If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Into the Night]

A strong case can be made that your belief that a mathematically rational, lawfully organized, finely tuned universe is somehow caused by chance and purely inanimate physical reasons is both irrational and illogical.

The Universe is not organized. This is rational and conforms to logic.

That's where Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler were coming from.

Name dropping doesn't work. What is YOUR opinion and why?

Logic and reason are among our tools for making decisions and acquiring knowledge, because not everything is amenable to visual observation and sense perception. That concept always seems alien to atheists for some reason

Logic is atheistic.
Reason is the basis of philosophy. Philosophy is not a proof.

Atheists do not deny either logic, mathematics, or philosophy.

 

[ZenMode]

A strong case can be made that your belief that a mathematically rational, lawfully organized, finely tuned universe is somehow caused by chance and purely inanimate physical reasons is both irrational and illogical.

Sure. That's normally a case made by people who are religious. There have been a lot of things that baffled man throughout history. Rain was confusing to man, which is why the Bible says the earth is enclosed in some kind of dome with windows that occasionally open and let rain in. Mental illness, diseases/virus baffled early man, now they don't... because of science.

That's where Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler were coming from.

Newton was, by any measure, a genius. He also wasted his time studying alchemy because, as smart as he was, he was also still ignorant. Any scientist proposing a study of alchemy would be laughed out of the room TODAY,

Logic and reason are among our tools for making decisions and acquiring knowledge, because not everything is amenable to visual observation and sense perception. That concept always seems alien to atheists for some reason

The argument for God almost always just a god of the gaps argument. It's "This couldn't have happened on its own" or "This is just too incredibly to have happened by chance", etc. Like I said, science has proved religion wrong over and over and over and it will continue to happen.

Why do you believe that will change? All throughout history, science has continued to win. What makes you believe there will suddenly be a change and atheists will suddenly be proven wrong when the trend says anything but that?

 

[Cypress]

Sure. That's normally a case made by people who are religious. There have been a lot of things that baffled man throughout history. Rain was confusing to man, which is why the Bible says the earth is enclosed in some kind of dome with windows that occasionally open and let rain in. Mental illness, diseases/virus baffled early man, now they don't... because of science.

I guess you would have to have a decent working knowledge of physics and astronomy to realize how improbable it all is.

Einstein, who was no atheist, famously said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible.

Newton was, by any measure, a genius. He also wasted his time studying alchemy because, as smart as he was, he was also still ignorant. Any scientist proposing a study of alchemy would be laughed out of the room TODAY,

Your free to dismiss Issac Newton and Galileo as superstitious fools whom you have surpassed in intelligence and rationality.

It's not just Newton. At least half of the Nobel Prize winners in physics in the 20th century were religious.

I really don't think you are more rational than these scientists.

The argument for God almost always just a god of the gaps argument. It's "This couldn't have happened on its own" or "This is just too incredibly to have happened by chance", etc. Like I said, science has proved religion wrong over and over and over and it will continue to happen.

Why do you believe that will change? All throughout history, science has continued to win. What makes you believe there will suddenly be a change and atheists will suddenly be proven wrong when the trend says anything but that?

Only somebody who has never had college level science education would say something as naive as science always wins.

We've been studying gravity for 500 years (2,500 if you count Aristotle), and while we have made progress describing how it behaves and expresses itself, we still really do not know what it is and why it exists at the level of fundamental reality.

There are many questions science does not answer.

Science is an empirical method that makes accurate predictions of velocity, momentum, and the motion and exchange of energy. It's not something you need to put on a pedestal and glorify as the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything.

 

[Cypress]

The universe is not organized!!

 

[ZenMode]

I guess you would have to have a decent working knowledge of physics and astronomy to realize how improbable it all is.

Like I said earlier, lots of things were baffling to scientists. Our lack of understanding doesn't mean we have to come up with silly stories.

Einstein, who was no atheist, famously said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible.

Your free to dismiss Issac Newton and Galileo as superstitious fools whom you have surpassed in intelligence and rationality.

It's not just Newton. At least half of the Nobel Prize winners in physics in the 20th century were religious.

I really don't think you are more rational than these scientists.

I think the further you go back, the more influential religion was, even for brilliant people of their time.

Only somebody who has never had college level science education would say something as naive as science always wins.

Ok. How many times has religion proved science wrong? Is there a huge plexiglass dome around the earth with windows that let water from the sky rivers fall? Is the Earth just over 6000 years old? Is the Earth the center of our solar system?

We've been studying gravity for 500 years (2,500 if you count Aristotle), and while we have made progress describing how it behaves and expresses itself, we still really do not know what it is and why it exists at the level of fundamental reality.

Yep. Lots of things we don't know yet.

There are many questions science does not answer.

Haven't answered yet. If you're solution to scientific ignorance is to follow the beliefs of men who buried animals under buildings for good luck, you're going the wrong direction.

Science is an empirical method that makes accurate predictions of velocity, momentum, and the motion and exchange of energy. It's not something you need to put on a pedestal and glorify as the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything.

I'm not glorifying it. I'm saying science > religion.

 

[Into the Night]

Sure. That's normally a case made by people who are religious. There have been a lot of things that baffled man throughout history. Rain was confusing to man, which is why the Bible says the earth is enclosed in some kind of dome with windows that occasionally open and let rain in.

Nothing in the Bible describes any dome. Rain is not baffling. It's a simple thing. It comes, it rains, it leaves (unless you're in Seattle!).

Mental illness, diseases/virus baffled early man, now they don't... because of science.

There is no cure for most forms of mental illness, including that suffered by Sybil.
Diseases and viruses still baffle you. But then, you deny theories of science.

Newton was, by any measure, a genius.

Newton also studied alchemy, poisoned himself with mercury, had no friends, and was a total jerk.

He also wasted his time studying alchemy because, as smart as he was, he was also still ignorant. Any scientist proposing a study of alchemy would be laughed out of the room TODAY,

Science isn't people. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

The argument for God almost always just a god of the gaps argument.

There is no 'gap'. Non-sequitur fallacy.

It's "This couldn't have happened on its own" or "This is just too incredibly to have happened by chance", etc.

What are you talking about?

Like I said, science has proved religion wrong over and over and over and it will continue to happen.

Science is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Your religion is no different, other than it's fundamentalist nature.

Why do you believe that will change?

What will change? Void argument fallacy.

All throughout history, science has continued to win.

Science is not a competition. It simply exists. There is no scorekeeping in science.

What makes you believe there will suddenly be a change and atheists will suddenly be proven wrong when the trend says anything but that?

What 'change'?? What are you talking about???
What 'proof'??? What 'trend'???

 

[Into the Night]

I guess you would have to have a decent working knowledge of physics and astronomy to realize how improbable it all is.

Math error: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX.

Einstein, who was no atheist,

Einstein was an agnostic.

famously said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible.

It isn't. The Universe is unorganized. It has no known boundary. It has no known origin, if any.

Your free to dismiss Issac Newton and Galileo as superstitious fools whom you have surpassed in intelligence and rationality.

No, he is not. He doesn't know what 'superstition' means.

It's not just Newton.

No one said you were. Personally, I'm glad you aren't as big a jerk as Newton was.

At least half of the Nobel Prize winners in physics in the 20th century were religious.

Science isn't a prize.
Science isn't a religion.

I really don't think you are more rational than these scientists.

He is locked in paradoxes, just as you are. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational.

Only somebody who has never had college level science education would say something as naive as science always wins.

Science is not a college. Science is not a competition.

We've been studying gravity for 500 years (2,500 if you count Aristotle),

Science is not a study.

and while we have made progress describing how it behaves and expresses itself, we still really do not know what it is and why it exists at the level of fundamental reality.

Go learn what 'reality' means and how it's defined. Buzzword fallacy.

Gravity is a force. Like any force, it can cause acceleration.

There are many questions science does not answer.

Science is not 'answers'.

Science is an empirical method

Science is not a method.

that makes accurate predictions of velocity, momentum, and the motion and exchange of energy.

The power of predication is natural to mathematics or logic, both closed functional systems. No theory of science can predict anything until it is transcribed into mathematical or logical form (usually mathematics). A theory is an explanatory argument.

It's not something you need to put on a pedestal and glorify as the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything.

Deep thought is fiction, Clanker. It gave the answer as '42'.

 

[Into the Night]

Random equations mean nothing. The Universe is not organized. Buzzphrase fallacy.

 

[Margot]

I'm not in a position to judge. I personally think the theological arguments between Catholics and Protestants tend to be fairly trivial. Last week I saw a Catholic priest and a Protestant pastor argue about whether Jesus actually had siblings,

I avoid denominations !
The argument about Jesus having siblings,is caused by Catholics claiming Mary was a perpetual virgin, counter to what scripture says.
I saw the Catholic Priest in town here, I said "Hey"! He turned and sprinted for the door at Kroger.

 

[IBDaMann]

I guess you would have to have a decent working knowledge of physics and astronomy to realize how improbable it all is.

Nope. One needs an understanding of probability to calculate probability. How did you compute this probability?

Einstein, who was no atheist,

Einstein was an atheist. He used the term "God" a great deal, but what he meant by it was not any sort of religious deity. He was simply referring to the forces of nature that we don't fully understand, and doing so in a colloquial sense.

... and yes, Albert Einstein was uneasy about using the term "atheist" due to social stigma of the term and his upbringing.

It's not just Newton. At least half of the Nobel Prize winners in physics in the 20th century were religious.

Scientists who turn to science for their answers tend to not turn to religion so much for their answers. As such, of the roughly 400 Nobel Prize in science, the only Nobel Prize winning scientists who have publicly stated a religious faith are the following seven:

- William D. Phillips (Physics, 1997), practicing Christian. Has spoken openly about his faith and how it coexists with his scientific work.
- Arthur Schawlow (Physics, 1981), laser pioneer. Publicly identified as a Christian and discussed religion in relation to science.
- Charles Townes (Physics, 1964), co-inventor of the laser. Outspoken about belief in God, wrote essays on science and religion.
- John Bardeen (Physics, 1956 & 1972), practicing Christian, though less outspoken in scientific contexts.
- George Wald (Medicine, 1967), jewish background. Later in life spoke about spirituality and the intersection of science and philosophy.
- Werner Arber (Medicine, 1978), Swiss microbiologist. Publicly identified as Christian and has spoken about faith.
- Peter Medawar (Medicine, 1960), identified as Christian while being an outspoken opponent of organized religion.

I really don't think you are more rational than these scientists.

... and you wouldn't know.

We've been studying gravity for 500 years (2,500 if you count Aristotle),

Humanity has been studying gravity for as long as there has been humanity.

and while we have made progress describing how it behaves

Gravity doesn't "behave." Gravity is.

and expresses itself,

Gravity doesn't express anything.

we still really do not know what it is

... but we know exactly what it is.

and why it exists at the level of fundamental reality.

You have just fallen back on the Cypress fallacy, i.e. of asking "why?" without first showing that there even is a "why?"

There are many questions science does not answer.

... because science is not an almanac. Science is a toolbox.

Science is an empirical method

Science is not a method.

that makes accurate predictions of velocity, momentum, and the motion and exchange of energy.

OK, I'll grant you that.

It's not something you need to put on a pedestal and glorify as the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything.

... because you realize that science is not an almanac. Kudos.

 

[IBDaMann]

I avoid denominations !

So you avoid all $1, $5, $10, $20 and $50 bills, yes?

The argument about Jesus having siblings,is caused by Catholics claiming Mary was a perpetual virgin, counter to what scripture says.

Why do you say that Catholics make this claim?

I saw the Catholic Priest in town here, I said "Hey"! He turned and sprinted for the door at Kroger.

You probably shouldn't have pointed a gun at him?

 

[Margot]

So you avoid all $1, $5, $10, $20 and $50 bills, yes?


Why do you say that Catholics make this claim?


You probably shouldn't have pointed a gun at him?

Catholic 101 " Mary was a perpetual virgin''!

 

[ZenMode]

Nothing in the Bible describes any dome. Rain is not baffling. It's a simple thing. It comes, it rains, it leaves (unless you're in Seattle!).

