Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9176 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,655 Year: 4,912/9,624 Month: 260/427 Week: 6/64 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6203
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 271 of 301 (437433)
11-30-2007 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Hyroglyphx
11-29-2007 7:52 PM


Re: Who is misreading?
NJ writes:
No. Pretty good?
Langauge of God
We all read these books with our own bias but I thought that it was a well written book and I think he accomplished what he hoped to.
GDR writes:
Who says that there is no need for God to accomplish evolution? Dawkins?
NJ writes:
No one can say it meaningfully because it would have to presuppose so much. But if nature isn't guided by God, they argue, and that there are naturalistic explanations for why nature is what it is, then where in their does God fit in? And why, if we were to go by the Biblical account, does God languish with the minor details of life if humans are supposed to be the central figure?
At some point you are going to have to split your allegiance one way or the other it seems to me.
It could also be said the other way around. "Who said that there is a need for God to accomplish evolution?" It can be said either way. Evolution is agnostic no matter how much Dawkins, Hitchins or fundamentalist Christians want to protest.
There may well be naturalist explanations for why nature is what it is, but things like memes are no more scientific than just saying that God did it.
I don't see why you think I have any problem with allegiance. I'm actually in pretty good company with the likes of CS Lewis and NT Wright.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-29-2007 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Modulous, posted 11-30-2007 7:12 AM GDR has replied
 Message 275 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2007 11:45 AM GDR has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 272 of 301 (437455)
11-30-2007 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by GDR
11-30-2007 1:54 AM


. Evolution is agnostic no matter how much Dawkins, Hitchins or fundamentalist Christians want to protest.
In fact it can't comment on God no matter how much anyone protests. I've never heard Dawkins or Hitchens argue in the way you imply, but I have seen plenty of theists do likewise. Evolution does undermine one of theisms best arguments (the argument of design in life, and by extension all arguments from design are weakened considerably) which is what led Dawkins to abandon any recourse to theism and become an atheist.
That isn't to say that Dawkins is arguing that evolution is gnostic about god, it just means that god is no longer a necessary explanatory entity.
If you argue that 'x' cannot be explained without a god, and then someone comes along and explains 'x' without recourse to a god - then the god argument is weaker. When one of the best 'x' is explained without god, that means we should be careful when 'y' has yet to be explained not to fill the gap with god.
Evolution did do that for us - it was such a good explanation for something that was so complex that it raised our consciousness that complex things can sometimes have very simple (but not obvious) explanations and it showed god of the gaps to be the bankrupt mode of thought that it is. Evolution gave us the vision to consider that maybe god isn't needed to explain other fiendishly difficult problems either! This isn't evidence for atheism, but it does help explain why atheism is growing since the arguments for theism are looking weaker and weaker.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by GDR, posted 11-30-2007 1:54 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 11-30-2007 10:45 AM Modulous has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6203
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 273 of 301 (437491)
11-30-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Modulous
11-30-2007 7:12 AM


Modulus writes:
That isn't to say that Dawkins is arguing that evolution is gnostic about god, it just means that god is no longer a necessary explanatory entity.
I disagree completely. (I imagine that really surprises you. ) Evolution doesn't change anything about the need for God. It doesn't matter what the methodology was that used for us to be who and what we are. The fact remains that we exist and that we perceive the universe in a particular way.
Science has nothing to say about why we or anything else exists.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Modulous, posted 11-30-2007 7:12 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Modulous, posted 11-30-2007 11:32 AM GDR has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 274 of 301 (437515)
11-30-2007 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by GDR
11-30-2007 10:45 AM


