Why do Atheists/Agnostics come to CAF?

  • Thread starter Thread starter josie_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
humble_maid said:
Quote:
In the mean time i see nothing that suggests that any manipulation has taken place and to date no theist has provided even a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis that something has.

My response:
You have not either.

“the definition of science has changed within the last century from an overall search for truth to a more limited scope of natural explanations of natural processes. Using the current narrow scope definition, there is not any scientific proof of god. The truth or untruth of this statement is not based upon evidence or lack of evidence, but by definition alone. Even though there is extensive, solid evidence for god’ s existence, none of that evidence would be admissible in the science court of law using the current definition.”

“first, the non-existence of god cannot be proven. One cannot prove a universal negative. Alternatively, the existence of god is provable.”

Jesus’ miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after his resurrection. He was seen ascending into heaven. His transfiguration was seen by peter, james, and john. His wisdom in dealing with many circumstances was astounding. He never promoted himself or his miracles. C. S. Lewis stated that he couldn’t have just been a good teacher. He was either a liar, lunatic, or lord. He didn’t even come close to meeting the profile of a liar or lunatic, so he had to be god. 👍

allaboutcreation.org/scie…of-god-faq.htm
Click to expand...
I guess this means you aren’t going to look into supersymmetry as a possible alternative?

Kind of funny that with all the miracles going on, with those huge gatherings of people for events like the Sermon on the Mount that not one official or historian ever recorded a single mention of one of them until after Jesus was gone isn’t it?
 
AnotherAtheist said:
No, once again I do not believe that something sprang from nothing. Nothing from nothing is NOT part of Big Bang theory. Once again members of this forum have demonstrated their misunderstanding of the science they apparently never bothered to learn before dismissing as lacking.

Yes I believe that the first self replicating compounds probably occurred due to natural chemical reactions and evolved from there. The fact that process has not been positively identified does not provide evidence that god did it.

I think the Catholic Church is ambiguous on evolution versus creation. However some members of the Catholic Church such as josie L apparently are not as she has stated in this thread that she believes she was “created in god’s image.”
Click to expand...
But I never denied evolution, and “created in god’s image” does not entail a physical resemblance to God but rather I derived His spiritual rational image so to speak. Hence, humans can think and feel beyond that of other creatures.
 
estesbob said:
Yes science everyday finds natural explanation on how matter works -the problem is they havent a clue as to where the matter came from in the first place nor why the laws of physics they observe exist at all.
Click to expand...
Again, an argument from incredulity. Science hasn’t come up with an explanation, therefore god. Classic logical fallacy.

The worse thing is you guys fail to seriously consider the fact that what we already know about ancient history does serious damage to the credibility of claims made by contemporary religion.

Even if, for arguendo sake, I say there is some credibility to metaphysical arguments used by theists (namely the causation argument i.e. everything has a cause, there is no infinite chain of causation in the physical world, therefore something infinite that was not caused by anything must exist, which put everything else in motion) it still doesn’t follow that Christianity is true. Moreover, the weight of historical evidence already debunks the various Abrahamic faiths; therefore the only thing that can be reasonably argued for is some form of deism.

However, there’s even good logical arguments against deism (namely, the metaphysical arguments are themselves arguments from ignorance, or incredulity, and it’s reflective of the common pattern of religion i.e. attaching supernatural explanations to phenomena or events we lack scientific explanations for). However, history or precedent is rarely conclusive. In other words we cannot categorically debunk metaphysical arguments just because a certain pattern has always existed. It’s evidence yes, modus operandi to be more specific. When presented in tandem with all the other evidence, the case does become conclusive (I believe it at least exceeds the standard of reasonable doubt).
 
josie_L said:
If it were wildly chaotic how could we study the Universe?

p.s. And it’s more than one in a several trillion chance that the universe and/or life should evolve from the big bang. I can’t remember the number per se but I recollect many many many zeroes.
Click to expand...
We went into the odds thing last night. I guess you missed it.
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
Click to expand...
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
Click to expand...
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
Click to expand...
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
Click to expand...
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html
 
AnotherAtheist said:
Who said something sprang from nothing? Oh that’s right; something from nothing is a theistic theory. I’m sorry but I subscribe to Big Bang theory and Big Bang theory does not postulate that something sprang from nothing so I can’t help you there.

