Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Richard Dawkins on The Late Late show

  • 26-04-2009 9:59am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    I would love to see Dawkins on the Late Late Show. Anyone know if Pat Kenny is a catholic?

    I think a lot of Irish people need to see the side of realism and rational thinking. At times it seems people here are so backwards, they still believe in intelligent design of humans...

    Not that this would do any good perhaps, but maybe if enough of us encouraged the show to do it, we could make it happen?


«1345

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,741 ✭✭✭jd


    liamw wrote: »
    I would love to see Dawkins on the Late Late Show. Anyone know if Pat Kenny is a catholic?

    I think a lot of Irish people need to see the side of realism and rational thinking. At times it seems people here are so backwards, they still believe in intelligent design of humans...

    Not that this would do any good perhaps, but maybe if enough of us encouraged the show to do it, we could make it happen?


    He was on a few years ago.
    http://richarddawkins.net/article,402,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Late-Late-Show-with-Pat-Kenny,RTE-1-Ireland-Richard-Dawkins


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Dawkins has been on the late late before.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    wow, never realised that. thanks

    http://www.rte.ie/tv/latelate/20061208.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 357 ✭✭apoch632


    they still believe in intelligent design of humans...

    If you mean god started it or was the cause of big bang then yes most probably do. If you are talking about the 5000 year story I would disagree with you. Its anecdotal evidence granted but I've met maybe 4-5 people in my life that were like that and the vast majority are not


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,257 ✭✭✭SoupyNorman


    Darwin on the Late Late, no theres a crowd puller.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Darwin on the Late Late, no theres a crowd puller.

    Indeed, Charles Darwin on the late late would be a crowd puller alright


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 110 ✭✭RKDus


    Here's a link to watch his appearance

    http://www.rte.ie/tv/latelate/av_20061208.html?2201046,null,228

    I must say I found the ignorance of the people making points really annoying.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    liamw wrote: »
    Indeed, Charles Darwin on the late late would be a crowd puller alright
    Why not? All it would require is a resurrection. Stranger things have happened.*

    MrP













    * And by "Happened" I mean probably have not actually happened but a bunch of people believe that they did happen, despite all evidence to the contrary, possibly because their heart has somehow told them that it is correct.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    RKDus wrote: »
    Here's a link to watch his appearance

    http://www.rte.ie/tv/latelate/av_20061208.html?2201046,null,228

    I must say I found the ignorance of the people making points really annoying.

    I find the ignorance of religious people in general very annoying


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    liamw wrote: »
    I find the ignorance of religious people in general very annoying

    You're fitting in already :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,532 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Why not? All it would require is a resurrection. Stranger things have happened.*

    MrP


    * And by "Happened" I mean probably have not actually happened but a bunch of people believe that they did happen, despite all evidence to the contrary, possibly because their heart has somehow told them that it is correct.

    Maybe god cloned jesus
    ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MrPudding wrote: »
    * And by "Happened" I mean probably have not actually happened but a bunch of people believe that they did happen, despite all evidence to the contrary, possibly because their heart has somehow told them that it is correct.

    Provide this evidence please? If you actually can disprove the Resurrection, it would be a major feat. Infact if you disprove the Resurrection, it would actually crumble the case of Christianity there and then.
    and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain.

    Or is it that you are talking nonsense as usual? If so, perhaps you should actually consider the arguments that have been put forward for the likelihood of the Resurrection in Christian apologetics.


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,532 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Provide this evidence please? If you actually can disprove the Resurrection, it would be a major feat. Infact if you disprove the Resurrection, it would actually crumble the case of Christianity there and then.

    Provide evidence it happened.

    Bible quotes don't count.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 541 ✭✭✭CiboC


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If you actually can disprove the Resurrection, it would be a major feat.

    Didn't Bertrand Russell have something to say about idiotic suggestions like this... something about a china teapot...??!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    Provide evidence it happened.

    Bible quotes don't count.

    I'm interested in seeing what MrPudding will reply or if he will cop out like you have. MrPudding claims that he has the answer to disprove the Resurrection. If he does this, Christianity will crumble. That's all he needs to do. I have yet to see someone do this though, so I assume MrPudding is talking nonsense.

    I don't claim to have a proof for the Ressurection, but I believe I have strong indication that it did happen. Check the link on my sig, and if you want more information feel free to PM me.
    CiboC wrote: »
    Didn't Bertrand Russell have something to say about idiotic suggestions like this... something about a china teapot...??!

