Discussion with JC

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Discussion with JC

Post by _Asimov » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:34 pm

JC wrote: I don't know how to answer that without coming off condescending. When someone tells me they don't believe in God it sounds like "I don't believe in common sense."
I don't believe in common sense. Appeals to common sense are ways for someone to attempt to justify his own beliefs without providing any reasoning for them.
Now here's what I mean by that... life begets life, according to biogenesis. So we take a basic rule of science and couple it with philisophy (prime mover) and now we have a foundation for what Christians call God.
I agree to a certain degree. It is documented that life cannot arise spontaneously, as Pasteur fairly easily disproved. I don't see how that translates into ideas of abiogenesis which has a different approach in discussing how life may have formed on Earth.

Are you arguing that God is a physical being who fits the standard scientific definition of life? That would seem a little unorthodox, to me, if I'm right in where you're pointing.

I don't see how "prime mover" is an adequate philosophy that can be coupled with science. Science is naturally a methodology which assumes that all things empirical are explainable through the laws of nature.

In short, your foundation isn't built on solid grounds.
However, I've met some very simple individuals who understood these principles intrinsicly, without even knowing there are academic arguments that support them. It just seems nonsensical to me when someone says they believe that everything came from nothing and ultimately ends in nothing.
I don't really know any atheists who believe that everything came from nothing and ultimately ends in nothing. That appears to be a usual strawman that I've noticed theists enjoy positing on many atheists. It would be like me assuming that you are a Muslim because you claim you believe in God.
To assert that non-life gave birth to life and nothingness gave way to intelligence is akin to saying "I don't believe in cats and dogs because I don't like the way they smell."
Unless one has adequate reasoning for what they believe, which you obviously don't take into consideration.

I personally don't believe in God, but I don't claim to know how life arose, because I don't. My presumption is God didn't create life by proxy that I don't believe he exists. I don't think it's proper to beg the question that because life exists, God must exist because you believe only God could have created life.

I also don't believe that nothingness gave way to intelligence, which doesn't seem to be a very accurate criticism of atheism either.
I see a lack of evidence for what naturalists claim.
I'm not a strict naturalist, by any means, but I wonder that since your examples of what you think naturalists claim appears to be a little off that your criticisms of naturalism are unfounded. And it also depends on which naturalistic philosophy one adheres to, because those are varied as well.

Suffice it to say, you're painting atheists (and naturalists) with a very broad and unfounded brush.
What now is the deciding factor? Is it not personal preference?


Logic would dictate that parsimony would be the deciding factor.
I sometimes wonder why an atheist will jump at any perceived flaw in the theist/Christian position, rather than waiting to see if the "flaw" actually pans out. Only a personal preference would elicit such a "gut reaction" response. It's the more passive, agnostic-type atheist that I think is actually looking for truth.
I sometimes wonder why a theist will jump at any perceived flaw in the atheist position, rather than waiting to see if the "flaw" actually pans out. I will actually cite you as an example. You see the flaw through your foundation of "biogenesis" and "prime mover".

And I would wonder, are you a passive, agnostic-type theist?
I have a similar bent myself. However, I tend to only gravitate toward discussions that will ultimately have an impact on the way I live my life. Call me a pragmatist. 8)
If there is any truth to be found in Christianity, it will have an impact on the way I live my life.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_JC
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Post by _JC » Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:39 am

Not sure I'm worthy of a thread bearing my name but nevertheless, we were going a bit off-topic in the previous thread so thank you for engaging me.
I don't believe in common sense. Appeals to common sense are ways for someone to attempt to justify his own beliefs without providing any reasoning for them.
I'm not sure I agree with this. For example, if you are speaking to someone who doesn't believe there's merit in logic or refuses to adhere to the basic requirments of thoughtful debate (I've met such people) then an appeal to "common sense" is quite appropriate. Wouldn't you say that some things are factually true in the obvious sense? Such things are what I refer to as common sense. Stating the obvious may be redundant but it's not always a false justification for one's view.
I agree to a certain degree. It is documented that life cannot arise spontaneously, as Pasteur fairly easily disproved. I don't see how that translates into ideas of abiogenesis which has a different approach in discussing how life may have formed on Earth.
So you're saying that biogenesis and abiogenesis are compatible theories, depending on which approach we're discussing? How would the laws that govern biology change depending on whether we're discussing origins of life or the standard biogenesis that we all observe?
Are you arguing that God is a physical being who fits the standard scientific definition of life? That would seem a little unorthodox, to me, if I'm right in where you're pointing.

I don't see how "prime mover" is an adequate philosophy that can be coupled with science. Science is naturally a methodology which assumes that all things empirical are explainable through the laws of nature.
The reason a prime mover is needed is because... something moved. Unless you want to dismiss the best science available and hold that the universe is eternal, it actually began to exist at a point in time. Likewise, it's a universe that contains governing laws, which we observe, form theories about, then test with empirical standards. So our very observation of that which moved can tell us some objective things about the mover.

If you leave your home and return an hour later to find the place is a mess, your telvision and computer are gone, and you find "see ya sucker" written on the wall in red ink... would you then assume that there wasn't a person involved? Would you refuse to form an opinion about whether or not a person came into your home and took your things because they are no longer there and you didn't catch them in the act? Would it be fair to introduce "common sense" into this picture and determine that it wasn't random molecules that did this?

I don't see how things like physical laws (which are stable enough that we can use them to form new technologies), intelligence and life can come from anything other than a prime mover who isn't governed by the laws he/it created. Maybe you could say I believe in God because I'm not impressed with other explanations. :) I've yet to hear an alternative that made any sense whatsoever.
I don't really know any atheists who believe that everything came from nothing and ultimately ends in nothing. That appears to be a usual strawman that I've noticed theists enjoy positing on many atheists. It would be like me assuming that you are a Muslim because you claim you believe in God.
You don't know any atheists who believe that everything came from nothing and ends in nothing? Have you read Carl Sagan? Bertrand Russell? Richard Dawkins?

Perhaps even... Isaac Asimov? :lol:
I personally don't believe in God, but I don't claim to know how life arose, because I don't. My presumption is God didn't create life by proxy that I don't believe he exists. I don't think it's proper to beg the question that because life exists, God must exist because you believe only God could have created life.
How is it begging the question to assert that a creation implies a creator? Doesn't the very nature of things tell us this? You might say "it implies a creator but doesn't prove that's the case." Fine. Please present your alternative explanations.
I also don't believe that nothingness gave way to intelligence, which doesn't seem to be a very accurate criticism of atheism either.
Then what gave way to intelligence, in your estimation?
Suffice it to say, you're painting atheists (and naturalists) with a very broad and unfounded brush.
Shall I quote Dawkins and Russell for you? Granted, not all atheists follow the same creed, but I've yet to hear an atheist be as consistent as these men in their views. I think their views are mistaken, but at least they're consistent.
Logic would dictate that parsimony would be the deciding factor.
I had to look up the word "parsimony" and I still don't know what you're saying here. :lol:
And I would wonder, are you a passive, agnostic-type theist?
Actually, there is such a thing as agnostic-type thesists. But no, I'm not one of them becuase I don't think it's a consistent position. A person making a negative assertion (there is no God) has to be passive, by default. I believe in God (in the objective sense) because of the lack of a better explanation for causation and because of the consistent explanation of an intelligent prime mover.
If there is any truth to be found in Christianity, it will have an impact on the way I live my life.
What if you came to believe that Christianity is true, but don't like what it teaches? I guess that's the age old question.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:29 pm

JC wrote: I'm not sure I agree with this. For example, if you are speaking to someone who doesn't believe there's merit in logic or refuses to adhere to the basic requirments of thoughtful debate (I've met such people) then an appeal to "common sense" is quite appropriate.

Wouldn't you say that some things are factually true in the obvious sense? Such things are what I refer to as common sense. Stating the obvious may be redundant but it's not always a false justification for one's view.
Not everyone is aware of the necessity of logic, and it's still easy to justify ones statements regarding logic without saying "it's just common sense!" That would generally be an indication that I have no reason for why Logic is necessary.

I've had someone actually deny logic in the face of contradictory beliefs regarding her God. When it suited her, she simply denied that the Law of Non-Contradiction had any validity when it came to her God.

Generally one who doesn't believe in the merit of logic would still use logic in any given discussion, thus contradicting himself. I didn't say it was always a false justification (I don't think I did), but I feel that appealing to common sense has no use or merit in any given discussion.


