Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Milton · 08-13-2003, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
No, I am making a philosophical point independent of the Biblical god or the Mormon god or polytheistic gods.

The argument: the universe points to an external reality (god or gods) that underlies it.

The counter-question: so why doesn't this external reality (god or gods) point to a superexternal reality (meta-god or meta-gods) that underlies it?

If you had stated it this way, then it would have been legitimate. But you did not do it this way. You asked "what is God evidence of", which, though in your mind is the same, in reality it is not. As I pointed out.

Quote:

You close the ad infinitum road by saying, "stop at God".

Again, only because your question required that we take into consideration the definition of God. But if you had asked what you stated a passage above, then would one have been required to answer why we think God is the end.

Quote:

And I say against that, "just stop at the universe". The universe is evidence for nothing but itself. It just is. There is no need to assume a god or gods underlying it. Such a claim can only be backed by evidence, not by an axiomatic assumption (X points to Y).

So, do you believe in eternal motion? Or do you believe there was a point at which the universe began, wherefore, existence was static before that?

SignOfTheCross · 08-13-2003, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlessNot
[B]What facts do you have that he exists other than faith ? Like I said in my OP, his presence was very evident in Genesis and the OT, so why all the silence of his presence today? Could it be because men have run out of options to create another god in their image?

God is very active in society today. Just because you do not see Him does not mean He does not exist, yes, I quote, "He works in mysterious ways". Public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, so now we await the return of Christ. No, we don't have facts of God's existence, we have personal revelation and evidence of what myself and many other Christians see as pointing in the direction of a deity.

Quote:

I would say that evolution is more then just a theory it is more of a scientific fact. What evidence are you using to proove we were created in god's image, the story of Adam and Eve? BTW, did god create them as adults with no brain capacity? It seems like if they were adults, he created them clueless and ignorant. They didn't know right from wrong. hmmm.... I think we humans are evidence that we evolved and were not created.

Evolution is not a scientific fact, it is not proven, I don't think it ever will be. All scientific theories require a certain element of faith, but as plausible as they may seem, until they are proven they should never be taught as fact, or used to "prove" other arguements wrong. God created Adam and Eve good, however, through our pride and disobedience to God we chose wrong, gained knowledge of sin and are in need of a saviour. What these two did really has nothing to do with if we were created or evolved, or created through evolution.

Quote:

I believe that primitive men started religion and belief in a deity when they witnessed the first bolt of lightening. Is that self evident enough for you? It must have been for them too. Ignorance found god a long time ago, so it seems to me.

I don't think belief in a deity was founded on such ignorance. A lightning bolt would do nothing to change the perception of mans reality.

Quote:

Do you think that hurricanes, tornadoes and storms is evidence of god creating the universe? Is that the sign of perfection?

I'm not sure of the theological answer to these questions, so I will not comment, but they don't "prove" or "disprove" God, that I know.

Peace,
SOTC

CaptainOfOuterSpace · 08-13-2003, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
God is very active in society today.

Evidence?

Quote:

Public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle

Why?

Quote:

No, we don't have facts of God's existence, we have personal revelation

And, of course, you prefer this over facts?

Quote:

and evidence of what myself and many other Christians see as pointing in the direction of a deity.

Which is?

Quote:

Evolution is not a scientific fact, it is not proven, I don't think it ever will be. All scientific theories require a certain element of faith, but as plausible as they may seem, until they are proven they should never be taught as fact, or used to "prove" other arguements wrong.

Well then you're talking about a different kind of "faith." Scientific "faith" comes from the fact that scientific theories are based on observable evidence and give us testable predictions. Your brand of "faith," however, means believing something for which no evidence exists.

Quote:

God created Adam and Eve good,

Then why did they commit a sin?

Quote:

however, through our pride and disobedience to God we chose wrong,

Who is "we"?

Quote:

I don't think belief in a deity was founded on such ignorance. A lightning bolt would do nothing to change the perception of mans reality.

Well, at least you believe it was founded.

Heathen Dawn · 08-13-2003, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Milton
So, do you believe in eternal motion? Or do you believe there was a point at which the universe began, wherefore, existence was static before that?

I accept the current model of the Big Bang. The universe began at some point. Quantum cosmology is definitely not my field, but it explains the concept of naturalistic creation ex nihilo.

Quote:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec15.html

"A common question that is asked when considering a Creation point in time is 'What is before the Big Bang?'. This type is question is meaningless or without context since time was created with the Big Bang. It is similar to asking 'What is north of the North Pole?'. The question itself can not be phrased in a meaningful way."

Wyz_sub10 · 08-13-2003, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
Evolution is not a scientific fact, it is not proven, I don't think it ever will be. All scientific theories require a certain element of faith, but as plausible as they may seem, until they are proven they should never be taught as fact, or used to "prove" other arguements wrong.

Feel free to make this argument in the Evolution/Creation forum and let me know how it turns out.

Being ignorant of the facts does not mean those facts do not exist.

SignOfTheCross · 08-13-2003, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
Feel free to make this argument in the Evolution/Creation forum and let me know how it turns out.

Being ignorant of the facts does not mean those facts do not exist.

I am ignorant of the facts, but it does not mean I am not evolutionist. What I do know is that evolution cannot be taught as a fact because it is not proven.

Peace,
SOTC

markfiend · 08-14-2003, 03:23 AM

SOTC: What I do know is that evolution cannot be taught as a fact because it is not proven.

By this argument gravity cannot be taught as a fact, because gravity, too, is not proven. No scientific theory can ever be proven 100%, only disproven by evidence that contradicts the theory.

This doesn't stop NASA from using the theory of gravity to predict the orbits of the Space Shuttle, because there is no evidence that contradicts gravity (unless you get to a significant proportion of the speed of light, or other situations in which relativity theory is a closer approximation than Newtonian gravity, such as the orbit of Mercury)

Similarly, there is no evidence that contradicts evolution. It is "just a theory", true, but a very well attested one, and almost everyone involved in biological science accepts it as a fact. If this were not the case, there would effectively be no biological sciences.

Milton · 08-14-2003, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by markfiend
SOTC: What I do know is that evolution cannot be taught as a fact because it is not proven.

By this argument gravity cannot be taught as a fact, because gravity, too, is not proven. No scientific theory can ever be proven 100%, only disproven by evidence that contradicts the theory.

Always the same silly response.

I can feel gravity, but I can't see this so darwinian evolution you speak of. And NO, there is a difference between micro and macro, no matter how much you wish it to not be.

CaptainOfOuterSpace · 08-14-2003, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Milton
I can feel gravity, but I can't see this so darwinian evolution you speak of.

What a coincidence; I can't see this "god" you speak of!

Some scientific theories are more complex than others. Not all theories apply only to things that can be "seen." For example, the fact that the Earth is spherical is very counter-intuitive (on a small scale, it feels suspiciously flat). That's why it took centuries for people to come to grips with this fact. It's only a matter of time for evolution, as well.

BTW, there's just about as much evidence against evolution as there is against a spherical earth.

Kruzkal · 08-14-2003, 05:27 AM

Many thiests claim:

Universe did not exist before [insert date here (15 billion years ago is a common one)], therefore [insert god here] created it.

Assertion A - Universe did not exist before whenever.

Does not in imply

Assertion B - Whichever god created the universe.

A and B are independent assertions. To claim A leads to B, you are making a further assertion:

Assertion C - A implies B

Note there are more assertions assumed to be true by the claim:

Assertion D - Whichever god exists.

Assertion E - Whichever god has the ability to create the universe.

Each assertions require evidence to support indepentently!

__________________

Nobody's perfect
I am a nobody
Therefore
I am perfect

08-14-2003, 05:27 AM	#30
Kruzkal Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Void Posts: 77	Logic Many thiests claim: Universe did not exist before [insert date here (15 billion years ago is a common one)], therefore [insert god here] created it. Assertion A - Universe did not exist before whenever. Does not in imply Assertion B - Whichever god created the universe. A and B are independent assertions. To claim A leads to B, you are making a further assertion: Assertion C - A implies B Note there are more assertions assumed to be true by the claim: Assertion D - Whichever god exists. Assertion E - Whichever god has the ability to create the universe. Each assertions require evidence to support indepentently! __________________ Nobody's perfect I am a nobody Therefore I am perfect

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-14-2003, 03:23 AM	#27
markfiend Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: The People's Republic of West Yorkshire Posts: 498	SOTC: What I do know is that evolution cannot be taught as a fact because it is not proven. By this argument gravity cannot be taught as a fact, because gravity, too, is not proven. No scientific theory can ever be proven 100%, only disproven by evidence that contradicts the theory. This doesn't stop NASA from using the theory of gravity to predict the orbits of the Space Shuttle, because there is no evidence that contradicts gravity (unless you get to a significant proportion of the speed of light, or other situations in which relativity theory is a closer approximation than Newtonian gravity, such as the orbit of Mercury) Similarly, there is no evidence that contradicts evolution. It is "just a theory", true, but a very well attested one, and almost everyone involved in biological science accepts it as a fact. If this were not the case, there would effectively be no biological sciences.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.