Is the "I don't know" argument valid?

[JDaniel]

Really? Look at my earlier posts on this thread. Every time I asked the OP to state his case that the moment of creation could be understood, he told me it was off-topic.

And yet, when theists tried to do it, it wasn’t. Strange that.

Well, just ignore the OP.

Seriously, he was right, it’s not whether we can know (understand) the “moment of creation” it’s whether or not we can understand it by inference from what it wasn’t.

If that is the case, then we can’t slip out by simply saying, “I don’t know.”

JD

 

[joandarc2008]

Most trolls aren’t going to put themselves in this kind of situation unless they are pretty sure that they can make themselves look smarter than everyone else …Just a thought.

 

[JDaniel]

Most trolls aren’t going to put themselves in this kind of situation unless they are pretty sure that they can make themselves look smarter than everyone else …Just a thought.

Good point.

JD

 

[JDaniel]

**Yes, this is a theist-only conversation (as any topic of this forum) and ought to stay being such.
But still, the question about "is the >I don’t know argument< still valid”, seems so get lost, as so often crucial questions get overlaid by off topic sidewinders that hook us.

In fact it’s a very weak and shiftless defence to answer questions concerning God, with a “I don’t know” argument, whilst at the same time we use theories that stand on very thin and breakable clay feet as granted.
Take the “big bang” and similars of that kind.
Ha – try to let something bang, if there’s nothing (just good for one ha).

If a fish is all his life in his aquarium, and he’s an ever so clever fish, he’d match everything outside this lebensraum (ha – German word you adopted) comparing which what he knows inside his aquarium. It might be a huge aquarium – in that case it’s his univers.

For this sophisticated fish it would be ever so reasonable to say I DON’T KNOW.
Indeed it would be even cleverer, that to come up with scholarly theories, that in the end turn out to be oafishness.
Except:
Except of course, this creature had the Bible, which in fact owns the one and only everlasting truth
**

Darn! Now where did I put my German-English dictionary? Good case, mein freund.

JD

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So, Sideline, I guess the pretentious-plural of “flora” is “florum”?

Please read my just previous post. Will you come with us to search for a possible answer?

JD

darn it the pick up truck has spoken,
the matter is settled!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Really? Look at my earlier posts on this thread. Every time I asked the OP to state his case that the moment of creation could be understood, he told me it was off-topic.

And yet, when theists tried to do it, it wasn’t. Strange that.

you kept asking for me to give you a reason for something that wasn’t on topic. you want to know what my case is for another argument. i would like to stay on topic. but you wouldn’t do it. if you care argue another subject then start a thread where i will be happy to argue all day long.

however this conversation is in line(mostly) with the evolution of the original question. so there

 

[Sideline]

you kept asking for me to give you a reason for something that wasn’t on topic.

When you say:

one may use these 3 tools to compose and test hypothesis concerning the origin of the observable universe.

How is asking you to demonstrate how you would “test” your hypothesis, and asking you to lay out your hypothesis, off topic?

Let me guess, you are going to either:

1. Claim that I am being sarcastic, and refuse to answer on those grounds.

or

1. Claim this is off-topic as well.

Then two or three other people are going to take jabs at me. Calling me a troll and such. Christians are such nice people.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

you kept asking for me to give you a reason for something that wasn’t on topic. you want to know what my case is for another argument. i would like to stay on topic. but you wouldn’t do it. if you care argue another subject then start a thread where i will be happy to argue all day long.

however this conversation is in line(mostly) with the evolution of the original question. so there

my point is that the practical application of atheism to cosmology does not fit with the observable universe.

they accept the big bang theory on the same evidence that we accept a G-d,

there is no logical reason to start the events of creation with the big bang,

even the big bang theory itself separates causality and time.

but frankly i think time is just how we make sense of causality, but thats just an opinion i cant defend.

there is no way around the fact that an observable universe exists,

we just haven’t held them to it. we let them off with some specious argument about not knowing.

thats unacceptable.

if a statement doesn’t jibe with the known data on this observable universe, then it needs more evidence, lets hold their feet to the fire if they won’t discuss it then whats the point of being here?

then they’re showing a less than noble motive

 

[joandarc2008]

my point is that the practical application of atheism to cosmology does not fit with the observable universe.

they accept the big bang theory on the same evidence that we accept a G-d,

there is no logical reason to start the events of creation with the big bang,

Yes there is and that is to say that I do not believe that most Christians are stupid. Most of us do not run around with the Robin Williams fundamentalist sarcasm of, “Click, then it happenned.” Check this out:

The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason: ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made." (Chapter 2, On Revelation; cf. Romans 1:19-20; and Wisdom chapter 13

Pope Pius XII
The Church, beginning in 1950 with Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis, took up a neutral position with regard to evolution:

“The Church does not forbid that…research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.” (Pius XII, encyclical Humani Generis)
Pope Pius XII’s teaching can be summarized as follows:

The question of the origin of man’s body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church’s right to define matters touching on Revelation.
Catholics must believe, however, that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.
All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in “polygenism,” the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans (that there were many Adams and Eves).
Some theologians believe Pius XII explicitly excludes belief in polygenism as licit. The relevant sentence is this:

“Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.” (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12-19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1-4)

And I don’t think you can deny that the Big Bang Theory fits into the Catholic faith when you look at where it comes from (a picture is worth a thousand words):

catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html

God Bless,

 

[warpspeedpetey]

how bout this here fellas’?

Originally Posted by Leela View Post
When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty. -leela

one doesn’t have to pretend to know there is a G-d, you can reason it out the same way that scientists have reasoned the ‘big bang’ theory, or that darwin reasoned evolution, they did it by looking at the observable universe.

that is an accepted method of scientific inquiry, if you accept evolution, or the big bang theory that is.

there isn’t a logical reason under the sun that one should start the chain of events at the big bang,

after all the big bang theory says that there is a moment after the explosion when no time or physical laws existed,

so an explosion happened in the absence of time, if they are right then causality and time have no relationship to each other than what we assign them for our convenience.

further if neither time, nor space existed at the time of the big bang than than the matter that constituted the big bang existed outside time and space.

that means that something did exist outside of time and space prior to the big bang, that something is the matter of the universe itself.

if there were no time or space then and only matter existed, what caused the big bang?

aha, the First Cause!

see i didn’t pretend to know anything, i used theories that you accept as true and guess what i found?

G-D!

Why do you dislike religion so bad? always worried about our humility, and what we claim to know?

as you see from the above argument, accepted principles and arguments scream to the high heavens that there is an existent G-d.

you already have my arguments as to why G-d is the Judeo-Christian G-d.

but i can always recap those if you want.

the fact of the matter is that any conjecture from atheists or agnostics that doesn’t fit the observable universe must be, by dint of that universe, false

we did not pop out of nothing and to think so is ridiculous

so one can know if there is a G-d and it does matter.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes there is and that is to say that I do not believe that most Christians are stupid. Most of us do not run around with the Robin Williams fundamentalist sarcasm of, “Click, then it happenned.” Check this out:

The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason: ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made." (Chapter 2, On Revelation; cf. Romans 1:19-20; and Wisdom chapter 13

Pope Pius XII
The Church, beginning in 1950 with Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis, took up a neutral position with regard to evolution:

“The Church does not forbid that…research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.” (Pius XII, encyclical Humani Generis)
Pope Pius XII’s teaching can be summarized as follows:

The question of the origin of man’s body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church’s right to define matters touching on Revelation.
Catholics must believe, however, that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.
All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in “polygenism,” the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans (that there were many Adams and Eves).
Some theologians believe Pius XII explicitly excludes belief in polygenism as licit. The relevant sentence is this:

“Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.” (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12-19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1-4)

And I don’t think you can deny that the Big Bang Theory fits into the Catholic faith when you look at where it comes from (a picture is worth a thousand words):

catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html

God Bless,

what? im not denying the big bang or evolution, we use the same reasoning to find first cause. im saying there is no logical way to decide to start the chain of events with the big bang, in fact the chain of events descibed in the big bang theory imply of themselves an existent G-d

 

[warpspeedpetey]

When you say:

How is asking you to demonstrate how you would “test” your hypothesis, and asking you to lay out your hypothesis, off topic?

