Rationalists/Atheists: Don’t Too Readily Dismiss the Believer

obvious Child · 12-22-08, 01:50 AM

If you want a decent argument against atheism, hard atheism that is, is that the assumption of no evidence equates to non-existing means that everything we have found did not exist prior to us finding evidence for it. Hard atheism is foolish as it would argue that the recent species found under the Arctic ice caps didn't exist because we didn't have evidence of them. As Rumsfeld said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Merely because we do not have evidence for it does not mean God does not exist. As stated for what is the millionth time, soft atheism, or agnosticism is the most logically belief system.

moe · 12-22-08, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Except that you only cite them as evidence that evolution is wrong (despite the fact that you are incorrect in the dates).

More ranting. More raving and More personal opinion. Sure don't need a dictionary definition to understand what obvious child means eh?

Concerning Yom*
Word Study Yom

Gerald Schroeder - Articles - The Age of the Universe

Gerald L Schroeder

The scientific work of this man had much to do with Antony Flew's abandonment of Atheism.

Quote:

World's Most Famous Atheist Accepts Existence of God, Cites Modern Science!
The best-known atheist of the last 50 years, Professor Antony Flew, made the announcement in a symposium on science and religion, that the discoveries of modern science have led him to accept the existence of God. Flew was joined in the symposium by leading Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder and noted Scottish thinker John Haldane.

Quote:

Gerald Schroeder, an MIT-trained scientist who has worked in both physics and biology, has emerged in recent years as one of the most popular and accessible apostles for the melding of science and religion. He first reconciled science and faith as different perspectives on a single whole in The Science of God. Now, in The Hidden Face of God, Schroeder takes a bold step forward, to show that science, properly understood, provides positive reasons for faith.

Below is the final section of the paged linked to.

Quote:

15 billion or six days?

Today, we look at time going backward. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning, relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from the beginning looking forward. Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3000 years ago.

The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I'm not speaking as a theologian; I'm making a scientific claim. I didn't pull these numbers out of hat. That's why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it step-by-step. Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets exponentially longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world.

(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)

The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The fourth day - one billion years.
The fifth day - one-half billion years.
The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.
When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine

Moe

moe · 12-22-08, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Evolutionist - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

LMAOF!!!!!!!Good Grief man you do not even know how to use a dictionary!

You typed in Evolunist. It found one entry Main Entry: evo·lu·tion

The entry it found was not evolutionist. It was Evolution. And that is what it gave you the definition of

Evolutionist
One entry found.

Sponsored LinksEvolution is a lie
What does science evidence prove? Is evolution in the bible?
Free prophecy book - prophecy and truth - prophecy and current events, prophecy, biblical prophecy

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
Date: 1622
1: one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d: something evolved
3: the process of working out or developing
4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations ; also : the process described by this theory
5: the extraction of a mathematical root
6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
— evo·lu·tion·ari·ly \-shə-ˌner-ə-lē\ adverb
— evo·lu·tion·ary \-shə-ˌner-ē\ adjective
— evo·lu·tion·ism \-shə-ˌni-zəm\ noun
— evo·lu·tion·ist \-sh(ə-)nist\ noun or adjective

What the definition is telling you is

1: Evolution is one of a set of prescribed movements

2 a: Evolution is a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d: something evolved

3: Evolution is the process of working out or developing

4 a: Evolution is the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive
generations ; also : the process described by this theory

5: Evolution is the extraction of a mathematical root

6: Evolution is a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Here try this one from Merriam Webster.

Quote:

evolutionist - Definition from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary

evolutionist
One entry found for evolutionist.

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion·ist
Pronunciation: -sh(-)nst
Function: noun
: a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

So much for that.

Yeah at least you got that part right

Moe

Graffight · 12-22-08, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Apparently if you accept evolution, you consider that person to be an atheist. Apparently also if you don't accept God of the Gaps, you're an atheist. Apparently if you're not a Christian, you're an atheist.

Seriously, you expect me to take you seriously now?

question...what is your religion...now i'm curious.

Graffight · 12-22-08, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Enjoying the fallacy of changing the subject? Does your dishonest ever end? You argued against Scourge that atheism was wrong due to the inability of it to explain the origin of life and matter. What you argued was that we should believe because of what we cannot explain. Goddidit. God of the Gaps. That is ignorance. We should believe in God because we are ignorant of what we cannot explain at the moment. You clearly DO NOT WISH to discuss this despite your early post against Scourge.

God of the gaps is a wierd statement...God of the gaps will always exist if someone believes in a God the created everything. Saying it is like stating the obvious...If I say God did it that doesn't mean that i know how God did it, or that how God did it can't be figured out...You say "i don't know" and i say "God did it" neither statement removes the question "how?" who says that you should believe in a God BECAUSE you are ignorant...I believe in a God because for me nothing else makes sense...how did everything get here if something didn't make it or make what ever brought everything here...no theory has sufficiently answered that question, and (though it's not outside the realm of possibility) I'm not sure if any scientific theory can...

Graffight · 12-22-08, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

If you want a decent argument against atheism, hard atheism that is, is that the assumption of no evidence equates to non-existing means that everything we have found did not exist prior to us finding evidence for it. Hard atheism is foolish as it would argue that the recent species found under the Arctic ice caps didn't exist because we didn't have evidence of them. As Rumsfeld said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Merely because we do not have evidence for it does not mean God does not exist. As stated for what is the millionth time, soft atheism, or agnosticism is the most logically belief system.

I just have to add this every time i see the absence of evidence quote

But seriously though...it's funny how everyone wants everything to be so logical. "the only Logical religion is 'yada yada'" or "the only logical thought pattern is 'hippity hoo'" Logic means a whole barrel of nothing when it comes to things like what you believe in, because there is no "logical" evidence either way...because "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"(see video above) logic cannot explain love, logic cannot explain why we die...logic cannot explain what happens to us after we die, only your belief can explain any of those things and either you believe one thing or you don't...illogically...either way.

moe · 12-22-08, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graffight

God of the gaps is a wierd statement...God of the gaps will always exist if someone believes in a God the created everything. Saying it is like stating the obvious...If I say God did it that doesn't mean that i know how God did it, or that how God did it can't be figured out...You say "i don't know" and i say "God did it" neither statement removes the question "how?" who says that you should believe in a God BECAUSE you are ignorant...I believe in a God because for me nothing else makes sense...how did everything get here if something didn't make it or make what ever brought everything here...no theory has sufficiently answered that question, and (though it's not outside the realm of possibility) I'm not sure if any scientific theory can...

I do not think that Obvious or others like him even really understands what God of the Gaps is. They seem to think that We say that God did it and we do not want to know why. Basically a luddite type view towards science.

One of the points that I tried to make is that the whole push behind Judeo-Christian science has been to understand how and why God did it.

Obvious childs idea that we start with answers is wrong is a strange positition to hold. Creation scientist from the very beginning have believed and do believe God did it. That is the answer for us. When Darwin came along with Natural selection people jumped on board. Why? Because they thought he was wrong?? No. Because they believed he had the answer.

The on going research is not to primarily find the answer but to prove the answer that they already believe to be true.

In the process of that search things can change. Data shows that the original answer is not correct or it needs to be modified.

Moe

obvious Child · 12-22-08, 01:49 PM

Moe

What's your point?

So what if a prominent person of one side switches sides? How does that make that side wrong? Ideologies, belief systems and viewpoints are not wrong because a single person out of many changes his or her belief.

And what's the point in citing how he melds science and religion? Or are you again using strawmen? No one argued well, I didn't, that science and religion don't work. I specifically stated two religions that do require it to function in their current models. Apparently you deliberately wished to ignore that to suit your dishonest arguments.

Gerald L Schroeder's argument it to make the calculations make the current model fit with Biblical Creationism. He lacks actual evidence to support this other then his desire to want to believe in both. He makes the math fit so that he can not reject either.

That does not make God exists nor the Old Testament to be true.

Evolutionist a false term created by creationists to cast the theory as a religion. It is not.

Your dishonestly is approaching epic levels.

obvious Child · 12-22-08, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graffight

question...what is your religion...now i'm curious.

That's for you to find out.

Quote:

God of the gaps is a wierd statement...God of the gaps will always exist if someone believes in a God the created everything.

Incorrect. God of the Gaps is an argument to explain what we cannot with crediting a higher power or some supernatural force.

God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your post with the embedded boondocks clip makes no comprehensible sense. Please reformulate into English.

Graffight · 12-22-08, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moe

Obvious childs idea that we start with answers is wrong is a strange positition to hold.

Moe

Yeah that struck me as odd too...we ALWAYS start with the answer/observation...the research is always to find out why the answer exists, or to explain how one got to an answer.

examples: Babies come out of mommies tummy.....why? well because...yadayada.

or

If i have one base ball and someone gives me another baseball i have two baseballs....explain that on paper... O.K., 1+1=2.

Now it is true that by asking one question you get an unexpected result, but that's just an answer for another question that you didn't have before.

I want to make a new medicine for blood pressure(or something like that)...well this stuff gives me a stiffy....viagra YAY!

12-22-08, 01:50 AM	#211
obvious Child Aiming Anti-Stupid Gun Join Date: Apr 2008 Last Seen: 03-18-10 02:12 AM Location: Land of the Anti-Stupid Posts: 8,407 Thanks: 882 Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,219 Posts	Re: Rationalists/Atheists: Don’t Too Readily Dismiss the Believer If you want a decent argument against atheism, hard atheism that is, is that the assumption of no evidence equates to non-existing means that everything we have found did not exist prior to us finding evidence for it. Hard atheism is foolish as it would argue that the recent species found under the Arctic ice caps didn't exist because we didn't have evidence of them. As Rumsfeld said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Merely because we do not have evidence for it does not mean God does not exist. As stated for what is the millionth time, soft atheism, or agnosticism is the most logically belief system.
	__________________ No, cops cannot threaten to rape and murder your family during interrogations.

12-22-08, 01:49 PM	#218
obvious Child Aiming Anti-Stupid Gun Join Date: Apr 2008 Last Seen: 03-18-10 02:12 AM Location: Land of the Anti-Stupid Posts: 8,407 Thanks: 882 Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,219 Posts	Re: Rationalists/Atheists: Don’t Too Readily Dismiss the Believer Moe What's your point? So what if a prominent person of one side switches sides? How does that make that side wrong? Ideologies, belief systems and viewpoints are not wrong because a single person out of many changes his or her belief. And what's the point in citing how he melds science and religion? Or are you again using strawmen? No one argued well, I didn't, that science and religion don't work. I specifically stated two religions that do require it to function in their current models. Apparently you deliberately wished to ignore that to suit your dishonest arguments. Gerald L Schroeder's argument it to make the calculations make the current model fit with Biblical Creationism. He lacks actual evidence to support this other then his desire to want to believe in both. He makes the math fit so that he can not reject either. That does not make God exists nor the Old Testament to be true. Evolutionist a false term created by creationists to cast the theory as a religion. It is not. Your dishonestly is approaching epic levels.
	__________________ No, cops cannot threaten to rape and murder your family during interrogations.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to obvious Child For This Useful Post:
scourge99