[tiam]

Lost at ' that english guy who makes a fortune out of being an atheist'

[Aptorian]

 Bent, on 07 February 2011 - 04:09 PM, said:

I believe that it has and can be explained. I say God, you say science. We disagree in the methods of proof ( although I could use science's argument against itself), but again, I'll make a thread to discuss this in the religion forum, carry on with bashing O'reilly.

I'm waiting for your thread to reply in full but I don't think anyone here is bashing O'reilly for being a Christian or believing in the various fundamental pillars of creation theory.

I'm calling him an idiot because he apparently made it all the way through highschool and college/university with out ever learning how solar systems form, how gravity works, what the tides is, etc. I mean, in his 50 so years of life how did he never once stumble upon something like a national geographic article or a discovery channel episode that in simple terms explained how the big bang creation theory works and how mass and weight have an effect on everything.

I don't have a problem with anyone believing that God created the universe, but believing that the tides are magic! and that "no one" knows where the moon comes from or what the sun is, that is just wilful, startling ignorance from a man who appears to otherwise be well read and generally well informed if very opinionated. Either the man must be obtuse or he is playing dumb to appeal to the die hard creationists who refuse to believe in any kind of science that goes against the literal word of the bible.

This post has been edited by Roger Ramjet: 07 February 2011 - 04:53 PM

[ansible]

 Bent, on 07 February 2011 - 04:09 PM, said:

I believe that it has and can be explained. I say God, you say science. We disagree in the methods of proof ( although I could use science's argument against itself), but again, I'll make a thread to discuss this in the religion forum, carry on with bashing O'reilly.

Apt said most of what is relevant here, but do you understand what the actual disagreement is? Are you claiming that science cannot explain the reason for the tides or why the sun rises and sets each day? Because that's what O'Reilly claimed. These are basic scientific concepts that play almost no role in religion. They are taught to elementary school children without question or controversy. No one is currently arguing over whether the tides can be explained by science or not (unlike evolution, for instance).

What possible evidence, religious or otherwise, could convince you that the tides are inexplicable?

NOTE: This is coming from a religious perspective with a long technical background.

[Bent]

 Roger Ramjet, on 07 February 2011 - 04:51 PM, said:

Either the man must be obtuse or he is playing dumb to appeal to the die hard creationists who refuse to believe in any kind of science that goes against the literal word of the bible.

This is where your argument points to me, and why I have issues with what you are saying.

 ansible, on 07 February 2011 - 05:56 PM, said:

 Bent, on 07 February 2011 - 04:09 PM, said:

I believe that it has and can be explained. I say God, you say science. We disagree in the methods of proof ( although I could use science's argument against itself), but again, I'll make a thread to discuss this in the religion forum, carry on with bashing O'reilly.

Apt said most of what is relevant here, but do you understand what the actual disagreement is? Are you claiming that science cannot explain the reason for the tides or why the sun rises and sets each day? Because that's what O'Reilly claimed. These are basic scientific concepts that play almost no role in religion. They are taught to elementary school children without question or controversy. No one is currently arguing over whether the tides can be explained by science or not (unlike evolution, for instance). What possible evidence, religious or otherwise, could convince you that the tides are inexplicable?NOTE: This is coming from a religious perspective with a long technical background.

If you listen to his points from a religious background, you see hes on the defensive when answering the question - for instance - why do I say anything about the tides - because I dont go with the evidence your supposed science presents because it leaves out the fact that God is the cause and effect of and for all other things - / argument.

[D'rek]

God you guys are being pedantic.

As I was trying to point out pictographically, "scientific explanations" will perpetually only go so far and beyond what is currently known you can say that (a) god(s) created it to be like that or that there's a further scientific explanation. And if you find that scientific explanation the same applies for why that in turn is the case. Bill O'Reilly believes that ultimately, somewhere down the line of scientific explanations for how the universe works, at the very end is the explanation that (christian) God created it that way. Whether he makes that point for the creation of the moon or spends 4 hours progressing to the big bang and then says that God created it makes no difference, but you're focusing rather heavily on that particular specific when you all know what he meant.

[Bent]

 D, on 07 February 2011 - 06:14 PM, said:

God you guys are being pedantic.

