Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do we need science to back up religion?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 16 of 50 (11759)
06-18-2002 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by TrueCreation
06-18-2002 3:45 AM


TrueCreation writes:

No, actually a YEC is a Young Earth Creationist. This abbreviation does not conform to a particular religious perspective. There are Christian, Mormon, Muslim and what not YEC's.
It's all based upon Genesis, a religious book.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TrueCreation, posted 06-18-2002 3:45 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 50 (11763)
06-18-2002 7:09 PM


"Both sides, Craig and Tooley, were severely lacking in content."
I'm glad you agree with me that Tooley was lacking in content. The only argument he really used was the "argument from harm."
"But any of those proof, as Tooley mentioned, can be used for the existence of any supernatural creator."
So? I said that there was a good intellectual basis for being a theist.
"These 'proofs' are weak at best. Tooley pointed out some errors in his arguments but his debating skill are lacking (mine aren't any better). I didn't learn anything from that garbage."
Why exactly are these "proofs" weak at best?
"I was laughing when Craig gave his 'proofs' or 'plausibility' of the existence of a god."
What exactly about Craig's 'proofs' or 'plausibility' did you find so entertaining?
"Atheism is not a world view. Atheism cannot be true or untrue. Atheism is the denial of theism, that's it, that's all, and nothing more."
What type of semantic gymnastics are you performing? Atheism (the denial of theism) is either correct or incorrect! You are either right that there is no God or you are wrong that there is no God! I don't really understand where you are coming from here.
"It is the atheist who demands proof from the theist, not vice-versa."
Is it also the atheist who laughs at or disregards the arguments of a theist, as you have done here, without giving any reasons for your contentions?
"If there wasn't any modern science, there wouldn't be any serious objections to religion (they'd get burned at the stake). Now that scientists have removed the yoke of religion they are free to follow evidence instead of irrational faith."
Most evolutionists or atheists claim that science and religion are seperate areas- and I'm suprised that you are not following suit.
"What good 'intelectual' reasons? Those that Craig gave?"
Sure. You haven't given any reasons for your complete rejection of Craig's intellectual reasons for being a theist.
"Those are just poorly understood ideas."
You haven't offered any reasons for your contentions. Also, I think you would do yourself good to look in the mirror before making reckless accusations of "poorly understood ideas". For example:
YOU SAID:
"It IS the belief in something wrong and ludicrous! You can't see a god. You can't prove he/she/it exists."
Had a creationist made a similar comment about evolution, the evos would be on your case about your poor use of the term "prove". Nothing can be "proven", so your requirement that God/God's be proven is a totally unfair and impossible request.
Secondly, the fact that one cannot "see" God/God's is hardly a good intellectual reason for rejection. Can you "see" electrons? Can you "see" gamma rays? Whoops, I suppose belief in electrons and gamma rays is wrong and ludicrous.
Had a creationist made a similar comment with such logical errors, that person would have been thouroughly roasted for making an unscientific and irrational response. I suppose it's ok to make logical errors when you're bashing God.....
"Why does one believe in something they can't see or prove, even to themselves?"
That's why I don't believe in electrons or Abraham Lincoln.
IN CONCLUSION: You should not make careless accusations of "poorly understood ideas" without giving any reasons for your contentions, particularly when you yourself have commited logical errors and "poorly understood ideas".
[This message has been edited by Cobra_snake, 06-18-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Tertulian, posted 06-18-2002 8:10 PM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 50 (11764)
06-18-2002 7:16 PM


Tertulian, I sincerely hope that you will look into the ideas and concepts presented by Craig. Hopefully, you will be able to overcome your atheistic bias in order to fairly evaluate both positions. Even if you don't become a theist yourself, perhaps you can learn to respect those who do hold to the theist position.

  
Tertulian
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 50 (11765)
06-18-2002 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by TrueCreation
06-18-2002 3:45 AM


quote:
No, actually a YEC is a Young Earth Creationist. This abbreviation does not conform to a particular religious perspective. There are Christian, Mormon, Muslim and what not YEC's
Christian, Mormon and Muslim are what--types of cheese? NO, they're religions! Only religions can enforce their dogmatic laws about YEC at the risk of excommunication. The rest of the human race has a choice. I'm not saying that ALL religions force one to believe in YEC, because not all do. I'm just saying that YEC is a tenet of most religions. If you don't believe, you're a blasphemer! One can be a slave to a religion and not believe YEC but you can't be a believer in YEC and NOT be part of religion. Not with any rational basis anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TrueCreation, posted 06-18-2002 3:45 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Tertulian
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 50 (11767)
06-18-2002 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cobra_snake
06-18-2002 7:09 PM


quote:
Secondly, the fact that one cannot "see" God/God's is hardly a good intellectual reason for rejection. Can you "see" electrons? Can you "see" gamma rays? Whoops, I suppose belief in electrons and gamma rays is wrong and ludicrous.
OK. I concede. I'm not a debater nor am I a logician.
btw-You can't 'believe' in electron and gamma radiation. Their 'existence' is based on evidence. Check-out any book on chemistry or physics.
The last time I checked there was evidence for electrons and I even saw the evidence. My notebook entitled "My rational evidence for God" is surprisingly empty (except for the doodles).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-18-2002 7:09 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-18-2002 9:51 PM Tertulian has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 50 (11773)
06-18-2002 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tertulian
06-18-2002 8:10 PM


"OK. I concede. I'm not a debater nor am I a logician."
Thank you. I must admit that I am suprised that you are so mature about this- many I think would ramble incoherently. However, I do find it a bit ironic that the evos/atheists were not very quick to correct you on this matter. I've seen many a newbie creationist roasted over these types of things.
Again though, thank you for admitting your mistake.
"btw-You can't 'believe' in electron and gamma radiation. Their 'existence' is based on evidence. Check-out any book on chemistry or physics."
Precisely my point. In the same way that the existence of God can be based on evidence.
"The last time I checked there was evidence for electrons and I even saw the evidence. My notebook entitled "My rational evidence for God" is surprisingly empty (except for the doodles)."
Perhaps you have writers' block? Seriously though, what exactly about Craig's evidences did you find unconvincing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tertulian, posted 06-18-2002 8:10 PM Tertulian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Tertulian, posted 06-18-2002 11:59 PM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 23 by nator, posted 06-19-2002 2:08 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Tertulian
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 50 (11787)
06-18-2002 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cobra_snake
06-18-2002 9:51 PM


quote:
Seriously though, what exactly about Craig's evidences did you find unconvincing?
OK, here goes:
Reason #1 "God provides the best explanation for the existence of abstract entities"
"God did it" is not a reason. I certainly don't understand numbers but that is not a reason to point to a god and say "He did it"
Craig says: "So what is the metaphysical foundation for such abstract entities? The theist has a plausible answer for that question: they are grounded in the mind of God."
"I can't understand--so God did it". I don't understand alot of stuff in the world but I'm not about to tell everyone that God did it. Evolution is kind of hard to get my mind around. Does that mean that it is grounded in 'the mind of God'?
Reason #2--"God provides the best explanation of why the universe exists rather than nothing"
The 'God did it' proof again.
http://www.creationists.org/robertgentry/abstract2.html
This paper by Dr. R.Gentry is a little technical for me but it fits with this 'reason' by Craig.
(Not very good at debating--I'm giving you amunition)
Reason #3--"God provides the best explanation for the complex order in the universe"
Here a quote from his argument--"The number of seconds in the history of the universe is about 1018, ten followed by eighteen zeros. The number of subatomic particles in the entire universe is said to be about 1080 . Now with those numbers in mind consider the following: Donald Page, one of America's eminent cosmologists, has calculated the odds of our universe existing as one chance out of ten to the power of ten to the one hundred and twenty-fourth power ---a number which is so inconceivable that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement."
Even I know that's not how you calculate probabilities. as Tooley pointed out in his rebuttal.
Reason #4--"God provides the best explanation for objective moral values in the world"
I don't know how to logically deconstruct this argument. I've seen it done though.
The only thing I know is that I've been an atheist for 3 years and I've yet to kill, rape or torture anyone.
Reason #5--"God provides the best explanation for the historical facts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus."
This argument is built on the premise that the Bible is the actual word of God. That is a problem for me.
Reason #6--"God can be immediately known and experienced"
"This isn't really an argument for God's existence; rather it's the claim that you can know that God exists wholly apart from arguments simply by immediately experiencing Him."
"If you're sincerely seeking God, then God will make His existence evident to you."
I'm a passive seeker. Will he make himself known to me?
I think what Craig is trying to say is that deep religious experience is intensely personal and private. It is entirely subjective, it is not measurable, and it is not currently explainable in physical terms in any convincing manner. That is a hard sell to atheists.
I'm not here to make enemies. I'm here to learn.
I'll try to keep my discussion on a more pleasant tone, less argumentative and more inquisitive.
Now I have a sincere question for you snake: How is my disbelief in a god due to the lack of physical evidence constitute irrationality?
This is a serious question...I really don't know.
P.S. What's a 'strawman argument'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-18-2002 9:51 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by nator, posted 06-19-2002 2:17 AM Tertulian has not replied
 Message 27 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-19-2002 11:46 PM Tertulian has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 23 of 50 (11800)
06-19-2002 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cobra_snake
06-18-2002 9:51 PM


