Feed on Posts or Comments 15 September 2014

Christianity &Politics Thomas on 02 Oct 2009 12:47 am

Science finds a fossil. Ray Comfort (representing Christianity in general) refutes it.

News of the fossil find:

Oldest “Human” Skeleton Refutes “Missing Link”

Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor. The find reveals that our forebears underwent a previously unknown stage of evolution more than a million years before Lucy, the iconic early human ancestor specimen that walked the Earth 3.2 million years ago.

Ray Comfort’s rebuttal:

Hot evolution news!

How does Ray know that this fossil is false?

They say Ardi is 4.4 million years old and you believe them. I don’t have that sort of faith. I need hard evidence, and I have it in Christianity. I know where we came from (on the highest Authority), I know why we are here and I know where I am going after death.

No one needs to misrepresent the findings of these learned Berkeley folks. No one needs to because they don’t have any empirical evidence.

What causes Ray Comfort (representing Christianity in general) to disbelieve the “4.4 million years old” estimate? He says, “because they don’t have any empirical evidence.” Has he looked at the evidence?

How does Ray Comfort (representing Christianity in general) decide when to keep and when to discard scientific evidence? Does he believe that the bones do exist but are dated incorrectly? If so, why does he believe the bones exist? What evidence would he accept related to dating? Or does he believe that the earth is as old as the Bible says, making 4.4 million years in age an impossibility?

What other parts of science does Ray Comfort (representing Christianity in general) reject whole cloth? Why? Why does Ray Comfort (representing Christianity in general) accept other parts of science (for example, the parts that produce microwave ovens and Internet connections and automobiles) without question?

Why can’t Ray Comfort (representing Christianity in general) see that all of science interconnects? So the part that produces microwave ovens also detects microwave background radiation and therefore, with other interconnecting branches of science, establishes things like the age of the universe and the age of bones?

72 Responses to “Science finds a fossil. Ray Comfort (representing Christianity in general) refutes it.”

  1. on 02 Oct 2009 at 11:38 am 1.Bishop said …

    “the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings.”

    Yes, many of us have made this argument for years. Not more than 6 months ago I had to listen to the arguments of the vast similarities between chimps & man which proved beyond any doubt he was our ancestor.

    More to come.

  2. on 02 Oct 2009 at 12:49 pm 2.Brian E said …

    The answer is because Ray Comfort is a retarded tool, and no matter how many times he gets his ass handed to him in his hat in a debate, he refuses to learn anything. He is only interested in distortion of the truth to fit his own worldview.

    I wonder if he ever finds it just a little ironic that in order to accept his worldview you have to be deceitful, lying, blind, and ignorant. Why would god create this world and then inspire a book which completely contradicts how it was really formed?

    And Bishop, I don’t know where you’re going with that, but before you go anywhere you’re gonna have to state whether you’re a young earth creationist or not. That way we know whether to just immediately disregard you or engage you in a honest intellectual discussion.

  3. on 02 Oct 2009 at 1:01 pm 3.Joseph Dunnam said …

    Since you support Evolution I have some questions for you and your supporters I hope you can answer:

    1.Where did the space for the universe come from?
    2.Where did matter come from?
    3.Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
    4.How did matter get so perfectly organized?
    5.Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
    6.When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
    7.When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
    8.With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
    9.Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
    10.How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
    11.Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
    12.Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
    13.When, where, why, and how did:
    ?Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
    ?Single-celled animals evolve?
    ?Fish change to amphibians?
    ?Amphibians change to reptiles
    ?Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
    ?How did the intermediate forms live?
    14.When, where, why, how, and from what did:
    ?Whales evolve?
    ?Sea horses evolve?
    ?Bats evolve?
    ?Eyes evolve?
    ?Ears evolve?
    ?Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
    15.Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
    ?The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
    ?The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
    ?The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
    ?DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
    ?The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
    ?The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
    ?The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
    ?The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
    ?The immune system or the need for it? 16.There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
    16.How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
    17.When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
    18.*How did photosynthesis evolve?
    19.*How did thought evolve?
    20.*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
    21.*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
    22.What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
    23.*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
    24.*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
    25.*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

    After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

    26.Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

    27.Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, “God must have designed it”?
    28.Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
    29.Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
    30.What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
    31.Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
    ?It is all they have been taught.
    ?They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
    ?They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
    ?They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
    ?Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
    32.Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
    33.Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
    34.What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, “Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening.”
    35.Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
    36.Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
    37.Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.

  4. on 02 Oct 2009 at 1:16 pm 4.c0y0te said …

    Joseph, I really feel sorry for you, you are too naive. Poor thing.

  5. on 02 Oct 2009 at 1:19 pm 5.Gideon said …

    Reply to Joseph Dunnam:

    Hi, I think you went through an awful lot of trouble to write all that stuff so I started to answer the questions off the top of my head to see if I could come up with something reasonable. I eventually got bored but here’s what I came up with:

    1) The space that the universe is in was always here, therefore it didn’t come from anywhere.

    2) The matter in the universe also didn’t come from anywhere, it was and always will be here.

    3) The laws of the universe is really just our way of understanding how the matter in the universe is moving in relation to other matter in the universe, therefore the description of the laws of the universe came from us, and the laws themselves didn’t come from anywhere, they were always here.

    4) The matter in the universe is not perfectly organized, it is constantly moving around and changing.

    5) Life and non-living matter is actually the same stuff. We only distinguish between the two because Life matter has reacts slightly differently than non life matter, and because we are life matter, we noticed the difference.

    Sorry at this point I think your comment was getting a little tedious. I will ask though, what have you done lately to disprove all of your most cherished beliefs? If you say nothing, then that is the wellspring of your faith in ‘god’ and nothing else.

  6. on 02 Oct 2009 at 2:10 pm 6.Ben said …

    Joseeph,

    We don’t know. We don’t know because we are very limited beings who really just don’t understand much about what is around or about our psat. We all have opions and we have beliefs that help us form those opinions. The ironic thing is we have this ridiculous belief that admitting we don’t know is a sign of weakness when in reality it is a sign of understanding.

  7. on 02 Oct 2009 at 2:33 pm 7.AntiRoss said …

    That long tedious post, Joseph, is mostly what is known as an “argument from ignorance”.
    Meaning that since you don’t have the knowledge to understand something, what you already believe must be true.
    A great deal of the questions have been answered by science, and this is not a place to teach remedial, basic science. If you’re truly that interested, go study it. I expect you’d rather wallow in ignorance, though. Oh, and you’re not going to get accurate science from a biased, creationist source…

    The rest of the religious garbage has been dealt with in the materials on GodIsImaginary.com – go read that. Unless, once again, you’d rather wallow in superstition.
    And there is nothing at all frightening about there not being a god, unless you’re an infant or something.

  8. on 02 Oct 2009 at 3:01 pm 8.Crystal said …

    I have a few questions for you, Joseph.

    1. Why haven’t you picked up any number of science books that explains all this? It’s pretty easy to do, and if you read it objectively, you might learn something. No one is going to respect you in a debate if you don’t take the time to learn about these things for yourself – and, by the way, most of us “non-believers” DO know the Bible and its teachings because we come from religious backgrounds, so you can’t use that excuse.

    2. Where does your great Yahweh come from? Oh, I get it – he’s the “Alpha and Omega”. That doesn’t cut it. You have to explain the creation and existence of “God” in order to claim “he” made universe.

    3. Why would your god make the world appear to be so old, then expect you to believe the world is only 6,000 years old because a book written by ancient goat-herders told you so?

    4. Why DO you believe in a book written by ancient goat-herders??

    5. What makes your holy book and religion the “right” one? There are hundreds of religions in this world – why is yours the truth?

    6. Do you realize that if you had been born in Sri Lanka, you would have been raised Buddhist and, therefore (according to your current beliefs), would have gone to “Hell” for not accepting Jesus Christ? Same goes if you have been born in Saudi Arabia and been raised a Muslim. How do you feel about that? Does your god play favorites based on chance geographical birth?

    7. There are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the known universe. Why would your god create all that, then create life only on one, lone planet?

    8. Ignoring all those billions and billions of galaxies with billion and billions of stars in them, there have been billions of billions of people that have lived on this planet throughout human history. What makes you think that your god gives a damn about what each individual ate for lunch, whom they have sex with, or what they THINK each and every day?

    9. How is it that, if your Bible is the true authority given by your one, true god, that you can pick and choose what you like out of it, then dismiss the rest?

    10. Have you actually read your holy book? If so, you would realize what an intolerant, bullying, whiny, petty, misogynistic, genocidal, violent, brutal god you worship.

    11. How can you read your holy book – read what your god says about finding it pleasing to kill those who don’t believe in “him”, enjoys the sight of “his” people cutting open pregnant women, encourages people to bash babies’ skulls open on rocks – let alone see the atrocities that your religion has caused throughout history (all in the name of your god), yet still call this god a “loving” god?

    12. How can your god, who knows everything (including the future), sees everything, and created everything be considered a loving god when the majority of his creation will be sent to “Hell”, with “his” full awareness that this would happen?

