http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm
"US scientists have called on mainstream religious communities to help them fight policies that undermine the teaching of evolution. "
Religion proving something? That's sort of an oxymoron....

Why can't people just accept Intelligent Design as a concept, whether then a theory which is absolutely true? If Intelligent Design is taught just as an idea, and evolution taught as a theory, then I don't really see any problem, do you?

Teaching children many perspectives is important to increase their understanding of life. If we teach Descartes even tough he was wrong, what's wrong with teaching Intelligent Design?

Ever heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

http://www.venganza.org/


[Renrue]

I knew pirates were better then ninjas!

since it's about random comments at this point, this reminds me of the Scopes trial...in your face, fundies! :D

You guys are so religious... :p

Ever heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

http://www.venganza.org/


[Renrue]
Yes. Is that relevant?

Science hasn't disproven the possibility of a God just as much as religion hasn't proven it. Therefore, agnosticism is the only logical way to go.

Science hasn't disproven the possibility of a God just as much as religion hasn't proven it. Therefore, agnosticism is the only logical way to go.

Science cannot prove the possibility of god and religion had plenty of chance to prove it. Hence atheism is the only logical way to go.

You don't have absolute proof that there is no god either.

I agree that agnosticism is the only assumption-free way. Which is convenient because I myself am an agnostic :)

Agnosticism is the only safe way, yes, but why not be bold?
I'm selfish, and don't want to be bold, so I'm an agnostic, but I agree that the judeo-christian-islamic god doesn't exist. That motherfucker is entirely illogical.

Science cannot prove the possibility of god
Why not? Would you have imagined a black hole 20 years ago?

and religion had plenty of chance to prove it.
How?

Hence atheism is the only logical way to go.
Atheism ignore the fact that the abscense of evidence cannot disprove something.

You don't have absolute proof that there is no god either.

I agree that agnosticism is the only assumption-free way. Which is convenient because I myself am an agnostic :)
That makes two of us. ;)

Agnosticism is the only safe way, yes, but why not be bold?
I'm selfish, and don't want to be bold, so I'm an agnostic, but I agree that the judeo-christian-islamic god doesn't exist. That motherfucker is entirely illogical.
Why do you say he is entirely illogical? What is the extent of your knowledge about him. Often, when something looks illogical, it might just not be well explored yet. ;)

THERE is a way to combine intelgent design and evolution...

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/7431/bibone4yv.th.jpg (http://img71.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bibone4yv.jpg)

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/5035/lifeformi0zl.th.jpg (http://img83.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lifeformi0zl.jpg)
-MT

I'm selfish, and don't want to be bold, so I'm an agnostic,
agnostic- the greek equivelent of the english 'ignoramous'

Why not? Would you have imagined a black hole 20 years ago?


hmm...I'm not a physicist, but:

The concept of a body so massive that not even light could escape it was put forward by the English geologist John Michell in a 1783 paper sent to the Royal Society. At that time, the Newtonian theory of gravity and the concept of escape velocity were well known. Michell computed that a body 500 times the radius of the Sun and of the same density would have, at its surface, an escape velocity equal to the speed of light, and therefore would be invisible. In his words:

If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its vis inertiae (inertial mass), with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity.


Atheism ignore the fact that the abscense of evidence cannot disprove something.

I'm not interested in disproving a silly concept. We are not ignoring it. We are well aware of it. We are just not interested in stupid pursuits.

Yes. Is that relevant?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is relevant because if many theories should be taught, why should the specific version of I.D. pushed in the US be included but polytheistic design theories (e.g. from Hinduism), Invisible Pink Unicornism and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism not?

I have nothing against teaching these as part of a historical or cultural lesson but I don't think they belong in the science classroom. Intelligent Design is non-science because instead of saying, "here's a difficult question to explain, but here's the best explanation we've got so far" it says "here's a difficult question to explain ... too difficult, so we'll say He did it." It throws away the intriguing game of science in favour of a cheat - an old cheat with a lot of history but still a cheat. Teach about it in history, in literature, in art if you want - but it's not science.

Atheism ignore the fact that the abscense of evidence cannot disprove something.

In a court of law it is up to the prosecution to prove a fact. If religion says that god exists then the burden of proof is on the religious types.

hmm...I'm not a physicist, but:
And religion exists since when? That's not what I meant with my comment. I meant that many ideas take time to get accepted in the mainstream.

Btw, where did you get that?

I'm not interested in disproving a silly concept. We are not ignoring it. We are well aware of it. We are just not interested in stupid pursuits.
What is silly about the concept of a god? I'm not talking particularly about the Christian God, I'm talking about a god as a "supernatural" being, with certain characteristics. My perspective is more of a logical exploration rather then a simple explanation.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is relevant because if many theories should be taught, why should the specific version of I.D. pushed in the US be included but polytheistic design theories (e.g. from Hinduism), Invisible Pink Unicornism and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism not?
I'm not saying theories should be taught. The purpose is to make them aware of different perspectives, and to teach them to be logically explorative.

I have nothing against teaching these as part of a historical or cultural lesson but I don't think they belong in the science classroom. Intelligent Design is non-science because instead of saying, "here's a difficult question to explain, but here's the best explanation we've got so far" it says "here's a difficult question to explain ... too difficult, so we'll say He did it." It throws away the intriguing game of science in favour of a cheat - an old cheat with a lot of history but still a cheat. Teach about it in history, in literature, in art if you want - but it's not science.
Well, I suppose you can teach it at philosophy. But, yes, it is not really science. At least at this point ;)

In a court of law it is up to the prosecution to prove a fact. If religion says that god exists then the burden of proof is on the religious types.
That does not imply that atheism is correct. If they want to be correct, they need to find a way to disprove the possibility. They can't, because that's simply logically impossible. Even if the burden of proof lies on the theist, the idea cannot be said to be untrue just because the theist cannot come up with a proof. It would be like saying that an integration does not have a solution just because nobody has been able to find yet! ;)

Atheism doesn't deny the possibility of their being a deity of sorts. If solid evidence surfaces that there is then hey, we'd all go "well damn". Much unlike religious folk who, if anything disproves religion they cover their ears and just shout "LA LA LA LA" at the top of their lungs.

I'm an atheist because there is no evidence for a deity at all as far as I can tell and it would be illogical to just believe in one because everybody else says so. If god just said "Hey, here I am" then I'd be like "Shit man, there is a god" then I'd kick back and have a beer. Still wouldn't worship god but at least I'd admit s/he existed.

Atheism doesn't deny the possibility of their being a deity of sorts. If solid evidence surfaces that there is then hey, we'd all go "well damn". Much unlike religious folk who, if anything disproves religion they cover their ears and just shout "LA LA LA LA" at the top of their lungs.

I'm an atheist because there is no evidence for a deity at all as far as I can tell and it would be illogical to just believe in one because everybody else says so. If god just said "Hey, here I am" then I'd be like "Shit man, there is a god" then I'd kick back and have a beer. Still wouldn't worship god but at least I'd admit s/he existed.
That's just perfect. You are an agnostic. :D

Yaba Daba! :m:

Agnosticism is the only safe way, yes, but why not be bold?
I'm selfish, and don't want to be bold, so I'm an agnostic, but I agree that the judeo-christian-islamic god doesn't exist. That motherfucker is entirely illogical.

do you think that a god should necessarily be logical?

Agnosticism is the only safe way, yes, but why not be bold?
I'm selfish, and don't want to be bold, so I'm an agnostic, but I agree that the judeo-christian-islamic god doesn't exist. That motherfucker is entirely illogical.

If there is a god, and he indeed did create everything, then wouldn't that effectively place him outside the realm of it's influence? Maybe time and space isn't the same for him/her as it is for us.

In a court of law it is up to the prosecution to prove a fact. If religion says that god exists then the burden of proof is on the religious types.

Being an atheist, in and of itself, is claiming that there is no god. Therefore, if one claims to be an atheist, then the responsibility for proof falls on the atheist as well as the religious person claiming there is. The door swings both ways.

AmishRakeFight

Thus far there has been no evidence that God has had anything to do with the universe.

So why bother teaching with an extraneous concept that lacks support?

Btw, where did you get that?

Wikipedia of course and from now on it is public knowledge that if spuriousmonkey, or lord almighty, gives a quote without a link, it is from wikipedia, or the Lord Almighty.

So shall it be known throughout sciforum land.

So why bother teaching with an extraneous concept that lacks support?
can you name one thing in nature that leads you to beleive that things become alive?

Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy) hold any weight?

AmishRakeFight

In conclusion, Deism is the only logical "faith".

Follow the ways of Einstein: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." - Einstein

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. " - Einstein

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in Nature." - Einstein

There is no logical argument against Deism.

There is no logical argument against Deism.

There is no logical argument for Deism.

There is no logical argument for Deism.

Einstein summarized the logical arguments.

Are you content in just accepting that Evolution has no intelligence behind it? You agree Evolution is a complex process, no? How can such a specific, complex process that is responsible for our current Human race a product of chance?

Thus far there has been no evidence that God has had anything to do with the universe.

So why bother teaching with an extraneous concept that lacks support?
Oh! La la la la la!
*singing, jumping, throughwing flowers as I go*

*singing*
Let's not teach Big Bang, because it's just a hypothesis!
Let's not teach the Brane, because it's just a hypothesis!
Let's not twach philosophy or phsycholoy or sociology or economy, because it's just a hypothesis!

*singing*
La la la la la la !!!


:m:

Einstein summarized the logical arguments.

Are you content in just accepting that Evolution has no intelligence behind it? You agree Evolution is a complex process, no? How can such a specific, complex process that is responsible for our current Human race a product of chance?
Oh, there you go... let's all talk about good old anthropic principle all over again... :rolleyes:

*scientists, kneeling and begging Pope*
" Please, please... we haven't been able to find some explanations! Can you please help us? "

And thus the anthropic principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) is born

*background signing*
Haaaaaaa-le-lu-ia! Haaaaaaa-le-lu-ia! Haaaaaaa-le-lu-ia! Ha-le-le-luuuuu- iaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

:D :m:

There is no logical argument for Deism.
Atheism is based on a huge Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_ignorantium).

Are you content in just accepting that Evolution has no intelligence behind it?
Yes.

You agree Evolution is a complex process, no?
No, it is fairly simple in principle.


How can such a specific, complex process that is responsible for our current Human race a product of chance?
It isn't a product of chance. It is a product of selection.

Wikipedia of course and from now on it is public knowledge that if spuriousmonkey, or lord almighty, gives a quote without a link, it is from wikipedia, or the Lord Almighty.

So shall it be known throughout sciforum land.
I'm with you man! I also worship the great wikipedia! :p

Hehehe... :p

It's funny to be in the middle. I criticize both atheists and theists... :D

Jesus Christ... what a soap opera.... :rolleyes:

This thread is hilarious. I'm giving it a 5 star! :D

Yes.

No, it is fairly simple in principle.


It isn't a product of chance. It is a product of selection.

Selection based on what? Chance. And I'm not talking about just Natural Selection, because if you know anything about Evolution, you will know that Natural Selection is not the only process inherent within Evolution. To believe the entire Universe, with all it's constants, patterns, laws, and processes such as Evolution is just an enormous product of chance is completely illogical.

Anthropic Principle!!


... Sorry. I thought nobody heard me.... :D

From the great wikipedia almighty:

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy asserting that if something is currently unexplained then it did not (or could not) happen, or that if evidence of something has not been proven to their satisfaction, then it cannot exist. An adage regarding this fallacy is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": not having evidence for something is no proof that something does not exist.

Argument from ignorance is similar to but not equivalent to the argument from personal incredulity (also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction), where a person asserts that because they personally find a premise unlikely or unbelieveable, it can be safely assumed not to be true.

The types of fallacies noted above should not be confused with the reductio ad absurdum method of proof, in which a genuine logical contradiction of the form "A and not A" is used to disprove a premise."

AND there goes your flying spaghety monster. Awwwww...

I rest my case.




Hehehe... I enjoy browsing this thread eating my cookies and drinking my hot chocolate... :p

You should wake up your case. Do we atheists have to explain every stinking thing to you desperate god types?

We'll do this one...more...time.

No one is saying that god cannot or does not exist simply because of a lack of evidence. On the contrary, there is much evidence that indicates that the traditional gods do not exist. The entire method and body of knowledge called science logically and empirically contradicts the supernatural claims for gods, thus sufficiently proving that they do not exist as claimed. If you insist on invoking the mystic-agnostic idea that there's "some power behind the universe, call it what you will" then I suggest you join my invisible flying spaghetti monster for a discussion session.

Anthropic Principle!!


... Sorry. I thought nobody heard me.... :D

What about it? Anthropic Principle may be related to what I'm saying, but I do not subscribe to it nor advocate for it. I'm speaking purely about Deism: http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

You should wake up your case. Do we atheists have to explain every stinking thing to you desperate god types?

We'll do this one...more...time.

No one is saying that god cannot or does not exist simply because of a lack of evidence. On the contrary, there is much evidence that indicates that the traditional gods do not exist. The entire method and body of knowledge called science logically and empirically contradicts the supernatural claims for gods, thus sufficiently proving that they do not exist as claimed. If you insist on invoking the mystic-agnostic idea that there's "some power behind the universe, call it what you will" then I suggest you join my invisible flying spaghetti monster for a discussion session.
You are completely ignoring the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.

What about it? Anthropic Principle may be related to what I'm saying, but I do not subscribe to it nor advocate for it. I'm speaking purely about Deism: http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

To believe the entire Universe, with all it's constants, patterns, laws, and processes such as Evolution is just an enormous product of chance is completely illogical.
"Proponents of the anthropic principle suggest that we live in a fine-tuned universe, i.e. a universe that appears to be "fine-tuned" to allow the existence of life as we know it. If any of the fundamental physical constants were sufficiently different, then life as we know it would not be possible and no one would be around to contemplate this fine-tuned universe we live in. Papers have been written arguing that the anthropic principle would explain the physical constants such as the fine structure constant, the number of dimensions in the universe, and the cosmological constant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Same thing you said...

You are completely ignoring the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.

Don't just say I'm ignoring it. Show me how.

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy asserting that if something is currently unexplained then it did not (or could not) happen,

There is nothing currently unexplained regarding gods role in the universe. All of the phenomena attributed to god are adequately explained by natural processes.


or that if evidence of something has not been proven to their satisfaction, then it cannot exist.

Again, there is no evidence for a god and plenty to contradict god claims.


An adage regarding this fallacy is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": not having evidence for something is no proof that something does not exist.

Correct. But having a mountain of evidence that contradicts claims for something does constitute proof that the thing does not exist as stated.

The fallacy you are making is assuming that god is untestable. This is wrong.


Disproven:

- God answers prayers (zero statistical correlation)

- God made the earth (it coalesced from a solar nebula just as we see other solar systems forming today)

- God made the heavens (all matter came to be in the Big Bang)

- God made humans in his image (humans evolved from apelike ancestors)

More???

You should wake up your case. Do we atheists have to explain every stinking thing to you desperate god types?

We'll do this one...more...time.

No one is saying that god cannot or does not exist simply because of a lack of evidence. On the contrary, there is much evidence that indicates that the traditional gods do not exist. The entire method and body of knowledge called science logically and empirically contradicts the supernatural claims for gods, thus sufficiently proving that they do not exist as claimed.

soooo... the negative can be proved after all

btw, agnostics are not "god types"... they're maybe types

:)

"Proponents of the anthropic principle suggest that we live in a fine-tuned universe, i.e. a universe that appears to be "fine-tuned" to allow the existence of life as we know it. If any of the fundamental physical constants were sufficiently different, then life as we know it would not be possible and no one would be around to contemplate this fine-tuned universe we live in. Papers have been written arguing that the anthropic principle would explain the physical constants such as the fine structure constant, the number of dimensions in the universe, and the cosmological constant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Same thing you said...


Not necessarily. And like I said, it may be similar but I don't advocate for it, only Deism. And is that supposed to be some kind of counter-argument, or an ad-hominem?

Don't just say I'm ignoring it. Show me how.
Hehe... I just realized the riddle... :D

Did you read the link?
"not having evidence for something is no proof that something does not exist."

Want to translate it to your argument? Your argument says that God does not exist because we haven't found evidence showing that he exist. Let's translate this to that phrase...

"Not having evidence for god is no proof that God does not exist."

There is nothing currently unexplained regarding gods role in the universe. All of the phenomena attributed to god are adequately explained by natural processes.
Not life. How about a list, btw?

Again, there is no evidence for a god and plenty to contradict god claims.
How about showing that evidence, since you have it?

Correct. But having a mountain of evidence that contradicts claims for something does constitute proof that the thing does not exist as stated.
Huuum. Ok, now let's see the evidence, then.

The fallacy you are making is assuming that god is untestable. This is wrong.
Ok. Then test god for me ;)


- God answers prayers (zero statistical correlation)
Where did you get that statistic?

- God made the earth (it coalesced from a solar nebula just as we see other solar systems forming today)
So God didn't make the solar nebula either?
Where have you seen a detailed description about how "god" created earth? How can you just assume that god didn't create the solar nebula and formed the solar system within the time limits that we observe?

- God made the heavens (all matter came to be in the Big Bang)
And who made the Big Bang? How did all the matter end up in that single point? Where did that matter come from? Do you have answers?

- God made humans in his image (humans evolved from apelike ancestors)
The image of God is consciousness and intelligence. Humans are conscious and intelligent, thus "are made in his image".

More???
Yes, please. Let's discuss this. It's extremely interesting.


Here, my friend. I'm trying to find the truth just as you are. I can't dismiss the idea of a god because I simply have no substancial proof to accuse him of his unexistence. As much science tries to answer questions, as more questions are raised. There are many questions in life that I haven't found an answer yet, so I wouldn't want to dismiss and idea such as wide and potentially useful as a god. I'm invinting you to take a neutral position just like I am taking. ;)

soooo... the negative can be proved after all

btw, agnostics are not "god types"... they're maybe types

:)
I have the impression they have forgotten that....

Not necessarily. And like I said, it may be similar but I don't advocate for it, only Deism.
Well, you said that there are too many patterns, laws, etc that come together to "create" us. That's exactly the argument of the principle. The principle state that the probability for all those things to come together is very small, therefore, there is a god.

And is that supposed to be some kind of counter-argument, or an ad-hominem?
Where did you get that from? I'm supporting your arguments.

Well, you said that there are too many patterns, laws, etc that come together to "create" us. That's exactly the argument of the principle. The principle state that the probability for all those things to come together is very small, therefore, there is a god.

You can't just look at the main ascertion, read a little bit more on the subject. For example, Anthropic Principle actually claims that Humans are somehow special because everything in our Solar System lined up pefectly to sustain life on Earth. I don't believe that, in fact I think it's ridiculous. The same constants, laws, and processes are active throughout the Universe. Life can evolve anywhere.

Where did you get that from? I'm supporting your arguments.

Oh, well I just assumed you were playing "Devil's Advocate" again, my apologies.

Let's not teach Big Bang, because it's just a hypothesis!
Let's not teach the Brane, because it's just a hypothesis!
Let's not twach philosophy or phsycholoy or sociology or economy, because it's just a hypothesis!

There are evidence for all of these. Where's your evidence for god?

ID explains the world exists as it does today as it did 10,000 years ago, when it was created by a powerful white man with a long beard.
The only evidence for this are awkwardly written books by barbarians from the Middle East.

Selection based on what? Chance. And I'm not talking about just Natural Selection, because if you know anything about Evolution, you will know that Natural Selection is not the only process inherent within Evolution. To believe the entire Universe, with all it's constants, patterns, laws, and processes such as Evolution is just an enormous product of chance is completely illogical.

I do indeed know something about evolution since I am supposed to be an evo-devo guy. I already told you that evolution is not a product of chance and you just keep repeating that it is. I do not think your answer is a product of chance but it is completely illogical.

You can't just look at the main ascertion, read a little bit more on the subject. For example, Anthropic Principle actually claims that Humans are somehow special because everything in our Solar System lined up pefectly to sustain life on Earth. I don't believe that, in fact I think it's ridiculous. The same constants, laws, and processes are active throughout the Universe. Life can evolve anywhere.
Not all people who believe in the principle believe that humans are special.

Oh, well I just assumed you were playing "Devil's Advocate" again, my apologies.
It's all good...

There are evidence for all of these. Where's your evidence for god?
No there isn't. Those things have been simply invented by science to explain the data that has been received. There's no actual evidence that can statistically prove those hypothesis. Hence why you have both Big Bang and Brane theories! They are mutually exclusive, did you know? :rolleyes:

ID explains the world exists as it does today as it did 10,000 years ago, when it was created by a powerful white man with a long beard.
The only evidence for this are awkwardly written books by barbarians from the Middle East.
Does it look like I'm talking about a god in particular?

Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy) hold any weight?

AmishRakeFight

Plenty. As far as physics is concerned, there's no way to violate it. But it doesn't contradict evolution. 'Disorder increases' is the layman's version of the law; in its proper form it's precisely defined as the change in a type of energy (entropy).

Which basically translates to - the sun is winding down and becoming more 'disordered' by releasing huge amounts of energy. The earth basks in a tiny, tiny part of this energy and while being filtered through to more and more disordered forms this energy happens to power all life on earth. I assume you know about photosynthesis?

Does it look like I'm talking about a god in particular?

Uh, the closing line of your argument?

Teaching children many perspectives is important to increase their understanding of life. If we teach Descartes even tough he was wrong, what's wrong with teaching Intelligent Design?

Intelligent Design does not necessarily need to refer to the Christian God.

There are some characteristics which define a god, which is true to all "gods" and those are the characteristics you are required to use in such an argument.

Intelligent Design does not necessarily need to refer to the Christian God.

You are right there. It usually refers to me.

This is intolerable.
What's next: churches urged to accept the idea that the world isn't flat?
Those wacky scientists will never be able to prove that....

You are right there. It usually refers to me.
Ever played Black&White? :p

I did...

There is nothing currently unexplained regarding gods role in the universe. All of the phenomena attributed to god are adequately explained by natural processes.



Again, there is no evidence for a god and plenty to contradict god claims.



How about the existence of the origins of the universe? Even the BB theory(which is coming under more and more criticism as of late) does not explain how anything and everything came from nothing. Don't be delusional. Although I shouldn't be surprised, atheists basically believe that everything did come from nothing, as nothing physical can be eternal. So you're left with a big fat fucking nothing, Mr. atheist.

I did...
That's where your grandiouse love for your divinity come from, eh? :D

How about the existence of the origins of the universe? Even the BB theory(which is coming under more and more criticism as of late) does not explain how anything and everything came from nothing. Don't be delusional. Although I shouldn't be surprised, atheists basically believe that everything did come from nothing, as nothing physical can be eternal. So you're left with a big fat fucking nothing, Mr. atheist.

First of all, BB theory explains what happened after the initial event and does not explain what happened during or prior the event, which would encompass another theory.

Theists believe an imaginary being waved his magic hand and created everything from nothing.

So, who is delusional?

First of all, BB theory explains what happened after the initial event and does not explain what happened during or prior the event, which would encompass another theory.

Theists believe an imaginary being waved his magic hand and created everything from nothing.

So, who is delusional?


How about reading my response in the context of what I was <b>responding to?</b>

Super's quote, once again..."There is nothing currently unexplained regarding gods role in the universe. All of the phenomena attributed to god are adequately explained by natural processes. "

If you create the initial event that spurred the process, do you not have a role in the thing you are creating??! "ALL OF THE PHENOMENA ATTRIBUTED TO GOD ARE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED" Oh, like our existence? Like the existence of any life? Like the existence of our universe?

If you can't understand WHY or HOW something IS, it is not explained. What is so hard to understand about that?

How about reading my response in the context of what I was <b>responding to?</b>

Super's quote, once again..."There is nothing currently unexplained regarding gods role in the universe. All of the phenomena attributed to god are adequately explained by natural processes. "

If you create the initial event that spurred the process, do you not have a role in the thing you are creating??! "ALL OF THE PHENOMENA ATTRIBUTED TO GOD ARE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED" Oh, like our existence? Like the existence of any life? Like the existence of our universe?

If you can't understand WHY or HOW something IS, it is not explained. What is so hard to understand about that?

So, are you asserting that since an event is yet unexplained, it should automatically be credited to an action of gods? Our existence, the existence of life and the universe can be explained by natural processes, why would we then assume any other process prior to that would be any different?

Scientists have so far failed to explain life. And the existence of the universe too, btw...

Or, more precisely, you are ignorant and are under the delusion there is a purpose to life and the universe. Science does not answer the question, "why."

Where did I say there is a purpose? Where did I talk about the question "why"?
Science hasn't been able to explain life period

Then, on that point, you are simply ignorant.

And so are you. As I said, science hasn't been able to explain life... :rolleyes:

As I said

That is precisely the point.

I'm not saying theories should be taught. The purpose is to make them aware of different perspectives, and to teach them to be logically explorative.


If this really was the case, teachers could easily inform students that other ideas/theories exist without mentioning any specific one (introducing bias), inviting students to do their own research if they so pleased...

Oh.. so you say they should be biased towards evolution?

Oh.. so you say they should be biased towards evolution?

No bias is required.

When all facets of sciences agree with theories of evolution, and all the evidence agrees with theories of evolution, what need is there for bias?

So, are you asserting that since an event is yet unexplained, it should automatically be credited to an action of gods?

I was asserting that not everything that we have attributed to God has been explained. Sheesh.

Our existence, the existence of life and the universe can be explained by natural processes, why would we then assume any other process prior to that would be any different?


Because natural processes can't be eternal. Nothing PHYSICAL can be eternal. Energy cannot be. Matter cannot be. Nothing that operates on a linear scale can be eternal. But, something IS indeed Eternal, unless you would just like to assert that something came from absolutely nothing.

Eternal is a circular concept; no beginning, no end. We've classified time as linear. Everything that we experience is on this linear time scale(cause and effect relationships). We can not comprehend anything outside of the realm of this. Your physical motions, your thoughts; everything that makes you an existing thing lies within cause and effect relationships.

So, you keep going farther back in time, and you would apparently reach an initial cause - the one that started it all.

But HOW did the cause come to be?

Do you think you can explain it, or that science will ever be able to?

I don't.

Whatever brought this "cause" to fruition is not something that human beings could ever understand, as it would exist outside of physical cause and effect relationships - outside of time - outside of the possibility of human comprehension. This is why I do not believe that any "natural" process can explain the existence of everything. Nature deals with the physical. Nothing physical can be eternal. We cannot understand eternal; only that something <b>is.</b>

Something that you, because of your very nature, cannot hope to understand is existing beyond what you do understand.

But HOW did the cause come to be?

Do you think you can explain it, or that science will ever be able to?

I don't.

If all there is to know about the universe is not infinite, perhaps science will in time.

Whatever brought this "cause" to fruition is not something that human beings could ever understand, as it would exist outside of physical cause and effect relationships - outside of time - outside of the possibility of human comprehension. This is why I do not believe that any "natural" process can explain the existence of everything. Nature deals with the physical. Nothing physical can be eternal. We cannot understand eternal; only that something <b>is.</b>

Who said anything about eternal?

There is little or no reason to suspect that which lead to and was the big bang could be anything other than a natural process, if everything that came about afterwards was indeed the result of natural processes. Why would we assume any differently?

Something that you, because of your very nature, cannot hope to understand is existing beyond what you do understand.

Yes, always there, just out of reach, grasping, grasping, ...grasping...

Oh, like our existence? Like the existence of any life? Like the existence of our universe?

Zappa,

I think you are making a mistake. Even if the scientific method cannot penetrate past the first few fractions of a second, proposing 'God' as an explanation of our 'existence', the universe' 'existence', or any other existence for that matter does not solve the problem. Firstly, I think you will agree that 'existence' is a nebulous word used only by philosophers (and maybe theologians). Secondly, 'God' should not be used as an explanation of 'God's existence' (do you believe God exists?).

I hope you can see clearly now that if science attempts to resolve whether something 'exists' or not, especially when no one knows what 'exists' even means, we are going to all end up in the same 'First Cause' problem. I think it is safe to say science works with what is available. Information about the universe is not available for a certain period of time in the beginning and so science does not propose any theory there. You might be insinuating that (a) God is responsible for that initial expansion but you can see that that does not explain very much in terms of why, or even what.

Just to be sure anyway, are you playing Devil's advocate or do you believe that (a) God is able to cause events in nature?

I Like Chicken

Well, fuck, what man in his right mind does not like chicken? Even this vegetarian girl that I know from school likes chicken. It's teh good meat. :D

I like to. Let's eat.

Dinners On me.. ":) ... Ooohhhhh That sounds kinky

Huuum... that reminds me Valentine's Day dinner... :D
Huumm... greeeeek.... laaaamb.... :p

Now I'm hungry and eating Ritz crackers... :(