Positive Atheism

[Violet]

I know it!

Scientology

[theVOID]

Void,

Thanks for you post. I think I understand your answer to my question but I do not think everything is as well settled as people portray it here.

The success of the predictions speak for themselves, yes there are holes in the working model but they don't affect the general structure of solar systems.

Furthermore, it all still does seem to require the materialistic and uniformitarian presuppositions I mentioned before which are unproveable

The reason they use materialistic presuppositions is because there is not a single instance of influence on the formation of solar systems that cannot be accounted for through materialistic mechanism and therefore assuming some supernatural cause, even though not a single person who happens to believe in such things can offer any framework of just what effects these supernatural influences will cause nor any testable predictions based on a supernatural component that can be used to verify of falsify their claims, there is absolutely zero benefit in assuming such a thing exists.

Until it is demonstrated that such a thing has an effect on the formation of the solar system or the cosmos in general there is no reason for anyone working in the field of astrophysics to assume it is true, it will simply lead to a free-for-all of "insert your personal favorite yet utterly untestable and unspecific supernatural conclusion here" - which is what we have already done for thousands of years in the form of religion and we have gotten no closer to understanding the universe at all because of it.

(which you did not appear to deny but instead appeared to justify....I am not complaining/arguing here just noting. I still think everyone has presuppositions that they use to interpret the world and that is where the differences in thinking come in. Once we recognize these, it makes it easier to understand another's point of view.). So while it has certainly not changed my view of things I do appreciate the exchange and I may have more questions for you in the future.

No because your view of things is My ancient book > The observable universe - i don't really expect you to change your opinion based on facts when you are so heavily invested in a world view that is utterly incompatible with the what we actually know - the only thing you can do is invent doubt where none exists in order to reach the footing where you can proclaim no side is certain and then cling to your god myth as if they are intellectually equal positions - which to me seems to be a social issue more than anything else, i am betting that a large part of your family and congregation are anti anything that contradicts the bible even though many, many Christians have no problem accepting solar formation, something as real as the computer you are looking at right now, so this is hardly an intellectual incompatibility and more of a fear of rejection by a hard-line regiment of friends and family that have taken an absolute position on the Bible for personal ideological reason rather than any verified truth - apologies if that is inaccurate though.

[fr0d0]

How about the theists write a new book that doesn't contradict logic and science... oh wait, that's a tuffy!

They did already with the old book. Just some idiots want to read it as a book of science rather than a book of philosophy.

[Pippy]

Absolutely correct, and well put.

Science and religion can co-exist perfectly, and it is an illusion fed by Dawkins that they cannot.

There are times when they don't, but it isn't like either you beleive in science or the Bible.

And you guys seems to forget how many holy books there are. Does the Tao Te Ching make incorrect scientific statements? How about the Dharma?

thanks,
-Pip

[fr0d0]

Guilty Pip, I never consider anything else. Shame on me!

[Edwardo Piet]

Dawkins rejects NOMA I think because he believes religion is anti-science, because he believes that what reason is there to believe in God if there's evolution? Sure, you can have God starting up the process of evolution and then sitting back and watching it unfold, but that does seem to be kind of gratuitously smuggling him in, etc., etc..

Something like that I think - I haven't read TGD for a while. Shame on me lol.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

How about the theists write a new book that doesn't contradict logic and science... oh wait, that's a tuffy!

They did already with the old book. Just some idiots want to read it as a book of science rather than a book of philosophy.

So there is no relevance from biblical account to natural phenomena whatsoever? These are all just philosophies untestable to nature. There is no relevance of biblical account on:
- evolution, animals, biodiversity, ecosystems,
- earth, plate tektonics, dinosaurs,
- mind, intelligence, brain, identity, perception
- the human body, DNA, medical treatment, cancer cures, vaccination
- language, social structures, slavery, architecture, art
- space, time, energy, matter, radiation
- planets, stars, galaxies, the universe
- law, accounting, economics, water management, the historicity of jesus

Tell me about it!

[fr0d0]

You sound surprised Rabbit.

[Purple Rabbit]

You sound surprised Rabbit.

Well, no not really. It's the ultimate consequence of NOMA that religion has no bearing on anything that matters since whatever the phenomena is, if it has any relevance on our reality it is a candidate subject for science. The more science studies, the smaller the pie for religion gets. It has been this way for a long time and I see no reason why this should turn around.

[fr0d0]

...and then you fall straight back into the trap: some idiots want to read it as a book of science rather than a book of philosophy