    13. How can you expect “non-believers” – many of whom came from religious backgrounds, saw it for what it really is and rejected it – to believe in your nonsense?

    14. Why does it matter if we don’t believe in the first place? What is the big deal? It doesn’t affect you, and – after all – your god already knew this was going to happen.

    15. Why do you persist in trying to convert those who have already made the decision to reject your silly beliefs? Does your god give you brownie points or something for every “non-believer” you convert?

    16. Finally, if your god is so great and powerful, why can’t “he” just SHOW us that “he” is real. Irrefutable evidence would sure clear things up.

    The reason we “non-believers” believe what we do (because, while we don’t believe in your or any gods, we DO believe a great many things) is through evidence. Evolution is supported by a massive amount of evidence, and you would see that if you would ever bother to pick up a science book and read it.

    It’s a pity that you don’t understand it, but just because you haven’t bothered to learn, don’t expect us to accept your beliefs which are based on nothing more than an old book, written by humans thousands of years ago. There is no evidence that your god or any god exists, and you would do well to realize that.

    I can already hear your argument – “God lives in my heart.” Well, it would be nice if you would keep him there, thanks.

  9. on 02 Oct 2009 at 3:37 pm 9.Donald said …

    Joseph,

    You are right. I used to be a Christian, but I had an urge to drink, fornicate, and commit heinous acts. When I found evolution, it taught me that since we all came from a pile of goo and some monkeys, it was okay to do all these things. Now, as a fundamental Darwinist, I abuse children and sleep with other men, all the while knowing that a scientific fact has given me the right to do so. Thank Darwin there are no morals! Without God, all things are permissible.

    PS- Do you skype? You sound cute.

    Sincerely,

    Donald

  10. on 02 Oct 2009 at 4:08 pm 10.Brian E said …

    Joseph the troll, I have just one question for you, which is a repeat of what I already posted. Why did your god create a universe/world, and the turn around and write a book that completely contradicts all the facts and evidence regarding how that world was created? Why wouldn’t the bible perfectly reflect how this world was created? OK, fine, 2 questions. Go ahead Mr.Troll, answer away.

  11. on 02 Oct 2009 at 5:06 pm 11.Lou said …

    lol, Joseph you struck a nerve! When you ask the hard questions, not explained by observable science you really do tick off those whose very lives rest on the hope that Darwinism is true. Sex with little boys is important to some of the posters *sigh*. Never new Donald Duck could sink so low.

    Troll only means they don’t like your beliefs. The fact they have no anwers for your questions means they hope Darwinism one day might offer a solution. Great questions Joseph, keep challenging the accepted dogma.

  12. on 02 Oct 2009 at 5:08 pm 12.Lou said …

    I was just remined of one question.

    Why and how did the platypus evolve? There is a head scratcher.

  13. on 02 Oct 2009 at 6:16 pm 13.AntiRoss said …

    Lou, have you ever read one scientific book in your life?
    Or any of the above posts that are far more intelligent than yours?
    You prefer a Middle Eastern religion to a rich western history of discovery in spite of the influence of dogmatic priests. People with real courage standing up to people in power. You prefer myth to truth.
    And again, post #12, is an argument from ignorance.
    Stop scratching your head and go to the library.

  14. on 02 Oct 2009 at 6:22 pm 14.Crystal said …

    Did you read any of what I wrote, Lou, or are my questions too hard for you to answer?

    The “hard” questions Joseph asked, such as asking for the answers that any science book has, aren’t really that hard, and it doesn’t really bear answering. Go READ and LEARN. You have no idea how natural selection works, obviously. Until you do, don’t expect any of us to engage in a debate with you, especially as your beliefs have no evidence to support them.

    There is no reason to answer Joseph’s questions because they have already been answered. If you want proof of evolution, first start with Darwin’s On the Origin of Species to learn how natural selection works. If that’s too difficult for you to comprehend, Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True and Richard Dawkin’s newest book The Greatest Show on Earth should help.

    After that, take a look at the thousands of transitional fossils archived in museums and universities throughout the world (or just read about them. There are plenty of articles about them), read about how DNA proves natural selection, read about vestigial organs and bones to see how the process of evolution works. It’s all fascinating stuff, really.

    Scientific theories are not just guesses. They have been tested, peer reviewed, and re-tested. They stand up to all sensible criticism, and they are as close to fact as one can get. The theory of evolution is a fact as much as gravity is a fact. If someone wants to believe that some velcro god keeps us stuck to the earth rather than gravity, go ahead. But because there is no evidence for it, it’s all bunk to the rest of us, just like your belief in “creationism”.

    It isn’t that we don’t “like” your and Joseph’s beliefs. We just don’t believe them, and we find it ridiculous that you insist your beliefs should be put on an equal playing field with science. Why don’t you believe in Thor? Or Dionysus? Or Ra? It is probably for the same reasons we don’t believe in your god. There is no evidence. There is no science to support those or your beliefs.

    As for “sex with little boys” thing (for which the person who posted about was obviously being sarcastic), talk with the Vatican. They recently said that pedophilia isn’t really that big of a deal: http://tinyurl.com/yazo2zn “It isn’t pedophilia. It’s just sex with adolescent boys.” These are Christians, by the way. The oldest Christian establishment in the world.

    Just for clarification, my life does not rest on the hope that “Darwinism” (and by that, I suppose you mean natural selection) is true. My life does not rest on anything, especially not hope. I live. I die. In between some interesting things happen. I don’t live my life hoping that I will reside forever with some imaginary sky-daddy, but I do treat other people like I would want to be treated. I am kind to people. I encourage objective thought, reason, and learning. I love life. I am happier now than I ever was as a “Christian”. I value life more now, and I value the world more. I see beauty in nearly everything, and I find evolution and science more fascinating and beautiful than any ancient, violent, maniacal stories made up by uneducated goat-herders.

  15. on 02 Oct 2009 at 7:24 pm 15.Lou said …

    Crystal & Ross,

    I feel certain I have read more than you have on this subject. Here is the difference; I have read both sides of the argument. Darwinism is a theory. Theory does not equal fact. As a theory I have no issues. As the absolute truth about mankind, I have many. Try to comprehend this and you will be on your way to freeing yourself from preconceived beliefs. Unless you have a Phd in every area of biology, genetics, astronomy & physics you don’t have a complete grasp on the subject matter yourself.

    And Crystal, yes I recognize sarcasm when I see it. I too was being sarcastic. I am an old retired physician, don’t waste your time typing out all the various transitional fossils and other nonsense. The fossil record as even admitted to by Dawkins is a joke.

    Oh, just as a disclaimer, I am a theistic-evolutionist. To quote Francis Collins you could use the word Logos. If you don’t understand that look it up. Attempting to pigeon-hole everyone with your labels is an exercise in foolishness.

  16. on 02 Oct 2009 at 7:35 pm 16.Lou said …

    One other thought here Crystal

    I suggest you read “The Language of God” by Francis Collins. That is if you are able to read other POVs. He was only the head of the Human Genome project. It might elighten you as to some of the questions from Joseph you are unable to answer.

    Cheers

  17. on 02 Oct 2009 at 7:50 pm 17.Crystal said …

    You obviously didn’t read what I wrote. I believe I made myself very clear, and my explanations were sound. I find it presumptuous of you to assume you’re more well read on any subject than I am, especially as you have shown nothing to indicate you have a modicum of intelligence, other than proclaiming you are an “old retired physician.”

    I do have a very good understanding of “both sides”. I come from a very religious upbringing (in the heart of the Bible-belt, no less), and I am the only Atheist in my family. I have a very good understanding of the Judeo-Christian Bible, creationism, Intelligent Design theory, and the continual attempts by Christians to insert their personal religious beliefs into government, public schools, and the courts.

    I disagree that you have to have a degree in every area of science to understand a process as simple as natural selection. And what exactly does “The fossil record as even admitted to by Dawkins is a joke,” mean? Aside from being a poorly written sentence, it is a false statement. Dawkins is a staunch supporter of the fossil records as support for evolution. Have you ever read any of Dawkins’ books or papers? Please show me an example to support your claim.

    I don’t believe I pigeon-holed anyone with any label, thank you very much. You have given no proof of your beliefs, as no theist ever has, and I have explained why we “non-believers” refute your sky-daddy explanations.

    I have no problem with people believing in a god. Go right ahead. What I have a problem with is people like Joseph who think creation theory should be taught along with sound, scientific theories such as evolution. As a physician, you may have an understanding of the human body, Lou, but you fail at understanding evolution and the process of natural selection.

    If you are indeed a “theistic-evolutionist” as you say, you should accept Darwin’s theory of natural selection, yet also consider it to be part of “God’s great plan”. If you refute evolution, you cannot be a theistic evolutionist. Perhaps YOU should go look it up.

  18. on 02 Oct 2009 at 7:54 pm 18.Crystal said …

    I believe it would be pointless for me to read that book, Lou, as I don’t believe in a god. I assume from the title (and from a basic understanding of Francis Collins’ beliefs) that it would require the reader to believe in a god, correct? I was raised Christian. Do you think one book will suddenly make me believe in a creator? There is no evidence. Period. Just anecdotal stories and a holy book written and edited by hundreds of different people thousands of years in the past.

  19. on 02 Oct 2009 at 8:30 pm 19.AntiRoss said …

    I seriously doubt, Lou, that you have read as much as you claim.
    As evidence I repeat this sentence:
    “Darwinism is a theory”.
    First off, it is not Darwinism, but the theory of natural selection. Second, you’ve equated the meaning of scientific theory with hypothesis.
    Two pretty big blunders for a supposedly well-read person…
    …never mind your idiotic platypus question…

    Next, once again, a muddled-thinking Christian superhero is trotted out as an argument from authority. In this case it’s Francis Collins.
    Usually it’s C.S. Lewis or Karen Armstrong – both of which are utterly tiresome.

    Collins is a perfect example of someone that can be intelligent in one aspect of their life, but utterly irrational in another. This is not uncommon.
    Arthur Conan Doyle is an oft-cited example, but you can see it today all around you. Maybe even in your mirror…

    Anybody else here who wants to read a scathing review of “The Language of God” can try this address: (I’m pretty sure Lou won’t)

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Sam_Harris/Language_Ignorance_review.html

  20. on 03 Oct 2009 at 2:25 am 20.Bruebista said …

    as Antiross trots out the well worn Sam Harris……(ha ha ha)

  21. on 03 Oct 2009 at 3:45 am 21.AntiRoss said …

    Yes. Smart and lucid.

  22. on 03 Oct 2009 at 6:31 pm 22.Lou said …

    Crystal the fact you believe I have not explained my beliefs indicates you have no understanding theistic-evolution. Again, I suggest the book again or do some research. We follow modern evolutionary synthesis to a point. We believe the formation of life goes beyond the theory.

    In fact, its very existence is a testimony to God’s existence. Nevertheless it is a theory. Why you view this as a negative leads me to believe you do not know what constitutes a theory. The fact you desire not to read a book because you do not believe in god, leads me to believe you are less than honest in you study of the multiple sides in this issue. I assure you I have no desire to convert you. Its OK.

    AntiRoss in the UK of which I am a citizen, Darwinism retains its usage as a reference to natural selection. Richard Dawkins even refers to himself as a Darwinist Scientist in his essays entitled “A Devil’s Chaplain”.
    The drop-out English major Sam Harris is a very biased source of information with an agenda. His review really didn’t address 98% of the book. A bad combination so you might want to find other sources. I understand the need to have a role model but…… Anthony Flew was mine way back in the day.

  23. on 03 Oct 2009 at 8:11 pm 23.AntiRoss said …

    Lou,
    I linked to that review as an afterthought, simply to counter your reference to Collins’ book – just in case anyone here wasn’t aware that perhaps “The Language of God” isn’t an open and shut case.
    It wasn’t meant as an argument on it’s own. And, of course, I wouldn’t expect those on your side of the debate to take it as one.

    I’d like to make the point that assertions of bias and agenda, if applied to Harris, then certainly apply to Collins as well.
    I mean, c’mon, the guy states as a matter of fact all sorts of god stuff. There is a serious incongruence there compared to his role in scientific research. You just can’t state myth as fact.

    In terms of theistic evolution, I find it unfathomable that people feel the need to add the supernatural to the natural.

    (Harris is not my role model, but, I have to point out that the term “drop out” is pretty misleading).

  24. on 05 Oct 2009 at 12:43 pm 24.Brian E said …

    Lou,

    Joesph came here, posted a bunch of garbage, and then left without any intent on a real discussion. That’s called trolling.

    Second, he didn’t post any ‘hard’ questions. Answers to any of his questions can be obtained by taking college level biology courses; you cannot explain evolution in a few blog comments!

    Third, the fact that you keep referring to evolution as a theory is enough of a demonstration of your ignorance. Theories based on thousands of pieces of evidence are not ‘just theories’. We know more about evolution than we do gravity; is gravity ‘just a theory’?

    Just because you worship a god of the gaps doesn’t mean the rest of us have to buy into it. In areas where evolution does not have an answer (yet), we are perfectly comfortable in waiting for additional research and evidence to arrive instead of trying to shove ‘god’ into the hole. And if you’re not smart enough to understand that that’s exactly what you’re doing then I can’t help you.

  25. on 05 Oct 2009 at 1:47 pm 25.Lou said …

    As a case in point AntiRoss do you believe in hope? If you do you would have rather dubious task of proving something akin to hope. Hope is experienced, not verified with science or with an instrument. Nevertheless few would qualm that it does exist. God is similar, in that one respect. If you have never experienced God you would tend not to believe in God. God is not proven with science or an instrument although I could make a good case for his existence. However interpretation of that evidence is founded on preconceptions or other agendas. If you are set against seeing evidence for God you will naturally interpret any evidence accordingly. Those who are justly open to following the evidence wherever if might lead would tend to be open to the possibility. Hope, love, self-awareness, consciousness, aesthetics, reason, etc all present a portion of the puzzle that points to reality beyond Darwinism.

    The diversity of beliefs makes the world a much more exciting arena. Unfortunately such a concept probably would be in direct dissent to the position of a Sam Harris.

  26. on 05 Oct 2009 at 2:20 pm 26.Lou said …

    Brian

    What does

    “Theories based on thousands of pieces of evidence are not ‘just theories’”

    mean exactly?

    To be truthful it is fact and theory Brian. The observable & testable is fact while the framework is theory. Yes, very similar to gravity.

  27. on 06 Oct 2009 at 1:06 pm 27.Joseph Dunnam said …

    I ACTUALLY posted those questions to get answers . You see you have assumed that I “trolled” when in FACT I want to know the answers .Believe me I am NOT and WILL NOT be the last Christian to pose these questions to Evolutionists and Atheists. Sometimes they answer sometimes they don’t . NEXT I don’t believe “All truth is relative” Relative: According to one’s opinion . Example : Someone says ” I belive Evolution is true because of Originpf The Spiecies .I believe The Bible is true because I read it.” One of these is lying about The Truth my answer to Truth is in John 14:6 from the words of The Lord Jesus Christ.God bless.

  28. on 06 Oct 2009 at 1:54 pm 28.Joseph Dunnam said …

    Brian , God didn’t write that contradicts science actually according to what I know from The Bible science hasn’t caught up with The Bible they are behind ESPECIALLLY in The Psalms where God gives man the physical location of The 3rd Heaven and then tells him he can’t reach in his lifetime . The location of the 3rd Heaven according to Scripture is ABOVE ALPHA DRACONIS .One more read The Bible before you say it contradicts science as I see no one has answered my questions. Here are some scientific facts in The Bible you may have never read . Psalm 8:8 , “The fowl of the air , and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the sea.”

    Psalm 19:5,6 : ” Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber , and rejoices as a strong man to run a race.
    His going forth is from the end of heaven , and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.”

    Psalm 25:14 ,” The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him ; and he will show them his covenant.”

    Psalm 33:6 ,” By the word of the LORD were the heavens made ; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.”

    Scientific facts in The Bible . The Scriptures say , “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished , and all the host of them” (Genesis 2:1) .The Hebrew uses the past definite tense for the verb “finished” , indicating an action completed in the past , never again to occur . The creation law (often referred to as the Law of the Conservation of Energy and/or Mass) states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed .It was because of this Law that Sir Fred Hoyle’s “Steady-State” (or “Continuois Creation) Theory was discarded .Hoyle stated that at points in the universe called “irtrons”, matter (or energy) was constantly being created .But, the First Law states just the opposite .Indeed , there is no “creation” ongoing today .It is “finished” exactly as The Bible states.

    Psalm 95:4,5 : ” In his hand are the deep places of the earth : the strength of the hills is his also.
    The sea is his , and he made it: and his hands formed the dry land.”

    Scientific Bible FACT .Only in recent years has man discovered that there are mountains on the ocean floor.This was revealed in the Bible thousands of years earlier .While deep in the ocean , Jonah cried , “I went to the bottloms of the mountains….” (Jonah 2:6) The reason the Bible and TRUE science harmonize is because they have the same Author. Once again anothe place where The Bible was AHEAD of Science by THOUSANDS of YEARS.

    There are many but I will stop here.

    To answer question #2 well hey I just did with Question #1 . Are you up for answering my questions for instance:

    I have 2 questions for you : 1. Where did the space of the universe come from ?

    2. Where did matter come from?

  29. on 07 Oct 2009 at 7:14 pm 29.Just Some Guy said …

    I’m pretty sure that Ray Comfort doesn’t speak for “christianity in general.”

    In fact, at this point, he pretty much speaks only for Ray Comfort’s Insane Asylum.

    Seriously, after the banana thing I just stopped picking on him. He’s a child.

