Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Athiests

KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 10:19:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Should read "The Language of God."
Author: Francis S. Collins.
Who is he? Francis happens to be a CHRISTIAN scientist who just happens to be the head of the Human Genome project.
He explains how Faith in God and science harmonizes with each other.
I win ;D
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 11:59:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I have no problem in accepting that faith and science can harmonise. I simply don't have faith.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 12:01:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Refute this first and then I will read.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 12:07:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
He defends science well, he argues against YEC well, he argues for evolution well. After that it's down hill. Arguments from personal incredulity, non sequiturs, ipse dixit, copying for the large part, C.S. Lewis, does not prove god at all. If you personally want to reconcile science and religion, there are worst things than theistic evolution, so go ahead. That book though is nowhere near convincing.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 12:36:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
He is not a Christian Scientist, but may be a scientist with Christian beliefs. Tell me Keith, in which part of the study of the human genome project did he say science is wrong, God did it. I have read the literature and can't find that part, nor the part where the Bible accurately explains scientific principles ... still waiting on that debate. I am not an atheist, but tell all of us whether you have read this book:
Origin of Species

Do you understand that the human genome project confirmed the theory of evolution in resounding form? No faith needed. Why do you insist on using science to prove God?
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 12:45:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 12:36:18 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:
He is not a Christian Scientist, but may be a scientist with Christian beliefs. Tell me Keith, in which part of the study of the human genome project did he say science is wrong, God did it.

He doesn't. He argues god did it through evolution, big bang etc., the god part comes from the 'god is a necessary component of..' arguments - which are unrelated on the whole from science (apart from evolution couldn't produce this sort of statemements - e.g. altruism, moral goodness, unique human traits).
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:30:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 10:19:03 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
Should read "The Language of God."
Author: Francis S. Collins.
Who is he? Francis happens to be a CHRISTIAN scientist who just happens to be the head of the Human Genome project.
He explains how Faith in God and science harmonizes with each other.

Fallacy:

Phenomenon

Explanations?

1. Science
2. Science + God

Occam's Razor: Failed.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 10:03:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:30:54 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/9/2009 10:19:03 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
Should read "The Language of God."
Author: Francis S. Collins.
Who is he? Francis happens to be a CHRISTIAN scientist who just happens to be the head of the Human Genome project.
He explains how Faith in God and science harmonizes with each other.

Fallacy:

Phenomenon

Explanations?

1. Science
2. Science + God

Occam's Razor: Failed.

Haha, I don't know why, but this made me laugh XD

I have heard of this person before, but I don't remember what point his analysis hinged on, exactly. However, the fact that he supports theistic evolution over creationism shows that at the very least, he is thinking.

I myself have no problem with theistic evolution because at that point, there really isn't much intellectual harm that can come to students. If people want to assume a higher purpose, that's fine. So long as they learn the mechanisms, I don't see a problem in the slightest.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 2:03:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 12:36:18 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:
He is not a Christian Scientist, but may be a scientist with Christian beliefs. Tell me Keith, in which part of the study of the human genome project did he say science is wrong, God did it. I have read the literature and can't find that part, nor the part where the Bible accurately explains scientific principles ... still waiting on that debate. I am not an atheist, but tell all of us whether you have read this book:
Origin of Species

Do you understand that the human genome project confirmed the theory of evolution in resounding form? No faith needed. Why do you insist on using science to prove God?

He argues that the universe could not have been created without God if you read his book you will find that if you are atheist you are very illogical. The chance of the big bang creating the universe as we know it is way less then 1% I wanna say around .000022 if you study probability that basically means impossible. What came before the big bang? no answer ever comes from an atheist.

Yes, he supports science in the sense that he defends evolution but he also argues that God created us using evolution. He also has a good moral law argument please read before you criticize.

How has the project confirmed evolution? I have a feeling I know what you will say.
I win ;D
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 2:04:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 2:04:21 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
The big bang without God is improbable.

Empty statement.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 2:49:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 2:03:20 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
At 8/10/2009 12:36:18 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:
He is not a Christian Scientist, but may be a scientist with Christian beliefs. Tell me Keith, in which part of the study of the human genome project did he say science is wrong, God did it. I have read the literature and can't find that part, nor the part where the Bible accurately explains scientific principles ... still waiting on that debate. I am not an atheist, but tell all of us whether you have read this book:
Origin of Species

Do you understand that the human genome project confirmed the theory of evolution in resounding form? No faith needed. Why do you insist on using science to prove God?

He argues that the universe could not have been created without God if you read his book you will find that if you are atheist you are very illogical. The chance of the big bang creating the universe as we know it is way less then 1% I wanna say around .000022 if you study probability that basically means impossible. What came before the big bang? no answer ever comes from an atheist.


And how exactly did he measure "the likelihood that the big bang could have created the modern universe"?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:41:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:12:05 PM, Nags wrote:
Why can believers say God has always been here?

But, non-believers can not say the universe has always been here?

BECAUSE HE'S GOD AND HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WAN--- /shot
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 9:35:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 2:49:55 PM, LB628 wrote:
At 8/10/2009 2:03:20 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
At 8/10/2009 12:36:18 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:
He is not a Christian Scientist, but may be a scientist with Christian beliefs. Tell me Keith, in which part of the study of the human genome project did he say science is wrong, God did it. I have read the literature and can't find that part, nor the part where the Bible accurately explains scientific principles ... still waiting on that debate. I am not an atheist, but tell all of us whether you have read this book:
Origin of Species

Do you understand that the human genome project confirmed the theory of evolution in resounding form? No faith needed. Why do you insist on using science to prove God?

He argues that the universe could not have been created without God if you read his book you will find that if you are atheist you are very illogical. The chance of the big bang creating the universe as we know it is way less then 1% I wanna say around .000022 if you study probability that basically means impossible. What came before the big bang? no answer ever comes from an atheist.


And how exactly did he measure "the likelihood that the big bang could have created the modern universe"?

Read his book and he explains how the creation of the universe without a God is improbable/impossible.

I suggest you read his book unless you fear that it may cause you to question your beliefs.
I win ;D
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 9:37:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:12:05 PM, Nags wrote:
Why can believers say God has always been here?

But, non-believers can not say the universe has always been here?

Because science points to the direction that the universe is finite.

Obviously if God was created by something he wouldn't be God.
I win ;D
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 9:53:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 2:04:21 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
The big bang without God is improbable.

God is even more improbable. As JCMT said, Occam's Razor Fail.
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 9:57:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 2:03:20 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
I wanna say around .000022 if you study probability that basically means impossible.

Whether or not you have studied probability does not change what that means. And it doesn't mean it's impossible. Things that are unlikely have happened before and will happen again. For example, shuffle a deck of cards and draw five. The probability of drawing that exact hand that you just drew is one out of 380204032. That means it's basically impossible. And yet it happened.
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 9:59:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 9:53:12 PM, MTGandP wrote:
At 8/10/2009 2:04:21 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
The big bang without God is improbable.

God is even more improbable. As JCMT said, Occam's Razor Fail.

If God exists then the creation of the universe is 100% probable. I just want to hear an explanation from you on how the big bang came to be. What was the first cause? No atheist will ever provide a decent explanation because they know they cannot. What was the first cause? Though you may not be able to scientifically prove God, surely you can logically prove him.
I win ;D
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 10:01:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 9:57:17 PM, MTGandP wrote:
At 8/10/2009 2:03:20 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
I wanna say around .000022 if you study probability that basically means impossible.

Whether or not you have studied probability does not change what that means. And it doesn't mean it's impossible. Things that are unlikely have happened before and will happen again. For example, shuffle a deck of cards and draw five. The probability of drawing that exact hand that you just drew is one out of 380204032. That means it's basically impossible. And yet it happened.

You also needed somebody to draw the five cards did you not?
I win ;D
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 3:03:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 10:19:03 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
Should read "The Language of God."
Author: Francis S. Collins.
Who is he? Francis happens to be a CHRISTIAN scientist who just happens to be the head of the Human Genome project.
He explains how Faith in God and science harmonizes with each other.

I'll just stick with the Bible thanks.. I trust the Author see? (FAITH)
The Cross.. the Cross.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 3:12:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
He argues that the universe could not have been created without God if you read his book you will find that if you are atheist you are very illogical. The chance of the big bang creating the universe as we know it is way less then 1% I wanna say around .000022 if you study probability that basically means impossible. What came before the big bang? no answer ever comes from an atheist.


That is not a logical argument. Firstly I do not understand how you can quantity the possibility of the universe being created by the big bang. If you study probability should realise that a low probability means a low probability, it does not mean that it is impossible.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 3:44:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/9/2009 11:59:00 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I have no problem in accepting that faith and science can harmonise. I simply don't have faith.

Of course you do. Just not in religion/God etc.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 4:45:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Purple Haze and I have been exchanging responses on the issue of probability arguments and I feel like I am not clear enough on it. My argument is a version of MTG's.

Probability is defined as the number of favorable outcomes divided by the possible outcomes.

If the existence of the universe the way it is is the favorable outcome, how do you calculate the probability when you cannot state the alternative possible outcomes? The only outcome possible is the existence of the universe the way it is, therefore, the probability is 1.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 4:30:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 4:45:22 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Purple Haze and I have been exchanging responses on the issue of probability arguments and I feel like I am not clear enough on it. My argument is a version of MTG's.

Probability is defined as the number of favorable outcomes divided by the possible outcomes.

If the existence of the universe the way it is is the favorable outcome, how do you calculate the probability when you cannot state the alternative possible outcomes? The only outcome possible is the existence of the universe the way it is, therefore, the probability is 1.

Please read his book he take many things into account when he comes up with his percentage. Even Atheists scientists agree that the probability is low.
I win ;D
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 4:45:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 3:03:13 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/9/2009 10:19:03 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
Should read "The Language of God."
Author: Francis S. Collins.
Who is he? Francis happens to be a CHRISTIAN scientist who just happens to be the head of the Human Genome project.
He explains how Faith in God and science harmonizes with each other.

I'll just stick with the Bible thanks.. I trust the Author see? (FAITH)

I do not believe in evolution either but what biblical passage goes against belief in evolution and God?
I win ;D
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 4:56:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
you cannot state the alternative possible outcomes

You seriously believe that there was not a possibility of any other outcome? That even the most infinitesimal factors could not have, by virtue of random chance, been minutely different? The probability of our universe being as it is, in all its grandeur, is 1?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 6:51:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 4:30:54 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
At 8/11/2009 4:45:22 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Purple Haze and I have been exchanging responses on the issue of probability arguments and I feel like I am not clear enough on it. My argument is a version of MTG's.

Probability is defined as the number of favorable outcomes divided by the possible outcomes.

If the existence of the universe the way it is is the favorable outcome, how do you calculate the probability when you cannot state the alternative possible outcomes? The only outcome possible is the existence of the universe the way it is, therefore, the probability is 1.

Please read his book he take many things into account when he comes up with his percentage. Even Atheists scientists agree that the probability is low.

I doubt that scientists agree that the probability is low because I don't think there is a way to calculate it. Also, if you have read his book, kindly explain his arguments to me. Continuously telling me to read his book will do nothing to add to the discussion.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 7:00:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 4:56:05 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
you cannot state the alternative possible outcomes

You seriously believe that there was not a possibility of any other outcome? That even the most infinitesimal factors could not have, by virtue of random chance, been minutely different? The probability of our universe being as it is, in all its grandeur, is 1?

There are so many things wrong with this statement, I don't know where to begin.

"You seriously believe that there was not a possibility of any other outcome?"

Yes. Does the universe exist the way it does? Then what possibility is there of it existing a different way? 0. What is your evidence otherwise? Let us hear it.

"That even the most infinitesimal factors"

Such as? Every "infinitesimal" factor is completely tied in with every other "infinitesimal" factor.

"could not have, by virtue of random chance"

Since when are the occurrences of the universe the products of random chance?

"been minutely different?"

If it is so likely, why don't you suggest one such possibility? You don't have to prove it, just *suggest* one. A theoretical one.

"The probability of our universe being as it is, in all its grandeur"

What grandeur? What scale of greatness? What are you comparing our universe to? What secret universes do you have hidden in your pocket that you aren't sharing with the rest of us, that make the universe we live in so grand?

What you are saying has the absolute stench of anthropocentrism. You might as well be opening the door on a spring morning and saying "It's absolutely wonderful to be human!" or such useless phrase.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 7:38:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
There are so many things wrong with this statement, I don't know where to begin.

Certainly a smart man like yourself should know that it is probably most reasonable to start with the first wrong thing.

Yes. Does the universe exist the way it does?

Not what I said. You are really straining credulity to suggest that because something is as it is, it could not have possibly been different. This renders all sports games ever to take place as fatalistically predetermined – insofar as nothing could have happened differently.

While it is true that we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of our universe that are incompatible for our existence - insofar as if features were incompatible we would not exist to observe them. But, what seems to be the contrapositive, is not the same, nor does it follow from the aforesaid. We cannot say with fairness that, "we should not be surprised that we observe features compatible with our existence."

As William Lane Craig puts it,
"suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that

5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,

nonetheless it is equally true that

6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.

Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that

7. We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence."

Such as?

The precise amount of moon dust. Could it not have had one grain more?

Since when are the occurrences of the universe the products of random chance?

"There's nothing impossible about the fact that our universe was the product of a chance event: after all, I am the product of a chance event, a randomized mixture of the genes of two people equally the product of chance. You can't simply rule out the importance of chance events in the history of individuals or the universe"

-PZ Meyers

"Random chance appears to play a significant role in events. "

-Victor J. Stenger

What you are saying has the absolute stench of anthropocentrism.

Observed, not assumed.