Atheism makes you smart, but don't take my word for it...

[JZVOL]

Am I the only one who would be terribly depressed if in my mind I could fully understand God, His motives or His thoughts?

We can't accurately predict the weather yet we're supposed to fully explain God?

 

[volinbham]

Why is absence of these evidences assured? Given the God claims of Christians, it should be peanuts for God or Jesus to come down and let us all know he is really there.

This shows exactly what I'm talking about. Absence is not assured but is unlikely. Taking specifics from the Bible, disproving them and saying that is evidence there is no God is certainly not science.


And the big bang to life evidence is not the same thing. No scientist in his right mind will say that absolutely, without question, we got here from the big bang to life evolving. Do Christians say this? Do Christians have any doubt that God exists, or that Jesus isn't the messiah? Because I have yet to meet one. I can say right now that every scientist does not agree with Big Bang theory, or the specifics of evolution. If Christians and what not are absolute in their belief, and they have their "faith conceptualization" to fall back on, then something as petty as real evidence for all of us simpletons should be nothing, especially given the supernatural claims that are being peddled.

Again, conflating the existence of a Creator with specifics of a particular religion is a convenient argument tool but doesn't address the core issue of how underlying beliefs impact what counts as evidence and how evidence is perceived.

I'm not so sure about your last sentence, but I can't put my finger on it.

.

 

[rjd970]

As I see it, your claim is that your underlying belief is that evidence rules what you consider to be "truth". If evidence is presented that runs counter to your currently held conception (no God) you will change your conception to reflect the new evidence.

Thus if a giant hand comes out of the sky and says I'm God boy then you will reconsider your position.

.....So far, so good

Alternatively, you argue that religious people by default argue some things you just can't know so there is no evidence that will every convince them to change their view point. As a result, you are open to new conceptualizations about our origins (based on evidence) but the religious are not since they say there just won't be evidence.

Am I on the right track?

I would say that we can possibly know whether the religious claims are true or not. But given what has transpired thus far in this holistic debate, the religious are concerned more with interpreting the evidence so it fits their purview, as opposed to what it really says. The religious are open to evidence, but by rule, that evidence will always confirm their beliefs. The scientist, on the other hand, changes his belief based on the evidence.


My argument to you is that your underlying faith in "evidence" fitting "rational thought" will shape what you view as evidence and in effect discard things that point to the possibility of a Creator. Additionally, the notion of what counts as evidence is shaped wholly by your belief system.

...but, a huge qualifer you are overlooking is the fact that my notion of evidence can change, but it would take me being a witness to a miracle of biblical proportions...for I am a very doubting Thomas. Taking it on faith by what others have seen, or by accounts written in iron age books doesn't fit the mold. By defintion, such a miracle could not be explained by science, but would it would still be rational for me to believe what I saw. And given the claims of the religious, this should be completely possible.

Again, I don't know what evidence could possible come about from the scientific perspective that could get a believer to doubt his religious claims.

That is the difference.

Stating that it will take an example from the Bible (e.g. Jesus appearing from the sky) to count as evidence of a Creator shows this bias.

...I don't see that it does, given what is in the Bible and claims by the pious. It is perfectly reasonable. Asking to recreate the big bang in a laboratory is bias, because nobody is stating it is possible right now. Miracles are a dime a dozen in the religious world, so lets see one.

I realize it's a bit of a moving target to say since we don't know what a Creator really is we can't explicitly say what evidence would be relevant to exploring the issue but likewise it is an non-needed constraint to claim that evidence must be in the form such that we can use "rational thought" to interpret it.

...and the problem I see with this is that it is so open ended, that you are saying any and every possible explanation is give equal credence. With no evidence or measuring stick, who's to say that the Egyptian creation myth is any less believable than the Christian or Mayan one?

So I continue to argue that your inherent belief in the ultimate power of rational thought is a limiting view point and creates the very real possibility that you will never see evidence of a Creator even if one exists.

...and I argue, still, there is any number of scenarios of which would force me to believe in a creator.

.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

"I would say that we can possibly know whether the religious claims are true or not. But given what has transpired thus far in this holistic debate, the religious are concerned more with interpreting the evidence so it fits their purview, as opposed to what it really says. The religious are open to evidence, but by rule, that evidence will always confirm their beliefs. The scientist, on the other hand, changes his belief based on the evidence."

Fell asleep in class again did ya? Go back and read most of the posts... we are NOT concerned about interpreting evidence because we aren't the ones who need it. We have faith... remember?

"...but, a huge qualifer you are overlooking is the fact that my notion of evidence can change, but it would take me being a witness to a miracle of biblical proportions...for I am a very doubting Thomas."

The first part underlined presents a problem, and the second part underlined is a real shocker. hmy:

"Miracles are a dime a dozen in the religious world, so lets see one."

Let's clarify. There is no "religious" world. We all live in the same one, although you seem to want to imply that our's is delusional. That said, miracles are occurring everyday... just ask rbroyles. There are numerous doctors who will state they can not explain why a cancerous tumor went into remission, and many studies that have been done which would support that prayer provides medical benefits to those that are ill. Yet you won't recognize these as miracles even though there is NOT a scientific explanation.

So...

"...and I argue, still, there is any number of scenarios of which would force me to believe in a creator."

I call BS... I'm not sure there is anything (at this time) that would convince you. Even if a Voice spoke to you from the heavens, if you were the only one that heard it... then you would llikely deny it. Perhaps this is why you don't see miracles.

 

[volinbham]

I would say that we can possibly know whether the religious claims are true or not. But given what has transpired thus far in this holistic debate, the religious are concerned more with interpreting the evidence so it fits their purview, as opposed to what it really says. The religious are open to evidence, but by rule, that evidence will always confirm their beliefs. The scientist, on the other hand, changes his belief based on the evidence.

I'm making the same claim about you - your inherent bias is:

1) against a creator
2) evidence conforms to specific styles or forms

I would say the scientist who believes as you will only see certain types of evidence but his underlying belief in the power of said evidence is unchanging.

In the abstract, the scientist who is open to all evidence is no different than the believer in a Creator who is open to all evidence. My point is that in reality, the is the real possibility of "evidence" that is unobservable because it doesn't fit the mentality of man that we can grasp it all.




...but, a huge qualifer you are overlooking is the fact that my notion of evidence can change, but it would take me being a witness to a miracle of biblical proportions...for I am a very doubting Thomas.

I'm suggesting the range of how much your notion of evidence can change is limited by an underlying belief in the power of rational thought. I've stated before that I see evidence of a creator in the seemingly common thread that runs through peoples since the dawn of time - a connection or spirituality that feels something greater than ourselves. Your natural inclination is to explain this via psychological processes, fear, etc. In effect, you default to a "it can be explained by rational explanations thus it is explained by rational explanations." It is a lens through which you interpret evidence.

Taking it on faith by what others have seen, or by accounts written in iron age books doesn't fit the mold. By defintion, such a miracle could not be explained by science, but would it would still be rational for me to believe what I saw. And given the claims of the religious, this should be completely possible.

As you state - you are bounded by a notion of rationality and thus see all through that lens. If it doesn't fit, you don't accept it as "evidence".

Again, I don't know what evidence could possible come about from the scientific perspective that could get a believer to doubt his religious claims.

That is the difference.

Yet you require evidence be from a scientific perspective to count - that is at the very core of the difference in viewpoints here and why they don't reconcile.



...I don't see that it does, given what is in the Bible and claims by the pious. It is perfectly reasonable. Asking to recreate the big bang in a laboratory is bias, because nobody is stating it is possible right now. Miracles are a dime a dozen in the religious world, so lets see one.

You continual return to Bible claims and terms such a pious deflect from the point. They are straw men arguments. The core of the discussion here is whether or not all knowledge is discoverable via rational inquiry and as a result what is the nature of evidence that is legitimate to consider.



...and the problem I see with this is that it is so open ended, that you are saying any and every possible explanation is give equal credence. With no evidence or measuring stick, who's to say that the Egyptian creation myth is any less believable than the Christian or Mayan one?

I haven't claimed each deserves equal credence. I have claimed that assuming in the power of rational inquiry you needlessly limit all that could be to those things which man can agree is evidence given the rules of rational inquiry.

What that doesn't mean is that the Bible is right (in fact I've claimed no specific creation "myth"). It doesn't mean we cannot eventually know all via rational inquiry. It doesn't mean there is a Creator. It does mean that as you narrow the rules of evidence, you increase the probability that your system will not be able to explain all. It means your observation is biased towards things that appear in line with "rationality" and away from things that don't.


...and I argue, still, there is any number of scenarios of which would force me to believe in a creator.

The scenarios you've listed are specifics from the Bible that you fully expect are myths. Hardly examples of being open to "evidence". You are relatively assured the scenarios cannot happen. I am relatively assured the Big Bang can't be recreated with a link to life origins. Both are specifics that in their absences do not change the underlying possibility that the idea behind them is correct.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

LOL!

He said force to believe!

 

[Daddy Gee]

it would be interesting to hear substantive, physical evidence from both sides... e.g. spiral galaxies as evidence for a young earth/universe..
What Happened to all the Dark Matter

other young earth data..
The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Great reads Daddy Gee. Below's a small excerpt that, for the most part, I believe reinforces what Volnbham is trying to say.

Contrary to what we have been told over and over again by the evolution-believing mass media, the "scientific" establishment, and old-Earth (i.e. slow) Creationists (who don't want God to get too much glory), there are, in fact, numerous geophysical and astronomical clocks which point to a young age for the earth, solar system, and universe. In fact, such young-earth measuring rods are in the majority. But because the scientific establishment and the mass media are biased in favor of evolution, and against the Creator, and because evolution requires an old earth in order to appear plausible, the public at large is rarely informed of the mounting evidence that contradicts the old earth dogma of evolution.

 

[rjd970]

VBH, your argument here is all over the place now.

You say this:

My point is that in reality, the is the real possibility of "evidence" that is unobservable because it doesn't fit the mentality of man that we can grasp it all.

and then in the same post you say this:

I've stated before that I see evidence of a creator in the seemingly common thread that runs through peoples since the dawn of time - a connection or spirituality that feels something greater than ourselves.

You're playing both sides of this argument depending on what question is being asked. On one hand you are wondering through this desert of "unobservable evidence" and different states/phenomenons and we will never be able to understand because of our human limitations, trying to make sense of it all....and then on the other hand you point to this cool drink of data regarding a common human experience throughout history that purportedly supports your position.

I mean, even this:

I haven't claimed each deserves equal credence.

...doesn't make sense with what you are saying because by diregarding all rules, pointing to knowledge gained by some abstract means we can't define, you are in fact saying that anything and everything can fit into this mantra of it doesn't have to make logical sense. If it doesn't have to make sense with our limited minds, then how can one rule anything out? Show me the unicorns, because lack of evidence means nothing, I am just going to define off the cuff the method for knowing they exist is outside of our understanding because it can't be proven.

I've stated before that I see evidence of a creator in the seemingly common thread that runs through peoples since the dawn of time - a connection or spirituality that feels something greater than ourselves. Your natural inclination is to explain this via psychological processes, fear, etc. In effect, you default to a "it can be explained by rational explanations thus it is explained by rational explanations." It is a lens through which you interpret evidence.

You're right, my natural inclination is going to be the logical process one. But it doesn't preclude everything else. Until you can show me something else works better, and "unobservable evidence" works, your whole notion is philosophical and academic.

As you state - you are bounded by a notion of rationality and thus see all through that lens. If it doesn't fit, you don't accept it as "evidence".

