- Joined
- 25 October 2008
- Posts
- 80
- Reactions
- 1
Love J & M! This strip illustrates one of the many objections I have to islam.
Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical
- Thread starter bellenuit
- Start date
Love J & M! This strip illustrates one of the many objections I have to islam.
- Joined
- 22 November 2010
- Posts
- 3,661
- Reactions
- 9
I have missed the whole point.
I dropped that post on reviewing it.
It was rude ... uncalled for ... unwarranted!
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
Some follow up to the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate
22 self-identifying creationists at the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate were asked to write a message/question/note. Some of the questions were what many Young Earth Creationists regard as proof that evolution is false.
These were the questions......
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
These are answers subsequently given on Slate by an astronomer/scientist:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...ience_answering_creationists_questi ons.html
For those who watched the debate, I think you will find this post-mortem by Jaclyn Glenn apt.
22 self-identifying creationists at the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate were asked to write a message/question/note. Some of the questions were what many Young Earth Creationists regard as proof that evolution is false.
These were the questions......
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
These are answers subsequently given on Slate by an astronomer/scientist:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...ience_answering_creationists_questi ons.html
For those who watched the debate, I think you will find this post-mortem by Jaclyn Glenn apt.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
The British Government Will Soon Take Action Against Female Genital Mutilation
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ake-action-against-female-genital-mutilation/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ake-action-against-female-genital-mutilation/
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
These are some definitions from my online dictionary that I think we would all agree on.
Reincarnation: The rebirth of a soul in another body.
Consciousness: The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. Consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain.
Soul: The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal
I looked at this site for a review of Tucker's book:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509769/New-book-reveals-children-believe-reincarnated.html
It is interesting that you raise the reincarnation issue again as I was going to post on it yesterday in relation to scientists who disregard looking for "supernatural" causes or events being ignorant. If you take reincarnation as defined here, that is a supernatural event. It involves the soul and the soul is what religious people regard as separate from the person and will continue to live for eternity after the physical body dies. Cardinal Pell described Adam and Eve as mythical, but representative of the first two homo sapiens in the evolutionary path to whom God gave a soul. All subsequent offspring of these two designated beings also acquired a soul at birth according to Pell.
Since there is no proof that there is such a thing as a soul, then there can be no evidence of reincarnation as defined above or in the sense alluded to by you at the beginning of your post: the evidence presented for the reincarnation of souls.
I was then going to put that in the context of the James Leininger case we discussed and see what the difference might be between two equally competent scientists, one that accepted the possibility of supernatural causes and one who didn't.
Since both have the same toolkit, which is a knowledge of natural processes, there should be no difference in what each would learn exploring the case. Neither would be able to prove a supernatural cause, because that is outside the realm of their observations. Having spent a considerable amount of time exploring all natural causes with no success, the first scientist is more likely to conclude the the cause is supernatural and move on.
That is basically the case when it comes to those miraculously cured in Lourdes - the Vatican appointed scientists don't prove that the cures were supernatural - just that they can't find any natural cause and then conclude that the explanation can only be supernatural. They don't need to show a mechanism for the cure. It is after all supernatural and beyond natural explanations.
The other scientist on the other hand who is not willing to accept supernatural causes perseveres. He may never come up with the answer, but if there is a natural explanation it will be he who finds it. So those reluctant to look at supernatural causes are more likely to find the real natural cause.
In the case of Tucker, the article I posted stated this:
Bases the science for his theories in advanced quantum physics, arguing that human consciousness can move in time and space
Quantum physics provide natural explanations for events, though it is a science beyond the comprehension of most people, including me. Although Tucker uses the word reincarnation and at times the word soul, does he mean soul in the religious sense or as a synonym for consciousness. His explanations of his theory use the word consciousness as the "thing" that sits independent of the body and gets passed to the other person so I suspect he is using it as a synonym.
It is interesting research, but at present it is just speculation worth pursuing. There aren't many pursuing reincarnation per se, but there are quite a few studying consciousness. It would be interesting if they could somehow prove that it can exist outside of the body and be transmittable. I am sure such a discovery would be relished by science as it would lead to potentially new explanations in many fields that deal with the brain (medicine, psychology, criminology etc.). It might prove problematic for some religions.
- Joined
- 4 December 2008
- Posts
- 486
- Reactions
- 281
If God created the universe then it still had to come from somewhere, so even in your view something came from nothing. All we're debating here is the mechanism that allows that to happen. If God can be eternal and create something from nothing, then why can't there be something natural that is eternal that led to our creation?
The atheist view - "We can't determine how it happened, but considering that there is no indisputable evidence of a supernatural event ever occurring we can only assume that there is a rational explanation.'
The creationist view - "We can't determine how it happened, so we can only assume that there must be an all powerful eternal being that made it happen."
Creationists created a miracle worker to explain something that's beyond their understanding. They made God all powerful and eternal. What evidence is there that God is all powerful or that God is eternal?
Why does an atheist need evidence to support their belief that the supernatural doesn't exist? You don't need to supply evidence on how it's possible for God to be an eternal being who can create matter out of nothing, you just believe that he can. So why can't an atheist simply believe that there is a rational solution to the problem of creation?
I'm not an Atheist but as I said above, your assumption that something had to come from nothing might be incorrect. If something can't come from nothing, yet here we are, then something existed before the universe as we know it.
I think most Atheists would leave it at that. It's the creationists that feel the need to go one step further and say, the thing that must have existed before is an all powerful eternal being. Atheists then question on what basis do you make that extra leap?
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
That's crucial. Atheists say they don't know, but keep seeking. Creationists say they know, but can't offer proof of their claim, but expect you to believe it.
- Joined
- 22 November 2010
- Posts
- 3,661
- Reactions
- 9
The process of music making for delivering doctrine in the Christian Family Centre (an Adelaide Pentecostal Church).
http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/66192
http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/66192
- Joined
- 14 December 2010
- Posts
- 3,472
- Reactions
- 248
I didn't say something can't come from nothing.
I said nothing can't come from something natural.
An eternal God doesn't encounter this problem.
The atheist won't answer questions about the origin (even share his possible views) because it cannot be accommodated in his worldview regardless of the answer. Without a supernatural creator they are left with the natural. 1.Scientifically there is no viable natural explanation
2. Wisely they can often acknowledge that any explanation outside of the supernatural is guess work and then we have the problem of continuous regression anyway.
At least the evolutionist can say - I believe in evolution and welcome the possibility that someone put the simplest form if life there in the first place (or created the universe and used evolution to advance life).
The outright atheist has nothing. Nothing scientific.
God is no a god of the gaps.
There are only 2 options
1) some form of a creator
2) no creator
Science cannot validate or accommodate view number 2. So this should not be accepted. Science and the way the universe works can accommodate number 1 and strongly points to it. To believe number 2 is to blatantly ignore all scientific evidence that we have.
I said nothing can't come from something natural.
An eternal God doesn't encounter this problem.
The atheist won't answer questions about the origin (even share his possible views) because it cannot be accommodated in his worldview regardless of the answer. Without a supernatural creator they are left with the natural. 1.Scientifically there is no viable natural explanation
2. Wisely they can often acknowledge that any explanation outside of the supernatural is guess work and then we have the problem of continuous regression anyway.
At least the evolutionist can say - I believe in evolution and welcome the possibility that someone put the simplest form if life there in the first place (or created the universe and used evolution to advance life).
The outright atheist has nothing. Nothing scientific.
God is no a god of the gaps.
There are only 2 options
1) some form of a creator
2) no creator
Science cannot validate or accommodate view number 2. So this should not be accepted. Science and the way the universe works can accommodate number 1 and strongly points to it. To believe number 2 is to blatantly ignore all scientific evidence that we have.
- Joined
- 14 December 2010
- Posts
- 3,472
- Reactions
- 248
A) don't use the word proof. No one can prove anything.
B) look at my 2 options in the post above. It's scientific evidence and logic that leads to this conclusion not pure faith or guesswork or personal preference.
You're making an assumption that there is no logic or evidence behind the "some sort of a creator" view but as seen above that is a blatant falsity.
Pav
I am struggling with your logic and language. Science cannot validate either the existence or the non existence of a creator because that is a doctrinal or philosphical proposition, not a scientific one, isnt it?
To say that science points to one or the other is also probably based on a doctrinal confirmation bias.
What do you understand by the continuous regression problem that you refer to?
L
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Not all religious people believe in a soul. Seventh Day Adventists discard the idea entirely.
Perhaps my powers of comprehension are deficient, but I'm at a loss to understand this statement.
Could you express it differently?
- Joined
- 14 December 2010
- Posts
- 3,472
- Reactions
- 248
You are correct in that it is a philosophical proposition.
But this proposition is (hopefully) reached by the observation of scientific evidence as well as philosophical reasoning.
For example the person will consider both positions
1) naturalistic/atheistic view of no creator
2) a creator (any sort of creator).
These views aren't just arrived at by a heads or tails coin toss. The choice is arrived at by examining evidence.
The creationist might, for example, view the world around us and dismiss 1) because
1) naturalistic view isn't supported by scientific evidence because we don't ever observe something coming from nothing, because we never observe life coming from non-life etc....
Thus the naturalistic view doesn't accommodate current scientific observation.
AND
The creationist might, for example, view the world around us and think 2) is the best proposition because
2) Scientific observation regarding the complexity of creation, the intricate precision of the laws of physics and the universe points to a greater likelihood of a creator than purely "time and chance".
The atheist might have a similar process by which they derive their conclusion.
In the end can't be proven and of course require some degree of faith.
But then again so does going to a restaurant without a chemistry kit to test if the food is poisoned.
We examine evidence and based on that determine which conclusion is most likely.
So although each position is a philosophical one, whatever choice is made it should be underpinned by current evidence in the world around us, rather than flipping a coin.
- Joined
- 14 December 2010
- Posts
- 3,472
- Reactions
- 248
Apologies Julia I made a meal of that statement
I think I confused myself there haha!
What I meant to say was.
a) something supernatural (and eternal) can create something from nothing within "our" time and space.
b) Within the natural world something cannot be created from nothing (based on scientific observation). Although I'd welcome examples from people if I'm incorrect.
- Joined
- 14 December 2010
- Posts
- 3,472
- Reactions
- 248
Infinite regression.
Whatever is not eternal has a beginning.
Whatever has a beginning has a cause.
If there is an eternal creator then this creator by definition has always existed outside of time. It has no beginning and thus requires no cause.
If we take the atheist approach and say that there is no creator(god) then we are faced with a dilemma.
The universe is not eternal, thus it had a beginning.
What has a beginning has a cause.
So how does this fit in with the atheist view?
They might say, well we came from another universe....
Then where did that universe come from?
Another universe....
Where did that universe come from etc.
We could go on for hours.
Unless the atheist acknowledges that we had to have originally come from something eternal and thus supernatural (exist above and beyond nature), there is no getting around this because whatever has a beginning has to have had a cause.
Whatever is not eternal has a beginning.
Whatever has a beginning has a cause.
If there is an eternal creator then this creator by definition has always existed outside of time. It has no beginning and thus requires no cause.
If we take the atheist approach and say that there is no creator(god) then we are faced with a dilemma.
The universe is not eternal, thus it had a beginning.
What has a beginning has a cause.
So how does this fit in with the atheist view?
They might say, well we came from another universe....
Then where did that universe come from?
Another universe....
Where did that universe come from etc.
We could go on for hours.
Unless the atheist acknowledges that we had to have originally come from something eternal and thus supernatural (exist above and beyond nature), there is no getting around this because whatever has a beginning has to have had a cause.
- Joined
- 25 October 2008
- Posts
- 80
- Reactions
- 1
To follow this line of argument you will need to familiarise yourself with the Kalam cosmological argument and the various critiques of it, which will lead you to a study of A- and B-theories of time and the philosophical (and physical) arguments concerning causality and indeed the nature of the universe (and beyond/before or whatever), and you will also benefit by becoming familiar with the ontological argument and the various critiques of it too. A familiarity with epistemology will be advantageous as well. Oh, and perhaps a little mathematics, especially set theory. It is not as clear-cut as you may initially think. But remember, as you delve deeper and deeper, we agree you CANNOT prove anything, we can only look at the evidence and make a decision on that basis.
As an aside, it has long struck me as peculiar that the god of the christian religion should choose to first introduce the cosmological argument through pagan philosophers and then develop it through muslim philosophers and latterly, and at last, have it popularised by christian philosophers.
Eternal Nature? Is as robust a possibility as an Eternal God.
Which would equate God =Nature.
What are you all arguing about.
Man has contrived so many different answers in different cultures over the ages and then done some of the dumbest, nastiest stupid things defending those answers.
Yet it is the instinctive questions that unite us all.
As far as I know it’s only Humans that look at the stars and wonder how it is created – the possible answer divides us, but to question how is a universal human trait.
I have lots of answered question but that’s great – I cherish those unanswered questions of wonder as the spirituality of being human.
As for categories such as atheist or agnostic or religious - I don't know how to define them and don't think they are appropriate any way. We are all unique.
Thks Pav
I dont think anyone is flipping a coin are they?
I just want to encourage precision of language.
If you choose to look at aspects of scientific findings and then decide that it fits with your preferred world view( ie God is creator, chistian docrtine is therefore true and so on)..then that sounds like a confirmation bias, not anything that was suggested by the scientific process. Science only says anything about the hypothesis that is being tested, nothing more.
As pure and correct science cannot, and does not attempt to, posit the existence of a creator then clearly that is a step(leap) that is taken by some for purely non scientific reasons ( ie philosphical/doctrinal)
To not take this leap is not an act of faith as you suggest, it is simply a stance of allowing the unknown to be just that until it may become known through further scientific enquiry...or not.
L
- Joined
- 4 December 2008
- Posts
- 486
- Reactions
- 281
I still say an eternal God does have this problem. How did this eternal being create our universe? Where did the energy/mass come from? The question still exists, creationists just sweep it under the "Only God can comprehend the work of God" rug.
But even if you assume a creator:
1. There is no scientific evidence, only lack of evidence to the contrary.
2. Any supernatural explanation is also guesswork.
So aren't creationists faced with the same problem?
I disagree with your proposal that view 2 should be ruled out because science is currently unable to validate it. I could just as easily say that there are no validated occurrences of the supernatural, therefore view 1 should not be accepted. And I think you'll find that is the Atheist stance.
To claim one view is true because the other can't be validated is false logic. Especially in the case where neither view can be validated.
- Joined
- 4 December 2008
- Posts
- 486
- Reactions
- 281
First you have assumed that the universe is not eternal. Humans have an extremely limited view point. It may well be that the universe we know is only one small part of something eternal.
You have also defined something eternal as needing to be supernatural and have linked supernatural with God. As above, there is nothing to say something natural can't be eternal. But that depends on your definition of supernatural. It might be clearer to say that the origin of the universe could be supernatural without having anything to do with God.