As I was trying to point out pictographically, "scientific explanations" will perpetually only go so far and beyond what is currently known you can say that (a) god(s) created it to be like that or that there's a further scientific explanation. And if you find that scientific explanation the same applies for why that in turn is the case. Bill O'Reilly believes that ultimately, somewhere down the line of scientific explanations for how the universe works, at the very end is the explanation that (christian) God created it that way. Whether he makes that point for the creation of the moon or spends 4 hours progressing to the big bang and then says that God created it makes no difference, but you're focusing rather heavily on that particular specific when you all know what he meant.

Well said D'rek.

[ansible]

 D, on 07 February 2011 - 06:14 PM, said:

God you guys are being pedantic.

As I was trying to point out pictographically, "scientific explanations" will perpetually only go so far and beyond what is currently known you can say that (a) god(s) created it to be like that or that there's a further scientific explanation. And if you find that scientific explanation the same applies for why that in turn is the case. Bill O'Reilly believes that ultimately, somewhere down the line of scientific explanations for how the universe works, at the very end is the explanation that (christian) God created it that way. Whether he makes that point for the creation of the moon or spends 4 hours progressing to the big bang and then says that God created it makes no difference, but you're focusing rather heavily on that particular specific when you all know what he meant.

First, I really didn't "know what he meant."

Second, this just doesn't apply because we don't NEED any more explanation for the tides. This question has been asked and answered. There is no more doubt about the cause of the tides - they can be predicted with accuracy, due to our understanding of their nature. If this science isn't real, then neither is concrete, or gravity, or the telegraph. The Big Bang has nothing to do with 1+1 = 2.

Your graph only describes the frontier of human knowledge, not how humankind's perception of all scientific knowledge changes over time. Our understanding of planetary motion hasn't changed at all even while entire subjects of physics were being rewritten. Steam still boils for the same reasons even though we're still learning about the Big Bang.

I think the problem is the belief that "science is flawed if it doesn't explain EVERYTHING", which just betrays a lack of understanding of what science really is.

[RodeoRanch]

Bill O'Reilly is a slug.

And this had turned into a Discussion board thread. Away we go.

[D'rek]

 ansible, on 07 February 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:

I think the problem is the belief that "science is flawed if it doesn't explain EVERYTHING", which just betrays a lack of understanding of what science really is.

There are certainly a lot of pro-deity enthusiasts who believe that tenet. Likewise there are a lot of science-enthusiasts who believe that "religion is flawed if science explains ANYTHING", which is an equally flawed tenet.

A-1: God created the tides.
B-1: The tides are the result of the moon's gravity.
A-2: But God created the moon to control the tides and provide us light at night, so vis-a-vis he created the tides.
B-2: The moon was formed by a Mars-sized object hitting the proto-Earth, the debris of the impact combined into the Moon.
A-3: But God sent that object to impact the proto-Earth, which he also created (in differing initial conditions than it is now), creating the Earth and Moon as they are for us, thus vis-a-vis creating the tides.
B-3: The Earth formed from disk-shaped mass left over by the Sun and the Mars-sized asteroid was the ejaculate of a giant space dong.
A-4: God created [B-3], which caused the development of Earth and the Moon and therefore the tides.
B-4: [A-3] was casued by [scientific explanation]
.
.
.
A-n: God created [B-(n-1)], which lead to [B-(n-2)], etc.
B-n: [A-n] was caused by [scientific explanation]

Both the religious and scientific sides have people who think that one side's inability to take this train of thinking to the absolute end disqualifies it. Both are pretty un-emphatic viewpoints, it's not like anyone on the planet knows either the entire scientific causality of the universe or the entirety of God's will for the universe. Making fun of either side for supposedly not knowing it all is pointless, because know one knows it all. But it's a common tactic of either side to keep pushing the other side of the argument to try and progress down this long train of causality and when they reach their individual opponents' lack of expertise to then claim unearned victory.

This post has been edited by D'rek: 07 February 2011 - 08:22 PM

[Primateus]

I can follow that line of reasoning quite easily enough, D'rek, the problem with it is that it always ends with god being the "uncreated" creator who doesn't need to have been created but the universe does. Why is that?

[ansible]

 D, on 07 February 2011 - 08:18 PM, said:

 ansible, on 07 February 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:

I think the problem is the belief that "science is flawed if it doesn't explain EVERYTHING", which just betrays a lack of understanding of what science really is.

There are certainly a lot of pro-deity enthusiasts who believe that tenet. Likewise there are a lot of science-enthusiasts who believe that "religion is flawed if science explains ANYTHING", which is an equally flawed tenet.

A-1: God created the tides.
B-1: The tides are the result of the moon's gravity.
A-2: But God created the moon to control the tides and provide us light at night, so vis-a-vis he created the tides.
B-2: The moon was formed by a Mars-sized object hitting the proto-Earth, the debris of the impact combined into the Moon.
A-3: But God sent that object to impact the proto-Earth, which he also created (in differing initial conditions than it is now), creating the Earth and Moon as they are for us, thus vis-a-vis creating the tides.
B-3: The Earth formed from disk-shaped mass left over by the Sun and the Mars-sized asteroid was the ejaculate of a giant space dong.
A-4: God created [B-3], which caused the development of Earth and the Moon and therefore the tides.
B-4: [A-3] was casued by [scientific explanation]
.
.
.
A-n: God created [B-(n-1)], which lead to [B-(n-2)], etc.
B-n: [A-n] was caused by [scientific explanation]

Both the religious and scientific sides have people who think that one side's inability to take this train of thinking to the absolute end disqualifies it. Both are pretty un-emphatic viewpoints, it's not like anyone on the planet knows either the entire scientific causality of the universe or the entirety of God's will for the universe. Making fun of either side for supposedly not knowing it all is pointless, because know one knows it all. But it's a common tactic of either side to keep pushing the other side of the argument to try and progress down this long train of causality and when they reach their individual opponents' lack of expertise to then claim unearned victory.

The argument you present is familiar. I'm not claiming that either science or religion "explains everything" in the sense we are talking about here. You've actually made my point for me, though. In the hypothetical exchange you posted above, every counter-argument brought by A is based on science. "A: Yes, the science is valid, but only because God made it valid." The entire point is that the science is still valid. Regardless of who put the moon in the sky or caused it to rotate around the earth, those are still the reasons why the tides exist - the science behind the tides remains true, and both parties actually agree on that. Therefore party A cannot disagree with the mathematics that govern the relationship between moon, sea, and earth, because they have already acknowledged their validity.

The problem is that none of the above discredits the science discussed along the way - it merely questions who created the science that governs the world (which is a far more relevant and interesting topic).

[D'rek]

 ansible, on 07 February 2011 - 08:36 PM, said:

 D, on 07 February 2011 - 08:18 PM, said:

 ansible, on 07 February 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:

I think the problem is the belief that "science is flawed if it doesn't explain EVERYTHING", which just betrays a lack of understanding of what science really is.

There are certainly a lot of pro-deity enthusiasts who believe that tenet. Likewise there are a lot of science-enthusiasts who believe that "religion is flawed if science explains ANYTHING", which is an equally flawed tenet.

A-1: God created the tides.
B-1: The tides are the result of the moon's gravity.
A-2: But God created the moon to control the tides and provide us light at night, so vis-a-vis he created the tides.
B-2: The moon was formed by a Mars-sized object hitting the proto-Earth, the debris of the impact combined into the Moon.
A-3: But God sent that object to impact the proto-Earth, which he also created (in differing initial conditions than it is now), creating the Earth and Moon as they are for us, thus vis-a-vis creating the tides.
B-3: The Earth formed from disk-shaped mass left over by the Sun and the Mars-sized asteroid was the ejaculate of a giant space dong.
A-4: God created [B-3], which caused the development of Earth and the Moon and therefore the tides.
B-4: [A-3] was casued by [scientific explanation]
.
.
.
A-n: God created [B-(n-1)], which lead to [B-(n-2)], etc.
B-n: [A-n] was caused by [scientific explanation]

Both the religious and scientific sides have people who think that one side's inability to take this train of thinking to the absolute end disqualifies it. Both are pretty un-emphatic viewpoints, it's not like anyone on the planet knows either the entire scientific causality of the universe or the entirety of God's will for the universe. Making fun of either side for supposedly not knowing it all is pointless, because know one knows it all. But it's a common tactic of either side to keep pushing the other side of the argument to try and progress down this long train of causality and when they reach their individual opponents' lack of expertise to then claim unearned victory.

The argument you present is familiar. I'm not claiming that either science or religion "explains everything" in the sense we are talking about here. You've actually made my point for me, though. In the hypothetical exchange you posted above, every counter-argument brought by A is based on science. "A: Yes, the science is valid, but only because God made it valid." The entire point is that the science is still valid. Regardless of who put the moon in the sky or caused it to rotate around the earth, those are still the reasons why the tides exist - the science behind the tides remains true, and both parties actually agree on that. Therefore party A cannot disagree with the mathematics that govern the relationship between moon, sea, and earth, because they have already acknowledged their validity.

The problem is that none of the above discredits the science discussed along the way - it merely questions who created the science that governs the world (which is a far more relevant and interesting topic).

Right. Both sides have people who will follow this train of logic until their opponent reaches the end of their personal knowledge and at that point the person thinks they've "won". In truth, the only way one side can "win" is if we get to a final point in the seemingly endless exchange. If the only explanation for B-n is "God created it" and there's no possible scientific explanation, then A-side wins. If there's no possible "God created it" explanation for B-n then the B-side wins. And until that point is reached neither side has any way of claiming it is right.

[ansible]

 D, on 07 February 2011 - 09:19 PM, said:

 ansible, on 07 February 2011 - 08:36 PM, said:

 D, on 07 February 2011 - 08:18 PM, said:

 ansible, on 07 February 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:

I think the problem is the belief that "science is flawed if it doesn't explain EVERYTHING", which just betrays a lack of understanding of what science really is.

There are certainly a lot of pro-deity enthusiasts who believe that tenet. Likewise there are a lot of science-enthusiasts who believe that "religion is flawed if science explains ANYTHING", which is an equally flawed tenet.

A-1: God created the tides.
B-1: The tides are the result of the moon's gravity.
A-2: But God created the moon to control the tides and provide us light at night, so vis-a-vis he created the tides.
B-2: The moon was formed by a Mars-sized object hitting the proto-Earth, the debris of the impact combined into the Moon.
A-3: But God sent that object to impact the proto-Earth, which he also created (in differing initial conditions than it is now), creating the Earth and Moon as they are for us, thus vis-a-vis creating the tides.
B-3: The Earth formed from disk-shaped mass left over by the Sun and the Mars-sized asteroid was the ejaculate of a giant space dong.
A-4: God created [B-3], which caused the development of Earth and the Moon and therefore the tides.
B-4: [A-3] was casued by [scientific explanation]
.
.
.
A-n: God created [B-(n-1)], which lead to [B-(n-2)], etc.
B-n: [A-n] was caused by [scientific explanation]

Both the religious and scientific sides have people who think that one side's inability to take this train of thinking to the absolute end disqualifies it. Both are pretty un-emphatic viewpoints, it's not like anyone on the planet knows either the entire scientific causality of the universe or the entirety of God's will for the universe. Making fun of either side for supposedly not knowing it all is pointless, because know one knows it all. But it's a common tactic of either side to keep pushing the other side of the argument to try and progress down this long train of causality and when they reach their individual opponents' lack of expertise to then claim unearned victory.

The argument you present is familiar. I'm not claiming that either science or religion "explains everything" in the sense we are talking about here. You've actually made my point for me, though. In the hypothetical exchange you posted above, every counter-argument brought by A is based on science. "A: Yes, the science is valid, but only because God made it valid." The entire point is that the science is still valid. Regardless of who put the moon in the sky or caused it to rotate around the earth, those are still the reasons why the tides exist - the science behind the tides remains true, and both parties actually agree on that. Therefore party A cannot disagree with the mathematics that govern the relationship between moon, sea, and earth, because they have already acknowledged their validity.

The problem is that none of the above discredits the science discussed along the way - it merely questions who created the science that governs the world (which is a far more relevant and interesting topic).

Right. Both sides have people who will follow this train of logic until their opponent reaches the end of their personal knowledge and at that point the person thinks they've "won". In truth, the only way one side can "win" is if we get to a final point in the seemingly endless exchange. If the only explanation for B-n is "God created it" and there's no possible scientific explanation, then A-side wins. If there's no possible "God created it" explanation for B-n then the B-side wins. And until that point is reached neither side has any way of claiming it is right.

I think we're miscommunicating. I'm not on the A or the B side. My "side" is that the science behind the tides is valid. Regardless of who picks side A and who picks side B, my side always wins because the very first exchange between A and B declares that the science behind the tides is valid. It's totally unnecessary to follow the train of logic past the first exchange - it doesn't matter who "wins." All I care about is the math. And all A and B argue about is who created the math. The entire discussion between A and B is based upon the validity of my point. If the math and science isn't real then nothing based on logic or reason is real and there is no need for an argument because "God said so" trumps everything.

This is why when Bent came out saying "I don't believe the math is real or correct", I spoke up (because to deny the math is to deny reality).

This post has been edited by ansible: 07 February 2011 - 10:34 PM

[D'rek]

 ansible, on 07 February 2011 - 10:31 PM, said:

 D, on 07 February 2011 - 09:19 PM, said:

 ansible, on 07 February 2011 - 08:36 PM, said:

 D, on 07 February 2011 - 08:18 PM, said:

 ansible, on 07 February 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:

I think the problem is the belief that "science is flawed if it doesn't explain EVERYTHING", which just betrays a lack of understanding of what science really is.

There are certainly a lot of pro-deity enthusiasts who believe that tenet. Likewise there are a lot of science-enthusiasts who believe that "religion is flawed if science explains ANYTHING", which is an equally flawed tenet.

A-1: God created the tides.
B-1: The tides are the result of the moon's gravity.
A-2: But God created the moon to control the tides and provide us light at night, so vis-a-vis he created the tides.
B-2: The moon was formed by a Mars-sized object hitting the proto-Earth, the debris of the impact combined into the Moon.
A-3: But God sent that object to impact the proto-Earth, which he also created (in differing initial conditions than it is now), creating the Earth and Moon as they are for us, thus vis-a-vis creating the tides.
B-3: The Earth formed from disk-shaped mass left over by the Sun and the Mars-sized asteroid was the ejaculate of a giant space dong.
A-4: God created [B-3], which caused the development of Earth and the Moon and therefore the tides.
B-4: [A-3] was casued by [scientific explanation]
.
.
.
A-n: God created [B-(n-1)], which lead to [B-(n-2)], etc.
B-n: [A-n] was caused by [scientific explanation]

Both the religious and scientific sides have people who think that one side's inability to take this train of thinking to the absolute end disqualifies it. Both are pretty un-emphatic viewpoints, it's not like anyone on the planet knows either the entire scientific causality of the universe or the entirety of God's will for the universe. Making fun of either side for supposedly not knowing it all is pointless, because know one knows it all. But it's a common tactic of either side to keep pushing the other side of the argument to try and progress down this long train of causality and when they reach their individual opponents' lack of expertise to then claim unearned victory.

The argument you present is familiar. I'm not claiming that either science or religion "explains everything" in the sense we are talking about here. You've actually made my point for me, though. In the hypothetical exchange you posted above, every counter-argument brought by A is based on science. "A: Yes, the science is valid, but only because God made it valid." The entire point is that the science is still valid. Regardless of who put the moon in the sky or caused it to rotate around the earth, those are still the reasons why the tides exist - the science behind the tides remains true, and both parties actually agree on that. Therefore party A cannot disagree with the mathematics that govern the relationship between moon, sea, and earth, because they have already acknowledged their validity.

The problem is that none of the above discredits the science discussed along the way - it merely questions who created the science that governs the world (which is a far more relevant and interesting topic).

Right. Both sides have people who will follow this train of logic until their opponent reaches the end of their personal knowledge and at that point the person thinks they've "won". In truth, the only way one side can "win" is if we get to a final point in the seemingly endless exchange. If the only explanation for B-n is "God created it" and there's no possible scientific explanation, then A-side wins. If there's no possible "God created it" explanation for B-n then the B-side wins. And until that point is reached neither side has any way of claiming it is right.

I think we're miscommunicating. I'm not on the A or the B side. My "side" is that the science behind the tides is valid. Regardless of who picks side A and who picks side B, my side always wins because the very first exchange between A and B declares that the science behind the tides is valid. It's totally unnecessary to follow the train of logic past the first exchange - it doesn't matter who "wins." All I care about is the math. And all A and B argue about is who created the math. The entire discussion between A and B is based upon the validity of my point. If the math and science isn't real then nothing based on logic or reason is real and there is no need for an argument because "God said so" trumps everything.

This is why when Bent came out saying "I don't believe the math is real or correct", I spoke up (because to deny the math is to deny reality).

You either seek to explain the chain of causality/correlation by physics or by divine will.

Those who are concerned with explaining how the math and physics make it so are on side B.
Those who are concerned with explaining why (a) god(s) developed the world in such a way are on side A.

Since all you care about is the math, you are on side B. If the math was incidental to you and all you cared about was why (and maybe how) (a) god(s) made it the way it is you would be on side A.

[ansible]

Your premise is flawed. I don't accept that there are only groups A and B. Furthermore, the discussion between A and B isn't even relevant to the question I'm trying to answer. I'm not interested in the chain of causality; I'm interested in a single, specific link. But I feel like I'm repeating myself without making anything more clear, so... I'm not sure what else to say.

[footbeat]

Oooh oooh... I want to be pedantic too

If he’s trolling, I can’t resist taking the bait…

When he says that tides don’t happen anywhere else, he may be mistaken. Pluto and Charon are tidally locked. This is caused by tides. Mercury is in a 3:2 rotational to orbital resonance with the sun. This is caused by tides. Tidal forces don’t only happen with water. They happen with any kind of matter that is in orbit around other matter. If all of the water on the earth evaporated, the tides between the Earth and the Moon, which have already tidally locked the Moon to the Earth, would still eventually lock the Earth to the Moon.

The idea that tides are like clockwork applies only to an ideal model of tides, where a perfect sphere made of a superfluid medium transmits the tidal waves without any interruption. But, the Earth is not ideal. The shorelines create resonating basins that experience harmonics of the main tidal frequency. In some of these basins, the tide is not simply a sum of harmonics. In some cases, the tide is non-linear and chaotic, about as predictable as the weather (which has an effect on the oceans’ tides), which is far from clockwork.

Regardless of how these planets/satellites got here, they spin on in their merry little ways. Regardless of all of the possible things that an all powerful God could conceivably do to them, they spin on. How they got here and what could happen to them doesn’t seem to have much effect on what they are doing now.

There is a short story that describes the effect of tides in every day (sci-fi) life… Neutron Star by Larry Niven.

On a different tangent: I don’t believe that human beings can change the rules of the Universe. Although we can influence the forces of nature locally (gravity, electro-magnetic, etc.), we cannot change the intrinsic nature of the forces.

Now a problem arises when dealing with “The Word of God.” I will call this The Bible (but only in the context of Christianity, of course, since that is the direction of this argument.) In the Bible, it says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And this is where the problems arise for me. So, to doubt the creation story in the Bible is to doubt God Himself.

The Word of God is believed to be timeless by many who believe in God. Its age is years beyond counting; infinitely old. It is believed to have been written directly by God and by those who were guided by God. Since the time when the Word was transmitted to us, many people have cared for it. There are many translations. Heck, perhaps it has been hacked and slashed and The Word of God is far from its original meaning. I’m not trying to raise that argument here. What I’m trying to say is the following…

If I have to reconcile between:

A. a description of the humanly unchangeable Universe that God created with its likely history that we deduce with our God given abilities of perception and the Bible, and

B. The Word of God as recorded on paper and kept by fallible humans for thousands of years,

Then I won’t feel too badly when I say that I don’t take the Bible as literal historical truth all of the time.

Assuming that God did create the entire universe, then science and mathematics describes a God-created universe. But the Word of God contradicts science sometimes. Well if God created all of it, then it isn’t too big of stretch to believe that underlying spiritual message of the Bible is true and valid, and that Universe is what it is, and most of the time, operates in a manner described by bunch of laws and theories that we propose.

And I answer Bill by saying, “You are a pinhead! Of course the moon’s gravity causes the tides!”

I do agree though that it is just as much of a stretch to be an atheist as it is to believe in God.

I don’t think that science can explain everything. Mathematicians should at least be comfortable with this idea. Take a look at Godel’s second theorem of incompleteness. For me, God’s existence has no impact on whether or not science can explain everything.

FYI… if you got this far, I thank you, I do believe in God, and I’m a Catholic.

[Primateus]

 footbeat, on 08 February 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

I do agree though that it is just as much of a stretch to be an atheist as it is to believe in God.

Why?

[Gothos]

 Primateus, on 08 February 2011 - 08:25 AM, said:

 footbeat, on 08 February 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

I do agree though that it is just as much of a stretch to be an atheist as it is to believe in God.

Why?

While not as much of a stretch, IMO, I can see where he's coming from. May be referring that God has not been scientifically disproven, as far as I know. But, that's the thing with the 'unknowable' and 'supernatural' - you can just invent new interpretation to fit the changing knowledge landscape and avoid clashing with rational thought for eternity.
To relate, myself I can't say if there's no 'originator' behind the universe, though I'm fairly certain that if there is, it sure as hell ain't the Christian God, nor any of the other ones the planet has spawned.

Edit: Addendum: That guy in the videos is just a troll, right? Right?

This post has been edited by Gothos: 08 February 2011 - 09:07 AM

[Primateus]

 Gothos, on 08 February 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:

 Primateus, on 08 February 2011 - 08:25 AM, said:

 footbeat, on 08 February 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

I do agree though that it is just as much of a stretch to be an atheist as it is to believe in God.

Why?

While not as much of a stretch, IMO, I can see where he's coming from. May be referring that God has not been scientifically disproven, as far as I know. But, that's the thing with the 'unknowable' and 'supernatural' - you can just invent new interpretation to fit the changing knowledge landscape and avoid clashing with rational thought for eternity.
To relate, myself I can't say if there's no 'originator' behind the universe, though I'm fairly certain that if there is, it sure as hell ain't the Christian God, nor any of the other ones the planet has spawned.

Edit: Addendum: That guy in the videos is just a troll, right? Right?

I agree with you Gothos and I understand where Footbeat is coming from in this regard. I'm just not buying the argument as I see it as one made from ignorance, which is not a sin (see what I did there?)

And no, while we may hope he is, Bill O'Reilly is not a troll. He believes what he says (or he really IS a troll and a damned good one too)

Oh, and I also agree that if there is a creator behind the universe it seems very unlikely that it is the christian god.

At best, I think, it would be some sort of deistic god.

This post has been edited by Primateus: 08 February 2011 - 09:25 AM

[ThinkingMalaz]

D'rek: I don't understand how you can equate the position of religion and the position of science (which is not necessarily the atheist view, there are plenty of unscientific atheists and christians/theists who accept science) as equally valid positions. Sure I agree with your point that we can't know FOR CERTAIN which side is right, but that does not mean both positions are equally valid. One side (religion) makes completely unsupported and unchangable assertions about the world which can only be accepted on faith. Science on the other hand does it's utmost to provide evidence for it's assertions, and if new evidence comes to light refuting one of it's assertions it is more then willing to change it's assertions in the face of the new evidence. So one side provides actual evidence fo it'd claims and acknowledges it doesn't know everything, whereas the other makes wild claims purporting to explain everything, and all you need to believe them is faith (i.e. asking no questions). To me this seems lazy, and certainly is not as valid as scientific claims. Now I respect the opinions of those who take everything on faith, but that does not mean they are therefore more or equally valid.

btw Science is not in te business of disproving any god claim. It is in the business of trying to understand the world through logic and the scientific method. The fact that this process has debunked a lot of religious claims is a side-effect. If scientists would find proof for the assertions of ANY religion they would acknowledge that. Thus far this has not happened though, and the evidence seems to suggest that even if there is a god it is nothing like those portrayed in our worlds religions and that begs the question whether such a being exists at all.

This post has been edited by ThinkingMalaz: 08 February 2011 - 10:01 AM