So you're saying that biogenesis and abiogenesis are compatible theories, depending on which approach we're discussing? How would the laws that govern biology change depending on whether we're discussing origins of life or the standard biogenesis that we all observe?
The laws that govern biology indicate that life does not spontaneously arise from non-life, not that life cannot develop from non-life over a given period of time. Appeals to God don't generally answer the question anyways, since it's the methodology of how life formed that's important, not the metaphysical aspects of it.

I would think that in any aspect of science, one should not be so absolutist that we reject any ideas out of hand simply because a scientist a hundred years ago realized that maggots don't form from rotting meat.

The reason a prime mover is needed is because... something moved. Unless you want to dismiss the best science available and hold that the universe is eternal, it actually began to exist at a point in time. Likewise, it's a universe that contains governing laws, which we observe, form theories about, then test with empirical standards. So our very observation of that which moved can tell us some objective things about the mover.
1) Old Big Bang Cosmology did not actually indicate that the current universe we live in came from nothing, began out of nothing, or started ex nihilo (whatever way you wish to put it). Those models generally stated that the Big Bang event started at t=10^-43 seconds, at no point do any models begin with a t=0.

2) Depending on which model of Big Bang cosmology that you read about, there are theories regarding an infinite regress or an uncaused quantum event that started the big bang. I've been reading up on the idea of the "infinite sea", or a meta-universe where the big bang was the creation of our local region of the universe.

3) The existence of governing laws do not indicate that there had to be a "law-maker". That's entirely a semantical argument, like saying that because you call the universe "creation", there had to be a "creator".
If you leave your home and return an hour later to find the place is a mess, your telvision and computer are gone, and you find "see ya sucker" written on the wall in red ink... would you then assume that there wasn't a person involved? Would you refuse to form an opinion about whether or not a person came into your home and took your things because they are no longer there and you didn't catch them in the act? Would it be fair to introduce "common sense" into this picture and determine that it wasn't random molecules that did this?
That's not an accurate analogy, we observe theft all the time, and we observe the consequences of theft all the time. There are multiple examples that allow us to form an adequate conclusion based on other people's experiences, and no examples that such a phenomenon occurs without human action involved in it.

In the case of the universe, we have no other examples to adequately state "it must be this way".
I don't see how things like physical laws (which are stable enough that we can use them to form new technologies), intelligence and life can come from anything other than a prime mover who isn't governed by the laws he/it created.
Why?
Maybe you could say I believe in God because I'm not impressed with other explanations. :) I've yet to hear an alternative that made any sense whatsoever.
That would essentially be an argument from ignorance.

You don't know any atheists who believe that everything came from nothing and ends in nothing? Have you read Carl Sagan? Bertrand Russell? Richard Dawkins?
I don't see how people so rooted in science could believe that the universe can end.


How is it begging the question to assert that a creation implies a creator? Doesn't the very nature of things tell us this? You might say "it implies a creator but doesn't prove that's the case." Fine. Please present your alternative explanations.
It's begging the question because it assumes a creator in order to conclude that God exists.

1) Only God can create life.
2) Life exists.
3) Therefore God exists.

I don't even see how the existence of the universe even implies a creator, and stating it as such is a naked assertion.

I don't have alternative explanations, I never claimed that I did. I don't know how life started, that doesn't mean God exists.

Like I said, argument from ignorance.
Then what gave way to intelligence, in your estimation?
I have no idea. It's an interesting question that currently has no palpable answers with sufficient evidence.

Shall I quote Dawkins and Russell for you? Granted, not all atheists follow the same creed, but I've yet to hear an atheist be as consistent as these men in their views. I think their views are mistaken, but at least they're consistent.
Dawkins and Russel are not all atheists, nor should I necessarily accept their statements purely because they are atheists.

Consistency doesn't mean they represent all atheists, or even the majority.
I had to look up the word "parsimony" and I still don't know what you're saying here. :lol:

Actually, there is such a thing as agnostic-type thesists. But no, I'm not one of them becuase I don't think it's a consistent position. A person making a negative assertion (there is no God) has to be passive, by default. I believe in God (in the objective sense) because of the lack of a better explanation for causation and because of the consistent explanation of an intelligent prime mover.
Parsimony, or Occam's Razor, the idea that all things being equal, we should not make any assumptions than necessary.
What if you came to believe that Christianity is true, but don't like what it teaches? I guess that's the age old question.
If I believed that Christianity is true, then it would be a given that all the concepts within it are true. If Christianity IS true, then I would think that the Holy Spirit would change my sinful thoughts, ;)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_JC
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Post by _JC » Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:26 am

The laws that govern biology indicate that life does not spontaneously arise from non-life, not that life cannot develop from non-life over a given period of time. Appeals to God don't generally answer the question anyways, since it's the methodology of how life formed that's important, not the metaphysical aspects of it.
An appeal to God actually does answer that question, in my opinion. I don't think you deny metaphysics (being that you're more open minded than most in your camp) so if that seems like the most probable solution for the genesis of life, we should let the chips fall and not be ashamed of where they land.

Regarding big bang cosmology, the mood of our day has shifted a great deal because the most popular model gives credence to a metaphysical genesis. We know that matter exists and that matter doesn't create itself... so the implication is that matter was formed from a non-matieral source. I'm not sure what other conclusion one could draw. The reason we have the other models today is because science (which explores only physical cause and effect) is ill-equipped to answer the question of initial cosmic origins. You can call this the "god of the gaps" if it makes you feel more at ease, but we need to acknowledge that the gaps do indeed exist and the answer doesn't seem to be one of physical material. That leads us to metaphysics being a more probable solution.
That's not an accurate analogy, we observe theft all the time, and we observe the consequences of theft all the time. There are multiple examples that allow us to form an adequate conclusion based on other people's experiences, and no examples that such a phenomenon occurs without human action involved in it.
You say it's not a good anaolgy because we observe theft all the time and can draw conclusions from this... and that was exactly my point. We also know the difference between an intelligent agent and random causes, yes? When you find an elaborate sand castle on the beach you recognize that as a thing created by an intelligent source. But why? Because it fits a pattern in your mind. The pattern is that there are design elements that you recognize in the sand castle. Likewise, when we look at a DNA strand, we all see information... much more complex than a sand castle. Yet we conclude that it's the result of natural causes. That strikes me as incredibly odd.

I don't see how things like physical laws (which are stable enough that we can use them to form new technologies), intelligence and life can come from anything other than a prime mover who isn't governed by the laws he/it created.

Why?
Because we know a great deal about matter and energy. Granted, we haven't discovered everything, but we know enough to be able to manipulate these laws to form advanced technologies. That tells me we have a pretty good grasp on how the physical world works. And modern science tells us that a phsyical cause and effect is always at play. Since the universe has been in entropy for 15 billion years or so, that energy must've had a peak at some point in time. But oops... energy can't make itself if there are no raw materials. In fact, in the physical world... matter is always necessary. What other conclusion can we draw from this?
Maybe you could say I believe in God because I'm not impressed with other explanations. I've yet to hear an alternative that made any sense whatsoever.

That would essentially be an argument from ignorance.
So when an atheist says he doesn't believe in God because he's not impressed with the evidence, he's giving an argument from ignorance?
You don't know any atheists who believe that everything came from nothing and ends in nothing? Have you read Carl Sagan? Bertrand Russell? Richard Dawkins?

I don't see how people so rooted in science could believe that the universe can end.
Because Sagan, Russell and Dawkins understand physics and the laws of heat death. I'm not trying to justify people who hate Christians but they have a point... at least, within a naturalistic framework. You mentioned you're not necessarily a naturalist but I don't understand how this can be if you deny the supernatural. Or is it just the idea of a supernatural creator you are opposed to?
I don't even see how the existence of the universe even implies a creator, and stating it as such is a naked assertion.
It's due to the law of cause and effect. For every effect, you need an adequate cause. To say, "yes, we have a physical universe but we don't need a causal agent" is to deny a basic principle of science and philosophy. Did Martians from outer space create the univese? Well, not if Martians are made up of matter and energy.
I don't have alternative explanations, I never claimed that I did. I don't know how life started, that doesn't mean God exists.
You don't know how life started but you claim to know how it DIDN'T start. Namely, through a creative, intelligent being who exists outside of the physical realm we observe. I'm not sure on what grounds you dismiss a perfectly valid theory.
I have no idea. It's an interesting question that currently has no palpable answers with sufficient evidence.
Is knowing from inference a valid form of knowing?
If I believed that Christianity is true, then it would be a given that all the concepts within it are true. If Christianity IS true, then I would think that the Holy Spirit would change my sinful thoughts,
I'd have to question your theology at that point. The Holy Spirit doesn't remove sinful thoughts, but allows you to war against them effectively, so long as you are walking in the spirit. When you surrender to Christ, you'll know what I mean. :lol:
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:01 pm

Sorry man, been busy. I'll try to respond over the weekend!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:35 am

JC wrote: An appeal to God actually does answer that question, in my opinion. I don't think you deny metaphysics (being that you're more open minded than most in your camp) so if that seems like the most probable solution for the genesis of life, we should let the chips fall and not be ashamed of where they land.
Metaphysics is fairly broad in its terminology, so it's hard to 'deny'.

How does appealing to God actually answer any question? If I talk to a kid and they ask:

1) What makes this spring go?
2) What makes this car run?
3) What makes humans move?
4) What makes this toy run?

And I answer "energy" to every single question, it's about as meaningful as saying "warklobbles". Just saying "God did it" doesn't provide a meaningful idea as to why the world exists and how it came to be.

So no, I don't see how God is the most probable answer for the existence of life, and I don't see why it is more probable than natural generations of life. It appears to stem from a semantic argument about scientific contentions.
Regarding big bang cosmology, the mood of our day has shifted a great deal because the most popular model gives credence to a metaphysical genesis. We know that matter exists and that matter doesn't create itself... so the implication is that matter was formed from a non-matieral source.
I'm pretty sure that since no science actually makes any statements of God, your idea is unfounded as some conspiracy theory. Unless you have any evidence to back up your naked assertion, it remains just that.
When you find an elaborate sand castle on the beach you recognize that as a thing created by an intelligent source. But why? Because it fits a pattern in your mind. The pattern is that there are design elements that you recognize in the sand castle.
That's simply experience based. For all we know an unintelligent computer program created the sand-castle and we would then be wrong in stating "a human created this".

This is like a child looking up at the clouds and seeing horses and concluding that someone created those clouds to make such images. Or someone bumping into another person at a restaurant and that "chance" encounter leads to them being married, thus causing them to conclude that "fate" brought them together.

One can always look at little events and conclude design elements.
Likewise, when we look at a DNA strand, we all see information... much more complex than a sand castle. Yet we conclude that it's the result of natural causes. That strikes me as incredibly odd.
We don't see information when we look at a DNA strand, we see chemicals. Technically, DNA is a bundle of chemicals that determine the nature of what DNA makes up. It doesn't "describe" something, it IS the something.

Looking at a cat and calling it a cat is information. Changing the word "cat" to "dog" doesn't change the nature of the thing it is describing, it's still a cat, we just called it something different and the information is meaningless to whomever is describing it.

Calling DNA "information" is anthropomorphizing the concept, as if DNA is telling someone something. It isn't. It's a chemical reaction that has a result.


That tells me we have a pretty good grasp on how the physical world works. And modern science tells us that a phsyical cause and effect is always at play.
No it doesn't.

You appeal to modern science, yet you reject new concepts in cosmology, and you seem to be unaware of the last 80 years of scientific advancements that cause and effect is not a law.
Since the universe has been in entropy for 15 billion years or so, that energy must've had a peak at some point in time. But oops... energy can't make itself if there are no raw materials. In fact, in the physical world... matter is always necessary. What other conclusion can we draw from this?
Actually, scientific law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, not that it can't make itself. So right there, if we go by your strict adherence to scientific literature we have thus disproved the notion that God could have created the universe.

The universe has been in entropy, but that doesn't mean anything. You're trying to transcribe it to God, but at some point you're going to appeal to the lack of "physical law", which is exactly what you're doing when you criticize me or anyone else for stating "well what if those laws aren't absolute and don't apply to any previous state of the universe?" or something to that extent.

The difference is that scientists look for actual possibilities using cogent theories, you just say "God, end of story."
So when an atheist says he doesn't believe in God because he's not impressed with the evidence, he's giving an argument from ignorance?
No, the problem is that you're concluding something based on the inability for other explanations to sway you, instead of concluding something based on its own evidential merit and adherence to a rational standard.

Atheists (at least speaking for myself) are not stating that "Naturalism" is true because God is unproven. It's rationally warranted to state disbelief in something because you don't think there is enough evidence for it. It's not rationally warranted to say "I don't agree with these guys, so I'll conclude this because it fits with my ideas".
You mentioned you're not necessarily a naturalist but I don't understand how this can be if you deny the supernatural. Or is it just the idea of a supernatural creator you are opposed to?
A naturalist is someone who generally believes all phenomena can be reduced to the laws of nature. The rejection of the claimed supernatural comes from either a statement that they are false or no different from natural phenomena.

I deny claimed supernatural phenomena until there is rational warrant for it.
It's due to the law of cause and effect. For every effect, you need an adequate cause. To say, "yes, we have a physical universe but we don't need a causal agent" is to deny a basic principle of science and philosophy. Did Martians from outer space create the univese? Well, not if Martians are made up of matter and energy.
There is no law of cause and effect. Cause and Effect is a principle of relationships between two events. If there is no relationship at the initial onset of an event, it is uncaused.

And again, if I were to ask you "what caused God?", the law of causality that you so strictly adhere to goes out the window.

Aside from that, your reasoning is a fallacy of composition.
You don't know how life started but you claim to know how it DIDN'T start.
No, I don't. I claim that I don't find it rationally warranted to believe that God started it.
Namely, through a creative, intelligent being who exists outside of the physical realm we observe. I'm not sure on what grounds you dismiss a perfectly valid theory.
By all means, this discussion centers around the validity of your "theory".
Is knowing from inference a valid form of knowing?
If the inference is valid, then it is valid.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_JC
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Post by _JC » Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:05 am

Asimov, I greatly appreciate your time and energy. I enjoy the tone of our discussion. Due to my limited schedule, I only choose to engage in dialogue with people I find... pleasant. So for what it's worth... kudos.

I'm going to say something about science at this time that may prove benecifial in our future discussions. My knowledge of science comes from books but my knowledge of scienTISTS comes from working on a science-based documentary (not related to religion) over the course of many, many years. My best friend is a documentary filmmaker and we've had an unusual amount of "behind the scenes" insight into the world's most prominent scientists in several fields. Sir, I am left disillusioned. It's a game of politics like you wouldn't believe. I'm talking about Nobel prize winners, those frequently quoted in textbooks/scientific literature and the most respected people in the game. Unfortunately, I can't say more on this right now because the film won't be released prior to Cannes `08 and I'm under NDA. Suffice to say, I've lost all faith in the scientifitc community to be unbiased about anything whatsoever.

For this reason, when someone assertively tells me science says this or that, I feel like rolling my eyes. But I'm a Christian... so I don't. :) I use scientific arguments at times but only to find common ground with non-Christians like yourself. I feel people place far too much faith in fallable men and woman in white lab coats, as though their own personal views are always exempted from their studies. In theory, yes. In reaity, this is laughable. Humans are humans. I've seen it first hand. A year from now, we can speak more openly about all this.
I'm pretty sure that since no science actually makes any statements of God, your idea is unfounded as some conspiracy theory. Unless you have any evidence to back up your naked assertion, it remains just that.
Evidence is quite subjective, in my opinion. How else could you explain the fact that our generation's leading experts in the field of Evolutionary Biology (Dawkins and Gould) could so explicity disagree with one another that they resort to hurling insults? Both have exquisite training in the same field and look at the same data, yet they come to completely different conclusions. Both men say the evidence is on their side, but one or both of them must be mistaken. To reduce my argument to its simplist form and then call it a naked assertion undermines the quality of our discussion. I'm not advocating that some conspiracy theory has taken place in the scientific community, only that personal perference skews data.
This is like a child looking up at the clouds and seeing horses and concluding that someone created those clouds to make such images. Or someone bumping into another person at a restaurant and that "chance" encounter leads to them being married, thus causing them to conclude that "fate" brought them together.
Reductio ad absurdum. My argument is far more complex and nuanced than that. The men who discovered DNA and those who work in the field of genetics are those calling it information (I'm assuming you care about such opinions, tho you know mine). It's not just the opinion of a film writer on some bible forum.
You appeal to modern science, yet you reject new concepts in cosmology, and you seem to be unaware of the last 80 years of scientific advancements that cause and effect is not a law.
I only appeal to modern science to show you the variety of opinions that are held within the movement. My views of cause and effect are easily demonstrable. Yes, we're using inference, but they are perfectly reasonable inferences whereas your own inferences seem illogical. Either the universe always existed, it come from nothing, or it was created by intelligence. You think the third option if invalid and the first one is more likely.

You have to understand that when we talk about things like origens of the universe, we've entered the realm of philosophy. So an appeal to some new, novel scientific theories (with less evidence than the commonly held theory) is not going to stick. It's wishful thinking, at best. The law of cause and effect is a basic philisophical principle. But even in science, to say "we have an effect" and then deny a casual agent would be silly. I'm not sure why people get away with using that argument.
The difference is that scientists look for actual possibilities using cogent theories, you just say "God, end of story."


No, I don't say that. I, along with many open minded scientists, say that an intelligent creator makes more sense than sudden appearance from nothing. How is that notion not absurd to you?
Atheists (at least speaking for myself) are not stating that "Naturalism" is true because God is unproven. It's rationally warranted to state disbelief in something because you don't think there is enough evidence for it. It's not rationally warranted to say "I don't agree with these guys, so I'll conclude this because it fits with my ideas".
At least an atheist who is a naturalist is consistent in their position. You seem like the type who doesn't want to be pinned down or challenged so you make loose claims and always defer the burdon of proof to others. Guys guy like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris might be annoying, but at least they don't shy away from firm positions. Have you ever debated with someone whose best argument was "I don't know where I stand but you're wrong?" :D
I deny claimed supernatural phenomena until there is rational warrant for it.
In other words, what YOU consider rational. That's what I call subjectivism. I still think belief in God or non-belief in God is personal preference, with a few objective facts thrown in for mortar. You and I are both, ultimately, using subjective arguments. It's just that I'm not ashamed to admit it. That's why I favor a pre-suppositional approach.
By all means, this discussion centers around the validity of your "theory".
Not really. This isn't a one way street. I fully expect you to present positive, assertive arguments for your views as well. This isn't JC witnessing to Asimov... this is an exchange of ideas. Most people who convert to Christianity through argumentation don't end up following Jesus anyway. So believe me when I say... I have no desire to convince you my views are correct. I'm just curious why atheists think the way they do because it's a mystery to me.
If the inference is valid, then it is valid.
Sounds a bit subjective to me. 8)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:20 am

I'm glad you enjoy the discussion. I'm trying to juggle a few things with work, a show, and relationship so that is my reason for being tardy in replying. I will have a full reply ASAP, just so you know, what you said is in the back of my mind and I'm running it through.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_JC
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Post by _JC » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:03 pm

Asimov, take your time. I don't get to frequent the forum as often as I'd like either. I hope all goes well with your personal dealings. Surely your priorities would be "out of whack" if you didn't place your work above an internet discussion. :lol:

Glad you thought of me, though... our discussions are always enlightening.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:30 am

JC wrote: I'm going to say something about science at this time that may prove benecifial in our future discussions. My knowledge of science comes from books but my knowledge of scienTISTS comes from working on a science-based documentary (not related to religion) over the course of many, many years. My best friend is a documentary filmmaker and we've had an unusual amount of "behind the scenes" insight into the world's most prominent scientists in several fields. Sir, I am left disillusioned. It's a game of politics like you wouldn't believe. I'm talking about Nobel prize winners, those frequently quoted in textbooks/scientific literature and the most respected people in the game. Unfortunately, I can't say more on this right now because the film won't be released prior to Cannes `08 and I'm under NDA. Suffice to say, I've lost all faith in the scientifitc community to be unbiased about anything whatsoever.
Hmm, well, documentaries are not always unbiased either. Nobody is unbiased, but I don't think that was my point, JC. The process of science is pointing to possibilities, at least where I'm concerned.
For this reason, when someone assertively tells me science says this or that, I feel like rolling my eyes. But I'm a Christian... so I don't. :) I use scientific arguments at times but only to find common ground with non-Christians like yourself. I feel people place far too much faith in fallable men and woman in white lab coats, as though their own personal views are always exempted from their studies. In theory, yes. In reaity, this is laughable. Humans are humans. I've seen it first hand. A year from now, we can speak more openly about all this.
It seems a little disingenuous to use scientific arguments merely to find common ground with non-Christians, if you don't actually accept any of it. Anyways, using Newtonian physics to apply to quantum states is not a valid criticism of "naturalism" in regards to the universe. Like I said, possibilities is what we're really talking about, when it comes to science.

You speak of faith, yet your belief system tends to glorify it.

I could say you place far too much faith in your religion, and I think it would be a good time to ask: Do you ever question your beliefs? Do you challenge yourself and ask why you believe what you believe? Do you try to find the weakest parts of your belief and why they are weak? Just curious, because it's something that everyone seems to have trouble doing, including myself.
Evidence is quite subjective, in my opinion. How else could you explain the fact that our generation's leading experts in the field of Evolutionary Biology (Dawkins and Gould) could so explicity disagree with one another that they resort to hurling insults?
It's not the information that is the problem, it's how it is interpreted. Egos tend to get in the way as well, I'd think. I'm not sure where I stand 100% on any scientific idea, I find them interesting, but you should know that attacking science to dismantle my beliefs is not a good way to go about it.