Yes there is. It's called a firmament that separates the waters from the sky from the waters in Earth and sometimes windows/gates open to let it rain.

There is no cure for most forms of mental illness, including that suffered by Sybil.

I didn't say there was a cure. I said mental illness was often viewed as demonic possession, which is why holes were drilled in skulls to let the demon out.

Diseases and viruses still baffle you. But then, you deny theories of science.

Lol!

Newton also studied alchemy, poisoned himself with mercury, had no friends, and was a total jerk.

Science isn't people. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

Science continues to prove the Bible wrong. You word games won't change that.

There is no 'gap'. Non-sequitur fallacy.

Yes there is.

What are you talking about?

Self explanatory.

Science is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Your religion is no different, other than it's fundamentalist nature.

Yawn.

What will change? Void argument fallacy.

Science is not a competition. It simply exists. There is no scorekeeping in science.

What 'change'?? What are you talking about???
What 'proof'??? What 'trend'???

Yawn, yawn and yawn.

Your word games won't change that science continually proves religion wrong. You can play your word games to avoid that reality, but it won't change anything.

 

[IBDaMann]

Catholic 101 " Mary was a perpetual virgin''!

Nope. Not Catholics. Why do you believe that you somehow speak for Catholics?

 

[IBDaMann]

Your word games won't change that science continually proves religion wrong.

If you weren't scientifically illiterate, you'd understand that no science somehow proves any religion "wrong".

You can play your word games to avoid that reality,

You can play your word games to replay that delusion,

but it won't change anything.

but it won't change anything.

 

[Into the Night]

Catholic 101 " Mary was a perpetual virgin''!

If she gave birth, how could she be a virgin??

 

[Into the Night]

Yes there is. It's called a firmament that separates the waters from the sky from the waters in Earth and sometimes windows/gates open to let it rain.

That is not a dome, Automaton. Your word games won't work.

I didn't say there was a cure. I said mental illness was often viewed as demonic possession, which is why holes were drilled in skulls to let the demon out.

Holes were drilled in skulls to perform brain surgery. They still are.

Lol!

Science continues to prove the Bible wrong. You word games won't change that.

Science is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Inversion fallacy.

Yes there is.

Nope. No 'gap'. Buzzword fallacy.

Self explanatory.

So you don't know. I already knew that.

Yawn.

Yawn, yawn and yawn.

Argument of the Stone fallacies.

Your word games won't change that science continually proves religion wrong. You can play your word games to avoid that reality, but it won't change anything.

Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your word games on me or anybody else, Automaton. Science is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Margot]

Nope. Not Catholics. Why do you believe that you somehow speak for Catholics?

Baptisted Catholic, made a Saint by Catholics, High Priest Melchizedek !

 

[ZenMode]

If you weren't scientifically illiterate, you'd understand that no science somehow proves any religion "wrong".

Sure does. If I claim that water is five parts hydrogen and 23 parts oxygen, science would prove me wrong.

There are many claims made by religion that science proves wrong in a similar way. There is no plexiglass sphere surrounding the Earth that has windows or gates that open to let in the sky rain.

The earth is not 6,000 years old.

The organs in a human body can't return to functionality after being deprived of oxygen and blood for 3 days.

Etc, etc, etc....

 

[ZenMode]

That is not a dome, Automaton. Your word games won't work.

I know it's not a dome and you know it's not a dome. What we know to be true is different than what the Bible claims.

Holes were drilled in skulls to perform brain surgery. They still are.

Your word games aren't going to work now anymore than they ever have. Holes were drilled in skulls to release demons.

Science is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Inversion fallacy.

Science proves any number of claims in the Bible to be wrong. Your word games don't change that.

Nope. No 'gap'. Buzzword fallacy.

There is and it has been explained multiple times.

So you don't know. I already knew that.

Argument of the Stone fallacies.

Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your word games on me or anybody else, Automaton. Science is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Buzzword fallacy.

Any number of claims made by the Bible have been proven wrong by science. For reasons that are obvious, you are avoiding addressing those In favor of playing word games.