I'm OK withn that. I see great evidence literally all around us to believe YHWH is the God that created everything.
I think I might be using a more strict set of requirements for evidence.
Creation speaks of a Creator. Design to a designer. Logic to Logos.
See, this is backwards. The reason something is a creation or is designed is
because it has a creator or a designer. The logic doesn't flow the other way - You can't say "This was created, therefore a creator exists." Such an argument is circular, since you can't know if something was created without
presupposing the creator.
What the big bang shows us is that stuff got moving from a non-moving state. And we know something at rest stays that way unless acted upon. In the science we have at our disposal, something not moving getting moved is not possible "naturally."
It is not possible "naturally" within our current models of the universe. The problem is that we have no model for "before" our universe began expanding. It is erroneous to assume that the laws of our universe apply to the initial stages of the big bang. Indeed, without the presence of time, the very underpinnings of how causality works become very confusing.
I say that in regards to Atheists thinking they have concrete evidence that atheism is sensible. It isn't. It is just emotionalism causing thoughts to move in a direct plain.
You don't think people should have reasons to believe the things they do? If one subscribes to the idea that one should have a reason to believe something, and one finds no evidence for a deity, it is only natural that atheism would become one's tentative conclusion. No one has concrete evidence that atheism is
correct, but it is certainly a sensible conclusion to reach given the lack of evidence supporting a deity.
I read Hitchens and Dawkins with no similar reaction, and both men could cause me nausea for what horrors they are bringing upon an already sick world.
Then I guess you're a better man than I? I've got this thing where I think people who publish books should really be above the most basic of logical fallacies, and I think their editors should call them on it as well.
[/quote]
Then education does not garener a person an intellect? Hmm, I think I may like your opinion if that is what you are saying. I can discard Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris (et al) whenever they speak out of discipline.
Not at all. If they're saying he's "no true scientist," then clearly they're wrong. If they're saying he's "no true biologist," then they're clearly right.
I was an atheist while my parents took me to Church a few times as I was growing up. I was an atheist until I tested the views of Christians and atheists. I almost became a Buddhist. I am a Christian now.
Hey, as long as you're happy and the rights of others are preserved, I'm cool with it.
It is an attribute of a Watchmaker to set "it" in motion.
Assuming it was stopped before. All we know is that the universe expanded from a point. We don't know what went on "before" then.
I don't know how long you've been here, but my numbers cause the reactions from atheists that prove they have meaning. But as I've said, only you have asked the right question about it.
Frankly, without some sort of units on the numbers, they become effectively meaningless. I think you need to find a better way of making the point you are attempting to make with your "equation."
But that is not what scientific Christianity is doing. The gaps are not as important as what we can observe and deduce. The evidence looks like a Designer, a Programmer.
Could you be a little more specific? - I want to visit this sub-topic more in-depth.
If science is agnostic, you need to tell that to your absolutist atheist pals. Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens as well. They are presenting a done deal, so let's move on because science has settled the issue of God, salespitch. Absolutist is the word.
I know that you are mis-attributing Dawkins at least, and possibly the other two. They might be gnostic atheists with regards to
specific deities, which is at least a tenable position, as specific deities can be shown to be logically inconsistent. I've never read any quote by them in which they state that there are absolutely no gods, though most would probably say that it is very unlikely that a god exists.
Excuse me? Am I not in the room? "I" am part of "we." I see great solid and defensible reasons for belief in God.
Check my grammar more carefully - my words are correct. I do not see any legitimate evidence, and you do not see any evidence that I think is legitimate. The use of "legitimate" in my original comment refers to my perception and mine alone.
That's a personal opinion that is not backed up by evidence. There are plenty of really smart people that believe there is more then enough evidence for God. Ever notice how many are "Christians?"
Indeed it is an opinion. It also seems to be the scientific consensus.
The lines are so blurred now, from the treatises of the vocal atheists as to be no longer seperable. That's the fault of you guys. Freethinker, Skeptic, Atheist, Agnostic, all blend as one in social work and play.
Perhaps, but that's not my fault. I'm only twenty - I haven't influenced the lexicon that much yet.
At any rate, I think the best policy is to use words in the most logical manner based upon their constituent parts. "A-theism" literally means "Without belief in god." "A-gnosticism," as near as I can get it, means "Without knowledge." Hence, I don't believe in a god, but I don't know for sure if that is true.
In general? There is far more proof of existence in God. It is the fine-tuning where atheism grasps its voice for endeavor. I see know logical reason to hold atheism as reality.
The fine-tuning argument only makes sense if we assume that humanity is the given and our environment conforms (or was once conformed) to our needs. Suppose it's the other way around - and we conformed to live effectively in our environment?
Besides - The universe is fine-tuned for what?
Well you may be busy with classes, but the three amigos of atheism say it's a done deal. The bird is cooked and ready on the table. And they are not alone.
Could you provide a quote? I think you may be mis-characterizing the position.
Nope. You can't show that as happening from a natural cause. There is no ubiquitous supporting evidence from naturalism. Justice is claw and tooth, stealth and cunning and compassion is non-existent in animal biology. The facts don't make your point.
If compassion is non-existent, then why do we hear reports all the time of animals saving members of other species, and even sacrificing themselves in the process? Why do cats raise puppies that are clearly not their own? Additionally, we are animals and we feel possess compassion and justice.
Extinction is the natural process of human life.
You mean death? Using "extinction" in a poetic manner in the same conversation in which we're discussing biology may not be a great choice.
Yet, we struggle to avoid that at all costs.
We do?
Again, "we" seem to be outside of naturalism.
We have utilized our intelligence to improve our lot
faster than naturalism would.
If lions had the numbers, they would have cannibalism as their last meal.
And many humans have been cannibals throughout world history. What's your point?
And I hardly expect evolution from plants to produce humans in the near trillions of years.
I hardly expect it either. Why should we?
Man, you're driving a Model T in an computerized unmanned aircraft age. That position of yours has come and gone. Again. To look at the cosmos and a baby human's face makes mincemeat of the anti-God thesis. Ora baby humback for that matter.
A baby's face proves god? How so?
Those days are long gone my friend. Even Christians are asking the Fundy-zealots to stop already. The new news is better than the old routine. Science is driving us to God as a matter of observed evidence.
Well, I'll just wait until you guys get some. Everything presented so far within the scientific community (and there's been precious little of it) has been trounced.
If that's what you're doing fine. Then please get out of the way and stop all the advertisements about atheism being sensible. It isn't.
I disagree with your personal opinion there. Atheism is quite sensible, and is currently the most responsible position to hold regarding theism, if one's objective is to follow the evidence.
And social darwinism has really got to be buried for the dead thing that it is.
Uh...duh? Who's been advocating social darwinism? It's a ludacris idea based on the "is = ought" fallacy. Why are you bringing it up?
Oh please. Tag lines and rote pop philosophy 101? Please, I'll senmd the mods twn dolars to send to you if you don't bring up Pascal's Wager. AHHH, I just did.
Oh, I'm sorry - did I miss the memo? Does a principle suddenly become worthless once X people know about it? Oh no, wait...that's just you poisoning the well. Why bring up Pascal's Wager? It has so many things wrong with it it never should have been published.
I was just at a seminar in a suburb outside of Chicago (pure midwest) just a few weeks ago, and the Shock-Goths and Skeptics are legion. Truly ubiquitous. And I wasn't even on a High School campus or College the whole time.
What was the seminar covering?
I am only human. Usually being an Atheist follows observable patterns.
Being a Christian, BTW, is probably the most inconvenient lifestyle there is. I love women.
Perhaps, but it is still appropriate to give others the benefit of the doubt when you do not know them. You know, as a common courtesy.