quote:
Precisely my point. In the same way that the existence of God can be based on evidence.
Not scientific evidence, Cobra.
Philosophical evidence, perhaps, but nothing that will stand up to science.
Doesn't make it less important, but it isn't fair, nor is it accurate, to imply that the evidence for the existence electrons (which any physicist can see for themselves by replicating the experiments) is the same evidence for the existence of God/s (which is purely subjective and subject to individual interpretation).
Apples and oranges.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-18-2002 9:51 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-19-2002 11:27 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 24 of 50 (11802)
06-19-2002 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tertulian
06-18-2002 11:59 PM


quote:
Reason #4--"God provides the best explanation for objective moral values in the world"
I don't know how to logically deconstruct this argument. I've seen it done though.
The only thing I know is that I've been an atheist for 3 years and I've yet to kill, rape or torture anyone.
So, if God decided it was good and moral behavior to murder and pilliage at will, would it then be considered perfectly OK to murder and pilliage?
If you disagree that God would ever consider murdering and pilliaging at will good and moral behavior, then God, cannot possibly be the source of objective moral values.
Morals must come from somewhere else if God is restricted in what God can declare what behaviors are moral.
quote:
Reason #6--"God can be immediately known and experienced"
"This isn't really an argument for God's existence; rather it's the claim that you can know that God exists wholly apart from arguments simply by immediately experiencing Him."
"If you're sincerely seeking God, then God will make His existence evident to you."
Really? How can I tell the difference between God making his existence known to me and my brain imagining that God is making his existence known to me?
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tertulian, posted 06-18-2002 11:59 PM Tertulian has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 50 (11811)
06-19-2002 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by TrueCreation
06-18-2002 3:45 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"YEC, IS the religion."
--No, actually a YEC is a Young Earth Creationist. This abbreviation does not conform to a particular religious perspective. There are Christian, Mormon, Muslim and what not YEC's.

Muslim YECs? Show me one! As far as I know, even Harun Yahya the Muslim arch-anti-evolutionist accepts an old Earth (that he supports ID is another matter). YEC is not part of the Muslim dogma. (In my opinion the Muslim dogma does not specify its creation story)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TrueCreation, posted 06-18-2002 3:45 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 50 (11841)
06-19-2002 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by nator
06-19-2002 2:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Not scientific evidence, Cobra.
Philosophical evidence, perhaps, but nothing that will stand up to science.

You're right- they are a bit different. Perhaps a bad analogy, but I think the point remains the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 06-19-2002 2:08 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 06-22-2002 7:02 PM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 50 (11842)
06-19-2002 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tertulian
06-18-2002 11:59 PM


Reason #1 "God provides the best explanation for the existence of abstract entities"
Didn't understand this one myself either.
"Reason #2--"God provides the best explanation of why the universe exists rather than nothing"
The 'God did it' proof again."
Don't know what you mean here. Craig says that God provides the BEST explanation, if you disagree with his assesment, you need to mention why that is.
"Reason #3--"God provides the best explanation for the complex order in the universe"
Even I know that's not how you calculate probabilities. as Tooley pointed out in his rebuttal."
I thought a different guy- not Craig or Tooley- gave the statistic.
"Reason #4--"God provides the best explanation for objective moral values in the world"
I don't know how to logically deconstruct this argument. I've seen it done though.
The only thing I know is that I've been an atheist for 3 years and I've yet to kill, rape or torture anyone."
Craig did not say that atheists kill and rape people. He pointed out that God is the best explanation for why YOU KNOW it is wrong to commit these horrid acts.
"Reason #5--"God provides the best explanation for the historical facts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus."
This argument is built on the premise that the Bible is the actual word of God. That is a problem for me."
Nope. It relies on the bible being a historical text- which I believe is something even atheists admit to. Tooley didn't really counter this argument anywhere in the debate.
"Reason #6--"God can be immediately known and experienced"
That is a hard sell to atheists."
Agreed. This isn't a very good one.
"I'm not here to make enemies. I'm here to learn."
Good. I'm sorry if I sounded a bit harsh in my last post. One problem with internet debates is that you are not able to convey tone of voice. Often it seems like the debate opponent is very mad. However, I didn't mean to be harsh if that's how it came off.
"I'll try to keep my discussion on a more pleasant tone, less argumentative and more inquisitive."
Sounds good.
"Now I have a sincere question for you snake: How is my disbelief in a god due to the lack of physical evidence constitute irrationality?
This is a serious question...I really don't know."
I really don't recall making the claim that you were irrational for being an atheist. However, your requirement that God be seen in order for rational people to believe in Him IS irrational. I don't think at all that atheists are irrational- in fact that claim is usually directed towards the theist.
"P.S. What's a 'strawman argument'?"
Hehe. I'm glad you asked me. When I first came here I never wanted to ask what a strawman argument was, and I didn't figure out for quite a while.
A "strawman argument" is created when an individual creates a false or misleading caricature of an opponents view in order to knock down the opponents view. For example, when you claimed that "Faith is not a good method of collecting knowledge", it was basically a strawman because I never claimed that faith WAS a method of collecting knowledge. Strawman arguments can be avoided if you have firm knowledge of the different views held by opposing camps. However, everyone may make a strawman argument every now and then- so don't really worry about it too much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tertulian, posted 06-18-2002 11:59 PM Tertulian has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 50 (11843)
06-19-2002 11:59 PM


"So, if God decided it was good and moral behavior to murder and pilliage at will, would it then be considered perfectly OK to murder and pilliage?"
I suppose so.
"Really? How can I tell the difference between God making his existence known to me and my brain imagining that God is making his existence known to me?"
You can't. Number 6 isn't a very good one.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Tertulian, posted 06-20-2002 2:16 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Tertulian
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 50 (11853)
06-20-2002 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Cobra_snake
06-19-2002 11:59 PM


quote:
"So, if God decided it was good and moral behavior to murder and pilliage at will, would it then be considered perfectly OK to murder and pilliage?"
Snake replied:
I suppose so.
I hope that was sarcastic, snake. Please let it be sarcasm!
You can't really follow something that blindly!?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-19-2002 11:59 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-21-2002 10:11 PM Tertulian has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 50 (11947)
06-21-2002 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Tertulian
06-20-2002 2:16 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tertulian:
You can't really follow something that blindly!?!

Oh yes I can!
Let me explain myself here.
You understand that it is morally incorrect to murder. In my view, this is because God has placed within us the knowledge of a basic moral code. However, if we lived in a different universe- for example one in which God did not think it was immoral to murder- humans would not have that in their moral code. Thus, it would be perfectly fine for us to murder and we would not think anything of it.
The only reason that you think I am following blindly is because of the moral code that you have inside of you. You can't possibly imagine it being morally correct to murder someone- because of your moral code that God has given you. However, if the moral code was different, so would your opinion of what is right and wrong. For example, in this alternate universe it may be morally incorrect to give somebody a gift. In this universe, shrafinator might ask me, "What if God were to say that giving people gifts is OK?", in which case I would have to give the same explanation.
Hopefully what I just said is not as confusing as I think it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Tertulian, posted 06-20-2002 2:16 AM Tertulian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Tertulian, posted 06-22-2002 3:33 AM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 36 by nator, posted 06-22-2002 7:14 PM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024