Why I am not an atheist.

[ppp]

If books contained evidence then destroying all the books on a subject would destroy the evidence. One could destroy all of the books about elephants or relativity, and there would no longer be evidence of either. Evidence of objectively real phenomenon is not found in books. Only claims and reasoning.

see, that's your lack of knowledge about Islam and the Quran again. the Quran was verbally transmitted to the Prophet 1400 + years ago and it has been preserved ever since.

What I do or don't know about Islam (your attempt at provocative assumptions notwithstanding) is irrelevant. Even if the Koran were perfectly preserved in both text and semantics, that text would still be mothing more than the claim. If Mohammed dictated the Koran to me directly, it would still be just his claim.

 

[Moses_UK]

What I do or don't know about Islam (your attempt at provocative assumptions notwithstanding) is irrelevant. Even if the Koran were perfectly preserved in both text and semantics, that text would still be mothing more than the claim. If Mohammed dictated the Koran to me directly, it would still be just his claim.

As a scientist, and graduate of physics, the evidence of God is very important to me. if you read the Quran and analyze the verses and compare them to modern discoveries you would be astonished. Ignore Muhammed being a barefooted, unlettered poor brown person and read the Quran. If you find it hilarious and full of contradictions tell me. Don't let your wealth, status, and social-economic racial background blind you.

 

[ppp]

As a scientist, and graduate of physics, the evidence of God is very important to me.

So noted.

if you read the Quran and analyze the verses and compare them to modern discoveries you would be astonished.

I doubt it. Even if it were not one of the so-called "astonishing" comparisons with which I am already familiar, I would likely only be amazed at your low threshold for being astonished. But even if the Koran contained a definition of a black body and mathematically derived the relationship between intensity of radiation and thermodynamic temperature (which would be astonishing) it would not be a demonstration that there is a god,

 

[John D. Brey]

If you could disprove the theory of evolution you would be hailed as one who has done more for both religion and science than anyone, ever..

I'd say a greater feat than disproving the theory of Darwinism is making persons understand that you've disproved Darwinism.

Btw, fwiw, I believe in evolution. Darwinism is different that natural selection or evolution in general. I don't believe in Darwinism. Most serious biologists don't either.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Something can't be both tautological and an oxymoron. A tautology is a statement that is self evident (or a form of repetition). An oxymoron is a contradiction. You can't make a statement that is both self evident and contadictory.

Well I was twenty years younger when I said it but I said it this way:

Natural selection is an oxymoronic tautology.​

Natural selection is an oxymoron since the most `un-natural’ thing in the universe – life – (or the functional order inherent in life) - is the primary thing the term `natural’ is being used to explain. A conspicuous `un-naturalness’ seems to suffuse the very things that the materialist would use the term `natural’ to explain. This makes the materialist’s use of the term `natural’ a standard example of an oxymoron (un-natural naturalness).

Natural selection is also a tautology, for if the environment in fact selects the variations that reflect, or cause, the increase of functional order[ii] – then it (the environment) possesses the inexplicable/metaphysical `selection’ power that the theory is designed to deny, or explain away. Rather than define what `selection’ is – in-itself - natural selection (as a theory) is content to presume that `selection’ is what you have when you have a selector (such as environmental niches) in the process of selecting. . . This is a tautology. The theory of natural selection says in effect: the most `unnatural’ thing in the universe - life - is in fact natural – because a selector has selected for it. The theory doesn’t give a sense to the word `natural’ – nor does it define `selection’ (in non-tautological terms) - worse - it fails even to produce a meaningful description of `life’ within its allegedly scientific paradigm. Yet the materialist presumes the combination of two completely impenetrable oxymorons (un-natural naturalness and selector-less selection) form a non-metaphysical definition of the most inexplicable thing in the universe.​

 

[John D. Brey]

You write a lot but seem to say very little.
It's all very vague, very abstract and clouded in unclear metaphors.

I'd like to think I say a lot more than I write. That even the lot that I write is a tiny bit where a lot is compressed in metaphors that must be decompressed to reveal the lot in the relatively little.


John

 

[Nimos]

The thread-seeder on the source and merits of a particular person's atheism listed finite observations and questions as the basis for making an absolute determination. That's a fool's errand that will fail every single time.

Which is why I gave the story of an alien coming to earth gallivanting as Jesus. If the alien comes from a society advanced enough in respect to us, there would be no person on earth who could deny that this alien appeared to possess every power thought to justify Jesus as God.

Ergo, to the extent that a high-tech alien can answer all finite questions concerning the absolute nature of his deity, he should find no one who could refuse to worship him notwithstanding the fact that with his high-tech he can turn them to a puff of purple smoke if they do.

Not really sure why aliens have to be brought into this? Just so I understand the apparent logic behind this. So because humans can deny God, but not an alien therefore God might be real or what?

 

[Tiberius]

In a book I authored twenty-years ago, I pointed out that a successful argument against Darwinism and scientific materialism in general demands that the arguer step outside the circumscription of the principles and ideas that make Darwinism and scientific materialism appear to be viable in the first place. Darwinism and scientific materialism can be seen to be false from root to branch so long as the wrong-headed conceptualism in which they sprouted is doused with a good dose of the weed-killer known as truth.

"Step outside the circumscription of the principles and ideas that make Darwinism and scientific materialism appear to be viable in the first place..."

You mean reality?

Yes, I suppose that if you were to imagine that there was something outside reality, evolution would look strange.

However, since whatever you considered to be outside reality would in reality be nothing more than a figment of your imagination, you'd find that evolution would certainly fit in with whatever your preconceived notions about the universe were. And thus, if you considered evolution was wrong, your conclusion based on stepping outside reality would also support that.

