A slightly biased attempt to discredit evolutio...

Originally posted by KellyJay
"There is no evidence at all for what created the universe, so you are foolish if you believe in creationism - the only logical thing to believe is that we dont know at the moment. "

No, that is the fact we do not know, we cannot prove anything, you can
believe what you will. You want to believe there was not God, god, or
gods involved that is up to yo ...[text shortened]... s, and as soon as you accept one it from
that point on colors everything else you see.
Kelly

Let me point out the flaw in your argument:

"you want to believe there is no god ... ...".

As Andrew pointed out, I do not WANT to believe there is not god, there is just simply NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD. I believe what there is evidence for, let me put it to you like this, please take a moment to consider this hypothetical situation:

If you had not been told/ read about God how would you find out about him? If the idea that there was a super natural god had died out hundreds of years ago, you would not believe that there was a god.

If the idea of god had never been dreamt up then you would no have the views that you do - if Christianity had been wiped out by some massive wars in the past you may well have a different religion.

NOW imagine we suddenly lost all scientific knowledge, we wake up tomorrow and have reverted back to a stone-age level of knowledge. We would eventually build our knowledge back up again - AND IT WOULD BE THE SAME AS IT IS NOW, because scientific knowledge is not dependant on culture and belief, it is determined by nature and obtained through logical experiments.

My point is as follows. If things had taken a different path in history your religion could be very different, Christians could believe entirely different things or not exist alltogether. BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE OF SCIENCE, if we lost all knowledge and had to learn it all again we would come to the same conclusions that we did the first time - as science is independent of humans. As I said before, aliens on a different planet will have wildly different religious beliefs to out planet - BUT THEIR SCIENCE WOULD COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS AS OURS.

Science gives us truth about the universe and lets us understand the way it works, religion is simply a reflection of humanities IRRATIONAL beliefs and ILLOGICAL imagination

EDIT: Do you hold your religious beliefs up to the same standards as you do science, or are you willing to hold the religious views you do even though they are based on wild unfounded assumptions with no evidence? You have repeatedly said that you are not prepared to rely on assumptions that you cannot directly observe, yet you seem to be prepared to believe things which are based ENTIRELY on assumptions with no proof at all. If you are not prepared to accept scientific evidence because "there may be some other factor that causes it to be wrong", then how to you know there is not "some other factor" that causes your religious believes to be wrong? You have double standards.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you are suggesting that if people don't believe science, and people
can part ways and it is still good science?
Kelly

Why does the evidence for say, the age of the earth, come down to, as you put it, 'Just faith'. Implying faith is not to be trusted. But of course faith in the almighty christian religion is not to be questioned, a different order of faith much higher on the faith totem pole. Your hypocrisy is showing.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why does the evidence for say, the age of the earth, come down to, as you put it, 'Just faith'. Implying faith is not to be trusted. But of course faith in the almighty christian religion is not to be questioned, a different order of faith much higher on the faith totem pole. Your hypocrisy is showing.

I agree, Kelly refuses to accept proven scientific methods "because there may be some other factor we dont know about". Even when there have been multiple experiments measuring things in different ways that have all been consistent Kelly still refuses to accept it because "there may be another factor that effects all the different experiments in just the right way that they are all wrong by the same amount even though they measure different things in different ways".

Yet Kelly then is prepared to hold religious beliefs for which there is no evidence at all - madness!

How does Kelly know "there is not some other factor" that means his religion is entirely wrong?

Originally posted by MattP
Let me point out the flaw in your argument:

"you want to believe there is no god ... ...".

As Andrew pointed out, I do not WANT to believe there is not god, there is just simply NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD. I believe what there is evidence for, let me put it to you like this, please take a moment to consider this hypothetical situation:

If you had no ...[text shortened]... r factor" that causes your religious believes to be wrong? You have double standards.[/b]

Wrong you do indeed see evidence for God, you just discount it, and
accuse those that point things out to you as seeing things they want to
see. I pointed out to you that you do not be something from nothing,
period. That alone is evidence that something beyond the normal state
of things require something beyond them to simply be, let alone be,
and work in the ways they do with such order and precision.

Personally, I believe life in all its complexity is evidence for God,
simply put I do not believe you get systems within life to work
together out of just time, natural laws, and the proper material
being thrown together. Nothing that complex just happens without
someone directing the process in my opinion. Even something as
complex as your CPU has millions of man hours behind it, and it does
not replicate itself over time in all manners of environment as life
does.

I believe God and Jesus Christ are real, and the reason the belief in
God couldn’t be wiped out is that God is simply allowing things to
play out for His reasons, than the judgment. So there isn’t any I’d
have a different belief system if this happened or that. As a matter of
fact where I work has a diverse culture; I belong to a Bible study
where I’m the only Caucasian in the room everyone else comes from
different parts of the world and they are all Christians so even being
born in other parts of the world in the midst of other beliefs does not
alter Christ or the belief in Him either.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Oh, you did answer! Surprised.

Under 10,000 years of age... Same age as the Unverse, right? That's not the scientific way to see things, is it?

Yea I did, but that didn't stop of you from flaming me and it is also
telling an apology wasn't forth coming from you either. I didn't claim
that

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
So people have no choice but to believe what they want to believe, is that it? Amazing.

No, it isn't a matter of choice; belief simply colors all things they see
to make them fit. The way people attack the notion that God could
be real should show you they would in no way acknowledge anything
in the universe that could prove them wrong, they have no desire to
even accept the possibility. If the notion isn’t attackable they go after
the person presenting it, but something is going to belittled, it almost
never stays on topic.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… My point if you cared to read it, was just that, even the Big Bang leaves
that part alone…

Actually that was our point. But your point was that the big bang is flawed because it leaves that part alone! If you deny this;

Reminder of your previous quote:

“A small dense object is not nothing, it is a small dense object that
...[text shortened]... d the “metaphysical” of time before the big bang when they don’t believe such a time exists? “[/b]

“…you should know that those that believe that the big bang happened and have understood the theory believe time began at the big bang and thus there is no “time before the big bang” as you said. -so how can they be trying to avoid the “metaphysical” of time before the big bang when they don’t believe such a time exists? “

Yes, they believe time began at the Big Band, heard that before, which makes
time part of that something from nothing doesn’t it? Not only do you have a
small dense object, but time itself wrapped in there. That does not for an instant
change my point, you either have time in or part of you small object and before
that you had nothing, and then you had something, with time either in or part of
that object. The why doesn’t bother you, you just want to avoid that part of the
conversation it seems, suggesting it doesn’t fit your model I guess. It certainly
cannot mean all things must have had a beginning caused by something beyond
itself according to you I assume.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… You WANT to believe there was not God… (my emphasis)

What he WANTS has nothing to do with his belief that there is no god because, like virtually all atheists, he does not “choose” his beliefs according to his wants, emotions etc.
I hope very much you would attempt to answer just this one question: What is the premise of your belief that atheists “choose” to be atheists?[/b]

I disagree, you accept what you will and it colors your stance on all
things.
Kelly

Originally posted by MattP
Kelly, thank you for paying attention to my points but you have not understood this discussion and have miss-interpreted what has been said.

"You wouldnt know what evidence to look for,... ...., what do you think you'd see if the universe was created and what evidence do you have to suggest it wasnt"

You are again using bad logic and resorting to ...[text shortened]... about "truth" and "knowledge" - two things that you do not understand.

Negative proof, where are you getting that. I'm telling you to look at
the whole universe and everything in it and saying that is evidence.


I'll get back to the rest later.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Wrong you do indeed see evidence for God, you just discount it, and
accuse those that point things out to you as seeing things they want to
see. I pointed out to you that you do not be something from nothing,
period. That alone is evidence that something beyond the normal state
of things require something beyond them to simply be, let alone be,
and wor ...[text shortened]... e world in the midst of other beliefs does not
alter Christ or the belief in Him either.
Kelly

Kelly,

Thank you for addressing my points - you have clearly taken time to read and understand my points and your reply has addressed them properly. This is very much appreciated 🙂

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but please read it as it contains reasoned responses to the views you have set out.

However, you are still using negative proof and confused logic - let me explain:

"I pointed out to you that you do not be something from nothing ... that along is evidence that something beyond the normal state of things is required.

"life in all its complexity is evidence for God"

These two statements are example of where you are not using logic and are using (by implication) "negative proof". Just because we "do not get something from nothing", and we dont know where the "something" came from does not mean it was God. The lack of evidence does NOT support the existence of God. This is an example of what religion does best: take something without an explanation and just make one up. Whenever a phenomenon is explained religion simply moves on and picks another unexplained phenomenon. The argument "There is no explanation for this - therefore it must be God" simply is not evidence based, it is effectively making a huge assumption without any reason.

Moreover, because you have an existing set of beliefs BEFORE looking at an unexplained phenomenon, you are predisposed to fabricate an explanation which fits them. Science does not do this, as conclusions are formed AFTER observations. In other words, religion sets out with the answers and looks for the questions which support them; science starts with questions and finds the answers.

"Where I work has a diverse culture ... ... everyone else comes from different parts of the world and they are all Christians so even being born in other parts of the world in the midst of other beliefs does not alter Christ or the belief in Him either".

You have made another logical mistake here - your sample is heavily biased because they are all at a Christian Bible study. You have excluded all non-Christian people from the regions concerned by only sampling people who are Christian!

You underlying premise is also wrong. You are implying "People all over the world from different backgrounds believe in God, therefore Christian religions beliefs are independent of upbringing and are universal". This is not correct, as all the people from other parts of the world most-likely had Christianity spread to them by large civilizations in the past or missionaries today.

There is no way to independantly arrive at the Christian beliefs. In order to belive them you need to have been exposed to them, it is impossible to come to them on your own as there is no way to investigate or observe them. In other words, aliens on another planet will not come up with Christianity, but they will come up with the SAME SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION as we do. Evidence for this is on Earth in the form of the many religions that exist. If one was truly independently verifiable then it would have been adopted by everyone. The fact that there are many religions on Earth proves that they are simply made up, they are the local/cultural superstitions. Nothing more.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Negative proof, where are you getting that. I'm telling you to look at
the whole universe and everything in it and saying that is evidence.


I'll get back to the rest later.
Kelly

You are using the fact that we cant explain everything in the universe, and suggesting that is proof for God - clear negative proof being used there as you are implying "unless you can prove that it wasn't god, it must be have been him".

As I mentioned in my previous post, scientific knowledge is independent of humans - in fact if there were no humans in existence the universe would still work in the same way. Scientific knowledge will be arrived at regardless of culture or religious beliefs, as I have said already. Aliens will arrive at the same conclusions we have, even if they have a massively different religions system.

THIS IS NOT TRUE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS! The aliens would need to be told your beliefs before they could have them, as your beliefs cannot be arrived at through independent observation.

So aliens may have an entirely different irrational explanation for the creation of the universe. In fact here on Earth there are many different religions with different irrational explanations for things.

What makes your religious views any more likely to be correct then those of a different religion?

Why are Christianity, or Hinduism or any other religions more accurate then Scienceology?

Christianity is as irrational as Scientology, and to have religions beliefs is just as foolish as thinking the Earth is flat.They simply cannot be reasoned logically or arrived at independently

Originally posted by MattP
If you had not been told/ read about God how would you find out about him? If the idea that there was a super natural god had died out hundreds of years ago, you would not believe that there was a god.

True. In fact, many many gods have gone by the way side because of what you have pointed out. However, the Biblical God seems very much alive as he has been through the millinea so you could say it is additional evidence. In fact, what are the major religions in the world today? Christianity, Islam, and Judism come to mind and are all based on the Biblical God. What are some others? I suppose Hinduism has gods and is an ancient major world wide religion but other than that nothing comes to mind.

In effect, God is only as real to us as he interacts with us. If there was a God but did not interact with mankind he would be essentially dead to us despite his existence.

Originally posted by MattP
As Andrew pointed out, I do not WANT to believe there is not god, there is just simply NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD. I believe what there is evidence for, let me put it to you like this, please take a moment to consider this hypothetical situation:

As Kelly pointed out, there are evidences but none that impress you. For example, the evidence of God interacting in peoples lives via personal testimony. You would chalk it up as something other than supernatural phenomenon and that is your call. As for myself, I have seen dramatic 180 degree turns people have made when confronted with Christ.

Christians mantain that God is immaterial as does Judism and Islam. So how is one suppose to prove an immaterial God via evidence from the material universe? I suppose the appearance of matter comes to mind as well as the appearence of life. These two phenomenon are addressed by science but only through educated speculations. In reality, they are mysteries that remain and will likely remain for all time.

Then again, the Christian has additional material evidence via Christ who came in a man's body. We have evidence of his existence and life as well as his words which introduce spiritual truths that resonate as truth with people such as myself. These "truths" really have nothing to do with the material world such as love, kindness, charity etc., however, they are real nonetheless and argueably more important than material aspects of our existence. In fact, you could say that the immaterial is the reality of the universe and the material aspect is an ever changing illusion of smoke and mirrors.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I disagree, you accept what you will and it colors your stance on all
things.
Kelly

This doesn’t answered my one most pressing question, so I ask it again:

What is the PREMICE of your belief that atheists “choose” to be atheists?

Originally posted by whodey
As Kelly pointed out, there are evidences but none that impress you. For example, the evidence of God interacting in peoples lives via personal testimony. You would chalk it up as something other than supernatural phenomenon and that is your call. As for myself, I have seen dramatic 180 degree turns people have made when confronted with Christ.

Christia ...[text shortened]... ty of the universe and the material aspect is an ever changing illusion of smoke and mirrors.

Kelly didn't point out evidence that you are referring to. Personal perception is not scientifically legit unless you do some type of controlled study thereof.

Kelly was pointing at basically the argument from incredulity as being evidence, which it's not. This argument is just "oh my, it's so complex. I can't understand how it could have come about any other way, so it must be god" - that's just not evidence.

The problem I have isn't that people believe in god.. they're welcome to. In fact, science itself doesn't even try to prove or disprove god. What it can prove and disprove are natural phenomena that happened or didn't happen. Science can fish out whether something that would have had natural effects happened since science can determine whether those effects are there.

The scientific process is not a process of faith as Kelly is presenting it though. That's what I see MattP and Andrew getting a lot of friction over.