Two Questions for Atheists

[Czernobog]

Okay. Before I respond to this post, I'd like some clarification. Are you saying that some evidence can be subjective, or is it your position that all evidence is subjective.

Because you used the very generalized "evidence" throughout your post, suggesting that you do not believe that any evidence can possibly be objective.

Well, I would say that because all evidence can be subjective that it cannot be objective

That's what I needed to understand. That is demonstrably not true. Let's take gravity for instance. Objective evidence is needed to support the idea that gravity is a thing. 100 people go to the roof of the same building. Each one of them drops 100 balls that are the exact same size, and same mass off the building. In all 100 incidents the ball falls to the ground. That is not subjective. It is not possible for someone to drop a ball, and perceive it to float up. they all fall. That is objective evidence that gravity exists. Not all evidence is subjective. Not all evidence can be subjective. Some evidence is objective. This is the very basis of the scientific method - to separate the subjective from the objective.

 

[Boss]

Okay. Before I respond to this post, I'd like some clarification. Are you saying that some evidence can be subjective, or is it your position that all evidence is subjective.

Because you used the very generalized "evidence" throughout your post, suggesting that you do not believe that any evidence can possibly be objective.

Well, I would say that because all evidence can be subjective that it cannot be objective

That's what I needed to understand. That is demonstrably not true. Let's take gravity for instance. Objective evidence is needed to support the idea that gravity is a thing. 100 people go to the roof of the same building. Each one of them drops 100 balls that are the exact same size, and same mass off the building. In all 100 incidents the ball falls to the ground. That is not subjective. It is not possible for someone to drop a ball, and perceive it to float up. they all fall. That is objective evidence that gravity exists. Not all evidence is subjective. Not all evidence can be subjective. Some evidence is objective. This is the very basis of the scientific method - to separate the subjective from the objective.

But it's NOT demonstrably not true. Let's take gravity for instance. What IS gravity? You can't see it or touch it, smell taste or hear it. All you have done is demonstrate a phenomenon and conclude it must be this thing you call gravity. I could demonstrate the same phenomenon and conclude it must be this thing I call God. You see, the "evidence" is subjective. You think it's objective because that's what you believe... but you don't speak for everyone.

I'm glad you mention the scientific method in conjunction with gravity. The man who is responsible for the scientific method was Isaac Newton. He challenged Aristotle's contention that some things simply long to be near the Earth while others long to be near the heavens. (Aristotle's Gravity and Levity) Newton gave us the Laws of Motion and explained how gravity works. (He couldn't explain what gravity was.)

Now... IF evidence were objective as you claim, Newton could never be challenged. Objective evidence would be true no matter what. So when Einstein came along, he would have had to abandon his work in deference to Newton who had already determined how gravity worked.... we would have never had e=mc2, Einstein's Theory of General and Special Relativity. And if evidence were objective, we could've never had Einstein's theory challenged and the advent of quantum physics discovered.

So the scientific method depends on evidence being subjective and falsifiable. You can certainly claim and believe something is objective evidence but that, in of itself, is a subjective evaluation.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Before I respond to this post, I'd like some clarification. Are you saying that some evidence can be subjective, or is it your position that all evidence is subjective.

Because you used the very generalized "evidence" throughout your post, suggesting that you do not believe that any evidence can possibly be objective.

Well, I would say that because all evidence can be subjective that it cannot be objective

That's what I needed to understand. That is demonstrably not true. Let's take gravity for instance. Objective evidence is needed to support the idea that gravity is a thing. 100 people go to the roof of the same building. Each one of them drops 100 balls that are the exact same size, and same mass off the building. In all 100 incidents the ball falls to the ground. That is not subjective. It is not possible for someone to drop a ball, and perceive it to float up. they all fall. That is objective evidence that gravity exists. Not all evidence is subjective. Not all evidence can be subjective. Some evidence is objective. This is the very basis of the scientific method - to separate the subjective from the objective.

But it's NOT demonstrably not true. Let's take gravity for instance. What IS gravity? You can't see it or touch it, smell taste or hear it. All you have done is demonstrate a phenomenon and conclude it must be this thing you call gravity. I could demonstrate the same phenomenon and conclude it must be this thing I call God. You see, the "evidence" is subjective. You think it's objective because that's what you believe... but you don't speak for everyone

Okay. You're not talking about evidence. You're talking about conclusions. The evidence is objective. Your conclusion about the evidence can be subjective. However, unless your conclusion is based on premises that can be falsifiable, then it is not scientific. The laws of Gravity are based on premises that are falsifiable - it would have been possible to falsify the premise. No conclusion that that results in "God did it" is falsifiable, because the very existence of God is not falsifiable.

I'm glad you mention the scientific method in conjunction with gravity. The man who is responsible for the scientific method was Isaac Newton. He challenged Aristotle's contention that some things simply long to be near the Earth while others long to be near the heavens. (Aristotle's Gravity and Levity) Newton gave us the Laws of Motion and explained how gravity works. (He couldn't explain what gravity was.)

