Evolution and atheism

[bandecoot]

Maybe its just semantics:
True or false?

KOFHY:
Do Strongies admit to an unknowable "First Cause?"

bandecoot:
I would imagine not,...

KOFHY: Not?
Then, unknowable First Causes are out?

True or false?

I dont know, they are by definition unknowable. I am not a strong Atheist, as I mentioned. So it would be inappropriate for me to comment on someone elses position.


I notice however, that you cannot or will not refute my rebuttal. So you are now asking the same question I just spent 4 posts explaining.

My answer stands as before. I see no reason to change it. Your inabilty to mount a coherant rebuttal is not really my problem. Nor is your inabilty to distinguish between unknown and unknowable any fault of mine.

I did warn you that I have seen this approach almost as many times as I have seen pascals wager.

[lucaspa]

But this whole Militant thing is a bit silly. The correct terms are strong and weak Atheists.

Strong aths make an assertion about the nonexistance of God, that they then must follow up with proof.

Weak aths make no assertions about god or gods(GoGs) at all. We simply state that we see no evidence for the existance of GoGs. The burden of proof is then on the theist of whatever stripe to prove his or her case.

1. THis is shifting the burden of proof.
2. Define "we see no evidence for the existence of GoGs" This is also a logical fallacy.
3. Weak atheism, in order to remain weak atheism and see "no evidence", must make faith statements about the nature of the universe and the material processes we observe in the universe. Thus, while you can quibble about making assertions about deity, "weak" atheism is a faith because of the faith statements it makes about the universe.

That being said, I fail to see what ToE has to do with atheism at all.

read the OP. ToE, or more specifically natural selection, gave an answer to the Argument from Design for the existence of deity.

ToE is simply a set of methods that measure and test what is there.

??? ToE is NOT a set of METHODS. Rather, like all theories, ToE is a set of statements about the physical universe! Good grief, is science education so bad in this country that people think theories are METHODS!!??

It repeatably, objectively shows that there are nested heirarchies and common descent. Via many tests and methods.

See, even YOU then state that ToE is not a set of methods ("via many tests and methods") but a set of statements "nested hierarchies and common descent"). Get the science right!

As it is, nested hierarchies in classification are a TEST of the statement of common descent. IF descent with modification (short definition of evolution) happened, THEN organisms should be able to be classed in a nested hierarchy. That organisms are able to be classed that way becomes support for evolution. See the second chapter of Eldredge's The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism.

Perhaps you may wish to think about this for a little while. Familiarise yourself with the work of Watson and Crick. Look up the Cladistics and Cladogram.

ToE is no more atheistic than maths, in that maths contradict the bible.

And perhaps you would like to re-read the OP and pay attention to it. I explicitly DENIED that evolution is atheism. However, I did point out a more complex relationship between evolution and atheism. You might also want to look at my signatures before you made the ridiculous last statement.

[lucaspa]

A Knowable first cause can give rise to a known effect. True and anyone who doubts Cause and effect when it is demonstrated to them is indeed a fool.

But an unknowable first cause is to all intents and purposes nonexistant because if it is unknowable then so must also be the effects of such a cause.

Does not follow. You can establish the phenomenon without knowing the cause.

First Cause is the uncaused cause that starts the whole sequence of cause and effect rolling. To the best of my knowledge, there are 5 hypotheses for First Cause. I've listed them at: http://christianforums.com/t43923

To date, there is insufficient data to falsify any of them.

[lucaspa]

And Mr Eldredge is quite correct on both counts,

But this whole Militant thing is a bit silly. The correct terms are strong and weak Atheists.

1. It's Dr. Eldredge.
2. Militant atheist is a term coined by Shermer in Why Do We Believe?

The problem with "weak" atheism is that it is unstable. Upon examination, it either goes to "strong" atheism or agnosticism. It is not a viable position.

However, it is another way for atheists to try to avoid that atheism is a faith. Which gets us back to my post you quoted, where I maintain that atheism tries to gain an erroneous epistemological advantage over theism.

[lucaspa]

Clearly extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Clearly the burden of proof is not symmetric. I can't summarise the whole of common sense and experience for you in order to define "extraordinary". Just consider some simple examples.
1) I make friends with your aged mother and tell her that if she gives me her $1000 savings, I can invest it and turn it into $100,000 which will pay for the long-term care she will need in her twilight years. Is it up to her to prove that I can't do it? Is it equally plausible that I can and that I can't? Where does the burden of proof lie?

I wanted to get back to this because, to me, this highlights the confusion of two separate ideas within the minds of atheists:
1. The validity of a claim.
2. What you are required to do as a result of the claim being valid.

In your example, the "extraordinary" part of the claim, and the emotional appeal of the argument is the underlying idea that my mother must invest if she can't prove the investment false. But that doesn't follow. Let's say you can demonstrate by previous investments and whatever criteria we want to name that you can take $1,000 and turn it into $100,000. Is my mother required to invest? Of course not! She can tell you she doesn't care about her long term care and wants to buy video games to enjoy now.

I think that a lot of atheists feel that, if deity were ever demonstrated, that it would mean that they must join a church, attend weekly, give money, and adhere to whatever other rules that church wants of its congregation: opposition to gay marriage, no pre-marital sex, no drinking, etc. etc. etc.

But that does not follow at all. Christianity says that salvation is offered if a person believes in Jesus Christ as Savior. But you are not required to accept salvation. Some would say you would be very foolish not to, just as you might say my mother is foolish to refuse the investment opportunity. But so what? Other Christians would tack on additional requirments of you for salvation such as opposition to gays, conservative Republican politics, hatred of Muslims, etc. However, are those really part of salvation? That would have to be determined on a case by case basis. But the basic creeds of Christianity would strongly argue that those requirements are not part of salvation, but rather a power trip on the part of the alleged Christians.

[lucaspa]

Abstract.
We agree! Believing in God is like believing in particles that go faster than light, or in time travel.

Now we just have to sort out what would count as evidence of time travel...

You missed the point about science: we have to decide on what evidence would FALSIFY time travel.

I call it "an extraordinary claim". You call it "a claim for which known data indicate that the claim is false". That's all I meant by "extraordinary". I meant extraordinary given what we all already know.

Then it isn't "extraordinary". It's just a claim for which you have data that it is false. In this case, it is data not about levitation, but about an auxiliary claim that we can test INDEPENDENTLY of the levitation claim. The man claimed to look in the windows of 747s while they were in flight. Now, there is no information of any type of breathing apparatus, is there? (you could add that later to avoid my falsification, but it's a separate problem of yours if you do so) So, I can perform tests, on the ground in a chamber, as to whether the man's lungs can continue to get enough oxygen at the equivalent of the cruising height of a 747. If he can't, then the claim of levitation is falsified. Ordinary claim, ordinary testing.

You didn't say that in order to accept this claim you would need very strong extra evidence, but it sounds like you would. Good!

You lost me. How did you reach this conclusion? AFter all, I could put a sack with my weight on the guy's back and he could levitate. That's not "very strong extra evidence", is it?

So we can agree that known data on geology and physics renders the parting of the Red Sea an "extraordinary claim" that you would similarly reject, unless substantial extra evidence were provided.

Sorry, but you have science backward, here. The Parting of the Red Sea is DATA. Observation. What you are doing is opposing theory ("known data on geology and physics"), not data, to it. You can't do that. In our observations, the Red Sea does not part. However, remember that an extra factor is at work: direct intervention by deity. That extra factor is absent in "known data on geology and physics". One observation of deity parting the Red Sea throws all that "known data" --theory -- out the window.

And don't suggest that the bible is substantial enough, unless you would also accept a written note from the Mr. X the levitationist's well-thought-of Harvard-educated usually-reliable doctor.

Now we are back to your personal beliefs again -- "substantial enough". We are going back and forth between what science says and what you think YOU must believe. Let's try and clear this up:
1. From science: what we have is an account that the Red Sea parted. That event left no evidence that we can study TODAY. Therefore, it is not an intersubjective event and is, therefore, not part of science. By science's choice. OTOH, science has no way to show the event never happened. IOW, we can't falsify it. Therefore, like tachyons and time travel, science must regard the event as possible.
2. Personal. The experience of watching the Parting of the Red Sea is not intersubjective; you or I can't go to the Red Sea, raise our arms, call upon Yahweh, and see the waters part. So, the experience is personal to the people of the time. It now becomes a personal choice: do we trust the account? Do we have to trust the account? Now, I never said you had to trust the account. Have I? The account is not part of your personal experience. It didn't happen to you. It happened a long time ago. So yes, you are allowed to be skeptical and decide not to trust the account.

OTOH, do you have to reject the account as untrue? No. We have no way to falsify the Parting of the Red Sea. It could have happened. If you want objective, it is an objective fact that ancient Israel as a nation existed. The account of the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan provides an explanation of how Israel came into existence. The Exodus with its miracles, including the Parting of the Red Sea, also explains why Israel was so stubborn about worshipping a single deity when the surrounding countries were polytheistic. So, there are objective reasons for deciding to trust the accounts.

The last sentence said it all. We cannot be sure that a tachyon won't some day be discovered. In other words, no-one has yet seen convincing evidence for one. Ask any physicist how he would regard a theory that invokes tachyons. He'll say "Well, before I believe it, I'd want to get some evidence of those tachyons." Same with God.

You missed it. Physicists (and all scientists) work differently from atheists. For one thing, the philosophy you outlined is what is called logical positivism: entities don't exist unless you have verification of them. Instead, physicists manipulate the equations of Special Relativity as though they are correct, including the existence of tachyons.

You see, you are working on a two value system: believe it exists or beleive it does not exist. There is a third choice: withhold judgement on existence until and unless there is data to falsify one of those positions. A physicist is agnostic toward tachyons. Just as science is agnostic towards the existence of deity. So, when you state "My attitude to him is just like the typical scientist's attitude to tachyons and time travel: " you are misstating what a scientist's attitude is.

Same again. Remember, I am not saying that anything disproves the existence of God. I am following the "weak atheist" position: there is no credible evidence for him. ... You seem to agree that this is reasonable and does not involve any element of faith.

OK, once again you are misinterpreting my stance, which you think is one of trying to convince you that deity exists. However, now we have to get into the fallacies of "weak" atheism. Weak atheism is not agnosticism. Agnosticism is not faith, but its statement is "I don't know whether deity exists or not."

1. When you say "we'll believe it when we see it." what exactly does that mean? In the meantime, what is your view of the existence of deity? Does deity exist or not in the absence of "credible evidence"?
2. "there is no credible evidence for him" relies on postivism. Entities don't exist unless there is positive evidence for them. That previous sentence is an accurate representation of your position, isn't it? Unfortunately, this method of determining the existence of entities is wrong. Positivism rests on the statement above: Entities do not exist unless there is positive evidence for them. This is known as the Verification Principle (you verify the existence of an entity). However, the Verification Principle is itself an entity. But it can't be verified! Therefore positivism collapsed. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html
3. What constitutes "credible" in your "credible evidence". There is no objectivity here, is there? You don't think a letter signed by a Harvard professor on levitation of an individual is credible, but an article in Discover on a object existing in two places at the same time is credible! "Credible" becomes "what I personally want to accept". Ah, I see it below: "Private experience plays no role at all. It's not credible evidence," That can't be correct, because all science is private experience. Intersubjective is a SUBSET of private experience. It is my private experience that I saw cells migrate in response to bone Gla protein. YOUR private experience under approximately the same circumstances would be the same. But it is still your private experience. So, if private experience is not credible, then science is not credible. Are you sure you want to go there?

4. In order to hold the "no credible" evidence, you must make a statement of faith. Let's take this hypothesis:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Now, what is your position on this hypothesis? You must disagree, right? After all, if you agree, then you can't even be a "weak" atheist, because you have all kinds of observations as to the existence of deity: the entire universe. But, what intersubjective experience tells you Butler's hypothesis is wrong? NONE! Science cannot tell you it is wrong. It's a limitation of science called Methodological Materialism (or Naturalism). So, you have to accept on faith that Butler is wrong. Weak atheism is a faith not because of its statements about deity, but because of the necessary statements it must make about the material universe.

Can you tell me what "intersubjective experiences" led you to believe in some form of the Christian God? If they are really intersubjective, they should be persuasive to others (even if you don't intend them to be).

I seem to have confused you unintentionally. When I emphasized that intersubjective experiences were a subset of personal experiences, I was doing so in order that you would not commit the fallacy that you eventually committed: "Private experience plays no role at all. It's not credible evidence" You dismissed personal experience as "not credible" and committed the fallacy anyway.

Since I am defending the weak atheist "there is no credible evidence of God" position, you either agree with me, or you are arguing that there is credible evidence, which sounds a lot like trying to convert me to theism.

1. The weak atheist position itself is not defendable. Under examination it goes to either agnosticism or strong atheism. So, the position you are defending doesn't exist.
2. I am giving you an out so that you do have a defensible position for atheism. Rejecting personal experience wholesale doesn't do it. In fact, the whole "there is no evidence" argument is incredibly weak. As I've pointed out numerous times to creationists who try it. Also, when you say "credible evidence" you have to dismiss evidence based SOLELY because it is evidence for deity. You can't do that and remain intellectually honest.

Credible evidence obviously has to be "intersubjective" in your language, since it has to be persuasive to others. (That's what "credible" means.)

Where did you get this? Is my taste sensation of brussels sprouts persuasive to people who like them? Is their pleasant taste sensation of brussels sprouts persuasive to me? No to both. Yet, is each of our evidence "credible"? Absolutely! It is persuasive to US! Overwhelmingly so.

What we have are two contradictory data sets: those of theists with experience of deity and those of atheists with no experience of deity. Now, both positions can't be correct. On an objective level, deity either exists or does not. However, having contradictory data sets is not as uncommon as you may think. It happens a lot in science. For instance, when I was first getting started in bone biology, there was a HUGE fight going on whether the initial mineral formation in bones was due to 1) precipitation on a collagen molecule or 2) precipitation without collagen in an extracellular matrix vesicle. Both hypotheses had extensive contradictory data sets. For over a decade there was no resolution because the data to resolve the conflict could not be found.

There are a number of reasons that atheists do not have experiences of deity (other than deity does not exist). There are also hypotheses that would explain why theists do have such experiences (other than deity exists). Until there is more data available in order to resolve the conflict, we have with 2 major faiths: theism and atheism. Each with their "credible" data sets.

[lucaspa]

The only people that relate evolution to atheism are creationalists escpecially the young earth variety. Damn them, damn them all to hell. But since they are such a crazy minority, you can safely say NOONE relates evolution to atheism. Those damn yecs, must be american.

This isn't strictly true. Creationists are not the only ones. Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, William Provine, and Carl Sagan, to name just a few, have related evolution to atheism. As in evolution "proves" atheism. Provine stated, in a 1980 editorial in Science, that scientists who are theists "check their brains at the door" since science proves atheism.

I suggest you read Science Held Hostage by Van Till, Meninga, and Young for a very good discussion. The book is out of print and hard to get. I do have a copy. So, if you can't find a copy, start a new thread with that title -- Science Held Hostage -- and PM me so that I know the thread is there, and we can discuss it in detail.

[lucaspa]

Do Strongiees admit to an unknowable "First Cause?"

Everyone admits to a First Cause. It's a logical extension of the sequence of cause and effect. Track that sequence back long enough and you must come to an uncaused First Cause that started the whole thing off.

However, I don't think anyone admits to the "unknowable" adjective. First Cause is currently "unknown", but everyone thinks that First Cause will eventually be known. Well, perhaps except for those that have changed the definition of agnosticism to include the adjective "unknowable" when it comes to ultimate reality.

ag*nos*tic [1] (noun)

[Greek agnostos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnostos known, from gignoskein to know -- more at KNOW]

First appeared 1869

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable;

[Sacrificial Ram]

Everyone admits to a First Cause. It's a logical extension of the sequence of cause and effect. Track that sequence back long enough and you must come to an uncaused First Cause that started the whole thing off.

No, that is not true. There are noncausual events. Also, some forms of quantum mechanics have time working a bit differently that the sequential
we perceive in the macro world.

[kofh2u]

Everyone admits to a First Cause. It's a logical extension of the sequence of cause and effect. Track that sequence back long enough and you must come to an uncaused First Cause that started the whole thing off.

However, I don't think anyone admits to the "unknowable" adjective. First Cause is currently "unknown", but everyone thinks that First Cause will eventually be known. Well, perhaps except for those that have changed the definition of agnosticism to include the adjective "unknowable" when it comes to ultimate reality.

ag*nos*tic [1] (noun)

[Greek agnostos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnostos known, from gignoskein to know -- more at KNOW]

First appeared 1869

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable;

Hi,
I visited your site which listed 5 "hypothesis" on the subject of First Cause.

You add Agnosticism to those five, raising the number to six.

You also answer the question bankecoot could not:

KOFHY:
Do Strongies admit to an unknowable "First Cause?"

bandecoot:
I would imagine not,...

KOFHY:
And, lusca, you suggest that strong atheists in fact "believe" in something that as yet is not "known."

So, we have "believers," all?

[albert]

I wanted to get back to this because, to me, this highlights the confusion of two separate ideas within the minds of atheists:
1. The validity of a claim.
2. What you are required to do as a result of the claim being valid.

There is no confusion. This issue of being required to do anything only arose because I chose an example where the outcome is not academic but really matters. When getting it right is really important (money, health...), that's when we find out what you count as credible evidence.
It is interesting how you never answered the example...are you "agnostic" about the miracle investor's claims? Would you give your mother any advice, if so what and why?

In this case, it is data not about levitation, but about an auxiliary claim that we can test INDEPENDENTLY of the levitation claim...So, I can perform tests, on the ground in a chamber, as to whether the man's lungs can continue to get enough oxygen at the equivalent of the cruising height of a 747. If he can't, then the claim of levitation is falsified.

Are you telling me that the main reason you disbelieve Mr. X's claim that he can levitate is that you think he would have had trouble breathing at high altitude?

A physicist is agnostic toward tachyons. Just as science is agnostic towards the existence of deity. So, when you state "My attitude to him is just like the typical scientist's attitude to tachyons and time travel: " you are misstating what a scientist's attitude is.

Well, since I am a physicist I'm in a good position to correct you. We are "agnostic" towards tachyons, time-travel etc in the same sense that you are "agnostic" about unicorns. OK?

You see, you are working on a two value system: believe it exists or beleive it does not exist. There is a third choice: withhold judgement on existence until and unless there is data to falsify one of those positions.

You seem to be pretending to have no concept of plausibility. Some hypotheses are more implausible than others. Yet you certainly have such a concept, or you couldn't function in the real world (you'd spend equal amounts of time checking out preposterous claims and reasonable ones).

The Parting of the Red Sea is DATA. Observation.
...
do you have to reject the account as untrue? No. We have no way to falsify the Parting of the Red Sea. It could have happened.

Yes. But like many things that could have happened, it is highly implausible. That judgement is based on what we know about the world. Just like when I go to the garage and see my car is gone but there is a pool of water on the floor, I know it is highly unlikely that the car melted into water. I am not "agnostic" about the possibility that it melted. It would take a lot of evidence to convince me that such a thing had occurred. Are you "agnostic" about melting cars?

When you say "we'll believe it when we see it." what exactly does that mean? In the meantime, what is your view of the existence of deity? Does deity exist or not in the absence of "credible evidence"?

I mean that the hypothesis of a deity is highly implausible in the absence of credible evidence. Just like the hypothesis of elves, the hypothesis of alien abductions, etc. Are you "on the fence" about elves?

What constitutes "credible" in your "credible evidence". There is no objectivity here, is there?

I mean the same thing you mean when getting the answer right really matters. I mean whatever you count as credible evidence when it is not just a philosophical argument, but your life or health or family or wealth is at stake.

In order to hold the "no credible" evidence, you must make a statement of faith.
...
In fact, the whole "there is no evidence" argument is incredibly weak.

Really? What statement of faith is required to say that it is implausible that unicorns exist? Is the "there is no evidence" argument against their existence "incredibly weak"?

Is my taste sensation of brussels sprouts persuasive to people who like them? Is their pleasant taste sensation of brussels sprouts persuasive to me? No to both. Yet, is each of our evidence "credible"? Absolutely! It is persuasive to US! Overwhelmingly so.

If you are willing to put "there is a God" on a level with "brussels sprouts taste good", as a subjective statement, then fine. If not, this is irrelevant.

[kofh2u]

There is no confusion. This issue of being required to do anything only arose because I chose an example where the outcome is not academic but really matters. When getting it right is really important (money, health...), that's when we find out what you count as credible evidence.
It is interesting how you never answered the example...are you "agnostic" about the miracle investor's claims? Would you give your mother any advice, if so what and why?


Are you telling me that the main reason you disbelieve Mr. X's claim that he can levitate is that you think he would have had trouble breathing at high altitude?



Well, since I am a physicist I'm in a good position to correct you. We are "agnostic" towards tachyons, time-travel etc in the same sense that you are "agnostic" about unicorns. OK?


You seem to be pretending to have no concept of plausibility. Some hypotheses are more implausible than others. Yet you certainly have such a concept, or you couldn't function in the real world (you'd spend equal amounts of time checking out preposterous claims and reasonable ones).


Yes. But like many things that could have happened, it is highly implausible. That judgement is based on what we know about the world. Just like when I go to the garage and see my car is gone but there is a pool of water on the floor, I know it is highly unlikely that the car melted into water. I am not "agnostic" about the possibility that it melted. It would take a lot of evidence to convince me that such a thing had occurred. Are you "agnostic" about melting cars?


I mean that the hypothesis of a deity is highly implausible in the absence of credible evidence. Just like the hypothesis of elves, the hypothesis of alien abductions, etc. Are you "on the fence" about elves?


I mean the same thing you mean when getting the answer right really matters. I mean whatever you count as credible evidence when it is not just a philosophical argument, but your life or health or family or wealth is at stake.


Really? What statement of faith is required to say that it is implausible that unicorns exist? Is the "there is no evidence" argument against their existence "incredibly weak"?


If you are willing to put "there is a God" on a level with "brussels sprouts taste good", as a subjective statement, then fine. If not, this is irrelevant.

Ha... another physics person.

I think that you are basically responding to this point, are you not?

"I mean that the hypothesis of a deity is highly implausible in the absence of credible evidence. Just like the hypothesis of elves, the hypothesis of alien abductions, etc.?"

The problem seems complicated by a lack of definition.

I suggest, by the term God, we merely start the discussion by identifying this "term" as the Uncaused First Cause," pre-existing the Big Bang, and implied as Absolute and Total Energy.

This is supported by the Hebrew term of "El," the Creator, though Genesis 1 uses the plural form, El-ohyim.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (Elohim, creator), God, (the Theistic Absolute Energy pre-existing material Universe), created (by Einstienian transformation) the (matter composing the) heaven and the earth.

[albert]

I suggest, by the term God, we merely start the discussion by identifying this "term" as the Uncaused First Cause," pre-existing the Big Bang, and implied as Absolute and Total Energy.

No, I prefer that for an abstract first cause we use the term "first cause". The difficulty of getting from that to anything like Yahweh or Zeus is then unable to hide itself in semantics.

[bandecoot]

1. THis is shifting the burden of proof.
2. Define "we see no evidence for the existence of GoGs" This is also a logical fallacy.
3. Weak atheism, in order to remain weak atheism and see "no evidence", must make faith statements about the nature of the universe and the material processes we observe in the universe. Thus, while you can quibble about making assertions about deity, "weak" atheism is a faith because of the faith statements it makes about the universe.

read the OP. ToE, or more specifically natural selection, gave an answer to the Argument from Design for the existence of deity.

And shifting the burden of proof is bad? Not from where I am sitting. Why should I go out of my way to make a case for the nonexistance of nothing?
I state why I dont believe in any God and let it go at that. The burden of Proof is on the theist, as they make the assertion that a God exists. I just state my reasons why I dont believe in God or Gods. Its up to the theist to show proof. There is no fallacy, just a statement of perception. You may not like it, but your likes and dislikes are really of less than no interest to Me.

As for the argument from design, where is the evidence for a designer? See, it works on just about anything. With one exception, things that actually exist or that there is valid, sound, verifiable evidence for.

Even somethings I cant see, I cant see or indeed prove the existance of electrons, but I do fervently believe in their existance, as I have had 240 volts @ 50 hz across my hand once or twice.

??? ToE is NOT a set of METHODS. Rather, like all theories, ToE is a set of statements about the physical universe! Good grief, is science education so bad in this country that people think theories are METHODS!!??


See, even YOU then state that ToE is not a set of methods ("via many tests and methods") but a set of statements "nested hierarchies and common descent"). Get the science right!

As it is, nested hierarchies in classification are a TEST of the statement of common descent. IF descent with modification (short definition of evolution) happened, THEN organisms should be able to be classed in a nested hierarchy. That organisms are able to be classed that way becomes support for evolution. See the second chapter of Eldredge's The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism.

And perhaps you would like to re-read the OP and pay attention to it. I explicitly DENIED that evolution is atheism. However, I did point out a more complex relationship between evolution and atheism. You might also want to look at my signatures before you made the ridiculous last statement.

Ah my bad I should have written methodology. I should also have given some examples of methods like PCR, HPLC. See, I bother myself with the dribblings of Creos not much at all. When I run a gel I dont bother worrying about the overarching framework that I operate under. I am simply interested in how the bands turn out, of course if you want to disagree with me, thats fine. But the way I do Mol Arch works just fine. I leave the agonising over theoretical frames to post-docs. They have time for that stuff, I know, they get me to do their work for them.

You have of course jumped down my throat when I was agreeing with you, not good form really. But no harm done. You can call atheists what you like it does not matter to me. Shermer may be an Atheist, but he is not The Atheist, Im not sure we would accept anyone who said they were.

As for your pontificating on WA positions, too bad. You have about as much chance of shifting me from it as you have of flying to the moon unaided. I enjoy being the smug Atheist who sits back and watches the theist wiggle around, coming up with more and more nonsensical "proofs" of God.

I Loved Kofhys "unknowable first cause producing a known effect" That cracked me up for a while. It was almost Pythonesque in its surrealism.

The answer was and is simple, substitute the word unknowable for unknown and hey presto his position makes sense. Of course if God is simply unknown or imperfectly known, then so is the big bang. Which is an uncaused cause, HRG_new can explain the QM physics behind that one as my math is not up to that standard. See, once more unto the breach with valid sound evidence.

[kofh2u]

No, I prefer that for an abstract first cause we use the term "first cause". The difficulty of getting from that to anything like Yahweh or Zeus is then unable to hide itself in semantics.

Ok.
1) An unknowable First Cause insists on an agnostic confirmation.

2) A knowable, but yet unproven, First Cause admits to "something" that transcends the material universe in that it pre-dates the Big Bang.

3) The denial of a First Cause, specifically in regard to the material universe proceeding from the Big Bang, argues against the largest body of scientific evidence that infers all effects have causes.

Statements 1) and 2) are sufficient to make acceptable the first two verses below, no other exposition of the terms necessary for the sake of argument to follow.

That is, it remains to be seen where the text takes from this beginning:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, The Firdt Cause created the now known Universe(s) referred to as the heaven and the earth.