JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 7th May 2012, 08:37 PM   #201
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,649
GIBHOR, the main criticisms of your "source" are as followes:

1) Creationists are either knowing frauds or deluded, and

2) WE'VE OBSERVED planetary formation in stars. For example, here's a lovely baby picture of a protoplanet. What the Creatoinist you're linking to is doing is equivocating between "unfalsifiable" and "can't be disproved because it's right". They also ignore the fact that science doesn't require abandonment of theories that are shown to be wrong, but rather modification of those theories. We don't require that you go back to the drawing board, merely that you go back to the point where it stopped making sense. And direct photographic evidence more or less by definition makes sense.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR
i am rather interested to see, what evidence you have for naturalism. thats what this thread is about.
Now, now, let's be honest--this thread is about you mocking us and preaching your version of the Good News. If you were honestly curious about any of this, you would avoid Creationists like a plague. I mean, when your spokesmen end up in jail for fraud, it sort of devalues an intellectual movement.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 08:50 PM   #202
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,649
Quote:
So why do you not discard strong atheism ? or can you demonstrate that most probably God does not exist ?
It's been amply demonstrated--and I've provided the citations to support this, in the standard style for this forum--that gods are unnecessary. Thus, we can ignore them. I don't DISbelieve in gods; I merely reject the hypothesis as superfluous and undersupported.

Quote:
i keep waiting for good naturalistic explanations for the information contained in dna, homochirality, and other issues of abigenesis. So far, NO atheist has been able to present me compelling arguments for these issues.
For precisely the same reason no foodie will ever be able to tell you the flavor of 90 htz--the question doesn't make sense.

DNA isn't some code--it's a substrate. Demanding that it be treated as a code is no different, thermodynamically, from demanding that a seed crystal be treated as a code (Principles of Genetics, I believe fifth editions). Standard and well-understood errors in DNA replication and cellular division are sufficient to explain changes in DNA through time. And if you want to look at specific genetic variations that cause specific evolutionary adaptations, the most recent version of the Mollusca volume of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology is the way to go (you've got to pay for it, but if you're serious about wanting to know this stuff $35 isn't much--I'm working on saving $200 for Tertiary Mammals of North America).

As for homochirality, here you go, courtesy of ten seconds on Google.

Seriously, this is linked in the Wiki page and it specifically answers your question. I again have to wonder just how honestly you've been looking into this.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 09:40 PM   #203
Lukraak_Sisser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,904
Lets do a simple thought experiment in finding the function of a gene with unknown function in a human. Lets call it X.
No clue what it does, but it DOES cause cancer when its function is disturbed.

Method 1
Screen the databases for genes with homology found in other organisms.
Look for an organism where a gene with similar homology has a known function and see what part of the gene corresponds to the part in X that is mutated to cause cancer.
IF this is in a conserved area THEN using the assumption of common descent we have some idea of what it might do.
Look for the gene corresponding to X in yeast and experiment on it there to be far more certain of its function. Since yeast and human cellular biology are virtually similar we now have even more knowledge and can not only say what X does, but also where it most likely works.
Transfer work to mice, repeat with X in a multicellular organism, which also allows for testing of medication.
If you actually find a medicine, test in humans. But if not, keep looking.
Since all these organisms are interlinked trough the theory of evolution there is a logical series here.

Method 2:
Screen the databases for genes with homology found in other organisms.

Assume an all powerful supernatural entity made every organism individually with an unknown an unknowable plan, and said entity could chance the entire genomic makeup of every organism with but a thought.

Some genes might look similar, but now that means absolutly nothing.


Method 1 gives cures for cancer.
Method 2 doesn't
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 10:10 PM   #204
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Welsh Wales
Posts: 6,604
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
i keep waiting for good naturalistic explanations for the information contained in dna, homochirality, and other issues of abigenesis. So far, NO atheist has been able to present me compelling arguments for these issues.
Of course you have been presented with compelling arguments. Your refusal to understand and accept the evidence is not a reflection on evolution, but on you.
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 10:59 PM   #205
Roger Ramjets
Graduate Poster
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
that is held by the vision that " we " is the center of all things, and the just " we " matter.
We are what matters to us, and why not? I make no apology for being concerned with the welfare of myself and my friends, rather than eg. the black hole in the center of our galaxy. But that doesn't mean that we are the center of all things. On the contrary it is quite obvious that we aren't. We live on an insignificant planet revolving around a nondescript star about 2/3rds out from the center of a 13.2 billion year old galaxy, which contains at least 400 billion other stars and planets. And that galaxy is just a blip in the universe!

Quote:
The quest goes however deeper, and the question goes about what is the reason for our existence, where do we come from, where do we go, why are we here, what is the value of life, and so on.
Fair enough, but you're not going to find answers to these questions by dreaming up imaginary supernatural explanations.

Quote:
If a God creator does exist, then the question goes to : why did he create us ? what was his purpose with creation ?
If a creator god exists then you could try asking it. If it won't answer then what is the point of it existing?

Quote:
Then you do certainly not care about historical sciences, which you cannot prove certain facts happened,
But I can prove that certain facts 'happened', because I have evidence that they existed. Every observation that we have is historical. You look up in the sky and see the Sun, so does it exist now? Not necessarily. It took about 10 minutes for the light you see to travel from there to here. In the mean time the Sun could have vanished, and we would be none the wiser. But that doesn't mean we can't prove that it existed 10 minutes ago.

Quote:
I personally don't think there is a need to make division between natural, and supernatural. The quest is just about if a Creator of the universe exists, or not.
If a Creator of the universe exists then it must be natural, if it is supernatural then it doesn't exist. If you don't separate the existing from the imaginary then you will have a hard time trying to determine if any particular entity exists or not.

So you are left with two choices. Either define 'Creator of the Universe' as whatever natural phenomena you can find evidence for, or be content with imagining an agent whose existence cannot be proven. Just don't expect anybody else to be satisfied by your 'explanation'.

Quote:
When you see a archaeology site, artifacts of gold etc. , do you conclude, human beings made these things, or do you just say : we don't know how these things got there ?
I know of several cases where people asserted that certain 'artifacts' were man-made, but they turned out to be of non-human origin. Of course, since we know that only humans make clay pots, gold watches, cell phones etc., we can be pretty safe in assuming these things were made by humans. But that doesn't apply to everything.

Evidence is now emerging of stone tools being used - and possibly even created - by chimps. Therefore when we find a stone tool we cannot blindly assume that humans must have created it. We need evidence of who the creator was. If we can't find any evidence, then all we say is that we don't know.

Quote:
Most scientists agree on the Big Bang theory. So most do deduce also, most probably the universe had a beginning. Therefore a cause. What was it?
Actually, we just don't know. The big bang theory was developed to explain the evidence we have - that the Universe started out in an extremely dense and energetic state, which then expanded rapidly to form the cold and sparsely populated space that we see today. This theory fits much of what we know about the universe, but there's a lot more we don't know.

I suspect we will find that the 'big bang' is a simplification of what really happened. It may be that the universe is constantly 'creating' itself, or that it oscillates between expanding and contracting, or that each black hole creates another universe inside itself, and what we see today is actually the result of one of those processes. But until we have evidence, we can only speculate about what caused it. IOW, we just don't know.

However there is one thing that we do know. There is no evidence that the Universe was created by a supernatural god.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 7th May 2012 at 11:05 PM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 11:15 PM   #206
Hokulele
Official Nemesis
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats.
Posts: 27,897
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
It depends what you consider compelling evidence. What would convince you, and be evidence of Gods existence ?

That would depend on what you mean by God. For example, even among Christians, there seems to be a wide variety of opinions on what properties and abilities God should have.

But if you are talking about "God" in the abstract, or any supernatural being, any demonstration of anything that violates what we know of the way the world works would be a start.
__________________
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"
Some person: "Why did you shoot that?"
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"

- Tragic Monkey
Hokulele is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 11:19 PM   #207
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 11,371
I'm late to the party, but learning a lot all the same.

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
...When you want a recipe for a universe, identifying the cook doesn't get you the answer you want.
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...You can also google pictures of actual nebula forming into planets. It's quite an exciting time for research into planetary formation, actually--there's more evidence now than ever before, and with the massive number of exoplanets discovered we're able to really test our concepts of planets in a way previously impossible to us.
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post


Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
At the risk of going somewhat off-topic the history of the nebular model is one of my favourite examples of self-correction in science; eighty odd years ago the nebular hypothesis fell out of favour with cosmologists as there appeared to be serious problems with the model. Hence a new model, that better fitted known facts, the catastrophic model was developed; in which another star passed close to the Sun, tidal forces deforming the Sun's atmosphere so much that streams of gas escaped its gravity, condensed as dense clouds of matter and eventually formed the planets. This took a few thousand years rather than the billion or so predicted by early versions of the nebular hypothesis.
Better models caused the re-introduction of the nebular model and later developments, e.g. elemental distribution, pretty much ruled the catastrophic model out.
As an aside this is why the catastrophic model appears in a lot of 'Golden Age' sci-fi, such as that of Smith [it's a major plot point in the Lensman series] and Weinbaum. ...
Thanks for posting the links and explanations!
__________________
It took us 100 years to find the Titanic, it took us 2,000 years to find Noah’s Ark.
Bill Hemmer of Fox News, commenting on the search for MH370
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 11:44 PM   #208
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So why do you not discard strong atheism ? or can you demonstrate that most probably God does not exist ?
Okay, pour some paint on a wall.

Does it go downwards?

Right, YHVH does not exist.
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 12:06 AM   #209
Lowpro
Illuminator
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 4,897
might as well post this since it's pertinent:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


To say this hasn't been observed and isn't evidence for speciation and macro-evolution (let's make sure you try not to force feed your own definition of what macro-evolution is by the way. Macro-evolution is just the consistent steps of micro-evolution and the products they become. You can call it speciation but speciation is a genetically determined attribute against its population; in short speciation divides what is actually a continuum) The boundaries are immensely blurred at the genetic level of all organisms so you have to determine their flow. When a creationist tries to shoot down macro evolution by saying "only within boundaries" they mean that the genes are limited by their ability to be passed and this is true and supports evolution at the same time and supports micro and macro evolution too. Common Tetrapod ancestor can still evolve and speciate and produce novel genes and novel pathways (they're interesting!) within a population or multiple different populations generating new additions and subtractions and other mutations, gene flow can still be restricted among populations and repeat, repeat, repeat repeat repeat repeat and you realize the boundaries exist but they do not limit speciation. Boundaries exist on the flow only, not on speciation. It's incredibly complex and to hear a creationist talk about these boundaries without expounding in the actual evidence (which proves their argument wrong) is disingenuous at best. And that leads me to this page too.



This may illuminate on that.

As for this handwaving on homochiralty it happens all the time to demand it has God's hand is admitting that chemistry came before God in the first place. Your arguments do not support a nonnaturalistic explanation they only serve to handwave.

Now, I think I've refuted your claims GIBHOR. Obviously you're comfortable with your position of a supernatural explanation, but I cannot fathom why aside from faith.

Quote:
Okay, pour some paint on a wall.

Does it go downwards?

Right, YHVH does not exist.
Great you've proved entropy :P
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 8th May 2012 at 12:45 AM.
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 12:25 AM   #210
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea
Posts: 17,381
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Its a fundamental question. Either the universe exists since eternity ( in one way or form, or the other ), or it had a beginning. That are the two possibilities that are possible.
Not quite that simple. Time is a property of the universe. As long as time has existed, the universe has existed. Do you define that as eternity?

When there is not time outside the existence of the universe, do you define that as a beginning?

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 12:37 AM   #211
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea
Posts: 17,381
Quote:
we don't know
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Are you happy with this answer ? do you not wanto to go beyond, and at least, if we cannot know in the sense to find one day definitive proof, at least figure out what makes most sense to believe ?
It makes no difference whether we are happy with it or not, reality is that we don't know. Actually we are not too happy about that, so we are researching hard to try to know more.

Making up fancy tales about it won't make us know more.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 12:56 AM   #212
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea
Posts: 17,381
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
i keep waiting for good naturalistic explanations for the information contained in dna, homochirality, and other issues of abigenesis. So far, NO atheist has been able to present me compelling arguments for these issues.
This is because you routinely reject such arguments. However, the test of our arguments is not whether they can convince you; you asked which arguments convinced US, and you have heard them. If they don't convince you, so be it. Likewise your arguments for Theism and Creationism utterly fail to convince us.

This should not keep us from debating, but you must stop pretending that it is our duty to convince you. If you want to be convinced, I suggest you study the science involved in greater detail, and not only from Creationist sources.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 02:49 AM   #213
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: That's how you get ants
Posts: 18,001
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
i keep waiting for good naturalistic explanations for the information contained in dna, homochirality, and other issues of abigenesis. So far, NO atheist has been able to present me compelling arguments for these issues.
You are welcome to believe this is a true statement.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 03:02 AM   #214
DC
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 22,602
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Its not honest to have figured out scientifically things, and when the evidence points out clearly that a " natural " explanation is not plausible, then instead of aknowledging that a " supernatural " cause is plausible, just escape with a " we don't know answer ".



Aknowledge that God is the best explanation for our existence, does not mean, scientific research has to stop there. We can continue to find out about the amazing creativity, beauty and intelligence the creator created, and use it for our needs.



What if we don't know ?



Is it needed ? once the truth has been detected, no further search is needed. That is my case. I am satisfied with knowing and aknowledging that the God i believe in created all things. Actually, it makes me happy, since that knowledge gives me meaning and value of my life.




It depends, on which question you answer " we don't know ".
there is no evidence for anything supernatural.
thus "we don't know" is the honest way. Inventing some supernatural entity is the dishonest way.
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 03:31 AM   #215
GIBHOR
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,578
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
How on earth can something without a shred of evidence be considered plausible?
thats why i wonder why so many here stick to strong atheism. So war " we don't know " has been the standard answer. And the few, that made actually the effort to present evidence for naturalim, have shown how weak the arguments actually are. Planet formation is a good example.


Quote:
If you are defining the universe as something that needs a cause, and defining something supernatural as that cause, that isn't evidence, that isn't plausible, that is just a tautology.
If the universe had a beginning, and most scientists would today agree on that, then obviously it had a cause. the Kalaam Cosmological argument has not been debunked.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 03:35 AM   #216
GIBHOR
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,578
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
If you are referring of the changing of species a la "cat into dog" then you won't find it because that would be totally contrary to what the Theory of Evolution actually says.
But reptiles to birds is what TE says, right ? thats what i mean......

there is so much wrong about this fantasy, i don't know even where to begin with......
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 03:37 AM   #217
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Middle of nowhere, UK.
Posts: 7,809
GIBHOR, when you say "Marco evolution" are you thinking of one species changing into a different species, like a dog changing into or giving birth to a cat?
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 03:38 AM   #218
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Middle of nowhere, UK.
Posts: 7,809
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
But reptiles to birds is what TE says, right ? thats what i mean......

there is so much wrong about this fantasy, i don't know even where to begin with......
Define what you mean by that. How do YOU think that the ToE says reptiles changed into birds? Give as detailed an explanation as you understand about what evolution says.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 03:40 AM   #219
GIBHOR
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,578
Originally Posted by joobz View Post

In this way, why should I believe in a more complex theory when a simpler one suffices?
because simplicity is a bad criteria for finding out the truth in regard of the issue which we do debate. beside this, the simpler one fails on so many criterias...... how do you explain the origin of the universe, its finetuning, and specially the amazing fine tuning of the galaxy solar moon earth ? ? the planet formation ? the arise of life from non life ? conscience ? knowledge of morals ? all naturalistic explanations fail miserably on all these issues.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 03:45 AM   #220
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
the universe/galaxy/solar system/earth aren't really all that fine tuned. We think they are, because they gave rise to us, but that's a fairly arrogant assumption. The universe is no more fine tuned to us than the lottery is fine tuned to a particular lottery winner.
Lamuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 03:47 AM   #221
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
But reptiles to birds is what TE says, right ? thats what i mean......

there is so much wrong about this fantasy, i don't know even where to begin with......
no, you don't know where to begin. You don't know where to begin because you don't understand the concept well enough to properly critique it.

Go and do some reading, preferably from scientific sources of high quality, and come back when you understand it a little better.
Lamuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 04:21 AM   #222
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: That's how you get ants
Posts: 18,001
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
because simplicity is a bad criteria for finding out the truth in regard of the issue which we do debate. beside this, the simpler one fails on so many criterias...... how do you explain the origin of the universe, its finetuning, and specially the amazing fine tuning of the galaxy solar moon earth ? ? the planet formation ? the arise of life from non life ? conscience ? knowledge of morals ? all naturalistic explanations fail miserably on all these issues.
each of your examples is nothing more than a vauge statement of incredulity.
as you already admitted that your position is untestable, why bother?

Your belief provides no more truth than faries and elves do, which are equally valid to your position.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 04:31 AM   #223
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,639
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
because simplicity is a bad criteria for finding out the truth in regard of the issue which we do debate. beside this, the simpler one fails on so many criterias...... how do you explain the origin of the universe, its finetuning, and specially the amazing fine tuning of the galaxy solar moon earth ? ? the planet formation ? the arise of life from non life ? conscience ? knowledge of morals ? all naturalistic explanations fail miserably on all these issues.
Fine-tuning has been done to death, no point rehashing that argument.

Where do you get the idea that we have 'knowledge of morals' ?
Last of the Fraggles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 04:33 AM   #224
realpaladin
Master Poster
 
realpaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: I live not very often where my home is.
Posts: 2,339
First, as to the theory of evolution, there are working models, you can try it out yourself: http://www.spiderland.org/

But then again, you could also argue that World Of Warcraft is a working model of magic and deities... but where you to examine the mechanics then you'd see that even in make-belief, the mechanics of magic and deities is 'fake and forced' whilst those in Breve (the link) are causal.

Next, I hate being ignored, but that is part and parcel of talking on this forum.

So, tell me, why is there a need for a 'first cause'?

As I said earlier, nature works verifiably in ways that kicks any 'good book' into the pits.

What you are doing now is a bit silly.

You are standing in a maze with us and are asking 'where is the exit?', even though we try to keep explaining to you that we are in a maze and we do not know YET.

The fact that we do not see the exit does not mean there is none. So unless you can falsify that the maze has no exit, no matter of question that 'asks for proof' really matters.

These questions are the standard tools of beliebers.

Naturalism is exactly so much stronger than any faith in any deity BECAUSE the acceptance of the fact that we do not know all.
This means we can explore further and find out more about a, what turns out to be, more complex universe than any of the prophets and religious hierarchists ever imagined.
__________________
"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi
"But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin
---
Doron Shadmi's errors (9feb14): http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=3584
realpaladin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 04:44 AM   #225
Seismosaurus
Illuminator
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Banbury
Posts: 3,828
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
because simplicity is a bad criteria for finding out the truth in regard of the issue which we do debate.
Actually, when combined with the explanation fitting the facts fully it's a pretty good one.

Quote:
beside this, the simpler one fails on so many criterias...... how do you explain the origin of the universe,
Still unknown.

Quote:
its finetuning, and specially the amazing fine tuning of the galaxy solar moon earth ?
There is no "fine tuning" to explain.

Quote:
? the planet formation ? the arise of life from non life ?
We have pretty decent, if somewhat incomplete, models for these.

Quote:
conscience ? knowledge of morals ?
We have fairly good explanations for these, too.

Quote:
all naturalistic explanations fail miserably on all these issues.
I think you have that backwards. I've never heard a supernatural explanation for any of those that doesn't basically equate to "it happened because there's a magic man who said so" - whilst dismissing any inquiry as to the nature of the magic man. That's not an explanation at all, let alone a successful one.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 04:44 AM   #226
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,741
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Speciation is not macro evolution. Under macro evolution i understand change above species. That has not been observed, and the evidence points clearly out that this is not possible.
Where is this coherent definition of macro evolution?

Are you making this up or getting it from Strawmen.com ?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 04:45 AM   #227
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,741
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
In a 2005 BBC radio interview famed naturalist (no pun intended) and wild life film maker David Attenborough talked about a response he gave to criticisms he had received that he never acknowledged God in his nature documentaries:

"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy"
Scabies, malaria, viruses and prions as well.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 04:50 AM   #228
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,741
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Its not honest to have figured out scientifically things, and when the evidence points out clearly that a " natural " explanation is not plausible, then instead of aknowledging that a " supernatural " cause is plausible, just escape with a " we don't know answer ".
It is just as plausible that it is a science fair project for some super being with an undefined technology.

This hypothesis is just as likely, just as possible and just as plausible as your God hypothesis.

Are you honest enough to acknowledge that?

What is to distinguish your supernatural god hypothesis from my naturalistic science fair hypothesis?

Sophistry is silly, isn't it?

Iteration0
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 8th May 2012 at 04:51 AM.
Dancing David is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 04:50 AM   #229
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 2,827
Or in a more pithy manner.

"Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of [crap] you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude."
__________________
- Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count.
- In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness.
- Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries with that.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 04:52 AM   #230
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,741
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
thats micro evolution, not macro evolution. macro evolution is evolution above species......
That is still not a coherent definition (above species), please try again, you haven't defined your vague and idiomatic usage.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 04:53 AM   #231
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,741
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
and how should the fact of these animals to exist, be evidence that God does not exist ?
Change goals posts or forgot what you posted?

You were stating that god created humans with a design, so why did they create malaria?

remember this ?

"If a God creator does exist, then the question goes to : why did he create us ? what was his purpose with creation ?"
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 8th May 2012 at 04:54 AM.
Dancing David is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 05:00 AM   #232
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,741
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So why do you not discard strong atheism ? or can you demonstrate that most probably God does not exist ?
This is a false assumption, many of us are not atheists, I see no evidence for any definition of god. that does not make me a strong atheist.

So you define god and you provide the evidence.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 05:01 AM   #233
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,741
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
i keep waiting for good naturalistic explanations for the information contained in dna, homochirality, and other issues of abigenesis. So far, NO atheist has been able to present me compelling arguments for these issues.
So now you want to talk about abiogenesis?

So why did god make viruses, or did they arise naturally?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 05:04 AM   #234
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 2,827
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
So you define god and you provide the evidence.
And before you reply defining God as "Something that doesn't require evidence" isn't the answer.
__________________
- Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count.
- In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness.
- Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries with that.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 05:39 AM   #235
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 24,362
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
i am rather interested to see, what evidence you have for naturalism. thats what this thread is about.
Everything we've discovered so far. How much more do you need than everything? Is there some compelling reason to abandon the null hypothesis of a naturalistic explanation in favor of a magical one?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 05:53 AM   #236
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 15,941
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
thats why i wonder why so many here stick to strong atheism.
I've been here six years and it's been my experience that most members of this forum identify themselves as agnostic atheists.

Quote:
So war " we don't know " has been the standard answer. And the few, that made actually the effort to present evidence for naturalim, have shown how weak the arguments actually are. Planet formation is a good example.
The above is pathetically dishonest. The evidence of the validity of naturalism is the success of science. The very monitor that you are reading these words on is evidence of the veracity of naturalism. This has already been stated by several people, yet you have chosen to ignore this evidence. As to planet formation: You have been shown that your objection was false. You asked for a published work regarding the evidence and when provided with it, you ignore it and pretend that it doesn't exist and that your objection is still valid.

Quote:
If the universe had a beginning, and most scientists would today agree on that, then obviously it had a cause.
Please provide some evidence to back up your assertion that most scientists agree that the universe had a beginning; that there was a time before the universe existed.
Quote:
When physicists say 'nothing' they are being playful with the English language, because we often think of the vacuum as being 'empty' or 'nothing' when in fact physicists know full well that the vacuum is far from empty. Nothingness was not nothing, but it was not anything like the kinds of 'somethings' we know about today. We have no words to describe it, and the ones we borrow (that are listed in the Oxford English Dictionary) are based on the wrong physical insight. - Dr. Sten Odenwald
Quote:
the Kalaam Cosmological argument has not been debunked.
It's been destroyed.

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
This is an assertion that is by no means established as true.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
This is another assertion that has not been established as true. Many cosmologists have proposed that the universe may be finite and boundless in space/time, with no moment of creation as there is no time when the universe did not exist.

Premise 3: Therefor, the universe must have a cause (God).
Even if the Big Bang is a discrete moment of generation for this universe, the quantum field from which virtual particles are generated is a plausible source for the Big Bang as well.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 06:02 AM   #237
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 15,941
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
But reptiles to birds is what TE says, right ? thats what i mean......
Please explain why this is so incredible to you. What structures found in avians could not have developed through the slow accumulation of tiny changes to homologous structures found in reptiles? Please be specific.

Quote:
there is so much wrong about this fantasy, i don't know even where to begin with......
Obviously you don't know where to begin. You've already amply demonstrated your ignorance of evolutionary biology. If you don't know how it works, you can't possibly begin to tell anyone what's wrong with it.

Speaking of fantasy: Did you ever find those verses that state that God is genderless but chose to appear to humans as a male because of the order of the fall? Or is that just a fantasy that you made up and presented as fact?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 06:30 AM   #238
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 15,941
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Its not honest to have figured out scientifically things, and when the evidence points out clearly that a " natural " explanation is not plausible, then instead of aknowledging that a " supernatural " cause is plausible, just escape with a " we don't know answer ".
It seems that what you really want is for the candle of science to stop poking about in the dark places where you've declared your god to exist.

Quote:
Aknowledge that God is the best explanation for our existence, does not mean, scientific research has to stop there. We can continue to find out about the amazing creativity, beauty and intelligence the creator created, and use it for our needs.
People once assumed that God magically pushed the planets around with his will. Fortunately, people like Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton didn't accept this as the best explanation for the motion of the planets. And I'm afraid your hypothesis would lead us to call into question the competence of your biblical god, who punishes his creations for his own mistakes.

Quote:
What if we don't know ?
Well that's ironic.

Quote:
Is it needed ? once the truth has been detected, no further search is needed. That is my case. I am satisfied with knowing and aknowledging that the God i believe in created all things. Actually, it makes me happy, since that knowledge gives me meaning and value of my life.
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Carl Sagan

Quote:
It depends, on which question you answer " we don't know ".
So it depends whether it's applied to your assertions or not. Talk about dishonest.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 06:39 AM   #239
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: That's how you get ants
Posts: 18,001
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
So war " we don't know " has been the standard answer. And the few, that made actually the effort to present evidence for naturalim, have shown how weak the arguments actually are. Planet formation is a good example.
The above is pathetically dishonest. The evidence of the validity of naturalism is the success of science. The very monitor that you are reading these words on is evidence of the veracity of naturalism. This has already been stated by several people, yet you have chosen to ignore this evidence. As to planet formation: You have been shown that your objection was false. You asked for a published work regarding the evidence and when provided with it, you ignore it and pretend that it doesn't exist and that your objection is still valid.
Yes.

The above demonstrates why it isn't really worth discussing the science with GIBHOR. Instead of debating the points, he avoids them as though they do not exist.

Rather, I would like to know why he thinks his personal view of a god as creator is any more valid than a belief that we are simply the dream of an ant.
or any other untestable, invented fiction that can be inserted to explain the universe.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 06:48 AM   #240
Mark6
Illuminator
 
Mark6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,864
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Yes.

The above demonstrates why it isn't really worth discussing the science with GIBHOR. Instead of debating the points, he avoids them as though they do not exist.

Rather, I would like to know why he thinks his personal view of a god as creator is any more valid than a belief that we are simply the dream of an ant.
or any other untestable, invented fiction that can be inserted to explain the universe.
For that matter, even if you do accept Kalaam Cosmological argument, it does not in any way imply the loving Christian creator. A Cthulhu-like creator who made humans as toys to torture for his own amusement is just as likely. More likely, if anything.
__________________
Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"
Mark6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.