    Argument from Authority - I think you'll find that's a logical fallacy.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Mack Odd Tarantula


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Argument from Authority - I think you'll find that's a logical fallacy.

    Referencing a name (as credit or to help pinpoint) while making an argument isn't argument from authority. He's not claiming something is true just because BR said so.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 541 ✭✭✭CiboC


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't claim to have a proof for the Ressurection, but I believe I have strong indication that it did happen.

    So your (and everyones, as nobody has proof of the ressurection) case for Christianity rests on your belief in a strong indication that it might have happened...?

    Well, if that's good enough for you.....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm interested in seeing what MrPudding will reply or if he will cop out like you have. MrPudding claims that he has the answer to disprove the Resurrection. If he does this, Christianity will crumble. That's all he needs to do. I have yet to see someone do this though, so I assume MrPudding is talking nonsense.

    I underlined the bit I disagree with. Even if he were to hypothetically show the world undeniable evidence that it certainly didn't happen there would still be thos who would refuse to believe it. I mean, we still have those who refuse to believe in evolution, round Earth theory and the Holocaust.

    edit: for the record I'm not implying that you would disregard evidence in such a way, merely that there are those who do.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen




  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,552 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm interested in seeing what MrPudding will reply or if he will cop out like you have. MrPudding claims that he has the answer to disprove the Resurrection. If he does this, Christianity will crumble. That's all he needs to do. I have yet to see someone do this though, so I assume MrPudding is talking nonsense.

    How about we kill someone, bury them for 3 days, and see what state of decomposition the body is in. It would be hard for Jesus to come back and knock around for a few days if bacteria had eaten most of his internal organs. Also, a decomposed body smells pretty bad, yet people were happy to go drinking with him afterwards? Seems pretty incontrovertible that the ressurection didn't happen. Maybe he didn't die, maybe he just hid in a cave for a few days. One thing's for sure, he didn't die and come back to life. It's not physically possible.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    CiboC wrote: »
    So your (and everyones, as nobody has proof of the ressurection) case for Christianity rests on your belief in a strong indication that it might have happened...?

    Well, if that's good enough for you.....

    I have reason to believe that there is a strong indication for this, actually quite a few. So if it was just mere belief, yes, your post would have been valid. However when it is indicated for in actuality that is different. Seriously do some research on what Christian apologetics has to say on the issue, and then come back when you have educated yourself about what is being argued. I'd reccommend you Lee Strobel, the Case for Faith for a start.
    Galvasean wrote: »
    I underlined the bit I disagree with. Even if he were to hypothetically show the world undeniable evidence that it certainly didn't happen there would still be thos who would refuse to believe it. I mean, we still have those who refuse to believe in evolution, round Earth theory and the Holocaust.

    edit: for the record I'm not implying that you would disregard evidence in such a way, merely that there are those who do.

    I'm going to concede this point. You're perfectly right in this objection to my post. In rephrasing it, would it be reasonable to say that Christianity probably wouldn't have as much momentum if the Ressurection had been disproven (or that the supernatural had been shown to be disproven, as to do one you have to do the other). Or would you have contention that Christianity currently has momentum. Share with me your reasoning on it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    How about we kill someone, bury them for 3 days, and see what state of decomposition the body is in. It would be hard for Jesus to come back and knock around for a few days if bacteria had eaten most of his internal organs. Also, a decomposed body smells pretty bad, yet people were happy to go drinking with him afterwards? Seems pretty incontrovertible that the ressurection didn't happen. Maybe he didn't die, maybe he just hid in a cave for a few days. One thing's for sure, he didn't die and come back to life. It's not physically possible.

    Your post would be excellent if it didn't have the following issue:

    To observe killing someone, and observing decomposition, all you would be proving would be that this doesn't normally happen. And Christians most certainly would agree with you. We don't see this as a normal natural occurrence at all. It would be a strawman of the Christian position to do this, as Christians see the Resurrection of Jesus Christ to be a supernatural event which is considered miraculous. If miracles occurred every day they would no longer be miracles but they would be "normal".

    You're not comparing like with like, therefore your post doesn't pertain to the situation we are discussing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Provide this evidence please? If you actually can disprove the Resurrection, it would be a major feat. Infact if you disprove the Resurrection, it would actually crumble the case of Christianity there and then.

    For me the evidence is that it is one of dozens, probably hundreds of resurrection stories from back then and I have no particular reason to believe this one over any of the others


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm going to concede this point. You're perfectly right in this objection to my post. In rephrasing it, would it be reasonable to say that Christianity probably wouldn't have as much momentum if the Ressurection had been disproven (or that the supernatural had been shown to be disproven, as to do one you have to do the other). Or would you have contention that Christianity currently has momentum. Share with me your reasoning on it.

