An Oyster of Christ

[Rob Hearn]

Why isn't the best guess - or Occam's razor - argument a good case against god? Surely, not knowing for certain how the universe or life on earth began, we can all defer to the best guess and say god 'probably' didn't do it. The religious can then of course say, "Aha, see, you can't prove he definitely didn't, so I'm totally justified in thinking that he definitely did!" but, as I've indicated in other threads, that kind of desperate talk just makes me laugh.

Oddly familiar is completely correct.

[exnihilo]

I think we're on the same page. I don't believe he micromanages either - but I do accept that having set it all in motion and established physical laws he is still the creator of it all and can reach in when the mood takes him.

As an analogy - I could build a train set that covers every inch of floor space in my house. I made it all, I can do what I like to any part of it, or I can set it all in motion and simply watch, but occasionally reach in and adjust if need be.

All I was saying in replying to you was that no matter what, as I've established with Rob, we end up with the "but what made that?" stage. And I'm happy with God as the creator of it all as opposed to a nothingness becoming a something rushing out into the nothing that wasn't there. Sounds too much like magic to me.

[exnihilo]

You can't definitely prove he did, I can't definitely prove he didn't. My position is laughable, yours isn't? Why?

And I refer you to previous posts where I have said that man has at various times thought he had explained everything with 'science' only to be proved utterly wrong. Would you have been a flat earther when that was the cutting edge of thought? Or were you born with the inate ability to discern the truth in what you hear?

[oddly familiar]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 19:44, 17th Jan 2005:

All I was saying in replying to you was that no matter what, as I've established with Rob, we end up with the "but what made that?" stage. And I'm happy with God as the creator of it all as opposed to a nothingness becoming a something rushing out into the nothing that wasn't there. Sounds too much like magic to me.


Fair enough. I'm happy that there were physical forces that started the universe off. However, these may be totally different to those contained within this universe, as they would by definition have to exist outside of it. However we can never know without leaving our own universe, and im not entirely sure thats possible.

Anyway, just my opinion. Life and evolution did not require god to exist, in that he did not need to be there for it to happen. As I think we've just established, yes? Thus whether or not he started the universe in which life has evolved subsequently is to me as far as we can take it. I think no, you think yes, but this is as far as science and people can go. there is no way for anybody to know without doubt that it was one way or the other. My personal disbelief is rooted in the things ive been told over the years 'God is watching', or 'pray and he will answer' etc. I dont beleive that god is extant IN the universe, as he doesnt appear to be necessary for its running. So as a result I have a hard time believing in the idea that anybody can know anything about him, even if he did exist, and I'm perfectly content to say that he doesnt. as Rob has pointed out, as an Atheist I beleive in nothing without proof.

I guess thats the end of the discussion then? Has anybody ever gotten any further? Surely minds greater than ours have come up with something better than the above stuff.

[hr]
And the last one out of the circus has to lock up everything,
Or the elephants will get out and forget you.

[Rob Hearn]

You can't definitely prove he did, I can't definitely prove he didn't. My position is laughable, yours isn't? Why?

For the reasons just explored. The universe makes perfect sense without god, so the burdon of proof is on the religious to make a case that he exists. Otherwise, with no evidence of any kind that there has ever been a god, the smart money bets that no such thing exists.

I certainly would believe the world was flat if that was the conventional view of science. Up until relatively recently, some kind of supreme being was really the most plausible scientific explanation of the world. Now we know better. Once, with the methods available to science, the assumption that the earth was flat was the best one to make, given what we observe about the properties of flat things and round things and the respective tendencies of things to stay on them. However, science now knows better, and, after much resistance from the church, has spread the good word. Hallelujah.

Of course I don't think that science has reached its apogee. If in the future science comes comes to believe that the universe was created by god, then naturally I won't disagree. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen, does it?

[exnihilo]

But if it did, you would? So where's the independent thought you demand of me? You're the slavish follower of a faith, you jsut call yours science. If science can't explain it, it doesn't exist, or at least we'll pretend not. It seems because of that you would like to see a world of absolute conformity to your views, because clearly anyone who holds an alternative view is a fool. You really are as bad as the religions you so roundly condemn. Credulous, ignorant, and intolerant of others.

[novium]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 17:59, 17th Jan 2005:
I didn't say that people with faith are fools. I said the fact that catholics tend to come from catholic families, jews from jewish, muslims from muslim, and so on, shows that religious people tend not to choose their religion, or whether to be religious at all. Atheism is innately more sound because nobody is proselytised to be atheist. It's just the position people arrive at by not being proselytised. If somebody is an atheist and then chooses a religion because they genuinely believe it to be correct, I have the utmost respect for their decision, even if I don't agree with them. I don't see why I should extend the same respect to people who are unreflective about the fact that they've been brainwashed.


BS. If you had kids, you'd be telling them about the wonders religion do for some people? Or would you be telling that about that great evil, that great myth, that great fairy tale story?

[novium]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 19:44, 17th Jan 2005:
I think we're on the same page. I don't believe he micromanages either - but I do accept that having set it all in motion and established physical laws he is still the creator of it all and can reach in when the mood takes him.

As an analogy - I could build a train set that covers every inch of floor space in my house. I made it all, I can do what I like to any part of it, or I can set it all in motion and simply watch, but occasionally reach in and adjust if need be.

All I was saying in replying to you was that no matter what, as I've established with Rob, we end up with the "but what made that?" stage. And I'm happy with God as the creator of it all as opposed to a nothingness becoming a something rushing out into the nothing that wasn't there. Sounds too much like magic to me.



My view of God, to use your analogy, is that of someone that sets up the train set so well that they never need to adjust it. the adjustments are built in:)

[Rob Hearn]

Don't be stupid. I'm no more a slavish follower of science than you are. We both accept the view that evolution is true, that the earth is round, and so on, and neither of us conducted the research ourselves. And the argument that science is just another faith is preposterous, and I suspect you know that. Science is entirely empirical - either directly, or by making inferences based on empirical evidence; faith never is. This empirical evidence is available to examine; god isn't. If a scientist makes a claim, I can expect evidence to come pouring forth, which I'm free to pore through at will; I've yet to hear *any* positive evidence of god's existence.

[novium]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 20:10, 17th Jan 2005:
But if it did, you would? So where's the independent thought you demand of me? You're the slavish follower of a faith, you jsut call yours science. If science can't explain it, it doesn't exist, or at least we'll pretend not. It seems because of that you would like to see a world of absolute conformity to your views, because clearly anyone who holds an alternative view is a fool. You really are as bad as the religions you so roundly condemn. Credulous, ignorant, and intolerant of others.


Fundies are all alike.

[exnihilo]

Yes, it is preposterous. I exaggerated to make the point. But, hey, you've been making exaggerated statements about faith to make my position look foolish - fair's fair.

I entered into these arguments on the various threads because I assumed you actually were interested in what some people with religion thought, you weren't. I will never try to convert you or to convince you I'm right, I will never try to prove your views to be wrong. Why is it so important to you to demonstrate mine to be flawed?

[LonelyPilgrim]

[s]novium wrote on 11:20, 17th Jan 2005:
[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 10:48, 17th Jan 2005:[i]
I don't know Rob. I'm not a Creationist, but I do think that until we actually find the 'missing link' it perhaps ought to be relegated to a cramped and dark basement room, rather than outright dismissed.

[hr]---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln


I disagree. I believe in God, but I do not believe in creationism whatsoever. There is no real argument for creationism. ANd by creationism, I do mean the whole earth-as-6000 years old, earth-as-unchanging, earth-as-inside out-snow-globe, i.e. flat earth protected by the firmament, (a dome over the flat earth) and water all around. ANd adam and eve, etc.

Not only is that cosmological view typical in many different ancient middle eastern cultures, it is also a very human way of designing the universe. Not very divine.
[/i]

Ack, no! We must not disagree! But, we mean different things by creationist. I simply mean the idea that God formed humanity. Forget the flat earth, 6000 year old, blah blah nonsense.

And of course, it's not what I believe. I'm an evolution groupie. I just don't like dismissing arguments until they have not even the slightest shred of hope remaining.

[hr]
---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln

[Rob Hearn]

Right, enough. I've wasted too many hours on the Sinner in the last few weeks. I'm going to retire.

Exnihilo, it's been a pleasure. Same goes for LP.

Novium, you're an idiot.

Thank you, and good night!

[exnihilo]

I have to retire somewhat also. Exams will be over here soon and I have to go back to teaching scabby undergrads. Ick.

It's been interesting.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Darn... debate over before I could properly enter it. *sigh* Well, I won't be retiring, as an undergrad, I have plenty of time. But I will be taking a break after exams as I finally make it home for Christmas.

Cheers, Rob, you annoy the living good gracious out of me, but make me think, and that is a redeeming quality.

exnihilo, it's be a pleasure learning from you.

novium, you are not an idiot.

[hr]---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln

[novium]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 20:49, 17th Jan 2005:
Right, enough. I've wasted too many hours on the Sinner in the last few weeks. I'm going to retire.

Exnihilo, it's been a pleasure. Same goes for LP.

Novium, you're an idiot.

Thank you, and good night!




Hmmm....touched a sore spot, did I?
That definitely wasn't a cool and reasoned response.


I've always found that such extreme black and white views of the world often are a sign of deeper insecurities.

[Smell the Coffee]

Grow up an admit that there are scientific foundations to certain anti-evolution arguments. There are questions which seem central to evolutionary theory, but which cannot be validated scientifically. If you have a scientific theory with assumptions that are not in turn provable by science, something is wrong. I know we've not discovered everything that we possibly can, and science will tell us much more with time but we are far from doing this.

Evolution, like Creation, HAS NOT BEEN PROVED even to scientific acceptablilty. Acceptanc of it is still, like it or not, a matter of faith.

[LonelyPilgrim]

[s]Unregisted User Smell the Coffee wrote on 12:19, 17th Jan 2005:
Grow up an admit that there are scientific foundations to certain anti-evolution arguments. There are questions which seem central to evolutionary theory, but which cannot be validated scientifically. If you have a scientific theory with assumptions that are not in turn provable by science, something is wrong. I know we've not discovered everything that we possibly can, and science will tell us much more with time but we are far from doing this.

Evolution, like Creation, HAS NOT BEEN PROVED even to scientific acceptablilty. Acceptanc of it is still, like it or not, a matter of faith.


Would you mind supporting your claims with examples? Otherwise, why should we accept what you say, even if it is true?

[hr]
---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln

[novium]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 20:44, 17th Jan 2005:
[s]novium wrote on 11:20, 17th Jan 2005:[i]
[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 10:48, 17th Jan 2005:[i]
I don't know Rob. I'm not a Creationist, but I do think that until we actually find the 'missing link' it perhaps ought to be relegated to a cramped and dark basement room, rather than outright dismissed.

[hr]---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln


I disagree. I believe in God, but I do not believe in creationism whatsoever. There is no real argument for creationism. ANd by creationism, I do mean the whole earth-as-6000 years old, earth-as-unchanging, earth-as-inside out-snow-globe, i.e. flat earth protected by the firmament, (a dome over the flat earth) and water all around. ANd adam and eve, etc.

Not only is that cosmological view typical in many different ancient middle eastern cultures, it is also a very human way of designing the universe. Not very divine.
[/i]

Ack, no! We must not disagree! But, we mean different things by creationist. I simply mean the idea that God formed humanity. Forget the flat earth, 6000 year old, blah blah nonsense.

And of course, it's not what I believe. I'm an evolution groupie. I just don't like dismissing arguments until they have not even the slightest shred of hope remaining.

[hr]
---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln
[/i]

Ok, gotcha.

[James]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 05:24, 18th Jan 2005:

Would you mind supporting your claims with examples? Otherwise, why should we accept what you say, even if it is true?


I'm not claiming that this is conclusive, but that it is acceptable to scientists and throws up viable points for debate.

There are exmaples at these sites:

http://www.parentcompany.com/csrc/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.halos.com/

Examples of what famous scientists thought of science:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-lawsScience.htm

I don't mind how old the earth is, I am more concerned with the idea of intelligent design: I think God has had a hand in creation, but I don't mind whether the six day stuff is an allagory or not.

As a mathematician and philosopher, I know there are some things that we can never prove or disprove, however much science we have. We will never unlock the whole of everything -- science is incomplete and insufficient for explaining everything.