Science and Religion questions

[magnifier661]

You also see cars every day. Does that mean that every planet in the universe has cars?

Oh so you are admitting that science doesn't know much about cosmology then? When was the last time we jumped into black hole?

In the end, the only thing that is not theoretical is what we can physically observe. And that can only be applied with certainty. Just because a bunch of scientists tell us so, doesn't make it fact. It's all theoretical, just as much as one saying a supernatural being created the universe.

 

[TripTango]

Dude. Admitting? I've been trying to convince you that we cannot directly apply the laws of physics to a unique event like the big bang for ages. Are you finally going to stop trying? Can I refer you to this post if you ever try to invoke conservation of energy again?

 

[magnifier661]

Dude. Admitting? I've been trying to convince you that we cannot directly apply the laws of physics to a unique event like the big bang for ages. Are you finally going to stop trying? Can I refer you to this post if you ever try to invoke conservation of energy again?

You're right! Because you cannot explain the supernatural with natural laws. And thanks for pointing that out. In the beginning, man cannot observe things that are beyond our natural law. Which is why a theoretical argument that singularity was without mass.

We can only be more probable when we have enough empirical evidence to support that probability. And since we have never observed mass being created without mass, then that's as probable as the Easter bunny taking a shit on this planet and giving us life.

 

[TripTango]

It's all theoretical, just as much as one saying a supernatural being created the universe.

The difference, as dozens of posters have tried to show you, is that one method leaves the unknowns blank until further observation clarifies matters, while the other presupposes the answers to the unknowns based on an ancient text.

 

[TripTango]

You're right! Because you cannot explain the supernatural with natural laws. And thanks for pointing that out. In the beginning, man cannot observe things that are beyond our natural law. Which is why a theoretical argument that singularity was without mass.

We can only be more probable when we have enough empirical evidence to support that probability. And since we have never observed mass being created without mass, then that's as probable as the Easter bunny taking a shit on this planet and giving us life.

I already responded to this above, but I'll say it again for emphasis: science doesn't claim to know what it doesn't. That's the difference between science and religion.

 

[magnifier661]

The difference, as dozens of posters have tried to show you, is that one method leaves the unknowns blank until further observation clarifies matters, while the other presupposes the answers to the unknowns based on an ancient text.

No there are some people that being there is a god, but don't believe in the God I believe in. This is why there are so many that take the agnostic stance. They understand there is no true observation that supports total natural occurrence. Some believe there is a designer, or maybe even some conscience energy that created this universe.

I choose what I believe because its right for me. You keep referring to ancient text, but that isn't a way of discrediting a theist beginning. Who knows, maybe there isn't a religion that is accurate? But it still doesn't mean there isn't a God.

 

[TripTango]

I'll just leave this here:

ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Ask atheists what caused the Big Bang.
(2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.
(3) Continue process until the atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions.
(4) You win!
(5) Therefore, God exists.

 

[magnifier661]

I'll just leave this here:

ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Ask atheists what caused the Big Bang.
(2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.
(3) Continue process until the atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions.
(4) You win!
(5) Therefore, God exists.

Actually, that's exactly what the atheist does to theists. Odd that you would post that, since its been the lifelong argument of all atheists. They demand proof that God exists, therefor God doesn't exists! Lmao!!!

And I was waiting for one of you guys to post that, because I've been itching to say that! It's stupid huh?!

 

[TripTango]

No there are some people that being there is a god, but don't believe in the God I believe in. This is why there are so many that take the agnostic stance. They understand there is no true observation that supports total natural occurrence. Some believe there is a designer, or maybe even some conscience energy that created this universe.

I choose what I believe because its right for me. You keep referring to ancient text, but that isn't a way of discrediting a theist beginning. Who knows, maybe there isn't a religion that is accurate? But it still doesn't mean there isn't a God.

You may not fill in unknowns with answers from an ancient text, but your religion itself certainly does. Different religions do too (obviously with different texts). What's your point? The honest atheist wouldn't say that some sort of "mystical" origin of the universe is impossible -- they just wouldn't insert answers that were based entirely on the spiritual beliefs of dudes who lived thousands of years ago.

 

[TripTango]

Actually, that's exactly what the atheist does to theists. Odd that you would post that, since its been the lifelong argument of all atheists. They demand proof that God exists, therefor God doesn't exists! Lmao!!!

Which atheist? Are you talking to me, or hypothetical Joe Atheist over there?