    It's very hard to gauge exactly how such a (hypothetical) discovery would effect an establishment like Christianity. For example a lot of the Christians ('Christians' perhaps?) I know don't actually believe in the Ressurection or indeed much of the Bible, but carry on classifying themselves as Christians regardless.
    Personally I don't think such a discovery would impact Christianity as badly as one might think. The casuals arent fully convinced of most of the supernatural events in the Bible while the more hardcore beelievers aren' going to let a few scientists convince them that they are wrong, regardless of how strong their case is.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,552 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Your post would be excellent if it didn't have the following issue:

    To observe killing someone, and observing decomposition, all you would be proving would be that this doesn't normally happen. And Christians most certainly would agree with you. We don't see this as a normal natural occurrence at all. It would be a strawman of the Christian position to do this, as Christians see the Resurrection of Jesus Christ to be a supernatural event which is considered miraculous. If miracles occurred every day they would no longer be miracles but they would be "normal".

    You're not comparing like with like, therefore your post doesn't pertain to the situation we are discussing.

    If only christians were defence lawyers, then that guy in Cork who laundered the money from the Northern Bank raid could have said "the money coming into my account was a miraculous event". Sadly though, he wasn't and he was convicted.

    Can you prove that miracles exist? Because I think there is fairly good proof that, other than in certain environmental conditions which would not have prevailed at the time in the middle east, a human body will suffer decomposition over 3 days, and this was overlooked in the bible. If you take it as true that a man went into a cave on day one and on day three the same man came out again, the only rational conclusion supported by the evidence is that he was not dead during any part of the three days.

    So I've shown that it is not physically possible for the resurrection to occur. Now, in order to rebut that, you must show that miracles exist and point to specifics of the miracle that happened in this instance.

    Otherwise I put it to you that Christians wouldn't carry out this experiment because they know that they would be proved incorrect.


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,532 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm interested in seeing what MrPudding will reply or if he will cop out like you have. MrPudding claims that he has the answer to disprove the Resurrection. If he does this, Christianity will crumble. That's all he needs to do. I have yet to see someone do this though, so I assume MrPudding is talking nonsense.

    I don't think i copped out to be honest. At least you admit you have no proof of the ressurection which is something. It really is something that is a complete waste of time arguing about as i'll never believe it happened and you will always believe it happened. I read the link in your sig and i appreciate that you took the time to write those things out. I find your reasoning pretty flimsy for some of the points but I can't make any arguents that haven't been made ad nauseum both here and in the christianity forum.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,429 ✭✭✭branie


    Someone should repost the first interview on youtube.


  • Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Jak, can i ask... What WOULD convince you? What would you consider proof?

    DeV


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Galvasean wrote: »
    It's very hard to gauge exactly how such a (hypothetical) discovery would effect an establishment like Christianity. For example a lot of the Christians ('Christians' perhaps?) I know don't actually believe in the Ressurection or indeed much of the Bible, but carry on classifying themselves as Christians regardless.
    Personally I don't think such a discovery would impact Christianity as badly as one might think. The casuals arent fully convinced of most of the supernatural events in the Bible while the more hardcore beelievers aren' going to let a few scientists convince them that they are wrong, regardless of how strong their case is.

    Yes, of course it would be hypothetical. Sometimes I think talking about the hypothetical can be pointless, but I think there may be some use of it in this case.

    As for many of the Christians you say don't believe in the Resurrection, and much of the Bible. I find that odd, as Paul writes, if the Resurrection didn't happen there is pretty much no point in believing in Christianity. I think these people who you know who hold these views, don't really have much justification for holding them, or that they really know what Christianity itself advocates. I just don't understand that form of Christianity that seems to be emerging more and more. I'd consider it a worrying development.

    However, yeah I think you have a good point. I'd say there would be quite a bit of a drop off though. Contrary to popular belief many Christians do seriously think about what they believe and assess if it is reasonable to hold these views before adopting them.
    Mickeroo wrote:
    I don't think i copped out to be honest. At least you admit you have no proof of the ressurection which is something.