Not necessarily. As I have said, if any miracle, or irrational way of explaining things works and you can show me it works, then by definition I would accept that premise...irrationality and all. But as it stands, the only thing you are saying is now hollow retreats to different states, phenomenons and invisible evidence because all things not understood now may not be able to be understood ever. I just don't buy it. Lack of rational explanation isn't proof there isn't one. That is not a leap of faith, that is a regressed conclusion based on past data, open to change with more data. If more data suggests that rational thought is in fact limited, I will be the first to say I was wrong. And I will happily admit it.

Yet you require evidence be from a scientific perspective to count - that is at the very core of the difference in viewpoints here and why they don't reconcile.

I don't require it. But it is the best we have right now, and has worked for millenia. When irrationality and psuedo-data works, I'll be open to it.

The core of the discussion here is whether or not all knowledge is discoverable via rational inquiry and as a result what is the nature of evidence that is legitimate to consider.

OK, so lets get to where the rubber meets the road. Give me an example of compelling non-rational and alternative evidence in support of a natural (or supernatural) phenomenon.

It does mean that as you narrow the rules of evidence, you increase the probability that your system will not be able to explain all.

And as you broaden the scope for rules of evidence, every explanation becomes so thin to the point where they mean nothing.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

VBH, your argument here is all over the place now.

You say this:



and then in the same post you say this:



You're playing both sides of this argument depending on what question is being asked. On one hand you are wondering through this desert of "unobservable evidence" and different states/phenomenons and we will never be able to understand because of our human limitations, trying to make sense of it all....and then on the other hand you point to this cool drink of data regarding a common human experience throughout history that purportedly supports your position.

I mean, even this:



...doesn't make sense with what you are saying because by diregarding all rules, pointing to knowledge gained by some abstract means we can't define, you are in fact saying that anything and everything can fit into this mantra of it doesn't have to make logical sense. If it doesn't have to make sense with our limited minds, then how can one rule anything out? Show me the unicorns, because lack of evidence means nothing, I am just going to define off the cuff the method for knowing they exist is outside of our understanding because it can't be proven.



You're right, my natural inclination is going to be the logical process one. But it doesn't preclude everything else. Until you can show me something else works better, and "unobservable evidence" works, your whole notion is philosophical and academic.



Not necessarily. As I have said, if any miracle, or irrational way of explaining things works and you can show me it works, then by definition I would accept that premise...irrationality and all. But as it stands, the only thing you are saying is now hollow retreats to different states, phenomenons and invisible evidence because all things not understood now may not be able to be understood ever. I just don't buy it. Lack of rational explanation isn't proof there isn't one. That is not a leap of faith, that is a regressed conclusion based on past data, open to change with more data. If more data suggests that rational thought is in fact limited, I will be the first to say I was wrong. And I will happily admit it.



I don't require it. But it is the best we have right now, and has worked for millenia. When irrationality and psuedo-data works, I'll be open to it.



OK, so lets get to where the rubber meets the road. Give me an example of compelling non-rational and alternative evidence in support of a natural (or supernatural) phenomenon.



And as you broaden the scope for rules of evidence, every explanation becomes so thin to the point where they mean nothing.

You vote democrat every time you go into a voting booth.

:hi:

 

[volinbham]

VBH, your argument here is all over the place now.


You're playing both sides of this argument depending on what question is being asked. On one hand you are wondering through this desert of "unobservable evidence" and different states/phenomenons and we will never be able to understand because of our human limitations, trying to make sense of it all....and then on the other hand you point to this cool drink of data regarding a common human experience throughout history that purportedly supports your position.

You are confusing my message.

I don't claim we will never be able to understand. I do claim that assuming that everything out there is subject to your rules of evidence interpretation and rational thought is a limiting condition that may or may not be accurate. Further, strict adherence to that philosophy likely colors what you would consider evidence. I stated phenomena (the links between time, spirituality and cultures) could be explained as evidence of a Creator but a bias towards rational logic would shun that possibility and instead lean towards natural causes as the explanation.



...doesn't make sense with what you are saying because by diregarding all rules, pointing to knowledge gained by some abstract means we can't define, you are in fact saying that anything and everything can fit into this mantra of it doesn't have to make logical sense. If it doesn't have to make sense with our limited minds, then how can one rule anything out? Show me the unicorns, because lack of evidence means nothing, I am just going to define off the cuff the method for knowing they exist is outside of our understanding because it can't be proven.

I'm merely suggesting that it doesn't have to make sense to our "limited minds". Or the corollary argument - you make a major assumption when you assume our minds are not limited.



You're right, my natural inclination is going to be the logical process one. But it doesn't preclude everything else. Until you can show me something else works better, and "unobservable evidence" works, your whole notion is philosophical and academic.

As is yours - it's all philosophical. That is the point. Your philosophy colors your observations. Your philosophy defines the concept of rational and logical.

Not necessarily. As I have said, if any miracle, or irrational way of explaining things works and you can show me it works, then by definition I would accept that premise...irrationality and all. But as it stands, the only thing you are saying is now hollow retreats to different states, phenomenons and invisible evidence because all things not understood now may not be able to be understood ever. I just don't buy it. Lack of rational explanation isn't proof there isn't one.

Nor is it proof there is one but your bias is definitely towards this belief.

That is not a leap of faith, that is a regressed conclusion based on past data, open to change with more data. If more data suggests that rational thought is in fact limited, I will be the first to say I was wrong. And I will happily admit it.

I question your conceptualization of data and suspect it is a limited definition. For example, if there is a spiritual force linking us all that cannot be measured does that count as data? How can it? If it is there but cannot be measured or fully understood by humans does it not exist? Many people may feel this force but not understand it or be able to demonstrate it scientifically. So where does that leave us? Ignore it? Explain the "feeling" as a trick of the mind? A firing of neurons or chemical reaction? The bias towards "rational" explanation would say it is a figment of our natural condition. That answer may be right or wrong. If the refuting evidence can never come due to human limitations are we really believing the right thing?



I don't require it. But it is the best we have right now, and has worked for millenia. When irrationality and psuedo-data works, I'll be open to it.

OK, so lets get to where the rubber meets the road. Give me an example of compelling non-rational and alternative evidence in support of a natural (or supernatural) phenomenon.

First, it's clear you've decided what is compelling or non-compelling. Second, to use your own logic "Lack of rational explanation isn't proof there isn't one." Lack of such evidence isn't proof there isn't such evidence.



And as you broaden the scope for rules of evidence, every explanation becomes so thin to the point where they mean nothing.

Simply not true. I'm not the absolutist you portray. i'm not trying to prove the existence of anything.

I'm simply trying to suggest why your philosophy of rational logic is a limiting view when it comes to explaining all that is. It works perfectly fine for a great deal but that alone is not sufficient condition to infer it's power to explain all. Assuming it can changes the way in which one views phenomena. That view may be quite effective in most cases but may be entirely inadequate for others.

Enjoyed the convo - enough on this for me for a while.

 

[rjd970]

Enjoyed the convo - enough on this for me for a while.

Agreed. I found it worthwhile.

Thanks.

 

[KB5252]

I just wish I had the command of language that both of you have. I often find myself trying to explain my ideas without a way to express it sufficiently. vbh was on my wavelength when he responded in one paragraph in particular above, I thought about responding but knew I could not do so effectively.

I enjoyed engaging in and reading this debate guys.

 

[volinbham]

I just wish I had the command of language that both of you have. I often find myself trying to explain my ideas without a way to express it sufficiently. vbh was on my wavelength when he responded in one paragraph in particular above, I gave up on trying to explain my point though.

you're doing fine - much more direct than me.

 

[KB5252]

you're doing fine - much more direct than me.

When arguing a point this can be very detrimental though. People tend to tune out and take the direct approach as some form of hostility.

 

[dan4vols]

When arguing a point this can be very detrimental though. People tend to tune out and take the direct approach as some form of hostility.

Good point, thats why I've always said commnication problem? What communication problem? What we have here is a hearing problem! Your correct in conversation many times it doesnt matter if your right, if for whatever the reason your recieved as unpalitable ...your wrong.

 

[OrangeYankee]

The one thing I don't understand in all of this endless debate is this....

Creation and the Origins of Life itself has not been solidly proven, but why is it if someone veers off the "Academically" approved path and talks of Intelligent Design in any facet they are run off and crucified? I mean it's been pretty much agreed upon by both sides (in this debate at least) that there is no ABSOLUTE proof either way. So why not just express both sides and give them both equal merit? At the end of the day those two points are pretty much philosophical in nature. Really... think about it. At the end of the day as far as scientific progress and development does it really matter HOW everything got started? Yet we have the second crusades and inquisition going on right now and so much energy and resources being waisted with all the bickering. We have cancer to cure, planets to colonize (and exploit :naughty: ), and other advancements. Let's focus on that instead of who's right.

 

[T-TownVol]

fooled me. Seems the reasons for refuting a creator constantly changing to reflect the flavor of the month is a weakness, rather than strength.

which is why I am saying that proof is much more important to the athiest.....good point BPV
(I did not mean to leave make a statement and run this morning, I was playing in a Special Olympics golf scramble all day)

 

[Oldvol75]

Well it seems I have missed alot, my internet connection with Charter was just fixed. And they have installed a new firewall at work that blocks almost everything on the internet. From the little that I have read, you guys are doing great!

 

[volinbham]

(I did not mean to leave make a statement and run this morning, I was playing in a Special Olympics golf scramble all day)

Raising money for the SO or participating...

 

[Oldvol75]

Evidence for God? I've already said, a booming voice or angles parting clouds would be a sufficient start. If Jesus were to come down trailing clouds of glory I would have no problem to bow down and revere Christianity as a science.

There are so many ways to go here, I'm not sure which one to take.

If you remember when Moses lead the Children of Israel out of Egypt. They saw the power of God, where fed by Him, crossed the Red Sea and still some of them did not believe what was in front of them.

If you don't remember anything about all these conversations, please remember this one thing. If one day you wake up and the news is all about millions of people going missing and people trying to explain it, remember what those Christians were telling you.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

There are so many ways to go here, I'm not sure which one to take.

If you remember when Moses lead the Children of Israel out of Egypt. They saw the power of God, where fed by Him, crossed the Red Sea and still some of them did not believe what was in front of them.

If you don't remember anything about all these conversations, please remember this one thing. If one day you wake up and the news is all about millions of people going missing and people trying to explain it, remember what those Christians were telling you.

Are you pre, mid or post trib rapture kind of guy?

Me, I am post....... I think Matt 24 explains every thing fairly well.

 

[CountVolcula]

I would like to put my spin on this, if I may. I was one of those, when I was younger, that thought I was so smart and knew everything. There was no way possible that a "God" could have created all of this. Why wasnt dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? Questions like that and the answers some Christians would give you " Well, all those bones were put here to test our faith". Idiotic answers to a simple question like that was some of what confused my young mind. But as I grew older, some things happened in my life that opened my eyes.
This is my take on it. God gave Adam and Eve a chance at Heaven on Earth, but they were tempted, just as most people are now. They did exactly the opposite of what God had asked of them and they were punished, as well as every generation after them. The punishment was knowledge. The knowledge to know Good and Evil. With this curse, we were set on a path to choose our own way. Those that choose to believe, will return to the Garden one day. Those that choose otherwise, will perish to eternal damnation. God gave us the bible as a guide to show us back to the garden, for those willing to except it as his word. It is his "roadmap" to eternal life. God will not destroy this world. God will let man destroy themselves with their greed, lust, envy, hate, etc. etc. etc. If you are one that doesnt believe, pick up the Bible and read it and listen to what it tells you. Its wonderful!!

 

[T-TownVol]

Great testimony there Count.

 

[T-TownVol]

Are you pre, mid or post trib rapture kind of guy?

Me, I am post....... I think Matt 24 explains every thing fairly well.

one of the most misused and misinterpreted passages in the Bible