Video being:
Tiffany Ondracek : Creationism (Penn and Teller) (2003)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7_lhfUhrHY
- Raymond Doetjes
- +Cynthia Albrecht When you adhere to proper scientific protocol you can't start with a default position stating that God exists. Because proving a negative is pretty much impossible. You need to start with the default position there's no God prove to me that there is,Proving something that exists should be infinitely more easy than disproving something that doesn't exist.
Concerning the stat that most people in jail are religious is not because of conversion during their jail time. But it's the stat taken upon registering an inmate, which is done so that they can have their "extra liberties" -- which I am firmly against btw. Kosher food, Halal food, access to the praying booth 2,3 or 5 times a day. It is true that loads more religious people come from jail because of conversion during their sentence.
In my country (and since you have a Dutch name it could well be your country) I know for a fact that 56% of the people in jail are non-Dutch citizens. The largest majority are people from the old-colonial Islands, Suriname and Morocco. The first two have a massive population of Catholics people, the third obviously muslim. Then we have a large amount of eastern european convicts which have ranging religions from protestant, catholic and orthodox russian. We need to remind ourselves that most of Western Europe is statistically atheists but the rest of the world over half is religious.
So if this statistic proves anything than it is that people outside of western europe are more likely religious.
I can't speak for other countries because I don't have those statistics.
[Rest of what he said dealt with elsewhere.] - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "You need to start with the default position there's no God prove to me that there is"
You need to have no default position, if you are going to follow up a philosophic protocol.
Prove there is a God?
Fine: the sun and moon and stars all go about one full circle around the earth each day (proven by sight, and earth being still is also proven by inner ears).
However, the universe being so immense and matter being devoid of proper movement, only an infinite power never ever tiring and a wisdom wielding it could possibly cause that. Therefore such a thing exists. Which we call God.
Easy as pie. It is Heliocentrism which involves taking Atheism as a default position. - Raymond Doetjes
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl First of all the earth moves and thus seemingly the stars move. Which proves that observation alone can be very deceptive and seldom on their own enough proof.
The tag suggestion (as we call them in psychology behind a truism ^^^ even though several false in this case) doesn't make that tag suggestion right.
- -The Immense size of the universe proves nothing about a supreme being!
- -The fact that this immense space is indeed not void still proves nothing about a supreme being.
- -Matter is moving in a proper movement, away from the center where obviously a big bang occurred. Even your statement of devoid of proper movement immediately points out that if there was intelligent design the designers is incredibly bad because why design something that has not proper movement in the first place?
But now show me actual proof or even a valid hypothesis on how he, she/it has supposedly done this? The bang bang theory does just that! It's a series of hypothesis that spawn to a very solid theory, supported with evidence based experiments how the heavy elements came to be and very solid theoretical physics on how from matter and anti matter and gravity everything came to be. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "First of all the earth moves and thus seemingly the stars move. Which proves that observation alone can be very deceptive and seldom on their own enough proof."
You have just thrown out empirical enquiry.
You have also - as far as your arguments go - lifted up "earth is moving" into an a priori principle which is not proven but needs no proof. Unless of course you have some proof for it. It had better not involve impossibility of divine or angelic causes. For in that case you have made atheism a default.
Third, the immense size of a universe either not moving or expanding from a Big Bang has nothing to do with my argument.
I was asking about an adequate cause for a daily movement of this immense universe around earth, as seen.
"The tag suggestion (as we call them in psychology behind a truism ^^^ even though several false in this case) doesn't make that tag suggestion right."
I suppose by tag suggestion you mean the most obvious interpretation of any phenomenon.
I agree it is not automatically always right.
I am only saying it should be treated as right until proven wrong. That is all.
"why design something that has not proper movement in the first place?"
The argument was rather first mover argument at its simplest.
To answer your question, since I brought in design too on a secondary plane, "because it is designed to be moved by sth else", God, angels or men or beasts.
Or [by] its tendency to plumb down or fly up. Straight. - Raymond Doetjes
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Hans, you try to prove a negative!!! it's impossible! You need to exclude EVERY PARAMETER POSSIBLE. It's far easier for believers to prove God, proof as in scientific standards and not the rubbish you hear people say like the bible is proof of god or what you just said that earlier which also doesn't constitute proof of a deity.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I am not trying to prove a negative.
Where did you get that from?
If Rutherford did not have to exclude every parameter possible before concluding matter is partly "transparent" to alpha particles and partly opaque to it, I do not have to exclude every possible parameter before concluding there is a God.
I have to exclude alternative explanations though - but that I did by rejecting Heliocentrism because it is contrary to obvious evidence. - Raymond Doetjes
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Hi Hans.
You are trying to prove that god exists, so I say in that case the default position is that God doesn't exist until there's scientific proof. I think we had a slight miscommnication then.
Let me rephrase I may have been too vague.
I am all open for a God when he/she/it can be proven scientifically but until that time my scientific default position is there is no God. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- +Raymond Doetjes [re:] "I am all open for a God when he/she/it can be proven scientifically but until that time my scientific default position is there is no God."
Scientifically there is no default position about unknowns.
When I approach God's existence from a scientific point of view, the default position is that there is not such a thing as a default position on THAT.
However the default position about the obvious interpretation of sensory data is that it is true, unless a very much less obvious interpretation of them can be proven.
Geocentrism as a fact proves God.
In your version, I suspect that Atheism is what ultimately proves Geocentrism and therefore senses [to be] "wrong".
So, my default position is trusting senses until these are proven wrong.
I was perfectly aware that your default position is atheism. I gave a fair parallel. Rutherford's default position must be non-atomism until he has proven atomism, according to your principle. But if he is to prove atomism at all, how can he do that if the default position requires him to not just deny the conclusion of atomism, but even reinterpret creatively the fact that matter is permeable mostly and impermeable punctually, which was his result from the experiment?
I am not maintaining against Rutherford that matter is equally impermeable or equally permeable all over it. Since that is against the default interpretation of his experiment.
I therefore maintain that a default interpretation of any data given in experience must trump a default position about ultimate conclusions. Not the other way round.
Except perhaps the one default position about ultimate conclusions, that they cannot exclude that conclusions can be reached. - Imdor
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Fine: the sun and moon and stars all go about one full circle around the earth each day (proven by sight, and earth being still is also proven by inner ears)."
Do you seriously have so little knowledge about this shit that you actualy believe that the sun revolves around the earth? I guess the earth is flat too......... welcome back to the 16'th century. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- +Imdor"Do you seriously have so little knowledge about this shit that you actualy believe that the sun revolves around the earth? I guess the earth is flat too......... welcome back to the 16'th century."
16:th C. astronomy of the Christian west was not claiming the Earth was flat. I suppose you got a bad grade in history?
And yes, I prefer 16:th C. Astronomer Tycho Brahe's view to Galileo's.
Neither the one nor the other can be immediately tested by the senses UNLESS you accept persistent, consistent, universal testimony of two senses, sight and equilibrial sense, eyes and inner ears, as a sufficient test, and in that case of course Earth is standing still. - Imdor
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Lol keep believing in that, pathetic.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- how generous of you ...
care to share your private reasons WHY you think it is pathetic or shall I just take your word for it? - [comments by Imdor and one Brandon have been deleted after my answer:]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- In other words neither Imdor nor Brandon offer any proof against Geocentrism. They have a prejudice by which they "figure out" I am a so called "troll" but offer no evidence for modern cosmology.
Now, if I had said "two plus two do not really make four but only three point nine, nine, nine, nine, nine to infinity" I would very obviously have been trolling. Nobody throughout history has ever seriously claimed that two and two do not make four.
But there have been lots who have claimed Geocentrism true, and a Saint and a Pope of the Roman Catholic Church have both been so earnest about it that they judged Galileo as having utered a an error and in second process even a heresy and as having saved his soul only by abjuring it. I am speaking of aint Robert Bellarmine (first process) and of Pope Urban VIII (second process). - Cynthia Albrecht
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl I appreciate the effort you put into trying to provide helpful dialog for readers, though I believe we both agree that the minds of your critics on this thread are closed and sealed shut. Honestly, I believe you could show them video evidence for, say, the Flood of Noah, taken, perhaps by visitors from Alpha Centauri and brought back for a celebration, and they would not believe their own eyes.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I would not believe the visitors were from Alpha Centauri, so I would not believe my eyes either.
I would perhaps recognise the story though. Which I already believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment