A Fair and Open Discussion (Athesim V.S Religion)

[dadof10]

Don't get me wrong here, dadof10; as a Christian, I'm on your side! My post to you was a response to what I perceived as a questionable choice of words in your question to Agnostic Airman. I wanted to point out that evolution does not teach that we came about by "random chance", and that your question could have been worded differently, that's all.

I don't know whether there is a common set of beliefs or views for evolutionists but, no matter how they want to couch it, it still breaks down to randomness when taken back far enough.

I believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. When that beginning was, or how He did it, doesn't matter to me. I don't care if creation was billions of years ago, or in October of 4004 BC. I don't care if God used evolution to get us to where we are today, or if He made Adam instantaneously appear in a fraction of a second. However He did it, I still believe that He did it. So I would choose option 1 as well.

:amen

 

[Blazin Bones]

Riiiight...

Just imagine a really really really really really powerful being, one that can do absolutely anything--with no explanation for why he has these properties, how they work, or any way to observe them directly outside of ad hoc assumptions.

Naturally this is more relaiable than repeatable experimentation and the determination to arrive at the truth through tangible evidence.


Thanks,
Eric

Actually, He is! When Albert Einstien discovered the theory of relativity, hundreds of years of observable science was debuncked. Just like when Galileo proved that the earth was not the center of the universe and just like when we discovered that light more apparently travels in particle theory over wave theory.

The greatest problem with science is how often science has had to change it's story because new information had arrived.

However, when you have faith in an all powerful God, the unexplanable no longer needs explanation. Sure, I can't repeat for myself all the amazing things god did to make the universe, but then again, neither can science after at least 6000 years of recorded history!

 

[wavy]

Sarcasm?

Can you put the idea that all truth can be found by "repeatable experimentation and determination to arrive at the truth through tangible evidence" in a test tube and repeat an experiment?

Of course not. This is why the branch of philosophy called 'epistemology' exists. But, as it stands, the scientific method is favorable to ad hoc assumptions.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

Actually, He is! When Albert Einstien discovered the theory of relativity, hundreds of years of observable science was debuncked. Just like when Galileo proved that the earth was not the center of the universe and just like when we discovered that light more apparently travels in particle theory over wave theory.

The greatest problem with science is how often science has had to change it's story because new information had arrived.

However, when you have faith in an all powerful God, the unexplanable no longer needs explanation. Sure, I can't repeat for myself all the amazing things god did to make the universe, but then again, neither can science after at least 6000 years of recorded history!

Science ameliorates itself, of course. It is open to evidence and self-correction. This is the very reason why it is more reliable.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[turnorburn]

Open your bible to the book of Job:38 and finish it out to the 42.

Job 38: 1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.
16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.
19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,
20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?
21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?
22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;
26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;
27 To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?
28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?
29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?
35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?
36 Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?
37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,
38 When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?
39 Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,
40 When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?
41 Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.

 

[mondar]

Sarcasm?

Can you put the idea that all truth can be found by "repeatable experimentation and determination to arrive at the truth through tangible evidence" in a test tube and repeat an experiment?

Of course not. This is why the branch of philosophy called 'epistemology' exists. But, as it stands, the scientific method is favorable to ad hoc assumptions.

Thanks,
Eric

OK, so you say the scientific method is the only way to truth. Should you not be able to test that proposition scientifically? If you cannot test your proposition scientifically then your own proposition becomes an "ad hoc assumption" itself? How then, can you know that all truth is scientific truth?

In other words, if scientific truth is all truth, show me the scientific tests that determined that proposition. Where is this scientific evidence that the scientific method is the only way to truth?

 

[Ivy]

Just want to say, you have a very good vocabulary, Wavy - I like the word "ameliorates," you don't often hear it used in conversation, at least I don't.

One of the things that drew me to this forum is that people can discuss anything. Good job to you all!

Okay, I'll let you all get back to the debate...sorry...I just love words!

 

[Blazin Bones]

Science ameliorates itself, of course. It is open to evidence and self-correction. This is the very reason why it is more reliable.


Thanks,
Eric

You just said yourself that science needs to be open to correction, which makes it more reliable. However if there truly is an all powerful God, he doesn't need correction? I would contend that the one that does not need correction is more reliable if were talking pure reason, which that is the basis of science and philophy is it not?

Science uses experiments to determine what it believes to be true. To a one who look at this with pure reason, Faith in an all powerful God would be more reliable because it has never disproved itself.

And here we are thinking the enlightment movement has revealed true rationality... When you get down to the basics, it is more rational to believe in something which has NEVER been PROVEN wrong.

 

[Rick W]

Science isn't a thing or entity. It doesn't make conclusions, the human does that.
Science gathers information directed again by the human element. In forensics the defense attorney searches for evidence to prove his client innocent while the prosecutor uses the science of forensics to look for evidence to convict. Each looks for something different basing their search on differing assumptions. Anything not fitting the search is either overlooked, ignored or cast out so the results fit the assumptions made. This may or may nor be intentional in that if I'm looking for something red the color blue doesn't stand out. And an assumption must first be made at the outset. No scientist looks for something for no reason.
Science is a tool to gather data. Interpretation of the data collected through the parameters set forth for the search is done by the human.

People buy information. Corporations buy information. Nobody pays money for information they don't want. And funds for "scientific" endeavors are approved/disapproved on what is sought. A good example of this is NASA's constant requests for funding that must be approved by government committees to enhance or assure it's future of existence. A project's future rests on funding as well as the jobs of those within that project. Again, decision is made on what a project is to find or develop. Space exploration is not the only science depending of funds approved or disapproved on what is sought. A large portion of all fields of study/research rely on approval for funding. No funding, no search, no project, no expedition.

Are we funding searches to find evidence for Creation? If not then none will be found. Simple as that. Follow the money.

 

[wavy]

OK, so you say the scientific method is the only way to truth.

No...I did not. Therefore what follows below is completely irrelevant.

Should you not be able to test that proposition scientifically? If you cannot test your proposition scientifically then your own proposition becomes an "ad hoc assumption" itself? How then, can you know that all truth is scientific truth?

In other words, if scientific truth is all truth, show me the scientific tests that determined that proposition. Where is this scientific evidence that the scientific method is the only way to truth?

Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

You just said yourself that science needs to be open to correction, which makes it more reliable. However if there truly is an all powerful God, he doesn't need correction? I would contend that the one that does not need correction is more reliable if were talking pure reason, which that is the basis of science and philophy is it not?

Science uses experiments to determine what it believes to be true. To a one who look at this with pure reason, Faith in an all powerful God would be more reliable because it has never disproved itself.

And here we are thinking the enlightment movement has revealed true rationality... When you get down to the basics, it is more rational to believe in something which has NEVER been PROVEN wrong.

Wow...

I think you need to read an introduction to epistemology. What epistemic justification do you have for the assertion that we should have faith in an all-powerful God who is never wrong in the first place?


Thanks,
Eric

 

[mondar]

OK, so you say the scientific method is the only way to truth.

No...I did not. Therefore what follows below is completely irrelevant.

Should you not be able to test that proposition scientifically? If you cannot test your proposition scientifically then your own proposition becomes an "ad hoc assumption" itself? How then, can you know that all truth is scientific truth?

In other words, if scientific truth is all truth, show me the scientific tests that determined that proposition. Where is this scientific evidence that the scientific method is the only way to truth?

At this point, I think you need to explain more then the very simple statements you are making. I dont see how you can make the statements you do, and then suggest that you are not saying that the scientific method is the only way to truth. I think we could discuss further some of your statements. When you say....

Just imagine a really really really really really powerful being, one that can do absolutely anything--with no explanation for why he has these properties, how they work, or any way to observe them directly outside of ad hoc assumptions.

Naturally this is more relaiable than repeatable experimentation and the determination to arrive at the truth through tangible evidence.

