Common Sense Deactivated?

[Subduction Zone]

Methodological naturalism shouldn't be conflated with atheism.

I didn't. I said atheistic and I made it rather clear that I used that term by putting the word in scare quotes. Lately some of the creationists have used such bogus terms as "creation science" and "atheist science". All science is atheistic in the sense that no god is appealed to. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god. It is a very big tent. Just as theism is a very big tent idea. Atheism does not declare that there is no god. Some Strong Atheists will claim that there is no god, but they are only one group out of many.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean current scientific views that can change with the next discovery....tomorrow or next week?
You'll forgive me if I require something more reliable than that. The Creator does not change.

An inability to understand scientific consensus does not mean that that consensus has changed.

 

[Willamena]

"pronoun
Nothing means not a single thing, or not a single part of something." (Collins English Dictionary)

In the beginning there was nothing and all of a sudden, for no apparent reason, nothing exploded into something that became everything!

Does that sound scientific?

Using your logic here, that there was not a single thing before the Big Bang precludes there being a beginning before the Big Bang.

 

[Polymath257]

Ray Comfort asks good questions. I don't subscribe to his methods but that doesn't alter the validity of his questions IMO.
I believe that atheists cringe because they have no solid answers to the questions he poses.



What was before the "Big Bang"?

At this point, we don't even know if there *was* a 'before the Big Bang'. Whether there was or not depends on which version of quantum gravity is correct. And, until we have actual evidence, we simply will not know. Is that a problem?

If any being is capable of creating matter, then if you can't explain what he does, how do you explain what he is? If he is uncreated then that is a whole new ball game. No way to comprehend that. It cannot be related to anything in the known universe....can it?

If there *was* a before the Big Bang, then whatever there was is part of the universe (multiverse), so it is quite likely the universe itself is uncreated. But if there was *not* a before the Big Bang, then again, the universe (or multiverse) is most likely not created.

Remember that causality (and therefore creation) is an aspect of the universe, not something beyond it.

 

[Polymath257]

You mean current scientific views that can change with the next discovery....tomorrow or next week?
You'll forgive me if I require something more reliable than that. The Creator does not change.

it changes by becoming more refined and more accurate.

And whatever your beliefs, the human understanding of a 'creator' does change greatly over time. So you are in the same boat.

 

[Deeje]

Little parasitic flatworms or trematodes that infect the digestive tracts, livers etc. of vertebrates including millions of humans, killing tens of thousands of them - often very young children - every year. There are thousands of species - presumably all individually designed to inflict the maximum discomfort, disease and premature death of their unsuspecting, but uniquely well-suited (presumably also by design) hosts.

From what I know of the Bible's explanation, we humans have a poorly functioning immune system that would ordinarily keep all invaders out of our bodies. This came about by the actions of the first humans losing their physical perfection and degenerating into aging sickness and death. Something for which human bodies were not designed.

As far as the animals are concerned, they too are victims by reason of the fact that humans were assigned to be their caretakers and it was very likely that God provided all sorts of natural herbal remedies for all manner of things affecting the inhabitants of the animals kingdom as well as themselves. That is my take on that situation. And it is bolstered by the prophesy in Isaiah about the "new heavens and new earth". (Isaiah 65)

 

[Deeje]

Video evidence capturing God making DNA would do it.
Very easy thing to provide if God of the Bible exists.

The Creator God is not made of matter so he has no DNA.....do your gods have DNA? Can you prove their existence scientifically?

 

[siti]

...very likely that God provided all sorts of natural herbal remedies...

