What do you say to anti-theists on the formation of the universe?

[Larniavc]

How can you explain that to them?

They just did. Seems straight forward to me.

 

[Larniavc]

No, it's logically possible to conclude that they were real people without believing in God.

Rubbish. They can be real but just wrong in terms of the supernatural.

 

[BCP1928]

Real people, maybe, but not the people described in the bible. For instance, if there were no God, Jesus could not be the Son of God. If there were no God, Moses could not have been the one sent by God to speak to Pharaoh.

Right. Bringing the Bible into it adds another factor, but it's still a separate question.

 

[BCP1928]

Rubbish. They can be real but just wrong in terms of the supernatural.

What's the necessary connection? Jesus and Moses were two people who had stories written about them. They either existed or they didn't. God either exists or He doesn't. Why is saying that there is no necessary logical connection between those propositions rubbish?

 

[Neogaia777]

Glad you said almost! As I am the most least biased person you’ll ever meet.

Lol, funny.

But seriously though, it takes a lot of work, and I do mean "a lot of (constant/hard/painful sometimes) work" to always be truly unbiased, and it's not something that I am going to say I "always am always" either, etc, but it's sometimes easy to tell those who are at least working on it or at it, from those who don't seem to ever be working on it at all, etc. "Sometimes" anyway, etc. And I don't trust anyone on any side of the aisle about any subject who doesn't even seem to be at least working on it, or making some efforts with it, etc. Probably the best any of us can do right now, etc.

Take Care.

 

[stevevw]

Your implication is that because science periodically updates its theories and hypotheses, that this is a "vortex of ignorance" which does not and cannot deliver a solid understanding of the world. There is a measure of truth in this in regard to the very large - cosmology - and the very small - quantum physics and the like, but it is not valid for the scales in between.

I take a specific example: our understanding of the minutae of the formation sedimentary rocks of great diversity, in equally diverse environments, from deposition, through diagenesis, has grown steadily more detailed and assured. The same can be found in practically all "human scale" sciences.

Thus, if I have correctly understood your implication, it is absolutely invalid at these "human scales".

I am not sure I understand what you mean.

I would like to see you justify the claim that the move from Darwinism to the Modern Synthesis was a Kuhnian paradigm shift.

I thought this was common knowledge.

AI Overview
The shift from Darwin's original theory of evolution to the modern synthesis, which incorporates genetics and mathematical population genetics, is widely considered a paradigm shift in evolutionary biology.

Evolution in Revolution
A Paradigm shift in our understanding of life and biological evolution

Evolution in Revolution: A Paradigm shift in our understanding of life and biological evolution - PMC

Biological evolution represents one of the most successful, but also controversial scientific concepts. Ever since Charles Darwin formulated his version of evolution via natural selection, biological sciences experienced explosive development and ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Not just that but theres a growing belief there is another paradigm shift happening with the modern synthesis and the Extended Evolution Synthesis.

AI Overview
The shift from the Modern Synthesis to the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) represents a fundamental paradigm shift in evolutionary biology, moving beyond a purely gene-centric view to encompass broader influences like developmental processes, environmental interactions, and various inheritance mechanisms.

 

[BCP1928]

I am not sure I understand what you mean.

I thought this was common knowledge.

AI Overview
The shift from Darwin's original theory of evolution to the modern synthesis, which incorporates genetics and mathematical population genetics, is widely considered a paradigm shift in evolutionary biology.

Evolution in Revolution
A Paradigm shift in our understanding of life and biological evolution

Evolution in Revolution: A Paradigm shift in our understanding of life and biological evolution - PMC

Biological evolution represents one of the most successful, but also controversial scientific concepts. Ever since Charles Darwin formulated his version of evolution via natural selection, biological sciences experienced explosive development and ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Not just that but theres a growing belief there is another paradigm shift happening with the modern synthesis and the Extended Evolution Synthesis.

AI Overview
The shift from the Modern Synthesis to the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) represents a fundamental paradigm shift in evolutionary biology, moving beyond a purely gene-centric view to encompass broader influences like developmental processes, environmental interactions, and various inheritance mechanisms.

You're citing AI as an authority????

 

[Neogaia777]

Anytime anyone says "I think" then you almost usually have to put it under extreme scrutiny, and also have to be acutely aware that it's just only what they have concluded, and is just what "they think", etc, and it's also up to you to "think or not think" how truly objective they are being about it or not, etc.

Anyway, "I think" there is more evidence to conclude that many of the people described/depicted in the Bible were real actual people that actually lived in or around the time(s) that that writing says that they did, etc. Or I at least think this with most of them anyway, etc.

And "I think" that there is also a greater possibility that some of them, or their God, was able to do or perform some things for them that would seem to be beyond the realm of normal (and right now logical) to some right now, etc. But, again, this is just what "I think", etc. There have been other things that have made me think that this is the more likely possibility also, but to get into full detail about every single one of those would probably take up too much space/time, and is probably more than I am wanting to even attempt to get into full detail about here, etc.

Again, I'm not asking you to be convinced, but this is just what I have concluded, or right now "think" right now, etc.

I can believe in some things that would seem to be beyond normal when I think there is too many occurances of it, or when I think there is ample enough evidence for it, but I don't expect all of the rest of you to conclude the same right now, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's logically possible to conclude that they were real people without believing in God.

If you conclude they were real people, what is keeping you from concluding their testimonies were real?

What tells you Moses was real, that doesn't tell you he talked with God?

 

[AV1611VET]

I would use things that the athiest would respect and find credible.

Like this?

 

[Neogaia777]

Anytime anyone says "I think" then you almost usually have to put it under extreme scrutiny, and also have to be acutely aware that it's just only what they have concluded, and is just what "they think", etc, and it's also up to you to "think or not think" how truly objective they are being about it or not, etc.

Anyway, "I think" there is more evidence to conclude that many of the people described/depicted in the Bible were real actual people that actually lived in or around the time(s) that that writing says that they did, etc. Or I at least think this with most of them anyway, etc.

And "I think" that there is also a greater possibility that some of them, or their God, was able to do or perform some things for them that would seem to be beyond the realm of normal (and right now logical) to some right now, etc. But, again, this is just what "I think", etc. There have been other things that have made me think that this is the more likely possibility also, but to get into full detail about every single one of those would probably take up too much space/time, and is probably more than I am wanting to even attempt to get into full detail about here, etc.

Again, I'm not asking you to be convinced, but this is just what I have concluded, or right now "think" right now, etc.

I can believe in some things that would seem to be beyond normal when I think there is too many occurances of it, or when I think there is ample enough evidence for it, but I don't expect all of the rest of you to conclude the same right now, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

"I think" (and there we go with the "I think" again) anyway, "I think" that in another time and place/space, that most of these things that we would right now consider to be "way beyond normal" right now, are actually perfectly normal for almost anybody and everybody in another time and place/space, etc. But I also didn't come to think this overnight either, but it has been a very, very long journey for me, etc. And I'm well, well aware that others just might need a lot, lot more "time" to ever be able to think or ever even begin to conclude the same, etc.

God Bless.

 

[BCP1928]

If you conclude they were real people, what is keeping you from concluding their testimonies were real?

What tells you Moses was real, that doesn't tell you he talked with God?

I can conclude that Moses may have been a real person because there are stories about him in a book, a book that also tells stories about other people who were known to be real from other sources. That doesn't mean that I have to assume that the stories are entirely factual. For example, I can conclude that George Washington was a real person without having to believe the story that he threw a siver dollar across the Potomac.

 

[AV1611VET]

For example, I can conclude that George Washington was a real person ...

Based on ... ???

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Anti-theists ask for proof, or wisdom they can't knock back, at least to satisfy themselves.

 

[Larniavc]

What's the necessary connection? Jesus and Moses were two people who had stories written about them. They either existed or they didn't. God either exists or He doesn't. Why is saying that there is no necessary logical connection between those propositions rubbish?

That’s what I was saying.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anti-theists ask for proof, or wisdom they can't knock back, at least to satisfy themselves.

I don't agree.

When I was younger, I was taught in school that Pluto was our 9th planet.

I didn't question it.

I accepted it prima facie.

After all, it was my science teacher telling me that, and it was even documented in my science books.

To question everything would have gotten me laughed at -- or worse.

 

[Larniavc]

Anti-theists ask for proof, or wisdom they can't knock back, at least to satisfy themselves.

Not proof but evidence.

 

[partinobodycular]

Glad you said almost! As I am the most least biased person you’ll ever meet.

That sounds like a rather biased claim.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

I don't agree.

When I was younger, I was taught in school that Pluto was our 9th planet.

I didn't question it.

I accepted it prima facie.

After all, it was my science teacher telling me that, and it was even documented in my science books.

To question everything would have gotten me laughed at -- or worse.

Pluto is one thing, and it can be seen, but my anti-theists in the science forum, knock back my ideas and are satisfied that they are right. They have faith in science, particularly empirical science, complaining that psychology should not be called a science.

They want empirical proof. They are sure Moses and his story are not reality and if there is no evidence, lost in time, bar a few things like pottery fragment evidence... they are not going to believe the story or even that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Not proof but evidence.

Obviously, not for all but some people, the Universe is evidence of God, and it goes back to opinions and philosophy, ip dixit. And the argument from intelligence... they know philosophical debate.

I pointed out that there was a field dig and they found that at a point in time people living in Israel no longer ate pork, so no more pork bones, only sheep. And they began to use another type of pottery creation. People have seen a place on a mountain in Sinai, with evidence of water running out, that was milky with minerals in it. But that is like nothing to my scientismic fellows.