have faith in my friends and family, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with "evidence." Nor should it.
He may have chosen that position, but your assertion that the only reasonable position given exactly zero evidence is non-belief is incorrect.
That's not my assertion. I said for lack of any other reason, when one also lacks evidence, then non-belief is the default, reasonable position.
Evidence does not have to be your only reason for believing something. In fact, if it were, your worldview would be incoherent, because you wouldn't even have a foundation for your own existence.
At the point at which you have NO evidence, you are guessing.
Wrong. I have NO evidence that 2 + 2 = 4. No one has evidence for that. But is 4 just a guess? No, it's math. 4 is the very definition of 2 + 2. All without evidence.
No math has any evidence behind it. It all starts with postulates and everything else is logical deduction. No evidence, yet there is no guessing, either.
I can believe that 2 + 2 = 4 without any evidence, and it's certainly not just a guess.
When guessing all positions are equally likely and reasonable, so if my belief is arbitrary, so is his. If it's not, neither is his.
That's true, but simply lacking evidence does not equal "guessing."
By the way, when guessing, not all positions are equally reasonable; they are equally unreasonable. The only reasonable choice is not to guess at all; which is what TD is doing when he lacks belief. He's assuming (as you are) that everyone is just guessing, and if that were true (which he would have to prove), then he would be right that non-belief is the only reasonable position.
However, that all hinges on it being true that everyone is guessing. For him, however, he would just be guessing otherwise, so for him, lack of belief is the only reasonable position.
For you, belief may be the only reasonable position. I do not know.
Maybe you were held at gunpoint and forced to make yourself believe that an afterlife exists in order to stay alive. That would be a very reasonable reason to believe, IMHO. (I know that's a strange scenario but it illustrates my point, I hope.)
Well, it wasn't meant to be a personal challenge, more like my own personal prediction about humanity as a whole over time.
Making someone's life better can have nothing to do with religion, but it doesn't always, and I was claiming that I believe (for a multitude of reasons that I will not go into here) that if there was no religion, you would find a lot less of that behavior.
Then this is just anecdotal evidence and you have no reason for asserting it. I could just as easily assert the reverse.
However, I personally think that religion has little to do with encouraging people to do good. Rather, I think individuals are drawn to religions or philosophies that best suit their own personal behaviors (e.g. people who are inherently imposing, intimidating, etc. may gravitate to certain sects of Christianity that encourage that sort of behavior, whereas people who are selfless and such will gravitate to other sects of Christianity or other faiths or lack thereof that naturally encourages their own behaviors, as well).
I.E. people affect religions, not the other way around.
The fact of the matter is, inability to prove or even collect information about a topic means that ANY position on that topic is equally valid. So, if my belief in an afterlife is arbitrary, so is the lack of belief in one.
You like to say this a lot, but it's simply not true.
One, it's not true on the grounds that the inability to prove or collect information on a topic DOES NOT automatically render any position on that topic invalid.
Secondly, it's not true on the grounds that a lack of belief is inherently NOT a position, so if any position is equally invalid on a given topic, the lack of belief (being the lack of a position) is actually the ONLY non-arbitrary "position" (being that it isn't a position at all).
Lack of belief is just saying "Hey, I'm not taking a position on this, guys; you hash it out."
However, I'll repeat, that the lack of evidence (or the "inability to prove or even collect information about a topic" as worded in this case) does not automatically invalidate any position.
I've already brought up math earlier. But here's another doozy to think about: morality. People can take non-arbitrary positions on what is "good" or "evil" without any evidence (since there isn't any). You can take a position and argue for it, and even make a convincing argument, all without evidence (or rather, without the ability to prove or collect information about it).
Philosophers have been doing exactly that for centuries.
This is a pretty good response. He's not saying that people without religion are amoral, he's simply pointing out that religion encourages morality in a lot of people.
He's not "pointing it out" as if it were some objective fact. He's asserting it without any evidence. (And yes, this is one of those cases where it boils down to evidence, since he's making a "factual" claim.)
Yes, we do know. It is simply an outgrowth of cell signalling.
I don't think you understand my question. How is it that a bunch of atoms come together to create intelligence? Simple outgrowth of cell signaling isn't enough to explain it. It does explain how intelligence continues but not how it started. I'm curious to know how it started. I can't find any information on it anywhere. I'm pretty sure that no one really knows for sure. It's just something that I wonder sometimes.
If you have any links or books that will give me some answers I'm willing to check them out.
I already pointed this out.
However, using ENGLISH definitions for HEBREW words is beyond stupid. Just because evening in Hebrew means evening in English doesn't mean that evening in English means evening in Hebrew.
In short, words have multiple meanings, but the word used to refer to "evening" in English does not have the same LIST of meanings as the word "evening" in Hebrew.
Indeed, if you look up the particular word used, you'll see many definitions, but "the latter portion" is not one of them. Evening, not so shockingly is.
Trying to argue that a word in another language, translated to English, means something else entirely different in English, really just isn't going to work, because the word is translated to mean a specific meaning. The fact that we use the same word for "jogging quickly" and "trying to get elected" doesn't mean other languages use the same word for it as well.
You can look up the passage yourself if you want, and painstakingly translate it yourself, but you won't get what you want out of it. It simply doesn't mean what you want it to mean. It very clearly is using day in the 24 hour period of time definition.
Hereis a site that does just that.
Hereis another.
You can also check out this site for some more work on translation.
You can also check out The Science of God, written by Gerald L. Schroeder. In this book, he explains how it is possible that god was speaking in 24 hour time periods and how we can view the same period of time as millions of years. It's all about perspective. He shows the math. This man is both a physicist as well as a theologian. You can find the math here. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as either Schroeder or the author of that site so I can't argue about which one has a more accurate formula. What I can say is that Schroeder brings up some interesting ideas.
My only question is what happens to our consciousness? Is that accounted for?
Yes, yes it is. The energy that composes our consciousness simply disperses, similar to how our bodies decompose, but much faster.
A universe in which God and an afterlife exist is different from the alternative, but it is not functionally different.
Yes, yes it is. How could it be anything but?
The laws of the universe in both cases behave the same way, the afterlife has no bearing on the functionality of the current life.
But it does.
If a "soul" exists "outside of our universe" but is somehow attached to and able to influence a physical object in the universe, like our bodies, that means that our universe is being influenced by some force outside of it. This means that our bodies are unable to function by themselves.
If a soul does not exist, that means that our physical bodies don't need some outside force to act upon it. Our bodies function just fine by themselves. Our consciousness, etc., are simply products of the physical world, so we don't need any influence outside of the universe.
I don't even understand how you could begin to believe the two are functionally the same. Each includes processes of energy transfer that are not present or redundant in the other.
For the two to exist and be functionally the same, you have to admit that God and a soul are completely useless, because they do absolutely nothing, so there's no reason to care about them.
The fact of the matter is, inability to prove or even collect information about a topic means that ANY position on that topic is equally valid.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. See the Flying Spaghetti Monster for more details.
He's not saying that people without religion are amoral, he's simply pointing out that religion encourages morality in a lot of people.
And lack of religion encourages morality in a lot of people, and religion encouraged lack of morality in a lot of people, and lack of religion encourages lack of morality in a lot of people. Unless you can show that religion inspires more morality than lack thereof and how that compares to how much morality or lack of morality lack of religion inspires, any statement on any of them is purely anecdotal.
However, you're going to have to do more than that to convince me that Life is ONLY a Biochemical process.
Do you have any good reason to believe that life is anything other than a biochemical process?
In short, you have no reason to believe that a universe with a God and afterlife would be functionally different than one without.
Oh, but I do. The simple matter of an additional unknown for of energy of some kind interacting with and influencing this universe makes the two possibilities extremely functionally different. Either the universe can function without god and an afterlife or it can't. If it can but they exist anyways, then they're useless, don't ever actually influence or do anything at all, and aren't worthy of our concern.
Wouldn't a universe with invisible pink unicorns that can't affect anything whatsoever be functionally the same as one simply without them?
Yes, I suppose, but then we have no reason to care about these unicorns, do we? They do nothing at all and aren't worthy of our concern. However, the claim is that god and the afterlife DO influence and interact with our universe. This means that god and the afterlife either exist and do make our universe functionally different than if they didn't, or they're as useless to us as invisible pink unicorns...
Supposing souls exist, and that God exists and an afterlife exists, souls would not interact with the universe as we know it; all the stuff would happen in the afterlife.
So they're useless to us? If a soul doesn't do anything at all, doesn't influence our consciousness or decisions, and we can function exactly the same without them, why do we care? They might as well be the invisible pink unicorns.
For all we know, we could be living in a universe in which God (and an afterlife) exists. How is that functionally different from just assuming there is no God?
. . . I can't decide whether those two sentences have absolutely nothing to do with each other or completely contradict each other. You're going to need to reword that before it starts making any sense at all to me.
How is it that a bunch of atoms come together to create intelligence? Simple outgrowth of cell signaling isn't enough to explain it. It does explain how intelligence continues but not how it started. I'm curious to know how it started. I can't find any information on it anywhere. I'm pretty sure that no one really knows for sure. It's just something that I wonder sometimes.
If you have any links or books that will give me some answers I'm willing to check them out.
I find this topic to be interesting and fun too, but you don't even have to look at life to see why it's interesting. Look at something as simple as water.
Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. However, water has properties that neither hydrogen nor oxygen have, and water lacks properties that both hydrogen and oxygen have. Atoms and molecules do weird things. When looked at by themselves, you can't really determine anything about how they'll interact when together.
You could look at it as though consciousness and awareness are one of these interesting properties. When you take apart all of the components, they don't seem like they should do anything special when put together, but they do. We don't understand exactly how yet, but that's no reason to assume some God or afterlife is involved, just like there's no reason to assume water has an afterlife when converted back to hydrogen and oxygen or that water needs some kind of divine intervention to become something more than the sum of its parts.
Without religion you would have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things.
It takes religion to make good people do bad things and bad people do good things.
crEDIT: I think this quote is from Ralph Waldo Emerson, but I'm not quite sure.
I find this topic to be interesting and fun too, but you don't even have to look at life to see why it's interesting. Look at something as simple as water.
Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. However, water has properties that neither hydrogen nor oxygen have, and water lacks properties that both hydrogen and oxygen have. Atoms and molecules do weird things. When looked at by themselves, you can't really determine anything about how they'll interact when together.
You could look at it as though consciousness and awareness are one of these interesting properties. When you take apart all of the components, they don't seem like they should do anything special when put together, but they do. We don't understand exactly how yet, but that's no reason to assume some God or afterlife is involved, just like there's no reason to assume water has an afterlife when converted back to hydrogen and oxygen or that water needs some kind of divine intervention to become something more than the sum of its parts.
I don't believe in gods nor an afterlife. I wish we had a better understanding of some things. I wish we could understand more how the atoms and molecules interact to create things that are very different from its individual parts. I don't know how chemists and physicists would even begin determining all of this.
In science we still only know a fraction of what is potentially out there. As technology advances we do tend to find new things, some of which go to confirm what we already believe we know, others only bring up more questions and leave us scratching our head.
After life need not take the form of a pearly gate, nor a flaming inferno (Blame Persians for the concept of Heaven/Hell.) It could be a merging with a greater consciousness. We are living proof that matter energy can be sentient, yet how can we grasp that this does or does not occur on larger scales?
I am looking forward to the LHC starting up tests in October. I am sure it will answer some questions and probably bring to light more questions. Unless of course the universe is a unstable system...lol in which case...
Offtopic stuff
Actually, they had a pretty good idea of how large the world was, too. Columbus thought it was considerably smaller than it really was, and a lot of people thought the world was about the size it really is and thus sailing across the Atlantic was insane because you'd die. As it turns out, Columbus got lucky and there was land in-between Asia and Europe.
This is simply false. Quantum mechanics IS science. The formulas are well known, it creates testable hypotheses, ect. It very much is science. There are things which are not known in quantum mechanics, but much of quantum mechanics is science.
What ISN'T science is string theory.
I do. I think that if we didn't believe anything there wasn't evidence for, the world would be a much better place.
Well, there's lots of actually pretty good arguments for why we do exist. However, the more general rebuttal to it is that it doesn't really matter if we exist or not, as it changes nothing.
Not to mention, the observer effect is pretty strong evidence for our existance.
Sure it should. You should be able to rationally evaluate their liklihood of doing what you want them to do, or at least not doing what you don't want them to do. Evolution gave us big brains for a reason, and that was one of the big ones - the ability to evaluate social bonds and enforce reciprocal altruism.
You shouldn't waste it.
This is simply false. Stuff like the additive property are pretty readily tested. Take one object and another object. Do you have two objects now? Then repeat this a thousand times and see what your SD was. If you always end up with 2, then you've proven with a very high degree of confidence that 1 + 1 = 2.
The interesting idea that people can attempt to rationalize almost anything?
As was said by the author of the site:
Same with the earth being round/flat. Actually, a little unknown fact to some (thanks to bad education in the states), very few people in the time of Columbus actually thought the earth was flat; most assumed at that time that it was round. In fact, the Spanish government would never have funded Columbus' expidetion if they honestly thought the world was flat. What people didn't know was just how big the world was.
Actually, they had a pretty good idea of how large the world was, too. Columbus thought it was considerably smaller than it really was, and a lot of people thought the world was about the size it really is and thus sailing across the Atlantic was insane because you'd die. As it turns out, Columbus got lucky and there was land in-between Asia and Europe.
Let's take a modern-day example: quantum mechanics. You hear a lot of talk about quantum mechanics and perhaps many "common" people (for lack of a better term) consider it science, because it's scientists talking about it mostly. However, that would be wrong; quantum mechanics is not science. Some scientists advocate it as true but it has not made all the "loop holes" that bring a theory into the realm of "science." It may someday be science; and if it never does, I'm sure there will be people in the future pointing to QM as an example of when "science was wrong." However, it would be false to use that as an example, because so far "science" does not "accept" QM.
This is simply false. Quantum mechanics IS science. The formulas are well known, it creates testable hypotheses, ect. It very much is science. There are things which are not known in quantum mechanics, but much of quantum mechanics is science.
What ISN'T science is string theory.
I don't think one's reasons for beliefs should always come down to "evidence." That would be strictly impossible, in fact.
I do. I think that if we didn't believe anything there wasn't evidence for, the world would be a much better place.
Many of our beliefs, for example, come from logical deduction. I believe I exist. Cogito ergo sum. I don't have any evidence for this (I know some will say I do but when you argue for base existence itself you can't use existence as evidence, that's circular), but it is logically undeniable, as Descartes pointed out. From here, I might make other pragmatic assumptions (for example, the "world" exists [this could all actually be in my head]) which also do not have any evidence. But I still have reason to make such beliefs, such it's not arbitrary.
Well, there's lots of actually pretty good arguments for why we do exist. However, the more general rebuttal to it is that it doesn't really matter if we exist or not, as it changes nothing.
Not to mention, the observer effect is pretty strong evidence for our existance.
I have faith in my friends and family, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with "evidence." Nor should it.
Sure it should. You should be able to rationally evaluate their liklihood of doing what you want them to do, or at least not doing what you don't want them to do. Evolution gave us big brains for a reason, and that was one of the big ones - the ability to evaluate social bonds and enforce reciprocal altruism.
You shouldn't waste it.
Wrong. I have NO evidence that 2 + 2 = 4. No one has evidence for that. But is 4 just a guess? No, it's math. 4 is the very definition of 2 + 2. All without evidence.
This is simply false. Stuff like the additive property are pretty readily tested. Take one object and another object. Do you have two objects now? Then repeat this a thousand times and see what your SD was. If you always end up with 2, then you've proven with a very high degree of confidence that 1 + 1 = 2.
You can also check out The Science of God, written by Gerald L. Schroeder. In this book, he explains how it is possible that god was speaking in 24 hour time periods and how we can view the same period of time as millions of years. It's all about perspective. He shows the math. This man is both a physicist as well as a theologian. You can find the math here. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as either Schroeder or the author of that site so I can't argue about which one has a more accurate formula. What I can say is that Schroeder brings up some interesting ideas.
The interesting idea that people can attempt to rationalize almost anything?
As was said by the author of the site:
Schroeder's attempt to connect 31 lines of Genesis to big-bang cosmology and earth paleontology makes entertaining reading, but will convince no one who is not already convinced or totally lacking of critical facilities.
Its nonsense, as explained by the author of the site. As he points out:Schroeder's use of an exponential function to give different earth periods for each cosmic day is not justified by his argument that earth time is simply redshifted cosmic time. While an exponential relationship would apply for the inflationary epoch in the early universe, that has ended by the time of quark confinement. Afterwards we have the almost linear Hubble expansion in which the redshift varies as a power law with time, not exponentially. By having each cosmic day half as long as the preceding one in earth years, again a completely arbitrary, unjustified procedure, Schroeder is able to vaguely relate events known from cosmology to those described in Genesis.
This is absolutely correct. There's no justification, that's just not how things work. He tried to make the data fit his arbitrary notion.
Show
You may be right, I'm not a "science guy" per se. I was told that QM wasn't quite science yet but I'm not sure of the truth of that claim, as it came from a "philo guy" rather than a "science guy."
It wouldn't be a better place because such a place cannot exist. You're starting to make the same mistake here that the logical positivists of the Enlightenment made.
By the way, what makes you think the world would be a "better place?" How can you make such a value judgment? What theory of ethics are you applying in order to make this claim, and what evidence do you have that supports your theory of ethics?
(Please don't tell me you are using Objectivism, although that would make a LOT of sense.)
There is only one argument, and it doesn't rely on any evidence, and yet it is incredibly compelling. That argument is: cogito ergo sum or "I think therefore I am." I perceive myself to exist, so I must exist, and even if I don't exist in the way that I seem to, I still exist as something perceiving myself to exist in some other way than in a way that I actually exist. Therefore, I exist.
It's undeniable and it has absolutely nothing to do with evidence.
Actually the strongest rebuttal is to say that claiming one doesn't exist requires one to exist in order to make the claim. It's impossible to not exist, therefore one exists.
Again, that was a logical deduction and had nothing to do with evidence.
But bringing forth evidence would require observing behavorial patterns and submitting a study for peer review, which I won't do for friends and family. Even so, as humans we often by default place love and trust (and faith) into newborns that enter the family, and there is no way you can claim we have evidence to assume they'll recriprocate that love, trust, and faith.
You're assuming your conclusion. Grabbing an item and then another item and showing that you have two items is not "evidence" for 1 + 1 = 2. It is just demonstrating it. Evidence is science, not math. When you grab two items and try to demonstrate 1 + 1 = 2, you aren't providing evidence, you're defining the items as "1" and "1" and demonstrating the mathematical formula. It's true by definition, not by observation.
This is simply false. Quantum mechanics IS science. The formulas are well known, it creates testable hypotheses, ect. It very much is science. There are things which are not known in quantum mechanics, but much of quantum mechanics is science.
What ISN'T science is string theory.
You may be right, I'm not a "science guy" per se. I was told that QM wasn't quite science yet but I'm not sure of the truth of that claim, as it came from a "philo guy" rather than a "science guy."
I do. I think that if we didn't believe anything there wasn't evidence for, the world would be a much better place.
It wouldn't be a better place because such a place cannot exist. You're starting to make the same mistake here that the logical positivists of the Enlightenment made.
By the way, what makes you think the world would be a "better place?" How can you make such a value judgment? What theory of ethics are you applying in order to make this claim, and what evidence do you have that supports your theory of ethics?
(Please don't tell me you are using Objectivism, although that would make a LOT of sense.)
Well, there's lots of actually pretty good arguments for why we do exist.
There is only one argument, and it doesn't rely on any evidence, and yet it is incredibly compelling. That argument is: cogito ergo sum or "I think therefore I am." I perceive myself to exist, so I must exist, and even if I don't exist in the way that I seem to, I still exist as something perceiving myself to exist in some other way than in a way that I actually exist. Therefore, I exist.
It's undeniable and it has absolutely nothing to do with evidence.
However, the more general rebuttal to it is that it doesn't really matter if we exist or not, as it changes nothing.
Actually the strongest rebuttal is to say that claiming one doesn't exist requires one to exist in order to make the claim. It's impossible to not exist, therefore one exists.
Again, that was a logical deduction and had nothing to do with evidence.
Sure it should. You should be able to rationally evaluate their liklihood of doing what you want them to do, or at least not doing what you don't want them to do. Evolution gave us big brains for a reason, and that was one of the big ones - the ability to evaluate social bonds and enforce reciprocal altruism.
You shouldn't waste it.
But bringing forth evidence would require observing behavorial patterns and submitting a study for peer review, which I won't do for friends and family. Even so, as humans we often by default place love and trust (and faith) into newborns that enter the family, and there is no way you can claim we have evidence to assume they'll recriprocate that love, trust, and faith.
This is simply false. Stuff like the additive property are pretty readily tested. Take one object and another object. Do you have two objects now? Then repeat this a thousand times and see what your SD was. If you always end up with 2, then you've proven with a very high degree of confidence that 1 + 1 = 2.
You're assuming your conclusion. Grabbing an item and then another item and showing that you have two items is not "evidence" for 1 + 1 = 2. It is just demonstrating it. Evidence is science, not math. When you grab two items and try to demonstrate 1 + 1 = 2, you aren't providing evidence, you're defining the items as "1" and "1" and demonstrating the mathematical formula. It's true by definition, not by observation.
Man+Women=Kid
Man+Women=Kid
Depends on how exactly you perform that addition. :P
Yes. Life is nothing more than biochemistry. No soul, no spirit, not mystical force- just an elaborate system for keeping meat fresh.
Wrong. You're making this claim, but you're failing to actually back it up.
…a consideration you are seemingly apparently unwilling to extend to others.
My statement had nothing to do with trying to push my beliefs on others, give me a break.
You do not believe it ≠ "fail".
Actually, for me (and anyone else with me) it does. This is basic rhetoric and argument. If your audience does not accept your premises, your argument is meaningless.
Humans are free to believe whatever fantasy they wish to make themselves feel more alone an meaningless in the universe, but belief in fantasy does not make it true.
Fixed.
See now it applies to you instead of me!
@TD
I could say the same thing about atheism, you're going to have to support your claims, rather than just make them.
And you are incorrect in saying this. Just because a lot, if not most, of Christians believe this doesn't make it true. Truth is not determined by popular opinion.
Please, your laughable attempts at dismissing arguments which are perfectly valid are equal parts FAIL and lulz.
Whether or not there is an afterlife has no bearing on the functionality of the universe to those in this life.
Hardly. It's even a cliche that the more we find out the less we realize that we know. Science continually discovers things that surprise scientists. Things that they can't explain or didn't expect. New fields are opened. You may be gaining "more knowledge" but that doesn't equate to "more predictive power."
I'm not even sure you understand the point of religion. Religion has very little to do with explaining the workings of the universe. It's a guide on how to live. For some, like Christianity, it's a medium for eternal life as well.
The fact is, you hold a double standard to the two, due to your bias, and you are too blind to see that you are doing it.
Well I suppose that's fair enough. The English definition isn't the same as the Hebrew one, and I recognize that.
So let's take a look at the Hebrew:
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html
Try again?
Heh your condescending sarcasm gets more hilarious the more wrong it gets.
I'll summarize your position here:
"Your economics class sucked because your professor (a PhD in Economics) disagrees with my perceived notions of value!"
I don't think I need to bother actually addressing this again.
I'm sorry that's not a strawman. You previously said "Wait until tomorrow" makes something falsifiable. Now you're changing it to mean "can be discovered by experimentation."
Try again.
Actually it's pretty darn foolish. I'll summarize again:
"This Christian doesn't agree with my stereotyped, preconceived notions about Christianity! No Christian can break this mold! Clearly he's wrong because I, an atheist, know so much more about religion than him."
Your blind stereotyping would probably be laughed at as a joke if this were a sitcom.
Lack of evidence for != Evidence against.
This is so obvious, yet I fail to see how atheists time and time again make this blatantly obvious fallacy.
That...didn't really address anything to do with a soul.
Ah, but see you haven't PROVED it doesn't interact with the world. You just so far haven't been able to DETECT it's interactions.
A fundamental difference.
Um no? Have YOU even read Christian doctrines? The point of religion isn't just the salvation, it's the way of life.
As long as Christianity exists, there will be bad Christians. Religion is not the root of all evil by any means, but it is the root of SOME evil - if you get rid of religion, many people will go ahead and be small-minded about something else. But many people won't as well.
The societal costs of religion are high, and the societal benefits at this point are low.
I could say the same thing about atheism, you're going to have to support your claims, rather than just make them.
No, I'm saying it is part of your religion, or at least, the religion called Christianity.
And you are incorrect in saying this. Just because a lot, if not most, of Christians believe this doesn't make it true. Truth is not determined by popular opinion.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Please, your laughable attempts at dismissing arguments which are perfectly valid are equal parts FAIL and lulz.
Whether or not there is an afterlife has no bearing on the functionality of the universe to those in this life.
Nope, you just don't understand.
As time goes on, science becomes more and more certain of how the universe functions.
As time goes on, religion becomes less and less certain of how the universe functions.
In short, the predictive power of science increases, while the predictive power of religion decreases.
Its that simple.
Hardly. It's even a cliche that the more we find out the less we realize that we know. Science continually discovers things that surprise scientists. Things that they can't explain or didn't expect. New fields are opened. You may be gaining "more knowledge" but that doesn't equate to "more predictive power."
I'm not even sure you understand the point of religion. Religion has very little to do with explaining the workings of the universe. It's a guide on how to live. For some, like Christianity, it's a medium for eternal life as well.
The fact is, you hold a double standard to the two, due to your bias, and you are too blind to see that you are doing it.
I already pointed this out.
However, using ENGLISH definitions for HEBREW words is beyond stupid. Just because evening in Hebrew means evening in English doesn't mean that evening in English means evening in Hebrew.
In short, words have multiple meanings, but the word used to refer to "evening" in English does not have the same LIST of meanings as the word "evening" in Hebrew.
Indeed, if you look up the particular word used, you'll see many definitions, but "the latter portion" is not one of them. Evening, not so shockingly is.
Trying to argue that a word in another language, translated to English, means something else entirely different in English, really just isn't going to work, because the word is translated to mean a specific meaning. The fact that we use the same word for "jogging quickly" and "trying to get elected" doesn't mean other languages use the same word for it as well.
You can look up the passage yourself if you want, and painstakingly translate it yourself, but you won't get what you want out of it. It simply doesn't mean what you want it to mean. It very clearly is using day in the 24 hour period of time definition.
Well I suppose that's fair enough. The English definition isn't the same as the Hebrew one, and I recognize that.
So let's take a look at the Hebrew:
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html
Try again?
Then your economics class sucked. Was it "stocks for jocks"?
Heh your condescending sarcasm gets more hilarious the more wrong it gets.
I'll summarize your position here:
"Your economics class sucked because your professor (a PhD in Economics) disagrees with my perceived notions of value!"
I don't think I need to bother actually addressing this again.
You should read my post and understand my post before erecting a strawman that the quoted section of text directly addresses.
I'm sorry that's not a strawman. You previously said "Wait until tomorrow" makes something falsifiable. Now you're changing it to mean "can be discovered by experimentation."
Try again.
Pretentious, perhaps, but not foolish.
And no, you didn't become a Christian a week ago. If you did, you'd know more about your religion than you do.
Actually it's pretty darn foolish. I'll summarize again:
"This Christian doesn't agree with my stereotyped, preconceived notions about Christianity! No Christian can break this mold! Clearly he's wrong because I, an atheist, know so much more about religion than him."
Your blind stereotyping would probably be laughed at as a joke if this were a sitcom.
There is no evidence that there aren't invisible, undetectable pink unicorns prancing around us either.
Your belief is exactly equivalent to that.
Though to be fair, there's actually evidence that there isn't an afterlife - there is no interaction with matter energy for the soul to be.
Lack of evidence for != Evidence against.
This is so obvious, yet I fail to see how atheists time and time again make this blatantly obvious fallacy.
Because the way we behave fundamentally defines who we are, and indeed, it does so in pretty much everyone's religious beliefs as well.
That...didn't really address anything to do with a soul.
Proving that it doesn't interact with the real world in any way pretty much does indicate it doesn't exist or isn't meaningful, but in the case of the soul, it is a strong indication of nonexistance because of what the soul represents.
Ah, but see you haven't PROVED it doesn't interact with the world. You just so far haven't been able to DETECT it's interactions.
A fundamental difference.
Not really, no. Have you even read Christian doctrines? Christianity is partially so successful precisely because it doesn't. You just believe in Jesus and confess your sins and you're good. Pretty attractive, really.
Um no? Have YOU even read Christian doctrines? The point of religion isn't just the salvation, it's the way of life.
Religion does encourage some self sacrifice, tis true. Look at the abortion clinic bombers and that guy who blew himself up on a school bus in Israel.
Oh, right, you wanted something that made religion look GOOD. These behaviors are bad. If you believe this world isn't so important, that's pretty bad for this world.
[/QUTOE]
And you accuse ME of a strawman. Ha!
Just as an introduction, here's what a quick look at Yahoo! did for me:
List of Christian Charities
You bring up all this negativity about my religion, thinking you've made a good point. You haven't.
Yeah, you're right. Bad things have been done in the name of religion. Terrible things. That doesn't mean that's what those religions encourage. People find whatever excuse they want to commit their horrific acts. If you think that without Christianity that those abortion clinics wouldn't have been bombed anyway, you're kidding yourself.
Christianity does a lot of good for the world, and you're pretty blind if you can't see that.Well, given the two greatest philanthropists are atheists, I'm going to go out on a limb and say "not so much." Atheists are charitable.
And who are these? What makes the the "greatest"?
I won't argue that whoever you're talking about aren't charitable, but you're argument doesn't fly anyway. I said you'd find less people willing, not that you'd find no people willing.Religion tells you that people are good because of their religion. But of course they're liars.
Actually, that's the exact opposite of what Christianity teaches. Christianity teaches that every person is a bad person (a sinner). In fact, it teaches that we will never stop being like this, but it does encourage us to try.People are good because of natural selection. Its coded into us, because it helped our ancestors survive. Altruism isn't the result of religion, and religion doesn't create altruism.
Ha! This is the biggest load of crap I've see you put forth so far. Natural selection? Seriously?
I don't think so. If that were true we'd be executing the handicapped, the nearsighted, the birth defective, etc.
These are all weaknesses for our species, but our altruism fosters these genetic flaws by allowing the to survive. Natural selection should dictate that these people be extracted from the gene pool by death. Altruism fights natural selection.Indeed, the organization in my community which most encourages high school students to do community service and similar is an entirely secular one. Of course, given where I'm from there's roughly a 10% church attendance rate, the lowest in the country, it probably shouldn't be surprising.
Yet my community has lots of community service projects despite being amongst the least religious ones in the United States. Indeed, I remember back in high school coordinators having to turn away volunteers because they didn't need so many.
We're also wealthy, have a low unemployment rate, a low crime rate, the second highest percentage of PHDs in the population, ect. ect. Its a really nice place to live, perhaps THE best in this country, and yet somehow, we have the lowest rate of church attendance in this country.
The absence of religion clearly isn't hurting my community, nor is it preventing us from finding volunteers. Earlier this week I tried to volunteer as part of a energy conservation project and was turned away because they didn't need more volunteers at the moment, and aren't sure when they will need more, though they have a meeting in two weeks and will tell me then if they need me.
Wow, I'm gonna love pulling the kind of crap you pull on me all the time, so here goes! I'm going to dismiss your entire point in two words:
Anecdotal Evidence.How is evolution.
Evolution is still determined by the initial conditions of our universe, so that explains how we exist, not why we exist in this form. Man, I don't know how to make that more clear.
Early theology taught that the divine power is shown in all its intricate manifestations. The soul is anterior to form and what is anterior includes all that is posterior to itself. Form being a part of the soul, is within the soul but the spirit is more than the sum of form. As the form of man is within the sum of spirit, blah blah blah
Really it is a catch 22. We would not be where we are today without Philosophy. It is a lot like new technology in that it has potential to do good or do evil depending on how it is used.
In the old days the deeper teachings behind the story was taught to very select people. As time passes, new religions are built from the ashes of old and maintain semblance, yet sometimes they lose their deeper meanings.
I think it would be foolish to write off our ancestors knowledge. If you look at things like Stone Henge or the Pyramids it should easily be apparent that there was deeper workings happening.
@squarecircle
Alright, here's one for you: Ether. That was science, and it was a claim many scientists (if not most at the time) made.
Well, I'd mostly agree with this. But this sounds a lot more like my position than TDs.
Lack of any reason? What else qualifies as a reason? I mean, if you want to get incredibly basic, A really good reason would be, because if Christians are right and atheists are wrong, it's gonna really suck to be in the latter group. So, if anything, a good reason to believe would be out of fear of its possible truth, given the lack of evidence.
Not that I would say that is a GOOD reason...
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Well, like you said...
It's true, but since math must start with postulates, and everything else comes from those, it's not quite that simple. We're talking about absolute truths, not truths based in systems which are relative to their initial postulates. And, sadly, math doesn't work that way:
[Base 10]
1 + 1 = 2
[Base 2]
1 + 1 = 10
While they represent the same value, the numerical representations are different. Now, if you want to argue about the absolute numerical value of Base 10's 2, then I'll argue you can get evidence for 1 + 1 = 2. Sort of like what TD suggested.
How so?
Hmm...I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that's true. For instance:
"Is there a car behind this curtain?"
There is no evidence for a car being there. However, you would be quite incorrect in saying that, since there's no evidence for a car being behind the curtain, it's more reasonable to say that there isn't one.
It wasn't really even evidence, just my guess.
I don't think so. Of course that depends on how you view people. I've seen children, independent of any sort of influence from their parents (if not contradictory influence) decide to come to church and believe in God. Somehow, I don't think that these children, still with the flexible personalities that they have, are just finding the religion that suits them.
Did I say this? I didn't mean to if that's how it came across.
A saying that it's a non-position takes it out of the arena altogether. Atheism, by your argument, recognizes that SOME religion must be right, but until they figure it out, we won't take a side.
And I'll repeat that I don't think I said that. If I did, I'm invalidating my own position...
That's true, and I actually brought this up in the "On Reason and Discussing God" thread.
However, I think that "relative morality" which seems to be what you suggest is quite a dangerous position, as you really have no grounds at that point to say that anything that serial killers (for example) do is inherently wrong.
I suppose that's okay with some people, but to me that seems like a bad position.
Actually, even if you discount what he said as evidence, I'll give him some here (anecdotal though it is):
Without my religions beliefs, screw you guys.
Seriously, if all I have is this life, I don't see a reason to give a care about the environment, the future, or anyone else. People, as a whole, particularly the stupid ones, really tick me off anyway. Religious belief encourages good and unselfish behavior in me. In fact, I'd say it causes it for me.
A few individual scientiests may have made the claim that the sun revolves around the earth, but geocentrism was never considered science
Alright, here's one for you: Ether. That was science, and it was a claim many scientists (if not most at the time) made.
TD needs evidence to believe in an afterlife because he has no other reason to believe in one. If there were evidence, he'd believe, but lacking that, and lacking any other reason, he defaults to non-belief.
I believe my wife will never cheat on me. I don't really have any evidence for this, but I still have good reason to believe it. I suppose you could say I have some evidence (her strength of character, precendent for her loyalty to loved ones, etc) but this doesn't really qualify as the sort of scientific evidence we were discussing, and anyway such "evidence" is not really why I believe she won't cheat. I have other reasons (namely, I have faith in her).
I don't think one's reasons for beliefs should always come down to "evidence." That would be strictly impossible, in fact.
Many of our beliefs, for example, come from logical deduction. I believe I exist. Cogito ergo sum. I don't have any evidence for this (I know some will say I do but when you argue for base existence itself you can't use existence as evidence, that's circular), but it is logically undeniable, as Descartes pointed out. From here, I might make other pragmatic assumptions (for example, the "world" exists [this could all actually be in my head]) which also do not have any evidence. But I still have reason to make such beliefs, such it's not arbitrary.
I have faith in my friends and family, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with "evidence." Nor should it.
Well, I'd mostly agree with this. But this sounds a lot more like my position than TDs.
That's not my assertion. I said for lack of any other reason, when one also lacks evidence, then non-belief is the default, reasonable position.
Lack of any reason? What else qualifies as a reason? I mean, if you want to get incredibly basic, A really good reason would be, because if Christians are right and atheists are wrong, it's gonna really suck to be in the latter group. So, if anything, a good reason to believe would be out of fear of its possible truth, given the lack of evidence.
Not that I would say that is a GOOD reason...
Evidence does not have to be your only reason for believing something. In fact, if it were, your worldview would be incoherent, because you wouldn't even have a foundation for your own existence.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Wrong. I have NO evidence that 2 + 2 = 4. No one has evidence for that. But is 4 just a guess? No, it's math. 4 is the very definition of 2 + 2. All without evidence.
Well, like you said...
No math has any evidence behind it. It all starts with postulates and everything else is logical deduction. No evidence, yet there is no guessing, either.
It's true, but since math must start with postulates, and everything else comes from those, it's not quite that simple. We're talking about absolute truths, not truths based in systems which are relative to their initial postulates. And, sadly, math doesn't work that way:
[Base 10]
1 + 1 = 2
[Base 2]
1 + 1 = 10
While they represent the same value, the numerical representations are different. Now, if you want to argue about the absolute numerical value of Base 10's 2, then I'll argue you can get evidence for 1 + 1 = 2. Sort of like what TD suggested.
That's true, but simply lacking evidence does not equal "guessing."
How so?
By the way, when guessing, not all positions are equally reasonable; they are equally unreasonable. The only reasonable choice is not to guess at all; which is what TD is doing when he lacks belief. He's assuming (as you are) that everyone is just guessing, and if that were true (which he would have to prove), then he would be right that non-belief is the only reasonable position.
Hmm...I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that's true. For instance:
"Is there a car behind this curtain?"
There is no evidence for a car being there. However, you would be quite incorrect in saying that, since there's no evidence for a car being behind the curtain, it's more reasonable to say that there isn't one.
Then this is just anecdotal evidence and you have no reason for asserting it. I could just as easily assert the reverse.
It wasn't really even evidence, just my guess.
However, I personally think that religion has little to do with encouraging people to do good. Rather, I think individuals are drawn to religions or philosophies that best suit their own personal behaviors (e.g. people who are inherently imposing, intimidating, etc. may gravitate to certain sects of Christianity that encourage that sort of behavior, whereas people who are selfless and such will gravitate to other sects of Christianity or other faiths or lack thereof that naturally encourages their own behaviors, as well).
I.E. people affect religions, not the other way around.
I don't think so. Of course that depends on how you view people. I've seen children, independent of any sort of influence from their parents (if not contradictory influence) decide to come to church and believe in God. Somehow, I don't think that these children, still with the flexible personalities that they have, are just finding the religion that suits them.
You like to say this a lot, but it's simply not true.
One, it's not true on the grounds that the inability to prove or collect information on a topic DOES NOT automatically render any position on that topic invalid.
Did I say this? I didn't mean to if that's how it came across.
Secondly, it's not true on the grounds that a lack of belief is inherently NOT a position, so if any position is equally invalid on a given topic, the lack of belief (being the lack of a position) is actually the ONLY non-arbitrary "position" (being that it isn't a position at all).
Lack of belief is just saying "Hey, I'm not taking a position on this, guys; you hash it out."
A saying that it's a non-position takes it out of the arena altogether. Atheism, by your argument, recognizes that SOME religion must be right, but until they figure it out, we won't take a side.
However, I'll repeat, that the lack of evidence (or the "inability to prove or even collect information about a topic" as worded in this case) does not automatically invalidate any position.
And I'll repeat that I don't think I said that. If I did, I'm invalidating my own position...
I've already brought up math earlier. But here's another doozy to think about: morality. People can take non-arbitrary positions on what is "good" or "evil" without any evidence (since there isn't any). You can take a position and argue for it, and even make a convincing argument, all without evidence (or rather, without the ability to prove or collect information about it).
Philosophers have been doing exactly that for centuries.
That's true, and I actually brought this up in the "On Reason and Discussing God" thread.
However, I think that "relative morality" which seems to be what you suggest is quite a dangerous position, as you really have no grounds at that point to say that anything that serial killers (for example) do is inherently wrong.
I suppose that's okay with some people, but to me that seems like a bad position.
He's not "pointing it out" as if it were some objective fact. He's asserting it without any evidence. (And yes, this is one of those cases where it boils down to evidence, since he's making a "factual" claim.)
Actually, even if you discount what he said as evidence, I'll give him some here (anecdotal though it is):
Without my religions beliefs, screw you guys.
Seriously, if all I have is this life, I don't see a reason to give a care about the environment, the future, or anyone else. People, as a whole, particularly the stupid ones, really tick me off anyway. Religious belief encourages good and unselfish behavior in me. In fact, I'd say it causes it for me.
@TD
I could say the same thing about atheism, you're going to have to support your claims, rather than just make them.
And you are incorrect in saying this. Just because a lot, if not most, of Christians believe this doesn't make it true. Truth is not determined by popular opinion.
Please, your laughable attempts at dismissing arguments which are perfectly valid are equal parts FAIL and lulz.
Whether or not there is an afterlife has no bearing on the functionality of the universe to those in this life.
Hardly. It's even a cliche that the more we find out the less we realize that we know. Science continually discovers things that surprise scientists. Things that they can't explain or didn't expect. New fields are opened. You may be gaining "more knowledge" but that doesn't equate to "more predictive power."
I'm not even sure you understand the point of religion. Religion has very little to do with explaining the workings of the universe. It's a guide on how to live. For some, like Christianity, it's a medium for eternal life as well.
The fact is, you hold a double standard to the two, due to your bias, and you are too blind to see that you are doing it.
Well I suppose that's fair enough. The English definition isn't the same as the Hebrew one, and I recognize that.
So let's take a look at the Hebrew:
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html
Try again?
Heh your condescending sarcasm gets more hilarious the more wrong it gets.
I'll summarize your position here:
"Your economics class sucked because your professor (a PhD in Economics) disagrees with my perceived notions of value!"
I don't think I need to bother actually addressing this again.
I'm sorry that's not a strawman. You previously said "Wait until tomorrow" makes something falsifiable. Now you're changing it to mean "can be discovered by experimentation."
Try again.
Actually it's pretty darn foolish. I'll summarize again:
"This Christian doesn't agree with my stereotyped, preconceived notions about Christianity! No Christian can break this mold! Clearly he's wrong because I, an atheist, know so much more about religion than him."
Your blind stereotyping would probably be laughed at as a joke if this were a sitcom.
Lack of evidence for != Evidence against.
This is so obvious, yet I fail to see how atheists time and time again make this blatantly obvious fallacy.
That...didn't really address anything to do with a soul.
Ah, but see you haven't PROVED it doesn't interact with the world. You just so far haven't been able to DETECT it's interactions.
A fundamental difference.
Um no? Have YOU even read Christian doctrines? The point of religion isn't just the salvation, it's the way of life.Religion does encourage some self sacrifice, tis true. Look at the abortion clinic bombers and that guy who blew himself up on a school bus in Israel.
Oh, right, you wanted something that made religion look GOOD. These behaviors are bad. If you believe this world isn't so important, that's pretty bad for this world.
[/QUTOE]
And you accuse ME of a strawman. Ha!
Just as an introduction, here's what a quick look at Yahoo! did for me:
List of Christian Charities
You bring up all this negativity about my religion, thinking you've made a good point. You haven't.
Yeah, you're right. Bad things have been done in the name of religion. Terrible things. That doesn't mean that's what those religions encourage. People find whatever excuse they want to commit their horrific acts. If you think that without Christianity that those abortion clinics wouldn't have been bombed anyway, you're kidding yourself.
Christianity does a lot of good for the world, and you're pretty blind if you can't see that.
And who are these? What makes the the "greatest"?
I won't argue that whoever you're talking about aren't charitable, but you're argument doesn't fly anyway. I said you'd find less people willing, not that you'd find no people willing.
Actually, that's the exact opposite of what Christianity teaches. Christianity teaches that every person is a bad person (a sinner). In fact, it teaches that we will never stop being like this, but it does encourage us to try.
Ha! This is the biggest load of crap I've see you put forth so far. Natural selection? Seriously?
I don't think so. If that were true we'd be executing the handicapped, the nearsighted, the birth defective, etc.
These are all weaknesses for our species, but our altruism fosters these genetic flaws by allowing the to survive. Natural selection should dictate that these people be extracted from the gene pool by death. Altruism fights natural selection.
Wow, I'm gonna love pulling the kind of crap you pull on me all the time, so here goes! I'm going to dismiss your entire point in two words:
Anecdotal Evidence.
Evolution is still determined by the initial conditions of our universe, so that explains how we exist, not why we exist in this form. Man, I don't know how to make that more clear.
Wrong. You're making this claim, but you're failing to actually back it up.
Reality backs it up for me.
My statement had nothing to do with trying to push my beliefs on others, give me a break.
I said nothing about pushing beliefs. I was referring to your rude "fail" statement.
Actually, for me (and anyone else with me) it does. This is basic rhetoric and argument. If your audience does not accept your premises, your argument is meaningless.
So your saying nothing can be true if there are people ignorant or stubborn enough not to believe it? Sorry, I don't buy that nonsense.
Fixed.
In much the same way as neutering a pet.
See now it applies to you instead of me!
No, because it doesn't.
Reality backs it up for me.
Wrong again. Reality backs up that life contains biochemical processes. Not that life IS biochemical process.
I said nothing about pushing beliefs. I was referring to your rude "fail" statement.
Well, your argument fails. It's poorly constructed and based on presumptuous premises.
So your saying nothing can be true if there are people ignorant or stubborn enough not to believe it? Sorry, I don't buy that nonsense.
No, I said you aren't convincing anyone that doesn't buy your premises. Since you most certainly don't have irrefutable facts about the existence of God/an afterlife, you're going to have to resort to argument, and right now, you're doing it poorly.
In much the same way as neutering a pet.
Not...really...?
No, because it doesn't.
Well, I'd say it does. You're going to have to do better than "NUH UH!"
No, I said you aren't convincing anyone that doesn't buy your premises.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I thought this was a discussion forum, not a junior high debate club.
Well, I'd say it does.
Good for you.
You're going to have to do better than "NUH UH!"
Really? Has it come to this?
k...So Irreducible Complexity falls in with unicorns and jackalopes. Is that the general consensus?
Yes. A fantasy created by the people who lacked comprehension about reality. The only difference is I doubt that the people who invented myths about unicorns and jackalopes did so to foster an agenda of ignorance and misinformation.
I think I don't understand what your definition of "intelligence" is.
Let's use this one (Merriam-Webster):
1 a (1): the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2): the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)
If you define it as "decision-making capabilities", how it arose was pretty simple. This is a simplified explanation for how it could have happened.
Waaay back in the day, cells could detect changes in their chemical environment via conformational changes in their protiens. The cells which innately had these conformational changes alter their buoyancy or direction of travel tended to leave areas with depleted food stores faster, and thus were capable of gathering more materials, thus dividing more often.
One day, one of them developed photosensitivity. Maybe this was the origin of cell motility; maybe it predates it; I don't know. In any event, these photosensitive chemicals caused the cells to go towards the light; they could find the nutrient-rich surface every day, and go and eat there during the day.
Now, these are just basic stimulus-responses, right?
Well, let's skip forward a while. Some of these cells by chance have uneven distribution of photosensitive chemicals, primitive eyes. They can "see" light and dark spots. Now, those which always were encouraged to go towards the surface would often be eaten by those dark spots of other critters floating over them; those which didn't wouldn't get eaten as often, so survived more.
But staying down ALL the time is a route to not get as much food. So at some point, some primitive organism evolved such that it had conditions on its eyes; it wouldn't float to the surface if there were dark spots within such and such a distance. These would eat more food than those which NEVER surfaced when a dark spot was nearby, so got more food and produced more children.
Simple "decision making" like this is pretty easy to envision. Over time, you'd expect more and more conditions, and over time, as creatures evolved multicellularity and the like, they had some cells which specialized in these sorts of actions. The evolution of neurons is pretty simple from here; they're just faster at transmitting signals than normal chemical gradients, so would be preferred because they'd allow for faster reaction times.
Now imagine what would happen if you had a creature which was capable of changing its basic stimulus responses? That's be hugely advantageous. And this is how learning evolved - a creature with basic stimulus responses, basic instincts, isn't adaptable. If the situation changes, it cannot change its stimulus responses itself, it has to wait for natural selection to gradually weed out those with the wrong stimulus responses.
But a creature which could learn and change its stimulus responses... now there is a model for success. You still have a lot of basic stimulus responses, but you have some ways of overriding them or changing them. Now, when many of the big things which float on the surface are pieces of wood, the creature can ignore its typical response not to surface near them and instead surface next to them because they're not dangerous. It might test this by swimming towards it, then running away from it a lot; if it never responds, then it isn't alive and is safe.
Humans are simply the logical extension of this. We have very few instincts, but massive capabilities for learning. This makes us highly adaptable to new conditions.
Good summary but doesn't come close to answering my question. I can connect the dots and make semi-educated guesses (mine would be semi-educated) and come up with a reason why intelligence continued once it started. I'm more curious how a bunch of atoms (which I assume don't have any intelligence on their own) manage to generate intelligence. How did the process start? In other words, what makes it possible for atoms to give me consciousness? I don't think we'll have an answer in my lifetime but it's one of those things that I am still curious about.
k...So Irreducible Complexity falls in with unicorns and jackalopes. Is that the general consensus?
From some people.
From some people.
Those people being ones who do not believe in unicorns, jackalopes and other such fantasies.
For 35 years, I believed in God (I'm 35 yrs. old). For the last 10 or so of those years, my disbelief in what is indistinguishable from the other bronze age mythologies of the world could no longer be sustained (even as a child in religion class -- I went to a Catholic school -- the miracles described in the Bible were hard to believe in, given what I could, and still can, observe about reality as a sane, rational person), and my desperate desire to believe in God and a happy afterlife where we all eat pie in the sky with our loved ones forever had to be restructured as deism (belief in a creator God, but not one who simultaneosly reads everyone's mind and breaks the fundamental laws of the universe on behalf of individual prayers).
But having read alot about natural selection, cosmology, and other scientific facts that contradict religious thinking, and carefully, and critically studying Judeo-Christian teachings (and noticing alot of contradictions, fuzzy logic, circular logic -- I'm not even sure it's right to use the word logic here), the spell was finally broken, and the tiny voice in the back of my head that was whispering bull**** all along I can no longer ignore. The idea of a loving God and an eternal afterlife of bliss for those who made the correct guess (out of countless mutually exclusive choices that all swear to be the One True Way) is, to me, ridiculous, and not for lack of being well-informed about the subjects involved.
My belief is that the true purpose of religion to begin with was to control the uneducated peasantry (I suspect even the priests didn't believe in the gods in many cases, but it was very convenient for people to not put too much value on this life, and therefore not fight back when their rulers made life crappy for them), indoctrination is a powerful tool, and the majority of otherwise mature and intelligent people who believe in God were probably born into it, and essentially brainwashed. Those who came to it later, IMO, are engaging in a form of wishful thinking that obscures their logical faculties. I've had beloved friends who died young, and I really, really, really wish that they would come back to life, or that I will see them when I die, but just because something is really desirable, doesn't make it true.
Now, I suppose it's possible to come to the conclusion, using reason instead of wishing really hard, that the universe was created by a super-complex being, who was not created by a more complex being or by evolution, but personally, I just can't grasp how it can be done. As far as I can see, faith in things that are supernatural (meaning things that lie outside of the natural world -- fairies, magic, gods, et cetera) is incompatible with reason, and requires either great effort to delude oneself, or simply a great deal of ignorance. But so what about what I can see? I have read some arguments posted on this board by what seem to be intelligent people who believe in what they were taught in church and by their families, and arguments by what seem to be intelligent people who do not believe in those things; but I have yet to see anyone on either side swayed by the arguments of anyone on the other side.
So, my point (finally;) ) is that this kind of argument is basically pointless (and yes, in spite of knowing this, I can't deny that this post is a vain last attempt at helping deluded folks escape from what I see as an unhealthy trap). Those who rely on faith in their religion cannot be swayed by even the most logical and convincing argument. Those who view religion as mass delusion will never be convinced to buy into it. So, why don't we say to each his own and talk about a less pointless (and inflammatory) subject? IC has been thoroughly explored (there isn't much to explore -- either you accept scientific facts -- or overwhelming evidence, if you can't stomach the word fact -- or you don't).
Good talk! :P
Seriously, dude. Paragraphs are your friend.
I believe in science...I believe in religion and I see them as highly compatible. I do not consider myself religious, but spiritual. Too many Christians are ignorant of the roots of their religion. They do not understand what The Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Cult of Mithras (just two examples though I could keep going) have to do with their religion.
This is nothing new either. In the good ol days, Christians persecuted pagan's for their beliefs without realizing that there religion was built upon paganistic belief.
I think it is very important to look at the past, to study all that you can about your ancestors that walked the earth before you. When we look at these fantastic stories, it is easy to label them as nothing more than that, yet often they contain hidden meanings. There are quite a few things that ancient people knew that is now lost to the sands of time, and looking back we can attempt to reforge some of this lost knowledge.
Science does not disprove religion. Religion does not disprove science. Irregardless there are always going to be people who try.
Hawking wrote: “It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the (fundamental) numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty.
Now there are only four possibilities put forward for explaining the fine-tuning of the universe: Multiple Universes, Natural Law, Chance or Design.
The theory of Multiple Universes supposes there are a vast number of quite different universes, allowing the statistical chance that one of them would produce human life. Without a jot of evidence to support it, it is a desperate attempt to deny the existence of God.
Natural law implies a physical inevitability that the universe is the way it is; that it would not be possible for the universe not to produce human life. Yet if the universe had expanded just a little more slowly, if entropy were slightly greater or any of these constants been just slightly different, life would not have occurred. As Paul Davies put it, “The physical universe does not have to be the way it is; it could have been otherwise.” And the chances of the world being as it is, are incomprehensibly small.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause.
What you posted does not lead to this conclusion even remotely. Couching fantasy in the context of science doesn't make it any less fantasy.
ummm kay...fantasy check. So what was the cause?
No one knows, so it is absurd to assume there must have been an intent behind it.
The key point here is that I admit I don't know the reason and I don't go making up comforting fairy-stories to make myself feel better about that fact.
Ok...so why do you believe the variables just in the big bang were just right to create life? Not to mention the countless variables after.
So basically you are taking the position of a puddle noting that the hole he occupies must have been made especially for him as it fits him so perfectly.
If you use cause and effect what was the cause of space and time and the universe. If a god does exist, it existed before the big bang that created the universe therefore should exist outside of space and time.
Now there are only four possibilities put forward for explaining the fine-tuning of the universe: Multiple Universes, Natural Law, Chance or Design. Which possibility do you believe and why?
Please continue to take the time to give detail and not sound so much like a broken record. I for one am interested and will definitely look into evidence you bring up and take into account your point of view.
Alright, here's one for you: Ether. That was science, and it was a claim many scientists (if not most at the time) made.
Actually, no, Ether was never science. There was a period when many, heck even a majority of scientists were pushing that position, but it never passed the scientific method and thus was never considered "science."
Lack of any reason? What else qualifies as a reason?
Lots of things can qualify as a "reason" for something. I'm nice to my wife for instance so that maybe I can get into bed with her later. That's my reason, not "evidence" that I "should."
I mean, if you want to get incredibly basic, A really good reason would be, because if Christians are right and atheists are wrong, it's gonna really suck to be in the latter group.
Pascal's Wager. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes the only possible truth is the Christian's. What if Zeus is true instand, and Christians and atheists are both "wrong?" It's gonna suck to be nearly everyone on the planet.
But you're missing the point. I didn't say there isn't a good reason to be a Christian (in fact you provide a reason yourself later). I said Titanium Dragon and myself lack any reasons to believe in Christianity, so for us, atheism is the default.
It's like yourself. I assume you lack any good reason to believe in the Yeti, right? (Forgive me if you actually do believe in the Yeti.) So, lacking a reason to believe in the Yeti, do you believe in it anyway? Or do you default to non-belief? I'd assume you default to non-belief; i.e. skepticism. Note that this doesn't mean that you believe there isn't a Yeti, just that you don't believe that there is one. This is my same position on God. I don't believe that there isn't a God, but I don't believe there is a God, either.
(Technically my personal position is a little more complicated than that but I'm simplifying it to get a certain point across.)
So, if anything, a good reason to believe would be out of fear of its possible truth, given the lack of evidence.
Is this really a good reason? Would God approve of such fingers-crossing deception? Or would he rather have a good, honest person who simply admitted that he "doesn't know?"
Also, is it really good to live your life in such fear? Isn't this actually an argument for the atheistic position?
Not that I would say that is a GOOD reason...
Okay, so you admit it isn't a good reason. Doesn't this mean that there are counter-reasons for it?
It still comes down to this: TD lacks any reason whatsoever to believe in God. This includes, but is not limited to, lack of evidence. (TD also mistakenly believes that evidence should solely determine your beliefs but that isn't relevant to my point.)
Now, should someone like TD just believe in God anyway? Would that make any sense? What should the default be? Atheism, of course.
It's true, but since math must start with postulates, and everything else comes from those, it's not quite that simple. We're talking about absolute truths,
Then please exclude me from the argument. I'd rather not get into an entirely different philosophical mess regarding whether or not absolute truths exist. I personally wasn't talking about absolute truths. Forgive me for assuming you weren't, either. I'll step out of this particular conversation, then.
That's true, but simply lacking evidence does not equal "guessing."
How so?
Do you agree with me that you don't have evidence for your own existence? Now, are you just "guessing" when you say that you exist?
Hmm...I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that's true. For instance:
"Is there a car behind this curtain?"
There is no evidence for a car being there. However, you would be quite incorrect in saying that, since there's no evidence for a car being behind the curtain, it's more reasonable to say that there isn't one.
Would it have been reasonable to assume that Pluto didn't exist before we discovered (but after we discovered that there were other giant bodies in our solar system)?
A saying that it's a non-position takes it out of the arena altogether. Atheism, by your argument, recognizes that SOME religion must be right, but until they figure it out, we won't take a side.
Actually atheists are a lot more varied than that. But regardless, you're almost right about my argument; however, my argument for "default" atheism (as opposed to other sorts of atheism, e.g. "strong" atheism) only recognizes that some religion may be correct, not that some religion must be correct. "Default atheism" also allows for the possibility that all religions are incorrect, and that perhaps some other philosophical or other belief is correct, or even allows for the possibility that the whole range of human beliefs on the matter are incorrect and that the correct truth is one that hasn't been discovered-- and, given all of THAT, decides that until we figure it out, we don't take a side.
So, you were close, except that atheism is even less of a position than what you described. ;)
And I'll repeat that I don't think I said that. If I did, I'm invalidating my own position...
You'll have to explain what you meant, then. You and TD keep arguing that evidence is the only reason to believe something. Except you're even more of an enigma than TD because he at least sticks to his guns on that point; you flip-flop (no offense, honestly, and I don't think you intend to do it; rather I think there is miscommunication involved).
However, I think that "relative morality" which seems to be what you suggest
STOP. You're wrong. You're so dead wrong it's almost amusing, but it's sad. I think you have that view of me because of other atheists you've possibly met skewing your view of me before I've even had a chance to put my own moral theory on the table. In fact, by saying evidence isn't the only means to believe something, I'd have thought that I would be STRONGLY HINTING that I am NOT a moral relativist. I seem to have failed.
But I'll repeat: I am not a moral relativist. I am also not a utilitarian (another common moral theory pushed by atheist) or an Objectivist (which is what I'm beginning to suspect TD is).
is quite a dangerous position, as you really have no grounds at that point to say that anything that serial killers (for example) do is inherently wrong.
I do think moral relativism is a bit paradoxical at times, but it never really goes as far as you suggest. In fact, what a lot of people don't realize is that in ethical philosophy, philosophers agree on certain moral truths more often than they disagree. They just throw huge fits about those areas where they disagree.
Actually, even if you discount what he said as evidence, I'll give him some here (anecdotal though it is):
Without my religions beliefs, screw you guys.
Seriously, if all I have is this life, I don't see a reason to give a care about the environment, the future, or anyone else. People, as a whole, particularly the stupid ones, really tick me off anyway. Religious belief encourages good and unselfish behavior in me. In fact, I'd say it causes it for me.
That's fine, and that works as a reason for you. Personally I don't need religion to be a decent, moral human being, and I think you might be the same way and just don't realize it, but I won't go too deep down that road because I'm not trying to convince you to move away from religion. If you're a good person, I don't care what you believe; you'll be a good person no matter what religion or lack thereof you follow, because I believe you follow your base moral instincts first and foremost. If religion didn't exist you'd still be you.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause.
You can't apply our universe's physics to something outside of our universe. We don't know anything about what was here before the universe.
Ok...so why do you believe the variables just in the big bang were just right to create life? Not to mention the countless variables after.
They aren't "just right" though. There are many places where there is no life at all. Just looking at our solar system, tell me how things are "just right." It looks like we got lucky. There are many planets. How many of them support life? From what we can tell there is only one. Things are not "just right." We got lucky.
Not necessarily...yet you are taking the unscientific approach of using absense of evidence as evidence of absense. Can you at least admit that there is probability? Even if it is the same probability that all the oxygen atoms move to one side of the room you are in.
No. Fanatsy is fanatsy and some things are simply impossible.
If you use cause and effect what was the cause of space and time and the universe. If a god does exist, it existed before the big bang that created the universe therefore should exist outside of space and time.
Now there are only four possibilities put forward for explaining the fine-tuning of the universe: Multiple Universes, Natural Law, Chance or Design. Which possibility do you believe and why?
Any are possible except for design.
Please continue to take the time to give detail and not sound so much like a broken record. I for one am interested and will definitely look into evidence you bring up and take into account your point of view.
I don't care if you take my point of view into account or not. I am not trying to convince you of anything and I really don't give a tinker's damn if you choose to believe in fantasy or accept reality. This is a discussion forum, not a debate club, and I really wish people would stop treating it like the latter.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I thought this was a discussion forum, not a junior high debate club.
Discussion, when two parties are comparing opposing viewpoints, IS debate. Just cause it's not junior high anymore doesn't mean debate doesn't exist.
Really? Has it come to this?
Um, not sure...I was summarizing your argument so...
Discussion, when two parties are comparing opposing viewpoints, IS debate. Just cause it's not junior high anymore doesn't mean debate doesn't exist.
A debate implies winning. A discussion does not.
Um, not sure...I was summarizing your argument so...
No, you were negatively characterizing my argument with sarcasm cos it does not agree with yours.
They aren't "just right" though. There are many places where there is no life at all. Just looking at our solar system, tell me how things are "just right." It looks like we got lucky. There are many planets. How many of them support life? From what we can tell there is only one. Things are not "just right." We got lucky.
Actually...including moons...from what we can tell there are quite a few with potential. Variables are just right and they do not have to be. The universe could easily be something else that may be even more beautiful and spectacular yet could not support life and no one could observe it.
The Anthropic Principle says that the universe has to be more or less as we see it, because if it were different, there wouldn’t be anyone here to observe it.
There are two issues here, which must not be confused. The human observer should rightly regard it as probable that he will find the basic conditions of the universe are finely-tuned for his existence or he would not be there to observe it. However, he should not infer that it is therefore highly probable that such a finely tuned universe should exist. That is a separate matter entirely.
Any are possible except for design.
That is a decent fantasy.
A debate implies winning. A discussion does not.
A debate implies expressing different view points. A lot of subjects such as the one we are discussing...there can never be winners or losers.
Actually, no, Ether was never science. There was a period when many, heck even a majority of scientists were pushing that position, but it never passed the scientific method and thus was never considered "science."
Ah, I see the problem now. And perhaps I said this wrong above (but I don't feel like sifting through the thread to make sure), but I was saying that scientists, not science itself, make incorrect claims similar to the way I would argue Christians, but not Christianity itself, make incorrect claims.
Pascal's Wager. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes the only possible truth is the Christian's. What if Zeus is true instand, and Christians and atheists are both "wrong?" It's gonna suck to be nearly everyone on the planet.
True, but then again, I did say "If Christians are right" as a premises for my point there.
But you're missing the point. I didn't say there isn't a good reason to be a Christian (in fact you provide a reason yourself later). I said Titanium Dragon and myself lack any reasons to believe in Christianity, so for us, atheism is the default.
Ok, so now I'm confused. Your saying that there ARE good reasons to believe in Christianity, but you don't have a reason to believe in it?
It's like yourself. I assume you lack any good reason to believe in the Yeti, right? (Forgive me if you actually do believe in the Yeti.) So, lacking a reason to believe in the Yeti, do you believe in it anyway? Or do you default to non-belief? I'd assume you default to non-belief; i.e. skepticism. Note that this doesn't mean that you believe there isn't a Yeti, just that you don't believe that there is one. This is my same position on God. I don't believe that there isn't a God, but I don't believe there is a God, either.
...Sorta. Except that I DO believe something (religiously). When I consider a potential belief in the Yeti, for instance, I find that incompatible with my current belief in what is true, so I don't believe it. I guess that's "not having a good reason to believe" but the only good reason I have is dependent on my other belief's compatibility with the new idea. Maybe it's the same thing, but it strikes me as different in a way I can't fully express right now.
Is this really a good reason? Would God approve of such fingers-crossing deception? Or would he rather have a good, honest person who simply admitted that he "doesn't know?"
Eh, atheism isn't the same as saying "'I don't know." It's more like saying "Hmm, I can't prove this, so it's definitely false."
Okay, so you admit it isn't a good reason. Doesn't this mean that there are counter-reasons for it?
Sure, as evidenced by the many, many discussions you can find on this topic. It was just a reason that came to mind.
It still comes down to this: TD lacks any reason whatsoever to believe in God. This includes, but is not limited to, lack of evidence. (TD also mistakenly believes that evidence should solely determine your beliefs but that isn't relevant to my point.)
Yes, and it is based on his platform that I'm arguing. I don't necessarily subscribe to his view, but I'm arguing from a position that he can't dismiss offhandedly. It doesn't do me any good to argue from a different platform, as neither of us will accept basic premises and there is no basis for argument then.
Then please exclude me from the argument. I'd rather not get into an entirely different philosophical mess regarding whether or not absolute truths exist. I personally wasn't talking about absolute truths. Forgive me for assuming you weren't, either. I'll step out of this particular conversation, then.
Perhaps we have a different definition of "absolute" and "relative" truth?
Although this would certainly be an interesting discussion, I agree it belongs in a different thread.
Do you agree with me that you don't have evidence for your own existence? Now, are you just "guessing" when you say that you exist?
Well since any and all of my experiences, senses, and thoughts are dependent on my existing, I can't guess without existing. I can't experience without existing. I can't sense without existing. Cogito ergo sum isn't powerful enough, IMO. Agnosco ergo sum would be better. "I perceive, therefore I am."
I'd say that's proof, not evidence.
Would it have been reasonable to assume that Pluto didn't exist before we discovered (but after we discovered that there were other giant bodies in our solar system)?
Perhaps, but your not arguing that atheism is reasonable. You're arguing it's MORE reasonable. It would be equally reasonable, in your Pluto example, to assume that it is there. In fact, in the Pluto example, it might even be more reasonable to assume it was, considering there had been other giant bodies discovered.
Actually atheists are a lot more varied than that. But regardless, you're almost right about my argument; however, my argument for "default" atheism (as opposed to other sorts of atheism, e.g. "strong" atheism) only recognizes that some religion may be correct, not that some religion must be correct. "Default atheism" also allows for the possibility that all religions are incorrect, and that perhaps some other philosophical or other belief is correct, or even allows for the possibility that the whole range of human beliefs on the matter are incorrect and that the correct truth is one that hasn't been discovered-- and, given all of THAT, decides that until we figure it out, we don't take a side.
So, you were close, except that atheism is even less of a position than what you described. ;)
Fair enough. (And I recognize there are other versions of atheism)
You'll have to explain what you meant, then. You and TD keep arguing that evidence is the only reason to believe something. Except you're even more of an enigma than TD because he at least sticks to his guns on that point; you flip-flop (no offense, honestly, and I don't think you intend to do it; rather I think there is miscommunication involved).
Well, like I said above, I'm arguing from TD's paradigm. I don't actually subscribe to it, but I'm accepting it for now to give us a basis from which to discuss.
STOP. You're wrong. You're so dead wrong it's almost amusing, but it's sad. I think you have that view of me because of other atheists you've possibly met skewing your view of me before I've even had a chance to put my own moral theory on the table. In fact, by saying evidence isn't the only means to believe something, I'd have thought that I would be STRONGLY HINTING that I am NOT a moral relativist. I seem to have failed.
The thing is, without as absolute authority for morality, there is nothing else but relative morality. Anyone can come up with any philosophy (well thought out or not) and there is no absolute to say that anyone is wrong. Serial killers/rapists/what have you can merely claim to have their own, personal philosophy, and no one has any grounds to claim that their philosophy is wrong. (Illegal in its actions, perhaps, but not wrong)
But I'll repeat: I am not a moral relativist. I am also not a utilitarian (another common moral theory pushed by atheist) or an Objectivist (which is what I'm beginning to suspect TD is).
Which I'm glad for, but what moral position DO you ascribe to?
I do think moral relativism is a bit paradoxical at times, but it never really goes as far as you suggest. In fact, what a lot of people don't realize is that in ethical philosophy, philosophers agree on certain moral truths more often than they disagree. They just throw huge fits about those areas where they disagree.
True, but the point is that no philosophy has any authority behind it. Even if it's well thought out, that doesn't give it authority. Heck, even accepting reason as a good basis for a philosophy is a philosophical belief. The fact is, it DOES go that far, but no one HAS gone that far yet.
That's fine, and that works as a reason for you. Personally I don't need religion to be a decent, moral human being, and I think you might be the same way and just don't realize it, but I won't go too deep down that road because I'm not trying to convince you to move away from religion. If you're a good person, I don't care what you believe; you'll be a good person no matter what religion or lack thereof you follow, because I believe you follow your base moral instincts first and foremost. If religion didn't exist you'd still be you.
And you're probably right, in a way. But I guarantee you there are some negative things which I deny myself out of religious beliefs. I probably wouldn't turn into a moral sinkhole, but I'd certainly become at least a little more indulgent.
Though, I can't speak for how "abandoning religion" would affect the rest of Christians.
A debate implies winning. A discussion does not.
Not exactly
In this case, it's definition 2.
No, you were negatively characterizing my argument with sarcasm cos it does not agree with yours.
You offered nothing but an un-backed contradiction of my point. It's the adult's version of "No YOU'RE wrong," just dressed up fancy.
Encara, have you by chance looked into other religious/philosophical texts? I guess what the average Christian would consider paganistic. When you look at the bigger picture of things, a lot of what seems mythical and fantastic has basis in reality. The reality is that it is not Christianity vs Science but ancient knowledge vs science and in that context they mesh rather well.
Yeah, I've looked into several.
As far as Christianity vs. Science (vs.) Ancient Knowledge vs. Science:
(Ignoring, for a moment, my problem with the idea that science and religion are opposed...)
I pretty much just argue from a Christian standpoint because it is my personal belief system, so I argue best from that platform. I mean I could try arguing from another perspective, but I'm sure I'd get a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, what have you come in here and vehemently correct me.
Heck, I risk that enough arguing on my own platform with my unorthodox views being what they are. (Lucky so far!)
I tried reading...the concept is good but please at some point edit and put into paragraphs...
My bad; fixed.
Encara:
Pascal's Wager. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes the only possible truth is the Christian's. What if Zeus is true instand, and Christians and atheists are both "wrong?" It's gonna suck to be nearly everyone on the planet.
Is this really a good reason? Would God approve of such fingers-crossing deception? Or would he rather have a good, honest person who simply admitted that he "doesn't know?"
Also, is it really good to live your life in such fear? Isn't this actually an argument for the atheistic position?
Wouldn't it be ironic if there was a God, and the people most exalted in the afterlife were those who did not believe, but were still altruists? ;)
Ah, I see the problem now. And perhaps I said this wrong above (but I don't feel like sifting through the thread to make sure), but I was saying that scientists, not science itself, make incorrect claims similar to the way I would argue Christians, but not Christianity itself, make incorrect claims.
Ah, okay. Well then, I would agree.
True, but then again, I did say "If Christians are right" as a premises for my point there.
Okay but my point is that it's not really a "reason" because it's so arbitrary.
Also, some reason for believing in Christianity may exist which hasn't been presented to TD yet, so until that reason presents itself he defaults to lacking belief (TD himself seems to take a step farther in saying Christianity is false, actually, but a "default" atheist may not go that far).
Ok, so now I'm confused. Your saying that there ARE good reasons to believe in Christianity, but you don't have a reason to believe in it?
Sort of. I'm saying there might be good reasons to believe in Christianity. Certainly you seem to think you have a good reason for it. And I don't even disagree.
...Sorta. Except that I DO believe something (religiously). When I consider a potential belief in the Yeti, for instance, I find that incompatible with my current belief in what is true, so I don't believe it. I guess that's "not having a good reason to believe" but the only good reason I have is dependent on my other belief's compatibility with the new idea. Maybe it's the same thing, but it strikes me as different in a way I can't fully express right now.
Okay but hopefully you see the point I was driving at.
Eh, atheism isn't the same as saying "'I don't know." It's more like saying "Hmm, I can't prove this, so it's definitely false."
That's a misconception. Atheism does default to simply "I don't know," or, more accurately, "I lack belief." Some atheists take it a step farther and claim that God does not exist, and they are still technically atheists because they have to "lack belief" in order to make that claim, but that aren't the definition of atheism. Other atheists just say "I don't know, and I'm not saying either way." And even then, other atheists (agnostic atheists like myself) say that "It is inherently unknowable in the first place; ergo I cannot know and thus lack belief."
I think the misconception stems from a minority of vocal atheists who like to claim that God does not exist and Christianity is a delusion, blah blah blah. They aren't representative of all atheists, however. Many people have the misconception that Christians are a right-wing homophobic lot; in fact I've met people who say they believe in the Bible and Jesus and what-not but claim not to "really" be "Christian" simply because they aren't the homophobic stereotype!
So, while some atheists may say that "it's definitely false," this has nothing inherently to do with atheism itself, just as homophobia has nothing inherently to do with Christianity.
Yes, and it is based on his platform that I'm arguing. I don't necessarily subscribe to his view, but I'm arguing from a position that he can't dismiss offhandedly. It doesn't do me any good to argue from a different platform, as neither of us will accept basic premises and there is no basis for argument then.
I don't know; TD is so horribly wrong on his position that to justify a belief you require evidence, that I just can't argue on that platform, myself. It's completely nonsensical and leads to some kind of weird nihilistic worldview.
In fact, to make his argument he has to assume physicality. But how do you provide evidence that physical things exist? By saying that they exist? That's circular. He presupposes it but he'll never admit to that.
Well since any and all of my experiences, senses, and thoughts are dependent on my existing, I can't guess without existing. I can't experience without existing. I can't sense without existing. Cogito ergo sum isn't powerful enough, IMO. Agnosco ergo sum would be better. "I perceive, therefore I am."
I'd say that's proof, not evidence.
And I'd agree.
Perhaps, but your not arguing that atheism is reasonable. You're arguing it's MORE reasonable.
I'm only arguing that it's more reasonable for one who lacks reason to believe in any specific deity.
It would be equally reasonable, in your Pluto example, to assume that it is there. In fact, in the Pluto example, it might even be more reasonable to assume it was, considering there had been other giant bodies discovered.
It might have been reasonable to assume that other bodies may have existed, but not to assume Pluto itself existed.
The thing is, without as absolute authority for morality, there is nothing else but relative morality.
I disagree. I also disagree that God is a source of absolute morality in the Christian paradigm, but that's a different discussion alltogether.
Anyone can come up with any philosophy (well thought out or not) and there is no absolute to say that anyone is wrong.
That goes for your beliefs, as well.
The "trick" is to make an argument for a philosophical theory of ethics with a common set of premises you think a lot of people will accept. Think of it like arguing in favor of PC or Mac, or for D&D over GURPS.
Serial killers/rapists/what have you can merely claim to have their own, personal philosophy, and no one has any grounds to claim that their philosophy is wrong. (Illegal in its actions, perhaps, but not wrong)
I disagree, but anyway, this applies to you as well. Nothing makes you any different in your scenarios than TD or me.
Which I'm glad for, but what moral position DO you ascribe to?
I like to keep some cards close to my chest.
True, but the point is that no philosophy has any authority behind it. Even if it's well thought out, that doesn't give it authority. Heck, even accepting reason as a good basis for a philosophy is a philosophical belief. The fact is, it DOES go that far, but no one HAS gone that far yet.
I'm actually unsure what you're trying to get across, here.
And you're probably right, in a way. But I guarantee you there are some negative things which I deny myself out of religious beliefs. I probably wouldn't turn into a moral sinkhole, but I'd certainly become at least a little more indulgent.
Fair enough. I can't know any different.
Though, I can't speak for how "abandoning religion" would affect the rest of Christians.
I'm sure it would depend on the individual involved.
Off topic
A cause doesn't mean it has a purpose or meaning. It simply means some physical condition gave rise to another.
I already answered this question. The anthropic principle.
In short, we exist and are asking the question "Why are the variables such that we can exist?"
Problem is this is tautological; for us to ask the question "Why are the variables such that we can exist?", the variables must be such that we can exist.
Therefore, the answer is basically "We exist, so the variables must be so."
There's no belief involved. Its simple fact. If the variables were not so, we wouldn't be here to observe them, so it doesn't really matter.
It isn't a question of probability. The probability of the Christian conception of God existing is exactly zero. The probability of a deist god existing is completely unknowable; claiming it has a low probability is false. It either is so, or it isn't so; we lack the datum necessary to make a firm conclusion on it because there is zero data suggesting it DOES exist, but we know that such a deity by definition is currently thought to be completely undetectable due to the nature of the Big Bang.
Of course, we could argue that God hasn't been hiding in any of the other gaps, so the odds of him hiding in this one are negligable.
Its very intellectually dishonest to claim there is a "probability" of a deist god existing.
Yes and no. We have no reason to believe that it will apply, but we have little reason to suppose it wouldn't apply and honestly, a great deal of reason to suppose our universe's physics ARE universal - after all, they are constant across this universe, there's no reason to particularly think they aren't such elsewhere as well, even prior to the Big Bang.
Claiming "from what we can tell, just one" is simply false. Heck, right now we're batting 100% for life existing on a planet within a star's habitability zone. :P
There is little reason to believe life is rare . There is some reason to believe that either intelligent life is rare or interstellar travel is too expensive for races to really pursue agressively (two solutions to the Fermi paradox). Life itself is pretty simple, and it doesn't take much in the way of self-replicating molecules to end up with a whole mess of them.
We aren't "lucky" in any real sense; the probability of our own existance is unknown and currently unknowable due to the very small sample size (1). If we found independent life on another planet in the solar system, the odds of us existing would shoot up through the roof. Same goes with detecting it pretty much anywhere. Intelligent life detection would do much the same, as it would give us a better basis on which to run the Drake Equation, which currently has only a very small number of known variables.
Intellectual dishonesty is a terrible thing.
The Bible fundamentally represents Christianity.
The Bible makes incorrect claims.
Quo erum demonstratum.
Pascal's Wager is fatally flawed because it makes a fatally flawed assumption.
The reality is that a correct phrasing of Pascal's Wager means that making the wager is entirely meaningless; your choices are arbitrary and nothing you do will improve your odds of getting a "good" afterlife because the requirements are both unknown and arbitrary.
In short, there are an infinite number of possible afterlives. However, they are all arbitrary, and therefore, any belief you take is equally likely to screw you. For instance, believing in all the gods seems like a good solution, but many gods say you can't do that, so you're screwed if any of them are the correct god. Another god might only allow only those who DON'T believe in them, or don't believe in anything at all, in. Ect.
The long, the short, and the middle of it is that the correct solution to Pascal's Wager basically tells us that our choice of belief won't help or hurt us at all as far as the afterlife is concerned.
However, because there is an advantage to NOT wasting time on religious belief (and this is a known, quantifiable amount) we should actually all be atheists because we're just as likely to be screwed by picking a religion, but being an atheist means that you don't waste your time.
Mistakenly? I believe you mean correctly. People just don't LIKE it. That doesn't mean its wrong to base your beliefs on evidence, just that many people dislike the thought of doing so.
Why? Well, I suspect that at some point, due to all the genocides committed by religious folks, there was something of a predisposition for basically having plastic beliefs; those who could quickly adopt new belief structures had more reproductive success, as they could quickly placate their invaders.
Not all atheists are even irreligious. All atheism means is "lack of belief in a god". It often is conflated with irreligion, but the two are not the same thing; there are religions which don't require belief in a god.
A good example would be otherkin. For those who are unaware of them, they're people who believe their soul is non-human (or that they themselves are nonhuman in some way). Many belong to other religions or are pagan, and some are even otherwise completely irreligious. But they aren't irreligious, as otherkin is itself a religious belief (though certainly one of the more inoffensive ones, even if it is trying at times).
Well, part of the issue is that Christianity itself is Pauline Christianity, but many people in the modern world reject it. Over time, things like Marcionism and Gnosticism are actually coming back out, and people are basically turning into a different sort of Christian. The catholic church itself may eventually do the same.
I am nihilistic. There is no reason to believe there is objective purpose to existance. People really fear that.
I personally have set forth the goal of proving absurdism false, but that doesn't mean that my life has that purpose OBJECTIVELY; it is simply something I want to do because it is fun.
You exist in some form. What that form is is on some level unprovable; this could all be some sort of simulation, for instance. It is largely irrelevant, though, and the only way to truly resolve it is to look as close as we can and see if our reality is seamless or if we can find something underlying it. But until then, it is not unreasonable to assume physicality, as long as you understand it is an assumption and not a fact. If someone has convincing evidence we are not truly physical beings on some level, so be it.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause.
A cause doesn't mean it has a purpose or meaning. It simply means some physical condition gave rise to another.
Ok...so why do you believe the variables just in the big bang were just right to create life? Not to mention the countless variables after.
I already answered this question. The anthropic principle.
In short, we exist and are asking the question "Why are the variables such that we can exist?"
Problem is this is tautological; for us to ask the question "Why are the variables such that we can exist?", the variables must be such that we can exist.
Therefore, the answer is basically "We exist, so the variables must be so."
There's no belief involved. Its simple fact. If the variables were not so, we wouldn't be here to observe them, so it doesn't really matter.
Not necessarily...yet you are taking the unscientific approach of using absense of evidence as evidence of absense. Can you at least admit that there is probability? Even if it is the same probability that all the oxygen atoms move to one side of the room you are in.
It isn't a question of probability. The probability of the Christian conception of God existing is exactly zero. The probability of a deist god existing is completely unknowable; claiming it has a low probability is false. It either is so, or it isn't so; we lack the datum necessary to make a firm conclusion on it because there is zero data suggesting it DOES exist, but we know that such a deity by definition is currently thought to be completely undetectable due to the nature of the Big Bang.
Of course, we could argue that God hasn't been hiding in any of the other gaps, so the odds of him hiding in this one are negligable.
Its very intellectually dishonest to claim there is a "probability" of a deist god existing.
You can't apply our universe's physics to something outside of our universe. We don't know anything about what was here before the universe.
Yes and no. We have no reason to believe that it will apply, but we have little reason to suppose it wouldn't apply and honestly, a great deal of reason to suppose our universe's physics ARE universal - after all, they are constant across this universe, there's no reason to particularly think they aren't such elsewhere as well, even prior to the Big Bang.
They aren't "just right" though. There are many places where there is no life at all. Just looking at our solar system, tell me how things are "just right." It looks like we got lucky. There are many planets. How many of them support life? From what we can tell there is only one. Things are not "just right." We got lucky.
Claiming "from what we can tell, just one" is simply false. Heck, right now we're batting 100% for life existing on a planet within a star's habitability zone. :P
There is little reason to believe life is rare . There is some reason to believe that either intelligent life is rare or interstellar travel is too expensive for races to really pursue agressively (two solutions to the Fermi paradox). Life itself is pretty simple, and it doesn't take much in the way of self-replicating molecules to end up with a whole mess of them.
We aren't "lucky" in any real sense; the probability of our own existance is unknown and currently unknowable due to the very small sample size (1). If we found independent life on another planet in the solar system, the odds of us existing would shoot up through the roof. Same goes with detecting it pretty much anywhere. Intelligent life detection would do much the same, as it would give us a better basis on which to run the Drake Equation, which currently has only a very small number of known variables.
Ah, I see the problem now. And perhaps I said this wrong above (but I don't feel like sifting through the thread to make sure), but I was saying that scientists, not science itself, make incorrect claims similar to the way I would argue Christians, but not Christianity itself, make incorrect claims.
Intellectual dishonesty is a terrible thing.
The Bible fundamentally represents Christianity.
The Bible makes incorrect claims.
Quo erum demonstratum.
Pascal's Wager. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes the only possible truth is the Christian's. What if Zeus is true instand, and Christians and atheists are both "wrong?" It's gonna suck to be nearly everyone on the planet.
Pascal's Wager is fatally flawed because it makes a fatally flawed assumption.
The reality is that a correct phrasing of Pascal's Wager means that making the wager is entirely meaningless; your choices are arbitrary and nothing you do will improve your odds of getting a "good" afterlife because the requirements are both unknown and arbitrary.
In short, there are an infinite number of possible afterlives. However, they are all arbitrary, and therefore, any belief you take is equally likely to screw you. For instance, believing in all the gods seems like a good solution, but many gods say you can't do that, so you're screwed if any of them are the correct god. Another god might only allow only those who DON'T believe in them, or don't believe in anything at all, in. Ect.
The long, the short, and the middle of it is that the correct solution to Pascal's Wager basically tells us that our choice of belief won't help or hurt us at all as far as the afterlife is concerned.
However, because there is an advantage to NOT wasting time on religious belief (and this is a known, quantifiable amount) we should actually all be atheists because we're just as likely to be screwed by picking a religion, but being an atheist means that you don't waste your time.
It still comes down to this: TD lacks any reason whatsoever to believe in God. This includes, but is not limited to, lack of evidence. (TD also mistakenly believes that evidence should solely determine your beliefs but that isn't relevant to my point.)
Mistakenly? I believe you mean correctly. People just don't LIKE it. That doesn't mean its wrong to base your beliefs on evidence, just that many people dislike the thought of doing so.
Why? Well, I suspect that at some point, due to all the genocides committed by religious folks, there was something of a predisposition for basically having plastic beliefs; those who could quickly adopt new belief structures had more reproductive success, as they could quickly placate their invaders.
Also, some reason for believing in Christianity may exist which hasn't been presented to TD yet, so until that reason presents itself he defaults to lacking belief (TD himself seems to take a step farther in saying Christianity is false, actually, but a "default" atheist may not go that far).
Not all atheists are even irreligious. All atheism means is "lack of belief in a god". It often is conflated with irreligion, but the two are not the same thing; there are religions which don't require belief in a god.
A good example would be otherkin. For those who are unaware of them, they're people who believe their soul is non-human (or that they themselves are nonhuman in some way). Many belong to other religions or are pagan, and some are even otherwise completely irreligious. But they aren't irreligious, as otherkin is itself a religious belief (though certainly one of the more inoffensive ones, even if it is trying at times).
I think the misconception stems from a minority of vocal atheists who like to claim that God does not exist and Christianity is a delusion, blah blah blah. They aren't representative of all atheists, however. Many people have the misconception that Christians are a right-wing homophobic lot; in fact I've met people who say they believe in the Bible and Jesus and what-not but claim not to "really" be "Christian" simply because they aren't the homophobic stereotype!
Well, part of the issue is that Christianity itself is Pauline Christianity, but many people in the modern world reject it. Over time, things like Marcionism and Gnosticism are actually coming back out, and people are basically turning into a different sort of Christian. The catholic church itself may eventually do the same.
I don't know; TD is so horribly wrong on his position that to justify a belief you require evidence, that I just can't argue on that platform, myself. It's completely nonsensical and leads to some kind of weird nihilistic worldview.
I am nihilistic. There is no reason to believe there is objective purpose to existance. People really fear that.
I personally have set forth the goal of proving absurdism false, but that doesn't mean that my life has that purpose OBJECTIVELY; it is simply something I want to do because it is fun.
In fact, to make his argument he has to assume physicality. But how do you provide evidence that physical things exist? By saying that they exist? That's circular. He presupposes it but he'll never admit to that.
You exist in some form. What that form is is on some level unprovable; this could all be some sort of simulation, for instance. It is largely irrelevant, though, and the only way to truly resolve it is to look as close as we can and see if our reality is seamless or if we can find something underlying it. But until then, it is not unreasonable to assume physicality, as long as you understand it is an assumption and not a fact. If someone has convincing evidence we are not truly physical beings on some level, so be it.
Show
No, I mean mistakenly.
Can you supply evidence for causality? No, you cannot, as that is a metaphysic.
The same applies to existence.
You end up talking in circles if you try to point to things as evidence of causality or existence. These things can't be evidenced, they have to be taken a priori.
You just don't LIKE it, because it means you have to come up with better arguments.
I know and I've already pointed this out with Buddhists, Taoists, LaVeyan Satanists, and others who are all clearly "religious atheists."
I don't fear it. In fact I believe the same thing (though I am not a nihilist). Anyway, there is miscommunication here because that's not what I meant by "nihilism." You're talking about an existential philosophical position, whereas I was talking about an "extreme skepticism" position. You're not a nihilist in the sense that I meant (though I don't doubt that you are, in fact, a nihilist) because you very clearly do believe things. However, your assertion that we must have evidence to believe something leads to the logical conclusion that we cannot believe anything.
Then you and I are going to have problems, because as it so happens, I'm an absurdist.
Bingo. You're starting to get it. I never said assuming physicality was a bad thing or unreasonable; in fact I think it is a reasonable and rational pragmatic position, upon which you can finally make use of that "evidence" you (and I both) love. However, assuming physicality in and of itself cannot be evidenced.
Just when I was starting to lose faith that I could get through to you, you really redeem yourself. Bravo. (And I don't mean any of this sarcastically, I hope I don't come off that way.)
It still comes down to this: TD lacks any reason whatsoever to believe in God. This includes, but is not limited to, lack of evidence. (TD also mistakenly believes that evidence should solely determine your beliefs but that isn't relevant to my point.)
Mistakenly? I believe you mean correctly.
No, I mean mistakenly.
Can you supply evidence for causality? No, you cannot, as that is a metaphysic.
The same applies to existence.
You end up talking in circles if you try to point to things as evidence of causality or existence. These things can't be evidenced, they have to be taken a priori.
You just don't LIKE it, because it means you have to come up with better arguments.
Not all atheists are even irreligious. All atheism means is "lack of belief in a god". It often is conflated with irreligion, but the two are not the same thing; there are religions which don't require belief in a god.
I know and I've already pointed this out with Buddhists, Taoists, LaVeyan Satanists, and others who are all clearly "religious atheists."
I am nihilistic. There is no reason to believe there is objective purpose to existance. People really fear that.
I don't fear it. In fact I believe the same thing (though I am not a nihilist). Anyway, there is miscommunication here because that's not what I meant by "nihilism." You're talking about an existential philosophical position, whereas I was talking about an "extreme skepticism" position. You're not a nihilist in the sense that I meant (though I don't doubt that you are, in fact, a nihilist) because you very clearly do believe things. However, your assertion that we must have evidence to believe something leads to the logical conclusion that we cannot believe anything.
I personally have set forth the goal of proving absurdism false, but that doesn't mean that my life has that purpose OBJECTIVELY; it is simply something I want to do because it is fun.
Then you and I are going to have problems, because as it so happens, I'm an absurdist.
You exist in some form. What that form is is on some level unprovable; this could all be some sort of simulation, for instance. It is largely irrelevant, though, and the only way to truly resolve it is to look as close as we can and see if our reality is seamless or if we can find something underlying it. But until then, it is not unreasonable to assume physicality, as long as you understand it is an assumption and not a fact. If someone has convincing evidence we are not truly physical beings on some level, so be it.
Bingo. You're starting to get it. I never said assuming physicality was a bad thing or unreasonable; in fact I think it is a reasonable and rational pragmatic position, upon which you can finally make use of that "evidence" you (and I both) love. However, assuming physicality in and of itself cannot be evidenced.
Just when I was starting to lose faith that I could get through to you, you really redeem yourself. Bravo. (And I don't mean any of this sarcastically, I hope I don't come off that way.)
Actually...including moons...from what we can tell there are quite a few with potential. Variables are just right and they do not have to be. The universe could easily be something else that may be even more beautiful and spectacular yet could not support life and no one could observe it.
The Anthropic Principle says that the universe has to be more or less as we see it, because if it were different, there wouldn’t be anyone here to observe it.
Potential does not mean that life does exist there. Also, I'm willing to bet if you count all the celestial bodies in our solar system you would find that few of them can sustain life. I still don't see how you can show that things are "just right" for life in this universe. One planet with life just isn't enough. If things were "just right" then you would find much more life.
That's also not what the Anthropic Principle says. It says if the universe were completely different, then we humans would not be here to observe it. Note that the principle includes the phrase "completely different." It also assumes that humans are the only form of intelligent life. Nothing says that intelligent life can only evolve into humans.
That means dolphins would go to heaven too! I am ok with that...but then again dolphins may have a religion...
You are joking, right?
There is little evidence dolphins have any smarts beyond that of a dog and they are one of only three species - chimps and humans being the other two - that we know of that kill without reason. Most stories of dolphin rescuing people and acting altruistically are actually myths dating by to the ancient Greeks.
Dolphins are not smart, sweet, benign, enlightened creatures of love and happiness. Don't fall into the trap of imagining they have special powers or traits just cos they look like they're smiling. They are just animals.
Anyhow with life in the solar system. If you include the moons there are quite a few that appear to have ice and/or other chemical compositions that would lead to life, either carbon-based or other.
With the variables being right...they do not have to be.
Show
Hawking wrote: “It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the (fundamental) numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty.
Physicist Paul Davies calculated that in order for planets to exist, the relevant initial conditions had to be fine tuned to a precision of one part in 10 followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes at least. For electromagnetism, he estimated a change of only one part in 10 to the power of 40 would have spelled disaster for stars, like our sun, thereby precluding the existence of planets.
Gravitational force must be what it is, for planets to have stable orbits around the sun. Otherwise if they had a greater force they would fall into the sun and burn up or if weaker, they would escape from their orbit into a very cold, outer darkness. It is estimated that a change in gravity by only one part in 10 to the power of 100 would have prevented a life permitting universe.
If the electric charge on an electron were only slightly different, stars would be unable to burn hydrogen and helium. and produce the chemical elements such as carbon and oxygen that make up our bodies. Similarly, the orbit of electrons in atoms would not be stable, so matter as we know it would not exist.
Stephen Hawking wrote, “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.”
Not only must each of these quantities be exquisitely fine tuned but their ratios to each other must be finely tuned. As William Craig writes: “Improbability is added to improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.”
Physicist Paul Davies calculated that in order for planets to exist, the relevant initial conditions had to be fine tuned to a precision of one part in 10 followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes at least. For electromagnetism, he estimated a change of only one part in 10 to the power of 40 would have spelled disaster for stars, like our sun, thereby precluding the existence of planets.
Gravitational force must be what it is, for planets to have stable orbits around the sun. Otherwise if they had a greater force they would fall into the sun and burn up or if weaker, they would escape from their orbit into a very cold, outer darkness. It is estimated that a change in gravity by only one part in 10 to the power of 100 would have prevented a life permitting universe.
If the electric charge on an electron were only slightly different, stars would be unable to burn hydrogen and helium. and produce the chemical elements such as carbon and oxygen that make up our bodies. Similarly, the orbit of electrons in atoms would not be stable, so matter as we know it would not exist.
Stephen Hawking wrote, “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.”
Not only must each of these quantities be exquisitely fine tuned but their ratios to each other must be finely tuned. As William Craig writes: “Improbability is added to improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.”
Actually it has been proven that dolphins are altruistic
I know of no studies that have "proven" anything of the sort, though I know of several that highlight their inclination towards murder, infanticide, and attacking and raping humans.
and that dolphins call each other by names.
Since no human can "speak dolphin" this is nothing more than supposition.
Basically a individual dolphin has a unique sound that it uses...and others can mimic the sound.
If others mimic the sound it is hardly "unique", is it?
Studies have shown that they are highly emotional creatures too...
Which is meaningless. All mammals are emotional.
Fun Fact 2: Dolphins have also been known to kill porpoises for reasons which are not fully understood, as porpoises generally do not share the same fish diet as dolphins and are therefore not competitors for food supplies.
Fun Fact 3: Dolphins are known to engage in acts of aggression towards each other. The older a male dolphin is, the more likely his body is covered with scars ranging in depth from teeth marks made by other dolphins. It is suggested that male dolphins engage in such acts of aggression for the same reasons as humans: disputes between companions or even competition for other females. Acts of aggression can become so intense that targeted dolphins are known to go into exile, leaving their communities as a result of losing a fight with other dolphins.
Fun Fact 4: There are numerous recorded accounts of dolphins doing altruistic deeds.
Fun Fact 5: Dolphins play jokes. Whether it is grabbing a fish or pelican by its tail or teasing other animals with food and then taking it away.
I know of no studies that have "proven" anything of the sort, though I know of several that highlight their inclination towards murder, infanticide, and attacking and raping humans. Since no human can "speak dolphin" this is nothing more than supposition. If others mimic the sound it is hardly "unique", is it?
You would not take the time to even look.
Murders have only been reported in two parts of the world - along Scotland's East Coast and in America off the beaches of Virginia, where even more alarmingly, the victims were scores of the dolphins' own young.
Sorry...I couldn't help myself.
Anyways. Here is a link to a counter article about Killer Dolphins
Dolphin: Flipper or Killer?
Damn near all biologists agree that dolphins are some of the most intelligent animals on the planet, although it is admittedly hard to quantify intelligence (and DON'T let MENSA fool you into thinking otherwise-- MENSA is a bunch of idiots as far as I'm concerned).
Though, don't be fooled-- dolphins can be every bit as aggressive as humans are, towards each other, other animals, and humans. However, they can also be friendly, and when it comes to humans, unless given a reason otherwise, will usually just be bored with us.
It's highly suspected that dolphins have their own fully developed language. They certainly do have specific clicking noises that mean specific things like "look out" or "danger ahead." Also, they have names.
This is all just from what I remember, though. I'm sure if you two get into the argument deep enough you'll both be googling and wiki'ing the hell out of dolphins, so you'll find out for yourself what's true and what isn't. I don't really want to step in the midst of this debate as I don't really see a reason for it and I certainly don't even know what started it.
EDIT: Oh, and another thing. Many animals, not just humans and dolphins, exhibit altruistic behavior. Chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and many others. Exhibitions of altruism are relatively common in nature in general-- it's a behavioral trait among animals (including humans).
My 2 cp?
Irreducible Complexity is an argument used by people who don't understand Evolution...
As evolution is still a theory (yes I know what that means) then the onus is still on the proponents to prove it. The easiest way to do this is to produce life from inorganic substances. (the crux of the matter).
It is easily disproved, the trick is going to be, proving the matter. (pun intended)
Damn near all biologists agree that dolphins are some of the most intelligent animals on the planet
As are dogs. There is no evidence Dolphins are smarter that that, or even approaching human intellect.
Though, don't be fooled-- dolphins can be every bit as aggressive as humans are, towards each other, other animals, and humans. However, they can also be friendly, and when it comes to humans, unless given a reason otherwise, will usually just be bored with us.
They can be just as amiable or just as aggressive as any other animal.
It's highly suspected that dolphins have their own fully developed language.
Only by a very small number of people who are generally not credible.
I'm sure if you two get into the argument deep enough you'll both be googling and wiki'ing the hell out of dolphins
Sod that. Posting a Wiki link or a Dictionary definition generally means someone is trying to "prove" something in order to "win". That or a last floundering act of someone who knows their position is untenable but is desperately trying to save face. It is either and attempt to "win" or essentially an admission of defeat, both of which are odd since this is a discussion forum and not a debate and it's not supposed to be about winning or losing but rather social interaction. As soon as the link-dueling starts up I just tune out.
As evolution is still a theory (yes I know what that means) then the onus is still on the proponents to prove it. The easiest way to do this is to produce life from inorganic substances. (the crux of the matter).
It is easily disproved, the trick is going to be, proving the matter. (pun intended)
As evolution is still a theory (yes I know what that means) then the onus is still on the proponents to prove it. The easiest way to do this is to produce life from inorganic substances. (the crux of the matter).
It is easily disproved, the trick is going to be, proving the matter. (pun intended)
If you know what "theory" means then you would not have made this statement. It is a theory precisely because it has been proved. If you understand evolution then you would not be under the misguided perception that how life began has any bearing on how it changes as far as categorizing them. The crux of the matter has nothing to do with abiogenesis. We know that life arose from non-living matter. We've known this for quite some time now. How it happened does not matter when discussing evolution.
If you know what "theory" means ...
Sorry, it's early & I'm still brewing coffee. I meant that the origin of life is a hypothesis. Evolution of existing species is a theory.
So that leaves open to debate WHERE the original program came from. That subject is currently open for a workable theory, doesn't exist yet.
All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. Who can really prove or disprove whether the "whole" of the universe has a form of intelligence that we may not be able to comprehend. We know that universes can be born...star's die...etc etc...
Sorry, it's early & I'm still brewing coffee. I meant that the origin of life is a hypothesis. Evolution of existing species is a theory.
So that leaves open to debate WHERE the original program came from. That subject is currently open for a workable theory, doesn't exist yet.
You're talking about abiogenesis. To avoid confusion in the future, call it that.
(And you're right, abiogenesis has yet to be evidenced.)
You're talking about abiogenesis. To avoid confusion in the future, call it that.
(And you're right, abiogenesis has yet to be evidenced.)
Yes. This is why I laugh every time someone screams for evidence when a religious person says that "god" created life. It' hilarious really.
As are dogs. There is no evidence Dolphins are smarter that that, or even approaching human intellect.
I don't know, I remember reading some things that seemed to imply otherwise. Not necessarily "approaching human intellect" per se, but still rather intelligent compared to most other animals.
Then again, as I said, part of the problem is in quantifying intelligence, which is pretty much impossible. (Can I take another shot at MENSA, please?)
It's hard for us to even define intelligence, let alone quantify it. What does it come down to? Pattern recognition? Knowledge? Puzzle-solving? Etc.
Who was smarter, Shakespeare or Einstein? Isaac Newton or Friederich Nietzche?
(And no, I'm not asking who had the higher IQ. Refer back to my shots at MENSA.)
They can be just as amiable or just as aggressive as any other animal.
Agreed, most certainly.
Only by a very small number of people who are generally not credible.
Maybe so, but I wouldn't say it's a "crackpot theory" like a moonlanding or 9/11 conspiracy.
Sod that. Posting a Wiki link or a Dictionary definition generally means someone is trying to "prove" something in order to "win". That or a last floundering act of someone who knows their position is untenable but is desperately trying to save face. It is either and attempt to "win" or essentially an admission of defeat, both of which are odd since this is a discussion forum and not a debate and it's not supposed to be about winning or losing but rather social interaction. As soon as the link-dueling starts up I just tune out.
I can see what you mean and agree with the heart of it. I much prefer a discussion over a heated debate. But even when it gets into a debate I'll sometimes suffer though it because ultimately I don't post for the person I'm debating with-- I post for the lurkers.
Dolphins
Show
The language aspect of dolphins has had over 30 years of research. Contrary to your statement, scientist such as Vincent Janik are credible.
Only by a very small number of people who are generally not credible.
The language aspect of dolphins has had over 30 years of research. Contrary to your statement, scientist such as Vincent Janik are credible.
The language aspect of dolphins has had over 30 years of research. Contrary to your statement, scientist such as Vincent Janik are credible.
Vocal communication is not synonymous with language. Screaming "ow!" or "arrgh!" when you hurt yourself is a form of vocal communication, but it is not language.
I'm not saying dolphins are not intelligent, just the gross overestimation of their intelligence by people who anthropomorphise them when in truth they are little more than aquatic dogs.
For anyone interested in the topic of animal emotion, I recommend this video: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Dogs-Smile-Chimpanzees-Cry/dp/B00004UG9S
It's not a real in-depth scholarly exploration of the topic but it is interesting nonetheless.
I'm not saying dolphins are not intelligent, just the gross overestimation of their intelligence by people who anthropomorphise them when in truth they are little more than aquatic dogs.
Yet them being as intelligent as dogs is not the truth. I think dolphins having "names" is also rather interesting. Anyhow guess we should get back on point. Watching the vid now though.
Edit - This is awesome...Thank you. Watched it and it sure helps understand why it is hard for us to gauge intellect.
Yet them being as intelligent as dogs is not the truth. I think dolphins having "names" is also rather interesting. Anyhow guess we should get back on point. Watching the vid now though.
Edit - This is awesome...Thank you. Watched it and it sure helps understand why it is hard for us to gauge intellect.
I haven't watched the video but as I've said several times, it's incredibly hard to gauge intellect. It's one of the reasons I disparage a certain elitist group so much.
As evolution is still a theory (yes I know what that means) then the onus is still on the proponents to prove it.
No. You pretty clearly don't.
I'm curious though, with the way you say "still a theory", what do you imagine it becomes next?
No. You pretty clearly don't.
I'm curious though, with the way you say "still a theory", what do you imagine it becomes next?
He corrected himself a few posts later. He was referring to abiogenesis. He blames it on the coffee or lack thereof. We do know that somehow abiogenesis happened, how it happened is not yet a scientific theory.
Off-topic
Of course I can supply evidence for causality. I expose a piece of paper to a flame. Does it catch on fire? Yes. So an open flame is sufficient to catch a flame on fire. Then I can test heating it up other ways - magnifying glass, oven, ect. This way I can find what is sufficient to catch a piece of paper on fire; that is to say, if I fulfil certain conditions, I will catch a piece of paper on fire.
Causality ahoy!
Science makes no assumptions in the real world; that is why we are never absolutely certain of anything and the highest level of certainty is theory. We may be exceedingly certain of something, but it is never a proof.
It is not a can, but a should. We SHOULD not believe in anything. We should simply accept that our knowledge has variable levels of certainty and operate as best we can. Not acknowledging that is bad.
Parlez-vous francais?
I think the problem just was difficulty in communication.
You're also using a different form of existance than I do. I am using existance as "something". That doesn't mean it is how we percieve it or anything suchlike. It does mean that it is not nothing. The fact that I observe things means I exist in some form, however tenous, bizzare, or incomprehensible that may be, and however impossible it is to prove to anyone other than myself that I exist.
Every observer exists. Whether there are many observers or just one is impossible to know with absolute certainty, and what the ultimate form of our existance is is impossible to know with absolute certainty.
This is false.
First off, dolphins are known to be more intelligent than dogs. How much more so is an open question; for instance, dolphins are self-aware.
And "most stories" of dolphins rescuing people are NOT of Greek origin, but are much more recent. There are stories dating back from Grecian times, but there is documented evidence of dolphin-human altruism.
Humans are just animals too.
Hey, that's how we know they're advanced - they act like humans do! :P
In any event, it depends on your definition of altruism. Altruism has been observed in many animal species, including dolphins; it isn't even necessarily all that advanced of a trait.
Intelligence is difficult to quantify. However, this does not mean it is impossible to quantify. IQ tests and the old SATs are good examples - intelligent people have higher IQs and score higher on the SATs. IQ correlates decently well to the general intelligence factor. People who claim otherwise are either ignorant or have an agenda.
There is evidence dolphins are more intelligent than dogs, but it is not conclusive - yet, anyway.
It is pretty likely that they are, though.
How intelligent things like dolphins, parrots, and chimpanzees are is pretty difficult to quantify relative to a human, though - when we say things like "solves problems as well as a five year old", what exactly does that mean in terms of intelligence?
Alex is a good example; how smart was he exactly?
Can you supply evidence for causality? No, you cannot, as that is a metaphysic.
Of course I can supply evidence for causality. I expose a piece of paper to a flame. Does it catch on fire? Yes. So an open flame is sufficient to catch a flame on fire. Then I can test heating it up other ways - magnifying glass, oven, ect. This way I can find what is sufficient to catch a piece of paper on fire; that is to say, if I fulfil certain conditions, I will catch a piece of paper on fire.
Causality ahoy!
You end up talking in circles if you try to point to things as evidence of causality or existence. These things can't be evidenced, they have to be taken a priori.
You just don't LIKE it, because it means you have to come up with better arguments.
Science makes no assumptions in the real world; that is why we are never absolutely certain of anything and the highest level of certainty is theory. We may be exceedingly certain of something, but it is never a proof.
However, your assertion that we must have evidence to believe something leads to the logical conclusion that we cannot believe anything.
It is not a can, but a should. We SHOULD not believe in anything. We should simply accept that our knowledge has variable levels of certainty and operate as best we can. Not acknowledging that is bad.
Then you and I are going to have problems, because as it so happens, I'm an absurdist.
Parlez-vous francais?
Bingo. You're starting to get it. I never said assuming physicality was a bad thing or unreasonable; in fact I think it is a reasonable and rational pragmatic position, upon which you can finally make use of that "evidence" you (and I both) love. However, assuming physicality in and of itself cannot be evidenced.
Just when I was starting to lose faith that I could get through to you, you really redeem yourself. Bravo. (And I don't mean any of this sarcastically, I hope I don't come off that way.)
I think the problem just was difficulty in communication.
You're also using a different form of existance than I do. I am using existance as "something". That doesn't mean it is how we percieve it or anything suchlike. It does mean that it is not nothing. The fact that I observe things means I exist in some form, however tenous, bizzare, or incomprehensible that may be, and however impossible it is to prove to anyone other than myself that I exist.
Every observer exists. Whether there are many observers or just one is impossible to know with absolute certainty, and what the ultimate form of our existance is is impossible to know with absolute certainty.
There is little evidence dolphins have any smarts beyond that of a dog and they are one of only three species - chimps and humans being the other two - that we know of that kill without reason. Most stories of dolphin rescuing people and acting altruistically are actually myths dating by to the ancient Greeks.
This is false.
First off, dolphins are known to be more intelligent than dogs. How much more so is an open question; for instance, dolphins are self-aware.
And "most stories" of dolphins rescuing people are NOT of Greek origin, but are much more recent. There are stories dating back from Grecian times, but there is documented evidence of dolphin-human altruism.
Dolphins are not smart, sweet, benign, enlightened creatures of love and happiness. Don't fall into the trap of imagining they have special powers or traits just cos they look like they're smiling. They are just animals.
Humans are just animals too.
I know of no studies that have "proven" anything of the sort, though I know of several that highlight their inclination towards murder, infanticide, and attacking and raping humans.
Hey, that's how we know they're advanced - they act like humans do! :P
In any event, it depends on your definition of altruism. Altruism has been observed in many animal species, including dolphins; it isn't even necessarily all that advanced of a trait.
Damn near all biologists agree that dolphins are some of the most intelligent animals on the planet, although it is admittedly hard to quantify intelligence (and DON'T let MENSA fool you into thinking otherwise-- MENSA is a bunch of idiots as far as I'm concerned).
Intelligence is difficult to quantify. However, this does not mean it is impossible to quantify. IQ tests and the old SATs are good examples - intelligent people have higher IQs and score higher on the SATs. IQ correlates decently well to the general intelligence factor. People who claim otherwise are either ignorant or have an agenda.
As are dogs. There is no evidence Dolphins are smarter that that, or even approaching human intellect.
There is evidence dolphins are more intelligent than dogs, but it is not conclusive - yet, anyway.
It is pretty likely that they are, though.
How intelligent things like dolphins, parrots, and chimpanzees are is pretty difficult to quantify relative to a human, though - when we say things like "solves problems as well as a five year old", what exactly does that mean in terms of intelligence?
Alex is a good example; how smart was he exactly?
Life After Death is a interesting thing for me. To me it would be blending back in with the "whole," yet even while I live I am apart. It is not a matter of me wondering if there is a life after death but wondering what the purpose of this "living" existence currently means. So far it means to me to grow and mature and have attempt to have a positive impact on others.
A lot of the research into collective {un}consciousness is rather interesting to me and it will be interesting to continue to see how the field unfolds. As a species we threaten our own self preservation and threaten a lot of life on this earth. I also wonder what potential can we overcome this destructive nature and not destroy ourselves.
"Together with her sister Shar, Selûne created Abeir-Toril from the cosmic ether and assisted Chauntea as she blessed the twin worlds with life."
Hopefully that ends the argument!
Question is... if the Gods are irreducibly complex, who created them?
And obviously you don't know what "organic" means. I've MADE many organic compounds in laboratories from completely inorganic substances.
Wow, an expert in transitory chemistry with biological reprocussions? Well, hell, I'm looking forwardd to seeing this one explained. How did you make the hydrocarbons? What sort of reaction to you use to create them?
Is there anything you don't know?!
Oh, and by the way, when you prove a scientific theory, it becomes a scientific law. You might have heard something along those lines when you were becoming God.
Oh, and by the way, when you prove a scientific theory, it becomes a scientific law. You might have heard something along those lines when you were becoming God.
Not true. This site explains the differences very well. Here are both definitions from that site.
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.
There is no way to "prove" a theory.
You are mistaking it with the other definition meaning a guess or supposition. In scientific terms a theory requires proof.
Religion is all about faith, whereas science has no place for faith. No need for it.
That's actually a rather naive understanding of both science and religion. Let me elaborate:
That's why science kills religion. You can replicate science. You can be sure of science.
This seems to be verificationism, a quite-dead methodology. You can't go from "Theory X predicted Y, Y occurred, therefore X is correct." Theory Z could have predicted Y, too - does that mean Y confirms both?
And when science explains something religion once held, religion loses.
Just because you can explain something in a certain way doesn't mean that's the explanation. Brownian motion was adequately explained by both the phenomenological theory of gases and the kinetic theory; the difference in their predictions was too subtle to be detected by the instruments.
Sience can be demonstrated. Science can be shown. Science gets better over time.
Religion doesn't. It relies on faith, and by its very nature it cannot survive scrutiny. Why do you believe in your god, when you don't believe in any of the others?
Again, this is a naive understanding. In the over two and a half millennia since Buddhism was introduced, it has changed, has arguably gotten better. You seem to be using "religion" to mean "certain religions."
Heliocentrism and the atomic theory were refuted by the evidence. Yet their proponents managed to turn the situation around and reinterpret the evidence in their favor. Given enough time, a religion (maybe not Christianity, but then, that's not the only religion out there) could potentially do the same thing.
Furthermore, science can often only be demonstrated to those who have the proper equipment and training to interpret the results. If I refuse to look through a telescope and reject the existence of Neptune, it'd be little than ignorance on my part. Likewise if I refuse to properly prepare myself to experience the presence of a god, that's my problem, not the problem of those who have experienced it. If I refuse to believe the testimony of those who have experienced a god, again, my prerogative but also my problem.
Science is not the enemy of religion so much as it is something which simply eradicates it without thought.
Agreed. You have to not think critically about science in order for it to eradicate religion.
Science isn't a thinking, feeling thing. It isn't a weapon. It is simply a methodology for better undestanding reality.
Ah, methodology. What is science's methodology, pray tell? Verificationism, logical positivism, falsificationism have all been debunked. Hume and Popper debunked the verificationists, and Kuhn, Lakatos, and Feyerabend debunked Popper's falsificationism.
What did scientists do when this happened? They clung dogmatically to them.
The onus is NOT on its proponents to "prove" it. It is a theory. The onus is on them to DISPROVE it, the way ALL science works. You don't "prove" something, you just disprove that it isn't so. That's how we are so certain that evolution occurred and functions the way it did.
Actually, it's not. Falsificationism is dead. It only survives because it makes scientists look and feel good.
EVERYTHING in the world which isn't math is a theory.
And math is a lie :D . (No, no... I'm not making the argument you think I'm making... just being funny.)
There isn't any evidence that a god exists
There's isn't any evidence that the world exists that isn't part of the world - the thing in question.
You are mistaking it with the other definition meaning a guess or supposition. In scientific terms a theory requires proof.
Incorrect. A theory doesn't require anything other than some natural law that one wants to explain the mechanics of. A theory certainly doesn't require proof, since proof is for math and logic. Evidence is for science.
And to the person who said that a scientific theory that becomes "proven" is a law-- that is also incorrect. In science, the terms "law" and "theory" actually refer to two different things (and in fact it's the "law" that precedes the theory, not the other way around).
A law is simply an observation of some natural reoccurance. Newton, for example, discovered the law of gravity. He did not, however, propose a theory for gravity (more on this in a minute). He codified some laws of physics, but from what I understand did not put out much in the way of theories.
A theory is an explanation of how a law works. Newton didn't give us an explanation of how gravity works; he just showed us that it did. We didn't get a viable theory of gravity (i.e. an explanation of how gravity actually works) until much later.
Evolution is also both a law and a theory. We have mountains of evidence that shows that speciation occurs, which means that evolution is a law. We also have a good idea on how, exactly, evolution works (via natural selection and other methods) meaning that it's also a theory. Or rather, there is a theory of evolution that explains the law of evolution. When someone says "the theory of evolution" they're referring to the explanation of how evolution works (not the fact that it occurs).
Oh and GOLF CLAP FOR YARVIN.
Make that a standing ovation, in fact.
Oh and GOLF CLAP FOR YARVIN.
Make that a standing ovation, in fact.
I'm presuming you mean this in the original sarcastic sense, as in "Yarvin has just spilled out a pile of nonsense so thick as to be impressive anyway." If that's the case, well, alright. I tried.
I just want to point out I'm not against science; quite the opposite. But I think any argument against religion - or any other form of esoteric knowledge - will work against science if pressed all the way.
Take the attack on astrology (something I do not believe in) that there is no known mechanism by which planets can influence life on Earth in the way astrology predicts: Why does there have to be any at all? If we trace physics back to its most basic mechanisms, don't these happen "just because"? In which case why demand more of astrology?
All ideologies are at base irrational.
Clearly, if you are going to pick apart me using these words in certain ways, then you aren't trying to be constructive but trying to win an argument on the internet.
Actually, it's not. Falsificationism is dead. It only survives because it makes scientists look and feel good.
First off, claiming it is dead is hilariously false. It is used to this day.
Second, any real scientist will tell you no knowledge is absolute. We simply know probabilities given situations.
As such, falsification is never absolute. The issue is that the article fails to understand that this is an inherent limitation to science, and instead treats it as if it were a problem.
In short, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the reality of what falsification is. Falsification is simply a demonstration that a prediction made by a given theory is likely to be false, with a certain magnitude of likelihood, tested under certain specific conditions.
The article itself is pretty poorly written. A good example would be, say, the horrible experiment. He chose an experiment which any idiot would immediately be able to tell you was unable to distinguish between the control and the experimental condition (whichever you designated as which); both make the same predictions, therefore the experiment is useless.
It also makes a hilariously incorrect assumption: "If all theories are thus equally disproved". This is an assumption made without evidence. He has simply shown the difficulty in ABSOLUTELY disproving something, but he has FAILED to show that everything is equally disproved.
In common parlance, this means "everything which follows is complete garbage."
I use different verbiage which implies a greater degree of certainty in everyday life because it is more convenient to do so and I assume that my audience is generally able to either understand what I'm saying or is unable to really understand it and thus can at least partially understand it due to the simpler language used.
Ultimately, science CANNOT tell us anything absolutely. The problem is that he's acting as though this is a problem. It isn't.
The fundamental problem with the author of the articles you linked to is that he is a moron who doesn't actually understand what he's talking about.
The reality is that "real" scientists, myself included, KNOW we can never prove anything absolutely. We aren't idiots.
He assumes some ulterior motive in the way we present ourselves. While this may be true to a certain degree, the greater reality is that most people, himself included, are simply too stupid to understand how science actually works.
In short, if a scientist tells you he is absolutely certain of something, he is ACTUALLY telling you that it is exceedingly highly improbable that something isn't so.
Indeed, the article links to another article which uses the word "facts" as if they were certain. This is, as any useful scientist will tell you, hogwash. "Facts" are merely observational data, which is often flawed.
The reality is that nothing is literally absolutely certain. We simply know probabilities.
Many people simply are unable to comprehend this reality.
If you can't falsify something, it isn't science. Now, you may say "But we've already proven we cannot absolutely falsify anything!" This is true, but also meaningless. We can demonstrate that it is highly improbable that something is so. This is what "falsification" actually means, and if you've actually read any scientific papers which really deal with it, then you'd know that this is how it works. We say something is so with X degree of confidence.
This is why an understanding of probability and statistics is so important to a scientist. We cannot prove anything absolutely nor disprove anything absolutely. But given certain conditions, we CAN show the probability of something being so or not so.
Literal absolute certainty (1) of something isn't something scientists deal in. Anyone who understands science knows this.
But that doesn't make science useless; on the contrary, it is useful because it is an iterative process. We become progressively more certain over time, and while we cannot be ABSOLUTELY certain, that isn't a problem.
This is one good way to see if something is hogwash; we can prove logically that nothing can be proven or disproven absolutely. Therefore, it someone means that something is literally absolutely true (rather than figurtively), then you know that that person is spewing garbage.
(Most) religions claim literal absolutes, and therefore are obviously garbage as we can prove logically that we lack absolute knowledge. Science isn't so easily dismissed.
I just want to point out I'm not against science; quite the opposite. But I think any argument against religion - or any other form of esoteric knowledge - will work against science if pressed all the way.
This simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of what science is.
Take the attack on astrology (something I do not believe in) that there is no known mechanism by which planets can influence life on Earth in the way astrology predicts: Why does there have to be any at all? If we trace physics back to its most basic mechanisms, don't these happen "just because"? In which case why demand more of astrology?
Are you... serious? Do you not understand how those are different?
I'm sorry, but this seems to indicate you really don't understand science on a very fundamental level.
They don't happen "just because". They happen. There is no "just because".
All ideologies are at base irrational.
This is a tautological statement - ideology by definition includes belief. Science doesn't involve belief, therefore isn't an ideology.
Also, if you take this statement as an ideology, then it is clearly irrational.
We know the moon affects people emotionally. You can ask anyone who works at a emergency room that one.
I think there is slight...and I say slight validity into Astrology because of its simple predictions of the sun...
Seriously at this point in time how can we determine that the universe does or does not have a consciousness...
"Life is a waterfall, your one in the river and one again after the fall." - SOAD
We know the moon affects people emotionally. You can ask anyone who works at a emergency room that one.
Actually this shows only that people will believe what they want to believe despite evidence to the contrary.
We tend to remember events we consider significant. The full moon is commonly seen as more significant than the quarter moon by the average person. As gamers we tend to do this with die results. Statistically there is no significance to the full moon on our behaviors.
Actually this shows only that people will believe what they want to believe despite evidence to the contrary.
We tend to remember events we consider significant. The full moon is commonly seen as more significant than the quarter moon by the average person. As gamers we tend to do this with die results. Statistically there is no significance to the full moon on our behaviors.
There is also evidence to support it. From looking rather quickly there is a ton of contradictory evidence. Guess it is a impasse.
Actually this shows only that people will believe what they want to believe despite evidence to the contrary.
We tend to remember events we consider significant. The full moon is commonly seen as more significant than the quarter moon by the average person. As gamers we tend to do this with die results. Statistically there is no significance to the full moon on our behaviors.
Indeed. In fact, many studies which have suggested changes in behavior are demonstrably flawed - for instance, one such infamous study found a pretty decent correlation. Of course, then the study was analized and the period looked at had an unusual number of full moons fall on weekends. Comparing a full moon weekend with a normal weekend, the effect vanished.
Its also worth noting publication bias; that is to say, people who notice an effect are far more likely to publish than those who don't. Therefore, the fact that there are so many studies which don't show a correlation is very strong evidence that there is no correlation, and that the few which show a correlation do so by chance.
I do suspect there are probably extremely small effects, but they're most likely entirely due to the amount of ambient light - on a full moon, it is pretty bright out, while on a new moon it is very dark out at night. Nothing particularly mystical about depressed people being more depressed when it is pitch black outside.
There is also evidence to support it. From looking rather quickly there is a ton of contradictory evidence. Guess it is a impasse.
Where? All the evidence to support it seems to be circumstantial or anecdotal rather than empirical. Remember that one or two studies is not enough for support when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.
I'm presuming you mean this in the original sarcastic sense, as in "Yarvin has just spilled out a pile of nonsense so thick as to be impressive anyway." If that's the case, well, alright. I tried.
I just want to point out I'm not against science; quite the opposite. But I think any argument against religion - or any other form of esoteric knowledge - will work against science if pressed all the way.
Take the attack on astrology (something I do not believe in) that there is no known mechanism by which planets can influence life on Earth in the way astrology predicts: Why does there have to be any at all? If we trace physics back to its most basic mechanisms, don't these happen "just because"? In which case why demand more of astrology?
All ideologies are at base irrational.
Nope, I meant "golf clap" as in the ironic internet use it has evolved into, which is why I added "standing ovation" to make it more clear. It means I'm genuinely applauding your statements. A sort of "QFT" if you will.
I agree, all ideologies are at base irrational. Any argument in favor of an ideology comes down to pragmatism.
Does this mean that you and I think that science is useless? Of course not. It means we recognize its shortcomings but are free to pragmatically and practically make use of it anyway. Or at least, that's the case with me, but then, I'm an absurdist, accepting absurd things is second nature to me.
Actually this shows only that people will believe what they want to believe despite evidence to the contrary.
We tend to remember events we consider significant. The full moon is commonly seen as more significant than the quarter moon by the average person. As gamers we tend to do this with die results. Statistically there is no significance to the full moon on our behaviors.
I think rolling a natural 20 affects our behaviors as gamers. :P