Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 04:15PM

silverharp wrote: »

Its not circular I am asking you how the first human could have been innocent . ? Its not a circular question , its a biological one. And secondly your opinion on a god that creates an experiment where the subject was at a disadvantage.

I think it is is circular, because as soon as you allow that an omnipotent God might conceivably exist then your supposed conflict with science melts away.

Are you saying that an omnipotent God could not ensure that the first humans to develop a sense of morality could be innocent? And are you saying that science has any evidence to prove that morally innocent humanoids never existed? If so, please present that evidence.

Again, if you allow for the possibility of an omnipotent Creator, then any created being is at some kind of disadvantage. But again, how exactly does that relate to your claim that it is contradicted by science?

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 04:21PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Sigh, this is a matter of simple logic.

1. silverharp presents an argument that the Christian doctrines of Creation and the Fall are in conflict with the findings of science.

2. However, his/her argument is only valid if you start off by assuming that Christianity is false anyway.

3. Then silverharp uses the argument that Christian doctrines are in conflict with science to 'put them in a bucket' of arguments to discredit Christianity and prove it to be false.

That is what is known as a circular argument, you can only prove your conclusion by using your conclusion as a starting premise.

It is saying, "If A is true, then B is also true, and therefore B proves A to be true."

Some Christians use similar arguments too, as when they argue that the Bible is true, but their argument for the truth of the Bible is that the Bible says that it is true.

Now, I have no problem in silverharp choosing to think Christianity is false. We all have the right to make our own faith statements.

But if silverharp tries to present a circular argument as if it should somehow have merit when debating with others who don't share his/her assumptions then it is perfectly in order for me to point out its circularity.

Looking at it objectivity based on the evidence (or lack of) the conclusion is still the same, The creation myth and fall are irreconcilable with science as it based on faith and nothing tangible! The result stays the same or science would have to accommodate the supernatural and the suspension of the workings of nature.
It is religion that is in conflict with science not the other way around! Religion has no scientific basis for the creation myth or fall, they are just stories to explain at the time unexplainable events!

katydid · 19-03-2015 04:33PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

Looking at it objectivity based on the evidence (or lack of) the conclusion is still the same, The creation myth and fall are irreconcilable with science as it based on faith and nothing tangible! The result stays the same or science would have to accommodate the supernatural and the suspension of the workings of nature.
It is religion that is in conflict with science not the other way around! Religion has no scientific basis for the creation myth or fall, they are just stories to explain at the time unexplainable events!

Ways to explain STILL unexplainable events...

silverharp · 19-03-2015 04:43PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I think it is is circular, because as soon as you allow that an omnipotent God might conceivably exist then your supposed conflict with science melts away.

Are you saying that an omnipotent God could not ensure that the first humans to develop a sense of morality could be innocent? And are you saying that science has any evidence to prove that morally innocent humanoids never existed? If so, please present that evidence.

Again, if you allow for the possibility of an omnipotent Creator, then any created being is at some kind of disadvantage. But again, how exactly does that relate to your claim that it is contradicted by science?

They couldn't be innocent as per the working of evolution , evolution has never found a new species created in a single generation. The offspring would be raised with the values of the parents no evidence needed there. So going back 200,000 years any offspring would be a mix of instinct and upbringing by a very backward society. If you want to suggest that the deity wiped the brains of these humans and suppressed various instincts be my guest?

orubiru · 19-03-2015 05:02PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I keep hearing repeated assertions that there was no first human. But so far no-one has offered a scrap of evidence to back up the assertion.

Saying that the process was gradual and slow is no argument at all - it's just a piece of debating sleight of hand and evasion.

If you choose a set of criteria for what it means to be human, then it doesn't matter how slowly or how quickly the process took, by definition there was a humanoid who finally became the first to meet those criteria.

To use an example. Let's say that you have decided to define 'daybreak' as being the point where the light, as measured by a light meter, reaches a certain point (say, 1000 lux). It matters not whether day breaks suddenly, or whether it slowly transitions through twilight. There is a definite point where the light meter first measures 1000 lux.

Of course you can get round this problem by positing, as silverharp appears to be doing, that 5000 humanoids all reached the 'human' criteria at exactly the same time. It seems to me that such an occurrence would be so statistically improbable as to necessitate some kind of intelligent force behind it - a 'god', if you will.

To use another example...

The Italian language evolved from Latin.

What you are proposing, basically, is that there was once a human who stopped speaking Latin and started speaking Italian. So if you took us as an outside observer we'd say "what language are you speaking now?" and the answer would be "Latin". We come back an hour later... "How about now?" The answer, "now I am speaking Italian, I crossed over about 15 minutes ago".

Of course, what you are actually doing is confusing the labelling of reality with reality itself.

"Daybreak" is just a word. We may choose to define it as the suns angle in the sky or the brightness of the light but the reality is that the sun and the earth are constantly in motion so there is no actual flip of a switch from day to night.

"The Sun doesn't go down. It's just an illusion, caused by the world spinning round"

If you consider a car stopped on the street. It is still in motion, there are still forces acting on it and if we looked at it on an atomic level we'd see a pretty constant interaction between the ground and the tires, the air and the windscreen. The concept of "stop" is just a label that allows us to understand the world we live in.

If you can't understand why there was no first human then that's fair enough. It has been explained to you a few times now. Even in a pretty well presented video that you just dismissed.

Something non-human did not just give birth to something human. WE invented the label human and we are the ones that say "well, lets call everything beyond this point here Human or else it's gonna be impossible to actually discuss anything".

orubiru · 19-03-2015 05:13PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I think it is is circular, because as soon as you allow that an omnipotent God might conceivably exist then your supposed conflict with science melts away.

Are you saying that an omnipotent God could not ensure that the first humans to develop a sense of morality could be innocent? And are you saying that science has any evidence to prove that morally innocent humanoids never existed? If so, please present that evidence.

Again, if you allow for the possibility of an omnipotent Creator, then any created being is at some kind of disadvantage. But again, how exactly does that relate to your claim that it is contradicted by science?

"And are you saying that science has any evidence to prove that morally innocent humanoids never existed? If so, please present that evidence."

We always seem to come back to this. "Well, how do you know it wasn't that way, were you there?"

The fact of the matter is that the Christian doctrines of Creation and the Fall ARE in conflict with the findings of science. It's not something that we can really get away from.

You end up essentially trying to argue that God introduced "life" or "morality" and some arbitrary point whilst ignoring the fact that these things did not "appear" as such. I think it would be better to think of life or morals as things that emerged over time.

The only argument that you are trying to present here is "well you can't prove that God didn't do it" except you are dancing around that point.

Much as Man emerged over time from more simple organisms, morality has also emerged over time. Just like we are ever changing, our morals and philosophies are also ever changing.

The bottom line here is that your argument is "well, you can't prove that God isn't responsible, so there."

orubiru · 19-03-2015 05:24PM

katydid wrote: »

Ways to explain STILL unexplainable events...

I totally agree with you Katydid, there are things that science will never be able to explain.

Throughout history people have used fiction and mythology to explore those unexplainable things.

How many of us have been deeply affected by a piece of music or a movie or a great book. Sometimes the stories that we hear are life changing because they reveal a truth to us that would have otherwise remained hidden.

What I do not see though is people claiming that Frodo Baggins or Luke Skywalker or Harry Potter are real. Now, I cannot prove that they are not real. (how do we know that George Lucas' imagination wasn't being controlled via The Force to present a story that is an actual history of a far off galaxy?)

The Bible, both old and new testaments, are nothing more than some important teachings wrapped up in a pretty intriguing and life changing mythology.

Any claim that "The Creator" is responsible for us and our morality or anything to do with us MUST be backed up with evidence.

Saying "well, you can't provide evidence that there was no Creator" just doesn't cut it. If people are satisfied with that then fair enough.

Science looks for answers, finds them and then improves upon them or completely revises them.

Religion says "here is what happened and you can't prove it didn't happen that way, so there".

indioblack · 19-03-2015 07:47PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I think it is is circular, because as soon as you allow that an omnipotent God might conceivably exist then your supposed conflict with science melts away.