As far as abiogenesis goes probably the most popular hypothesis is primordial soup theory. However there are others such as; Autocatalysis, Clay theory, Gold’s “Deep-hot biosphere” model, “Primitive” extraterrestrial life, Extraterrestrial Amino Acids Seeding Earth, Lipid World, Polyphosphates, PAH world hypothesis and Multiple genesis. None of them need god to seed Earth with life.
Click to expand...
If it’s a hypothesis how can it be a theory?
 
josie_L said:
If it were wildly chaotic how could we study the Universe?
Click to expand...
That seems like an illogical question, let me pose an analogy. If you placed several hundred violent inmates together in a large room, and made secure places where the public could observe their behavior without any risk of harm, what you would probably see is constant infighting, murder, some inmates forming alliances, etc. In other words random unpredictable chaos, but contained within the fish bowl of that prison.

I’ve never heard someone seriously posit that chaos is unobservable?
p.s. And it’s more than one in a several trillion chance that the universe and/or life should evolve from the big bang. I can’t remember the number per se but I recollect many many many zeroes.
Click to expand...
here’s a great article that shows recent experiments and research, which debunks the argument advanced by intelligent design theorists you’re eluding to:

scientificblogging.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
 
josie_L said:
But I never denied evolution, and “created in god’s image” does not entail a physical resemblance to God but rather I derived His spiritual rational image so to speak. Hence, humans can think and feel beyond that of other creatures.
Click to expand...
Are humans smarter than the other creatures on Earth? That’s hard to say as we don’t really know just how intelligent mammals such as whales and dolphins are do we? For all we know the only reason whales aren’t the dominate species on Earth is because they lack opposable thumbs and can’t make tools. They might be swimming around right now composing sonatas in their heads while pitying us and wondering how we could be so stupid as to screw up the environment as bad as we have.

Define feel beyond other creatures. Apes and monkeys have forms of morality.
 
yankee_doodle said:
That seems like an illogical question, let me pose an analogy. If you placed several hundred violent inmates together in a large room, and made secure places where the public could observe their behavior without any risk of harm, what you would probably see is constant infighting, murder, some inmates forming alliances, etc. In other words random unpredictable chaos, but contained within the fish bowl of that prison.

I’ve never heard someone seriously posit that chaos is unobservable?
Click to expand...
We would not have laws if it were as “wildly” chaotic as you say it is nor could we necessarily observe the Universe and make sense of what we observe if it were in chaos. Things have to remain constant in order that we may study the Universe and observe it’s behaviours. For example, at the very moment of the Big Bang laws or constants were already in place (gravitional force, weak or strong force were exactly what they needed to be) and are still in place, i.e., they haven’t changed. This is known as the Anthropic principle.

p.s. I’m not an intelligent design theorist (although I do believe it has some merit).
 
yankee_doodle said:
Again, an argument from incredulity. Science hasn’t come up with an explanation, therefore god. Classic logical fallacy. [/quyote]

No fallacy at all… The fallacy is your contention that your disbelief is supported by science. you dont believe in God therefore he does not exist. That is all you have contributed to this thead
The worse thing is you guys fail to seriously consider the fact that what we already know about ancient history does serious damage to the credibility of claims made by contemporary religion.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
josie_L said:
A hypothesis is an explanation set forth which still needs to be verified through observation and experimentations whereas a theory is accepted as being true. I believe I am correct in distinguishing the two.
Click to expand...
the terms are synonyms (although there are distinctions, a theory doesn’t have to be generally accepted as true). There is a baseline that science uses before it defines something as a theory (and it’s logical to say hypothesis precedes a theory). However, it’s not invalid to describe something as both hypothesis and theory. You could say a theory is a hypothesis that has show a degree of consistency (but it remains a hypothesis all the same).

In logic you might say hypothesis is a generalized term, while theory is more particular.
 
AnotherAtheist said:
Are humans smarter than the other creatures on Earth? That’s hard to say as we don’t really know just how intelligent mammals such as whales and dolphins are do we? For all we know the only reason whales aren’t the dominate species on Earth is because they lack opposable thumbs and can’t make tools. They might be swimming around right now composing sonatas in their heads while pitying us and wondering how we could be so stupid as to screw up the environment as bad as we have.

Define feel beyond other creatures. Apes and monkeys have forms of morality.
Click to expand...
Do I really need to answer these questions? :confused:
 
estesbob said:
No fallacy at all… The fallacy is your contention that your disbelief is supported by science. you dont believe in God therefore he does not exist. That is all you have contributed to this thead
Click to expand...
that’s ridiculous. I’ve presented numerous pieces of evidence, including the mythological roots of Abrahamic religion. Moreover, my disbelief doesn’t necessarily pertain to the concept of a creator god (or grand architect concept, even if the idea is obscure and unlikely). My disbelief concerns religion in particular. I don’t think deism is irrational, but I do think Christianity is given the evidence.
As with science history, ancient and current, affirms the existence of God
Click to expand...
that’s patently absurd
Somethng happened 2,000 years ago that has made billions and billions believe in Christ. The fact you dont understand it does not diminish it in the least.
Click to expand...
the Egyptians believed in Horus and Osiris for over 2,000 years, does that make it true? Of course not … but I bet their priests were making these same arguments back in the day 🙂
Well if there are good logical arguments why have you not presented them?. Again the only argument youi have presented is that if we were as smart as you we would know there was no God.
Click to expand...
ad hominem and arguments from incredulity is all you have, so it never surprises me when theists resort to it.
 
yankee_doodle said:
the terms are synonyms (although there are distinctions, a theory doesn’t have to be generally accepted as true). There is a baseline that science uses before it defines something as a theory (and it’s logical to say hypothesis precedes a theory). However, it’s not invalid to describe something as both hypothesis and theory. You could say a theory is a hypothesis that has show a degree of consistency (but it remains a hypothesis all the same).

In logic you might say hypothesis is a generalized term, while theory is more particular.
Click to expand...
So what in science could be said to be a theory that is a hypothesis which has shown a degree of consistency?
 
josie_L said:
We would not have laws if it were as “wildly” chaotic as you say it is nor could we necessarily observe the Universe and make sense of what we observe if it were in chaos. Things have to remain constant in order that we may study the Universe and observe it’s behaviours. For example, at the very moment of the Big Bang laws or constants were already in place (gravitional force, weak or strong force were exactly what they needed to be) and are still in place, i.e., they haven’t changed. This is known as the Anthropic principle.

p.s. I’m not an intelligent design theorist (although I do believe it has some merit).
Click to expand...
yes, but the Anthropic principal has plenty of critics, and it’s really better defined as a hypothesis. Moreover, you’re not describing it properly. The hypothesis asserts that life would not be possible in an alternate universe (where its physical laws differ from our own universe). It doesn’t hypothesize what conditions existed at or immediately prior to the big bang event.
 
josie_L said:
So what in science could be said to be a theory that is a hypothesis which has shown a degree of cosnsistency?
Click to expand...
huh … are you asking me to list every theory ever created in history? What’s up with the silly semantics :confused:
 
yankee_doodle said:
that’s ridiculous. I’ve presented numerous pieces of evidence, including the mythological roots of Abrahamic religion. Moreover, my disbelief doesn’t necessarily pertain to the concept of a creator god (or grand architect concept, even if the idea is obscure and unlikely). My disbelief concerns religion in particular. I don’t think deism is irrational, but I do think Christianity is given the evidence.

that’s patently absurd

the Egyptians believed in Horus and Osiris for over 2,000 years, does that make it true? Of course not … but I bet their priests were making these same arguments back in the day 🙂

ad hominem and arguments from incredulity is all you have, so it never surprises me when theists resort to it.
Click to expand...
You seem to be so sure of so much. It’s a wonder you aren’t known in the academic world.
 
yankee_doodle said:
yes, but the Anthropic principal has plenty of critics, and it’s really better defined as a hypothesis. Moreover, you’re not describing it properly. The hypothesis asserts that life would not be possible in an alternate universe (where its physical laws differ from our own universe). It doesn’t hypothesize what conditions existed at or immediately prior to the big bang event.
Click to expand...
Do these constants exist or not? Yes they do. Were they in existence from the very inception of the Universe? Yes they were. Therefore, anthropic principle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top