Author Topic: Evidence  (Read 10543 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #116 on: July 01, 2013, 09:17:13 AM »
As I posted in other answers here, the only major cosmonogical theory that ever held up to scientific scrutiny, was the one presented by a priest and ridiculed by academia for it's overt theistic implications. They preferred static (no creation=no creator) models. 'Big Bang' was coined by Hoyle to discredit the idea, and he never accepted the truth.

Sure, initially academics are wont to reject an 'upstart' hypothesis, as happened with plate tectonics too. But when the evidence adds up. The hypothesis will become an accepted theory. As happened with both the big bang and plate tectonics. The fact that the first guy to come up with the big bang was a priest is irrelevant. If the data adds up, then it adds up, regardless of who came up with it.

I don't think it was exactly coincidence, again your argument is with the atheist academics, it was THEY who drew that line in the sand-mocked the Big Bang as 'theistic' and rejected it for that reason/ i.e. dogma. It took many decades of direct observational evidence before it was accepted, when Lemaitre was on his death bed and never received much recognition. In stark contrast, theories that support the preferred atheist conclusion are accepted as serious scientific theories the same day they are published, with not only zero evidence, but quite possibly zero chance of ever gathering any. i.e. unfalsifiable. Every institution has it's cultural leanings, it's only human, they may even be right in the end and I'm fine with that, but there is a clearly defined favored conclusion which has clearly led cosmogony astray and delayed progress.

Once the static model was disproven, many other atheistic theories followed, steady state, big crunch, all claiming to make God redundant and all being disproven by observation. No coincidence that leading atheist theories now reside inherently beyond any inconvenience of scientific scrutiny.

I have yet to come across a single theory that was constructed for the express purpose of making god(s) redundant. Usually, it's the theists that refuse to accept a theory because it contradicts their beliefs.

again 'making God redundant' is Hawking's expressed words re. his 'theories' not mine, take it up with him!

Let's put those questions to both sides

How did this 'thing' create the universe?
Why did this 'thing' create the universe?
When did this 'thing' create the universe?
Who/what created the ' thing?
Is this  thing still around? Or did it lose interest and wander off?

What? The singularity?
1) it went Bang
2) There is no why .
3) 13.8 billion years ago
4) unknown (some sort of quantum fluctuation has been suggested, but not confirmed)
5) No, it went bang, remember? For the singularity to lose interest, it would have to have a mind ... nothing points towards it having a mind.

the singularity was/is the universe, we are interested in the origins of this amazing object are we not?


We have the same apparent paradoxes either way don't we?

Nope, where's the paradox?

first cause, infinite regression, something from nothing- you know!

yet here we are, but what I do not see as even is the ability of creative intelligence v. blind chance to create our universe.

The probability of us being here on this planet is 100% ... cause here we are. If you were to rewind time 13.8 billion years and set things in motion again, the chances of an identical Fiji typing these same words is virutally 0.

given the excruciatingly precise parameters needed for that miracle yes, try plugging random numbers into the physical constants and figuring out what the probability of anything much happening is, far less accidentally creating something that can ponder it's own existence?

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #117 on: July 01, 2013, 09:27:49 AM »
I don't knock science at all, I'm a huge fan. it has debunked every testable atheist model for the universe so far and supported all the major predictions of theism. I knock atheist academics who use dogma, not science to operate on preconceived conclusions about the ultimate nature of the universe-

You make a lot of good points that deserve an answer and I'd much rather do this than work!- but must run, will respond later- appreciate the civil debate

When you get back, you might fill us in on the atheist models of the universe that we are supposedly so enthralled by. But if that is the basis of your argument, you kind of need to find a site where atheists that dependent on said theories reside. I don't think that there are any here.

I answered this elsewhere but since this keeps coming up I'll put a summary here.

For much of the early 20th C, the vast majority of academia rejected the concept of a beginning of space/time explicitly for it's theistic implications. Not my opinion, theirs. they preferred static/eternal models (no creation = no creator)

When Lemaitre's primordial atom theory (better known as the 'Big Bang' coined to mock it) was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Atheist academics moved to incorporate this into other explicitly atheist models- coalescing eventually into the Big Crunch - again purported by Hawking to make God redundant, not my words, his.

when observational evidence proved this wrong also, atheist models moved to the only place left, philosophical speculation beyond the possibility of scientific testing, M Theory, multiverses etc- again presented by their founders as mechanisms that make God redundant.

So I think it's not unreasonable to refer to theories presented by atheists and explicitly purported to make God redundant as atheist theories?

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #118 on: July 01, 2013, 09:37:23 AM »
I don't knock science at all, I'm a huge fan. it has debunked every testable atheist model for the universe so far and supported all the major predictions of theism.
(my bold)

Mind filling us in on even a few of "the major predictions of theism" that are supported by science?

Glad to..

Theism, the concept of a creator predicts that the universe was in fact created in a specific creation event.
As above in stark contrast to the static/eternal (no creation = no creator) models clearly predicted by atheist academics for much of the early 20th.- mocking the priest Lemaitre for his 'overtly theistic' primordial atom.

which prediction, atheist or theistic was scientifically validated beyond reasonable doubt?
This does not of course prove God, and Lemaitre himself was clear on this. But a solidly validated prediction?
Certainly.

Theism also predicts that the universe, having been made primarily for humanity, is not shared by other intelligent beings. Obviously this is very difficult to ever answer conclusively, but does the prediction still hold despite having an ear on an entire Galaxy?



Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #119 on: July 01, 2013, 09:52:42 AM »

It is a vast majority that have, as I said, come to the same conclusion that the world around us is the work of a creative intelligence. Obviously you have subsets within that majority, down to any two people standing next to each other in any church who will find something to disagree on.

Similarly atheists have had countless versions of static, eternal, steady state, multiverse, M theory, string theory creation stories to debate and none of us can prove any of them! That's why I acknowledge my faith, do you yours?

I certainly agree consensus is not science, although a consensus of 'mankind' is the only non partisan one!

Hi Guy,
Welcome to WWGHAF. We appreciate that you are brave enough to be here - though it may be short-lived, as is so often the case.

What you have just demonstrated above is called a Straw Man argument. You have misrepresented what atheism is. Atheism is NOT a positive claim regarding the universe (that would be something entirely different). It deals with a single question on a single claim. Atheism is - simply put - the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That's it! So just like "aSanta-Clausism" would be the lack of belief in Santa Claus, atheism is merely the lack of belief in any deities. It a the rejection of theistic claims which have failed to meet their burden of proof. That is all.

Btw, atheism is NOT the positive claim "there is no god" either. That is something different.

Therefore, we are NOT on the "same footing" because the burden of proof lays upon he who makes the claim (in this case yourself who is making the claim that a supernatural god exists), and if all evidence failed to prove anything (for anyone) then the intellectually honest answer would be "I don't know" - not "God did it".

Thank you!, and I appreciate all the civil responses.

As I have posted already, I am familiar with the 'default' claim of atheism and I could, if I wanted to, apply the exact same rationale to my own belief in the exact same way.

i.e. instead of an atheist, or an aStanta-Clausis' I could couch my belief in God as simply- 'aspontaneist'
this isn't meant to be mocking in any way- but just to demonstrate the point;

Aspontaneism is NOT a positive claim regarding the universe (that would be something entirely different). It deals with a single question on a single claim. Aspontaneism is - simply put - the lack of a belief in a spontaneous/purposeless universe creating mechanism or mechanisms. That's it! So just like "aSanta-Clausism" would be the lack of belief in Santa Claus, aspontaneism is merely the lack of belief in any spontaneous universe creating mechanisms. It's a rejection of spontaneist claims which have failed to meet their burden of proof. That is all.

