The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I just don't give Francis Collins a job because of publicly expressed unscientific and inconsistent positions. He's also a man but it's not sex discrimination either

...your stated reason for discriminating against him is because of his publicly expressed RELIGIOUS opinions and not because of some aspect of his manhood ... so it IS obviously religious discrimination .. and NOT sex discriminaton!!!!:(:eek:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...your stated reason for discriminating against him is because of his publicly expressed RELIGIOUS opinions and not because he is a man ... so it IS obviously religious discrimination .. and NOT sex discriminaton!!!!:(:eek:

If you look at this post, you'll see that my issue is that he has publicly given two contradictory opinions of how science can address the question of God, one when the evidence apparently supports god and another when it doesn't. Either science can address the question of God or it can't, it's inconsistent to change your position when the evidence doesn't go your way and it shows a lack of objectivity

lugha

J C wrote: »

...I never said that science and religion are separate realms...it is the Theistic Evolutionists who have accepted this (follwing prompting from Materialists) in order to reconcile Evolution with their (Creation-based) faith!!!!

Your view that creationism is a factual account of the origins of the universe would be fine as a scientific conjecture if you placed it on an equal footing with any other conjecture. But you are clinging on for dear life (eternal salvation?) to your baby. You want it to be true and will never countenance the possibility that it is not. You are not impartial. You should be utterly indifferent to whether creationism is true or not if you want to place it in the realm of science.

And I’m not sure what exactly you mean by spontaneous evolution?

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Please state who here you think is Atheist?
...
Non-believers yes, but atheists??

I think you have the common over simplistic view of atheism whereby they are all 100% positive that there is no form of higher power of any kind, higher power being something to which different or no natural laws apply. You used the term "Non-believers yes, but atheists??" but a non-believer is an atheist. Atheism is generally a lack of belief in Gods, not a belief that there are no Gods, although there are a small minority of atheists who hold that position

If you look at this thread:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055588415

you'll see it's not as simple as all that because the vast majority of members of the A&A forum describe their position as "Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'"

You don't have to completely discount all possibility of anything to which different or no natural laws apply in order to use the term atheist. There is strong atheism and weak atheism, implicit and explicit atheism, agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism. There is pantheism which is acknowledged by its followers to be 'sexed up atheism'. Atheism technically applies only to theistic Gods, ie personal beings who interact with humans, I can leave open the possibility of something on a different plane of existence while still placing the bible and all modern religions firmly in the bronze age myth category. There's ignosticism, where you are of the position that the term "God exists" is meaningless because the word can have thousands of definitions, etc etc etc

Basically, calling yourself an atheist does not mean that you have made a definitive statement that everything inside and outside the universe follows exactly the natural laws as we perceive them. In fact they may well not have because I don't know for sure that the natural laws cannot change in some kind of a big bang. The common atheist position is not "There is no God. End of story", it's "present the evidence for your particular version of God and I will consider your hypothesis further"

Watch now as the believers tell me and the other atheists that they know what atheism is better than us, that it's their version that makes it look like an illogical faith based belief system and any suggestion to the contrary, including all the links I've given above, are "tosh"

Sam Vimes

lugha wrote: »

And I’m not sure what exactly you mean by spontaneous evolution?

No one's sure but he keeps using it. I think it's his belief that in order for evolution to work, simple naturally occurring amino acids must jump to the extremely complex proteins that exist today in a single leap and not in gradual steps.

As with pretty much everyone who rejects evolution, he does not understand evolution.

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think you have the common over simplistic view of atheism whereby they are all 100% positive that there is no form of higher power of any kind, higher power being something to which different or no natural laws apply. You used the term "Non-believers yes, but atheists??" but a non-believer is an atheist. Atheism is generally a lack of belief in Gods, not a belief that there are no Gods, although there are a small minority of atheists who hold that position

If you look at this thread:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055588415

you'll see it's not as simple as all that because the vast majority of members of the A&A forum describe their position as "Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'"

You don't have to completely discount all possibility of anything to which different or no natural laws apply in order to use the term atheist. There is strong atheism and weak atheism, implicit and explicit atheism, agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism. There is pantheism which is acknowledged by its followers to be 'sexed up atheism'. Atheism technically applies only to theistic Gods, ie personal beings who interact with humans, I can leave open the possibility of something on a different plane of existence while still placing the bible and all modern religions firmly in the bronze age myth category. There's ignosticism, where you are of the position that the term "God exists" is meaningless because the word can have thousands of definitions, etc etc etc

Basically, calling yourself an atheist does not mean that you have made a definitive statement that everything inside and outside the universe follows exactly the natural laws as we perceive them. In fact they may well not have because I don't know for sure that the natural laws cannot change in some kind of a big bang. The common atheist position is not "There is no God. End of story", it's "present the evidence for your particular version of God and I will consider your hypothesis further"

Watch now as the believers tell me and the other atheists that they know what atheism is better than us, that it's their version that makes it look like an illogical faith based belief system and any suggestion to the contrary, including all the links I've given above, are "tosh"

Em, I already mentioned something similiar in a previous thread, or this one But thanks anyways,

That was my point though, JC, seems to misunderstand what an atheist is, but makes sweeping generalisations about ALL of us.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think atheists, or people of belief should be excluded from consideration for positions like the position Francis Collins now works in based on their beliefs if they have proven themselves to be effective in scientific fields before.

