Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Against Objectivity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    You are classically misrepresenting the scientific view as to what constitute a beginning. Virtually all scientist endorse the view that our universe began from a preexisting cosmos.
    That doesn't solve the problem. Positing an infinite regress flies in the face of "settled science" and is philosophically incoherent. Even the multiverse hypothesis is untenable because we would necessarily have evidence of it if it existed since a multiverse would interact with our own in unpredictable and unexplainable ways.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      I love how skeptics will preach about "settled science" until it's something that could be used to defend theism, then they suddenly start crying about how "We don't know!"
      Science is not based on what we "know" or "do not know" it is based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis with objective verifiable evidence.

      Fortunately science will never be "settled."
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Science is not based on what we "know" or "do not know" it is based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis with objective verifiable evidence.

        Fortunately science will never be "settled."
        Tell that to Tassman, you climate change skeptic.
        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
          Tell that to Tassman, you climate change skeptic.
          Someone may believe that Climate change is real, and not necessarily make blanket statements that everything is "settled" in science. nor the evidence that human influence on Climate Change cannot be questioned.

          I believe that Climate Change 'partially caused by humans' based on the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution is real. I am always open to evidence that this is not the case, but unfortunately the evidence to the contrary is not forthcoming at present. The questioning of the human influence on Climate change needs a good argument and evidence. Like in the case of Evolution argue against the human influence on climate Change have not provide good scientific arguments.

          One thing I responded to, which was the original basis of the thread, is that the increase in frequency and intensity is claimed 'by liberals?' to be caused by Global Warming caused by humans and is some how claimed to be 'proven.' This is not true, and science at this point considers it a possibility, but there are other regional factors influence the frequency and intensity over time.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-24-2017, 08:51 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            I love how skeptics will preach about "settled science" until it's something that could be used to defend theism, then they suddenly start crying about how "We don't know!"
            Science can't tell us anything about that which is beyond our ability to observe, which means it isn't settled science, it isn't knowledge of any kind, and can't be used to defend theism or anything else.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              I love how skeptics will preach about "settled science" until it's something that could be used to defend theism, then they suddenly start crying about how "We don't know!"
              That's always a problem with arguments from authority. The authorities sometimes don't say what you want them to say.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                But those are fringe views, the mainstream of science supports the Big Bang.
                Today 'inflationary cosmology' is the majority view (although it still retains some features of the big bang).

                But this doesn’t alter the infinite universe argument. Many cosmologists now have good reason to believe that the universe we observe is just a small part of an unbelievably larger and richer cosmic structure, often called the “multiverse” and that our universe may be just one of many, perhaps an infinite number, of real, physical universes.

                Certainly all our knowledge is probabilistic.
                Indeed, but much science has been validated to such a degree that we can reasonably act as if is proven...to the extent that e can put a man on the moon.

                I note that you skipped the origin of life!
                Scientists have proposed several plausible theories, which share common elements, namely that “the first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesised under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution, and these molecules then organised into the first molecular system with properties with biological order" – Wiki.

                You argument that we don’t know, “therefore god”... is merely god-of-the-gaps argument, and they never end well for the proponents.

                And fine tuning is not fallacious, it is simply the result of asking what would happen if we varied various physical quantities.
                You’re getting things backwards. Life evolved to fit the conditions on earth, the conditions weren't imposed to suit life.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                  Science can't tell us anything about that which is beyond our ability to observe, which means it isn't settled science, it isn't knowledge of any kind, and can't be used to defend theism or anything else.
                  It's OK, Jimmy, Doug Shaver got it.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    ... our universe may be just one of many, perhaps an infinite number, of real, physical universes.
                    But this is speculative, again, not mainstream science.

                    Scientists have proposed several plausible theories, which share common elements, namely that “the first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesised under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution, and these molecules then organised into the first molecular system with properties with biological order" – Wiki.
                    More speculation? Evolution of what molecules?

                    You argument that we don’t know, “therefore god”... is merely god-of-the-gaps argument, and they never end well for the proponents.
                    But origin of life questions are based on what we do know. What we know of natural processes, what we now know of the extraordinary complexity of life.

                    You’re getting things backwards. Life evolved to fit the conditions on earth, the conditions weren't imposed to suit life.
                    But the conditions are extremely narrow that support life, and we may wonder why?

                    Best wishes,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      But this is speculative, again, not mainstream science.
                      More speculation? Evolution of what molecules?
                      It is prediction based upon existing knowledge. This how science works, it’s not as though there is any substantive evidence supporting the god-did-it hypothesis.

                      But origin of life questions are based on what we do know. What we know of natural processes, what we now know of the extraordinary complexity of life.
                      What we “do know” is being reinforced and added to all the time by science. Retreating into a “therefore god” is merely the ‘argument from ignorance’ fallacy.

                      But the conditions are extremely narrow that support life, and we may wonder why?
                      Given the billions of suns in our galaxy and the billions of galaxies in our universe and the possibility of an infinity of universes, it’s not really surprising that at least one planet, orbiting just one star has conditions suitable for life.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        But this is speculative, again, not mainstream science.
                        Unwarranted is the speculation is that there is a definable first beginning of our physical existence or even our universe supported by mainstream science, for which there are different scenarios in mainstream science none of which support your assertions.

                        More speculation? Evolution of what molecules?
                        Amino acids.

                        But origin of life questions are based on what we do know. What we know of natural processes, what we now know of the extraordinary complexity of life.
                        What scientific hypothesis concerning the possible origins of life (abiogenesis) is based on sound science, natural laws, and natural processes. The evolution of the complexity of life has been adequately explained by the science of evolution. Intelligent Design arguments for the problem of complexity have not been able to falsify their hypothesis that complexity cannot arise through natural processes of evolution.

                        But the conditions are extremely narrow that support life, and we may wonder why?

                        Best wishes,
                        Lee
                        Wonder Why?!?!? Natural Law, natural processes give an adequate explanation why, and given the fat that there are literally billions at minimum of possible stars with planets in our galaxy alone, and there are millions of galaxies in our universe, no problem that over time there are and possibly were planets like earth in our universe.

                        Again, 'arguing from ignorance' does not offer coherent arguments nor answers to questions in science.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          It's OK, Jimmy, Doug Shaver got it.
                          Yeah, unfortunately you didn't.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Unwarranted is the speculation is that there is a definable first beginning of our physical existence or even our universe supported by mainstream science, for which there are different scenarios in mainstream science none of which support your assertions.



                            Amino acids.



                            What scientific hypothesis concerning the possible origins of life (abiogenesis) is based on sound science, natural laws, and natural processes. The evolution of the complexity of life has been adequately explained by the science of evolution. Intelligent Design arguments for the problem of complexity have not been able to falsify their hypothesis that complexity cannot arise through natural processes of evolution.



                            Wonder Why?!?!? Natural Law, natural processes give an adequate explanation why, and given the fat that there are literally billions at minimum of possible stars with planets in our galaxy alone, and there are millions of galaxies in our universe, no problem that over time there are and possibly were planets like earth in our universe.

                            Again, 'arguing from ignorance' does not offer coherent arguments nor answers to questions in science.
                            Not to correct you shunya, but just to add a little force to your argument, the estimate is not that there are millions of galaxies in the universe, but that there are at least 100 billion galaxies in the known universe. Highly unlikely that the earth is all that special(except to us of course)when you wrap your head around those figures.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Unwarranted is the speculation is that there is a definable first beginning of our physical existence or even our universe supported by mainstream science, for which there are different scenarios in mainstream science none of which support your assertions.
                              In mainstream science there is only the inflationary universe, followed by the Big Bang, so the universe had a beginning, in all probability.

                              Amino acids.
                              But amino acids don't evolve!

                              Intelligent Design arguments for the problem of complexity have not been able to falsify their hypothesis that complexity cannot arise through natural processes of evolution.
                              But they've been able to set probability bounds, Michael Behe draws the line at new protein-protein interactions in the cell.

                              Wonder Why?!?!? Natural Law, natural processes give an adequate explanation why, and given the fat that there are literally billions at minimum of possible stars with planets in our galaxy alone, and there are millions of galaxies in our universe, no problem that over time there are and possibly were planets like earth in our universe.
                              Here are some factors that weigh against an earth-like planet, and then you do the math!

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                In mainstream science there is only the inflationary universe, followed by the Big Bang, so the universe had a beginning, in all probability.
                                This not true for several reasons: (1) ALL the scientists that propose a beginning of our universe 'Big Bang' at t=0, DO NOT propose this is the beginning of our greater cosmos beyond our universe. (2) It is widely held by mainstream scientists that our universe may not have had a beginning.

                                Source: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp



                                (Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

                                The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.
                                Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

                                "The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org. Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qu...verse.html#jCp

                                But amino acids don't evolve!
                                You requested to know, voluntary ignorance, what the chemicals are that are the basis for evolution. I provided the chemicals. I never said amino acids evolved.

                                But they've been able to set probability bounds, Michael Behe draws the line at new protein-protein interactions in the cell.

                                Here are some factors that weigh against an earth-like planet, and then you do the math!
                                Michael Behe stands alone. No one outside the Discovery Institute accepts this ENRON book keeping statistics.

                                My first graduate statistics class began with this on the blackboard:

                                Statistics (Figures) don’t lie, but liars figure . . ."

                                and.

                                "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - Mark Twain . . . is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X