Why would God need to provide remedies in a world in which "no resident" would ever say "I am sick"? But, in fact, there are natural herbal remedies for parasitic worm-like things (papaya seeds for example) - but you have to be a bit careful with them because they might also kill off the worm-like things that fertilize the seeds of the next generation...but it does seem that this is just a temporary lowering of sperm count so papaya seeds might have been designed specifically to counteract these 'flukes' of intelligent design I suppose...or maybe its just part of the defence strategy of the plant to protect itself (the future generations in its seeds that is) from parasites, that happens, by fluke, to kill similar parasites that have evolved to inhabit the human intestinal tract...your guess is as good as mine - except mine accounts sensibly for the existence of both the parasite and the cure whereas yours leaves us with no explanation as to why God would create parasites in the first place, let alone provide the remedy and then tell us nothing about it until we discover it ourselves by accident.

 

[Deeje]

It's Ray Comforts attempted answers that make him a disingenuous clown. Not his questions.

I just like his questions. And I love the way no one can answer them with any certainty.....they are so simple, really.
Common sense is obviously not "common" if simple questions cannot be answered by the most brilliant minds.

But by all means, just ask me the questions you see as good, and I'll answer from my point of view and understanding. No shirking nor potting the messenger, promise.

I'll settle for you answering Ray Comfort's questions. Give them your best shot...."I dunno" will not be considered an answer...OK?

Part of my atheism is acknowledgement of what I don't know. I'm a human on a ball of dirt circling one sun out of many. My ignorance is pretty profound.

Funny, I see a lot of scientists suffering from the same condition.

Ignorant little humans claiming they know God, the purpose of everything, and that people are born gay but that homosexual actions are sins against God...meh...

Hubris irritates me.

Yes, I completely understand this point but I believe that it is based on a poor assessment of the overall situation IMO. I see a much broader set of issues than the one you mentioned. All human issues pale in comparison to the big one.

There was a Big Bang?

Science seems to think so. They know that the universe had a beginning so what was before that?

I don't. You're getting me confused with JWs...lol
(You even went with 'he'!!)

Since God identifies himself as a "he" I assume that he considers himself male for the purpose of addressing humans. A lot of blokes would have trouble seeing God as a "she"......and the "if" is from the atheist perspective not mine.

'If' looks large in that sentence. But 'no way to comprehend'...I mean...are you SURE you're not a closet atheist?

I don't have a closet...that is something that exists in the US. I have a wardrobe.....you know that.

I still cant comprehend 'nothing' let alone 'something existing in nothing'. Ape brains have limitations.

Yeah, I know. But do you have one?

 

[Deeje]

Why would God need to provide remedies in a world in which "no resident" would ever say "I am sick"?

I believe that pertained to humans, not necessarily animals (since they can't speak)

The "tree of life" was placed in the garden to keep humans alive forever.....they have been searching for the "fountain of youth" ever since.

We don't age in our heads...only in our bodies. Revelation speaks about "trees of life for the curing of the nations"....we have lost a lot of amazing curative herbs because the current medical profession likes to get rich peddling man made poison.

Animals were not created to keep living, they are programmed for death, unlike us.

 

[Deeje]

I don’t believe ‘nothing’ exists. Once you attempt to describe or define ‘nothing’ it exists. Try imagining ‘nothing’. You can’t. ‘Nothing’ can’t exist. So there was never a time when nothing existed.

Nothing material existed. Even you can understand that since your gods exist in an unseen realm like mine does.
What do you call that unseen realm?

 

[sayak83]

The Creator God is not made of matter so he has no DNA.....do your gods have DNA? Can you prove their existence scientifically?

Regardless of what God is made of, video evidence of God in the act of making DNA would suffice as evidence for the claim that God made DNA. Simple.

 

[Deeje]

At this point, we don't even know if there *was* a 'before the Big Bang'. Whether there was or not depends on which version of quantum gravity is correct. And, until we have actual evidence, we simply will not know. Is that a problem?

It has never been a problem for me because I believe that there is another realm where intelligent beings reside and who have constant contact and interaction with earth's inhabitants and will continue to do so until the Creator's purpose in connection with the beings on this planet is accomplished.

Remember that causality (and therefore creation) is an aspect of the universe, not something beyond it.