Now having said that I can fold my arms and say-' Now I have established my belief as the default one, I am under no obligation to back up my belief, that burden is purely on you as a spontaneist who makes the positive claim of spontaneous mechanisms'. pretty easy position to defend? technically yes-

But I have no desire to avoid having to back my belief up, I am perfectly happy to admit my assertion and defend it on it's own merits, I think if atheists would do the same then we have the starting point for an interesting discussion where both recognize each other as rational intelligent people discussing two competing theories.  I'm not interested in winning any competition on a technicality, I'm interested in knowing the truth, aren't we all?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 10:11:44 AM by Guybrush Threepwood »

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6125
  • Darwins +689/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evidence
« Reply #120 on: July 01, 2013, 09:53:18 AM »

Take meteors, earthquakes, volcanoes: 100 years ago I'd have to concede that atheists had a pretty good point back then, what greater good possibly comes from such pointless random destruction? Now of course we know these things are utterly essential to the formation, support and renewal of our habitat.

Just a tip. You might give us your sources on this stuff. Otherwise we might start thinking you are a bit looney.

 plate tectonics, essential elements for life inc. water coming from asteroids- etc, - not exactly controversial stuff?

Gosh, you sure are confused.

The asteroid thingy: Yep, apparently our water came from elsewhere. Most of it long before life was on the scene. That was what we in the science crowd call "a long time ago", and your statement that I questioned mentioned "renewal". What experience has humans had with meteors in the last 5-6,000 years that qualify as renewal? The windows that had to be replaced in Russia recently?

And plate tectonics? Essential? Shit happens, yes, but that doesn't qualify everything as automatically essential. Earthquakes are a byproduct of plate movement, and of course they were not understood as such until recent times. But understanding something well enough to explain it does not qualify the newly understood phenomenon as "essential" in the process. Were the planet one huge continent that had never drifted, that would not automatically make it uninhabitable by all other standards. Volcanos essential? Are they cool? Yes. Are they sometimes deadly? Of course. There was that one time 70,000 when we humans were down to about 2,000 people because of one, but hey, that was all in fun, right?

Absolutely everything in the past was essential to our existence today. It is quite conceivable (what do they call it when you start a sentence with a pun but you haven't made the yet?) that many of us here at WWGHA are alive because our parents procreated after driving to their place of lovemaking and they had to stop at a red light to get there. And if they had not stopped at that red light, the moment of conception might have been thirty seconds earlier and because a different sperm cell might have gotten there first, a different you or me would have popped out nine months later. So by your definition then, red lights are essential.

Technically, everything on this planet is essential. And while some of it is (oxygen), other bits and pieces are a bit suspect. Like malaria carrying mosquitos and even non-malaria carrying mosquitos.

So the big question is this: at what point does some natural event go from being merely understood scientifically (and giving atheists some good points, etc.) to being consistent with the existence of a creator?

Insert glib one sentence response here: ___________________________________________________________________________________

Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2135
  • Darwins +70/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Evidence
« Reply #121 on: July 01, 2013, 09:54:58 AM »
'Atheism is not a belief - it's simply an acknowledgement of the logical implications that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of gods.

Correct.

Quote
By that exact same rationale I could say  'theism is not a belief - it's simply an acknowledgement of the logical implications that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of spontaneous automated universe creating mechanisms'

Incorrect. By definition, theism is adding a god, so you're adding belief. 

Us atheists simply say, for the time being, "I don't know. We'll have to look for evidence."

You theists claim to know, but without any evidence. See the difference?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
Re: Evidence
« Reply #122 on: July 01, 2013, 10:29:54 AM »
Theism, the concept of a creator predicts assumes that the universe was in fact created in a specific creation event.

Corrected. And when you get the time, please look up the meaning of 'prediction'
Quote
As above in stark contrast to the static/eternal (no creation = no creator) models clearly predicted by atheist academics for much of the early 20th.- mocking the priest Lemaitre for his 'overtly theistic' primordial atom.

which prediction, atheist or theistic was scientifically validated beyond reasonable doubt?
This does not of course prove God, and Lemaitre himself was clear on this. But a solidly validated prediction?
Certainly.
Atheists didn't predict any such models, it was postulated with ample evidence in favor. The theist concept of proof was cross referring different pages in one dubious book and blatantly refusing any scientific method that would date the earth older than 6000 years. This does not amount to "solid validation". Again, look up the meaning of the word 'prediction'.

Quote
Theism also predicts that the universe, having been made primarily for humanity, is not shared by other intelligent beings. Obviously this is very difficult to ever answer conclusively, but does the prediction still hold despite having an ear on an entire Galaxy?

Church of Scientology may not like this statement.

Here is my favorite prophecy that has come true http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies#Israel_will_live_in_peace_with_its_neighbors

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #123 on: July 01, 2013, 10:33:23 AM »

Take meteors, earthquakes, volcanoes: 100 years ago I'd have to concede that atheists had a pretty good point back then, what greater good possibly comes from such pointless random destruction? Now of course we know these things are utterly essential to the formation, support and renewal of our habitat.

Just a tip. You might give us your sources on this stuff. Otherwise we might start thinking you are a bit looney.

 plate tectonics, essential elements for life inc. water coming from asteroids- etc, - not exactly controversial stuff?

Gosh, you sure are confused.

The asteroid thingy: Yep, apparently our water came from elsewhere. Most of it long before life was on the scene. That was what we in the science crowd call "a long time ago", and your statement that I questioned mentioned "renewal". What experience has humans had with meteors in the last 5-6,000 years that qualify as renewal? The windows that had to be replaced in Russia recently?

And plate tectonics? Essential? Shit happens, yes, but that doesn't qualify everything as automatically essential. Earthquakes are a byproduct of plate movement, and of course they were not understood as such until recent times. But understanding something well enough to explain it does not qualify the newly understood phenomenon as "essential" in the process. Were the planet one huge continent that had never drifted, that would not automatically make it uninhabitable by all other standards. Volcanos essential? Are they cool? Yes. Are they sometimes deadly? Of course. There was that one time 70,000 when we humans were down to about 2,000 people because of one, but hey, that was all in fun, right?

Absolutely everything in the past was essential to our existence today. It is quite conceivable (what do they call it when you start a sentence with a pun but you haven't made the yet?) that many of us here at WWGHA are alive because our parents procreated after driving to their place of lovemaking and they had to stop at a red light to get there. And if they had not stopped at that red light, the moment of conception might have been thirty seconds earlier and because a different sperm cell might have gotten there first, a different you or me would have popped out nine months later. So by your definition then, red lights are essential.

Technically, everything on this planet is essential. And while some of it is (oxygen), other bits and pieces are a bit suspect. Like malaria carrying mosquitos and even non-malaria carrying mosquitos.

So the big question is this: at what point does some natural event go from being merely understood scientifically (and giving atheists some good points, etc.) to being consistent with the existence of a creator?

Insert glib one sentence response here: ___________________________________________________________________________________

I don't think you are confused, you seem reasonably coherent to me.

 
meteors of course supplied water, forming the Earth as we know it, supporting and also renewing life (e.g. from the domination of dinosaurs to mammals). There's lots more of course, the entire tectonic system floating on magma allows rotation of the  iron core creating the Earth's magnetic shield at the same time. pretty nifty really!


The point was about apparently pointless/bad things as pointed out by atheists as an argument against God... turning out to be inherently good/useful incredible elegant things once science has discovered their role.

Of course there will always be the shadows where science has not shone it's light, where an atheist can still point to 'unexplained badness' but isn't this just the same old atheism of the gaps argument again?

 "at what point does some natural event go from being merely understood scientifically (and giving atheists some good points, etc.) to being consistent with the existence of a creator?"

The point at which they support theistic predictions versus atheistic ones. e.g. that the universe was in fact created in a specific event as opposed to static/ eternal models, that all we see depended on excruciatingly  precise initial parameters, mathematics, information. That tectonic activity isn't pointless destruction after all but the foundation, support and future of life on Earth.

So a better question might be
 "at what point does some natural event go from being merely understood scientifically (and giving theists some good points, etc.) to being consistent with the existence of a spontaneous purposeless universe creating mechanism?"


You asked for a one-liner;

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo
« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 10:36:47 AM by Guybrush Threepwood »

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6125
  • Darwins +689/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evidence
« Reply #124 on: July 01, 2013, 10:41:19 AM »
Theism also predicts that the universe, having been made primarily for humanity, is not shared by other intelligent beings. Obviously this is very difficult to ever answer conclusively, but does the prediction still hold despite having an ear on an entire Galaxy?

Ear on the entire galaxy? Gee, I hadn't heard that the SETI people had enough funding to listen to all 300 billion stars in the Milky Way. This is great news for science! And while I'll be the first to admit that listening to the entirety of 1/175,000,000,000th of the universe will indeed provide definitive answers, I, for one, am going to hold out for, oh, I dunno, more information.

Of course, the assumption that all intelligent life forms will be beaming Elvis songs into space on a regular basis is a little presumptuous, but other than that, great observation, dude.

Additional note: A universe made primarily for humans? We can't leave our planet without taking air with us, we can't swim well enough to casually cross the oceans, we can't survive in the arctic regions with clothes, we can't live long a the higher altitudes without bringing oxygen, we can't live in the jungles without having weapons to protect ourselves from chompy things and we can't survive disease without making vaccines and/or other treatments, and it is all made for us?

For being all-powerful, he's not very good at much, is he?

Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #125 on: July 01, 2013, 10:45:34 AM »
'Atheism is not a belief - it's simply an acknowledgement of the logical implications that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of gods.

Correct.

Quote
By that exact same rationale I could say  'theism is not a belief - it's simply an acknowledgement of the logical implications that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of spontaneous automated universe creating mechanisms'

Incorrect. By definition, theism is adding a god, so you're adding belief. 

Us atheists simply say, for the time being, "I don't know. We'll have to look for evidence."

You theists claim to know, but without any evidence. See the difference?

By definition, not practice.- if we are playing with definitions;
Let's say I'm the aspontaneist, you're the spontaneist- now by definition you are adding the belief and all the burden of proof is on you.... So we just reversed the burden of proof without changing either of our beliefs!

As I posted above, if we can both just acknowledge that we both have unprovable theories to compare, wouldn't that be the basis for a far more interesting discussion?

,
theists acknowledge the element of faith, that their belief can't be proven, do atheists?

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6125
  • Darwins +689/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evidence
« Reply #126 on: July 01, 2013, 10:50:04 AM »
You asked for a one-liner;

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo

I'll get back to you a little later on the rest of the post that this came from (and the one before that that I haven't yet responded to), but I love the part where you are using a quote from a scientist who was put under house arrest BY THE CHURCH for the last 8 years of his life for having the temerity to suggest that maybe the earth wasn't the center of the universe after all.

And your bible accurately predicted all sorts of scientific stuff how?

Note: you really do need to get a bit more specific about how the science predicted in the bible trumps all other efforts to eke things out. Your claims don't hold much water unless you can back them up with something. Details man, we want details!

It would also be nice for you to address the difference in your scientific POV and that of, say young earth creationists, who have no use for science whatsoever. How could two such differing views come from one source? (Unless it was, you know, all made up in the first place and hence open to individual interpretation at any level needed/wanted/that is convenient.)
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #127 on: July 01, 2013, 11:05:10 AM »
Theism also predicts that the universe, having been made primarily for humanity, is not shared by other intelligent beings. Obviously this is very difficult to ever answer conclusively, but does the prediction still hold despite having an ear on an entire Galaxy?

Ear on the entire galaxy? Gee, I hadn't heard that the SETI people had enough funding to listen to all 300 billion stars in the Milky Way. This is great news for science! And while I'll be the first to admit that listening to the entirety of 1/175,000,000,000th of the universe will indeed provide definitive answers, I, for one, am going to hold out for, oh, I dunno, more information.

Of course, the assumption that all intelligent life forms will be beaming Elvis songs into space on a regular basis is a little presumptuous, but other than that, great observation, dude.

Additional note: A universe made primarily for humans? We can't leave our planet without taking air with us, we can't swim well enough to casually cross the oceans, we can't survive in the arctic regions with clothes, we can't live long a the higher altitudes without bringing oxygen, we can't live in the jungles without having weapons to protect ourselves from chompy things and we can't survive disease without making vaccines and/or other treatments, and it is all made for us?

For being all-powerful, he's not very good at much, is he?

Well every day is a school day as they say!, actually we are also listening to entire other galaxies, deafening silence so far, but as I said, it's merely a predictions that holds, not one that's likely to be confirmed. Though I think the math may be able to point to a reasonable accurate probability of being alone without having to scan every star?
 
I agree a world without any challenges sounds great! every day is 72 and sunny, we experience no grief for the passing of loved ones, it doesn't hurt when you put your finger in the fire, trees are made of chocolate...

Or maybe our creator thought this through a little further?...

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1383
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Evidence
« Reply #128 on: July 01, 2013, 11:10:49 AM »
'Atheism is not a belief - it's simply an acknowledgement of the logical implications that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of gods.

Correct.

Quote
By that exact same rationale I could say  'theism is not a belief - it's simply an acknowledgement of the logical implications that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of spontaneous automated universe creating mechanisms'

Incorrect. By definition, theism is adding a god, so you're adding belief. 

Us atheists simply say, for the time being, "I don't know. We'll have to look for evidence."

You theists claim to know, but without any evidence. See the difference?

By definition, not practice.- if we are playing with definitions;
Let's say I'm the aspontaneist, you're the spontaneist- now by definition you are adding the belief and all the burden of proof is on you.... So we just reversed the burden of proof without changing either of our beliefs!
Only if we were Communists and believed in Revolutionary spontaneity[1], why do you assume all atheist are communist!  And if we were such, what has that to do with religion you do realize that Communism is just another form of religion, and comes from the book of Acts.

Quote from: Guybrush Threepwood
As I posted above, if we can both just acknowledge that we both have unprovable theories to compare, wouldn't that be the basis for a far more interesting discussion?
But we don't, an atheist simply has no belief in your claims of a god. The burden is yours and will always remain yours.

Quote from: Guybrush Threepwood
theists acknowledge the element of faith, that their belief can't be proven, do atheists?
Yes! Hence why we have no belief in your claims, but no one is asking you to prove your belief, we are simply asking you to prove the existence of what you believe in.  huge difference.
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_spontaneity
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4624
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence
« Reply #129 on: July 01, 2013, 11:12:36 AM »
In the sense that if one doesn't recognize any element of faith in one's own belief, one is laboring under the misconception that one doesn't have faith, that one's beliefs are based 100% on evidence. I think this is dangerous because, as seen throughout history, this perception of supreme knowledge can be used as justification to ram it down everyone else's throats for their 'own good' whether that belief is atheist or theist .
 Would you not agree?
The problem here is that you assume that there's an element of faith in atheism, simply because there's an element of faith in your belief system, despite the fact that atheism is not a belief system and doesn't posit anything to replace the gods that atheists don't believe in.

Quote from: Guybrush Threepwood
'Atheism is not a belief - it's simply an acknowledgement of the logical implications that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of gods.
'
By that exact same rationale I could say  'theism is not a belief - it's simply an acknowledgement of the logical implications that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of spontaneous automated universe creating mechanisms'
Except it isn't the same rationale.  There are two major problems with your comparison.  First is that you almost certainly did not come to your belief in your god through the lack of evidence for "spontaneous automated universe creating mechanisms".  Indeed, I'll bet you believed in your god long before you'd ever heard of the Big Bang, so you are simply using this as an excuse to justify your preexisting belief.  Whereas atheists stopped believing in gods through the lack of evidence for them, and didn't invent something else to fill the gap.

Second, the comparison is false to begin with.  Atheism is not a belief for the same reason that a-leprechaun-ism is not a belief.  They are not pointing to other things to "fill in the holes" left by gods (or leprechauns) for the simple reason that there are no holes that gods (or leprechauns) were needed to fill in the first place.  Whereas, those who believe in gods need places for those gods to fit.  They need holes that can't be explained by other things so that their gods can fit there, thus your "spontaneous automated universe creating mechanism" (that you don't believe in, and that leaves a convenient hole that you can fill with your god).

Quote from: Guybrush Threepwood
framing your belief as a 'default' explanation is just a way to avoid having to give evidence for that belief- to put the burden of proof on everyone but yourself.  That's why theists don't take this 'default' stance, because they are willing and able to defend their beliefs on it's own merits, rather than simply poking holes in atheism
This is intellectually dishonest of you.  First off, it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.  It is just as impossible to prove that leprechauns don't exist as it is to prove that gods don't exist, yet I'm pretty sure you don't believe in leprechauns or attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe using a leprechaun-centric theology.  Thus your attempts to castigate atheists for 'avoiding' giving evidence for their 'beliefs' ring false.

Second, what merits do theistic beliefs have?  I've been here for something like two years, and in that time, I've never once seen a theist give a coherent, evidence-based argument to support their belief.  In fact, more often than not, they're based on purely subjective interpretations (spin) of various events, which they naturally attribute to whichever god they believe in.  Worse, they only attribute the 'hits' to their god; the 'misses' get ignored more often than not, and the few times they aren't ignored the theist talks about "God's plan" or some other such thing to rationalize away.  All without ever even having direct evidence that their god even exists.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2135
  • Darwins +70/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Evidence
« Reply #130 on: July 01, 2013, 11:14:17 AM »
As I posted above, if we can both just acknowledge that we both have unprovable theories to compare, wouldn't that be the basis for a far more interesting discussion?

Doubtful.
,
Quote
theists acknowledge the element of faith, that their belief can't be proven, do atheists?

I already told you that we atheists, in general, can live with an "We don't know yet. Let's look for evidence". So no, I think science can and will be prove how our universe came to be. Perhaps not in our lifetimes, but so long as religion doesn't hold back science, we'll find the answers eventually. And the track record of science vs. events previously attributed to gods suggests that the expalnation will be perfectly natural, and your god of the gaps will recede even further from known reality.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6125
  • Darwins +689/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evidence
« Reply #131 on: July 01, 2013, 11:18:37 AM »
Theism also predicts that the universe, having been made primarily for humanity, is not shared by other intelligent beings. Obviously this is very difficult to ever answer conclusively, but does the prediction still hold despite having an ear on an entire Galaxy?

Ear on the entire galaxy? Gee, I hadn't heard that the SETI people had enough funding to listen to all 300 billion stars in the Milky Way. This is great news for science! And while I'll be the first to admit that listening to the entirety of 1/175,000,000,000th of the universe will indeed provide definitive answers, I, for one, am going to hold out for, oh, I dunno, more information.

Of course, the assumption that all intelligent life forms will be beaming Elvis songs into space on a regular basis is a little presumptuous, but other than that, great observation, dude.

Additional note: A universe made primarily for humans? We can't leave our planet without taking air with us, we can't swim well enough to casually cross the oceans, we can't survive in the arctic regions with clothes, we can't live long a the higher altitudes without bringing oxygen, we can't live in the jungles without having weapons to protect ourselves from chompy things and we can't survive disease without making vaccines and/or other treatments, and it is all made for us?

For being all-powerful, he's not very good at much, is he?

Well every day is a school day as they say!, actually we are also listening to entire other galaxies, deafening silence so far, but as I said, it's merely a predictions that holds, not one that's likely to be confirmed. Though I think the math may be able to point to a reasonable accurate probability of being alone without having to scan every star?
 
I agree a world without any challenges sounds great! every day is 72 and sunny, we experience no grief for the passing of loved ones, it doesn't hurt when you put your finger in the fire, trees are made of chocolate...

Or maybe our creator thought this through a little further?...

Hey, I have work to do and I can't stick around to respond to everything you've written yet, but I have to say something here. If there were, say 200,000,000 civilization on other worlds looking for signs of life on our planet 150 years ago, and they were doing so by pointing radio telescopes in our direction, what would they have detected. NOTHING! If they are further than 150 light years away, what would they be detecting today? NOTHING!

Others have to make noise for us to detect them. And in a time frame convenient for us. They may be smarter than that.

Also, others may be far more advanced then us and using methods of communication we've never imagined and have no way of detecting.

I am more than willing to admit that one of the possibilities is that we are the only sentient life form in the whole universe. But to take the knowledge we currently have, the lack of detectible radio signals from other sources, and extrapolate that to be evidence that the bible is right is kind of jumping to conclusions.

Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #132 on: July 01, 2013, 11:21:03 AM »
You asked for a one-liner;

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo

I'll get back to you a little later on the rest of the post that this came from (and the one before that that I haven't yet responded to), but I love the part where you are using a quote from a scientist who was put under house arrest BY THE CHURCH for the last 8 years of his life for having the temerity to suggest that maybe the earth wasn't the center of the universe after all.

And your bible accurately predicted all sorts of scientific stuff how?

Note: you really do need to get a bit more specific about how the science predicted in the bible trumps all other efforts to eke things out. Your claims don't hold much water unless you can back them up with something. Details man, we want details!

It would also be nice for you to address the difference in your scientific POV and that of, say young earth creationists, who have no use for science whatsoever. How could two such differing views come from one source? (Unless it was, you know, all made up in the first place and hence open to individual interpretation at any level needed/wanted/that is convenient.)

That's the first time I haven't had to correct somebody after that quote, that Galileo wasn't executed or left to rot in a dungeon so kudos to you on that! It seems he got on pretty well with the previous pope who published his work, but pissed off his replacement by publishing outside the Vatican. I think it's a little parallel to Lemaitre v. Academic convention in the 20th C. The Church had the most educated men 'peer reviewed' science, the biggest libraries, even the best observatories, but the scientific method in the hands of one man trumped all this.
.
"how the science predicted in the bible trumps all other efforts to eke things out" who said that?!

the question of a static v created universe was probably the greatest question of cosmogony, cosmology, if not science of all time.
theism and atheism made two clearly contrasting predictions, one of which was clearly validated.

That doesn't prove anything, but come on, credit where it's due!

"difference in scientific POV"

 same reason Krauss says of Hawking 'If your theory involves an infinite probability machine, it's not clear you even have a theory'
and Hawking says of Krauss ' That moron couldn't theorize his way out of a bowl of custard'

we're all just making out best guesses here, so difference of opinion is a good thing under that circumstance I think?

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #133 on: July 01, 2013, 11:41:13 AM »
Theism also predicts that the universe, having been made primarily for humanity, is not shared by other intelligent beings. Obviously this is very difficult to ever answer conclusively, but does the prediction still hold despite having an ear on an entire Galaxy?

Ear on the entire galaxy? Gee, I hadn't heard that the SETI people had enough funding to listen to all 300 billion stars in the Milky Way. This is great news for science! And while I'll be the first to admit that listening to the entirety of 1/175,000,000,000th of the universe will indeed provide definitive answers, I, for one, am going to hold out for, oh, I dunno, more information.

Of course, the assumption that all intelligent life forms will be beaming Elvis songs into space on a regular basis is a little presumptuous, but other than that, great observation, dude.

Additional note: A universe made primarily for humans? We can't leave our planet without taking air with us, we can't swim well enough to casually cross the oceans, we can't survive in the arctic regions with clothes, we can't live long a the higher altitudes without bringing oxygen, we can't live in the jungles without having weapons to protect ourselves from chompy things and we can't survive disease without making vaccines and/or other treatments, and it is all made for us?

For being all-powerful, he's not very good at much, is he?

Well every day is a school day as they say!, actually we are also listening to entire other galaxies, deafening silence so far, but as I said, it's merely a predictions that holds, not one that's likely to be confirmed. Though I think the math may be able to point to a reasonable accurate probability of being alone without having to scan every star?
 
I agree a world without any challenges sounds great! every day is 72 and sunny, we experience no grief for the passing of loved ones, it doesn't hurt when you put your finger in the fire, trees are made of chocolate...

Or maybe our creator thought this through a little further?...

Hey, I have work to do and I can't stick around to respond to everything you've written yet, but I have to say something here. If there were, say 200,000,000 civilization on other worlds looking for signs of life on our planet 150 years ago, and they were doing so by pointing radio telescopes in our direction, what would they have detected. NOTHING! If they are further than 150 light years away, what would they be detecting today? NOTHING!

Others have to make noise for us to detect them. And in a time frame convenient for us. They may be smarter than that.

Also, others may be far more advanced then us and using methods of communication we've never imagined and have no way of detecting.

I am more than willing to admit that one of the possibilities is that we are the only sentient life form in the whole universe. But to take the knowledge we currently have, the lack of detectible radio signals from other sources, and extrapolate that to be evidence that the bible is right is kind of jumping to conclusions.

I'm certainly willing to conceed also that there could be sentient life that we never detect,  but being alone is a clearly falsifiable prediction of theism in general. If we found the universe packed with other species all thinking the universe was made for them- fine I acknowledge the implication of that. But I also acknowledge the opposite implication.

In the days of Verne and Poe, we argued about what sort of folks lived on the moon, now we'd be very excited over a fossilized microbe on Mars. The size of the known universe has increased beyond our imagination, but
so have the hurdles to be overcome by each planet.

 if even one out of those 200,000,000 civilizations is still looking and close enough then they are listening to us right now. similarly we could detect a strong enough signal 100 LY away from 100 years ago, 1000 from 1000 and so on. i.e. in terms of sample size- we are listening to the entire galaxy all be it at different relative times. But the entire galaxy is only 100k odd LY across, and 100k years is a blink of an eye compared to the time civilizations have had to develop and transmit?

There is also the Fermi paradox of course, that any one single civilization with motives and means not much greater than ours, could have colonized the entire galaxy many times over by now, yet this has apparently never happened, why not?  we can think of many hypothetical reasons for any one civilization, but all of them?

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence
« Reply #134 on: July 01, 2013, 11:42:40 AM »
Glad to..

Theism, the concept of a creator predicts that the universe was in fact created in a specific creation event.
As above in stark contrast to the static/eternal (no creation = no creator) models clearly predicted by atheist academics for much of the early 20th.- mocking the priest Lemaitre for his 'overtly theistic' primordial atom.

which prediction, atheist or theistic was scientifically validated beyond reasonable doubt?
This does not of course prove God, and Lemaitre himself was clear on this. But a solidly validated prediction?
Certainly.

I've read your reply several times and wondered if you are speaking in tongues - I got over that by realizing your reply is incoherent. And wrong. And not up to date with science.

I think the point you have missed is that nothing in modern physics (to which modern atheism is all ears at all times) claims there was not something before the big bang, or that space was indeed empty.

To visualize this you might consider a sine wave - it passes through zero and appears, (if you can't see the negative values), into the positive side above zero as if created from nothing.  But there was something before.

We can't see or predict past the big bang yet, but that doesn't mean there is nothing to see or know beyond the big bang in reverse.  (Even if God did it God must have been there somewhere.)   The work by professor Lawrence Krauss and peers already explains far more about what was already there at the time of the big bang than your big book fairy story ever will.

As for "beyond reasonable doubt" you still have a lot of work to do explaining what was before God the Creator, or else what did it evolve from?  How did God attain the complexity necessary to create stuff?

So this particular example of a "solidly validated prediction" is a FAIL on your part - and on several grounds.


Theism also predicts that the universe, having been made primarily for humanity, is not shared by other intelligent beings. Obviously this is very difficult to ever answer conclusively, but does the prediction still hold despite having an ear on an entire Galaxy?
Patience grasshopper, patience.
The statistics are swinging hugely in favor of evolved life elsewhere with every planet discovered in distant solar systems - a lot of them by the very listening projects you think are a failure.  The opposite of what you say is true - we are making progress if you choose to stay current :laugh:
Firstly, who are you to demand that planets supporting life climax to making noise precisely at the same time we figure out how to listen. It took Earth several billions of years to start the party.
Secondly, we are not able to listen to or study the entire sky - we've really only just begun listening and studying small portions of it at a time - and when our instruments improve we'll have to pass all those points again. 

Take note - fresh stuff here that demands you rethink:

Quote
Not One, but Three 'Goldilocks Planets'?
June 28, 201312
It's been almost three years since astronomers found the first planet outside our solar system they called a Goldilocks planet, meaning that it's not too close, not too far, but just the right distance from its sun to potentially sustain life. And since then, more of these just right planets have been found, one at the time.
http://www.npr.org/2013/06/28/196594980/not-one-but-three-goldilocks-planets



Now I did only ask for a "few" examples of where science "debunked" atheist claims - I didn't expect two such piss-poor efforts full of misunderstanding and blatant misinformation.

Please do your homework.  Do you have anything at all to conclusively substantiate your claim that:
I don't knock science at all, I'm a huge fan. it has debunked every testable atheist model for the universe so far and supported all the major predictions of theism.
(my bold)

It's a very bold claim by you: "every testable atheist model for the universe".    How about just one emphatic settled debunking please  :laugh:
Git mit uns

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4624
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence
« Reply #135 on: July 01, 2013, 11:51:16 AM »
By definition, not practice.- if we are playing with definitions;
Let's say I'm the aspontaneist, you're the spontaneist- now by definition you are adding the belief and all the burden of proof is on you.... So we just reversed the burden of proof without changing either of our beliefs!
Is playing word games like this the best you can do?  I'm disappointed.  I know all about nitpicking and playing with definitions in order to jerk other people around, attacking their arguments without proving any of my own.  I gave it up as a bad deal a long time ago, because I figured out that I wasn't really accomplishing anything.

By practice, atheists don't believe in gods, whereas theists do.  That is the inescapable fact of the matter.  Therefore, it is contingent upon theists to fulfill the burden of proof for their gods, not upon atheists to prove that said gods don't exist.

Quote from: Guybrush Threepwood
As I posted above, if we can both just acknowledge that we both have unprovable theories to compare, wouldn't that be the basis for a far more interesting discussion?
No, because it's also an incorrect statement.  Atheism isn't a theory.  It's simply a statement that no god has ever been observed, and no evidence for gods has ever held up, therefore until someone provides such, there's no point in believing in deities.  For that matter, theism isn't a theory either, because it's not really based on reason and logic in the first place.  How many theists undertook a rational, logical path which led them to their belief?  My guess is that none did.  Instead, they either had them inculcated at an early age (before they learned to question or think for themselves), or else had a strong emotional experience which led to their belief.

Quote from: Guybrush Threepwood
theists acknowledge the element of faith, that their belief can't be proven, do atheists?
I think atheists already know that they can't absolutely prove that deities don't exist.  It's theists who insist that deities exist without providing any real evidence to prove it.  Even you, to be perfectly honest.  For example, your "spontaneous automated universe creating mechanism" argument didn't provide actual evidence for any deity.  Instead, you're basically saying that you don't believe in a SAUCM, therefore a god must have done it.  That's not evidence.

----

Let's take your claim that theism and atheism made contrasting predictions regarding the origin of the universe.  The actual fact of the matter is that every variety of theism made a 'prediction' about how the universe was created - and every single one of them got it wrong.  Not a single branch of any theism that predated the Big Bang Theory ever posited a universe that expanded from an infinitely small, infinitely dense point.  Yeah, sure, scientists predicted a steady state universe, and were wrong.  They also admitted it when the evidence showed that they were, and developed a new theory to account for that.  By comparison, there are theists who flat-out say that the evidence is wrong and that their particular creation myth is right; there are theists who attempt to incorporate elements of the existing evidence into their creation myth so they can continue to claim that it was divinely inspired (even though it never actually mentions this evidence, which a divinely-inspired story would); and there are some theists who are willing to admit that their religion must reflect reality, as you seem to.

I'll grant that the latter is the sanest of the three, and all things being equal, if theists primarily consisted of the latter there wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem with the whole idea.  However, the vast majority of theists are not like you.  They firmly believe that their beliefs trump reality, to the point where their particular holy book is vastly more important than any scientific discovery ever, and if everyone only believed exactly the same as they did, everything would be perfect and God would fix all the problems of the universe.

Do you see why atheists are so concerned about theism?

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #136 on: July 01, 2013, 12:39:35 PM »
In the sense that if one doesn't recognize any element of faith in one's own belief, one is laboring under the misconception that one doesn't have faith, that one's beliefs are based 100% on evidence. I think this is dangerous because, as seen throughout history, this perception of supreme knowledge can be used as justification to ram it down everyone else's throats for their 'own good' whether that belief is atheist or theist .
 Would you not agree?
The problem here is that you assume that there's an element of faith in atheism, simply because there's an element of faith in your belief system, despite the fact that atheism is not a belief system and doesn't posit anything to replace the gods that atheists don't believe in.

Quote from: Guybrush Threepwood
'Atheism is not a belief - it's simply an acknowledgement of the logical implications that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of gods.
'
By that exact same rationale I could say  'theism is not a belief - it's simply an acknowledgement of the logical implications that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of spontaneous automated universe creating mechanisms'
Except it isn't the same rationale.  There are two major problems with your comparison.  First is that you almost certainly did not come to your belief in your god through the lack of evidence for "spontaneous automated universe creating mechanisms".  Indeed, I'll bet you believed in your god long before you'd ever heard of the Big Bang, so you are simply using this as an excuse to justify your preexisting belief.  Whereas atheists stopped believing in gods through the lack of evidence for them, and didn't invent something else to fill the gap.

Second, the comparison is false to begin with.  Atheism is not a belief for the same reason that a-leprechaun-ism is not a belief.  They are not pointing to other things to "fill in the holes" left by gods (or leprechauns) for the simple reason that there are no holes that gods (or leprechauns) were needed to fill in the first place.  Whereas, those who believe in gods need places for those gods to fit.  They need holes that can't be explained by other things so that their gods can fit there, thus your "spontaneous automated universe creating mechanism" (that you don't believe in, and that leaves a convenient hole that you can fill with your god).

Quote from: Guybrush Threepwood
framing your belief as a 'default' explanation is just a way to avoid having to give evidence for that belief- to put the burden of proof on everyone but yourself.  That's why theists don't take this 'default' stance, because they are willing and able to defend their beliefs on it's own merits, rather than simply poking holes in atheism
This is intellectually dishonest of you.  First off, it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.  It is just as impossible to prove that leprechauns don't exist as it is to prove that gods don't exist, yet I'm pretty sure you don't believe in leprechauns or attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe using a leprechaun-centric theology.  Thus your attempts to castigate atheists for 'avoiding' giving evidence for their 'beliefs' ring false.

Second, what merits do theistic beliefs have?  I've been here for something like two years, and in that time, I've never once seen a theist give a coherent, evidence-based argument to support their belief.  In fact, more often than not, they're based on purely subjective interpretations (spin) of various events, which they naturally attribute to whichever god they believe in.  Worse, they only attribute the 'hits' to their god; the 'misses' get ignored more often than not, and the few times they aren't ignored the theist talks about "God's plan" or some other such thing to rationalize away.  All without ever even having direct evidence that their god even exists.

Lack of evidence for spontaneous mechanisms is exactly what made me become skeptical of atheism. That may sound atypical but I think the vast majority of mankind, from the goat herder to Galileo to Max Plank have always come to the same conclusion about an intelligent creator from the same basic observations at various levels of scientific understanding ; That chance alone is not sufficient to ultimately account for the world we see around us.

I think the Leprechaunism is a good illustration here. If you or I told anyone we were skeptical of the existence of leprechauns, is anyone going to ask you to offer an alternative explanation?   for what? no one will argue about any hole to fill here.

But obviously this is not true for the universe, it IS here, we're here, and the hole is explaining how it ultimately came to be. Can't we agree that the best starting point is a blank sheet, that there is no 'default' explanation, no 'usual' way we know of that universes come into existence?

There is no direct empirical evidence for any explanation, thiestic or atheistic, creative intelligence or spontaneous mechanism. so we're even there are we not?  I think we have to throw out all our assumptions, preferences, feelings on what any answer 'should' look like because it's like no other question.

But we do have a couple of clear falsifiable predictions made by the most general theory of theism, that the universe was in fact created in a specific event, and that being made primarily for us, we are the only species with intelligence enough to ponder it. The former was validated in clear contrast with atheist predictions of a static eternal universe, the 2nd still holds while monitoring an entire galaxy. That and power of explanation. Nowhere near proof of course, just a little more weight than the competition in my view.


Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1850
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Evidence
« Reply #137 on: July 01, 2013, 12:49:51 PM »
But we do have a couple of clear falsifiable predictions made by the most general theory of theism, that the universe was in fact created in a specific event, and that being made primarily for us, we are the only species with intelligence enough to ponder it. The former was validated in clear contrast with atheist predictions of a static eternal universe, the 2nd still holds while monitoring an entire galaxy. That and power of explanation. Nowhere near proof of course, just a little more weight than the competition in my view.
So I haven't played catch up with this thread lately, but I want to call something out here.

Firstly, 'general theory of theism' is a new one to me.  I'll have to use that sometime.

Secondly, the implication of the universe being created by a specific event is incorrect.  There is a point in the way, distant past where our models of physics break down.  That is the admission that, beyond that point in time, we do not have sufficient information or data to establish, with confidence, any idea of what actually occurred.  That's the place where we get to put 'I don't know' and start devising some manner of finding out the answers.  It's the place where you have explicitly put a 'creation event' and an intelligent, all-powerful (or super-powerful) sentience.

Finally:
Quote
that being made primarily for us
is not only the height of hubris but also does not seem to follow from observing reality.  The entire 80 bajillion galaxy expanse of the universe was made for humanity?  There is but one word that applies: BULLSHIT.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #138 on: July 01, 2013, 01:12:34 PM »
By definition, not practice.- if we are playing with definitions;
Let's say I'm the aspontaneist, you're the spontaneist- now by definition you are adding the belief and all the burden of proof is on you.... So we just reversed the burden of proof without changing either of our beliefs!
Is playing word games like this the best you can do?  I'm disappointed.  I know all about nitpicking and playing with definitions in order to jerk other people around, attacking their arguments without proving any of my own.  I gave it up as a bad deal a long time ago, because I figured out that I wasn't really accomplishing anything.

By practice, atheists don't believe in gods, whereas theists do.  That is the inescapable fact of the matter.  Therefore, it is contingent upon theists to fulfill the burden of proof for their gods, not upon atheists to prove that said gods don't exist.

I agree wholeheartedly, let's put word games aside and have a more interesting discussion on our differing opinions on how the universe got here.The point is, changing the definition doesn't change our assertions. atheists don't believe in God where as theists do, and atheists believe in spontaneous mechanisms capable of creating our universe and theists simply don't, we're skeptical of your beliefs as you are of ours. There's nothing wrong with than unless one of us doesn't acknowledge that what we have is ultimately faith in our belief.

I think Einstein was a good example here of someone who didn't have a very consistent opinion on what God might be or whether he existed by any particular definition, but was always very clear on being a skeptic of atheism

Quote from: Guybrush Threepwood
As I posted above, if we can both just acknowledge that we both have unprovable theories to compare, wouldn't that be the basis for a far more interesting discussion?
No, because it's also an incorrect statement.  Atheism isn't a theory.  It's simply a statement that no god has ever been observed, and no evidence for gods has ever held up, therefore until someone provides such, there's no point in believing in deities.  For that matter, theism isn't a theory either, because it's not really based on reason and logic in the first place.  How many theists undertook a rational, logical path which led them to their belief?  My guess is that none did.  Instead, they either had them inculcated at an early age (before they learned to question or think for themselves), or else had a strong emotional experience which led to their belief.

Well, you've sort of lost me there, if you think the vast majority of humanity that ever lived never had any reason or logic for their belief in God, that's one of the few claims I can say is absolutely incorrect. I don't think you are irrational or illogical or can't think for yourself. I think you sound like a perfectly intelligent thoughtful person, and I think that recognition is an essential basis for having any kind of worthwhile debate.

Quote from: Guybrush Threepwood
theists acknowledge the element of faith, that their belief can't be proven, do atheists?
I think atheists already know that they can't absolutely prove that deities don't exist.  It's theists who insist that deities exist without providing any real evidence to prove it.  Even you, to be perfectly honest.  For example, your "spontaneous automated universe creating mechanism" argument didn't provide actual evidence for any deity.  Instead, you're basically saying that you don't believe in a SAUCM, therefore a god must have done it.  That's not evidence.

That is EXACTLY my point, that if I took the atheist approach- I'd simply claim the default answer and critique SAUCMs. which is not evidence for anything. And theists rarely take this stance because they are willing and able to back up their own beliefs on it's own merits and acknowledge the gaps filled by faith

----

Let's take your claim that theism and atheism made contrasting predictions regarding the origin of the universe.  The actual fact of the matter is that every variety of theism made a 'prediction' about how the universe was created - and every single one of them got it wrong.  Not a single branch of any theism that predated the Big Bang Theory ever posited a universe that expanded from an infinitely small, infinitely dense point.  Yeah, sure, scientists predicted a steady state universe, and were wrong.  They also admitted it when the evidence showed that they were, and developed a new theory to account for that.  By comparison, there are theists who flat-out say that the evidence is wrong and that their particular creation myth is right; there are theists who attempt to incorporate elements of the existing evidence into their creation myth so they can continue to claim that it was divinely inspired (even though it never actually mentions this evidence, which a divinely-inspired story would); and there are some theists who are willing to admit that their religion must reflect reality, as you seem to.

Of course nobody predicted the exact details of the creation event, but no creation myth got the entire reality of the universe as arse-about-face as the academic one which said the universe wasn't even created!

I'll grant that the latter is the sanest of the three, and all things being equal, if theists primarily consisted of the latter there wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem with the whole idea.  However, the vast majority of theists are not like you.  They firmly believe that their beliefs trump reality, to the point where their particular holy book is vastly more important than any scientific discovery ever, and if everyone only believed exactly the same as they did, everything would be perfect and God would fix all the problems of the universe.

Do you see why atheists are so concerned about theism?

I can't talk for all 'theists' but those I know do not fit the Hollywood bible thumping stereotype, as most atheists do not fit the militant anarchist one. I know there is a whole discussion to have on the merits and behavior of theists and atheists from Crusades to Stalin etc but it's usually pretty negative and unproductive, can we skip to the last chapter of that and agree that politics getting involved in personal belief is a bad idea- theistic or atheistic?

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #139 on: July 01, 2013, 01:30:34 PM »
But we do have a couple of clear falsifiable predictions made by the most general theory of theism, that the universe was in fact created in a specific event, and that being made primarily for us, we are the only species with intelligence enough to ponder it. The former was validated in clear contrast with atheist predictions of a static eternal universe, the 2nd still holds while monitoring an entire galaxy. That and power of explanation. Nowhere near proof of course, just a little more weight than the competition in my view.
So I haven't played catch up with this thread lately, but I want to call something out here.

Firstly, 'general theory of theism' is a new one to me.  I'll have to use that sometime.

Secondly, the implication of the universe being created by a specific event is incorrect.  There is a point in the way, distant past where our models of physics break down.  That is the admission that, beyond that point in time, we do not have sufficient information or data to establish, with confidence, any idea of what actually occurred.  That's the place where we get to put 'I don't know' and start devising some manner of finding out the answers.  It's the place where you have explicitly put a 'creation event' and an intelligent, all-powerful (or super-powerful) sentience.

Finally:
Quote
that being made primarily for us
is not only the height of hubris but also does not seem to follow from observing reality.  The entire 80 bajillion galaxy expanse of the universe was made for humanity?  There is but one word that applies: BULLSHIT.

Every day is a school day!

 'creation event' is an inappropriate term for a specific event which was the creation of all space/ time, energy/ matter as we know it?    similarly I suppose I can't describe the functional design of the universe as functional or a design. 

When the most obvious words to describe nature become disallowed, you have to wonder if it's the words or nature itself which doesn't fit the preferred conclusions?

'There is but one word that applies: BULLSHIT'- I think that is a direct quote from Hoyle on Lemaitre's primordial atom theory, but until evidence shows otherwise I'd reserve that word for thoroughly debunked theories like the static/eternal universe, Big Crunch etc!

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1850
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Evidence
« Reply #140 on: July 01, 2013, 01:40:03 PM »
Every day is a school day!

 'creation event' is an inappropriate term for a specific event which was the creation of all space/ time, energy/ matter as we know it?    similarly I suppose I can't describe the functional design of the universe as functional or a design. 

When the most obvious words to describe nature become disallowed, you have to wonder if it's the words or nature itself which doesn't fit the preferred conclusions?
Well, if you assume that the point in time that we don't know anything about is the point when all of space/time/energy/matter was created, then yeah, 'creation event' is appropriate.  Circular logic works that way - you keep missing the fact that you are assuming that 'creation' is what occurred.  You are going to require some evidence beyond 'we don't understand what happened before time t therefore that's when reality was created'.
Quote
'There is but one word that applies: BULLSHIT'- I think that is a direct quote from Hoyle on Lemaitre's primordial atom theory, but until evidence shows otherwise I'd reserve that word for thoroughly debunked theories like the static/eternal universe, Big Crunch etc!
Notice how it was objective evidence, not assumption and speculation, that put that to rest?  What do you have for this 'creation event' of yours?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6125
  • Darwins +689/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evidence
« Reply #141 on: July 01, 2013, 01:49:45 PM »
I'm certainly willing to conceed also that there could be sentient life that we never detect,  but being alone is a clearly falsifiable prediction of theism in general. If we found the universe packed with other species all thinking the universe was made for them- fine I acknowledge the implication of that. But I also acknowledge the opposite implication.

Falsifiable, yes. But right now you are just guessing on the outcome. And it may be hundreds or thousands or millions of years before we can confirm it or show otherwise. You can take comfort that you are probably safe in your own lifetime.

Quote
In the days of Verne and Poe, we argued about what sort of folks lived on the moon, now we'd be very excited over a fossilized microbe on Mars. The size of the known universe has increased beyond our imagination, but so have the hurdles to be overcome by each planet.

So now you are saying that our fiction writers were really really wrong, and so our real scientists are probably going to be disappointed too. Sounds like christian logic to me. Define any expectation as silly and diss it to high heaven as some proof that atheists are idiots. Your insistence on redefining the steady-state universe as a plot against religion rather than the best that Einstein could do at the time is way too ridiculous. Given the information he had in the early 20th century, it made sense to him. Then he got more information, and later called his steady-state theory his "biggest blunder". Have any christians came forward and admitted that the goats mating in front of a striped stick one of their biggest blunders? I don't think so.

In the meantime, you take an acknowledged error in scientific thinking and keep harping on and on as if it were a)never refuted by current science and current atheists and b)the basis for all of our excuses for not believing in a god. I'm not bringing up your tendency to burn people at the stake for not being just like you a current issue. You might lighten up on the false accusations.

Quote
if even one out of those 200,000,000 civilizations is still looking and close enough then they are listening to us right now. similarly we could detect a strong enough signal 100 LY away from 100 years ago, 1000 from 1000 and so on. i.e. in terms of sample size- we are listening to the entire galaxy all be it at different relative times. But the entire galaxy is only 100k odd LY across, and 100k years is a blink of an eye compared to the time civilizations have had to develop and transmit?
 

You don't normally take the time to agree with me on anything, so this is much appreciated.

Quote
There is also the Fermi paradox of course, that any one single civilization with motives and means not much greater than ours, could have colonized the entire galaxy many times over by now, yet this has apparently never happened, why not?  we can think of many hypothetical reasons for any one civilization, but all of them?

Fermi might not have done a very good job with this one. His phrase "means not much greater than ours" comes nowhere near providing the technology required to move about our galaxy. Lets just say that someone on planet earth perfects speed-of-light travel (I'm guessing Apple, with their new iFast product). So then all we would have to do to colonize the galaxy is jump in our spaceships and start flying around. And it would only take us 100,000 years to get to the furthest stars in our galaxy. A very reasonable and rational undertaking.

It may well be that we will never leave our solar system on any interesting or meaningful scale. And it may be that no other sentient beings have figured it out either. It just may not be possible. So while this is really really convenient for you, as falsifiable evidence that there is no other intelligent life in the universe, it has no intrinsic meaning when it comes to deciding whether or not there is a god in the neighborhood. If there is a god, then yes, it helps. But if there isn't, his lack of existence is not the reason we will or will not be able to make contact with others or inhabit the universe in some large scale manner.

Edit: fixed a couple of uncaught spelling errrrrors
« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 01:51:50 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2931
  • Darwins +237/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Evidence
« Reply #142 on: July 01, 2013, 01:59:29 PM »
How did God attain the complexity necessary to create stuff?

This is one of two places where "Goddidit" falls apart for Me.  I think it's ludicrous to assume that a being capable of crafting atoms and organizing matter into increasingly complex forms just showed up on its own, or "was always there."

The second place where I see the hypothesis failing is on the subject of matter-energy equivalence.  I see creation ex nihilo as a technical impossibility, as creation is an act that would require energy.  However, energy is not 'nothing' and it can be converted into matter.  Therefore, any action on the part of a so-called creator-god would indicate that matter-energy already existed, and said god could only rearrange -- Not "create."
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #143 on: July 01, 2013, 02:03:22 PM »
Glad to..

Theism, the concept of a creator predicts that the universe was in fact created in a specific creation event.
As above in stark contrast to the static/eternal (no creation = no creator) models clearly predicted by atheist academics for much of the early 20th.- mocking the priest Lemaitre for his 'overtly theistic' primordial atom.

which prediction, atheist or theistic was scientifically validated beyond reasonable doubt?
This does not of course prove God, and Lemaitre himself was clear on this. But a solidly validated prediction?
Certainly.

I've read your reply several times and wondered if you are speaking in tongues - I got over that by realizing your reply is incoherent. And wrong. And not up to date with science.

I think the point you have missed is that nothing in modern physics (to which modern atheism is all ears at all times) claims there was not something before the big bang, or that space was indeed empty.

To visualize this you might consider a sine wave - it passes through zero and appears, (if you can't see the negative values), into the positive side above zero as if created from nothing.  But there was something before.

We can't see or predict past the big bang yet, but that doesn't mean there is nothing to see or know beyond the big bang in reverse.  (Even if God did it God must have been there somewhere.)   The work by professor Lawrence Krauss and peers already explains far more about what was already there at the time of the big bang than your big book fairy story ever will.

As for "beyond reasonable doubt" you still have a lot of work to do explaining what was before God the Creator, or else what did it evolve from?  How did God attain the complexity necessary to create stuff?

So this particular example of a "solidly validated prediction" is a FAIL on your part - and on several grounds.


Theism also predicts that the universe, having been made primarily for humanity, is not shared by other intelligent beings. Obviously this is very difficult to ever answer conclusively, but does the prediction still hold despite having an ear on an entire Galaxy?
Patience grasshopper, patience.
The statistics are swinging hugely in favor of evolved life elsewhere with every planet discovered in distant solar systems - a lot of them by the very listening projects you think are a failure.  The opposite of what you say is true - we are making progress if you choose to stay current :laugh:
Firstly, who are you to demand that planets supporting life climax to making noise precisely at the same time we figure out how to listen. It took Earth several billions of years to start the party.
Secondly, we are not able to listen to or study the entire sky - we've really only just begun listening and studying small portions of it at a time - and when our instruments improve we'll have to pass all those points again. 

Take note - fresh stuff here that demands you rethink:

Quote
Not One, but Three 'Goldilocks Planets'?
June 28, 201312
It's been almost three years since astronomers found the first planet outside our solar system they called a Goldilocks planet, meaning that it's not too close, not too far, but just the right distance from its sun to potentially sustain life. And since then, more of these just right planets have been found, one at the time.
http://www.npr.org/2013/06/28/196594980/not-one-but-three-goldilocks-planets



Now I did only ask for a "few" examples of where science "debunked" atheist claims - I didn't expect two such piss-poor efforts full of misunderstanding and blatant misinformation.

Please do your homework.  Do you have anything at all to conclusively substantiate your claim that:
I don't knock science at all, I'm a huge fan. it has debunked every testable atheist model for the universe so far and supported all the major predictions of theism.
(my bold)

It's a very bold claim by you: "every testable atheist model for the universe".    How about just one emphatic settled debunking please  :laugh:

 just one emphatic settled debunking: Big Crunch- purported by Hawking  to 'make God redundant'
in his words by offering a self contained cyclical mechanism for universe creation..
Debunked by the establishment of supernovae as a standard measure of distance, revealing that the universe
would continue to expand indefinitely.

Let me know if you'd like more, I have a big wheel I can spin!

I don't think your responses are incoherent, piss poor, laughable, I think you sound like a reasonably intelligent person, and we agree anything prior to the creation event is philosophical speculation, but I think your points were made a little more eloquently by some others here so I'll avoid taking up more space answering them again here, other than this one;

"Firstly, who are you to demand that planets supporting life climax to making noise precisely at the same time we figure out how to listen. It took Earth several billions of years to start the party."

they don't have to- there's quite a bit of delay and quite a bit of time the galaxy has been around for those signals to reach us. i.e. in effect we are listening to a time slice of the entire galaxy. Since the time it takes signals to cross the galaxy is dwarfed by the age of the galaxy, the specific origin date of each signal is irrelevant with regards to the probability of 'scoring a hit' and similar to listening to the entire galaxy at one instant.

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #144 on: July 01, 2013, 02:08:11 PM »
How did God attain the complexity necessary to create stuff?

This is one of two places where "Goddidit" falls apart for Me.  I think it's ludicrous to assume that a being capable of crafting atoms and organizing matter into increasingly complex forms just showed up on its own, or "was always there."


Perfectly sound logic, but why grant a SAUCM (spontaneous automated universe creating mechanism) a waiver on this?

We have the exact same something-from-nothing paradox , yet here we are so one of them worked- but does forbidding creative intelligence make the task of universe creation easier or more difficult to achieve?