(July 8, 2012 at 5:12 am)CliveStaples Wrote: I think science makes sense on the whole, too. I don't think it conflicts with my religious beliefs. The idea that scientific knowledge is incompatible with religious belief seems unlikely, to me; I know Christian physicists, geneticists, and mathematicians who have no trouble maintaining their religious beliefs in light of their scientific understanding.

Alright, since I can sense you digging for specifics here...

Let's go for the easy one: Creation (as per the christian story)

So God creates the universe in six days, completely eschewing the time we've deduced it actually took everything to form. In addition, it's all jumbled up (plants are invented before light is invented to feed them, etc.) Plenty of people believe this verbatim, and thus we get something like 6,000 years of universal history out of them. Then there are those who try to make it sound feasible. This is where "God's Time" comes in.

"God's Time" (I'm sure you know all this, but I'm setting it up for the sake of the argument) is the idea that chronological discrepancies in the bible can be explained as God having a different way of measuring time than modern man, therefore it's possible for God to have created the universe in six days, but for it still to work with the timeline as we know it. This is also used to explain the incredibly long lives described in the bible (i.e. Abraham lived to be 175). Of course, if you really think about it that's terribly convoluted. By those standards, Abraham lived longer than it took the universe to form, and Jesus was crucified at the tender, prepubescent age of 33. Unless, of course, that "God's Time" actually means nothing, and it's just a way to patch together biblical fallacies so as to look logical. It's just one of those many, many things that stopped making sense once I started thinking for myself.

But of course, the burden of proof isn't on me... *polishes cosmic teapot*

(July 8, 2012 at 5:12 am)CliveStaples Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 5:11 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I think your framework of reasoning can't even be labelled as reasoning then because somehow you've reasoned that reasoning itself can't be justified (ironic).

It's called mathematical logic. The result I was referring to with regard to logic can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del'...s_theorems

An interesting thought.

Quote:Can I ask, how do you manage to stay alive? Is it pure chance that you grab a slice of bread and for no apparent reason put it in this metal device that cooks it on either side? Your entire logic seems to suggest you don't have the slightest clue of what reality is.

Your very own life should be a testimony that you actually do know a thing or two about reality.

Quote:Well, I have certain beliefs about reality. I act in accordance with those beliefs. I think that there are external objects, that there is a material universe, and so forth.

I'm not arguing that any of that is wrong--which is what you seem to be accusing me of. I'm asking a different question, which is how you can claim to know that those beliefs are, in fact, true.

I didn't argue that your memories are false; I asked you how you know that they're true.

My memory can be verified. I just ate dinner and to prove to myself that I did I can either open the fridge and see that food is gone or regurgitate what I just ate to prove to myself that this memory of eating did actually happen.

Quote:Now, these kind of questions can be problematic for evidentialists. Because it seems like there really isn't any evidence that would show that our memories are accurate, or that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago with the appearance of age. I suspect that these are a kind of belief that is both reasonable to hold, and yet cannot be supported with evidence.

You keep claiming that the evidence doesn't exist. This implies that you do value evidence and I have shared with you some evidence for why the universe isn't a few seconds old.

I think you need to start producing evidence for why the universe can't be more than a minute old.

(July 8, 2012 at 7:04 am)FallentoReason Wrote: My memory can be verified. I just ate dinner and to prove to myself that I did I can either open the fridge and see that food is gone or regurgitate what I just ate to prove to myself that this memory of eating did actually happen.

How do you know that the fridge didn't start out empty? And that your stomach didn't start with food?

Quote:You keep claiming that the evidence doesn't exist. This implies that you do value evidence and I have shared with you some evidence for why the universe isn't a few seconds old.

No, it means that I don't think that what you've given is really evidence for the proposition "The universe wasn't created three seconds ago with the appearance of age".

Quote:I think you need to start producing evidence for why the universe can't be more than a minute old.

...uh, what? Why would I have to produce evidence for that? I have never claimed that such evidence exists.

---

(July 8, 2012 at 5:26 am)KnockEmOuttt Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 5:12 am)CliveStaples Wrote: I think science makes sense on the whole, too. I don't think it conflicts with my religious beliefs. The idea that scientific knowledge is incompatible with religious belief seems unlikely, to me; I know Christian physicists, geneticists, and mathematicians who have no trouble maintaining their religious beliefs in light of their scientific understanding.

Alright, since I can sense you digging for specifics here...

Let's go for the easy one: Creation (as per the christian story)

So God creates the universe in six days, completely eschewing the time we've deduced it actually took everything to form. In addition, it's all jumbled up (plants are invented before light is invented to feed them, etc.) Plenty of people believe this verbatim, and thus we get something like 6,000 years of universal history out of them. Then there are those who try to make it sound feasible. This is where "God's Time" comes in.

"God's Time" (I'm sure you know all this, but I'm setting it up for the sake of the argument) is the idea that chronological discrepancies in the bible can be explained as God having a different way of measuring time than modern man, therefore it's possible for God to have created the universe in six days, but for it still to work with the timeline as we know it. This is also used to explain the incredibly long lives described in the bible (i.e. Abraham lived to be 175). Of course, if you really think about it that's terribly convoluted. By those standards, Abraham lived longer than it took the universe to form, and Jesus was crucified at the tender, prepubescent age of 33. Unless, of course, that "God's Time" actually means nothing, and it's just a way to patch together biblical fallacies so as to look logical. It's just one of those many, many things that stopped making sense once I started thinking for myself.

But of course, the burden of proof isn't on me... *polishes cosmic teapot*

You're assuming that if "day" is used one way in one part, it must be used the same way in every part. This fails to distinguish between different literary styles used in the Bible.

(July 8, 2012 at 7:44 am)CliveStaples Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 7:04 am)FallentoReason Wrote: My memory can be verified. I just ate dinner and to prove to myself that I did I can either open the fridge and see that food is gone or regurgitate what I just ate to prove to myself that this memory of eating did actually happen.

How do you know that the fridge didn't start out empty? And that your stomach didn't start with food?

...I'm sorry but this is getting a little ridiculous even for my free thinking mind.

Quote:No, it means that I don't think that what you've given is really evidence for the proposition "The universe wasn't created three seconds ago with the appearance of age".

And why should a mega young universe be the default view?

Quote:...uh, what? Why would I have to produce evidence for that? I have never claimed that such evidence exists.

Great, then it's settled; your argument is a baseless assertion therefore there's no need for me to have to prove it wrong if you can't even show me why it's plausible.

I don't understand how you can rationally hold that view if there's nothing to show for it?

(July 8, 2012 at 7:44 am)CliveStaples Wrote: How do you know that the fridge didn't start out empty? And that your stomach didn't start with food?

Because he's not a fucking prick, like you obviously are.

You can stop right there and take that philosobabble straight back to your church and your silly friends.

(July 8, 2012 at 7:53 am)FallentoReason Wrote: And why should a mega young universe be the default view?

...I didn't say it should be...

Quote:Great, then it's settled; your argument is a baseless assertion therefore there's no need for me to have to prove it wrong if you can't even show me why it's plausible.

My argument is this:

1) There is no evidence that "The universe did not come into existence three seconds ago with the appearance of age" which does not presuppose that it is true.

2) Therefore, under evidentialism we should decline to believe that "The universe did not come into existence three seconds ago with the appearance of age."


Now, as an atheist, you should understand the difference between declining to believe p and believing ~p.

Quote:I don't understand how you can rationally hold that view if there's nothing to show for it?

I don't hold the view that the universe can't be more than a minute old. I never claimed that the universe can't be more than a minute old.

...do you guys really not understand the difference between "I don't think there's evidence for p" and "p is false"?

You're atheists, for fuck's sake. This is precisely the difference between "I don't think there's evidence for God" and "I believe God doesn't exist."

---

(July 8, 2012 at 8:22 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Because he's not a fucking prick, like you obviously are.

You can stop right there and take that philosobabble straight back to your church and your silly friends.

That's the ad hominem fallacy. If you can't justify your beliefs, fine. Don't get pissy just because I point out that they're unjustified.

(July 8, 2012 at 8:29 am)CliveStaples Wrote: You're atheists, for fuck's sake. This is precisely the difference between "I don't think there's evidence for God" and "I believe God doesn't exist."

It is not a case of their being a difference between your two statements, it is a case of one leads to the other.

"There is no evidence for god" leads an atheist to a point where he concludes "based on that, I do not believe god exists"

This is simple, straightforward, fucking obvious to an atheist, and surely can't be hard to grasp.

It is also not irrational and not illogical.

---

(July 8, 2012 at 8:29 am)CliveStaples Wrote: That's the ad hominem fallacy. If you can't justify your beliefs, fine. Don't get pissy just because I point out that they're unjustified.

I wasn't justifying my lack of beliefs or trying to, I was calling you a prick, because you were being one.

CliveStaples Wrote:Therefore, under evidentialism we should decline to believe that "The universe did not come into existence three seconds ago with the appearance of age."

The evidentialist will point you to the countless experiments done to show the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

(July 8, 2012 at 8:55 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

CliveStaples Wrote:Therefore, under evidentialism we should decline to believe that "The universe did not come into existence three seconds ago with the appearance of age."

The evidentialist will point you to the countless experiments done to show the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Don't even entertain this silly man. He knows he is giving you stupid arguments and thinks it makes him cleverer than you.

(July 8, 2012 at 8:55 am)FallentoReason Wrote: The evidentialist will point you to the countless experiments done to show the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

???

It's like you aren't even paying attention.

How does the evidentialist know the outcome of those experiments? He or she must assume that her memory of them is reliable.

How does the evidentialist know that the universe didn't come into existence three seconds ago--complete with the evidentialist's memories of countless experiments?

The evidentialist, in citing that evidence, is making certain assumptions about the continuity of history and the accuracy of his or her memory. I am asking how the evidentialist justifies these assumptions.

---

(July 8, 2012 at 9:02 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Don't even entertain this silly man. He knows he is giving you stupid arguments and thinks it makes him cleverer than you.

I don't think I'm 'cleverer' than anyone else here. I'm just asking for justifications for your guys' assumptions. Isn't that what atheists are supposed to be about? Critically examining beliefs, and the assumptions they are based on?

Why is it that you are so resistant to critically evaluating your own beliefs?

---

(July 8, 2012 at 8:34 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: It is not a case of their being a difference between your two statements, it is a case of one leads to the other.

"There is no evidence for god" leads an atheist to a point where he concludes "based on that, I do not believe god exists"

This is simple, straightforward, fucking obvious to an atheist, and surely can't be hard to grasp.

It is also not irrational and not illogical.

???

You missed my point. I said that "There is no evidence for X" is different than "X is false." Or, to use your language, "I don't believe in God" is different from "I believe there is no God."

This is simple, straightforward, fucking obvious to any atheist, and surely can't be hard to grasp.

Why are you playing dumb?

(July 8, 2012 at 8:29 am)CliveStaples Wrote: I wasn't justifying my lack of beliefs or trying to, I was calling you a prick, because you were being one.

More ad hominem. Can you justify your beliefs, or not?