Are you saying that an omnipotent God could not ensure that the first humans to develop a sense of morality could be innocent? And are you saying that science has any evidence to prove that morally innocent humanoids never existed? If so, please present that evidence.

Again, if you allow for the possibility of an omnipotent Creator, then any created being is at some kind of disadvantage. But again, how exactly does that relate to your claim that it is contradicted by science?

The last paragraph could be taken further. How could an omnipotent God create a being capable of falling?

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 10:01PM

orubiru wrote: »

"And are you saying that science has any evidence to prove that morally innocent humanoids never existed? If so, please present that evidence."

We always seem to come back to this. "Well, how do you know it wasn't that way, were you there?"

The fact of the matter is that the Christian doctrines of Creation and the Fall ARE in conflict with the findings of science. It's not something that we can really get away from.

You end up essentially trying to argue that God introduced "life" or "morality" and some arbitrary point whilst ignoring the fact that these things did not "appear" as such. I think it would be better to think of life or morals as things that emerged over time.

The only argument that you are trying to present here is "well you can't prove that God didn't do it" except you are dancing around that point.

Much as Man emerged over time from more simple organisms, morality has also emerged over time. Just like we are ever changing, our morals and philosophies are also ever changing.

The bottom line here is that your argument is "well, you can't prove that God isn't responsible, so there."

Ah well, there you go then. You let on that we are talking about a conflict between science and Christian doctrines. Yet, when pushed to provide actual evidence of how science conflicts with those doctrines you resort to phrases such as "I think it would be better to think of things this way."

Sorry, but some guy on a message board saying that he prefers to think of things one way rather than another way does not add up to scientific evidence.

The argument that you can't prove God isn't responsible is a fair argument if it is countering a claim, made repeatedly but ultimately never supported by evidence, that you know of some actual conflict between science and particular doctrines.

Circular arguments that rely on assuming the non-existence of God in the first place won't cut it either.

I've already wasted enough time asking for this non-existent scientific evidence, my publishers are leaning on me to meet a deadline and I have a week-long conference in the Philippines next week, so I'm going to bow out and, if you guys wish, you can carry on.

I'm not flouncing out of the thread, and I might pop my head in from time to see if anyone has brought anything new to the table. But it's pretty clear to me that my requests for evidence are unlikely to yield anything more than bluster, repeated assertions, and circularity.

marienbad · 19-03-2015 10:21PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Ah well, there you go then. You let on that we are talking about a conflict between science and Christian doctrines. Yet, when pushed to provide actual evidence of how science conflicts with those doctrines you resort to phrases such as "I think it would be better to think of things this way."

Sorry, but some guy on a message board saying that he prefers to think of things one way rather than another way does not add up to scientific evidence.

The argument that you can't prove God isn't responsible is a fair argument if it is countering a claim, made repeatedly but ultimately never supported by evidence, that you know of some actual conflict between science and particular doctrines.

Circular arguments that rely on assuming the non-existence of God in the first place won't cut it either.

I've already wasted enough time asking for this non-existent scientific evidence, my publishers are leaning on me to meet a deadline and I have a week-long conference in the Philippines next week, so I'm going to bow out and, if you guys wish, you can carry on.

I'm not flouncing out of the thread, and I might pop my head in from time to see if anyone has brought anything new to the table. But it's pretty clear to me that my requests for evidence are unlikely to yield anything more than bluster, repeated assertions, and circularity.

I think it is even more clear that you offer nothing more than bluster, repeated assertions, ad hominem and circularity.

It would appear you don't like this thread very much , I wonder why ?

orubiru · 19-03-2015 10:21PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Ah well, there you go then. You let on that we are talking about a conflict between science and Christian doctrines. Yet, when pushed to provide actual evidence of how science conflicts with those doctrines you resort to phrases such as "I think it would be better to think of things this way."

Sorry, but some guy on a message board saying that he prefers to think of things one way rather than another way does not add up to scientific evidence.

The argument that you can't prove God isn't responsible is a fair argument if it is countering a claim, made repeatedly but ultimately never supported by evidence, that you know of some actual conflict between science and particular doctrines.

Circular arguments that rely on assuming the non-existence of God in the first place won't cut it either.

I've already wasted enough time asking for this non-existent scientific evidence, my publishers are leaning on me to meet a deadline and I have a week-long conference in the Philippines next week, so I'm going to bow out and, if you guys wish, you can carry on.

I'm not flouncing out of the thread, and I might pop my head in from time to see if anyone has brought anything new to the table. But it's pretty clear to me that my requests for evidence are unlikely to yield anything more than bluster, repeated assertions, and circularity.

Haha. I meant I think it would be better for YOU, specifically, to think of things that way as you appear to not understand evolution and how evolution relates to morals etc.

I find "debaters" like yourself attempt to avoid the issues by being as vague as possible.

For example you ask for evidence of how science conflicts with the doctrines of Creation and the Fall. Silverharp explained this brilliantly to you over many posts and in a few different ways. You were dismissive though and basically just refused to accept or address valid points.

Arguing over whether the arguments were circular or not (they were not) and basically saying you wont watch videos or read links.

You rarely address the points made. You try to invalidate them and when that doesn't work (because you are wrong) you resort to "you can't prove that God didn't do it".

It makes me wonder if you get annoyed or angry when people question the existence of God?

tommy2bad · 19-03-2015 10:48PM

orubiru wrote: »

To use another example...

The Italian language evolved from Latin.

What you are proposing, basically, is that there was once a human who stopped speaking Latin and started speaking Italian. So if you took us as an outside observer we'd say "what language are you speaking now?" and the answer would be "Latin". We come back an hour later... "How about now?" The answer, "now I am speaking Italian, I crossed over about 15 minutes ago".

Of course, what you are actually doing is confusing the labelling of reality with reality itself.

"Daybreak" is just a word. We may choose to define it as the suns angle in the sky or the brightness of the light but the reality is that the sun and the earth are constantly in motion so there is no actual flip of a switch from day to night.

"The Sun doesn't go down. It's just an illusion, caused by the world spinning round"

If you consider a car stopped on the street. It is still in motion, there are still forces acting on it and if we looked at it on an atomic level we'd see a pretty constant interaction between the ground and the tires, the air and the windscreen. The concept of "stop" is just a label that allows us to understand the world we live in.

If you can't understand why there was no first human then that's fair enough. It has been explained to you a few times now. Even in a pretty well presented video that you just dismissed.

Something non-human did not just give birth to something human. WE invented the label human and we are the ones that say "well, lets call everything beyond this point here Human or else it's gonna be impossible to actually discuss anything".

Really bad example to use!
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language

orubiru · 19-03-2015 11:05PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Really bad example to use!
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language

Can you explain how its a bad example though? The point was more to show how there was no "first speaker of Italian" in the same way that there was no "first human".

The point was to show that when we are talking about something that emerges from an already existing state we tend to apply labels after the fact.

So Mans concept of morality would have gradually emerged before we had put a label on it. We couldn't pinpoint the origin of "sin" because it wasn't something that just appeared at an arbitrary point in history.

This casts doubt on the hypothesis that God just gave us a choice between good and evil one day and Man said "eh, Evil!"

It was also a small part of my post so I am not sure if your point is that the use of one bad example invalidates everything said?

Manach · 19-03-2015 11:36PM

On latin I'd recommend "Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World" which shows the real-world evolution of languages and how clear and demonstrative examples on paper have a tendency to fall flat when it comes to real-world examples. Ditto with shoe-horning say the exactness of physical Sciences into a realms which it does not roots in, such as moral reasoning.

Safehands · 19-03-2015 11:39PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I think it is is circular, because as soon as you allow that an omnipotent God might conceivably exist then your supposed conflict with science melts away.

Nick, reading your posts there is not that much difference between us really. I accept that potentially, an omnipotent God could conceivably exist. I also accept that science can't really prove he does not, because we don't really know all that much about what existed before the big bang and proving something does not exist is impossible. Do you accept that it is also conceivable that life on Earth started by beings from a distant planet visiting here? We just don't know. Science just works on the provable, so it does not have any evidence of aliens, supernatural beings, ghosts or deities. It is working on them all, as far as I know and maybe some or all will be proved in the future. Until then we should all just accept that our individual imaginings, no matter how outrageous, can be declared worthy of acceptance as things we imagine. Just because we can't authenticate them doesn't mean they should be dimissed and not accepted as the subject of our imagination. Neither does it mean for an instant, that they are real or factual.

Delirium · 20-03-2015 06:55AM

orubiru wrote: »

It makes me wonder if you get annoyed or angry when people question the existence of God?

Please avoid getting personal. Address the points made rather than speculate on the personality/character of the poster.

Thanks for your attention.

MaxWig · 20-03-2015 08:45AM

Safehands wrote: »

Nick, reading your posts there is not that much difference between us really. I accept that potentially, an omnipotent God could conceivably exist. I also accept that science can't really prove he does not, because we don't really know all that much about what existed before the big bang and proving something does not exist is impossible. Do you accept that it is also conceivable that life on Earth started by beings from a distant planet visiting here? We just don't know. Science just works on the provable, so it does not have any evidence of aliens, supernatural beings, ghosts or deities. It is working on them all, as far as I know and maybe some or all will be proved in the future. Until then we should all just accept that our individual imaginings, no matter how outrageous, can be declared worthy of acceptance as things we imagine. Just because we can't authenticate them doesn't mean they should be dimissed and not accepted as the subject of our imagination. Neither does it mean for an instant, that they are real or factual.

And these debates always falter on this point.

What is provable really is irrelevant to religious belief.

Science has very little to, if anything, to say about those gaps in our experience that religion, or spirituality attempt to fill.

I was listening to Lawrence Krauss and Dawkins talking about religion on youtube recently, and Krauss came out with the following;

"The remarkable fact that we're conscious, that we're able to ask these questions (science/universe etc.), gives meaning, for me, to our lives".

It's a tiny aside during his talk, and I'm careful not to read too much into it. But it does show that none of us are immune to this urge for meaning - even the most skeptical of us.

I'm one of those skeptics, and religion unfortunately does not provide me with any reassurance. But neither does science. I know flip all about it, so how could it?

Surely science can only provide meaning to those who are actively engaged in it - who are culturally bound to it - who work within it etc.

I can understand how someone like Krauss, or Dawkins can find meaning in science, but tbh, most of the people I speak to on a daily basis know as much about science, or the big bang as they do the books of the bible - not very much (to put it politely).

Delirium · 20-03-2015 09:29AM

marienbad wrote: »

I think it is even more clear that you offer nothing more than bluster, repeated assertions, ad hominem and circularity.

It would appear you don't like this thread very much , I wonder why ?

Please keep to the topic and avoid personal remarks.

Thanks for your attention.

tommy2bad · 20-03-2015 09:38AM

orubiru wrote: »

Can you explain how its a bad example though? The point was more to show how there was no "first speaker of Italian" in the same way that there was no "first human".

The point was to show that when we are talking about something that emerges from an already existing state we tend to apply labels after the fact.

So Mans concept of morality would have gradually emerged before we had put a label on it. We couldn't pinpoint the origin of "sin" because it wasn't something that just appeared at an arbitrary point in history.

This casts doubt on the hypothesis that God just gave us a choice between good and evil one day and Man said "eh, Evil!"

It was also a small part of my post so I am not sure if your point is that the use of one bad example invalidates everything said?

It's a bad example because Italian is as close to an invented language as we have. It's actually possible to pick the point of its inception.
ok it didn't invalidate your general point about evolution, a valid point in my opinion. At no point did humans become human as opposed to animal, not in the sense of their being a point of ensoulmensoulment as it were.
But their's an error here, this notion of a dual nature, body and soul.We are souls, we don't poses one nor are we possessed by a soul. Theirs no point when man became man, he was always man from the first moment of creation. What form he took is not relevant, man's place as gods image is not based on our physical form.

looksee · 20-03-2015 10:23AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Theirs no point when man became man, he was always man from the first moment of creation. What form he took is not relevant, man's place as gods image is not based on our physical form.

So when man took the form of a single-celled organism right back at the start he was then man. In spite of the fact that some SCOs became tortoises, fish, elephants etc. Would there be a specific way of identifying the ones that were man? And which particular form was in god's image? We are told that god made man in his image, so god could be a single celled organism?

Cen taurus · 20-03-2015 11:29AM

looksee wrote: »

So when man took the form of a single-celled organism right back at the start he was then man. In spite of the fact that some SCOs became tortoises, fish, elephants etc. Would there be a specific way of identifying the ones that were man? And which particular form was in god's image? We are told that god made man in his image, so god could be a single celled organism?

This was talked about a few pages back. Scripture describes God as a spirit, and God's image in man, is in his soul, not his physical appearance. Science's current estimate for the emergence of anatomically modern human is somewhere around 200,000 years ago. At what point during the evolution of man, did God chose to differentiate humankind from other species and give him an eternal soul, and where man becomes morally accountable for his freewill, actions and decisions, we do not know, as scripture only gives a very figurative summary of the first 14 billion years of the universe, development of life on earth, and evolution, in three very short chapters, Genesis 1-3. Genesis's subject is man's soul, and his relationship with God, not physicality. Man does not have all the answers. True science and true religion don't conflict, they both seek what is true, and the truth is the truth, physical and spiritual, and not until everything is know by man, will his knowledge of both converge.

orubiru · 20-03-2015 11:35AM

MaxWig wrote: »

And these debates always falter on this point.

What is provable really is irrelevant to religious belief.

Science has very little to, if anything, to say about those gaps in our experience that religion, or spirituality attempt to fill.

I was listening to Lawrence Krauss and Dawkins talking about religion on youtube recently, and Krauss came out with the following;

"The remarkable fact that we're conscious, that we're able to ask these questions (science/universe etc.), gives meaning, for me, to our lives".

It's a tiny aside during his talk, and I'm careful not to read too much into it. But it does show that none of us are immune to this urge for meaning - even the most skeptical of us.

I'm one of those skeptics, and religion unfortunately does not provide me with any reassurance. But neither does science. I know flip all about it, so how could it?

Surely science can only provide meaning to those who are actively engaged in it - who are culturally bound to it - who work within it etc.

I can understand how someone like Krauss, or Dawkins can find meaning in science, but tbh, most of the people I speak to on a daily basis know as much about science, or the big bang as they do the books of the bible - not very much (to put it politely).

I agree with you here in that most people do not have a deep understanding of science or the bible. Of course, someone who understands Cosmology at a high level probably does not understand Evolutionary Biology at the same level. The time it takes to become an expert in these fields is so long that you can't know everything about all of it.

That leaves the rest of us sitting here trying to make our points as best we can.

However, I would say that in the past you would be able to take a kid aside and explain to them that Evolution or The Big Bang are just the "faith" of scientists and it may be a long time before they realize that this is not the case. In the past, it would have been possible for an adult to go through their whole life without anyone questioning, or ridiculing their belief system.

Now that we have the internet and message boards such as this one, it can be difficult for a 55 year old religious man, who believes that the story of Noah and the flood was a historical event, to discover that a 15 year old kid can tear apart their belief without much effort and with much mocking and laughter.

I think that the more specific you are about your religious belief the more open it is to questioning and attack. There is a difference between believing that the story of Noah is just a story containing spiritual truth, to saying that there was a huge flood at some point, to saying that the entire world was flooded and everything died, to saying that God caused a flood because Man had become wicked and, by the way here are the specifications for the Ark and also there were dinosaurs on the Ark also.

A lot of effort is made by intelligent religious folks to avoid stating their beliefs specifically because they know that the weaknesses are in these specific details.

I think it is demonstrated pretty well on the thread where a lot of people will avoid detailing the specifics of their religious belief.

This can also be seen in the approach of guys like Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind and Ken Ham etc. It's more of an effort to "debunk" science by twisting definitions or by finding one inaccuracy, or poorly presented point, and then saying "see this is just their faith, and we have our faith and both are equally valid".

