4,900 subscribers. 10,000 daily views.
nazani14: “For the Jews” sounds like a land claim to me. I’d rather go with the penny or the Kensington rune... Beck on Bat Creek
timmy the dying boy: If these are the non-crackpots I’m glad he... Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” Rally – Interviews With Participants
Jabster: “On a related note, does anybody else get pissed-off at women who have kids and behave like they’re somehow special or... QotD: Kids?
Yoav: My guess is that the majority of Beck’s xtian fundie followers don’t really know his a mormon (they obviously... Beck on Bat Creek
Malvond: Maybe you guys have seen this before, but there’s a song about that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tJRzBpFjJS8 QotD: Kids?
Tee: It may sound great on paper to have the individual self invest but most would think... “The Lord” Wants to End Social Security
DCH: She knows what she is doing. She planted the vivid picture of headless bodies and evoked fear. The... AZ Governor’s Cringe-Worthy Debate
Siberia: *pets* Yes, it annoys me immensely. Especially – being a girl – when they act all smug like I’ll somehow... QotD: Kids?
|
|
|
By 
60 Comments
You’re a dead man Attenborough!
@God: Why would you allow Attenborough to say such things?
C’mon, God! Don’t tell us you didn’t see this coming!
I’ll never forget the enormous pile of trouble I unwittingly walked into when I lent the book of Attenborough’s series The Trials of Life to my boyfriend-at-the-time’s teenage sister. Turns out the parents (and boyfriend) were YEC’s before the concept really took off here in Oz. I had never heard of this even though I was a Christian at the time, and was equally mystified and upset at the three hour berating I received for bringing such “Satanic” evolution-promoting rubbish into their house and attempting to corrupt their daughter.
Strangely enough, the relationship didn’t last very long. I still have the book though, if anyone wants to lend it to a teenager!
The funny thing about this is that when I read your description of the video, Daniel, I just immediately assumed you meant the band Genesis and thought, well, duh, doesn’t everyone know they were terrible?
You may now resume having an informative and interesting discussion.
Interesting that the amazing diversity and complexity of life supplies resources for those who deny the existence of a First Cause and Creator while at the same time providing resources for those who insist there must have been a Creator. As for Genesis, God gives humans “dominion” over creation as stewards, not exploiters. God did not say “Go forth and destroy as much as you can.” Sorry, but you can’t pin destruction of the earth on Theists. I say that knowing that you will anyway. Ah well!
“Interesting that the amazing diversity and complexity of life supplies resources for those who deny the existence of a First Cause and Creator while at the same time providing resources for those who insist there must have been a Creator.”
The first group examines the evidence and draws conclusions from it. The second group just makes shit up and pretends the facts fit.
How is that interesting?
God did not say “Go forth and destroy as much as you can.” Sorry, but you can’t pin destruction of the earth on Theists. I say that knowing that you will anyway. Ah well!
Personally, this is the part that shorted out my brain.
I don’t even know where to start.
Did anyone know that the biggest flower in the world stinks like rotten meat?
Just a little factoid…
To dwhitsett
Please, I beg you PLEASE educate yourself before you open your piehole.
Go forth and multiply means “go forth and overpopulate the earth” which implies that the environment will be taxed and ultimately destroyed unless a balance occurs. This means the deaths of people due to starvation, viruses, natural forces, etc. until the environment recovers or the only other logical option, the elimination of all life from the earth as the environment is destroyed.
Take some time to learn about ecosystems and THEN come back and comment. And NO the bible doesn’t count as a scientific source on the matter.
The Fear of Evolution
I think we have to understand that the idea of evolution, even with the evidence that supports it, scares many people. Not everyone, but many. If we take into consideration the statement that, “All babies are born atheists” one can be shown that people are “socialized” into believing in a “Creator” or “Supreme Being” also known as, “God.” This belief is reinforced by family, friends, and various “leaders” in the community. These leaders might be ministers, priests, rabbis, nuns, teachers, persons of authority and so on.
Now take into consideration human nature. Factor in the concept, not belief, that we, as humans, are the “chosen” ones. We are “special.“ What impact does that have on an individual or group?
Believers are taught that they are God’s “chosen ones” and therefore “special.” “Special” in the world, special in the universe, and “special” in all of “creation.” This means that the socialization of the believer is not only started at a very young age but is reinforced throughout their life by stroking their ego.
“You are special.” “We are special.” “We are God’s chosen.” “God created us in his image.”
So not only are “beliefs” threatened, but also one’s ego is threatened. You are “not” special. You are “not God’s chosen.” You are here by “chance.
You are “Joe Smo.”
Try looking at it from this stand point and you can see why the ideal of evolution is found to be unsettling by “believers.”
“God gives humans ‘dominion’ over creation as stewards, not exploiters. God did not say ‘Go forth and destroy as much as you can.’”
“Exploit” does not mean “destroy”, it means “use for your advantage”, and that definitely seems to be what God is telling people to do. Granted, the message does also include taking good care of God’s creation — the two are not mutually exclusive. But I think that when it comes to *how* to take care of the planet, science has done a much better job of telling us what to do than the Bible has.
Consider how the Earth is created in Genesis: God created the land and the sea, then put in all the plants and each species of animal, and then put in a couple of humans. If that is the way you look at the planet, you will see it as a collection of separate, independent parts. But in reality, we know that all life on Earth, both plant and animal, is interconnected in a complex web of dependencies. So you have to ask, which worldview will lead to better ecological management? The biblical view of each species being created independently and handed over solely for humanity’s benefit, or the scientific view that sees all life, including humanity, as part of the same interconnected ecological system?
It’s interesting that one would attribute credibility to him when his presupposition was natural selection. If his presupposition was to believe in God, then he would have EASILY seen a brilliant design created by a brilliant Designer. You literally could have swapped him out with a theist who could have shown the exact same pictures.
And lra364, you did nothing to discredit dwhitsett’s post. You had an emotional response and let yourself believe that you said something special.
Happy Darwin day everybody. Attenborough is a legend and his programme last week was brilliant.
Cool article at http://worldismycountry.org/?p=93 saying how right he was and mocking ID into the bargain
“It’s interesting that one would attribute credibility to him when his presupposition was natural selection. If his presupposition was to believe in God, then he would have EASILY seen a brilliant design created by a brilliant Designer.”
No, his presupposition was a naturalist system, which is the only credible position one can take.
You can presuppose god if you like, but it will never lead you to anything that’s scientifically useful.
Sam-
You clearly didn’t read what I wrote. I never claimed to be special. I asked that non-scientists (read: christians who think the bible is science) please stop the lunacy and actually look at the science. Understanding ecosystems is key to keeping our planet healthy. “Go forth and multiply” is not.
And your point about intelligent design further shows your ignorance. Get a science degree (preferably in evo-devo, genetics, or even paleontology) and then come back and comment.
@ Sam
Or, for starters, just tell us why we should presuppose a belief in a god or gods for whom we have no reliable evidence.
The CLEAR design that is evident outside your window right now is a perfect example to presuppose a creator God. You would find it absurd for me say to your computer that you’re looking at right now didn’t have a designer; however, the process by which your brain is interpreting the images you’re looking at right now is not based on a brilliant design? I know I’m on a website that has a rather forceful reacting to my theistic beliefs, so no offense when I say this, but the onus is clearly on you all to explain your irrational understanding of the origin of this universe and all that exists in it.
And as far as the (tired) response that we can’t talk about a Creator when discussing the origins of the universe because it is not scientific, my response is, what if science can’t explain the origins of the universe because of it’s inability to accept a supernatural explanation? (Now let me insert your response: “No Sam, we can’t talk about a supernatural explanation in a field that demands natural explanations.”) I see your point. Unfortunately, if that is your view, than science will never be sufficient for explaining our origin, as well as the origin of the universe. (And if I might add, science might have a theory for the evolution of mankind, but it is still seriously far short of coming up with any valid possible alternative explanations for the origin of the universe). But sleep well nonetheless. :)
Oh man, not another one of these!
Sam really you are so ignorant.
So if a rock is pulled out of a stream and it is round, we certainly can say that WOW it looks as if it was DESIGNED that way! Just look at how it skips on the water! Surely that is it’s purpose (telos)! And yet, the rock was SHAPED by erosion over time. Factual but not as dramatic I suppose.
What’s more amazing is that you believe the existence of a rock, the existence of water, and the physics needed for it to skip just happened! How!? Where did all of this come from? Do you hear yourself?
How cute. It seems we have a visitor from the 18th century. Be careful, he’s fragile.
I would have expected something more substantive from the creator of this website. And what a clever name for this little site…a counter-proposal (so to speak) to reasonablefaith.com. You do know William Lane Craig would wipe the floor with you in a debate. I’m sure you do.
@ Sam
“The CLEAR design that is evident outside your window right now is a perfect example to presuppose a creator God.”
Praise be to the miracles of professional landscaping!
“You would find it absurd for me say to your computer that you’re looking at right now didn’t have a designer; however, the process by which your brain is interpreting the images you’re looking at right now is not based on a brilliant design?”
Praise be to the great Turing, et al.!
By the way, the brain’s design isn’t great — rather, it’s just good enough. Please explain, while you’re at it, why we only have one spinal column, eyes set in backwards, and an appendix we’re perfectly capable of doing without which may still kill us?
“but the onus is clearly on you all to explain your irrational understanding of the origin of this universe and all that exists in it.”
No, the onus is on you to explain how you can derive a specific idea of a god or gods from the universe and all that exists in it.
How can you think that we are the center of this place, when we’re just one isolated speck in one solar system in one galaxy out of all the possible galaxies assorted in our universe?
Why do you believe what you believe? You are the one making a positive assertion — not only do you claim that a god exists, but you claim that a very specific god exists. Or do you not claim these things? If you do not claim this, please correct me. If you do claim this, please explain how you came to your conclusions.
I’m listening.
“what if science can’t explain the origins of the universe because of it’s inability to accept a supernatural explanation?”
If there were verifiable evidence for a supernatural explanation, science would accept it.
You can’t claim that there is a Creator just because science doesn’t have the answers right now.
People used to believe that lightning was the manifestation of divine wrath.
A church struck by lightning once it has refused to instalol a lightning rod for fear of arousing divine wrath really demonstrates the superior economy of naturalistic explanations, doesn’t it?
“than science will never be sufficient for explaining our origin, as well as the origin of the universe.”
So you think it’s perfectly legitimate to dismiss entirely all the naturalistic explanations which science has discovered thus far?
Sam, where do you get your explanations? Divine revelation?
What do you think is more reliable?
Science, which has led to all the technology and the high standard of living we see today, or revelation, which has led to thousands of different world religions and thousands of different sects within Christianity. Which method seems more reliable to you?
“What’s more amazing is that you believe the existence of a rock, the existence of water, and the physics needed for it to skip just happened! How!? Where did all of this come from? Do you hear yourself?”
Sam, I dearly apologize for refusing to believe that a magical pixie did it. Science is clearly limited by its refusal to make things up (as Jesus and Mo so aptly demonstrated).
But until you can show me evidence for why or how a magical pixie allowed the rock to skip on the water, in addition to physics, why should I believe you, when physics already has a reliable explanation, and the fairy hypothesis has absolutely nothing to show for itself?
You’re asking us to hear ourselves…we hear ourselves. What about you?
With so far no good reason to believe your claims, is it no wonder to you that I’ll continue in my a-pixieism for the immediate future?
@ Sam
“You do know William Lane Craig would wipe the floor with you in a debate.”
Debating is about debating — it’s not about getting things right.
It doesn’t really matter how many debates William Lane Craig can win through the force of his amazing debating skills and preparation if his premises and arguments are still flawed at the end of the debates.
By the way, I can’t speak for Daniel, but I’m sure that most of us would welcome a chance for Dr. Craig to come here and openly respond and answer our questions.
Debate is for debaters. I’m not a debater.
I just want to attain as much understanding as possible.
@ Sam
By the way, your ad hominems are very far from convincing as a replacement for actual arguments.
Insulting Daniel and the rest of us is not going to gain you any serious listeners.
Most of the bloggers here have seen and dealt with others like you dozens of times.
We can see through everything you’re saying…and we have a very low tolerance for bull**it.
Please give us good arguments and explanations, and be patient and respectful instead of mocking and attacking us, or I expect that no one will take you seriously.
Do you want to be heard? Do you want to have a civil, engaged discussion? It’s up to you.
I just want to know why people think that science is about opinions when it is about facts?
Do pro-creationism posters understand the difference between opinions and facts? Between speculation and evidence? Between debate/sophistry/philosophy (whatever you want to call it) and empirical investigation?
Since when did science become about opinions? So it is someone’s opinion that the world SEEMS (and ’seems’ is the key word here) to have a design. So what? What has that got to do with science? Nothing as far as I can tell.
Nova (PBS) is doing a show on ID:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
Great info about the scientific and legal standing of ID
Teleprompter,
You said, “Praise be to the miracles of professional landscaping!”
Clearly avoiding my point. It’s okay. I’ll let it pass.
You said, “Praise be to the great Turing, et al.!”
Also, clearly missing my point (on purpose). Convenient, but I understand. I wouldn’t know how to respond to that if I were in your shoes either.
You said, “By the way, the brain’s design isn’t great — rather, it’s just good enough. Please explain, while you’re at it, why we only have one spinal column, eyes set in backwards, and an appendix we’re perfectly capable of doing without which may still kill us?”
That’s easy. We live in a “fallen world” (insert your laugh here). Unfortunately, one must presuppose a trust in the Bible to fully understand many of the questions one might have.
You said, “No, the onus is on you to explain how you can derive a specific idea of a god or gods from the universe and all that exists in it.”
General revelation (reason). “For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” – Romans 1:20. Before you freak out about me quoting a Bible verse, the point here is that God has given us “reason” (or general revelation) for the purpose of comprehending and believing in His existence. You don’t have to know or believe this verse to have general revelation. We all have it (and that includes you).
You said, “How can you think that we are the center of this place, when we’re just one isolated speck in one solar system in one galaxy out of all the possible galaxies assorted in our universe?”
I’m glad you agree that the universe is quite amazing. Pretty amazing accomplishment for one God huh? What do you want me to say? It is what it is.
You said, “Why do you believe what you believe? You are the one making a positive assertion — not only do you claim that a god exists, but you claim that a very specific god exists. Or do you not claim these things? If you do not claim this, please correct me. If you do claim this, please explain how you came to your conclusions…I’m listening.”
Yes, I am claiming that there is one Creator God. And yes, I believe in the “specific” God of the Bible. And Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. Trust in the Holy Bible specifically is another topic. Fortunately for this discussion, general revelation entails simply an observance of creation (as noted in the verse I quoted above).
You said, “If there were verifiable evidence for a supernatural explanation, science would accept it.”
Um, no it wouldn’t. Science is based on natural explanations. This is where science falls short.
You said, “You can’t claim that there is a Creator just because science doesn’t have the answers right now.”
Never said I was. I was just pointing out how far behind science was in coming to the truth.
You said, “People used to believe that lightning was the manifestation of divine wrath. “A church struck by lightning once it has refused to install a lightning rod for fear of arousing divine wrath really demonstrates the superior economy of naturalistic explanations, doesn’t it?”
First, they were ignorant. Second, understanding what was true (actually happening) is what would have been valuable in that scenario. When science is correct, it help us understand natural laws and creation on a greater level.
You said, “So you think it’s perfectly legitimate to dismiss entirely all the naturalistic explanations which science has discovered thus far?”
No, I don’t think that at all. When science reveals something true, I think that’s great. But all truth is God’s truth if He is the Creator of all. That’s just logical.
You said, “Sam, where do you get your explanations? Divine revelation?”
I’ve already kind of answered this. General revelation (or “reason”) and special revelation (i.e. the Bible).
You said, “What do you think is more reliable? Science, which has led to all the technology and the high standard of living we see today, or revelation, which has led to thousands of different world religions and thousands of different sects within Christianity. Which method seems more reliable to you?”
There’s not an either/or here. God has given us the brains by which we have made better our lives. A fallen humanity has created the different religions and sects of Christianity. Once again, we all have general revelation (even atheists!). God has made Himself known and available through salvation.
You said, “Sam, I dearly apologize for refusing to believe that a magical pixie did it. Science is clearly limited by its refusal to make things up (as Jesus and Mo so aptly demonstrated).”
Cute. I actually agree with most of this statement.
You said, “But until you can show me evidence for why or how a magical pixie allowed the rock to skip on the water, in addition to physics, why should I believe you, when physics already has a reliable explanation, and the fairy hypothesis has absolutely nothing to show for itself?
I’ve already answered this, and to say “Physics already has a reliable explanation” makes no sense as a response to my initial post.
Let me just say something to you all: Clearly, you believe that Christians are ignorant and incapable of answering these types of questions. Having this belief is convenient for you, because if we don’t have credibility, you have an excellent excuse to not believe in God. However, we can answer these questions. We are logical, smart, and capable of such things, because we are speaking truth. So you can hang out on this little website and convince each other that you are on a higher level of thinking than those theists, or you can at least realize that belief in God is not something that is for the naive and anti-intellectual. The ball’s in your court. Choose well.
Teleprompter,
Here we go again: You said, “Please give us good arguments and explanations, and be patient and respectful instead of mocking and attacking us, or I expect that no one will take you seriously.”
I believe psychologists call that this “projection.” So far, I’ve been told I’m ignorant and that I’m really “so ignorant.” Apparently, I should also get a science degree before posting anymore comments. Furthermore, I’m “fragile” and it’s “cute” that I decided to come on this website and engage all of you. That’s been my experience so far. Kind of pales in comparison to anything that I’ve said.
For what it’s worth, I do want to be civil and respectful. You all don’t deserve any level of disrespect. And I mean that.
@Sam: I’ll address you personally. A couple of times each day, a clone of you comes here — we call them godbots. They say the same things. Their claims are addressed and they are asked for evidence. If they actually respond, they huff and they puff and they blow a lot, but they say little of value. Then they get offended and leave. This happens all the time.
Usually I am more polite than my snide remark. But after a while, one wearies of the same godbottery tactics. You don’t take us seriously, so why should we take you seriously?
You said:
Sam, that’s bullshit. There are Christians here who are not godbots. They are civil and interesting and respectful. I appreciate them. They add a wonderful dimension to the comments. I’m glad they hang out here.
In fact, you must have missed that today’s guest post was from a Christian!
But you know what Sam — even if every Christian was as ignorant as dirt wouldn’t mean anything pro or con about the existence of God. It doesn’t have anything to do with it. If you think we reject Christianity because of Christians, then how do you expect us to take you seriously? You don’t even understand the basics of why we reject Christianity. That so many are hypocritical morons is only icing on the cake and makes for interesting blog fodder.
He better be able to — he debates all the time. If he couldn’t whip me in a debate, I’d be shocked. Of course, I’m sure there are Mormons and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus that could whip me — and you — in a debate as well. It doesn’t make them right. It just means they are a better at debating.
@ Daniel
You said, “You don’t take us seriously, so why should we take you seriously?”
Clearly, I take you seriously. That’s why I am trying to engage all of you here.
You said, “But you know what Sam — even if every Christian ignorant as dirt wouldn’t mean anything pro or con about the existence of God. It doesn’t have anything to do with it.”
I agree with this statement and appreciate that you said it. The existence of God (like the existence of aliens for example) is independent of belief.
And about William Lane Craig, I agree with what you said (although I wasn’t referring to a formal debate).
-Godbot says goodnight.
Well then perhaps we can get along after all. I hope so.
See you in the morning! :)
Sam,
Okay, I did not know whether or not you were going to stick around for the rest of this discussion. So I’ll quit the sarcasm just for you (for now), since you have demonstrated that you’re actually taking this seriously.
This is going to take a very long time for me to address all of your points, in specific and precise detail, but that is what I am attempting, since I see that you have expressed a desire to have a civil discussion and I wish to reciprocate that desire.
“The CLEAR design that is evident outside your window right now is a perfect example to presuppose a creator God.”
“Clearly avoiding my point. It’s okay. I’ll let it pass.”
Okay, since you aren’t satisfied with my response, I will address this again.
There is no clear design that is evident from outside my window. Nature is brutal. Humans have controlled and manipulated it. Of course I am thankful for much of this — it has enabled our society and a higher standard of living. But the state of the world before advanced civillizations was not conducive to the type of society we have now.
Look at America: we irrigated the west, drained the swamps of the southeast, and constructed roads and railways linking every town and city in the country.
No God did that…people did it. Sweat, tears, toil…it’s the story of human civillization. One you casually dismiss.
If our world *was* designed, at least clean drinking water and arable land could’ve been more widely distributed?
Oh wait, I assume you’re going to pin that on “the fall”.
Think of this: why is Africa so desolate? Are their sins soooo much greater than those of the Asians or the Americans or the Europeans?
Sin, or geography and politics and history? Which explanation is more reasonable to you?
“You would find it absurd for me say to your computer that you’re looking at right now didn’t have a designer; however, the process by which your brain is interpreting the images you’re looking at right now is not based on a brilliant design?”
“Also, clearly missing my point (on purpose). Convenient, but I understand. I wouldn’t know how to respond to that if I were in your shoes either.”
I do know how to respond to that point, but apparently you don’t know who Alan Turing is, or you would’ve understood my point.
What’s so special about a computer? It was designed…by humans! That is my point. And you can’t compare what humans built to our natural world.
The brain is not brilliant. It is just good enough: it is deceived by visual tricks. Why would a loving god design our eyes to be so easily deceived?
You did not respond to that point. Look, I realize that we’re both verbose. I’m sure we’ll each respond to all of each other’s point eventually. But don’t blame me for not responding to one of your points when you ignore some of mine. That is not in line with your self-proclaimed standard of civility.
“That’s easy. We live in a “fallen world” (insert your laugh here). Unfortunately, one must presuppose a trust in the Bible to fully understand many of the questions one might have.”
So you believe that all the animals who lived before the appearance of human beings were forced to suffer and die, living lives of misery, because of the fault of humans?
One cannot trust the Bible when it contradicts known facts. One cannot trust the Bible when it is full of errors and contradictions. One cannot trust the Bible when it has been interpreted and even translated in radically different ways throughout the centuries, often eroding and obliterating much of its meaning and message.
If your best reason that I should believe the Bible is “it’s in the Bible that you should believe in it”, then I confess we’re probably talking past each other.
“General revelation (reason).”
You’re equating revelation with reason?
Really?
So, riddle me this:
Would reason tell us to commit genocide? Revelation would…the Biblical god tells the OT followers to commit genocide.
“For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
No, this is wrong. The concept of “god” has *never* been clearly understood, since the creation of the first religion, in neither eternal power nor divine nature.
Nor has it been clearly seen, just as it has not been clearly understood.
Why are there so many different religions with so many different concepts of a god?
Why are there so many different versions of Christianity with so many different concepts of the Christian god?
It is NOT clear; it is NOT easily understood.
Christians can’t agree on what is necessary for salvation, they can’t agree on what hell is, they can’t agree on which parts of the Bible are important, etc., etc.
You are wrong — that verse is wrong. The evidence is clear…unlike traditionals perceptions of religion, which is murky ultimately and anything *but* clear.
“Before you freak out about me quoting a Bible verse, the point here is that God has given us “reason” (or general revelation) for the purpose of comprehending and believing in His existence.”
You do realize just how lame and typically inaccurate your stereotypes are, don’t you?
I spent most of my life (so far) as a Christian, I am highly familiar with the Biblical message, and I routinely quote Biblical passages at Christians during religious debates. I am anything *but* uncomfortable with Bible passages.
If a god has given us reason for comprehending and believing in godly existence,
then why don’t we have a BETTER understanding of religion?
Orthodox, Lutheran, Calvinism, Anglican, non-denominational….
the list goes on and on and on.
“You don’t have to know or believe this verse to have general revelation. We all have it (and that includes you).”
Then why doesn’t anyone *understand* it, including the Christians themselves??
“What do you want me to say? It is what it is.”
I am ignoring this part of your response because you ignored my response on this topic. Fair’s fair.
“Yes, I am claiming that there is one Creator God. And yes, I believe in the “specific” God of the Bible. And Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.”
And *why* do you believe this? Why not Allah? Why not Krishna? Did you study the Qur’an or the Bhagavad-Gita before you rejected them? On what grounds do you believe Christianity has a monopoly on revelation?
“Science is based on natural explanations. This is where science falls short.”
So what exactly do you propose as an alternative to the scientific method? The inteligent guessing method? The “wait for God to tell me” method?
This argument is exasperating because people constantly complain about the scientific process while steadfastly refusing to provide any viable alternatives.
“I was just pointing out how far behind science was in coming to the truth.”
And what exactly is your “method” for attaining “truth”?
This is part of my last point.
“First, they were ignorant. Second, understanding what was true (actually happening) is what would have been valuable in that scenario. When science is correct, it help us understand natural laws and creation on a greater level.”
So you’re willing to admit that they could’ve been ignorant about some things, but not about others? Interesting approach.
Science helps us understand how our world works. When has religion provided this type of explanation? Religion is superfluous to the study of our universe.
“But all truth is God’s truth if He is the Creator of all. That’s just logical.”
I agree. The reasoning on that point is obvious.
“I’ve already kind of answered this. General revelation (or “reason”) and special revelation (i.e. the Bible).”
Well, as you may be able to discern from my last few points, I am not satisfied with your present answers on this subject.
“There’s not an either/or here. God has given us the brains by which we have made better our lives. A fallen humanity has created the different religions and sects of Christianity. Once again, we all have general revelation (even atheists!). God has made Himself known and available through salvation.”
Except that Hinduism is the world’s oldest religion.
Fallen humanity created the different sects of Christianity? So which one is not fallen?
Which one is better than another?
Once again, you have just exposed yourself to yet another area whether revelation is clearly insufficient explanation.
I’m not sure what kind of job the Biblical god has done revealing himself to the Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, Confucians, and Daoists.
I dispute the point on that basis.
“Let me just say something to you all: Clearly, you believe that Christians are ignorant and incapable of answering these types of questions. Having this belief is convenient for you, because if we don’t have credibility, you have an excellent excuse to not believe in God. However, we can answer these questions. We are logical, smart, and capable of such things, because we are speaking truth. So you can hang out on this little website and convince each other that you are on a higher level of thinking than those theists, or you can at least realize that belief in God is not something that is for the naive and anti-intellectual. The ball’s in your court. Choose well.”
Wow, you are really wrong on this point. Perhaps more wrong than you’ve been so far….
1. I do not believe that Christians are ignorant. Ask Wade if I think Christians are ignorant. Clearly, the truth is revealed by my actions.
2. Further, I have never said that Christians are inherently ignorant.
3. I have never accused you of ignorance. I have merely pointed out some of the flaws in your arguments.
4. Wade has credibility, even though he is a Christian. You don’t. Would you like to know why? You haven’t earned credibility — credibility has to be earned. There are a few atheists around here who have yet to earn credibility in my opinion. I consider myself to be a fairly point, non-assuming, and reasonable person. Again, I believe that the truth is revealed by my actions.
If you can answer my questions, answer my questions. I’m not preventing you from coming up with good explanations.
Yet so far, theists have suffered to do so, though not of my accord.
You may be logical, smart, and capable, but you have no way to know for sure that you *ARE* speaking “truth”. You just don’t know…even if you think you do.
I’m not aware that I thought I was on a higher level of thinking than theists. I have never said this; I have never implied this. Again, the truth is clearly revealed by my actions.
Ask Wade if I am on a higher level of thinking than he is. He will probably admit that he is on a higher level of thinking than I am, well versed as he is in Kant and Kierkegaard. :P
By the way, I am not naive or anti-intellecutal. If you were implying this at all, you are wrong. Again, the truth reveals itself through my actions and words.
“I believe psychologists call that this ‘projection.’”
Wow, Sam.
Let’s review what’s just happened:
You accused me of believing that I am on a higher level of thinking than you are, which I have never stated and never implied.
Next, you tried to attribute my disagreement to a psychological coping mechanism.
Isn’t irony a wonderful thing?
You accuse me of believing that I am on a higher level of thinking, and then you denigrate my arguments by mocking me.
Projection? Look in the mirror, Sam.
“So far, I’ve been told I’m ignorant and that I’m really “so ignorant.” Apparently, I should also get a science degree before posting anymore comments. Furthermore, I’m “fragile” and it’s “cute” that I decided to come on this website and engage all of you. That’s been my experience so far. Kind of pales in comparison to anything that I’ve said.”
Well, would you like to know how many of these things I said?
Zero. I said none of those things.
Yet if I had, would I be in the wrong? I don’t think so. Now, I must admit I think it is silly that someone should have to get a science degree to post here. I am kind of a science novice myself. I think that is definitely ridiculous. But one must be reasonable in one’s approach to science. I think that is the proper point of the observation, which you may have detached from its proper context.
“For what it’s worth, I do want to be civil and respectful. You all don’t deserve any level of disrespect. And I mean that.”
Fine.
If you really do mean what you say, try living up to your own standard.
I’m a fairly patient person. I can wait.
@ Sam
I see from your responses to Daniel that you are willing to be patient and work with us. That is very good news.
If my tone borders on frustration in my previous post, please do not mind it.
However, I would appreciate a response. Thanks.
Teleprompter-
I admit to snarkiness when I get agitated with christians and begin to demand a degree from them. The problem is, as I have said, that science is not about opinions.
Most christians who post here have no credibility because they haven’t done the work to have it. They haven’t read the research. They don’t have the first clue about the inner workings of science. They don’t know how biology works on even a basic level, and YET! science must be wrong. Science must be from the devil. Science blah blah blah (insert ignorant claim).
You know I don’t go around making claims about economic theory. You know why? I don’t know the first thing about it! I have no idea if the stimulus package is a good idea, but if a guy with an advanced degree in economics told me it was (or wasn’t ) and some religious guy came along and said that the first guy was wrong because the bible addresses taxes and tithing, well, guess who I’d listen to?
What gets annoying is that the christian would continue to argue with the economics guy by quoting bible verses, etc while the economics guy realizes that it took him many years to earn his degree and that he doesn’t have time to teach the knowledge to the religious guy. At some point the economics guy would say- HEY! go educate yourself!
But of course the christian guy wouldn’t. He’d just keep quoting bible verses on taxes and tithing.
And just for clarification, Ignorance = Uneducated. Not stupid.
@ lra364
I understand where you’re coming from.
I agree with you that “science is not about opinions”.
However, for a first-time poster, it may be hard to know the sum of our exasperation with all the other people who have spewed misinformation about science on these threads.
I do agree with you that the vast majority of the Christians who post here have not done their research, as is unfortunately the case.
I don’t go around talking about tax law, probably because I know nothing about it. So I understand that point. I wish people would try to understand science and even religion before leaping to conclusions or pre-determined assumptions.
To be fair, I did say that you weren’t necessarily wrong in your criticism, even if I feel that it was a bit ridiculous, I understand how maddening it can be to deal with those who refuse to view things objectively.
And I hope that most of the theists who post here will eventually understand that, too.
@ Teleprompter
I feel like we could do this back and forth for eternity – oh sorry, for as long as we’re evolving (just a joke). But at least we’ll be sharpened in the end.
You said, “There is no clear design that is evident from outside my window. Nature is brutal. Humans have controlled and manipulated it. Of course I am thankful for much of this — it has enabled our society and a higher standard of living. But the state of the world before advanced civillizations was not conducive to the type of society we have now.”
Of course there is a clear design. A tree is more sophisticated than any human invention (especially since human inventions use already existing “parts”).
Let me illustrate it this way:
Scientists go to God and say, “We’ve got this cloning thing down and we think we can make a human better than you.” God says, “Oh yeah, well I did it with dirt, so you have to do it with dirt too. Let’s have a contest.” The scientists agree. So God gets some dirt together and the scientists get some dirt together. As the contest is ready to begin, God looks over at the scientists and says, “Hey, get your own dirt!”
My point: Anything mankind does (in the lab or in a factory) is dependent on the brain God gave and the “parts” He has provided.
You said, “No God did that…people did it. Sweat, tears, toil…it’s the story of human civillization. One you casually dismiss.”
I’m not casually dismissing it. I’m just not sure how it’s all that relevant to understanding our origin.
“If our world *was* designed, at least clean drinking water and arable land could’ve been more widely distributed? Oh wait, I assume you’re going to pin that on “the fall”. Think of this: why is Africa so desolate? Are their sins soooo much greater than those of the Asians or the Americans or the Europeans?”
Well, the world is what it is. And humans have a free will to act in what way we choose. I believe injustice is greatly displeasing to God, which is why our hope is in the life to come. This world IS fallen and cruel and hard and unfair.
You said, “I do know how to respond to that point, but apparently you don’t know who Alan Turing is, or you would’ve understood my point. What’s so special about a computer? It was designed…by humans! That is my point. And you can’t compare what humans built to our natural world.”
You clearly missed my point here (in fact, you’re agreeing with much of my point). A computer is a complex machine designed by humans. If I told you a computer wasn’t designed, you would think I was crazy (because it obviously was). Well, if I told you the human brain wasn’t designed, you would actually agree with that. That is mind-boggling. The human brain is much more sophisticated than a computer. Furthermore, a computer was made from already existing “parts” (as I pointed out earlier). Yet, you believe the human brain did not (ultimately) come from ANY existing parts. It came from nothing. This is nonsensical to me.
I will address the rest of your points this weekend. There’s a lot, and I need to go to bed. Have a good weekend.
@ Sam
It is very late. I will respond tomorrow or over the weekend. Take care.
So because you can’t understand something, that means a very particular version of a very particular god made the world in one of the two ways that someone wrote in a book. Am I reading you correctly Sam?
PS. If this design you talk about was clear, we would see it. Since so many don’t, that means it is not clear. It is in dispute, in fact.
I hope no one minds if I get in on this.
Sam:
“Of course there is a clear design. A tree is more sophisticated than any human invention (especially since human inventions use already existing “parts”).”
There is no question that a tree, or just about any other life form on the planet, is more sophisticated than anything human beings have been able to design. But let me try to deconstruct the logic of your argument:
1. Take all things designed by humans, and call them group A.
2. Take all life forms on the planet, and call them group B.
3. Take as granted that the simplest example from group B is more complex than the most complicated example from group A.
It logically follows that no example from group B was designed by humans. However, it *does not* logically follow that the examples from B were designed by something that is not human. That conclusion can only be reached if you further claim that all examples from group B were designed — and that is the point you were trying to prove in the first place.
“The human brain is much more sophisticated than a computer. Furthermore, a computer was made from already existing “parts” (as I pointed out earlier). Yet, you believe the human brain did not (ultimately) come from ANY existing parts. It came from nothing. This is nonsensical to me.”
You have it wrong. We *do* believe the design of the human brain came from preexisting parts: the brains of our evolutionary ancestors. Trace the evolution of the brain backward through time, and you will see it getting simpler and simpler; eventually, we probably would not even recognize it as a brain any more.
If your argument is not about the complexity of the brain’s design, but its origins, then you could simply talk about the origin of matter instead. Only I do not believe that anyone here is claiming that matter came from nothing. In fact, I am pretty sure that no one here makes any claims of knowledge whatsoever about the state of affairs before the Big Bang.
Going back further now…
General revelation (reason). “For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” – Romans 1:20. Before you freak out about me quoting a Bible verse, the point here is that God has given us “reason” (or general revelation) for the purpose of comprehending and believing in His existence. You don’t have to know or believe this verse to have general revelation. We all have it (and that includes you).
My problem is that one of reason’s most powerful tools — logic — forces us to acknowledge that God’s existence is unproven, and therefore any argument that requires God’s existence as one of its premises is logically unsound. (I for one have never seen a logical proof for God, and I am reasonably sure none exists — if one did, it should be the first response given by theists when someone claims God does not exist.) So does that mean that logic is unreasonable? Considering how vital logic is to our daily functioning, and its 100% success rate in reaching valid conclusions when given valid premises, I find that hard to accept.
By the way, I do not believe I understand what you mean by “special revelation” later on in your post. It sounds to me like an attempt to elevate the Bible to a state where it no longer needs to be questioned or examined, because it must be taken as inherently true.
Going back further still…
“And as far as the (tired) response that we can’t talk about a Creator when discussing the origins of the universe because it is not scientific, my response is, what if science can’t explain the origins of the universe because of it’s inability to accept a supernatural explanation? (Now let me insert your response: “No Sam, we can’t talk about a supernatural explanation in a field that demands natural explanations.”) I see your point. Unfortunately, if that is your view, than science will never be sufficient for explaining our origin, as well as the origin of the universe.”
Your conclusion — that science will never be sufficient for explaining our origin and the origin of the universe — seems to be based on your assumption that the supernatural answer is the correct one. But there is no proof that the origin of the universe cannot have a natural explanation, logically it *may* have a natural explanation.
We assume our ability to explain it is due to our lack of knowledge, not any shortcoming in the scientific method itself. And since the origin of the universe *may* have a natural explanation, that is the explanation we pursue, because no other phenomenon science has explained so far has required a supernatural entity, and we see no reason the origin of the universe should be any different.
the point here is that God has given us “reason” (or general revelation) for the purpose of comprehending and believing in His existence
Many people who use “reason” soon come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for god whatsoever. Darwin used reason and observation and soon found out that the genesis story is a very unrealistic account of Earth’s history.
But of course you will now argue that these people are insincere, or blinded by the devil, or evil themselves. So that you can easily ignore their arguments… You’re trapped in a circle, Sam, and you don’t even realise it.
That last paragraph in my comment should have been “our *in*ability to explain it”.
Sam is using what I call the Cillian Murphy Proof.
In 28 days later, there is a scene where the survivors are about to drive their car into a dark tunnel. The character played by Cillian Murphy says (paraprased):
“This is a really bad idea. I know it’s a bad idea because it is so obviously a really bad idea.”
Which is very funny in that scene.
The godbot version is:
“I know god made everything. I know, because it’s so obvious that god made everything.”
Not as funny, and totally fails as a life philosophy.
Okay, I don’t have time to answer all of the responses right now, but I’ll give some a try.
RobG said, “It logically follows that no example from group B was designed by humans. However, it *does not* logically follow that the examples from B were designed by something that is not human. That conclusion can only be reached if you further claim that all examples from group B were designed — and that is the point you were trying to prove in the first place.”
The point of my example is “design”. If a watch, your computer, and your car were clearly designed by something intelligent (and we know this through reason – not just because you happen to know who the manufacture is), then would it not follow that something MUCH MORE sophisticated was designed by something intelligent? You do realize that you are left to conclude that NOTHING ultimately made all that exists in the natural world and the vast universe? No – “nature” did not make it, because “nature” is nothing. It’s a term made up to make sense of the world. You came (ultimately) from NOTHING (under your view). Don’t tell me you came from a simpler organism which evolved over time (because then you would be avoiding my point). Ultimately, NOTHING had to be the starting point. And don’t get me started on the universe as a whole. Do you feel comfortable with believing the vastness of the universe (literally beyond human comprehension) ultimately came from nothing too? And you would tell me I have a naive faith.
You also said, “You have it wrong. We *do* believe the design of the human brain came from preexisting parts: the brains of our evolutionary ancestors. Trace the evolution of the brain backward through time, and you will see it getting simpler and simpler; eventually, we probably would not even recognize it as a brain any more. If your argument is not about the complexity of the brain’s design, but its origins, then you could simply talk about the origin of matter instead. Only I do not believe that anyone here is claiming that matter came from nothing. In fact, I am pretty sure that no one here makes any claims of knowledge whatsoever about the state of affairs before the Big Bang.”
I’ve answered most of this, but I find it incredibly naive (no offense) that you accept the “Big Bang” for having placed the universe as it is with no explanation for how something so small (that came from ???) created the vastness that is the universe. The Big Bang Theory doesn’t even try to explain the origins of the universe, just the make-up of the universe as it stands.
And by the way, did you know that theologians were saying the universe had a starting point LONG BEFORE scientists were saying that? For centuries, scientists believed the universe to be infinite (which is completely illogical) while calling theologians naive for believing the universe to be finite. Guess who turned out to be right?
I’ll respond to more later.
And by the way, did you know that theologians were saying the universe had a starting point LONG BEFORE scientists were saying that? For centuries, scientists believed the universe to be infinite (which is completely illogical) while calling theologians naive for believing the universe to be finite. Guess who turned out to be right?
This is true, which goes to show if you guess about enough things, eventually you nail one.
The first proponent of the Big Bang theory, IIRC, was a Catholic priest.
I think I used to use the exact same tract Sam is quoting from all over this thread.
My “tract” is my personal study, education, and logic over many years.
Implicit insults weaken credibility.
“My “tract” is my personal study, education, and logic over many years.
Implicit insults weaken credibility.”
Since you have yet to say anything that displays any education or logic, I’m not particularly worried about my credibility with you.
If you say so, Ty. Clearly, you have turned yourself off to opposing viewpoints. Unfortunate.
@Sam
“My “tract” is my personal study, education, and logic over many years.”
Sorry to be so blunt* but to say you’ve wasted your time is somewhat of an understatement. You’ve just trotted out the same old arguments that have been shown to be flawed again, and again and again. I tell you what why don’t you come back when you moved past the stage of X must be true because Y is false — how about just trying to demonstrate why X is true? You seem to failed to understand that theories are not binary.
* not really as there are lots of godbots who are pretty much indistinguishable from you who past through here. I don’t mind though as I’ve got you down to claim we’re persecuting you within a week of you posting.
Jabster,
Well, so far, everything I’ve seen on this site is old and has been refuted by theologians and apologists and Christian scientists for decades.
And you said, “I tell you what why don’t you come back when you moved past the stage of X must be true because Y is false — how about just trying to demonstrate why X is true?”
This is a little disingenuous. If you read over my posts, “I’ve given sound reasons why ‘X’ is true.”
Try again.
@Sam: Generalities won’t work. You can’t just say “everything I’ve seen on this site is old and has been refuted by theologians and apologists and Christian scientists for decades.”
Just because people have argued against something doesn’t mean they have been refuted. If I’ve said something that has been definitely refuted, then I have no problem saying I was wrong.
But you have to point it out, not just say it is so.
@ Sam
Okay, now I am going to go back and address the last replies you gave, and then I will pop in on a few other questions and address those points, as well. This will probably be another rather long post.
“Of course there is a clear design. A tree is more sophisticated than any human invention (especially since human inventions use already existing “parts”).”
Evolution by natural selection has had billions of years to engineer solutions. Humans have been here for maybe 100,000-150,000 years. We have done some pretty amazing things, though.
And even more amazing things are surely in the works:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090211194151.htm
By the way, your analogy misses the point. First, your analogy presupposes a god. You have yet to establish why a god should be presupposed.
Now, maybe you’re going to reply that the evident design is the proper basis to presuppose a god. But, then again, there is no evident design. Humans can trace the development of different plants and animals over time. We know that all life on Earth is of a common descent. Given this knowledge, why should we presuppose a god?
“My point: Anything mankind does (in the lab or in a factory) is dependent on the brain God gave and the “parts” He has provided.”
Once again, a fatal flaw of your argument is that you are *presuming* that a god had to give us a brain and provide us with parts, when our scientific investigation shows that natural explanations are sufficient for this.
Look, even if there is a designer, you have to go a *really* *really* *really* long way to state authoritatively that it is the Christian one. What is your evidence for that particular one?
“I’m not casually dismissing it. I’m just not sure how it’s all that relevant to understanding our origin.”
The narrative of human civillization is relevant in so far as its explanatory power to account for how things are today, as in, the things I see when I look out my window, to which you explicitly referred. ;)
“This world IS fallen and cruel and hard and unfair.”
And this should be true for all life forms which proceeded human beings, too? What is the justice in that?
I raised this point earlier and you still haven’t addressed it (as far as I know.)
“If I told you a computer wasn’t designed, you would think I was crazy (because it obviously was).”
Well, in so far as a computer is *obviously designed by humans* I would think it was crazy if you told me that was not the case.
“Well, if I told you the human brain wasn’t designed, you would actually agree with that.”
Yes, because I have a rudimentary understanding of evolution. Look at all the brains of the animals which have developed along with us…see the progression and the change occur. All the evidence demonstrates that the brain arose through natural processes. Even though it is complex, we know that complex things can arise from less complex things. Why does this surprise you?
“That is mind-boggling.”
No, it really isn’t, once you have a basic understanding of evolution.
“The human brain is much more sophisticated than a computer.”
And the personal computer only arose in the last thirty or forty years. Yet the brain had millions of years to arise by natural selection. How is that concept difficult to understand?
“Yet, you believe the human brain did not (ultimately) come from ANY existing parts. It came from nothing.”
Sam, that is most definitely *NOT* what I believe: that is a straw-man which you are attacking.
One of the other commenters already pointed out that the pre-existing parts were neurological components from earlier species. Again, pay attention to the nuances. You’re missing important distinctions.
@ Sam
“The point of my example is “design”. If a watch, your computer, and your car were clearly designed by something intelligent (and we know this through reason – not just because you happen to know who the manufacture is), then would it not follow that something MUCH MORE sophisticated was designed by something intelligent?”
I already addressed the vast differences in the time-scales between human existence and the existence of the Earth, and the much greater amount of time which evolution by natural selection has had to occur. You are missing the point of evolution.
“You do realize that you are left to conclude that NOTHING ultimately made all that exists in the natural world and the vast universe? No – “nature” did not make it, because “nature” is nothing. It’s a term made up to make sense of the world. You came (ultimately) from NOTHING (under your view). Don’t tell me you came from a simpler organism which evolved over time (because then you would be avoiding my point). Ultimately, NOTHING had to be the starting point.”
Whoa, hold it, Sam. You are missing the nuances, once again. Evolution by natural selection accounts for the diversity of life. Abiogenesis is less well-evidenced, but is currently trying to account for the origin of life. There are some hypotheses out there which may explain the origin of life. Then take a few steps back and think about the universe. Scientists are currently working on this. In the next few decades, I expect scientists to make significant advances in this area. I am comfortable saying “I don’t know” about certain things. But I don’t find it helpful to say “I don’t know for sure, therefore a god did it”. Not helpful.
We don’t really know how the universe came to be. But when you suggest that Christianity is true, you need to justify Christianity itself. You have failed to do this — and this is the most critical area for me. You have not shown me that the Bible is clearly divinely inspired — you have not shown me that the interpretations of the Bible have been clearly divinely inspired. Everything about Christianity suggests it’s of human origin…the Bible itself, the individual denominations, the (lack of) historical evidence, our knowledge of how other world religions came to be, our knowledge of human psychology, etc., etc.
All your grunting about “science doesn’t know this” and “science doesn’t know that” is pretty much worthless to your cause unless you can show us how Christianity provides a *better* explanation.
“And don’t get me started on the universe as a whole. Do you feel comfortable with believing the vastness of the universe (literally beyond human comprehension) ultimately came from nothing too? And you would tell me I have a naive faith.”
I don’t know where the universe came from. And you think you do…and you have no reliable evidence for that view.
And you think I have “a naive faith”? Well, I’m not accusing you of that, but I’d certainly advise you to examine your own thought process more carefully before you malign the thinking of others.
A few simple questions, Sam:
1. Is the nature of our universe a reflection of the character of any possible Creator? Yes or no.
2. If the universe is “literally beyond human comprehension”, and the universe *IS* the reflection of the character of any possible Creator, then wouldn’t one clearly have to state that any possible Creator is “literally beyond human comprehension”, as you yourself have said?
3. If any possible Creator is “literally beyond human comprehension”, then how do you even have the *slightest* idea that anything you may be telling me about said Creator(s) is true?
“Clearly, you have turned yourself off to opposing viewpoints.”
If this were true, I’d still be spouting the lame crap you are. I was a Christian creationist just like you. Though, if I may say so, a little better at presenting the flawed ideas of that ideology than you are. I mean, sorry, but you’re just not very good at this. But I was open to an opposing viewpoint, and when presented with a compelling one, I changed my mind.
You are the one who is closed off to opposing viewpoints, and are therefore a waste of time. You’re a sad little preacher spreading the same tired message.
Next.
@Sam
“This is a little disingenuous. If you read over my posts, “I’ve given sound reasons why ‘X’ is true.”"
Have you got the URL for where you posted this information as you certainly didn’t do it on this blog unless of cause you want to redefine ’sound reasons’ as I don’t understand something so god did it and that’s a fact followed by lots of hand waving?
Sam:
“If a watch, your computer, and your car were clearly designed by something intelligent (and we know this through reason – not just because you happen to know who the manufacture is), then would it not follow that something MUCH MORE sophisticated was designed by something intelligent?”
Let me again deconstruct this argument.
1. Objects in group A are designed by humans.
2. Objects in group B are not designed by humans.
3. Objects in group B are more complex than objects in group A.
You can only conclude that the objects in group B must therefore have been designed if you assume that only designed objects can be complex beyond what humans have made. But as Teleprompter pointed out, we have a mechanism that explains complex, undesigned objects: evolution. Whether or not evolution as we understand it now is correct, it is *possible*, so it is enough to let us state that the argument above does not lead to the conclusion that life was designed — unless you can produce a logically valid proof that evolution is *not* possible.
“You do realize that you are left to conclude that NOTHING ultimately made all that exists in the natural world and the vast universe? No – “nature” did not make it, because “nature” is nothing. It’s a term made up to make sense of the world. You came (ultimately) from NOTHING (under your view). Don’t tell me you came from a simpler organism which evolved over time (because then you would be avoiding my point). Ultimately, NOTHING had to be the starting point.”
Again, I do not believe anyone here is truly making that claim. Maybe it did come from nothing, or maybe it came from something else that simply makes no sense to us in the physical, time-constrained universe that we live in. However, there is no obvious reason to assume that that which the universe came from must have been some supernatural intelligence, let alone the specific God that you believe in. There are plenty of other possibilities, and choosing to fixate on only one and declare that it must be the truth is what is truly naive.
“I’ve answered most of this, but I find it incredibly naive (no offense) that you accept the “Big Bang” for having placed the universe as it is with no explanation for how something so small (that came from ???) created the vastness that is the universe.”
Consider a stick of dynamite: it is tiny relative to the area of space it affects when it is detonated. It is the same thing with the Big Bang: start with a huge amount of energy in a tiny space, and consider how it would expand when the main force trying to stop it is its own gravity.
Mind you, it seems to me the Big Bang theory is simply the best theory we have been able to come up with, when we consider the state of the universe now, and try to figure out what it looked like in earlier stages. It is no different than any other scientific theory that way: it will continue to stand until some evidence comes along that suggests a different theory.
“The Big Bang Theory doesn’t even try to explain the origins of the universe, just the make-up of the universe as it stands.”
I do not think the Big Bang theory is *meant* to explain the origin of the universe, just as evolution is not meant to explain the origin of life. But the Big Bang theory *can* help us weed out theories about the origin of the universe that do not fit the evidence.
“And by the way, did you know that theologians were saying the universe had a starting point LONG BEFORE scientists were saying that? For centuries, scientists believed the universe to be infinite (which is completely illogical) while calling theologians naive for believing the universe to be finite. Guess who turned out to be right?”
My guess is that theologians said the universe was finite, because if it were not finite, it would not have a point where they could say God created it. Reaching the right conclusion for the wrong reason does not make you a wise person. And yes, scientists claiming the universe was infinite were wrong — or at least that is what current scientific theory says. But at least they based their claim on observation, rather than pure imagination.
Wait– Greek philosophers were saying there were atoms long before the advent of modern chemistry. Maybe we should worship Greek gods?
Interesting quote from the Talk Origins site:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html
“Most scientists are not philosophically inclined and will make use of whatever is a help in their work, but not in the way Feyerabend thought. Reflective scientists know that it’s all how you ask the question that counts. Most physicists would not immediately think that atomic theory could be false, either. They are answering the question “is it likely to be dropped later on?” not the philosophical “could it in theory be dropped?” which is a different issue. Philosophers do conceptual tidying up, among other things, but scientists are the ones making all the sawdust in the workshop, and they need not be so tidy. And no cleaner should tell any professional (other than cleaners) how it ought to be done. Creationists who say, “evolution is not like what Popper said science should be, so it isn’t science” are like the janitor who says that teachers don’t keep their classrooms clean enough, so they aren’t teachers.”