Dawinists standing on the panic button.

#251
#251
rjd970 said:
I think the "indication" that there is a God is grossly overstated, there is no evidence...anymore than there is evidence against anyway, and human history proves nothing in this regard other than humans are prone to religious and superstitous belief.

It may be humans are prone to such beliefs or it may be evidence that there is something to believe in. There is no such linkage for the teacup or alien machine although the alien machine comes closer to the notion of a creator than the teacup does.


The argument you are saying is still nonfalsifiable. The teacup argument, just like the creator one, is set up so it can't be disproven. Everything I have brought up as a case against it is refuted by claims of "we don't know", "it's outside our understanding", and "empirical research doesn't apply by definition" type arguments. Then "evidence" of human history is brought up when I come up with a teacupesque argument (alien supercomputers) like it empirically means something. You are making the case for a creator nonfalsifiable, plain and simple

You are misrepresenting again - it's not that empirical research doesn't apply by definition; it's that what we constitute as empirical may not be sufficient to answer the question. That is meaningful difference.

You are tied to a view that we can't establish that something does exist if we can't frame that existence in a falsifiable format. Just recognize the limitations of that viewpoint.

I'm not buying what your selling here.



And my point has been that is a common mistake made by humans throughout history. But given the way what is being argued is constructed, you may be right.
Click to expand...

.
 
#252
#252
BigPapaVol said:
and this is the gist of your problem in debating this from the higher intellectual ground you try to take. It's the sole point I've made the entire time and you've refused to acknowledge it.
Click to expand...

And what I have said from the beginning, is there is evidence against a creator from an observational standpoint. The evidence for, by definition, has to be supernatural and philosophically based. Disorder and chaos in the universe strongly suggest there isn't any type of order or plan. The response is maybe that is the design, or that doesn't suggest that there isn't a plan...really? Why? Those are honest questions, and the only response is supernatural and nonfalsifiable..."We can't understand his/its motives", "It's outside our realm of reality", "western thought and the evidence based approach isn't suited here" etc....and then empircal evidence of human history and the such is brought up to strengthen the claim, as if empirical evidence all of a sudden matters.
 
#253
#253
oklavol said:
As an atheist, how do you answer the question of where the first atom came from? Science cannot answer that. How out of a vacuum, out of nothing the first atom emerged. The more common explanation that the material always existed is weak.

Its no more of a leap of faith to believe that a creator created the first atom then it is to believe the first atom has always been there.
Click to expand...

I say I don't know, and neither does anybody else...theologians, philosophers, and yourself included.
 
#255
#255
oklavol said:
As an atheist, how do you answer the question of where the first atom came from? Science cannot answer that. How out of a vacuum, out of nothing the first atom emerged. The more common explanation that the material always existed is weak.

Its no more of a leap of faith to believe that a creator created the first atom then it is to believe the first atom has always been there.
Click to expand...

Thinking of time in a linear way, like we experience it, leads to those kind of problems in the same way that "where did God come from?" questions start coming up in creation theory. But there have been hints that time is not linear, both within science and in theology with respect to judeo-christianic traditions.
 
#256
#256
It may be humans are prone to such beliefs or it may be evidence that there is something to believe in. There is no such linkage for the teacup or alien machine although the alien machine comes closer to the notion of a creator than the teacup does.
Click to expand...

The teacup and alien machine both can't be disproven, unless emprical evidence of historical human thought is brought into the discussion, which defeats the whole purpose of not using such evidence in the first place. And like your creator argument, both can be "proven" with other methods that aren't empirically based.

In that regard they are very similar.
 
#257
#257
rjd970 said:
I say I don't know, and neither does anybody else...theologians, philosophers, and yourself included.
Click to expand...

Theologians believe God created the first atom.

Atheists generally believe the first atom always existed, because there is no scientific explanation of how the first atom was created from nothing, nor will there probably ever be.

Either way, it comes down to a belief in one or the other. Or a copout that the question can't be answered. As if science would ever be able to explain how matter appeared out of a vacuum or how it could always exist.
 
#258
#258
rjd970 said:
The teacup and alien machine both can't be disproven, unless emprical evidence of historical human thought is brought into the discussion, which defeats the whole purpose of not using such evidence in the first place. And like your creator argument, both can be "proven" with other methods that aren't empirically based.

In that regard they are very similar.
Click to expand...

Except that it is a fact Jesus existed. You can believe He is who He said He was (God) or not. Jesus is either one of the biggest liars in the history of mankind or God.

The alien machine and teacup are made up, but Jesus did walk the Earth.
 
#259
#259
rjd970 said:
The teacup and alien machine both can't be disproven, unless emprical evidence of historical human thought is brought into the discussion, which defeats the whole purpose of not using such evidence in the first place. And like your creator argument, both can be "proven" with other methods that aren't empirically based.

In that regard they are very similar.
Click to expand...

You are overstating the ruling out of evidence. There is nothing wrong with using evidence.
 
#260
#260
oklavol said:
Theologians believe God created the first atom.

Atheists generally believe the first atom always existed, because there is no scientific explanation of how the first atom was created from nothing, nor will there probably ever be.

Either way, it comes down to a belief in one or the other. Or a copout that the question can't be answered. As if science would ever be able to explain how matter appeared out of a vacuum or how it could always exist.
Click to expand...

I still say I ultimately don't know, which I find to be far more honest, copout or not, then saying God did it. It doesn't change the fact the theologian knows no more than I do at the end of the day.
 
#262
#262
gsvol said:
I should have said 98% were associated with homosexuality in some way.

I'll put up my credibility against your naivete eight days a week.

You can believe it or not, that's was in their report.
Click to expand...

If that was in their report, you should have no problem backing it up. I don't think asking for sources on some of these outlandish claims is too much.
 
#263
#263
JZVOL said:
Except that it is a fact Jesus existed. You can believe He is who He said He was (God) or not. Jesus is either one of the biggest liars in the history of mankind or God.

The alien machine and teacup are made up, but Jesus did walk the Earth.
Click to expand...

I'm not even going there.
 
#264
#264
JZVOL said:
Except that it is a fact Jesus existed. You can believe He is who He said He was (God) or not. Jesus is either one of the biggest liars in the history of mankind or God.

The alien machine and teacup are made up, but Jesus did walk the Earth.
Click to expand...

There's another argument here to be made.

Either you believe Jesus was who he said he was, the son of God, or he was a crazy man. Because no one goes around saying he is the Son of God come to save the world without being that person or crazy. He's was not simply some great philosopher or teacher. I think C.S. Lewis made this arguement.
 
#265
#265
rjd970 said:
But you are using evidence where it fits, and where it doesn't simply saying it doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

The distinction is what the evidence is "of". In the broad sense, there is what appears to be an instinctual part of man that seeks knowledge of his creator and feels a connection to some higher power. That evidence is consistent with the notion of a creator.

It is not proof one exists and the evidence could be explained by alternate theories.

When you use something like 99% extinction, that is only evidence against a creator if that creator never wanted any creatures to die out. If you claim a creator had to value each of it's living beings yet they still died then perhaps you have evidence to refute that specific conception of a creator. The problem is that the evidence only works for that particular conception. As a result you have a strawman.

If you review this thread you'll see I'm discussing specific pieces of evidence you present. I'm not saying evidence should not be used or is irrelevant in general. I am saying we have scant evidence and we may not currently have the ability to comprehend the evidence that is around us.

Given the evidence we have to date, neither side has a compelling argument. As a result, I don't see believing against as a superior position simply because the case for isn't sufficiently framed within current falsification paradigms.
 
#267
#267
rjd970 said:
I still say I ultimately don't know, which I find to be far more honest, copout or not, then saying God did it. It doesn't change the fact the theologian knows no more than I do at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
1. You find it to be has nothing to do with reality. Both can be deadly honest and equally deadly wrong. One of the two is.

2. and vice versa, which is the rub.
 
#268
#268
volinbham said:
Given the evidence we have to date, neither side has a compelling argument. As a result, I don't see believing against as a superior position simply because the case for isn't sufficiently framed within current falsification paradigms.
Click to expand...
and this is the simply weakness that I've been trying to make clear from the beginning. In the end, all else is just talk. We all, if we're honest, come back to this leap of faith about our origins.
 
#269
#269
JZVOL said:
Jesus is either one of the biggest liars in the history of mankind or God.
Click to expand...

That is assuming the texts of the new testament have not been altered and are perfect accounts of his life. I am not saying they are altered, but I am saying that assumption must be made for that statement to be true.
 
#270
#270
IPorange said:
That is assuming the texts of the new testament have not been altered and are perfect accounts of his life. I am not saying they are altered, but I am saying that assumption must be made for that statement to be true.
Click to expand...
and that's a very valid point. There has been a lot of ink spilled on both sides of this debate, most with merit.
 
#272
#272
The history channel has had some really cool documentaries on the apocrypha that threw me for a loop. What constitutes "the Bible" isn't nearly as cut and dried as it was presented to me in Sunday School.

But reading a little Hawking can make you really wonder about things, in terms of how complex the universe is and the nature of time, which to me tends to lend some credence to an omnipotent creator.

I have no answers, but I do love these types of discussion.
 
#274
#274
BigPapaVol said:
and this is the simply weakness that I've been trying to make clear from the beginning. In the end, all else is just talk. We all, if we're honest, come back to this leap of faith about our origins.
Click to expand...

Preach on brother BPV. Oops, maybe I shouldn't say preach. Tis the point I've been trying to make as well.
 
#275
#275
IPorange said:
That is assuming the texts of the new testament have not been altered and are perfect accounts of his life. I am not saying they are altered, but I am saying that assumption must be made for that statement to be true.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's a fair point. I've just come to the conclusion if I'm going to believe He created Heaven, Earth, man, saved our souls etc, then He should be able to have the power/authority/ability to reveal himself accurately.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top