How am I to read your statement above. You are not suggesting two kinds of evidence... scientific evidence and those silly "ad hoc assumptions" beyond the realm of science?

How am I not to read what you say as suggesting we dismiss all non-scientific evidence. How are you not saying that it is axiomatic that non-scientific evidence is mere "ad hoc assumptions?"

Can you explain your last statement in light of your earlier statements?


In a later post you said.....

Of course not. This is why the branch of philosophy called 'epistemology' exists. But, as it stands, the scientific method is favorable to ad hoc assumptions.

OK, so your epistemology includes the scientific method as the "favorable" method of truth. Any additions are mere "ad hoc assumptions?" How is this allowing for non-scientific evidence?


I will have to admit that in your next statement you seem not to eliminate all non-scientific knowledge completely, but you seem to consider any non scientific evidence as no sufficiently "reliable" to be considered evidence. You say...

Science ameliorates itself, of course. It is open to evidence and self-correction. This is the very reason why it is more reliable.

So what evidence beyond the scientific method could possibly be worth discussing if everything else is unreliable.

Now if we return to the last post you made (quoted at the top of my post here), you say you do not consider the scientific method the only way to truth.

So tell me, if you are not limiting truth to the scientific method only, what kind of evidence beyond the scientific method do you feel would carry weight as an argument for the existence of a theistic personal deity.

Was it the fact that you no recognize that you cannot possibly justify an epistemology that believes the scientific method to be the only way to truth. Yet what kind of evidence would you be willing to consider? Of course, on an errant epistemological basis (science only) you then can conveniently rule out the possibility of a creator who will judge men. But of course then God must absolutely be a material being made up of either energy or have some atomic structure. Christianity does not postulate such a being. So then, is not such an epistemology a mere straw man?

 

[wavy]

Mondar,

On the question of the existence of God, I believe the scientific method is preferable. There are other ways to soundly acquire probable truths. In descending order I would list them as:

1) logic
2) science
3) first-hand experience
4) history
5) appeal to authority
6) intuition

Thanks,
Eric

 

[mondar]

Mondar,

On the question of the existence of God, I believe the scientific method is preferable. There are other ways to soundly acquire probable truths. In descending order I would list them as:

1) logic
2) science
3) first-hand experience
4) history
5) appeal to authority
6) intuition

Thanks,
Eric

Glad to hear it. I still do not see a demonstration of your willingness to hear non-scientific evidences for theism. In my observation, nearly every time someone presents evidences, you respond with the "ad hoc assumption." Maybe so far everyone did present "ad hoc assumptions." Then my question would be what would you consider to be "logical" evidence? Also, Jesus and his claims are a matter of history. What historical or ancient manuscripts can you point to that deny the historical validity of the resurrection event?

Wavy, so far, I do not see this discussion between you and the other people as one of evidence. All I see is them attempting to present evidence, and you dismissing it with accusations of "ad hoc assumptions." Do you have any counter evidence? Can you present coherent "logic" that would demonstrate the non-existence of a personal deity?

 

[wavy]

Maybe so far everyone did present "ad hoc assumptions." Then my question would be what would you consider to be "logical" evidence?

Hard to say. It's difficult to establish the objective existence of an invisible, non-corporeal super-being who created the universe and wants me to worship him so I can enter eternal paradise while sitting in a chair 'reasoning' it out, as theological philosophers do.

Actual empirical evidence would be more reliable.

Also, Jesus and his claims are a matter of history. What historical or ancient manuscripts can you point to that deny the historical validity of the resurrection event?

To my knowledge, there is no absolutely conclusive evidence of any kind refuting the Resurrection event. But the 'evidence' is so meager and questionable that we can safely and reasonably predict a naturalistic explanation. I do not believe that ancient words on ancient paper are sufficient to demonstrate that a dead man came back to life and subsequently ascended to 'heaven' for 2,000 years so far waiting for the moment to return, kill off all non-believers, consign them to hell, and recreate the universe for those who 'believed' that he committed divine suicide for their 'sins'.

