Freethought & Rationalism Archive

enfant terrible · 08-09-2003, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
What do you think about the recent San Diego decision on the Boy Scouts. Would the same decision have been handed down if the Scouts was an atheist organization?

The decision is correct.

What do you mean by "atheist organization"? If you mean something like this forum, which accepts everyone, then obviously the decision ought not be the same, but the comparison makes no sense. If you mean an organization that excludes those who believe in God, then the decision should, and would, be the same.

Gee, this was difficult!

enfant terrible · 08-09-2003, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I knew there was a reason why I had an exponent in there. Please change to:

Physicist #3 concludes F = ma^1.000013, and his model fits the data better than #1, but not perfectly.

OK, correction accepted. I withdraw the criticism.

enfant terrible · 08-09-2003, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Why is it that, if there exists phenomena undescribable by science, we could not be aware of it?

Isn't it trivial? Everything that we perceive with senses is obviously describable by science. Even if we were aware of other things, wouldn't that just mean there are sense-like mechanisms we currently don't know of? I simply cannot imagine being aware of something, but not being able to describe it in scientific terms.

Quote:

How about love?

You can't be serious. How in the world is love not describable by science?

enfant terrible · 08-09-2003, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
If you believe that the DNA code or echolocation are examples of things which are likely to have fallen together, then you are clearly exercising faith.

I find your commonplace fallacies boring. It doesn't matter if they are "likely". Do you play bridge? There are several billion possible bridge hands, i.e. the probability of getting any given bridge hand is one in several billion - very unlikely indeed. So do you conclude, when you pick up your cards and see your hand, that it is so unlikely that you got it that it must have required divine intervention? If not, then why would you conclude that for other unlikely events observed after the fact?

Shadowy Man · 08-09-2003, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Why does the God hypothesis explain nothing? Presumably because God is sovereign. He can create beauty, harmony, and perfection according to our sensibilities, but he can also create the stubbornness of the donkey.

Actually, the stubbornness of the donkey was created by JoJo the Power Monkey, who works in Department C.

Charles Darwin · 08-09-2003, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by enfant terrible
Nonsense. I don't know anything about you, so I don't know (with absolute certainty) that you are not capable of creating the world. To be precise, I am pretty sure you are not capable of it, but I am at least equally sure "God" (however you want to define him) is not capable of it. (In your case, at least there is evidence you exist.)

Can you provide any argument why "God" would be more likely than you to have created the Universe?

Because God is capable of it and I am not.

Quote:

Originally posted by enfant terrible
No strawmen please. I did not say it was spontaneous. That would imply there was something before it. I will repeat, very slowly, what I said. There are exactly two possibilities:

(1) The Big Bang started from a singularity. In that case, it is the boundary of time, and there is no "before". That means it did not "occur" at all - when we think of something (X, say) "occurring", we think of a change from not-X to X, which happens in time; there must be "before" and "after". In the case of BB there is only "after" and no conventional notion of "occurring" applies. And, if something did not "occur" in the first place, it is meaningless to ask whether it "occurred spontaneously" or "was caused by something".

(2) The Big Bang started from an extremely dense state which, however, was not a singularity. Then there is "before" even though space-time is so jumbled around that point that perhaps even a hundred Hawkings and Einsteins won't figure out how it worked. But the issue of "creation" is obviously moot in this case, as BB is here, by definition, a consequence of natural causes.

OK, very good. You think you've got 2 non metaphysical explanations -- actually according to the rules of this thread you only need one. So you pass.

About the Boy Scouts, you say the same decision should have been passed down if the scouts were atheistic and exclusionary on that basis. So your saying atheism is a religion? Maybe you don't pass ...

About phenomena that potentially could be outside of science's grasp (eg, love), you say you cannot understand how that could be if we can sense the phenomenon. You seem to be assuming a radical separation between the spirit and material realms. You seem unable to grasp the possibility that there may be interfaces between these two realms, such that we may be abke to sense things which we otherwise cannot describe very well with science.

Charles Darwin · 08-09-2003, 03:45 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles Darwin
If you believe that the DNA code or echolocation are examples of things which are likely to have fallen together, then you are clearly exercising faith.

Quote:

Originally posted by enfant terrible
I find your commonplace fallacies boring. It doesn't matter if they are "likely". Do you play bridge? There are several billion possible bridge hands, i.e. the probability of getting any given bridge hand is one in several billion - very unlikely indeed. So do you conclude, when you pick up your cards and see your hand, that it is so unlikely that you got it that it must have required divine intervention? If not, then why would you conclude that for other unlikely events observed after the fact?

If you are looking for fallacies you ought to look closer to home -- you just floated a classic. Did you know that it is possible for a wind to part the waters; and did you further know that it is possible for this to happen right when a lion is bearing down on me; and did you further know that it is possible for the wind to let up right after I've safely passed? Oh but, of course, this was just another possibility (in fact it is probably a far more likely event than the evolution of the DNA code or echolocation). Maybe I should have entitled this thread: "Does atheism entail absurdity?"

Demigawd · 08-09-2003, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
*An invisible god-man who lives in the sky* (!?) is a compelling explanation for biology? You've got to be kidding. Have you been living in a 2000+ years old culture or something?

Fixed your statement for you, Charlie. Contemplate it with critical thought.

Charles Darwin · 08-09-2003, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Demigawd

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles Darwin
*An invisible god-man who lives in the sky* (!?) is a compelling explanation for biology? You've got to be kidding. Have you been living in a 2000+ years old culture or something?

Fixed your statement for you, Charlie. Contemplate it with critical thought.

Sorry, I don't quite follow. Let's see, biological life forms are the most complex things known, even now we've only scratched the surface of many areas of biology, and the idea that life evolved is a pipe dream. Now why is it that God not a good explanation for biology?

Demigawd · 08-09-2003, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Sorry, I don't quite follow. Let's see, biological life forms are the most complex things known, even now we've only scratched the surface of many areas of biology, and the idea that life evolved is a pipe dream. Now why is it that God not a good explanation for biology?

"[B]ioligical life forms are the most complex things known..." Really? What do you base this judgement upon? Have you studied astronomy and the relation between galaxies, solar systems, planets, etc.?

Considering biological entities to be more complex than anything else is a case of anthromorphizing the universe, because you are a biological entity.

All you have done in this forum is argue, without warrant, that we humans are somehow special, and therefore removed, from the reality around us. To give validity to the argument, you consult one of the many mythologies humans have imagined throughout the millenia we have existed. Do you have anything beyond wishful thinking to back up your claims?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.