Doubting Didymus

What I mean, van, is that you came here asking genuine questions about evolutionary science, have made several large critiques of chromosomal fusion, which we are in the process of discussing.

You have just recently, however, degenerated into run-of-the-mill, rehashed christian apologist catch-phrases that we have all seen a thousand times before. I am just a little dissapointed, that's all.

To actually answer your big bad toughie, I don't bloody know. However, if you are going to say 'therefore it was the christian god', or any other theological cop-out like 'some kind of higher being did it' I will apply your own logic to you:

This is not a demonstration, but merely hypothesis. I've grown weary of such assertions found in credulous creation science texts, which uncritically feed undemonstrable theology to unwary young people.

Or, if you would prefer to apply a different stadard of proof only to your intellectual opponents, here is my response in my own words: Physics is currently in the process of making several fairly impressive breakthroughs in the nature of the universe, and several theories exist that explain exactly why the universe exists, rather than not existing. In the complete abscence of any workable theories coming from theology and philosophy, I choose to believe that physics is progressing toward a definitive answer to this question.

Do you really expect us to all drop to our knees, saying 'oh goodness, he's got us there, something exists, hmm I never thought of that before, gee, I'd better rethink my silly silly faith in science.'

Complete your theory, oh marvellous enlightener:

something exists, therefore:...

god?
pixies?
magic aardvarks?

Or: Therefore...

Vanderzyden

Remember, you don't know me well enough, yet.

What do you find in my dialogue that is particularly Christian--or apologetic?

Well, I appreciate this admission, DD. Nor do I, with absolute certainty.

But I'd like you to tell me why you don't agree that this is a suitable and sufficient answer for this particular question:

Why is there SOMETHING rather than NOTHING?

God did it.

Kevin Dorner

Unfortunately, this thread has been hijacked enough that it is no longer relevant to this forum. It is not closed where it is going, so you may follow it to its new home and feel free to continue there.

Doubting Didymus

Because, as an explanation, it is 100% as effective as 'leprechauns did it'.

There is no more evidence that god created the universe than there is that leprechauns did it. If there WAS evidence for god and not for leprechauns, then the explanation 'god did it' WOULD be an acceptable explanation.

The key question is about evidence. If there is evidence for god, then we can consider him as a hypothesis, if there is not evidence, or importantly, if that evidence applies equally to leprechauns or made up magic aardvarks, then it it not good enough evidence.

'God did it' is an acceptable scientific hypothesis, contrary to much opinion. What is not acceptable is 'god did it, and evidence for this is unneccesary'

If the god hypothesis had confirmable evidence, it would be considered in science. All we ask is some way of testing whether or not god is made up.

Trekkie With a Phaser

I know you were responding to Doubting Didymus, but I hope you don't mind if others respond as well.

The main flaw I see with this argument is the same one that's been propogated throughout the centuries. That is the flawed belief that if we don't understand something right now, it must be magic (or gods or whatever you happen to have a predilection towards believing). So the argument that something exists instead of nothing, therefore god exists is falling back to that old and corrupt way of thinking. Furthermore, which god(s) and/or goddesses would you think exist. There have been thousands of different religions since humans came into existence and almost all of them have their own particular creation myth. To play devils advocate, if I agreed with you that we should take the stance that a higher power must exist because the universe exists, which one should I believe in and why? On top of that, how would this higher power have come into existence. If it created our universe, what created it?

Anyway, these are my main objections with the argument you gave.

(Gah! Didymus beat me to it.)

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Trekkie With a Phaser ]</p>

Daggah

Maybe you'll figure it out (not bloody likely; as far as I can tell your brain is somewhat [hah!] disfunctional) when you figure out why "God did it" is also not a suitable and sufficient answer to the following questions:

How does it rain?

How does lightning come from the sky?

How do volcanoes erupt?

Why is the day separated into 24-hour periods of alternating light and darkness?

"God did it" is an answer suitable only for the weak and feeble-minded; it's a cop-out. It's also wrong - there's no god to do it.

Vanderzyden

1. Do leprechauns have a long-established religious tradition in their favor?

2. Is it fair to say that you will not consider non-scientific (e.g., historical) evidence?

3. This implies that you consider scientific endeavor to be the only valid pursuit of knowledge. That is, for you, science is knowledge. Would you amend that to include non-theistic scientific endeavor? Do you respect a equally qualified theistic scientist the same as one who is non-theistic?

Vanderzyden

Surely you do realize that authoritative statements have been which anticipate your unsupported opinion:

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

Doubting Didymus

Fine, you pedant. Then it is equally valid to say 'Zeus did it'. The point is, you dont believe just anything with a well established history. You believe ONE well established history.

No, that is not fair at all. Historical evidence will do fine. All I ask is that there be a way to be sure that the evidence is not made up. The word of Paul, for example, is not sufficient evidence that god did everything, anymore than the word of the prophets of zeus (whoever they were) would make me believe in zeus.

You seem to equate 'scientific evidence' with any evidence that is verifiable. If you make this distinction, then yes, the evidence MUST be verifiable. If I can not veryfy the evidence, how do I know it is not a lie?

Yes, of course I do. Did you think I wouldn't? However, I will apply the same standards of verifiability to any claims they make of theistic evidence.

Most theistic scientists admit that there is no evidence for god, and that theism is a matter of faith only. That is fine with me, but I do not share that faith. I require evidence that cannot be fake or imaginary, and that is all.

If you consider 'other forms' of evidence to be acceptable, that is fine, but I will not accept the proposition that it be selectively applied. If you consider the biblical history to be sufficient evidence for god, then you MUST have at least have a good reason why the koran is not evidence of allah, why the greek myths are not sufficient evidence for zeus, and why the cottington photos are not sufficient evidence of faeries.

Do you see my point yet? To believe in god, I must have evidence that supports got, but could not be made up or imaginary, and does not support contradictory religions.

Do you seriously think this is an unfair standard?

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

Albion

Yep, it'll just show that you've proved that intelligent design was needed all along. Or the goalposts will move and they'll demand to see multicellular life. Or they'll demand to see a fruit fly turn into a dinosaur. One thing you can be sure, response "A" is out of the question.