Wavy, so far, I do not see this discussion between you and the other people as one of evidence. All I see is them attempting to present evidence, and you dismissing it with accusations of "ad hoc assumptions." Do you have any counter evidence? Can you present coherent "logic" that would demonstrate the non-existence of a personal deity?

I'm sorry, but 'We should believe in God because he is said to be perfect and you have no way to show this is not true' is not logical evidence for the existence of God. Nonsense needs no refutation or 'counter evidence'.

But yes, I do think there are good arguments against the existence of a maximally perfect being who created the universe.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[JMM]

Just want to say, you have a very good vocabulary, Wavy - I like the word "ameliorates," you don't often hear it used in conversation, at least I don't.

One of the things that drew me to this forum is that people can discuss anything. Good job to you all!

Okay, I'll let you all get back to the debate...sorry...I just love words!

So Ivy, are you a sesquipedalian as well? Do you have a plethora of fancy words in your vocabulary? My proclivities in this area have inspired me to find a veritable cornucopia of fancy words. I use such words inveterately, with a stentorian voice!

But when I say that the ladies find me to be an extremely dapper and pulchritudinous guy, one could easily postulate that I am just being facetious. :D

 

[Rick W]

pulchritudinous

P-U-L-C-

 

[JMM]

pulchritudinous

P-U-L-C-

One could also say: "comely", "winsome", "easy on the eye", "ravishing", "beauteous", "sightly", "stunning", "radiant".....

However, my humility obviates any serious utilization of such words on my part to verbally depict myself. ;)

 

[dadof10]

Hard to say. It's difficult to establish the objective existence of an invisible, non-corporeal super-being who created the universe and wants me to worship him so I can enter eternal paradise while sitting in a chair 'reasoning' it out, as theological philosophers do.

Actual empirical evidence would be more reliable.

Taking all the empirical evidence into consideration, which seems more reasonable to you, that there is an ordered Purpose behind creation or that it was all created by random events that happened to fall into place to create this complex universe? Is there a third option?

But yes, I do think there are good arguments against the existence of a maximally perfect being who created the universe.

What are they?

 

[wavy]

Taking all the empirical evidence into consideration, which seems more reasonable to you, that there is an ordered Purpose behind creation or that it was all created by random events that happened to fall into place to create this complex universe? Is there a third option?

The 'complexity' of the universe is non-issue. There's no cosmic scale with which to gauge how 'complex' the universe is. We have only our minds, and it is our very limited understanding of the universe that makes it seem 'complex' to us.

What are they?

Ironically, one example is the kalam cosmological argument...which a theistic argument.

Namely:

1) Whatever beings to exist has a cause

2) The universe began to exist

3) Therefore the universe has a cause

One of the supports of the KCA that philosophers like Bill Craig utilize is the 'impossibility' of an actual infinite. Namely, the universe cannot have existed for infinity past, since traversing an actual infinity of time cannot be accomplished. The universe must have had a beginning of its existence, so it must have a cause, as premise 1 argues. This means God cannot be infinite for the same reason the universe cannot be infinite. Time began at the big bang singularity, so nothing can come 'before' it, since this is incoherent. This creates a problem for advocates of the KCA, so they argue for 'simultaneous causation' of the universe by God. Namely, that he is not temporally prior to the universe...he is atemporally or ontically prior to the universe as a timeless being. Then he became temporal at the beginning of the universe.

Despite a number of sophisticated arguments used to support this view, it ultimately, imo, is flawed by contradiction. By definition, a timeless being cannot change. Anything stated about a timeless entity is, by definition, timelessly true. God can never be timeless and become temporal, since this involves a changed state of affairs, all of which are temporal relations. If the universe had a beginning, God had a beginning. We're left with a situation where the alleged causal and effectual positions of God and the beginning of the universe exist simultaneously meaning there was never a god without the universe, and therefore no way for God to bring the universe from 'potentiality' to 'actuality'. So God cannot exist.


Thanks,
Eric