Good to see your true colours shining through. I have never heard of 'strong' atheism - having read widely on the subject - but as I see it from your link it is a rather poor quality definition.Originally Posted by Javan502
"There are many counterexamples to such a statement. For example, it is quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with well-defined objects obeying well-defined rules. Whether Gods or universes are similarly well-defined is a matter for debate.
However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the nonexistence of God. If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counterexample.
If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing might be found, to show that it isn't there. Such an exhaustive search is often impractical or impossible. There is no such problem with largest primes, because we can prove that they don't exist.
Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule most of the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.
To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to prove that he doesn't exist anywhere. So the skeptical atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.
Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of God exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover varieties of God described by followers of various religions. So whilst it may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a particular religious book does not exist. It may even be possible to prove that no God described by any present-day religion exists.
In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is very close to believing that no God exists. However, it is sufficiently different that counterarguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind of God are not really applicable."
In essence the clear logical error in this argument comes in the last two sentences. The introduction of belief has no role here. As I have stated the variations of god as described in the various abrahamic texts is an offence to logic - just like the prime number argument advanced. I would not presume to extend this to all gods, since I do not have the time to work through all the thousands of variations that have been proposed.
But this is a statement of logic - not absolute proof or belief.
If you choose to believe in an illogical deity that defies human understanding - fine, but then just go back to the dark ages, and stop trying to pretend that this then logically is the best explanation for the rational world we live in.
This is not entirely true unless you consider viruses and plasmids to be 'body' forming. Nevertheless there is nothing here other than a statement.
Now we move to a statement of what you think we do not know and then, via an assertion of dubious credibility, propose a god of the gaps solution - while denying that that is what you are doing. Ever thought about a course in basic logic?
Your posts have been 'dismantled'; taken apart and shown to be flawed.
There are many areas which are open to opinion and interpretation when it comes to history. It is not true to say nothing can be "proven right or wrong". You are several years out in your Genesis inspired estimate of age of Earth. The Romans did invade Britain. The nazi death camp holocaust did happen. Dinosaurs once walked the earth.
The Bible is full of contradictions and nonsense. Do snakes ever talk? Are bats "unclean"? Do men ever live longer than 900 years? Can the dead come back to life? Has the cockatrice ever existed? Are any of these things likely, given what we now know? Are you determined to believe everything in the Bible regardless of evidence and good sense?
Still waiting for response to my questions of morality post 35.
Still waiting for response to Watchman's post 4.
Last edited by smudge; 4th September 2010 at 09:04 AM.
"Einstein's Gulf"
A notion built on the fact that this particular atheist used the word miracle once to describe something not yet understood:
"The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle" (1936, 0.61).
From this it is proposed that unless one can provide an explanation of how rocks have evolved to human thought, the reader must accept that god is the architect.
Yet another variation of the god of the gaps argument.
Here's a thought - I have no idea how the first life forms came to be, but it is evident that they did, and there is no reason to believe that a plasuible explanation shall not be found in time. There after, evolution provides the best available explanation as to how we got from there to astract human thought. Fairy tale explanations do not resolve the ignorance we have, so acknowledgement of our ignorance does not lead to god.
that does not adress the point. You suggest that if it happened, that hard objects transformed in abstract ideas and concepts, its possible to happen naturally and spontaneously. Thats however the point. there seems to be a uncrossable gulf. How do you explain it ?
Funny. The best linguistic specialists in the field don't have a answer, and don't postulate evolution as a possible explanation. But you do. Don't you put a lot of faith in evolution, my friend ?
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/darw...n-t68.htm#1253
Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (Boston, Houghton-Miflin Co., 1998), p. 294.
My clear example is language. Nobody knows how it began.
. . . Equally obscure is the origin of semantics; of words and their meaning.
A man recognized universally as one of the world's greatest linguists is Dr. Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He himself is a thoroughgoing evolutionist—in fact, even an atheist and a Marxist. Yet he also recognizes the present impossibility of accounting for language by naturalistic evolution.
Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world. . . . There is no reason to suppose that the "gaps" are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development of "higher" from "lower" stages in this case, than there is for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking.
Derek Bickerton, "Babel's Cornerstone," New Scientist (vol. 156, October 4, 1997), p. 42.
Time after time, in sorting through the countless proposals put forward by language evolutionists, Deacon makes the right choices. Could language have come directly out of some prehuman trait? No. Does it resemble forms of animal communication? No. . . . no ape, despite intensive training, has yet acquired even the rudiments of syntax, and many language acquisitionists insist that syntax is there even at infants' one-word stage. . . . Deacon does not begin to grapple with the really difficult problems—how words emerged, how syntax emerged. But these problems lie at the heart of language evolution.
i don't aknowledge even one.
I don't postulate any age at all, since i don't know how old the earth is, and neither the bible says.....You are several years out in your Genesis inspired estimate of age of Earth.
why not ? millions of people all around the world report miracles in their life.The Bible is full of contradictions and nonsense. Do snakes ever talk? Are bats "unclean"? Do men ever live longer than 900 years? Can the dead come back to life? Has the cockatrice ever existed? Are any of these things likely, given what we now know?
The bible is subject to interpretation. You have not come up with any reasonable alternative explanation for our existence. Please present a better, and more convincing world view, if you can.Are you determined to believe everything in the Bible regardless of evidence and good sense?
contue waiting...... but if you present the questions again, i might answer them.Still waiting for response to my questions of morality post 35.
Still waiting for response to Watchman's post 4.
None at all! Simply observing of all the explanations put forward by crazies and the brilliant alike, it is the only explanation that has to date accorded with every observation made (accepted that the theory has requeired modest modification over time).
But you remain stuck with your god of the gaps. Evolution cannot explain ......, so there must be a god! (insert syntax, abstract thought, life etc). Wy can you not see what a ridiculous basis for supporting an illogical, violent, jealous, murderous creator the 'gaps' argument is?
So what about abstract thought! First a linguist is no biologist, so their opinion about evolution is about as relevant as a car mechanics in respect of loading conditions of suspension bridges.
Second - animals are capable of abstract thought, but we can only study this very indirectly. An elehant will recognise it self in a mirror - how can this be without 'knowledge of self' does self knowledge not require at elast the rudiments of abstract thought? An ape will go to get a ladder it has seen elsewhere to get to food that is otherwise inaccessible - putting a problem and a solution together in one's mind and acting on them clearly requires a degree of abstraction. So I would put it to you that you are taking the opinion of non experts (in the appropriate field) and jumping to incorrect conclusions. Finally you appear to have left out the relatively speaking complex language of dolphins (syntax per se has not yet been shown), a language based communication system without abstraction?
You don't appear to know your bible particularly well.
"In 1642 Cambridge University Vice-Chancellor John Lightfoot calculated a date for the creation of the universe of September 17, 3928 BC, based upon the genealogies in Genesis, Exodus, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles. This was corrected in 1650 by James Ussher, an Anglican archbishop in Ireland, making it October 3, 4004 BC. These dates and time scale were widely backed by the church for many years, driving many scientists and other people away from God!"
The workings are shown here.
http://www.albatrus.org/english/theo..._age_earth.htm
Biblical Age of Earth
by David V. Bassett, M.S.
Beginning with the archeological landmark event of the fall of Jerusalem (which has now been corrected to 588 B.C., instead of 586-587 B.C.) and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 yrs. + 40 yrs., according to Ezekiel 4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.
From the end of Solomon's 40-year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.
From the start of Solomon's Temple "in the 480th year" (1 Kings 6:1) back to the Exodus from Egypt (hence 479 years previous) brings us to near 1534 B.C.
From the Exodus out of Egypt to Abraham's entering Canaan from Haran was exactly 430 years to the day (Gen 12:10/ Exodus 12:40/ Gal 3:17), thus around 1964 B.C.
Since Abraham entered Canaan at age 75 (Gen 12:4), he was born approximately 2039 B.C.
