View Single Post
Old 04-09-2007, 06:38 PM   #108
Next-Gen Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3,575
Rep Power: 0 Nicato is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism


Originally Posted by Mike Doolittle View Post
[S]science brings us closer to understanding God, yet also forces us to accept that there are ultimately things beyond our understanding.
Science brings us closer to the understanding of our universe--not your god, ipso facto. It simply amazes me how you keep contradicting yourself. Here you are, clear as fucking day, drawing a conclusion, yet you'd claim otherwise.

Science also does not force us to accept that there are things beyond our understanding, ipso facto. This is just another conclusions you've drawn, ad hoc. Now, I'm willing to accept that there are things beyond our understanding, but I am not willing to say two words about them and I certainly can't take it from science that there are, since science can only tell me about what we do know, today. Again, acknowledgement of limitations says nothing as to the existence of anything beyond. The natural world may, in fact, be all there every was--there is certainly more evidence for that than there is for your god.

[F]aith 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.
This just doesn't wash. Faith--like all concepts--is reasonable or it is unreasonable. You've continued to want your cake, eat it, and lick the bowl throughout but the fact remains that you're reasoning is fundamentally flawed. If faith is not reducible to reason, then it is by definition unreasonable. (Though I shouldn't expect you to understand what a definition is.)

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.
Apparently it is you who has no sense of context. Let's roll the entire quote, shall we: "The fact of the matter is that your argument is intrinsically flawed. It doesn't matter if I can name one or one hundred different theories as to what caused the universe--the very fact that you don't have any positive evidence for your hypothesis is enough to make it a false dichotomy. 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.""

Key word: "example."

And Mike Tyson goes for Evander's ear!

Yeah, all those bigoted remarks I made about atheists were sure inappropriate.

It's all around you, Einstein.

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.
Again, I can't respond to nothing.

No, because this finite point was not within the universe, but contained all that was the universe.
So, being without the universe, the finite point is no longer required to have a first-cause. Well, if that's the case than something can come from nothing.

I didn't say that all events are inevitable.
No, what you said was that I was being nonsensical. But it turns out that I all I had to do was go slower for you to grasp the concept. Again, you're exposing your lack of context.

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?
I think you're totally missing the point of the butterfly effect. That things happened the way they did instead isn't evidence of anything.

I've already addressed both of these in detail.
You've address neither, actually, only repeatedly avoided the question. Now, for the last time: where specifically is there evidence for purpose?

You mean the thing you say is a paradox even though you've been unable to present a coherent argument as to why?
It's a paradox because you're arguing for a first-cause when every cause in universe requires a preceding effect. You've studied physics and yet I'm explaining this to you?

*Drum roll* Disordered! Universes collapsing on themselves, physical laws bending, breaking, changing, or not existing at all!
If a universe collapsing on itself is considered disordered, then shouldn't a universe currently expanding to the point of its eventual death also count?

It's worth noting that science is, by definition, a naturalistic science. Science has a responsibility to not make conclusive statements about the unknown.
And yet you continue to use science to aid your so-called understanding of the unknown. Bravo.

Last edited by Nicato; 04-09-2007 at 07:19 PM.
Nicato is offline   Reply With Quote