Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Since a scientific explanation has been proven to be a logical impossibility


Forums Forums Science and Technology Since a scientific explanation has been proven to be a logical impossibility

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 101 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #307565
    3point14rat
    Participant

    So is Holmes proposing that because science doesn’t have the tools to adequately describe initial conditions before the Big Bang occurred, to his personal satisfaction – that means we can infer that all of science is no better than religion in understanding the physical world around us?

    That’s a common mistake made by some theists. Their ignorance (of science and atheism and logic) becomes the main source of their arguments.

    Misunderstandings like:

    • thinking that not believing in a god leads to eugenics,
    • thinking atheists hate god,
    • thinking if science got something wrong once it’s a failed methodology, and
    • thinking morals can only come from religion,

    all prove that they are ignorant of the most basic concepts.

    If the difference was high level (like, is punctuated equilibrium really a thing), there could be a discussion, but in this situation one side doesn’t even understand the fundamentals of the topic.

     

     

    #307569
    Lausten
    Keymaster

    So is Holmes proposing that because science doesn’t have the tools to adequately describe initial conditions before the Big Bang occurred, to his personal satisfaction – that means we can infer that all of science is no better than religion in understanding the physical world around us?

    I thought that’s what he meant, and I said so. He replied in his usual indignant tone that it was not what he meant. He’s good at that though, so I was sure to ask him to specify if science was useful for things other than describing the origin of the universe, and he gave specific examples. So, he’ll say that, but you have to really corner him.

    Prior to that, he stated that because there is the theory of ID, there is no need for quantum states or string theories. Again, if you pressed him, he’d probably say it’s fine if someone wants to study that. But he’s obviously not the guy you would want making the decision to continue funding CERN.

    #307593
    Lausten
    Keymaster

    When you’re done berating whomever you think you are berating, I have a question. Do you agree that we do exist? Just ignore the problem of how we came to exist for a moment and answer that question. Then we can get back to questions about what came before us or more complex questions like how do you describe cause and effect in a universe that doesn’t have time.

    #307595
    Blaire
    Participant

    @ Sherlock

    Please consider joining The Worthy Christian forum or the Joel Olsteen groupies. You can All Thank the Lord Our Savior for Murder’s, Child Molesters, War, World Hunger and inflicting Cancer on sweet innocent children. Apparently, God is just exhausted from performing miracles.

    In the meantime, I’ll be praying that Cheezus chooses you for the next Immaculate Conception 🙏

    #307596
    Lausten
    Keymaster

    Always hard to tell with the mysterious Sherlock. Did I stump him? Is he just mad? Does he have something to do besides respond to my stupid questions?

    The reason I ask the question is that is where the conundrum begins. We exist but why? Why is there existence of anything at all? Then you can start to ask where existence came from. To get there, we work backwards because that’s the only avenue we have if you are looking for natural explanations. If you want a supernatural explanation, that skips that problem, but you still have some questions to answer:

    What are the attributes of this supernatural explanation?

    Why is it not bound by time and/or space?

    Does it have other boundaries? If so you are just starting over with the same line of reasoning. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you have to acknowledge which laws you are talking about and how one set causes or effects the other.

    #307738
    Blaire
    Participant

    @ Sherlock

    Next time your talking to your invisible monster, will you please ask him these 36 questions?  Thank You 🤗

    #307742
    Lausten
    Keymaster

    I listened to this while getting ready for work today. Pretty simple if you’ve done any research at all. He spends 10 minutes talking about himself, then does some bad math, then finally gets to his philosophical arguments about how morality can’t come from random processes, and being created in the image of God makes more sense.

    What blows me away is his lead up. He presents a story of someone being raped, and how we all have a visceral reaction to that. We know it’s wrong. Therefore God. It does not seem to occur to him that the rapist is in the same image as the rest of us. Are we just supposed to know that some people aren’t God’s children, but something else, non-God’s children? He is incredulous that anyone could believe we act the way we do based on natural causes but says nothing about people acting the way they do despite this loving God he keeps mentioning.

    To me, it makes perfect sense that we are flawed, because we are created by a mindless system that is reacting to natural pressures and driven by the desire to survive. There is no particular reason for this desire, but once we started figuring out we could depend on each other for survival we started working out how to do that.

    #307749
    Blaire
    Participant

    @Lausten

    👏👏👏👏

    I Just watched the video.

    Perhaps someone should educate Justin in rape. Let’s see….I’m pretty sure God did not whisper in Mother Mary’s teen ears and say “Do you mind if I insert some magical sperm in your body? You will be known forever as The Virgin Mary and I will write a book about us” 🤔

    Ummmm….Mother Mary was raped by an invisible monster! Pretty sure it was Not consensual and she was a minor.

    #307765
    Blaire
    Participant

    @Sherlock/Justin

    If you’re interested in debating a Harvard Educated Biblical Scholar, please Private Message Me.

    #307767
    3point14rat
    Participant

    You can find a short, simple and entertaining explanation of the Big Bang here… https://www.space.com/31192-what-triggered-the-big-bang.html

     

    #307770
    Write4U
    Participant

    Since when has a scientific (rather than a biblical) explanation been proven to be a logical impossibility?  Can we start with that, please?

    #307772

    Holmes, I have a question. Do you agree that we do exist?

    Ignore the problem of how we came to exist for a moment and answer that question first.

     

    h/t Lausten  😉

    #307778
    Lausten
    Keymaster

    @Sherlock/Justin

    If you’re interested in debating a Harvard Educated Biblical Scholar, please Private Message Me.

    Justin’s show is on Christian radio and has hosted many Biblical Scholars of all stripes, atheist to fundamentalist. Most shows also include a non-believer. I listened to his podcast for over a year before I realized he was a firm believer. He stays neutral as the host most of the time. It’s the kind of discussion we need more of.

    #307994
    Advocatus
    Participant

    Write4U wrote: “Since when has a scientific (rather than a biblical) explanation been proven to be a logical impossibility?  Can we start with that, please?”

    As I understand it, Sherlock believes that the universe originated from literally “nothing”, which he defines as the complete absence of anything having any quality whatsoever. From this he deduces that since science deals only with things that have existence, it cannot formulate any theory about how it came to exist from “nothing”. This, he says, is “cold logic”.

    Personally I tend to agree with what you yourself wrote earlier (post #307134). From his premise, the logical deduction that I would make is that the universe must NOT have originated from “nothing” because that would be a contradiction in terms. The universe must have ALWAYS had some quality or another. The Big Bang represents not so much the origin of the universe as a change from one state to another. But then I’m just an ignorant layman.

    #308027

    From (Holme’s) premise, the logical deduction that I would make is that the universe must NOT have originated from “nothing” because that would be a contradiction in terms.

    The universe must have ALWAYS had some quality or another.

    The Big Bang represents not so much the origin of the universe as a change from one state to another.

    Okay Holmes, looks like you’re up.

    I’m looking forward to seeing how you handle this challenge to your train of logic.

     

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 101 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.