• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Science is our friend - says Lion IRC (is not, is too, is not, is too,)

Basis of claim - have you ever seen a modern apologist present the cosmological argument WITHOUT reference to evidence made available by science?

The only modern apologist I can recall is William Lane Craig, who presents the Kalam cosmological argument, in which he does not support his argument with scientific evidence, although he misrepresents science repeatedly:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-the-kalam-cosmological-argument

It would be self-defeating to claim that misrepresenting science to win an argument means that science has helped you.
 
In contrast, the (atheist) opponents of the cosmological argument are jettisoning the strict, empirical scientific method and straying into the realm of metaphysics - postulating magical multiverse hypotheses with strange 'possible worlds'

Yeah - that Sounds familiar
The-chronicles-of-narnia-the-magicians-nephew-book-cover.jpg

Or claiming that fine tuning is merely an illusion. Trompe L'oeil. Don't believe everything you see. (So much for observable evidence!)

7262ab5133475bce82ca8f6730470328.jpg

Or playing word philosophical games and telling us that 'things' can come into existence out of non-existence. Rabbit out of the hat.

51Gf5cmUSnL._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Love the afterward by Richard Dawkins. One day science of the gaps will fill the gaps. LOL
 
"...Nope: it's still special pleading"

Cosmological arguments all depend on special pleading by claiming that the universe requires a cause but the universe's creator does not.

...Souls are imaginary.

There is no evidence to support the existence of souls. In addition, science has eliminated the possibility that a soul is needed for a person to live: our organs work without magic.

...The claim that DNA is irreducibly complex is groundless

It is based on Creationist information theory, which is in turn based on "willful misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics".

...Creationist information theory is pseudoscience

Here you go:

The claim that DNA is irreducibly complex is just as groundless as every other claim of irreducible complexity.

Creationist information theory is Christian pseudoscience at its finest:
"Creationists, in an attempt to coat their myths with a veneer of science, have co-opted the idea of information theory to use as a plausible-sounding attack on evolution. Essentially, the claim is that the genetic code is like a language and thus transmits information, and in part due to the usual willful misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics (which is about energy, not information), they maintain that information can never be increased.[10] Therefore, the changes they cannot outright deny are defined as "losing information", while changes they disagree with are defined as "gaining information", which by their definition is impossible. Note that at no point do creationists actually specify what information actually is and often (even in the allegedly scientific case of complex specified information) will purposefully avoid defining the concept in any useful way. The creationists tend to change their meaning on an ad hoc basis depending on the argument, relying on colloquial, imprecise definitions of information rather than quantifiable ones -- or worse, switching interchangeably between different definitions depending on the context of the discussion or argument.


The deliberate conflation of the totally unrelated concepts of thermodynamic and informational entropy is, while an obvious flaw in the argument, a flaw that the creationists' intended audience is less likely to pick up on, so it remains a popular argument, as seen in Ken Ham's... debate with Bill Nye at the Creation Museum."​

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Information_theory#Creationist_information_theory

Irreducible complexity is a classic example of a God of the Gaps argument. Every time science exposes more of your religious bullshit to be wrong, you improvise new, ad hoc reasons why your silly claims might still be true.

...Irreducible complexity is God of the Gaps

...Every time science exposes your religious bullshit to be wrong

...That just goes to show how little you understand about quantum mechanics.

Here you go:

bigfield said:
Science has introduced us to quantum 'spookiness' which rivals supernatural woo.
That just goes to show how little you understand about quantum mechanics.

Whereas quantum mechanics is supported by a huge amount of scientific evidence, supernatural woo is not supported by any scientific evidence. Equivocating the two by quote-mining Einstein is just plain dishonest.
 
In contrast, the (atheist) opponents of the cosmological argument are jettisoning the strict, empirical scientific method and straying into the realm of metaphysics - postulating magical multiverse hypotheses with strange 'possible worlds'

Astrophysicists have some hypotheses based in mathematical models. The method is not all just "strict" empiricism. The difficulty at this time is that they haven't found a way to test the predictions as of yet. What exactly is your problem with science regarding that?

To take up arguing for Bible-god again you’re going to have to revert to an anti-science stance, because your religion and science are, unavoidably, incompatible. And as your sliver of awareness encounters that incompatibility again, you’ll have to dodge and tell a lie like “oh, but by ‘love science’ I only meant something very different from what I'd said, I love how gaps in it plays into the hands of theists”. So go on, keep talking about how science helps your religion and that's why you're not at all anti-science.
 
Last edited:
Cosmological arguments all depend on special pleading by claiming that the universe requires a cause but the universe's creator does not.

You clearly don't know the Cosmological Argument.

It does NOT even attempt to apply to a universe which had always existed.

William Lane Craig would have no problem admitting the obvious logic that things which have always existed do not have/need a cause.

Now, to the extent that ALL argument premisses are, by definition, self-asserting it's rather purile to dismiss the premise of an argument as 'special pleading'.

If that were the case, then the NEGATION of any arguments premise would equally be 'special' pleading.
 
Cosmological arguments all depend on special pleading by claiming that the universe requires a cause but the universe's creator does not.

You clearly don't know the Cosmological Argument.

It does NOT even attempt to apply to a universe which had always existed.

William Lane Craig would have no problem admitting the obvious logic that things which have always existed do not have/need a cause.

Now, to the extent that ALL argument premisses are, by definition, self-asserting it's rather purile to dismiss the premise of an argument as 'special pleading'.

If that were the case, then the NEGATION of any arguments premise would equally be 'special' pleading.

WLC and others engage in special pleading when they introduce their God: they imagine an entity that has all of the properties needed to claim it is causeless, therefore avoiding an infinite regression of causes, and call this entity the "Creator".

If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
 
Cosmological arguments all depend on special pleading by claiming that the universe requires a cause but the universe's creator does not.

You clearly don't know the Cosmological Argument.

It does NOT even attempt to apply to a universe which had always existed.

William Lane Craig would have no problem admitting the obvious logic that things which have always existed do not have/need a cause.

Now, to the extent that ALL argument premisses are, by definition, self-asserting it's rather purile to dismiss the premise of an argument as 'special pleading'.

If that were the case, then the NEGATION of any arguments premise would equally be 'special' pleading.


Virtual particles pop in and out of existence in tremendous numbers. We know that. And basic physics show us that in very rare cases this can result in a new pocket Universe forming withing an existing Universe. Our Universe demonstrates evidence that this is indeed what happened some 13.8 billion years ago. We can demonstrate evidence this Universe is expanding. Matter is tied up in black holes, that will slowly evaporate due to Hawking radiation. As our Universe expands it grows bigger, and the last black holes should vanish some 1 X 10 **100 years from now. The likelihood of a new Universe being born in that time span is high.

Universes within Universe, within Universes unto infinity in time and space is simply an extrapolation from present day physics and the evidence of such physics. With infinite numbers of Island Universes, its hardly surprising if a few can support life as we know it. Which explains the fine tuning conundrum quite well.

No God needed.
 
Scientists are forced to provide evidence for their finding, apologists act all sorts of snotty if you ask for evidence to support their conclusions.
 
...Virtual particles pop in and out of existence in tremendous numbers.

Virtual is not an empirical term.
I could say God exists in some 'virtual' sense and you would instantly demand to know what I meant by the word virtual.

...We know that.

OK fine.
In that case I know that the Holy Spirit can be 'virtually' detected.
People have detected God when He virtually makes His existence felt to "tremendous numbers" of humans.

...basic physics show us that in very rare cases this can result in a new pocket Universe forming within an existing Universe.

Yes, and in very rare cases people experience 'pocket' miracles. It's just basic metaphysics.
And the Angel Gabriel just appeared out of nowhere, spoke to Mary then dissapeared back into a different 'pocket' universe.


...Our Universe demonstrates evidence that this is indeed what happened some 13.8 billion years ago.

Sure. It popped into existence.
Merry Christmas :)

...We can demonstrate evidence this Universe is expanding.

Yes, thanks to a wonderful discovery of science. And it's expanding faster and faster. The rate of acceleration is increasing.
You say mysterious, spine tingling "dark energy". I say hand of God.
(See Isaiah 40:22)

...Matter is tied up in black holes, that will slowly evaporate due to Hawking radiation

Tied up? I'm not familiar with that technical term.
Nor do I understand what you precisely mean by evaporation. Into thin air?
Never mind. We are way past any hope of a unified theory of everything which doesn't include fudge factors and metaphysical jargon. Occams Razor? You must be joking! We are postulating invisible/virtual forces and matter which simultaneoulsy exists and does not exist and places which are conjured into tentative reality by a man-made language called mathematics.
If you can describe a past-eternal universe on paper that's obviously much better than the words fiat lux written on a different piece of paper about an all powerful past-eternal God.

...As our Universe expands it grows bigger, and the last black holes should vanish some 1 X 10 **100 years from now. The likelihood of a new Universe being born in that time span is high.

Sure. God willing.

...Universes within Universe, within Universes unto infinity in time and space is simply an extrapolation from present day physics and the evidence of such physics. With infinite numbers of Island Universes, its hardly surprising if a few can support life as we know it. Which explains the fine tuning conundrum quite well.

You can have your superfluous, extravagant universes multiplied over and over as many times as you like so as to trick yourself into thinking that (like an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters) there's nothing special about this Goldilocks universe. If going to that amount of story telling helps you sleep better - any theory is better than one which includes a Higher Power - then knock yourself out.

...No God needed.

For what?
You think God is unnecessary but God can make the same statement about you.
 
You think God is unnecessary but God can make the same statement about you.

This is what is wrong with you: you start with assuming god. You never question this hypotesis. You use the god hypotesis as a fact.

It isnt.
 
You first. If you want more in-depth argument against your assertions, then make them into completed arguments.

Here, I'll help you...

Science made ultrasound images possible.
The ultrasound image of a fetus reminds some people of a baby’s face.
Therefore science advanced the pro-life cause.

I don't need help. Thanks anyway.

The point here is that those images typically weren't available 50 - 100 years ago.

Those images at best are the basis for an appeal to fallacy, which is not science. Fallacies arguments is something religion is dependent on, but in science they are grounds for rejecting an argument.
 
So, if science is supportive of faith, then the more science one does, the more faithful one would be, right?
I mean, it's the easiest way to test the premise.
If the distribution of the faithful among the sciences is top-heavy with those who believe, as compared to the general population of knuckledragging, lip-reading, mouth-breathing, tabloid reading citizenry in the nation they practice in, then, yes, science clearly is friendly to the faithful.
If the distribution of the faithful among the sciences is about the same as the distribution of the faithful in the country, then science seems at best to be inconsequential to faith.
If the distribution of the faithful thins out among those who understand and practice science, then science would appear to be antagonistic to faith.

-OR-

Science is actually friendly to the practice of faith HOWEVER those who practice science pretend to disbelieve for socio-babble reasons invented as necessary to explain inconvenient facts.

So, anyway, anyone have any numbers about how many scientists are practicing believers vs. non-believers vs. admitted atheists?
 
Cheerful Charlie's thread post here reminds me that science (technology) has given us the Internet which has been another great boon to help the advance of theism.

They say that atheists rule the Internet - and sometimes when I look at the disgraceful stuff which proliferates online I'm inclined to agree - but I would have to say that for every one anti-theist Facebook page or atheism Reddit there are at least ten more counterpoint apologetics pages. Add to that the number of overtly evangelical/proselytization sites and church pages and I think it's far from certain which side of the AvT debate is helped more by the Internet.

William Lane Craig speculates that in this contest of ideas, the sheer explosion in numbers of diverse, completing ideas and contrary world views, many are left perplexed. He says that because the Internet has enabled everyone to claim proofs and truths, this has actually resulted (ironically) in the rise of fideism.

When people are bombarded with so many opposing truth claims in this so-called "post truth" epoch, not knowing who to believe, they revert back to trusting their OWN subjective judgements and opinions. As a result they pick whichever Google result they think is right. They create their own Facebook newsfeed which basically turns into a feedback loop.

Don't 'believe' me?
 
Cheerful Charlie's thread post here reminds me that science (technology) has given us the Internet which has been another great boon to help the advance of theism.

They say that atheists rule the Internet -
Who says that?
Where?
and sometimes when I look at the disgraceful stuff which proliferates online I'm inclined to agree - but I would have to say that for every one anti-theist Facebook page or atheism Reddit there are at least ten more counterpoint apologetics pages.
Is this an actual survey or just your impression? Science tells us that we cannot trust our impressions in that sort of thing, we do a sort of filter.
If you've done an active survey, though, I'd be interested to see how you went about it.
I mean, if you're claiming that this is science, you have some actual objective numbers lined up, a proposal, a method by which you came up with the numbers, right?
Add to that the number of overtly evangelical/proselytization sites and church pages and I think it's far from certain which side of the AvT debate is helped more by the Internet.
Well, how would science go about answering this question?
in any census which monitors such things, which side has been growing during the years the internet has been in operation?
Are church congregations growing or shrinking?
Are overpopulated dioceses being split, or are undermanned ones being combined?
Are people answering the question with believer more than non-believer?
When people are bombarded with so many opposing truth claims in this so-called "post truth" epoch, not knowing who to believe, they revert back to trusting their OWN subjective judgements and opinions. As a result they pick whichever Google result they think is right. They create their own Facebook newsfeed which basically turns into a feedback loop.
And how would this impact your impression that there's 10x as many faithful as anti-faithful sites on the internet?
Don't 'believe' me?
I don't find your claims credible in a thread about science as opposed to, say, a thread about unsupported and self-serving assertions, no.
Do you understand why?


They say that atheists rule the Internet
 
I don't respond to posts by folks who down-vote me with expressions like "you're not fooling anyone" I'm not trying to fool anyone.
And this is supposed to be a Freethought community so giving me a negative rep point then inviting me to reply to a post is :censored: disingenuous!
 
There's plenty of hard atheists here who debate me ferociously and eloquently but they haven't negative repped me. Some have even up voted me DESPITE their opposite POV.

Thank you!
 
I don't respond to posts by folks who down-vote me with expressions like "you're not fooling anyone"
Yeah, I remember the private message.
But, first of all, telling me you're ignoring me is NOT ignoring me.
And second, the problems with your premise remain, even if you refuse to address them because of the person that brings them up.
I'm not trying to fool anyone.
I would beg to differ with respect to the post i commented on.
And this is supposed to be a Freethought community so giving me a negative rep point then inviting me to reply to a post is :censored: disingenuous!
Nonsense. I mean, really, utter nonsense.
I downvoted your rep for one post, as my personal reaction to the contents, not as a site administrator hamstringing your ability to express yourself.
And, really, going to the effort to ADD a censored emoji, rather than just either post what you fucking mean to say, OR refrain from even pretending to swear, that's just as stupid as telling me you're ignoring me.

Further, I am interested to see if you can support your claims, or if you're just going to make the assertions and then whine about excuses to not pony up. Like so many online apologists for the Truthiness of their Skybeast.
 
Perhaps one down vote can be cancelled out by an up vote.
Not sure how that whole karma thing works.
 
Back
Top Bottom