Who else hates evangelical atheists?

[Ero Elohim]

So the solution to this perceived preposterous-ness is to believe something even more preposterous (an invisible spaghetti monster in the sky did it)? Either complexity cannot come into existence on its own and God would need an explanation (him being more complex then our current complexity) leading to infinite regress, or complexity can come into existence on its own and you don't need God for our current complexity.

That may be the most succinct argument against Creationism I've ever heard. I'm going to steal it from you and stash it away for a rainy day.

[Graveworm]

That may be the most succinct argument against Creationism I've ever heard. I'm going to steal it from you and stash it away for a rainy day.

If your interested in reading more, there is an entire chapter on that argument in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. That being said, it is more a counter-argument to one specific argument for creationism than it is an argument against creationism as a whole.

[VKhaun]

Because I want it on the 5th page lol

[ofrm1]

Unproven theoretical math is faith. Like a million monkeys given an infinite amount of time will eventually write war and piece by randomly banging the keys of typewriters. In theory that's true, but the amount of time that would be required for such an event to be mathematically certain is obscene. Since that effect can't be observed or even simulated in any way it is faith regardless of what you want to call it.

The Poincare' Recurrence Time for the quantum state of an unmeasured box filled with the mass of the entire universe is 10^10^10^10^10^1.1. This is a state of affairs which is almost infinitely more improbable than the Poincare' Recurrence Time you cited.

You're equivocating. You're using the word "proven" in a context which no one else uses it. The Poincare' Recurrence Theorem has been proven.

Your position is one of naive empiricism, presumably to put complex maths on the same order as faith in order to weigh both sides as 50/50 probability. They're not. Here's the proof for the Poincare' Recurrence Theorem.

http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=6035

Merely contending that one must witness an event for it to be considered "proven" is a position that no scientist and definitely no philosopher would support. Karl Popper would be rolling around in his grave.

[VKhaun]

EDIT--

The more I edit this post the more I have to agree with M and I hate that. I have been the guy defending the monkey's banging out Shakespeare before and it kills me that I was wrong.

We expect things to work a certain way when they are 'random'.
That's why we think the monkeys would get every outcome.

You think true random is a sound principle because the monkeys are just an example scaled upwards of things you take for granted as true with no reason to draw a line anywhere separating improbable from impossible. But those smaller examples like flipping coins and RNG's are based on faith and theory as well. We allow ourselves to be inaccurate and get 50/50 results, or we base a program around larger data sets coming out as expected and just shuffling the order in which they are displayed. For practical purposes this works. Anything we can't leave to chance, we don't. But at larger scales it seems like we take it for granted that we're right when we don't really know how something would behave if it were truly random.

Or at least that's where my head is now.

Is there a mathematical proof of something being random? Is there anything known to science that is truly random, rather than simply something we know the odds of but can't predict each event and so we write if off as random?

[Marou]

EDIT--

The more I edit this post the more I have to agree with M and I hate that. I have been the guy defending the monkey's banging out Shakespeare before and it kills me that I was wrong.

We expect things to work a certain way when they are 'random'.
That's why we think the monkeys would get every outcome.

You think true random is a sound principle because the monkeys are just an example scaled upwards of things you take for granted as true with no reason to draw a line anywhere separating improbable from impossible. But those smaller examples like flipping coins and RNG's are based on faith and theory as well. We allow ourselves to be inaccurate and get 50/50 results, or we base a program around larger data sets coming out as expected and just shuffling the order in which they are displayed. For practical purposes this works. Anything we can't leave to chance, we don't. But at larger scales it seems like we take it for granted that we're right when we don't really know how something would behave if it were truly random.

Or at least that's where my head is now.

Is there a mathematical proof of something being random? Is there anything known to science that is truly random, rather than simply something we know the odds of but can't predict each event and so we write if off as random?

These problems are relevant to my day to day life.

Godel's incompleteness theorum

tldr, "The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency."

Another way of looking at it is, since the universe is deterministic we can't "proof" random. Needs for random settle for "good enough" instead of true random. Accepting that random things happen without causation is an act of faith since all of science is built around understanding the ways in which things aren't "random". If you can't accept that, you also have faith.

[Random Havoc]

That may be the most succinct argument against Creationism I've ever heard. I'm going to steal it from you and stash it away for a rainy day.

This is not a new argument, as Graveworm pointed out, Richard Dawkins called it the 'The Perfect 747' argument in The God Delusion. But it is better known as 'Turtles all the way Down', in reference to a famous anecdote about what is supporting a flat earth. However, infinite regression has been used on both sides of the Creationism debate, Creationist get past the argument by simply stating that God is exempt, since he created everything he is outside his creation and doesn't have to follow the complexity without cause 'rule'. But if you are going to just state things by fiat, why not skip God and claim the universe is exempt from the 'rule', seems easier.

[Marou]

The Poincare' Recurrence Time for the quantum state of an unmeasured box filled with the mass of the entire universe is 10^10^10^10^10^1.1. This is a state of affairs which is almost infinitely more improbable than the Poincare' Recurrence Time you cited.

You're equivocating. You're using the word "proven" in a context which no one else uses it. The Poincare' Recurrence Theorem has been proven.

Your position is one of naive empiricism, presumably to put complex maths on the same order as faith in order to weigh both sides as 50/50 probability. They're not. Here's the proof for the Poincare' Recurrence Theorem.

http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=6035

Merely contending that one must witness an event for it to be considered "proven" is a position that no scientist and definitely no philosopher would support. Karl Popper would be rolling around in his grave.

The Poincare' Recurrence Theorem is useless in practical applications. It also violates the second law of thermodynamics and so cannot be applied to the *physical* universe. If you used it to calculate the odds of me existing and typing this message at this point in spacetime it would represent numbers so large as so approach infinite, and you'd haveto ignore entropy. If you must abandon evidence, scientific laws, and testable hypotheses to make a statement, that statement is one of faith, not empirical evidence.

Besides which, if you want to use completely flaky speculative math the odds of one intelligent being derived from chaos soup are significantly higher than the odds of us being here.

/edit tldr: The statement that thermodynamic equilibrium or nothing at all will eventually coalesce into a universe *but nothing else* is a statement of faith that is not backed by any science.

[ofrm1]

The Poincare' Recurrence Theorem is useless in practical applications.

Which is utterly irrelevant to whether or not it's true.

It also violates the second law of thermodynamics and so cannot be applied to the *physical* universe.

So your solution to the problem is to ignore the one you don't like and wash your hands of the contradiction? Sorry, logic doesn't work that way.

If you used it to calculate the odds of me existing and typing this message at this point in spacetime it would represent numbers so large as so approach infinite, and you'd haveto ignore entropy.

1) The odds of that state of affairs would be much much smaller than the number I posted. That number will always be far smaller than infinite.
2) You seem to be under the impression that because something is nearly infinitely improbable, that it somehow becomes irrelevant. No one cares about naive empiricism, so your criterion that everything must be demonstrable via science or it is faith is merely your bias towards approaching truth.

If you must abandon evidence, scientific laws, and testable hypotheses to make a statement, that statement is one of faith, not empirical evidence.

Faith does not exist in absence of empirical evidence, it exists in absence of logical proof. There is a reason that logical proofs have always been on a higher order of epistemological ground than evidence ever will be. For the simple reason that evidence has always relied upon sensation which is subject to induction and therefore error and logic does not. You will never be able to derive deductive validity and soundness from evidence. All you can do is derive a working system of probability which points to uniformity in said system. In the end, all evidence, scientific laws and testable hypotheses are nothing more than inductive reasoning abstracted from sense data that you have collected.

Besides which, if you want to use completely flaky speculative math the odds of one intelligent being derived from chaos soup are significantly higher than the odds of us being here.

You do understand that the Poincare' Recurrence Theorem has not been deemed unsound in the 122 years it has been around, right? Further, your conception of god seems to be decidedly different than the one that most people accept. One with attributes like omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc. You seem to be considering god as an intelligent being that arose out of the big bang and is, presumably subject to the physical laws of the universe.

/edit tldr: The statement that thermodynamic equilibrium or nothing at all will eventually coalesce into a universe *but nothing else* is a statement of faith that is not backed by any science.

A statement does not require science's approval in order for said statement to not be faith. A statement requires reason to not be faith.

I'm going to guess you're a scientist based on how you approach what you consider truth and what isn't truth.

[Random Havoc]

There is a reason that logical proofs have always been on a higher order of epistemological ground than evidence ever will be.

Since logic and reason have its limits too, we are really fucked (in the ultimate truth department)!

[Marou]

You are essentially using religious arguments against me. The theorem you tried to hack into the conversation has no application in the real universe where entropy exists. I'm cool with someone saying they "reason" that there is no supreme being. I'm inclined to agree, I've seen no evidence of such. However, science can never explain everything when it's based on axioms that don't exist in nothing.

Science explores causality to try and explain why something works like it does, or is what it is. It can't answer the original cause and reason doesn't exist in the face of true chaos, which is purely an abstract concept since our universe isn't random, it's all subject to causality. Things that aren't subject to causality aren't falsifiable and so are not scientific. Events that occur outside of causality in *reality* would be referred to as "supernatural".

Axioms don't exist in void, and new physical laws have not been observed to spontaneously coalesce.

In order to be certain of the existence or non-existence of deities one must embrace magical thinking. Everyone here is engaging in religious thinking to some degree, unless they just don't care and accept that it is outside of their scope to comprehend chaos, void, and how or why axioms would form out of void. This is where reason ceases to be reasonable and belief in a deity is just as rational as disbelief.

Basically, what Random said.

[ofrm1]

You are essentially using religious arguments against me. The theorem you tried to hack into the conversation has no application in the real universe where entropy exists.

First, I didn't "hack" the theorem into the conversation. You're the one who brought up The Poincare' Recurrence Theorem with your analogy of monkeys recreating shakespeare. It's precisely the same concept.
Secondly, I'm not using a religious argument at all, so I'm unsure about what you mean.

I'm cool with someone saying they "reason" that there is no supreme being. I'm inclined to agree, I've seen no evidence of such. However, science can never explain everything when it's based on axioms that don't exist in nothing.

I never said that science could explain everything. Further, almost no rational atheist would make the claim "there is no god." The claim is "I lack a belief in a god."

My only issue with what you said is you putting maths that don't have a real world application on the same level as faith. Faith is not determined by a lack of evidence. There is a ton of literature on what faith is and is not.

Science explores causality to try and explain why something works like it does, or is what it is. It can't answer the original cause and reason doesn't exist in the face of true chaos, which is purely an abstract concept since our universe isn't random, it's all subject to causality. Things that aren't subject to causality aren't falsifiable and so are not scientific. Events that occur outside of causality in *reality* would be referred to as "supernatural".

Reason has always and will always exist. This is the problem that most scientists make. They don't understand modality. No matter what condition you think of, certain logical proofs; tautologies specifically are true independent of the condition or even existence of the universe. A bachelor is an unmarried male whether or not a universe exists for said bachelor to exist.

Axioms don't exist in void, and new physical laws have not been observed to spontaneously coalesce.

Again, you're not taking into account modal claims which assume all possible worlds including no world. In the case of no world, a bachelor is still an unmarried male and the classical laws of thought still operate as they do in this world. Modal logic operates irrespective of energy or physical laws. It is conceptual and based off the syntax of statements.

In order to be certain of the existence or non-existence of deities one must embrace magical thinking. Everyone here is engaging in religious thinking to some degree, unless they just don't care and accept that it is outside of their scope to comprehend chaos, void, and how or why axioms would form out of void. This is where reason ceases to be reasonable and belief in a deity is just as rational as disbelief.

Here I believe is the crux of our disagreement. You believe I'm arguing for some "absolute certainty" for mathematics or logic which I'm not. Absolute certainty is a red herring that doesn't exist. That doesn't mean axioms like the classical laws of thought are not valid and sound.

If your ultimate point is that axioms are ultimately unexamined because you simply must accept them, then everything is taken on faith which is sophistry. On some level, you must accept the laws of thought or you cannot have a discussion. You can't even make a logical point as they are the basis for making claims. All that you could do it speak in tautologies or contradictions which is fruitless as they contain no sentential content.

