Snakeystew
Registered: 04/04/08
Posts: 2,756
|
| | 11/26/08 at 09:22 AM | Reply with quote | #31 |
|
Quote: If you assert that "God did it" is a poor argument for something we don't understand, and I don't necessarily disagree, why is it a good argument to say that "science will explain it one day" for the very same thing we don't understand?
Where did I say "science will explain it one day"?
Quote: Plus, science does show the universe had a beginning, and science all shows that every effect must have an adequate cause. That's scientific.
Not really, indeed science recognises the existence of things that are uncaused, (no, you don't have to agree with them, it merely negates your above statement).
Quote: The argumentation has been used that ancient people, ignorant of science, simply said "this god" or "that god" did such and such (i.e. lightning, rain, thunder, etc.)
Not just 'ancient people', a god controlling the weather was still being asserted in the late 1700's.
Quote: And no doubt, many ancient cultures did hold such beliefs. But where, in the Bible, in relation to the theistic, specifically the Christian, God do you find such assertions?
Asking me is neither here nor there. It is only going to be of relevance if you ask those people that believed that a god controlled the weather, those 'ancient cultures' you mention. Don't you think?
|
| Loading... | |
saibomb
Registered: 06/02/08
Posts: 877
|
| | 11/26/08 at 11:00 AM | Reply with quote | #32 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartinQuote: Originally Posted by saibombQuote: Originally Posted by rsmartinCreation of the universe presupposes a creator and none is evidenced. As Snakey points out, natural explanations have been found for almost everything that people used to think was an act of god. There's no reason to think the origin of the universe is any different.Quote: Flowing water created the Grand Canyon...Lose pebbles start avalanches. We build machines that are "greater" than ourselves: forklifts, jet airplanes. We create machines that "think" better than we do--witness the defeat of world chess champion Garry Kasparov to IBM's Deep Blue. A man and woman who are both of average intelligence can produce a child who is a genius. Nature abounds with examples of complexity arising from simplicity.
Dan Barker, Godless, 2008 134 I'm sorry but it is VERY different. Explaining what causes lighting and how the universe came to be are NOT the same thing at all. Let me elaborate on what I meant. I meant that there is no reason to think that there is not a natural explanation for the beginning of the universe just as there is a natural explanation for lightening. The question of the thread is for atheists to explain their beliefs. I have done so. I'm not asking Christians to like my beliefs but I am asking them to respect my beliefs as they want me to respect theirs. Quote: I could make a world that functions on its own with a whole bunch of processes and laws and everything, where whoever lived in it could discover things about the world without needing me as an explanation, but eventually they would come to a point where they do need me as an explanation (like for how it was created). You could do that? You must be smarter than the world's top scientists. Let me see you do it. Quote: My question to you is, how can you just assume that this point doesn't exist? What point?
The point when science can no longer figure it out. You're assuming that science can eventually figure everything out, what I'm saying is that maybe there is a point that science will reach where they can't figure it out anymore, that God is the only explanation. This is what you'd expect from a theistic point of view, so there's absolutely nothing damaging to the idea that God exists by saying science can figure out small little things like what causes lighting or how a stars are formed without needing God as an explanation. It's compatible with an atheistic and a theistic view is basically what I'm trying to say,sorry if its been a little confusing.
|
| Loading... | |
etiainen
Registered: 07/15/08
Posts: 531
|
| | 11/26/08 at 03:26 PM | Reply with quote | #33 |
|
snakey - you wont believe this. I just wrote out a really long response that took like, half an hour and then the network crashed and I lost it!! How lame is that?? I'll reply, but probably tomorrow now. Bare with me man :-) |
| Loading... | |
wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835
|
| | 11/26/08 at 03:40 PM | Reply with quote | #34 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by saibomb
You're assuming that science can eventually figure everything out, what I'm saying is that maybe there is a point that science will reach where they can't figure it out anymore, that God is the only explanation.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| Loading... | |
Snakeystew
Registered: 04/04/08
Posts: 2,756
|
| | 11/26/08 at 04:15 PM | Reply with quote | #35 |
|
Quote: snakey - you wont believe this. I just wrote out a really long response that took like, half an hour and then the network crashed and I lost it!! How lame is that?? I'll reply, but probably tomorrow now. Bare with me man :-)
Sorry to hear it, that's never nice. I tend to copy/paste and save in notepad as I am going along if writing lengthy posts just to avoid moments like that. Sucks but that's life. 
|
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,480
|
| | 11/26/08 at 07:15 PM | Reply with quote | #36 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SnakeystewQuote: The argumentation has been used that ancient people, ignorant of science, simply said "this god" or "that god" did such and such (i.e. lightning, rain, thunder, etc.) Not just 'ancient people', a god controlling the weather was still being asserted in the late 1700's.
As recently as Nov. 2008, if I'm not mistaken. I'm quite sure my sister said something to that effect in her birthday letter to me earlier this month.
Quote: Quote: And no doubt, many ancient cultures did hold such beliefs. But where, in the Bible, in relation to the theistic, specifically the Christian, God do you find such assertions? Asking me is neither here nor there. It is only going to be of relevance if you ask those people that believed that a god controlled the weather, those 'ancient cultures' you mention. Don't you think?
I'd look in Job for starters. God claimed to open and close the windows of snow, rain, hail, etc. A solid firmament was presupposed as the sky. This solid firmament held back the waters above the earth, which is clearly stated in Gen. 1.
If I remember my OT, it reports God using hail to help the ancient Israelites win some battle or other (battered the enemy with hail--or their crops or war horses; I forget the details). Paul, in his speech to the barbarians, preaches that his God gives rain to the godly and ungodly, or something to that effect. It seems the Bible is full of "assertions" that the ancient people believed the "Christian" God controlled the weather.
That's what the simple reading of those passages indicates. Christians may find ways to "explain it away." So be it.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
forhisglory
Registered: 01/28/08
Posts: 2,167
|
| | 11/26/08 at 07:37 PM | Reply with quote | #37 |
|
Quote: I'd look in Job for starters. God claimed to open and close the windows of snow, rain, hail, etc. A solid firmament was presupposed as the sky. This solid firmament held back the waters above the earth, which is clearly stated in Gen. 1.
If I remember my OT, it reports God using hail to help the ancient Israelites win some battle or other (battered the enemy with hail--or their crops or war horses; I forget the details). Paul, in his speech to the barbarians, preaches that his God gives rain to the godly and ungodly, or something to that effect. It seems the Bible is full of "assertions" that the ancient people believed the "Christian" God controlled the weather.
That's what the simple reading of those passages indicates. Christians may find ways to "explain it away." So be it.
Thanks RS. I think, however, that you misread my request. I specifically said:
Quote: The argumentation has been used that ancient people, ignorant of science, simply said "this god" or "that god" did such and such (i.e. lightning, rain, thunder, etc.). This argumentation is not used in the sense of miracle claims about specific events, but in a general sense. And no doubt, many ancient cultures did hold such beliefs. But where, in the Bible, in relation to the theistic, specifically the Christian, God do you find such assertions?
The theistic God, specifically the Christian God, not only created the world, but is active in it and holds it together. So it would not be a mistake to say that God brings rain, etc. But as I mentioned in another post, Jesus mentions the Jew's ability to "predict" the weather to an extent. So saying that "God brings rain" since He does indeed hold the world together, while at the same time realizing that weather is a somewhat predictable event, is not the same thing as saying "the god of rain" or "the god of lightening" did such and such. Also, I specifically said that I was not referring to miracles like the instance of hail in the OT. As I said in my earlier post, the Jews knew enough about science that they could recognize a miracle/act of God when it happened.
|
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,480
|
| | 11/26/08 at 07:41 PM | Reply with quote | #38 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by saibombQuote: Originally Posted by rsmartinQuote: Originally Posted by saibomb
I could make a world that functions on its own with a whole bunch of processes and laws and everything, where whoever lived in it could discover things about the world without needing me as an explanation, but eventually they would come to a point where they do need me as an explanation (like for how it was created). You could do that? You must be smarter than the world's top scientists. Let me see you do it.
You must have missed this question. It's relevant, esp. in light of what you say below.
Quote: Originally Posted by saibombQuote: Originally Posted by rsmartinQuote: Originally Posted by saibomb
My question to you is, how can you just assume that this point doesn't exist? What point? The point when science can no longer figure it out. You're assuming that science can eventually figure everything out, what I'm saying is that maybe there is a point that science will reach where they can't figure it out anymore, that God is the only explanation. This is what you'd expect from a theistic point of view, so there's absolutely nothing damaging to the idea that God exists by saying science can figure out small little things like what causes lighting or how a stars are formed without needing God as an explanation. It's compatible with an atheistic and a theistic view is basically what I'm trying to say,sorry if its been a little confusing.
Thanks for clarifying. I disagree that your conclusion is compatible with the atheistic view. The minute god's existence is evidenced the atheist turns into a theist. In other words, if it is ever proven that God created the universe (exists so that it is possible that he could have done it), then the atheist will instantly turn into a theist.
There might be some uneducated "hicks in the sticks" would who would insist on holding onto tradition for its own sake, and who would refuse to acknowledge the obvious. But I think it is safe to say that it won't be any of the atheists on this forum. HOWEVER, you will first have to prove that a creator exists.
An excellent way to prove the possibility of such a creator would be to actually do what you said you could in your quote at the top of this post.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,480
|
| | 11/26/08 at 08:32 PM | Reply with quote | #39 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by forhisgloryQuote: I'd look in Job for starters. God claimed to open and close the windows of snow, rain, hail, etc. A solid firmament was presupposed as the sky. This solid firmament held back the waters above the earth, which is clearly stated in Gen. 1.
If I remember my OT, it reports God using hail to help the ancient Israelites win some battle or other (battered the enemy with hail--or their crops or war horses; I forget the details). Paul, in his speech to the barbarians, preaches that his God gives rain to the godly and ungodly, or something to that effect. It seems the Bible is full of "assertions" that the ancient people believed the "Christian" God controlled the weather.
That's what the simple reading of those passages indicates. Christians may find ways to "explain it away." So be it. Thanks RS. I think, however, that you misread my request. I specifically said: Quote: The argumentation has been used that ancient people, ignorant of science, simply said "this god" or "that god" did such and such (i.e. lightning, rain, thunder, etc.). This argumentation is not used in the sense of miracle claims about specific events, but in a general sense. And no doubt, many ancient cultures did hold such beliefs. But where, in the Bible, in relation to the theistic, specifically the Christian, God do you find such assertions? The theistic God, specifically the Christian God, not only created the world, but is active in it and holds it together. So it would not be a mistake to say that God brings rain, etc. But as I mentioned in another post, Jesus mentions the Jew's ability to "predict" the weather to an extent. So saying that "God brings rain" since He does indeed hold the world together, while at the same time realizing that weather is a somewhat predictable event, is not the same thing as saying "the god of rain" or "the god of lightening" did such and such. Also, I specifically said that I was not referring to miracles like the instance of hail in the OT. As I said in my earlier post, the Jews knew enough about science that they could recognize a miracle/act of God when it happened.
FH, I was well aware that you were twisting Snakey's meaning with this quote
Quote: The argumentation has been used that ancient people, ignorant of science, simply said "this god" or "that god" did such and such (i.e. lightning, rain, thunder, etc.). This argumentation is not used in the sense of miracle claims about specific events, but in a general sense. And no doubt, many ancient cultures did hold such beliefs. But where, in the Bible, in relation to the theistic, specifically the Christian, God do you find such assertions?
(more on this below). I did not respond to it.
My statement
Quote:
I'd look in Job for starters. God claimed to open and close the windows of snow, rain, hail, etc. A solid firmament was presupposed as the sky. This solid firmament held back the waters above the earth, which is clearly stated in Gen. 1.
If I remember my OT, it reports God using hail to help the ancient Israelites win some battle or other (battered the enemy with hail--or their crops or war horses; I forget the details). Paul, in his speech to the barbarians, preaches that his God gives rain to the godly and ungodly, or something to that effect. It seems the Bible is full of "assertions" that the ancient people believed the "Christian" God controlled the weather.
That's what the simple reading of those passages indicates. Christians may find ways to "explain it away." So be it.
was in response to the following part of Snakey's Post 31:
Quote: Originally Posted by SnakeystewQuote: And no doubt, many ancient cultures did hold such beliefs. But where, in the Bible, in relation to the theistic, specifically the Christian, God do you find such assertions? Asking me is neither here nor there. It is only going to be of relevance if you ask those people that believed that a god controlled the weather, those 'ancient cultures' you mention. Don't you think?
This raises the question: Exactly which culture/cultures was Snakey referring to?
Snakey talks about "those people that believed that a god controlled the weather, those 'ancient cultures' you mention." Does he differentiate between the ancient Israelites and the other ancient cultures? Let's look at his Post 27 as follows:
Quote: Originally Posted by SnakeystewQuote: I'm sorry but it is VERY different. Explaining what causes lighting and how the universe came to be are NOT the same thing at all.
Your claim here is nothing but a gap in knowledge. To the people several hundred years ago, there was simply no way to explain lightning without invoking gods as being responsible. You are doing the same, just with a remaining gap in human knowledge. They ARE completely the same thing.
I have no reason to think that when he says "To the people several hundred years ago, there was simply no way to explain lightning without invoking gods as being responsible," he is not including all the peoples and cultures up to that time. In other words, I conclude that Snakey includes the ancient Israelites along with their neighbours in that statement. If I'm wrong, Snakey, please correct me. I hadn't meant to get you into trouble. Sorry.
This is important because this is the foundation on which I built my argument about Job, etc. FH, this is where you twisted Snakey's meaning (I think; if I'm wrong I trust Snakey will correct me). As I predicted, you (FH) further twisted my meaning by mixing up who responded to what--and then built an argument on that; I do not feel obligated to respond to that latter argument.
This thread is about atheist beliefs. This is what I believe about these matters. My position is subject to change without notice upon the reciept of new information.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
forhisglory
Registered: 01/28/08
Posts: 2,167
|
| | 11/26/08 at 09:13 PM | Reply with quote | #40 |
|
Quote: As I predicted, you (FH) further twisted my meaning by mixing up who responded to what--and then built an argument on that; I do not feel obligated to respond to that latter argument.
Actually RS, I didn't really pay much attention to who responded to what, who said what exactly, etc. I wasn't trying to twist meanings, but I was simply trying to respond to the general argumentation, which has been presented on here in the past, about past cultures using "god" to explain the unexplainable, which science has made explainable today. The implied reasoning being, "god" is a stupid hypothesis and science will explain everything, which the ignorant past cultures knew nothing about. That's all. |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,480
|
| | 11/26/08 at 10:21 PM | Reply with quote | #41 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by forhisglory
The implied reasoning being, "god" is a stupid hypothesis and science will explain everything, which the ignorant past cultures knew nothing about. That's all.
Thanks for coming clean on this. I can only speak for myself here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in this context the words "stupid" and "ignorant" are loaded words. They don't have to be.
I do not think that our ancestors were stupid or ignorant in a negative way, just because they lacked knowledge we possess today. They possessed knowledge we lack today. If "amount of knowledge"="value of person," I think we're all about equal. This applies equally to the religious person and atheist today as it did then, and it applies to us and to them. I could be wrong but that's what I think.
Different people value different kinds of knowledge. Some people value knowledge on how to protect themselves from evil with amulets or prayers. Some people value knowledge on how to protect themselves from adversity with forethought and strategy. Some people--I think most people--value authorities and/or specialists on the more complicated aspects of these difficulties of life.
I know from personal experience that started when I was a very young child that humans exist on various levels of reality. I remember the precise moment when I had to choose which reality I would use to communicate with other humans. The reality that all humans have in common is concrete empirical reality: that which can be experienced through the five senses.
For this reason, I use it as a baseline and value it--and it alone--when measuring reality. I think this is what the Enlightenment was about. This value of the Enlightenment has enabled Western civilization via the sciences to arrive at levels of well-being, i.e. quality of life, never before known to humans. Religionists (Christian and otherwise) are trying to mix and match more than one kind of reality. In the process they devalue the one thing we have: Life itself.
This thread is about atheist beliefs. We have so much evidence that there is no consciousness outside the physical brain. We believe very strongly--we KNOW--that this life is all we get while religionists (Christians and Muslims make up half the human population) devalue it. Surely you can understand our frustration.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
Snakeystew
Registered: 04/04/08
Posts: 2,756
|
| | 11/26/08 at 10:30 PM | Reply with quote | #42 |
|
Quote: As I said in my earlier post, the Jews knew enough about science that they could recognize a miracle/act of God when it happened.
1. This statement is bizarre. These jews knew enough about science that they could recognise when they couldn't explain something, (and thus attributed it to miracles/acts of god)?
2. Kindly explain to me on what basis exactly you say ancient jews "knew enough about science". Some clarification as to what 'enough' means would be handy.
|
| Loading... | |
bdsimon
Registered: 12/12/07
Posts: 463
|
| | 11/26/08 at 10:33 PM | Reply with quote | #43 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
This thread is about atheist beliefs. We have so much evidence that there is no consciousness outside the physical brain. We believe very strongly--we KNOW--that this life is all we get while religionists
How about providing this evidence and showing how you KNOW that this is all there is. Hmmmm? Didn't think so. |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,480
|
| | 11/26/08 at 11:07 PM | Reply with quote | #44 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by bdsimonQuote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
This thread is about atheist beliefs. We have so much evidence that there is no consciousness outside the physical brain. We believe very strongly--we KNOW--that this life is all we get while religionists How about providing this evidence and showing how you KNOW that this is all there is. Hmmmm? Didn't think so.
I thought you'd jump on that one. 
However, we do have evidence that when the brain is altered, the personality is altered. When the brain is altered, the consciousness is altered. This alteration can occur in a number of ways: injury, substance as in meds (prescribed or self-medicating), surgery, disease, etc.
We also have evidence that the human personality changes over the course of a lifetime as the brain matures physically. A baby is very different from a six-year-old, a fourteen-year-old is very different from a 25-year-old, etc. Likewise, when people reach very old age, or experience some kind of brain disease, their personality changes. I saw it in my grandparents and also in my own parents. Who, exactly, is the real person? The innocent toddler? The strapping young man? The wizened sage?
Maybe you say it's not the consciousness but something else that is the real person or soul. If so, what about those people who are kept alive on life support machines for weeks or months on end? Is the real person still in there somewhere? How do they differ from the body of an animal?
Well, this is the evidence I know about for no consciousness outside the physical brain. This is enough to start some real thinking if you're open to it. Sophisticated research has been done by top neurologists of the world if you want to pursue the topic in more depth. There's a guy in England that Lightfoot or someone posted about on here a while ago but I forget his name.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,480
|
| | 11/26/08 at 11:17 PM | Reply with quote | #45 |
|
Bdsimon, just thought about another thing. Fundamentalist religionists are so worried about the souls of zygots or whatever in stem cell research that they won't allow it. They think it's killing babies. But here's the low down:
- it is common for two of those bits of tissue to unite into one baby
- it is common for one of these bits of tissue to split into two babies
This being the case, how many souls does Baby 1 have? Or do Babies 2 share the same soul?
I'm sorry if these seem like absurd questions yet religionists (because of their strength in numbers) force laws in our land that force life and death decisions based on exactly these issues.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