Both have exquisite training in the same field and look at the same data, yet they come to completely different conclusions. Both men say the evidence is on their side, but one or both of them must be mistaken. To reduce my argument to its simplist form and then call it a naked assertion undermines the quality of our discussion. I'm not advocating that some conspiracy theory has taken place in the scientific community, only that personal perference skews data.
Actually, trying to backtrack and read into where we were going with this I cannot for the life of me recall exactly how this came up. Suffice it to say, I think I was stating that "God" is not an explanation, even in the metaphysical sense.
Reductio ad absurdum. My argument is far more complex and nuanced than that. The men who discovered DNA and those who work in the field of genetics are those calling it information (I'm assuming you care about such opinions, tho you know mine). It's not just the opinion of a film writer on some bible forum.
And I explained that information in the same sense of language differs greatly from DNA.
I only appeal to modern science to show you the variety of opinions that are held within the movement. My views of cause and effect are easily demonstrable. Yes, we're using inference, but they are perfectly reasonable inferences whereas your own inferences seem illogical. Either the universe always existed, it come from nothing, or it was created by intelligence. You think the third option if invalid and the first one is more likely.
No, there is more than just three options.
You have to understand that when we talk about things like origens of the universe, we've entered the realm of philosophy. So an appeal to some new, novel scientific theories (with less evidence than the commonly held theory) is not going to stick. It's wishful thinking, at best. The law of cause and effect is a basic philisophical principle.
Science is philosophy, an empirical philosophy, so empirical facts about reality are not ignored or denied simply because the topic of discussion changes. If we have the possibility that events occur with no cause, then the "law" of cause and effect is not valid in all events.
But even in science, to say "we have an effect" and then deny a casual agent would be silly. I'm not sure why people get away with using that argument.
Of course, but I never said that we have an effect and deny causality. If we have an event with no prior cause, then it is not silly to say there is no causal agent. Handwaving a concept because you disagree with it is not rebutting it.
No, I don't say that. I, along with many open minded scientists, say that an intelligent creator makes more sense than sudden appearance from nothing. How is that notion not absurd to you?
Because it doesn't explain anything. Why does it make more sense? What does an intelligent creator answer about the existence of the universe any more than an eternally existing universe or a universe that began ex nihilo?
At least an atheist who is a naturalist is consistent in their position. You seem like the type who doesn't want to be pinned down or challenged so you make loose claims and always defer the burdon of proof to others. Guys guy like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris might be annoying, but at least they don't shy away from firm positions. Have you ever debated with someone whose best argument was "I don't know where I stand but you're wrong?" :D
It sounds more like you want to label me as a strict this or that so you can start dismantling my belief system in regards to the empirical and metaphysical realm. Unfortunately for you, none of that really matters. It is very easy to challenge someone who asserts many things, in the end, you can find any kind of chink in their armour of claimed knowledge.

However, you did make a claim...where am I inconsistent in my position? I'm not a strict empiricist, nor a strict rationalist. I don't reject empirical evidence and I don't accept any or reject any scientific theories that appear to have some merit among the scientific community. I don't reject ideas outright unless they are contradictory, however I don't readily accept an idea merely because it is possible. That goes for scientific ideas and God.
In other words, what YOU consider rational.
Of course it is what I consider rational. I might as well use my faculties of reason while I have them, and if someone provides a compelling reason to convince me of a concept, I'll accept it.
That's what I call subjectivism. I still think belief in God or non-belief in God is personal preference, with a few objective facts thrown in for mortar. You and I are both, ultimately, using subjective arguments. It's just that I'm not ashamed to admit it. That's why I favor a pre-suppositional approach.
Why is it subjective? If I use emotional appeals or merely my own opinion to hold on to a concept, that would be a subjective approach. But if I have a valid logical argument, that is an objective reason.
I fully expect you to present positive, assertive arguments for your views as well.
And I fully agree. So, in case I missed it, what views do you want me to provide a positive, assertive argument for? I'm not playing dumb, it has been awhile since I posted.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Christian Evidences & Challenges”