TL/DR: I'm not arguing for absolute certainty because it doesn't exist. That said, requiring absolute certainty, otherwise faith, is absurd simply because everything would be based on faith which makes the term "faith" fundamentally worthless as it would be a tautology.

[Marou]

TL/DR: I'm not arguing for absolute certainty because it doesn't exist. That said, requiring absolute certainty, otherwise faith, is absurd simply because everything would be based on faith which makes the term "faith" fundamentally worthless as it would be a tautology.

You don't need absolute certainty, however we don't have enough falsifiable data to even form a reasonable guess about the beginnings of everything, which was my point. Specifically, people claiming to be atheists proselytizing religious people into a dogma of blinding trusting science. Science will never answer the question of creation, and a blind trust in experts is just as, if not more dangerous than a blind trust in religious leaders. Since most laymen's science information comes exclusively from very poorly written sensationalist news articles; until the average IQ is higher, or people are alot less lazy in their beliefs, this religious conversion is not a good thing.

[ofrm1]

You don't need absolute certainty, however we don't have enough falsifiable data to even form a reasonable guess about the beginnings of everything, which was my point.

Through the scientific method, I agree because it investigates and evaluates phenomena which will always reduce to a point in which phenomena didn't exist. Logic and reason do not.

I fail to see how conversion from religious to irreligious is not a good thing. Based upon the sample set that we have (our current knowledge to date), there is no evidence for the existence of god. While there is always a chance that god might exist, (universal claims can never be sufficiently supported) the odds of god's existence is not 50/50.

Atheism and Theism deal with the issue of belief. Agnosticism and Gnosticism deal with knowledge. Thus, I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't believe a god exists, but I'm ultimately unsure because we can never be absolutely certain about anything.

[Marou]

I fail to see how conversion from religious to irreligious is not a good thing. Based upon the sample set that we have (our current knowledge to date), there is no evidence for the existence of god. While there is always a chance that god might exist, (universal claims can never be sufficiently supported) the odds of god's existence is not 50/50.

Most people (not all) don't function well in a knowledge vacuum. By replacing something they can comprehend and accept (religion) with something they can't comprehend (advance sciences and math) or accept (no justice or purpose) you end up with people who place undeserved faith in anyone that makes claims backed up by obtuse language and mathematical symbols they will NEVER understand. Eg. They are stupider than they were before, more gullible, less moral, and more hedonistic.

Someone who naturally came to an agnostic or atheist way of thinking has a moral framework not dependent upon divines, and inherent skepticism. People lacking that framework and inherent skepticism *NEED* religion, and they will have religion whether gods are in it or not. As a result, they elevate anyone who can formulate a half-assed theory or speak as an "expert" to the status of high priest, speaking with infallibility because evangelical atheists are too daft and lazy to question statements that require effort to personally understand.

When speaking of religion people suspend common sense. When someone has a religious way of thinking and lacks religion they suspend common sense when it comes to social engineering, statistics, and science. That's not good for any of us and leads to very dysfunctional societies.

[ofrm1]

Most people (not all) don't function well in a knowledge vacuum. By replacing something they can comprehend and accept (religion) with something they can't comprehend (advance sciences and math) or accept (no justice or purpose) you end up with people who place undeserved faith in anyone that makes claims backed up by obtuse language and mathematical symbols they will NEVER understand. Eg. They are stupider than they were before, more gullible, less moral, and more hedonistic.

They're not stupider or more gullible than they were before as they'd simply be exchanging one non-answer for another. As far as being more or less moral, I'm not particularly interested in discussing whether secular ethics is more desirable than divine command theory as it's a total waste of time.

Someone who naturally came to an agnostic or atheist way of thinking has a moral framework not dependent upon divines, and inherent skepticism. People lacking that framework and inherent skepticism *NEED* religion, and they will have religion whether gods are in it or not. As a result, they elevate anyone who can formulate a half-assed theory or speak as an "expert" to the status of high priest, speaking with infallibility because evangelical atheists are too daft and lazy to question statements that require effort to personally understand.

Are you actually saying that people who come from a strongly religious background cannot change their worldview? Because if you are, you're simply wrong.

When speaking of religion people suspend common sense. When someone has a religious way of thinking and lacks religion they suspend common sense when it comes to social engineering, statistics, and science. That's not good for any of us and leads to very dysfunctional societies.

In every deconversion I have heard of, what invariably occurs is the person begins to question small inconsistencies within the bible and either inquires further or dismisses their doubt. If they inquire further, they may find an acceptable explanation for the inconsistency or they won't. If they don't, that inconsistency fuels further doubt by raising further inconsistencies and the dialectic; if you will; continues until they come to a point where their doubt is satisfied. Sometimes that implies deconverting from the particular denomination of christian they were to being a non-denominational, or further to a deist with a conception of a deity that doesn't interfere with the universe, or to pantheism or all the way to atheism. Understand that the people who deconvert already harbor a skeptical mentality as they are investigating the validity of their faith. I have been in literally thousands of discussions about religion over the last decade alone. I cannot recall a single fundamentalist christian I have convinced that didn't already display some semblance of skepticism in their discussion.

A snake-handling pentecostal that abandons his faith is not going to be operating under some religious heuristic that tells him how to act. By deconverting, he/she changes his/her entire outlook on life over the course of months/years as many social controversies are irrevocably linked to religion. Religion plays a powerful role in shaping our many beliefs and as your religiosity wanes, your political affiliation changes.

I don't have a problem with evangelical theists or atheists. If you believe you are right, say so. For too long there has not been an honest debate about religion and thankfully that is finally changing. If you honestly believe that your position is correct then the truth has nothing to fear from investigation.

[Marou]

They're not stupider or more gullible than they were before as they'd simply be exchanging one non-answer for another. As far as being more or less moral, I'm not particularly interested in discussing whether secular ethics is more desirable than divine command theory as it's a total waste of time.

Wrong, because new belief modules are being fed to them in realtime via propoganda, bad journalism, and would-be social engineers.

Are you actually saying that people who come from a strongly religious background cannot change their worldview? Because if you are, you're simply wrong.

No, I am saying that if nuanced logic eludes you and gestalt reasoning dominates *how you think* that is not going to change because your religious affiliation did.

In every deconversion I have heard of, what invariably occurs is the person begins to question small inconsistencies within the bible and either inquires further or dismisses their doubt. If they inquire further, they may find an acceptable explanation for the inconsistency or they won't. If they don't, that inconsistency fuels further doubt by raising further inconsistencies and the dialectic; if you will; continues until they come to a point where their doubt is satisfied. Sometimes that implies deconverting from the particular denomination of christian they were to being a non-denominational, or further to a deist with a conception of a deity that doesn't interfere with the universe, or to pantheism or all the way to atheism. Understand that the people who deconvert already harbor a skeptical mentality as they are investigating the validity of their faith. I have been in literally thousands of discussions about religion over the last decade alone. I cannot recall a single fundamentalist christian I have convinced that didn't already display some semblance of skepticism in their discussion.

You are part of the problem.

A snake-handling pentecostal that abandons his faith is not going to be operating under some religious heuristic that tells him how to act. By deconverting, he/she changes his/her entire outlook on life over the course of months/years as many social controversies are irrevocably linked to religion. Religion plays a powerful role in shaping our many beliefs and as your religiosity wanes, your political affiliation changes.

Someone who was a snake handling pentecostal to begin with lacks the ability to reason clearly. They will buy into anything that sounds good from anyone that makes a concerted effort to convince them. A sucker is born every minute they say, you may be able to take the religion out of the sucker but you are left with a sucker that then doesn't have any other filter to apply to determine whether or not ideas they endorse are moronic or amoral. They will eventually end up worshiping scientists, the state, or a more extreme religion or cult.

I don't have a problem with evangelical theists or atheists. If you believe you are right, say so. For too long there has not been an honest debate about religion and thankfully that is finally changing. If you honestly believe that your position is correct then the truth has nothing to fear from investigation.

There is nothing honest about it, it's intellectual dishonesty versus intellectual dishonesty and one blind faith exchanged for another. You are missing a key point about people converted in such a way, they don't believe in your arguments because they understand them. They believe in you, and you make them feel stupid. Many modern atheists are people seeking a position of intellectual superiority by parroting arguments and science they don't understand in the slightest.

[Sillywilly]

So the solution to this perceived preposterous-ness is to believe something even more preposterous (an invisible spaghetti monster in the sky did it)? Either complexity cannot come into existence on its own and God would need an explanation (him being more complex then our current complexity) leading to infinite regress, or complexity can come into existence on its own and you don't need God for our current complexity.

This is one of the reasons evangelical atheism is so dangerous. You have pre-made assumptions that you can't free yourself of when considering other possibilities. I can see how if my parents had been deeply religious and forced me into too much church as a child or been zealous about my religion growing up that it could have actually damaged my ability to perceive the evolutionary theory and eventually led to me surrendering to the "church" of evolution out of disdain from a brainwashing as a child.

For starters you're assuming that the big bang is true, and/or that everything is limited to OUR current understanding of the laws of the universe, and/or that everything in existence is limited to OUR universe for it's existence. You've been told X amount of things and you can't perceive any possibilities outside of these X amount of things.

To be fair the limitations of these X things are what we CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND our universe to be. It's these X things that I criticize evolution with because the theory of evolution, at least here on earth, IS bound to these limitations that we have found/discovered/come to understand here on earth. The creation of the universe is potentially (or even likely) much much bigger than our current and very limited understanding.

X factors making Y impossible (IMO) leads me to look to P, Q, R, Z, etc for potential answers. For me not understanding how someone escaped from prison is not as hard to accept as being told they dug through a concrete wall with a wooden toothpick. So I looked for evidence of P, Q, R, Z, anything that might stand out to me.


-------------

Marou if you're talking about the mosquitoes that carry west nile, (I'm not sure if you are), then there's no proof that it's a mutation at all, but more likely bottle necking through natural selection. The problem is that this same mutation is present across several continents, which means it's highly unlikely that it's presence is due to direct inheritance of a mutation, especially recently.

The mosquito issue is much like the bacteria issue. There's no evidence what so ever that this particular strand of DNA hasn't always been like it is today. It's prevalence has just become more widespread due to artificial selection because of man made drugs/pesticides.

Based on some things you said earlier I'm sure I'm beating a dead horse here because you've already expressed a similar sentiment for online articles bout these subjects, but for clarity sake, these articles make it sound like we knew exactly what the mosquitoes DNA was before and after the use of the pesticide and that the mutation rose as some kind of result of the pesticide use. When the truth is this could have been a part of the mosquitoes DNA for as long as they've been around. There's no evidence of DNA gained here speaking strictly and technically. We're just eliminating a certain strand of DNA with our pesticide and causing artificial selection. (or artificial natural selection lol, some of these grey areas overlap for me).

There is nothing honest about it, it's intellectual dishonesty versus intellectual dishonesty and one blind faith exchanged for another. You are missing a key point about people converted in such a way, they don't believe in your arguments because they understand them. They believe in you, and you make them feel stupid. Many modern atheists are people seeking a position of intellectual superiority by parroting arguments and science they don't understand in the slightest.

That describes exactly how I feel about it, and describes my sister in laws butt hurt militant atheist boyfriend to a 0.0000000001% margin of error accuracy.

[Ero Elohim]

This is one of the reasons evangelical atheism is so dangerous. You have pre-made assumptions that you can't free yourself of when considering other possibilities. I can see how if my parents had been deeply religious and forced me into too much church as a child or been zealous about my religion growing up that it could have actually damaged my ability to perceive the evolutionary theory and eventually led to me surrendering to the "church" of evolution out of disdain from a brainwashing as a child.

For starters you're assuming that the big bang is true, and/or that everything is limited to OUR current understanding of the laws of the universe, and/or that everything in existence is limited to OUR universe for it's existence. You've been told X amount of things and you can't perceive any possibilities outside of these X amount of things.

To be fair the limitations of these X things are what we CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND our universe to be. It's these X things that I criticize evolution with because the theory of evolution, at least here on earth, IS bound to these limitations that we have found/discovered/come to understand here on earth. The creation of the universe is potentially (or even likely) much much bigger than our current and very limited understanding.

X factors making Y impossible (IMO) leads me to look to P, Q, R, Z, etc for potential answers. For me not understanding how someone escaped from prison is not as hard to accept as being told they dug through a concrete wall with a wooden toothpick. So I looked for evidence of P, Q, R, Z, anything that might stand out to me.

Remember how I explained the burden of proof near the beginning of this thread? You just disregarded it, which means you've cast aside one of the fundamentals of logic and reasonable thought.

[Random Havoc]

X factors making Y impossible (IMO) leads me to look to P, Q, R, Z, etc for potential answers.

I don't see the value if P, Q, R, Z is magical thinking.

[Bragi]

Wow... five pages of sound and fury signifying nothing. I've literally seen this same exact thread a hundred times over the past ten years on this site. I was hoping that maybe something new would come from it; but that was a big ol' fat nope. This is both comforting and troubling at the same time.

Now if y'all don't mind, I have to haul my ass out to Montana and bury these "fossils" in the middle of a mountain.

[Random Havoc]

^^Yes, nothing new under the sun. I HAVE found ofrm1 and Marou’s exchange to be entertaining, though. I, of course, could argue points with both of them, but it was a pretty good exchange in my opinion.

[Ero Elohim]

Wow... five pages of sound and fury signifying nothing. I've literally seen this same exact thread a hundred times over the past ten years on this site. I was hoping that maybe something new would come from it; but that was a big ol' fat nope. This is both comforting and troubling at the same time.

Now if y'all don't mind, I have to haul my ass out to Montana and bury these "fossils" in the middle of a mountain.

[Marou]

Remember how I explained the burden of proof near the beginning of this thread? You just disregarded it, which means you've cast aside one of the fundamentals of logic and reasonable thought.

If you were the one that started the argument by evangelizing atheism that burden is shifted to you. Do you think you can be a hero and win a nobel prize by proving theoretical science in the context of a non-technical discussion among laymen?

I don't see the value if P, Q, R, Z is magical thinking.

The effects of the big bang are observable, the triggers are unknowable. We can see what happened but lack the cause or circumstances. Short of creating another universe in a lab at some point in the future that's where we are. Any explanation beyond, "shit happened, we can see it happened, we dunno why" is pure speculation, it can't be reasoned because we have no reasonable framework for existence without natural laws.

Wow... five pages of sound and fury signifying nothing. I've literally seen this same exact thread a hundred times over the past ten years on this site. I was hoping that maybe something new would come form it; but that was a big ol' fat nope. This is both comforting and troubling at the same time.

Now if y'all don't mind, I have to haul my ass out to Montana and bury these "fossils" in the middle of a mountain.

The point has been muted by the beating of the old war drums of religious debate. The original point which is still my primary focus, is that there is no benefit and many detriments to encouraging people who fundamentally lack the ability to reason deductively to abandon religion and worship science since that conversion requires them to blindly accept things too complex for them to understand. When a critical mass of such people is reached scientific theory and statistical analysis achieves acceptance through the charisma of it's proponents rather than empirical fact.

eg. If I don't know what the fuck Sillywilly and Ero are arguing about, whoever has the most persuasive argument wins irrespective of truth, since I lack the ability, foreknowledge, or inclination to consume tons of data; in order to gauge the merit of positions which answer a question that only marginally concerns me. In some respects, I could argue that we are already there. That's what way too many people do. "That Ero guy totally whooped Silly's ass in the religious debate, I accepted raptor Jesus last week so I can be smart like him." "Silly put everyone in their place while exposing the catacombs conspiracy. I'm made smarter and more attractive by agreeing with him."

[Sillywilly]

I don't see the value if P, Q, R, Z is magical thinking.

Magical thinking is what ignorance likes to refer to as "anything I don't understand yet".

Not knowing where God could have come from is not magical thinking unless not having the answers for abiogenesis makes our origins magical lol.