I disagree completely. (I imagine that really surprises you. ) Evolution doesn't change anything about the need for God. It doesn't matter what the methodology was that used for us to be who and what we are. The fact remains that we exist and that we perceive the universe in a particular way.
Science has nothing to say about why we or anything else exists.
Sure there are still gaps in our knowledge, and you are free to squeeze god into them. However, evolution did explain a territory that was completely dominated by theistic explanations.
However, science does have a lot to say about why we exist. We are here because our parent's genes successfully copied about 50% of themselves each. Our parent's were here for the same reason. Now, 4 billion years of explanation for why we are here is a pretty damned impressive chunk of god's domain invaded. Sure we can still invoke god during that 4 billion year history, but the point is it is no longer necessary to do so. No longer does the startling complexity of life necessitate a designer, another, less incredible, explanation exists for most if not all of that.
God isn't needed to explain biodiversity any more, so where that argument used to be strong (the observation necessitated the conclusion), it no longer does so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 11-30-2007 10:45 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by GDR, posted 11-30-2007 9:50 PM Modulous has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 301 (437523)
11-30-2007 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by GDR
11-30-2007 1:54 AM


Re: Who is misreading?
We all read these books with our own bias but I thought that it was a well written book and I think he accomplished what he hoped to.
It looks interesting. I will consider ordering a copy. Thanks for the recommendation.
It could also be said the other way around. "Who said that there is a need for God to accomplish evolution?"
Can it, and still make sense? If evolution is an unguided process, yet God had in mind humans all along, then either evolution is not an unguided process but rather a guided one, or there was no evolution in the manner described by evolutionary biologists. If those answers are unsatisfactory, I suppose the only one left is, there is no God.
There may well be naturalist explanations for why nature is what it is, but things like memes are no more scientific than just saying that God did it.
Yes, I certainly agree.
I don't see why you think I have any problem with allegiance. I'm actually in pretty good company with the likes of CS Lewis and NT Wright.
I don't know about NT Wright, but from what I gather from Lewis, he seemed indifferent about the whole thing. He didn't seem to care whether God used evolution or special creation.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by GDR, posted 11-30-2007 1:54 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Wounded King, posted 11-30-2007 12:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 121 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 276 of 301 (437529)
11-30-2007 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Hyroglyphx
11-30-2007 11:45 AM


Re: Who is misreading?
Can it, and still make sense? If evolution is an unguided process, yet God had in mind humans all along, then either evolution is not an unguided process but rather a guided one, or there was no evolution in the manner described by evolutionary biologists. If those answers are unsatisfactory, I suppose the only one left is, there is no God.
How can you know what God had in mind? Did he require two legs? two eyes? two arms? Perhaps all God had in mind was something able to develop a sufficient degree of consciousness and self-reflection, and maybe he just knew enough about the probabilities involved to create a large enough universe that what he wanted was bound to arise at least once.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2007 11:45 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2007 12:48 PM Wounded King has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 301 (437536)
11-30-2007 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Wounded King
11-30-2007 12:09 PM


Re: Who is misreading?
How can you know what God had in mind? Did he require two legs? two eyes? two arms? Perhaps all God had in mind was something able to develop a sufficient degree of consciousness and self-reflection, and maybe he just knew enough about the probabilities involved to create a large enough universe that what he wanted was bound to arise at least once.
If God purposed anything, then He controls the direction. We would be the ship, but He would be the rudder, no? If evolution is a totally unguided process, then how does someone like GDR reconcile that? It seems to me that he won't be able to occupy both positions. He has to get rid of one in order for the other to be true.
And then he has to consider what God has meant in the Scriptures. Why the elaboration if none of it is actually true? If Genesis is not an actual account of natural history, then how does one decide what parts of the Bible are true about God, and what parts are not?
Again, this question is useless to you because you are an unbeliever. You will simply say that you believe in none of it. But how does GDR reconcile the disparities?
And really, I don't leave this all for him to chew on. All theologians have to give thought to these things. I'm just curious to see how he will navigate through these waters.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Wounded King, posted 11-30-2007 12:09 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Wounded King, posted 11-30-2007 1:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 279 by jar, posted 11-30-2007 1:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 299 by GDR, posted 11-30-2007 10:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 121 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 278 of 301 (437539)
11-30-2007 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Hyroglyphx
11-30-2007 12:48 PM


Re: Who is misreading?
If God purposed anything, then He controls the direction.
If I drop a marble on top of a hill very smoothly sloping down at the crown with a more uneven bumpier slope down in all directions am I controlling the path that marble takes? Certainly the marble is going to go down and eventually reach the foot of the hill but the path it takes and where around the foot of the hill it ends up is something I am not controlling at all, OK for arguments sake I could spin the marble a little or drop it a bit off centre but it will still largely find its own path.
It is the drunkards walk argument SJ Gould made to explain increasing complexity again. If you start of with something very very simple, ideally the simplest thing possible, then a random walk absolutely must take you into more complex realms.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2007 12:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2007 1:39 PM Wounded King has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34065
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 279 of 301 (437542)
11-30-2007 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Hyroglyphx
11-30-2007 12:48 PM


huh?
Reconcile what?
And then he has to consider what God has meant in the Scriptures. Why the elaboration if none of it is actually true? If Genesis is not an actual account of natural history, then how does one decide what parts of the Bible are true about God, and what parts are not?
The same way you decide anything, using logic, reason and reality.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2007 12:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 301 (437547)
11-30-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Wounded King
11-30-2007 1:02 PM


Re: Who is misreading?
If I drop a marble on top of a hill very smoothly sloping down at the crown with a more uneven bumpier slope down in all directions am I controlling the path that marble takes?
Only if you also created the marble and the smooth sloping hill, I suppose, which arguably, God could have done. The atheist argument, which I am currently using against GDR, is that if God has omnipresence then he also forces us towards predestination. Now, I don't believe that, but I am curious to see how he would answer given his theological stance and his natural one.
It is the drunkards walk argument SJ Gould made to explain increasing complexity again. If you start of with something very very simple, ideally the simplest thing possible, then a random walk absolutely must take you into more complex realms.
I don't see how that follows, given the rest of the universe, where everything moves towards disorder.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Wounded King, posted 11-30-2007 1:02 PM Wounded King has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3136 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 281 of 301 (437550)
11-30-2007 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Lithodid-Man
11-29-2007 12:26 PM