Let me guess, you are going to either:

1. Claim that I am being sarcastic, and refuse to answer on those grounds.

or

1. Claim this is off-topic as well.

Then two or three other people are going to take jabs at me. Calling me a troll and such. Christians are such nice people.

i didn’t claim i had a working hypothesis, you just *** umed it.

i am saying that such a hypothesis is possible.

do you need that in pictographs or something?

please stay on the topic, not on what you want the topic to be.

good day sir…i said good day!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The English Royals spell it: d’Hough-Hyikye. (Through obvious Greeco-English and Northumbrian influence.)

…but they shall soon be eaten by the peasants, so I wouldn’t worry about that spelling being anything but a historical curiosity in short order.

:shamrock2:

 

[JDaniel]

darn it the pick up truck has spoken,
the matter is settled!

Oh, OK, don’t get all quirky on me. Remember, it’s not over until the . . . oops! Sorry.

JD

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Oh, OK, don’t get all quirky on me. Remember, it’s not over until the . . . oops! Sorry.

JD

what did you think of the last argument i posted?

 

[JDaniel]

what did you think of the last argument i posted?

Seems good to me.

When I studied Sagan, I had a similar idea. The energy that made up the big bang was said to be compressed. Not only was it said to be compressed but, it was compressed more tightly than anything else we have ever observed in the universe. In fact, it was compressed beyond human comprehension.

Now, while I know that science has run with the concept and postulated supplemental sub- and supra-concepts, the concept of compression is still part of the mix, at least I think so. Isn’t it?

And, if it is, then science accepts the premise that the universe was begun by a pin-point of super-compressed energy that was and is beyond human comprehension.

This cogent belief replaces the belief in a god.

Now we have a more serious dilemma: you have correctly concluded that on the back side of the big bang, there may have been not-nothing. Did this not-nothing co-exist with the energy pin-point? But there was no time and no space. How and where did the compressor (not-nothing) and the compressed (energy pin-point) co-exist?

I could be wrong.

JD

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Seems good to me.

When I studied Sagan, I had a similar idea. The energy that made up the big bang was said to be compressed. Not only was it said to be compressed but, it was compressed more tightly than anything else we have ever observed in the universe. In fact, it was compressed beyond human comprehension.

Now, while I know that science has run with the concept and postulated supplemental sub- and supra-concepts, the concept of compression is still part of the mix, at least I think so. Isn’t it?

And, if it is, then science accepts the premise that the universe was begun by a pin-point of super-compressed energy that was and is beyond human comprehension.

This cogent belief replaces the belief in a god.

Now we have a more serious dilemma: you have correctly concluded that on the back side of the big bang, there may have been not-nothing. Did this not-nothing co-exist with the energy pin-point? But there was no time and no space. How and where did the compressor (not-nothing) and the compressed (energy pin-point) co-exist?

I could be wrong.

