Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 15, 2024, 6:20 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
Speculation is not the same as investigation. Please quit parroting Ken Ham.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
(February 19, 2016 at 11:02 pm)AAA Wrote:
(February 19, 2016 at 11:01 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Then it is unscientific.

Ok, well then so is every speculation about the past

Define "Speculation about the past".
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. For if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes unto you."
Reply
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
(February 19, 2016 at 11:37 pm)Jello Wrote:
(February 19, 2016 at 11:02 pm)AAA Wrote: Ok, well then so is every speculation about the past

Define "Speculation about the past".

Any statement that you make concerning what happened in the unobserved past.
Reply
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
(February 19, 2016 at 11:28 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Speculation is not the same as investigation. Please quit parroting Ken Ham.

Ok then how would you investigate the unobservable past?
Reply
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
(February 19, 2016 at 11:49 pm)AAA Wrote:
(February 19, 2016 at 11:28 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Speculation is not the same as investigation. Please quit parroting Ken Ham.

Ok then how would you investigate the unobservable past?

Example, so i can give relevant arguments?
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. For if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes unto you."
Reply
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
(February 19, 2016 at 11:50 pm)Jello Wrote:
(February 19, 2016 at 11:49 pm)AAA Wrote: Ok then how would you investigate the unobservable past?

Example, so i can give relevant arguments?

Example of an unobservable historical event? The origin of life is what we were discussing.
Reply
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
(February 20, 2016 at 12:08 am)AAA Wrote:
(February 19, 2016 at 11:50 pm)Jello Wrote: Example, so i can give relevant arguments?

Example of an unobservable historical event? The origin of life is what we were discussing.

Sure, we can't observe the exact point in time that life came into existence. 

That doesn't mean that the science behind the theories can't be proven however. (Amino acid "building blocks of life" kinda stuff, y'know, basic science for 11 year olds?)
EDIT: Of course, that's not everything, merely one example. I can't be bothered to go into detail it's almost 4:30am and this is not that important Tongue
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. For if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes unto you."
Reply
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
(February 20, 2016 at 12:13 am)Jello Wrote:
(February 20, 2016 at 12:08 am)AAA Wrote: Example of an unobservable historical event? The origin of life is what we were discussing.

Sure, we can't observe the exact point in time that life came into existence. 

That doesn't mean that the science behind the theories can't be proven however. (Amino acid "building blocks of life" kinda stuff, y'know, basic science for 11 year olds?)

Yeah, but according to stimbo it isn't science unless you can do it in a lab. Also if you made a protein in a lab, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't necessarily provide evidence that it did. Similarly if I constructed a protein intentionally, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't provide evidence that intelligent design is true does it? So empirical science cannot be applied to historical events. However, keep in mind that I am not the one limiting science to empiricism, that would be stimbo. I think that they are both scientific hypothesis.
Reply
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
(February 20, 2016 at 12:24 am)AAA Wrote:
(February 20, 2016 at 12:13 am)Jello Wrote: Sure, we can't observe the exact point in time that life came into existence. 

That doesn't mean that the science behind the theories can't be proven however. (Amino acid "building blocks of life" kinda stuff, y'know, basic science for 11 year olds?)

Yeah, but according to stimbo it isn't science unless you can do it in a lab. Also if you made a protein in a lab, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't necessarily provide evidence that it did. Similarly if I constructed a protein intentionally, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't provide evidence that intelligent design is true does it? So empirical science cannot be applied to historical events. However, keep in mind that I am not the one limiting science to empiricism, that would be stimbo. I think that they are both scientific hypothesis.
There is nothing scientific about some magic man in the sky "poof"-ing life into existence.
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. For if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes unto you."
Reply
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
(February 20, 2016 at 12:25 am)Jello Wrote:
(February 20, 2016 at 12:24 am)AAA Wrote: Yeah, but according to stimbo it isn't science unless you can do it in a lab. Also if you made a protein in a lab, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't necessarily provide evidence that it did. Similarly if I constructed a protein intentionally, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't provide evidence that intelligent design is true does it? So empirical science cannot be applied to historical events. However, keep in mind that I am not the one limiting science to empiricism, that would be stimbo. I think that they are both scientific hypothesis.
There is nothing scientific about some magic man in the sky "poof"-ing life into existence.

Would it be magic if I went into the lab and added amino acids together in a desired sequence to get a protein? Why do you assume the designer just poofed it into existence? And nobody said the designer resides in the sky.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Science and Theism Doesn't Work out right? Hellomate1234 28 1301 November 7, 2024 at 8:12 am
Last Post: syntheticadrenaline
  Atheism, theism, agnosticism, gnosticism, ignosticism Simon Moon 25 2971 October 29, 2022 at 4:49 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Moral universalism and theism Interaktive 20 2507 May 6, 2022 at 7:23 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Comparing Theism with Flat-Earthism FlatAssembler 26 2909 December 21, 2020 at 3:10 pm
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Protection Against the Wiles of Theism Rhondazvous 9 1826 April 7, 2019 at 7:03 pm
Last Post: Rhondazvous
  Have you Heathens heard the Good News? The Valkyrie 71 13662 January 26, 2018 at 9:52 pm
Last Post: rado84
  Anti-Theism Haipule 134 28483 December 20, 2017 at 1:39 pm
Last Post: Haipule
  Would you as an atheist EVER do this? Alexmahone 41 7462 December 6, 2017 at 10:47 pm
Last Post: Cecelia
  What date do you estimate atheism will overtake theism in the world population Coveny 49 14644 September 12, 2017 at 9:36 am
Last Post: mordant
  Do You Ever Miss God? Rhondazvous 75 23428 May 20, 2017 at 4:33 pm
Last Post: Silver



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)