203
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 20:
Line 34: + + Line 25:
Line 41: + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 35:
Line 71: + +
→'Weak Atheism'
:::: 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, the assumption that we can trust our senses in doing experiments, 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''. 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)
::::: 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)
:::::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)
:::::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)
:::::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)
:::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)
::::Because proper science is based on evidence, not faith. Indeed, step one of the scientific process, as taught in science classes the world over is 'examine the evidence'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Because proper science is based on evidence, not faith. Indeed, step one of the scientific process, as taught in science classes the world over is 'examine the evidence'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: This is wrong for the same reason that the second part of your previous response was wrong: you don't have to accept that God exists ''beforehand''. If the ''evidence'' points to God, why not accept that conclusion? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: This is wrong for the same reason that the second part of your previous response was wrong: you don't have to accept that God exists ''beforehand''. If the ''evidence'' points to God, why not accept that conclusion? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 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)
:::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)
::::That's only if you define the whole of science as what most people define as 'modern science', and, even then, that statement is rather debatable, especially considering the opposition that religious authorities have had to many areas of scientific research going right back to the dawn of modern science (the article you linked to, for example, states that 'science proper' started in the 16th century, dismissing the achievements of the various ancient thinkers as being mere 'scholarship', and the first well-known conflict between modern science and religion was Galileo, who first got into trouble with the Church in the early 17th century). I would say that modern science started as a result of people wanting to know, for sure, how the world worked, rather than relying on faith that their holy texts were correct, which quickly led them into conflict with the church. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::That's only if you define the whole of science as what most people define as 'modern science', and, even then, that statement is rather debatable, especially considering the opposition that religious authorities have had to many areas of scientific research going right back to the dawn of modern science (the article you linked to, for example, states that 'science proper' started in the 16th century, dismissing the achievements of the various ancient thinkers as being mere 'scholarship', and the first well-known conflict between modern science and religion was Galileo, who first got into trouble with the Church in the early 17th century). I would say that modern science started as a result of people wanting to know, for sure, how the world worked, rather than relying on faith that their holy texts were correct, which quickly led them into conflict with the church. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Ignoring your semantic quibbles about terminology, you have your history wrong, thanks to anti-Christian propaganda through the centuries. The religious authorities were very supportive of science, and the dispute with Galileo was not due to his science, but with things like personality clashes. The rest of your response was basically to offer your own subjective opinion and a straw-man argument about faith and motivation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Ignoring your semantic quibbles about terminology, you have your history wrong, thanks to anti-Christian propaganda through the centuries. The religious authorities were very supportive of science, and the dispute with Galileo was not due to his science, but with things like personality clashes. The rest of your response was basically to offer your own subjective opinion and a straw-man argument about faith and motivation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 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)
:::... 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)
::::The idea that someone could ONLY believe in an orderly universe due to a belief in God shows a staggering narrow-mindedness and ignorance of science, to put it bluntly. Many of what you appear to call 'assumptions' made by scientists about the orderly systems that are in the universe were obtained through observation, examination of evidence and experimentation. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::The idea that someone could ONLY believe in an orderly universe due to a belief in God shows a staggering narrow-mindedness and ignorance of science, to put it bluntly. Many of what you appear to call 'assumptions' made by scientists about the orderly systems that are in the universe were obtained through observation, examination of evidence and experimentation. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Despite your opinions, the ''documented facts'' of history are that science (or "modern science" if you prefer) began because of the Christian worldview of an orderly universe created by an unchanging God. Science ''assumes'' that the laws of physics, for example, apply throughout the universe: scientists have not gone throughout the universe to check that assumption. It also ''assumes'' that the laws of physics have applied for all time: scientists have not gone back into the past to check that. 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)
::::: Despite your opinions, the ''documented facts'' of history are that science (or "modern science" if you prefer) began because of the Christian worldview of an orderly universe created by an unchanging God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 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)
:::::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)
:::::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)
:::::scientists have not gone back into the past to check that. [[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)
:::::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, 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)
::::Again, you show you are not familiar with 'weak atheism'. 'Weak atheists' are atheists due to a lack of evidence in God. It is the evidence, or lack of it, that has persuaded them in this, not, as you stubbornly continue to state, the other way around. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Again, you show you are not familiar with 'weak atheism'. 'Weak atheists' are atheists due to a lack of evidence in God. It is the evidence, or lack of it, that has persuaded them in this, not, as you stubbornly continue to state, the other way around. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: 'Weak atheists' are atheists because they ''ignore'' or ''are unfamiliar with'' or ''reject'' the evidence for God—there is no shortage of evidence—and therefore adopt a position of naturalism, basing their science on that ideology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: 'Weak atheists' are atheists because they ''ignore'' or ''are unfamiliar with'' or ''reject'' the evidence for God—there is no shortage of evidence—and therefore adopt a position of naturalism, basing their science on that ideology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 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)