View Single Post
Old 04-09-2007, 03:34 PM   #104
Mike Doolittle
Telling people how it is
Mike Doolittle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a shoe with my old lady
Posts: 3,758
Rep Power: 21 Mike Doolittle is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Mike Doolittle
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Originally Posted by Nicato View Post
I'm Sorry, Mike, but if you want to have a meaningful discussion then you are going to have to expand on what exactly it is I am missing.
You are missing, in no particular order:

1. That science brings us closer to understanding God, yet also forces us to accept that there are ultimately things beyond our understanding

2. That faith is derived in part from reason, and can be made stronger through reason, but is not reducible to reason because reason leads us to that which is beyond reason.

3. That making a statement of God's existence is not a "hypothesis" or scientific claim, because claims of supernatural phenomena, though they may be logically inferred from observable phenomena, are ultimately beyond our domain of understanding and not subject to the constraints of scientific inquiry.

Example: the fact that I may not have be able to give you a secular theory as to what caused the diversity of life on this planet doesn't mean that a god is the "only alternative."
Wow, way to take a statement completely out of context. At no point whatsoever did I say that a creator was the only alternative to secular theory. In fact I have repeated throughout countless posts that I'm making no such a statement (this is a perfect example of why this whole debate is so exasperating – I have to correct the same shit over and over because you don't seem to want to listen!). I said that a Creative God is the only reality that allows for the universe to have intrinsic, rather than ascribed, purpose.

You are invoking "god of the gaps." Plain and simple.
And Mike Tyson goes for Evander's ear!

How you can continue to play the bully while acting like the victim is nothing short of astounding. Seriously, Bill O'Reilly should take notes.
Yeah, all those bigoted remarks I made about atheists were sure inappropriate.

I fail to see how something being in the beginning of somewhere makes it both nothing and nowhere. If the "finite point" was at the beginning of the universe, then it was still in the universe, and therefore subjected to its laws. Try again.
No, because this finite point was not within the universe, but contained all that was the universe.

Drumroll, please: The very fact that we have no positive evidence for X means that we can't observe evidence for X's existence. I can't believe I had to explain that.
How do you know that dinosaurs are extinct?

If the universe has no bounds, then all events are impossible to avoid. "...that's nonsensical..." It takes sense to make sense.
I didn't say that all events are inevitable. I said all events that have happened inevitably happened when they did. Probability relates only to our ability to predict such events. We can always posture what might have happened if this or that happened differently, but that's really an exercise in futility. What I'm trying to say is simply that the laws of the universe led things to happen when they did.The question then is how do we define what is random? Is randomness only an abstraction?

Read a book. It's not my job to educate you.
Oh snap!

Again, I'll go slow: there is no evidence of design, especially perfect or divine design.
It's all around you, Einstein.

Through all your pussyfooting though, you've managed to avoid answering the fucking question. Where is the evidence of design Mike? And if designed, how do you explain the inefficiencies and redundancies?
I've already addressed both of these in detail.

Easy, cowboy. You might want focus on digging yourself out of your self-causing universe paradox first.
You mean the thing you say is a paradox even though you've been unable to present a coherent argument as to why?

Answer the damn question. I know, I know, your use of "perfect" was unfortunate. But you did say it so you're going to have to defend it. Ordered as opposed to what, Mike?
*Drum roll* Disordered! Universes collapsing on themselves, physical laws bending, breaking, changing, or not existing at all!

The same way your arguments do.

Again, you're making a false dichotomy. The options aren't necessarily your god or nothing.
On the former: Oh snap! Another dodge! You're good at those, Nic. Keep it up! It makes me look good.

As for the latter, I'd be a rich man if I had a nickel for every time you resurrected this lame straw man.

Then our universe is probably random.
Random, from what?

Seriously, unless you're going to throw up an equation, you can stop invoking physics. It's like amateur hour.
Unlike you, I've devoted a substantial portion of my free time to studying physics. Not for any religious reasons, but because I studied some physics in college and I think it's cool. So unless you purport to have some understanding, you can stop trying to refute arguments that are clearly out of your league.

There are many, many top-tier physics out there and most of them are managing to miss your "logical necessity" (which is to say your god). How could that be? I mean if it really was the case that the "only alternative" to your god was nothing, then why isn't Stephen Hawking making your argument? Surely a man capable of doing physics in his head could conclude what you claim is so obviously evident.
It's worth noting that science is, by definition, a naturalistic science. Science has a responsibility to not make conclusive statements about the unknown. Hawking did not know that the universe existed in a point of infinite density. Just imagine that the universes' expansion was reversed; everything would be compacted and compacted infinitely. Hawking's statement was the simple result of observable calculations. But Hawking is no theologian. It's his job to just keep asking questions, regardless of his personal faith.

But, that doesn't mean science cannot guide us toward a better understanding of the supernatural. I've had "Mind of God" on my list for a while; Paul Davies is a highly respected and acclaimed theoretical physicist. Deepak Chopra's "How to Know God" DVD also discusses how quantum physics can lead to an understanding of our origins as supernatural.
RIP "littledoc"!

My MySpace Page
My Gaming PC Blog

Last edited by Mike Doolittle; 04-09-2007 at 04:01 PM.
Mike Doolittle is offline   Reply With Quote