tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post7476023365122595940..comments2023-06-13T19:06:50.965-07:00Comments on Oasis: Absolute Truth DisclaimerKarlahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-47979338886086437272009-03-27T17:50:00.000-07:002009-03-27T17:50:00.000-07:00"cl has no clue what he's talking about Karla. The...<I>"cl has no clue what he's talking about Karla. The fact that some scientists are religious and talk about religion does not help you. In fact, it hurts you in this case. Do you honestly think that string theory and multiverse theory are only put forth by atheist scientists? Of course not."</I><BR/><BR/>Wow, you <I>really</I> botched that one. <BR/><BR/><I>"We don't know what was "before" the big bang, as I've continually said, making me the only intellectually honest person amongst the three of us (you, me, and cl)."</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, really? What about the part where I explicitly said, "I'm not making a "Something from Nothing" argument here?" I've never once said we "knew" what was before the big bang, so your appeal to "intellectual honesty" seems a bit suspect here. Burn the straw.<BR/><BR/><I>"This is flatly absurd as is cl's "point.""</I><BR/><BR/>You say my point is absurd, but you cannot refute the fact that theological dislikes influence research. Please, by all means, with your supreme rational abilities present a cogent argument why theological dislikes cannot possibly influence research. <BR/><BR/><I>"We don't see practicing scientists putting forward god as a hypothesis, regardless of their belief system. That should tell you something about whether science supports god or not... I predict you still won't get it."</I><BR/><BR/>I can't speak for Karla, but I didn't need any of the nonsense contained in your follow-up. You don't need to tell me that science can't prove God; it's me who's laughing at you for constantly, <I>rudely</I> demanding such of others and treating them like unintelligent peons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-78712537537342317232009-03-27T13:49:00.000-07:002009-03-27T13:49:00.000-07:00I said: "The fact that some scientists are religi...I said: "The fact that some scientists are religious and talk about religion does not help you. In fact, it hurts you in this case."<BR/><BR/>Let me explain further, since I know you won't get it.<BR/><BR/>It hurts you in this case, for a couple reasons. We don't see practicing scientists putting forward god as a hypothesis, regardless of their belief system. That should tell you something about whether science supports god or not. Also, even though some scientists believe, we still see alternative theories put forth, theories that you pooh pooh as not worth thinking about (without knowing anything about them of course), yet some of their proponents are believers, meaning that your stock defense that the atheists are putting forth weird ideas to avoid talking about god simply doesn't work.<BR/><BR/>I predict you still won't get it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-67118029427308538322009-03-27T13:37:00.000-07:002009-03-27T13:37:00.000-07:00cl has no clue what he's talking about Karla. The...cl has no clue what he's talking about Karla. The fact that some scientists are religious and talk about religion does not help you. In fact, it hurts you in this case. Do you honestly think that string theory and multiverse theory are only put forth by atheist scientists? Of course not. That's akin to saying that all evolutionary biologists are atheists and evolution is an atheist plot to undermine religious values or some other inane thing like that. This is flatly absurd as is cl's "point."<BR/><BR/>We don't know what was "before" the big bang, as I've continually said, making me the only intellectually honest person amongst the three of us (you, me, and cl). You have no warrant to interject your god into the equation. The science does not support you, nor does it even point in the direction of your god or any other god. It's rank ignorance that allows such false thinking to persist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-86904646884416978112009-03-27T12:26:00.000-07:002009-03-27T12:26:00.000-07:00Good point CL. Thanks.Good point CL. Thanks.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-26342789750672981232009-03-27T11:29:00.000-07:002009-03-27T11:29:00.000-07:00Karla:Indeed. What you've said has real-world prec...Karla:<BR/><BR/>Indeed. What you've said has real-world precedent. <BR/><BR/>In sound science, the explanation most supported by the evidence is the best explanation of how things work. What happens when that explanation is not the preferred explanation? Like any other fallible human, scientists can most certainly consciously and unconsciously bend their research to advance their preferred conclusion or avoid an unwelcome one. <BR/><BR/>Consider the following unusually candid statement made by British physicist John Gribbin on the big bang: “The biggest problem with the big bang theory of the origin of the universe is philosophical, perhaps even <I>theological</I>; what was there before the bang? <I>This problem alone was sufficient to give a great initial impetus to the steady state theory</I>, but with that theory now sadly in conflict with the observations the <I>best way round this difficulty</I> is provided by a model in which the universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely.” <BR/><BR/>Now - I'm not making a "Something from Nothing" argument here. The point is that the subtext of Gribbin’s statement is very revealing, especially the italicized words. We see that at least for him, resistance to a philosophical, "perhaps even theological" idea compromised clear and impartial research into the direction of two erroneous hypotheses (steady state cosmology and the oscillation hypothesis). <BR/><BR/>How many other times might this have happened and be happening?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-67306339596957178692009-03-27T08:42:00.000-07:002009-03-27T08:42:00.000-07:00"I know like I said atheists would rather propose ..."I know like I said atheists would rather propose the most complex radical natural answer to avoid a supernatural one."<BR/><BR/>As I explained, that's not what is happening, no matter how much you claim that it is. Stating that universes could be infinite is not the same as stating that god created all and was in turn created by a god, etc. Not even in the same ballpark.<BR/><BR/>"Ockham's Razor to go with more simple answer that fits. . . To me it would appear that suggesting infinite un-caused universes is more complex than the answer of an eternal being."<BR/><BR/>And, you would be wrong, as I've explained. god is the most complex "answer" anyone can propose, because the level of complexity for a god would be far and away higher than any other explanation, not to mention all the additional questions it raises, the added layer of the supernatural over the natural universe, and the fact that it can't get off the ground scientifically. You can continue to ignore all of this and erroneously assert that "goddidit" is simple, but it clearly is not. Further, "goddidit" doesn't actually explain anything.<BR/><BR/>"That is not to say that God is simple, but that the answer of God being the originator is much more simple than infinite universes spawning one after the other with no cause."<BR/><BR/>And, of course, you are mistaking and misunderstanding what string theory and multiverse theory are talking about. Plus, remember, these are hypotheses at this point that have observational and mathematical backing, which is far and away more than "goddidit" has. I seriously recommend that you learn more about science before you continue to make the sorts of remarks that you are prone to make, because it does not serve you well to be so anti-science (and yes, it is anti-science) when you clearly don't understand what it is you are railing against.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-39275081972324773932009-03-27T08:34:00.000-07:002009-03-27T08:34:00.000-07:00God breaks any box people try and place Him into. ...God breaks any box people try and place Him into. <BR/><BR/>Ockham's Razor to go with more simple answer that fits. . . To me it would appear that suggesting infinite un-caused universes is more complex than the answer of an eternal being. That is not to say that God is simple, but that the answer of God being the originator is much more simple than infinite universes spawning one after the other with no cause.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-14089897738586755442009-03-27T08:29:00.000-07:002009-03-27T08:29:00.000-07:00CL said "I agree, but the irony is hilarious. What...CL said "I agree, but the irony is hilarious. What are some typical atheist responses to a believer who proposes an infinite God that spawned this universe?"<BR/><BR/>I know like I said atheists would rather propose the most complex radical natural answer to avoid a supernatural one.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-20855532859184394822009-03-26T19:44:00.000-07:002009-03-26T19:44:00.000-07:00I always wonder why theists bring up Ockham's Razo...I always wonder why theists bring up Ockham's Razor as it points about as far away from God as possible, then again fundamentalists tend to put God in a tiny little box, which is just sad. I'm not saying that any of you are doing that, mind you.<BR/><BR/>These word verifications are funny, this one is "herstfu". Well, it's funny if you split between the "r"and the "s" and know what the second half stands for. ;-)Mike aka MonolithTMAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08385705390882035829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-74594261073053120412009-03-26T19:30:00.000-07:002009-03-26T19:30:00.000-07:00"There can be an infinite chain of universes or an...<I>"There can be an infinite chain of universes or an infinite universe that spawns others.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I agree, but the irony is hilarious. What are some typical atheist responses to a believer who proposes an infinite God that spawned this universe? <BR/><BR/><I>"There's actually scientific theories that deal with this that at current time are not yet falsifiable, but are backed by math and physics."</I><BR/><BR/>Karla, I'd ask Anon to back this up with evidence, and again, the irony of Anon offering unfalsifiable ideas in response to your concerns of "evidence" is amusing.<BR/><BR/><I>"That is where multi-verse and metaverse theories come from."</I><BR/><BR/>This is partly true, but omits that said ideas have roots in science's attempt to account for the astronomical odds against life's existence. Part of the allure of multiverse cosmologies is that they stack probability in naturalism's favor.<BR/><BR/>Which goes right along with, "It's like they propose the most complex and unprovable natural explanation to avoid a supernatural explanation and this is contradictory to the Ocaams Razor of going with the simple answer."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-42428031306982423852009-03-26T14:05:00.000-07:002009-03-26T14:05:00.000-07:00karla said: So no one argument or set of propositi...karla said: So no one argument or set of propositions and evidences stand alone.<BR/><BR/>...and, your point being?CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-2768674493540341282009-03-26T13:52:00.000-07:002009-03-26T13:52:00.000-07:00"God's existence weaves a full worldview that deal..."God's existence weaves a full worldview that deals with origin, purpose, meaning, morals, desires, history, etc."<BR/><BR/>Which, weirdly enough, are different from believer to believer. god's existence actually brings up more questions that are assumed to be answered by the believer, but are actually not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-1200204061290688652009-03-26T13:50:00.000-07:002009-03-26T13:50:00.000-07:00"Even if our universe came out of another universe..."Even if our universe came out of another universe that universe would need a beginning. A multi-universe or meta-universe doesn't avoid the need for a beginning."<BR/><BR/>Incorrect. There can be an infinite chain of universes or an infinite universe that spawns others.<BR/><BR/>"Is there evidence of a meta or multi universe? I have heard people posit aliens, multi-universes, crystals, etc. to avoid the necessity of a Beginner."<BR/><BR/>Wrong again. There's actually scientific theories that deal with this that at current time are not yet falsifiable, but are backed by math and physics. This isn't about avoid a god, it's about exploring the physics and trying to actually find out what happened.<BR/><BR/>"Many scientists posit that there was nothing before the Big Bang."<BR/><BR/>False. All origins models begin with something there and expand outwards.<BR/><BR/>"Also that the universe had a beginning."<BR/><BR/>Which I explained to you doesn't mean what you think it means. By "beginning," one means that there was no such thing as time because we measure time by light. The universe as we know it "started" at the big bang, but that's quite different from what you are trying to make it out to be.<BR/><BR/>"I know not all scientist agree, but it seems that the dissenters suggest things that seem more odd and complex than God's existence."<BR/><BR/>Again, false. god's existence is the most complex thing one can posit.<BR/><BR/>"It's like they propose the most complex and unprovable natural explanation to avoid a supernatural explanation and this is contradictory to the Ocaams Razor of going with the simple answer."<BR/><BR/>god is the most non-simple answer there is. And, you seem to be highly ignorant of the scientific method. People have hypothesized god, but it's never gone any further, since no one can figure out how to devise a method to test for god. One is free to hypothesize anything, the trick is to actually devise testing that one can do to try and falsify or support the hypothesis. The hypotheses being put forward generally should come from somewhere - some observation or previously obtain data, or maybe mathematics or something like that. That is where multi-verse and metaverse theories come from. the god hypothesis, which is a non-starter, came from superstition and wishful thinking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-13903432324592880682009-03-26T13:38:00.000-07:002009-03-26T13:38:00.000-07:00Why do people promote the myth that one can't prov...Why do people promote the myth that one can't prove a negative? Sure, it might be more difficult and exhaustive to prove certain negatives over others, but to simply say, "can't prove a negative" is not intellectually honest.<BR/><BR/><I>"The universe as we know it took the form it is currently in at some point when time as we understand it came into being."</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but that statement seems to contradict itself: "The universe took its current form at some point when time came into being?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-8748630207799940592009-03-26T12:46:00.000-07:002009-03-26T12:46:00.000-07:00Cyber, God's existence weaves a full worldview t...Cyber, <BR/><BR/> God's existence weaves a full worldview that deals with origin, purpose, meaning, morals, desires, history, etc. So to posit a supernatural beginning is not in isolation of all the other facets of the full worldview of God's existence. It's a package deal. So no one argument or set of propositions and evidences stand alone.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-19541476768741427072009-03-26T12:41:00.000-07:002009-03-26T12:41:00.000-07:00Even if our universe came out of another universe ...Even if our universe came out of another universe that universe would need a beginning. A multi-universe or meta-universe doesn't avoid the need for a beginning. Is there evidence of a meta or multi universe? I have heard people posit aliens, multi-universes, crystals, etc. to avoid the necessity of a Beginner. <BR/><BR/>Many scientists posit that there was nothing before the Big Bang. Also that the universe expanded from a singular point and moves outward. Also that the universe had a beginning. I know not all scientist agree, but it seems that the dissenters suggest things that seem more odd and complex than God's existence. It's like they propose the most complex and unprovable natural explanation to avoid a supernatural explanation and this is contradictory to the Ocaams Razor of going with the simple answer.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-27493741319404749012009-03-26T12:38:00.000-07:002009-03-26T12:38:00.000-07:00karla said: it still logically appears that a Firs...karla said: it still logically appears that a First Mover or First Cause or some kind of metaphysical Being is required for life to start.<BR/><BR/>That's not logical at all. The only logical thing to say is: We don't yet know how life first emerged. If there is no evidence for a supernatural origin you cannot put forward a supernatural origin.CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-85753441755699659972009-03-26T10:59:00.000-07:002009-03-26T10:59:00.000-07:00"Not necessarily. Science would need to give a via..."Not necessarily. Science would need to give a viable explanation of how something physical could come from nothing."<BR/><BR/>That's god of the gaps. Once you rely on science not being able to explain something and saying, "Therefore god," you've crossed over into god of the gaps territory. Also, you've made an assumption that "nothing" was there and that "something" came from "nothing" which is not a viable assumption, considering that you don't know that that was the case.<BR/><BR/>"Also, it's not a God of the gaps to posit God, because I do not posit Him because science hasn't filled the gap, but because it is a viable explanation of the beginning."<BR/><BR/>It's only viable if you have some evidence that it is.<BR/><BR/>"Everything with a beginning has a Beginner and the universe had a beginning, and thus a Beginner."<BR/><BR/>The universe as we know it took the form it is currently in at some point when time as we understand it came into being. Your overly simplistic assessment of what happened is dangerous as it leads to bad inferences, like the ones you are making. We don't know that the universe 'came from nothing.' We don't know that it 'began' at the big bang. We also don't know if the formation of our universe wasn't part of some natural process from some other metaverse, thus negating any supposed need for god. Again, you have to provide evidence that god exists and caused the universe to exist.<BR/><BR/>"I also wasn't saying that the Cosmological argument was insufficient only that I knew you all to already be familiar with it."<BR/><BR/>It is insufficient though, and for the reasons I'm pointing out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-46487003744340927172009-03-26T10:05:00.000-07:002009-03-26T10:05:00.000-07:00"Can't prove a negative, but I don't have to. You ..."Can't prove a negative, but I don't have to. You have to provide evidence that god was involved."<BR/><BR/>Not necessarily. Science would need to give a viable explanation of how something physical could come from nothing. <BR/><BR/>Also, it's not a God of the gaps to posit God, because I do not posit Him because science hasn't filled the gap, but because it is a viable explanation of the beginning. Everything with a beginning has a Beginner and the universe had a beginning, and thus a Beginner. <BR/><BR/>I also wasn't saying that the Cosmological argument was insufficient only that I knew you all to already be familiar with it.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-16100939648613529522009-03-26T07:33:00.000-07:002009-03-26T07:33:00.000-07:00"ie that it hasn't been proven God was not involve..."ie that it hasn't been proven God was not involved in our origins..."<BR/><BR/>Can't prove a negative, but I don't have to. You have to provide evidence that god was involved.<BR/><BR/>"...and while my scientific knowledge is rudimentary it still logically appears that a First Mover or First Cause or some kind of metaphysical Being is required for life to start.""<BR/><BR/>I've already explained this to you. That is NOT a requirement. We don't have enough information, scientific or otherwise, to claim anything of the sort. Resorting to god is either god of the gaps reasoning (i.e. we don't know how/why it happened, so god was involved) or it is seriously over-stepping the rational/logical/evidentiary grounds that we have (i.e. I'm going to make assumptions X, Y, and Z and then claim that this implies god must have started the universe). Further, this does nothing to point one toward the Xian god, even if your assertion were true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-24056787164273678812009-03-26T05:33:00.000-07:002009-03-26T05:33:00.000-07:00Thank you everyone for the birthday wishes. Yes, M...Thank you everyone for the birthday wishes. Yes, Mike you remembered correctly! <BR/><BR/>As for origins . . .<BR/>I did get off topic to go there not sure where I was going with that at the time. I think it had to do with the discussion of accepting things on faith. (ie that it hasn't been proven God was not involved in our origins and while my scientific knowledge is rudimentary it still logically appears that a First Mover or First Cause or some kind of metaphysical Being is required for life to start.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-37603179237745210112009-03-25T18:46:00.000-07:002009-03-25T18:46:00.000-07:00"I agree."Thank you."I agree."<BR/><BR/>Thank you.Mike aka MonolithTMAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08385705390882035829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-81215652995372136042009-03-25T18:31:00.000-07:002009-03-25T18:31:00.000-07:00Karla: "I am not criticizing evolution for not add...Karla: "I am not criticizing evolution for not addressing questions of origin."<BR/><BR/>Anon: "This is a bit disingenuous, is it not? I was not addressing origins when (you) answered me and brought it up. I was addressing what we know and how in the matter of evidence vs. faith."<BR/><BR/>Anon is correct in the irrelevant non-sequitur that Karla brought up origins, but unfortunately that's not the out he needs. With his gravity / universe analogy, he <I>directly implied</I> Karla was "criticizing evolution for not addressing questions of origin," when she wasn't. So no, it was not disingenuous of Karla to defend herself on this point, IMO. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, Karla, because I'm just trying to be sure I'm following things correctly here. <BR/><BR/><B>Mike,</B><BR/><BR/>Earlier in the thread you said,<BR/><BR/><I>"..if I do not experience it, then how can I believe it?"</I><BR/><BR/>I agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-51526619221109667822009-03-25T13:48:00.000-07:002009-03-25T13:48:00.000-07:00"I was not addressing origins when answered me and..."I was not addressing origins when answered me and brought it up."<BR/><BR/>Should have read "I was not addressing origins when you answered me and brought it up."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-25535291546917019592009-03-25T12:39:00.000-07:002009-03-25T12:39:00.000-07:00Okay, we can address each other by omission if you...Okay, we can address each other by omission if you want, but it might get just as confusing as leaving different handles all over the place. For example:<BR/><BR/>said,<BR/><BR/><I>"This is a bit disingenuous, is it not? I was not addressing origins when answered me and brought it up."</I><BR/><BR/>yet, also previously said,<BR/><BR/><I>"That's like saying that the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't explain how the universe started."</I><BR/><BR/>Is that not an analogy <I>clearly</I> addressing origins? Let's be fair here. Karla catches a lot of flack for defending her ideas and it's okay, everyone here seems like good people. But come on, <I>someone's</I> gotta call this one out besides me. If we take <I>disingenuous</I> to mean "not taking known information into account," what happens when we re-parse 's attempted defense?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com