@legoman360 There are 2 kinds of atheists - one is an honest sincere seeker of TRUTH, while the other is a bitter angry individual who seeks only to refute the existence of God! The stubborn ridiculous atheist believes the finely tuned universe created itself from NOTHING! And homochirality and DNA organized itself!!
@RobbOTB There are 2 kinds of atheists - one is an honest sincere seeker of TRUTH, while the other is a bitter angry individual who seeks only to refute the existence of God! The stubborn ridiculous atheist believes the finely tuned universe created itself from NOTHING! And homochirality and DNA organized itself!!
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
Philosophers are fond of saying that philosophy provides a way of "knowing." Quite simply: ridiculous. Philosophy provides a way to speculate, not to know. One simply cannot "know" anything without verifiable evidence, an inquiry process that is self-correcting, and powerful, falsifiable explanations. None of those is in the realm of philosophy and certainly not in theology. Your appeal to theist scientists does nothing. Humans are so prone to the acceptance of magical agency that few escape.
@thec What I find extraordinary is that you seem to think that you are exempt from believing in nonsense. Have you never wondered whether your outmoded logical positivism and scientism are perhaps not themselves fallacious? You claim that science is the only reliable source of knowledge; is that not the case? The initial problem is that that belief is itself not a scientific belief, so perhaps your belief is ultimately self-refuting? Why don't you think instead you relying on scientistic dogma?
@bayreuth79 Nonsense!? Nonsense is accepting the reanimation of some dead Jew based on hearsay reports written decades after the supposed event! Nonsense is accepting unaided human parthenogenesis to yield a male, especially when similar stories were told about many other supposed deities for thousands of years! Nonsense is thinking that reanimated corpses can spontaneously levitate upward, even though it's obvious that the body had to be disposed of somehow. That's nonsense, my friend
Physics & Theology Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit If triangles made a God they would give him three sides / C. de Montesquieu / If physicists made God they would give him concrete physical parameters Which parameters they can be ? We know that God is something Infinite The conception of Infinity we can find in Bible & Physics Are they different ? I think they are equal Does Physicists meet God in Infinite ? Nobody knows what Infinity is
@socratus1 There is a certain amount of truth is this; but the fact of projection doesn't mean that there isn't a God. In fact, one of the purposes of negative theology is to purge the mind of projections of the type you have described. The only literal things we can say about God are negative statements (what God is not); everything else we say is merely analogical at best.
@socratus1 Hey dude, NEWSFLASH. It's 2011, stop reading Theology and Philosophy and stick to your 101 science classes if you wanna understand HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS.
@Neueregel Isn't it amazing that these theists actually think that one can understand the Cosmos by reading Thomas Aquinas rather than by studying Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and viewing the YouTube videos of Lawrence Krauss? What is wrong with these people that they insist on 13th century philosophy rather than the power and awesome insights of contemporary science. I just don't get it. As Einstein said, a personal god is nothing but "childish superstition," completely unbecoming to the adult.
@theclarinet1234 Huh?! It depends what you mean by "understand the cosmos"? If I want to answer the question "why is there something rather than nothing", I might look at Thomas Aquinas. If I want to understand certain features of the universe, such as "what is the mechanism by which creatures evolved", I would consult an evolutionary biologist. You are assuming that there is a conflict, but there isn't.
And, no, science cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing.
@bayreuth79 You are absolutely incorrect. Contemporary cosmology and quantum theory have provided us with evidence that "nothing" is intrinsically unstable, giving rise spontanelously to quauntum particles. You are ignorant of modern cosmology and really ought to study the work of Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and others. There are great lectures on YouTube which would help you greatly to overcome your 13fth century biases and level of ignorance.
@theclarinet1234 Thanks; you have fallen directly into the trap! Please tell me how "nothing" can be unstable?!
What you mean by "nothing" is not non-being but the quantum vacuum, which is a seething field of energy (according to Krauss). So the question is: "why is there being rather than non-being?". That is what the philosophical question means. The quantum vacuum is a something, however attenuated. Hawkings and Krauss have been roundly criticized for equivocation in their use of the term.
@bayreuth79 Again, you even have your terms wrong again. Modern cosmologists refer to a "fluctuating vaccum," not a quantum vacuum. Nonetheless, it is a vaccum and "nothing" according to the mathematics. While a vibrant science, cosmology is still nascent. That makes the work extraordinarily exciting. I'd place my bet on evidence-driven, mathmatically powerful, intellectually stimulating contemporary cosmology, and certainly NOT on Aquinas--a man who argued for the burning of heretics!!
@theclarinet1234 Well, I have heard Hawkings and Krauss use the term "quantum vacuum"; but if you want to use another term you're welcome!
The question is as to whether the quantum vacuum = non-being; and evidently it does not. A seething field of energy is evidently not non-being, which means the absence of anything whatsoever. John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins, amongst others, have pointed this out and its not even controversial.
@bayreuth79 Cosmology is nascent. Think of biology in 1800, well before Darwin. At that time, there were hints of evolution, but the vast majority of philosophers argued logically that all life originated simultaneously and fully formed at the hand of a god. But Darwin DESTROYED those primitive ideas. With cosmology, we are like Europe in 1800. There are hints of a fully modern cosmology without god intervention. But we don't have all the evidence.....YET.
@theclarinet1234 Wrong. Empedocles (the Greek Philosopher) knew about evolution and many other thinkers throughout history. Saint Augustine believed in something very close to evolution- he called it "seminal principles", whereby all the diversity of life and species developed from a single seminal principle. I could mention many other pre-Darwinian authors. What Darwin did was discover the mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself! And its compatible with belief in God.
@bayreuth79 No one accepted evolution as the mechanism by which life occurred in 1800. If you read the original texts that you cite, they are put forward as speculation only. Possibility. And they were NEVER accepted by the teaching authority of any branch of Christianity. It is a mistake---a HUGE mistake---to assert that evolution was in any way an accepted notion in 1800 in Europe. Such an assertion is false in the extreme. As you should know, even today Darwin's thoughts are opposed.
@theclarinet1234 I did not suggest that evolution was generally accepted in Europe before Darwin; my claim was that it was known about. You are wrong to describe evolution as a mechanism- the mechanism is natural selection and evolution is the process that ensues from that driving mechanism.
But this is besides the point: traditional Christianity has no problem with evolution by natural selection. Read Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Thomas Aquinas, et cetera!!
@bayreuth79 Perhaps you ought to study traditional Christianity as taught by Southern Baptists, Assembly of God, or any other traditional Christian groups. All oppose evolution as unbiblical and as a threat to Christianity. Their reasoning? If there was no Adam, then there was no reason for JC to die and to rise again. You seem to know very little real science. May I suggest some courses in Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Perhaps adding a course in calculus and differential equations?
@theclarinet1234 Hmmm. I know at least as much science as you do and I certainly know a good deal more about philosophy and theology. Before you tried to argue that science can now answer the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?' and in support of this you mentioned the quantum vacuum, which you take to be "nothing". Please tell me how a "seething field of energy" (Krauss) is nothing? If you knew anything about philosophy you would be aware that the question is about non-being.
@theclarinet123 You misunderstand what is meant by "traditional Christianity". The idea that belief in a Creator God and evolution by natural selection are mutually exclusive is based on a literal reading of Genesis 1-3; but that reading is a MODERN aberration (look at Cunningham or McGrath). If you look at the writings of the Church Fathers you will discover that Genesis was not read literally, so clearly Southern Baptists or Kent Hovind are anything but traditional. That, I'm afraid, is a fact
@theclarinet1234 Indeed sir. It's DISRESPECTFUL to ignore the huge amount of scientific FACTS and knowledge and insist on studying 'Ancient Mythology" "Ancient Philosophy" "Theology" to seek the 'Truth". TRUTH exists only in Mathematical Logic and in anything you can actually prove by deductive reasoning. I'm 27 and I know this since I was 19. I am immune to "Truth preachers" due to Hawking's -
Brief History of Time, Russell's - Principia Mathematica etc. etc.
@Neueregel Excellent points! It astonishes me that these theists insist on treating these ancient texts written by men (never women), who firmly believed that the earth was flat, as if they held special value---and at the same time theists refuse to study contemporary biology, chemistry and physics, each of which is based on mountains of verifiable evidence. Human beings have been inventing gods and religions for millenia. Magic has a powerful hold on the species.
@theclarinet1234 Very true. Some people wanna stay static or even regress. That won't happen. We shouldn't let that happen. Our scientific legacy the last 400 years is huge and heavy. Lust for ancient-only knowledge is ridiculous. I laugh at them, retards. They are like primitive savages to my eyes, despite their seemingly civilised appearance.
@Neueregel Haha. This posting really amused me. The arrogance is beyond belief for someone who hasn't the first idea about what he is talking about. Let us not forget that the midwife of science was precisely the Biblical worldview. Its called 'Whitehead's Thesis': "Man expected to find law in nature because he believed in a law giver, i.e., God". This faith in the lawfulness of creation was what propelled the rise of modern science. Even Richard Dawkins has admitted as much.
@Neuereg Your comment foolishly assumes that science and religion are in an 'a priori' conflict, but this is absolute nonsense. Do you really think that world class scientists such as Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne would believe in religion if what you say is true??!! Please, that just stretches credulity too far. As with most modern atheist ranters you haven't got the first clue about what you are rejecting. You have a primitive, naive and bigoted conception of religion. Do some reading!
@Neueregel If you think that science and religion are in conflict, please tell me which scientific theory debunks religion?! Seriously, your closed mindedness to the facts is quite appalling! You might mention, for instance, evolution by natural selection. St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Bonaventure, et cetera, would not have had a problem with evolution. The tradition has never read Genesis literally! Biblical literalism is a MODERN phenomena. Now that is a fact.
@bayreuth79 You know nothing of real science! Have you ever taken a graduate course in any scinece? Christianity and science are forever irreconcilable regardless of theist scentists and their delusions. The central magic of Christianity viz. corpse reanimation, human parthenogenesis to yield a male, and reanimated corpse levitation (Nicene Creed) are fundamentally, eternally, absolutely, completely, and OBVIOUSLY at odds with everything science has learned about Nature. Are you an idiot?
@theclarinet1234 So according to you scientists such as Francis Collins, John Lennox, John Polkinghorne, Alister McGrath, Simon Conway Morris, and so many others, are all delusional idiots? If that isn't an example of prejudiced, bigoted, unevidenced belief then I don't know what is! By the way, anyone who engages in 'ad hominem' assaults on one's person rather than engaging with one's arguments is probably the kind of person who has run out of ideas!
@bayreuth79 Theist scientists do exist, of course, but remember that the vast majority of tthe members of the U.S. National Academy of Science are not theist (upwards of 90%). Playing a numbers game like that is meaninglyess, however. Theist scientists isolate their theism from their science and put the two in separate compartments. How else could they possibly accept the weird, unnatural, magical claims of religion? Of course, the imaginary and the non-existent do look very much alike.
@theclarinet1234 This is a complete caricature of how scientists regard science with respect to theism. Google The Faraday Institute at Cambridge University and listen to lectures given by world class scientists on the relationship between religion and science; you will discover how mistaken you are.
Now, I have no problem with serious philosophical atheism, but I do have a problem with scientific atheism. There is no reason on scientific grounds to deny that God exists!
@bayreuth79 Of course, as usual with Christian theists, you ignore the complete irreconcilability between magical Nicene Creed miracles and science. In my view, scientific grounds ARE the fundamental reasons for a lack of a belief in any of the tens of thousands of divergent and ridiculous gods invented by humans throughout history to mollify their fears and explain their ignorance. When religion makes claims about physical happenings (rather than unseen magic), it becomes SCIENCE! Period.
@theclarine You reveal yourself to be a bigoted scientistic fundamentalist. There is no conflict between science and religion; only between certain interpretations of both. If science has debunked religion, please provide one scientific 'fact' that discredits faith? I and John Polkinghorne and Simon Conway Morris and Francis Collins, etcetera, can affirm science and its achievements while also being able to appreciate the essence of religious faith. If only fundamentalists like you did likewise
@bayreuth79 Again, you consistently avoid my principal points documenting the fundamental conflict between Christianity (let's be specific---there are THOUSANDS of religions) and science. You wave your hands in front of you and say that your "god did it" somehow---reanimating corpses, inducing parthenogensis, and levitating reanimated corpses. Absurd! Only a deluded person could believe that! "God did it" is no explanation whatever, except to one who has sequestered all reason and logic.
@theclarinet1234 "... weird, unnatural, magical claims of religion". Literally everything that you write about God and religion is question-begging. In other words you are just assuming that the natural world is all there is; but cannot claim to know that. Science cannot claim to know that: if you think otherwise you need to show how it can. But if there is a Creator of the all being, who created the so-called laws of nature, why could he not suspend those laws if he chose, acting directly?
@bayreuth79 Laws of Nature? Come on! If you had taken even one course in elementary physics you would know that the "Laws of Nature" were formulated / invented by human beings! As Einstein stated so eloquently, the type of miraculous / magical religion that you defend is nothing more nor less than "childish superstition" completely unbecoming an adult, thinking person. No one had a great mystical appreciation of the Cosmos than Prof. Einstein---and he would never defend magic!
@the There is a sense in which you are right but it is quite irrelevant. The laws of nature merely describe the way in which the world works and to that extent the laws of nature are human constructs. But they still tell us something true about the world, don't they? So, I could phrase my point in a different manner: assuming that God created the way in which the universe works, there is no reason why he couldn't alter how it works to produce a miracle. Hence your comments are question begging.
@bayreuth79 Nielsen is NOT mediocre. You like Sartre and Nietzsche because both support your theism by conviincing you that life without your god is meaningless. That's quite simply ridiculous. With regard to the Faraday, there will always be theist scientists, just as there will always be scientists who use their skill for evil purposes. It shows absolutely nothing, except that the contagion of magical agency can infect anyone. It's quite sad, but the evidence is overwhelming.
@theclarinet1234 Huh?! I like Nietzsche and Satre because I am compelled to respect their arguments in favour of atheism; and I respect them precisely because they are cogent arguments. I have no respect whatsoever for pathetic popularizers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens precisely because I do not think that their arguments against God and religion are very convincing. For instance, let us look at what Richard Dawkins describes as the central argument of...
@theclarinet1234 ... "The God Delusion" (pp. 157-158). Dawkins argues that you cannot infer a designer of the universe based on the complexity of the universe because this raises the question: "who designed the designer?". However, as arguments go this is shockingly inept. In order to recognize that an explanation (x) is the best, you don't need an explanation of the explanation (x). If an archaeologist were to find some arrow heads he would infer that they were the product of a lost tribe...
@theclarinet1234 ... "The God Delusion" (pp. 157-158). Dawkins argues that you cannot infer a designer of the universe based on the complexity of the universe because this raises the question: "who designed the designer?". However, as arguments go this is shockingly inept. In order to recognize that an explanation (x) is the best, you don't need an explanation of the explanation (x). If an archaeologist were to find some arrow heads he would infer that they were the product of a lost tribe...
@theclarinet1234 ven if he knew nothing else about them. Similarly, you don't need to have an explanation for the designer to believe that the astonishing complexity and fine-tuning of this universe is the product of a designer. Furthermore, if the best explanation always needs an explanation, we're left with an infinite regress, which would mean that you would never have an explanation of anything. Consequently, Dawkins' argument would- if taken to its logical conclusion- destroy science itself
@theclarinet1234 ven if he knew nothing else about them. Similarly, you don't need to have an explanation for the designer to believe that the astonishing complexity and fine-tuning of this universe is the product of a designer. Furthermore, if the best explanation always needs an explanation, we're left with an infinite regress, which would mean that you would never have an explanation of anything. Consequently, Dawkins' argument would- if taken to its logical conclusion- destroy science itself
@theclarine Now you have to understand that when I talk about "design" and a "designer" I am NOT talking about Creationism or Intelligent Design (as advocated by Behe and Dembski). What I mean by "design" is what Thomas Aquinas meant by "design": God created "ex nihilo" a world that was capable of making itself- self-assembling, if you like. Such a conception of creation is more grandiose than the anthropomorphic "God" of Creationism and ID; and it doesn't interfere with scientific explanation.
@bayreuth79 And then, instead of addressing the ridiculous magical stories of Christianity and how antithetical they are to everything science has learned about Nature, you quickly move on to something even more ridiculous---your "design" delusion. My friend, the Cosmos looks exactly as if it had occurred simply by random chance. Design is a figment of your primitive imagination. Please view Lawrence Krauss' videos to help you with the concepts of contemporary cosmology.
@theclarinet1234 You are patronizing and ignorant (the two usually go together). The fact that you use "ad hominems" in all of your comments betrays your lack of decency and argument.
"The Cosmos looks exactly as if it had occurred simply by random chance". This is certainly untrue, even in evolutionary biology now. Simon Conway Morris argues that instead of evolution being entirely open ended, if you were to re-run the "tape of life" you would get basically the same results.
@bayreuth79 You are obviously no evolutionary biologist. The typical philosopher in you goes to some authority who "argues this" or "argues that." What the hell do you think? And give me the EVIDENCE for your thought. Evolution occurs through random mutation and natural selection. If the selective conditions changed, the selective pressure would change, and the result would be different. Conway can ONLY be correct if the history of the Earth were identical with each "rewind" of the clock.
@bayreuth79 I'm still waiting for your learned defense of the magical, mysterious, miraculous, anti-scientific Nicene stories that undergrid Christian delusion!
@theclarinet1234 I am sure you are aware of the fine-tuning argument. Why is it that certain atheist scientists have tried to explain away the incredibly improbable fact that we live in a universe that just happens to have constants that have exactly the values that are necessary for producing life by appealing to an uneconomic speculation like the multi-verse theory? It looks designed, it looks like purpose! That's why they try to explain it away.
@bayreuth79 i am left with one conclusion. You agree with me that the magical miracle fantasy stories of your Nicene Creed can never be squared with science and that you completely agree with me that science and Christianity are utterly irreconcilable. That conclusion is exactly the one reached my most thinking scientists globally. Your delusion is beginning to disintegrate!
@theclarinet1234 I have not evaded your question; in fact I answered it a few days ago (if you were paying attention). Of course Nicea is complete nonsense IF AND ONLY IF God does not exist. But, I say it again, if he does exist then of course such miracles are quite possible. Science simply describes the way in which the world works. If God created and sustains the universe, he can suspend secondary causes and act as primary cause directly. So the question is DOES GOD EXIST.
@theclarinet1234 So, I have not evaded any of your questions; but you have certainly evaded mine. I am still waiting for a response to my challenge: point out which scientific fact (not interpretation or philosophical overlay, but fact) suggests that God does not exist? If you cannot think of any then I fail to see why science and religion are in conflict. Science and Creationism are in conflict; but Creationism is a modern (yes, MODERN) aberration.
@theclarinet1234 The methodology of science excludes the question of "final causes" (that is, purpose, or design); but that does not mean that there are no "final causes" in nature. That question is simply not in sciences remit. It is neutral on the question. Those who deny this are philosophizing, not doing science.
@theclarinet1234 This is ironic coming from someone who clearly subscribes to the dead philosophies of logical positivism and scientism- those self-refuting philosophies of the twentieth century. If you want to think clearly about science and religion you might want to give up on these outmoded, discredited, self-refuting philosophies. Dawkins and Hitchens, like yourself, are Dinosaurs...
@thecla Some of the youtube atheists, such as yourself, spout the most appalling, irrational drivel. For the most part you are simply echoing the populist atheism of people who are making an awful lot of money out of selling you second hand pseudo-philosophical rants about religion ("The God Delusion" comes to mind). You should feel used and abused by Dawkins... Nonsense like "the universe can spontaneously produce itself from nothing". But "nothing" here doesn't mean non-being. You've been had!
@bayreuth79 And why do they develop no science to explain reanimation? Because there is NO SCIENCE to develop. Their, and your, acceptance of this event is based upon the hearsay evidence written decades after the supposed event by iron age people who firmly believed that the earth was flat! What kind of evidence is that? What kind of science can it be? In this way, science and Christianity are forever and intrinsically irreconcilable, which is my point.
@theclarinet1234 This is an absurd response and demonstrates your lack of understanding of both science and religion. Of course there cannot be a science of the miraculous! The reason for this is obvious. Science deals with the repeatable (that is how science works) but miracles are BY DEFINITION events that are not repeatable precisely because they are not natural events. Yet again your comment is misplaced; and it is no argument against anything.
@bayreuth79 Any person who would believe such drivel must be deluded. If a psychiatric patient told me that his mother was reanimated, I would conclude that he was deluded and put him on drugs. Yet, for some reason, religionists get away with such stuff. Incredible! At least admit this: Your theism is not grounded on science, logic, reason, rationality, or any other adult human characteristic. As Einstein maintained so beautifully, it is founded on "childish superstion" unbecoming an adult.
@theclarinet1234 You quote A Einstein misleadingly. He also wrote: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views".
@theclarinet1234 Einstein also wrote (he could have been referring to Dawkins and yourself): Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres...
@theclarinet1234 (Einstein quote continued): "The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims."
@bayreuth79 I'm done with you and that's the last straw! Einstein's god was the god of Spinoza, not the personal, interventionist, miracle-working god that you worship. Get that straight, bud. Einstein was not pleased with people who used his words to support atheism, and I never do. However, he wrote quite clearly that those who so desperately need the personal, interventionist parental figure that you worship are consumed with "childish superstition." You know little of Einstein either!
@theclarinet1234 I think my point was that Einstein was not an atheist; but you seem to think that atheism should be obvious to any thinking person! Clearly this was not the case for Einstein. What is certain about Einstein's views regarding atheism is that he couldn't stand evangelical atheism, such as you and Dawkins espouse.
I think Einstein failed to understand what serious theologians mean by a personal God. He should have read Thomas Aquinas and Meister Eckhart.
@theclarinet1234 By the way, I have an MA in Science and Religion from Cambridge University, so I know something about this subject. With respect, your views are rather childish and naive. I have nothing whatsoever against good arguments against theism; but I do have considerable trouble swallowing new atheist rubbish. There is simply no "a prior" conflict between science and religion. Your "ad hominem" attacks and failure to engage are representative of your naivety.
@theclarinet1234 When we say that God is personal we do not mean that he is literally like a person. That was Einstein's mistake, I think. All positive statements about God have to be understood apophatically. He is not a person, but he is not less than a person. He transcends personhood.
When we say that "God intervenes" we do not mean this literally. To intervene means to enter a context from which one was absent; but God is present in every context, holding it being.
@theclarinet1234 You've clearly run out of ideas. Good luck to you fellow! I do hope you find a more sophisticated philosophy than the new atheism, which, like most popular things, is shallow. Let's see how your optimistic atheism works when you are on your death bed, as well. Kai Nielsen's sunny optimism might cloud over somewhat... Ohh, come on! Its absurd. Dostoyevsky was right about atheism; Kai Nielsen is an intellectual dwarf.
@ndrthrdr1 I suppose the "grown ups" are atheists and agnostics such as yourself? What I find most offensive about people like you is your unjustified pseudo-intellectual arrogance. If you actually made an effort to understand what sophisticated theists- such as Thomas Aquinas- really thought about "God" you might think twice about assuming that it is no more than a fairy story for the infantile. Polkinghorne, Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, etc., are these people not "grown ups"? Come on!
@bayreuth79 We're not arrogant, we're just smarter than you are. If you believe in an invisible sky wizard, you're harboring a childish belief in an imaginary friend.
It's really just that simple. You are in a cult. Get a clue.
@ndrthrdr1 Let us examine the word "imaginary" in the context of your most recent posting. How do you know that God is merely "imaginary"? If you cannot prove that God doesn't exist then it follows logically that he might exist. Is that not so? Even if there were no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God- though I think there is- it follows logically and inescapably that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I suppose you are smarter than Polkinghorne, F Collins, Conwy-Morris?
@ndrthrdr1 You have given me no evidence that you are smarter than I am- quite the opposite in fact. To be honest, the fact that I have an MA from Cambridge Uni is more than enough evidence that I am atleast reasonably bright!
You say that God is "Imaginary". Ok, prove it! You are making a positive assertion, so you cannot restort to the atheist trick of putting the burden of proof back on the theist. You have made a claim; defend it! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
@ndrthrdr1 You are astoundingly illogical and evasive. Firstly, not every belief is grounded in empirical evidence; for instance, I'm sure you have ethical and aesthetic beliefs but these aren't empirically grounded. Secondly, there is empirical support for theism, for instance the remarkable fine-tuning of the universe and the fact established by Gooth and Valenken that the universe has a beginning (let us not forget that it was atheists who always maintained that the universe had no beginning)
@ndrthrdr1 I can tell from your postings that you do not have much education- perhaps a mediocre university undergrad education at best. It is interesting that someone like you (an intellectual pigmy) thinks he is above people like Polkinghorne, McGrath, Guessoum, Francis Collins, Simon Conway-Morris, Robert Spitzer, etcetera. If that isn't a demonstrable delusion, I don't know what is!
Its obvious that you can't debate with serious people....
@bayreuth79 The burden on proof is not on the unbeliever, that is a rather basic premise that even you as an expert in self-deception should be aware. I assume that you don't believe in Vishnu or Osiris or Zeus or Apollo or Dionysus or Aries or Mars or Quetzalcoatl or any other of the innumerable and fictional 'gods'. How fortunate that the one god you believe in and the one doctrine you follow is absolutely definitely the correct one! How unbelievably arrogant you christians are.
@BarryDong If you claim to be an atheist then you have a burden of proof as well as the theist. You have unwittingly been influenced by the debunked writings of Anthony Flew (who later converted to theism) probably through Dawkins and Hitchens. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is a well established logical principle. You cannot claim that there is no 'god' without showing that belief in God involves a contradiction or discovering a cogent defeater.
@BarryDong Furthermore, there is evidence for the existence of that than which nothing greater can be conceived (ie God). Instead if referring to the amateur philosophy of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" (easily debunked by any philosopher) I suggest you read Alvin Plantinga (Notre Dame) or Richard Swinburne (Oxford) or Keith Ward (Oxford) or Robert Spitzer or William Lane Craig, etcetera... If you think you can refute their arguments then we might talk again; but not until...!
@theclarinet1234 Contrary to your view that the cosmos is obviously a product of chance: "You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in anyway..." (Einstein). I repeat: "a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind...". Looks like chance?!
@theclarinet1234 Let's not forget that until Einstein's theory of relativity and G Lemaitre's (a Priest) calculations leading to "Big Bang" cosmology, most scientists believed that the universe had always existed, that it didn't have a beginning. If you had been writing over a hundred years ago you would have been arguing with me that belief in a beginning of time and space is absurd because science tells us that the universe has always existed. Ermm, paradigm shifts happen.
@bayreuth79 Finally, instead of dealing with the magic fairy tail Nicene stories, you attack Dawkins and others. I know that you favor Sartre. Unlike Nielsen, who reflects precisely my own experience of atheism, Sartre expresses to you what atheism OUGHT to be. But 't isn't so. Dawkins may not be the finest philosopher, but he is an able translator of science for the masses, and he certainly is influential in dispelling the delusion of theism. More power to him! I hope he gets cloned 12 times.
@bayreuth79 Since you constantly cite ancient antheistic philosophers like Sartre, who understood next to nothing about science and possessed an utterly depressive worldview, I'd like you to read a bit of a contemporary philosopher, Kai Nielsen. Nielsen possesses an optimistic, upbeat atheism, a belief system far more compelling than any religionist. While all philosophy remains merely speculation, Nielsen's philosophy is at least interesting specularion. Try him!
@theclarinet1234 Hmmm. Kai Nielsen is mediocre. Jean-Paul Satre was a genius- one with whom I profoundly disagree, but a genius nonetheless. Personally, I think an "optimistic, upbeat atheism" completely absurd. Nietzsche would have laughed in Nielsen's face: "upbeat" and "optimistic"?! I am not sure how you can be optimistic when you know that life is ultimately meaningless (notice I said "ultimately" before you respond). No; if there is no God then life is absurd, as Satre saw.
@theclarinet1234 Please have a look at The Faraday Institute (Cambridge) and The BioLogos Foundation. Both of these organizations are run by and contributed to by leading scientists. The aim is to demonstrate that there is no 'a prior' conflict between faith and reason, or, rather, religion and science. If you are an honest person, an authentic person, you need to ask why it is that brilliant scientists see no logical contradiction between faith and reason. Hmmm. Why is that, huh?
@bayreuth79 Finally, typical of philosophers, you consistently go back not to reason / logic / evidence, but to "authority," viz. theist scientists, some (not all) of whom may be respected for their scientific contributions. Such arguments are not at all compelling intrinsically. And the simple counter is for every Faraday scientist you cite, there are dozens of atheist, well-respected scientists, including Nobel laureates. Yours is NOT an argument. You should know better than to use it.
@theclarinet1234 You misunderstand me. I was not suggesting that the fact that there are world-class scientists who are also religious believers proves that "God exists'. By no means. I had a more modest intention and that was to point out that unless scientists like John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins are very stupid there might be no obvious incompatibility between science and religion. In fact, this point was made by the atheist biologist Stephen J Gould in an article called "Impeaching a
@bayreuth79 Again, you avoid all discussion of the Nicene Creed "miracles" in favor of a discussion of the intelligence of scientists. Highly intelligent individuals can nonetheless be highly deluded. Our evolutionary heritage is filled with a propensity toward the acceptance of magical agency.---hence the tens of thousands of historical religions. Why should scientists be entirely immune to the contagion---the evolutionary propensity? Still, most accomplished scientists are atheist.
@theclarinet1234 This is amusing. You are apparently against appeals to authority but then you can't resist pointing out that "most accomplished scientists are atheist". Somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
The reason I mention world-class scientists who happen to be theists is not because I think it proves the truth of theism. Of course not. I mentioned it because it should give people like you pause for thought. It is no good saying that we are all prone to delusion, as though that...
@bayreuth79 Again, no comment on the magical mysterious miracles of Christianity and while they are physical "phenomena" they violate everything that we know about Nature?
@theclarinet1234 ... explained away how highly intelligent scientists see no conflict between science and religion. Why do you exempt yourself from the possibility of delusion? Your application of the so-called "human propensity for delusion" argument, if you want to call it that, is entirely arbitrary.
You avoid my challenge: I want to know which scientific beliefs mean that religion is nonsense? I can think of none.
@bayreuth79 Which planet are you on? The reanimation of a dead Jew is not inconsistent with science? The unaided parthenogenesis leading to a male human is not inconsistent with all of biology? The levitation of a reanimated corpse upward is not antithetical to all that we know of physics? And don't tell me that "god did it." These are physical manifestations that YOU believe (as a delusion) and which are completely, utterly, and absolutely at odds with everything that we know of science.
@theclarinet1234 And I say it again: your comments are question begging! Of course, the resurrection of Jesus is completely impossible if and only if there is no God. But that is precisely what is in question here!! I really find it extraordinary how you can miss that simple point! If there is a God then there is no reason why miracles should be impossible. If there is a God who created the universe and sustains it in being, why could he not suspend secondary causes, acting directly?
@bayreuth79 Ah! Now we have it! The reanimation of a dead Jew is impossible! Of course it is! It violates every thing that we know about Nature. You would undoubtedly agree that the purview of science is anything that occurs in the Cosmos. If a corpse was reanimated, science MUST address it as an important and unexpected event. Yet, even your theist scientist buds wave their hands, as you do, and say some ":god did it. They develop no new science or falsifiable explanations.
@theclari This is an absurd response, as I think even you must acknowledge. The reason why atheists and agnostics (such as Dawkins and Hitchens) reject the miraculous is because they do not believe in the existence of God (that is, a Creator of all that is). It should be obvious to any unprejudiced mind that on the supposition that God does in fact exist miracles are at least possible. In fact, a miracle is not an intervention of God but a suspension of natural causes in which He acts directly.
@bayreuth79 We've reached an endpoint. I thought, mistakenly, that you understand a little bit about science, the scientific method, the purview of science, the concepts of verifiable evidence, the concept of falsifiable explanations, and the mission of science to investigate all events in the Cosmos You understand none of that. What a shame. You will reside in your delusion, perhaps for life...but perhaps not. Like me, you may awaken one day to a wonderful new adventure grounded in reality.
@theclarinet1234 This message made me laugh out loud. You have no arguments left and so you've given up. I'm afraid, as I've said before, that you are stuck in an outmoded philosophy (scientism) and an almost wholly erroneous conception of science and (especially) religion. I asked you several times to put forward a single scientific fact that contradicts belief in God; but you couldn't do so. Why not? Perhaps its because there is no such conflict, huh?! Your worldview is sad and pathetic.
@theclarinet1234 And how can you be sure that God did not do it? I think it is far more rational to believe that the cosmos (let's not forget that "cosmos" is the opposite of chaos) is the product of reason as opposed to mere chance. It is more rational to believe that the universe was created by a necessary being, rather than somehow spontaneously arising from nothing (read: field of energy!). I'm astounded that atheists such as yourself could think that being can arise from non-being. Absurd.
@theclarinet1234 And I say it again: your comments are question begging! Of course, the resurrection of Jesus is completely impossible if and only if there is no God. But that is precisely what is in question here!! I really find it extraordinary how you can miss that simple point! If there is a God then there is no reason why miracles should be impossible. If there is a God who created the universe and sustains it in being, why could he not suspend secondary causes, acting directly?
@theclarinet1234 You haven't shown me why certain beliefs are delusional, so please enlighten me. Just saying that miracles defy scientific laws is simply defining what a miracle is; it says precisely nothing about whether the miraculous are possible or not. I say it again: your comments are obviously question begging. If and only if God doesn't exist are miracles impossible; but if he does exist then there is no reason why they should be impossible. I've made this point before; I'm not evading.
@theclarinet1234 ... self-appointed judge", which you can read online. The following quote from that article is worth quoting:
"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap".
If you disagree you need to show how evolution defeats "God".
@theclarinet1234 ... self-appointed judge", which you can read online. The following quote from that article is worth quoting:
"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap".
If you disagree you need to show how evolution defeats "God".
@theclarinet1234 ... self-appointed judge", which you can read online. The following quote from that article is worth quoting:
"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap".
If you disagree you need to show how evolution defeats "God".
@theclarinet1234 ... self-appointed judge", which you can read online. The following quote from that article is worth quoting:
"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap".
If you disagree you need to show how evolution defeats "God".
@the So my point was to demonstrate that either people like John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins are quite stupid (which is highly unlikely given their accomplishments) or there is no obvious conflict between science and religion. There MIGHT be a conflict between science and religion; but, if there is, it is clearly not obvious given the fact that some highly intelligent ppl don't see a conflict. What you want to do is say all theists are stupid and delusional; but there's no evidence for that
@bayreuth79 The bible is iron-age mythology literature made by illiterate carpenters and iron-age fishermen. Very bad reference. "St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Bonaventure, et cetera," are very minuscule thinkers compared to Epicurus that lived 1000 years before them. Religion is the cancer of the spirit. I don't hate you, I just think your thought lags 2000 years. It's ridiculous for me to take non-19/20th century thinkers seriously. Peace
@Neueregel This has nothing whatsoever to do with my theism and everything to do with common sense: Epicurus is by no means the intellectual superior, or even equal, of St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. Please quote one noted philosopher who agrees with you. I understand that you are prejudiced and bigoted; but surely even your "blind faith" in scientism and logical positivism could not make you impervious to the intellectual genius of Augustine and Aquinas?! Have you even read them?
@Neueregel For instance, have you read Augustine's philosophical musings about the nature of time? Some of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century have quoted with approval and admiration his remarkable understanding of time (Einstein, Hawking, etcetera). There are many other important contributions that Augustine has made as well. Thomas Aquinas is still very much alive in contemporary philosophy. Many followers of Wittgenstein are particularly interested in Aquinas' thought.
@bayreuth79 I also admire Augustine or Aquinas, but this does not mean that I think highly of their philosophies. They had their share in interpreting their viewpoint of the world and now they are obsolete and discussed only in a historical context.
@Neueregel Huh?! This is what I would describe as typical Enlightenment arrogance- an arrogance that is wholly unwarranted and foolish. You claim that the 'weltanschuung' of Augustine and Aquinas is obsolete but I'm afraid it is very much alive. The problem with atheists of your type is that you have only a rudimentary grasp of science and the philosophy of science and no understanding whatsoever of what religion is all about. And as a result you misunderstand the relationship between the two.
@Neueregel I ask you to name a single scientific theory that would render the weltanschuung of Aquinas obsolete. But of course you cannot do this because it is an impossible task. Why is it that world class scientists and philosophers are theists if the proposition "God exists" is so obviously false? Do you perhaps no better than John Polkinghorne or Simon Conway Morris? I think there are good philosophical reasons for atheism (Nietzsche, Satre, et al) but no good scientific reasons.
@bayreuth79 "world class scientists and philosophers are theists" Are you kidding me? The exact opposite holds true. "no good scientific reasons?" All modern cosmology, astronomy, genetics etc. have rendered the creator concept, obsolete.
@theclarinet1234 Huh?! What astonishes me about unthinking atheists, such as yourself, is that you are not open to the evidence when it comes to religion. The nonsense you have just written is almost beyond belief! You claim that theists refuse to study modern science?! What?! When I studied theology two of my lecturers had science degrees (undergrad and postgrad) from Oxford University (Celia Deane-Drummond & David Clough). Have you heard of The Faraday Institute at Cambridge Uni? Seriously...!
@theclarinet1234 Look at some of the theists who have debated Richard Dawkins: John Lennox (scientist from Oxford and philosopher), Alister McGarth (theologian and scientist from Oxford) and so forth. I suppose they haven't studied modern science, have they?! What about brilliant scientists who also happen to be theists: Francis Collins (Genome Project), Simon Conway Morris (Biologist Cambridge Uni), and John Polkinghorne (Theoretical physicist Cambridge), et cetera. You talk nonsense.
@theclarinet1234 Look at some of the theists who have debated Richard Dawkins: John Lennox (scientist from Oxford and philosopher), Alister McGarth (theologian and scientist from Oxford) and so forth. I suppose they haven't studied modern science, have they?! What about brilliant scientists who also happen to be theists: Francis Collins (Genome Project), Simon Conway Morris (Biologist Cambridge Uni), and John Polkinghorne (Theoretical physicist Cambridge), et cetera. You talk nonsense.
@theclarinet1234 You cannot disprove the existence of God, can you? No, of course you cannot. Therefore it is logically incoherent to claim that he definitely doesn't exist. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as I won't tire of repeating. If that is the case you cannot claim to know that human beings have been merely "inventing gods". Besides, perhaps the fact that human beings reach out for the transcendent is an indication (I don't say proof) that there really is transcendence
@theclarinet1234 If God cannot be proved or disproved it is reasonable to have a rational hope that he does in fact exist; for if His existence is forever beyond proof or disproof He might well exist.
It seems to me that there are different kinds of knowing: science is one kind of knowing, but there is also knowing in the personal sense. You do not know your wife as you know the periodic table. For all you know, God might reveal himself in an I-Thou interaction (rather than I-it).
@Neueregel I'm afraid you have succumbed to an outmoded philosophy called logical positivism or scientism. I recommend that you read a few serious philosophy books, rather than relying on the scientistic fanaticism of the new atheists.
I have never ignored the knowledge that scientists have accumulated. Why should I ignore it? There is no 'a priori' conflict between science and religion; only between certain interpretations of science and certain modernist interpretations of religion.
@Neueregel What has the ancientness of a particular belief got to do with its truth? Plato and Aristotle, for instance, had many insights which are still valuable in the modern world. For instance, Aristotle's virtue ethics are still very important for moral philosophers, and so on.
I'm sure you wouldn't consider Shakespeare's insights into the human condition outmoded? Genesis 1-3, if read properly, functions very like a Shakespeare play: it is existential, not pseudo-science.
The only thing science proves is intelligent design and the existence of God. There is NO SUCH THING as organized laws and rules in chaos and randomness.
@taxedup99 I am a scientist. A good one.I was talking about PROVEN scientific facts being eternal. Not about the Hypothesis'. Was that so hard to figure out? Making Ad-Hominems just reveals your lack of argument. Attack my arguments not my person. Otherwise you just seem another anonymous bigot. Darwin died in 1882 and if he lived today he would definitely be an atheist given another 129 years of scientific exploration. (Newton and Einstein would be atheists as well). god is a fairytale for kids
@Neueregel The problem with scientific atheists of your type is that you have no knowledge whatsoever of sophisticated theology. If God is "a fairytale for kids", as you claim, I think you need to explain why it is that brilliant scientists from Cambridge (Polkinghorne, Conway Morris, Louis Ard, et cetera) see no conflict between science and religion. The doctrine of creation is compatible with any physical theory because "to create" means the radical causing of existence of whatever exists.
@bayreuth79 " because "to create" means the radical causing of existence of whatever exists." Another meaningless, misleading and purposeless phrase that fails to advocate any arguments. Polkinghorne et al. are old-schoolers. When they attended secondarary school, DNA wasn't even discovered. We are created because our DNA dictates our cell multiplication. No external force is needed as Laplace said to Napoleon.
@Neueregel This is what one always hears when one presents sophisticated theological ideas to bigoted atheists. Like Richard Dawkins you want strawmen to knock over...
The purpose of my comment was to indicated that what we mean by creation isn't in conflict with scientific accounts of origins. You can have an explanation in terms of mechanism (the domain of science) and an explanation in terms of efficient causality (agent explanation) & they don't conflict.
@Neueregel I suppose John Polkinghorne has no knowledge of DNA? This is absurd; and besides the point altogether.
Christians have always believed that God created "ex nihilo" (creation from nothing). The "Big Bang" (formulated by the Catholic Priest G Lemaitre) leads some credence to this; but not definitive proof. "We are created because our DNA dictates our cell multiplication". This is a scientific explanation that is compatible with creation as I've defined it. So what's the problem?
@bayreuth79 Science and Christianity are intrinsically incompatible and irreconcilable. Why? As long as the Christian god is ineffable---beyond time and space---and does nothing physical, sciencve ignores it as unimportant. But the Christian god is claimed to work PHYSICAL miracles such as reanimating corpses, causing human parthenogenesis, and elevating reanimated corpses skyward with no visible propulsion. Such claims are absolutely irreconcilable with science, making them magic!
@theclarinet1234 Your argument- if we can call it that- assumes that there is only one type of knowledge: scientific knowledge. This is an outmoded epistemology called scientism- which is self-refuting. Scientism claims that it is the only source of knowledge; but this statement itself is not scientific, therefore not knowledge, therefore self-contradictory.
Interestingly, your comment betrays your ignorance of science; for scientists believe that there are things outside of time & space.
@taxedup99 The Origin Of Species along with Newton's Principia are arguably the best and most influential scientific works of all time. It does not matter how Galton or Huxley interpreted it. WW2 is all history now. Politics have a limited scope since they mainly deal with the present or the past . Scientific discoveries are eternal and mark the course of mankind forever, because they deal with the PROVEN truth.
@taxedup99 Don't be such a Hypocrite. You talk about 'respecting' other people's rights, but you don't seem to respect my right to have an opinion and my right to make a judgement and a statement. I tolerate everyone, I don't hate anyone and I demand the right to have an opinion. And my opinion is that religion is not worthy of respect at all in this Millenium I respect the person Polkinghorne but don't respect religion and his views at all. The Holocaust was motivated by Christians like Hitler.
@Neueregel To say he does not exist is undeniably an absolute statement. For you to make an absolute statement means that you have to know everything on that subject. Let's say that you know 1% of everything in the entire cosmos. This means you know every star, every atmosphere, and every thing every. To know 1% of everything is a human impossibility. Is it possible that God could be in the other 99%? If so, then are you not deluded by saying He does not exist? Think about this.
@halotalim I am not deluded. The very idea of god is TOTALLY man-made and Impossible. The Cosmos is governed by chance. Our universe was lucky because the Physical constants had a specific value. There is absolutely no reason to invoke or assume anything Supernatural like an immaterial god. The 'rest' 99% of the Cosmos as you say can be describe with scientific models. Everything is material and has a specific mass/energy
@Neueregel Well said! Christian scientists like Francis Collins, George Coyne and Polkinghome attempt to integrate science with their particular religious delusions. Personally, I'm tolerant of religious delusions b/c I was so deluded for many years myself and understand its power &r rewards. No matter what else theist scientists say, when faced with things like the reanimation of a long dead Jew in Palestine or his supposed parthenogensis, they must resort to "faith"--what else can they do?
@theclarine It is quite wrong to describe religious belief as a "delusion". A delusion "is a belief that is maintained despite rational argument, usually the symptom of mental disorder" (Dictionary Definition). This means that in order for belief in God to be a delusion it would have to be maintained despite rational argument; but whether God exists or not has not been rationally decided. There are arguments for both positions. I could therefore just as well describe your atheism as a delusion.
@bayreuth79 My own experience with awakening from Catholic theism was akin to awakening from a dream---or a delusion. As one who now understands that there isn't a shred of verifiable evidence for the existence of any of the tens of thousands of gods invented by humans over the course of history, I also understand that I was completely deluded by the indoctrination of my early Catholic upbringing. I am now awake...with no religious delusions. I am happier and more peaceful than ever before!
@thec You have described a personal experience; it has meaning for you but to assume that it might have meaning for other people is perhaps naive. And you persist in using the word "delusion". It is quite an inaccurate and misleading use of the word, as I've already pointed out. Believing you are Napoleon Bonaparte is a delusion because it is demonstrably false; but believing in the existence of a Creator cannot be a delusion for the simple reason that it might be true. Can you prove it isn't?
@bayreuth79 As an atheist, it is not up to me to disprove the existence of ANY god. Rather, it is up to the theist to PROVE the existence of his PARTICULAR god, as distinguished from tens of thousands of other deistic inventions of human kind. A delusion is a belief without evidence. Because there is no verifiable evidence whatever for the existence of any god, theism is by definition a delusion. Atheism is simply the absence of believe in any god, because there is insufficient evidence.
@theclarinet1234 You have obviously been reading people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. No, if you are going to claim that there is definitely no God then you have a burden of proof. It seems to me that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence- this is elementary logic. That being the case, you cannot be an atheist, which is the denial that God exists, on the basis of lack of evidence. If this were not the case, how can an atheist be distinguished from an agnostic?
@bayreuth79 My goodness, so many of you theists don't even know the definition of atheism. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in any god at all, arising from the lack of evidence. Atheists do NOT assert that there is no god and do not attempt to prove that negative. A course in elementary logic would show you that negatives cannot be demonstrated. Please take the course in logic and a course in elementary physics. Both would help you much more than theism.
@theclarinet1234 So what you are arguing is that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence; but this is an illogical argument. I have no evidence that aliens exist somewhere in the Milky Way, but does that mean that they definitely don't exist? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You have failed to answer my question, probably because you can't: so how do you distinguish between atheism and agnosticism?!!
Great video have to admin (jks)
RobbOTB 4 weeks ago
ALL COOPER SCHOOL STUDENTS THAT WATCH THIS LIKE THIS COMMENT INSTEAD
Jackman5953 4 weeks ago
@Jackman5953 no you like it u noob
RobbOTB 4 weeks ago
THE BIG BIG BANG THE REASON IM ALIVE AND THE UNIVERSE INSIDE
NOW LIKE THIS VIDEO
RobbOTB 4 weeks ago
@RobbOTB SUCK MAH BALLZ
legoman360 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@legoman360 There are 2 kinds of atheists - one is an honest sincere seeker of TRUTH, while the other is a bitter angry individual who seeks only to refute the existence of God! The stubborn ridiculous atheist believes the finely tuned universe created itself from NOTHING! And homochirality and DNA organized itself!!
5tonyvvvv 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RobbOTB There are 2 kinds of atheists - one is an honest sincere seeker of TRUTH, while the other is a bitter angry individual who seeks only to refute the existence of God! The stubborn ridiculous atheist believes the finely tuned universe created itself from NOTHING! And homochirality and DNA organized itself!!
5tonyvvvv 4 weeks ago
PUPILS OF COOPER SCHOOL LIKE THIS -JOSH HARRIS :3
legoman360 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
RobbOTB 4 weeks ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 3 months ago
Comment removed
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
Comment removed
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
Comment removed
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
Philosophers are fond of saying that philosophy provides a way of "knowing." Quite simply: ridiculous. Philosophy provides a way to speculate, not to know. One simply cannot "know" anything without verifiable evidence, an inquiry process that is self-correcting, and powerful, falsifiable explanations. None of those is in the realm of philosophy and certainly not in theology. Your appeal to theist scientists does nothing. Humans are so prone to the acceptance of magical agency that few escape.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@thec What I find extraordinary is that you seem to think that you are exempt from believing in nonsense. Have you never wondered whether your outmoded logical positivism and scientism are perhaps not themselves fallacious? You claim that science is the only reliable source of knowledge; is that not the case? The initial problem is that that belief is itself not a scientific belief, so perhaps your belief is ultimately self-refuting? Why don't you think instead you relying on scientistic dogma?
bayreuth79 5 months ago
Comment removed
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Nonsense!? Nonsense is accepting the reanimation of some dead Jew based on hearsay reports written decades after the supposed event! Nonsense is accepting unaided human parthenogenesis to yield a male, especially when similar stories were told about many other supposed deities for thousands of years! Nonsense is thinking that reanimated corpses can spontaneously levitate upward, even though it's obvious that the body had to be disposed of somehow. That's nonsense, my friend
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
socratus1 6 months ago
@socratus1 There is a certain amount of truth is this; but the fact of projection doesn't mean that there isn't a God. In fact, one of the purposes of negative theology is to purge the mind of projections of the type you have described. The only literal things we can say about God are negative statements (what God is not); everything else we say is merely analogical at best.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@socratus1 Hey dude, NEWSFLASH. It's 2011, stop reading Theology and Philosophy and stick to your 101 science classes if you wanna understand HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS.
Neueregel 5 months ago
@Neueregel Isn't it amazing that these theists actually think that one can understand the Cosmos by reading Thomas Aquinas rather than by studying Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and viewing the YouTube videos of Lawrence Krauss? What is wrong with these people that they insist on 13th century philosophy rather than the power and awesome insights of contemporary science. I just don't get it. As Einstein said, a personal god is nothing but "childish superstition," completely unbecoming to the adult.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Huh?! It depends what you mean by "understand the cosmos"? If I want to answer the question "why is there something rather than nothing", I might look at Thomas Aquinas. If I want to understand certain features of the universe, such as "what is the mechanism by which creatures evolved", I would consult an evolutionary biologist. You are assuming that there is a conflict, but there isn't.
And, no, science cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 You are absolutely incorrect. Contemporary cosmology and quantum theory have provided us with evidence that "nothing" is intrinsically unstable, giving rise spontanelously to quauntum particles. You are ignorant of modern cosmology and really ought to study the work of Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and others. There are great lectures on YouTube which would help you greatly to overcome your 13fth century biases and level of ignorance.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Thanks; you have fallen directly into the trap! Please tell me how "nothing" can be unstable?!
What you mean by "nothing" is not non-being but the quantum vacuum, which is a seething field of energy (according to Krauss). So the question is: "why is there being rather than non-being?". That is what the philosophical question means. The quantum vacuum is a something, however attenuated. Hawkings and Krauss have been roundly criticized for equivocation in their use of the term.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Again, you even have your terms wrong again. Modern cosmologists refer to a "fluctuating vaccum," not a quantum vacuum. Nonetheless, it is a vaccum and "nothing" according to the mathematics. While a vibrant science, cosmology is still nascent. That makes the work extraordinarily exciting. I'd place my bet on evidence-driven, mathmatically powerful, intellectually stimulating contemporary cosmology, and certainly NOT on Aquinas--a man who argued for the burning of heretics!!
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Well, I have heard Hawkings and Krauss use the term "quantum vacuum"; but if you want to use another term you're welcome!
The question is as to whether the quantum vacuum = non-being; and evidently it does not. A seething field of energy is evidently not non-being, which means the absence of anything whatsoever. John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins, amongst others, have pointed this out and its not even controversial.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Cosmology is nascent. Think of biology in 1800, well before Darwin. At that time, there were hints of evolution, but the vast majority of philosophers argued logically that all life originated simultaneously and fully formed at the hand of a god. But Darwin DESTROYED those primitive ideas. With cosmology, we are like Europe in 1800. There are hints of a fully modern cosmology without god intervention. But we don't have all the evidence.....YET.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Wrong. Empedocles (the Greek Philosopher) knew about evolution and many other thinkers throughout history. Saint Augustine believed in something very close to evolution- he called it "seminal principles", whereby all the diversity of life and species developed from a single seminal principle. I could mention many other pre-Darwinian authors. What Darwin did was discover the mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself! And its compatible with belief in God.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 No one accepted evolution as the mechanism by which life occurred in 1800. If you read the original texts that you cite, they are put forward as speculation only. Possibility. And they were NEVER accepted by the teaching authority of any branch of Christianity. It is a mistake---a HUGE mistake---to assert that evolution was in any way an accepted notion in 1800 in Europe. Such an assertion is false in the extreme. As you should know, even today Darwin's thoughts are opposed.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 I did not suggest that evolution was generally accepted in Europe before Darwin; my claim was that it was known about. You are wrong to describe evolution as a mechanism- the mechanism is natural selection and evolution is the process that ensues from that driving mechanism.
But this is besides the point: traditional Christianity has no problem with evolution by natural selection. Read Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Thomas Aquinas, et cetera!!
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Perhaps you ought to study traditional Christianity as taught by Southern Baptists, Assembly of God, or any other traditional Christian groups. All oppose evolution as unbiblical and as a threat to Christianity. Their reasoning? If there was no Adam, then there was no reason for JC to die and to rise again. You seem to know very little real science. May I suggest some courses in Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Perhaps adding a course in calculus and differential equations?
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Hmmm. I know at least as much science as you do and I certainly know a good deal more about philosophy and theology. Before you tried to argue that science can now answer the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?' and in support of this you mentioned the quantum vacuum, which you take to be "nothing". Please tell me how a "seething field of energy" (Krauss) is nothing? If you knew anything about philosophy you would be aware that the question is about non-being.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet123 You misunderstand what is meant by "traditional Christianity". The idea that belief in a Creator God and evolution by natural selection are mutually exclusive is based on a literal reading of Genesis 1-3; but that reading is a MODERN aberration (look at Cunningham or McGrath). If you look at the writings of the Church Fathers you will discover that Genesis was not read literally, so clearly Southern Baptists or Kent Hovind are anything but traditional. That, I'm afraid, is a fact
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 If you want to leave any further comment I will be happy to defeat them in the morning, Its 3.28AM here.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Indeed sir. It's DISRESPECTFUL to ignore the huge amount of scientific FACTS and knowledge and insist on studying 'Ancient Mythology" "Ancient Philosophy" "Theology" to seek the 'Truth". TRUTH exists only in Mathematical Logic and in anything you can actually prove by deductive reasoning. I'm 27 and I know this since I was 19. I am immune to "Truth preachers" due to Hawking's -
Brief History of Time, Russell's - Principia Mathematica etc. etc.
Neueregel 5 months ago
@Neueregel Excellent points! It astonishes me that these theists insist on treating these ancient texts written by men (never women), who firmly believed that the earth was flat, as if they held special value---and at the same time theists refuse to study contemporary biology, chemistry and physics, each of which is based on mountains of verifiable evidence. Human beings have been inventing gods and religions for millenia. Magic has a powerful hold on the species.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Very true. Some people wanna stay static or even regress. That won't happen. We shouldn't let that happen. Our scientific legacy the last 400 years is huge and heavy. Lust for ancient-only knowledge is ridiculous. I laugh at them, retards. They are like primitive savages to my eyes, despite their seemingly civilised appearance.
Neueregel 5 months ago
@Neueregel Haha. This posting really amused me. The arrogance is beyond belief for someone who hasn't the first idea about what he is talking about. Let us not forget that the midwife of science was precisely the Biblical worldview. Its called 'Whitehead's Thesis': "Man expected to find law in nature because he believed in a law giver, i.e., God". This faith in the lawfulness of creation was what propelled the rise of modern science. Even Richard Dawkins has admitted as much.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@Neuereg Your comment foolishly assumes that science and religion are in an 'a priori' conflict, but this is absolute nonsense. Do you really think that world class scientists such as Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne would believe in religion if what you say is true??!! Please, that just stretches credulity too far. As with most modern atheist ranters you haven't got the first clue about what you are rejecting. You have a primitive, naive and bigoted conception of religion. Do some reading!
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@Neueregel If you think that science and religion are in conflict, please tell me which scientific theory debunks religion?! Seriously, your closed mindedness to the facts is quite appalling! You might mention, for instance, evolution by natural selection. St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Bonaventure, et cetera, would not have had a problem with evolution. The tradition has never read Genesis literally! Biblical literalism is a MODERN phenomena. Now that is a fact.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 You know nothing of real science! Have you ever taken a graduate course in any scinece? Christianity and science are forever irreconcilable regardless of theist scentists and their delusions. The central magic of Christianity viz. corpse reanimation, human parthenogenesis to yield a male, and reanimated corpse levitation (Nicene Creed) are fundamentally, eternally, absolutely, completely, and OBVIOUSLY at odds with everything science has learned about Nature. Are you an idiot?
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 So according to you scientists such as Francis Collins, John Lennox, John Polkinghorne, Alister McGrath, Simon Conway Morris, and so many others, are all delusional idiots? If that isn't an example of prejudiced, bigoted, unevidenced belief then I don't know what is! By the way, anyone who engages in 'ad hominem' assaults on one's person rather than engaging with one's arguments is probably the kind of person who has run out of ideas!
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Theist scientists do exist, of course, but remember that the vast majority of tthe members of the U.S. National Academy of Science are not theist (upwards of 90%). Playing a numbers game like that is meaninglyess, however. Theist scientists isolate their theism from their science and put the two in separate compartments. How else could they possibly accept the weird, unnatural, magical claims of religion? Of course, the imaginary and the non-existent do look very much alike.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 This is a complete caricature of how scientists regard science with respect to theism. Google The Faraday Institute at Cambridge University and listen to lectures given by world class scientists on the relationship between religion and science; you will discover how mistaken you are.
Now, I have no problem with serious philosophical atheism, but I do have a problem with scientific atheism. There is no reason on scientific grounds to deny that God exists!
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Of course, as usual with Christian theists, you ignore the complete irreconcilability between magical Nicene Creed miracles and science. In my view, scientific grounds ARE the fundamental reasons for a lack of a belief in any of the tens of thousands of divergent and ridiculous gods invented by humans throughout history to mollify their fears and explain their ignorance. When religion makes claims about physical happenings (rather than unseen magic), it becomes SCIENCE! Period.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarine You reveal yourself to be a bigoted scientistic fundamentalist. There is no conflict between science and religion; only between certain interpretations of both. If science has debunked religion, please provide one scientific 'fact' that discredits faith? I and John Polkinghorne and Simon Conway Morris and Francis Collins, etcetera, can affirm science and its achievements while also being able to appreciate the essence of religious faith. If only fundamentalists like you did likewise
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Again, you consistently avoid my principal points documenting the fundamental conflict between Christianity (let's be specific---there are THOUSANDS of religions) and science. You wave your hands in front of you and say that your "god did it" somehow---reanimating corpses, inducing parthenogensis, and levitating reanimated corpses. Absurd! Only a deluded person could believe that! "God did it" is no explanation whatever, except to one who has sequestered all reason and logic.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 "... weird, unnatural, magical claims of religion". Literally everything that you write about God and religion is question-begging. In other words you are just assuming that the natural world is all there is; but cannot claim to know that. Science cannot claim to know that: if you think otherwise you need to show how it can. But if there is a Creator of the all being, who created the so-called laws of nature, why could he not suspend those laws if he chose, acting directly?
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Laws of Nature? Come on! If you had taken even one course in elementary physics you would know that the "Laws of Nature" were formulated / invented by human beings! As Einstein stated so eloquently, the type of miraculous / magical religion that you defend is nothing more nor less than "childish superstition" completely unbecoming an adult, thinking person. No one had a great mystical appreciation of the Cosmos than Prof. Einstein---and he would never defend magic!
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@the There is a sense in which you are right but it is quite irrelevant. The laws of nature merely describe the way in which the world works and to that extent the laws of nature are human constructs. But they still tell us something true about the world, don't they? So, I could phrase my point in a different manner: assuming that God created the way in which the universe works, there is no reason why he couldn't alter how it works to produce a miracle. Hence your comments are question begging.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Nielsen is NOT mediocre. You like Sartre and Nietzsche because both support your theism by conviincing you that life without your god is meaningless. That's quite simply ridiculous. With regard to the Faraday, there will always be theist scientists, just as there will always be scientists who use their skill for evil purposes. It shows absolutely nothing, except that the contagion of magical agency can infect anyone. It's quite sad, but the evidence is overwhelming.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Huh?! I like Nietzsche and Satre because I am compelled to respect their arguments in favour of atheism; and I respect them precisely because they are cogent arguments. I have no respect whatsoever for pathetic popularizers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens precisely because I do not think that their arguments against God and religion are very convincing. For instance, let us look at what Richard Dawkins describes as the central argument of...
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 ... "The God Delusion" (pp. 157-158). Dawkins argues that you cannot infer a designer of the universe based on the complexity of the universe because this raises the question: "who designed the designer?". However, as arguments go this is shockingly inept. In order to recognize that an explanation (x) is the best, you don't need an explanation of the explanation (x). If an archaeologist were to find some arrow heads he would infer that they were the product of a lost tribe...
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 ... "The God Delusion" (pp. 157-158). Dawkins argues that you cannot infer a designer of the universe based on the complexity of the universe because this raises the question: "who designed the designer?". However, as arguments go this is shockingly inept. In order to recognize that an explanation (x) is the best, you don't need an explanation of the explanation (x). If an archaeologist were to find some arrow heads he would infer that they were the product of a lost tribe...
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 ven if he knew nothing else about them. Similarly, you don't need to have an explanation for the designer to believe that the astonishing complexity and fine-tuning of this universe is the product of a designer. Furthermore, if the best explanation always needs an explanation, we're left with an infinite regress, which would mean that you would never have an explanation of anything. Consequently, Dawkins' argument would- if taken to its logical conclusion- destroy science itself
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 ven if he knew nothing else about them. Similarly, you don't need to have an explanation for the designer to believe that the astonishing complexity and fine-tuning of this universe is the product of a designer. Furthermore, if the best explanation always needs an explanation, we're left with an infinite regress, which would mean that you would never have an explanation of anything. Consequently, Dawkins' argument would- if taken to its logical conclusion- destroy science itself
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarine Now you have to understand that when I talk about "design" and a "designer" I am NOT talking about Creationism or Intelligent Design (as advocated by Behe and Dembski). What I mean by "design" is what Thomas Aquinas meant by "design": God created "ex nihilo" a world that was capable of making itself- self-assembling, if you like. Such a conception of creation is more grandiose than the anthropomorphic "God" of Creationism and ID; and it doesn't interfere with scientific explanation.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 And then, instead of addressing the ridiculous magical stories of Christianity and how antithetical they are to everything science has learned about Nature, you quickly move on to something even more ridiculous---your "design" delusion. My friend, the Cosmos looks exactly as if it had occurred simply by random chance. Design is a figment of your primitive imagination. Please view Lawrence Krauss' videos to help you with the concepts of contemporary cosmology.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 You are patronizing and ignorant (the two usually go together). The fact that you use "ad hominems" in all of your comments betrays your lack of decency and argument.
"The Cosmos looks exactly as if it had occurred simply by random chance". This is certainly untrue, even in evolutionary biology now. Simon Conway Morris argues that instead of evolution being entirely open ended, if you were to re-run the "tape of life" you would get basically the same results.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 You are obviously no evolutionary biologist. The typical philosopher in you goes to some authority who "argues this" or "argues that." What the hell do you think? And give me the EVIDENCE for your thought. Evolution occurs through random mutation and natural selection. If the selective conditions changed, the selective pressure would change, and the result would be different. Conway can ONLY be correct if the history of the Earth were identical with each "rewind" of the clock.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 I'm still waiting for your learned defense of the magical, mysterious, miraculous, anti-scientific Nicene stories that undergrid Christian delusion!
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 I am sure you are aware of the fine-tuning argument. Why is it that certain atheist scientists have tried to explain away the incredibly improbable fact that we live in a universe that just happens to have constants that have exactly the values that are necessary for producing life by appealing to an uneconomic speculation like the multi-verse theory? It looks designed, it looks like purpose! That's why they try to explain it away.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 i am left with one conclusion. You agree with me that the magical miracle fantasy stories of your Nicene Creed can never be squared with science and that you completely agree with me that science and Christianity are utterly irreconcilable. That conclusion is exactly the one reached my most thinking scientists globally. Your delusion is beginning to disintegrate!
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 I have not evaded your question; in fact I answered it a few days ago (if you were paying attention). Of course Nicea is complete nonsense IF AND ONLY IF God does not exist. But, I say it again, if he does exist then of course such miracles are quite possible. Science simply describes the way in which the world works. If God created and sustains the universe, he can suspend secondary causes and act as primary cause directly. So the question is DOES GOD EXIST.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 So, I have not evaded any of your questions; but you have certainly evaded mine. I am still waiting for a response to my challenge: point out which scientific fact (not interpretation or philosophical overlay, but fact) suggests that God does not exist? If you cannot think of any then I fail to see why science and religion are in conflict. Science and Creationism are in conflict; but Creationism is a modern (yes, MODERN) aberration.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 The methodology of science excludes the question of "final causes" (that is, purpose, or design); but that does not mean that there are no "final causes" in nature. That question is simply not in sciences remit. It is neutral on the question. Those who deny this are philosophizing, not doing science.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 This is ironic coming from someone who clearly subscribes to the dead philosophies of logical positivism and scientism- those self-refuting philosophies of the twentieth century. If you want to think clearly about science and religion you might want to give up on these outmoded, discredited, self-refuting philosophies. Dawkins and Hitchens, like yourself, are Dinosaurs...
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@thecla Some of the youtube atheists, such as yourself, spout the most appalling, irrational drivel. For the most part you are simply echoing the populist atheism of people who are making an awful lot of money out of selling you second hand pseudo-philosophical rants about religion ("The God Delusion" comes to mind). You should feel used and abused by Dawkins... Nonsense like "the universe can spontaneously produce itself from nothing". But "nothing" here doesn't mean non-being. You've been had!
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 And why do they develop no science to explain reanimation? Because there is NO SCIENCE to develop. Their, and your, acceptance of this event is based upon the hearsay evidence written decades after the supposed event by iron age people who firmly believed that the earth was flat! What kind of evidence is that? What kind of science can it be? In this way, science and Christianity are forever and intrinsically irreconcilable, which is my point.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 This is an absurd response and demonstrates your lack of understanding of both science and religion. Of course there cannot be a science of the miraculous! The reason for this is obvious. Science deals with the repeatable (that is how science works) but miracles are BY DEFINITION events that are not repeatable precisely because they are not natural events. Yet again your comment is misplaced; and it is no argument against anything.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Any person who would believe such drivel must be deluded. If a psychiatric patient told me that his mother was reanimated, I would conclude that he was deluded and put him on drugs. Yet, for some reason, religionists get away with such stuff. Incredible! At least admit this: Your theism is not grounded on science, logic, reason, rationality, or any other adult human characteristic. As Einstein maintained so beautifully, it is founded on "childish superstion" unbecoming an adult.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 You quote A Einstein misleadingly. He also wrote: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views".
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Einstein also wrote (he could have been referring to Dawkins and yourself): Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres...
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 (Einstein quote continued): "The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims."
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 I'm done with you and that's the last straw! Einstein's god was the god of Spinoza, not the personal, interventionist, miracle-working god that you worship. Get that straight, bud. Einstein was not pleased with people who used his words to support atheism, and I never do. However, he wrote quite clearly that those who so desperately need the personal, interventionist parental figure that you worship are consumed with "childish superstition." You know little of Einstein either!
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 I think my point was that Einstein was not an atheist; but you seem to think that atheism should be obvious to any thinking person! Clearly this was not the case for Einstein. What is certain about Einstein's views regarding atheism is that he couldn't stand evangelical atheism, such as you and Dawkins espouse.
I think Einstein failed to understand what serious theologians mean by a personal God. He should have read Thomas Aquinas and Meister Eckhart.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 By the way, I have an MA in Science and Religion from Cambridge University, so I know something about this subject. With respect, your views are rather childish and naive. I have nothing whatsoever against good arguments against theism; but I do have considerable trouble swallowing new atheist rubbish. There is simply no "a prior" conflict between science and religion. Your "ad hominem" attacks and failure to engage are representative of your naivety.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 When we say that God is personal we do not mean that he is literally like a person. That was Einstein's mistake, I think. All positive statements about God have to be understood apophatically. He is not a person, but he is not less than a person. He transcends personhood.
When we say that "God intervenes" we do not mean this literally. To intervene means to enter a context from which one was absent; but God is present in every context, holding it being.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 You've clearly run out of ideas. Good luck to you fellow! I do hope you find a more sophisticated philosophy than the new atheism, which, like most popular things, is shallow. Let's see how your optimistic atheism works when you are on your death bed, as well. Kai Nielsen's sunny optimism might cloud over somewhat... Ohh, come on! Its absurd. Dostoyevsky was right about atheism; Kai Nielsen is an intellectual dwarf.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 You should stop commenting. You're only embarrassing yourself in front of the grownups.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 I suppose the "grown ups" are atheists and agnostics such as yourself? What I find most offensive about people like you is your unjustified pseudo-intellectual arrogance. If you actually made an effort to understand what sophisticated theists- such as Thomas Aquinas- really thought about "God" you might think twice about assuming that it is no more than a fairy story for the infantile. Polkinghorne, Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, etc., are these people not "grown ups"? Come on!
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@bayreuth79 We're not arrogant, we're just smarter than you are. If you believe in an invisible sky wizard, you're harboring a childish belief in an imaginary friend.
It's really just that simple. You are in a cult. Get a clue.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Let us examine the word "imaginary" in the context of your most recent posting. How do you know that God is merely "imaginary"? If you cannot prove that God doesn't exist then it follows logically that he might exist. Is that not so? Even if there were no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God- though I think there is- it follows logically and inescapably that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I suppose you are smarter than Polkinghorne, F Collins, Conwy-Morris?
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 You have given me no evidence that you are smarter than I am- quite the opposite in fact. To be honest, the fact that I have an MA from Cambridge Uni is more than enough evidence that I am atleast reasonably bright!
You say that God is "Imaginary". Ok, prove it! You are making a positive assertion, so you cannot restort to the atheist trick of putting the burden of proof back on the theist. You have made a claim; defend it! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@bayreuth79 You're entitled to all the imaginary friends you want.
2,000 years and still no empirical evidence supporting Yahweh is close enough for me to see the folly in your misplaced faith.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 You are astoundingly illogical and evasive. Firstly, not every belief is grounded in empirical evidence; for instance, I'm sure you have ethical and aesthetic beliefs but these aren't empirically grounded. Secondly, there is empirical support for theism, for instance the remarkable fine-tuning of the universe and the fact established by Gooth and Valenken that the universe has a beginning (let us not forget that it was atheists who always maintained that the universe had no beginning)
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 I can tell from your postings that you do not have much education- perhaps a mediocre university undergrad education at best. It is interesting that someone like you (an intellectual pigmy) thinks he is above people like Polkinghorne, McGrath, Guessoum, Francis Collins, Simon Conway-Morris, Robert Spitzer, etcetera. If that isn't a demonstrable delusion, I don't know what is!
Its obvious that you can't debate with serious people....
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@bayreuth79 The burden on proof is not on the unbeliever, that is a rather basic premise that even you as an expert in self-deception should be aware. I assume that you don't believe in Vishnu or Osiris or Zeus or Apollo or Dionysus or Aries or Mars or Quetzalcoatl or any other of the innumerable and fictional 'gods'. How fortunate that the one god you believe in and the one doctrine you follow is absolutely definitely the correct one! How unbelievably arrogant you christians are.
BarryDong 2 months ago
@BarryDong If you claim to be an atheist then you have a burden of proof as well as the theist. You have unwittingly been influenced by the debunked writings of Anthony Flew (who later converted to theism) probably through Dawkins and Hitchens. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is a well established logical principle. You cannot claim that there is no 'god' without showing that belief in God involves a contradiction or discovering a cogent defeater.
bayreuth79 2 months ago
@BarryDong Furthermore, there is evidence for the existence of that than which nothing greater can be conceived (ie God). Instead if referring to the amateur philosophy of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" (easily debunked by any philosopher) I suggest you read Alvin Plantinga (Notre Dame) or Richard Swinburne (Oxford) or Keith Ward (Oxford) or Robert Spitzer or William Lane Craig, etcetera... If you think you can refute their arguments then we might talk again; but not until...!
bayreuth79 2 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Contrary to your view that the cosmos is obviously a product of chance: "You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in anyway..." (Einstein). I repeat: "a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind...". Looks like chance?!
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Let's not forget that until Einstein's theory of relativity and G Lemaitre's (a Priest) calculations leading to "Big Bang" cosmology, most scientists believed that the universe had always existed, that it didn't have a beginning. If you had been writing over a hundred years ago you would have been arguing with me that belief in a beginning of time and space is absurd because science tells us that the universe has always existed. Ermm, paradigm shifts happen.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Finally, instead of dealing with the magic fairy tail Nicene stories, you attack Dawkins and others. I know that you favor Sartre. Unlike Nielsen, who reflects precisely my own experience of atheism, Sartre expresses to you what atheism OUGHT to be. But 't isn't so. Dawkins may not be the finest philosopher, but he is an able translator of science for the masses, and he certainly is influential in dispelling the delusion of theism. More power to him! I hope he gets cloned 12 times.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Since you constantly cite ancient antheistic philosophers like Sartre, who understood next to nothing about science and possessed an utterly depressive worldview, I'd like you to read a bit of a contemporary philosopher, Kai Nielsen. Nielsen possesses an optimistic, upbeat atheism, a belief system far more compelling than any religionist. While all philosophy remains merely speculation, Nielsen's philosophy is at least interesting specularion. Try him!
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Hmmm. Kai Nielsen is mediocre. Jean-Paul Satre was a genius- one with whom I profoundly disagree, but a genius nonetheless. Personally, I think an "optimistic, upbeat atheism" completely absurd. Nietzsche would have laughed in Nielsen's face: "upbeat" and "optimistic"?! I am not sure how you can be optimistic when you know that life is ultimately meaningless (notice I said "ultimately" before you respond). No; if there is no God then life is absurd, as Satre saw.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Please have a look at The Faraday Institute (Cambridge) and The BioLogos Foundation. Both of these organizations are run by and contributed to by leading scientists. The aim is to demonstrate that there is no 'a prior' conflict between faith and reason, or, rather, religion and science. If you are an honest person, an authentic person, you need to ask why it is that brilliant scientists see no logical contradiction between faith and reason. Hmmm. Why is that, huh?
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Finally, typical of philosophers, you consistently go back not to reason / logic / evidence, but to "authority," viz. theist scientists, some (not all) of whom may be respected for their scientific contributions. Such arguments are not at all compelling intrinsically. And the simple counter is for every Faraday scientist you cite, there are dozens of atheist, well-respected scientists, including Nobel laureates. Yours is NOT an argument. You should know better than to use it.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 You misunderstand me. I was not suggesting that the fact that there are world-class scientists who are also religious believers proves that "God exists'. By no means. I had a more modest intention and that was to point out that unless scientists like John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins are very stupid there might be no obvious incompatibility between science and religion. In fact, this point was made by the atheist biologist Stephen J Gould in an article called "Impeaching a
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Again, you avoid all discussion of the Nicene Creed "miracles" in favor of a discussion of the intelligence of scientists. Highly intelligent individuals can nonetheless be highly deluded. Our evolutionary heritage is filled with a propensity toward the acceptance of magical agency.---hence the tens of thousands of historical religions. Why should scientists be entirely immune to the contagion---the evolutionary propensity? Still, most accomplished scientists are atheist.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 This is amusing. You are apparently against appeals to authority but then you can't resist pointing out that "most accomplished scientists are atheist". Somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
The reason I mention world-class scientists who happen to be theists is not because I think it proves the truth of theism. Of course not. I mentioned it because it should give people like you pause for thought. It is no good saying that we are all prone to delusion, as though that...
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Again, no comment on the magical mysterious miracles of Christianity and while they are physical "phenomena" they violate everything that we know about Nature?
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 ... explained away how highly intelligent scientists see no conflict between science and religion. Why do you exempt yourself from the possibility of delusion? Your application of the so-called "human propensity for delusion" argument, if you want to call it that, is entirely arbitrary.
You avoid my challenge: I want to know which scientific beliefs mean that religion is nonsense? I can think of none.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Which planet are you on? The reanimation of a dead Jew is not inconsistent with science? The unaided parthenogenesis leading to a male human is not inconsistent with all of biology? The levitation of a reanimated corpse upward is not antithetical to all that we know of physics? And don't tell me that "god did it." These are physical manifestations that YOU believe (as a delusion) and which are completely, utterly, and absolutely at odds with everything that we know of science.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 And I say it again: your comments are question begging! Of course, the resurrection of Jesus is completely impossible if and only if there is no God. But that is precisely what is in question here!! I really find it extraordinary how you can miss that simple point! If there is a God then there is no reason why miracles should be impossible. If there is a God who created the universe and sustains it in being, why could he not suspend secondary causes, acting directly?
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Ah! Now we have it! The reanimation of a dead Jew is impossible! Of course it is! It violates every thing that we know about Nature. You would undoubtedly agree that the purview of science is anything that occurs in the Cosmos. If a corpse was reanimated, science MUST address it as an important and unexpected event. Yet, even your theist scientist buds wave their hands, as you do, and say some ":god did it. They develop no new science or falsifiable explanations.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclari This is an absurd response, as I think even you must acknowledge. The reason why atheists and agnostics (such as Dawkins and Hitchens) reject the miraculous is because they do not believe in the existence of God (that is, a Creator of all that is). It should be obvious to any unprejudiced mind that on the supposition that God does in fact exist miracles are at least possible. In fact, a miracle is not an intervention of God but a suspension of natural causes in which He acts directly.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 We've reached an endpoint. I thought, mistakenly, that you understand a little bit about science, the scientific method, the purview of science, the concepts of verifiable evidence, the concept of falsifiable explanations, and the mission of science to investigate all events in the Cosmos You understand none of that. What a shame. You will reside in your delusion, perhaps for life...but perhaps not. Like me, you may awaken one day to a wonderful new adventure grounded in reality.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 This message made me laugh out loud. You have no arguments left and so you've given up. I'm afraid, as I've said before, that you are stuck in an outmoded philosophy (scientism) and an almost wholly erroneous conception of science and (especially) religion. I asked you several times to put forward a single scientific fact that contradicts belief in God; but you couldn't do so. Why not? Perhaps its because there is no such conflict, huh?! Your worldview is sad and pathetic.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 And how can you be sure that God did not do it? I think it is far more rational to believe that the cosmos (let's not forget that "cosmos" is the opposite of chaos) is the product of reason as opposed to mere chance. It is more rational to believe that the universe was created by a necessary being, rather than somehow spontaneously arising from nothing (read: field of energy!). I'm astounded that atheists such as yourself could think that being can arise from non-being. Absurd.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theclarinet1234 And I say it again: your comments are question begging! Of course, the resurrection of Jesus is completely impossible if and only if there is no God. But that is precisely what is in question here!! I really find it extraordinary how you can miss that simple point! If there is a God then there is no reason why miracles should be impossible. If there is a God who created the universe and sustains it in being, why could he not suspend secondary causes, acting directly?
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 You haven't shown me why certain beliefs are delusional, so please enlighten me. Just saying that miracles defy scientific laws is simply defining what a miracle is; it says precisely nothing about whether the miraculous are possible or not. I say it again: your comments are obviously question begging. If and only if God doesn't exist are miracles impossible; but if he does exist then there is no reason why they should be impossible. I've made this point before; I'm not evading.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 ... self-appointed judge", which you can read online. The following quote from that article is worth quoting:
"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap".
If you disagree you need to show how evolution defeats "God".
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 ... self-appointed judge", which you can read online. The following quote from that article is worth quoting:
"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap".
If you disagree you need to show how evolution defeats "God".
bayreuth79 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theclarinet1234 ... self-appointed judge", which you can read online. The following quote from that article is worth quoting:
"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap".
If you disagree you need to show how evolution defeats "God".
bayreuth79 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theclarinet1234 ... self-appointed judge", which you can read online. The following quote from that article is worth quoting:
"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap".
If you disagree you need to show how evolution defeats "God".
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@the So my point was to demonstrate that either people like John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins are quite stupid (which is highly unlikely given their accomplishments) or there is no obvious conflict between science and religion. There MIGHT be a conflict between science and religion; but, if there is, it is clearly not obvious given the fact that some highly intelligent ppl don't see a conflict. What you want to do is say all theists are stupid and delusional; but there's no evidence for that
bayreuth79 5 months ago
Comment removed
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 The bible is iron-age mythology literature made by illiterate carpenters and iron-age fishermen. Very bad reference. "St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Bonaventure, et cetera," are very minuscule thinkers compared to Epicurus that lived 1000 years before them. Religion is the cancer of the spirit. I don't hate you, I just think your thought lags 2000 years. It's ridiculous for me to take non-19/20th century thinkers seriously. Peace
Neueregel 5 months ago
@Neueregel This has nothing whatsoever to do with my theism and everything to do with common sense: Epicurus is by no means the intellectual superior, or even equal, of St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. Please quote one noted philosopher who agrees with you. I understand that you are prejudiced and bigoted; but surely even your "blind faith" in scientism and logical positivism could not make you impervious to the intellectual genius of Augustine and Aquinas?! Have you even read them?
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@Neueregel For instance, have you read Augustine's philosophical musings about the nature of time? Some of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century have quoted with approval and admiration his remarkable understanding of time (Einstein, Hawking, etcetera). There are many other important contributions that Augustine has made as well. Thomas Aquinas is still very much alive in contemporary philosophy. Many followers of Wittgenstein are particularly interested in Aquinas' thought.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 I also admire Augustine or Aquinas, but this does not mean that I think highly of their philosophies. They had their share in interpreting their viewpoint of the world and now they are obsolete and discussed only in a historical context.
Neueregel 5 months ago
@Neueregel Huh?! This is what I would describe as typical Enlightenment arrogance- an arrogance that is wholly unwarranted and foolish. You claim that the 'weltanschuung' of Augustine and Aquinas is obsolete but I'm afraid it is very much alive. The problem with atheists of your type is that you have only a rudimentary grasp of science and the philosophy of science and no understanding whatsoever of what religion is all about. And as a result you misunderstand the relationship between the two.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@Neueregel I ask you to name a single scientific theory that would render the weltanschuung of Aquinas obsolete. But of course you cannot do this because it is an impossible task. Why is it that world class scientists and philosophers are theists if the proposition "God exists" is so obviously false? Do you perhaps no better than John Polkinghorne or Simon Conway Morris? I think there are good philosophical reasons for atheism (Nietzsche, Satre, et al) but no good scientific reasons.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bayreuth79 "world class scientists and philosophers are theists" Are you kidding me? The exact opposite holds true. "no good scientific reasons?" All modern cosmology, astronomy, genetics etc. have rendered the creator concept, obsolete.
Neueregel 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Huh?! What astonishes me about unthinking atheists, such as yourself, is that you are not open to the evidence when it comes to religion. The nonsense you have just written is almost beyond belief! You claim that theists refuse to study modern science?! What?! When I studied theology two of my lecturers had science degrees (undergrad and postgrad) from Oxford University (Celia Deane-Drummond & David Clough). Have you heard of The Faraday Institute at Cambridge Uni? Seriously...!
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Look at some of the theists who have debated Richard Dawkins: John Lennox (scientist from Oxford and philosopher), Alister McGarth (theologian and scientist from Oxford) and so forth. I suppose they haven't studied modern science, have they?! What about brilliant scientists who also happen to be theists: Francis Collins (Genome Project), Simon Conway Morris (Biologist Cambridge Uni), and John Polkinghorne (Theoretical physicist Cambridge), et cetera. You talk nonsense.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Look at some of the theists who have debated Richard Dawkins: John Lennox (scientist from Oxford and philosopher), Alister McGarth (theologian and scientist from Oxford) and so forth. I suppose they haven't studied modern science, have they?! What about brilliant scientists who also happen to be theists: Francis Collins (Genome Project), Simon Conway Morris (Biologist Cambridge Uni), and John Polkinghorne (Theoretical physicist Cambridge), et cetera. You talk nonsense.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 You cannot disprove the existence of God, can you? No, of course you cannot. Therefore it is logically incoherent to claim that he definitely doesn't exist. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as I won't tire of repeating. If that is the case you cannot claim to know that human beings have been merely "inventing gods". Besides, perhaps the fact that human beings reach out for the transcendent is an indication (I don't say proof) that there really is transcendence
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 If God cannot be proved or disproved it is reasonable to have a rational hope that he does in fact exist; for if His existence is forever beyond proof or disproof He might well exist.
It seems to me that there are different kinds of knowing: science is one kind of knowing, but there is also knowing in the personal sense. You do not know your wife as you know the periodic table. For all you know, God might reveal himself in an I-Thou interaction (rather than I-it).
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@Neueregel I'm afraid you have succumbed to an outmoded philosophy called logical positivism or scientism. I recommend that you read a few serious philosophy books, rather than relying on the scientistic fanaticism of the new atheists.
I have never ignored the knowledge that scientists have accumulated. Why should I ignore it? There is no 'a priori' conflict between science and religion; only between certain interpretations of science and certain modernist interpretations of religion.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@Neueregel What has the ancientness of a particular belief got to do with its truth? Plato and Aristotle, for instance, had many insights which are still valuable in the modern world. For instance, Aristotle's virtue ethics are still very important for moral philosophers, and so on.
I'm sure you wouldn't consider Shakespeare's insights into the human condition outmoded? Genesis 1-3, if read properly, functions very like a Shakespeare play: it is existential, not pseudo-science.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
The only thing science proves is intelligent design and the existence of God. There is NO SUCH THING as organized laws and rules in chaos and randomness.
colertund 6 months ago
@colertund ID is another crap theology made by creationists. It's retarded
Neueregel 5 months ago
@taxedup99 I am a scientist. A good one.I was talking about PROVEN scientific facts being eternal. Not about the Hypothesis'. Was that so hard to figure out? Making Ad-Hominems just reveals your lack of argument. Attack my arguments not my person. Otherwise you just seem another anonymous bigot. Darwin died in 1882 and if he lived today he would definitely be an atheist given another 129 years of scientific exploration. (Newton and Einstein would be atheists as well). god is a fairytale for kids
Neueregel 7 months ago
@Neueregel The problem with scientific atheists of your type is that you have no knowledge whatsoever of sophisticated theology. If God is "a fairytale for kids", as you claim, I think you need to explain why it is that brilliant scientists from Cambridge (Polkinghorne, Conway Morris, Louis Ard, et cetera) see no conflict between science and religion. The doctrine of creation is compatible with any physical theory because "to create" means the radical causing of existence of whatever exists.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 " because "to create" means the radical causing of existence of whatever exists." Another meaningless, misleading and purposeless phrase that fails to advocate any arguments. Polkinghorne et al. are old-schoolers. When they attended secondarary school, DNA wasn't even discovered. We are created because our DNA dictates our cell multiplication. No external force is needed as Laplace said to Napoleon.
Neueregel 5 months ago
@Neueregel This is what one always hears when one presents sophisticated theological ideas to bigoted atheists. Like Richard Dawkins you want strawmen to knock over...
The purpose of my comment was to indicated that what we mean by creation isn't in conflict with scientific accounts of origins. You can have an explanation in terms of mechanism (the domain of science) and an explanation in terms of efficient causality (agent explanation) & they don't conflict.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@Neueregel I suppose John Polkinghorne has no knowledge of DNA? This is absurd; and besides the point altogether.
Christians have always believed that God created "ex nihilo" (creation from nothing). The "Big Bang" (formulated by the Catholic Priest G Lemaitre) leads some credence to this; but not definitive proof. "We are created because our DNA dictates our cell multiplication". This is a scientific explanation that is compatible with creation as I've defined it. So what's the problem?
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Science and Christianity are intrinsically incompatible and irreconcilable. Why? As long as the Christian god is ineffable---beyond time and space---and does nothing physical, sciencve ignores it as unimportant. But the Christian god is claimed to work PHYSICAL miracles such as reanimating corpses, causing human parthenogenesis, and elevating reanimated corpses skyward with no visible propulsion. Such claims are absolutely irreconcilable with science, making them magic!
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Your argument- if we can call it that- assumes that there is only one type of knowledge: scientific knowledge. This is an outmoded epistemology called scientism- which is self-refuting. Scientism claims that it is the only source of knowledge; but this statement itself is not scientific, therefore not knowledge, therefore self-contradictory.
Interestingly, your comment betrays your ignorance of science; for scientists believe that there are things outside of time & space.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@taxedup99 The Origin Of Species along with Newton's Principia are arguably the best and most influential scientific works of all time. It does not matter how Galton or Huxley interpreted it. WW2 is all history now. Politics have a limited scope since they mainly deal with the present or the past . Scientific discoveries are eternal and mark the course of mankind forever, because they deal with the PROVEN truth.
Neueregel 7 months ago
@Neueregel You obviously haven't read Karl Popper or Thomas Kuhn.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@taxedup99 Don't be such a Hypocrite. You talk about 'respecting' other people's rights, but you don't seem to respect my right to have an opinion and my right to make a judgement and a statement. I tolerate everyone, I don't hate anyone and I demand the right to have an opinion. And my opinion is that religion is not worthy of respect at all in this Millenium I respect the person Polkinghorne but don't respect religion and his views at all. The Holocaust was motivated by Christians like Hitler.
Neueregel 7 months ago
@taxedup99 Yes. Have you ever heard of Free speech, my right to an opinion and despising fake man-made religious virtues like 'modesty'?
Neueregel 7 months ago
god = delusion. Dr. Polkinghorne=Deluded.
Neueregel 8 months ago
@Neueregel To say he does not exist is undeniably an absolute statement. For you to make an absolute statement means that you have to know everything on that subject. Let's say that you know 1% of everything in the entire cosmos. This means you know every star, every atmosphere, and every thing every. To know 1% of everything is a human impossibility. Is it possible that God could be in the other 99%? If so, then are you not deluded by saying He does not exist? Think about this.
halotalim 8 months ago
@halotalim I am not deluded. The very idea of god is TOTALLY man-made and Impossible. The Cosmos is governed by chance. Our universe was lucky because the Physical constants had a specific value. There is absolutely no reason to invoke or assume anything Supernatural like an immaterial god. The 'rest' 99% of the Cosmos as you say can be describe with scientific models. Everything is material and has a specific mass/energy
Neueregel 8 months ago
@Neueregel Well said! Christian scientists like Francis Collins, George Coyne and Polkinghome attempt to integrate science with their particular religious delusions. Personally, I'm tolerant of religious delusions b/c I was so deluded for many years myself and understand its power &r rewards. No matter what else theist scientists say, when faced with things like the reanimation of a long dead Jew in Palestine or his supposed parthenogensis, they must resort to "faith"--what else can they do?
theclarinet1234 7 months ago
@theclarine It is quite wrong to describe religious belief as a "delusion". A delusion "is a belief that is maintained despite rational argument, usually the symptom of mental disorder" (Dictionary Definition). This means that in order for belief in God to be a delusion it would have to be maintained despite rational argument; but whether God exists or not has not been rationally decided. There are arguments for both positions. I could therefore just as well describe your atheism as a delusion.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 My own experience with awakening from Catholic theism was akin to awakening from a dream---or a delusion. As one who now understands that there isn't a shred of verifiable evidence for the existence of any of the tens of thousands of gods invented by humans over the course of history, I also understand that I was completely deluded by the indoctrination of my early Catholic upbringing. I am now awake...with no religious delusions. I am happier and more peaceful than ever before!
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@thec You have described a personal experience; it has meaning for you but to assume that it might have meaning for other people is perhaps naive. And you persist in using the word "delusion". It is quite an inaccurate and misleading use of the word, as I've already pointed out. Believing you are Napoleon Bonaparte is a delusion because it is demonstrably false; but believing in the existence of a Creator cannot be a delusion for the simple reason that it might be true. Can you prove it isn't?
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 As an atheist, it is not up to me to disprove the existence of ANY god. Rather, it is up to the theist to PROVE the existence of his PARTICULAR god, as distinguished from tens of thousands of other deistic inventions of human kind. A delusion is a belief without evidence. Because there is no verifiable evidence whatever for the existence of any god, theism is by definition a delusion. Atheism is simply the absence of believe in any god, because there is insufficient evidence.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 You have obviously been reading people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. No, if you are going to claim that there is definitely no God then you have a burden of proof. It seems to me that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence- this is elementary logic. That being the case, you cannot be an atheist, which is the denial that God exists, on the basis of lack of evidence. If this were not the case, how can an atheist be distinguished from an agnostic?
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 My goodness, so many of you theists don't even know the definition of atheism. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in any god at all, arising from the lack of evidence. Atheists do NOT assert that there is no god and do not attempt to prove that negative. A course in elementary logic would show you that negatives cannot be demonstrated. Please take the course in logic and a course in elementary physics. Both would help you much more than theism.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 So what you are arguing is that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence; but this is an illogical argument. I have no evidence that aliens exist somewhere in the Milky Way, but does that mean that they definitely don't exist? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You have failed to answer my question, probably because you can't: so how do you distinguish between atheism and agnosticism?!!
bayreuth79 5 months ago