In other words, it's a self-reinforcing delusion.

 

[Clara Tea]

[QUOTE="John D. Brey, post: 6974667, member: 56301"successful argument against Darwinism
John[/QUOTE]

Success is measured by an outside observer. It's something like being humble. That is, others may call us humble, but we can't brag that we are.

We can't stomp our feet and declare ourselves correct or make arguments against Darwinism that no one else accepts.

Even when the masses insist that something is correct, there is no guarantee. For example, Hitler had millions of supporters wildly cheering.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Natural selection is an oxymoron since the most `un-natural’ thing in the universe – life – (or the functional order inherent in life) - is the primary thing the term `natural’ is being used to explain. A conspicuous `un-naturalness’ seems to suffuse the very things that the materialist would use the term `natural’ to explain. This makes the materialist’s use of the term `natural’ a standard example of an oxymoron (un-natural naturalness).​

Isn't that just a cheap jibe though? Natural selection is about the process of how life evolves (the mechanism for such), not about how life has arisen or about life itself, and we don't actually know how 'unnatural' life is anyway - given that we haven't even visited or checked even a miniscule number of the available places where life might exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'd like to think I say a lot more than I write.

I'm clearly not the only one who's having trouble comprehending your points, if you even have any.
So I don't think it's me.

 

[PureX]

I'm sure you would not intend quite such an insult,
but for me not to know that theories don't
get proven, nor does anything else in science -

Well, it would require severe brain injury.

It's a point that seems to be forgotten, around here, regularly. As I am constantly seeing the conviction posted that science is the only reliable pathway to truth. When it's not a pathway to truth, at all. It's a pathway to relative functionality. And any scientist you care to ask, will say so.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's a point that seems to be forgotten, around here, regularly. As I am constantly seeing the conviction posted that science is the only reliable pathway to truth. When it's not a pathway to truth, at all. It's a pathway to relative functionality. And any scientist you care to ask, will say so.

So which period in time would you go back to - given that science has produced so much of what we value today, and not just the material things?

 

[Audie]

I'd say a greater feat than disproving the theory of Darwinism is making persons understand that you've disproved Darwinism.

Btw, fwiw, I believe in evolution. Darwinism is different that natural selection or evolution in general. I don't believe in Darwinism. Most serious biologists don't either.



John

Nobody but some confused creationists still talks
about " Darwinism ". The " theory of darwinism"
does not even exist.

Most of our creationists use the word darwinism
interchably with theory of evolution.

Arguing against "darwinism" is just silly.

Of course it would be a feat to disprove ithe theory of evoluti9n.
Probably impossible.

If someone ever " found the Cambrian bunny"
it would not be accepted overnight, but
if the data is sound, it would prevail.

 

[PureX]

So which period in time would you go back to - given that science has produced so much of what we value today, and not just the material things?

What does this question have to do with anything? I don't doubt the value of functionality. I'm simply pointing out that to conflate function with truth is illogical. And yet I am seeing the atheists, here, doing this constantly. And then getting all defensive when I point it out.

Why is that, do you think?

 

[Audie]

It's a point that seems to be forgotten, around here, regularly. As I am constantly seeing the conviction posted that science is the only reliable pathway to truth. When it's not a pathway to truth, at all. It's a pathway to relative functionality. And any scientist you care to ask, will say so.

You specifically addressed a totally unwarranted insult at me.
I know you won't apologize or take it back, but pretending it was
actually about nameless people who seem to forget something
about truth is rather repulsibely disingenuous.

Still, you are sort of halfway right for all that you got it
backwards. Educated people here are constantly
having to tell our "theists" that science does not do proof.

I dont recall ever seeing anyone here claim
that science does "truth", far less that its a sole
path to same. I don't think you have eithr, any
more than you saw anything that makes it "seem " I
forgot science does not do proof.

 

[Audie]

So noted.

I doubt it. Even if it were not one of the so-called "astonishing" comparisons with which I am already familiar, I would likely only be amazed at your low threshold for being astonished. But even if the Koran contained a definition of a black body and mathematically derived the relationship between intensity of radiation and thermodynamic temperature (which would be astonishing) it would not be a demonstration that there is a god,

It would be a good hint that something weird was going on

 

[Mock Turtle]

What does this question have to do with anything? I don't doubt the value of functionality. I'm simply pointing out that to conflate function with truth is illogical. And yet I am seeing the atheists, here, doing this constantly. And then getting all defensive when I point it out.

Why is that, do you think?

Perhaps because function plays a very important part of most people's lives, and such doesn't rule out any other aspects that they value, but we would hardly be conversing like this without science. And as yet, science has been the bigger success for mankind, given that we haven't come to some agreement as to religious matters - with the differences still there to disrupt what we have achieved. Truth is a limited commodity, function not so much so, and if science gets closer than much else them perhaps many are satisfied with this.

 

[John D. Brey]

Not really sure why aliens have to be brought into this?

Oops. So sorry. I was unaware we had one in the forum. I made the same mistake once when I said something was so easy a caveman could do it. <s>



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Of course it would be a feat to disprove ithe theory of evoluti9n.
Probably impossible.
.

I agree it would be impossible to disprove the theory that living organisms evolve. Nevertheless, imo, it's equally impossible to deny that living organisms exhibit design characteristics that because they're exponentially more exquisite than anything in the non-living sphere thus require an explanation that goes beyond the physics that circumscribe non-living things.

Neither "natural selection," nor Darwinism fill the bill. And imo, you're sadly mistaken if you think educated people, even Phd. biologists, don't still believe in and talk about Darwinism.



John