 

[magnifier661]

You may not fill in unknowns with answers from an ancient text, but your religion itself certainly does. Different religions do too (obviously with different texts). What's your point? The honest atheist wouldn't say that some sort of "mystical" origin of the universe is impossible -- they just wouldn't insert answers that were based entirely on the spiritual beliefs of dudes who lived thousands of years ago.

You're right and science "the atheist's religion" uses this same process, they just try and use logical theoretical arguments. Does science know and observe that singularity had no mass or mass? Has there ever been a self replicating molecule made without a self replicating molecule? Yet scientific community says "we'll that sounds about right, so lets put it in the modern scripture". The scientific journals!

 

[magnifier661]

Which atheist? Are you talking to me, or hypothetical Joe Atheist over there?

I am talking to you. You even said that God knows how to find me and you will be a believer if he showed himself to you. How is that any different?

 

[TripTango]

Sorry mags -- you're out of your element here.

 

[magnifier661]

Sorry mags -- you're out of your element here.

How and why did the universe expand? What scientific evidence supports this? Is the singularity created by god, always there, or another universe? Which is more certain?

If you answered always there, then what would justify this singularity to expand all the sudden?

 

[magnifier661]

Sorry mags -- you're out of your element here.

Btw.... Our text debates seem way more productive, but its always a pleasure man! Much respect to you!

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Glad you were paying attention.

When I first read your tautology, I was reminded of Fritz Perls (Gestalt psychologist 60's 70's). That was one of his well-known catch phrases ("what is, is") of the time.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

"I don't see any conceptual change or whatever being the issue."

I'll alert the all linguists, that Denny Crane doesn't see any conceptual change or whatever being the issue.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Yes but the atheist definition isn't sound because it can't be proven.

There is nothing to prove in the atheists position. When you grasp that, you will be able to speak about atheism authoritatively (which i know you're just dying to do). There is no invisible anything that presents itself to the atheist and demands an accounting of it. There's nothing that impacts the atheist that would be cause for a belief situation.

Also, you seem to imagine you're off the hook because you slap on the supernatural category? Good grief. You're only positing the supernatural as a loophole into god's hiding place. What's your evidence for the loop hole? Be sure and contact the atheist union when you locate it.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Easily? Please show me something observed that would support this claim?

Speaking of showing ... mags, are you working on that arguable argument about "beginnings" being the most talked about thing in science? Were you just teasing? Paying lip service to ... what?

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

You put two questions in "plain English" that have nothing to do with the conversation. Take your strawman and hyperbole elsewhere.

Show me the straw man and I'd be happy to take him to the nearest barn. But really, you're just spouting fallacious nonsense now.

I get that you aren't going to answer my two (and by now, infamous) questions. You know that's true, and I know it is true. Why all this other nonsense? All you've really shown is that, if you are being truthful, then you do not understand how my questions relate to the conversation. I think you're in denial--or someplace nearby--considering that's all you have.

If you were being honest, you would have said, "I don't understand how your questions relate to this conversation." But no-oooo, that spoils your chance to misuse 'hyperbole.' What fun would that be.

 

[magnifier661]

There is nothing to prove in the atheists position. When you grasp that, you will be able to speak about atheism authoritatively (which i know you're just dying to do). There is no invisible anything that presents itself to the atheist and demands an accounting of it. There's nothing that impacts the atheist that would be cause for a belief situation.

Also, you seem to imagine you're off the hook because you slap on the supernatural category? Good grief. You're only positing the supernatural as a loophole into god's hiding place. What's your evidence for the loop hole? Be sure and contact the atheist union when you locate it.

Speak for yourself. The Atheist who claims God doesn't exist is believing in his own conviction. That conviction hasn't been proven through science. It's that they are making up their own mind by what they've read or studied. This is no different then a Christian or any other theist.

A smart person, or maybe an analytical one; would gather as much information of all beliefs, study hard, then make their decision. But most of us are sheep. We tend to flock to the "hip" way of thinking. They don't want to be labeled a goofy Christian or primitive muslim. Instead they say "Yeah what he said!" and go about their business blindly following.

But think for a moment about this universe and singularity. Think for a moment about the first self-replicating molecule. All of these "beginnings" have ZERO empirical evidence of happening. They are all theoretical and accepted assumptions by the scientific community. And because of that; the atheist is "faith driven" there is no other way around it.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Speak for yourself.

I am speaking for myself. I happen to know what follows from the label. You're the rube speaking for others.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Think for a moment about the first self-replicating molecule. All of these "beginnings" have ZERO empirical evidence of happening. They are all theoretical and accepted assumptions by the scientific community. And because of that; the atheist is "faith driven" there is no other way around it.

Now you're presuming to tell me what I should think about. Mags .. stop. You just don't know how utterly ridiculous you've become with your free-wheeling assumptions about what others think or should think about and how it all relates to what you're thinking.

An atheist need not concern himself with the least bit of science; they are free to be idiots and play with their own feces just like anyone else, if they are so inclined. They are just people, people bright enough to see what the religious are doing and they know it's not right for them. What distinguishes the atheists I know from the religious I know is they have a higher criteria for their beliefs. It's not that we don't want to be like you, it's that we, really can't be like you, not in good conscience.

As to your silly faith argument. I agree that all knowledge has a fiduciary component (your conviction comment). But that does not help your cause. The objects of our fiduciary commitments still admit to qualitative differences. You have faith in a shitty slew of narratives written by ignorant, impoverished humans whose knowledge of matters spiritual, for some reason, you wish to trust, but some of us have better things to trust in than the metaphysical graspings of our grossly ignorant ancestors.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

But it still doesn't mean there isn't a God.

But that's not the point. It still doesn't mean there isn't a flying spaghetti monster or a teapot in a blind orbit either, and yet I assume these entities don't keep you awake at night rehearsing your disproofs. Am I right?

... Well, that's the atheist with regard to _your_ special entity.

Concoct any imaginative being you will. It will have essentially the same epistemological status [for an atheist] as the deity you claim to believe in.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

It took a few tries but you're figuring out these complicated interwebz.

No, I actually got it first time I tried it. But even if I hadn't, that would hardly suggest retardation, just a lack of familiarity (not that one of such diminished capacity would automatically grasp such a subtlety). To my view of things, your inability to comprehend my English really does suggest an actual problem.

You misspoke? Well no shit.

 

[ABM]

Concoct any imaginative being you will. It will have essentially the same epistemological status [for an atheist] as the deity you claim to believe in.

For a dude who's Chevy runs intermittently, you sure do use some $100 words.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

ABM, it's me. Your friend with all the dead Airedales.

By the way, your link was a good resource. I would think reading and understanding it would be a kind of minimum starting place for trying to contribute to this kind of conversation. Bottom line, I'm happy you are happy ... or at least that you are in a life where happiness is not a stranger all the time. A life needs to be meaningful. I'm glad yours is.

 

[magnifier661]

Now you're presuming to tell me what I should think about. Mags .. stop. You just don't know how utterly ridiculous you've become with your free-wheeling assumptions about what others think or should think about and how it all relates to what you're thinking.

An atheist need not concern himself with the least bit of science; they are free to be idiots and play with their own feces just like anyone else, if they are so inclined. They are just people, people bright enough to see what the religious are doing and they know it's not right for them. What distinguishes the atheists I know from the religious I know is they have a higher criteria for their beliefs. It's not that we don't want to be like you, it's that we, really can't be like you, not in good conscience.

As to your silly faith argument. I agree that all knowledge has a fiduciary component (your conviction comment). But that does not help your cause. The objects of our fiduciary commitments still admit to qualitative differences. You have faith in a shitty slew of narratives written by ignorant, impoverished humans whose knowledge of matters spiritual, for some reason, you wish to trust, but some of us have better things to trust in than the metaphysical graspings of our grossly ignorant ancestors.

Lmao!!!!! Of course! Hahaha

But that has nothing to do with "god existing". Who fucking knows; maybe no mans interpretation is correct? Maybe god is some scientist from another dimension.

 

[magnifier661]

But that's not the point. It still doesn't mean there isn't a flying spaghetti monster or a teapot in a blind orbit either, and yet I assume these entities don't keep you awake at night rehearsing your disproofs. Am I right?

... Well, that's the atheist with regard to _your_ special entity.

Concoct any imaginative being you will. It will have essentially the same epistemological status [for an atheist] as the deity you claim to believe in.

Or that the singularity was without mass! Or the first self replicating molecule just appeared!

Yeah I can play the spaghetti monster game too! Hehe

 

[ABM]

ABM, it's me. Your friend with all the dead Airedales.

By the way, your link was a good resource. I would think reading and understanding it would be a kind of minimum starting place for trying to contribute to this kind of conversation. Bottom line, I'm happy you are happy ... or at least that you are in a life where happiness is not a stranger all the time. A life needs to be meaningful. I'm glad yours is.

OMG!!! Hey, we need to (finally) get together for coffee, a beer, or whatever. I've always wanted to meet you from waaaaay back when in our early O-Live days.

What say you?

PS: I promise I won't preach to you.