Atheism ... Heh

[Guy Threepwood]

LOL Since when did the Big Bang require the existence of a god/creator Guy? http://scitechdaily.com/universe-may-emerged-black-hole-higher-dimensional-universe/

Hoyle's rationale not mine Artie, you asked for an example of atheism v science

of course atheism changed tack after it's prediction of a static universe failed- to steady state & Big Crunch, which were also debunked-

Now there are a variety of equally untestable philosophical speculations, atheism of the gaps?

 

[ArtieE]

Hoyle's rationale not mine Artie, you asked for an example of atheism v science

I did? Where?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I did? Where?

how faith advances science, hence how lack of faith inhibits it

 

[dust1n]

LOL Since when did the Big Bang require the existence of a god/creator Guy? http://scitechdaily.com/universe-may-emerged-black-hole-higher-dimensional-universe/

It never did, is the answer.

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the Universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3] The model accounts for the fact that the Universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state,[4][5] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Hubble's Law.[6] If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they are valid, there is a singularity. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the Universe.[7] After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

See, no God necessary.

 

[Altfish]

#YaphaSheba

If you want evidence of human evolution in recent centuries. Visit a 16th century house. Notice how most people have to duck when going through doorways and often bang their heads on the beams.
That is because humans have evolved (are evolving?) to be taller, it may be in the 25th century the houses of today will be too small - of course I have no idea, evolution is not planned, it just adapts to suit / take advantage of the changing environment.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course, and the universe was even pure photons , this is why the theory was originally mocked as 'Big Bang' by atheists like Hoyle who called it 'religious psuedoscience'

The priest who originated it; George Lemaitre, called it the 'primeval atom' a much better name I think?




"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
Max Planck

random mutations that just happen to spontaneously create significant design improvements apparently!

Except when it didn't, as is the case for the 99.9% of species that have ever lived that have all gone extinct. Why no design improvements there?
To me, that is one of the main reasons the design argument doesn't make sense.

 

[ArtieE]

how faith advances science, hence how lack of faith inhibits it

The Big Bang theory had nothing to do with the faith of the person proposing it. On the contrary: "By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[19][20]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Except when it didn't, as is the case for the 99.9% of species that have ever lived that have all gone extinct. Why no design improvements there?
To me, that is one of the main reasons the design argument doesn't make sense.

99.9% of automobiles ever made are likewise extinct, by your rationale they can not have been designed

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The Big Bang theory had nothing to do with the faith of the person proposing it. On the contrary: "By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[19][20]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

exactly Artie, like I said, Lemaitre separated his faith because he could, that's how a good scientist should operate.

Atheist Hoyle in stark contrast, explicitly complained about how he didn't like the religious implications of it, preferring steady state to avoid those implications. i.e. he based his work entirely on his own ideological preference.

science v atheism, you see?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hoyle's rationale not mine Artie, you asked for an example of atheism v science

of course atheism changed tack after it's prediction of a static universe failed- to steady state & Big Crunch, which were also debunked-

Now there are a variety of equally untestable philosophical speculations, atheism of the gaps?

Atheism isn't an entity. Or a belief. Atheism doesn't do anything. It's a lack of belief, same thing as having a lack of belief in fairies.

 

[SkepticThinker]

99.9% of automobiles ever made are likewise extinct, by your rationale they can not have been designed

Once again, automobiles are not biological organisms capable of reproducing.

If you're going to assert that mutations are god's design improvements on pre-existing designs, then how did "he" manage to drop the ball 99.9% of the time? It doesn't make any sense. I mean, that's the argument you use to explain that mutations are not random, correct?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Atheism isn't an entity. Or a belief. Atheism doesn't do anything. It's a lack of belief, same thing as having a lack of belief in fairies.

That was my point, one can't recognize and separate a belief one refuses to even acknowledge.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That was my point, one can't recognize and separate a belief one refuses to even acknowledge.

It's not a belief.

Do you make a point of acknowledging your lack of belief in big foot when going about your daily life? When studying science?

 

[ArtieE]

99.9% of automobiles ever made are likewise extinct, by your rationale they can not have been designed

Good point. You're saying that your god designed and created millions and millions of creatures and then just waited for evolution and natural selection to weed out 99.9% of them?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Once again, automobiles are not biological organisms capable of reproducing.

If you're going to assert that mutations are god's design improvements on pre-existing designs, then how did "he" manage to drop the ball 99.9% of the time? It doesn't make any sense. I mean, that's the argument you use to explain that mutations are not random, correct?

exactly, they are not biological organisms capable of reproducing, they are 100% intelligently designed- yet leave an almost identical fossil record to the one used to suggest accidental design improvements

complete with dead ends, large gaps, sudden appearances as if just planted there with no prior history, but a general trend towards greater sophistication.

The model T did not drop the ball, it paved the way

 

[SkepticThinker]

exactly, they are not biological organisms capable of reproducing, they are 100% intelligently designed- yet leave an almost identical fossil record to the one used to suggest accidental design improvements

complete with dead ends, large gaps, sudden appearances as if just planted there with no prior history, but a general trend towards greater sophistication.

The model T did not drop the ball, it paved the way

They are completely different things with completely different fossil records. I can't even believe you're seriously making this comparison.

Biological organisms are capable of reproducing, which is where mutations (or as you call them, "improvements") come from in the first place. There is no need to insert a meddling god into the equation. And if we do, we find that this god apparently isn't so good at improving on his designs because practically everything that has ever lived on this planet has gone extinct.

Cars do not reproduce and so cannot produce their own mutations or "improvements" so there is a need to insert an intelligent designer into the picture. Not to mention that we don't have anything close to the variation we see in the natural world.

 

[ArtieE]

exactly Artie, like I said, Lemaitre separated his faith because he could, that's how a good scientist should operate.

Atheist Hoyle in stark contrast, explicitly complained about how he didn't like the religious implications of it, preferring steady state to avoid those implications. i.e. he based his work entirely on his own ideological preference.

science v atheism, you see?

Science v theism.

"Galileo taught the heliocentric system in which the Sun is the center of the solar system, the Earth and other planets revolved around the Sun, the Moon revolved around the Earth, and the stars were at incredible distances.
Galileo was tried by the Inquisition, condemned as a heretic, and spent the rest of his life in house arrest."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/scirel_ov1.htm

 

[jonathan180iq]

exactly, they are not biological organisms capable of reproducing, they are 100% intelligently designed- yet leave an almost identical fossil record to the one used to suggest accidental design improvements

complete with dead ends, large gaps, sudden appearances as if just planted there with no prior history, but a general trend towards greater sophistication.

The model T did not drop the ball, it paved the way

This is a ridiculous analogy...

Model T's are just as viable of a vehicle today as they were when they first rolled off the assembly line. A 2016 Ford F-150 operates under all the same principles as the very first Quadricycle. They literally do exactly the same thing; propel their occupants from place to place.

Living organisms, on the other hand, don't work like that. If an offspring develops some random gene mutations during their formation (which the parent has absolutely no control over) which leaves them permanently disabled from birth, the parents can't hop over to the "Offspring Mechanic" and have their parts replaced, forever fixing the genetic flaw in their DNA, can they? There is nothing you can do to make that Offspring more biologically fit. Nothing at all. All a parent can do is provide for that offspring the best life possible, which in turn makes the parent's fitness less biologically viable. Even the most broken down automobile can be rebuilt or restored to a fully-functioning, like new condition. No organism can make the same claim.

The only way your analogy works is if you admit that our human-based intelligently designed machines are far superior to anything that this supposed creator has ever produced...

 

[ArtieE]

That was my point, one can't recognize and separate a belief one refuses to even acknowledge.

In what way would it help science if some seismologists came out of the closet and publicly announce that they don't believe in Poseidon? Do you think it would inspire seismologists to rethink and include Poseidon in possible causes for earthquakes?

 

[viole]

99.9% of automobiles ever made are likewise extinct, by your rationale they can not have been designed

Do you think that if H. Ford had been perfect, omniscient and allmighty, and wanting to create the perfect car, he would have created the Model T?

Ciao

- viole