debate sidethread for Lucretius

[WolfBitnGodSmittn]

This i am posting as a courtesy to Lucretius... it is a side thread intended for discussion among others concerning our debate on atheism vs creationism, and can also be used for him to discuss things with other atheists or agnostics concerning points and questions... if anyone would like to assist him in debate that is fine by me, as long as it is on this thread, and he can choose to use council or not of course, with no offence or hurt taken on my part

Lucretius God bless you and good luck

 

[Lucretius]

Alright boys, huddle up, now, here's the plan....

 

[WolfBitnGodSmittn]

from the looks of the debate so far you may need that

 

[weakestlink33]

I have a question that either of you guys could answer for me - The debate is called "atheism vs creationism" so are you guys arguing the two sides as if they are the only two possibilities or do you guys believe that the theory of evolution and Christianity are compatible? I certainly do not support atheism, but I can not say that I fully support creationism in the sense that you guys are arguing. I do believe God created everything to be good and humans in his image, but I also believe it is possible that HE used evolution as one of His many tools in His divine plan. I wouldn't want to council an atheist in a debate against Christianity, but if it was a debate more about scientific beliefs than religion, I would be willing to support the side that is open to the possibility of evolution

 

[WolfBitnGodSmittn]

the way i see it, if we live in the real world there are facts to contend with, and the bible is not a science text book, but where it does address these issues it agrees COMPLETELY with the facts... nothing contradicts it but people's opinion... on the flip side i believe also many theories are stretched and presented and taught pretty much as fact, when they are far from fact... these things i intend to show, while i am also presenting my case for "In the beginning God"

 

[Lucretius]

From what I can gather, any scientific theory that doesn't mention God is 'atheistic'. Naturally, millions of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc. who are scientists, and understand the scientific method, disagree with that claim, as do I. I think that, while I am an atheist, the idea of God belongs in a separate realm than science, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[the_Radio_Star]

1. The proper venue for debating scientific issues is at science conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In such a venue, the claims can be checked by anyone at their leisure. Creationists, with very rare exceptions, are unwilling to debate there.

2. Public debates are usually set up so that the winners are determined by public speaking ability, not by quality of material.

3. Debate formats, both spoken and written, usually do not allow space for sufficient examination of points. A common tactic used by some prominent creationists is to rattle off dozens of bits of misinformation in rapid succession. It is impossible for the responder to address each in the time or space allotted.

4. Notwithstanding the above points, there have been several debates, both live and online.

Source.

Debating Creationists

More...

 

[Lucretius]

Oh, don't worry, I've read that before Radio Star. I know convincing Wolf that he is wrong is like trying to outrun light or trying to freeze something to absolute zero.

Online debates are a bit nicer because people can check out sources and have time to analyze each post, but the principle is still the same.

This is why I suggest, more than anything, that people train themself to critically think, so they will more easily be able to spot logical fallacies that Creationists use in their arguments.

 

[us38]

might i remind you that true scientific method does not intentionally misrepresent and posture

It must be terribly disconcerting, constantly looking into the mirror and seeing someone else.

 

[the_Radio_Star]

The very title of your debate is enough to turn people away. There were atheists long before modern science, and there are many theists who have no objections to the findings of science.

It looks like you're debating the Big Bang in the other thread. Wolf, you should read what OEC Hugh Ross thinks about the Big Bang. He thinks that the Big Bang is completely compatible with God creating light on the first day of creation. Photons would not have been present shortly after the Big Bang (I don't think), but the principle is still the same.

 

[weakestlink33]

I know convincing Wolf that he is wrong is like trying to outrun light or trying to freeze something to absolute zero.

Just a random side note: Sophomore year (of high school), I often sat in my chemistry class fooling around and just pondering random stuff (pretty much just doing anything but chemistry), and the question of freezing something to absolute zero was something I thought about a bit. We would just need something with no mass to work with and/or someway of removing all of something mass while still allowing it to remain a "something". Photons are kinda a "something" but freezing them seems illogical to me. Freezing a massless object to absolute zero does seem logical though. I'm still not 100% convinced the reaching absolute value is impossible though.

^ Thats pretty much how my thoughts work when I'm bored.lol
Maybe someday I'll think of something great though and good use will come from the randomness in my head

 

[z3ro]

Didn't WGBS say he could prove god using the scientific method? Why is he wasting time, trying to prove the big bang is wrong when he could destroy all arguments, and forever go down in history as the man that proved god exists? Oh, wait...

 

[weakestlink33]

The very title of your debate is enough to turn people away. There were atheists long before modern science, and there are many theists who have no objections to the findings of science.

I agree with you, because I don't really find atheism and creationism to be opposites in my opinion. Maybe a debate of Atheism v. Christianity and/or Creationism v. Evolution would make a lot more sense to me (although I am not convinced either that creationism and evolution are not as compatible as they may appear). The wording of the title initially appeared to suggest to me that science=atheism which is a statement I certainly can not accept. I would never allow my religious beliefs to prevent me from investigating new scientific theory as I plan on being a physics major, yet I also do not find God and science incompatible at all. Nothing I have studied thus far contradicts God in my opinion, and I don't really see how any science could. Science tried to understand how the Universe works, while religion tries to explain why it works. The how and why are very different matter, yet I believe they are also interconnected. For me, the why is easy - God- while the How is a lot harder to understand - until a unified theory of the universe is finally discovered, we will never fully understand how.

 

[WolfBitnGodSmittn]

The very title of your debate is enough to turn people away. There were atheists long before modern science, and there are many theists who have no objections to the findings of science.

It looks like you're debating the Big Bang in the other thread. Wolf, you should read what OEC Hugh Ross thinks about the Big Bang. He thinks that the Big Bang is completely compatible with God creating light on the first day of creation. Photons would not have been present shortly after the Big Bang (I don't think), but the principle is still the same.

when i get the first concession bt lucretius, that by scientific definition there is not even something considered a true 'scientific theory' concerning the cause of the bang, and that therefore God cannot just be eliminated on his charge that there was no time no space so God couldnt exist, i will tackle your quesiton here about the light

 

[the_Radio_Star]

when i get the first concession bt lucretius, that by scientific definition there is not even something considered a true 'scientific theory' concerning the cause of the bang, and that therefore God cannot just be eliminated on his charge that there was no time no space so God couldnt exist, i will tackle your quesiton here about the light

While I don't necessarily agree with them, a few authors at Internet Infidels have quite a bit to say about this subject. And I never had a question about light. It's just that there isn't a serious objection to "Let there be light" and the BBT being compatible, AFAIK.

 

[Lucretius]

You aren't going to get a concession from me about that though;

...because you are wrong.

 

[the_Radio_Star]

Didn't WGBS say he could prove god using the scientific method? Why is he wasting time, trying to prove the big bang is wrong when he could destroy all arguments, and forever go down in history as the man that proved god exists? Oh, wait...

If you ever read Richard Carrier's Why I Am Not a Christian, you will see that Christianity predicts an entirely different universe from the one we find, but common sense should be enough to show anyone that.

 

[L'Anatra]

when i get the first concession bt lucretius, that by scientific definition there is not even something considered a true 'scientific theory' concerning the cause of the bang, and that therefore God cannot just be eliminated on his charge that there was no time no space so God couldnt exist, i will tackle your quesiton here about the light

Creationists like to forget conveniently that an early version of the Big Bang Theory they so despise was actually championed by a Christian clergyman, Father Georges Lemaître, one of the most famous physicists and astronomers of the early twentieth century.

Somehow, it is now labeled as an "atheistic" scientific theory. Bollocks!

Science does not preclude the existence of God in any way, because it can't make any claims about God. Anyone with knowledge about the process of science would have to agree.

 

[Lucretius]

Creationists like to forget conveniently that an early version of the Big Bang Theory they so despise was actually championed by a Christian clergyman, Father Georges Lemaître, one of the most famous physicists and astronomers of the early twentieth century.

Somehow, it is now labeled as an "atheistic" scientific theory. Bollocks!

Science does not preclude the existence of God in any way, because it can't make any claims about God. Anyone with knowledge about the process of science would have to agree.

Precisely, I'm not saying God doesn't exist, but that he's not a scientific means of explanation because he's untestable.

 

[L'Anatra]

Precisely, I'm not saying God doesn't exist, but that he's not a scientific means of explanation because he's untestable.

Exactly. Invoking the supernatural can't be a scientific means of explanation.