|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/23/2006 : 13:24:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
However, I do have to add that Faith (note capital "F") tends to be a very effective stop sign when searching for the truth.
History suggests otherwise.
Does it, now? I seem to recall Galileo's excommunication and the suppression of his works by the Church, et al. And here's another interesting fellow in the same vein. History is full of them.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
And, to remind that everyone has blind spots, Sir Isaac was an alchemist who thought that turning base metals into gold worth study.
It seems to me that framing that as a "blind spot" is more than a little anachronistic.
It was indeed a 'blind spot' with virtually all alchemists. These people were the first scientists, as we know the term today. Their accomplishments were beyond excellent and many, in fields such as chemistry and metallurgy are still valid today. But they still believed in the Philosopher's Stone nonsense. Even Newton, while he never seriously pursued it, as far as is known, thought, as mentioned, that it was feasible.
Edited to adjust formatting -- Boron10 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - Boron10 on 12/23/2006 15:06:04 |
 |
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 02:28:20 [Permalink]
|
| Still waiting for a response GK |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 03:05:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
However, I do have to add that Faith (note capital "F") tends to be a very effective stop sign when searching for the truth.
History suggests otherwise.
Does it, now? I seem to recall Galileo's excommunication and the suppression of his works by the Church, et al. And here's another interesting fellow in the same vein. History is full of them.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
And, to remind that everyone has blind spots, Sir Isaac was an alchemist who thought that turning base metals into gold worth study.
It seems to me that framing that as a "blind spot" is more than a little anachronistic.
It was indeed a 'blind spot' with virtually all alchemists. These people were the first scientists, as we know the term today. Their accomplishments were beyond excellent and many, in fields such as chemistry and metallurgy are still valid today. But they still believed in the Philosopher's Stone nonsense. Even Newton, while he never seriously pursued it, as far as is known, thought, as mentioned, that it was feasible.
Edited to adjust formatting -- Boron10
The first pope, Peter, made mistakes too (denying Christ 3 times to a girl at a campfire). But here we are 2000 years later. |
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 03:24:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zebra
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
I understand what your saying about Faith, but Issac Newton's very strong faith in the Bible (he actually authored a book on the book of Daniel) didn't stop him from inventing calculus, or formulating the laws of gravity (which greatly influenced Einstein).
GK Paul, you've hit a pet peeve of mine. I'm usually not a biblical literalist, but on the spelling of "Isaac" I'll make an exception. One s, two a's. See Genesis 17:19, 17:21, 21:3, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32:9, 35, 46, 48, 49:31, and 50:24. "Isaac" is so illustrious that he is also mentioned, and spelled the same way, in 11 other books of the Old Testament and 8 books of the New Testament, including the two (otherwise quite different) genealogies of Jesus Joseph in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.
Edited to add: The first time I read your post I thought you wrote that Isaac Newton "actually authored the book of Daniel". Nope, just a misread on my part! But somebody wrote, or edited, Daniel well after the time it was supposed to have been written...
I tend to look at the big picture. There are many times when I realize that I spelled something wrong or used the wrong grammar but I don't correct it because the time and energy required to correct the mistake sometimes distracts from my thought process. Please forgive me for this but the big picture is my main focus. If someone thinks less of my post because of a mispelled word or a missing comma, so be it. |
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
| Edited by - GK Paul on 12/24/2006 03:51:52 |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 05:38:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
GK Paul - you have still not responded to this
As an agnostic, I am open to the possibility that a "God" set off the big bang. Or it just happened.
However, what I see as completely absurd is the suggestion that a being capable of creating something as huge and magnificent as our Universe (which may be but one of many)could have any resemblence to the petty, malicous tyrant of the Old Testament (in particular).
G K Paul - your logic is this.
Something (a God) must have created the universe
Therefore your religion (Christianity) is true (and other religions ie Wicca, Budhism, etc. are false).
Even if the first premise is true, the second does not follow, not by a long way.
BTW do you still believe that the creation myth of a bunch of ignorant nomadic herdsmen from the middle east is a better explantation for the variety of life on earth than is the theory of evolution given that the former is avery poor fit to the data, while the latter is an excellent fit?
I noticed your post is not in response to any of my posts. Please give the exact post where I stated the logic you attribute to me. If you are unable to do this please give one of my posts that is close to the logic you attribute to me and what exactly it is about that post that you disagee with. |
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
| Edited by - GK Paul on 12/24/2006 05:53:33 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 07:37:54 [Permalink]
|
GK said:
quote:
I tend to look at the big picture. There are many times when I realize that I spelled something wrong or used the wrong grammar but I don't correct it because the time and energy required to correct the mistake sometimes distracts from my thought process.
So do we. To refute fundamenatalist literal interpretations, you have to look at the minutiae. To refute someones literal belief (though not a literal word-for-word reading), you have to look at the contradictions and errors that are in the bible. The refuge of the apologetic is to say the words were divinely "inspired" which leaves enough ambuguity so that any problem is easily hand waved.
When I look at the bible, I look at ALL of the bible, and that means the parts that are repugnant to me, and the parts that make absolutely no sense. As a sum of its parts, the bible does not measure up to anything other that the collected writings of ancient peoples trying to make some sense of reality without any logical or scientific background. That, of course, also takes into account the use of the religion to keep power over others, over women (especially), etc. It, like other religious texts, is a tool to keep the flock in line using the old "carrot and stick" method which works so well for those who yearn to be led; those who want so deparately to be told that everything will be fine and that the bad people will be punished and that when they die they will go on, that they will abandon all reason and logic - a psychological addiction. And I talk from experience; the withdrawals still affect me to this day.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 09:25:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
GK Paul - you have still not responded to this
As an agnostic, I am open to the possibility that a "God" set off the big bang. Or it just happened.
However, what I see as completely absurd is the suggestion that a being capable of creating something as huge and magnificent as our Universe (which may be but one of many)could have any resemblence to the petty, malicous tyrant of the Old Testament (in particular).
G K Paul - your logic is this.
Something (a God) must have created the universe
Therefore your religion (Christianity) is true (and other religions ie Wicca, Budhism, etc. are false).
Even if the first premise is true, the second does not follow, not by a long way.
BTW do you still believe that the creation myth of a bunch of ignorant nomadic herdsmen from the middle east is a better explantation for the variety of life on earth than is the theory of evolution given that the former is avery poor fit to the data, while the latter is an excellent fit?
I noticed your post is not in response to any of my posts. Please give the exact post where I stated the logic you attribute to me. If you are unable to do this please give one of my posts that is close to the logic you attribute to me and what exactly it is about that post that you disagee with.
Throughout this thread you arguing that there had to be creator for the universe and implying that the existance of a creator is proof of the Christianity being anything other than a bunch of myths as well as proof of the whole bible. I am saying If there was a creator, so what - the rest of the argument you present does not follow.
I also asked a simple question - do you still believe Genisis is better explanation than the naturalsistic one for
1. the existance of the universes
2. the existance of the earth and the solar system
3. the existance of life on earth
4. the origin of "man"
|
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 12:54:18 [Permalink]
|
To Ghost Skeptic, Like Billy Graham, I am not a literalist in regard to the Bible. I believe Genesis was the best explanation for the origin of the universe at the time it was given. Therefore at the time of Moses, the author, I believe Moses was closer to God than any other human.
Like Big Bang believing scientists, I believe the universe had an origin. I believe there can only be two causes for that origin - an intelligent cause or an unintelligent cause. Nobody has given me evidence that an unintelligent cause is more likely than an intelligent cause. Given that fact, I believe an intelligent cause is more likely because the universe contains life and intelligence and it is more likely that intelligence created life and additional intelligence than for non-living unintelligent sources to create life and intelligence.
With regard to Christianity being more special than any other religion I already answered that in a "long detailed" post somewhere in one of the Caesar Messiah forums part 1 2 or 3 or maybe even in the Ann Coulter forum. It took me a lot of time to write that post and I don't have the time to repeat the long post. Maybe someone remembers exactly where it is. |
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 13:11:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
Like Big Bang believing scientists, I believe the universe had an origin. I believe there can only be two causes for that origin - an intelligent cause or an unintelligent cause. Nobody has given me evidence that an unintelligent cause is more likely than an intelligent cause. Given that fact, I believe an intelligent cause is more likely because the universe contains life and intelligence and it is more likely that intelligence created life and additional intelligence than for non-living unintelligent sources to create life and intelligence.
Despite being on GK Pauls's ignore list, I have to respond to this. Someone can let him know about it.
You say the universe had an origin. I say that as well. Here's where you lose it though, and you've been corrected on this but ignored it. Since the universe had a beginning, you say that it had to have one of two causes: intelligent or unintelligent. Right?
First, that either or statement means nothing. You might just as well say that the universe had one of two things at the beginning: chunky peanut butter or no chunky peanut butter. Neither that statement or yours actually has any bearing on the creation of the universe. But lets go with your statement anyway.
If, by your own statement, that the state of the universe must mimic the creating event or creator (..."an intelligent cause is more likely because the universe contains life and intelligence..."), then your argument fails. It fails because the universe now contains intelligence and life but it didn't at the beginning, or for maybe billions of years afterward.
So if the universe must mimic the creating event, and for most of the life of the universe, intelligent life was absent (and I can only assume you mean humans since we are the only creatures created in the image of god), then by your own logic, the creating event/creator must have not been intelligent.
Anyone else who's following me here may feel free to clarify/elaborate. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 14:03:16 [Permalink]
|
Well, folks, it's that time!
This topic is locked due to its length. Post all further comments in the continuation thread: Big Bang (Part 2) |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
