|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Believing there is no God is a belief. That's not what most atheists believe, though. Most atheists simply have no belief in God. That isn't, itself, a belief. It's the lack of belief.
Science has decided to accept the religion of atheism. No, science proceeds under the methodology of naturalism. Science itself has no religion; though scientists themselves come in every religion. Including Christianity. Somehow, despite the fact that you think science is atheist, they do just fine at it.
Without the pre-supposition that God does not exist and the world is billions of years old the data from radiometric testing would be interpreted in a completely different way. Not to get into an off-topic subject, but that's simply untrue. There is no Creationist interpretation of the radiometric data. They ignore it; they do not interpret it.
The present situation that only allows the belief their is no Creator almost cost the world the benefit of the M.R.I. The struggle to get funding was uphill because the evolutionist scientist were convinced that its use would entail turning people at 10k rpm. That's a pretty surprising claim; could you document it? I'd like to know more.
As far as scientific conclusions there are some things that will never have a naturalistic answer. This is true; none of those things are therefore questions of science. If it can't be addressed through a natural methodology then it can't be addressed by science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It is not clear that very much of your first post is actually on the topic of this thread. I disagree. With the exception of a few off-topic asides he seems to be very much on the topic of this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
and you can show how each of the issues you answered are tied to this topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
and you can show how each of the issues you answered are tied to this topic? The topic is whether or not science can accept a conclusion that would be pro-God. Related to that point are: 1) Whether or not science/scientists proceed from an anti-God agenda; whether or not sciene is atheist, and, if so, if that atheism constitutes a religious position2) What exactly science can investigate 3) If science has in the past denied obvious truth because it would be pro-God which were all issues he raised. With the exception of a comment I noted as off-topic, the issues he raised and that I responded were intimately related to the topic; even if his presentation of them was a little fast and loose. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-23-2005 01:51 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
peddler writes: Believing there is no God is a belief. That statement is a tautology. And it's also inaccurate insofar as it talks of atheists. It is not the case that atheists actively "believe there is no God". Instead, they simply lack a belief about God, much the same as they lack a belief about pixies.
peddler writes: The belief that there is no God is a religion. You are equating the word 'belief' with religion. I can believe I have enough money on me to buy a cup of coffee, and this belief may or may not be justified, but I am not religious about it.
peddler writes: All of the available evidence is the same for both sides. Of course it is, the evidence is the evidence, and it doesn't change depending on the views of whoever is looking at it. It's the interpretation of the evidence that's different. And whereas evolutionists do not rule out the existence of God based on the evidence, creationists do rule out evolution based on the same evidence. From this it is clear who are the more open-minded. If irrefutable evidence was found for the existence of God, then scientists would accept it.
peddler writes: Without the pre-supposition that God does not exist and the world is billions of years old the data from radiometric testing would be interpreted in a completely different way. You are turning things around by claiming that science presupposes the non-existence of God and a billions-of-years-old earth. There is no such presupposition in science. First, science does not say God does not exist; in fact, science doesn't say anything about God, because the concept is not susceptible to scientific investigation. Second, that the world is billions of years old is merely the conclusion the data leads us to. If I may do some turning around of my own: with the presupposition that God does exist and that the world is not billions of years old, the data is completely baffling.
peddler writes: Because some data demands an interpretation it would make much more sense to stop trying to impose a belief system on any scientist and let them do experiments based on their belief system. That's just kicking out belief systems through the front door and letting them in again through the back entrance. On top of that, I suspect that the belief system you want to kick out is the supposed 'religion' of atheism, and the one you'd like to see allowed back in is your own religion.
peddler writes: To insist that no answer is better is absurd. I'd always prefer no answer to the wrong answer. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 23 February 2005 09:56 AM We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Instead, they simply lack a belief about God, much the same as they lack a belief about pixies. Ofcourse, to be specific, I just want to add that it is the equivalent pertaining to the atheist. Pixies and God aren't equivalent. The inductive evidence says that God is a very serious issue, and he is defined as the supernatural and ultimate source of reality. I'm just nitpicking because it is fair to state that it is the atheist whom has God on the same level as santa or pixies. It's a matter of what premise the individual has I suppose. If one dismisses God as the source of superstition and societies' whims pertaining to a sentimental God, and firing him if you don't get what you want, then one might have an infinitely less mature outlook concerning the Creator and thereby is not talking about the same entity as the believer because of his premise. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-23-2005 09:49 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18310 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
parsmnium writes: Unless, upon further examination, original sin was proven to be part of the human condition. What I mean by this is that the premise of original sin includes the presupposition that humans are predisposed to refute. If irrefutable evidence was found for the existence of God, then scientists would accept it.We always look for further clarification, further elaboration, and absolute clarification. This is a good and useful trait in the realm of scientific observation. It was good that cyclomates were found to cause cancer before too many people ingested them as artificial sweetener, for example. When it comes to the faith issue of God, however, humans are predisposed to go one "God" further. The usual question is this:"Who created God?" By nature, we find comfort in our OWN conclusions over what may actually be so. We refuse to allow irrefutable evidence to impress us. parasomnium writes: True. As a scientist, one must suspend any emotionalism tied to the topic at hand. So in this sense, you are right, Parasomnium. It's the interpretation of the evidence that's different. This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-23-2005 08:04 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
mike the wiz writes: Pixies and God aren't equivalent. Allright, then let me rephrase: "atheists simply lack a belief about God, much the same as they lack a belief about the Hindu pantheon." There are at least 800 million Hindus, to whom the many gods they believe in are a "very serious issue". You are now at liberty to affront them. Go ahead. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Given the number of inadequate arguments for the existence of God that have been made - and believed - I would say that it is pretty clear that there is no inherent tendency to refute such arguments. This link leads to a free online version of a classic book on the subject of philosphical arguments for a God - J. L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism Questia This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-23-2005 10:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Thanks for you reply, Phatboy. Please look upon the following as good-natured comment.
Phatboy writes: By nature, we find comfort in our OWN conclusions over what may actually be so. It may be very comforting to believe that the volcano, at the bottom of which you build your house, is not going to erupt in your lifetime, but that feeling soon vanishes when you are carried away by a lava flow. So it's rather important to draw the right conclusions, instead of the comforting ones.
Phatboy writes: We refuse to allow irrefutable evidence to impress us. If it's irrefutable evidence, all you can do is accept it, regardless of whether it impresses you or not. That's what irrefutability is about. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18310 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Jar writes: Is this a trick question? The answer is yes, assuming that 1 is one of the numbers on that dice.
If I roll a dice an infinte number of times will I ever get a 1?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
sevenofnine -er - Parsimsomethingorother writes: And it's also inaccurate insofar as it talks of atheists. It is not the case that atheists actively "believe there is no God". Instead, they simply lack a belief about God, much the same as they lack a belief about pixies. THAAAAAANK YOU!!! Sometimes it's hard to even ascribe the word 'atheist' to myself because the term itself implies active denial of the existence of god. While I do, on occasion, actively deny the existence of god, 99% of the time I simply don't even think about it. In fact, I might actually spend more time cogitating pixies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2931 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
If one dismisses God as the source of superstition and societies' whims pertaining to a sentimental God, and firing him if you don't get what you want, then one might have an infinitely less mature outlook concerning the Creator and thereby is not talking about the same entity as the believer because of his premise. I do not dismiss god as source of superstition, but I do think the belief in god is a superstistion. There are accounts of personal encounters with Pixies.What are we to make of them? Just what entity are you talking about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Parasomnium writes: mike the wiz writes: Pixies and God aren't equivalent. Allright, then let me rephrase: "atheists simply lack a belief about God, much the same as they lack a belief about the Hindu pantheon." On second thought, why do you dismiss Pixianity so off-handedly? I think it's only fair to thousands of Pixians that you provide convincing evidence that Pixies and God are not equivalent. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I'm just going to assume you're being cute.
There is not thousands of pixians. If there are, show the statistic with a reference.
I think it's only fair to thousands of Pixians that you provide convincing evidence that Pixies and God are not equivalent. This sentence contains a premise/assertion which I must assume is true(highlighted), along with an incorrect plead for evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant (you whom mentioned pixies), and the assertion has not been proved. You claimed that pixies and God are equivalent. You have to provide evidence. I am arguing the negative. Do I ask you to disprove God? No - because I'm asserting God, not you. If you want to show that pixies are equivalent to God, then you'll have to show such things as debate boards dedicated to this. "Pixies versus evolution" would do nicely. Ofcourse, as I previously stated correctly, nearly everyone on earth believes in God. Pixues just aren't a serious concept. I thought your revised position was more sensible but now I doubt I'll be replying again. That's because I am serious about God, and I've had too many encounters with atheists who aren't serious. So unless you can provide evidence, and define "pixie" as a similar definition to "God", then like I said previously - atheist's subjectivity. Infact, thinking of God as a superstition shows a lack of understanding concerning Him. I think if you think this then you have submitted yourself to modern societies conclusions about God, which are entirely innacurate. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 06:16 AM As for me - I'm a constantly verying potentially undefined diffused mass, intrinsically shape shifting thus forming and re-forming in various gaseous nebulae. To locate my form in the context of energy, as defined by the limited homo sapien brain - one can follow the equation; energy = mike x creo speed2 = Thus we now know the relevant nature of my true being to be 90000000000000 omni-mikes ~ mike the wiz ~
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024