Stump the Christian?

[Randy Carson]

But science provides the answers to everything...so, a question that science cannot answer is a nonsensical question.

If science is all-powerful, can it make a rock so big that even it can't lift it?

---

You're constantly arguing the god of the gaps argument without even knowing it. It's as old as humanity and therefore fails to impress. In the olden days, folks looked up to the sky and saw the sun. They didn't know what it was and so the called it a god. They saw the moon and didn't know what it was and called it a god. They saw lightning and didn't know what it was, so it had to be an enraged god.

Today we know a whole lot more. The fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean there's a god required. It only means, we don't know - yet.

I'm familiar with the "god-of-the-gaps" objection, and since you guys have "done it all before", I'm sure you're equally familiar with the "science-of-the-gaps" fallacy.

Interestingly, though, just a few posts earlier, JennyA. opined that there are questions which science will never answer.

But that doesn't seem to stop some from assuming that or behaving as if it will eventually.

They've simply placed their faith in a different god.

[Ravenshire]

What is your evidence the universe did?

I'm no expert, but the following information is easily found with Google:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics suggests that the universe is running out of energy and that a universe which had no beginning would have run out of energy already.

 
Additionally, three leading cosmologists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, have proved that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history, cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. This also applies to multiverses – if there is such a thing. Vilenkin said,
 
“This means that scientists “can no longer hide behind a past eternal-universe. There is no escape; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

So, you've found one of the competing theories. Good for you. Here's another.

The fact is, no one knows. Scientists, unlike the religious, are not trying to make absolute claims where they know the evidence doesn't support them.

[Ravenshire]

They've simply placed their faith in a different god.

No, they've simply aligned their belief with the evidence.

[abaris]

Interestingly, though, just a few posts earlier, JennyA. opined that there are questions which science will never answer.

To which I say, she's right. Since, to our knowledge, we can't beat the speed of light, there simply are areas we will never be able to explore.

Got a problem with that? We won't known everything. Not in our lifetime, probably not in a very long time and maybe forever. So tell me, why does it need a god to simply say, we don't know?

I mean, other than being the equivalent of a Stone Age guy looking at the sun and needing an explanation.

[Crossless2.0]

Here is a link to Dawkins' entire speech that the Wiki quote poorly referenced:
https://ladydifadden.wordpress.com/2012/...ally-2012/

For those interested I think you'll find Dawkins' comments a bit different than previously characterized, particularly this bit:


Here is the 'mocking' comment with a bit more context:


So when somebody makes a claim that transubstantiation is real, but offers no support for the claim, why shouldn't it be mocked? It's patently ridiculous. The defense given is that I should ignore it for the sake of entertaining the entire worldview, which despite being burdened with absurdities, somehow becomes reasonable from a broad perspective. What Dawkins understands, that is being tiptoed around here, is that people that have no problem believing they're eating a piece of Jesus every weekend cannot be expected to be persuaded through rational debate. You have said as much yourself in that some may reevaluate specific points, but should never be expected to give up the ghost.

The context doesn't change my point much. The final sentence you pasted still calls for "ridiculed with contempt" "if necessary. What does that mean? Is there a line where things like transubstantiation crosses but belief in God or heaven does not so no ridicule required or is everything to be ridiculed because it starts with the absurd notion that God exists? 

BTW, I don't believe the Catholic church's teaching on that either (which was internally developed and not from the Bible). It is obviously symbolic. 

You're constantly arguing the god of the gaps argument without even knowing it. It's as old as humanity and therefore fails to impress. In the olden days, folks looked up to the sky and saw the sun. They didn't know what it was and so the called it a god. They saw the moon and didn't know what it was and called it a god. They saw lightning and didn't know what it was, so it had to be an enraged god.

Today we know a whole lot more. The fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean there's a god required. It only means, we don't know - yet.

I'm familiar with the "god-of-the-gaps" objection, and since you guys have "done it all before", I'm sure you're equally familiar with the "science-of-the-gaps" fallacy.

Interestingly, though, just a few posts earlier, JennyA. opined that there are questions which science will never answer.

But that doesn't seem to stop some from assuming that or behaving as if it will eventually.

They've simply placed their faith in a different god.

Oh, bullshit.  Opining that science may (or perhaps never will) answer every question is not the same as embracing a god.  Far from it: it's called agnosticism.  And good luck finding anyone who will seriously argue that science can resolve all questions.  Once you're done stroking that straw man, you might want to find out what people really think about the question.

[Esquilax]

I'm familiar with the "god-of-the-gaps" objection, and since you guys have "done it all before", I'm sure you're equally familiar with the "science-of-the-gaps" fallacy.

Yes, we're pretty familiar with the childish, petulant, and ill-fitting reversals that christians like you tend to throw out when painted into a corner; it's essentially a grown adult going "nuh uh! You are!"

Perhaps you're familiar with the tu coque fallacy, which is what you're committing here if you're right?

[Simon Moon]

I'm familiar with the "god-of-the-gaps" objection, and since you guys have "done it all before", I'm sure you're equally familiar with the "science-of-the-gaps" fallacy.

Interestingly, though, just a few posts earlier, JennyA. opined that there are questions which science will never answer.

But that doesn't seem to stop some from assuming that or behaving as if it will eventually.

They've simply placed their faith in a different god.


Bloody hell, you are pretty clueless. 

Scientists are one of the most humble groups there are. If you ever attended a science conference, you would constantly hear the scientists using language like the following, "I am sure there are people in the audience that know more about subject X than me, so please jump  in with corrections as needed", or, "it seems that our studies and evidence pointing to X being tentatively correct, but please, run your own studies and prove us wrong", or "based on our previous evidence, we thought X was correct, but further studies by [list of scientists] have proved us wrong".

There is never any claims of absolute certainty. All conclusions in science are considered tentative and provisional, and will be modified or dropped if new evidence is found.

Where is the faith? 

[Ravenshire]

Bloody hell, you are pretty clueless. 

Scientists are one of the most humble groups there are. If you ever attended a science conference, you would constantly hear the scientists using language like the following, "I am sure there are people in the audience that know more about subject X than me, so please jump  in with corrections as needed", or, "it seems that our studies and evidence pointing to X being tentatively correct, but please, run your own studies and prove us wrong", or "based on our previous evidence, we thought X was correct, but further studies by [list of scientists] have proved us wrong".

There is never any claims of absolute certainty. All conclusions in science are considered tentative and provisional, and will be modified or dropped if new evidence is found.

Where is the faith? 

I'm pretty sure it's the laymen he's claiming are "placing faith" in science. Funny that the worst insult a theist can come up with is to be exactly like him.

[dyresand]

What is your evidence the universe did?

Is the universe infinite?

What is a singularity?

Was all matter compressed into a space smaller than the size of a sub-atomic particle?

What caused it to change?

---

composition fallacy, fallacy of equivocation and general idiocy, for starters

a quick search on the forums alone would've told you that and much more.

Oh, general idiocy.

Yeah, I overlooked that. Never mind. 

---

Science is a set of very successful methods for determining the truth about the real world.  Scientists have made great progress using the scientific method both in understanding and technology.  But scientists have not answered all questions and there are questions they will never answer.  And it is better to know that you do not have an answer than to pretend that you do.

And it is your contention that Christians are pretending to have answers that they do not really have. 

Is it possible that they have a few to those questions that science will never answer?

If you are religious you are playing pretend. You believe you have the universal answers and that all other religions are wrong because you so happen to believe in the one major religion because the culture you raised in believes in it so it has to be true. One thing christianity is not true it never was why do you think there is a sudden shift in religion more and more people peoples light bulbs are going off like. Oh hey the bible it makes no fucking sense. 

[Randy Carson]

Oh, good.

You've done this before. 

That means the two of you should be able to provide really clear, concise refutations.

Please do.

composition fallacy, fallacy of equivocation and general idiocy, for starters

a quick search on the forums alone would've told you that and much more.

Composition Fallacy?

The argument is in the classic form Modus ponens:

P implies Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.

1. All men are mortal. (Everything that begins has a cause.)
2. Socrates was a man. (The universe began.)
3. Therefore, Socrates is moral. (Therefore, the universe has a cause.)

The argument does not imply that because some things in the universe have a cause, therefore the whole universe must have a cause. Instead, the premises are argued as follows:

Regarding the first premise:

1. Something cannot come from nothing.
   
2. If something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything does not come into being from nothing. If the universe can come into being out of nothing, why not root beer? Or bowling balls? And why don't they appear out of nothing at random?
   
3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise one of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. (This is an example of the type of inductive reasoning that undergirds all of science.)
   

Regarding the second premise:

1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that if the universe had existed forever, it would have run out of energy long ago.
   
2. Modern cosmologists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, have proved that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history, cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. This also applies to multiverses – if there is such a thing. Vilenkin said,
   

“This means that scientists “can no longer hide behind a past eternal-universe. There is no escape; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

The Fallacy of Equivocation?

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word is used in two different ways as follows:

1. Socrates was Greek.
2. Greek is a language.
3. Therefore, Socrates is a language.

However, in the Kalam Argument, God is the efficient cause of the universe, not the material cause. Here is another example:

Michaelangelo is the efficient cause of the statue, "David". The material cause of the statue is the block of marble.

Further, "begins to exist" means "comes into being". Thus, the Kalam argument may also be stated:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe came into being.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

In the Kalam argument, there simply is no equivocation.