nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: − + + − + + − + + + Line 36:
Line 40: + Line 43:
Line 48: + Line 50:
Line 56: + + − + + − + + + Line 73:
Line 84: + +
→'Weak Atheism': Attempting to deny assumptions but without proof, yet demanding proof of God.
:::: Because you cannot do any proper science on the basis of an unproven assumption. In this case, in order to base anything on the idea that 'God did it', basically, you have to assume that God actually exists. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Because you cannot do any proper science on the basis of an unproven assumption. In this case, in order to base anything on the idea that 'God did it', basically, you have to assume that God actually exists. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: This is nonsense. All science is done on the basis of unproven assumptions, such as the assumption that the laws of physics are constant
::::: This is nonsense. All science is done on the basis of unproven assumptions, such as the assumption that the laws of physics are constant, ...
::::::Because all evidence, observation and experimentation to date suggests they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Because all evidence, observation and experimentation to date suggests they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: That they are constant started as an assumption, and although observations are consistent with that, it is not provable, and it remains an assumption. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::the assumption that we can trust our senses in doing experiments [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::...the assumption that we can trust our senses in doing experiments ... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Because of a distinct lack of evidence that we can't. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Because of a distinct lack of evidence that we can't. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: A ''lack'' of evidence is not evidence, and if our senses were playing tricks on us, how could we tell? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::and so forth. Your second sentence is wrong. You don't have to accept that God exists ''before'' you are able to conclude that God was responsible. All you have to accept is the ''possibility'' that God actually exists, and there is nothing unscientific in accepting that ''possibility''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::...and so forth. Your second sentence is wrong. You don't have to accept that God exists ''before'' you are able to conclude that God was responsible. All you have to accept is the ''possibility'' that God actually exists, and there is nothing unscientific in accepting that ''possibility''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In the complete absence of evidence of this, yes there is, unless you present it as a pure conjecture (in colloquial terms, that would be 'a wild-ass guess'). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In the complete absence of evidence of this, yes there is, unless you present it as a pure conjecture (in colloquial terms, that would be 'a wild-ass guess'). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, there is ''not''. You are ruling out a ''possibility'' because you believe that there is no evidence. That is putting the cart before the horse. It's like saying that there is no evidence that people lived in England prior to (say) 1000 AD (I'm being hypothetical), so therefore you can't propose that [[Stonehenge]] was built by people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::It is rejection of that ''possibility'' that means that atheism—strong or weak—is basing its science on ideology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::It is rejection of that ''possibility'' that means that atheism—strong or weak—is basing its science on ideology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::I've kinda said this as simply as I am able, using proper English,but you still don't seem to be getting it, so I'll try putting it even simpler. Evidence = scientific. No evidence = not scientific. 'Weak atheism' = no evidence of God, so no God. Get it now? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::I've kinda said this as simply as I am able, using proper English,but you still don't seem to be getting it, so I'll try putting it even simpler. Evidence = scientific. No evidence = not scientific. 'Weak atheism' = no evidence of God, so no God. Get it now? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, I don't "get it". Your "no evidence of God, so no God" is like saying "No evidence = not scientific = doesn't exist". But just because there's no evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Get it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::And why is this "proper scientific procedures and processes"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::And why is this "proper scientific procedures and processes"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::If the evidence pointed to God existing, you'd have a point. Your problem is that this is simply not the case. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::If the evidence pointed to God existing, you'd have a point. Your problem is that this is simply not the case. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: The evidence ''does'' point to God existing. Your problem is that you have been indoctrinated into the idea that God doesn't exist so you are unaware of the evidence that He does. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Especially given that scientific endeavour [[natural science#beginnings|started]] because of a belief in God ...[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Especially given that scientific endeavour [[natural science#beginnings|started]] because of a belief in God ...[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::So the Church formally ordered Galileo not to hold or defend the notion of heliocentrism due to 'personailty clashes'? The Catholic Inquisition put Galileo on trial for heresy, during which the idea that the Sun was at the center of the solar system was condemned as 'formally heretical', due to 'personality clashes'? At the end of that trial, his book, 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems', was banned, and any and all works by him, including any as yet unwritten, were also banned, due to 'personality clashes'? A general prohibition against the publication of ANY book advocating heliocentrism went into the Index Librorum Prohibitorum due to 'personality clashes'? He remained under house arrest for the rest of his life due to 'personality clashes'? Well, all I can say is that they must have taken 'personality clashes' FAR more seriously back then than they do now. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::So the Church formally ordered Galileo not to hold or defend the notion of heliocentrism due to 'personailty clashes'? The Catholic Inquisition put Galileo on trial for heresy, during which the idea that the Sun was at the center of the solar system was condemned as 'formally heretical', due to 'personality clashes'? At the end of that trial, his book, 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems', was banned, and any and all works by him, including any as yet unwritten, were also banned, due to 'personality clashes'? A general prohibition against the publication of ANY book advocating heliocentrism went into the Index Librorum Prohibitorum due to 'personality clashes'? He remained under house arrest for the rest of his life due to 'personality clashes'? Well, all I can say is that they must have taken 'personality clashes' FAR more seriously back then than they do now. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: I said "''things like'' personality clashes". It was a very general, overly-simplified, reference. But apart from that, then the answers to your question are basically all "yes". See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1625/ here] for a detailed description. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::... and is still based on assumptions (such as an orderly universe) that only have foundation in a belief in God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::... and is still based on assumptions (such as an orderly universe) that only have foundation in a belief in God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Nope, that's what your interpretation of the ''documented facts'' are. Same as what I put above for the reasons for the beginning of modern science are my interpretation. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Nope, that's what your interpretation of the ''documented facts'' are. Same as what I put above for the reasons for the beginning of modern science are my interpretation. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Your interpretation of ''what''? No, it's not my "interpretation". I provided a link above with more information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Science ''assumes'' that the laws of physics, for example, apply throughout the universe: scientists have not gone throughout the universe to check that assumption. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Science ''assumes'' that the laws of physics, for example, apply throughout the universe: scientists have not gone throughout the universe to check that assumption. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::But they have made experiments and observations that prove that they are constant in every situation that exists naturally, or has been able to be manufactured, to date, here on Earth, and there is no evidence whatsoever that anywhere else is sufficiently different that the laws of physics would be, for some reason, invalid. Plus, of course, one of the laws of physics actually indicates that nothing that actually has any mass can go faster than the speed of light. This means it would take at least several billion years to do as you suggest. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::But they have made experiments and observations that prove that they are constant in every situation that exists naturally, or has been able to be manufactured, to date, here on Earth, and there is no evidence whatsoever that anywhere else is sufficiently different that the laws of physics would be, for some reason, invalid. Plus, of course, one of the laws of physics actually indicates that nothing that actually has any mass can go faster than the speed of light. This means it would take at least several billion years to do as you suggest. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Again, a lack of evidence is not evidence. True, it would take an awful long time to check: that only serves to show that it must remain an assumption. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::It also ''assumes'' that the laws of physics have applied for all time: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::It also ''assumes'' that the laws of physics have applied for all time: ...[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Actually, it doesn't. It is generally believed by physicists (though this is really a hypothesis, at the moment), that, at the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang, all physical laws and rules basically didn't apply. Indeed, it is commonly stated that the question, 'what came before the Big Bang?' is nonsensical, because, in the Big Bang, time, basically, did not exist (though there are a couple of hypotheses that actually challenge that). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Actually, it doesn't. It is generally believed by physicists (though this is really a hypothesis, at the moment), that, at the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang, all physical laws and rules basically didn't apply. Indeed, it is commonly stated that the question, 'what came before the Big Bang?' is nonsensical, because, in the Big Bang, time, basically, did not exist (though there are a couple of hypotheses that actually challenge that). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Actually, the exception you cite doesn't disprove my assertion. If you want me to be more precise, science ''assumes'' that the laws of physics have applied for all time since a few microseconds after the hypothesised Big Bang. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::scientists have not gone back into the past to check that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::...scientists have not gone back into the past to check that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Mainly because the laws of physics indicate this is impossible. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Mainly because the laws of physics indicate this is impossible. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Again, this only serves to show why it must remain an ''assumption''. I wasn't criticising them for not checking; I was pointing out that it can't be checked, and therefore remains an assumption. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::It also ''assumes'' that those same laws will apply into the future, so when they build bridges, etc., they use the laws that apply ''today'' to calculate required strengths and stresses and ''assume'' that they will continue to apply tomorrow. Clearly that is ''not'' "observation". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::It also ''assumes'' that those same laws will apply into the future, so when they build bridges, etc., they use the laws that apply ''today'' to calculate required strengths and stresses and ''assume'' that they will continue to apply tomorrow. Clearly that is ''not'' "observation". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::No, it is logical extrapolation from observed evidence. For example, from repeatedly observing that the force of Earth's gravity does not radically change from one day to the next, we know that it is incredibly unlikely that we are going to wake up tomorrow and find gravity has trebled, so we need to build that bridge three times as strong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::No, it is logical extrapolation from observed evidence. For example, from repeatedly observing that the force of Earth's gravity does not radically change from one day to the next, we know that it is incredibly unlikely that we are going to wake up tomorrow and find gravity has trebled, so we need to build that bridge three times as strong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: An extrapolation ''is'' an ''assumption'', or based on one. That is, we consider it safe to extrapolate ''because'' we have this ''assumption''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::No, that atheists ''choose'' to take a naturalistic approach means that they are basing their science on their ideology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::No, that atheists ''choose'' to take a naturalistic approach means that they are basing their science on their ideology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Really? I trust you will make the most important event in the history of the world happen, then, by conclusively and objectively proving that God actually exists? Bear in mind, of course, that any evidence that is dependant on the notion that God actually exists would be circular reasoning. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Really? I trust you will make the most important event in the history of the world happen, then, by conclusively and objectively proving that God actually exists? Bear in mind, of course, that any evidence that is dependant on the notion that God actually exists would be circular reasoning. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Much of your argument in your latest post has been that believing in the constancy of the laws of physics is ''reasonable'', not that it's been ''proved''. Yet now you switch standards to demand ''proof'' (for God), and for good measure throw in a demand that I don't use what is actually a typical atheistic straw-man argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I believe you are making a common mistake in arguments of this sort. Please find above where Philip said there was a proof for God... Evidence and proof are not interchangeable words. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:48, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I believe you are making a common mistake in arguments of this sort. Please find above where Philip said there was a proof for God... Evidence and proof are not interchangeable words. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:48, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Well, if there isn't clear, undeniable proof of God, that kinda destroys his whole argument that it is basically impossible for a 'weak atheist' to be an atheist due to the evidence (or, rather, lack of it), rather than an underlying world view. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 19:33, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Well, if there isn't clear, undeniable proof of God, that kinda destroys his whole argument that it is basically impossible for a 'weak atheist' to be an atheist due to the evidence (or, rather, lack of it), rather than an underlying world view. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 19:33, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: No, it doesn't destroy my argument at all. See also the parts about proof and evidence at [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)