Why? Collins job is no long as a research scientist. People seem to be purposely ignoring that fact.

You think Collins beliefs in the nature of science and the supernatural, and what science cannot and should not be trying to answer, should have no bearing on a job where he is response for approving the direction the scientific research at the NIH takes?

Come off it, that is ridiculous.

If he was a Christian Scientist (the religion) and said that he believed science should not be wasting its time looking at disease because that is caused by lack of faith in God, we shouldn't be having this discussion.

You can disagree if you like that his beliefs about science suggest he may steer the direction of research at the NIH away from certain areas of research (such as the mind, or mental illness). Others are certainly concerned about that.

But it is ridiculous to argue that his beliefs about science and the supernatural are irrelevant and should be ignored simply because they based on his religion.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think you have the common over simplistic view of atheism whereby they are all 100% positive that there is no form of higher power of any kind, higher power being something to which different or no natural laws apply. You used the term "Non-believers yes, but atheists??" but a non-believer is an atheist. Atheism is generally a lack of belief in Gods, not a belief that there are no Gods, although there are a small minority of atheists who hold that position

If you look at this thread:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055588415

you'll see it's not as simple as all that because the vast majority of members of the A&A forum describe their position as "Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'"

You don't have to completely discount all possibility of anything to which different or no natural laws apply in order to use the term atheist. There is strong atheism and weak atheism, implicit and explicit atheism, agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism. There is pantheism which is acknowledged by its followers to be 'sexed up atheism'. Atheism technically applies only to theistic Gods, ie personal beings who interact with humans, I can leave open the possibility of something on a different plane of existence while still placing the bible and all modern religions firmly in the bronze age myth category. There's ignosticism, where you are of the position that the term "God exists" is meaningless because the word can have thousands of definitions, etc etc etc

Basically, calling yourself an atheist does not mean that you have made a definitive statement that everything inside and outside the universe follows exactly the natural laws as we perceive them. In fact they may well not have because I don't know for sure that the natural laws cannot change in some kind of a big bang. The common atheist position is not "There is no God. End of story", it's "present the evidence for your particular version of God and I will consider your hypothesis further"

Watch now as the believers tell me and the other atheists that they know what atheism is better than us, that it's their version that makes it look like an illogical faith based belief system and any suggestion to the contrary, including all the links I've given above, are "tosh"

There is no reasonable basis for atheism anymore. Atheism being either the belief that there is no God (whatever that term might mean to you) or simply the lack of belief that there is a God (God being defined in this case as the planner, creator and controller of the universe). All the scientific evidence points solidly in the direction of the universe coming into existence ex nihilo (from nothing), all the other models have fall flat on their face in their trying to get around a beginning ex nihilo.

Now if - as has been pointed out by atheists on this forum many times - you are solely molded by the observable and tangible under scientific scrutiny of the evidence - then to subscribe to the general Big Bang model (the best supported model by the evidence and most accepted) as an atheist then you believe that everything came from nothing and by nothing. But that takes more faith than a theists saying that they believe that God started it all - matter, space, energy and time itself. The only counter argument you have to this is the question: “Then where did God come from?" But all that reveals is an ignorance on your part about the nature of God.

If the more plausible conclusion to the facts in evidence points more to a creator than to nothing, then that Creator - since He created everything, time, matter etc - must be timeless, i.e. eternal, i.e. always was, i.e. uncaused, immaterial, space-less and also very powerful in that from nothing He created all the forces we observe in the universe today. Then the more rational position to hold due simply to the weight of scientific evidence alone is with the theist. Because you don’t get anything from nothing let alone everything from nothing without some miraculous powerful outside of nature or super-natural force influencing things.

Now whether that force is the God of the Bible or not is another matter but the simple facts are that all the evidence points to a creator. I happen to believe that it is the God of the Bible because only the God of the Bible, is described as having the characteristics necessary to be powerful enough to do it the way it is observed to have happened – from nothing. You pick your own candidate. And if a God like this exists then that easily explains all the other miraculous things that happened in the Bible because with Him un-like with man, all things are possible.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is no reasonable basis for atheism anymore. Atheism being either the belief that there is no God (whatever that term might mean to you) or simply the lack of belief that there is a God (God being defined in this case as the planner, creator and controller of the universe). All the scientific evidence points solidly in the direction of the universe coming into existence ex nihilo (from nothing), all the other models have fall flat on their face in their trying to get around a beginning ex nihilo.

the scientific evidence does not point towards that and all other models have not fallen flat on their face. Pretty much nothing is known about what went "before" the big bang

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now if - as has been pointed out by atheists on this forum many times - you are solely molded by the observable and tangible under scientific scrutiny of the evidence - then to subscribe to the general Big Bang model (the best supported model by the evidence and most accepted) then as an atheist you believe that everything came from nothing and by nothing.

No I don't

Soul Winner wrote: »

But that takes more faith than a theists saying that they believe that God started it all - matter, space, energy and time itself. The only counter argument you have to this is the question: “Then where did God come from?" But all that reveals is an ignorance on your part about the nature of God.

Yes, you define God as "something to which the normal rules do not apply" which could mean anything and answers nothing. It's a massive leap from that to saying the bible is true.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If the more plausible conclusion to the fats in evidence points more to a creator than to nothing, then that Creator - since He created everything, time, matter etc - must be timeless, i.e. eternal, i.e. always was, i.e. uncaused, immaterial, space-less and also very powerful in that from nothing He created all the forces we observe in the universe today. Then the more rational position to hold due simply to the weight of scientific evidence alone is with the theist. Because you don’t get anything from nothing let alone everything from nothing without some miraculous powerful outside of nature or super-natural force influencing things.

Now whether that force is the God of the Bible or not is another matter but the simple facts are that all the evidence points to a creator. I happen to believe that it is the God of the Bible because only the God of the Bible, is described as having the characteristics necessary to be powerful enough to do it the way it is observed to have happened – from nothing. You pick your own candidate. And if a God like this exists then that easily explains all the other miraculous things that happened in the Bible because with Him un-like with man, all things are possible.

If it is a force of some kind, that fits quite well into the atheistic view point, in fact that would be the hypothesis that holds the most weight in my opinion. Where I drop off is when human characteristics are ascribed to this force. To me it's pretty much the same as saying lightning must be caused by a human like entity. It's the unfortunate human propensity to anthropomorphise natural forces.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Em, I already mentioned something similiar in a previous thread, or this one But thanks anyways,

That was my point though, JC, seems to misunderstand what an atheist is, but makes sweeping generalisations about ALL of us.

Many believers misunderstand what an atheist is, they take a very strict and simplistic definition that suits their purposes because it's easy to rebut. It's called a straw man

Since you say you understand that atheism is not that simple, I'm not sure what you meant by "Non-believers yes, but atheists??"....

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If it is a force of some kind, that fits quite well into the atheistic view point, in fact that would be the hypothesis that holds the most weight in my opinion. Where I drop off is when human characteristics are ascribed to this force. To me it's pretty much the same as saying lightning must be caused by a human like entity. It's the unfortunate human propensity to anthropomorphise natural forces.

Do you think that this is the reason why Francis Collins cannot be considered for this position? Yes, or no?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you think that this is the reason why Francis Collins cannot be considered for this position? Yes, or no?

I've answered that question several times already: no

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Why? Collins job is no long as a research scientist. People seem to be purposely ignoring that fact.

You think Collins beliefs in the nature of science and the supernatural, and what science cannot and should not be trying to answer, should have no bearing on a job where he is response for approving the direction the scientific research at the NIH takes?

Come off it, that is ridiculous.

I've dealt with this already. As long as Collins can separate what he believes by faith, from what we know by science. This should have no bearing on his selection.

It's getting tiresome to see you justify the unjustifiable.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I've dealt with this already. As long as Collins can separate what he believes by faith, from what we know by science. This should have no bearing on his selection.

Which he has shown he has trouble doing due to inconsistent positions when the evidence doesn't go his way

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Either science can address the question of God or it can't, it's inconsistent to change your position when the evidence doesn't go your way and it shows a lack of objectivity

Not sure if I'm picking you up right, but if Collins has changed his position because the evidence required him to do so, then that's fine. It might be politically troublesome, especially to people who think that one should adopt a single position with respect to a matter of fact and maintain it regardless of evidence. However, as far as I interpret what you're saying, he had one position, saw it was wrong, then changed it. Nothing wrong with that.

Now, if he's still holding to the contradictory views that god is simultaneously both supported and not supported by evidence from the real world, then that's certainly something he should clear up.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Which he has shown he has trouble doing due to inconsistent positions when the evidence doesn't go his way

I've consistently told you that there is a difference between discussing opinion and discussing fact. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

lugha

Soul Winner wrote: »

...then that Creator - since He created everything, time, matter etc - must be timeless, i.e. eternal, i.e. always was ...

I am always perplexed at the way believers can dismiss in absolutely scathing terms that the universe either came from nothing or always existed as logical impossibilities (would it not do to simple say, we do not (yet!) know?)) And find a completely satisfactory resolution to this dilemma by postulating that it is the work of God … who always existed!

philologos

I find it logically more difficult to see that a Creation did not have a Creator, or a First Cause whatsoever.

As for the universe being eternal, this offers us no idea as to what the Creator was to the Creation, or what the First Cause was to the Creation.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I've consistently told you that there is a difference between discussing opinion and discussing fact. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Edit: we'll have to agree to disagree jakkass

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I find it logically more difficult to see that a Creation did not have a Creator, or a First Cause whatsoever.

First cause =/= creator. I have no logical objections whatsoever to a first cause

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

Not sure if I'm picking you up right, but if Collins has changed his position because the evidence required him to do so, then that's fine. It might be politically troublesome, especially to people who think that one should adopt a single position with respect to a matter of fact and maintain it regardless of evidence. However, as far as I interpret what you're saying, he had one position, saw it was wrong, then changed it. Nothing wrong with that.

Now, if he's still holding to the contradictory views that god is simultaneously both supported and not supported by evidence from the real world, then that's certainly something he should clear up.

He still holds both positions, one where he thinks the evidence supports God and another where it doesn't

philologos

Jakkass wrote: »

I find it logically more difficult to see that a Creation did not have a Creator, or a First Cause whatsoever.

As for the universe being eternal, this offers us no idea as to what the Creator was to the Creation, or what the First Cause was to the Creation.

In pre-emption of the Infinite Regress counter argument. Clicky here.

If one wants more detail look up "Why does there have to be an infinite regress?" by James Sadowsky.

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He still holds both positions, one where he thinks the evidence supports God and another where it doesn't

An admirably even-handed position.

kiffer

J C wrote: »

yes

ok... so the rock gets buried a bit deeper and gets a bit warmer... and starts to melt. The initial melt composition is a eutectic mix, a sort of rhyolitic or garnitic fluid ... but once more of the rock melts the mix becomes more basaltic.
Simply because high silica minerals melt before low silica minerals, generally speaking and keeping it simple of course.

You would be happy to call these processes spontaneous?

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

In pre-emption of the Infinite Regress counter argument. Clicky here.

If one wants more detail look up "Why does there have to be an infinite regress?" by James Sadowsky.

Few people believe in an infinite regress. Though I am curious as to why you find an uncaused universe to be more troubling than an uncaused god.

lugha

Morbert wrote: »

Though I am curious as to why you find an uncaused universe to be more troubling than an uncaused god.

Yes this is the question I was asking, evidently with less clarity! And it is genuinely curious as I have encountered many believers whose sense of logic is offended almost to the point of outrage at the notion of an uncaused universe but have no such difficulties with an uncaused God.

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

Few people believe in an infinite regress. Though I am curious as to why you find an uncaused universe to be more troubling than an uncaused god.

It's rather simple really. There is a difference between a being that is contingent and a being that is necessary.

Contingent means that this being is not a prerequisite for all other things. It either can exist or it cannot.

Necessary means that this being is a prerequisite for all other things. I.E all other things are dependant on this being for their existence.

In simpler terms: If God as a being is the prerequisite or the creator of all things, it is impossible for any other thing to have caused God to exist. If all things depend on God it would be going around in circles to raise such a concern.

The problem I have with an uncaused universe, is that the universe is the creation not the creator. If we could say that the universe created all other things, that would be something else that would be fine. It's the lack of causation that is precisely the issue. If one is to argue that there is an explanation for why all things are as they are, or some form of explanation to be found. This answer simply doesn't cut it in comparison.

How refreshing it is to be discussing the Philosophy of Religion on home turf this time! :pac: I might have to rustle out the books soon enough.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I might have to rustle out the books soon enough.

A picture might help too. I read that post three times and, shorn of the occluding verbiage, I couldn't make head nor tail of nuffin.

pts

I'm also genuinely curious about this.
Lets say, for arguments sake that there is some kind of particle, which from time to time reaches a point where it explodes and causes what we now call the universe. It doesn't design the universe in any way, it is just the spark which starts the whole process off.

How can something like that be less probable than some immaterial entity, that knows everything that has been, is, and ever will be. A being that has absolutely limitless powers?

lugha

robindch wrote: »

A picture might help too. I read that post three times and, shorn of the occluding verbiage, I couldn't make head nor tail of nuffin.

I read the emboldened expression more than three times and I couldn't make head nor tail of it! :pac: