Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't you guys ever tire of using this non-explanation of "natural" as if it is a scientific explanation? How is it any more scientific than evolution by designed selection? You haven't a clue what or why "natural" or "nature" actually is . . . since it "Just is" . . . no different than God "just is" . . . except for the name.
You have a valid point that saying nature just is as an explanation doesn't really explain anything, although I'm not meaning it in that way when I use the word natural. When I use the word natural or nature I don't mean it as a 'just is' explanation, I just mean it as our observable universe of testing and chemical reactions rather than one of magic and supernatural mythology. I'd also have to say that natural selection was also coined by Darwin in the Origin. It's just the name of the process.
Last edited by agnostic soldier; 03-31-2010 at 11:39 PM..
You have a valid point that saying nature just is as an explanation doesn't really explain anything, although I'm not meaning it in that way when I use the word natural. When I use the word natural or nature I don't mean it as a 'just is' explanation, I just mean it as our observable universe of testing and chemical reactions rather than one of magic and supernatural mythology. I'd also have to say that natural selection was also coined by Darwin in the Origin. It's just the name of the process.
We've explained to Mystic several times that we have not used "nature" and "natural" to say "just is," but referred to known processes that operate without the Hand of God(tm). He refused to acknowledge it.
We've explained to Mystic several times that we have not used "nature" and "natural" to say "just is," but referred to known processes that operate without the Hand of God(tm). He refused to acknowledge it.
Refer to the bolded portion for the unsubstantiated and unscientific qualification that you added to your description of those known processes. Science does not allow the inclusion of qualifiers that have not been substantiated. How was this condition established scientifically?
Rifleman,
This thread is about if the universe came to be from nothing...which lends itself to a discussion about a "Creator". Arguing that Einstein didn't state belief in a "personal" God does not dismiss the "fact" that he was a proponent of a "God Force" acting upon the universe. Why bring up the "no personal God for Einstein" argument? While he didn't endorse a personal God he validated Jesus (I am the son of God) Christ...so, he did go beyond just "creation God". But that's not what matters about what Einstein thought, relative to the thread. I know it is a thorn in the atheists side that arguably the greatest mind to ever live (in the field probably most directly relative to the question) said, "Yes", to the question of the existence of a God that compelled the universe.
I just researched it again...MOST information is around a 90% "belief in a God" rate overall...some higher, some lower. Bottom Line: It's not even close to debatable that Atheists lose on a numbers basis by a absolutely crushing margin. And though #s don't necessarily prove anything...in a democratic society the only fair way to determine things is "majority rules". If your premise has any "juice", it will take over...if it doesn't, it won't. I submit, it is incumbent upon the atheists to present some "real evidence" to disprove what has, for all intents and purposes, a universal consensus. I don't think there is another subjective issue, ever in the history of mankind, that so many people agreed upon. I can see some of you are really serious about getting your message out, with thousands of posts...so it won't be for lack of dissemination of the information. Still, none of you have showed me a thing except to say what "scientists think"...and that theists are "wrong and misguided"...you're gonna have to fight a lot harder than that to unseat such an overwhelming champion.
On questions such as this...that really when you get right down to it, has no certain answer...the IQ of the person has little to do with it. As I stated in another post...and I am certain of this...WISDOM trumps intellect. And I feel wisdom is a better tool than intellect to come up with answers about mystical issues. The "smartest" people I've ever known are/were not lettered people...just very wise. Look at the people in the U.S. government...most hold doctorates...and the VAST majority are theists. The "sheeple" label can be given to any bunch that "follows the crowd", from people "flocking" to fast food joints and eating borderline poison sold as food, to large groups all wrapped up in sports, to students in "public" schools believing the evolutionary *theory* they teach as a "fact". Theism isn't about "warmth and comfort"...is that what you think? As a matter of fact, a judgmental God is the *last* thing you'd turn to for comfort. The "warmth and comfort" comes more from the atheist position that allows conduct without any consequence beyond mortality.
Why is it that creationists say that atheism is illogical because something can't come from nothing? Neither atheism nor science say we came from nothing. They say we don't currently know how the universe began.
Because that's what they believe, so they want us to look as silly as they do..
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Don't you guys ever tire of using this non-explanation of "natural" as if it is a scientific explanation? How is it any more scientific than evolution by designed selection? You haven't a clue what or why "natural" or "nature" actually is . . . since it "Just is" . . . no different than God "just is" . . . except for the name.
Because maybe if you actually read why he typed ("natural selection") you would recognize that the the word "natural" is only part of the name of an explanation of how genes can have a higher chance of reproducing due to environmental pressures.
No. That's where you are wrong. With natural selection we can observe, test, and make predictions based on accumulative information and theories.
"God" has none of these attributes. "God done it" IS NOT AN EXPLANATION!!!!
Edit: wikipedia puts this perfectly, Natural selection is the process by which those heritabletraits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution.
Refer to the bolded portion for the unsubstantiated and unscientific qualification that you added to your description of those known processes. Science does not allow the inclusion of qualifiers that have not been substantiated. How was this condition established scientifically?
Rifleman,
This thread is about if the universe came to be from nothing...which lends itself to a discussion about a "Creator". Arguing that Einstein didn't state belief in a "personal" God does not dismiss the "fact" that he was a proponent of a "God Force" acting upon the universe. Why bring up the "no personal God for Einstein" argument? While he didn't endorse a personal God he validated Jesus (I am the son of God) Christ...so, he did go beyond just "creation God". But that's not what matters about what Einstein thought, relative to the thread. I know it is a thorn in the atheists side that arguably the greatest mind to ever live (in the field probably most directly relative to the question) said, "Yes", to the question of the existence of a God that compelled the universe.
I just researched it again...MOST information is around a 90% "belief in a God" rate overall...some higher, some lower. Bottom Line: It's not even close to debatable that Atheists lose on a numbers basis by a absolutely crushing margin. And though #s don't necessarily prove anything...in a democratic society the only fair way to determine things is "majority rules". If your premise has any "juice", it will take over...if it doesn't, it won't. I submit, it is incumbent upon the atheists to present some "real evidence" to disprove what has, for all intents and purposes, a universal consensus. I don't think there is another subjective issue, ever in the history of mankind, that so many people agreed upon. I can see some of you are really serious about getting your message out, with thousands of posts...so it won't be for lack of dissemination of the information. Still, none of you have showed me a thing except to say what "scientists think"...and that theists are "wrong and misguided"...you're gonna have to fight a lot harder than that to unseat such an overwhelming champion.
On questions such as this...that really when you get right down to it, has no certain answer...the IQ of the person has little to do with it. As I stated in another post...and I am certain of this...WISDOM trumps intellect. And I feel wisdom is a better tool than intellect to come up with answers about mystical issues. The "smartest" people I've ever known are/were not lettered people...just very wise. Look at the people in the U.S. government...most hold doctorates...and the VAST majority are theists. The "sheeple" label can be given to any bunch that "follows the crowd", from people "flocking" to fast food joints and eating borderline poison sold as food, to large groups all wrapped up in sports, to students in "public" schools believing the evolutionary *theory* they teach as a "fact". Theism isn't about "warmth and comfort"...is that what you think? As a matter of fact, a judgmental God is the *last* thing you'd turn to for comfort. The "warmth and comfort" comes more from the atheist position that allows conduct without any consequence beyond mortality.
All the best.
It's human nature to want to "follow the crowd". Evolution is a fact. Theism usual is the security blanket for those who do not want to accept their own mortality.
You want a "fact"...try this one:::I just checked it out and 90% of the WORLDS population believes in a God. 9 OUT OF 10!!
Want another fact? Most of those 90% believe in a different god than you. If you think raw numbers mean anything, it's time for you to convert. Put up or shut up.
Refer to the bolded portion for the unsubstantiated and unscientific qualification that you added to your description of those known processes. Science does not allow the inclusion of qualifiers that have not been substantiated. How was this condition established scientifically?
Occam's Razor, mostly. Not assuming stuff which isn't necessary is one of the central ideas of science. Your concept of god is one of those unnecessary things which are left out of scientific models. God doesn't explain or predict anything, so it's worthless to what science is doing.
Based on what you've written, I can see you don't understand how science works. You think it assumes everything is true and has to conclusively disprove ideas before coming to conclusions. In fact, the opposite is true - concepts need evidence before they're considered. Your god doesn't meet even that minimum standard.
If that bothers you, you need to come up with a reason for scientists to care. Your best evidence so far - that you saw it in a mystical vision while depriving your brain of oxygen - isn't what one would call objective data.
Rifleman,
This thread is about if the universe came to be from nothing...which lends itself to a discussion about a "Creator".
Quote:
Or, alternately, to other solutions. Why focus even 50% of your mental energy on a Creator argument just because it fits with an illiterate goatherd mentality that prevailed when the book was written? It's been discredited in oh-so-many-ways now that I and many others, yes, do sort of dismiss it. Any argument it could have been used in aid of has already been tried, and they always fail on rationality alone.
It's devoid of any logic, rationality, and direction, and is also the result of the Council of Nicea's rather drastic editing actions where contradictions were conveniently removed. The books of Peter, judas, and others: Presto-Eraso! The bible's inerrancy and utility is therefore more than a little suspect.
Arguing that Einstein didn't state belief in a "personal" God does not dismiss the "fact" that he was a proponent of a "God Force" acting upon the universe. Why bring up the "no personal God for Einstein" argument?
Quote:
Because you and others continue to try bringing it up as a support for a God, when in fact it's not. The ad populem argument ("They all do it!") or Appeal to Authority or Intellect arguments ("9 out of 10 doctors say those who eat carrots will all eventualy die!") have all been critically explained, and are the basis for dismissal of a debater's point of view. Why? Because they don't hold any validity. And yet you persist.
While he didn't endorse a personal God he validated Jesus (I am the son of God) Christ...so, he did go beyond just "creation God".
Quote:
Nope. He did not personally "validate" Jesus, except perhaps in the minds of Christian interpreters, who will stop at nothing to re-interpret.
But that's not what matters about what Einstein thought, relative to the thread. I know it is a thorn in the atheists side that arguably the greatest mind to ever live (in the field probably most directly relative to the question) said, "Yes", to the question of the existence of a God that compelled the universe.
Quote:
Again, he didn't say or do that, but it's also not a thorn. Who says his opinion about dieties is true? It's his "opinion": look up the word. After all, he was raised "religious" as he says, but eventually "thought" his way out of all of theism's various conundra and contradictions. so what value is it in the end?
I just researched it again...MOST information is around a 90% "belief in a God" rate overall...some higher, some lower. Bottom Line: It's not even close to debatable that Atheists lose on a numbers basis by a absolutely crushing margin.
Quote:
Yep. Belief in "A" God, not necessarily Your God. That, as has been shown, is around 45%, and is declining in educated Western society. Islam, by comparison, is growing exactly with the population increase in the illiterate population areas. Surprised? Not me. "Warmth & comfort" [see below].
Quote:
What I did say was that those who are academically trained, esp. in the sciences and engineering, are, by a massive majority, atheists. The numbers of such types is also growing as a percentage of the population. Theism always fails on the technicalities when it's critically reviewed. It requires "faith", that intangible and undefined entity that nonetheless also requires supernatural, illogical processes, none of which are now in evidence.
All of them, conveniently, only occurred in the biblical past, and were only written down, all nicely sorted out, the loose ends "fixed", centuries after they were purported to have happened. But... since the advent of camera, video, sound recording systems, or trained observers, the various miraculous proofs have all STOPPED. Completely. Fini!
And yet this fact is only suspicious to us skeptics, who become even more skeptical when the explanations for this conundrum are presented by braying fundamentalists. It's completely acceptable to Christians. Of course; it's all they have to go on now, but as time marches on and no more events or prophecies or second comings occur, it'll be a harder and harder sell. Just you watch!
And though #s don't necessarily prove anything...in a democratic society the only fair way to determine things is "majority rules".
Quote:
Ahhh-so. You want to enforce your beliefs based on a majority vote, huh? You think that if a lot of sheeple believe in something, that it gets to be "determined"? Wow. Thank Gawd you're not king!
See, personal beliefs are exactly that, unless you lived during The Spanish Inquisition, which shows us how the church would REALLY like to operate.
If your premise has any "juice", it will take over...if it doesn't, it won't. I submit, it is incumbent upon the atheists to present some "real evidence" to disprove what has, for all intents and purposes, a universal consensus.
Quote:
Nope again. Against growing observable evidence, such as the recent unassailable and incontrovertible proofs of Evolution, you can only re-quote the obviously implausible Genesis version. That fails when submitted to those who understand logic and argument. Those who still bray at the moon or stamp their feet and cover their ears and yell? Well, I don't really hold much hope out for them, no matter how many there are of them outside my window.
...none of you have showed me a thing except to say what "scientists think"...and that theists are "wrong and misguided"...you're gonna have to fight a lot harder than that to unseat such an overwhelming champion.
Quote:
That's hardly been our argument, "what scientists think". Try "what scientists have observed and re-tested and submitted to intense peer discussion, and testing and prediction" I know, it's way harder to say than your over-simplified and incorrect version, but hey; it's the truth.
They only come to their conservative and well-defined conclusions after significant effort and review, plus peer-review to catch any illogical aspects of their study. You make it sound like a mumbling, disjunct coffee clatch discussion, unsupported by anything rational. You're obviously not a scientist.
On questions such as this...that really when you get right down to it, has no certain answer...the IQ of the person has little to do with it.
Quote:
So drop the (incorrect) appeal to Einstein then. You contradict yourself at almost every turn here...
Theism isn't about "warmth and comfort"...is that what you think? As a matter of fact, a judgmental God is the *last* thing you'd turn to for comfort. The "warmth and comfort" comes more from the atheist position that allows conduct without any consequence beyond mortality.
All the best.
1) Another blatant insult. Who says atheism allows conduct without consequence? This falls into that inane "atheists are morally rudderless!" tripe. BTW, I take it even more personally, being an "evil scientist" and an ethically bereft atheist. Gawd; I'm a real menace to society, like Satan hisself! I even like snakes! O. M. G!!!
You've been listening to others' thinking again, without any thoughtful questioning. I, and all the atheists I know, simply rely on their own consciousness and personal "right-wrong" ethical standards to do the right thing. We don't need to be led across the intersection like little children or the aged and infirm, to make our way in life. You, apparently, do, and no doubt would like to enforce your beliefs on all of us. Democratically. And, BTW, those highest-level RC priests in the news these days? What's with their glorious ethical standards? Christians should be VERY careful when pointing judgmental fingers!!
Formulaic, orchestrated, punishment-managed rules of conduct always get out of hand, and when they are combined with imagined "ethical standards", all h$ll breaks loose, as we've all seen historically and today with the Church.
2) Theism is exactly about warmth & comfort, undeniably. Just listen to the promises on Sunday morning TV evangelism. Listen to your priest or minister or Rabbi when he talks about God's Holy Retribution, The Wages of Sin, and Heaven as a life-long goal. Then ask Christians how they would handle it if we were to convince them that there was no heaven.
Last edited by rifleman; 04-01-2010 at 10:34 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let there be light
