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

  • #16
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Real problem here with the misinformation of the Philosophy of science. Nothing is claimed to be 'scientifically proven in science' and science does not remotely believe in 'objective truth.' It all goes down hill from here descending into anarchist alchemy.
    Science is not even possible except for the fact of objective truth.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Science is not even possible except for the fact of objective truth.
      Science illiteracy from the realms anarchist alchemy raises its ugly head from the catacombs of ancient Rome.

      From the previous history of your posts you do not consider science possible. The claim of 'objective truth' is not a criteria for the Philosophy of Science.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-22-2017, 11:32 AM.
      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


      • #18
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        No, God, none of the thousands of them believed by many to have existed, have made anything about their assumed existence evident within us.
        Well, the universe had a beginning! So there seems to be an immaterial, outside-of-time, first cause.

        The natural world is evidence of the natural world, and there is nothing about it that evinces the existence of a god regardless of biblical assertions. Stop fooling yourself, whether god exists or not, the natural world is not evidence of his/its existence.
        Then there is the origin of life, and the fine-tuning in the universe!

        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


        • #19
          Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
          I think this passage was ostensibly speaking about Jews. I'm not quite ready to explain the context behind my observation. As such, I would not find evidence of natural revelation in Romans 1.
          But "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness..." is the previous verse, speaking of people in general.

          As far as the framework for common discussion, I would tend to say there are some things common enough that all mankind can understand things in the same way -- fire is hot, ice is cold.
          Yes, agreed.

          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


          • #20
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Well, the universe had a beginning! So there seems to be an immaterial, outside-of-time, first cause.
            You misunderstand, no one knows if the universe had a beginning. All that is known is that we can only see so far into its past. The big bang was not necessarily the beginning of the universe.

            Then there is the origin of life, and the fine-tuning in the universe!
            Thats whats called the god of the gaps argument, there are many questions that science has not figured out as of yet and may never figure out, but there is no evidence that god did it. You are free to believe that a god did it of course, but the existence of the natural world itself does not make that evident as the bible asserts. As a matter of fact, the evidence you bring up was not even known by Paul at the time of his assertion, so that is not even what he was refering to as evidence.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              You misunderstand, no one knows if the universe had a beginning. All that is known is that we can only see so far into its past. The big bang was not necessarily the beginning of the universe.
              Well, that's denying all that science knows of the beginning.

              Thats whats called the god of the gaps argument, there are many questions that science has not figured out as of yet and may never figure out, but there is no evidence that god did it. You are free to believe that a god did it of course, but the existence of the natural world itself does not make that evident as the bible asserts.
              And that's a science-of-the-gaps argument! Saying science will solve the origin of life and the fine-tuning of the universe. But especially the origin of life is based on what we know of nature and cells and DNA and DNA transcription. The problems are simply overwhelming, and this evidence was conclusive enough for Antony Flew.

              As a matter of fact, the evidence you bring up was not even known by Paul at the time of his assertion, so that is not even what he was refering to as evidence.
              Well, the need for an "unmoved mover" was known by Aristotle, and the origin of life would be a known question then too. But look up into the heavens and see the glory of God!

              Best wishes,
              Lee
              Last edited by lee_merrill; 09-22-2017, 04:09 PM.
              "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


              • #22
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                Well, the universe had a beginning! So there seems to be an immaterial, outside-of-time, first cause.
                Theological conclusion, fallacy front loaded 'begging the question,' and 'arguing from ignorance' all in one sentence.

                Then there is the origin of life, and the fine-tuning in the universe!

                Blessings,
                Lee
                Two in a row, your on a roll!!!!!
                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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  Well, that's denying all that science knows of the beginning.
                  False, science does not "know" there was a beginning.
                  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


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Well, that's denying all that science knows of the beginning.
                    Science has not concluded a beginning to the universe, its concluded that the particular spacetime that we are able to observe had a beginning.

                    And that's a science-of-the-gaps argument! Saying science will solve the origin of life and the fine-tuning of the universe. But especially the origin of life is based on what we know of nature and cells and DNA and DNA transcription. The problems are simply overwhelming, and this evidence was conclusive enough for Antony Flew.
                    I didn't say that science will solve all the mysteries of existence, I said it has not solved them as yet and may never do so. Whether the problems are overwhelming or not is unknown, seeming overwhelming problems get solved all the time by science.

                    Well, the need for an "unmoved mover" was known by Aristotle, and the origin of life would be a known question then too. But look up into the heavens and see the glory of God!
                    No, the need for an unmoved mover was not known by Aristotle because Aristotle was wrong in his philosophical hypothesis. "Conservation of momentum." And when you look up into the night sky what you see is awsome, no less so for its being natural rather than created.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Well, the universe had a beginning! So there seems to be an immaterial, outside-of-time, first cause.
                      We don't know that the universe had a beginning. There are many scientific models which argue that the universe is infinite.

                      Then there is the origin of life, and the fine-tuning in the universe!
                      "Fine tuning" is an argument from incredulity (i.e. a logical fallacy) reinforced by a range of cherry picked concepts from modern cosmology and other scientific disciplines.
                      “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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Science has not concluded a beginning to the universe, its concluded that the particular spacetime that we are able to observe had a beginning.
                        Well, that's kind of what I mean by the universe.

                        No, the need for an unmoved mover was not known by Aristotle because Aristotle was wrong in his philosophical hypothesis. "Conservation of momentum."
                        But the need for an unmoved mover remains, Aristotle was right about that.

                        And when you look up into the night sky what you see is awsome, no less so for its being natural rather than created.
                        It is beautiful, yes.

                        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


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          We don't know that the universe had a beginning. There are many scientific models which argue that the universe is infinite.
                          But those are fringe views, the mainstream of science supports the Big Bang.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon
                          False, science does not "know" there was a beginning.
                          Certainly all our knowledge is probabilistic.

                          Originally posted by Tassman
                          "Fine tuning" is an argument from incredulity (i.e. a logical fallacy) reinforced by a range of cherry picked concepts from modern cosmology and other scientific disciplines.
                          I note that you skipped the origin of life! And fine tuning is not fallacious, it is simply the result of asking what would happen if we varied various physical quantities.

                          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


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            But those are fringe views, the mainstream of science supports the Big Bang.
                            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.

                            Actually no, what is is described as the Big Bang is not considered a beginning by mainstream science even if, and it is an if it began as a singularity, as in the following source:

                            Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-beginning-of-time-2006-02/



                            The Myth Of The Beginning Of Time

                            String theory suggests that the BIG BANG was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state

                            By Gabriele Veneziano on February 1, 20061

                            Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of cosmology.

                            The new willingness to consider what might have happened before the bang is the latest swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked back and forth for millennia. In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously encapsulated in an 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? The piece depicts the cycle of birth, life and death--origin, identity and destiny for each individual--and these personal concerns connect directly to cosmic ones. We can trace our lineage back through the generations, back through our animal ancestors, to early forms of life and protolife, to the elements synthesized in the primordial universe, to the amorphous energy deposited in space before that. Does our family tree extend forever backward? Or do its roots terminate? Is the cosmos as impermanent as we are?

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            The reality of contemporary cosmologists and other scientists is the question of beginnings is not resolved, and they do not support the belief that our universe nor all possible universe had any specific beginning in time.


                            Certainly all our knowledge is probabilistic.
                            Typical blue smoke and mirrors dodge to justify your agenda. Yes, you are misrepresenting claiming what science 'knows.'

                            I note that you skipped the origin of life! And fine tuning is not fallacious, it is simply the result of asking what would happen if we varied various physical quantities.

                            Best wishes,
                            Lee
                            There are many sources that refute the 'fine tuning argument' and this is just one.

                            Source: http://www.colyvan.com/papers/finetuning.pdf


                            MARK COLYVAN, JAY L. GARFIELD and GRAHAM PRIEST

                            PROBLEMS WITH THE ARGUMENT FROM FINE TUNING

                            ABSTRACT.

                            The argument from fine tuning is supposed to establish the existence of God
                            from the fact that the evolution of carbon-based life requires the laws of physics and the
                            boundary conditions of the universe to be more or less as they are. We demonstrate that this
                            argument fails. In particular, we focus on problems associated with the role probabilities
                            play in the argument. We show that, even granting the fine tuning of the universe, it does
                            not follow that the universe is improbable, thus no explanation of the fine tuning, theistic
                            or otherwise, is required.

                            1. INTRODUCTION
                            There has been a great deal of recent interest from both physicists and philosophers in the so-called fine-tuning argument.1 This is the argument that purports to deliver the conclusion that God exists from the fact that our universe seems remarkably fine tuned for the emergence of carbon based
                            life. In this paper we discuss several difficulties with this argument.

                            Central to these concerns are the fact that the argument rides roughshod
                            over crucial matters concerning probability. Before we move to our objections it will be convenient to state the fine-tuning argument with some degree of precision.

                            (1) The boundary conditions and laws of physics could not have been too
                            different from the way they actually are if the Universe is to contain
                            (carbon-based) life.
                            (2) The Universe does contain (carbon-based) life.
                            Hence:
                            (3) The Universe as we find it is improbable.
                            (4) The best explanation for this improbable fact is that the Universe was
                            created by some intelligence.
                            Hence:
                            (5) A Universe-creating intelligence exists.

                            First, let us say a few words about the above presentation of the argument.
                            Our presentation is a little more careful than those one usually encounters.
                            . . .
                            5. CONCLUSION

                            The argument from fine-tuning is the most recent and most popular variety of design argument. As a design argument, it has an illustrious history. Variations are to be found in Aquinas, the 18th century, the 19th century, and again more recently. In each epoch, what it is about the cosmos that is supposed to warrant the design hypothesis has been different: the mechanistic solar system, biological organs, and now: fine tuning. But the fundamental flaws in the design argument really have nothing to do with the particular suspect chosen.21 We have shown that the fine-tuning version of the argument is no better than its predecessors: the argument from fine tuning fails because of fallacious probabilistic reasoning.

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            The fine-tuning argument is not science, because it requires theistic assumptions as to why our universe is the way it is, and could not exist without intelligent fine-tuning. It fails the same way as all Intelligent Design arguments in that they are not falsifiable in making a fallacious negative hypothesis that our universe could not have come about naturally. This has left the Discovery Institute in the swamp unable to publish scientific research falsifying hypothesis for Intelligent Design
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-23-2017, 06:44 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


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              Well, that's kind of what I mean by the universe.
                              Exactly, but what you mean by universe is not necessarily, most likely not in my opinion, a true definition of universe. We don't know!

                              But the need for an unmoved mover remains, Aristotle was right about that.
                              No, Aristotle assumed the world to be finite, that it began to exist and therefore needed to be set in motion, but an infinite universe needs no push. "Conservation of momentum."

                              It is beautiful, yes.
                              Yes, naturally.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                                Exactly, but what you mean by universe is not necessarily, most likely not in my opinion, a true definition of universe. We don't know!
                                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!"
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X