    I have enough to indicate for it. However you are correct that I do not have absolute proof. Nobody does. Do you wonder why people call it belief? We have to deal with probabilities. God may or may not exist, from this point we have to provide reasons for why we believe in God, or why we don't believe in God (even if a lot of atheists are reluctant to do this, they must too be questioned). I hope you get where I am coming from, feel free to ask any more questions if you don't.
    Can you prove that miracles exist? Because I think there is fairly good proof that, other than in certain environmental conditions which would not have prevailed at the time in the middle east, a human body will suffer decomposition over 3 days, and this was overlooked in the bible. If you take it as true that a man went into a cave on day one and on day three the same man came out again, the only rational conclusion supported by the evidence is that he was not dead during any part of the three days.

    I argue that the Creation of the world is an act of the supernatural. Something which was grossly improbable having come into fruition despite the odds being entirely against it. I would argue that something of a similar fashion had in the case of Jesus Christ. Whether or not you believe that God was behind the creation or not is actually irrelevant for now, the facts are something grossly improbable did transpire.

    Now, just to clarify further, wouldn't you be an outright hypocrite if you said that something as improbable as the world coming into existence could happen, but the Ressurection of Jesus Christ couldn't?

    Seems to me like a class A case of it.

    I'd like to see your reasoning on it though.
    So I've shown that it is not physically possible for the resurrection to occur. Now, in order to rebut that, you must show that miracles exist and point to specifics of the miracle that happened in this instance.

    Otherwise I put it to you that Christians wouldn't carry out this experiment because they know that they would be proved incorrect.

    Miracles are the result of God, not the result of my work or the work of any other man. Experimentation on this wouldn't work due to the fact it would be directly disobeying God's commandment not to test Him. You could do it anyway, but you would no longer be testing the Jewish or Christian hypothesis, but you would be testing an abstract God that nobody ever argued for, but rather is the result of a strawman.

    I'd like to know how you would have us demonstrate a miracle to you anyway. I think just as Jesus rejected to show signs to the Pharisees saying that they were "an evil and perverse generation", He would just as easily refuse to perform miracles to us because we are perhaps more evil and perverse than the Pharisees ever were. At least they were Jews who believed themselves to be righteous and who believed they had served the Lord.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    DeVore wrote: »
    Jak, can i ask... What WOULD convince you? What would you consider proof?

    DeV

    Thanks for the queston DeVore.

    I think in order to put an end to Christianity for me, you would have to do a lot of ground work. However I'll keep this specific to the Resurrection.

    You would most certainly have to narrow any possible gap where God could have possibly have come into the process of the formation of the universe. Why the formation of the universe counts in relation to the question of the Resurrection is precisely because you would have to destroy any notion that the Creation was a supernatural event, but rather was the result of it having happened of it's own accord. Basically one would have to explain step by step in an entirely logical process that there wasn't a hope of God having been involved in the creation of the universe, and that there is no means whatsoever that a higher power could have been involved at all.

    Then to finish it off you would have to find a decent explanation as to why the disciples did what they did based on historical documents by those who had witnessed them at the time insisting that they were absolute frauds, or documents that discussed the fabrication of the New Testament texts, and admitted that they were a hoax while proving that they were from the correct dating in history, had the correct language, and were found in the correct location.

    Basically DeVore, to disprove my position, someone would have to do a lot of ground work. I think this is reasonable, because I have decided to commit my life to Christianity, and I have decided that I want to grow and develop as a human being to Christ's teachings. It's a big investment, and it would need a lot of groundwork to justify ditching such a big investment.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Thanks for the queston DeVore.

    I think in order to put an end to Christianity for me, you would have to do a lot of ground work. However I'll keep this specific to the Resurrection.

    You would most certainly have to narrow any possible gap where God could have possibly have come into the process of the formation of the universe. Why the formation of the universe counts in relation to the question of the Resurrection is precisely because you would have to destroy any notion that the Creation was a supernatural event, but rather was the result of it having happened of it's own accord. Basically one would have to explain step by step in an entirely logical process that there wasn't a hope of God having been involved in the creation of the universe, and that there is no means whatsoever that a higher power could have been involved at all.

    But we don't even know what causes gravity!!


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,552 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I argue that the Creation of the world is an act of the supernatural.

    I would argue that it is perfectly natural and from observations of our and other solar systems it is quite reasonable to extrapolate that our would was created from the bits of a larger mass which exploded and which formed together through gravity.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Something which was grossly improbable having come into fruition despite the odds being entirely against it.

    I would say that the constant reshaping of the universe is entirely probable, almost to be a virtual certainty. The universe is contracting now, and in billions of years time will form a critical mass and expand again. Thus it was written thus it shall always be.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I would argue that something of a similar fashion had in the case of Jesus Christ. Whether or not you believe that God was behind the creation or not is actually irrelevant for now, the facts are something grossly improbable did transpire.

