"I Don't Know"

[tosca1]

Present one example of physical evidence of god and explain how it is.

:doh

Corrections: the NAS doesn't say "physical evidence of God."
It says, physical evidence that support Theistic Evolution. Big difference.


I wasn't the one who stated about finding physical scientific evidences. It's the NAS!
I'm simply posting their statement here.

If you are truly interested, direct your request to the NAS.

 

[tosca1]

Also, again. please start a thread on Theistic evolution and see where that leads.

For the purposes of this thread I'll say this. You're wrong. How do I know that? The bulk of evidence you've provided over the months and years supports that conclusion.

How can you say I'm wrong.....when I have stated before, that although I believe in a God-created world,
for the record - I don't believe in Theistic Evolution!

I've said that before in other threads. Lol. Do you know what theistic evolution is?



You must be confusing my given BIBLICAL evidences (claims written in the Bible that are proven or confirmed by science - biblical statements that can be taken literally) , with that of theistic evolution.
They're not the same. This old thread must be what you were thinking about:

The Bible

Please start a new thread, and provide some links and some evidence to support Theistic Evolution that's not just you saying somebody else proves it. If it's compelling I'll comment.

I personally know nothing about the claims of Theistic Evolution, but it sure as hell sounds self-contradictory to a crap-ton of claims many bible believers support.

If you know nothing about theistic evolution - how the heck did you come to think it's self-contradictory?
That's self-contradictory - coming from you!
Can you explain that?


No....I'm not in the mood to start another thread right now, I might later.
It's discouraging to think that I'm likely to get responses from people (like you as an example), who'll be giving their 2 cents over what they admit, they know nothing about!
Lol. Who wants to sit through all that, sifting through - to borrow from you - "a crap-ton" of so-called arguments from non-believers - especially from the New Atheists? :mrgreen:



If I create a thread for it - I surely wouldn't want it to be inundated by responses from those who don't even understand -
let alone, KNOW - anything about it.
If I create a thread, it'll be just because. No arguments required from the peanut gallery who are admittedly clueless about it. :mrgreen:

 

[zyzygy]

How, pray tell, is that delusional? "God" is a human construct, a way of explaining the inexplicable. It is the same as the distinction between "magic" and a "trick". If one cannot explain how the trick works, it is "magic"! Before we understood diseases and microbes, inexplicable deaths were explained by way of all kinds of suppositions. Humans are storytellers. They like to create stories to explain things. There have been thousands of "gods" that have been invented by numerous human societies to explain why inexplicable things happen. Some belief systems are quite elaborate, and contain multiple stories, apocrypha, and parables. Some have multitudinous gods for separate areas of experience (e.g. gods of war, famine, death, fertility). Monotheism is a relatively recent development, apparently first introduced (and then rejected) in Egypt. Indeed, arguments about which is the "true" god have resulted in millions of deaths over the last few millenia.

God cannot and does not exist outside of human consciousness. God needs man to exist, man just wants "god" to exist.

Not every man or woman.

 

[Dragonfly]

God needs man to exist, man just wants "god" to exist.

:applaud

I m gonna have to borrow that at some point. Fantastic.

 

[zyzygy]

:applaud

I m gonna have to borrow that at some point. Fantastic.

I don't want any gods to exist. Count me out.

 

[Dragonfly]

I don't want any gods to exist. Count me out.

Not even Aphrodite?

 

[zyzygy]

Not even Aphrodite?

I live with her.

 

[Daisy]

There are many things I don't know, but there are far less things I don't know now, than before I started studying the Bible...

 

[Dragonfly]

There are many things I don't know, but there are far less things I don't know now, than before I started studying the Bible...

The trouble is the things you learned from the bible can in fact be wrong, immoral, and even detrimental to whatever might come after we die.
You have no factual proof that many of the things in the bible are actually worthy of believing.

The act of learning should never be finite. Especially when only one source of information is accepted, and even more so when that one source is thousands of years old.

Imagine how awful we'd be treating people with mental imbalances these days if the only medical books doctors relied on were from 1000 years ago.

Would you volunteer for dental services from a guy who got all his information on how to remove/fix teeth from a book written in the 16th century?

 

[zyzygy]

 

[NWRatCon]

It is delusional to presume that because some tell stories that God does not exist or that His influence hasnt been seen and made manifest throughout time. People write stories often to explain remarkable and even miraculous things they dont understand...that doesnt discount those things from occurring.

But it doesn't establish that god/gods exist, does it? It is, exactly as I have described: people create stories to explain things they don't understand. That is not delusional. A delusion is "an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder."

Every, and I mean, literally, every argument made in this thread to support (and vice versa) the existence of God/gods is based upon a logical fallacy. In this case a formal logical fallacy. There is no evidence that God/gods exist. There are unexplained phenomena. The reason that fewer and fewer people believe in God/gods is because more and more inexplicable phenomena are being explained, including the working of the human mind. The absence of an explanation, however, does not establish the existence of a supreme being. That is a classic fallacy.

We call something "supernatural" when we cannot explain it through our current understanding of natural phenomena. When we have a collection of such explanations we call it a religion. I am not saying this to disparage religion, I am simply describing the process by which religions - and belief in God/gods - comes into being. Religion, in my estimation, has very little to do with God/gods or the existence thereof. It is, instead, a cultural (and therefore, human) phenomenon - hence the existence of thousands of separate religions. I am not alone in this belief: "Religion is a cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion." (From Wikipedia) I have studied a number of them, although I currently adhere to none of them.

The Constitution explicitly allows space for religion in our society, but also explicitly puts it outside of the government. It does so to allow those with disparate beliefs, or none at all, to practice them freely so as not to interfere with others' beliefs. Albqowl previously asserted that the federal courts have recognized atheism as a religion (an inaccurate description). What the court actually ruled is that is has the same standing as a religion. It was to benefit fellow religionists that this false description was spread. The court was simply following the dictate of the Constitution that issues of personal conscience be protected, even in prison.

I am a fervent Constitutionalist, and a believer in a liberal society where the practice of any, or no, religion is allowed - so long as it does not interfere with others' practice of their beliefs. Some here have disparaged Atheism, which I cannot, personally condone, in the same way that I do not disparage others' belief systems. Just don't foist your beliefs on me. Or call me delusional because I don't follow your particular idiosyncratic beliefs.

 

[NWRatCon]

My dear friend, you say t

Spin that any way you want. But I know what I read. :shrug:

and

The NAS says that there are physical evidence(s), REVEALED by various disciplines of science, that
support Theistic Evolution. The NAS even names some of those disciplines of science.

The latter disproves the former - because the NAS explicitly did not say that. It said, explicitly, that science can coexist with theistic beliefs. It is simply being polite.

 

[NWRatCon]

Not every man or woman.

Point taken.

 

[Manc Skipper]

It is delusional to presume that because some tell stories that God does not exist or that His influence hasnt been seen and made manifest throughout time. People write stories often to explain remarkable and even miraculous things they dont understand...that doesnt discount those things from occurring.

What is delusional is to attribute the inexplicable to some magic invisible unknowable creature. God is a placeholder for ignorance.

 

[VanceMack]

What is delusional is to attribute the inexplicable to some magic invisible unknowable creature. God is a placeholder for ignorance.

Your religious bigotry is uninteresting.

 

[VanceMack]

But it doesn't establish that god/gods exist, does it? It is, exactly as I have described: people create stories to explain things they don't understand. That is not delusional. A delusion is "an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder."

Every, and I mean, literally, every argument made in this thread to support (and vice versa) the existence of God/gods is based upon a logical fallacy. In this case a formal logical fallacy. There is no evidence that God/gods exist. There are unexplained phenomena. The reason that fewer and fewer people believe in God/gods is because more and more inexplicable phenomena are being explained, including the working of the human mind. The absence of an explanation, however, does not establish the existence of a supreme being. That is a classic fallacy.

We call something "supernatural" when we cannot explain it through our current understanding of natural phenomena. When we have a collection of such explanations we call it a religion. I am not saying this to disparage religion, I am simply describing the process by which religions - and belief in God/gods - comes into being. Religion, in my estimation, has very little to do with God/gods or the existence thereof. It is, instead, a cultural (and therefore, human) phenomenon - hence the existence of thousands of separate religions. I am not alone in this belief: "Religion is a cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion." (From Wikipedia) I have studied a number of them, although I currently adhere to none of them.

The Constitution explicitly allows space for religion in our society, but also explicitly puts it outside of the government. It does so to allow those with disparate beliefs, or none at all, to practice them freely so as not to interfere with others' beliefs. Albqowl previously asserted that the federal courts have recognized atheism as a religion (an inaccurate description). What the court actually ruled is that is has the same standing as a religion. It was to benefit fellow religionists that this false description was spread. The court was simply following the dictate of the Constitution that issues of personal conscience be protected, even in prison.

I am a fervent Constitutionalist, and a believer in a liberal society where the practice of any, or no, religion is allowed - so long as it does not interfere with others' practice of their beliefs. Some here have disparaged Atheism, which I cannot, personally condone, in the same way that I do not disparage others' belief systems. Just don't foist your beliefs on me. Or call me delusional because I don't follow your particular idiosyncratic beliefs.

Indeed. That is why a belief in a God is predicated on faith. Otherwise it would be 'knowledge.

I would disagree with you that there is no 'evidence' of a higher power, but that is in the eyes of the beholder. The beauty in all of this si that a belief in God does not replace or subvert a belief in science. And you have the absolute right to choose to believe that there was nothing...and then magically a big bang happened and the cosmos appeared.

 

[btthegreat]

Indeed, atheists might take heed of your wisdom and stop gassing about what they don't know.

What's wrong with saying I don't know and then 'guessing' as long as you recognize and stipulate that you are offering up a 'guess'?

 

[NWRatCon]

Your religious bigotry is uninteresting.

whereas yours is...?

 

[NWRatCon]

Indeed. That is why a belief in a God is predicated on faith. Otherwise it would be 'knowledge.

I would disagree with you that there is no 'evidence' of a higher power, but that is in the eyes of the beholder. The beauty in all of this si that a belief in God does not replace or subvert a belief in science. And you have the absolute right to choose to believe that there was nothing...and then magically a big bang happened and the cosmos appeared.

I don't disagree with the premise. I have never believed that science and religion are antithetical - except, of course, when ideology tries to trump science.

 

[VanceMack]

I don't disagree with the premise. I have never believed that science and religion are antithetical - except, of course, when ideology tries to trump science.

Ive never understood the mindset that people think the two are separate.

 

[Angel]

What's wrong with saying I don't know and then 'guessing' as long as you recognize and stipulate that you are offering up a 'guess'?

Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see.

 

[tosca1]

My dear friend, you say t
and The latter disproves the former - because the NAS explicitly did not say that. It said, explicitly, that science can coexist with theistic beliefs. It is simply being polite.

No, my firend. The NAS is MORE THAN JUST BEING POLITE.

9. I am religious and I also find science very exciting. Is there a conflict between science and religion?

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

"Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists."

"Progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena. Scientists never can be sure that a given explanation is complete and final. Some of the hypotheses advanced by scientists turn out to be incorrect when tested by further observations or experiments. Yet, many scientific explanations have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed that they are held with great confidence."

"Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare."

The National Academy of Sciences also says:

"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."

"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

WMAP Site FAQs


Now, that, is being polite.

HOWEVER......the NAS went on to add this:

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.
Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

It mentioned a specific religious belief. Theistic Evolution.

I more than highlighted the term, "Indeed," because it's quite significant.
"Indeed", is a very strong word, that gives a strong support to that particular belief.


What does it means?

According to Merriam:

INDEED
- without any question : truly, undeniably — often used interjectionally to express irony or
disbelief or surprise
- in reality
- all things considered : as a matter of fact





Why did the NAS have to go that far? Why make an official statement in its book titled:
1999 report "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition"

The NAS had squarely put CREATION by GOD, on the table. Of course, they don't mean the literal Book of Genesis (Bible). They refer to that when they say "creationism." They don't want to deal with it, for the simple fact that it isn't scientific.
Science can only deal with the physical (natural).


The NAS may choose to explain Theistic Evolution any way they want - it still boils down to creation by God! That's the point!

There are evidence(s) that had the NAS considering the possibility of creation by the Abrahamic God....
through Theistic Evolution. That's their official view!

Where does that leave non-believers in the Abrahamic God? Where does that leaves Atheists?

 

[tosca1]

You didn't actually read or comprehend the NAS statement, did you? Saying something is not inconsistent is completely different than saying it is confirmed.

I have no objection to people striving to understand that which is difficult to comprehend. Even bright people can fall into fallacy, as Collins, and his many predecessors (remember Rene Descartes?), did.

You should go and read The booklet where that statement was quoted from.

In a nutshell:
The NAS refers to the literal Book of Genesis' description of Creation ( and Intelligent Design),
when it refers to "Creationism."
The NAS just points out that it isn't scientific.

The only beef that the NAS has with Creationism (literal Book of Genesis and Intelligent Design) is that
they shouldn't be taught in a SCIENCE class.
The NAS says they don't belong in a science class.



Of course, some scientists also question macroevolution, and say it's faulty.
One top Chemist - a member of the NAS - even goes as far as challenging any scientist to explain it,
since he claims that no scientists actually understand macroevolution! :lol:
As far as I know, no one came out to refute him.

But that's another subject. There might even be an old thread about it in Science section.

 

[Dragonfly]

when ideology tries to trump science.

God of the gaps.

 

[NWRatCon]

I don't understand, Tosca, why you think repeating the same fallacy, ad nauseum, is an argument. Are you one who goes to foreign countries and insists that, if you speak loudly and slowly enough, anyone can understand English (which clearly, you cannot)? I think that is the seventh time in this thread that you've quoted the same paragraph. You've well established your lack of understanding. Repetition is not your friend. You don't need to do it again. Here are some links that might help: link 1; link 2. Good luck!