science makes case for god
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2015, 01:02 PM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2015 01:05 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: science makes case for god
"Atheism is a religion. It's a religion of self where man makes himself God."
It is not. At ALL. Atheists don't even think in those terms. Those are totally theist terms. No one cares about upstaging his gods. (It is HIS god he's talking about, right. Somehow it always is HIS god, not Allah, not Baal, not Isis, not Osiris, not Yahweh's wife Ashera, I suspect.

"Man is the final arbiter of right and wrong, not a creator."
Does he have any clue how many times morality CHANGED in the Bible ? His god said it was ok to kill innocent children rape women, and stone disobedient children. THAT's the "arbiter" he thinks he wants ? At what point does he declare him a FINAL arbiter, in her ever-changing holy books ? (Jesus said he had more to reveal to his disciples that they "could not bear now" / How does HE know what that was ?

"Atheism has a belief in self."
Completely false. It is a dismissal of the notions of a god. What people fill that in with is varied, and vast.

"Show me the atheist that knows EVERYTHING there is to know about quantum physics, string theory, electronics, electricity, magnetism, solar activity, nuclear power, and on and on and on."
If he knew all that, would HE be willing to get rid of the god idea ? If no, then the argument is made in bad faith.

"Yet the atheist will arrogantly say he KNOWS there is no God though he knows less than 1/1,000,000,000 of the world around him. The atheist that admits he knows NOTHING about string theory, yet says he absolutely KNOWS there is no God, is not only a fool, he's delusional. He may not want to BELIEVE there is a God, but to flat out say there is no God when it's easily provable that he knows very little about the world around him just shows the arrogance of the atheist."
There is no coherent definition of what the word "god" means, so there is no way of knowing what he's even talking about.

"To KNOW there is no God, a person must know EVERYTHING there is to know in the world and outside of it...which would make him a god. No wonder atheists hate be called on this."
There is no point there. Does HE need to know everything to dismiss the notion there is no teapot orbiting Pluto ? Atheists don't give a shit about that point, as he has none that was made.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
03-01-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: science makes case for god
I've responded to him using some of the points posted here. I'm waiting for his response. I'm sure he's searching for answers. This is going to be a long thread. His ego is to big to stop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 02:29 PM
RE: science makes case for god
I am atheist and I don't KNOW that there is no god. I can say that I don't give a shit if there is a god ... and I equally don't give a shit if there isn't a god.

God is irrelevant.

That old fart needs to get on with his life or he's bound to miss out on something good... like really living. He might start by not judging others; he's not very observant and his assessment of others is inaccurate.

Just my opinion. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: science makes case for god
So here is the first of 3 replies:

BS. Now you're putting words in Krauss' mouth coz you got caught. You went out and found a physicist that supposedly denounced this article scientifically...and then when you found out that all he did was denounce the WRITER of the article you tried to cover, as he did, with BS and flotsam.

Krauss scientifically disproved NOTHING in the article, all he did was answer with his OPINION which many other scientists, as I mentioned, slapped down. That's not science.

You chose Klauss, so defend him on the merits of what he argued, his supposed scientific rebuttal of the article.

Krauss didn't refute the facts of the article, as he pretended to, he simply didn't like who was making the point so he did character assassination on the author while pretending he was answering his points, which he wasn't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 03:13 PM
RE: science makes case for god
Second reply:

Krauss is only saying that we have a given set of conditions here so the life we find here relies on those conditions (So he doesn't deny the 200 conditions needed HERE to exist, which was the original premise of his reason for writing the rebuttal).

if different conditions exist "elsewhere" (where is elsewhere...he's changed the argument, now),

(or if they had existed here) ---now you've changed the argument by putting words in Kraus's' mouth because he was very specific in acknowledging above, that he allowed those conditions for earth. Otherwise your theory of what Kraus's means is that everything is fluid , changing, un-provable, and therefore UNSCIENTIFIC, and can never be accounted for. An atheist's wet dream, if the facts don't support you than just say it must have been something else, (a different, heretofore unknown and unknowable condition. That way you can never be wrong. If your answer falls apart, as Kraus's' does, then just say it must be something else that nobody has figured out yet. The point to be gleaned is this, when the facts don't support you, as they don't support Kraus's, then change the narrative, come up with a different story. Get the person (me) off point of the original reasoning, argue something else, move the goal posts.

"then maybe there would be no life and maybe there would be different life."

Don't lose sight of the above. Kraus's started out trying to deny the article and now, after the facts don't support him, he's back to MAYBE this MAYBE that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 03:16 PM
RE: science makes case for god
Third responce:

Every time the evidence takes an atheist to a Creator, they veer off and try to find another answer, just like you're doing. It doesn't matter how many times I disprove one of your atheist scientists' THEORIES, you don't acknowledge that they're mistaken, you just dump that argument and then go and find someone else that has your beliefs, in the hope that one day you can find someone, somewhere, that can trip me or any other creationist up. You don't care if I can disprove 1000 scientists as long as you can find the one I can't answer. Discarding the 1000 for the one is not following the evidence, it's finding or fabricating the outcome you desire.

If atheists were following the EVIDENCE, they'd rule out NOTHING, not even God, and allow the evidence to direct and steer them.

That's not the case though. Atheists AUTOMATICALLY refuse to believe in a God, and intelligent designer (unless it's an alien). 

By denying God, they are NOT following the evidence, because they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of a God. 

As I've shown the sophistry of Kraus's' arguments you've never once (to this point) acknowledged that he was a poor example, you just continue to try and support his premises, now on hypothetical arguments...not on evidence. 

And that's the bottom line, Kraus's has no EVIDENCE, he has conjecture and hypothesis that you want to believe. You aren't following evidence, you're following emotion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 03:17 PM
RE: science makes case for god
Whether Krauss is right or wrong is irrelevant. He simply pointed out to the WSJ how stupid it was to have a non-scientist try to argue science about religion.
THAT is the point here.
Atheism does not hang on Lawrence Krauss.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 03:21 PM
RE: science makes case for god
What Krauss said is that, since we are on Earth, we can understand and talk about the factors and requirements for life on Earth. But even on Earth, not every life form requires the same things to live, right? So it's not absurd to think that life in other parts of the universe might require completely different things than us.

Bacteria and viruses don't need air to live. You do.
Plants only need water and the sun, you need much more, that is not sufficient.

I can go on but you get the point. However this is more evidence that "we are tuned to the environment" than the opposite. We have evolved to fit the environment, and not that the environment was created appositely for us.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 03:45 PM
RE: science makes case for god
(03-01-2015 03:11 PM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  Krauss didn't refute the facts of the article, as he pretended to, he simply didn't like who was making the point so he did character assassination on the author while pretending he was answering his points, which he wasn't.

There are no "facts" to rebut in the article. Not one.
It's a pile of "god of the gaps" garbage.

"We don't know yet .... therefore gawd".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 03:52 PM
RE: science makes case for god
(03-01-2015 03:16 PM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  And that's the bottom line, Kraus's has no EVIDENCE, he has conjecture and hypothesis that you want to believe. You aren't following evidence, you're following emotion.

He is partially accurate in this. Kraus doesn't have much in the way of hard evidence. Nobody does. We simply don't know all of the conditions that may or may not be required for life to exist. We don't know what the odds are. And that was Kraus' point.

The bottom line is that nobody knows the answer to this question so when a religious-leaning opinion writer states that "Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God" he isn't following the evidence, he is following wishful thinking. And so is your father-in-law.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: