Yes I'm not an atheist, I'm a Christian and I came here to debate.
Does anyone see any faults with Christianity?
This seems like a very logical good ste and I'm exited to talk with you all.

Views: 3352

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There are lots of folks who reject consensus statements in science for ideological reasons.   Most prominently the global warming and evolution deniers at the moment.

You are free to reject such consensus statement from the National Academy of Sciences as well.   That just helps other people evaluate your views and arguments.

"The Scientific Method is a childish notion. It's something that barely belongs in elementary school. It bears almost no resemblance to the actual practice of science in any of the disciplines."

I can see how that pov can be articulated and reasonably interpreted wrt to the finer points of methodology between different disciplines. I *finally* understand why you feel it's a useful pov.

Now the question is, as an academic professional, can you possibly package this "actual practice of science" [across disciplines] suitable for consumption by our children, without resorting to the meme of "scientific method"?

No, obviously he can't and therefore has not served up, in detail, his "alt scientific method", because he is full of b.s.

Get him to debate L Krauss on the subject, oh wait, LK would NVR waste his time and reputation debating "Dr. Bob".

"No, obviously he can't..."

I wouldn't bet on that, Fred. I'll bet he's thought this out further than he's let on until now, or he's been fishing for ideas from smart people here.

I could he wrong, but anyway, I (and I believe he) think it's an important question.

No. Relativists never think things through. They cannot satisfactorally answer these two questions, first in terms of what most scientists and the standard view of science is:

1. What sets science apart from other fields of study/inquiry?

2. By what [specific] means do you determine if a paper or book written by a scientist is acceptable, unacceptable or exceptional?

And then for them to take their relativist post-modern view of science as it actually functions and answer these two questions:

1. What sets science apart from other fields of study/inquiry?

2. By what [specific] means do you determine if a paper or book written by a scientist is acceptable, unacceptable or exceptional?


There is yet to be an answer by any relativist, post-modernist, french philosopher that doesn't break the rules of critical discourse (usually a lot of word salad) or doesn't reduce to "it's all an illusion" (which doesn't answer the question anyways) or unsuccesfuly attempt to demonstrate who it is all subjectively arbitrary. The philosopher Boghossian (among many others) dedicated several fabulous works to thoroughly debunk the very few relativists who attempted to demonstrate their claims with rigorous research, evaluation, examples and evidence (Boghossian achieved this in much much shorter books without the word salad or trickery).

No. Don't hold your breath for an answer. There isn't one. Only a claim that "there is nothing special about science when it comes to knowledge and it is a faulty, arbitrary, human subjective approach to knowledge". Big claims, bold claims, repeated endlessly, yet when challenged completly unable to back it up with intellectual integrity. (By the way I highly recommend reading Boghosians "Fear of knowledge" or "Oxfords A very short introduction to the philosophy of science".

will check library...

"It's only you atheists who get all hung up with the "supernatural".  I find it odd.  Looking at the universe with a theistic perspective I find perfectly natural.  I'm just trying to see and understand.  Nothing 'magic'.  That's your hangup too."

Because transubstantiation and bodily transcendence into another plane of existence aren't the equivalent of magic? Being impregnated by an entity without a corporeal body isn't magic? Turning water into wine and walking on water isn't magic? Casting demons into a herd of pigs isn't magic? Wiping mud on a man's eyes to cure blindness isn't magic? I have a feeling that any rational individual would get hung up on these ideas, not just those of us who have trouble believing in the supernatural.

I mean, if I gave you an oreo and told you that even though it looked like an oreo, tasted and smelled like an oreo, crunched like an oreo, and that even your microbiome would break it apart just the same as any oreo, but it wasn't an oreo. It was in actuality a hamburger, you'd think I was crazy. And then if I said that I had the power to change any oreo into a hamburger just by waving my hands over it and saying a few choice phrases, you'd think I was a crazy person trying to cast a spell.

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck....

It could still be a goat if your Catholic! :D

'Transubstantiation'?  Wait a minute, does this make Heysus the original 'Cracker'?  It all makes sense to me now...

Nabisco loves religion, cha ching!

i agree, it is the equivalent of magic

so is the big bang, the mighty uncaused cause.

we both have things we cant understand about our beliefs, we have to rely on proof.


No. The theory of the bib bang is not the same statement/claim/proposition that god created the Earth in seven days.

First...some basics about making critically sound statements. Inductive arguments are some what synonymous with "beyond reasonable doubt" in a court room case. What it means is...if you put premise A with premise B and make a logical conclusion that follows, then it is very likely the conclusion is correct and just as important, it is very unlikely that the conclusion is wrong.

Let's try an example:

A. you find your bike is missing

B. there is a trail left by the tires of a bicycle in the snow that leads away from your house

C. the trail starts where your bike was and continues off into the distance


Someone stole your bike and rode it away from your house.

(as a bonus statement assuming the guy just stole it and is riding it: The bike rider is riding his bike away from you.


As you can see...the three premises are all pretty straight forward. It is undeniable that your bicycle is gone, it is highly likely it was ridden away and the trail from where it was is very likely left from your bike as it was being ridden away. They are all very strong premises (especially if there is not conflicting evidence to the contrary that can be find which casts doubt).

The conclusion is extremely likely based on the premises. It's quite likely that someone took your bike and rode it away and it's unlikely that someone didn't take your bike and ride it away.


Now lets try this one:

A. Observation shows that when an object is moving away relative to reveals a red shift if you measure the change in the wavelength of light being emitted or reflected/refracted from the object. 

B. All galaxies outside of the gluster that our galaxy is in, shows a red shift when observed.

Conclusion: All these galaxies are all moving away from us


Just as we know the bicycle thief is riding the bicycle away from us...we also know that all the galaxies outside our cluster are moving away from us.

We can now make a further conclusion

A All galaxies [outside our cluster] are moving away from us.

B. Observation shows by comparing rate of change in redshift that the same is the case for all other galaxies (that is...from the point of view of any other galaxy....all galaxies are moving away from it as well).

Conclusion: The universe is expading as the space between all galaxies increase (and do so at an ever increasing rate).


Now we can make another inductive argument

A Since we started observing other universes, going into the future they have always shown a red shift (they have always been moving away from us).

B. Before we started observing those galaxies they almost certainly were closer to each other at some point.

Conclusion: The universe has expanded and unless there is some other unthinkable explanation...they eventually started all together at one point and have expanded away form one another ever since.


The last conclusion is a weak one, based solely on the premises given, but it becomes stronger based on other evidence such as background radiation, our limited knowledge of dark matter, computer models etc. 

The big bang is not magic, it's a very very strong inductive argument based on strong premises. If they were to submit themselves to the kind of scrutiny in a court of law to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt...the argument would win.

Now lets look at a bad deductive argument (that the conclussion necesarily follows from the premises)

A Bill Clinton says he didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky

B. What Bill clinton says is true

Conclusion: Bill clinton didn't have sexual relations with monica lewinsky. 

The argument itself is sound, it would follow that if a and b are the case then yes the conclusion would be correct. The first premises is true...we have Clinton on tape saying this. The second premise is not so strong. Not only do politicians frequently lie but we can point out several lies Clinton told before the case.

Bad argument as the second premise is not properly demonstrated.


Now let's look at the deductive argument of God creating the world in seven days:

A. An ancient book claims that God created the Earth in seven days.

B. The content of the ancient book is true

Conclusion: God created the Earth in seven days.


This would be a strong inductive argument if the premises were strong ones. The first is, it is absolutely certain, anyone can open up the bible and read for themselves the first few chapters of the first book. The second premises though is not strong. It is not strong i the slightest. Why? Because the book is found to contain numerous cases of demonstrably incorrect historical information and scientific information, fatal conflicts of facts and incompatible qualities of persons or God, show prophecies which failed to materialize, shows signs of historical revisionism, contain countless claims that are utterly impossible to verify in any way.


As you can see...the argument behind the Big Bang is a sound one...while that of God Creating the Earth in Seven not. 

(p.s. everyone, please correct any errors I've made as I'm fairly rusty on a few details about the Big Bang and it's challenging to spell out inductive arguments in the form of a narrative)

But if Genesis said God created the universe with a big bang you could believe it, right?


© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service