Atheism

[Panthera tigris FC]

Noah's Ark patently untrue? There you go again Panthera making assumptions and claiming it as fact. Noah's Ark was real verified by writings in the New Testiment, in many cultures that have a flood story and if you drive around Nevada and Arizona in the USA it is clear that great volumes of water have flowed through these areas, all of Australia was an inland sea, just go to Mungo National park. does all this prove the Flood - no, but it does not prove there was not a flood around 3600BC. To refute the bible story of the flood and noah's ark without providing concrete evidence to support your view and that is all it is your view - it is not fact. I believe that God left his fingerprint with the Rainbow as the story says in the bible, I believe this because Jesus mentioned Noah as fact in the New Testament. No doubt you disagree with this, but hey thats fine. I hope one day you will see the simple faith of the Bible.

What assumptions?

How do you account for the distribution of land animals and plants on this planet, let alone explaining how the enormous biomass required to reside upon the ark, nor how this biomass would have been supported and maintained, nor the absent genetic bottleneck that such a mass extinction event would have left, nor the presence of such a global event in the geological record?

These are just some of the facts that directly contradict such a story.

What was your evidence again? A story in a book that is confirmed in the same book (I know they weren't always together....but the authors of the NT certainly had access to the OT). The presence of inland seas and other historic innundated areas that are explained by scientific methods?

Do you really believe that the refraction of light changed after the flood? When are the physical laws of this universe going to change again?

 

[Tiger74]

The tone of your posts implies you think scientific theory and faith are of the same order.

Or you were being mischievious.



PS Djjevv,must admit I'm not a fan of the rolleyes either.

I think scientific theory and faith are two different ways of looking at the same problem (for the purposes of discussion "why are we here?").

I don't believe in burning bushes, or God creating floods, or God sending sons down to Earth. This is why I disagree with much of the Bible, because I think what were lessons designed to teach people the morality of a faith (Adam & Eve) and explain the unexplainable (the plagues prior to Exodus), are now being misused by some churches.

Also I don't believe in healing by pray, divine intervention or the like. I have seen no evidence (for myself) that God give a flying frog *smile* about us since we were made (assuming He exists). I think the use of faith to explain current events is either based upon poor information, a desire to prove God exists and cares about us, or in some cases outright fraud.

On how it all started though, I am stumped. You have the Big Bang theory, but what caused the Big Bang, what was there before it, where was this matter all before that minisecond spark? On this, for me science today is still struggling. Its a field that is still fairly new, but there is still a big gap to be answered. I believe the big bang is our best explanation on how the universe was made, but I cannot rule out a faith based answer for what caused it.

 

[Six Pack]

why oh why did he save the blowies?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

For a bloke who is not being arrogant you sure do a few rolly eyes.

Agreed. Apologies. They do come across a bit harsher than intended. However when you respond with "another presupposition" to my post that assumed that you felt that the the tenets of Christianity were true at the expense of other religions I found it a tad lazy on your part. Yes it was never explicitly said, but I don't think my conclusion was too much of a stretch!

 

[Tiger74]

why oh why did he save the blowies?

They actually play an important part in the world in terms of waste management. Don't knock the blowie :hihi

 

[evo]

Good to see you finally engaging in this debate.

I think scientific theory and faith are two different ways of looking at the same problem (for the purposes of discussion "why are we here?").

In my view you are looking in the wrong spot for the solutions to 'why are we here theme'. Science and most of religion has nothing useful to say on it.

Can I reccomend some of the existential philosophers (if you haven't already read them)in particular ,Nietzche,Camus,Satre, Kierkegaard , all excellent.


From a phiolsophical perspective there is a problem with that particluar question.It assumes there is a reason.It is a 'begging the question' fallacy question.

As I've pointed out before,not all question are logically askable just because you can put them to words.

I don't believe in burning bushes, or God creating floods, or God sending sons down to Earth. This is why I disagree with much of the Bible, because I think what were lessons designed to teach people the morality of a faith (Adam & Eve) and explain the unexplainable (the plagues prior to Exodus), are now being misused by some churches.

Also I don't believe in healing by pray, divine intervention or the like. I have seen no evidence (for myself) that God give a flying frog *smile* about us since we were made (assuming He exists). I think the use of faith to explain current events is either based upon poor information, a desire to prove God exists and cares about us, or in some cases outright fraud.

Agree

On how it all started though, I am stumped. You have the Big Bang theory, but what caused the Big Bang, what was there before it, where was this matter all before that minisecond spark? On this, for me science today is still struggling. Its a field that is still fairly new, but there is still a big gap to be answered. I believe the big bang is our best explanation on how the universe was made, but I cannot rule out a faith based answer for what caused it.

Science can't answer the 'first cause' question you are right. It's not a scientific question.

In my view people come at that question from the wrong angle.They are thinking in only physical terms and forgetting an essential part of the picture.Namely the mind;consciousness.

In my opinion there is no 'in the begining' It is some version of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate

Just not quite sure which one yet. Right now some version of the buddhist 'sunyata'' makes the most sense.

 

[Six Pack]

i feel like a poor cousin from outer hicksville on this thread :-[

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I think scientific theory and faith are two different ways of looking at the same problem (for the purposes of discussion "why are we here?").

I don't believe in burning bushes, or God creating floods, or God sending sons down to Earth. This is why I disagree with much of the Bible, because I think what were lessons designed to teach people the morality of a faith (Adam & Eve) and explain the unexplainable (the plagues prior to Exodus), are now being misused by some churches.

Also I don't believe in healing by pray, divine intervention or the like. I have seen no evidence (for myself) that God give a flying frog *smile* about us since we were made (assuming He exists). I think the use of faith to explain current events is either based upon poor information, a desire to prove God exists and cares about us, or in some cases outright fraud.

What do you think that faith 'brings to the table' or contributes to our understanding of the unknown?

On how it all started though, I am stumped. You have the Big Bang theory, but what caused the Big Bang, what was there before it, where was this matter all before that minisecond spark? On this, for me science today is still struggling. Its a field that is still fairly new, but there is still a big gap to be answered. I believe the big bang is our best explanation on how the universe was made, but I cannot rule out a faith based answer for what caused it.

The questions tackled by physicists are awe-inspiring and the answers they get are often counter-intuitive in the extreme. Whether we will ever grok the workings of this universe is still an open question, but that hasn't deterred the scientists attempting it as we speak. Our knowledge in the last 2 centuries on these matters has advanced amazingly, yet there are still infinite questions.

Faith-based approaches rely on stories passed down through the ages and historically these stories have started to become untenable as we have learnt more via non-faith based, or evidence-based methods (the closing of the gaps). I don't see why faith and naturalistic explanations should hold even stead in the remaining gaps, considering this history.

...but I cannot rule out a faith based answer for what caused it.

But which faith-based answer?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Good to see you finally engaging in this debate.


In my view you are looking in the wrong spot for the solutions to 'why are we here theme'. Science and most of religion has nothing useful to say on it.

Can I reccomend some of the existential philosophers (if you haven't already read them)in particular ,Nietzche,Camus,Satre, Kierkegaard , all excellent.


From a phiolsophical perspective there is a problem with that particluar question.It assumes there is a reason.It is a 'begging the question' fallacy question.

As I've pointed out before,not all question are logically askable just because you can put them to words.


Agree
Science can't answer the 'first cause' question you are right. It's not a scientific question.

In my view people come at that question from the wrong angle.They are thinking in only physical terms and forgetting an essential part of the picture.Namely the mind;consciousness.

In my opinion there is no 'in the begining' It is some version of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate

Just not quite sure which one yet. Right now some version of the buddhist 'sunyata'' makes the most sense.

I was going to say "cue the philosophers" but you beat me to it ;D.

 

[Tiger74]

Good to see you finally engaging in this debate.


In my view you are looking in the wrong spot for the solutions to 'why are we here theme'. Science and most of religion has nothing useful to say on it.

Can I reccomend some of the existential philosophers (if you haven't already read them)in particular ,Nietzche,Camus,Satre, Kierkegaard , all excellent.


From a phiolsophical perspective there is a problem with that particluar question.It assumes there is a reason.It is a 'begging the question' fallacy question.

As I've pointed out before,not all question are logically askable just because you can put them to words.


Agree
Science can't answer the 'first cause' question you are right. It's not a scientific question.

In my view people come at that question from the wrong angle.They are thinking in only physical terms and forgetting an essential part of the picture.Namely the mind;consciousness.

In my opinion there is no 'in the begining' It is some version of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate

Just not quite sure which one yet. Right now some version of the buddhist 'sunyata'' makes the most sense.

Cheeky bugger!

This is actually where I lot of my thinking is, but it has been irrelevant to the current debate (which is focusing virtually just on Athiesm and Christianity).

 

[AngryAnt]

Looks like I have been missing out on the fun!

As to accusations of me being "massively arrogant", I'll just say that I argue hard but fair. This is the Atheism thread - if all you can bring here is Christian platitude and poor evidence, I'll come down hard on you and your arguments.

I'll treat you with respect if you show us respect by bringing good argument and methodology, and I make no apology for that.

If all you bring is the "Bible said so" or that we should show more respect because it "could have happened" forget it...

Again, I offer my sympathy to Djevv who tries hard and concedes that he might be wrong, or that a site might not be totally correct, or that he needs to learn more or doesn't always agree with everything the fundamentalists suggest.

As I've always said - show me the evidence and I will believe. I'm still waiting. But the wise man knows how little he truly knows.

 

[Djevv]

The veracity of the Bible?!? Just because some of the stories have some historical accuracy does not support the supernatural claims made therein. Many of the stories are patently untrue (ie Noah's ark).

You aren't called illogical out of hand though. Whenever I have seen that levelled, it comes with an explanation.

I don't assume naturalism....I have yet to witness anything supernatural, dodgy websites aside. When did this supernatural world cease to exist?

Why do you assume that the supernatural exists? Because you have read stories in a book that provide you with a meaning in life and these stories have supernatural themes?

So because you have never seen or experienced something, you presume that it is impossible. As for 'dodgy' websites, isn't the content of the articles and their correctness the important thing. What is your criterion of dodgyness?

The bedrock of my Faith is the reports of many honest men about the events in Judea 2000 years ago. Men who died for their faith. You repeatedly claim this evidence is inadequate but never given an answer.

They do no such thing outside of your head. I could come up with any old explanation for these questions....would that make them so? Why do your beliefs on these matters have any more legitimacy than other faiths'?

The evidence. What other faith has evidence remotely comparable to Christianity?

My faith? In naturalism, I assume? When you look at the evidence, say for common descent, the obvious answer is clear. However, because you have supernatural beliefs that would be challenged by this conclusion, you choose to go through logical gymnastics to explain the evidence in a way that fits your view. This begs the question as to the basis of these beliefs and when examined it comes down to faith. This is the 'clouding' I speak of, your platitudes aside.

So since evolution occured (in your opinion) there is no God? How do you come to this conclusion?

A low level of Biblical understanding? You would think the perfect guidebook to life would have self evident values and not be open to interpretation. It may also contain some insights that transcend the time in which it was written, but no. So when critics point out the logical inconsitencies it is because they don't understand? However you do? You have some special ability to determine this?

Nearly every 'logical inconsistency' has been repeatedly answered. What make you think that evrrything about the Bible will be easy ??? - aha I know your lack of knowledge about it! Have you ever seen documents that are not open to intepretation?

The core of Disco's argument, that an omnipotent and omniscient being could not suffer whilst knowing the outcome was never addressed. The arguments all revolved around the physical pain (temporary and knowing the outcome) and the fact that he didn't have to do such a thing for his imperfect creation (????). What sort of being creates such a universe?!?!

This is the logical problem of evil, which is a difficult, but has the freewill defence which has been mentioned previously.

And how do you know anything about this supposed creator?

Revelation and evidence. The only way you could know.

Where is the historical evidence for the miracles described in the Bible?

Above. Given a supernatural creator miracles are not unreasonable.

If you want to convince someone (and yourself for that matter) as to the truth of a belief, evidence is usually helpful. : Of course the evidence doesn't make it true....but how are you to know, but for the evidence?

Evidence is helpful, but if we are designed by God to be one with him, then evidence is actually not important. When we have faith we are simply functioning correctly. Our nature is evidence in and of it's self.

I see you ignore my post and just assert presuppositions. The logical inconsitencies aren't presupposed, but are pointed out!

Pointed out on the basis of other presuppositions.

OK...if your God works in mysterious ways how do you claim to have 100% certainty as to his wishes? "Usually comprehensible" means that you can cobble together an explanation and when you can't you play the "god works in mysterious ways" card?

I actually don't, you simply do the best you can. Does anything in this life give you 100% certainty? He is comprehensible enough for me to have faith is what I am trying to say. Aren't there always gaps in our knowledge?

So you also believe the contradictory evidence from other religions? My apologies....I did presuppose that you thought that the Christian theology was exclusively correct. :

What I meant is I don't preclude other religions from having a supernatural origin. Nor do I preclude them from having some revelation of God. Christianity is the most complete revelation of the Almighty, yes.

I don't. I use and rely on controlled experiments and the predictions of hypotheses to reduce the chances that my interpretations are accurate. I see you again dodge the question though.

Does your naturalistic, evolutionary origins absolutely guarantee that your logic is logical and your reasoning reasonable? This is what I'm asking. My beliefs do!

Mock it? I have never discussed fine-tuning or Big Bang as an argument for God with you. Nice try though.

You once said that the anthropic principle argument amounted to the same as a fish wondering if the pond he lived in was made 'just for him'. Perhaps you were being serious . I think the argument is more powerful than that. The Big Bang has existance originating from non-existance ???. Not nothing, non-existance; to me a very powerful argument for God.

How old is the universe exactly?

15 byrs according to the latest estimate.

 

[Disco08]

Not nothing, non-existance; to me a very powerful argument for God.

If God can be infinite, why can't existence itself be infinite without the help of a creator?

 

[Tiger74]

What do you think that faith 'brings to the table' or contributes to our understanding of the unknown?

The questions tackled by physicists are awe-inspiring and the answers they get are often counter-intuitive in the extreme. Whether we will ever grok the workings of this universe is still an open question, but that hasn't deterred the scientists attempting it as we speak. Our knowledge in the last 2 centuries on these matters has advanced amazingly, yet there are still infinite questions.

Faith-based approaches rely on stories passed down through the ages and historically these stories have started to become untenable as we have learnt more via non-faith based, or evidence-based methods (the closing of the gaps). I don't see why faith and naturalistic explanations should hold even stead in the remaining gaps, considering this history.

But which faith-based answer?

What faith brings to the table is a possible answer. Be it a god, a consciousness of some kind, or the giant space turtle, its a possible explanation. Each however deserves to be reviewed and tested as any other theory is. This is why the giant space turtle and L Ron are pretty much ignored now, because one lacks total credibility, and the other one is about a giant space turtle.

In terms of science explaining all, I personally doubt we are smart enough to learn all. I think we still have a long way to go, but my gut call is the answer to a lot of this stuff is beyond our reach. For this reason I don't rule out a faith based answer.

You also point out that this stuff has been passed on down the years, and is prone to error and distortion. On this I agree, but this doesn't mean the initial message was wrong, it just means we have stuffed it up now.

In terms of which faith based answer, I have no idea. I lack an absolute faith so I cannot answer that.

 

[Six Pack]

What about those christians who were running about after Sept 11th saying the attack was prophesised in the Bible? Surely you can twist any event and say it's in one or another holy book.

 

[Djevv]

If God can be infinite, why can't existence itself be infinite without the help of a creator?

Can matter bring it's self into existance? What about the laws that organise everything, are they self generating, or were they planned? If existance in the current form is 'infinite' then matter would have suffered heat-death long ago according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[Six Pack]

Can matter bring it's self into existance? What about the laws that organise everything, are they self generating, or were they planned? If existance in the current form is 'infinite' then matter would have suffered heat-death long ago according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

its all random, a fluke

 

[Disco08]

Can matter bring it's self into existance? What about the laws that organise everything, are they self generating, or were they planned? If existance in the current form is 'infinite' then matter would have suffered heat-death long ago according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Couldn't the event that caused this universe have triggered these laws and in turn been caused by something in the wider infinity of existence?

 

[evo]

The Big Bang has existance originating from non-existance ???

Bullshyte Djevv.Are you really a science teacher?. The Big Bang theory doesn't say that at all.

It posits the universe expanded in a 'bang' from a singularity.

What was 'before' the singularity is point of debate.Some say it was caused when other dimensions banged together 'Mtheory'

Others posit prior to that there was a collapse.
Most scientists just leave that question open.

No-one in science claims to 'know',and they certainly don't claim it came from nothing.

 

[Djevv]

Bullshyte Djevv.Are you really a science teacher?. The Big Bang theory doesn't say that at all.

It posits the universe expanded in a 'bang' from a singularity.

Personally I don't think your philosophy stuff makes a lot of sense either. But I'm polite enough not to mention it.

OK I am not a Physicist, so this is my laymans take on it. Since you have all of space-time originating at an impossiblility -a dimensionless point - a singularity - I think that existance from non-existance is a reasonable way to say it. Nothing, not time, not space, not matter existed prior to this event - in other words there was not even a 'before'. Weird eh?

From here. '"three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.'

What was 'before' the singularity is point of debate.Some say it was caused when other dimensions banged together 'Mtheory'

Others posit prior to that there was a collapse.
Most scientists just leave that question open.

No-one in science claims to 'know',and they certainly don't claim it came from nothing.

I've done some reading on this topic, but I am always prepared to do more .