The Forum > General Discussion > The Australian Book of Atheism
The Australian Book of Atheism
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Page 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
-
- All
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 16 December 2010 3:18:31 PM
| |
Yuyutsu,
For our discussion to be meaningful, we need to agree to the laws of logic. Either God exists or he doesn't exist. Any contrsdiction is not admissible. "Firstly, God is not an object (see my reply to AJ Phillips), and therefore not subject to the rules of logic..." By saying that, your idea of "god" is something that you experience, something that makes you feel good. There is a belief in ancient China of the moon goddess. Obviously this belief fails the test of falsification (ie only if you can imagine something that would make the statement false can the statement be called meaningful). Theology and Falsification by A. Flew http://www8.svsu.edu/~koperski/flew.htm I would conclude that your religion is in another realm, unreachable, exists only in your mind Posted by Philip Tang, Thursday, 16 December 2010 3:57:15 PM
| |
AJ Philips
I have to conclude that you woulld soon join the ranks of Yuyutsu in your own make-believe world. "More appeals to authority figures who rely on the argument from ignorance" So AJ Philips is saying that he knows best, he is the authority and anyone else who differs from him is arguing from ignorance. "The big bang theory asserts no such thing. Stop reading Creationist websites. No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that." A factual error is that I did not refer to any Creationists website. The Creationists argues for a young universe. The big-bang theory puts the universe to be between 12 to 15 billion years of age. Since you're in a state of denial, one can't talk sense with you. A reasonable scientist would agree to the validity of the Big-Bang base on scientific evidence, but they may have different opinions what caused the Big-Bang. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://www.kheper.net/cosmos/universe/Big_Bang.htm Posted by Philip Tang, Thursday, 16 December 2010 4:36:31 PM
| |
Philip Tang,
Speaking of dishonesty, did you notice the YouTube clip you linked to didn’t allow comments? Creationist YouTubers do this to prevent others correcting the flaws in their videos. You never see this comment disabling with the more atheistic YouTubers funnily enough. <<I have to conclude that you woulld soon join the ranks of Yuyutsu in your own make-believe world.>> That’s a bit rich, especially considering you have bit yet managed to point out an error in my reasoning. <<So AJ Philips is saying that he knows best...>> Nope, never said or even implied that. Now you’ve resorted to putting words in my mouth. <<...he is the authority and anyone else who differs from him is arguing from ignorance.>> So now I think I’m the authority? My oh my, Philip, you don’t even know what the ‘argument from authority’ is or why it’s fallacious, do you? Here you go... http://tinyurl.com/yjohbjg Either way, those who plonk a god into the unknowns have abandoned the scientific method and are therefore no longer worthy of being considered an authority on the matter. Not that this is what I think these people have done necessarily. I suspect it’s yet another case of Christians over-stating the opinions of others in order to give their own belief system some undue prestige. Flew is certainly a victim of this. <<A factual error is that I did not refer to any Creationists website. The Creationists argues for a young universe. The big-bang theory puts the universe to be between 12 to 15 billion years of age.>> Nice side-step. Ever heard of “Old Earth Creationism”? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism Now how about acknowledging the legitimate factual error on your own behalf? <<Since you're in a state of denial, one can't talk sense with you.>> A state of denial about what, may I ask? <<A reasonable scientist would agree to the validity of the Big-Bang base on scientific evidence, but they may have different opinions what caused the Big-Bang.>> Bingo! So much for the big bang being evidence for god though. You’re not doing too well here, are you, Philip Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 16 December 2010 5:55:33 PM
| |
AJ Philips
Sorry AJP you are completely ignorant about the Big-Bang theory. To the statement, "The significance of the big-bang theory has to do with the theory that the universe had a beginning." Wrong. (AJP answered) The big bang theory asserts no such thing...No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that.(AJP continued) "No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that." (AJ Philips ignorantly asserts) From wikipedia "The Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe began by growing out from a very dense and hot condition about 13.7 billion years ago. As a whole, space is growing and the temperature is falling as time passes. Cosmology is the name given to how the universe began and how it has developed. Scientists that study cosmology agree the Big Bang theory matches what they have seen so far." Conclusion: AJ Philips has no idea what the Big-Bang is about. Posted by Philip Tang, Thursday, 16 December 2010 6:56:42 PM
| |
I’m well aware of that, Philip.
But your assertion was that the big bang proves the existence of a god out of a sheer necessity for one. If there was any room in your argument to acknowledge that there could have been some-thing, or some state before that singularity, then that would have blown such a big hole in your argument that there’d be no point in mentioning it. Obviously an expanding universe, as far as we know, had to BEGIN its expansion from some point (singularity); what I was addressing was your implication that the big bang theory asserted that there was nothing before that, or that nothing could have been happening before that, or that it said anything about the universe before the hot dense singularity. So my points still stand. Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 16 December 2010 8:04:21 PM
|
Do you understand what “fallacy” means?
<<The significance of the big-bang theory has to do with the theory that the universe had a beginning.>>
Wrong.
The big bang theory asserts no such thing. Stop reading Creationist websites. No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that.
<<...the steady state theory did not stand up to what was observed by science.>>
Neither does ID, but you still believe in that.
We can’t pick and choose our facts.
<<The steady-state theory would have favoured the atheists in that life just is...>>
How do you know there isn’t a multiverse or that our universe isn’t a never-ending series of expansions and contractions?
<<And in fact many atheists appealed to this theory to support their faith.>>
Atheism isn’t a faith. Like I already said, atheism is the rejection of a claim. There are no tenets to atheism, so you can’t even presume to know what atheists believe other than the lack of any gods.
What part of this don’t you understand?
<<Two eminent cosmologists (Fred Hoyle, Allan Sandage) who started out as atheists abandoned their faith when faced with the evidence.>>
More appeals to authority figures who rely on the argument from ignorance.
Speaking of honesty, how is plonking a god into an unknown more honest than investigating further? Every time it was done in the past, a naturalistic explanation was found. What makes you think now is any different?
I already explained why admitting that you don’t know was a more honest approach than making something up. How about you provide some reasoning as to why that’s not the case? Simply ignoring my point and then continuing on as though nothing was said won’t get you anywhere.
Everything in my previous post still stands. Bye bye Philip. Come back when you understand science a little better and can provide arguments without fallacies.