NationStates Jolt Archive

As the title implies, this is not meant to say one side is better or that this is to debate if one is more factual then the other. If you want to do either one..please make your own thread and have fun with it.

This is more of a plea to both sides to...well..shut up!!!!

Seriously I mean really..shut up.


this is on the topic of which should be allowed in school.

Let me first adress my fellow christians and those that favor ID:
First off, I assume most of you are christians. With that being said, grow up and act like christians. Every time you whine about how mistreated you are in this aspect, it only furthers their case against. Even more it enrages them and even discredits eeverything christianity stands for. Where are the Jesus loving, be happy no matter what the world does, christians? Jesus, and many apostles told us that the world will hate us and seek to destroy our way of life. Well let me tell ya something. Go ahead and let them try. As long as we focus our hearts onn Christ and as long as we serve him, there is nothing the can do to us to stop us from worshipping and loving our lord. The worst that could happen is death..even then how bad is that? I mean thats our chance to finally bow at the feet our lord...sorry got off the topic there..but If they don't allow ID to be taught in school..oh well!!! who cares..its not like they can actually take our faith away from us. Let them have their "knowledge"..we have the love of our Saviour...


As for the evolutionists....

Why does it matter if say our beliefs were to be quesitoned and taught along side yours? Its not like we are going to outright say "well here is ID, which obviously is more correct than evolution...yadda yadda yadaa"... No rather we just want everyone's veiws to be EQUALLY represented..I don't understand the logic of some of that say its ok for you views and beliefs to be shown but not anyone elses.. Now Im not crying out for both to be constantly debated or one to be held higher than the other. Just the mere mentioning of ID would be aceptable...Perhaps like well today we wil leanr about were we came from...evolution teaches this...then later be like "there are some that beleive that a higher diety/dieties created life on this planet" boom..end of story..both sides are touched on upon.. and look no one has been harmed nor offended...speaking of being offended..it offends me that my beliefs are not taught along side yours..but thats ok...however if its vice versa..its not ok and violation of civil liberties..thats gotta stop..its gott be both ways or no way at all

Ok For both parties:
GROW UP!!!! So what if the other side gets a bit of their way...its not like you are going to be shot in the head for it. I understand seperation of church and state..but honestly i really think that was intended for purposes along the lines that the gov't can't sponser this religion and persecute that one...like what had happened in Europe. And at the same time..I don't think Christian beliefs should be foced upon anyone...myabe perhaps..there could be an elective course that teaches both sides..so that only those that WANT to hear both sides will and no one will be FORCED to...Other than that all i can say is that the other solution that would solve this is to abolish all of it all together so everyone is still equal...:P


Thomas..



Ps if you don't like my views..I don't care... getting upset over something stupid is well...stupid..:D

You clearly do not understand separation of Church and State.

You cannot use the power of government to teach the specific beliefs of some religioius sects.

End of discussion.

You clearly do not understand separation of Church and State.

You cannot use the power of government to teach the specific beliefs of some religioius sects.

End of discussion.


And who is not to say that An evolutions is not part of a religous sect????one can say that they beleive in a higher power as well..the power of nature and natural selection..then therefore is that not saying that the gov't is using its power to teach specific beliefs????

And who is not to say that An evolutions is not part of a religous sect????one can say that they beleive in a higher power as well..the power of nature and natural selection..then therefore is that not saying that the gov't is using its power to teach specific beliefs????

The science of evolution is neutral on religious questions. Creationism/ID obviously are not.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue. Edwards v. Aguillard (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/482/578.html), 482 US 578 (1987).

And who is not to say that An evolutions is not part of a religous sect????one can say that they beleive in a higher power as well..the power of nature and natural selection..then therefore is that not saying that the gov't is using its power to teach specific beliefs????

In the title you said you had no bias, that sounds pretty biased to me.

The science of evolution is neutral on religious questions. Creationism/ID obviously are not.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue. Edwards v. Aguillard (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/482/578.html), 482 US 578 (1987).

What about the whole elective idea then? where no one is FORCED to be taught both...but rather if they wish to.. I mean the whole arguement of church and state is that the gov't shouldn't support a religion or force anyone to adhere to it..therfore if its not necessary, is it still "illegal"?

I am opposed to the teaching of creationism/ID/whatever the hell they are calling it these days in science class for the same reason as I am against the teaching of phlogiston theory: its errant nonsense.It has no place in a science class. There is no evidence for it, and it fails as a scientific theory.

Moreover, the point of secondary science education is to provide a thorough grounding in the accepted basic theories in the relevant branch of science, not to waste time wandering off into idle speculation about the philosophy of science, or percieved failures at the extreme edge of said field.

And who is not to say that An evolutions is not part of a religous sect????one can say that they beleive in a higher power as well..the power of nature and natural selection..then therefore is that not saying that the gov't is using its power to teach specific beliefs????

You can only say that because you have no idea how the theory of evolution works.

Frankly, that you can propose that with a straight face is proof that the creationists are winning.

In the title you said you had no bias, that sounds pretty biased to me.

Im not being biased..Im trying to say that if all views are not heard then its simply not fair...and someone is being left out...somehow

What about the whole elective idea then? where no one is FORCED to be taught both...but rather if they wish to.. I mean the whole arguement of church and state is that the gov't shouldn't support a religion or force anyone to adhere to it..therfore if its not necessary, is it still "illegal"?

Do you know how much of the science curriculum you would have to gut in order to not teach evolution?

Obviously you know nothing about this.

Im not being biased..Im trying to say that if all views are not heard then its simply not fair...and someone is being left out...somehow

So you would teach ever conceivable creation theory -- the theory of every religion along with all scientific theories? Impossible.

Neitherside is going to make the other see sense. So there's no point in arguing.

We know that the pro-IDs Don't care that ID isn't science, that it should be taught.

We know that anti-ID's will repeat this fact over and over.

That's the next 98 pages summed up...

Next topic

What about the whole elective idea then? where no one is FORCED to be taught both...but rather if they wish to.. I mean the whole arguement of church and state is that the gov't shouldn't support a religion or force anyone to adhere to it..therfore if its not necessary, is it still "illegal"?

Yeah, why not just teach biology without ever mentioning one of its foundational theories.

I'll accept that when you accept teaching math without ever mentioning multiplication.

Im not being biased..Im trying to say that if all views are not heard then its simply not fair...and someone is being left out...somehow

Are you sugesting that that we teach Greek creation myths in science class?
What about anciant Japanese? We wouldn't want their views left out.
How about the Mesapotainians, they had their own ideas on how life came to be, should that be included in Biology 11?

If we don't teach every viewpoint from every religion spanning the last 7000 years of human history then somebody will be left out. Am I wrong?

Lets keep science in the science class and religion in the religous studies class.

This has been said before, but:

Evolution is a scientific theory, therefore it is taught in a science class.

Creation/ID is a faith based belief, therefore it should be taught in a religion/philosophy class.

I have no problem with it being taught as a religious subject, but it just is not science and so it should not be taught alongside science.

And who is not to say that An evolutions is not part of a religous sect????one can say that they beleive in a higher power as well..the power of nature and natural selection..then therefore is that not saying that the gov't is using its power to teach specific beliefs????
religion (OED):
belief in personal god or gods entitled to obedience and worship
(WEBSTER'S):
belief in and worship of god or gods

sect (OED):
group subscribing to (sometimes unorthodox) religious, political, or philosophical doctrines;
religious denomintion
(WEBSTER'S):
a religious denomination;
group of people having a common philosophy, set of beliefs, etc

okay ... now one might concede the idea that there is a "sect" of evolutionists, but not much on the religion side ....

As for which of them can be proven through scientific rigmarole, empirical evidence, biological mechanics .... well, i again don't think that is an issue for religion, since *every* major religion is sorely lacking in that fashion, instead substituting the "faith" trump card, independent of substantiation since to question it would show lack of it. Kind of like certain Bush administration tactics, hmmm. Little coincidence, methinks ....

:rolleyes:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/galejb/Beating%20Dead%20Horse/beating_2Da_2Ddead_2Dhorse.gif

In any case, the theory that evolution was the beginning of life is as unprovable a theory as creationism. Now, based on the presuppositions of science, there is some merit to some kind of evolutionary process, be it micro or macro. I am not willing to engage in that, because it comes down to the presuppositions one holds vs. the presuppositions another holds.

I say let the beginning of life on earth remain a mystery in the science classroom. Why? Because there is no theory that can be proven to have begun life on earth. Thus, you are telling the honest truth about science and theories of origin to the students.

Goddistan']:rolleyes:

In any case, the theory that evolution was the beginning of life is as unprovable a theory as creationism. Now, based on the presuppositions of science, there is some merit to some kind of evolutionary process, be it micro or macro. I am not willing to engage in that, because it comes down to the presuppositions one holds vs. the presuppositions another holds.



That's not the theory of evolution, it has nothing to do with the origin of life or abiogensis. Nor is the evidence for the theory of evoluition "presuppositions".

Please stop misrepresenting things.

Goddistan']:rolleyes:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/galejb/Beating%20Dead%20Horse/beating_2Da_2Ddead_2Dhorse.gif

*snip*

I reckon it looks more like a llama.

That's not the theory of evolution, it has nothing to do with the origin of life or abiogensis. Nor is the evidence for the theory of evoluition "presuppositions".

Please stop misrepresenting things.
AMEN to that. *bows*

As the title implies, this is not meant to say one side is better or that this is to debate if one is more factual then the other. If you want to do either one..please make your own thread and have fun with it.This should prove interesting then.This is more of a plea to both sides to...well..shut up!!!!

Seriously I mean really..shut up.Or perhaps not...this is on the topic of which should be allowed in school.With the above in mind, why didn't you simply revive one of the numerous old threads?Let me first adress my fellow christians and those that favor ID:
First off, I assume most of you are christians. With that being said, grow up and act like christians. Every time you whine about how mistreated you are in this aspect, it only furthers their case against. Even more it enrages them and even discredits eeverything christianity stands for. Where are the Jesus loving, be happy no matter what the world does, christians? Jesus, and many apostles told us that the world will hate us and seek to destroy our way of life. Well let me tell ya something. Go ahead and let them try. As long as we focus our hearts onn Christ and as long as we serve him, there is nothing the can do to us to stop us from worshipping and loving our lord. The worst that could happen is death..even then how bad is that? I mean thats our chance to finally bow at the feet our lord...sorry got off the topic there..but If they don't allow ID to be taught in school..oh well!!! who cares..its not like they can actually take our faith away from us. Let them have their "knowledge"..we have the love of our Saviour... Now I'm a bit confused. Is this a joke, or are you actually serious? Either way, you pull off the archtypical Christian prosecution complex admirably. You don't seriously believe that the scientific community is out to kill you though, do you?As for the evolutionists....And I'm dreading it already...Why does it matter if say our beliefs were to be quesitoned and taught along side yours?Because your fable cannot be questioned. Or rather, because your fable cannot provide any sort of sensible answers to anything what so fucking ever. It takes an endless row of questions - questions that are important for mankind to understand if we wish to progress, and questions students have to be able to examine in depth if they wish to be able to get a higher education - and answers the lot with "God did it". It is the ultimate dead-end. Why do people get sick? God did it. Why do stuff fall to the ground when dropped? God did it. Why are some bacteria suddenly becomming resistent to antibiotics? God did it. Why did so many children born in the polluted Chernobyl area have mutations? God did it.

What you propose is the death of reason & 150000 years of human progress.Its not like we are going to outright say "well here is ID, which obviously is more correct than evolution...yadda yadda yadaa"... No rather we just want everyone's veiws to be EQUALLY represented..Fine then. Next time you bring your car in for service, I want an equal opportunity to fix it with my divine sledgehammer.

You're comparing radically different things. They're not equal in the slightest. And there isn't room for both.
Do you want me to teach math to your children? Sure, we can see normal math works, and we can provide evidence for why it works. But the Star Goat - my God - told me that 2+2=43½ & 2x2=0.7. Don't I have the right to teach the Star Goat's Holy Math to your children? You can refuse to admit it, but there is no way in hell you can argue that this is the slightest bit different from what you propose.

But you have a choice: stop teaching science, or stop teaching bogus science. Allowing ID in science classes is exactly the same as teaching my kind of math in math classes. And it is exactly the same as not teaching science at all.I don't understand the logic of some of that say its ok for you views and beliefs to be shown but not anyone elses.. Now Im not crying out for both to be constantly debated or one to be held higher than the other. Just the mere mentioning of ID would be aceptable...Perhaps like well today we wil leanr about were we came from...evolution teaches this...then later be like "there are some that beleive that a higher diety/dieties created life on this planet" boom..end of story..both sides are touched on upon.. and look no one has been harmed nor offended...To understand how biology works, it is imperative to understand the basics of evolution. And in order to do that, it is imperative to understand the scientific method.

I'm not gonna post a link to Wikipedia's explanation of the scientific method. I'm certain you're either familiar with it & refuse to acknowledge that science can't work with the unknowable, or you're too lazy to spend 5 minutes figuring out just what it is you want to destroy.

But I will try to give a very basic example of why these things aren't compatible.
The scientific method operates with a tool of logic known as Occam's Razor. It was thought up by a Christian priest, who didn't believe that faith was compatible with absolute knowledge. Chances are your own minister can tell you a long tedious story about it. But I digress.

Occams Razor is used to determine which is the most likely explanation for something. If applied to the origin of man, God gets his wrists slit. Because God isn't an explanation for anything.
How did man come to be? Evolution has a long, complicated, and completely falsifiable explanation, running all the way from pre-fungi lifeforms to humans. And not only is it falsifiable, we see it working all around us every single day.
For the sake of brevity, I'm not gonna attempt to examine it here. Feel free to visit talkorigins.org or similar websites, ask your biology teacher, visit your library or whatever the fuck you want. The information is freely accessible for anyone who wants to know.
Whatever, looking at evolution with Occam's Razor, it's a viable answer - but perhaps not the most likely. So let's look at GodDidItism.

Does ID explain how man came to be? Well... It says God did it (sur-fuckin-prise). Here's where the razor comes into play: how did god do it? Not only don't we know the answer, but we can't ever find out.
Well.. Since it's an intelligent bloke, this God fellow (or so people say anyway), he must have had a reason, right? We don't know, and we can't ever find out.
Hmm.. Well where did God come from then? We don't know, and we can't ever find out.

ID proposes nothing. Instead of being called Intelligent Design, it should be called DA; Don't Ask. That's the most sense ID/DA can ever hope to achive.
How was man designed? Don't Ask.
By whom was man designed? Don't Ask.
Was there even intelligence involved? Don't Ask.

Get the picture yet? - Or shouldn't I be asking?speaking of being offended..it offends me that my beliefs are not taught along side yours..but thats ok...however if its vice versa..its not ok and violation of civil liberties..thats gotta stop..its gott be both ways or no way at allYou just don't get it, do you? Evolution theory has nothing to do with belief. You might as well be saying "Well I'm pissed off I'm not allowed to float off into space, just because some stupid git believes in gravity". Again there is not the slightest difference between your silly notion & my silly comparison. Or rather, there is, but only in the sense that my silly example is a lot more fun than yours. Yours is just tragic.Ok For both parties:
GROW UP!!!! So what if the other side gets a bit of their way...its not like you are going to be shot in the head for it.I'm not sure how certain I am about the shooting bit. Anyway, just teach your religious ideas in Sunday School, or make a new class in public school: Religious ED. Easy, no? Noone has a problem with you wanting creationism mentioned in school. But your science education will be rendered useless if you manage to chuck religion in it. Just look at that damn Kansas schoolboard. They had to re-define what science is in order to cram religion in it.

Somehow it begs the (hopelessly insane) question: Why are you so damn scared of science? You obviously have no problem at all with ignoring facts. Why would it be a problem for your offspring to ignore facts?
- It's not like anything terrible happens if you don't believe in evolution. It's not like disbelivingtraffic regulations. You don't risk getting flattened by U-Haul. It's there & it works. And it does so slowly enough that you can comfortably ignore it for the rest of your days.
The only BUT is if you want a higher education. Because you'll need to have a basic grasp of biology for that, and as I've already said, it's not possible to make sense of biology if you refuse to acknowledge how it works. I understand seperation of church and state..but honestly i really think that was intended for purposes along the lines that the gov't can't sponser this religion and persecute that one...like what had happened in Europe. And at the same time..I don't think Christian beliefs should be foced upon anyone...So make a Religious ED class that teaches ALL religions EQUALLY. Sure, the poor kids won't finish the course in their lifetime, but at least you've managed to force your religion on them.myabe perhaps..there could be an elective course that teaches both sides..so that only those that WANT to hear both sides will and no one will be FORCED to...I want math to be an optional combo-class as well. Half for Star Goat maths, and half for conventional heathen sins. Then the kids can chose whether they want to learn both or none. Sure, they won't be able to take a higher education regardless of what they chose, but it's all good as long as I get to screw up fundamental knowledge by forcing my religion on perfectly innocent bystanders.

Besides, if they want to learn heathen sinful math, they can damn well go to a private school. Why shouldn't my religion be forced on the poor by the state?Other than that all i can say is that the other solution that would solve this is to abolish all of it all together so everyone is still equal...:PYups. That is the only solution if the fundamaniacs won't budge. Better yet, let's just abandon public education altogether. The kids will be even worse off if they can't read.

According to Christ & The Star Goat, kids are pathetic leeches, and it's our holy duty to fuck up their lives.Ps if you don't like my views..I don't care... getting upset over something stupid is well...stupid..:DEh.. Why do you bitch & moan like this then?

By the way, did you know the Catholic Church used to be the guardians of science? To have fallen so far... How tragic.

Oh well. The only ones I feel sorry for are your comming generations. I imagine it'll suck to be unable to get an education because of a handful of raving religious fanatics. But India will no doubt be pleased.

As the title implies, this is not meant to say one side is better or that this is to debate if one is more factual then the other. If you want to do either one..please make your own thread and have fun with it.

This is more of a plea to both sides to...well..shut up!!!!

Seriously I mean really..shut up.
-snip-


The trouble with your suggestion is that the believers of evolutionary theory (as a way of explaining how humans and the rest of life got here) will not be happy with any suggestion of ID in the classroom. They would see is as conceding ground in a battle that should have been over a long time ago. The creationists, on the other hand (the ones that believe God made humans as humans), feel that their point of view is not being represented fairly, considering there is mostly not even the slightest mention of a designer in the classroom. So the only way we are going to have peace on this issue is if one of the sides of the simply 'gives in'. Therefore, what you are asking, this plea to both sides to 'shut up', appears to be virtually impossible. On one hand, the evolutionists expect that design should not even be mentioned in the classroom, while on the other hand, the creationists feel that it really is unfair that there is not even a mention of a designer. These two courses are set for collision, and one cannot expect people to stop arguing. Besides, arguing is often fun and educational, so long as it doesn't get out of hand.

And who is not to say that An evolutions is not part of a religous sect????one can say that they beleive in a higher power as well..the power of nature and natural selection..then therefore is that not saying that the gov't is using its power to teach specific beliefs????
By that logic: if 5 nutters in the ruins of Boston believes in a water-god, your government must immediately cease to supply you with water? (or has that been privatised?).

What about if someone worthships the God of pentagons? Does that mean your government must immediately cease to use Pentagon?

By that logic: if 5 nutters in the ruins of Boston believes in a water-god, your government must immediately cease to supply you with water? (or has that been privatised?).

What about if someone worthships the God of pentagons? Does that mean your government must immediately cease to use Pentagon?
I must attest, you have some
EXCELLENT
posts on this thread.

*bows*

Im not being biased..Im trying to say that if all views are not heard then its simply not fair...and someone is being left out...somehow
Science isn't about fair. Nor is it about making sure people's feelers or pocketbooks are not hurt. Think of science as the ultimate parent, the one who says to their bitching child (who has stated, yet again, that "LIFE'S NOT FAIIIIR!"), "Sorry, life ins't fair. Life is dealing with what IS not what is fair!"

Science does the same. It's not fair that someone's life's work is overturned, but that's how science works.

Occams Razor is used to determine which is the most likely explanation for something. If applied to the origin of man, God gets his wrists slit. Because God isn't an explanation for anything.


A major problem with atheism is that atheists expect that reason is the foundation for belief. They hold that reason shows that we don't need God. They also believe that what is true in a science lab is true everywhere. That the laws of reason hold true not only in a lab but also in the furtherest corners of the universe. And then they forget how to explain the source of reason. How can the whole universe (or all that we have discovered so far) really be so consistently reasonable? They assume that reason rules the universe, rather than God, but they cannot explain how reason came to be. They have deposed God and installed reason as king, forgetting that reason cannot even exist unless it too has a source. They consult reason every day of their lives, and ignore the only possible source of reason. And when questioned on this point, they either do not see the problem, or they make the same old mistake of ignoring the problem of source (eg., the source of the big bang). From there it is a slippery slope of applying their favourite Occam's Razor to anything that they don't like, and ending up with a rather unlikely story of origins that must be 'true' because there is no 'reasonable alternative'.

By that logic: if 5 nutters in the ruins of Boston believes in a water-god, your government must immediately cease to supply you with water? (or has that been privatised?).

What about if someone worthships the God of pentagons? Does that mean your government must immediately cease to use Pentagon?

Mr. Similized World, if you are not an American, please move here and start voting, or teaching. We could use more like you.

A major problem with atheism is that atheists expect that reason is the foundation for belief.

I appreciate you putting your flag up early...

There are numerous scientists that work outside the lab, and make careful, long observations of the natural world. While their observations may effect the results, they aren't really limited to laboratories. In fact, many of the scientists I know only go to the lab to teach, and spend their experimental time traveling.

I appreciate you putting your flag up early...

There are numerous scientists that work outside the lab, and make careful, long observations of the natural world. While their observations may effect the results, they aren't really limited to laboratories. In fact, many of the scientists I know only go to the lab to teach, and spend their experimental time traveling.

I think I understand your point. However, that was hardly a major point in my argument. Whether a scientist works inside or outside the lab is irrelevant. In both cases, he assumes that what he observes in Australia is going to be impacted by the same set of laws of nature in Greenland. The laws of nature are consistent, even though there are obvious differences between Australia and Greenland (e.g. temperature). He explains this consistency as being a thread of reason that runs through the entire universe. So, you see, whether he works inside or outside a lab is irrelevant. How he explains the existence of reason is.

How can the whole universe (or all that we have discovered so far) really be so consistently reasonable?
Because everything that has been observed in said known universe works the same everywhere. If it didn't, life would be FAR more interesting. But, as Newton's equations will tell you what happens to the ball you just hit, the same equations state just where the Moon will be tomorrow, and the movement of a planet around another star. The same 'laws' but they hold true through what we have seen.

I think I understand your point. However, that was hardly a major point in my argument. Whether a scientist works inside or outside the lab is irrelevant. In both cases, he assumes that what he observes in Australia is going to be impacted by the same set of laws of nature in Greenland. The laws of nature are consistent, even though there are obvious differences between Australia and Greenland (e.g. temperature). He explains this consistency as being a thread of reason that runs through the entire universe. So, you see, whether he works inside or outside a lab is irrelevant. How he explains the existence of reason is.
I see what you are getting at, and you are making a big mistake about science. Science does NOT answer why questions. It answers how questions only (any why questions are due to English grammar).

For example, it answers how gravity works, the effects thereof, and what that might mean to a spaceship that wants to get to Saturn to take pretty pictures. It does not address WHY gravity decided to do that in the first place, it never can and never will. Those who take offence at evolution and scream how it removes a reason for humanity's existance fail to see that point. Evolution doesn't address why we're here, just how we came to look the way we do.

I think I understand your point. However, that was hardly a major point in my argument. Whether a scientist works inside or outside the lab is irrelevant. In both cases, he assumes that what he observes in Australia is going to be impacted by the same set of laws of nature in Greenland. The laws of nature are consistent, even though there are obvious differences between Australia and Greenland (e.g. temperature). He explains this consistency as being a thread of reason that runs through the entire universe. So, you see, whether he works inside or outside a lab is irrelevant. How he explains the existence of reason is.

I agree that whether he works inside or outside the lab is irrelevant. However, you said:

They also believe that what is true in a science lab is true everywhere. That the laws of reason hold true not only in a lab but also in the furtherest corners of the universe.

You didn't seem to feel it was irrelevant when you thought it supported your position.

this is on the topic of which should be allowed in school.

Both. Evolution in science class, IDism/Creationism in a humanities class regarding theology (subsection fundamentalism).

Let me first adress my fellow christians and those that favor ID:
...we have the love of our Saviour...

You know how offensive this is to me as fellow Christian.
You deny the possibility that you are wrong thereby assuming the role of God.
You deny the possibility that it is possible to believe in God and accept evolution as fact.
You try to implicate that the people who accept evolution as a fact are a bunch of rabid murderers trying to kill of the IDism/Creationism believers.



Why does it matter if say our beliefs were to be quesitoned and taught along side yours? ...its gott be both ways or no way at all

Because IDism/Creationism is a belief and evolution is a fact.
You don't understand your IDistic/Creationisc belief.
You don't understand what the scientific method is about
You don't understand what the role of education is.

You don't understand your IDistic/Creationisc belief.
Have you ever bothered to look closer at the IDistic/Creationistic arguments?
They are all of one form; X is used to support evolution theory. I believe X is wrong and I have this duplicitous shoddy research that is easily disproven and so badly setup that it will never get through the peer review process to prove that. Because I've just 'disproven' X all of evolution theory is wrong therefore IDism/Creationism is correct.
You have to realise one thing. Darwin was a creationist, everyone who argued against him was a creationists but in what must have been one of the most grueling peer reviews ever they could not dismantle his observations, the observations of others that Darwin used and the conclusions Darwin drew out of those observations.

You don't understand what the scientific method is about.
The scientific method is not a belief.
The scientific method is not about morality.
The scientific method is:
(1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses — generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made
You have a slight problem here with trying to shoehorn God into this method since God cannot be observed and this process requires that.
Also there is not a single prediction being made by IDism/creationism that has not been easily disproved, thereby invalidating them.
Evolution and IDism/Creationism are not equal, will not be equal and can never be equal.
To disprove evolution theory you have to disprove the scientific method.

You don't understand what the role of education is.
It is not about sowing doubt. Which will happen if you put evolution and IDism/creationism in the same class seeing that the one is a theory and the other is just arguments against that theory (it's not even a hypothesis).
Ideally education is about getting people who a critical thinkers (good luck with that in the public schooling system in the US, not to disparage teachers but most of it these days seems to be teaching the test not teaching to think).
It is very simple one of the two is more correct, that one should be taught, unfortunately for IDism/creationism there is not one iota of evidence to back it up (as defined by the scientific method) where everything from speciation to mutation (all parts of evolution theory) have been experimentally proven.
Seeing that one has no evidence going for it (as defined by the scientific method) and the other has the only logical conclusion is to teach evolution.

Oh and if you really want to be correct about this then not only IDism/Creationism should be taught but every creation story on the planet should be taught (maybe they can reserve half an hour of this class for IDism/Creationism due to it's large following in the places where this class will be taught).

Ps if you don't like my views..I don't care... getting upset over something stupid is well...stupid..:D
Then why are you getting so worked up about this?

I'll pray for you tonight, asking to strengthen your faith so that you no longer need to try and dismantle the scientific method to prove you believe.

edited for grammar and spelling mistakes

Both. Evolution in science class, IDism/Creationism in a humanities class regarding theology (subsection fundamentalism).

You know how offensive this is to me as fellow Christian.
You deny the possibility that you are wrong thereby assuming the role of God.
You deny the possibility that it is possible to believe in God and accept evolution as fact.
You try to implicate that the people who accept evolution as a fact are a bunch of rabid murderers trying to kill of the IDism/Creationism believers.



Because IDism/Creationism is a belief and evolution is a fact.
You don't understand your IDistic/Creationisc belief.
You don't understand what the scientific method is about
You don't understand what the role of education is.

You don't understand your IDistic/Creationisc belief.
Have you ever bothered to look closer at the IDistic/Creationistic arguments?
They are all of one form; X is used to support evolution theory. I believe X is wrong and I have this duplicitous shoddy research that is easily disproven and so badly setup that it will never get through the peer review process to prove that. Because I've just 'disproven' X all of evolution theory is wrong therefore IDism/Creationism is correct.
You have to realise one thing. Darwin was a creationist, everyone who argued against him was a creationists but in what must have been one of the most grueling peer reviews ever they could not dismantle his observations, the observations of others that Darwin used and the conclusions Darwin drew out of those observations.

You don't understand what the scientific method is about.
The scientific method is not a belief.
The scientific method is not about morality.
The scientific method is:
(1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses — generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made
You have a slight problem here with trying to shoehorn God into this method since God cannot be observed and this process requires that.
Also there is not a single prediction being made by IDism/creationism that has not been easily disproved, thereby invalidating them.
Evolution and IDism/Creationism are not equal, will not be equal and can never be equal.
To disprove evolution theory you have to disprove the scientific method.

You don't understand what the role of education is.
It is not about sowing doubt. Which will happen if you put evolution and IDism/creationism in the same class seeing that the one is a theory and the other is just agruments against that theory (not even a hypothese).
Ideally education is about getting people who a critical thinkers (good luck with that in the public schooling system in the US, not to disparage teachers but most of it these days seems to be teaching the test not teaching to think).
It is very simple one of the two is more correct, that one should be taught, unfortunately for IDism/creationism there is not one iota of evidence to back it up (as defined by the scientific method) where everything from speciation to mutation (all parts of evolution theory) have been experimentally proven.
Seeing that one has no evidence going for it (as defined by the scientific method) and the other has the only logical conclusion is to teach evolution.

Oh and if you really want to be correct about this then not only IDism/Creationism should be taught but every creation story on the planet should be taught (maybe they can reserve half an hour of this class for IDism/Creationism due to it's large following in the places where this class will be taught).

Then why are you getting so worked up about this?

I'll pray for you tonight, asking to strengthen your faith so that you no longer need to try and dismantle the scientific method to prove you believe.
Well said. I hope you don't see my philosophical position regarding religion as an impetus for disregarding my compliment, although i would understand it.
*bows*

He explains this consistency as being a thread of reason that runs through the entire universe. So, you see, whether he works inside or outside a lab is irrelevant. How he explains the existence of reason is.

Your assumptions about what a scientist thinks may not be entirely sound. Many scientists (particularly physicists, I've noticed) are often careful to limit their descriptions of phenomena to be applicable in a given interval of conditions.

For example, we study Newtonian mechanics as a means of modeling the motion of objects, but we are often warned that its usefulness declines with very very small situations, where quantum mechanics become more meaningful.

Scientists try to avoid the broad generalizations you are making, and with the exception of scientists that are plugging a book, most of the don't make statements about "the entire universe".

Because everything that has been observed in said known universe works the same everywhere. If it didn't, life would be FAR more interesting. But, as Newton's equations will tell you what happens to the ball you just hit, the same equations state just where the Moon will be tomorrow, and the movement of a planet around another star. The same 'laws' but they hold true through what we have seen.

Of course, I realize that 'everything that has been observed is the said known universe works the same everywhere', and if it didn't, life may or may not be possible. You may realize that the evolution of life apparently depends on a certain degree of randomness (mutations) together with a certain degree of consistency (natural selection). If the laws of natural selection (natural selection consists of several laws working together) were to change without warning, the effect it would have on life may result in the end of that life (depending on how severe the changes were). But my point is that, since we do see these laws holding true everywhere, and we call it reasonable, how on earth are we to suppose how this came to be? Through a big bang? I don't understand how anyone can suppose this. It's like asking an explosion to create all the laws of nature. It may be that chemicals evolved into life, and that life evolved into more complicated forms of life (although I find that highly unlikely), but it cannot be that the laws of nature evolved from chaos to such a state that they are found to be consistent right throughout the known universe.

Of course, I realize that 'everything that has been observed is the said known universe works the same everywhere', and if it didn't, life may or may not be possible. You may realize that the evolution of life apparently depends on a certain degree of randomness (mutations) together with a certain degree of consistency (natural selection). If the laws of natural selection (natural selection consists of several laws working together) were to change without warning, the effect it would have on life may result in the end of that life (depending on how severe the changes were). But my point is that, since we do see these laws holding true everywhere, and we call it reasonable, how on earth are we to suppose how this came to be? Through a big bang? I don't understand how anyone can suppose this. It's like asking an explosion to create all the laws of nature. It may be that chemicals evolved into life, and that life evolved into more complicated forms of life (although I find that highly unlikely), but it cannot be that the laws of nature evolved from chaos to such a state that they are found to be consistent right throughout the known universe.

Why can the laws of nature not be as ontologically primal as any supposed God might be?

Your assumptions about what a scientist thinks may not be entirely sound. Many scientists (particularly physicists, I've noticed) are often careful to limit their descriptions of phenomena to be applicable in a given interval of conditions.

For example, we study Newtonian mechanics as a means of modeling the motion of objects, but we are often warned that its usefulness declines with very very small situations, where quantum mechanics become more meaningful.

Scientists try to avoid the broad generalizations you are making, and with the exception of scientists that are plugging a book, most of the don't make statements about "the entire universe".

I think I have been careful to mention the entire KNOWN universe. And your cautioning point is, of course, rather relevant here. But it in no wise diminishes my point, because I have approached the subject from the point of caution. It isn't that we expect the universe to suddenly become random once we enter the world of relativity and 'very very small situations', but that other laws of nature which are too small to observe in the big world become more important than the classic Newtonian type laws. However, this is really not weakening my argument, but rather is consistent with it. The laws of relativity are true in Australia and Greenland. This speaks of consistency, and we find it reasonable, but some of us have no explanation for this reason.

But my point is that, since we do see these laws holding true everywhere, and we call it reasonable, how on earth are we to suppose how this came to be?

I rarely hear or read of a scientist discoving an aspect of nature and procaiming "That is reasonable". Reason in science relates to the rigor, consistency, and diligence of the methodology itself, not the conclusions. A conclusion is reasonable only if it is reconcilable with the results of sound experimentation.

This speaks of consistency, and we find it reasonable, but some of us have no explanation for this reason.

Maybe we just disagree on the meaning of "reason" in this context.

When you say "reason", do you mean that consistent conditions in the universe (at whatever scale) must have been consciously assigned and enforced?

As I said, Why can the laws of nature not be as ontologically primal as any supposed God might be?

A major problem with atheism is that atheists expect that reason is the foundation for belief. They hold that reason shows that we don't need God.What does atheism have to do with any of this? Plenty of Christians on this very board says the exact same things I do. Just because one recognise that public space can either drown in multitudes of religions or be seperate from them, it doesn't mean one is nessecarily atheist.They also believe that what is true in a science lab is true everywhere. That the laws of reason hold true not only in a lab but also in the furtherest corners of the universe.I seem to recall you claimed to be a scientist yourself?
These 'laws of reason' you speak of, do you perhaps think it's just a tiny bit beyond the scope of the scientific method to examine such a thing?And then they forget how to explain the source of reason. How can the whole universe (or all that we have discovered so far) really be so consistently reasonable?Science works on the assumption that science works. Dig deep enough and everything works on an assumption. I bother writing this because I assume you're not just a figment of my imagination.

There are clearly defined limits to what the scientific method can be applied to. It can't be applied to your proposition, and you know it.They assume that reason rules the universe, rather than God, but they cannot explain how reason came to be. They have deposed God and installed reason as king, forgetting that reason cannot even exist unless it too has a source.Ignoring for the moment that you can't even be bothered to define what the hell it is you mean...

There is no "They". Noone has done anything to your deity. The scientific method can't be applied to unknowables. The Christian God isn't something we can examine, so the scientific method isn't applicable. Likewise, it's not possible to deify someone/something else by using science.

Methinks you perhaps read too many bibles, play too many RPGs & attend too many cult meetings. Because you don't sound like you can tell fiction from reality.They consult reason every day of their lives, and ignore the only possible source of reason.Yea. It's frustrating as hell that noone worthships me - the source of all reason.

Think that I'm wrong? Then either prove it, or face eternal damnation. Heathen.And when questioned on this point, they either do not see the problem, or they make the same old mistake of ignoring the problem of source (eg., the source of the big bang).Eh..Uh.. What?From there it is a slippery slope of applying their favourite Occam's Razor to anything that they don't like, and ending up with a rather unlikely story of origins that must be 'true' because there is no 'reasonable alternative'.Aaah! So THAT'S what you were gunning for!
I have to ask; is it unreasonable of me to expect you to present an argument?

Actually, you did sort of present one argument: scientists are atheists, atheists doesn't believe in any gods, thus scientists has killed god (that's how I interpreted you anyway).

I'm sure someone like Demp will be pleased to tear that apart. She's Christian after all. But I'll give it a shot in her absense.

Do you believe stuff falls to the ground if dropped?
Does god die if you ask why?
Do you believe it can rain?
Does god die if you ask how?
Do you believe the sky is blue?
Does god die if you examine why?

It's unknown to me just how many scientists are religious, but according to the last numbers I saw, it was more than 70%. So how can that be? How can scientists - the ungodly godkilling, sinful.. Blah - be faithful servants of whatever God they believe in?

The answer is simple. They don't believe it's wrong to try to work out how things work. I know quite a few of them feels they get a closer relationship with god through their work.

So why is it so wrong to examine this thing we call reality? Why is it so terrible not to believe that every last word in the Bible litteral truth?

Why is it so wrong to accept the things we can learn for ourselves?

It's like asking an explosion to create all the laws of nature. It may be that chemicals evolved into life, and that life evolved into more complicated forms of life (although I find that highly unlikely), but it cannot be that the laws of nature evolved from chaos to such a state that they are found to be consistent right throughout the known universe.
Again, you are trying to assign why to science. Science doesn't ask why the laws are the way they are, there's no way to answer that question. Its consern is what the laws are and how they operate.

It leaves the whys to where they belong, the realm of philosophy. That's where you ask and answer your whys. If you're like me, you asign it to God and leave it at that. But when it comes time to teach it in a science class, those whys should be left at the door, it is time for hows only.

Why can the laws of nature not be as ontologically primal as any supposed God might be?

I've not a good reason for that, yet. But assuming that we start with nothing, and then a big bang, and then we have a universe, complete with reasonable laws. Thus we would have a creation of natural laws somewhere along the process.

Alternatively, one could hypothesis that the laws of nature are eternal (I think this is your point), and that they have always existed. Perhaps it's just me, but I find the existence of such coherency and reason before the existence the material world rather ....... I don't know.... funny? And then how is one to explain the conincidence of such laws of nature that appear to be so very well.....designed (my apologies for introducing that word, but it appears to be the best fit here). I know it does come down to belief, but it appears to me that such a belief is no longer based on reason. It is this that I am criticising in the Atheistic world view. While it is supposed to be based on reason, it cannot be, so long as it makes assumptions that 1) the big band created the laws of nature, or 2) the laws of nature have always existed. Considering how perfectly reasonable and consistent these laws are in the KNOWN universe, that is an astounding assumption.

There is no "They". Noone has done anything to your deity. The scientific method can't be applied to unknowables. The Christian God isn't something we can examine, so the scientific method isn't applicable. Likewise, it's not possible to deify someone/something else by using science.


Can we apply the scientific method to a particular model of a God? For instance, if an organization proclaims that there God will appear and make itself known to all the world on a certain date, and it doesn't happen, we could at least challenge that "God" view on scientific grounds, I would think.

Occams Razor is used to determine which is the most likely explanation for something.

You de realise the irony of this don't you :)
The razor is named for the person who used the principle of parsimony in the most ruthless fashion to prove that you cannot prove the existence of God that you can only believe in Him.

By the way, did you know the Catholic Church used to be the guardians of science? To have fallen so far... How tragic.

Still is. To the ID crowd the (now deceased) Pope has to be the anti-christ by publicly stating that there is no conflict between evolution and (catholic) christianity.
To the young earthers he has to be even worse by accepting the validity of the Big Bang theory.

Can we apply the scientific method to a particular model of a God? For instance, if an organization proclaims that there God will appear and make itself known to all the world on a certain date, and it doesn't happen, we could at least challenge that "God" view on scientific grounds, I would think.

No. What it would do is invalidate the hypothesis on which this organisation based this prediction.
edited for grammar and spelling mistakes

Again, you are trying to assign why to science. Science doesn't ask why the laws are the way they are, there's no way to answer that question. Its consern is what the laws are and how they operate.

It leaves the whys to where they belong, the realm of philosophy. That's where you ask and answer your whys. If you're like me, you asign it to God and leave it at that. But when it comes time to teach it in a science class, those whys should be left at the door, it is time for hows only.

Don't get me wrong. I am not criticising science. I really like science. I am criticising Atheism. If you are not an atheist, then you do not have to defend your world view against my criticism. I realise that science is limited to the 'how' that it observes, not the big 'whys'. That is why I am interested in discussing philosophy, because it is exactly here that the battle of world views should be fought, not in science.

As for teaching philosophy in the science classroom, perhaps we should think about what we teach in philosophy class. The problem with that is that, while most students go to some sort of science class, how many get a philosophy class? There wasn't even one in my school. At best, we covered philosophy in history or English.

Considering how perfectly reasonable and consistent these laws are in the KNOWN universe, that is an astounding assumption.
*sighs* How ELSE should they be?

The problem with the 'Wow, everything just fits together so well! It MUST have been designed' bit is that it makes no sense. These are the laws of reality, if they were otherwise, reality would have been changed and we would been having a debate about how obviously God gave us three hands and wouldn't it be awful if we only had two?

The laws were not formed by committee, there is no cosmic Congress (Thank God for THAT) to argue over how things should work. They work because they work.

I've not a good reason for that, yet. But assuming that we start with nothing, and then a big bang, and then we have a universe, complete with reasonable laws. Thus we would have a creation of natural laws somewhere along the process.

Alternatively, one could hypothesis that the laws of nature are eternal (I think this is your point), and that they have always existed. Perhaps it's just me, but I find the existence of such coherency and reason before the existence the material world rather ....... I don't know.... funny? And then how is one to explain the conincidence of such laws of nature that appear to be so very well.....designed (my apologies for introducing that word, but it appears to be the best fit here). I know it does come down to belief, but it appears to me that such a belief is no longer based on reason. It is this that I am criticising in the Atheistic world view. While it is supposed to be based on reason, it cannot be, so long as it makes assumptions that 1) the big band created the laws of nature, or 2) the laws of nature have always existed. Considering how perfectly reasonable and consistent these laws are in the KNOWN universe, that is an astounding assumption.

I think we're still using the term "reason" differently. Also, something being discoverable and testable doesn't mean it had to be made that way on purpose by somebody.

Let's try this: Can you imagine a universe where the laws are all completely different, but to the people that live there, they make sense? We would see their laws as absurd and "unreasonable" (maybe a non-euclidean geometry or something), and they would think ours are ridiculous. But each group considers its own laws reasonable because they are the laws they live under.

Its like a tree falls over and gives shelter to a family of beavers, and every night, the Daddy Beaver says "Now, give thanks to the tree that fell over so we would have a place to live. It did so on purpose, otherwise we wouldn't be here"...

I rarely hear or read of a scientist discoving an aspect of nature and procaiming "That is reasonable". Reason in science relates to the rigor, consistency, and diligence of the methodology itself, not the conclusions. A conclusion is reasonable only if it is reconcilable with the results of sound experimentation.

so, you start by contradicting me and end by agreeing with me. (chuckles to himself)

You have to see that reason is the foundation for both the observation and the conclusion. We make observations because we expect to find something that can be explained using the principles of reason. I have had this in mind when I have claimed that science is based on reason.

Don't get me wrong. I am not criticising science. I really like science. I am criticising Atheism. If you are not an atheist, then you do not have to defend your world view against my criticism. I realise that science is limited to the 'how' that it observes, not the big 'whys'. That is why I am interested in discussing philosophy, because it is exactly here that the battle of world views should be fought, not in science.
I've met many atheists and agnostics, and all have left the whys alone, settled off to the area of what we cannot know and will never know. But how each person deal with it is up to them and them alone.

You can make the same attacks you are making against having faith in a deity (or deities) and along the same lines. Since such Truths can never be settled and must be decided by the individual, why attack?

As for teaching philosophy in the science classroom, perhaps we should think about what we teach in philosophy class. The problem with that is that, while most students go to some sort of science class, how many get a philosophy class? There wasn't even one in my school. At best, we covered philosophy in history or English.
Talk to your local school board, I believe philosophy classes are well worth the time for students to take one.

Its like a tree falls over and gives shelter to a family of beavers, and every night, the Daddy Beaver says "Now, give thanks to the tree that fell over so we would have a place to live. It did so on purpose, otherwise we wouldn't be here"...
And you say I write good posts?! Damn. I pale by comparison. Brilliant example that :)

No. What it would do is invalidate the hypothese on which this organisation based this prediction.

Sounds reasonable. When I say "God View", I mean their hypothesis (well, I guess not exactly, because they believe it utterly, and are only testing it by accident because the leader is ready to hit the Jonestown cool-aid).

So, is the belief of a particular group regarding their God's properties as applied to the observable world considered a Knowable or not? If they say, "Our God's nature is defined by the fact that his followers on Earth are bulletproof", and it doesn't withstand a hunting trip accident, may we at least say "Your God's nature does not appear to include this property in the physical world"?

I think we're still using the term "reason" differently. Also, something being discoverable and testable doesn't mean it had to be made that way on purpose by somebody.

Let's try this: Can you imagine a universe where the laws are all completely different, but to the people that live there, they make sense? We would see their laws as absurd and "unreasonable" (maybe a non-euclidean geometry or something), and they would think ours are ridiculous. But each group considers its own laws reasonable because they are the laws they live under.

Its like a tree falls over and gives shelter to a family of beavers, and every night, the Daddy Beaver says "Now, give thanks to the tree that fell over so we would have a place to live. It did so on purpose, otherwise we wouldn't be here"...

Then let me clarify what I mean by reasonable laws of nature. What I mean is that they are consistent. So much so that we can make predictions. Given another universe, where the laws were all different, so long as one knew those laws, and could use them to make predictions, I would call them reasonable. On the other hand, if there was to exist a universe in which the laws of nature were not consistent.....actually, I'm not sure that such a universe could exist for very long. The laws of nature that differed would probable result in the destruction of such a universe, the abolition. But that is mere speculation. At any rate, it doesn't matter if the laws are strange or familiar, that they are consistent and the same at every location of the universe is the major criteria for 'reason'.

So, is the belief of a particular group regarding their God's properties as applied to the observable world considered a Knowable or not? If they say, "Our God's nature is defined by the fact that his followers on Earth are bulletproof", and it doesn't withstand a hunting trip accident, may we at least say "Your God's nature does not appear to include this property in the physical world"?
Nope, for then the answer is "Ah, but he was not a true follower of the God". 'Tis the dragon in the garage bit.

Sounds reasonable. When I say "God View", I mean their hypothesis (well, I guess not exactly, because they believe it utterly, and are only testing it by accident because the leader is ready to hit the Jonestown cool-aid).

So, is the belief of a particular group regarding their God's properties as applied to the observable world considered a Knowable or not? If they say, "Our God's nature is defined by the fact that his followers on Earth are bulletproof", and it doesn't withstand a hunting trip accident, may we at least say "Your God's nature does not appear to include this property in the physical world"?
Nope. It's not that easy.

Usually believers will have a sort of evidence-mousetrap. For example, these bulletproof people believe their deity to be sentient, right?
And they attribute their being bulletproof to it, right?

In that case, at most you can conclude that the dead guy from the hunting trip died because the deity intended him to. Or perhaps because the deity wasn't paying attention.. Or a million other excuses.

I've met many atheists and agnostics, and all have left the whys alone, settled off to the area of what we cannot know and will never know. But how each person deal with it is up to them and them alone.

You can make the same attacks you are making against having faith in a deity (or deities) and along the same lines. Since such Truths can never be settled and must be decided by the individual, why attack?

Come, now, this is not an attack. This is a criticism. And every atheist must provide a reason (that word again) for his belief, otherwise he cannot claim that his belief is based on reason. You simply cannot afford to ignore the WHYs. You must address them, or hide your head in the sand. I have not come here to conquer atheists, thus I am not attacking. I have come for a reasonable debate. If you don't like it, or cannot provide a reasonable answer, don't participate. I promise I won't think any less of you.


Talk to your local school board, I believe philosophy classes are well worth the time for students to take one.

Yeah, the older I get, the more I agree with you.

*sighs* How ELSE should they be?

The problem with the 'Wow, everything just fits together so well! It MUST have been designed' bit is that it makes no sense. These are the laws of reality, if they were otherwise, reality would have been changed and we would been having a debate about how obviously God gave us three hands and wouldn't it be awful if we only had two?

The laws were not formed by committee, there is no cosmic Congress (Thank God for THAT) to argue over how things should work. They work because they work.

Sure, they work because they work, and I am not using the fact that they fit in so well together to suggest that there must be a designer. Although I have argued that point before, I am not in this case. Rather, I am trying to figure out how the Atheistic world view can explain it. It is not enough just to say 'how else should they be?' That is no different to making the assumption that there must be a God, and 'how else should things be'? That is not really arguing your case. That is like painting the target around the arrow.

Then let me clarify what I mean by reasonable laws of nature. What I mean is that they are consistent. So much so that we can make predictions. Given another universe, where the laws were all different, so long as one knew those laws, and could use them to make predictions, I would call them reasonable. On the other hand, if there was to exist a universe in which the laws of nature were not consistent.....actually, I'm not sure that such a universe could exist for very long. The laws of nature that differed would probable result in the destruction of such a universe, the abolition. But that is mere speculation. At any rate, it doesn't matter if the laws are strange or familiar, that they are consistent and the same at every location of the universe is the major criteria for 'reason'.

Well, you're back to the "same at every location of the universe" thing, but I guess it doesn't matter.

Your version of reason is fine, but it doesn't require any sentient creator, that's all I'm saying. You admit that that you can't answer why Natural Law cannot be ontologically primal (although I also admit that I cannot prove that they are). So, one can be a scientist, a reasonable scientist, and be an atheist as well (or one who separates science and religion as being defined over intervals whose interction is zero).

Come, now, this is not an attack. This is a criticism. And every atheist must provide a reason (that word again) for his belief, otherwise he cannot claim that his belief is based on reason. You simply cannot afford to ignore the WHYs. You must address them, or hide your head in the sand. I have not come here to conquer atheists, thus I am not attacking. I have come for a reasonable debate. If you don't like it, or cannot provide a reasonable answer, don't participate. I promise I won't think any less of you.
Then I turn the question to YOU, please give me a reason for God to have created the constants. I'm interested as I have long ago westled with my faith so I am interested in hearing how you brought yours to bay.

Rather, I am trying to figure out how the Atheistic world view can explain it. It is not enough just to say 'how else should they be?' That is no different to making the assumption that there must be a God, and 'how else should things be'? That is not really arguing your case. That is like painting the target around the arrow.

I preface my comments with the fact that I don't speak for all Atheists or even any signficant subset thereof.

My atheistic world view at this time has no definitive view on the origin of the laws of nature. I also have no definitive understanding of what my next door neighbor will watch on TV tomorrow. So, I recognize that at this time, I don't know either one and I live with it. But I don't assume that what my neighbor is watching will have something to do with me, and I don't assume that the laws of nature are God-borne. They might be, but right now, I don't know, so I don't believe.

Samuel Jackson did a great guestspot on Boondocks the other night, and his character keeps shouting "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence!"

The consistency of the laws of nature could be inherent to the nature of the laws themselves, and just doesn't require a God.

EDIT: I'd agree about having a philosophy class in school, or maybe an elective of either philo, psych, or soc.

Sure, they work because they work, and I am not using the fact that they fit in so well together to suggest that there must be a designer. Although I have argued that point before, I am not in this case. Rather, I am trying to figure out how the Atheistic world view can explain it. It is not enough just to say 'how else should they be?' That is no different to making the assumption that there must be a God, and 'how else should things be'? That is not really arguing your case. That is like painting the target around the arrow.

There's nothing to explain. It's just the way things are. If they were different (which they clearly are not), we wouldn't be here to notice it. So it's not a matter of "how else should they be" at all, but rather, this is the way things are.

The problem is that religious people tend to assign significance to things that aren't really significant, so it the universe "seems" to fit together like there is a plan. Look more closely, you'll see that there isn't.

(Like Pluto, completely useless!).

Come, now, this is not an attack. This is a criticism. And every atheist must provide a reason (that word again) for his belief, otherwise he cannot claim that his belief is based on reason. You simply cannot afford to ignore the WHYs. You must address them, or hide your head in the sand. I have not come here to conquer atheists, thus I am not attacking. I have come for a reasonable debate. If you don't like it, or cannot provide a reasonable answer, don't participate. I promise I won't think any less of you.
I seem to recall the guy you're talking to is a Christian.. But nevermind.

I'm an explicit atheist though, so I'm prolly the kind of person you want to attack or criticise.

What makes you think atheists ignore the WHYs? You ask why, and to you the answer is God.
When I ask why, I don't pretend to know the answer, nor do I cling on to the first possible explanation I come across. As it is, the WHYs you're talking about aren't ones I can answer. I'm not so arrogant as to presume that whatever explanations I personally prefer must by extension be the right ones.

Why is this so important to you?

Well said. I hope you don't see my philosophical position regarding religion as an impetus for disregarding my compliment, although i would understand it.
*bows*

Not at all. I normally don't make an issue of my beliefs. It's not something that should be forced on others.
But in my eyes the ID/creationist group:

Lessens the majesty of God by trying to squeeze him into a method that asks how is X possible
Tries to force a particular belief on others
Makes the average christian look foolish, duplicitous and dishonest by the way they try to push their view .
Turn away people who ask the why questions from christianity because of the way they behave.
Try to destroy a methodology that has given us everything from fresh fruit everyday to people on the moon just to prove their belief is right.


It's because of this that I (and I believe quite a few christians will agree with most of these reasons too) oppose this group (the last reason gets the rest of the against them crowd going as well).

(Like Pluto, completely useless!).
Pluto is NOT useless! Mysterious, yes, arogant, yes, I'll even grant you a bit annoying, but she's NOT useless!

Oh... wait... you meant the planet... er... nevermind.

Pluto is NOT useless! Mysterious, yes, arogant, yes, I'll even grant you a bit annoying, but she's NOT useless!

Oh... wait... you meant the planet... er... nevermind.

I am a big proponent of renaming charon "goofy." Nor am I the only one.

What does atheism have to do with any of this? Plenty of Christians on this very board says the exact same things I do. Just because one recognise that public space can either drown in multitudes of religions or be seperate from them, it doesn't mean one is nessecarily atheist.I seem to recall you claimed to be a scientist yourself?

I specifically criticised the Atheistic world view. If there are any Christians or anyone else that hold the same views as the Atheists, then they may like to defend their views at any point that my criticism touches. Otherwise the criticism is irrelevant to them.

I do know a thing or two about science, but I would be the first to say that my knowledge is rather limited, much more than I would like it to be. If you can help change that, I will thank you.


These 'laws of reason' you speak of, do you perhaps think it's just a tiny bit beyond the scope of the scientific method to examine such a thing?Science works on the assumption that science works. Dig deep enough and everything works on an assumption. I bother writing this because I assume you're not just a figment of my imagination.


I never mentioned laws of reason, I referred to the reasonableness of the laws of nature. This reasonableness cannot be a subjective thing, because we find that the laws of nature are consistent right throughout the known universe. They operate regardless of the presence of humans. They are not there simply because we looked for them. A tree that falls in a deserted forest still make a noise, even if there is no one there to hear it fall.



There are clearly defined limits to what the scientific method can be applied to. It can't be applied to your proposition, and you know it.Ignoring for the moment that you can't even be bothered to define what the hell it is you mean...


If you bothered to understand my criticism you would have realized that I am not trying to apply the scientific method to anything. In fact, I am addressing a philosophical position. Did you get distracted by my mention of science?


There is no "They". Noone has done anything to your deity. The scientific method can't be applied to unknowables. The Christian God isn't something we can examine, so the scientific method isn't applicable. Likewise, it's not possible to deify someone/something else by using science.


Science has done nothing to the Bible or to God. In that you and I can agree. The real battlefield is in philosophy. The conflict of world views. And it is this point that I am addressing. I hope that you will eventually realise this.



Methinks you perhaps read too many bibles, play too many RPGs & attend too many cult meetings. Because you don't sound like you can tell fiction from reality.Yea. It's frustrating as hell that noone worthships me - the source of all reason.


Think whatever you like. Just get to the point of defending against the criticism that I presented.


Think that I'm wrong? Then either prove it, or face eternal damnation. Heathen.Eh..Uh.. What?Aaah! So THAT'S what you were gunning for!
I have to ask; is it unreasonable of me to expect you to present an argument?


Is that flamebait? Are you trying to be a troll?



Actually, you did sort of present one argument: scientists are atheists, atheists doesn't believe in any gods, thus scientists has killed god (that's how I interpreted you anyway).

I'm sure someone like Demp will be pleased to tear that apart. She's Christian after all. But I'll give it a shot in her absense.


I personally don't believe that scientists = atheist. Most scientists are probably agnostic. And certainly most atheists are not scientists (that I have personally met, anyway).


And if you have interpreted me that way, you have clearly demonstrated your inability to read a post.


Do you believe stuff falls to the ground if dropped?
Does god die if you ask why?
Do you believe it can rain?
Does god die if you ask how?
Do you believe the sky is blue?
Does god die if you examine why?


yes, no (he sometimes answers), yes, no, yes, no


It's unknown to me just how many scientists are religious, but according to the last numbers I saw, it was more than 70%. So how can that be? How can scientists - the ungodly godkilling, sinful.. Blah - be faithful servants of whatever God they believe in?


This is completely irrelevant to my criticism of Atheism. Sheesh.



The answer is simple. They don't believe it's wrong to try to work out how things work. I know quite a few of them feels they get a closer relationship with god through their work.

So why is it so wrong to examine this thing we call reality? Why is it so terrible not to believe that every last word in the Bible litteral truth?

Why is it so wrong to accept the things we can learn for ourselves?

Why indeed. I have often thought that the problem is not so much that people ask, but rather, that they have stopped asking. For example, they assume that God does not exist, and refuse to ask themselves if such an assumption really is that wise after all.

Well, you're back to the "same at every location of the universe" thing, but I guess it doesn't matter.

Your version of reason is fine, but it doesn't require any sentient creator, that's all I'm saying. You admit that that you can't answer why Natural Law cannot be ontologically primal (although I also admit that I cannot prove that they are). So, one can be a scientist, a reasonable scientist, and be an atheist as well (or one who separates science and religion as being defined over intervals whose interction is zero).

Well, we do predict that the laws of nature are the same at every location of the universe. We just don't have experimental evidence of this.

Of course an Atheist can be reasonable. I know several of them that make good scientists. I have tried to approach the criticism with respect for the position. I have no interest in ridiculing your position. I hope to find a reasonable answer to my criticism. If not, I may conclude that the Atheistic world view is not based on reason, but belief, after all, and is, perhaps, less reasonable than other belief-based world views.

Then I turn the question to YOU, please give me a reason for God to have created the constants. I'm interested as I have long ago westled with my faith so I am interested in hearing how you brought yours to bay.


Well, now, you are proposing that I change the topic on this debate. I am open to directing the discussion towards why I believe in God (and consequently allowing all and sundry to criticise that). But have we really finished with our criticism/defense of Atheism yet?

Well, we do predict that the laws of nature are the same at every location of the universe. We just don't have experimental evidence of this.


Well astronomers would differ about that.

Well, now, you are proposing that I change the topic on this debate. I am open to directing the discussion towards why I believe in God (and consequently allowing all and sundry to criticise that). But have we really finished with our criticism/defense of Atheism yet?
Actually I do not believe that it is changing the debate topic at all. You have stated (and if I am mistaken, pray correct me), that atheism is not reasonable as it maintains that laws are the same in all places without looking at what caused those laws to spring into existence in the first place, correct?

The question put back to you is that alternate hypothosis do you propose that is more reasonable than to assume that with the creation of matter, the laws the govern it came into being at the same time. And why, of course.

Well, we do predict that the laws of nature are the same at every location of the universe. We just don't have experimental evidence of this.

Of course an Atheist can be reasonable. I know several of them that make good scientists. I have tried to approach the criticism with respect for the position. I have no interest in ridiculing your position. I hope to find a reasonable answer to my criticism. If not, I may conclude that the Atheistic world view is not based on reason, but belief, after all, and is, perhaps, less reasonable than other belief-based world views.

I'm not trying to be a stickler, here, but saying "An atheist can be reasonable" and also saying "The Atheistic world-view is not based on reason" is kind of hard on the eyes.

Is the following a correct paraphrasing of your criticism:

"There must be a creator because the laws of the universe are consistent with themselves".

If so, I can look back and see where several people have answered that.

If you're seriously looking for an answer, try this. Imagine a world where there's a God that nobody created, it was always there, nobody made Him, he saturates all dimensions, including time, but he didn't have a Father that made him. He was just always there, not created by any intelligence.

If you can imagine a God with those properties, you can see why we can understand the premise of a set of natural laws with those properties.

This has been said before, but:

Evolution is a scientific theory, therefore it is taught in a science class.

Creation/ID is a faith based belief, therefore it should be taught in a religion/philosophy class.

I have no problem with it being taught as a religious subject, but it just is not science and so it should not be taught alongside science.

I'd have no problem either - in fact, I'd strongly advocate the position that we *ought* to teach a comparative religion in the lower public schools. In such a class, even if it wasn't comprehensive, I'd have no objection to ID being discussed alongside the creation stories of various faiths.

ID, however, isn't remotely related to science. Even the notion that this is a *new* tactic from creationists is false. ID doesn't raise a *single* new objection to evolution that wasn't levelled against Darwin while he was still alive. Objections which, btw, were all scientifically debunked a century ago. :headbang:

to avoid serious descent into vitriol, I won't mention who I believe is behind this resurgence of medieval thought, butn his initials are K.R.

ltt

I preface my comments with the fact that I don't speak for all Atheists or even any signficant subset thereof.

My atheistic world view at this time has no definitive view on the origin of the laws of nature. I also have no definitive understanding of what my next door neighbor will watch on TV tomorrow. So, I recognize that at this time, I don't know either one and I live with it. But I don't assume that what my neighbor is watching will have something to do with me, and I don't assume that the laws of nature are God-borne. They might be, but right now, I don't know, so I don't believe.

Samuel Jackson did a great guestspot on Boondocks the other night, and his character keeps shouting "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence!"

The consistency of the laws of nature could be inherent to the nature of the laws themselves, and just doesn't require a God.

EDIT: I'd agree about having a philosophy class in school, or maybe an elective of either philo, psych, or soc.

So if I were to try and understand your world view, you admit a large degree of uncertainty, and conclude that so long as the uncertainty remains, it is grounds enough for an assumption of the non-existence of God. You sure are right to not speak for the majority of Atheists. Most Atheists that I know would never admit to the uncertainty that you speak of.

What you are postulating is that the laws of nature somehow brought themselves into existence, or that they were always there. The first option is not explainable in terms of science. A law of nature is a description of something that consistently happens. Laws of nature do not make things happen. They describe things that do happen. Thus a law of nature cannot do anything, certainly not create itself. As for the laws of nature being eternal (e.g., like God), that is a possibility, but you can see for yourself that this idea is not in any way superior to the idea of an eternal God. Thus, one cannot argue that Atheism (of this ilk) is more reasonable than something like Christianity, since it depends on the same sort of assumptions that cannot be proven. But where Christianity (IMO) is superior to Atheism is that, through God, we have an explanation by which the laws of nature came to be (though the explanation is not a scientific one). We reserve that right to use explanations that are supernatural, since this is a part of our world view. An Atheistic viewpoint, however, cannot resort to supernatural explanations (e.g. an eternal God), and therefore, has a problem with assuming that the laws of nature are eternal.

Well astronomers would differ about that.

Feel free to expand on that one.

Feel free to expand on that one.

Every direction that we look in, using any type of telescope you want (x-ray/radio/visible light) looks and behaves the same way. Look 1,000,000 light years in one direction, and then look 1,000,000 light years in the other, and you can see identical star types, with identical compositions behaving exactly the same way. Even the bits in between look the same.

Not only that, because light travels at a finite speed, the further away you look, the older the picture is that you are getting. In a way it is a window through time. At different distances (i.e. different time periods), behaviour is again identical.

From this we can observe that not only are the underlying laws of the universe consistent throughout space, they have been consitent and identical throughout observed history* as well.

All this, "there is no evidence of the uniformity of natural laws" stuff is just piffle.

I would also point out, that even without astronomic evidence, it would seem fairly self-evident in any case.

*Cosmological theories tend to propose that in the immeadiate period after the big bang they were somewhat different, but that is irrelevant for the purposes of the present discussion.

We reserve that right to use explanations that are supernatural, since this is a part of our world view. An Atheistic viewpoint, however, cannot resort to supernatural explanations (e.g. an eternal God), and therefore, has a problem with assuming that the laws of nature are eternal.

Why do you assume that in order to be eternal, something must be supernatural? The real number line, the number of discrete pointes in a bounded area, both are infinite, but hardly supernatural.

You are correct that we cannot resort to a supernatural explanation, and not all atheists assume the laws of nature are eternal; at this point, all I'm saying is not its not unreasonable to consider it possible, so athiests aren't unreasonable for considering it possible.



But you're suggesting, atheists are unreasonable for believing in the possibility of eternal laws of nature, but religions are not unreasonable for believing with certainty in an eternal God...

All this, "there is no evidence of the uniformity of natural laws" stuff is just piffle.

I would also point out, that even without astronomic evidence, it would seem fairly self-evident in any case.

I'll admit you're probably a better scientist than I am, but I'm not completely on board with this.

What if somebody finds there are 9 dimensions, and certain laws only carry in 7 of them? Perhaps that just calls for a refinement, or expansion, of existing statement of natural law.

I guess I'm a little uncomfortable with extrapolating laws to places and conditions we haven't really seen yet.

EDIT: I will say natural law is consistent throughout the observable universe, or we wouldn't call it law. If we are useing the terms "observable universe", "known universe", and "universe" interchangably, then, it makes more sense to me, my bad.

Is that flamebait? Are you trying to be a troll?Here's a quote from the post I responded to. It still looks to me like you were taking a stab at the credibility of the scientific method & labeled all scientists atheists. I'm glad that isn't the case, and the quote is only intended to show why I misinterpreted you.A major problem with atheism is that atheists expect that reason is the foundation for belief. They hold that reason shows that we don't need God.
They also believe that what is true in a science lab is true everywhere. That the laws of reason hold true not only in a lab but also in the furtherest corners of the universe.And then they forget how to explain the source of reason. How can the whole universe (or all that we have discovered so far) really be so consistently reasonable?And yups. I was baiting you a bit, I'm afraid. Your post annoyed me & I was under the impression that was your intent. Sorry about that.Why indeed. I have often thought that the problem is not so much that people ask, but rather, that they have stopped asking. For example, they assume that God does not exist, and refuse to ask themselves if such an assumption really is that wise after all.Just for the record: it's perfectly normal to be an agnostic theist. In my corner of the world, most people are agnostics, whether they're religious or not.

I still don't understand what it is you're trying to criticise. You've previously displayed the ability to define what you talk about, so I'd appreciate it if you'd do so now. Otherwise the atheists you bait will have a hard time providing the answers you seek.

Personally I assume divinity doesn't exist. From my point of veiw, only concentrating on one single God says a lot more about a persons upbringing than it does about a persons ability to think independently. But I digress.

Why should I assume divinity exists? The continuity & coherency of the universe is by far the strongest argument for divinity, and yet it seems like someone with a preconcieved idea grasping for straws, if you ask me.

I don't rule out the possibility that divinity may exist, may eventually exist or may have existed. I don't because I can't. And even if I had such knowledge, it's doubtful that I'd share it.

Why can't the universe be coherrent without a deity? I can't answer that either. But I can make the observation that it seems to have no problem with the absense of divinity. I've never found the slightest indication that divinity exists, after all, and cosmos seems to be just fine.
You could draw a parallel to the evo-crea debate. Evolution requires nothing from anyone. People doesn't even have to believe in it. It's just a mechanism. As someone else on here put it "It's OK not to believe in evolution, evolution believes in you".
The same seems to be the case here. It seems like a bunch of people are badly in need of some sort of higher ideal, and so they've invented one, and will attribute as much as they can to it.

Things like these doesn't make divinity credible. It's not proof against divinity, but it doesn't make it seem all that likely.
Seeing as I'm a semi-rational being, I won't simply subscribe to an idea(l) because it's agreeable. Much less to when it's not even remotely credible.

And then there's the philosophical aspect. I intensely dislike the idea of a divine entity that actually bothers with us. If such a thing makes demands or just espresses wishes for our conduct, then that entity must be held accountable. If not, then it can sod off.
I will not hand over my freedom to some entity that I can't even question. Authority that cannot be challenged is anathema to me. And in my personal veiw of the world, such an entity cannot possibly be benevolent.

So there. I suspect we all ask the same questions. Some find answers, others don't. I'll be looking 'till the day I die - not that I think there are any answers to be had, but questioning everything is my natural state of being.

I'm not trying to be a stickler, here, but saying "An atheist can be reasonable" and also saying "The Atheistic world-view is not based on reason" is kind of hard on the eyes.

I had to smile at that one. You had a nice way of putting it....hard on the eyes.
Perhaps you can picture it this way. Within the Atheistic viewpoint, it is possible to be consistent and reasonable. People who are consistent MAY tend to see something like rape as a product of evolution, and therefore a normal part of life. Of course, many atheists would argue against that, since they might say that part of evolution of the human species is to eradicate some of the 'hangovers' of our past in order to ensure a superior society, one free from rape and all other upsetting forms of 'barbarianism'. Both sides of the debate can be argued well using reason, by Atheists. But my point is that the foundations of Atheism (e.g. there is no God) is not based on reason. When atheism addresses issues within the known world, it uses reason. When it tries to address issues that are outside the known world, it no longer relies on reason, but belief based assumptions that turn out to be (if my criticism is fair) unreasonable.


Is the following a correct paraphrasing of your criticism:

"There must be a creator because the laws of the universe are consistent with themselves".

If so, I can look back and see where several people have answered that.

If you're seriously looking for an answer, try this. Imagine a world where there's a God that nobody created, it was always there, nobody made Him, he saturates all dimensions, including time, but he didn't have a Father that made him. He was just always there, not created by any intelligence.

If you can imagine a God with those properties, you can see why we can understand the premise of a set of natural laws with those properties.


That isn't really my criticism. My criticism is this. Atheism assumes reason, but cannot explain how it came to be, since it is forbidden to allow supernatural explanations.

The thing is, a Christian world view is perfectly consistent with supernatural explanations. An Atheistic one is not.

Every direction that we look in, using any type of telescope you want (x-ray/radio/visible light) looks and behaves the same way. Look 1,000,000 light years in one direction, and then look 1,000,000 light years in the other, and you can see identical star types, with identical compositions behaving exactly the same way. Even the bits in between look the same.

Not only that, because light travels at a finite speed, the further away you look, the older the picture is that you are getting. In a way it is a window through time. At different distances (i.e. different time periods), behaviour is again identical.

From this we can observe that not only are the underlying laws of the universe consistent throughout space, they have been consitent and identical throughout observed history* as well.

All this, "there is no evidence of the uniformity of natural laws" stuff is just piffle.

I would also point out, that even without astronomic evidence, it would seem fairly self-evident in any case.

*Cosmological theories tend to propose that in the immeadiate period after the big bang they were somewhat different, but that is irrelevant for the purposes of the present discussion.

I think you have misunderstood me. I mentioned that scientists predict that all the laws of nature are consistent in every corner of the universe. In other words, we predict that behaviour is identical. Then I said that we don't have experimental evidence for that. I concede that we do have some, as you have pointed out. But we have hardly been able to observe every corner of the universe. At any rate, it is hardly that relevant to our present discussion.

That isn't really my criticism. My criticism is this. Atheism assumes reason, but cannot explain how it came to be, since it is forbidden to allow supernatural explanations.

The thing is, a Christian world view is perfectly consistent with supernatural explanations. An Atheistic one is not.

Well, I say we apply reason, and like all human methodology (including unreason), it came from us through trial and error, but lets operate under the idea that "Atheism assumes a reason, but cannot explain how it came to be".

If I can't explain something, I must therefore invoke a supernatural reason? I'm not allowed to just learn and develop without knowing, until I reach the point where I can understand without resorting to the supernatural?

I'm sorry, but it really feels like you're saying "Athiests are unreasonable, because when they don't have an explanation, they refuse to believe in supernatural things".

What if all people believed this? Everything we didn't understand would have been assigned a supernatural cause.

I'm not saying this to be rude, but talking to you makes me envision a world where all people do that, and it makes me want to start voting heavily against parties with lots of religious constituents...

I'll admit you're probably a better scientist than I am, but I'm not completely on board with this.

What if somebody finds there are 9 dimensions, and certain laws only carry in 7 of them? Perhaps that just calls for a refinement, or expansion, of existing statement of natural law.

I guess I'm a little uncomfortable with extrapolating laws to places and conditions we haven't really seen yet.

EDIT: I will say natural law is consistent throughout the observable universe, or we wouldn't call it law. If we are useing the terms "observable universe", "known universe", and "universe" interchangably, then, it makes more sense to me, my bad.

My, bad too, I should have made it clearer that I was refering to the only to the part which we can observe. (Which is quite a lot, and if you count background radiation, as far back as 100,000 years after the big bang.)

The thing is, a Christian world view is perfectly consistent with supernatural explanations. An Atheistic one is not.

You seem like a nice enough guy, and I think you're the sort that will only try to advance his beliefs peacefully. I wish all religious people were like you in that regard, and atheists, too.

But, oh...just looking at that statement, and I need a drink...

EDIT: Its a true statement, but I don't think we agree on the ramifications of the statement.

My, bad too, I should have made it clearer that I was refering to the only to the part which we can observe. (Which is quite a lot, and if you count background radiation, as far back as 100,000 years after the big bang.)

No sweat, I think your interpretation is more meaningful, for discussion and in general.

I think you have misunderstood me. I mentioned that scientists predict that all the laws of nature are consistent in every corner of the universe. In other words, we predict that behaviour is identical. Then I said that we don't have experimental evidence for that. I concede that we do have some, as you have pointed out. But we have hardly been able to observe every corner of the universe. At any rate, it is hardly that relevant to our present discussion.

You are confusing mathmatical proof with scientific proof. You could make the same argument against the principle of conservation of mass, i.e., that just becuase every chemical reaction that has ever occured has not been measured and studied, we don't know that mass is always conserved during chemical processes.

However that is not how it works. Every astronomical measurement that has been made supports the theory that natural law is consitent throughout the universe. (And this covers a great deal of territory, from using emission spectra to study radioactive and quantum process, to measurements of the effect of gravity &c,).

On the other hand, there is not a single measurement that refutes this theory.

Ergo, it is an established scientific theory, like the conservation of mass, and therefore an accepted natural law.

Your claim that it could be different, has absolutely no evidence supporting it, and therefore - until evidence to the contrary is produced - can be dismissed along with the tooth fairy.

That isn't really my criticism. My criticism is this. Atheism assumes reason, but cannot explain how it came to be, since it is forbidden to allow supernatural explanations.

The thing is, a Christian world view is perfectly consistent with supernatural explanations. An Atheistic one is not.
Atheism isn't a religion. It's not even a particular school of thought. It's just a term covering the people who doesn't believe in gods.
It's no cult with lifelong memberships. I could take up religion in an hour, if I was so inclined.

The comparison you draw is faulty on a couple of levels, most noticably that you assume atheism is a consistent school of thought, and not just a condition. Atheism can't do anything. It's not an institution & has no creeds. It's simply a word defining a human condition.

Atheists, however, can easily accept the supernatural. They can even accept the supernatural & remain atheists. If they decide to embrace divinity, then they cease to be atheists. It's that simple. And consistecy has fuck-all to do with it.

You also (possibly inadvertedly) make the assumption that we know everything. We don't. You can't tell me why constants can't be constants on their own, anymore than I can tell you how God created them. Neither one of have the knowledge.
Still, religion sticks an immovable placeholder where atheists usually leave a questionmark. The questionmark can be reevaluated. Can your God?

I think you have misunderstood me. I mentioned that scientists predict that all the laws of nature are consistent in every corner of the universe. In other words, we predict that behaviour is identical. Then I said that we don't have experimental evidence for that. I concede that we do have some, as you have pointed out. But we have hardly been able to observe every corner of the universe. At any rate, it is hardly that relevant to our present discussion.

It's easy. the current model says the behaviour is the same everywhere.
You say it isn't, then it is up to you to prove this.
That is what science is all about.
If you fail it's just reaffirmation that the current model is the best we have.
If you succeed you'll end up getting several Nobelprizes, that's how earth shattering big your discovery is.

Atheists, however, can easily accept the supernatural. They can even accept the supernatural & remain atheists. If they decide to embrace divinity, then they cease to be atheists. It's that simple. And consistecy has fuck-all to do with it.
Can your God?

Atheists can believe in the supernatural? Hrm, yeah, I guess a God and a thing that can violate natural law don't have to be the same thing. My bad, I stand corrected.

Why do you assume that in order to be eternal, something must be supernatural? The real number line, the number of discrete pointes in a bounded area, both are infinite, but hardly supernatural.

Quite right. Perhaps you have me there. Perhaps it is a weakness in my worldview that cannot imagine the laws of nature existing for an eternity in the absence of matter. You know, I will have to go away and think that over some more. Eternity is.....a long time.....timeless in fact. I cannot get my head around it. We think that matter is finite, that it needs a beginning. As for the laws that describe the interaction of matter....wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that they came about with the introduction of matter?

I do see a difference between infinite and supernatural, just for the record. The question is over how we can know something is infinite. And I am not referring to mathematical ideas, where we can 'prove' infinity, but with such an issue as time.....that has to be speculation.


You are correct that we cannot resort to a supernatural explanation, and not all atheists assume the laws of nature are eternal; at this point, all I'm saying is not its not unreasonable to consider it possible, so athiests aren't unreasonable for considering it possible.

But you're suggesting, atheists are unreasonable for believing in the possibility of eternal laws of nature, but religions are not unreasonable for believing with certainty in an eternal God...

Of course religion believes in the certainty of an eternal God. This is reasonable, consistent with their world view that includes an eternal supernatural. My criticism is not so much that Atheism accepts that the laws of nature are eternal, (indeed, perhaps many Atheists do not hold to this), but that while the laws of nature are predicted to be universal, based on reason, that reason itself requires no source.

It's easy. the current model says the behaviour is the same everywhere.
You say it isn't, then it is up to you to prove this.
That is what science is all about.
If you fail it's just reaffirmation that the current model is the best we have.
If you succeed you'll end up getting several Nobelprizes, that's how earth shattering big your discovery is.

I'm sorry, some of what Bruarong is saying may be more my fault. I actually objected to the idea that Natural Law is pervasive in all conceivable places and conditions, because I wasn't taking "the universe" to mean "the observable universe". It was a needless complication, and I think it was mostly my fault.

My criticism is not so much that Atheism accepts that the laws of nature are eternal, (indeed, perhaps many Atheists do not hold to this), but that while the laws of nature are predicted to be universal, based on reason, that reason itself requires no source.

Is a conception of God permitted to include the idea of God having no source, and still be considered reasonable to you?

If so, why can a set of natural laws not also be without source?

I had to smile at that one. You had a nice way of putting it....hard on the eyes.
Perhaps you can picture it this way. Within the Atheistic viewpoint, it is possible to be consistent and reasonable. People who are consistent MAY tend to see something like rape as a product of evolution, and therefore a normal part of life. Of course, many atheists would argue against that, since they might say that part of evolution of the human species is to eradicate some of the 'hangovers' of our past in order to ensure a superior society, one free from rape and all other upsetting forms of 'barbarianism'. Both sides of the debate can be argued well using reason, by Atheists. But my point is that the foundations of Atheism (e.g. there is no God) is not based on reason. When atheism addresses issues within the known world, it uses reason. When it tries to address issues that are outside the known world, it no longer relies on reason, but belief based assumptions that turn out to be (if my criticism is fair) unreasonable.




That isn't really my criticism. My criticism is this. Atheism assumes reason, but cannot explain how it came to be, since it is forbidden to allow supernatural explanations.

The thing is, a Christian world view is perfectly consistent with supernatural explanations. An Atheistic one is not.

couple problems: I'm not comfortable with the way you keep conflating atheism and evolution. That may not be your intent, but it's present every time you mentione them both in the same sentence. So, 1 - there aren't really any organizations of atheists who, "might say that part of evolution of the human species is to eradicate some of the 'hangovers' of our past in order to ensure a superior society," further, there aren't any evolutionary biologists worth their salt who would demand evolutionary origins (in the naturally-selected sense) for every physical and behavioral feature of the contemporary world.

Personally, I'm also repulsed by your claim that Atheism somehow fails to explain something that Christianity does explain. I arrived at my atheism through reason as taught to me by Franciscan friars at a Catholic university. There are, I think, reasonable arguments both for and against the existence of a divine presence in the universe. I come down in favour of the *reasoned* argument against, which largely amounts to this: no religion has ever explained *anything* that isn't more effectively explained by reason. And reason does not, as you claim, require a "supernatural" origin. It might have one, but your assertion that it *needs* one is baseless. Here, I suppose, you might raise the objection that I'm using reason to draw this conclusion, in which case I would assert that you have retreated from the realm of actual discourse into a safe place where your fundamental assumption (we need to know where reason comes from) is wholly unassailable.

In which case, you're not presenting a position, you're asserting the existence of an incontrovertible truth that you insist must underly any further discussion.

That's just bad-faith discourse, as far as I'm concerned, and I would have thought the same back when I believed in God.

Atheists can believe in the supernatural? Hrm, yeah, I guess a God and a thing that can violate natural law don't have to be the same thing. My bad, I stand corrected.
There's a lot of that around here. Seems like people all think "atheist=anti-hokus-pokus". All it means is lack of belief in God(s). You can even believe in "divine essence" type things & you'll still be atheist. Some nature religions are atheist.

The Great Murkey Atheism isn't a school of thought. The only reason it's a word at all, is because it was highly abnormal not to worthship a bunch of gods back when it was invented. It's a catch-all term for the ungodly. And nothing more.

You are confusing mathmatical proof with scientific proof. You could make the same argument against the principle of conservation of mass, i.e., that just becuase every chemical reaction that has ever occured has not been measured and studied, we don't know that mass is always conserved during chemical processes.

However that is not how it works. Every astronomical measurement that has been made supports the theory that natural law is consitent throughout the universe. (And this covers a great deal of territory, from using emission spectra to study radioactive and quantum process, to measurements of the effect of gravity &c,).

On the other hand, there is not a single measurement that refutes this theory.

Ergo, it is an established scientific theory, like the conservation of mass, and therefore an accepted natural law.

Your claim that it could be different, has absolutely no evidence supporting it, and therefore - until evidence to the contrary is produced - can be dismissed along with the tooth fairy.

I really feel that I have been misunderstood. My original point was that we have no reason to believe that the laws of nature are not consistent throughout the entire universe. You seem to think that I was saying the opposite. I agree with you, fella. Get that? AGREE

It's a catch-all term for the ungodly. And nothing more.

While, I'll admit to being ungodly, as long as I'm not a dark-sided psychic, tainted in beliefs.

Sorry, too much television.

What term can we use for "anti-hocus-pocus"?

My criticism is not so much that Atheism accepts that the laws of nature are eternal, (indeed, perhaps many Atheists do not hold to this), but that while the laws of nature are predicted to be universal, based on reason, that reason itself requires no source.

I've bolded the relevant part.

This is your problem. They are not based on reason. They are not based on anything. They just are. There is no "reason" whatsoever for them to be the way they are; it just turned out that way.

However, because they are consistent and uniform, we can use our own reasoning facilities to study, examine and explain how they work.

but that while the laws of nature are predicted to be universal, based on reason, that reason itself requires no source.

reason's source could simply be evolution itself: extrapolating from the particular to the universal, and modifying one's expectations when actual results differ from expected results could easily be imagined as evolutionarily selective: i.e. creatures that exhibit this skill, for wholly random reasons, come to dominate contemporary populations.

In this view, reason is simply conditioning writ large, and needs no supernatural explanation.

While, I'll admit to being ungodly, as long as I'm not a dark-sided psychic, tainted in beliefs.

Sorry, too much television.

What term can we use for "anti-hocus-pocus"?
Explicit Atheist or Hardcore Atheist. Failling that, Anti-HP (my printer died the other day)

Is a conception of God permitted to include the idea of God having no source, and still be considered reasonable to you?

If so, why can a set of natural laws not also be without source?


The definition of God is that he is eternal. Thus he requires no source. If you like, he is 'safely deposited' in the cloud of supernatural. Atheism does not enjoy this luxury. It must either provide a reason for reason, or admit that it cannot, and thereby lose it's claim to be based on reason. It may use reason, but if it cannot explain reason, it cannot claim to be based on reason. If that is the case, it's favourite weapon has failed to help it out of a sticky situation. (I realize that one might upset people, but I couldn't resist--plus, I am only speaking hypothetically. It's not meant to bash Atheists, but just to get them to think a bit harder to find some good 'reasons'.)

I've bolded the relevant part.

This is your problem. They are not based on reason. They are not based on anything. They just are. There is no "reason" whatsoever for them to be the way they are; it just turned out that way.

However, because they are consistent and uniform, we can use our own reasoning facilities to study, examine and explain how they work.

I think he/she means that human beings use reason to arrive at the assumption: every observation yields X, therefore X is true everywhere.

Fortunately reason already has a mechanism for dealing with this: when we see notX anywhere we expect to see X, we look again and again and again, and if we keep seeing notX, we change the assumption.

you know,

that science thing we were talking about before... ;)

I've bolded the relevant part.

This is your problem. They are not based on reason. They are not based on anything. They just are. There is no "reason" whatsoever for them to be the way they are; it just turned out that way.

However, because they are consistent and uniform, we can use our own reasoning facilities to study, examine and explain how they work.

I'm not really satisfied with that thought, because when I want to know how something came to be, I find the answer is more like..'Just accept it, don't ask.' Surely, there must be a reason for reason to exist. It cannot 'just be that way'. I expect more than an answer I may have got in first grade of mathematics (e.g. why does one plus one equal two and not three?).

The definition of God is that he is eternal. Thus he requires no source. If you like, he is 'safely deposited' in the cloud of supernatural.

I see where we differ here. You believe something has to be supernatural in order to be eternal and have no source. I don't.

I'm not an expert mathematician, but I know that mathematics is one means of describing the universe. It is filtered through human cognition, like everything else I study, but its one view.

In math, we accept infinity (or, as applied to time, eternity) and use it to arrive at many solutions. So, after a while, you don't see the "eternal" as supernatural, a priori.

The definition of God is that he is eternal. Thus he requires no source. If you like, he is 'safely deposited' in the cloud of supernatural. Atheism does not enjoy this luxury. It must either provide a reason for reason, or admit that it cannot, and thereby lose it's claim to be based on reason. It may use reason, but if it cannot explain reason, it cannot claim to be based on reason. If that is the case, it's favourite weapon has failed to help it out of a sticky situation. (I realize that one might upset people, but I couldn't resist--plus, I am only speaking hypothetically. It's not meant to bash Atheists, but just to get them to think a bit harder to find some good 'reasons'.)

reason is a natural byproduct of the eternal physical laws of the universe extrapolated through biological systems via the mechanism of evolution.

is that okay?

This has been said before, but:

Evolution is a scientific theory, therefore it is taught in a science class.

Creation/ID is a faith based belief, therefore it should be taught in a religion/philosophy class.

I have no problem with it being taught as a religious subject, but it just is not science and so it should not be taught alongside science.

I think that's it in a nutshell. Science is concerned with describing how, not explaining why. Why we're all here, if there is a reason at all, is a philosophical/religious question. The reasons for an intelligent being to plant a tree is a different topic altogether to the processes by which that tree grows.

The definition of God is that he is eternal. Thus he requires no source. If you like, he is 'safely deposited' in the cloud of supernatural. Atheism does not enjoy this luxury. It must either provide a reason for reason, or admit that it cannot, and thereby lose it's claim to be based on reason. It may use reason, but if it cannot explain reason, it cannot claim to be based on reason. If that is the case, it's favourite weapon has failed to help it out of a sticky situation. (I realize that one might upset people, but I couldn't resist--plus, I am only speaking hypothetically. It's not meant to bash Atheists, but just to get them to think a bit harder to find some good 'reasons'.)
Monkey pull stick out of branch. Monkey sees tasty critters sit on stick. Monkey eats critters & want more. Monkey chucks stuck back in hole, and!!! Monkey find more critters.

That monkey may be using what you call reason. So what could be the source of that?

A slimey little worm crawls along the ocean floor. It runs out of oxygen. Now it can either use it's nervous system or die.

Somehwre inbetween those two, reason happened. It's prolly closer tied to recognition of stimuli than basic nervous-system reflexes.

The first critter with eyes may have taken the first step towards the thing you call reason. How else would it navigate visually?

Surely, there must be a reason for reason to exist. It cannot 'just be that way'.
This is a why question and science doesn't deal with those.

I expect more than an answer I may have got in first grade of mathematics (e.g. why does one plus one equal two and not three?).
Because we've literally defined it to being that way using a few simple made up rules, called axiomas or postulates (depends on which branch of science).

added clarification

reason's source could simply be evolution itself: extrapolating from the particular to the universal, and modifying one's expectations when actual results differ from expected results could easily be imagined as evolutionarily selective: i.e. creatures that exhibit this skill, for wholly random reasons, come to dominate contemporary populations.

In this view, reason is simply conditioning writ large, and needs no supernatural explanation.

Nope. It cannot be. Evolutionists (both chemical and biological) explain evolution using the laws of nature. Therefore, the laws of nature and reason had to exist before evolution. That is a rather pertinant point. If one is going to use reason to explain how life came about without God, then one has to explain how reason came to be. Failing that, his argument cannot be said to be based on reason after all.

I'm not really satisfied with that thought, because when I want to know how something came to be, I find the answer is more like..'Just accept it, don't ask.' Surely, there must be a reason for reason to exist. It cannot 'just be that way'. I expect more than an answer I may have got in first grade of mathematics (e.g. why does one plus one equal two and not three?).

Can you accept an answer of "That isn't known yet, but let's not go supernatural just yet..."?

Also, there has been interesting work done on cognitive mathematics, even as it relates to infants (see "Where Mathematics Comes From", Lakoff and Nunez). Its not really relevant here, but if you're interested in that kind of thing, its a great piece.

Surely, there must be a reason for reason to exist. It cannot 'just be that way'. Why not? Because God said so? Because it would take away what you think is the meaning of life?

Or do you have some sort of argument?

Monkey pull stick out of branch. Monkey sees tasty critters sit on stick. Monkey eats critters & want more. Monkey chucks stuck back in hole, and!!! Monkey find more critters.

That monkey may be using what you call reason. So what could be the source of that?

A slimey little worm crawls along the ocean floor. It runs out of oxygen. Now it can either use it's nervous system or die.

Somehwre inbetween those two, reason happened. It's prolly closer tied to recognition of stimuli than basic nervous-system reflexes.

The first critter with eyes may have taken the first step towards the thing you call reason. How else would it navigate visually?

Reason is not only occuring inside our heads, but it appears to be an objective thing also. We see that the laws of nature are consistent throughout the entire known universe. This speaks of a thread of reason, everywhere we look. Like I said before, a tree falling in a forest still makes a noise, even if no one is there to hear it. Thus reason existed before humans. We did not invent it. We discovered it.

Nope. It cannot be. Evolutionists (both chemical and biological) explain evolution using the laws of nature. Therefore, the laws of nature and reason had to exist before evolution. That is a rather pertinant point. If one is going to use reason to explain how life came about without God, then one has to explain how reason came to be. Failing that, his argument cannot be said to be based on reason after all.

I'm sorry, but several people are addressing your objection cogently, and you aren't responding to their points, so much as restating your own.

You say reason has to have a supernatural source, because we can't explain it otherwise at this time (although I believe some have explained it well here). But, even if correct, this includes the idea that if something isn't explainable at this time, it must have a supernatural source.

What do you think the world would be like if, 10,000 years ago, it was decided and abided by all that anything not explained by reason would be relegated to the supernatural? What kind of world would it be now if people thought as you do, unilaterally?

Can you accept an answer of "That isn't known yet, but let's not go supernatural just yet..."?

Also, there has been interesting work done on cognitive mathematics, even as it relates to infants (see "Where Mathematics Comes From", Lakoff and Nunez). Its not really relevant here, but if you're interested in that kind of thing, its a great piece.

Yeah, yeah, sure. I'm not looking for conversions, or something like that. I do accept your answer (That isn't known yet, but let's not go supernatural just yet). I understand that position, and, actually, I think it a good one, because it could mean that you are really thinking about it. I would respect a position more if it is constantly being bombarded with questions, than otherwise. I like to learn from fellow humans who are prepared to ask the hard questions (there are many of those that I cannot answer also). I find that I do no learn much from arrogance, either in me or in my fellow humans.

Reason is not only occuring inside our heads, but it appears to be an objective thing also. We see that the laws of nature are consistent throughout the entire known universe. This speaks of a thread of reason, everywhere we look. Like I said before, a tree falling in a forest still makes a noise, even if no one is there to hear it. Thus reason existed before humans. We did not invent it. We discovered it.

You still haven't bridged the leap between "universal laws are consistent" and "they have a supernatural source".

Its a textbook non-sequitor.

Reason is not only occuring inside our heads, but it appears to be an objective thing also. We see that the laws of nature are consistent throughout the entire known universe. This speaks of a thread of reason, everywhere we look. Like I said before, a tree falling in a forest still makes a noise, even if no one is there to hear it. Thus reason existed before humans. We did not invent it. We discovered it.
That is an ...Odd way to 'reason'.

You seriously need to define exactly what it is you mean. 5 pages later & the lot of us are still trying to answer though we only have the vaguest idea what you're asking.

But here goes nothing: why must there be reason? I assume you actually mean intent. So why? If I throw something at an etch-a-sketch & it forms a pattern, does that mean there must be a reason for it, ei that the pattern was intended?

Nope. It cannot be. Evolutionists (both chemical and biological) explain evolution using the laws of nature. Therefore, the laws of nature and reason had to exist before evolution. That is a rather pertinant point. If one is going to use reason to explain how life came about without God, then one has to explain how reason came to be. Failing that, his argument cannot be said to be based on reason after all.

Nope. You cannot be right. Reason depends on the action of a physically bounded consciousness. Therefore, the laws of nature and evolution had to exist before reason came into being. That is a rather pertinent point. If one is going to use reason to explain how life came about without God, explaining how reason could come about without God obviously furthers that aim. Your insistence that the method of *discovering* evolution must exist before evolution can work is false.

I'm not really satisfied with that thought, because when I want to know how something came to be, I find the answer is more like..'Just accept it, don't ask.' Surely, there must be a reason for reason to exist. It cannot 'just be that way'. I expect more than an answer I may have got in first grade of mathematics

I suppose this is why there are plenty of scientists who are not atheists. I can speak only for myself here, but I am completely comfortable with the fact that it is all happenstance, and there is no underlying reason for the universe.

More importantly, I don't see any evidence to the contrary. But I concede it is a metaphysical point I can't prove either way.

Don't misunderstand, I am very curious as to how the universe works, but I am able to accept that whatever form it takes, is just because that's the form it takes. In other words, while we are both interested in how the universe began, we are not looking to answer the same question.

I suppose I am just one of those people who likes to deal with tangibles.


(e.g. why does one plus one equal two and not three?).

Something to do with Peano postulates. It's a long time since I last took a math class though, so I can't be anymore specific. ;)

I'm sorry, but several people are addressing your objection cogently, and you aren't responding to their points, so much as restating your own.

You say reason has to have a supernatural source, because we can't explain it otherwise at this time (although I believe some have explained it well here). But, even if correct, this includes the idea that if something isn't explainable at this time, it must have a supernatural source.

What do you think the world would be like if, 10,000 years ago, it was decided and abided by all that anything not explained by reason would be relegated to the supernatural? What kind of world would it be now if people thought as you do, unilaterally?

Whoa, my poor fingers can only go so fast, and then there is my slow brain also.

I do not say that reason has to have a supernatural source. I say that it has to be explainable, using reason. You are jumping too far ahead.

Yeah, yeah, sure. I'm not looking for conversions, or something like that. I do accept your answer (That isn't known yet, but let's not go supernatural just yet). I understand that position, and, actually, I think it a good one, because it could mean that you are really thinking about it.

Okay, so the answer you're accepting can be held by an athiest and still be reasonable then. Please help me understand your central thesis, because there seems to be conflict.

Yeah, yeah, sure. I'm not looking for conversions, or something like that. I do accept your answer (That isn't known yet, but let's not go supernatural just yet).Are you sure?I understand that position, and, actually, I think it a good one, because it could mean that you are really thinking about it. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you approve because it doesn't rule out all possibility for divinity.I would respect a position more if it is constantly being bombarded with questions, than otherwise. I like to learn from fellow humans who are prepared to ask the hard questions (there are many of those that I cannot answer also). I find that I do no learn much from arrogance, either in me or in my fellow humans.In that case, this place must be dissapointing :p

Reason is not only occuring inside our heads, but it appears to be an objective thing also. We see that the laws of nature are consistent throughout the entire known universe. This speaks of a thread of reason, everywhere we look. Like I said before, a tree falling in a forest still makes a noise, even if no one is there to hear it. Thus reason existed before humans. We did not invent it. We discovered it.

actually, a tree falling doesn't make a "noise" unless there is an "ear" to receive the vibrations it creates in a medium. And in a vacuum, fuggedaboutit.

Where you see a thread of reason everywhere you look, I see chaos and randomness.

Why are you right?

Nope. You cannot be right. Reason depends on the action of a physically bounded consciousness. Therefore, the laws of nature and evolution had to exist before reason came into being. That is a rather pertinent point. If one is going to use reason to explain how life came about without God, explaining how reason could come about without God obviously furthers that aim. Your insistence that the method of *discovering* evolution must exist before evolution can work is false.

Perhaps your definition of reason depends on a consciousness, the cognitive reasoning that most humans are capable of. But I am referring to a different definition, in a sense, a greater one. One evidence of this is that the relatively few laws of nature (that we have discovered) operate right throughout the known universe. We humans have discovered reason can be used to make predictions, based on our knowledge of these laws of nature. In doing so, we have greatly increased our knowledge of the universe.

It may help to distinguish between reason and reasoning. I agree that it takes a consciousness to be capable of reasoning, but that the reason to which I refer to is already present, regardless of the presence of a consciousness.

Whoa, my poor fingers can only go so fast, and then there is my slow brain also.

I do not say that reason has to have a supernatural source. I say that it has to be explainable, using reason. You are jumping too far ahead.

You want reason to be explainable using reason.

Sorry, but you've said several times that reason has to have a source, and you don't accept it as naturally self-evident.

You've claimed several times that an Atheist world-view is not based in reason, and then related that claim to the lack of supernatural basis. People have presented you with several sources and concepts of reason, and you don't like any of them because they don't have a "source". They are either naturally occuring (my chosen term is ontologically primal), or they are supernatural. You reject that they "just are", so what do you think is left?

As this goes on, I see less and less consistency in your position.

Whoa, my poor fingers can only go so fast, and then there is my slow brain also.

I do not say that reason has to have a supernatural source. I say that it has to be explainable, using reason. You are jumping too far ahead.
Seriously mate, you need to define what the hell it is you're going on about. It's getting slightly frustrating.

actually, a tree falling doesn't make a "noise" unless there is an "ear" to receive the vibrations it creates in a medium. And in a vacuum, fuggedaboutit.

Where you see a thread of reason everywhere you look, I see chaos and randomness.

Why are you right?
Because he sees no reason, he believes intent.

- Sorry I couldn't help it. It's what happens when the questioner doesn't pose his questions.

I agree that it takes a consciousness to be capable of reasoning, but that the reason to which I refer to is already present, regardless of the presence of a consciousness.

So, the reason you believe in can exist regardless of the presence of a consciousness, but natural law can't have existed or have been brought into being without a god-consciousness.

I'm sorry, Bruarong, I can tell you're trying hard, but if you're axioms were code, they'd crash, hard.

Well, probably mine, too, but for different mistakes.

I'm going to turn in, take care everybody. I'm not trying to get the last word, Bruarong, I'll check the thread tomorrow if its still around, I respect your right to make a response.

As for the evolutionists....

Why does it matter if say our beliefs were to be quesitoned and taught along side yours? Its not like we are going to outright say "well here is ID, which obviously is more correct than evolution...yadda yadda yadaa"... No rather we just want everyone's veiws to be EQUALLY represented..I don't understand the logic of some of that say its ok for you views and beliefs to be shown but not anyone elses.. Now Im not crying out for both to be constantly debated or one to be held higher than the other. Just the mere mentioning of ID would be aceptable...Perhaps like well today we wil leanr about were we came from...evolution teaches this...then later be like "there are some that beleive that a higher diety/dieties created life on this planet" boom..end of story..both sides are touched on upon.. and look no one has been harmed nor offended...speaking of being offended..it offends me that my beliefs are not taught along side yours..but thats ok...however if its vice versa..its not ok and violation of civil liberties..thats gotta stop..its gott be both ways or no way at all

There is no such thing as an "Evolutionist"... Evolution is a scientific theory, not a belief. ID is a belief, not a scientific theory.

That is why they are not presented side by side...

Okay, so the answer you're accepting can be held by an athiest and still be reasonable then. Please help me understand your central thesis, because there seems to be conflict.


Yeah, well, I'm on the point of giving up. Not because I am frustrated (well, just a little bit, because I did expect people to understand my point a little quicker) but because I have some work to do, that isn't related to this debate. And my boss would rather I earned my money.

Perhaps I do have time for one or two more posts....

Perhaps your definition of reason depends on a consciousness, the cognitive reasoning that most humans are capable of. But I am referring to a different definition, in a sense, a greater one. One evidence of this is that the relatively few laws of nature (that we have discovered) operate right throughout the known universe. We humans have discovered reason can be used to make predictions, based on our knowledge of these laws of nature. In doing so, we have greatly increased our knowledge of the universe.

It may help to distinguish between reason and reasoning. I agree that it takes a consciousness to be capable of reasoning, but that the reason to which I refer to is already present, regardless of the presence of a consciousness.

you've confused me here. I've been using "reason" as the faculty that allows "reasoning." How are you using it?

Reason is not only occuring inside our heads, but it appears to be an objective thing also. We see that the laws of nature are consistent throughout the entire known universe. This speaks of a thread of reason, everywhere we look. Like I said before, a tree falling in a forest still makes a noise, even if no one is there to hear it. Thus reason existed before humans. We did not invent it. We discovered it.
Ok, I believe you are speaking of reason as a why and not reason as thought, correct? But you also seem to be confusing the two, assuming that a why something is presupposes a throught behind it to set that why into motion.

Er... something like why is the cat blue?
Because the owner dyed it.
Why did she do that?
She thought blue was pretty.

But this, again, is assuming that there has to be a why behind it. I'd like to flip this a bit on its head and ask this, why must there BE a why? Your statement of a need for a thought, a reason and why, behind a given fact is interesting. Indeed, I almost wonder if this isn't a form of anthopromophism. We, humans, use tools, we put thought and reason into shapping them the way we do and make them work the way that they do. Could this not be expaning the notion that since we do it, the universe at large must also do the same?

Also, infinity is a weird concept that denotes no begining or end. However, we know the universe had a begining, and we're pretty sure that one day it'll end. So while confinded into this universe and its time/space, the laws are eternal. But in the timeless space before it and afterwards...

Of course now my head hurts...

Im not being biased..Im trying to say that if all views are not heard then its simply not fair...and someone is being left out...somehow

Your views are plastered all over the place...

Just that most people (and most Christians) think it is a load of cow maneur...

Perhaps your definition of reason depends on a consciousness, the cognitive reasoning that most humans are capable of. But I am referring to a different definition, in a sense, a greater one. One evidence of this is that the relatively few laws of nature (that we have discovered) operate right throughout the known universe. We humans have discovered reason can be used to make predictions, based on our knowledge of these laws of nature. In doing so, we have greatly increased our knowledge of the universe.

It may help to distinguish between reason and reasoning. I agree that it takes a consciousness to be capable of reasoning, but that the reason to which I refer to is already present, regardless of the presence of a consciousness.
Then it's not a reason. Natural laws exist apart from reason, but reasons do not exist unless someone supplies them. Look at it this way: a reason is an explanation of a cause. If there is no one to explain it to, then there is no explaining done.

Otherwise, the other fellow is right and you are jumping from one context to another.

actually, a tree falling doesn't make a "noise" unless there is an "ear" to receive the vibrations it creates in a medium. And in a vacuum, fuggedaboutit.

Where you see a thread of reason everywhere you look, I see chaos and randomness.

Why are you right?

Perhaps if I was to replace the word 'noise' with 'vibrations' that are detectable by the human ear, you would see (perhaps) what I mean. A falling tree will always cause these vibrations, regardless if there is an ear to detect it. The laws of nature are consistent, regardless of whether we are there to observe them. Thus it is not chaos and randomness at all.

Yeah, well, I'm on the point of giving up. Not because I am frustrated (well, just a little bit, because I did expect people to understand my point a little quicker) but because I have some work to do, that isn't related to this debate. And my boss would rather I earned my money.

Perhaps I do have time for one or two more posts....

Seems to me you picked "reason" as the thing to prove that theists at least have something they can go back to if they want to find the source because "reason" is a such complex thing (sentient beeings developed while fitting into nature).

Essentially you seem to be looking for the "why is the world the way it is and is it not better to have a god who decided the rules then having it all be determined only by chaos, which itself can be seen as a rule". You don't seem to like the chaos and randomness without rules forming rules as an answer, (although we have some likely theories telling us that our universe might have not existed in this form or even exist at all).
You would go on and ask: From where did the chaos come? And finally you might tell that because I cannot answer now why the stone started to roll that somebody must have pushed it ... because you don't like a loose end in causality and must have a source right now or never ...

you've confused me here. I've been using "reason" as the faculty that allows "reasoning." How are you using it?

Perhaps, Bruarong, you mean it in this sense:

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/logos-body.html ?

in which case, I'll have some other thoughts.

you all kept me up til 7am with this, and I thank you for the thoughtfullness of the discourse. Hope many of you return to this, as I will...

ltt

Perhaps if I was to replace the word 'noise' with 'vibrations' that are detectable by the human ear, you would see (perhaps) what I mean. A falling tree will always cause these vibrations, regardless if there is an ear to detect it. The laws of nature are consistent, regardless of whether we are there to observe them. Thus it is not chaos and randomness at all.

I was just being coy.

The seeming universality of natural laws doesn't really have any bearing on your position, which could equally be taken if those laws varied from place to place. Maybe we can take this up later, after I have a nap.

you've confused me here. I've been using "reason" as the faculty that allows "reasoning." How are you using it?

I suppose this is the point at which most of the confusion is occurring, and consequently, the weakest point of my criticism. For if people are not understanding the reason to which I refer, they will not understand what I am on about. The reason to which I refer is not the 'why are we hear' answer. It is not the Christian reason for the existence of man (for God to enjoy a relationship with). Nor is it the phenomenon that goes on inside the head of a scientist, although it is related to both. I speak of the reason that one finds operating in the laws of nature. The laws of nature are reliably consistent throughout all of nature. It allows us to make predictions of outer space, even though we have never been there. We can do this because we have discovered reason that already exists in our universe. For example, matter will NEVER explode, unless there is a reason. And object will never overcome gravity, unless there is a reason. It's this reason that governs the entire known universe. What I want to know is how the Atheistic view point can sufficiently explain this sort of reason. The closest anyone (I think) on this thread has come to understanding my point is Saint Curie, who suggested that such reason is just is, that it just exists because matter exists. It's like saying that1+1=2, without giving a reason of why it is so. Of course, there is a very good reason for such an equasion, but a six year old kid is unlikely to understand it. Most of us are not that young, therefore, I feel that it is reasonable to expect a better answer than 'it just is'.

This should prove interesting then.Or perhaps not...With the above in mind, why didn't you simply revive one of the numerous old threads?Now I'm a bit confused. Is this a joke, or are you actually serious? Either way, you pull off the archtypical Christian prosecution complex admirably. You don't seriously believe that the scientific community is out to kill you though, do you?And I'm dreading it already...Because your fable cannot be questioned. Or rather, because your fable cannot provide any sort of sensible answers to anything what so fucking ever. It takes an endless row of questions - questions that are important for mankind to understand if we wish to progress, and questions students have to be able to examine in depth if they wish to be able to get a higher education - and answers the lot with "God did it". It is the ultimate dead-end. Why do people get sick? God did it. Why do stuff fall to the ground when dropped? God did it. Why are some bacteria suddenly becomming resistent to antibiotics? God did it. Why did so many children born in the polluted Chernobyl area have mutations? God did it.

What you propose is the death of reason & 150000 years of human progress.Fine then. Next time you bring your car in for service, I want an equal opportunity to fix it with my divine sledgehammer.

You're comparing radically different things. They're not equal in the slightest. And there isn't room for both.
Do you want me to teach math to your children? Sure, we can see normal math works, and we can provide evidence for why it works. But the Star Goat - my God - told me that 2+2=43½ & 2x2=0.7. Don't I have the right to teach the Star Goat's Holy Math to your children? You can refuse to admit it, but there is no way in hell you can argue that this is the slightest bit different from what you propose.

But you have a choice: stop teaching science, or stop teaching bogus science. Allowing ID in science classes is exactly the same as teaching my kind of math in math classes. And it is exactly the same as not teaching science at all.To understand how biology works, it is imperative to understand the basics of evolution. And in order to do that, it is imperative to understand the scientific method.

I'm not gonna post a link to Wikipedia's explanation of the scientific method. I'm certain you're either familiar with it & refuse to acknowledge that science can't work with the unknowable, or you're too lazy to spend 5 minutes figuring out just what it is you want to destroy.

But I will try to give a very basic example of why these things aren't compatible.
The scientific method operates with a tool of logic known as Occam's Razor. It was thought up by a Christian priest, who didn't believe that faith was compatible with absolute knowledge. Chances are your own minister can tell you a long tedious story about it. But I digress.

Occams Razor is used to determine which is the most likely explanation for something. If applied to the origin of man, God gets his wrists slit. Because God isn't an explanation for anything.
How did man come to be? Evolution has a long, complicated, and completely falsifiable explanation, running all the way from pre-fungi lifeforms to humans. And not only is it falsifiable, we see it working all around us every single day.
For the sake of brevity, I'm not gonna attempt to examine it here. Feel free to visit talkorigins.org or similar websites, ask your biology teacher, visit your library or whatever the fuck you want. The information is freely accessible for anyone who wants to know.
Whatever, looking at evolution with Occam's Razor, it's a viable answer - but perhaps not the most likely. So let's look at GodDidItism.

Does ID explain how man came to be? Well... It says God did it (sur-fuckin-prise). Here's where the razor comes into play: how did god do it? Not only don't we know the answer, but we can't ever find out.
Well.. Since it's an intelligent bloke, this God fellow (or so people say anyway), he must have had a reason, right? We don't know, and we can't ever find out.
Hmm.. Well where did God come from then? We don't know, and we can't ever find out.

ID proposes nothing. Instead of being called Intelligent Design, it should be called DA; Don't Ask. That's the most sense ID/DA can ever hope to achive.
How was man designed? Don't Ask.
By whom was man designed? Don't Ask.
Was there even intelligence involved? Don't Ask.

Get the picture yet? - Or shouldn't I be asking?You just don't get it, do you? Evolution theory has nothing to do with belief. You might as well be saying "Well I'm pissed off I'm not allowed to float off into space, just because some stupid git believes in gravity". Again there is not the slightest difference between your silly notion & my silly comparison. Or rather, there is, but only in the sense that my silly example is a lot more fun than yours. Yours is just tragic.I'm not sure how certain I am about the shooting bit. Anyway, just teach your religious ideas in Sunday School, or make a new class in public school: Religious ED. Easy, no? Noone has a problem with you wanting creationism mentioned in school. But your science education will be rendered useless if you manage to chuck religion in it. Just look at that damn Kansas schoolboard. They had to re-define what science is in order to cram religion in it.

Somehow it begs the (hopelessly insane) question: Why are you so damn scared of science? You obviously have no problem at all with ignoring facts. Why would it be a problem for your offspring to ignore facts?
- It's not like anything terrible happens if you don't believe in evolution. It's not like disbelivingtraffic regulations. You don't risk getting flattened by U-Haul. It's there & it works. And it does so slowly enough that you can comfortably ignore it for the rest of your days.
The only BUT is if you want a higher education. Because you'll need to have a basic grasp of biology for that, and as I've already said, it's not possible to make sense of biology if you refuse to acknowledge how it works.So make a Religious ED class that teaches ALL religions EQUALLY. Sure, the poor kids won't finish the course in their lifetime, but at least you've managed to force your religion on them.I want math to be an optional combo-class as well. Half for Star Goat maths, and half for conventional heathen sins. Then the kids can chose whether they want to learn both or none. Sure, they won't be able to take a higher education regardless of what they chose, but it's all good as long as I get to screw up fundamental knowledge by forcing my religion on perfectly innocent bystanders.

Besides, if they want to learn heathen sinful math, they can damn well go to a private school. Why shouldn't my religion be forced on the poor by the state?Yups. That is the only solution if the fundamaniacs won't budge. Better yet, let's just abandon public education altogether. The kids will be even worse off if they can't read.

According to Christ & The Star Goat, kids are pathetic leeches, and it's our holy duty to fuck up their lives.Eh.. Why do you bitch & moan like this then?

By the way, did you know the Catholic Church used to be the guardians of science? To have fallen so far... How tragic.

Oh well. The only ones I feel sorry for are your comming generations. I imagine it'll suck to be unable to get an education because of a handful of raving religious fanatics. But India will no doubt be pleased.

You dont get out much do you?

Perhaps, Bruarong, you mean it in this sense:

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/logos-body.html ?

in which case, I'll have some other thoughts.

you all kept me up til 7am with this, and I thank you for the thoughtfullness of the discourse. Hope many of you return to this, as I will...

ltt

My first reaction was, No, that is not what I had in mind when I was referring to reason. But when I looked again, perhaps it is, only I didn't know it. :) is that clear enough? This is philosophy after all.
Seriously, the form of reason that you suggested, the Logos, is not what I had in mind. But it may be a relative of reason, or the source?

I've been following the ongoing Evolution vs Intelligent Design controversy, and as a card-carrying botanist, I'm a very strong supporter of Darwin. But still, there are things in life that rational science simply cannot explain.
Like Paris Hilton... :D

So, the reason you believe in can exist regardless of the presence of a consciousness, but natural law can't have existed or have been brought into being without a god-consciousness.

I'm sorry, Bruarong, I can tell you're trying hard, but if you're axioms were code, they'd crash, hard.

Well, probably mine, too, but for different mistakes.

I'm going to turn in, take care everybody. I'm not trying to get the last word, Bruarong, I'll check the thread tomorrow if its still around, I respect your right to make a response.

Damm right you don't get the last response! (just kidding)

But thanks for your contribution. I've a feeling that the real answers are a long way from any of us, and we are all in the dark, trying to grope for the best solution. The only difference between us is that we are groping in different directions, convinced that the light is more likely to be found in our particular direction. Got to keep asking ourselves the hard questions, though. It has to be the best way to be as objective as possible.

What I want to know is how the Atheistic view point can sufficiently explain this sort of reason. The closest anyone (I think) on this thread has come to understanding my point is Saint Curie, who suggested that such reason is just is, that it just exists because matter exists. It's like saying that1+1=2, without giving a reason of why it is so. Of course, there is a very good reason for such an equasion, but a six year old kid is unlikely to understand it. Most of us are not that young, therefore, I feel that it is reasonable to expect a better answer than 'it just is'.

You really are looking for "why is the world the way it is" -> "how did it come in existence".

I say: by another rule: chaos, randomness. This world must not have existed this way. (Same way 1+1 has not to equal 2 if you are moving along in another algebraic construct.)
But I'm protracting only your question "why is there chaos something can come from". I don't know. Maybe science can answer this once, but not now. And I don't feel the least unreasonable when I let a question mark stand there, not replacing it with a complex thing like god who does not answer questions after his origin.

Then it's not a reason. Natural laws exist apart from reason, but reasons do not exist unless someone supplies them. Look at it this way: a reason is an explanation of a cause. If there is no one to explain it to, then there is no explaining done.

Otherwise, the other fellow is right and you are jumping from one context to another.

And I would have thought that you ought to have known better, Willamena, to say something like natural laws exist apart from reason. Perhaps they do, and perhaps they don't, but neither you or I are in a position to say so with anything more than convictions that come out of belief. I would argue that natural laws are a product of reason. If there was no reason, there could not be natural laws. Natural laws are constructs by humans, while reason existed before humans. Natural laws are descriptions of the interactions in the material world that are very consistent. Natural laws do not do anything. They describe observations. Thus natural laws depend on reason. However, the reason to which I refer is not dependent on humans. E.g., objects tend to fall down because of a reason. This reason exists, regardless of the presence of humans. The reason is not the Law of Gravity, but rather, the Law of Gravity describes this phenomenon.

A reason may be an explanation for a cause, but it exists, regardless if there is anyone to explain it.

You really are looking for "why is the world the way it is" -> "how did it come in existence".

I say: by another rule: chaos, randomness. This world must not have existed this way. (Same way 1+1 has not to equal 2 if you are moving along in another algebraic construct.)
But I'm protracting only your question "why is there chaos something can come from". I don't know. Maybe science can answer this once, but not now. And I don't feel the least unreasonable when I let a stand there, not replacing it with a complex thing like god who does not answer questions after his origin.

It is not that you are being unreasonable in 'resisting the urge to run to God', but that the belief system to which you hold (if you are an Atheist) may not be as reasonable as you may suppose.

Surely you can't believe that all the laws of nature arose from chaos.

It is not that you are being unreasonable in 'resisting the urge to run to God', but that the belief system to which you hold (if you are an Atheist) may not be as reasonable as you may suppose.

Surely you can't believe that all the laws of nature arose from chaos.
Why not?

And enough with the atheist=philosophy thing already.

It is not that you are being unreasonable in 'resisting the urge to run to God', but that the belief system to which you hold (if you are an Atheist) may not be as reasonable as you may suppose.

Surely you can't believe that all the laws of nature arose from chaos.

Why can I not? Randomness tipped our universe towards consisting of mostly matter instead of antimatter. Randomness before tipped it towards using mostly of electrons instead of myons. Randomness might have also decided other crucial values in our now seemingly balanced system.

Quantum physic theories even teaches that causality is not crucial in certain circumstances, on microscopic levels. We USE this principle already, because it is then again predictable ... following laws about randomness.
It works more or less, this system with the "natural laws", but we can't claim it will do so for ever or did so. If tomorrow some of your things start to fall upwards ... whoops ... either your theory was wrong from the beginning (and there is even something changing you did overlook before), or (more probable ... we all hope) something disturbed the experiment.
I see not that we have a proof that the nature does not change. This might happen following some other laws. But it might too happen because ... some nucleus decayed by sheer randomness. Where the only law is the randomness again.

And I would have thought that you ought to have known better, Willamena, to say something like natural laws exist apart from reason. Perhaps they do, and perhaps they don't, but neither you or I are in a position to say so with anything more than convictions that come out of belief. I would argue that natural laws are a product of reason. If there was no reason, there could not be natural laws.
What you are effectively stating here is that before humanity achieved the ability to reason there was something else that could reason otherwise nothing can exist, even worse is that something else was not around then until gravity was described Newton gravity should not have existed.
Why? Because according to you what we call natural laws cannot exist unless someone can reason about them which means that the universe cannot be formed unless there is something else capable or reasoning before the universe existed to reason all the laws into existence.
But that is because your reasoning (no pun intended) is flawed.
The natural laws exist, we observe their effects, then describe those and try to reason from those observations and descriptions what those laws are. That is what science does. Nothing more nothing less. And it does not require something capable of reasoning to form the basics it is trying to describe.

Natural laws are constructs by humans, while reason existed before humans. Natural laws are descriptions of the interactions in the material world that are very consistent. Natural laws do not do anything. They describe observations. Thus natural laws depend on reason. However, the reason to which I refer is not dependent on humans. E.g., objects tend to fall down because of a reason. This reason exists, regardless of the presence of humans. The reason is not the Law of Gravity, but rather, the Law of Gravity describes this phenomenon.

Almost right. Natural laws are not the creation of humans. Their observation and description is (see above)

Why can I not? Randomness tipped our universe towards consisting of mostly matter instead of antimatter. Randomness before tipped it towards using mostly of electrons instead of myons. Randomness might have also decided other crucial values in our now seemingly balanced system.

Quantum physic theories even teaches that causality is not crucial in certain circumstances, on microscopic levels. We USE this principle already, because it is then again predictable ... following laws about randomness.
It works more or less, this system with the "natural laws", but we can't claim it will do so for ever or did so. If tomorrow some of your things start to fall upwards ... whoops ... either your theory was wrong from the beginning (and there is even something changing you did overlook before), or (more probable ... we all hope) something disturbed the experiment.
I see not that we have a proof that the nature does not change. This might happen following some other laws. But it might too happen because ... some nucleus decayed by sheer randomness. Where the only law is the randomness again.

I can only be amazed at your understanding of the material world. It apparently began with randomness, and is now wholly in the control of the laws of nature. At which point did randomness turn into law? It brings to my mind the question of randomness. What is it. The lottery is not a random process, I'm sure you realize. The winning number is selected e.g., depending on the location of each ball (with the number on it) in relation to the selector. Thus the selection of the balls is not random, just so infinitely complex that we are not in a position to predict it. Rather, it is strictly ruled by the process of the laws of nature. We call it random selection, but 'random' in this sense does not mean 'free from the laws of nature', but rather unpredictable or indiscriminate. Maybe you may be able to find an source of randomness in this universe. I'm not sure that you can.

What you are effectively stating here is that before humanity achieved the ability to reason there was something else that could reason otherwise nothing can exist, even worse is that something else was not around then until gravity was described Newton gravity should not have existed.
Why? Because according to you what we call natural laws cannot exist unless someone can reason about them which means that the universe cannot be formed unless there is something else capable or reasoning before the universe existed to reason all the laws into existence.


I don't think that is the logical consequence of what I was saying at all. I have never even mentioned the need for the supernatural, but rather I have been asking the question of the source of reason, if there was no supernatural. I am not assuming that there is no good answer from the Atheist viewpoint. Therefore, I feel that you have not defended your viewpoint, but rather are trying to attack mine. You are, of course, entitled to attack my viewpoint, but you can hardly say that it therefore equals a good defense of Atheism.

Further, I suggest that you have missed my point. The reason to which I refer is not the Christian one, e.g., that reason exists because God made it. But rather, I am referring to, e.g., the reason why e.g, the planets revolve around the sun. Some people call it gravity, but in doing so, they have answered the how, not the why. But what I am getting at is the why of gravity, not the how. And then why is the law of gravity so faithfully followed in every known location of the universe, allowing us to to make live and make observations and predictions and to reason about reason. The universality of the laws of nature themselves must have a reason.



But that is because your reasoning (no pun intended) is flawed.
The natural laws exist, we observe their effects, then describe those and try to reason from those observations and descriptions what those laws are. That is what science does. Nothing more nothing less. And it does not require something capable of reasoning to form the basics it is trying to describe.


What! Flawed? I am merely asking a simple question. I am not attacking science, or trying to make it do something it isn't supposed to. I am criticising a philosophical viewpoint that claims to be based on reason, but cannot (apparently) answer a simple question about where reason comes from.

Please note. I am not using this as a platform to argue that therefore every atheist must believe in God. (Though I seem to have been accused of this time and again. Sheesh.)


Almost right. Natural laws are not the creation of humans. Their observation and description is (see above)

Lets not quibble over details. I see that there are at least two 'meanings' of the term 'natural laws'.

I can only be amazed at your understanding of the material world. It apparently began with randomness, and is now wholly in the control of the laws of nature. At which point did randomness turn into law? It brings to my mind the question of randomness. What is it. The lottery is not a random process, I'm sure you realize. The winning number is selected e.g., depending on the location of each ball (with the number on it) in relation to the selector. Thus the selection of the balls is not random, just so infinitely complex that we are not in a position to predict it. Rather, it is strictly ruled by the process of the laws of nature. We call it random selection, but 'random' in this sense does not mean 'free from the laws of nature', but rather unpredictable or indiscriminate. Maybe you may be able to find an source of randomness in this universe. I'm not sure that you can.
Hehe, true randomness - events without direct causes - is like arguing about God. Noone really knows if it exists. Not yet at least. The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is no execption. We don't know it it really is random, but it doesn't look like we can know.

Anyway, common use of the word random is more along the lines of "events without a discernable cause". It's not unreasonable to suspect the current state of the universe was brought about by such an event. Perhaps it would be better to call it an instability or a freak accident instead of randomness.

The stuff we call natural laws are man-made concepts. Sure, things works without any sentients present (as far as we know anyway), but these laws really aren't more than mechanical cause & effect things. They can be manipulated & since they're part of the basic makeup of the current state of cosmos, they aren't permanent things. We know the current shape of things began at some point´, so we know that these Laws also began. We can't really say what went on before that though.

Also, keep in mind that scientists in general believe that it's possible to describe the current state of cosmos with one unified theory. So you could say that it's unlikely that there are more than one natural law. You could also say that natural laws are just collections of fairly homogenous - and thus predictable - causalities. From there, it's a very short step to defining natural laws as predictable randomness.

I don't think that is the logical consequence of what I was saying at all. I have never even mentioned the need for the supernatural, but rather I have been asking the question of the source of reason, if there was no supernatural. I am not assuming that there is no good answer from the Atheist viewpoint. Therefore, I feel that you have not defended your viewpoint, but rather are trying to attack mine. You are, of course, entitled to attack my viewpoint, but you can hardly say that it therefore equals a good defense of Atheism.You still suffer the basic misconception that atheism means something beyond lack of belief. Nothing in this entire post is related to atheism in any way. At all.Further, I suggest that you have missed my point. The reason to which I refer is not the Christian one, e.g., that reason exists because God made it. But rather, I am referring to, e.g., the reason why e.g, the planets revolve around the sun. Some people call it gravity, but in doing so, they have answered the how, not the why. But what I am getting at is the why of gravity, not the how. And then why is the law of gravity so faithfully followed in every known location of the universe, allowing us to to make live and make observations and predictions and to reason about reason. The universality of the laws of nature themselves must have a reason.Let me ask once again, what makes you think there is a WHY? Have you ever seen any indication that there is a WHY involved?

Sure, it's an interesting question. It's also a rather pointless one to speculate about at present. Several people have already repeatedly told you that there might not be a 'why'. There's no reason to suspect intent behind the mechanisms of the universe.

In fact, it's not much more sensible than if you were conjuring up a conspiracy theory explaining why all humanity doesn't fart syncronously. There's no reason to suspect it's intentional.What! Flawed? I am merely asking a simple question. I am not attacking science, or trying to make it do something it isn't supposed to. I am criticising a philosophical viewpoint that claims to be based on reason, but cannot (apparently) answer a simple question about where reason comes from.You know, it's entirely possible to keep pressing the same question although it's been answered in as many ways as is humanly possible. It's also quite easy to conjure up wild flights of fancy that cannot be disproved. It's even more easy when you hand-pick the words conveying the question least efficiently. Why do all that?Please note. I am not using this as a platform to argue that therefore every atheist must believe in God. (Though I seem to have been accused of this time and again. Sheesh.)So let's recap: you have the ability to formulate ideas & even brand new concepts. You must have such abilities for a reason. Ergo the universe - and by extention, you -must be the expressed extent of some sort of sentience. Because only sentience has the imagination & ability to reason, needed to create the lot.
That's circular logic, no?Lets not quibble over details. I see that there are at least two 'meanings' of the term 'natural laws'.It's a piss poor definition in any case, as they aren't set in stone, and were (and are) defined by us, not nature. Incidentially, that's why the scientific community doesn't use the term anymore.

Anyway, I ask yet again: WHY must there be a WHY?

Hehe, true randomness - events without direct causes - is like arguing about God. Noone really knows if it exists. Not yet at least. The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is no execption. We don't know it it really is random, but it doesn't look like we can know.

Anyway, common use of the word random is more along the lines of "events without a discernable cause". It's not unreasonable to suspect the current state of the universe was brought about by such an event. Perhaps it would be better to call it an instability or a freak accident instead of randomness.


So, you say that we don't know if randomness exists, but we can say that it brought about an event which we called the beginning of the universe. Hmmmmm......you probably know that that doesn't look very reasonable. Surely, if a freak accident (by which I presume we mean one that is not governed by the laws of nature) were to bring the universe into existence, how is it that we are not able to detect events that are not governed by the laws of nature. Further, you seem to be saying the laws of nature were actually created by this freak event, and that they have remained to this day as unbreakable and as consistent as they ever were, billions of years ago. Then you want me to believe that this is a reasonable assumption. I may, but first you would have to describe a process by which this is possible, for nothing we observe currently ever suggests that such a thing is possible.


The stuff we call natural laws are man-made concepts. Sure, things works without any sentients present (as far as we know anyway), but these laws really aren't more than mechanical cause & effect things. They can be manipulated & since they're part of the basic makeup of the current state of cosmos, they aren't permanent things. We know the current shape of things began at some point´, so we know that these Laws also began. We can't really say what went on before that though.

Mate! I have to disagree. I do not think that the laws of nature can be manipulated, or suspended. They can be overcome temporarily, e.g., flight, but that is not the suspension of a law, but taking advantage of several laws. When you say 'suspended', I have in mind some special ability to cancel the law of gravity. We know that flight is not a suspension of the law of gravity, but rather it depends on it.

Furthermore, if you say that the laws of nature are not eternal (and I tend to agree), then you have to wonder how they came about. Is it the nature of matter itself that causes such laws, that if you were able to break down matter into its individual parts (e.g. neutrons, electrons, protons, and even further divisions) and understand it, then you could predict all of the laws of nature? An interesting idea, but not one that I am comfortable with. Sure, it may help predict gravity constants, but there are other laws of nature too. (my mind is blank right now)


Also, keep in mind that scientists in general believe that it's possible to describe the current state of cosmos with one unified theory. So you could say that it's unlikely that there are more than one natural law. You could also say that natural laws are just collections of fairly homogenous - and thus predictable - causalities. From there, it's a very short step to defining natural laws as predictable randomness.

Only one natural law, eh. Hmmmm....I've no good reason to doubt that, but I remain a little skeptical of that. Sounds like some sort of neo-Einstein physicist idea. I will believe it when I see it.
Natural laws are not fairly homogenous causalities, they are absolute. Newtonian physics does alter when we investigate tiny proportions (hence the theory of relativity), but it is, as someone pointed out, only the human descriptions of the laws of nature alter. The domination of one law of nature is superceded by another. However, the laws themselves do not change. Thus, I see no link between natural laws and randomness. They do not even begin to come close. Rather, the more we know about the laws of nature, the further apart they appear to be.

Lets not quibble over details. I see that there are at least two 'meanings' of the term 'natural laws'.
Actually I was wrong by applying the thing natural law to the universe. Sorry for the sidetrack.

This is the correct definition:
The theory that some laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and are discoverable by human reason without reference to specific legislative enactments or judicial decisions.

Don't have time to try and take apart the original reply with the correct definition but it's an interesting debate you started.

So, you say that we don't know if randomness exists, but we can say that it brought about an event which we called the beginning of the universe. Hmmmmm......you probably know that that doesn't look very reasonable. Surely, if a freak accident (by which I presume we mean one that is not governed by the laws of nature) were to bring the universe into existence, how is it that we are not able to detect events that are not governed by the laws of nature. Further, you seem to be saying the laws of nature were actually created by this freak event, and that they have remained to this day as unbreakable and as consistent as they ever were, billions of years ago. Then you want me to believe that this is a reasonable assumption. I may, but first you would have to describe a process by which this is possible, for nothing we observe currently ever suggests that such a thing is possible.



Mate! I have to disagree. I do not think that the laws of nature can be manipulated, or suspended. They can be overcome temporarily, e.g., flight, but that is not the suspension of a law, but taking advantage of several laws. When you say 'suspended', I have in mind some special ability to cancel the law of gravity. We know that flight is not a suspension of the law of gravity, but rather it depends on it.

Furthermore, if you say that the laws of nature are not eternal (and I tend to agree), then you have to wonder how they came about. Is it the nature of matter itself that causes such laws, that if you were able to break down matter into its individual parts (e.g. neutrons, electrons, protons, and even further divisions) and understand it, then you could predict all of the laws of nature? An interesting idea, but not one that I am comfortable with. Sure, it may help predict gravity constants, but there are other laws of nature too. (my mind is blank right now)



Only one natural law, eh. Hmmmm....I've no good reason to doubt that, but I remain a little skeptical of that. Sounds like some sort of neo-Einstein physicist idea. I will believe it when I see it.
Natural laws are not fairly homogenous causalities, they are absolute. Newtonian physics does alter when we investigate tiny proportions (hence the theory of relativity), but it is, as someone pointed out, only the human descriptions of the laws of nature alter. The domination of one law of nature is superceded by another. However, the laws themselves do not change. Thus, I see no link between natural laws and randomness. They do not even begin to come close. Rather, the more we know about the laws of nature, the further apart they appear to be.

But natural laws simply discribe the universe that we find ourselves in. Just because they do not change does not make them special. We made up the laws to discribe the physical representations that we observe. A natural law is no more special than any other mathematical equation. We expect things to stay the same it is only when things change that we require an explanation.

So, you say that we don't know if randomness exists,That's what I said.but we can say that it brought about an event which we called the beginning of the universe. Hmmmmm......you probably know that that doesn't look very reasonable. However, that's not what I said at all. I said there's a difference between what we usually call random & objective randomness. We can't say if the latter exists. We can't say that it doesn't.

What we can say, is that we don't know what brought about the current state of the universe. I've noticed that you adore splitting hairs & revel in self-made linguistic confusion. That's why I DIDN'T call the event that caused the Big Bang random, but instead called it a freak accident. That term is normally used about spectacular occurances for which we have no adequate explanation. It seems quite appropriate here.Surely, if a freak accident (by which I presume we mean one that is not governed by the laws of nature)The natural laws, as we understand them, break down completely when we get close to 0 time. I didn't actually say that the big bang wasn't caused by 'laws of nature'. I wouldn't dare, because I suspect pure mayhem over the definition of what constitues a 'natural law' would ensue. I said that the natural laws currently governing cosmos didn't exist. At least, it doesn't look like they did.were to bring the universe into existence, how is it that we are not able to detect events that are not governed by the laws of nature.Because the things we usually refer to as the 'laws of nature' are the basic properties of this state of cosmos. You are asking why we can't examine something beyond the current state of the universe. You might as well be asking why we can't prove invisible flying whales. Or God.
We can't, because our powers of observation are limited to the universe we inhabit... Somehow I'm sure you'll subtract some strange skewered meaning from this.Further, you seem to be saying the laws of nature were actually created by this freak event, and that they have remained to this day as unbreakable and as consistent as they ever were, billions of years ago.Yups. We wouldn't consider them 'laws of nature' if they weren't fairly constant.Then you want me to believe that this is a reasonable assumption. I may, but first you would have to describe a process by which this is possible, for nothing we observe currently ever suggests that such a thing is possible.The Big Bang. Look it up yourself.Mate! I have to disagree. I do not think that the laws of nature can be manipulated, or suspended. Some chick managed to reduce the speed of light not too many years ago. I never said they can be suspended, I said they can be manipulated. Incidentially, I didn't actually mean that humanity can manipulate them. I was trying to convey that these 'laws of nature' aren't set in stone. They are for us, sure, but on a cosmological level, they aren't. They're just properties of the current state of the universe. They didn't always exist, and it's unlikely that they always will. And in the early stages of the Big Bang, they didn't function as they do now.They can be overcome temporarily, e.g., flight, but that is not the suspension of a law, but taking advantage of several laws. When you say 'suspended', I have in mind some special ability to cancel the law of gravity. We know that flight is not a suspension of the law of gravity, but rather it depends on it.You are putting words in my mouth. Read what you quoted instead. I never even hinted that it's possible for us to suspend the mechanisms of the universe. And no, flight isn't manipulating the properties of the universe, it's taking advantage of them. Much like mining coal & using it to generate electricity for your computer is. Such things are possible because we understand the basic mechanisms of the universe we inhabit.Furthermore, if you say that the laws of nature are not eternal (and I tend to agree), then you have to wonder how they came about.Actually, that's not the great big mystery you make it out to be. The stuff we call 'natural laws' are simply properties of the universe we inhabit. Properties like time, distance, speed & so on. They didn't suddenly appear by magic, they're what the universe currently is. It's like asking how your heart suddenly appeared inside your body. It didn't, it's simply a part OF your body. Your body wouldn't be if you didn't have it. Same thing with the properties of the universe we're part of. It wouldn't be what it is if it had developed differently...Is it the nature of matter itself that causes such laws, that if you were able to break down matter into its individual parts (e.g. neutrons, electrons, protons, and even further divisions) and understand it, then you could predict all of the laws of nature?There are plenty of people doing that as we speak. This is what quantum mechanics is all about.An interesting idea, but not one that I am comfortable with. Sure, it may help predict gravity constants, but there are other laws of nature too. (my mind is blank right now)Uncomfortable with?Only one natural law, eh. Hmmmm....I've no good reason to doubt that, but I remain a little skeptical of that. Sounds like some sort of neo-Einstein physicist idea. I will believe it when I see it.Funny you should mention him. He spend half his life trying to figure out the 'unified field theory', which is a fancy (and now outdated) word for a theory of everything. He was allegedly working on it when he died.Natural laws are not fairly homogenous causalities, they are absolute. This is so simple that I fear the entire thread will be derailed if we try to explore it. In any case, I chose my words very carefully, because while constants are constants for us, they aren't nessecarily constant, objectively speaking. Mostly, I was trying to avoid splitting hairs.Newtonian physics does alter when we investigate tiny proportions (hence the theory of relativity)Exactly. Newton's 'law' of gravity turned out to be wrong.but it is, as someone pointed out, only the human descriptions of the laws of nature alter.And there you have the reason why the scientific community doesn't call theories 'laws' anymore.The domination of one law of nature is superceded by another. However, the laws themselves do not change. Thus, I see no link between natural laws and randomness. They do not even begin to come close. Rather, the more we know about the laws of nature, the further apart they appear to be.You didn't understand what I wrote. I didn't say that random events produce new constants (or universal mechanisms, if you prefer). I said a freak accident - which you might call random, as we don't know what brought it about - resulted in this universe we're part of. The universal properties of this universe are what we refer to as 'natural laws'. They are properties of this universe, and thus they share the fate of this universe. Before this universe existed, it had no properties. Thus, there were no 'laws of nature'. Same thing when/if this universe comes to an end.

I can only be amazed at your understanding of the material world. It apparently began with randomness, and is now wholly in the control of the laws of nature. At which point did randomness turn into law? It brings to my mind the question of randomness. What is it. The lottery is not a random process, I'm sure you realize. The winning number is selected e.g., depending on the location of each ball (with the number on it) in relation to the selector. Thus the selection of the balls is not random, just so infinitely complex that we are not in a position to predict it. Rather, it is strictly ruled by the process of the laws of nature. We call it random selection, but 'random' in this sense does not mean 'free from the laws of nature', but rather unpredictable or indiscriminate. Maybe you may be able to find an source of randomness in this universe. I'm not sure that you can.

True randomness happens on microscopic level and is something that moves the world around. Following our present theories you will never know where the electron is , you can only say where it might be in general. Same with decay ... at the moment there is now reason WHY an atom decays at a special moment or why it does not. The microscopic world is not wholly deterministic or causal. (There might be a unifying theory but at the moment it looks rather bleak. No god in sight ;) )

We are truly happy, that on macroscopic levels the probabilites add up and you can't tunnel you whole hand through the table ... at least not during the few times we are all trying to do it. And this perception we call then laws ... although they are only probabilities.

You still suffer the basic misconception that atheism means something beyond lack of belief. Nothing in this entire post is related to atheism in any way. At all.Let me ask once again, what makes you think there is a WHY? Have you ever seen any indication that there is a WHY involved?

Suffer? As if I have a some sort of diseased mind. I'm getting the impression, TSW, that you would like nothing more than to see anyone who disagrees with you upset. If you cant beat them with logic, do it with insinuations and scorn!? The world view that I was specifically referring to is the one which says that there is definitely no God. We usually call that atheism. With such a view, in order to hold to such an assumption and claim that it is reasonable, one needs to provide reasonable arguments for the assumption. The form of sub-atheism that equals an absence of belief is not really atheism, but confusion, or a state of confessed ignorance or uncertainty. I am not criticising this position. People in this position should be considering the questions that I am raising, but not feel that I am attacking them.
I am a Christian, and therefore I am comfortable with the why questions. They are all answered for my by God (directly or indirectly :)). When I consider a postion such as Atheism, which depends on the non-existence of God, I want to know what they do with the Why. You seem to be saying that it isn't an issue for you.

What I don't get is why you insist that this isn't about atheism. Mate, I started this particular criticism on this thread, and I say that it IS about atheism, unless you can provide a very good reason why it isn't.


Sure, it's an interesting question. It's also a rather pointless one to speculate about at present. Several people have already repeatedly told you that there might not be a 'why'. There's no reason to suspect intent behind the mechanisms of the universe.


There may not be a why, true, but there may well be. If one never asks, one may never know. But it does seem to be a little strange for me. The Atheist is often accusing Christians of never questioning their beliefs, of frowning upon those who do ask the whys. And yet, here I am, asking the whys, and getting frowned upon, not by the religious, but by the irreligious. Oh, the irony.


In fact, it's not much more sensible than if you were conjuring up a conspiracy theory explaining why all humanity doesn't fart syncronously. There's no reason to suspect it's intentional.You know, it's entirely possible to keep pressing the same question although it's been answered in as many ways as is humanly possible. It's also quite easy to conjure up wild flights of fancy that cannot be disproved. It's even more easy when you hand-pick the words conveying the question least efficiently. Why do all that?So let's recap: you have the ability to formulate ideas & even brand new concepts. You must have such abilities for a reason. Ergo the universe - and by extention, you -must be the expressed extent of some sort of sentience. Because only sentience has the imagination & ability to reason, needed to create the lot.
That's circular logic, no?It's a piss poor definition in any case, as they aren't set in stone, and were (and are) defined by us, not nature. Incidentially, that's why the scientific community doesn't use the term anymore.


I think you have missed the point of my question. I am not trying to lead you to the conclusion that God is the only answer of the why, but pointing out your inability to answer the why. I feel that this is where you feel that I am going. I'll let you into the inside story. I once read about a man who was a rather convinced atheist. He bought into the whole cosmology thing. But when the doubts came, he wanted to be honest with them, and so he began to ask the hard questions. Doubts grew into suspicions, and eventually, he began to look for answers in Christ. He reckons that the straw that broke the camels back was this whole aspect of reason playing such a big role in e.g. Atheism, but the inability of Atheism to adequately answer how reason came to be. He subsequently became a Christian, and a famous writer. His name is C.S. Lewis. Now, I wanted to know if the straw that broke the camel's back for Lewis is really a widespread problem for Atheists in general, or was it just a problem for him. So I came up with the idea of discussing it on NS.

You may have noticed that although you and I have been speaking in broad terms about the Why question, in Lewis case, it wasn't a general why, but a very specific one that related in particular to Atheism (his original viewpoint). The source of reason. My reason for bringing it up here is to learn more about this. I am not trying to convert you or anyone else. I believe that to be God's business.


Anyway, I ask yet again: WHY must there be a WHY?

If there is a why, there must be a very good answer. If there isn't a why, then there must be a very good reason why there isn't a why. So far, I haven't found one. Good night.

You still suffer the basic misconception that atheism means something beyond lack of belief.Suffer? As if I have a some sort of diseased mind. I'm getting the impression, TSW, that you would like nothing more than to see anyone who disagrees with you upset. [...] The form of sub-atheism that equals an absence of belief is not really atheism, but confusion, or a state of confessed ignorance or uncertainty. I am not criticising this position. People in this position should be considering the questions that I am raising, but not feel that I am attacking them.

Yes, "suffer" is a good word. There is a common and really broad definition of atheism that bases on the word (átheos (άθεος) - without god) and you insist that it is wrong and yours is correct. So if you told me there is only black and white and if I don't choose one of it but prefer grey that I'm then confused or uncertain or ignorant, then I'd call you suffering a delusion (and insulting) too.

I'll let you into the inside story. I once read about a man who was a rather convinced atheist. He bought into the whole cosmology thing. But when the doubts came, he wanted to be honest with them, and so he began to ask the hard questions. Doubts grew into suspicions, and eventually, he began to look for answers in Christ. He reckons that the straw that broke the camels back was this whole aspect of reason playing such a big role in e.g. Atheism, but the inability of Atheism to adequately answer how reason came to be. He subsequently became a Christian, and a famous writer. His name is C.S. Lewis. Now, I wanted to know if the straw that broke the camel's back for Lewis is really a widespread problem for Atheists in general, or was it just a problem for him. So I came up with the idea of discussing it on NS.


I'd rather like _you_ ask the question instead of putting the alleged question of another man before us and discuss it. Especially if it is so hard for you to put his question in words and definitions we can agree upon. Sorry, "Pilgrim's Regress" is a bit too expensive.

You may have noticed that although you and I have been speaking in broad terms about the Why question, in Lewis case, it wasn't a general why, but a very specific one that related in particular to Atheism (his original viewpoint). The source of reason. My reason for bringing it up here is to learn more about this.

Problem still is, that you can't explain this point exactly. Maybe because it is not your question but the one of C.S.Lewis.

The WHY of the existence of the ability to reason seems not to be what you are looking for, you are looking for the WHY of the existence of {reason, world, whatever}. And I tell you that in my mind the reason of the existence is randomness. We can perceive this randomness in microscopic things. You did not even ask where the randomness comes from (you denied the pure randomness ... as if everything would be precomputable if we would be able to measure it).
That might be you next why. Unfortunately quantum theories does tell you, that sometimes a "because" happens before the "why". And that causal reasoning is sometimes utterly useless. And that things really behave this way. That your "rules of reasoning", the looked for god-equivalent, don't apply.

Suffer? As if I have a some sort of diseased mind. I'm getting the impression, TSW, that you would like nothing more than to see anyone who disagrees with you upset. If you cant beat them with logic, do it with insinuations and scorn!? Suffer, as in being disadvantaged by something. The 'something' being lack of comprehension of what atheism means, in this case. It wasn't meant as an insult at all.

Still, it's funny you get that impression. I myself can't shake the impression that you're distorting & misrepresenting the words of others on purpose, and change your argument as needed to keep pressing the same point; that there is a WHY & a known answer to it.

If it really isn't intentional, I'll try to be more polite. I'd appreciate if you'd extend the same curtesy though.The world view that I was specifically referring to is the one which says that there is definitely no God. We usually call that atheism.Sorry, but when you write things like (paraphrasing slightly) "You fail to provide a good defense of atheism", it really doesn't look like you understand what the word means. Many atheists have answers to the WHY.
What you're really arguing against is a strictly evidence-based world veiw, or materialism. While we are atheists, atheists at large doesn't nessecarily subscribe to that line of thinking. Not by a long shot. Atheism isn't materialism or humanism, nor does it have anything to do with rational thinking.
I hope you understand my objection now.With such a view, in order to hold to such an assumption and claim that it is reasonable, one needs to provide reasonable arguments for the assumption. The form of sub-atheism that equals an absence of belief is not really atheism, but confusion, or a state of confessed ignorance or uncertainty. I am not criticising this position. People in this position should be considering the questions that I am raising, but not feel that I am attacking them.
I am a Christian, and therefore I am comfortable with the why questions. They are all answered for my by God (directly or indirectly :)). When I consider a postion such as Atheism, which depends on the non-existence of God, I want to know what they do with the Why. You seem to be saying that it isn't an issue for you. You don't get to define how atheists veiw the world. If you want to do that, come up with a new word.What I don't get is why you insist that this isn't about atheism. Mate, I started this particular criticism on this thread, and I say that it IS about atheism, unless you can provide a very good reason why it isn't.Yes. You say it is about atheism. And yet, you've left divinity out of the debate. Divinity is the only thing atheism covers. Spirituality, aliens & the illuminati all go hand in hand with atheism. You've so far raised no direct criticism of lack of belief in the divine. You've criticised humanists & materialists, and yes, those are atheists. But atheism covers a lot of other schools of thought & belief systems.There may not be a why, true, but there may well be. If one never asks, one may never know. But it does seem to be a little strange for me. The Atheist is often accusing Christians of never questioning their beliefs, of frowning upon those who do ask the whys. And yet, here I am, asking the whys, and getting frowned upon, not by the religious, but by the irreligious. Oh, the irony.You're getting frowned upon because you've rephrased the same question 20 times. And you've been given the same answers every time.

To sum up:
I don't know if there even is a WHY. I keep an open mind about it.
You have not only decided that there is a WHY, you've also found an answer.
I don't believe your answer is the right one, and I'm far from certain there is a question. But I keep looking.

The big WHY is fairly inconsequential to me. I know nothing about it & it is not in my nature to simply decide on something I like. If I ever find an answer - or just the question, I'll revise my world veiw accordingly. Just like I do every time I learn something new.I think you have missed the point of my question. I am not trying to lead you to the conclusion that God is the only answer of the why, but pointing out your inability to answer the why. I feel that this is where you feel that I am going. You'll just have to forgive that. I've posted my veiw of things several times already, and I'm far from the only one.
Pointing out my inability to answer is a no-brainer. I wrote it black on white the first time you asked & have done so repeatedly since then. It's no secret that I don't have the answer to life, the universe & everything. I don't even know if it's a question.

The funny thing is, of course, that you keep pushing that humanists etc. don't question such things. It's funny (to me at least) because you're the one who stopped questioning. You consciously decided on an answer. You have no objective reason to believe that answer has anything to do with reality, but you've decided to stick with it.
Who exactly is not asking the big ole WHY?
And no, it's not meant as a personal attack. I'll let you into the inside story. I once read about a man who was a rather convinced atheist. He bought into the whole cosmology thing. But when the doubts came, he wanted to be honest with them, and so he began to ask the hard questions. Doubts grew into suspicions, and eventually, he began to look for answers in Christ. He reckons that the straw that broke the camels back was this whole aspect of reason playing such a big role in e.g. Atheism, but the inability of Atheism to adequately answer how reason came to be. He subsequently became a Christian, and a famous writer. His name is C.S. Lewis. Now, I wanted to know if the straw that broke the camel's back for Lewis is really a widespread problem for Atheists in general, or was it just a problem for him. So I came up with the idea of discussing it on NS.I wish you'd said that pages ago.You may have noticed that although you and I have been speaking in broad terms about the Why question, in Lewis case, it wasn't a general why, but a very specific one that related in particular to Atheism (his original viewpoint). The source of reason. My reason for bringing it up here is to learn more about this. I am not trying to convert you or anyone else. I believe that to be God's business.Admirable sentiment. I tend to be a bit unfriendly with people who try to convert me.If there is a why, there must be a very good answer.I'd venture that depends entirely on your definition of 'good' ;)If there isn't a why, then there must be a very good reason why there isn't a why. So far, I haven't found one.I feel that several of us have tried to relay a fairly good argument against there being a WHY. Basically, there really isn't a need for a WHY & there's no real indication of there being one either.Good night.Likewise.

-snip-


I'm no scientist but I'll try and explain my views. I personally follow the view that the Universe and everything in it is fundamentally pointless.

I could ask what the reason for sand. With a little research I could find out the natural process that formed sand but this would only answer how sand came to exist. It would be ultimately futile to ask why sand exists.

Humans are driven by reason and a belief that things happen for a purpose, for this reason we are by nature unable to look at the universe without contaminating it with our own thoughts and perspectives. Because we do things for a reason we are driven by our narrow (but unescapeable outlook) to view the Universe or the laws of physics as needing to have a reason as well when they are completely different.

As the title implies, this is not meant to say one side is better or that this is to debate if one is more factual then the other. If you want to do either one..please make your own thread and have fun with it.

This is more of a plea to both sides to...well..shut up!!!!

Seriously I mean really..shut up.


this is on the topic of which should be allowed in school.

Let me first adress my fellow christians and those that favor ID:
First off, I assume most of you are christians. With that being said, grow up and act like christians. Every time you whine about how mistreated you are in this aspect, it only furthers their case against. Even more it enrages them and even discredits eeverything christianity stands for. Where are the Jesus loving, be happy no matter what the world does, christians? Jesus, and many apostles told us that the world will hate us and seek to destroy our way of life. Well let me tell ya something. Go ahead and let them try. As long as we focus our hearts onn Christ and as long as we serve him, there is nothing the can do to us to stop us from worshipping and loving our lord. The worst that could happen is death..even then how bad is that? I mean thats our chance to finally bow at the feet our lord...sorry got off the topic there..but If they don't allow ID to be taught in school..oh well!!! who cares..its not like they can actually take our faith away from us. Let them have their "knowledge"..we have the love of our Saviour...

Actually, most "atheists" or other religions don't want to destroy your way of life. Unfortunately, most are given a bad name by the rather loud, annoying one(Same goes for Christians). For the most part, they just want to be left alone.


As for the evolutionists....

Well, ID should not be taught as science. It is not science. It, infact, is almost the exact opposite. I'll scrounge up a paper I wrote on this subject in about an hour and half, being as how I have a final in ten minutes. And also, all ID is is Creationism and Religion in disguise. It's blatantly obvious. It's not a "different idea", it's Religion. I'll adress this side.

I speak of the reason that one finds operating in the laws of nature.

You should really say, "the reason *I* find operating in the laws of nature," since the position you're arguing against disagrees with that assertion. Sim. is right on this one: you're actually arguing against a pure materialist view of the universe, one which I only hold some of the time, but not one which can be attributed universally to atheism.

The laws of nature are reliably consistent throughout all of nature. It allows us to make predictions of outer space, even though we have never been there.

more accurately, our observations of the universe are consistent, and due to this, we have formulated descriptions of the underlying mechanisms that reproduce those observations. there is no a priori "reason" for this to be so, it is simply the case that this is the only thing that makes any sense: descriptions that predict things we don't actually observe in nature are eventually discarded.

We can do this because we have discovered reason that already exists in our universe.

so you say, but you are taking this position as a matter of faith, and asserting something to be inherent to atheism (or materialism) that the people who hold such positions don't actually believe. I could just as easily assert that all christians believe the earth is flat, and then demand that you defend that proposition or admit that christianity is "unreasonable." Since christians don't actually believe this, I'm not actually making any sort of case against christianity's reasonableness, I am rather making an argument against a completely fabricated position that I've chosen to call "chrisitianity." Similarly, you're not presenting a real argument against atheism or materialism, you're just insisting people defend a straw-man of your own creation.

For example, matter will NEVER explode, unless there is a reason. And object will never overcome gravity, unless there is a reason. It's this reason that governs the entire known universe.

all you're saying here is that there has to be a "reason" the universe is the way it is. My response is simply, "No there doesn't" Modern physics, in fact, acknowledges the possibility of a multitude of universes operating under very different physical "laws."

What I want to know is how the Atheistic view point can sufficiently explain this sort of reason.

since no atheist or materialist necessarily acknowedges your premise as necessary, they don't have to.

The closest anyone (I think) on this thread has come to understanding my point is Saint Curie, who suggested that such reason is just is, that it just exists because matter exists. It's like saying that1+1=2, without giving a reason of why it is so.

no it's not. as has been pointed out, the rules of mathematics are not the same as the "laws" of the natural world. Mathematics is an arbitrary descriptive language. The discovered laws of nature are a simple product of human observation of what physically *is*. As I've argued, this is easily explained as the product of natural selection, though it need not be.

Of course, there is a very good reason for such an equasion, but a six year old kid is unlikely to understand it. Most of us are not that young, therefore, I feel that it is reasonable to expect a better answer than 'it just is'.

Here's my answer: The physical laws that govern matter are such that matter came to be. Those laws are the "reason" not only that things exist, but also that they behave the way they do. Those laws were also capable of producing, through evolution (which is, at it's base, simply probability mathematics) creatures who, through natural selection, developed the ability to construct abstract principles based on their observations of the physical world. In this sense, the only "reason" for the existence of reason is the physical laws themselves. And the development of that "reason," as demonstrated by humanity's long history, is neither necessary nor ubiquitous.

Your entire argument essentially boils down to this:

Atheism is only reasonable if it can use reason to explain the a priori necessity of a reason for the universe to be as it is. Which is the same as saying Atheists must explain the necessity of God or be deemed unreasonable by you.

Which is the same as arguing that Atheism can't really exist.

But it does.

QED

(pun intended) ;)

And who is not to say that An evolutions is not part of a religous sect????one can say that they beleive in a higher power as well..the power of nature and natural selection..then therefore is that not saying that the gov't is using its power to teach specific beliefs????

Evolution is a theory based on evidence. I'm not saying it is a scientific law because evolution is still a theory. ID is God's creation of the world. It is teaching religion in school. Seperation of Church and state. Simple as that. If you really want to learn about ID go to church... that's where you learn it anyways.

This is just another ploy for christians to PUSH their religion onto other people.

On the other side I think it should be taught in College so you can take it as an elective but I don't think it should be considered a science because there is no factual proof other than the bible... I'm not going to get started on that.
Oh, wait it is taught in college...It's called religious studies...WOW. Who would have thought...

Your entire argument essentially boils down to this:

Atheism is only reasonable if it can use reason to explain the a priori necessity of a reason for the universe to be as it is. Which is the same as saying Atheists must explain the necessity of God or be deemed unreasonable by you.

Which is the same as arguing that Atheism can't really exist.

But it does.

QED

(pun intended) ;)

*gives Tartare a great big hug and kiss* :fluffle:
Thank you!! I've been wanting to say that but haven't found a way to put it!!! You're great!

Are you sugesting that that we teach Greek creation myths in science class?
What about anciant Japanese? We wouldn't want their views left out.
How about the Mesapotainians, they had their own ideas on how life came to be, should that be included in Biology 11?

If we don't teach every viewpoint from every religion spanning the last 7000 years of human history then somebody will be left out. Am I wrong?

Lets keep science in the science class and religion in the religous studies class.


No thats NOT what i am saying.. I am saying include in there that some people accept that A higher diety/dieties made life on earth..that just about covers every religion.

No thats NOT what i am saying.. I am saying include in there that some people accept that A higher diety/dieties made life on earth..that just about covers every religion.

Nope sorry.

In a religoius studies class; yes. A Philo class; yes.

You can't have inclusion of the involvment of God(aka Intelligent Designer) as you can't prove or disprove it.....

Ok I'm happy to see all the people bash my ideas/ :p

I just don't see that "open minded" individuals are being closed minded on this subject. Like wise, i am tired of the whiners( i know i can be guilty of that)

But this cannot be a One side takes all situation..No one will ever be happy. What happened to giving up a bit of ground for the greater good?

ANd wouldn't ya know...this DID turn out to be a debate after all...gosh.. all i wanted was for people to compromise

Blah. I can't think of anything to write, so i'll just put blah

Blah.

There you go. Happy now?

Ok I'm happy to see all the people bash my ideas/ :p

I just don't see that "open minded" individuals are being closed minded on this subject. Like wise, i am tired of the whiners( i know i can be guilty of that)

But this cannot be a One side takes all situation..No one will ever be happy. What happened to giving up a bit of ground for the greater good?


Being close minded has nothing to do with anything.

Fact remains. It's a science class. Untill you can present a method to test for the involvment or non-involvment of God, you don't talk about it.

Such logic would also allow for the discussion of the Flying Spagetti Monster(can't remember the link)....

ANd wouldn't ya know...this DID turn out to be a debate after all...gosh.. all i wanted was for people to compromise

Well you did post on a debating board..... ;)

ANd wouldn't ya know...this DID turn out to be a debate after all...gosh.. all i wanted was for people to compromise

I think 'keep religion in religion class and science in science class' is a terrific compromise.

Being close minded has nothing to do with anything.

Fact remains. It's a science class. Untill you can present a method to test for the involvment or non-involvment of God, you don't talk about it.

Such logic would also allow for the discussion of the Flying Spagetti Monster(can't remember the link)....


Well perhaps if it was allowed into the science class, then maybe it would be examined, debated and people MIGHT find holes in it and disprove it and then they can automatically throw it out.

Elgesh']I think 'keep religion in religion class and science in science class' is a terrific compromise.

In fact it's the ONLY compromise that makes any sense.

The reason to which I refer is not the Christian one, e.g., that reason exists because God made it. But rather, I am referring to, e.g., the reason why e.g, the planets revolve around the sun. Some people call it gravity, but in doing so, they have answered the how, not the why. But what I am getting at is the why of gravity, not the how. And then why is the law of gravity so faithfully followed in every known location of the universe, allowing us to to make live and make observations and predictions and to reason about reason. The universality of the laws of nature themselves must have a reason.

What I don't get is why you're so hung up on there having to be a "why". You keep saying 'there must be a reason'. Must there be? Really?

As many on here have already said repeatedly, science is all about the "how" and not the "why". "Why" is best left to philosophy and religion.

For you, the reason (to use your word) gravity exists is apparently because God decreed that it should be so. Well, that's fine and dandy if you happen to believe in an all-powerful deity who has nothing better to do than create the ocassional universe and then watch over the inhabitants of one insignificant planet therein.

Personally, I don't see why there needs to be any 'reason' for the universe to exist. What's wrong with accepting the mere fact of its existence, without assigning some intelligent decision to bring it about? What's wrong with scientists postulating various theories about how (there's that word again - how, not why) it's possible for a singularity to build up sufficient mass to explode in an outrushing of atoms, the impetus of that explosion competing with the attraction of matter (you know, gravity, that thing that stops us all from flying off into space) until stars and planets begin to form, and how (not why) conditions on some of those planets gradually change through assorted reactions until the basis of life might come about?

You must excuse me if I'm sounding a bit testy, but I have just read through this entire thread, and all I've seen is you asking the same question over and over again, dismissing most answers you've been given (as I'm sure you'll dismiss mine as well) and then going on to ask the same question yet again!

Scientific enquiry is about learning as much as we possibly can about the how of things. If there ever comes a day when they build a telescope powerful enough (or find some other way) of determining exactly what went on at the creation of the universe, then maybe - just maybe - that complete 'how' answer will invalidate the need for a 'why'. But of course, that would put God out of a job, wouldn't it?

It may not ever happen. I'm almost certain it won't happen in our lifetimes. But if the mechanism by which the universe came into being were ever fully understood, and it turned out to be entirely attributable to natural phenomena, there would go all need for your demands for "a source of reason".

In the meantime, why do you find it so difficult to understand that for some people there doesn't need to be a 'why'? I'm just happy that the universe exists and that I'm in it, and am eager to learn any new tidbits that are discovered about the origins of the universe, but in no way feel compelled to attribute it to some being's design.

Note to self:

Don't ever make a thread like this again. You bumbling idiot. Your opinions don't matter. Only everyone else's do. So shut up and go back to crying yourself to sleep.


Thanks self :D

What I don't get is why you're so hung up on there having to be a "why". You keep saying 'there must be a reason'. Must there be? Really?

As many on here have already said repeatedly, science is all about the "how" and not the "why". "Why" is best left to philosophy and religion.

For you, the reason (to use your word) gravity exists is apparently because God decreed that it should be so. Well, that's fine and dandy if you happen to believe in an all-powerful deity who has nothing better to do than create the ocassional universe and then watch over the inhabitants of one insignificant planet therein.

Personally, I don't see why there needs to be any 'reason' for the universe to exist. What's wrong with accepting the mere fact of its existence, without assigning some intelligent decision to bring it about? What's wrong with scientists postulating various theories about how (there's that word again - how, not why) it's possible for a singularity to build up sufficient mass to explode in an outrushing of atoms, the impetus of that explosion competing with the attraction of matter (you know, gravity, that thing that stops us all from flying off into space) until stars and planets begin to form, and how (not why) conditions on some of those planets gradually change through assorted reactions until the basis of life might come about?

You must excuse me if I'm sounding a bit testy, but I have just read through this entire thread, and all I've seen is you asking the same question over and over again, dismissing most answers you've been given (as I'm sure you'll dismiss mine as well) and then going on to ask the same question yet again!

Scientific enquiry is about learning as much as we possibly can about the how of things. If there ever comes a day when they build a telescope powerful enough (or find some other way) of determining exactly what went on at the creation of the universe, then maybe - just maybe - that complete 'how' answer will invalidate the need for a 'why'. But of course, that would put God out of a job, wouldn't it?

It may not ever happen. I'm almost certain it won't happen in our lifetimes. But if the mechanism by which the universe came into being were ever fully understood, and it turned out to be entirely attributable to natural phenomena, there would go all need for your demands for "a source of reason".

In the meantime, why do you find it so difficult to understand that for some people there doesn't need to be a 'why'? I'm just happy that the universe exists and that I'm in it, and am eager to learn any new tidbits that are discovered about the origins of the universe, but in no way feel compelled to attribute it to some being's design.


When looking at the "how" should not all sides be looked at? I mean its not fair to present one sided evidence in a trial..So why do the same here? Why not look at ALL the POSSIBLE origins of where we came from, "HOW" we got here, etc. I thought science was to look at all aspects of a question, and then try to find the one that bests answers it. Clearly that can't be done when you throw out someone's ideas without first giving it a chance to be debated in class...

Note to self:

Don't ever make a thread like this again. You bumbling idiot. Your opinions don't matter. Only everyone else's do. So shut up and go back to crying yourself to sleep.


Thanks self :D


Yes, all that reading about differing viewpoints and about the accurate definition of the scientific method and why some things are or are not science...all of it must be very distressing to you.

No thats NOT what i am saying.. I am saying include in there that some people accept that A higher diety/dieties made life on earth..that just about covers every religion.


And the day you can prove that using scientific methodology, it will be included in a scientific curriculum. Until then, we're all still monkey men.

When looking at the "how" should not all sides be looked at? I mean its not fair to present one sided evidence in a trial..So why do the same here? Why not look at ALL the POSSIBLE origins of where we came from, "HOW" we got here, etc. I thought science was to look at all aspects of a question, and then try to find the one that bests answers it. Clearly that can't be done when you throw out someone's ideas without first giving it a chance to be debated in class...
I bolded the bits you should take 5 minutes to research.

The scientific method (it was actually posted earlier in this thread & can be found in seconds on wikipedia) is not about looking at all aspects of a question. Not only is it completely backwards, its also impossible.
You can speculate more than science can answer. Science can only handle things in our universe. Ideas that break the limits of reality are beyond science. That's what the rest of the philosophical disciplines are for. Use those & stop assaulting the scientific method. It isn't a friggin God, it's just a tool for figuring out how natural things work.

And.. If you're using that method, you don't start with a conclusion & then go about looking for evidence to back it. You do the exact opposite. Ever wonder how humans work? Well, start observing them. When you have researched humans for a while, you'll have a bunch of observations. You then hold these observations up against eachother, and see if any patterns emerge. If you're lucky, you find some. That's what a hypothesis is.
When you've spend an age or three trying to debunk your hupothesis, it's either become very clearly formulated & supported by a host of evidence, or it'll be debunked, and you'll have to start over.

That's science. And that's also why science doesn't actually prove anything. It's just a method for refining ideas to the point where they probably are either correct, or near correct. And none of these ideas are ever set in stone. Any new observation relevant to a theory may potentially debunk the theory.

Also, our much hailed laws of nature & whatnot, are 'just' scientific theories. It's folly to assume they're 100% correct. Especially since we continually refine the lot of them & have major holes in many of them.
And just for the record, if the scientific community went back to calling particularily solid theories 'Laws', then we would be discussing the Law of Evolution. It's one of the best supported scientific theories we've ever formulated.

Now for the trial bit: the court you (and the IDiots) are proposing to use, is the scientific method. It CANNOT be used for ID. ID makes no predictions, so no experiment can ever falsify it. ID only invokes something that is beyond the mechanisms of the universe we inhabit, and therefore it is impossible for us to observe it (it being the designer). Or rather, it makes it impossible for us to even know IF we observe it.
And finally, ID offers no methodology, so there's nothing to examine there either.

If this truely was a court case, then the case would be declared a mistrial. ID simply can't be judged by the normal rules.

Note to self:

Don't ever make a thread like this again. You bumbling idiot. Your opinions don't matter. Only everyone else's do. So shut up and go back to crying yourself to sleep.


Thanks self :D

Note to everyone:

Don't start a thread where you present your side of a debate as a compromise despite the fact you haven't made any concessions. If you do start such a thread then don't be surprised if it turns into a debate.

Thanks everyone. :D

Note to self:

Don't ever make a thread like this again. You bumbling idiot. Your opinions don't matter. Only everyone else's do. So shut up and go back to crying yourself to sleep.


Thanks self :D


I thought you said you didn't like whiners? Kidding, sorry...

Thing about compromise is, if we view the spectrum as continuous and unbounded, then for every point A as a contrast to a point on its right, B, there is a point on the left, C, where the average (compromise) of B and C is A.

So, if I believe the Truth is "100" and you belive its "150", its not really a salient argument to walk in and say "I think the truth is 200, and you should be willing to compromise".

Originally posted by Lacadaemon
Originally posted by [NS]Goddistan
In any case, the theory that evolution was the beginning of life is as unprovable a theory as creationism. Now, based on the presuppositions of science, there is some merit to some kind of evolutionary process, be it micro or macro. I am not willing to engage in that, because it comes down to the presuppositions one holds vs. the presuppositions another holds.

That's not the theory of evolution, it has nothing to do with the origin of life or abiogensis.

Ah, I never meant to convey that the theory of evolution was meant to explain the origin of life. I was using the word "evolution" as a process and not as an ideology. Here, would "unliving substance morphing into living substance" work more appropriately? I know that the theory of evolution, as it is grouped to mean, does not explain the origin of life, as it aims to describe how one living thing, through a slow process of what may have likely been mutations, eventually became something else that could no longer reproduce with the first creature. It was a poor choice of words. I apologize.

Nor is the evidence for the theory of evoluition "presuppositions".
I am open to the concept that the evolution theory has the potential to be true, and if you will notice, I said there may actually be validity to evolution in my post. However, they are, as I would hope you would admit, based on the way the scientists have interpreted the concrete data. So, in essence, while the evidence, which is concrete, is not based on presuppositions (Such a claim would be "absurd in the highest degree."*), the interpretation process of what the data means can be influenced by the scientist's presuppositions. Would you not agree? If not, then why not?

Please stop misrepresenting things.
Actually, I think I just have to do a better job of explaining myself.

Originally posted by Boonytopia
Originally Posted by [NS]Goddistan


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...ad_2Dhorse.gif

*snip*


I reckon it looks more like a llama.
Eh, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[url]http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/galejb/Beating%20Dead%20Horse/Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by

Well perhaps if it was allowed into the science class, then maybe it would be examined, debated and people MIGHT find holes in it and disprove it and then they can automatically throw it out.

Again you can't prove or disprove the existence let alone involvement of God. As such it has no place.

Besides, if it was mandated that you had to hear it. The Christians would bitch about Religious intolerance of any teacher that would bash it.

Wait they already are. ;)

ANd wouldn't ya know...this DID turn out to be a debate after all...gosh.. all i wanted was for people to compromise
Opinions can be compromised. Facts cannot. The irreducible facts of this case can be shown as follows:

Suppose the set S is the set of all subjects that should be taught in science class. Let S = {<M>| M is a fact or theory supported by observable evidence}. Then evolution is in S, and intelligent design is not in S.

Opinions can be compromised. Facts cannot. The irreducible facts of this case can be shown as follows:

Suppose the set S is the set of all subjects that should be taught in science class. Let S = {<M>| M is a fact or theory supported by observable evidence}. Then evolution is in S, and intelligent design is not in S.

It doesn't matter that I concur, but I do.

The closest anyone (I think) on this thread has come to understanding my point is Saint Curie, who suggested that such reason is just is, that it just exists because matter exists.

Not to be combative, but I'd like to stress that I feely your position is highly unsound, and the process by which you arrived at it is one that I would not see as being an asset to the repertoire of philosophy.

Not to be combative, but I'd like to stress that I feely your position is highly unsound, and the process by which you arrived at it is one that I would not see as being an asset to the repertoire of philosophy.

Dempublicent1 thrashed him over this very topic and he is back spouting the exact same thing......

Okay, several of my friends went to very.. good catholic schools.

and they learned evolution in the mid/late 90's

however, they learned evolution

not this intelligent design crap... it makes me laugh though.. they were at school affiliated with a religion and they learned evolution without religion.. looks like SOME schools care about education... mm.:rolleyes:

this is highly disturbing that they can even do this in america of all places.
They better not start writing medical journals on how cancer happens when the devil hexes you and medicines are evil and cancer can only be fully cured by prayer.

If I lived in those states that made my children learn this crap I'd refuse to pay taxes... asshats.

good science allows for religion....

good religion screws religion....

*+10 points to the holy rollers*

Dempublicent1 thrashed him over this very topic and he is back spouting the exact same thing......

Yeah? Doesn't surprise me. I've honestly tried to see Bruarong's side of it, but I think he/she isn't really giving equal, sincere consideration to what everybody's been saying.

Of course religion believes in the certainty of an eternal God. This is reasonable, consistent with their world view that includes an eternal supernatural. My criticism is not so much that Atheism accepts that the laws of nature are eternal, (indeed, perhaps many Atheists do not hold to this), but that while the laws of nature are predicted to be universal, based on reason, that reason itself requires no source.
Why is it that you feel that we must guess at source? I don't recall anyone saying definitively that there isn't or couldn't be one.

The definition of God is that he is eternal. Thus he requires no source. If you like, he is 'safely deposited' in the cloud of supernatural. Atheism does not enjoy this luxury. It must either provide a reason for reason, or admit that it cannot, and thereby lose it's claim to be based on reason. It may use reason, but if it cannot explain reason, it cannot claim to be based on reason. If that is the case, it's favourite weapon has failed to help it out of a sticky situation. (I realize that one might upset people, but I couldn't resist--plus, I am only speaking hypothetically. It's not meant to bash Atheists, but just to get them to think a bit harder to find some good 'reasons'.)
Once again, just because we don't know the "reason for reason" doesn't invalidate our thinking, it simply means that we don't know yet

Nope. It cannot be. Evolutionists (both chemical and biological) explain evolution using the laws of nature. Therefore, the laws of nature and reason had to exist before evolution. That is a rather pertinant point. If one is going to use reason to explain how life came about without God, then one has to explain how reason came to be. Failing that, his argument cannot be said to be based on reason after all.
Are you really that closed minded?
We have to accept your explanation simply because we don't have our own supernatural one?

Perhaps if I was to replace the word 'noise' with 'vibrations' that are detectable by the human ear, you would see (perhaps) what I mean. A falling tree will always cause these vibrations, regardless if there is an ear to detect it. The laws of nature are consistent, regardless of whether we are there to observe them. Thus it is not chaos and randomness at all.
So what you're saying is that because it's not all chaos and randomness there has to be a god?

But that is because your reasoning (no pun intended) is flawed.
The natural laws exist, we observe their effects, then describe those and try to reason from those observations and descriptions what those laws are. That is what science does. Nothing more nothing less. And it does not require something capable of reasoning to form the basics it is trying to describe.

What! Flawed? I am merely asking a simple question. I am not attacking science, or trying to make it do something it isn't supposed to. I am criticising a philosophical viewpoint that claims to be based on reason, but cannot (apparently) answer a simple question about where reason comes from.
So, once again a failing of "atheistic philosophy" is that it doesn't explain absolutley everything?

If there must be a 'reason' for natural laws coming about, then why doesn't there have to be a reason for your god existing? By your logic for him to exist, then something must have created him. So who created your creator?

Ok, in order for something to be a scientific theory it has to make testable predictions. Evolution makes testable predictions, these predictions have held up thus far. Creationism does not make testable predictions, it is not a scientific theory. Intelligent design does not make testable predictions, it is also not a scientific theory.
If it is not a scientific theory or does not concern science, it should not be taught in a science classroom. Simple as that.

No thats NOT what i am saying.. I am saying include in there that some people accept that A higher diety/dieties made life on earth..that just about covers every religion.
How does a discussion of religion fit into science class?

Well perhaps if it was allowed into the science class, then maybe it would be examined, debated and people MIGHT find holes in it and disprove it and then they can automatically throw it out.
But its not science, so shouldn't be in science class, what part of science and only science should be taught in science class?
Should we start teaching shakespeare in math class? Algebra in English?

<snip>
If it is not a scientific theory or does not concern science, it should not be taught in a science classroom. Simple as that.
Now if only there was a way to get the people who are pushing ID to understand that

Baran-Duine, I agree. Intelligent Design should not be taught in science class. I have no problem with evolution being taught as a potential theory. None, whatsoever. I don't think that the origin of life should even be discussed in science classes, as it is impossible to test anything having to do with the origin of all life.

And that's from a person who believes in Intelligent Design and is not sold on a large scale form of evolution (Though I haven't ruled it out, either.). If ID was ever mentioned in a classroom, it should merely be circumstantial. It should NOT be taught . . . at all.

Originally posted by Bonduari
good science allows for religion....

good religion screws religion....

Now see, I like this guy. He explained it perfectly, though there should be some stipulations on what it means for religion to screw religion. I love the people with which I associate, but the whole "abortion is murder" and "one nation under God" crud sure make them hard of which to be proud sometimes.

To put it more plainly, I am proud to be associated with Christ. I am often ashamed to be associated with Christians.

I know I'm echoing many people here, but the more times we can state this in different ways, the better.

It is only the people who lack an understanding of science, (which is a function of correctable ignorance, NOT of intelligence or "elitism".) who believe tha religion and science oppose each other.

Make no mistake whatsoever. Science makes NO judgement on religion. Science studies material phenomenon. It has no capability to measure or interest in addressing spiritual matters. None. In all things religious, Science has no say or sway. In all things purely material, Science has extremely rigourously supported theories that have stood up to the brightest and most highly trained minds minds dedicating their lives to finding that crucial flaw in prior theories that changes everything (see Einstein.)

Newton, a deeply religious man, had this to say about his accomplishments:

"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."

This man, surely one of the brightest to have ever walked the earth was, eventually, one upped by Einstein. And THAT is how science stands supreme. Because there is no greater deed in science than proving that those who came before you, mental giants all, screwed up.

Evolution says nothing about whether, underlying it all, the universe is guided by an omnipotent hand or not. Evolution merely explains the physical mechanism (guided or not,) of how species change over time. Not one of the highly trained professionals in the biological sciences has been able to dent the theory of evolution. The works exposing "flaws" in the theory have been rigorously and thoroughly defeated ad infinitum for generations.

Therefore, ID, by no conceivable shoehorning, can possibly be considered science or worthy to be taught in science class.

This does not mean that there isn't some truth to ID. All it means is that Science doesn't give a shit about it (and that level of emphasis is important.)

So learn about ID in a comparative religion class and in a philosophy class. Learn about on Sunday. Cherish it. Sleep with your Iddy the ID Flagella doll. Believe exactly as you'd like about the ultimate meaning of the universe, and don't let anyone abuse you for it. Please, though, leave the stuff that actually happens on a purely physical level* to the Science dudes.

*That which is observable and/or testable in a repeatable way.

just wanted to give special thanks to saint-curie for the cogent posting.

it's made me think about what I think in ways I never thought before.

it was fun saying that.

;)

just wanted to give special thanks to saint-curie for the cogent posting.

it's made me think about what I think in ways I never thought before.

it was fun saying that.

;)

Very kind of you. I think we can agree that a lot of people put forward some well-reasoned ideas, and I learned from several people, including you.

I'm not on board with people who say we should compromise and include Intelligent Design or its inevitable rehashings as "altnernate theories" in science class.

Should we start teaching shakespeare in math class? Algebra in English?

Not forgetting the DaVinci Code in Religous Studies.:)

Gymoor II The Return, that was perfect.

My only real chime in on this conversation is that we essentially don't mention any theories for the origin of life or the universe, for that matter, in science classes. Don't mention ID, Big Bang, or any other theory for the beginnings of existence in science class. Would that be opposed, and if so, on what grounds?

If not, then we are on the same side of this issue, dispite me being one of those damn token Christians on here. :D :D :D

Goddistan']Gymoor II The Return, that was perfect.

My only real chime in on this conversation is that we essentially don't mention any theories for the origin of life or the universe, for that matter, in science classes. Don't mention ID, Big Bang, or any other theory for the beginnings of existence in science class. Would that be opposed, and if so, on what grounds?

If not, then we are on the same side of this issue, dispite me being one of those damn token Christians on here. :D :D :D

The Big Bang is neutral to religion too. All the Big Bang states is how matter spread out from an initial explosion. God could have caused the explosion, but that doesn't counteract the evidence of the residual microwavwe energy in the univers or the evidence that the Universe expanded from a minute starting point.

Again, the Big Bang theory is based on physical results that are testable. There's lots of evidence for the Big Bang, but none of it contradicts the existence of a supreme being...nor does it support it. It's a purely physical theory.

All sides should be presented equally in a science class and I'm outraged that classroom texts completely ignore the geocentric view of the universe. There is plenty of scientific evidence proving that the earth is fixed at the center of the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism) but academics refuse to admit to it! I'm also flabbergasted that my children aren't learning about spontaneous generation or even the simple fact that disease is caused by sin. I just think that all our theories should be given equal representation and the children should be allowed to choose what's most convenient for them.

Originally posted by Gymoor II The Return
The Big Bang is neutral to religion too. All the Big Bang states is how matter spread out from an initial explosion. God could have caused the explosion, but that doesn't counteract the evidence of the residual microwavwe energy in the univers or the evidence that the Universe expanded from a minute starting point.

Again, the Big Bang theory is based on physical results that are testable. There's lots of evidence for the Big Bang, but none of it contradicts the existence of a supreme being...nor does it support it. It's a purely physical theory.

True statement about the Big Bang as far as it being neutral to a supreme being, as well as it being a potential means to an end by said supreme being. The idea that we have observed evidence that allude to it's legitimacy still goes through the filter of how those who study it interpret the concrete data.

Honestly, I don't think the Bible totally disclaims the "Big Bang." Genesis 1:1 says that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." I see nothing describing how He did so.

However, because we cannot replicate the conditions prior to such an event, I am skeptical in calling it science. You say it is testable, but I don't think it is, entirely. Seeing as we do not know what the conditions would have been prior to such an event, I don't think we can accurately recreate such an event.

I think it is valid as a potential possibility. I don't think it is valid as an actual fact.

Purely physical theory, yes.

Goddistan']True statement about the Big Bang as far as it being neutral to a supreme being, as well as it being a potential means to an end by said supreme being. The idea that we have observed evidence that allude to it's legitimacy still goes through the filter of how those who study it interpret the concrete data.Yes. But... Evidence doesn't 'allude' to explanations per se. They either exclude possibilities, or allow for them. A truckload of evidence (observations, rightly) may indicate that something is unlikely, but possible, while something else is likely, and possible. And there's always the possibility that mankind lack either the skill or imagination to peice the puzzle together in the right way. Newton didn't manage, yet the theory he ended up with - despite being wrong - was so accurate that we use it today because the theory we believe is the right one is a hell of a lot more complicated, and under normal circumstances, not significantly more accurate.

The theory of gravitation we have today might be wrong too. Not bloody likely, but it isn't impossible. Yet even if it is, it's still damn accurate, and as such, almost as good as the real thing.Honestly, I don't think the Bible totally disclaims the "Big Bang." Genesis 1:1 says that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." I see nothing describing how He did so.
For what it's worth, the Christians I know agree with you.

However, because we cannot replicate the conditions prior to such an event, I am skeptical in calling it science. You say it is testable, but I don't think it is, entirely. Seeing as we do not know what the conditions would have been prior to such an event, I don't think we can accurately recreate such an event.It's testable up to a point. Science can't go beyond 0 time. Time is a property of the universe, and that was created by the Big Bang. Obviously it's a logical impossibility to go beyond that.

But... The theory about the Big Bang is falsifiable. We can make observations that supports it or contradicts it. It wouldn't take a lot to contradict it, and even less to cast it into serious doubt. For example, when the theory was forst proposed, the clever little astronomers immediately realized that such an event would leave behind a great deal of radiation. Radiation that would still be around. And so they set out to look for it.
Eventually they found the radiation. And not only that.. If the Big Bang did take place, then such radiation would have to be omni-directional & evenly dispersed in space. And it is.

Now I'm all for recognising mankinds general lack of imagination, but.. There is a ton of evidence for the Big Bang. And that evidence wasn't gathered all at once. Much of it has been found because someone somewhere saw something, thought of possible explanations for what he saw, and then predicted what observable consequenses his proposed explanation would have.
That's how the current theories about the Big Bang were born, and how they're being refined to this day. Of course there's always a minute possibility that a Big Bang isn't the explanation, but something totally different & even more mindboggling happened, generating the exact same consequences that a Big Bang would.. But the possibility is slim. Very, very slim.I think it is valid as a potential possibility. I don't think it is valid as an actual fact.What is a potential possibility? Something like "If it's Sunday, a lottery might be held. If a lottery is held, then someone might win a prize"?
I think that it is a potential possibility that I will go all day tomorrow without breathing. I seriously doubt it, and there's not anything I wouldn't bet against it, but I recognise there is a potential possibility, though I can't possibly imagine how.
I also think that there's an equally likely potential possibility that the theories we have about the Big Bang are fundamentally wrong.

All sides should be presented equally in a science class and I'm outraged that classroom texts completely ignore the geocentric view of the universe.Center of the Universe is where you are.

According to most astronomists today everybody is in the center of the Universe.

[QUOTE=Zilam]This is more of a plea to both sides to...well..shut up!!!!/QUOTE]

It seems your plan has failled... And intellgent design is wrong

Similized World, I think we actually agree on just about everything. You just seem to explain yourself in better terms.

Now that I read back, "potential possibility" sounds redundant? Is it just me? I need to start proofing my posts on here. I hate simple flaws like that.

I have never found a Christian who could argue that the Big Bang didn't happen. According to the Bible, when God created the heavens and earth, it is entirely plausible that was when He created time and space through the use of this mysterious Big Bang. I honestly have no reason not to believe it and reason enough to believe it.

Interesting that this was never mentioned as one of the seven points in the orthodox milieu of Christianity. Thus, I see no reason to deny the thought that a bang created space and time.

Here's something non biased for you Ziliam. You are telling people to shut up and stop arguing Intelligent Design and have a topic thread going on for 15 pages! Don't be hypocritical.

You clearly do not understand separation of Church and State.

You cannot use the power of government to teach the specific beliefs of some religioius sects.

End of discussion.


wow what a brilliant misconseption. maybe if u actually read the constitution ull realize..theres no such thing as seperation of church in state. the first amendments that religion will not interfere with government or vise versa. or in short the government cant stop u from practicing ure chosen religion. but atheistic democrats have changed freedom of religion to freedom from religion... so dont get off on us....read for once instead of accepting everything holly wood and cnn force down your throat.... that being said merry christmas.....omg another pc barriar

[QUOTE=Zilam]This is more of a plea to both sides to...well..shut up!!!!/QUOTE]

It seems your plan has failled... And intellgent design is wrong


intelligent design is wrong..........PROVE IT WISE GUY

wow what a brilliant misconseption. maybe if u actually read the constitution ull realize..theres no such thing as seperation of church in state. the first amendments that religion will not interfere with government or vise versa. or in short the government cant stop u from practicing ure chosen religion. but atheistic democrats have changed freedom of religion to freedom from religion... so dont get off on us....read for once instead of accepting everything holly wood and cnn force down your throat.... that being said merry christmas.....omg another pc barriar

so tarsonic, you're saying you're smarter than over 200 years of supreme court justices? Because all of them, Constitutional Scholars all, have upheld the idea of Seperation of Church and State.

Challenging The Cat-Tribes on this is like challenging a three-legged man to an ass-kicking contest. He'll bury you in precedent and the words of the framers of the Constitution themselves.

But go ahead, keep parrotting what you've heard without actually looking at the history of the US. That's what your type does.

intelligent design is wrong..........PROVE IT WISE GUY

There's no possible way to even try to prove ID wrong...hence why it's not science. Science DEMANDS the ability to test if something is incorrect. Since this is impossible to do with the supernatural, suggesting that ID is a valid scientific theory is ignorant to the extreme.

Didn't you read the thread? This has all been covered? Are you too lazy to read up on what you're talking about? I guess that makes you an ignorant blowhard. Enjoy.

And if you think I'm being rude, consider that barging into a thread and making statements that are contradicted by what has already been covered makes you either rude or stupid. It's your call.

Nope sorry.

In a religoius studies class; yes. A Philo class; yes.

You can't have inclusion of the involvment of God(aka Intelligent Designer) as you can't prove or disprove it.....


even though i have a d in bio i find it kinda sad that people dont realize that EVOLUTION CANT BE PROVED IN ALL CASES EITHER! THERES NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE. and y...ill tell u why CAUSE HUMANS LIVE TO SHORT OF LIVES WE CANT WATCH THINGS EVOLVE! WE JUST SAY OMG THAT HAS THE SAME THINGS SOME OTHER THING HAD 7 BILION OR HOWEVER LONG AGO. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD U TELL US CREATIONISTS WERE ATTACKING SOMETHING WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ATLEAST WERE NOT DEFENDING SOMETHING WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!!

even though i have a d in bio i find it kinda sad that people dont realize that EVOLUTION CANT BE PROVED IN ALL CASES EITHER! THERES NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE. and y...ill tell u why CAUSE HUMANS LIVE TO SHORT OF LIVES WE CANT WATCH THINGS EVOLVE! WE JUST SAY OMG THAT HAS THE SAME THINGS SOME OTHER THING HAD 7 BILION OR HOWEVER LONG AGO. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD U TELL US CREATIONISTS WERE ATTACKING SOMETHING WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ATLEAST WERE NOT DEFENDING SOMETHING WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!!

No, YOU haven't seen enough evidence...because you obviously don't care to look.

We didn't watch the rise and fall of the Roman Empire...but we know it happened.

No one alive saw the Napoleonic Wars...but we know it happened.

Don't confuse wht YOU don't know with what scientists don't know.

And cut it with the capital letters. Again, that's just rude.

so tarsonic, you're saying you're smarter than over 200 years of supreme court justices? Because all of them, Constitutional Scholars all, have upheld the idea of Seperation of Church and State.

Challenging The Cat-Tribes on this is like challenging a three-legged man to an ass-kicking contest. He'll bury you in precedent and the words of the framers of the Constitution themselves.

But go ahead, keep parrotting what you've heard without actually looking at the history of the US. That's what your type does.


okay....um pick up any us history book or ...better yet an AP US LEGAL HISTORY BOOK like the one on my book shelf....and maybe youll realize that the words seperation of church an state are never found in that order and theres no clause even referencing that.... its not my fault i like to read....sry wise guy

okay....um pick up any us history book or ...better yet an AP US LEGAL HISTORY BOOK like the one on my book shelf....and maybe youll realize that the words seperation of church an state are never found in that order and theres no clause even referencing that.... its not my fault i like to read....sry wise guy

God is never mentioned in the Constitution. I guess he doesn't exist either. Well, there goes ID.

No, YOU haven't seen enough evidence...because you obviously don't care to look.

We didn't watch the rise and fall of the Roman Empire...but we know it happened.

No one alive saw the Napoleonic Wars...but we know it happened.

Don't confuse wht YOU don't know with what scientists don't know.

And cut it with the capital letters. Again, that's just rude.


um ever heard of the missing link and ever wonder y evolution is still just a theory......because theres not enough evidence
and u ever hear that theres no scientific truth like say for instance we establish "scientificly" that the universe was created with out god. and then we go to some desolate world pic up a roc and it says on teh bottom made by god.....HOW MIND BLOWING WOULD THAT BE (and thats not caps in anger but in exclamation)

God is never mentioned in the Constitution. I guess he doesn't exist either. Well, there goes ID.


the existence of god isnt under question here.....the existence of a law declaring seperation of church and state is

um ever heard of the missing link and ever wonder y evolution is still just a theory......because theres not enough evidence
and u ever hear that theres no scientific truth like say for instance we establish "scientificly" that the universe was created with out god. and then we go to some desolate world pic up a roc and it says on teh bottom made by god.....HOW MIND BLOWING WOULD THAT BE (and thats not caps in anger but in exclamation)

The creation of the Universe has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution is Biology. The creation of the Universe is theoretical physics. Again, your ignorance shows.

Also, you apparently don't know what the term "theory" means in a scientific context.

(picks up his keyboard...sees "made in China".)

Hey, I just proved the universe was created by China!!!

..theres no such thing as seperation of church in state. the first amendments that religion will not interfere with government or vise versa.


"The Pope and I are two, therefore the Pope and I are one".

-Bertrand Russell

There's no possible way to even try to prove ID wrong...hence why it's not science. Science DEMANDS the ability to test if something is incorrect. Since this is impossible to do with the supernatural, suggesting that ID is a valid scientific theory is ignorant to the extreme.

Didn't you read the thread? This has all been covered? Are you too lazy to read up on what you're talking about? I guess that makes you an ignorant blowhard. Enjoy.

And if you think I'm being rude, consider that barging into a thread and making statements that are contradicted by what has already been covered makes you either rude or stupid. It's your call.





actually i did read up on this.....all 15 pages and its all the same creatinism cant be proved this totalitarian evolutionists that....i mean god its all the same thing in every single post..

the existence of god isnt under question here.....the existence of a law declaring seperation of church and state is

Your reasoning was that the separation of Church and State is not real because it is not delineated as such in the constitution. What Gymoor successfully illustrated was that if we apply that reasoning, God also doesn't exist by your criteria.

The creation of the Universe has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution is Biology. The creation of the Universe is theoretical physics. Again, your ignorance shows.

Also, you apparently don't know what the term "theory" means in a scientific context.

(picks up his keyboard...sees "made in China".)

Hey, I just proved the universe was created by China!!!

hey ure ignorance for misunder standing what people say and think u know everything just came out the cracks im not talking about something created my man....im talking something created by nature...science... not touched by any inteligent creature (that we can prove exists) that how ever many years of erosion and compression just happen to form a rock that says in english made by god....well that would be pretty slim chance....

hey ure ignorance for misunder standing what people say and think u know everything just came out the cracks im not talking about something created my man....im talking something created by nature...science... not touched by any inteligent creature (that we can prove exists) that how ever many years of erosion and compression just happen to form a rock that says in english made by god....well that would be pretty slim chance....

May I ask if you also post under the screen name "Ffc2"?

That said, you mentioned you went through the whole thread. I asked a few times why a set of "a priori" physical laws cannot be ontologically primal, but a God can be. What is your view on this?

The creation of the Universe has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution is Biology. The creation of the Universe is theoretical physics. Again, your ignorance shows.

Also, you apparently don't know what the term "theory" means in a scientific context.

(picks up his keyboard...sees "made in China".)

Hey, I just proved the universe was created by China!!!




oh and btw the creation of the earth universe thing was just an example of a similar problem.....we cant prove how the universe was created...why because no humans were there werent there...we cant fully prove evolution because no one has been able to actually see the process we die to early...

By now, I am quite sure that everything I could add to this has already been said, however, I'll add this:
I don't believe that any subject would be compulsory. If you don't want to learn evolution, that's just fine. But good luck trying to get into uni without a science mark.

Oh, & by the way, nothing can ever be 'not bias'. True, bias can be minimised, but not excluded completely.

May I ask if you also post under the screen name "Ffc2"?

That said, you mentioned you went through the whole thread. I asked a few times why a set of "a priori" physical laws cannot be ontologically primal, but a God can be. What is your view on this?s

dont mean to be rude but i speak highschool english....

define ontologically primal and a priori...(and just cause i dont know what those words mean does not make me an idiot so dont treat me like one and this actually isnt for u cause uve actually been polite the whole time....so thank you)

By now, I am quite sure that everything I could add to this has already been said, however, I'll add this:
I don't believe that any subject would be compulsory. If you don't want to learn evolution, that's just fine. But good luck trying to get into uni without a science mark.


well actually most schools in north carolina dont teach it

s

dont mean to be rude but i speak highschool english....

define ontologically primal and a priori...(and just cause i dont know what those words mean does not make me an idiot so dont treat me like one and this actually isnt for u cause uve actually been polite the whole time....so thank you)

I apologize, I can be needlessly pedantic. You aren't the only one who finds it annoying.

Essentially, if we introduce the idea (not a provable fact, mind you, or even a falsifiable hypothesis) that, for the universe to exist, it must have been created by a God, we must ask what created God. If we consider that God was never created, but existed eternally, than we must also consider that this same property could be applied to the universe and its laws, without a God.

well actually most schools in north carolina dont teach it

Are you serious?
That's crazy... I'd heard that in America they took religion more seriously than here, but...wow.
Even the Christian schools here teach evolution.
We have set syllubuses...

Leave creationism and ID where it belongs, at home and church.

I apologize, I can be needlessly pedantic. You aren't the only one who finds it annoying.

Essentially, if we introduce the idea (not a provable fact, mind you, or even a falsifiable hypothesis) that, for the universe to exist, it must have been created by a God, we must ask what created God. If we consider that God was never created, but existed eternally, than we must also consider that this same property could be applied to the universe and its laws, without a God.

Apparently the Chinese created it all.

Are you serious?
That's crazy... I'd heard that in America they took religion more seriously than here, but...wow.
Even the Christian schools here teach evolution.
We have set syllubuses...


Where's "here"? (if you don't mind me asking, I respect your privacy, otherwise)

As a side note, I believe that most accredited biology classes in the U.S. include at least some examination of evolution, and perhaps percumbent areas like genetics and historical zoology. But, despite loads of legislation, I'm not sure if any federal statute speaks to this issue directly...

Apparently the Chinese created it all.

There was a short-lived and generally ill-conceived thread recently, joking about a design meeting for the creation of humanity by God. I think somebody made a joke about having the product manufactured in China, but in the end, they only got vendor rights for 25% of the total product release.

Eh, personally, I think it would be great to teach a course on religous history in high school, since religion has been the root cause or catalyst of many crucial events throughout our existence. Many of the religions promote deep, philosophical thought, and might well enhance a student's self reflection and development.

A science course is simply a science course, and should not be required to become all encompassing in nature.

I apologize, I can be needlessly pedantic. You aren't the only one who finds it annoying.

Essentially, if we introduce the idea (not a provable fact, mind you, or even a falsifiable hypothesis) that, for the universe to exist, it must have been created by a God, we must ask what created God. If we consider that God was never created, but existed eternally, than we must also consider that this same property could be applied to the universe and its laws, without a God.


ah but ure making the assumption that the brilliant yet feeble mind of men can compahend such information.

(even though i cant remember the verse) [I]the wisdom of men is but foolisheness to god

ah but ure making the assumption that the brilliant yet feeble mind of men can compahend such information.

(even though i cant remember the verse) [I]the wisdom of men is but foolisheness to god

ah i remember....1 corinthians 3:19(translations will vary)

ah but ure making the assumption that the brilliant yet feeble mind of men can compahend such information.

(even though i cant remember the verse) [I]the wisdom of men is but foolisheness to god


Ah, but we presuppose no answer, but rather apply analysis to the line of reasoning itself.

The terrible position you've put yourself in is, now you've asserted that the minds of men (and let's include women) cannot comprehend the elements of this discourse. If that is a true statement, it invalidates all obersvations on God, including yours, including the one you just made.

May I ask, was your D in biology because you skipped a lot of class and weren't dilligent with the reading (that doesn't make you an idiot, lots of us are like that with some classes), or did you get a D because you truly couldn't grasp the material?

Yo, guy with the name ripped off from Starcraft, we'ed greatly appreciate if you used things like capitalization, punctuation, and words that actually exist. Right now, reading your posts is like suffering from a cerebral hemorrhage, except without the merciful release from the pain that is death.

Are you serious?
That's crazy... I'd heard that in America they took religion more seriously than here, but...wow.
Even the Christian schools here teach evolution.
We have set syllubuses...


un fortunatly we have things like the ACLU which want as all to have religion..just only their views so since its contriversal and not full proven....they dont teach it

Yo, guy with the name ripped off from Starcraft, we'ed greatly appreciate if you used things like capitalization, punctuation, and words that actually exist. Right now, reading your posts is like suffering from a cerebral hemorrhage, except without the merciful release from the pain that is death.

I appologize. Years of typing text on AIM im afraid.

Yo, guy with the name ripped off from Starcraft, we'ed greatly appreciate if you used things like capitalization, punctuation, and words that actually exist. Right now, reading your posts is like suffering from a cerebral hemorrhage, except without the merciful release from the pain that is death.

Well, his rendering style does have the advantage of cautioning the reader as to the origins of the content...

Yo, guy with the name ripped off from Starcraft, we'ed greatly appreciate if you used things like capitalization, punctuation, and words that actually exist. Right now, reading your posts is like suffering from a cerebral hemorrhage, except without the merciful release from the pain that is death.

And yes i ripped the name of from Starcraft. It's my favoritegame. Plus it sounds cool

Well, his rendering style does have the advantage of cautioning the reader as to the origins of the content...

I rescind my earlier statement of you not being rude.

:-P

Where's "here"? (if you don't mind me asking, I respect your privacy, otherwise)

As a side note, I believe that most accredited biology classes in the U.S. include at least some examination of evolution, and perhaps percumbent areas like genetics and historical zoology. But, despite loads of legislation, I'm not sure if any federal statute speaks to this issue directly...

'Here' is Australia. I'd better add NSW, as the syllabusses vary state to state.

I know that in one biology lesson (or, more rather, two text book page), we did breifly brush over ID, as an 'alternative' to creation via panspermia, or the Haldane/Oparin theorys (personally I favour the latter, but that's another tppic..).
However, they tried to include most of the major religion creationist theroies, as well as indigenous myths.
I feel that if ever religion study became compulsory (which I definatly don't think it should), all religions would have to be covered, no just Christianity. However, that is tricky, as there are so many.

EDIT:Starcraft was a good game...But I like Warcraft better...