I had already explained why, Dan.

<<I fail to see why you accuse Don of dishonesty for plainly stating what he believes.>>

And it looks like we’re about to go through it again.

<<[Batten] explains that atheists believe that everything came about by purely material processes. That is, they are materialists. Is this not so?>>

Yes, it is not so, and I have already explained why:

“Atheism [is] the rejection of religious claims as unsupported by the evidence.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#323511)

But even in instances when an atheist positively asserts that there is no god, that still says nothing about how they believe the universe or life came about.

There is nothing within atheism to necessitate materialism.

<<...are there atheists who believe the universe came about from non-material processes?>>

Yes, some New-Agers do.

<<Don has not created a straw man>>

Yes he has, and I explained how he did it too: by quote-mining the somewhat-sensationalist coverline of a science magazine and attacking that without addressing what the article actually said.

<<...[Batten] has highlighted the conundrum of whether those who don't believe in God believe the universe came from something or nothing.>>

No, he claimed they believe it came from nothing (without defining ‘nothing’), then, in a sleight of hand, mocked (specifically) materialists for supposedly having not explanations for the origins of the universe.

That’s a straw man and a sleight of hand. You’re not making things any better for Batten.

<<[Batten] doesn't ignore the guts of Alan Guth's inflation theory. He addresses it.>>

No, he didn’t address it, and I had already explained why at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324100.

<<[Batten’s] main idea is that physical properties alone fail to explain the universe we observe. By implication, it would be reasonable to look to a non physical source or cause for what we observe. That's logical, it's not special pleading.>>

That’s not what I said Batten's special pleading was. Here it is again:

“Batten insists that everything has a cause, but is willing to let his god off the hook on that one.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324100)

Is it any wonder you don’t respond by quoting me?

Continued…

...Continued

<<I think Don could have spent more time explaining why such an alternative is reasonable…>>

I’m all ears, if you want to give it a go.

<<You say he was begging the question, but which question was he begging?>>

That’s not what ‘begging the question’ means, and I think you know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

As for your second-last paragraph, I don't see how it addresses anything I’ve said or get’s Batten off the hook with regards to his fallacies. You did have a crack at the Tu Quoque fallacy yourself, though, with your, “Everybody in this discussion comes with their assumptions and presuppositions.” Which ignores the virtues of atheism being the default position.

<<Some accuse Don of falling back to a 'God of the gaps' type of thinking, that is, to focus on what is not known or not well understood, and allow God to fill that void.>>

Hey! That was me. Credit where credit’s due.

<<By contrary, he is not speaking about what we are ignorant. His focus is on that which we know, the ever increasing knowledge and data base being unveiled by modern investigative techniques.>>

No, he pretty much just pointed to gaps and uncertainties. Furthermore, Batten’s mocking tone implies that he has a better answer, and so that answer which he supposedly has becomes relevant. His article was one of mockery and sneer, not sincere and neutral inquiry.

<<As Thomas Nagel said,...>>

Your quote (-mine?) says nothing about the changes of life arising from chemicals. It merely poses a question.

Sorry, Dan, but you haven't gotten Batten off the hook at all. My accusations still stand. Here’s a challenge for you, though, that will save us both a lot of time: try responding what I’ve actually said by quoting me. I don’t think you can do it.

Actually Yutsie you have disappointed me. The four Vedas have as much "Truth" in them as the Bible.

According to Larousse, "World Mythology" ISBN: 0. 600. 33225. x. The Creation Story is a Dusie.

In the beginning there was "That." or the "Absolute" represented by Visnu who had Markandeya in his stomach. Now Visnu is sitting on a Multi-headed Cobra which is floating on an Ocean of Milk. The Cobras name is Ananta. Now Lakshmi turns up & get married to Visnu? I guess Lakshmi is a bit of a fish wife & ear bashes Visnu because while he is contemplating his navel a Lotus flower grows out of it, I guess that's what happens if you don't bathe. A bloke called Vayu grabs it (him,) by the stalk & gives it a shake, (interesting) Then Brahma pops out of the Lotus flower. Now Brahma has four arms & four mouths & reads the four Vedas all at the same time. No wonder Hindus are so confused. Anyway Brahma then populates the Earth.

Why haven't you claimed that this is the correct version of the World Creation Yutsie? I feel that the Hindu Creation Story has as much credence as the Christian Bible. Don't you?

Some time ago a school in America started work on a Science Model Museum. The Creationists took them to Court & the Court said they had to include the Creationists Model as well. So the School complied, but wrote to a number of other Religions inviting them to sue if they didn't include their Creation Models as well. Apparently the School has about 10 Creation Models from Science, Christianity 1 & 2, American Indian, African, Asian, Indian, etc,. The Creationists complained & the Court said that the Museun had the right to be inclusive of all Religions, which they had done.

Dear Jay,

Sorry, it is not possible to please everyone at once.

I do hope that you have read my criticism of the author starting from the very first post of this thread, where I explain why it is not a good idea to play around with creation stories. If you haven't done so yet, then please read it now.

The mythology to which you refer has very deep spiritual, symbolic and esoteric meaning and I am always eager to drink the nectar of its wisdom, though it does require study to understand. One thing however that it does NOT attempt to do is to explain the origins of this universe. I refer those who want to waste their time in such silly pursuits to science.

Yuyutsu,
There are some people with a genuine desire to investigate our history and our origins, where it is we really came from. They believe if we better understand our past, it will advantage us moving forward. It appears you're not among them.

Hi Dan

Of course there is no mention of evolution in the bible. Its authors were not aware of it, and it wasn’t what they set out to write about.

A flood like the one described in Genesis could never have happened. There are dozens of websites that gleefully point out its scientific impossibility. Here’s one:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark

It’s also uncannily close to older Mesopotamian flood stories such as the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The pope doesn’t “toy” with metaphorical readings of Genesis. He understands that it cannot be taken seriously as a literal account of human origins, and was never intended to be (why do you think it contains two, inconsistent, creation stories?).