  30. on 08 Oct 2009 at 4:34 pm 30.Joseph Dunnam said …

    Can you answer my 2 questions or will you dodge them too. I KNOW Evolution and Atheism are LIES , you don’t and since they are so VAST IN KNOWLEDGE .

    Just Some Guy answer the questions:

    1. Where did the space of the universe come from ?

    2. Where did matter come from?

    Just 2 of many questions , you see these questions have been answered by Creationists but you Atheists and Evolution are letting me a HANG UP , not surprising at all give my experiences your faith. It is a faith where you BELIVEVE it or not.

  31. on 08 Oct 2009 at 5:45 pm 31.Ben said …

    Joseph don’t let the lack of comments upset you. Those questions cannot be answered by science.

  32. on 08 Oct 2009 at 9:04 pm 32.Jynx said …

    Joseph:

    Your questions were already answered above in two different posts by two different people. Just in case you would prefer not to scroll up to see them, I will give you my response here (which aligns with one of the posts above):

    One possiblity is that “Space” (also known as the Universe) has always existed. The truth is we don’t know.

    Matter was initially created out of energy (this idea is presented well in Victor Stenger’s book “God: The Failed Hypothesis”). This leads us to the question: “Where did the energy come from?”
    Please refer to the response above.

    I (and, I presume, others here) do not have a problem with not having all of the answers right now. Admitting this is intellectually honest. If you believe you have the answers the burden of proof is upon you to make your case and present a body of evidence (or at least an indisputable logical proof) which supports your case. I challenge you right now to do so.

  33. on 08 Oct 2009 at 11:26 pm 33.TNT said …

    Jynx you didn’t answer a question, you provided theories with no supporting evidence.

    Another theory is God created the universe and matter. Check Amazon for books.

    Another theory is aliens put it all here including us. Check Amazon for books.

    No proof for either, but we can certainly stae anything without evidence, huh. If you don’t have all the answers right now, then I think Joseph has made his point.

  34. on 09 Oct 2009 at 1:16 am 34.Jynx said …

    Perhaps you could explain what point he has made, TNT?

    I offered a few ideas but immedietely followed those up with “I don’t know” and then made a statement about being intellectually honest as my reason for doing so. My point is that even if the only answer any scientist has for all of Joseph’s questions is “I don’t know” (which isn’t the case) it STILL does not lend credence to a theistic view of anything.

    Once again, I have made the honest admission of not having the indisputable answers to all of Joseph’s questions. If Joseph (or you for that matter) wish to offer a hypothesis, theory, assertion, etc. then the burden of proof is on you. Again, I challenge you (either of you) to offer your case.

  35. on 09 Oct 2009 at 4:11 am 35.AntiRoss said …

    Joseph et al

    You’re asking for simplistic answers for some complicated questions, some of which which are on or beyond the cutting edge of physics. Nobody here seems to want to waste the effort of taking you through a basic science education. It would take hours and hours of commenting. This blog isn’t busy enough, I think, to attract enough people to want to spend that much time. Never mind that it apparently takes even a highly intelligent person ten years of constant focus just to grasp some of the concepts in advanced physics. And you want it explained in a blog comment.
    This is like someone showing up to an event, or a rehearsal, or a meeting completely unprepared, and then that person expects everyone else to cater to them to make up for their lack of hard work

    (And just because you don’t get answers here, Ben, it doesn’t mean that science can’t answer them).

    Then, out comes some saccharine insight or verses taken from a text written by uneducated, primitive Middle-Eastern tribal people and you expect the rest of us to take it, and you, seriously.

    Why do regular everyday people feel they have the footing to argue against physicists, biologists, geologists etc.? Because of the bible?

    Do you do the same with your doctor? “Please Doc, cast the demons out!” or “Damn your tests, I’m off to a faith healer! The Bible trumps your darn learnin’ ‘n’ studyin’.”

    The bible is not the ultimate truth. It is way unenlightened compared to some philosophies of other cultures. Enough so to show that it sure isn’t divine. Even the good stuff is found in better form in other sources from all over the world. A child (at least a non-brainwashed one) can see that it is chock full of myth, exaggerations and superstition, not to mention complete falsehoods. And even a child could come up with better commandments.
    Every one of us could.

    And your god, like all gods, is make-believe. If he’s not, then let him strike me down before I can hit “submit comment”! I dare him.

    And Lou, claiming that others here don’t know what you’re talking about when you say “If you have never experienced God…”, is assuming that we haven’t felt and understood those feelings. That you have found something we haven’t. We know perfectly well how to get lost in euphoria. And upon reflection, a self-critical, intelligent person, will eventually realize it to be a self-deluding mysticism. We are not naive to your experience. You, I imagine, may have just got stuck there.

    Oh, and Lou is still stuck on the scientific definition of “theory”. The “theory” of evolution by natural selection is one used to explain millions and millions of real and testable facts – it is an explanation that works, beautifully. It is not a guess, but a testable explanation that has not been refuted. Details are still being added without destroying the whole.
    Unless you call ‘contested by bible readers’ a valid refutation.
    Saying “it is in fact a theory” is deliberately trying to make it sound like a tentative stop-gap measure till we find a greater truth, and that is misleading.

    All this being said, though, I absolutely do not wish to suggest that the questions aren’t valid, nor that they shouldn’t be posed. However, assuming victory because they all haven’t been answered is what seems unreasonable to me. And, as Jynx has pointed out, assuming victory without offering your own proof is also unreasonable.

  36. on 09 Oct 2009 at 11:36 am 36.TNT said …

    The point Jymx is that you don’t know the answer therefore God is a possibility. If you don’t like the word God then Creator. Considering that many scientist also are theist, it is reasonable.

  37. on 09 Oct 2009 at 12:49 pm 37.Jynx said …

    I agree that one possibility is that an intelligent being has contributed to the formation of life of earth… or perhaps even the formation of the earth itself.

    I agree it is a possibility in the sense that science does not completely discount any even remotely possible explanation for an event in case we find we were wrong about something in the future. This is why science is non-dogmatic.

    I hasten to add, however, that we have no evidence to support such a hypothesis and therefore no reason to accept it for consideration. If you have any evidence to support it feel free to provide it.

    The two questions Joseph posed in his last post, however, is asking (essentially) about the formation of the universe. The hypothesis that any BEING created the universe is not reasonable. If you think it is, feel fee to present your case for analysis.

    As to your last point: “Considering that many scientist also are theist, it is reasonable.” (quoted from above post)

    This is nothing more than an Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Common Practice (both logical fallacies). I could just as easily say, “many scientists are also Communists, therefore Communism is reasonable.” I could post dozens of examples like this to illustrate my point but I don’t think that will be neccessary.

  38. on 09 Oct 2009 at 1:42 pm 38.TNT said …

    Actually you logic fails here unless you are referring to political scientist?

    Scientist are not political authorities therefore there views on communism is moot.

    The discussion of origins is a topic deeply entrenched in in the discussions involving the possibility of a creator. Therefore the fact that many scientist are theist is relevant to the conversation. Logical continuity exists.

    To your first efforts.

    “The hypothesis that any BEING created the universe is not reasonable.”

    I can make just a strong a case for this as any other possibility. You use the word created which to my mind implies a creator and naturally information and intelligence. Matter creating itself is unreasonable. Matter always existing is unreasonable unless something beyond the natural is at work. To who or what is naturally up for debate. Plenty of books available at Amazon.

  39. on 09 Oct 2009 at 2:55 pm 39.Jynx said …

    It seems you are confusing the Appeal to Authority fallacy with the misuse of expert testimony (which is also fallacious but not what I was referring to).

    I’ll explain: You said, “Considering that many scientist also are theist, it is reasonable.”

    It is not reasonable unless said scientists are capable of producing evidence to support their belief(s). Simply because they are scientists does not mean they are right. Hence the scientific method and peer reviewed research.

    You said, ” Scientist are not political authorities therefore there views on communism is moot.”

    This was an attempt by you to rebut my counter-example. It fails for several reasons, not the least of which is that social scientists, anthropologists, etc. often study political/economic theory in some detail in order to study their effects on individuals and whole populations. Many of these scientists could easily by considered an authority on Communism in its various aspects.

    You said, “I can make just a strong a case for this (an intelligent creator of the universe) as any other possibility.”

    Then do it. I have challenged both you and Joseph several times to make your case. I have yet to see it.

    You (and anyone else who tries) will be unable to make a reasonable case for this hypothesis because the definition of the universe is, “everything that exists”. There are several other re-wordings of it depending on your sources but they all come down to this.

    If a being created the universe, then where did such a being reside before the act of creation? There is no such thing as “outside the universe”. To even postulate a being or object as being “outside the universe” is say it is outside of existence. i.e. non-existent.

    Furthermore, how did such a being “act” to create anything before time was in existence? Without time there can be no action of any kind, for time is a “measure of action”.

    I repeat my above challenge: If you can make “just as strong a case” for your god hypothesis as anything else, then do it.

  40. on 09 Oct 2009 at 4:58 pm 40.TNT said …

    “It is not reasonable unless said scientists are capable of producing evidence to support their belief(s).”

    Evidence interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. I could claim the fact we are here is evidence. All interpretations are based on preconceptions. I never claimed scientist could or would put it up for peer review. Science is incapable of reviewing anything that might be outside natural mechanism. I never made the claim of official peer review. That was YOUR addition. I claimed it was reasonable.

    Anthropology & Communism? OK, Interesting, that would leave out the many other fields of science. Then they indeed they may be an authority as well and their views on communism would carry some weight. In any case your logic fails the test. Appeal to authority is not a fallacy. Visit a courtroom.

    “You (and anyone else who tries) will be unable to make a reasonable case for this hypothesis because the definition of the universe is, “everything that exists”.”

    You forgot to read above Jynx. I made a simple case based on reason and logic. Mind you, not for peer review since I am not attempting to publish my work :). My only claim is that is as strong as anything out there today. Got something better?

  41. on 09 Oct 2009 at 5:53 pm 41.Jynx said …

    TNT said:
    “Appeal to authority is not a fallacy. Visit a courtroom.”

    Appeal to Authority is a specific fallacy in informal logic which follows the pattern I explained above. You utilized it in your statement, “Considering that many scientist also are theist, it is reasonable.”

    I gave you the name of the fallacy you used as well a clear explanation as to why your statement falls into that category of said fallacy. You may, of course, simply say, “No it isn’t” but that will not make it go away.

    Your failure to admit not only your use of this fallacy but that this fallacy exists at all would be humurous if it wasn’t so sad.

    TNT said:
    “You forgot to read above Jynx. I made a simple case based on reason and logic.”

    My apologies, TNT. I did not realize you were trying to pass this off as “making a case” :

    TNT’s “case”:
    “You use the word created which to my mind implies a creator and naturally information and intelligence.”

    So, if someone uses the word “created” when referring to the universe, then the universe must have been created by a god? Wow. This is absurd on it’s face. Let’s see about the next statement you made:

    TNT continues:
    “Matter creating itself is unreasonable.”

    As far as I know, noone is making the claim that matter created itself. I certianly didn’t. What else do you have?

    TNT continues:
    “Matter always existing is unreasonable unless something beyond the natural is at work.”

    Why? You offer no explanation for this assertion. So far you have made no case at all…much less one based on “reason and logic” as you claimed above. Let’s move on:

    TNT continues:
    ” I could claim the fact we are here is evidence.”

    As evidence of what? I certainly hope you aren’t trying to say that humans merely existing is evidence of a creator god. If you are, this is another claim which is absurd on its face. How do you try to wrap this up? Let’s see:

    TNT continues:
    “I never claimed scientist could or would put it up for peer review.”

    Of course they wouldn’t. There is no evidence of a creator god of any kind and therefore no respectable scientist would attempt to make such claims.

    TNT finishes strong:
    “Science is incapable of reviewing anything that might be outside natural mechanism. I never made the claim of official peer review. That was YOUR addition. I claimed it was reasonable.”

    What exactly might exist outside of a “natural mechanism”? An unnatural mechanism? What might an unnatural mechanism be like? What properties would it have? These are serious problems for your case. I’m sure glad they aren’t my problems.

    You claimed your case was reasonable. I see nothing of the sort. Not only do I see absurd claims which are clearly the product of a confused epistemology, but you still fail to acknowledge the very existence of an important logical fallacy widely recognized and discussed/catalogued by logicians.

  42. on 09 Oct 2009 at 6:50 pm 42.TNT said …

    “then the universe must have been created by a god?”

    *Sigh* show where I make the claim “MUST have been created by GOD”. You are dangerously close…no you have a strawman argument here. I know how you hate fallacies…tsk…tsk.

    “Appeal to Authority is a specific fallacy in informal logic”

    Wrong Again, I didn’t use it in such fashion, I used it as an example of intelligent human beings accepting a creator. I never claimed it is TRUE, I claimed reasonable. TRUE is the key word here Jynxy.

    Yes, my argument has many unanswered questions. Whets the point? Are you attempting to argue that a reasonable argument that contains questions unanswered is not legitimate? My dear boy wise up. Check into the Big Bang and get back to me. About 100 variations last I checked.

    Again, do you have anything to counter my reasoning or not? Do you have a position, a clue, a thought, anything? If not, admit you have no clue and we will leave it at that. It’s OK.

  43. on 09 Oct 2009 at 7:26 pm 43.Jynx said …

    TNT said in post 33:
    “If you don’t have all the answers right now, then I think Joseph has made his point.”

    My response was (in post 34):

    “Perhaps you could explain what point he has made, TNT?”

    TNT responds in post 36:

    “The point Jymx is that you don’t know the answer therefore God is a possibility. If you don’t like the word God then Creator. Considering that many scientist also are theist, it is reasonable.”

    I responded in post 37:

    “The two questions Joseph posed in his last post, however, is asking (essentially) about the formation of the universe. The hypothesis that any BEING created the universe is not reasonable. If you think it is, feel fee to present your case for analysis.” (For those of you just tuning in, you may need to read the entire post for context)

    TNT responds in post 38:

    “I can make just a strong a case for this…” (a god or being creating the universe) “…as any other possibility.”

    I then make a fairly comprehensive response/analysis of TNT’s “case” in post 41. Instead of addressing my argument in kind, however, TNT posts this:

    “*Sigh* show where I make the claim “MUST have been created by GOD”. You are dangerously close…no you have a strawman argument here. I know how you hate fallacies…tsk…tsk.”

    I certainly cannot force you to confront my previous arguments. If you wish to simply ignore them, that is your choice. If you wish to focus on one sentence rather than address my clear and overrarching challenges, so be it.

    You made the claim of being able to present a reasonable case for an intelligent creator of some kind for the universe. You have yet to do so or even to address my main points above….again.

    Not only that, but I have asked numerous questions which would shred your “case” to pieces…if indeed you ever had one. Your answers to them? Nowhere to be found.

    To sum up just a few of the incredible hurdles you will have to overcome in providing a reasonable case for the existence of an intelligent creator of the universe (in any form):

    Where did such a being exist before the universe existed? Remember, there is no such thing as “outside” the universe because the universe is, by definition, all that exists.

    How did such a being act before time existed? Because time is merely the measurment of action(s), no action can possibly be committed without time already in existence.

    If science, as you claim, is incapable of detecting/testing such a being, you will have to explain why that is. You will also have to explain how you came to have dependable knowledge of such a being without the means of science or the scientific method.

    Perhaps we could more easily progress if you would provide a clear definition of the being, agent or whatever you propose created the universe. With a clear ontology of this “thing” you are attempting to prove is reasonable, we could better determine when (if ever) you have met your burden of reasonableness.

  44. on 09 Oct 2009 at 10:48 pm 44.Bishop said …

    If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Phot the brain, etcographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks…all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon. Some may even call it an “appeal to authority”.

    All evidence from design,uniformity of laws, DNA, origins,can be ignored. Unfortunately many believe all that exists is science. Science is only the pointer to God.

  45. on 09 Oct 2009 at 11:10 pm 45.Jynx said …

    Bishop said:

    “If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away….” Science is only the pointer to God.”

    What evidence are you referring to? How does science point to a god?

    If your definition of “god” includes the idea of a being who created the universe, then yes, I reject that notion entirely. I reject it as logically incoherent. If you would like to prove me wrong, then please do so. I am more than willing to listen and weigh whatever evidence you may be referring to.

  46. on 10 Oct 2009 at 1:52 am 46.TNT said …

    Jynx stated:

    “there is no such thing as “outside” the universe because the universe is, by definition, all that exists”

    TNT Responds:
    I feel certain you would want to back this argument with evidence and proof. Simply stating it as fact does not make it fact and please no Appeal to Authority. Once you provide the answer, I believe we can solve the case!

  47. on 10 Oct 2009 at 2:53 am 47.Jynx said …

    “The Universe comprises everything that physically exists, the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter and energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.”
    – wikipedia entry on “universe”

    “the whole body of things observed or postulated”
    – Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary
    definition of “universe”

    “1. [n] – everything that exists anywhere
    2. [n] – the whole collection of existing things”
    – Webdictionary.co.uk
    definition of “universe”

    “the whole cosmic system of matter and energy of which Earth, and therefore the human race, is a part.”
    – Encyclopedia Britannica
    definition of “universe”

    “1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
    2.
    a. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
    b. The human race.
    3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.”

    – Freedictionary.com
    definition of “universe”

    There is your proof that the definition of the word universe means, despite various wordings, everything that exists.

    Now, would you mind answering my question as to where any being, agent, creator, etc would have existed before the creation of the universe?

  48. on 10 Oct 2009 at 5:38 am 48.Denis Loubet said …

    The logical issue involved is that the definition of universe encompasses everything, including any supposed gods, and whatever supernatural realms they supposedly inhabit. Which means, logically, that the universe would have to exist for there to be a god to create it, which is logically incoherent.

  49. on 10 Oct 2009 at 1:43 pm 49.Jynx said …

    That’s exactly correct, Denis. I suspect the issue here is one of avoidance. I have asked repeatedly for both TNT and Joseph to “make the case” of a creator god, agent, etc. as they claim they are capable of doing…they have yet to do so.

    Furthermore, I have posed many questions on multiple posts which have been summarily ignored.

    My suspicions will be confirmed if TNT returns to accuse me of the “Appeal to Authority” fallacy for referring to the dictionary. If this occurs it will become painfully obvious TNT has no legitimate interest in discussing this matter in a reasonable manner…and I will be more than happy to take my effort elsewhere.

  50. on 10 Oct 2009 at 4:35 pm 50.TNT said …

    Jynx

    Wow, a definition. Now I would never pull the Appeal to Authority since it is stupidity. I might mock but no more.

    Are you going to attempt to prove there is no such thing as “outside” the universe because the universe is, by definition, all that exists”?

    I can point to definitions of God. Does that make God real? I can post a definition of ID, does that make it real? I can even point to a definition for ET!

    I’m also still open to proving my case to be unreasonable. Posing questions is great and I readily admit I do not have all the answers. If unanswered questions are the test of unreasonableness, we will need to shutdown the classrooms. You silly goose.

    Thanks in advance.

  51. on 10 Oct 2009 at 7:41 pm 51.Bishop said …

    Obviously Jynx and Dennis have never heard of “Dark Flow” which cosmologist just this year believe is a window to a hidden place beyond the universe. Beyond the universe would therefore imply that universe doesn’t necessarily encompass everything.

  52. on 10 Oct 2009 at 9:55 pm 52.Jynx said …

    TNT said:
    “Are you going to attempt to prove there is no such thing as “outside” the universe

    because the universe is, by definition, all that exists”? ”

    I just did. Now let’s take a look at an attempt at a refutation by you:

    TNT continues:
    “I can point to definitions of God. Does that make God real?”

    That would depend on your definition of the term “god”. One complaint I regularly state is the complete lack of a clear ontology for “god”. The vast majority of the definitions I have heard for it are logically incoherent. Without a clear, logical ontology, you would have no hope of proving its existence.

    In short, the very concept of a “creator of the universe” is logically incoherent and therefore unreasonable, regardless of which term you choose to use to refer to it.

    If you would like to present a definition of the term “god” as a first step toward attempting to prove its existence, then by all means do so. If you do, however, I will consider this portion of the conversation closed.

    TNT continues:
    “I can post a definition of ID, does that make it real? I can even point to a definition for ET!”

    I assume you are referring to Intelligent Design and Extra-terrestrial, respectively? In any case, simply pointing to a definition does not make something “real” as you say. In this case, it is merely a first step in actively attempting to prove whether or not belief in a given concept is reasonable.

    For instance, I can invent a new word, we’ll call it “yssr”. Now I can define “yssr” as being a completely round square. The problem with this is that it is

    logically incoherent. It is impossible for there to be a “completely round square”. Therefore, it is unreasonable to believe in “yssr”. By definition, “yssr” cannot exist.

    If I define “yssr” as a half empty glass of milk, then it is certainly possible that such a thing could exist. The definition is logically coherent. With a clear ontology, I can go about attempting to prove that “yssr” actually exists. Simply because a term has a clear, logical definition doesn’t mean it automatically exists
    either. It might be empirically disproven.

    If you are interested in this and related topics, I suggest you consider further study on your own. Ontology is a fascinating sub-branch of Philosophy with many opportunities for future advances.

    TNT continues:
    “I’m also still open to proving my case to be unreasonable. Posing questions is great and I readily admit I do not have all the answers. ”

    I’m glad to hear you’re still open to discussion, TNT. You don’t neccessarily have to have ALL of the answers. You DO, however, need to be able to answer (at the very least) the issue of where any being, agent, etc. who created the universe existed before the act of creation. You also need to be able to answer how such a being, agent, etc. could have taken any action (including the creation of the universe) before there was time.

    Without reasonable explanations for the above, the idea of a being, agent, etc. who created the universe is absurd.

    As for your post, Bishop, I have indeed heard of “Dark Flow”. It seems you have either misunderstood this research or your source has misled you somehow.

    Dark flow refers to the net motion of galaxy clusters, the direction and speed of which may be influenced by a region of the universe which is no-longer visible (because of cosmic inflation). The discovery does not refer to a window into “another universe”. This “window” refers, metaphorically, to a possible way to test the properties of stellar phenomenon which lies beyond the VISIBLE universe. The proposed influence of this motion exists past the 46 billion light-year “particle
    horizon” which we cannot see past because light from this region of the universe has not had time to reach us yet.

    TNT – If you would like to continue this discussion I would be happy to do so via email. Many of these topics can only be explained in fairly lengthy posts which I find extremely inconvenient for a “blog-style” interface. If you are interested in such an exchange, just let me know. :)

  53. on 11 Oct 2009 at 2:44 am 53.Denis Loubet said …

    If there’s a dark flow, then the dark flow is necessarily encompassed by the definition of universe.

    The universe is not a thing, it’s a category. Everything that exists is contained in that category. It doesn’t matter if it’s newly discovered, or currently unknown, if it exists, it’s part of the universe. Thus IF a god exists, it is necessarily part of the universe. IF a supernatural realm exists, it is necessarily part of the universe.

    Definitions do not make things real, but they do describe what we mean when we say things. The definition of universe does not make the universe real, but it does describe what we mean when we say universe.

    The idea of something outside the universe remains a direct logical contradiction because the definition of universe encompasses all “somethings”.

  54. on 11 Oct 2009 at 10:51 am 54.TNT said …

    Jynx asks: Where did such a being exist before the universe existed?

    The question is moot but possibly he resides in another dimension…I don’t know. Why would this be needed information to determine a creator? You would therefore need to explain where all existing matter resided before the Big Bang? Can you?

    Jynx Asks: “How did such a being act before time existed?”

    Now this is classic change the subject. How he acted is also irrelevant. How did matter act before the Big Bang? Can you explain?

    Jynx Asks: “If science, as you claim, is incapable of detecting/testing such a being, you will have to explain why”

    Actually a simple explanation here. If a creator exists, he would not be a part of the natural realm. He as well would not be dependent on the natural realm.

    You as an atheist would need to explain how, where, and why matter did derive. And since you question dogmatically, possibilities would not be acceptable?

    You would need to explain emotions, consciousness, information, design among a host of other realities that would have risen without the aid of an intelligent creator. After all, we must answer all questions before said theory can be deemed reasonable.

    The space the universe resides in as outlined in #5, from where did it come?

  55. on 11 Oct 2009 at 2:26 pm 55.Jynx said …

    When asked (again) where a being could have existed before the universe was created, TNT says:

    “The question is moot but possibly he resides in another dimension…I don’t know. Why would this be needed information to determine a creator?”

    Yes, it would. In order for the very idea of a “creator of the universe” to be reasonable you must be able to offer an answer to this question. You have presented what you claim is a reasonable proposition, I have presented an objection to the reasonableness of said proposition. If you think my objection is “moot”, you will need to explain why you think it is moot. You continue to either evade my questions, or when pushed into a corner you simply claim that you don’t have to answer them. Not only is your idea unreasonable, but you are being unreasonable as well.

    As to the notion of your “creator” residing in another dimension, it might help you to re-read both my previous posts concerning the definition of “universe” as well as Denis’ post above (#53). You cannot escape the basic logical contradiction at the root of you idea. Another dimension, “beyond the universe”, somewhere really far away…same logical contradiction. Until you have answered it, it stands.

    TNT continues:

    “You would therefore need to explain where all existing matter resided before the Big Bang? Can you? ”

    First of all, to the best of our abilities, the answer to your question is, all matter existed within the singularity which WAS everything that existed then.

    In any case, It’s not neccessary for me to answer such questions with anything other than “Nothing” or “Your question is invalid” because I am not the one suggesting that anything existed before the formation of the universe, you are.

    When asked about how any being could act in any way before the creation of time, TNT says:

    “Now this is classic change the subject. How he acted is also irrelevant.”

    Perhaps you misunderstood. Feel free to reread my above posts(#39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 52) where I have posed this and other questions multiple times and you have yet to provide a reasonable answer to them.

    Once again, when I say, “how this being acted” I mean “acted” in the sense of performing any action at all. Without time, no action can occur. How did such a being take any action whatsoever (including creating the universe) before time existed? This is just one out of the many questions you will have to answer adequately in order for your idea to be considered reasonable.

    When asked how such a being would beyond the ability of science/technology to detect/test, TNT responded with:

    “Actually a simple explanation here. If a creator exists, he would not be a part of the natural realm. He as well would not be dependent on the natural realm.”

    This is nonsensical. I have already pointed out in an earlier post (which you ignored, apparently) that there is no alternative but to exist within the natural realm. What alternative are you suggesting? An unnatural realm? Logically incoherent.

    TNT continues:

    “You as an atheist would need to explain how, where, and why matter did derive. And since you question dogmatically, possibilities would not be acceptable?”

    Matter has always existed. More importantly, why must I answer this “as an atheist”? What does that even mean? Would you ask someone to answer this question “as an a-unicornist”?

    TNT continues:

    “You would need to explain emotions, consciousness, information, design among a host of other realities that would have risen without the aid of an intelligent creator. After all, we must answer all questions before said theory can be deemed reasonable.”

    I have already explained in a earlier posts (which you apparently ignored, as well) that one does not have to answer ALL questions which a given idea brings up to be considered merely “reasonable” but it must be a logically coherent idea. Your idea of a “creator of the universe” is not coherent. It is not coherent because of the points I have addressed. I never claimed you had to answer all questions for this idea to be considered reasonable, merely the ones which, unanswered, render it logically absurd.

    This seems like a deflection. You are either not capable of understanding the ontological issues here, or you are simply clueless as to how to proceed, ie. my objections are insurmountable (which I assure you they are) and you refuse to admit it.

    I suggest you read Denis’ last post very slowly and carefully. He exlains the core issue here beautifully. Take some time, think about it and then respond. Your multiple deflections, ignoring questions (and entire posts, apparently) along with a clear failure on your part to distinguish an obvious ontological disaster for your case will shortly convince me you are simply being intellectually dishonest.

    I sincerely hope that isn’t the case.

  56. on 11 Oct 2009 at 11:39 pm 56.Boz said …

    Jynx uses ATA in order to shoot down an opposing argument. However, dishonestly, he then in turn removes it from the arena of arguemenative debate by stating the use of ATA is now outside the boundary of fair debate. An illegitiamte and dishonet manuever. I won’t even get into his self-defeating arguments.

  57. on 12 Oct 2009 at 12:01 am 57.Jynx said …

    Would you care to explain what you mean, Boz?

    You may be suffering from a similiar misunderstanding of the Argument to Authority as TNT. I would be happy to discuss it with you if you will enumerate.

  58. on 12 Oct 2009 at 2:09 am 58.Boz said …

    You do not understand the fallcy. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can be exempted from criticism. To take it a step further, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. We cannot all carry expertise in every percievable field.

  59. on 12 Oct 2009 at 2:38 am 59.Jynx said …

    Boz said:
    “There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true.”

    If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute between experts within a given field, it is a fallacy to appeal to one or another expert’s authority pertaining to the topic at hand.

    Furthermore, the very attempt to utilize an unamed authority (which was the case here) is fallacious.

    There are several other conditions which exist and which would make an Appeal to Authority a fallacy instead of a legitimate use of expert testimony; rather than go through them all here and now, I will address them as they arise.

    I’m afraid your knowledge of the Appeal to Authority fallacy is incomplete, Boz. My knowledge pertaining to it is just fine, thank you.

  60. on 12 Oct 2009 at 12:15 pm 60.TNT said …

    Let me first explain this supposed fallacy to you Jynx. First let’s look at how the fallacy plays out.

    Source A says that x.
    Source A is authority on x.
    Therefore, p is true.

    Now to where you misuse the argument. I never claimed “x” was true. I made the argument “x” is reasonable. I never claimed “A” was even an authority. More or less it was no more than an observation. An authority on the existence of a creator arguably doesn’t exist… well Jynx excluded of course.

    “Jynx asks: Where did such a being exist before the universe existed?”
    Your question is again moot. You must explain why it is important to know where this being resided before the fact. We don’t know a thing about Jefferson’s childhood, doesn’t change the fact he wrote the original DI. Not a problem for me.

    Jynx Says: “the answer to your question is, all matter existed within the singularity which WAS everything that existed then.”

    No, you see you are doing it again. You don’t have a conclusive answer therefore you argument falls short…again. Let me appeal to your wisdom here. I don’t believe that is the residing theory with a great number of scientists? Therefore using your own logic, the Big Bang is not reasonable? If matter could always have existed why not a creator?

    Jynx Says: “I am not the one suggesting that anything existed before the formation of the universe,”

    Then my original question stands. Where did matter come from?

    “Without time, no action can occur. How did such a being take any action whatsoever (including creating the universe) before time existed?”
    What makes you believe a creator would be limited by time? If a being creates the universe, it seems reasonable he would create time. Good question however, how did time begin or evolve without a creator?

    Jynx says ““there is no alternative but to exist within the natural realm.”

    How do you know? You can prove that science is all that can possibly exists? Imho, I doubt it seriously which is why man has resorted to philosophy.

    Jynx Says “Matter has always existed. More importantly, why must I answer this”
    Because you must be able to prove that matter can create itself or can always exist in the natural realm. Whatever argument you chose, there exist metaphysical problems.

    You ignored my last comment. However, if you continue with purely natural origins then you must be able to provide an explanation for emotions, consciousness, information and obvious design among a host of other realities to be found reasonable.

    This will be my last post on this. Life is going on and I find I must move on to the more pertinent areas of my existence. Realize life encompasses more than science can possibly accommodate and your existence will be much fuller.

    Ciao!

  61. on 12 Oct 2009 at 1:47 pm 61.Jynx said …

    TNT said:
    “Now to where you misuse the argument. I never claimed “x” was true. I made the argument “x” is reasonable. I never claimed “A” was even an authority. ”

    This is disingenuous at best, and outright intellectual dishonesty at worst.
    If you attempt to use an “expert” to substantiate an existentially positive claim, and the use of said “expert” is inappropriate for any reason, you have committed the fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

    You claimed that belief in a creator of the universe was reasonable BECAUSE “many scientists think so” (paraphrased, see post #36). This is an existentially positive claim (that the belief possesses reasonableness), and therefore your use of an unamed, uncited expert is a classic Appeal to Authority.

    Feel free to consult a number of basic logic texts on this matter. I might suggest “Informal Logic – A Pragmatic Approach” (Douglas Walton) for starters. There are other, more comprehensive texts, however I found his writing style to be much more approachable for most students than your typical “intro to logic”. The section on Appeal to Authority (beginning on page 211) would be of special interest to you. Mr. Watkins in kind enough to enumerate on one of your errors on page 224, example 7.4.

    TNT continues:
    “An authority on the existence of a creator arguably doesn’t exist.”

    Thank you very much, that was going to be my next point. I’m glad we could agree on something.

    TNT continues:
    “Your question is again moot. You must explain why it is important to know where this being resided before the fact. We don’t know a thing about Jefferson’s childhood, doesn’t change the fact he wrote the original DI.”

    I have explained why it is important to know this…multiple times. Denis explained it as well. I even referenced Denis’ explanation in a seperate thread. You have simply ignored these posts because this one point annihilates your entire “case”

    You analogy is useless as it fails to recognize the issue at hand (as you have failed to recognize it, as well), namely that the universe existed when Jefferson was a child. You claim it is reasonable to believe a being who could have existed ‘before the creation of the universe’. I have explained why it isn’t and you are still either ignoring my points or simply unable to grasp the ontological implications.

    TNT continues:
    “Not a problem for me.”

    Ignoring things won’t make them go away.

    When I mentioned the Big Bang and the preceding singularity, TNT said:

    “I don’t believe that is the residing theory with a great number of scientists? Therefore using your own logic, the Big Bang is not reasonable?”

    You would have to make that case. At the very least, you would have to cite and quote numerous well-respected members in various fields appropriately to back up your claim that there is wide contention regarding the Big Bang theory and preceding singularity.

    This is largely irrelevent, however, as the issue here is your claim that belief in a ‘creator of the univere’ is reasonable. My references to the Big Bang, etc. have nothing to do with my complaint against your proposal. I was merely attempting to answer your questions in a wasted effort to be attentive to the discussion. I repeat that you were not so generous.

    TNT continues:
    ” If matter could always have existed why not a creator?”

    Occam’s Razor disposes of this as unneccessary and lacking any additional explaining power over the idea that the universe has always existed.

    TNT continues:
    “Where did matter come from?”

    I have already answered this. You have not refuted it. You simply repeated the question and claimed that it still required attention.

    When I pointed out the obvious logical incoherency of an agent who acted in time, in order to creat time, TNT comes up with this little gem:

    “What makes you believe a creator would be limited by time? If a being creates the universe, it seems reasonable he would create time.”

    You see, this is yet another example of your blind-fold with regard to issues of ontology and logical coherence. I have already explained (multiple times) why it is absurd to even suggest a being could have taken any action whatsoever without time already existing.

    If there was no time yet, how did this being take the action neccessary to create time? You have yet to even attempt to answer this. The above is nothing more than a deflection…an attempt to put the burden of proof upon me. It won’t work.

    When I reminded TNT that there is no alternative to existing in the “natural realm”, he said:

    “How do you know? You can prove that science is all that can possibly exists? ”

    I have already posed questions to you which would be minimally neccessary to answer in order to provide an alternative to a “natural realm”. You have, like most everything else, ignored them. Here again, you ignore my points and attempt to place the burden of proof on me to “disprove” your idea.

    You are obviously having the same problems grasping this concept as you are the idea of ‘action before time’ and ‘existence before the universe’. The only alternative to existing in the “natural realm” is not existing at all.

    When I again state that ‘matter has always existed’ (referencing an earlier comment by me discussing energy converting into matter, etc.), TNT said:

    “you must be able to prove that matter can create itself or can always exist in the natural realm. Whatever argument you chose, there exist metaphysical problems.”

    No, I don’t have to prove it because the issue at hand is your claim, not mine. As I said before, I could easily answer with “I don’t know” and it would not change the burden you possess for demonstrating the reasonableness of belief in a ‘creator of the universe’.

    What “metaphysical problems” does this statement produce. I am not aware of any. I don’t think you are either.

    TNT continues:
    “You ignored my last comment.”

    This was your last comment: The space the universe resides in as outlined in #5, from where did it come?”

    I did not respond to it because post #5 does not contain this question and was not even written by you. Your question is incoherent, you will have to rephrase it for me to even know what it means. I suspect you are grossly ignorant of the concept of ‘space’…just like you are the concept ‘universe’.

    Further, how dare you deride me for ‘ignoring your comment’ when I have posed easily a dozen questions and points in previous posts without so much an acknowledgment of their existence by you. The burden of proof stays with, its time you deal with that instead of evading.

    TNT closes:

    “if you continue with purely natural origins then you must be able to provide an explanation for emotions, consciousness, information and obvious design among a host of other realities to be found reasonable. ”

    No, I don’t. Again, the issue at hand is not the natural origins life, etc. but your claim that belief in a ‘creator of the universe’ is reasonable.

    I don’t need evidence of origin to be considered reasonable for believing in emotions, consciousness, information, etc. for they plainly exist. You are proposing a meaningless concept and attempting to analogize belief in it with belief in things we currently have evidence for.

    As for your ‘obvious design’ remark, I sincerely hope you are not referring to ‘design in the universe’ as in the Argument from Design. If so, you are not merely in need of a basic text on logic, but a good science education as well.

    Then TNT offers this glee-inducing tidbit:

    “This will be my last post on this. Life is going on and I find I must move on to the more pertinent areas of my existence.”

    Again, something we can agree on. I had mentioned in my last post that your multiple evasions, refusal to admit to the existence of basic logical fallacies, and attempts at shifting the burden of proof were growing tiresome and I suspected you of either intellectual dishonesty or profound inability to grasp basic ontological problems central to your “case”. In either case, if you plan on continuing to engage in debate/discourse with anybody other than the neighborhood pre-schoolers, I suggest you get your hands on some basic logic texts (I even cited one for you!), a few physics encyclopedias and get crackin’.

  62. on 12 Oct 2009 at 3:32 pm 62.AntiRoss said …

    The universe is finite.
    I don’t think that the above-cited definitions of the universe are going to be convincing to theists, or even non-theists.
    While they are accurate and based upon what we experience and can measure, they do not allow for current working theories (in the Lou sense of the word), like m theory, multiverse, or ‘brane’.
    The universe is apparently finite, and expanding.
    Because it is finite there is always the possibility of something, including other universes, existing outside of it.
    Of course suggesting that there is an omniscient omnipotent being at the helm of it all is baseless.
    But that won’t stop them.

  63. on 12 Oct 2009 at 6:03 pm 63.Denis Loubet said …

    No. The OBSERVABLE universe is finite and expanding. If there’s something – including “other universes” – existing outside it, then those “other universes” exist, and are – by definition – part of the universe.

    The idea of a multiverse is incoherent and unnecessary given that any additional “universes” are contained in the word universe.

    The word universe should not have a plural.

  64. on 13 Oct 2009 at 5:05 pm 64.Boz said …

    “Mr. Watkins in kind enough to enumerate on one of your errors on page 224, example 7.4.”

    Jynx once again appeals to authority to make his point. When your own argument can’t stand alone resort to this fallcy while condemning your opponent.

  65. on 14 Oct 2009 at 12:35 pm 65.Jynx said …

    Boz, once again your ignorance of basic principles of logic astounds.

    As I stated earlier and in multiple posts there is a difference between legitimate use of expert testimony and the fallacious Appeal to Authority. When one violates certain clearly defined rules (available in almost any basic text on informal logic as well as presented compreshensively to anyone recieving an education in Philosophy, Law, or the Sciences) then one enters the realm of the fallacy.

    Earlier I posted:

    “My suspicions will be confirmed if TNT returns to accuse me of the “Appeal to Authority” fallacy for referring to the dictionary. If this occurs it will become painfully obvious TNT has no legitimate interest in discussing this matter in a reasonable manner…”

    This applies to you as well.

    Claiming I used Appeal to Authority when citing a non-controversial basic text on logic is akin to claiming I used it when citing the dictionary.

    I offered information concerning a well-documented and heavily referenced fallacy of informal logic. I explained both where TNT used it and why the statement qualified as innappropriate. I referenced a basic logic text, citing title, page number and author.

    Mr. Watkins discussion of Appeal to Authority is not controversial, there is no discernible disagreement among scholars as to how to utilize it and when. In other words, the explanation and citations I gave IS REPRESENTATIVE of expert opinion in this field (logic). All of these things combine to demonstrate beyond any rational objection that my earlier post(s) are in no way indicative of fallacious us of Appeal to Authority.

    Any person interested in meaningful discussion could take but a few moments to confirm everything I have said above. Apparently, you simply don’t wish to produce the effort neccessary to confirm my references.

    I am willing to try this one more time, however. In the interest of civility, I will provide you with more references where the Appeal to Authority is discussed exactly as I have stated above:

    Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic (Tenth Edition) (Prentice Hall, 1998), pp. 165-166.

    T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) (Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 31-34.

    Browne, M. Neil & Stuart M. Keeley. Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Prentice Hall, 1997).

    Damer. T. Edward. Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments 4th edition (Wadsworth Pub Co, 2001).

    I have been extremely generous in providing so many references. Your accusation that I have used Appeal to Authority while “condemning my opponent” is unfounded and ridiculous.

    I suppose I shouldn’t expect much more from someone who posts things like, “I won’t even get into his self-defeating arguments.” If you have no wish to support your assertions then move on. I have little patience for lazy argumentation and baseless accusations.

  66. on 15 Oct 2009 at 3:04 pm 66.Lou said …

    I’d like to appeal to an authority. Only this authority is an atheist and we differ on many povs.

    I witnessed Richard Dawkins on the tube admitting that theistic evolution is a pov that could be defended. His only qualm was to keep it out of the classroom.

    Goes to show Dawkins is an honest and reasonable man even if he doesn’t agree with the pov. Others, eh, not so much.

  67. on 18 Oct 2009 at 3:23 pm 67.AntiRoss said …

    It can be defended philosophically by sophists or people relatively unclear on related subjects, but it cannot provide any evidence whatsoever.
    “The grand canyon is beautiful” is not evidence.
    “I don’t understand how things are so complex” is not evidence.
    “I don’t know where the universe came from” is not evidence.

    Primitive people made up stories and came up with mystical explanations of everything that they didn’t understand. Many of these ideas developed into primitive religions, and then morphed into our modern ones.
    Some people of today still believe in some of these primitive ideas and expect the rest of us to respect that, and to accept “I don’t know where the universe came from” evidence of a supernatural being.

  68. on 18 Oct 2009 at 6:15 pm 68.Horatio said …

    I know where the universe cam from.
    I understand why things are so complex.
    It is a tough one if your are atheist.
    :)

  69. on 19 Oct 2009 at 2:20 pm 69.AntiRoss said …

    Yes. It is harder to accept a lack of answers to every single question. It’s part of being a complete human being, facing that which you don’t know with courage and curiosity.
    To blindly believe something made up by primitive people making uneducated guesses does not mean you can honestly say that you “know” where the universe came from. You can only say that you delude yourself into “knowing”.
    Been there, by the way. There’s a lack of congruency on that road. A lack of integrity.

  70. on 19 Oct 2009 at 3:40 pm 70.Horatio said …

    I know where the universe came from. It was created by God. How He did it I don’t know. But I accept not knowing how with courage and curiosity. You had me worried, I thought you might play the ol’ “Christians ignore science” fallacy. Good to see you are a little more aware. Plenty of congruency on this road AR, no problems here whatsoever. Science and God do together like a hand and a glove.

  71. on 19 Oct 2009 at 5:01 pm 71.Visser Three said …

    How do you feel about infinite regression, Horatio?

  72. on 22 Oct 2009 at 8:29 pm 72.Visser Three said …

    Once more, with feeling.

    How do you feel about infinite regression, Horatio?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply