1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIf the god you believe to exist is a programmer it seems to be using, in a metaphorical sense, the pre-alpha versions of lolcode, or perhaps brain***k - the Bible, taken in a literal sense, is hopelessly inconsistent with reality.
According to the Holy Bible, God created everything we use to measure time.
He created the sun, the moon, the stars, and the earth (which he caused to
rotate and tilted at just the right degree - according to scientist). I don,t
know very much about science, but I believe the human DNA code is like
a computer program, that determines how we reproduce o the Holy Bible or
something else that they consider much more important.
With love,
rjhinds
Originally posted by josephwThis thread went off the rails immediately. Atheism does not in itself imply that every life ends, although more atheists than theists will say it does. Also, some religions are at best, ambiguous on whether any or every individual has life after biological death, or what aspect of the individual persists. If I find myself to exist after my biological death, I will deal with it at the time. Meanwhile, I will live the most virtuous and fulfilling life I can, without stressing out about it, and not for the purpose of impressing Anybody.
[b]"...but I dont expect it from you"
Why?
I'll explain it another way.
Atheism says "there is no God", therefore after death there is no life. For the individual that means the absolute cessation of one's own existence. Seeing that we now live, and enjoy the benefits of experiencing life, it is beyond comprehension that as thinking and feelin ...[text shortened]...
What more can be said? Who can defend atheism as being anything other than what it is?[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadApologies on the typos must of did that when I was half asleep.
Your post is so full of typos I cant quite make it all out.
I believe the oldest thing dated is about 13 billion years. I am reading about it in the guardian and it is a galaxy. It is still not confirmed though. However I am sure there are galaxies not much younger than that that we can fairly positively date.
I am wondering, if we are dating anything that old, does that mean at some point
in time it was not here? If everything has a date on it, does that mean it at some
point none of it was here?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNot a problem. I often have typos because I type really fast and am too lazy to read through what I type. I was not complaining, merely saying I didn't understand the content so couldn't fairly comment.
Apologies on the typos must of did that when I was half asleep.
I am wondering, if we are dating anything that old, does that mean at some point in time it was not here?
I think if we can date it, then that is solid evidence that it was there. It doesn't always tell us much about whether it was there before the date in question. Some dating methods tell us when something was formed eg when we date fossils, we know when the creature died (and thus we know the fossils were not there prior to that). When we date a tree by counting its rings, we know that it was not prior to it first growing out of the ground. Most terrestrial dating methods that use radioactive substances, are based on the time that the radiative element formed chemical bonds. So the radioactive element may be older but the chemical (rock for example) was formed at that date.
But when we date a star by measuring how long the light took to get to us, we do not know anything about the stars history prior to the light leaving it - except what we can deduce from our knowledge of star formation.
If everything has a date on it, does that mean it at some point none of it was here?
Kelly
I don't think 'everything has a date on it'. It is likely that the majority of Hydrogen has been around since the big bang. However, we cannot take a hydrogen atom and know how long it has been a hydrogen atom. In some cases we can be fairly sure that it has been in existence as a hydrogen atom for a given period of time - eg if it is in a chemical compound whose age we know. But it is almost impossible to know when the hydrogen atom first formed from its constituent parts.
Originally posted by KellyJayI think I can have a go at answering this although, despite the fact I have been reading this thread, I don't see nor understand the point you are trying to explain.
Apologies on the typos must of did that when I was half asleep.
I am wondering, if we are dating anything that old, does that mean at some point
in time it was not here? If everything has a date on it, does that mean it at some
point none of it was here?
Kelly
“...I am wondering, if we are dating anything that old, does that mean at some point
in time it was not here? ...”
“....If everything has a date on it, does that mean it at some
point none of it was here? ...”
the answer to both the above questions is:
with the exception of space and time itself and the energy at or before ( “at or before” depending on which theory is correct) the Big Bang, yes, at some point in time it was not there.
Originally posted by KellyJayWe can rule out many hypotheses on the bases of them not being credible on the bases of either insufficient/absence of evidence or Occam's razor.
So going back to ruling out a creator, if you don't know, how can you rule out
anything?
Kelly[/b]
Note the word “credible” above is not to be confused with “logically possible”: even the tooth fairy is logically possible (because there is no logical contradiction in there being one) but it is not credible because there is no evidence for it plus Occam's razor renders it an irrational assumption because you can dispose of it without leaving you incapable of making a logically coherent hypothesis to explain something observed. The same can be said about the assumption that there is a supernatural creator.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonEverything you just said all centers around one word, "credible" so I again ask
We can rule out many hypotheses on the bases of them not being credible on the bases of either insufficient/absence of evidence or Occam's razor.
Note the word “credible” above is not to be confused with “logically possible”: even the tooth fairy is logically possible (because there is no logical contradiction in ...[text shortened]... hing observed. The same can be said about the assumption that there is a supernatural creator.
you if you don't know how it was done? How do you know what is or is not
credible? You really do not know if a creator is required or not, you know what
you believe to be true, so if it does not agree with your beliefs it isn't credible?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHow come you can understand the argument when it comes to flying toasters and the Easter Bunny, but cant seem to get it when applied to a creator?
Everything you just said all centers around one word, "credible" so I again ask
you if you don't know how it was done? How do you know what is or is not
credible? You really do not know if a creator is required or not, you know what
you believe to be true, so if it does not agree with your beliefs it isn't credible?
Kelly
1. We do not know whether the Easter Bunny exists, but unless there is a credible reason to believe it does, we do not even consider it.
2. We do not know whether a creator exists, but unless there is a credible reason to believe it does, we do not even consider it.
Why do you accept 1. but not follow 2. ?
I accept that in 2. you may personally feel there are credible reasons, but what we are discussing is whether people like me and Andrew who do not see any credible reasons are justified in agreeing with 2.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do not at all think God and your flying toasters are equal in being credible, nor
How come you can understand the argument when it comes to flying toasters and the Easter Bunny, but cant seem to get it when applied to a creator?
1. We do not know whether the Easter Bunny exists, but unless there is a credible reason to believe it does, we do not even consider it.
2. We do not know whether a creator exists, but unless there is a cre ...[text shortened]... people like me and Andrew who do not see any credible reasons are justified in agreeing with 2.
do I think the Easter Bunny to be equally credible either. You may, but again
that suits your belief system, and because of that you are willing to reject without
reason a creator so that you can promote what does suit your belief system. With
respect to credible reason, how do you define that, only if God reveals Himself and
nothing short of that will be enough?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI do not expect you to. However, they are equally credible to me and Andrew, but you cant seem to see it from our point of view.
I do not at all think God and your flying toasters are equal in being credible, nor
do I think the Easter Bunny to be equally credible either.
You may, but again that suits your belief system,
Actually, my belief system is based partly on that fact, not the other way around.
and because of that you are willing to reject without reason a creator so that you can promote what does suit your belief system.
It is the other way around. I have no reason to accept a creator - I do not reject one without reason.
Do you feel that you reject the Easter Bunny without reason so that you can promote what does suit your belief system?
With respect to credible reason, how do you define that, only if God reveals Himself and nothing short of that will be enough?
Kelly
I don't think I can define it. I suppose anything that would indicate to me that I should reconsider the possibility that a creator is required or is at least more than infinitesimally improbable.
What if I asked you the same? What would be required for you to at least consider the possible existence of the Easter Bunny? Presumably there are many possibilities: it could reveal itself to you, it could be mentioned in the Bible, your parents could assure you of its existence, you could find an authoritative science book claiming its existence, it might be mentioned in various fairy tales. Some of the above you might accept, some you might reject out of hand. The same goes for me, I don't think I could define the exact level of evidence that I would find 'credible'.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay“...Everything you just said all centers around one word, "credible" ...”
Everything you just said all centers around one word, "credible" so I again ask
you if you don't know how it was done? How do you know what is or is not
credible? You really do not know if a creator is required or not, you know what
you believe to be true, so if it does not agree with your beliefs it isn't credible?
Kelly
so?
would you say we should believe something that is NOT credible? 😛
“...so I again ask you if you don't know how it was done? ...”
I cannot know exactly how it happened but that does not diminish the fact that I CAN know many of the aspects of how abiogenesis happened. For example, I can know the process must have involved the presence of water and fatty-acids and must have happened billions of years ago etc. I can also know some 'probables' such as it probably involved RNA bases and probably occurred in a pool of water on land but there are other possibilities but none of even the less probable possibilities require something supernatural.
“...How do you know what is or is not credible? ...”
I have already answered that: evidence plus Occam's razor.
“....You really do not know if a creator is required or not, ….”
false; a creator is definitely NOT required. Why should it be? There is no logical contradiction or logical problem with abiogenesis without a creator therefore, logically, a creator is not required.
“... you know what you believe to be true,...”
that depends on the strength of evidence/reason.
“...so if it does not agree with your beliefs it isn't credible? ...”
nope, if is isn't credible then I do not believe it.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]Yes to you and Andrew that is true, so is this like beauty only found in the eye of
I do not expect you to. However, they are equally credible to me and Andrew, but you cant seem to see it from our point of view.
[b]You may, but again that suits your belief system,
Actually, my belief system is based partly on that fact, not the other way around.
and because of that you are willing to reject without reason a creator so tha r me, I don't think I could define the exact level of evidence that I would find 'credible'.
the beholder? If so we are not doing anything other than offering an opinion again
are we not? My belief system is based partly on fact; I just view facts differently
than you do. My beliefs on a creator has reason in it, I don't think you can get
all the complex life we see today over time from non-living material without a
plan, purpose, and design. What little experience I have in watching the time and
effort it takes to not only gets all the proper material to build devices, form the
material properly into the correct configuration, apply proper voltages at the right
places, with the right timing, suggests to me that what is being proposed in the
biological world can only happen with intent. The complexity we see in life, looking
at all the forces in the universe that are at just the right strength acting at the right
times to support life suggests again to me intent and therefore a creator. You
accept it is possible without one, but I don't, so again we look at the same things
and view them differently. I think accepting all the coincidences or lucky
happenstances that had to occur as just happening is much harder to do without a
creator than with one.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"would you say we should believe something that is NOT credible? 😛"
“...Everything you just said all centers around one word, "credible" ...”
so?
would you say we should believe something that is NOT credible? 😛
“...so I again ask you if you don't know how it was done? ...”
I cannot know exactly how it happened but that does not diminish the fact that I CAN know many of the aspects of how abiogenesis happ ...[text shortened]... beliefs it isn't credible? ...”
nope, if is isn't credible then I do not believe it.
No, I'm saying since you really don't have any idea on what is or is not really
required to build the universe, you telling me what is or is not credible is a bit
of a stretch, you actually have no more idea on what is or is not required on
making the universe than you do telling me where and when I was born.
You don't know about abiogenesis either, and even your "must have involved"
is an educated guess not true knowledge. Same thing is true about RNA, you
are just guessing, no one can prove you wrong so anything you say is an opinion
not factual. So suggesting nothing supernatural is required is your opinion, my
suggesting that God first made the environment life was to be made in, making
the material life was going to be made out of, forming it into the proper
configurations, than giving it a spark of life to power it also takes into account all
the pieces we see today except God Himself. The fact that we don't see God does
not diminish His handy work anymore than my writing a hand written letter to
someone basically shows that the letter I wrote proves someone with intent took
the time to use materials and applied them in such a way that a message in a
letter was written.
Kelly