    Let's use occam's razor for the moment, and instead of assuming something grossly improbable, miraculous and supernatural happened, that something fairly ordinary happened - one or more people lied about a man dying and coming back to life.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Now, just to clarify further, wouldn't you be an outright hypocrite if you said that something as improbable as the world coming into existence could happen, but the Ressurection of Jesus Christ couldn't?

    Quite apart from the fact that I think the world coming into existence was fairly probable, I don't think that any spurious possibility can prevent something from being disproved. There is no reasonable explanation for the resurrection other than it didn't happen or it didn't happen as they say it did.

    More fundamentally, if these things can't be explained, why do you feel the need to invent something to explain them. Such things, being as they are far beyond the ken of man, prove that god (if it does exist) is also beyond the ken of man, and that the image of god and the whole bible story is either a myth or a lie.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Miracles are the result of God, not the result of my work or the work of any other man.

    Ok, either miracles are observable by man and therefore can be identified and studied, or else they can't be observed by man and so therefore can be proved not to exist (to the most basic standard of proof).
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Experimentation on this wouldn't work due to the fact it would be directly disobeying God's commandment not to test Him.

    But you could hire atheists to carry out the experiments with impunity, knowing full well that there is no risk that they will be smitten during the experiment (and thus making a saving on the widows and orphan's pension scheme). As an aside, God telling people not to test him is yet more proof that it is all made up by humans.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You could do it anyway, but you would no longer be testing the Jewish or Christian hypothesis, but you would be testing an abstract God that nobody ever argued for, but rather is the result of a strawman.

    So you're taking the football home with you then?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'd like to know how you would have us demonstrate a miracle to you anyway. I think just as Jesus rejected to show signs to the Pharisees saying that they were "an evil and perverse generation", He would just as easily refuse to perform miracles to us because we are perhaps more evil and perverse than the Pharisees ever were. At least they were Jews who believed themselves to be righteous and who believed they had served the Lord.

    Let's not get it backwards - I'm not asking you to demonstrate miracles, I know that they don't exist. The absence of miracles proves, at least on a prima facie basis, that they don't exist. But if you want to prove that they exist, you need to bring that to the table. If Jesus didn't demonstrate his miracles, the presumption is that he couldn't.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,552 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    But we don't even know what causes gravity!!

    Common sense causes gravity. Down is down, everyone knows that. Physics is simple really*







    *Some people claim that gravity is caused by the attraction between sub atomic particles.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Common sense causes gravity. Down is down, everyone knows that. Physics is simple really*

    *Some people claim that gravity is caused by the attraction between sub atomic particles.

    But what causes that attraction?
    /Gets thread moved to Physics


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,532 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Jakkass wrote: »


    I have enough to indicate for it. However you are correct that I do not have absolute proof. Nobody does. Do you wonder why people call it belief? We have to deal with probabilities. God may or may not exist, from this point we have to provide reasons for why we believe in God, or why we don't believe in God (even if a lot of atheists are reluctant to do this, they must too be questioned). I hope you get where I am coming from, feel free to ask any more questions if you don't.

    I think i get where you're coming from to a point, but saying atheists are reluctant to provide reasons they dont believe in god is hardly true.
    Jakkass wrote: »


    I argue that the Creation of the world is an act of the supernatural. Something which was grossly improbable having come into fruition despite the odds being entirely against it. I would argue that something of a similar fashion had in the case of Jesus Christ. Whether or not you believe that God was behind the creation or not is actually irrelevant for now, the facts are something grossly improbable did transpire.

    Now, just to clarify further, wouldn't you be an outright hypocrite if you said that something as improbable as the world coming into existence could happen, but the Ressurection of Jesus Christ couldn't?

    Seems to me like a class A case of it.

    I'd like to see your reasoning on it though.

    You see this is where your logic is lacking.

    To say the creation of the world was supernatural is a complete contradiction, the fact that it happened, that i'm standing on it and looking at it is irrefutable proof that it happened, making it far less improbable than the ressurection. Also theres is an unfathomable amount of planets in our galaxy alone, this shows you how often it happened, then look at the amount of galaxies in the universe. These are not presumptions or hypotheses i'm talking about, we know they are there.

    The creation of the universe is not improbable, it definitley happened, the odds are meaningless, human minds can't grasp it because we haven't evolved in an environment where all this was apparent to us.

    Before the big bang is where the gap exists, some people fill that gap with god. I can admit we dont,and probably will never know what was there before the big bang, but does it really matter?? Theres nothing to make me thing that this "god" has been actively involved in the universe since the big bang. **** happens, miracles don't.

    Theres a difference between improbable and impossible.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I argue that the Creation of the world is an act of the supernatural. Something which was grossly improbable having come into fruition despite the odds being entirely against it.

    You keep using the words unlikely and improbable interchangeably with supernatural but they're not the same thing. The creation of the universe is unlikely but the supernatural is physically impossible. The chances of it happening are not billions to one like the chances of life involving. The chances of the resurrection are exactly zero. That's what makes it supernatural


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    That interview was embarrassing to watch. The questions being put to Dawkins (from Kenny, the audience and the UCD fella) were so ****ing dumb, I could understand why he was getting so frustrated.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I would argue that it is perfectly natural and from observations of our and other solar systems it is quite reasonable to extrapolate that our would was created from the bits of a larger mass which exploded and which formed together through gravity.

    Yes, but you would need to substantiate that argument. From my reasoning of it, natural would imply "frequently observable" to me. The creation is not something which is frequently observable, therefore I would consider it to be supernatural, or outside the sphere of observation. To deem something natural, we can only go on what is inside the universe. However if we are going to get behind the causation of the Big Bang in any serious way, instead of just saying that the universe created itself, we will have to ask questions about the supernatural, i.e what exists outside the natural universe.
    II would say that the constant reshaping of the universe is entirely probable, almost to be a virtual certainty. The universe is contracting now, and in billions of years time will form a critical mass and expand again. Thus it was written thus it shall always be.

    Despite mathematicians arguing the opposite? The probability of the universe and life coming into existence the way that it currently has has been calculated by Roger Penrose to be 1 to (10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123) which won't even fit on your average calculator. So you would have to substantiate your reasoning to suggest that it is probable for the universe to exist given these odds.
    Let's use occam's razor for the moment, and instead of assuming something grossly improbable, miraculous and supernatural happened, that something fairly ordinary happened - one or more people lied about a man dying and coming back to life.

    I'm not assuming anything. It seems to me that you are assuming that the universe coming into existence is probable. Actually most people I've discussed this with have conceded that it was actually grossly improbable for what has happened to have happened at all. We're extremely lucky to be alive.
    Quite apart from the fact that I think the world coming into existence was fairly probable, I don't think that any spurious possibility can prevent something from being disproved. There is no reasonable explanation for the resurrection other than it didn't happen or it didn't happen as they say it did.

    You'll have to elaborate on your previous understanding, or revise it before we can really continue. How can something that has been shown to be as improbable as the Creation and the formation of life be any more improbable than the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

    As for "reasonable explanation". I'd disagree with you on that. I have yet to hear a decent explanation of the history of the early church without a Resurrection event.
    More fundamentally, if these things can't be explained, why do you feel the need to invent something to explain them. Such things, being as they are far beyond the ken of man, prove that god (if it does exist) is also beyond the ken of man, and that the image of god and the whole bible story is either a myth or a lie.

    Em, I don't think I have invented anything, or propogated a lie concerning this. I think every person should feel a need to want to explain the unexplainable. Infact I think a person who does not want to do this lacks ambition.

    As for "such things being beyond man" malarky. Yes, if there was no such thing as divine revelation these things would be beyond man. However if a supernatural being does exist, I think it's entirely reasonable that He could communicate with man and take an interest in His creation.
    IOk, either miracles are observable by man and therefore can be identified and studied, or else they can't be observed by man and so therefore can be proved not to exist (to the most basic standard of proof).

    You're not getting the point. Miracles, are by their nature extremely rare. You're not going to be able to just perform one, to assess when you please. If miracles occurred frequently they would be referred to as if they were normal occurrences.

    Anyhow, God given His nature, won't be performing miracles to prove Himself. He doesn't need to do that, and I wouldn't expect Him to pander to people who have blasphemed against Him. As I say, I'd say Jesus regards this generation more evil and perverse than His.
    But you could hire atheists to carry out the experiments with impunity, knowing full well that there is no risk that they will be smitten during the experiment (and thus making a saving on the widows and orphan's pension scheme). As an aside, God telling people not to test him is yet more proof that it is all made up by humans.

    I could, just not aim to disobey God either. I don't see how that is proof. You seem to struggle with the notion of indication. Indication = something is likely to exist, proof = something is definitely the case. However I don't see how this indicates or proves anything.
    ILet's not get it backwards - I'm not asking you to demonstrate miracles, I know that they don't exist. The absence of miracles proves, at least on a prima facie basis, that they don't exist. But if you want to prove that they exist, you need to bring that to the table. If Jesus didn't demonstrate his miracles, the presumption is that he couldn't.

    I'd argue that miracles still exist in the modern age. However major major issue in this part is. You assume miracles don't exist, because you have never seen them. However, I've already explained why this probably would be the case. Miracles are extremely rare. Couldn't it be the case that this rarity explains it, rather than a lack of existence of miracles? Jesus demonstrated miracles to people who humbled themselves to receive them. The Pharisees were arrogant and puffed up, much like many who reject Christianity today.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Experimentation on this wouldn't work due to the fact it would be directly disobeying God's commandment not to test Him. You could do it anyway, but you would no longer be testing the Jewish or Christian hypothesis, but you would be testing an abstract God that nobody ever argued for, but rather is the result of a strawman.

    That is one of the most perverse things about the christian god to me. He deliberately doesn't want us to be able to prove he exists. It seems he wants to reward gullibility and credulity over an intelligent enquiring mind. A universe where god cannot be tested looks exactly the same as one where he does not exist so the only logical conclusion to draw is that he doesn't exist (specifically the christian god).

    Then all these people who drew the only logical conclusion are burned forever and the people who just accepted what their parents taught them and never scratched the surface or asked any questions get rewarded. Except for the people who did exactly the same thing in another part of the world though where christianity isn't prevelant. If you're unlucky enough to live there you're going to hell too for doing exactly the same thing that most christians do


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    You see this is where your logic is lacking.

    This is very much the case for you, I've explained my position fully. There are quite a few problems with this post.
    Mickeroo wrote: »
    To say the creation of the world was supernatural is a complete contradiction, the fact that it happened, that i'm standing on it and looking at it is irrefutable proof that it happened, making it far less improbable than the ressurection. Also theres is an unfathomable amount of planets in our galaxy alone, this shows you how often it happened, then look at the amount of galaxies in the universe. These are not presumptions or hypotheses i'm talking about, we know they are there.

    No... no it isn't. How is the fact that something happened contradictory to the fact that it is supernatural. Supernatural = not observable from within the natural universe.

    Just because you are standing on it, doesn't mean that the earth was not formed through supernatural influences. Infact it has no bearing on it at all. You assume that just because something is claims to be supernatural it cannot exist. However it's highly improbable that the observable universe created itself, and no reasonable person argues this.

    As for the amount of planets, this doesn't mean that there were multiple Big Bangs, they are the result of the same Big Bang according to physics. The Big Bang prompted the spreading of the universe and the formation of all of these planets.
    Mickeroo wrote: »
    The creation of the universe is not improbable, it definitley happened, the odds are meaningless, human minds can't grasp it because we haven't evolved in an environment where all this was apparent to us.

    You're not getting the point. It was grossly improbable, yet it happened. There are calculations to show this. Something that is shown mathematically to be extremely improbable of happening occurred. Just because something is deemed to be grossly improbable doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's why when people argue "People don't normally raise from the dead", it doesn't mean that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, it just means that it doesn't normally happen.
    Mickeroo wrote: »
    Theres a difference between improbable and impossible.

    You're contradicting yourself now, you've just been arguing this whole post that it isn't improbable that the earth came into existence. However your post is useful, because now you are trying to justify the improbability of the universe having come into existence, just as much as I am trying to justify the improbability of the Ressurrection of Jesus Christ, isn't that just hilarious? :D

    You haven't shown that the supernatural is possible, nor have you substantiated this fact. Therefore it isn't intellectually honest to use this in a discussion as if it were factual.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    natural would imply "frequently observable" to me. The creation is not something which is frequently observable, therefore I would consider it to be supernatural
    then you need to update your definition of natural because that's not what it means. Even if something happens only once in the whole of the universe, if it fits with the natural laws then it is natural. That's why they're called natural laws and not frequently occuring laws


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Provide this evidence please?
    That is the beauty of it. I don't have to. I am not the one claiming the extraordinary feat of magic. Why should I have to prove that something that goes against all the laws of nature and everything we have observed, and has never been seen (and accepted as having happened since) did not happen?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    If you actually can disprove the Resurrection, it would be a major feat. Infact if you disprove the Resurrection, it would actually crumble the case of Christianity there and then.
    I don't need to disprove it. In my opinion it is a load of rubbish. I have read countless posts from christians quoting the "evidence" of the resurrection and read countless post countering this. Added to this I know from many sources that things that have been dead for three days generally do not become living again. This has been backed up by careful observation, and though it has never been proven that they absolutely don't, it seems likely that they don't. Add to this the fact that I also happen to believe there is no evidence for your sky wizard and therefore no way to miraculously reanimate the dead, we come to my position. It most likely did not happen as christians portray it. In fact it so "most likely" did not happen I am quite happy to go that tiny step further and say it did not.

    I appreciate that this is not evidence enough for you, but quite frankly, I don't care.


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Or is it that you are talking nonsense as usual?
    Should I be offended here? Perhaps I should just have a giggle to myself at the irony of being accused of talking nonsense by a person that comes out with the kind of nonsense that you do?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    If so, perhaps you should actually consider the arguments that have been put forward for the likelihood of the Resurrection in Christian apologetics.
    I presume the arguements you speak of would be those that are posted in the various threads tackling the resurrection? If so then, sorry. But no.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm interested in seeing what MrPudding will reply or if he will cop out like you have. MrPudding claims that he has the answer to disprove the Resurrection.
    Oh. I'm sorry. I seem to have missed the part where I claimed to have the answer to disprove the resurrection.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    If he does this, Christianity will crumble.
    Well, I could not live with myself with that on my concience. Oh wait, I forgot, I am an athiest, I don't have one.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't claim to have a proof for the Ressurection, but I believe I have strong indication that it did happen. Check the link on my sig, and if you want more information feel free to PM me.
    Similar to how I don't claim to have proof it didn't happen. Funny that.


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Argument from Authority - I think you'll find that's a logical fallacy.
    LOL at the christian criticising someone for using an argument form authority. Is "god said it" not the ultimate argument form authority and one which is made by christians every day?

    MrP


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You're contradicting yourself now, you've just been arguing this whole post that it isn't improbable that the earth came into existence. However your post is useful, because now you are trying to justify the improbability of the universe having come into existence, just as much as I am trying to justify the improbability of the Ressurrection of Jesus Christ, isn't that just hilarious? :D
    The resurrection is not improbable, it is impossible. That is the fundamental difference between natural and supernatural. You've been saying this as long as I've been reading your posts and you really need to stop. Your definition of supernatural is wrong


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29 J_Kerr


    Isn't there a massive difference between some powerful force kick starting the universe (ala big bang) and letting the laws of physics take its course and a deity who kick started it and in between every exploding star, supernova, nubulae and collapsing galaxy etc which he/she must have control over also decided to focus his/her attention on one group of people in one small place in a tiny bog standard planet and doesn't like it if they eat pork or shellfish or work on a certain day.
    As Carl Sagan said; we are like a butterfly who flutters for a day and think we have lived a life time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    If jesus was still around and he turned water into wine every single day it would become a frequently observable event but that does not make it natural because it still requires breaking natural laws. Please try to understand this

    The supernatural is by definition impossible. That's what it means


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    If jesus was still around and he turned water into wine every single day it would become a frequently observable event but that does not make it natural because it still requires breaking natural laws. Please try to understand this

    They don't want to understand. Doing so would allow them to consider the possibility of the falsehood of their beliefs.

    Unthinkable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam: If Jesus was turning water into wine every day however, it wouldn't be miraculous, it would become normal occurrence, and through time people would probably perceive it to be natural, even if it isn't in our understanding of what is natural. Will you at least concede that much? I'm actually willing to be corrected. Infact even in this thread you'll find I've conceded some points to Galvasean, I can't say the same for you in any argument.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 969 ✭✭✭murrayp4


    RKDus wrote: »

    I must say I found the ignorance of the people making points really annoying.

    I don't find it annoying. I do find them really funny though...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Sam: If Jesus was turning water into wine every day however, it wouldn't be miraculous, it would become normal occurrence, and through time people would probably perceive it to be natural, even if it isn't in our understanding of what is natural. Will you at least concede that much?

    No I will not concede that in any way. You do not understand what the word supernatural means. The universe has certain laws that do not change, one of those being that water cannot be turned into wine by waving your hands. IF Jesus did turn water into wine then he had to suspend the laws of nature and he would have to suspend them each and every time he did it. Frequent=/=natural and infrequent=/=supernatural.

    Supernatural means "supersedes the laws of nature". Every time. The requency of occurrence is irrelevant


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam: Do you not think that after such an act became normal, people might think that it was natural that this could happen? I don't see how that isn't a reasonable statement to make.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement