Current approach to science is wrong and undermines the authority of the word of God

[Clair93]

That is all you took from my post. You just proved my point. Why the need to call bull****? Why the need to pick apart someone else's belief, a belief that is probably very important to them?

 

I can't think of any redeeming reasons, honestly.

 

For secular reasons, these beliefs are being pushed onto the society, government, schools, politicians, etc. Apart from an atheist, I'm also a non-astrologer and non-alchemist, but since astrologers and alchemists don't try to force their beliefs onto others in the way of government, policy, laws, I don't care.

[TheFinalWord]

Considering that I am a physicist and agnostic, I feel I can contribute to this conversation. One question I have for athiests and theists is: How can you determine that there is no God? Perhaps within our genetic programming, we just don't have the "stuff" to truly understand what God is, if there is such a thing. I just do not believe that human kind can determine absolute truth. It is a very silly and narcissistic assumption to think we can. We may understand the "how", the science behind the workings of the universe, but can anyone explain the "why"? That's where the fundamental question lies. In that, we can determine if there is a God or not, but can humans determine this? I do not think so.

 

One of the main philosophical, theological

(the Kalam cosmological argument) is an argument for a first mover of the universe:

 

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

The argument then proceeds that the cause has to be something immaterial that transcends space and time. Christian philosophers argue this uncaused cause has personal traits, due to another family of ontological arguments. Most monotheistic faiths go along with these sets of arguments (there's about 20). Then the branches of theism branch off and arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, etc are used to extrapolate Christian theism.

 

There are objections to these premises, but these are things that can be dissected. It will be impossible to prove, but we can look at each premises and see if there is more evidence for its negation than its affirmation and make more reasonable conclusions about the existence of God (or at least one could have more reasons to either believe or disbelieve ).

[Clair93]

Science is incapable of explaining how something came from nothing. What it CAN explain are the processes that began to take place AFTER matter already came into existence. The problem with most evolutionists is that they forget this distinction. But when you consider this distinction, you begin to realize that it doesn't matter if we can prove evolution or not. We will never know, scientifically, what happened to bring something from nothing BEFORE evolution started (hyopthetically). The only way around THIS is to say "there always was something and there never was nothing". That's a legitimate argument which would be for another thread.

 

Science does not claim that something has come out of nothing. It's not observed. We have never observed a "nothing", we simply don't know IF something can or cannot come out of nothing.

[Clair93]

But it's way more useful than the theory of christianity. Christianity doesn't explain why certain species go extinct. Christianity doesn't explain how past, current and future climate changes, geological events or changes in vegetation affect species and populations of all sorts of lifeforms. Evolution does reliably so. Come up with something more accurate and insightful than evolution and biologists around the world will be thrilled and celebrate you.

 

Exactly. In terms of usefulness to predict experiences, theology is as useless as Harry Potter. There's a difference though, Harry Potter is far more moral, and far more interesting than the bible or quran, with far fewer contradictions.

 

Edited January 12, 2015 by Clair93

[todreaminblue]

Guys, I feel bad. I'm a troll. Obviously everything I said is just pure crap. The part I quoted in the first post is not even from Martin Luthor, it's some deepshiiit nonsense I found somewhere on the internet :cool::cool:

 

God, forgive me, but again God doesn't even exist.

 

 

hey Micheal, why did you feel the need to write this.......you have actually inspired soem deep and thoughtful communication and inspirational posts..........you mightn't think god exists but he works through believers and non believers alike as catalyst for change..good or bad or ambivalence..so write on...it woudl eb interesting to note what your thoughts are on the communication in this thread how you feel about what has been said....so if you are going to be a troll...be an enlightened one....a useful one....a troll who learns and grows..thankyou for posting this topic........best wishes....deb

[Clair93]

One of the main philosophical, theological

(the Kalam cosmological argument) is an argument for a first mover of the universe:

 

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

The argument then proceeds that the cause has to be something immaterial that transcends space and time. Christian philosophers argue this uncaused cause has personal traits, due to another family of ontological arguments. Most monotheistic faiths go along with these sets of arguments (there's about 20). Then the branches of theism branch off and arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, etc are used to extrapolate Christian theism.

 

There are objections to these premises, but these are things that can be dissected. It will be impossible to prove, but we can look at each premises and see if there is more evidence for its negation than its affirmation and make more reasonable conclusions about the existence of God (or at least one could have more reasons to either believe or disbelieve ).

 

How do you know that from our common sense intuition, that events don't happen uncaused, you can extrapolate that the same rule applies to the whole universe? You do realize that whatever you see in the world that begins to exist, has also existed in other forms of material in the past time. And any form of causality requires time (any cause is temporally prior to its effect). If you want to use big bang and related theories to suggest that the universe began to exist, you should also agree to other conditions of the theories, one of which is the was nothing temporally prior to the universe, therefore your Aristotelian view on causality is no longer valid as it requires a temporal order.

 

A more accurate cosmological argument is this:

 

1) Whatever begins to exist from stuff that existed previously, seems to have a material cause.

2) The universe did not begin to exist from any stuff that previously existed, as time cannot be defined prior to that moment.

3) This is meaningless.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Clair93

[TheFinalWord]

How do you know that from our common sense intuition, that events don't happen uncaused, you can extrapolate that the same rule applies to the whole universe? You do realize that whatever you see in the world that begins to exist, has also existed in other forms of material in the past time. And any form of causality requires time (any cause is temporally prior to its effect). If you want to use big bang and related theories to suggest that the universe began to exist, you should also agree to other conditions of the theories, one of which is the was nothing temporally prior to the universe, therefore your Aristotelian view on causality is no longer valid as it requires a temporal order.

 

A more accurate cosmological argument is this:

 

1) Whatever begins to exist from stuff that existed previously, seems to have a material cause.

2) The universe did not begin to exist from any stuff that previously existed, as time cannot be defined prior to that moment.

3) This is meaningless.

 

Do you hold to a tenseless or tense theory of time?

[Robert Z]

Considering that I am a physicist and agnostic, I feel I can contribute to this conversation. One question I have for athiests and theists is: How can you determine that there is no God? Perhaps within our genetic programming, we just don't have the "stuff" to truly understand what God is, if there is such a thing. I just do not believe that human kind can determine absolute truth. It is a very silly and narcissistic assumption to think we can. We may understand the "how", the science behind the workings of the universe, but can anyone explain the "why"? That's where the fundamental question lies. In that, we can determine if there is a God or not, but can humans determine this? I do not think so.

 

 

As a physicist you would know that you cannot prove a universal negative.

[writergal]

Science has found "god"

 

-Higgs Boson

-right parietal lobe of the human brain is linked to spirituality / god

 

Hence, humans created god as a mental concept from their own brain. "god" is not a being, a creature that exists in the space outside the earth's stratosphere. How can reasonable people actually believe that to be true? There is nothing beyond earth's protective layer between gravity and space except for more space, some planets, black holes, other universes all discovered and documented by science might I add.

 

Spirituality is a creation of the right side of the human brain. Science figured that one out.

 

P.S. Depression and anxiety can be linked to nutrition and mineral deficiency in the body and be treated with vitamins, minerals and healthy foods.

[Clair93]

Do you hold to a tenseless or tense theory of time?

 

Of course tenseless. The tensed view of time is in direct contradiction with relativity (simultaneity).

[Robert Z]

Of course tenseless. The tensed view of time is in direct contradiction with relativity (simultaneity).

 

 

That only suggests that tenses are relative.

[Clair93]

That only suggests that tenses are relative.

 

Yeah, it only says that there's no objectively right frame of reference. Obviously that's very problematic for the Kalam argument, and that's why a lot of apologists who use Kalam generally reject relativity.

[Robert Z]

Yeah, it only says that there's no objectively right frame of reference. Obviously that's very problematic for the Kalam argument, and that's why a lot of apologists who use Kalam generally reject relativity.

 

 

Faith vs facts.

 

One of my favorite problems as a freshman was to calculate the speed that you would have to be travelling to fit a 10 foot car in a 5 foot garage. As a driver, that would make me tense!

[TheFinalWord]

HAnd any form of causality requires time (any cause is temporally prior to its effect).

 

 

It is not entirely accepted that causation has to be sequential; it's possible causality can be simultaneous. Heumer theorizes, "temporally extended action e occurs simultaneously with temporally extended cause c." So T=0, is the moment at which the universe was caused. And it seems you agree with that?

 

 

Yeah, it only says that there's no objectively right frame of reference. Obviously that's very problematic for the Kalam argument, and that's why a lot of apologists who use Kalam generally reject relativity.

 

Which apologists that publish in the philosophical literature reject relativity? Have you been reading Harry Potter again?

Edited January 12, 2015 by TheFinalWord

[Clair93]

Which apologists that publish in the philosophical literature reject relativity? Have you been reading Harry Potter again?

 

The same one you introduced earlier, William Lane Craig.

 

His words, not mine:

For I claim that God’s timeless existence, given that there is a temporal world, is possible only if a tenseless view of time is correct; whereas if a tensed view is right, God exists temporally in absolute time. Since I am firmly convinced that a tensed view of time is correct, I think that Lorentz was, in fact, right, and that God accordingly exists in time.

 

Just to confirm, that Lorentz himself abandoned this and changed his mind in favor of tenseless theories when experiments showed that gravity is has relativistic features that are incompatible with a tensed view of time. Obviously this nonsense will never get into any peer-reviewed science or philosophy journal.

[Clair93]

It is not entirely accepted that causation has to be sequential; it's possible causality can be simultaneous. Heumer theorizes, "temporally extended action e occurs simultaneously with temporally extended cause c." So T=0, is the moment at which the universe was caused. And it seems you agree with that?

 

While there are other opinions, it's widely accepted among the philosophy and science literature that causality is temporal. I don't have access to that paper beyond page 1 so can't comment on specifically that but generally the simultaneous causation argument says that there are circumstances that cause and effect are simultaneous, such as when you move something with your hand, they move at the same time yet one is causally prior to the other while they are temporally simultaneous. This is clearly false, as it doesn't take into account that friction and surface contacts require time to process and it only feels simultaneous because it's so fast that we can't sense it and for practical purposes we can assume it's simultaneous. This is the basis of all simultaneous causation arguments that I've seen.

 

At T=0, we don't know what happened or what kind of rules apply there. There could well be some other forms of causation, we just don't know. Scientists don't even extrapolate that laws of thermodynamics, gravity, general relativity, etc apply there so it's pretty far fetched when you try to extend the common-sense causality laws to the whole universe. Gravity, causality, electromagnetics, etc are properties within the universe, not properties of the universe. We simply don't know if, and to what extent, these apply to the whole universe.

 

These are well-established matters in physics and philosophy, apologists ignore them because their audience is not philosophers and scientists, they are general public that have no idea. That's why I always say that apologetics is philosophy done backwards.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Clair93

[TheFinalWord]

While there are other opinions, it's widely accepted among the philosophy and science literature that causality is temporal. I don't have access to that paper beyond page 1 so can't comment on specifically that but generally the simultaneous causation argument says that there are circumstances that cause and effect are simultaneous, such as when you move something with your hand, they move at the same time yet one is causally prior to the other while they are temporally simultaneous. This is clearly false, as it doesn't take into account that friction and surface contacts require time to process and it only feels simultaneous because it's so fast that we can't sense it and for practical purposes we can assume it's simultaneous. This is the basis of all simultaneous causation arguments that I've seen.

 

At T=0, we don't know what happened or what kind of rules apply there. There could well be some other forms of causation, we just don't know. Scientists don't even extrapolate that laws of thermodynamics, gravity, general relativity, etc apply there so it's pretty far fetched when you try to extend the common-sense causality laws to the whole universe. Gravity, causality, electromagnetics, etc are properties within the universe, not properties of the universe. We simply don't know if, and to what extent, these apply to the whole universe.

 

These are well-established matters in physics and philosophy, apologists ignore them because their audience is not philosophers and scientists, they are general public that have no idea. That's why I always say that apologetics is philosophy done backwards.

 

See, the first few paragraphs of your response, I was interested in discussing. I do have full access to the article, and the paper is well laid out.

 

But I am not sure why every athiest post on these boards has to end with a cheap shot...

 

These are well-established matters in physics and philosophy, apologists ignore them because their audience is not philosophers and scientists, they are general public that have no idea. That's why I always say that apologetics is philosophy done backwards

 

I am willing to discuss the issues and here you out. But when you come across with statements like "Harry Potter is better than the bible" and link us to videos loaded with strawman arguments, and "their audience is not philosophers and scientists" you make it look like you are biased and not even open to discussion. I just don't get why cheap shot tactics have to be used. Just let the evidence speak for itself. Honestly so much of this comes across like people rooting for football teams.

 

Craig has debated with cosmologists and the debates are really interesting. I don't agree with everything he has to say. I don't agree with everything his opponents say either, but I don't go in automatically dismissing the atheist without even hearing them out. I bet you would be surprised at the audience members. Most actually do study these topics (you have to be somewhat nerdy to even get into this in the first place) and are educated.

 

Anyway, I hope you have a good week.

[Clair93]

See, the first few paragraphs of your response, I was interested in discussing. I do have full access to the article, and the paper is well laid out.

 

But I am not sure why every athiest post on these boards has to end with a cheap shot...

 

These are well-established matters in physics and philosophy, apologists ignore them because their audience is not philosophers and scientists, they are general public that have no idea. That's why I always say that apologetics is philosophy done backwards

 

I am willing to discuss the issues and here you out. But when you come across with statements like "Harry Potter is better than the bible" and link us to videos loaded with strawman arguments, and "their audience is not philosophers and scientists" you make it look like you are biased and not even open to discussion. I just don't get why cheap shot tactics have to be used. Just let the evidence speak for itself. Honestly so much of this comes across like people rooting for football teams.

 

Craig has debated with cosmologists and the debates are really interesting. I don't agree with everything he has to say. I don't agree with everything his opponents say either, but I don't go in automatically dismissing the atheist without even hearing them out. I bet you would be surprised at the audience members. Most actually do study these topics (you have to be somewhat nerdy to even get into this in the first place) and are educated.

 

Anyway, I hope you have a good week.

 

Have a look at the quote in the OP, it's actually from William Lane Craig. You can Google it to find the longer text. So when I say that apologetics is philosophy done backwards, it's true. It starts from a conclusion and works its way back, rather than starting with the evidence and following where it leads (that's true philosophy). And Craig is the most educated and reasonable of apologists out there. Others are much worse (I'm sure you agree).

 

If you listen to Atheists (that's good), listen to this lecture by Scott Clifton. It's 30 minutes but pretty much shows why apologetics is bad philosophy:

[umirano]

Considering that I am a physicist and agnostic, I feel I can contribute to this conversation. One question I have for athiests and theists is: How can you determine that there is no God?

I don't and I don't have to. The ones claiming there is one, and that his existence is relevant to humanity should back up their claim with tangible evidence. They haven't so far and I don't see how they ever will.

 

Perhaps within our genetic programming, we just don't have the "stuff" to truly understand what God is,

I don't see what genetics have to do with "simple" claims like

 

 

• the earth rests on the back of a turtle
  
• we will all be judged after we die
  
• there is a god and he decides which children die of cancer and which live
  

Those claims do not require a specific genome but a specific use of reasoning to accept or discard them.

 

I just do not believe that human kind can determine absolute truth. It is a very silly and narcissistic assumption to think we can. We may understand the "how", the science behind the workings of the universe, but can anyone explain the "why"? That's where the fundamental question lies.

It's an equally silly assumption to say there is a reason in the first place. The "why" doesn't matter so much. It's really bad science to set out to explain the why just because it feels right to explain the "why". Good science describes the "how", and for obvious reasons religion fails every time utterly when it tries to slipstream behind actual science.

 

The problem is with the people who claim to know everything about the "how" from an old book, who refuse to produce tangible evidence and at the same time are expecting the rest of society to subscribe to their other beliefs about social, sexual, ethical and philosophical norms.

 

While typing this it dawned to me that religion had to claim and sell itself as the perfect theory of everything in order to create a false credibility in the target group for the rest of the tenets, the not so cool stuff (like harsh punishments for outsiders, apostates and other non-conformists (gays, having premarital sex).

[umirano]

I don't and I don't have to.

I'm not sure what you (Bishop) meant by "determine". There aren't many gnostic atheists out there, I've never met one anyway.

 

What I mean is, given the weakness of the arguments for existence (of one or more gods) and given how all religious literature has no bearing on the real world (i.e. is a bad theory), it's safe to assume god(s) are not relevant to us on any practical level, if they even exist.

[umirano]

Why the need to pick apart someone else's belief, a belief that is probably very important to them?

 

I can't think of any redeeming reasons, honestly.

I can... We pick each others beliefs apart all the time. And because in everyday life it has harsh consequences to cling to false beliefs we've become very careful about it. For example not many people walk around claiming they had dinner with the easter bunny or they played pool with Elvis. They will immediately pay a price.

 

But the grander the scheme the easier it gets. It has been very easy to let baseless claims for the truth of certain religions steer politics in so many countries. And those politics and clerical authorities damage societies around the world.

 

That's why it is important to test and analyze religious claims. If all religion would be practiced in the private space and would not be a tool to bully outsiders it wouldn't matter to me.

 

Not many people have heated debates about the veracity of astrology and it's predictions. And I think that that's because very few astrologists demand that their findings direct policy, laws and ethical norms.

[umirano]

Why are you so worried about it so even if you could prove god doesn't exist which you cant. And then what?

 

Because I believe that closing in on the truth helps making our lives better. And at the same time discarding old, unfounded beliefs that are used to coerce people into bad, unethical behavior is a good thing.

 

I want to note also that evolution being true doesn't prove god's non-existence and no one claims it does or should. I'm just saying it delivers more and better insight than any religion.

 

I'm a curious person. If I have two options, to learn something and learn about how this knowledge was obtained or to read a tale about something, in the end I'll be more interested in the actual facts than in a (possibly appealing) story. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate a beautiful or thoughtful fictional story. Fiction just won't override facts and testable claims.

Edited January 12, 2015 by umirano
inserted missing word

[TheFinalWord]

nevermind. good day!

Edited January 12, 2015 by TheFinalWord

[autumnnight]

Science has found "god"

 

-Higgs Boson

-right parietal lobe of the human brain is linked to spirituality / god

 

Hence, humans created god as a mental concept from their own brain. "god" is not a being, a creature that exists in the space outside the earth's stratosphere. How can reasonable people actually believe that to be true? There is nothing beyond earth's protective layer between gravity and space except for more space, some planets, black holes, other universes all discovered and documented by science might I add.

 

Spirituality is a creation of the right side of the human brain. Science figured that one out.

 

P.S. Depression and anxiety can be linked to nutrition and mineral deficiency in the body and be treated with vitamins, minerals and healthy foods.

 

Again, I find your opinion very interesting. It is still an opinion. As has been stated, one cannot prove a negative.

 

There is a difference between saying "I do not believe in a god," and "there is no god." The former is a personal statement. The latter is arrogant.

[autumnnight]

But I am not sure why every athiest post on these boards has to end with a cheap shot...

 

Maybe the benefits of tact, emotional intelligence, and plain old good manners has yet to be scientifically proven......