Carin Nel

Here we go again.
But to quote a lawyer, Irwin H. Linton," There is a place for skepticism as well as a place for faith; and in considering an investment or embracing a religion, skepticism should come first. So you may be skeptic.
But no proof? To quote your words: "all with exactly zero evidence" Come on, Diogenes! You just cannot accept any proof or evidence, because then you have to be against all that you have stood for! It would also make you "disloyal" to your Atheist circle of friends!
But did you know that an Agnostic like dr. Jastrow (http://www.nss.org/about/bios/jastrow.html) shocked his coleagues by admitting at a national conference of the Association for the Advancement of Science that the evidence seems to demand an inteligent Creator of the universe. He also found the courage to write:
"Astronomers are curiously upset by..proof that the universe had a beginning. Their reaction provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind-supposedly a very objective mind-when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith n their profession..There is a kind of religion in science"
Eminent British Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle reminds us of the mathematical fact that "even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" the chance of producing the basic enzymes of life by random processes without intelligent direction would be approximately one in 10 with 40,000 zeros after it. In other words, it couldn't happen-ever!
Says Hoyle, "Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide [sequence] right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for survival"
Why then is this completely impossible theory still honoured?
Hoyle accuses the evolutionists of defending a "religious faith" The mathematical impossibility is well known to genetics and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory.
Most scientists still cling to Darwinism because of its grip on the educational system..You either have to believe the concepts, or you will be branded a heretic."

The list is very long, but I am willing to go on if you are interested.

As I've said before, it takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe.

This is obviously not the right thread for this topic!!
So we will go on forever jumping from one thread to the next and nothing will change (?). At least I read a lot!
Regards,
Carin Nel

Katastrophikus

But, Carin, why do you assume that the fault lies with him. What makes you so sure? Why can't you "accept any proof or evidence, because then you have to be against all that you have stood for! It would make you "disloyal" to you Theist circle of friends!"

What you are forgetting, Carin, is that almost every single Atheist has been through religion, and was curious enough to ask for answers. We have evaluated religion and found it wanting. You, on the other hand, do not have the experience of evaluating both sides.

No. Proof denies faith: the more facts and support one has, the less faith one needs. Right now, as factual support stands, non-beleivers require very little faith. They are not the ones dancing between statements, and juggling contradictory beliefs in order to make them fit.

Julian

I have noticed that you are not answering my posts but I will reply to this nonetheless.
We are loyal to the evidence, wherever it may lead. This is the 'poisoning the well' logical fallacy. Bad, Carin, bad.
No they are not. This is a strawman. No one knows if the universe had a beginning or what it was like.
More nonsense. There is no religion in science. If you think there is you will have to demonstrate it. Good luck.
Eminent? This would be the Fred Hoyle who proposed the discredited theory of the steady-state universe? The astronomer who is widely disregarded because of his easily disproved theories? Don't believe me? Read someone else's stuff then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
Strawman argument. Displays a complete inability to grasp the facts and basic statistical math. Tsk, tsk, tsk... So if you win the lottery you should just throw out the ticket, right? I mean, after all, the odds of you winning are so remote that it is impossible, right? Would you throw out the winning ticket?
He clearly didn't understand. I wouldn't use Fred Hoyle since he is not very well respected. Again, don't take my word for it, see my link above.
Because it is not only very possible, it has been observed, proven and is the only theory around. Anything else?
What do you think the reason is? What is the reason that all the smartest people on the planet accept this theory? One guess should be enough...
Wrong, wrong, wrong... What a bizarre mindset... A complete failure to grasp the issue and the facts surrounding it.
Please, don't. This is embarrassing enough as it is.
And just when I thought we could not get any more bizarre, we get this outlandish statement. This is false on so many levels it would take book to show how wrong this is.
You may read a lot, but your posts show no understanding. It may sound like an insult, but it is not meant as such, just a statement of fact. You won't understand why I wrote this but the readers of this thread will get it.

Julian

Diogenes the Cynic

On the contrary. I'd be happy to accept evidence and proof. I'm an empiricist. I want to know what's true. I have no emotional investment in anything else, nor do I have much of a circle of atheist friends outside of my online acquaintances. My wife is a Christian. My kids are baptized in her church, my oldest goes to a Catholic school. My loyalty to my own wife and kids would supercede any loyalty to a "circle of friends," but I'm just a person who is congenitally incapable of believing in anything without proof and incapable of believing in magic especially. If you have proof, I'd love to see it but so far you haven't produced any, nor has anyone else.
Your link doesn't work for me but this quote is patently false. Astronomers have no problem at all believing that the universe had a beginning and neither do I. There's nothing startling about that neither does it imply anything supernatural.
Hoyle is full of crap. For one thing, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution only tells us what happened AFTER life began, not HOW it began, so any conflation of evolution with abiogenesis (the beginning of life) already betrays either ignorance or dishonesty (or both) on the part of anyone who does it.

secondly, the statistical arguments against abiogenesis are based on multiple fallcies and assumptions. For instance, it is falsely assumed that the process is "random." It is not. It is also assumed that there was a sudden jump from random chemicals to a living cell. That's also false. there are multiple steps in between, all of which are perfectly plausible (even inevitable) results of natural processes. The biggest fallcy in this kind of argument, though, is that it draws a bullseye around an arrow and then says 'what are the chances the arrow would have hit dead center?'

Grab a bucket of golf balls and take them up to the roof of your house. Now take your driver and tee off on each ball, one by one, spraying them randomly in whatever direction you want. Now go own and retrieve the balls and mark the spot for where each ball landed. Now go back up to the roof and try to get each exact ball to land in exactly the same spot. what are the chances you can do it again? how many tries would it take you? a billion? a trillion? It would be petty much impossible, right? I guess that proves you didn't do it the first time.

That's what statistical arguments against abiogenesis (not evolution, evolution is a proven fact regardless of how life began) do. What they really are is arguments against something happening AGAIN in exactly the same way. They are not evidence against it happening the first time, and the data manipulated and exaggerated anyway by the false assumptions i mentioned above.
Hoyle is a discredited clown. Evolution is a proven fact an it has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
It takes no faith at all to NOT believe something, so that's a logically senseless statement.

So, I notice you didn't answer my question. How is anyone supposed to know that Christianity is true if there isn't a shred of proof and why would it be a virtue simply to guess it?

Sven

I just wanted to clarify one thing which might lead to confusion. The statements below sound contradictory at first sight:
Problem is, that one first has to agree what is actually meant by "beginning of the universe". So far, we only have the Big Bang theory, which does not say anything about the "start" - or if there even was a start. It only describes what happened in the early times of the expansion of the universe. We can extrapolate back to "zero time", but then we run into the next problem:

The Big Bang theory is based on General Relativity - which we already know does not apply to the earliest times, because quantum effects become dominant then. And so far, we've not managed to combine General Relativity with Quantum Theory.

So Julian is exactly right: No one knows if the universe had a beginning or what it was like.

But I think Diogenes is also right: If the universe were shown to have a beginning, astronomers most probably would have no problem with this (I think it's rather cosmologists who are meant here - astronomers have other areas of interest).

Carin Nel

OK, help me out here - am I right that there are two views of origins - One says that everything came about by natural causes ; the other looks to a supernatural cause. In the case of the origin of the universe, either the universe had a beginning or it did not. If it did have a beginning, then it was caused or uncaused. If it was caused, then what kind of cause would be responsible for bringing all things into being?

Interesting article in Sunday Times UK-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...220484,00.html

Diogenes, I'm still thinking how I can answer you...

Regards,
Carin Nel

Julian

Not true. Those are not the two only options. Try Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, for example, to read about some of the complex theories on this topic. Dr. Victor Stenger, et al., have also written on this topic. It is a subject that can no longer be speculated on by lay-people, it has grown in complexity beyond what can generally be understood by someone without the requisite training. That includes me, unfortunately, I only know enough to know that I don't know enough.

Julian

aperfectstranger

A scientist "gets god" and now we have to somehow believe that to be an impressive argument for the existence of such a being? Do I understand you correctly? Moreover, he becomes religious after reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis? He comes over as a children's writer (which he was) compared to the apologist heavyweights and rebuttals to this book of his are easy to come by. Carin, would you accept testimony from theists who are are not Christians or even atheists simply because they are eminent scientists? How do people believing something prove it exists?

Koyaanisqatsi

The same as yours; whatever I choose it to be. The only difference between the two of us is that I don't pretend the purpose is backed up by an imaginary, idealized extention of the human psyche. I require no Zeuss to measure myself against, or fear reprisals from if I fail to live up to my own standards.

See above.

Pick your theory as to when and how. As for a "reason," the reason was because that's what happens to matterenergy.

In what? Faith that ancient Jewish cult mythologies are in fact non-fictional accounts of the dead rising from their graves? Or there's a burning lake of fire for people who don't believe in an "all loving God?" Or an ethereal paradise for those who did (depending, of course, on said God's temperament, of course)? Or 72 Virgins in that paradise for anyone who martyrs him or herself by killing unbelievers? Or Poseidon's power over the oceans? Or Santa Clause? Or Leprechauns?

Stop me when I get close to what you're asking I have faith in.

Actually, I can tell you directly; I have faith that humans are an extremely gullible, easily manipulated species who are so terrified of death that they will "have faith" in the most ridiculous concepts imaginable, so long as it means they don't have to go to sleep at night wondering whether or not they're going to wake up the next day.

And no, I don't mind you asking at all, regardless of the fact that it conveniently allows you to shift from being on the defensive of your beliefs and on the offensive against what you misperceive mine to be.

Sven

The evidence points to an uncaused universe (since we need quantum physics to describe its very early time). OK, one could say that vacuum fluctuations caused it, but since they are (most probably) uncaused, we are back at an uncaused universe.

This guy was impressed by C.S.Lewis :wide:
How stupid can one get?