JD

ok lets work with that,

excuse my lack of sophistication or appropriate vocabulary for this work but you can correct those issues

i think the true value of these discussions may be in their effect on the first cause argument,

i’ve heard some ridiculous answers to it but never one i bought, i think there is a lot there to attack.

we give them a pass on this issue, we need to stop that and formulate cogent arguments, or an expression which we can use to stop that bull in its tracks.

its important because people are easily mislead by the science they read in a pop magazine, not thinking about the implications of that science.

further an answer has too be understandable too everybody, the point is to show the foolishness of holding some of these positions, atheists here mostly seem interested bashing religion or theists in general.

people who truly understand these issues tend to be theists, dr. flew was a world famous atheist who changed his mind, prior to the latest writer that troika of haters harris, dawkins, and hitchens
people are easily misled, better to cut the head off the snake now, than to wait until you get bit

p.s. interviewed today, they called me back 3 hours later, too tell me that someone inside the dept. got the capt job, but they want me to interview for the Lt.'s job that will come open when that guy promotes to capt in a couple of weeks. the Lord works in mysterious ways.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Amidst the nothing – not even an empty room; for an empty room is something – there was an energy called “not-nothing“ in some kind of coexistence with an “energy pin-point?”

Isn’t that a big heap of claptrap?

And this “cogent belief” replaces the belief in “a” God?

Why doesn’t one who thinks that way, simply say:
I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD !

God doesn’t force anyone to believe! Anyone might do as he pleases.
All he has to do is; Carry the consequences. Forever.

That’s all.
**

 

[JDaniel]

**Amidst the nothing – not even an empty room; for an empty room is something – there was an energy called “not-nothing“ in some kind of coexistence with an “energy pin-point?”

Isn’t that a big heap of claptrap?

And this “cogent belief” replaces the belief in “a” God?

Why doesn’t one who thinks that way, simply say:
I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD !

God doesn’t force anyone to believe! Anyone might do as he pleases.
All he has to do is; Carry the consequences. Forever.

That’s all.
**

Mein Bruno:

I believe you are almost absolutely correct, in your first assumption! However, the Church is allowing the big bang theory science to be taken into consideration by the congregation - after all, it was a Catholic priest who first proposed it. Carl Sagan, and others, then carried it on.

Do not dispair. Because of answers you and many others have supplied herein, we are working on a theory. I’ll be throwing a little more into the pot o’ theory shortly.

And, you are right, God will sort us out in short order (thank God for purgatory!).

More importantly, there are things that need to be sorted out while here on earth. Christ said (paraphrased) to Rock (Peter), " . . . whatever you bind in Heaven shall be bound, whatever you loose in heaven, shall be loosed." I am working on some of those “whatevers” myself.

JD

 

[warpspeedpetey]

**Amidst the nothing – not even an empty room; for an empty room is something – there was an energy called “not-nothing“ in some kind of coexistence with an “energy pin-point?”

Isn’t that a big heap of claptrap?

And this “cogent belief” replaces the belief in “a” God?

Why doesn’t one who thinks that way, simply say:
I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD !
**

think about it

put yourself in their shoes.
you are an intelligent young person,
who reads one of several atheistic manifestos

aha! a theory by which i can be super groovy hip!
and look like the smartest guy in school

or

your middle aged, something bad happened
something horrible,
something that you just cant believe a just God would allow
so he must not be there

or

You desire to do something you know is wrong
something that is an abomination in Scripture
hey? why shouldn’t you indulge?
a Just God has no logical reason to say no
therefore He must not exist

or

they have some dislike of religion,
and who knows why?

i have found if you politely converse with an atheist/agnostic they will eventually say something along the lines of…

well, if there was a G-d he wouldn’t do “this or that”. they want G-d to agree with what they think is right.

thats when i know that they aren’t really atheists or agnostics, they are, like most people, theists, they just lost their way, for whatever reason it is inconvenient to admit an existent G-d.

all their arguments are designed to support this
feeling justified in ones actions is a very powerful motivation to make specious arguments.

and when they are cornered about the obvious, they generally retreat to word games, like saying they don’t know.

no they don’t really believe there is no G-d they just desperately don’t want there to be.

or at least thats what all my interactions with them have led me to believe, here, face to face, or other places.

there are no realistically noble motives to disbelieve and then to try to convince others, that subject was well explored on the thread titled “is atheism simply a lack of belief in the supernatural?”