The problem with these debates is that if you are not an Atheist then you are bringing some kind of belief or claim to the table and you need to be able to specifically describe and explain that. Unfortunately, and Atheist simply lacks belief and not being able to provide evidence is kind of frustrating for someone arguing the religious point of view.

It's not like "I believe that God created us in one day and answers prayers" versus "I believe that God started the process of Evolution and now just observes us". Those are both faith based positions that can be argued for or against to the satisfaction of the debaters.

"I believe X" versus "If you don't have proof then I can't believe X" is VERY different from "I believe X" versus "I believe Y".

The biggest problem I've seen on this thread is people trying to equate "If you don't have proof then I can't believe X" with "I believe Y".

Cen taurus · 20-03-2015 11:40AM

orubiru wrote: »

However, I would say that in the past you would be able to take a kid aside and explain to them that Evolution or The Big Bang are just the "faith" of scientists and it may be a long time before they realize that this is not the case.

Given that the big bang theory was first proposed by Catholic Priest and Physicist Georges Lemaitre, and that the largest Christian denomination, Catholicism, endorses the theory of evolution, why would you do that ?

MaxWig · 20-03-2015 11:41AM

orubiru wrote: »

Now that we have the internet and message boards such as this one, it can be difficult for a 55 year old religious man, who believes that the story of Noah and the flood was a historical event, to discover that a 15 year old kid can tear apart their belief without much effort and with much mocking and laughter.

"The last thing man can admit to himself is that his life-ways are arbitrary: this is one of the reasons that people often show derisive glee and scorn over the 'strange' customs of others — it is a defense against the awareness that his own way of life may be just as fundamentally contrived as any other. One culture is always a potential menace to another because it is a living example that life can go on heroically with a value framework totally alien to one's own."

orubiru · 20-03-2015 12:10PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Given that the big bang theory was first proposed by Catholic Priest and Physicist Georges Lemaitre, and that the largest Christian denomination, Catholicism, endorses the theory of evolution, why would you do that ?

I wouldn't do it personally but there are many people who do.

I know that you have no problem with the big bang theory or with the theory of evolution but there are definitely religious people out there, Christians even, that do indeed try to push the idea that Evolution, for example, is "just a theory".

Personally, I don't think that there is anything I have seen that contradicts the idea of "God". However, there is plenty that contradicts specific beliefs or claims about God or Religion (the historicity of the Noah story, for example).

TheLurker · 20-03-2015 12:30PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Man does not have all the answers. True science and true religion don't conflict, they both seek what is true, and the truth is the truth, physical and spiritual, and not until everything is know by man, will his knowledge of both converge.

This nonsense again. I see going on holiday for a few days little has changed.

The philosophy of science says that the claims that religions make as true should not be claimed as true because they cannot be supported.

If these claims could be supported then the processes used to make these claims would be part of the scientific process. If we could learn truths about the universe by reading a holy book we have decided is true, that would be PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS

It isn't, and it isn't for a reason. It is because it is not reliable and determinations about the true nature of reality should not be based off it. That is what science says.

As such people should not consider religion claims reliable and determinations about the true nature of reality should not be based off them. Despite this religious people do this all the time.

That is where the conflict between science and religion exists. Any religion claiming anything about reality is being anti-science.

This nonsense about different realms of exploration is just that, nonsense.

There is no difference between claiming you have determined God exists after reading the Bible and saying that you have decided light is a fluctuation in the Luminiferous aether. Both are claims about reality.

orubiru · 20-03-2015 12:34PM

MaxWig wrote: »

"The last thing man can admit to himself is that his life-ways are arbitrary: this is one of the reasons that people often show derisive glee and scorn over the 'strange' customs of others — it is a defense against the awareness that his own way of life may be just as fundamentally contrived as any other. One culture is always a potential menace to another because it is a living example that life can go on heroically with a value framework totally alien to one's own."

I think sometimes though scorn is really the only option available.

For example, I don't believe it would be possible to engage this guy (video link below) in a reasonable conversation. He's still trying to "debunk" Evolution by misrepresenting what Evolution actually is.

We can choose to say "well, you could be right" or we could react more appropriately and say "No, you fool. Read a book! No, not THAT book!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khiXBY6aUOg

TheLurker · 20-03-2015 12:49PM

Nick Park wrote: »

So what, if human DNA contains DNA from Neanderthals? That doesn't alter the fact that, however you define human, someone reached that point first. So, let's say you set a percentage of certain DNA as the criteria, it is a logical certainty that someone was the first to possess that percentage of rthe required DNA.

The problem with defining 'human' that way is that you have defined all of us as 'not human', since we would evolved away from that first human.

So that doesn't work as a definition of human because any meaningful definition of human needs to contain the current modern population and its genetic variation.

This the flaw of thinking of evolution as the continued upward march of progress, rather than what it really is which is a continuously fluxing organic system. You can lose characteristics as easily as you gain them. We have no doubt lost many characteristics from this supposed first human.

The characteristics that make up the modern human would have appeared slowly over time and not all at the same time. As our ancestors mated with each other they would have come together, but equally new ones would have appeared that the previous human didn't have. And they have continued to appear and be lost as our species has continued to evolve.

You can arbitrarily pick the DNA of a particular ancestor and say 'he was the first human', but he would have shared more genetic similarity with his parents than he would with us, so if he is human but his parents were not humans then neither are we since we have drifted far further away from this human than he drifted from his parents.

MaxWig · 20-03-2015 01:36PM

TheLurker wrote: »

The problem with defining 'human' that way is that you have defined all of us as 'not human', since we would evolved away from that first human.

So that doesn't work as a definition of human because any meaningful definition of human needs to contain the current modern population and its genetic variation.

I think the only useful definition of what it means to be human in the context of a discussion on religion has to move away from scientific definition entirely.

We are animals. Plain and simple.

But that reality is not good enough to explain our situation. We are half in nature, and half out.
We stick out - and we feel that remove from the rest of the natural kingdom.

I think the idea of the fall, although I'm not very learned on the subject, is interesting in that context.

I for one do not entertain the idea that there is a literal element to these stories or myths - but they lose no value for me as a result.

I do not feel like an animal - I feel different! For me, that is what it is to be human.

In terms of science, and our reliance on it - It seems we are only so willing to rely on it when it suits.

How many would be in favour of the abandonment of the retributive justice system in the morning?

People, if we are to believe science, have no choice but to act as they do, and yet we punish them on a daily basis for their actions.

I find religious messages interesting for this reason.

On the one hand we reject religion as obsolete, and on the other we speak of evil (for instance).

Surely we can't have it both ways.

TheLurker · 20-03-2015 02:03PM

MaxWig wrote: »

I think the idea of the fall, although I'm not very learned on the subject, is interesting in that context.

I for one do not entertain the idea that there is a literal element to these stories or myths - but they lose no value for me as a result.

I do not feel like an animal - I feel different! For me, that is what it is to be human.

What are you comparing that to?

What does it feel like to feel like an animal?

Do you mean you do not feel like you imagine it would feel like to be an animal? If so then this is a rather meaningless statement since what you imagine it feels like to be an animal is neither hear nor there.

First of all we are a different species of animal to other animals. It is bound to be a different feeling to being an ant to a dog. The idea that all these animals feel similiar but we feel different is nonsensical.

Secondly who are you going to ask what it feels like to be an animal? No other animal other than a human can communicate feelings.

Or to put it another way, how do you know a dog doesn't feel exactly the same as you do :pac:

MaxWig wrote: »

How many would be in favour of the abandonment of the retributive justice system in the morning?

People, if we are to believe science, have no choice but to act as they do, and yet we punish them on a daily basis for their actions.

Science doesn't say that. Sciencentific study has shown that punishment is rarely effective in preventing crime though. So I would agree we often abandon science for gut feelings ie harsh punishment will stop future crime (it doesn't), though not for the reason you stated.

Often people are scared to abandon 'common sense' when science is telling a different story. Why we still have religions floating around

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments