Science and Theology, the sequel

04/07/2008 04:41:15 PM · #201

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
When one talks about the "theory" of evolution, one is necessarily referring to the scientific meaning of the word. Evolution is a well proven theory. No credible biologist doubts or questions the overarching theory. Science's understanding of the specific mechanics are continually being enhanced, and refined as we develop better tools and methods and further increase the amount of direct evidence available (aka, fossil record, genetics, etc.).

So tell me, my little monkey brother, do you really not understand, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

It does not surprise me that you resort to insults. You are so scared that you may not be right about everything you hold so dear that you feel you must make yourself feel superior by doing this.

What insult? Perhaps you have a problem being little more than an uppity, (mostly) hairless primate. But it doesn't bother me in the slightest. In fact, I think there is a real sense of wonder and humility that comes with scientific explanations for the world. The natural processes of our universe are much more impressive than some old guy in a white beard simply poofing us all into existence to be the equivalent of his little train set.

Once again you prove my point that you have to demean in order to feel superior.

04/07/2008 04:43:13 PM · #202

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Oh please...stop with the martyr complex BS, you're gonna make me all teary.

I have no martyr complex. Just explaining why belief and knowledge of God is not like doing crack. Being ridiculed by people like you is not causing endorphins to rush around in my head causing me to feel ecstatic. I get no such payoff for my submission to God's Holy Spirit.

I'm not ridiculing anything that's not already ridiculous.

Resorting to personal attacks does not advance your position one iota and does not bother me in the least. Keep it up, I actually get a good deal of satisfaction from knowing that you have run out of all logical reasoning to support your position that God certainly and without a doubt does not exist.

You're the one who brought up the persecution of Christians, evidently to make some kind of point. It's a ridiculous argument since nearly every religion has suffered persecution, often at the hands of some other religious group who has, at other times been persecuted.

All religions that I can think have both been persecuted and been the persecutor at some point in history. If you have some evidence that makes Christianity special in that regard, please do share.

I don't have to prove God doesn't exist, the burden is on you to prove he does.

I think I have stated this before but I only brought up the fact that Christians are persecuted and martyred to make the point that it is not all that pleasant to be a Christian in many circumstances thus refuting the assertion that we believe in God because it gives us an endorphin rush and thus pleasure. It is often very unpleasurable to be a Christian. I would say this equally applies to a lot of different belief systems as you point out. That does not however negate the truth of the experience of the Christian. As far as my having to prove God's existence, I have emphatically stated that I cannot prove God's existence. I have stated this over and over. It simply cannot be done nor am I trying to convince you by supplying you with verifiable facts. I simply argue that evolution theory is very much lacking in any certainty.

So? Do you think it's always pleasant to be a Muslim? a Jew? How about an Atheist? Catholic? Bhuddist? Hindu?

Your displeasure you sometimes feel about your Christian faith is certainly not unique to your faith. Sorry, you'll have to do better.

Evolution may be lacking in certainty, so does the idea that smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease. Whatever certainty evolution lacks, it has a great deal more than the existence of God or any other mythical omnipotent being.

04/07/2008 04:45:13 PM · #203

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't have to prove God doesn't exist, the burden is on you to prove he does.

To be fair a belief doesn't require proof so why would you or anybody else demand it? I'm sure at some point in your life you questioned whether or not you're a good person. In doing so did you take the scientific approach to prove it or did you simply go with your gut or whatever your biased mind told you? :P

I'm not so demanding. I don't need absolute proof, but I'd be very interested in some objective evidence for the existence of <> supernatural deity or entity. Something that doesn't rely on faith or the willingness of the credulous.

That would really be exciting news. Man that would be some cool s**t and you wouldn't be able to keep the theists quiet about it. Their whole "separate spheres" argument would be quickly tossed out the window and forgotten about, post haste you can be sure. Alas, nothing yet. Maybe tomorrow. We live in hope.

Actually you may have your proof sooner than you think. The prophecies of the Bible are coming to pass just as it is written. Jesus is returning and when he does He will leave no doubt in your mind but sadly for you it will be too late.

04/07/2008 04:52:50 PM · #204

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't have to prove God doesn't exist, the burden is on you to prove he does.

To be fair a belief doesn't require proof so why would you or anybody else demand it? I'm sure at some point in your life you questioned whether or not you're a good person. In doing so did you take the scientific approach to prove it or did you simply go with your gut or whatever your biased mind told you? :P

I'm not so demanding. I don't need absolute proof, but I'd be very interested in some objective evidence for the existence of <> supernatural deity or entity. Something that doesn't rely on faith or the willingness of the credulous.

That would really be exciting news. Man that would be some cool s**t and you wouldn't be able to keep the theists quiet about it. Their whole "separate spheres" argument would be quickly tossed out the window and forgotten about, post haste you can be sure. Alas, nothing yet. Maybe tomorrow. We live in hope.

Actually you may have your proof sooner than you think. The prophecies of the Bible are coming to pass just as it is written. Jesus is returning and when he does He will leave no doubt in your mind but sadly for you it will be too late.

Any credibility you might have had just evaporated.

How many thousands of times has the end of the world been foretold with those same words?

When they tell you to drink the purple Kool-Aid, just don't.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/07/2008 04:52:51 PM · #205

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
Really? I thought it was termed the Law of Gravity for the very reasons you state.

Urm, which 'Law of Gravity' ? If you mean Newton's theory, that's mostly been superseded and doesn't generally apply. (which is one of Einstein's major contributions with his general theory of relativity)

All theories. The lay definition of a theory and the scientific use of the words differ and usually lead to these sorts of conversations.

So yes, gravity isn't a fact, but it is generally held to be true, similarly evolution.

It is referred to as the 'Law of gravity' that it is a misnomer I will agree. You cannot state however that the theory or law of gravity and evolution are given with the same degree of certainty. One involves something one can observe right now and the other involves things that happened long long ago. You cannot replicate the evolution of an eye but I can drop an apple and see it fall.

Actually, with the advent of genetic science the evolutionary chain can often quite distinctly be directly observed by tracing the genetic markers back through species. This provides direct evidence of macro-evolution (to use the ID crazies' phrase).

As I've said above, no credible biologist, geneticist, or evolutionary scientist doubts the overarching theory. The research now is about refining our understanding of the theory, and trying to understand the specific mechanisms by which evolution brought about the current biological diversity that exists. Scientists argue and experiment about whether evolution is "progressive" or simply "directional," whether the pace of evolution is small and gradual changes the accumulate steadily over time or quick and concentrated in short periods of time followed by periods of relative stability, exploring the application of the new methods and models in other various fields of inquiry such as phylogenetics (the study of species populations and the genetic relationship of organisms to each other), and etc. It's fascinating, it's wondrous, and not one iota of the research requires "faith" or an unfounded belief in a big bathrobed daddy in the sky.

You know, for someone who is stridently encouraging others to open their eyes, ears and hearts to "the truth" you spend a lot of time with your head in the sand. I'm sorry if it messes with your world view, but no amount of holding your hands over your ears and singing "la, la, la, I'm not listening" will change the fact that the debate on the central issue of evolution is settled - and I'm sorry again, evolution won. If someone like Dr. Achoo wants to argue that -- setting aside evolution and any other evidentiary arguments that might seem to undermine a theistic view of the world -- he believes that there plenty of reasons to hold to his faith, that's one thing. I don't agree with him on that, but I can respect his apparently rational (in that it makes sense to him in his life to believe and he perceives that he derives a benefit from it) decision on that score and have (I hope) a civilized and grown up argument about the relative benefits and evidence for the truth of our opposing opinions.

But when someone shows a complete rejection of reason and disdain for rationality -- as I would argue your posts do -- then I don't see the point in engaging with you in a rational and reasoned fashion. The only rational response to such is ridicule. Not directed at you personally, please note - I don't know you and don't have any trouble believing that you might be a great guy and wonderful human being on a personal level. But ridicule of your viewpoint, which is -- under any honest and informed examination -- ridiculous.

You have the right to say it, and you have the right to believe it, and (to make clear my position on a question yo posited from above) you have the right to vote for others like yourself who have equally nutty and ridiculous views and unfounded beliefs. But you don't have the right, and should not have the expectation of, not being mocked and challenged for those views when expressed in a public forum.

Louis

Nikon D800

04/07/2008 04:54:35 PM · #206

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I think you'll find that this kind of thing is not looked on very kindly in a debate like this. The details of your particular points of faith are completely irrelevant, and offering them in this way is utterly insulting.

04/07/2008 04:58:31 PM · #207

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
God is evident by his very creation around us leaving all without excuse. However this is a very small group of people that would fall under this category of not being exposed to the word of God, especially in the age of the internet. It is God's goal that all the people of the world shall have the opportunity to hear and be taught the word of God which is the Bible. It's really just a matter of listening. Do you have ears to hear.

Vishnu is evident by his very creation around us leaving all without excuse. However this is a very small group of people that would fall under this category of not being exposed to the word of Vishnu, especially in the age of the internet. It is Vishnu's goal that all the people of the world shall have the opportunity to hear and be taught the word of Vishnu which are the Sruti and Smriti...

Need I continue...?

What I have given does not and was not intended as any kind of proof of God yet you treat it as such. I answered the question posed to the best of my ability knowing what I know. What is your point here? Is it that you can substitute a different name and thus make the truth a lie? You cannot. The questions was posed regarding the Christian God and so was my answer. It was not an argument purporting to provide any proof of anything. In fact if the person who had not been exposed to the Word of God called him vishnu in his ignorance I would think that to be just fine.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/07/2008 05:01:05 PM · #208

Originally posted by L1:

Serious question...Why does it matter so much to nonbelievers to disprove God's very existence? What do nonbelievers stand to gain from "winning" the argument?

The question could just as easily be reversed, although you misstate the argument by saying that we nonbelievers seek to "disprove God's very existence". We nonbelievers are simply pointing out that there is no credible evidence for the existence of God and that the probabilities of God's existence actually weigh against his/her/its/their existence.

But us nonbelievers are also very troubled by the application in the modern world of what we see as highly irrational and destructive actions and policies based upon unfounded claims and irrational belief. We live in this world, and we value it (perhaps even more than the "true believer" who sees this world as either evil or simply a pit stop on their way to salvation).

If believers (speaking generally, and not in the specific) were content to their belief and practice, leaving out the rest of us, there would be little argument. But the history of belief is a history of coercion, and that tendency has once again become very acute in the world.

That is why we care.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/07/2008 05:03:26 PM · #209

Originally posted by L1:

Serious question...Why does it matter so much to nonbelievers to disprove God's very existence? What do nonbelievers stand to gain from "winning" the argument?

As a point of order, it is impossible to disprove the existence of god (in the same way that it is impossible to disprove the existence of fairies, trolls or the flying spaghetti monster).

Religion is quite a big waste of time and money that promotes bigotry and dissent. Worryingly, it is also being referenced in international politics - something that should be deeply worrying for all of us.

Through promotion of atheism I like to challenge some of the fallacious preconceptions that people here seem to adopt in its defence (such as that religion promotes morality, that by it good and evil may be objectively assessed, that any one religion could ever be right, or that humanist philosophies are no competition for religious dogma). It also seems only fair to eliminate some serious misconceptions (which, from the news reports I see, are increasingly taught in the US as fact) such as the strength of theories such as the big bang and for evolution (the evidence for which is freely available to us all if we care to look).

Also, living in the developed western world it is not often that I come across people with fanatical religiosity that can be witnessed here. The US is unique for a developed western country in its religious fanaticism, yet far enough away that I don't need to worry about my home being torched...

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/07/2008 05:06:42 PM · #210

Originally posted by dponlyme:

That actually made me laugh out loud!

If you can give us a date, or even a range, that would give us the perfect chance to test your hypothesis.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/07/2008 05:11:23 PM · #211

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Whichever theory best describes why gravity is (Einsteins stuff or Newtons)I can agree that gravity is because right now I am experiencing it. That's a pretty darn high degree of certainty.

I can experience the sun traveling around the earth with a high degree of certainty because I experience it every day. Perhaps gravity doesn't really exist and the world just sucks ?

Message edited by author 2008-04-07 17:17:27.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/07/2008 05:11:28 PM · #212

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
It is not scientific proof but it is very logical. It would be impossible to have a relationship with a non-existent entity.

And yet....

You may believe whatever you like, but you have stretched the definition of "logic" to beyond the breaking point. "Logic" is one of those words that many people misuse, and I'm afraid that you've misused it terribly here. You have essentially said:

A. It is illogical to have a relationship with a non-existent entity.
B. I have a relationship with God.
C. Therefore, God exists.

Yikes. That is profoundly, disastrously convoluted.

Originally posted by dponlyme:
It is not my burden to prove to you God's existence anyway. It is yours to prove that He could not possibly exist.

You would make a lousy lawyer.

I submit that you are so wrong on this last point that it is probably not worthwhile trying to examine the many and varied violations of discourse contained in it.

For clarities sake I will correct your A. statement. It is not illogical to have a relationship with a non-existent entity. It is impossible. You of course cannot know that I have a relationship with God because there is no scientific proof I can profer to you. B. I however know that I do have a relationship with God. Therefore C.God does exist. This logic is perfect based on what I know but I certainly understand your reticence in agreeing with the fact that I do have a relationship with God and thus can understand that it provides no logical basis to you for arriving at point C. Once again I have stated over and over that I cannot prove God's existence to you or anyone else.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/07/2008 05:12:23 PM · #213

Originally posted by dponlyme:

You claimed logic and I demonstrated the sheer absence thereof.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

In fact if the person who had not been exposed to the Word of God called him vishnu in his ignorance I would think that to be just fine.

If you think Vishnu might be just another word for any semblance of your concept of God, then ignorance is an ironically appropriate word.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/07/2008 05:13:33 PM · #214

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Oh my! Lawks a mercy. Jesus he is a com'n. ...look busy.
I'm sure you are thoroughly looking forward to watching me burn. Interesting that you are so completely sure that you will be in his good graces come that old Revelation Jamboree. So eager for destruction, desolation, and the pain of others. Very Christlike.

Message edited by author 2008-04-07 17:20:09.

Louis

Nikon D800

04/07/2008 05:13:35 PM · #215

Originally posted by Gordon:

I can experience the sun traveling around the sun...

That's a pretty neat trick. :-P

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/07/2008 05:17:56 PM · #216

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Gordon:
I can experience the sun traveling around the sun...

That's a pretty neat trick. :-P

yeah, my brain couldn't even bring myself to express it backwards like I wanted to, so I corrected mid sentence apparently.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/07/2008 05:20:18 PM · #217

Originally posted by dponlyme:

For clarities sake I will correct your A. statement. It is not illogical to have a relationship with a non-existent entity. It is impossible.

Well, there is also the option that you can have a relationship with a non-existent entity, due to delusion.

It isn't impossible under those conditions.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/07/2008 05:21:35 PM · #218

Originally posted by dponlyme:

B. I however know that I do have a relationship with God. Therefore C.God does exist. This logic is perfect based on what I know...

Your argument above is on equal footing with anyone who has ever claimed to be a prophet, been possessed by demons or seen the Virgin Mary in a potato chip. None are any more or less logical than the others.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/07/2008 05:22:47 PM · #219

I believe her preferred medium for terrestrial appearances is the grilled cheese sandwich.

Message edited by author 2008-04-07 17:27:03.

04/07/2008 05:24:58 PM · #220

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
God is evident by his very creation around us leaving all without excuse. However this is a very small group of people that would fall under this category of not being exposed to the word of God, especially in the age of the internet. It is God's goal that all the people of the world shall have the opportunity to hear and be taught the word of God which is the Bible. It's really just a matter of listening. Do you have ears to hear.

Vishnu is evident by his very creation around us leaving all without excuse. However this is a very small group of people that would fall under this category of not being exposed to the word of Vishnu, especially in the age of the internet. It is Vishnu's goal that all the people of the world shall have the opportunity to hear and be taught the word of Vishnu which are the Sruti and Smriti...

Need I continue...?

What I have given does not and was not intended as any kind of proof of God yet you treat it as such. I answered the question posed to the best of my ability knowing what I know. What is your point here? Is it that you can substitute a different name and thus make the truth a lie? You cannot. The questions was posed regarding the Christian God and so was my answer. It was not an argument purporting to provide any proof of anything. In fact if the person who had not been exposed to the Word of God called him vishnu in his ignorance I would think that to be just fine.

Substitute the name of any deity or other ficticious entity such as the Tooth Fairy for God in your original post and it's just as true. Sorry. Just because you believe the fairy tale doesn't make it true.

04/07/2008 05:41:11 PM · #221

I'm going to make this my last post regarding this subject and bow out of the conversation as it is going nowhere.
Here are the points that I want to make to the evolutionist.

1. we are limited by our 5 senses. We simply cannot detect everything with them no matter what we do or what instruments we use.

2. evolution theory presupposes random mutations and natural selection formed complex organs. This is so highly improbable that it rises to the level of 'belief' equal to that of belief in God.

3. You can no more prove God doesn't exist than I can prove evolution isn't the answer scientifically

4. Since I experience a relationship with God I know he exists even if you don't

5. You refuse to even open your minds to the possibility that God might exist regardless of the rational and obviously educated people around you who know him.

6. You will only come to a saving knowledge of God on your own and not as a result of anything I say.

7. My participation in this discussion has been very good for me as it has bolstered me by keeping my mind and conversation on God. Thank you all for that.

I wish all of you well.

04/07/2008 05:44:11 PM · #222

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I'm going to make this my last post regarding this subject and bow out of the conversation as it is going nowhere.

Otherwise known as, "I'm losing the argument, so screw you guys I'm going home."

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I wish all of you well.

Since you basically threatened me with Christ's wrath in his second coming, I doubt it.

Message edited by author 2008-04-07 17:46:40.