Athiesm and disproving God

[McBell]

What claim do you claim I claimed?[/

anaturalism makes no claims, what claim do you claim an annaturist claims if an anaturalist were to claim a claim?

I am curious as to what claim it is of mine you are skeptical of.

I am having a real hard time taking you seriously when you go to such great lengths to avoid answering my direct question and engage in such dishonesty as to claim you make no claims when you have clearly made claims.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I make no claim as an anaturalist,

I'm simply skeptical of natural origins to the universe, I claim nothing, the burden of proof is on those claiming a natural origin, until then the alternative can be considered true by default.

 

[McBell]

I make no claim as an anaturalist,

I'm simply skeptical of natural origins to the universe, I claim nothing, the burden of proof is on those claiming a natural origin, until then the alternative can be considered true by default.

Perhaps you do not understand my question?

See, you made a claim.
You claimed to be skeptical of my claim.
I have not made a claim.

So you can understand the confusion, right?
Especially given your blatant diversion tactic?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Perhaps you do not understand my question?

See, you made a claim.
You claimed to be skeptical of my claim.
I have not made a claim.

So you can understand the confusion, right?
Especially given your blatant diversion tactic?

Point being; we both know what we believe, and we can both frame our beliefs simply as disbeliefs of each other's- which as we see is a fruitless exercise

Or we can, if we are willing and able, defend our own beliefs on their own merits, which is a little more interesting don't you agree?

 

[viole]

I'm an anaturalist, I make no claims, I have no beliefs. I simply reject any belief in any naturalistic universe creating mechanism until proven otherwise

Yes, there were anaturalists several century ago as well. I would say history is full of them.

There was no way to convince them that lightnings do not come from Zeus but have a natural origin, albeit unknown at that time.

I am afraid, the historical trend is on our side. No natural explanation has been superseded by a supernatural one, whereas the contrary was (and is) common place.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Cephus]

What scientists actually do is exclude assumptions not supported by evidence. When people claim that this means scientists exclude their god(s), it says more about those gods than the people complaining probably realize.

I don't think it's more than they realize, they just don't care. Science is all about getting to the truth about reality. The religious, by and large, couldn't care less about reality, they only care about their own emotional comfort. They want to feel good about their beliefs, they aren't all that worried if their beliefs are true (although they certainly demand they are). They simply aren't willing to test the idea that there's a god and go with the best objectively supported option. It doesn't matter to them at all.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am afraid, the historical trend is on our side

Not regarding history's biggest question answered to date- who was right; Lemaitre or the atheists who mocked his theory?

 

[McBell]

Point being; we both know what we believe, and we can both frame our beliefs simply as disbeliefs of each other's- which as we see is a fruitless exercise

Or we can, if we are willing and able, defend our own beliefs on their own merits, which is a little more interesting don't you agree?

Now if only you had some beliefs to discuss...

Oh well, next?

 

[McBell]

Not regarding history's biggest question answered to date- who was right; Lemaitre or the atheists who mocked his theory?

You must not get out much if you think "who was right; Lemaitre or the atheists who mocked his theory?" is history's biggest question to date...

I am more interested in the question you been dodging:

Why wait 40 years?​

 

[viole]

Not regarding history's biggest question answered to date- who was right; Lemaitre or the atheists who mocked his theory?

Lol. Do you have evidence that Lemaitre declared that the Big Bang was a supernatural event overriding a natural one?

You don't pay attention, He is the same guy who advised the pope not to draw any supernatural conclusions concerning the Big Bang.

So, what's next? Demonic possessions?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Now if only you had some beliefs to discuss...

Oh well, next?

I'll show you mine if you show me yours!

Lol. Do you have evidence that Lemaitre declared that the Big Bang was a supernatural event overriding a natural one?

You don't pay attention, He is the same guy who advised the pope not to draw any supernatural conclusions concerning the Big Bang.

So, what's next? Demonic possessions?

Ciao

- viole

exactly, we've already covered this ground (if you had paid attention! ) , Lemaitre didn't base his theory on his beliefs, atheists did- they rejected and mocked his 'primeval atom' as 'Big Bang' explicitly because they didn't like it's theistic implications,

 

[McBell]

exactly, we've already covered this ground (if you had paid attention! ) , Lemaitre didn't base his theory on his beliefs, atheists did- they rejected and mocked his 'primeval atom' as 'Big Bang' explicitly because they didn't like it's theistic implications,

So much for you lacking beliefs...

 

[Cephus]

Wegener first proposed continental drift in 1912. It didn't gain wide acceptance until the 1950s. Why would the supposed atheist conspiracy wait forty years to sound the death knell for creationism?

Just because someone proposed an idea doesn't mean it is immediately accepted by the scientific community. Einstein proposed the existence of black holes in the early 1900s. He was wrong about the mechanism, which was corrected by Roy Kerr in the 1950s. It wasn't until relatively recently that the evidence was overwhelming that black holes were not only real, but much more abundant and important than had been previously thought. Science isn't an immediate thing but it eventually gets to the truth.

 

[suncowiam]

Just because someone proposed an idea doesn't mean it is immediately accepted by the scientific community. Einstein proposed the existence of black holes in the early 1900s. He was wrong about the mechanism, which was corrected by Roy Kerr in the 1950s. It wasn't until relatively recently that the evidence was overwhelming that black holes were not only real, but much more abundant and important than had been previously thought. Science isn't an immediate thing but it eventually gets to the truth.

A very good example is the Higgs Boson particle. It was theorized say half a century ago. Only until recently has science (the science community) accepted this because of the repeated observation of such a particle matching to theoretical description.

 

[Bunyip]

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[42] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[
[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator

What is your point? I do not believe in any preposterous conspiracy theory that science is excluding evidence for god. Most of those early cosmologists were Christians.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm an anaturalist, I make no claims, I have no beliefs. I simply reject any belief in any naturalistic universe creating mechanism until proven otherwise

Guy - that statement is tantamount to a declaration of insanity. It is a bat-crap-crazy mind set, the very definition of paranoid close mindedness.

 

[viole]

exactly, we've already covered this ground (if you had paid attention! ) , Lemaitre didn't base his theory on his beliefs, atheists did- they rejected and mocked his 'primeval atom' as 'Big Bang' explicitly because they didn't like it's theistic implications,

But this is not the point. The point is that the BB does not have a supernatural explanation that replaces a natural one. We have no clue how matter or energy behaves beyond certain densities, yet. So, we are in the same position of the ancient Greek that sees lightning without knowing what produces them. But even if we don't know, the historical record that covers the things we know should make it obvious where to put our money. Postulating Zeus, or one of His equivalents might be premature.

You said that atheists opposed the BB. Well, the fact that the BB is estabilished science today should put to rest the claims that science is an enterprise of people enforcing an atheistic agenda. So, if you make that claim, I am afraid you are contradicting yourself.

But are you sure it is the case? Did they oppose the BB because they were atheists or because they (wrongly) thought that the BB theory contains supernatural elements? The two things are not equivalent. Most, if not all, theistic scientists reject scientific theories that contain supernatural elements for the simple reason that the supernatural has no place in science. Therefore, attacking supernatural or intelligent design considerations in a theory does not necessitate an atheistic agenda.

By the way. What atheists did you have in mind?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Guy - that statement is tantamount to a declaration of insanity. It is a bat-crap-crazy mind set, the very definition of paranoid close mindedness.

I was mimicking the stance of atheism, but I wouldn't go as far as that- I think you sound perfectly sane and reasonable to me

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But this is not the point. The point is that the BB does not have a supernatural explanation that replaces a natural one. We have no clue how matter or energy behaves beyond certain densities, yet. So, we are in the same position of the ancient Greek that sees lightning without knowing what produces them. But even if we don't know, the historical record that covers the things we know should make it obvious where to put our money. Postulating Zeus, or one of His equivalents might be premature.

You said that atheists opposed the BB. Well, the fact that the BB is estabilished science today should give a rest to the claims that science is an enterprise of people enforcing an atheistic agenda.

But are you sure it is the case? Did they oppose the BB because they were atheists or because they (wrongly) thought that the BB theory contains supernatural elements? The two things are not equivalent. Most, if not all, theistic scientists reject scientific theories that contain supernatural elements for the simple reason that the supernatural has no place in science. So, attacking supernatural or intelligent design considerations in a theory does not necessitate an atheistic agenda.

By the way. What atheists did you have in mind?

Ciao

- viole

Not to avoid your questions- but we covered most of these exact points in some length in the last few pages.

as far as 'should know where to put our money' I'm not sure I'd bet the farm on that rationale..

The software running this website runs completely automatically, examine it as closely as you like, delving into ever deeper layers of modules, compilers, the operating system- right down to 1's and 0's mere blips of energy, there is no creative intelligence guiding it, by your rationale this suggest that the software probably wrote itself .

i.e. automated function in no way implies automated origin, the opposite argument can be made

 

[Revoltingest]

Not regarding history's biggest question answered to date- who was right; Lemaitre or the atheists who mocked his theory?

Loaded question.....hah...caught you!
Let's broaden it so as to eliminate the mischief:
Who was right about the big bang....Lemaitre, believers who objected, believers who agreed, atheists who objected, atheists who agreed, or those of us who can't even do the math?