Now... IF evidence were objective as you claim, Newton could never be challenged. Objective evidence would be true no matter what. So when Einstein came along, he would have had to abandon his work in deference to Newton who had already determined how gravity worked.... we would have never had e=mc2, Einstein's Theory of General and Special Relativity. And if evidence were objective, we could've never had Einstein's theory challenged and the advent of quantum physics discovered.

That's not exactly how that went. Einstein didn't conclude that Newton's laws were incorrect. Rather, he concluded that they were incomplete. There's a difference. Just as Einstein's theories were incomplete, and through the application of quantum mechanics we are learning, slowly, how to refine, and perfect them.

So the scientific method depends on evidence being subjective and falsifiable. You can certainly claim and believe something is objective evidence but that, in of itself, is a subjective evaluation.

No. The scientific method relies on evidence being objective, and falsifiable. A conclusion being incomplete, or inaccurate, based on new evidence, doesn't make the evidence upon which that previous conclusion was drawn subjective. It just makes conclusion incomplete, or inaccurate.

You seem to be confusing evidence with conclusions.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Is this thread still going?

LOL

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Boss]

Okay. Before I respond to this post, I'd like some clarification. Are you saying that some evidence can be subjective, or is it your position that all evidence is subjective.

Because you used the very generalized "evidence" throughout your post, suggesting that you do not believe that any evidence can possibly be objective.

Well, I would say that because all evidence can be subjective that it cannot be objective

That's what I needed to understand. That is demonstrably not true. Let's take gravity for instance. Objective evidence is needed to support the idea that gravity is a thing. 100 people go to the roof of the same building. Each one of them drops 100 balls that are the exact same size, and same mass off the building. In all 100 incidents the ball falls to the ground. That is not subjective. It is not possible for someone to drop a ball, and perceive it to float up. they all fall. That is objective evidence that gravity exists. Not all evidence is subjective. Not all evidence can be subjective. Some evidence is objective. This is the very basis of the scientific method - to separate the subjective from the objective.

But it's NOT demonstrably not true. Let's take gravity for instance. What IS gravity? You can't see it or touch it, smell taste or hear it. All you have done is demonstrate a phenomenon and conclude it must be this thing you call gravity. I could demonstrate the same phenomenon and conclude it must be this thing I call God. You see, the "evidence" is subjective. You think it's objective because that's what you believe... but you don't speak for everyone

Okay. You're not talking about evidence. You're talking about conclusions. The evidence is objective. Your conclusion about the evidence can be subjective. However, unless your conclusion is based on premises that can be falsifiable, then it is not scientific. The laws of Gravity are based on premises that are falsifiable - it would have been possible to falsify the premise. No conclusion that that results in "God did it" is falsifiable, because the very existence of God is not falsifiable.

I'm glad you mention the scientific method in conjunction with gravity. The man who is responsible for the scientific method was Isaac Newton. He challenged Aristotle's contention that some things simply long to be near the Earth while others long to be near the heavens. (Aristotle's Gravity and Levity) Newton gave us the Laws of Motion and explained how gravity works. (He couldn't explain what gravity was.)

Now... IF evidence were objective as you claim, Newton could never be challenged. Objective evidence would be true no matter what. So when Einstein came along, he would have had to abandon his work in deference to Newton who had already determined how gravity worked.... we would have never had e=mc2, Einstein's Theory of General and Special Relativity. And if evidence were objective, we could've never had Einstein's theory challenged and the advent of quantum physics discovered.

That's not exactly how that went. Einstein didn't conclude that Newton's laws were incorrect. Rather, he concluded that they were incomplete. There's a difference. Just as Einstein's theories were incomplete, and through the application of quantum mechanics we are learning, slowly, how to refine, and perfect them.

So the scientific method depends on evidence being subjective and falsifiable. You can certainly claim and believe something is objective evidence but that, in of itself, is a subjective evaluation.

No. The scientific method relies on evidence being objective, and falsifiable. A conclusion being incomplete, or inaccurate, based on new evidence, doesn't make the evidence upon which that previous conclusion was drawn subjective. It just makes conclusion incomplete, or inaccurate.

You seem to be confusing evidence with conclusions.

The nature of considering something to be evidence is subjective. Yes, conclusions are also subjective. Concluding something is evidence is a conclusion.

Einstein did not conclude Newton's laws were incomplete, he found they were incorrect under certain circumstances. But again, if the evidence were objective, that couldn't have been the case. Something that can be falsified is subject to falsification... it IS subjective.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Before I respond to this post, I'd like some clarification. Are you saying that some evidence can be subjective, or is it your position that all evidence is subjective.

Because you used the very generalized "evidence" throughout your post, suggesting that you do not believe that any evidence can possibly be objective.

Well, I would say that because all evidence can be subjective that it cannot be objective

That's what I needed to understand. That is demonstrably not true. Let's take gravity for instance. Objective evidence is needed to support the idea that gravity is a thing. 100 people go to the roof of the same building. Each one of them drops 100 balls that are the exact same size, and same mass off the building. In all 100 incidents the ball falls to the ground. That is not subjective. It is not possible for someone to drop a ball, and perceive it to float up. they all fall. That is objective evidence that gravity exists. Not all evidence is subjective. Not all evidence can be subjective. Some evidence is objective. This is the very basis of the scientific method - to separate the subjective from the objective.

But it's NOT demonstrably not true. Let's take gravity for instance. What IS gravity? You can't see it or touch it, smell taste or hear it. All you have done is demonstrate a phenomenon and conclude it must be this thing you call gravity. I could demonstrate the same phenomenon and conclude it must be this thing I call God. You see, the "evidence" is subjective. You think it's objective because that's what you believe... but you don't speak for everyone

Okay. You're not talking about evidence. You're talking about conclusions. The evidence is objective. Your conclusion about the evidence can be subjective. However, unless your conclusion is based on premises that can be falsifiable, then it is not scientific. The laws of Gravity are based on premises that are falsifiable - it would have been possible to falsify the premise. No conclusion that that results in "God did it" is falsifiable, because the very existence of God is not falsifiable.

I'm glad you mention the scientific method in conjunction with gravity. The man who is responsible for the scientific method was Isaac Newton. He challenged Aristotle's contention that some things simply long to be near the Earth while others long to be near the heavens. (Aristotle's Gravity and Levity) Newton gave us the Laws of Motion and explained how gravity works. (He couldn't explain what gravity was.)

Now... IF evidence were objective as you claim, Newton could never be challenged. Objective evidence would be true no matter what. So when Einstein came along, he would have had to abandon his work in deference to Newton who had already determined how gravity worked.... we would have never had e=mc2, Einstein's Theory of General and Special Relativity. And if evidence were objective, we could've never had Einstein's theory challenged and the advent of quantum physics discovered.

That's not exactly how that went. Einstein didn't conclude that Newton's laws were incorrect. Rather, he concluded that they were incomplete. There's a difference. Just as Einstein's theories were incomplete, and through the application of quantum mechanics we are learning, slowly, how to refine, and perfect them.

So the scientific method depends on evidence being subjective and falsifiable. You can certainly claim and believe something is objective evidence but that, in of itself, is a subjective evaluation.

No. The scientific method relies on evidence being objective, and falsifiable. A conclusion being incomplete, or inaccurate, based on new evidence, doesn't make the evidence upon which that previous conclusion was drawn subjective. It just makes conclusion incomplete, or inaccurate.

You seem to be confusing evidence with conclusions.

The nature of considering something to be evidence is subjective. Yes, conclusions are also subjective. Concluding something is evidence is a conclusion.

Einstein did not conclude Newton's laws were incomplete, he found they were incorrect under certain circumstances. But again, if the evidence were objective, that couldn't have been the case. Something that can be falsified is subject to falsification... it IS subjective.

Yes. He found they didn't work on either very tiny, or very large scales. You know why that is? Because Newton had no way to observe objects very tiny, or very far away. His laws were not wrong they were just incomplete, because he did not have the ability to observe things the way Einstein did.
The nature of considering something to be evidence is subjective.

Only for people who are looking to support their premises as conclusions, rather than trying to falsify, or confirm them. Anyone looking to prove, or disprove a premise accepts any evidence that can be confirmed, verified, and replicated. You seem, from your posts, to have a quite a bit of disdain for science, and the scientific method.

 

[Boss]

Yes. He found they didn't work on either very tiny, or very large scales. You know why that is? Because Newton had no way to observe objects very tiny, or very far away. His laws were not wrong they were just incomplete, because he did not have the ability to observe things the way Einstein did.
The nature of considering something to be evidence is subjective.

Only for people who are looking to support their premises as conclusions, rather than trying to falsify, or confirm them. Anyone looking to prove, or disprove a premise accepts any evidence that can be confirmed, verified, and replicated. You seem, from your posts, to have a quite a bit of disdain for science, and the scientific method.

You aren't adhering to the scientific method. That's what I have disdain for.

What you have done, like many of your ilk, is to replace your innate spirituality with a religious belief in science. Your God is Science. You worship scientific theory. The problem with that is, theories are often proven invalid and replaced by newer ones. Science is an ongoing and never-ending investigation. It cannot provide you with empirical truths but that's what you naturally desire as a human being so you assume empirical truths. It offends you when someone such as myself challenges your beliefs.

 

[Tuatara]

An atheist is as intellectually dishonest as a Human religion subscriber, in terms of declared knowledge.

Really, how is stating that you do not believe in God/gods is intelectually dishonest and how is that even remotely a declared knowledge.

 

[Tuatara]

If you're NOT an Atheist (seems many of you aren't) then the question is not for you.

I don't think there are many real atheists. Even the great Christopher Hitchens (RIP Hitch), the author of the book "God is Not Great", said that he would believe if he had proof.

He did think of himself as an "anti-theist", however, in that he was very much against organized religion, regardless of whether God exists or not.
.

If you don't think Hitchens was an atheist then you have no idea what the word means.

 

[Czernobog]

Yes. He found they didn't work on either very tiny, or very large scales. You know why that is? Because Newton had no way to observe objects very tiny, or very far away. His laws were not wrong they were just incomplete, because he did not have the ability to observe things the way Einstein did.
The nature of considering something to be evidence is subjective.

Only for people who are looking to support their premises as conclusions, rather than trying to falsify, or confirm them. Anyone looking to prove, or disprove a premise accepts any evidence that can be confirmed, verified, and replicated. You seem, from your posts, to have a quite a bit of disdain for science, and the scientific method.

You aren't adhering to the scientific method. That's what I have disdain for.

What you have done, like many of your ilk, is to replace your innate spirituality with a religious belief in science. Your God is Science. You worship scientific theory. The problem with that is, theories are often proven invalid and replaced by newer ones. Science is an ongoing and never-ending investigation. It cannot provide you with empirical truths but that's what you naturally desire as a human being so you assume empirical truths. It offends you when someone such as myself challenges your beliefs.

It is what I want. I don't "worship" science, but I do respect it. I love the basic response of the scientist to a question: I don't know. Because I don't know invites everyone to experiment, and research, within the confines of the scientific method, for answers.

"God did it", on the other hand, does the opposite. That statement says, we don't need to ask any more questions, because no matter what the question that is the only answer necessary.

Hell Christians love to say it as a matter of course: Jesus is the answer. That's it. It doesn't matter the question, Jesus is the answer.

Sorry, that isn't the answer.

 

[Mac1958]

If you're NOT an Atheist (seems many of you aren't) then the question is not for you.

I don't think there are many real atheists. Even the great Christopher Hitchens (RIP Hitch), the author of the book "God is Not Great", said that he would believe if he had proof.

He did think of himself as an "anti-theist", however, in that he was very much against organized religion, regardless of whether God exists or not.
.

If you don't think Hitchens was an atheist then you have no idea what the word means.

There are plenty of resources. Go to YouTube and he'll explain the difference to you himself.
.

 

[Boss]

Yes. He found they didn't work on either very tiny, or very large scales. You know why that is? Because Newton had no way to observe objects very tiny, or very far away. His laws were not wrong they were just incomplete, because he did not have the ability to observe things the way Einstein did.
The nature of considering something to be evidence is subjective.

Only for people who are looking to support their premises as conclusions, rather than trying to falsify, or confirm them. Anyone looking to prove, or disprove a premise accepts any evidence that can be confirmed, verified, and replicated. You seem, from your posts, to have a quite a bit of disdain for science, and the scientific method.

You aren't adhering to the scientific method. That's what I have disdain for.

What you have done, like many of your ilk, is to replace your innate spirituality with a religious belief in science. Your God is Science. You worship scientific theory. The problem with that is, theories are often proven invalid and replaced by newer ones. Science is an ongoing and never-ending investigation. It cannot provide you with empirical truths but that's what you naturally desire as a human being so you assume empirical truths. It offends you when someone such as myself challenges your beliefs.

It is what I want. I don't "worship" science, but I do respect it. I love the basic response of the scientist to a question: I don't know. Because I don't know invites everyone to experiment, and research, within the confines of the scientific method, for answers.

"God did it", on the other hand, does the opposite. That statement says, we don't need to ask any more questions, because no matter what the question that is the only answer necessary.

Hell Christians love to say it as a matter of course: Jesus is the answer. That's it. It doesn't matter the question, Jesus is the answer.

Sorry, that isn't the answer.

Well, I addressed the "God Did It" meme back on Page 3, I think. My response to anyone claiming "God Did It" is simple... Of course God did it! HOW? That's what Science is charged with answering. The statement certainly doesn't say we don't need to ask anymore questions. It simply states what should be obvious to anyone who believes in an omnipotent and omniscient spirit. It has zero explanatory value and is equivalent, in my opinion, to the Atheist Scientist statement, "Just Because!"

Here is the problem with Science, it's incomplete. There are things about the universe that Science is not equipped to explore. We know this is true with the discovery of dark energy and dark matter. We also know there are some things physics has trouble rectifying. How the universe began... what's inside a black hole... quantum entanglement... collapse of the wave function... behavior of electrons at the subatomic level. We know some things exist which are not physically observable or testable.

Science doesn't know everything but humans have always had this hubris thinking as if we've got it all figured out. Some of you clowns will point to a theory and proclaim it "proven scientific fact!" But theories are not facts.

Consider this... We are wholly unable to experience the moment of present time. It eludes us because of physics. All we have is the perception of present after the fact, in the past. Physics has to happen for us to have that perception of the present. This means that every human experience is in the past, it's already happened when we experience it. We rely totally on faith that our perception of reality matches actual reality. That's really crazy when you think about it. Only God can know the present.

 

[hobelim]

Yes. He found they didn't work on either very tiny, or very large scales. You know why that is? Because Newton had no way to observe objects very tiny, or very far away. His laws were not wrong they were just incomplete, because he did not have the ability to observe things the way Einstein did.
The nature of considering something to be evidence is subjective.

Only for people who are looking to support their premises as conclusions, rather than trying to falsify, or confirm them. Anyone looking to prove, or disprove a premise accepts any evidence that can be confirmed, verified, and replicated. You seem, from your posts, to have a quite a bit of disdain for science, and the scientific method.

You aren't adhering to the scientific method. That's what I have disdain for.

What you have done, like many of your ilk, is to replace your innate spirituality with a religious belief in science. Your God is Science. You worship scientific theory. The problem with that is, theories are often proven invalid and replaced by newer ones. Science is an ongoing and never-ending investigation. It cannot provide you with empirical truths but that's what you naturally desire as a human being so you assume empirical truths. It offends you when someone such as myself challenges your beliefs.

It is what I want. I don't "worship" science, but I do respect it. I love the basic response of the scientist to a question: I don't know. Because I don't know invites everyone to experiment, and research, within the confines of the scientific method, for answers.

"God did it", on the other hand, does the opposite. That statement says, we don't need to ask any more questions, because no matter what the question that is the only answer necessary.

Hell Christians love to say it as a matter of course: Jesus is the answer. That's it. It doesn't matter the question, Jesus is the answer.

Sorry, that isn't the answer.

Well, I addressed the "God Did It" meme back on Page 3, I think. My response to anyone claiming "God Did It" is simple... Of course God did it! HOW? That's what Science is charged with answering. The statement certainly doesn't say we don't need to ask anymore questions. It simply states what should be obvious to anyone who believes in an omnipotent and omniscient spirit. It has zero explanatory value and is equivalent, in my opinion, to the Atheist Scientist statement, "Just Because!"

Here is the problem with Science, it's incomplete. There are things about the universe that Science is not equipped to explore. We know this is true with the discovery of dark energy and dark matter. We also know there are some things physics has trouble rectifying. How the universe began... what's inside a black hole... quantum entanglement... collapse of the wave function... behavior of electrons at the subatomic level. We know some things exist which are not physically observable or testable.

Science doesn't know everything but humans have always had this hubris thinking as if we've got it all figured out. Some of you clowns will point to a theory and proclaim it "proven scientific fact!" But theories are not facts.

Consider this... We are wholly unable to experience the moment of present time. It eludes us because of physics. All we have is the perception of present after the fact, in the past. Physics has to happen for us to have that perception of the present. This means that every human experience is in the past, it's already happened when we experience it. We rely totally on faith that our perception of reality matches actual reality. That's really crazy when you think about it. Only God can know the present.

How do you explain some people expressing detailed knowledge of future events as if it already happened many decades or even centuries before it actually happens?

 

[Boss]

How do you explain some people expressing detailed knowledge of future events as if it already happened many decades or even centuries before it actually happens?

I can't explain it. Indeed, it's weird. I was reading about this boy who was 6 or 7 and had detailed memories of WWII.. they started following up and found they fit with a soldier who died in battle. Eerie details that were impossible for the little boy to have known.

There are lots of strange things and phenomenon we cannot explain. My point about the time was a bit more focused on practical reality. We assume to be experiencing a present reality but whatever we're experiencing has already happened and is in the past by the time we experience it. We are stuck in the past due to physics.

 

[Tuatara]

If you're NOT an Atheist (seems many of you aren't) then the question is not for you.

I don't think there are many real atheists. Even the great Christopher Hitchens (RIP Hitch), the author of the book "God is Not Great", said that he would believe if he had proof.

He did think of himself as an "anti-theist", however, in that he was very much against organized religion, regardless of whether God exists or not.
.

If you don't think Hitchens was an atheist then you have no idea what the word means.

There are plenty of resources. Go to YouTube and he'll explain the difference to you himself.
.

I have all his books and have seen most of his videos. Yes he considered himself anti-theist but he also considered himself an atheist

 

[Czernobog]

Yes. He found they didn't work on either very tiny, or very large scales. You know why that is? Because Newton had no way to observe objects very tiny, or very far away. His laws were not wrong they were just incomplete, because he did not have the ability to observe things the way Einstein did.
The nature of considering something to be evidence is subjective.

Only for people who are looking to support their premises as conclusions, rather than trying to falsify, or confirm them. Anyone looking to prove, or disprove a premise accepts any evidence that can be confirmed, verified, and replicated. You seem, from your posts, to have a quite a bit of disdain for science, and the scientific method.

You aren't adhering to the scientific method. That's what I have disdain for.

What you have done, like many of your ilk, is to replace your innate spirituality with a religious belief in science. Your God is Science. You worship scientific theory. The problem with that is, theories are often proven invalid and replaced by newer ones. Science is an ongoing and never-ending investigation. It cannot provide you with empirical truths but that's what you naturally desire as a human being so you assume empirical truths. It offends you when someone such as myself challenges your beliefs.

It is what I want. I don't "worship" science, but I do respect it. I love the basic response of the scientist to a question: I don't know. Because I don't know invites everyone to experiment, and research, within the confines of the scientific method, for answers.

"God did it", on the other hand, does the opposite. That statement says, we don't need to ask any more questions, because no matter what the question that is the only answer necessary.

Hell Christians love to say it as a matter of course: Jesus is the answer. That's it. It doesn't matter the question, Jesus is the answer.

Sorry, that isn't the answer.

Well, I addressed the "God Did It" meme back on Page 3, I think. My response to anyone claiming "God Did It" is simple... Of course God did it! HOW? That's what Science is charged with answering. The statement certainly doesn't say we don't need to ask anymore questions. It simply states what should be obvious to anyone who believes in an omnipotent and omniscient spirit. It has zero explanatory value and is equivalent, in my opinion, to the Atheist Scientist statement, "Just Because!"

Any scientist who says, "Just because, " is an idiot. I know of no such scientist who says this. "I don't know" is not the same as "just because".

Here is the problem with Science, it's incomplete. There are things about the universe that Science is not equipped to explore. We know this is true with the discovery of dark energy and dark matter. We also know there are some things physics has trouble rectifying. How the universe began... what's inside a black hole... quantum entanglement... collapse of the wave function... behavior of electrons at the subatomic level. We know some things exist which are not physically observable or testable.

Of course it's incomplete. That's the reason for "I don't know," We know some things exist which are not physically observable or testable. That's not entirely true. While they may not be observable - yet (and that is a crucial point; we were able to measure the effects of atoms long before we could observe them) - they are absolutely testable by their affects on forces, and masses that we can observe.

Science doesn't know everything but humans have always had this hubris thinking as if we've got it all figured out. Some of you clowns will point to a theory and proclaim it "proven scientific fact!" But theories are not facts.

Again, that's not entirely true, from a scientific standpoint. A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. Again the significant concept there is "repeated experiments". So, it's not like a theory is just a "guess", or something. Over time, with enough supporting evidence, a theory does, in fact, carry the weight of fact. Dtawin's theory? It is pretty much established fact, because since its introduction, there has been no evidence to falsify it, nor has any other theory been introduced which fits the evidence that has been found. So, while it is the theory of evolution, until someone finds a reason not to trust it, it is taught as fact.

Consider this... We are wholly unable to experience the moment of present time. It eludes us because of physics. All we have is the perception of present after the fact, in the past. Physics has to happen for us to have that perception of the present. This means that every human experience is in the past, it's already happened when we experience it. We rely totally on faith that our perception of reality matches actual reality. That's really crazy when you think about it. Only God can know the present.

Sure, and we might all just be renderings in some huge computer program. Supposing a hypothesis which is unfalsifiable is meaningless.

 

[Mac1958]

If you're NOT an Atheist (seems many of you aren't) then the question is not for you.

I don't think there are many real atheists. Even the great Christopher Hitchens (RIP Hitch), the author of the book "God is Not Great", said that he would believe if he had proof.

He did think of himself as an "anti-theist", however, in that he was very much against organized religion, regardless of whether God exists or not.
.

If you don't think Hitchens was an atheist then you have no idea what the word means.

There are plenty of resources. Go to YouTube and he'll explain the difference to you himself.
.

I have all his books and have seen most of his videos. Yes he considered himself anti-theist but he also considered himself an atheist

I've seen repeatedly point out that he has not seen evidence. You can call that whatever you'd like. I've seen him make the distinction are clearly point out that his argument is primarily against theocracy.
.

 

[Czernobog]

Yes. He found they didn't work on either very tiny, or very large scales. You know why that is? Because Newton had no way to observe objects very tiny, or very far away. His laws were not wrong they were just incomplete, because he did not have the ability to observe things the way Einstein did.
The nature of considering something to be evidence is subjective.

Only for people who are looking to support their premises as conclusions, rather than trying to falsify, or confirm them. Anyone looking to prove, or disprove a premise accepts any evidence that can be confirmed, verified, and replicated. You seem, from your posts, to have a quite a bit of disdain for science, and the scientific method.

You aren't adhering to the scientific method. That's what I have disdain for.

What you have done, like many of your ilk, is to replace your innate spirituality with a religious belief in science. Your God is Science. You worship scientific theory. The problem with that is, theories are often proven invalid and replaced by newer ones. Science is an ongoing and never-ending investigation. It cannot provide you with empirical truths but that's what you naturally desire as a human being so you assume empirical truths. It offends you when someone such as myself challenges your beliefs.

It is what I want. I don't "worship" science, but I do respect it. I love the basic response of the scientist to a question: I don't know. Because I don't know invites everyone to experiment, and research, within the confines of the scientific method, for answers.

"God did it", on the other hand, does the opposite. That statement says, we don't need to ask any more questions, because no matter what the question that is the only answer necessary.

Hell Christians love to say it as a matter of course: Jesus is the answer. That's it. It doesn't matter the question, Jesus is the answer.

Sorry, that isn't the answer.

Well, I addressed the "God Did It" meme back on Page 3, I think. My response to anyone claiming "God Did It" is simple... Of course God did it! HOW? That's what Science is charged with answering. The statement certainly doesn't say we don't need to ask anymore questions. It simply states what should be obvious to anyone who believes in an omnipotent and omniscient spirit. It has zero explanatory value and is equivalent, in my opinion, to the Atheist Scientist statement, "Just Because!"

Here is the problem with Science, it's incomplete. There are things about the universe that Science is not equipped to explore. We know this is true with the discovery of dark energy and dark matter. We also know there are some things physics has trouble rectifying. How the universe began... what's inside a black hole... quantum entanglement... collapse of the wave function... behavior of electrons at the subatomic level. We know some things exist which are not physically observable or testable.

Science doesn't know everything but humans have always had this hubris thinking as if we've got it all figured out. Some of you clowns will point to a theory and proclaim it "proven scientific fact!" But theories are not facts.

Consider this... We are wholly unable to experience the moment of present time. It eludes us because of physics. All we have is the perception of present after the fact, in the past. Physics has to happen for us to have that perception of the present. This means that every human experience is in the past, it's already happened when we experience it. We rely totally on faith that our perception of reality matches actual reality. That's really crazy when you think about it. Only God can know the present.

How do you explain some people expressing detailed knowledge of future events as if it already happened many decades or even centuries before it actually happens?

Well, since there isn't any actual evidence of it occurring, other than Nostrodamus who was vague, and inaccurate at best, I don't really feel the need to. Yeah, yeah. I know. The Bible is full of prophesies. It's also full of contradictions, and inaccuracies.

 

[hobelim]

Yes. He found they didn't work on either very tiny, or very large scales. You know why that is? Because Newton had no way to observe objects very tiny, or very far away. His laws were not wrong they were just incomplete, because he did not have the ability to observe things the way Einstein did.
The nature of considering something to be evidence is subjective.

Only for people who are looking to support their premises as conclusions, rather than trying to falsify, or confirm them. Anyone looking to prove, or disprove a premise accepts any evidence that can be confirmed, verified, and replicated. You seem, from your posts, to have a quite a bit of disdain for science, and the scientific method.

You aren't adhering to the scientific method. That's what I have disdain for.

What you have done, like many of your ilk, is to replace your innate spirituality with a religious belief in science. Your God is Science. You worship scientific theory. The problem with that is, theories are often proven invalid and replaced by newer ones. Science is an ongoing and never-ending investigation. It cannot provide you with empirical truths but that's what you naturally desire as a human being so you assume empirical truths. It offends you when someone such as myself challenges your beliefs.

It is what I want. I don't "worship" science, but I do respect it. I love the basic response of the scientist to a question: I don't know. Because I don't know invites everyone to experiment, and research, within the confines of the scientific method, for answers.

"God did it", on the other hand, does the opposite. That statement says, we don't need to ask any more questions, because no matter what the question that is the only answer necessary.

Hell Christians love to say it as a matter of course: Jesus is the answer. That's it. It doesn't matter the question, Jesus is the answer.

Sorry, that isn't the answer.

Well, I addressed the "God Did It" meme back on Page 3, I think. My response to anyone claiming "God Did It" is simple... Of course God did it! HOW? That's what Science is charged with answering. The statement certainly doesn't say we don't need to ask anymore questions. It simply states what should be obvious to anyone who believes in an omnipotent and omniscient spirit. It has zero explanatory value and is equivalent, in my opinion, to the Atheist Scientist statement, "Just Because!"

Here is the problem with Science, it's incomplete. There are things about the universe that Science is not equipped to explore. We know this is true with the discovery of dark energy and dark matter. We also know there are some things physics has trouble rectifying. How the universe began... what's inside a black hole... quantum entanglement... collapse of the wave function... behavior of electrons at the subatomic level. We know some things exist which are not physically observable or testable.

Science doesn't know everything but humans have always had this hubris thinking as if we've got it all figured out. Some of you clowns will point to a theory and proclaim it "proven scientific fact!" But theories are not facts.

Consider this... We are wholly unable to experience the moment of present time. It eludes us because of physics. All we have is the perception of present after the fact, in the past. Physics has to happen for us to have that perception of the present. This means that every human experience is in the past, it's already happened when we experience it. We rely totally on faith that our perception of reality matches actual reality. That's really crazy when you think about it. Only God can know the present.

How do you explain some people expressing detailed knowledge of future events as if it already happened many decades or even centuries before it actually happens?

Well, since there isn't any actual evidence of it occurring, other than Nostrodamus who was vague, and inaccurate at best, I don't really feel the need to. Yeah, yeah. I know. The Bible is full of prophesies. It's also full of contradictions, and inaccuracies.

I wasn't necessarily referring to Nostradamus or the Bible, but since you brought it up one would have to understand what scripture is referring to before they would know whether any prophecy came true or not.

For instance, if you read a prophecy about the dead coming out of their graves you could sit in the graveyard for as long as some people will wait for Jesus to come down from the clouds in the sky and it will never come true.

However if you understood that the dead coming out of their graves and tombs is a prophecy about people rejecting all that is false about irrational beliefs and degrading religious practices and embracing a new life in harmony with actual reality you would have seen it fulfilled with your own eyes for your entire life if you weren't as blind as a dingbat.

Heck, you wouldn't even know it if the resurrected dead were standing everywhere, all around you, watching.

 

[Czernobog]

You aren't adhering to the scientific method. That's what I have disdain for.

What you have done, like many of your ilk, is to replace your innate spirituality with a religious belief in science. Your God is Science. You worship scientific theory. The problem with that is, theories are often proven invalid and replaced by newer ones. Science is an ongoing and never-ending investigation. It cannot provide you with empirical truths but that's what you naturally desire as a human being so you assume empirical truths. It offends you when someone such as myself challenges your beliefs.

It is what I want. I don't "worship" science, but I do respect it. I love the basic response of the scientist to a question: I don't know. Because I don't know invites everyone to experiment, and research, within the confines of the scientific method, for answers.

"God did it", on the other hand, does the opposite. That statement says, we don't need to ask any more questions, because no matter what the question that is the only answer necessary.

Hell Christians love to say it as a matter of course: Jesus is the answer. That's it. It doesn't matter the question, Jesus is the answer.

Sorry, that isn't the answer.

Well, I addressed the "God Did It" meme back on Page 3, I think. My response to anyone claiming "God Did It" is simple... Of course God did it! HOW? That's what Science is charged with answering. The statement certainly doesn't say we don't need to ask anymore questions. It simply states what should be obvious to anyone who believes in an omnipotent and omniscient spirit. It has zero explanatory value and is equivalent, in my opinion, to the Atheist Scientist statement, "Just Because!"

Here is the problem with Science, it's incomplete. There are things about the universe that Science is not equipped to explore. We know this is true with the discovery of dark energy and dark matter. We also know there are some things physics has trouble rectifying. How the universe began... what's inside a black hole... quantum entanglement... collapse of the wave function... behavior of electrons at the subatomic level. We know some things exist which are not physically observable or testable.

Science doesn't know everything but humans have always had this hubris thinking as if we've got it all figured out. Some of you clowns will point to a theory and proclaim it "proven scientific fact!" But theories are not facts.

Consider this... We are wholly unable to experience the moment of present time. It eludes us because of physics. All we have is the perception of present after the fact, in the past. Physics has to happen for us to have that perception of the present. This means that every human experience is in the past, it's already happened when we experience it. We rely totally on faith that our perception of reality matches actual reality. That's really crazy when you think about it. Only God can know the present.

How do you explain some people expressing detailed knowledge of future events as if it already happened many decades or even centuries before it actually happens?

Well, since there isn't any actual evidence of it occurring, other than Nostrodamus who was vague, and inaccurate at best, I don't really feel the need to. Yeah, yeah. I know. The Bible is full of prophesies. It's also full of contradictions, and inaccuracies.

I wasn't necessarily referring to Nostradamus or the Bible, but since you brought it up one would have to understand what scripture is referring to before they would know whether any prophecy came true or not.

For instance, if you read a prophecy about the dead coming out of their graves you could sit in the graveyard for as long as some people will wait for Jesus to come down from the clouds in the sky and it will never come true.

However if you understood that the dead coming out of their graves and tombs is a prophecy about people rejecting all that is false about irrational beliefs and degrading religious practices and embracing a new life in harmony with actual reality you would have seen it fulfilled with your own eyes for your entire life if you weren't as blind as a dingbat.

Heck, you wouldn't even know it if the resurrected dead were standing everywhere, all around you, watching.

Except there are five expectations of prophesy:

1. It must be accurate - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements.
2. It must be in the Bible - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfil the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental.
4. It must be improbable - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence.
5. It must have been unknown - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it.

Now, you're example falls short of the third principle for Biblical prophesy. You see, if the prophesy is not unambiguous, and requires an interpreter, then it isn't prophesy. So, either the prophesy means exactly what it said, or it isn't prophesy.