Materialism: Answering Lithodid-Man
Ray (originally) writes:
Evolution is based on materialism, which in essence says causation is perpetually material and never Divine. This is 101 stuff.
Your message contains my quote (above) but it fails to actually address what it says.
But let me address what you did end up writing:
Lithodid-Man writes:
In week one of my Philosophy of Science course I do an entire lecture on the difference between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism and how they are, often deliberately, confused by creationists. So here is a review of '101':
Methodological materialism is one of the most critical aspects of the scientific method. It is, simplistically, that when investigating a process or causation you begin with the assumption that those causes can be understood via natural laws or processes.
Philosophical materialism is a belief that only the natural exists, there can not be a supernatural.
We need to first define what "Materialism" means THEN explain and define the preceding qualifying terms ("methodological" and "philosophical").
Presently, what you have said, does not make sense. Here is why:
"Materialism" is a word that defines itself once somebody points that meaning out. The key is the simple noun "material." It means matter or physical substances, tangible things, inanimate and animate. "Materialism," as a term, describes the viewpoint that only matter exists and causation of everything is material in origin whether known or unknown. Materialism says God does not exist, that is why causation must be material - perpetually.
"Materialism": the belief that only matter exists.
Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition
Concerning your distinctions: Methodological and Philosophical Materialism. The common denominator is the exclusion of God or supernatural to explain reality.
Your explanation of Philosophical Materialism, which says it is the belief that "only the natural exists" - is inaccurate. It simply indicates the belief that "only matter exists." Naturalism is the belief that "only the natural exists" and both terms are synonyms, and both terms presuppose the non-existence of God or Divine causation IN reality.
Your explanation of Methodological Materialism contains no discernible difference ***in its effects*** from Philosophical Materialism. How would anyone know that any given scholar or scientist is practicing either alleged viewpoint? If God is excluded, which is the fact in both cases, then the qualifying of "Materialism" by the term "Methodological" amounts to a disclaimer that must actually be stated because the elucidation of data and evidence by a Methodological Materialist or Philosophical Materialist is indistinguishable?
Said disclaimer, in the case of Methodological Materialism is attempting to deny Atheism, which is, in effect, demanding audience to trust the assertion of denying Atheism, refuted by the fact of Divine exclusion (the common denominator) which corresponds to a pro-Atheist idea.
In essence you are attempting to say and insist that Methodological Materialism (also known as Methodological Naturalism) is agnostic or neutral concerning God and the supernatural. Since evolution says perpetual material and natural causation produced biological reality, and at no time did God intervene, this is a pro-Atheist doctrine: it says the God of Genesis did not produce biological reality; causation was always material and natural. Evolution, like I said, is Materialism or Naturalism (as defined above).
The first is a method and can say absolutely nothing about the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, only that it cannot be used as a causal explanation. The latter is a belief, based on faith alone. All scientists use methodological materialism when conducting science, some scientists are ALSO philosophical materialists just as some are strongly religious.
How would anyone know when either is being practiced since there is no discernible difference?
Your comment says: "Trust us, despite the fact that God is ruled out by starting assumption, and at no time is He a possible explanation, this does not correspond to Atheism."
Brazen f**king lie insulting our intelligence.
The DI says that its brand of ID simply says that it can evidence reality to be the product of intelligence, yet evolutionists say they are including God. But evolutionists are hypocrites in their insistence that their "science" practices something called "Methdological Materialism" (= "says nothing about God" too). Since the overwhelming majority of Darwinian scientists are Atheists, evolution is Materialism. Since Methodological Materialism excludes God it says that God did not produce reality. Your denial, as seen in your explanation of Methodological Materialism, is bearing false witness.
So called "Christian" evolutionist scientists, their alleged Christianity, is refuted by the fact that they exclude God to explain evidence and reality. Christians include God, they do not exclude God.
An example I like to use is to have students imagine a police detective who is a fundamentalist Christian. He is investigating a murder scene. His investigation NEEDS to begin with the assumption that the murder occurred, that the murder was conducted by another human being, and that the murderer left some physical clues. He CANNOT investigate the murder assuming a supernatural agent was responsible, an evil spirit, demon, or even Old Scratch himself was responsible. His methodological materialist approach in no way speaks of his belief in the existence of the supernatural. He still believes in God, he still believes in Satan. He may even believe (and probably does) that ultimately the murder was caused by supernatural influences. But his investigation is entirely physical.
False analogy.
Our subject is the ORIGIN of living things, not a murder investigation which has no bearing on the true and CORRECT ORIGIN of living things, and the correct starting assumptions to investigate the origin of living things. Assuming that Genesis is wrong and that God is not involved in the production of living things - ever - is Materialism, the philosophy that evolution abides by.
Suppose I said: "Trust me, Methodological Creationism means only that we are neutral about evolution, it could be true, but since it excludes the Creator to explain the existence of species, it is non-scientific."
This is the world of all real scientists, whether atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. A Christian who is also an evolutionary biologist will look at a phenomena, examine evidence, and search for naturalistic explanations. Even if they believe that ultimately the phenomena is the result of supernatural agencies.
False.
It is the real world of evolutionists and their anti-God ideologies (Methdological and Philosophical Materialism) packaged as "science."
Science presupposes the existence of God. The appearance of design seen abundantly is nature and animals logically corresponds to the work of invisible Designer. Evolution, by assumption, denies this logic and says materialistic things produced the nature that we see. The assumption is self-evidently pro-Atheism. Once the assumption is made, God is never an option regardless of what the evidence (design seen in nature) says. Science belongs to the minority, its rightful and original owner. Facts produced by the majority (evolutionists) can only be legitimately explained and interpreted by Creationism-Design (the minority).
One point that needs to be stressed is that with methodological materialism supernatural agencies cannot be considered as science. But this is a two-way street. The statement "There is a god" and "There is no god" are equally unscientific although legitimate scientists may hold either belief.
This is an attempt to assert an objectivity that cannot possibly exist. Everyone has opinions about God and Lithodid-Man seeks to insult everyones intelligence by saying the anti-God opinions of evolutionists are not seen in their "science." Since both methodologies/philosophies exclude God by starting assumption, evolution is pro-Atheism. That is the objective bias of evolution.
Ask yourself, why would a Christian scientist abide by pro-Atheist assumptions? Again, if they do then this fact refutes their claim of being a Christian. They are either confused, deluded or like the New Testament explains persons who appear to be walking with Christ, but are not (like Judas the Betrayer), they are deceived by Satan. Yes, we have an explanation for "Christian" scientists who abide by evolution methodologies. Biblical typology corresponds to reality, which is the claim of the Bible: what it says corresponds to reality.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-29-2007 12:26 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2007 2:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 301 (437563)
11-30-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Cold Foreign Object
11-30-2007 1:46 PM


Re: Materialism: Answering CFO
"Materialism," as a term, describes the viewpoint that only matter exists and causation of everything is material in origin whether known or unknown. Materialism says God does not exist, that is why causation must be material - perpetually.
That's true.
Concerning your distinctions: Methodological and Philosophical Materialism. The common denominator is the exclusion of God or supernatural to explain reality.
Well, I agree with Lithodid that starting at the lowest level is important. If you don't, then Goddidit is the easy answer that emasculates science. Incidentally, if a naturalist did this, it would be the same as saying evolution did it as the catch-all answer which actually answers nothing at all.
Your explanation of Philosophical Materialism, which says it is the belief that "only the natural exists" - is inaccurate. It simply indicates the belief that "only matter exists." Naturalism is the belief that "only the natural exists" and both terms are synonyms, and both terms presuppose the non-existence of God or Divine causation IN reality.
I fully agree.
In essence you are attempting to say and insist that Methodological Materialism (also known as Methodological Naturalism) is agnostic or neutral concerning God and the supernatural. Since evolution says perpetual material and natural causation produced biological reality, and at no time did God intervene, this is a pro-Atheist doctrine: it says the God of Genesis did not produce biological reality; causation was always material and natural. Evolution, like I said, is Materialism or Naturalism (as defined above).
And this is the point I am making to GDR, who is a theistic evolutionist. Sure, one can be a theistic evolutionist. However, by the very nature of the theory, evolution is not exactly neutral on the point of God since it relies on unguided processes to propagate itself.
How would anyone know when either is being practiced since there is no discernible difference?
They wouldn't, least of all his students. The assumption is, "I won't flat out tell that there is no God, I'll just make it so that you are left with nothing else to deduce since I have decided to rule God out a priori." Is he being malicious about it? I don't know. I won't make that judgment. But that certainly seems to be the implication.
Brazen f**king lie insulting our intelligence.
Settle down... As an admin I can't allow for it. There are ways of showing your disdain without the use of expletives or goading tactics.
The DI says that its brand of ID simply says that it can evidence reality to be the product of intelligence, yet evolutionists say they are including God. But evolutionists are hypocrites in their insistence that their "science" practices something called "Methdological Materialism" (= "says nothing about God" too). Since the overwhelming majority of Darwinian scientists are Atheists, evolution is Materialism. Since Methodological Materialism excludes God it says that God did not produce reality. Your denial, as seen in your explanation of Methodological Materialism, is bearing false witness.
Exactly.
So called "Christian" evolutionist scientists, their alleged Christianity, is refuted by the fact that they exclude God to explain evidence and reality. Christians include God, they do not exclude God.
While I agree, this is where I personally fault creationism. With creationists, they have to conform science to the text in order to validate their belief in God. That isn't science. That is leading the evidence to a point, rather than starting at a point and letting the evidence lead you.
This is why I opt of Intelligent Design. The teleological argument is too strong deny, yet it does not presuppose anything other than intelligence. That certainly is not inclusive or exclusive to God. ID in my opinion is the most neutral of either creationism or the ToE, IMO.
quote:
This is the world of all real scientists, whether atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. A Christian who is also an evolutionary biologist will look at a phenomena, examine evidence, and search for naturalistic explanations. Even if they believe that ultimately the phenomena is the result of supernatural agencies.
I agree with this. Because while I believe that everything traces back to God ultimately, meaning any physical law exists only because God set it in motion, one still looks for the immediate physical explanation. If it wasn't that way, any scientific question would end with: Because God said so. That's no answer at all.
Science presupposes the existence of God.
It doesn't have to as a pre-requisite, nor do I believe that it should. My issue the systematic aversion towards anything that might even hint at God. God should not simply be assumed in science. Science should remain neutral on the idea, unless there are greater questions that would necessitate it.
For instance: The sexual organs. One only has two options from which to choose. Either penis and vagina sort of haphazardly came together, each with intricate detail, conforming well to one another in harmony through unguided processes, or there is clear evidence of teleology at work.
Neither automatically supposes the other. And none of them assume God, per say, but rather intent. And intent is indicative of a mind, and a mind is indicative of an intelligence.
The appearance of design seen abundantly is nature and animals logically corresponds to the work of invisible Designer.
Yes, I agree. But I also agree that the assumption does not have to be made for you, rather, you come to that conclusion yourself.
Evolution, by assumption, denies this logic and says materialistic things produced the nature that we see. The assumption is self-evidently pro-Atheism.
Yes, I agree. It makes a concerted effort to give the appearance of unbias, but the underlying principle is not neutral. It leans heavily in the direction of atheism.
Ask yourself, why would a Christian scientist abide by pro-Atheist assumptions?
Well, because some Christians see it as a non-essential since the Bible is not a science textbook-- its a theological text. But you do make a point. The question is why is science the only discipline where people question the (non)existence of God? Why not math? Why not linguistics? Why do these disciplines seem to be neutral where science is suspect of bias, either pro or con towards a Designer or Nature?

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-30-2007 1:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-30-2007 5:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 284 by kuresu, posted 11-30-2007 5:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3136 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 283 of 301 (437587)
11-30-2007 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Hyroglyphx
11-30-2007 2:30 PM


Re: Materialism: Answering NJ
Dear NJ:
Six separate times you state full agreement with things I wrote.
So let me address things that we do not agree on.
Ray originally writing to Lithodid-Man writes:
Concerning your distinctions: Methodological and Philosophical Materialism. The common denominator is the exclusion of God or supernatural to explain reality.
NJ responding writes:
Well, I agree with Lithodid that starting at the lowest level is important. If you don't, then Goddidit is the easy answer that emasculates science. Incidentally, if a naturalist did this, it would be the same as saying evolution did it as the catch-all answer which actually answers nothing at all.
The issue is starting assumptions or suppositions. Since 1859-1874, science reversed starting presuppositions (known as "paradigm change") to Materialism-Naturalism from Creationism-Design. The former presupposes that God did not create biological reality and that the appearance of design does not indicate invisible Designer. This is what evolution accomplished.
With this said your blue box comment denies the historical fact above, it also denies the current paradigm of evolution (evolution-did-it) and demeans Creationism-Design. God DID do it, the evidence says so. To say this "emasculates science" presupposes a pro-Materialism attitude, which is the epitome of pseudoscience because it has no correspondence to reality except the moronic blathering of Atheists and their ass kissing lap dogs, TEists.
In short, your blue box suggests an objective idealism that does not exist because everyone has a bias (either evolution or creationism-design).
While I agree, this is where I personally fault creationism. With creationists, they have to conform science to the text in order to validate their belief in God. That isn't science. That is leading the evidence to a point, rather than starting at a point and letting the evidence lead you.
False.
Reality corresponds to the Text and the Text corresponds to reality. Living things look like they were designed and specially created. Observation is the cornerstone of science and the facts stated in the previous sentence are scientific facts based on observation. Evolution is a perpetual default view based on the needs of Atheists and their inability to acknowledge objective reality.
Evolution is presupposed because Divine causation (Genesis Text) is rejected. "Neither Creationism or Evolution are scientific, both offer interpretations of the same scientific evidence" (Dr. Scott). Evolution simply interprets reality faithful to its starting assumption (Divine causation is false) which leaves only perpetual material or natural causation. Animals and the environments they live in have no special powers to transmute or change themselves, they are unintelligent and non-divine. They only transmute if an Atheist asserts as much. Evolution is an assumption and it is false. It is Materialism and Materialism is Atheism - not science.
It appears that in an attempt to sound or look objective you have bought a definition of science that does not exist in reality.
It doesn't have to as a pre-requisite, nor do I believe that it should. My issue the systematic aversion towards anything that might even hint at God. God should not simply be assumed in science. Science should remain neutral on the idea, unless there are greater questions that would necessitate it.
Impossible pie-in-the-sky "objectivity."
There is no such thing as neutrality when it comes to God. It appears you have bought the lie of Methodological Materialism or Naturalism even though you said that you didn't.
For instance: The sexual organs. One only has two options from which to choose. Either penis and vagina sort of haphazardly came together, each with intricate detail, conforming well to one another in harmony through unguided processes, or there is clear evidence of teleology at work.
Neither automatically supposes the other. And none of them assume God, per say, but rather intent. And intent is indicative of a mind, and a mind is indicative of an intelligence.
NJ: the female reproductive mechanism is a scent mechanism. It only attracts and allows insemination with sperm cells that emit the correct odour. This prevents the semen of a non-human impregnating a female human. It has NEVER been fooled or tricked. It is spectacular evidence of ID and the existence of the Designer. It self-evidently could not have evolved "step by stupid step" and macromutation is, of course, not an option since the 1940s.
[sentence deleted]
The question is why is science the only discipline where people question the (non)existence of God? Why not math? Why not linguistics? Why do these disciplines seem to be neutral where science is suspect of bias, either pro or con towards a Designer or Nature?
Because biology is about the existence of God by attempting to determine the origin of living things. Math and linguistics have no relevance to the origin of living things.
Evolution says the Genesis Creator does not exist because the Text is false concerning the origin of man and animals.
Genesis says God is the special creator and that common ancestry has no correspondence to reality.
Since all Atheists are evolutionists, evolution is the positive evidence for Atheism. Evolution is an assumption based on Atheist ideology (Materialism). Currently, Science uses the Atheist assumption.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : Deleted this sentence: "Again, your commentary is advocating a scenario that cannot exist."
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2007 2:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by nator, posted 11-30-2007 5:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 286 by kuresu, posted 11-30-2007 5:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2602 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 284 of 301 (437588)
11-30-2007 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Hyroglyphx
11-30-2007 2:30 PM


Re: Materialism: Answering CFO
For instance: The sexual organs. One only has two options from which to choose
False. The penis and the vagina are not the only sexual organs present in the human body, nor are they the only types of sexual organs found throughout life.
In fact, the vast majority of life reproduces asexually. Fungi have well over two sexes. In fact, the only thing needed for sexual reproduction is the ability to have your genes mix with your mates genes and in the process form a fertilized egg. In many cases of sexual reproduction, this involves little more than putting your stuff out there--such as with spores and pollen, or with the fish who expel their egg and sperm. Expelling these things require holes. How great a jump is it to imagine one sex expelling there stuff into the hole of the opposite? Especially if this leads to increased rates of reproductive success. And then, how great a jump is it to have one side start developing a bumb that fits over or into the hole a little better? Again, especially if this leads to greater reproductive success?
All the penis does is allow the sperm to get relatively close to the egg, and both the penis and vagina have other uses. There is no compelling reason to think that the penis and vagina had to be intelligently designed or that they are the only two sexual organs.
Oh, and evolution is not exactly 'unguided', nor is it completely random. Since evolution is not 'unguided', just what is left of your argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2007 2:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2258 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 285 of 301 (437589)
11-30-2007 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Cold Foreign Object
11-30-2007 5:21 PM


Ray! Pay attention!
quote:
Since all Atheists are evolutionists
Except for the Raelians.
I've told you this three times and you have yet to make any response.
Raelians are Atheists but do not accept the Theory of Evolution.
That means that it is NOT TRUE that all Atheists are Evolutionists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-30-2007 5:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-30-2007 5:53 PM nator has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024