06 Nov 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo matter how much we discover about our universe there will always be the X facor. The X factor is, of coarse, what is unmeasurable or unstudiable. An example is what the universe was before the Big Bang. Another example is abiogenesis. Granted, you have more information about the origins of life than you do about the BB. However, no matter how much evidence and theory you may think you have in regards to how it may have come about, you are still left with the uneasy realization that science is not 100% certain and never will be unless the phenomenon is studied in nature or duplicated in a lab.
Hmmm, that's perhaps true. Certainly we've more evidence for the existance of matter than you lot have for God though.
06 Nov 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe big bang was not necessarily the start of time.
I would not say that the theory of relativity is such an "easy" proof. However, all your questions are time dependant, which is ludicrous if time doesn't exist.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000
I don't pretent to know much about physics, but I think it is interesting that there are theories in which the big bang is just another event in the history of the universe. Of course, these are all theories, which people are attempting to test(through proofs of physics that I don't understand, mostly), and not religious truisms. It just makes a bit more sence to me, the non-physicist, that time would be indefinite.
06 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzVery true Scotty. I credit this travisty with the church's decision to go to war with science because science was viewed to be heritical with scripture. As I have pointed out this appears to have continued since the days of Galileo. Science scoffs at religion and religion scoffs at science and neither one appears to want to acknowledge the other. I have repeatidly stated that I do not believe current scientific data heretical to those of religious faith. Granted, some conclusions and assumptions based on scientific data and/or interpreted scripture may cause many to refute such a claim just as it was in the days of Galileo. I say the two need to call a truce and say to leave science to what is studiable and leave religion to what is not studiable.
You don't see many Christian evolutionary biologists though, do you? Or many Chriatian paleobiologists? The reason? It'd mess with their faith. Goddunit is the ultimate cop-out - no further explanation required. As long as someone has the concept in their brain that any particular phenomenon may be a "miracle" or magic, then they have no requirement for further investigation.
06 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnz
You don't see many Christian evolutionary biologists though, do you? Or many Chriatian paleobiologists? The reason? It'd mess with their faith. Goddunit is the ultimate cop-out - no further explanation required. As long as someone has the concept in their brain that any particular phenomenon may be a "miracle" or magic, then they have no requirement for further investigation.
06 Nov 06
Originally posted by whodeyTrue, but the difference is that you jump from that position to attributing it to God. As has been pointed out, it could just as easily have been Muffy, Allah, the FSM or even just random stochasticity.
No matter how much we discover about our universe there will always be the X facor. The X factor is, of coarse, what is unmeasurable or unstudiable. An example is what the universe was before the Big Bang. Another example is abiogenesis. Granted, you have more information about the origins of life than you do about the BB. However, no matter how much evi ...[text shortened]... 00% certain and never will be unless the phenomenon is studied in nature or duplicated in a lab.
06 Nov 06
Originally posted by whiteroseIndeed, I've heard numerous other theories, and neither am I a trained physicist. I believe though that the current most accepted theory remains that the big bang was the origin of everything, time included.
The big bang was not necessarily the start of time.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000
I don't pretent to know much about physics, but I think it is interesting that there are theories in which the big bang is just another event in the history of the universe. Of course, these are all theories, which people ...[text shortened]... uisms. It just makes a bit more sence to me, the non-physicist, that time would be indefinite.
06 Nov 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou may attribute certain things as being God related, however, as a scientist you only report what is testable or studiable, hence, God is never included in such speculations since he can never be put to the test.
True, but the difference is that you jump from that position to attributing it to God. As has been pointed out, it could just as easily have been Muffy, Allah, the FSM or even just random stochasticity.
06 Nov 06
Originally posted by whodeyI agree. Although the fighting has proved very beneficial for some subjects, like evolutionary biology. I do not wish for religious education to be banned in school. Nor do I recoil with horror at the concept of ID being taught in school provided it's not taught in a science class. I have no problem with people believeing in whatever they want - provided they don't force it upon others (a la Kansas school board tried).
Very true Scotty. I credit this travisty with the church's decision to go to war with science because science was viewed to be heritical with scripture. As I have pointed out this appears to have continued since the days of Galileo. Science scoffs at religion and religion scoffs at science and neither one appears to want to acknowledge the other. I have r ...[text shortened]... ruce and say to leave science to what is studiable and leave religion to what is not studiable.
06 Nov 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThen we agree. What irritates me the most are the religious and atheist alike who claim they have all the answers and force those answers down other peoples throats. As a person of faith I have been humbled by such realizations and perhaps you have been as well. There is and always will be the X factor. This reminds me of Job 38:4 when Job was questioning God about him being fair to him amidst his misfortunes. God's response was, "And where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if you have understanding. Who has laid the measure thereof, if you know? Or who has stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof? Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place?.... You know I think Job is still standing there awaiting an answer. He never got one.
I agree. Although the fighting has proved very beneficial for some subjects, like evolutionary biology. I do not wish for religious education to be banned in school. Nor do I recoil with horror at the concept of ID being taught in school provided it's not taught in a science class. I have no problem with people believeing in whatever they want - provided they don't force it upon others (a la Kansas school board tried).
06 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionNo, if only those smug secularists could see the difference between a rational argument and a smug pseudo-argument (aka a fallacious argument).
Quite right. The Invisible Pink Unicorn Flying Spaghetti Monster Jesus Christ Ala Zeus Yahweh Odin Mother Mary Kukulcan Vishnu magic fairy is really behind it all. If only those smug secularists could see it what we see . . .
EDIT: The vicious counter-attack strategy works in chess; it doesn't work that well in logic or debating.
06 Nov 06
6 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerhmm, that seems like evasion Lucifershammer
No, if only those smug secularists could see the difference between a rational argument and a smug pseudo-argument (aka a fallacious argument).
EDIT: The vicious counter-attack strategy works in chess; it doesn't work that well in logic or debating.
How is it not a rational argument? God, Allah etc... is pretty much synonimous with the FSM & IPU, etc... in that they are all supreme deities for which there is not one shred of evidence (independant of the bible, Qu-ran, Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster etc...)to even justify the concept. For your mind to be open to one under these circumstances why should it not be open to all others? Why is it less reasonable to believe in the FSM than it is to believe in Allah?...Is it because more people believe in the latter???...this is merely a consequence of how youngsters are steered towards a particular way of religious thinking by their parents, teachers or peers.
The countless millions of laymen who think 1 ÷ 0 = 0 does not make this answer any more correct...the same is true of religion
06 Nov 06
Originally posted by AgergGod, Allah etc... is pretty much synonimous with the FSM & IPU, etc... in that they are all supreme deities for which there is not one shred of evidence (independant of the bible, Qu-ran, Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster etc...).
hmm, that seems like evasion Lucifershammer
How is it not a rational argument? God, Allah etc... is pretty much synonimous with the FSM & IPU, etc... in that they are all supreme deities for which there is not one shred of evidence (independant of the bible, Qu-ran, Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster etc...). For your mind to be open to one under these ci ...[text shortened]...
The countless millions of laymen who think 1 ÷ 0 = 0 does not make this answer any more correct
It's precisely this kind of smug pseudo-argumentation I'm referring to.
Do you really want to make a universal assertion here? Can you prove that "not one shred of evidence" independent of various scriptures exists?
In any case, I was refering to Dawkins and his groupies. Dawkins is the angry "young" atheist who seems to be stuck in the atheism of the 60s. Once he steps out of the realm of biology, he cannot seem to avoid strawmen and over-generalisation.
06 Nov 06
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerDo you really want to make a universal assertion here? Can you prove that "not one shred of evidence" independent of various scriptures exists?
[b]God, Allah etc... is pretty much synonimous with the FSM & IPU, etc... in that they are all supreme deities for which there is not one shred of evidence (independant of the bible, Qu-ran, Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster etc...).
It's precisely this kind of smug pseudo-argumentation I'm referring to.
Do you really want to make a un eps out of the realm of biology, he cannot seem to avoid strawmen and over-generalisation.[/b]
Much as you would disagree, the burden does not lie on myself or anyone else to prove that there is no evidence, an instant rebuttal of that type of universal statement would actually be evidence; and neither you or anybody else has provided it yet. ( I would gladly take back my statement if you could present me with such evidence)...we do however have the burden of refuting/resolving any *evidence(?)* you do present though...and that is why we have such active debates
It's precisely this kind of smug pseudo-argumentation I'm referring to.
But pseudo-argument = false argument...Throwing back at you that *the FSM did it* is merely fighting fire with fire, we cannot rationally argue with you because at any tricky moments you always have the supernatural card to fall back on...so we hit back with our own!