From Abraham's birth to Noah's grandson (Shem's son), Arpachshad's birth, 2 years after the Flood started, was 290 years (Gen 11:11-26), this places the onset of the Flood at around 2331 B.C. [definitely 4,300-4,400 years ago].
The genealogy of Genesis 5:3-32 precludes any gaps due to its tight chronological structure and gives us 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood, thus bringing Creation Week back to near 3987 B.C. or approximately 4000 B.C.
Therefore, the biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years !! Mankind did not evolve 4 million years ago on an Earth which is 4.5 billion years old in a universe which was "big-banged" into existence 18-20 billion years in the distant past. Jesus Christ, the Creator Incarnate, said He made mankind male and female in the beginning (Mark 10:6), and that when the heavens and the earth were commanded into being (Gen 1:1), they "stood up together" (Isa 48:13) not billions of years apart !!
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bibl...-t354.htm#1254
You are confusing the laws of logic with the laws of nature. The laws of logic are prescriptive. They define the basic and inviolable parameters and unavoidable patterns of human thinking. On the other hand, the laws of nature are descriptive. They are a record of how the natural world normally operates. Scientific laws don't control or explain events. They are only a generalized record of those events. The laws of logic constitute a perfect standard. The laws of nature describe actual reality. God can suspend the laws of nature at will because He designed them. He would not (and actually cannot) violate the laws of logic, because they are a part of His nature.
When has macroevolution ever been observed ????
And i am stuck with your insistence of the god of the gaps argument.But you remain stuck with your god of the gaps. Evolution cannot explain ......, so there must be a god!
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/phil...-t147.htm#1255
Expanding gaps: The god of the gaps argument assumes that it is inappropriate to credit God with acts because those beliefs are just "gaps in science." The unstated assumption, however, is that science will one day fill those gaps, and more specifically, fill those gaps with evolution. If the gaps were shrinking, perhaps this argument would carry some weight. But in fact, with scientific discovery, the gaps in our knowledge are expanding, and thus the "god of the gaps" is getting bigger. The more we study life, the more complex, intricate, and beautiful we realize it is, the more we discover exactly how impossible the theory of evolution is, and the more we learn about the power and intelligence of the Creator.
Expected gaps: The last issue is one of predictions and consistency. Creationism makes a limited number of claims about what God did. It claims that he created life (and life cannot arise spontaneously), that the forms of life were created fully formed and separate (and thus all life is not related), and that the dominant trend in genetics is one of genetic entropy rather than increases in information and complexity. The longer evolutionists fail to fill these "gaps," the more reasonable it is to believe that those gaps in evolution are permanent, because evolution did not occur.
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/darw...lution-t68.htmSo what about abstract thought! First a linguist is no biologist, so their opinion about evolution is about as relevant as a car mechanics in respect of loading conditions of suspension bridges.
Evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson has admitted that there is little possibility of tracing an evolutionary connection between animals and men as far as language is concerned."Human language is absolutely distinct from any system of communication in other animals ... It is still possible, but it is unlikely, that we will ever know just when and how our ancestors began to speak."
Since Simpson is a biologist and paleontologist, rather than a linguistics scientist, certain of the younger speculative linguists may feel that he was speaking out of his field and that it may yet be possible to trace such an evolutionary origin of human language.
I have made no observations on the laws of anything - this supposed confusion is purely an invention within your mind. But having raised this strawman, I will point out that your assertion is that that which has been empirically demonstrated to be so is considered inferior to your own muzings on things within your head - how arrogant!
So you deny god's omnisceince!
there are different interpretations of Genesis. Old earth creationists btw. believe that the six days in Genesys mean, each day a long period of time.
http://discussions.godandscience.org...hp?f=6&t=33560
Thus far we agree - The more you understand the more you become aware of how little you know. Fairy tales do not address this conundrum.
The stupidity of your position, is the failure to realise that any given scientific theory only takes you so far. Evolution is correct, but doubtless, like Newtonian physics will eventually be superceded by a superior theory, going back to the failed prescriptions of religion will not feature.
An admission that interpretation of the bible must bow to empirically derived knowledge?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks