Atheism versus Science

You assume that "natural" laws simply exist. I don't. I think they require some form of regulation for homeostasis. But the universe is a closed system, so the regulation cannot be internal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SAM you are missing the point here. The universe is all there is. There cannot be an outside of all there is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

NP,

"Rational thinking leads us to understand that God is transcendant"

How is that rational when you can not prove there is a god in the first place ?

Please see below, you have yet to answer my question.

"You did not answer my question. My question is why do you believe in dinosaurs if you don't believe science has the ability to study the past ? If you believe in dinosaurs than you have to believe that science can explain the past. Which is it, do you believe in dinosaurs or don't you. If you do then you are contradiciting yourself."

Please answer.

Thanks

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're the one that is doing the assuming.

 

"Rational thinking leads us to understand that God is transcendant"

"How is that rational when you can not prove there is a god in the first place ?"


Rational means logical. I can prove logically that there must be a God. I have done so many times. You cannot prove the opposite.



"You did not answer my question. My question is why do you believe in dinosaurs if you don't believe science has the ability to study the past ? If you believe in dinosaurs than you have to believe that science can explain the past. Which is it, do you believe in dinosaurs or don't you. If you do then you are contradiciting yourself."

Never stated that we cannot study the past. I stated that science cannot. Science must follow the rules of science and one of those rules is that we must observe what we are studying. We cannot observe the past. We can observe fossils in the present and make inferences about the past, but this is not operational science and is filled with conjecture and assumptions which can never be evaluated fully by science.

Your problem here is that, like most atheists, you believe science is all there is. This is stupidity. We also have other ways of knowing such is the historical method. We can know many things that science cannot know anything about, because science is (drumroll) limited to observations in the present.

 

I didn't? It made perfect sense to me back then.

 

Fine, do it.
Start a new thread.

 

First, you've got me pegged wrong. If mainstream science wants to accept a theory that totally contradicts evolution, then I'm down with it. For that to happen, a theory has to go through the entire process, survive critical peer reviews and come out the other end upright. So far, there isn't another theory out there that has survived the test. And it's not like it's an unfair test, because it's the same one evolution had to go through.

Science welcomes a theory to knock evolution out. We all are pretty sure one won't, considering the evidence we have for evolution being a reality, but bring it on all the same. Perhaps there is some monumental aspect of evolution that we don't know yet? Why not? The point being that I'm as open to it as anyone else is. Hell, I didn't propose evolution, it's not like I have any emotional ties to it.

I agree that mythology and religion were not borne out of a need to control populations. All of that kind of stuff comes from the people who start it not understanding the nature of...well, nature! Look at one of the fundamental promises made by Abrahamic religions: Life, everlasting life. It's a way to combat people's fear of death. It promises that you die, but not really. No, in fact, you'll wake up at the gates of heaven, where you'll be welcome home for all of eternity.

It's beautiful, really, and represents the infancy of our species. I get passionate about people who still cling to these ancient mores because they are doing themselves and our people a great disservice by not applying themselves to the real world, opting instead for ignorance under the guise of "true knowledge". It's a shame that there are people stupid enough to be like that anymore. Dan is the perfect example of a brainwashed, ignorant fool that feels no shame stepping into waters way over his head, and is too stupid to realize he's been completely embarrassed.

 

No you cannot.
At least, not without some formal fallacy, such as petitio principii, or ad verecundiam.

It has never been proven, and it goes without saying that numerous philosophers of much greater renown than you have tried to do so.

Unsuccessfully.

This is true.

 

Jdawg,

You wrote:

"It's beautiful, really, and represents the infancy of our species. I get passionate about people who still cling to these ancient mores because they are doing themselves and our people a great disservice by not applying themselves to the real world"

I agree that it is a shame especially when Dan I believe is intelligent, I don't agree with his beliefs but stupid is a unjust word for him IMO. For people I know that have been brought up in the world of religion it is a very hard thing to reject after such a long period of indoctrination. But otherwise I agree with your points completely.

Dan, thank you for attempting to answer my question. You wrote:

"Never stated that we cannot study the past. I stated that science cannot. Science must follow the rules of science and one of those rules is that we must observe what we are studying. We cannot observe the past. We can observe fossils in the present and make inferences about the past, but this is not operational science and is filled with conjecture and assumptions which can never be evaluated fully by science."

Then please tell me again why you believe in Dinosaurs ? Fossils were from the past, that is how they come to been known as fossils. Do you see any fossil skeletons walking around ? Why don't you just say that scientists are putting these things together to try and confuse us believers and trick them and make them question their faith.

Again, if you are saying that science can't study the past. Are you trying to say that Dinosaurs are still with us ? That they are alive walking around in our present time now ?

You can't side step that question. You can't pick and choose when you apply science and when you don't apply it.

I don't do that with your bible, I reject it outright, so try again please.

You wrote:

"Your problem here is that, like most atheists, you believe science is all there is. This is stupidity. We also have other ways of knowing such is the historical method. We can know many things that science cannot know anything about, because science is (drumroll) limited to observations in the present."

Hogwash there, pure hogwash. You can only use conjecture to imagine what science can not show us. You can not know you can only believe and imagine. That is meaningless. That is exactly why we have science because some us want more proof than the local witch doctors version of why the volcano is angry.

Wouldn't you if he said that we have to throw your first daughter into the volcano to calm the angry god, I would be like what, F%$K that. No, how bout we throw the witch doctor in, that should please the hell out of the angry god.

JA

 

Idiot. Rational thinking leads us to question your god fantasies.

 

Is that some sort of silly Islamic belief?

 

No.

 

Summing Things Up

"It has never been proven, and it goes without saying that numerous philosophers of much greater renown than you have tried to do so."

Actually, William Lane Craig is one of them and yes, it has been proven logically, at least as far as anyone I have confronted.

Premise: Everything that has a beginning has a cause
Premise: The universe had a beginning
Conclusion:The universe has a cause

A cause sufficient to cause all of the material world is by definition God. A cause sufficient to create all of the universal immaterial laws of logic such as the law of non contradiction must be rational. This God must be all powerful, eternal and rational which is a description of the Judeo-Christian Islamic God of the Bible.

If the above premises are true, and they are, and the conclusion is based upon those premises, and it is, then the conclusion stands. Counter arguments offered here such as "who created God" are irrelevent and unnecessary obfuscations to this argument. Time/matter/energy were created also. God IS the beginning so there is not need to discuss "before".

The above argument proves that theism is rational and atheism is irrational. The title of this thread is Atheism Vs Science. In spite of bold claims to the contrary, atheism has nothing to do with science. It neither founded modern science, nor is its philosophy a part of science. Science is based upon causality, a Christian notion. Christianity predicts order and complexity, a knowable universe. Atheism would not predict anything of the sort. For atheists to argue that because science is focused upon observations of the natural world that "god therefore doesn't exist" because he cannot be seen is a dishonest and illogical attempt to handicap their opponent. Only an atheist fool believes that science is "all there is".

Atheists want to be respected as the guardians of science and rational thought, but this is a lie and a smokescreen. The only reason that atheism has gained any respectability at all is because of the wide acceptance of the myth of evolution. Even Dawkins admits that evolution has offered atheism credibility.

But the mechanics of evolution have never been observed. When challenged to provide a single laboratory observation of an information gaining series of mutations sufficient to demonstrate molecules to man evolution there was almost dead silence. Spidergoat offered one article regarding experiments with E. Coli in which the mutation has not even been identified. Others offered the outdated changes which are obviously information losing events, not the kind to bring fish to fibbing atheist believers. Apparently no one read the Max/Spetner debate as if they had they would understand just how serious the objection here really is. No one even brought up the best example out there of one possible exception which is the nylon disgesting bacteria. Truth is, information gaining mutations either never occur, or occur so rarely that it would have been impossible for the entire biosphere to have evolved even considering the long ages posited by mosts scientists today.

Atheists do not own science, theists do. And science has advanced the fastest and furthest in nations which are dominated by Christians. The contention that science and Christianity have been at odds throughout the century's is lie which leading atheists know to be a lie. But being atheists they perpetuate it anyway citing Gallaleo, stem cell research, flat earth myths and antievolutionism as their only examples in one thousand years! No one here has the balls to really defend the Gallaleo controversy and they are wise not to try. Stem celled research is a non issue because we now know we don't need to murder babies to get them! When Columbus sailed the ocean blue, the predominant belief was already establish by most biblical theists that the world was round. This made up lie of flat earth bible believers was invented in the 19th century.

Biblical theists are right to appose evolutionism. It is a belief devoid of suffient evidence to support it. The general public have been duped by the web of deception, shifting definitions of the term, and outright fraud associated with this fairytale. The late Stephen Jaye Gould acknowledged the glaring weaknesses of the theory he adhered to and acknowledged the lack of transitional fossils to support gradualism. (So did nearly all of the curators of the worlds largest natural history museums of the last Century!) Rather than abandoning this ridiculous hypothesis he advance an even more ridiculous hypothesis called "punctuated equilibria" which strangly advances absence of evidence as evidence! No wonder that one of his own students, geologist Dr. Kurt Wise, is now a leading Creation scientist.

Atheists claim on this thread to be open to a "knock out theory" which would dismantal evolutionism. But their disingenuousness is transparent. There is only one alternative to evolutionism and that cannot be considered by atheists because it would "allow a divine foot in the door" as one atheist put it. With religious zeal, evolutionists close ranks around their weak hypothesis and persecute all who would challenge it. Professors have lost tenure, their jobs and ability to publish etc. for criticising the theory or its atheistic conclusions. But the winds of change are blowing against this false science and are gettomg stronger each year. Eventually it will crumble under the persentant pressure of scientific facts. More evolutionists are writing books letting the public know the truth such as evolutionist Michael Dentions book. "Evolution, a Theory in Crises".

Very few evolutionists can even prevail in a debate with a Creationist on the scientific evidence. Having viewed many such debates and approached numerous evolutionists to debate I have found that the vast majority do not have the intestinal fortitude to defend their convictions in front of a live audience. They know that they will lose, and lose badly.

So, in conclusion, it is time for theists to take the gloves off and chase cowardly atheists with their unholy trinity talking points back into the dark holes and caves from which they came. Atheists are not guardians of science or logic, but irrational god mythers.

 

What about... The big bang is the beggining so there is no need to discuss "before".

 

It looks like Dan is in favor of having another crusade or maybe an inquisition.

Are you a postal worker, too?

 

If I had no logical or rational basis to deny causality and motion in the universe I would make religious posts like Q and call every scientist who disagrees with me from Galileo to Newton an idiot.

 

No it is not. The early material world was a superheated ball of energy. Is a nuclear explosion God too? It is unreasonable to assume this state had a quality that only showed up 14 billion years later- intelligence.

Typical projection, a psychological defect that most theists suffer from. They have been "taking the gloves off" for decades and nothing has yet shown evolution to be wrong.

 

Dan,

"Very few evolutionists can even prevail in a debate with a Creationist on the scientific evidence. Having viewed many such debates and approached numerous evolutionists to debate I have found that the vast majority do not have the intestinal fortitude to defend their convictions in front of a live audience. They know that they will lose, and lose badly."

That is comedy. Again posted from before, please answer my question below.

So then please tell me again why you believe in Dinosaurs ? Fossils were from the past, that is how they come to been known as fossils. Do you see any fossil skeletons walking around ? Why don't you just say that scientists are putting these things together to try and confuse us believers and trick them and make them question their faith.

Again, if you are saying that science can't study the past. Are you trying to say that Dinosaurs are still with us ? That they are alive walking around in our present time now ?

You can't side step that question. You can't pick and choose when you apply science and when you don't apply it.

I don't do that with your bible, I reject it outright, so try again please.

JA

 

He believes in dinosaur fossils, but pre-human Homo fossils are made of pieces of different animals... uh huh.