Something caused matter to come into existence. Science knows that the universe had a beginning. It just isn't good at guessing how it began and if there was a "who" responsible for it. It tends to run off on other tangents to mask the fact that it hasn't got any real scientific clues.

And whatever your beliefs, the human understanding of a 'creator' does change greatly over time. So you are in the same boat.

The Bible's definition of the Creator has never changed. He cannot change, which is why he is described a a rock...solid, unchanging. It is humans who are inclined to modify "God" or other supernatural beings to suit what they wish to believe. I have changed to accommodate the Bible's definition of God, not the other way around.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I didn't. I said atheistic and I made it rather clear that I used that term by putting the word in scare quotes. Lately some of the creationists have used such bogus terms as "creation science" and "atheist science". All science is atheistic in the sense that no god is appealed to.

I know what you said. Science isn't atheistic. You're using a term related to belief in conjunction with a method of investigation. Science has no belief.
Methodological naturalism is accurate. Atheist is not.

Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god. It is a very big tent. Just as theism is a very big tent idea. Atheism does not declare that there is no god. Some Strong Atheists will claim that there is no god, but they are only one group out of many.

I have no quibble with this. Only with the suggestion that science fits in any tent where belief is the determinant.

 

[Grandliseur]

Love him or hate him, Ray Comfort makes a good argument.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1163450647090949

Can nothing create everything?

What evidence would convince you that there is intelligence demonstrated in the DNA that makes up all living things?

Without atheism, the attack that is prophesied to happen on religion couldn't happen. The waters of Babylon could not be dried up, and the Greater Cyrus could not come.

I can see that you might like fishing, opening up cans of worms!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know what you said. Science isn't atheistic. You're using a term related to belief in conjunction with a method of investigation. Science has no belief.
Methodological naturalism is accurate. Atheist is not.

And yet you just confirmed that it is atheistic. In regards to a god atheism has no belief. When if comes to the sciences and god the "sciences" have no belief

I have no quibble with this. Only with the suggestion that science fits in any tent where belief is the determinant.

Then it still fits. Atheism is not a claim that god does not exist. It is simply a lack of belief in a god. Atheism, like science, is subject to change. Show the evidence for a god and most atheists will believe if the evidence is reliable enough. Anecdote, which is about all that I have ever seen, is not very reliable when it comes to evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without atheism, the attack that is prophesied to happen on religion couldn't happen. The water of Babylon could not be dried up, and the Greater Cyrus could not come.

Not so. The attack could come from all sorts of theists. It merely precludes "true Christians" being behind the attack.

 

[siti]

I believe that pertained to humans, not necessarily animals (since they can't speak)

You said that God created humans to be caretakers and had provided remedies, quoting you directly, "for all manner of things affecting the inhabitants of the animals kingdom as well as themselves." - "themselves" presumably meaning the human caretakers of the paradise...why would they need remedies if they were never to get sick? I'm not just being picky here - your argument is that all these things - animals, eyes, wings, brains, colour spots and the phytochemicals that serve as herbal remedies for all sorts of ills - were deliberately and intelligently designed by a God who intended that humans should live forever - why would they need remedies? Why would God design natural cures for human sickness when there was never intended to be any?

 

[shunyadragon]

The Creator God is not made of matter so he has no DNA.....do your gods have DNA? Can you prove their existence scientifically?

Odd claims not remotely proven as far as existence goes by any methods. Science cannot help you nor anyone, and does not prove things.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I just like his questions. And I love the way no one can answer them with any certainty.....they are so simple, really.

As I said, his questions are fine. It's his answers that are ridiculous.
Certainty is the mother of fools.

Common sense is obviously not "common" if simple questions cannot be answered by the most brilliant minds.

1. He wasn't talking to any 'brilliant minds', surprisingly...
2. Humans are just humans. Why would you expect us to know everything?
3. Knowledge grows best when we realise we don't already have the answers.
4. Common sense is a nonsense in all sorts of ways.

I'll settle for you answering Ray Comfort's questions. Give them your best shot...."I dunno" will not be considered an answer...OK?

Actually, you're doing what he does by starting FROM the answer, then posing a question. You then substitute a person's ignorance regarding that answer with the answer you already have, thus 'proving' your answer.
You don't get to determine whether or not I'm allowed to suggest I don't know something, surely? If I don't know, surely 'I don't know' is the correct response? Or you'd prefer me to just make something up? Weird. Why would you want that? Are you really so keen to 'prove' your answer is the right one in such a way? That's not actual proof of anything, as I'm sure you realise. Confusing to me. In any case, on with the game. I just rewatched this video for the second time, so you owe me about 25 minutes of my life back...

1. Are you an atheist?
Yep

2. Are you open to evidence?
Sure. As much as most. We all carry our inherent biases, but awareness of them usually helps, rather than hinders in being open to evidence I find.

3. Do you believe this book happened by accident?
No.
(to extrapolate, this is where credibility starts to vanish. Clearly no-one thinks the book happened by accident, whether they believe in God or not. This is not due to the books complexity, but because it is clearly human in origin. We know about books. We read and right them everyday. But heck, let's just set up a false equivalency between a book and the creation of the universe, right? I mean, anyone of the people he spoke to could have been the author of the book, right??)

4. What is DNA, then, and how could this 'Book of Life' have occurred by accident, if even a simple book didn't?
No-one knows this. Why he wants to interview students on this, when there are perfectly good scientists who've devoted their life to studying it, I don't know. Well, I probably do. After all, who wants an in-depth explanation when they can get a sound-byte, and simply edit for the ones 'proving' a point, right?
His 'strength' is in dumbing down actual in depth arguments (more completely raised by someone like William Paley) into a 10 minute video so people can say 'Checkmate atheists'. It's pretty insulting really.

In short, there are much more intelligent attempts over the years in terms of claiming our design mandates an intelligent designer.
Some of them even attempt to address some of the clear design faults, and commonalities between DNA markers. Most don't though. Ray doesn't get to this level, because he doesn't WANT to discuss it. He doesn't want to further knowledge. He wants people to realise they are ignorant of something, then slides a ready made answer into the gap in their knowledge.

Heck, if the book is such a damn good analogy for life, why the heck isn't he a polytheist?

Funny, I see a lot of scientists suffering from the same condition.

Ignorance? Of course. We're all human. We're all ignorant. Real knowledge is to understand the extent of one's ignorance, if I can borrow from a certain Chinese philosopher.

Yes, I completely understand this point but I believe that it is based on a poor assessment of the overall situation IMO. I see a much broader set of issues than the one you mentioned. All human issues pale in comparison to the big one.

'poor assessment of the overall situation'
Fair enough. But you assessment of the 'overall situation' seems just as petty and human as the next persons, including mine.
Hubris.

Science seems to think so. They know that the universe had a beginning so what was before that?

Science doesn't 'think'. This is a strawman.

Since God identifies himself as a "he" I assume that he considers himself male for the purpose of addressing humans. A lot of blokes would have trouble seeing God as a "she"......and the "if" is from the atheist perspective not mine.

God identifies himself as a 'he'? Go figure. As for the 'if' part of the proposition, then fair enough. That makes sense.

I don't have a closet...that is something that exists in the US. I have a wardrobe.....you know that.

Heh...fair enough.
Still, inability to comprehend what came before a Big Bang I don't even know occurred doesn't seem to make me a theist. Indeed, it's part of what makes me an atheist. Hence my point. And hence my irritation (more like mild vexation) that would demand answers earlier, rather than allowing me to state when I don't know something. There are a LOT of things I don't know. I just wish others would admit the same. And no, that isn't just aimed at you, or even theists. It's a general statement.

Yeah, I know. But do you have one?

An ape brain? Nope, not in my estimation. I was speaking a little metaphorically. Not as metaphorically as when people compare the so-called 'Book of Life' to an actual physical book, but yeah...
(I do, however, have a hominoid brain)