Shaken Atheism: A Look at the Fine-Tuned Universe

[+Hammerclaw]

23 hours ago, Piney said:

I got to work with Jim Adovasio. He was originally hammered about Meadowcroft. 

My first instructor in Anthropology was Doctor William M. Bass. He spoke, briefly, of the Clovis First Theory, pointed out then controversial sites and data that conflicted with it and told us to use our own minds, but to be discrete. The early '70s was not a good time to rock the boat if you were young and wanted to further your career.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Hammerclaw

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

There are many scientists who are atheist. This is how they view the world. How they title their findings and what they put out to you. 

Hypothesis: 

"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption."

So their hypothesis is atheistic in nature and they go from there. Some think that there are no bias in science but that is not true. I'm talking about explanations for natural phenomenon. 

If God is real, then nothing the scientific method determines is real can in anyway contradict God's intentions.

[+joc]

1 hour ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Lol something you said sounds funny. These were the creatures God destroyed by the flood, the work of the amalgamators, being repeated today. Very soon you'll most likely find yourself in a world very different than the one you've known. Creatures you've never seen before. 'Aliens' are one of them. I would like to take a look at your scientific findings for dinosaurs predating humans by whatever many years. Please share. Thanks. 

This picture is hilarious!! --> 

Not only is that scientifically inaccurate it is also biblically inaccurate. Scientifically we have found no homo sapien remains from the dinosaur era. Scientifically we know that an asteroid 65 million years ago was responsible for the demise of the dinosaurs.

Biblically, God directed Noah to build an ark to save his family and all of the animals on the planet. Biblically, God directed all of the animals to enter the ark male and female.

[+joc]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Because of greed and selfishness/evil in the world. 

The world was designed with all the things necessary for human life and happiness. Whether it be plants or trees, water or food etc., they were all intricately designed to fit with human needs. All the variety of foods providing the different nutrients for the human body, land and water animals, etc. Some may look and see nothing but others, like myself, see intentional design and creativity. Oh the wonders and complexity of the human mind. Things being formed to fit together, compliment, and support each other. It takes intelligence. Take a look at the landscape, a family holding hands walking in nature, picking berries as they go, the mountains and trees rising high in the distance, the sounds of the nearby ocean and the birds singing in the treetops above. The sun shining bright in blue skies and the smell of life and nature on the wind. You then turn around and look into the eyes of your beautiful wife, carrying your next child and say, hey honey 'science did that' all this just popped out of nowhere by itself. No intelligent designer behind it all. Yes yes. I guess that's how some see it. It just doesn't make any sense. Creation/life and everything in the world is so incredibly creative. The work of an artist. Perfect symmetry. Death, evil and deformity are anomalies. 

 

[+joc]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Because of greed and selfishness/evil in the world. 

The world was designed with all the things necessary for human life and happiness. Whether it be plants or trees, water or food etc., they were all intricately designed to fit with human needs. All the variety of foods providing the different nutrients for the human body, land and water animals, etc. Some may look and see nothing but others, like myself, see intentional design and creativity. Oh the wonders and complexity of the human mind. Things being formed to fit together, compliment, and support each other. It takes intelligence. Take a look at the landscape, a family holding hands walking in nature, picking berries as they go, the mountains and trees rising high in the distance, the sounds of the nearby ocean and the birds singing in the treetops above. The sun shining bright in blue skies and the smell of life and nature on the wind. You then turn around and look into the eyes of your beautiful wife, carrying your next child and say, hey honey 'science did that' all this just popped out of nowhere by itself. No intelligent designer behind it all. Yes yes. I guess that's how some see it. It just doesn't make any sense. Creation/life and everything in the world is so incredibly creative. The work of an artist. Perfect symmetry. Death, evil and deformity are anomalies. 

As I have already stated, your view of the world only fits in the context of the bible. The view of the actual world is backed up by a plethora of scientific evidence. You live in your religious bubble, have fun with that! It's not true!

[+joc]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Exactly 

If The majestic being had no beginning then how did it come to be and where did its intelligence originate?

[Piney]

3 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

1 Timothy 6:20
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”

The Timothys, because forging letters of Paul to a imaginary person was divinely inspired...

The actual passage translated from the Koine....

6:20 " My dear Timothy, take great care of all that has been entrusted to you. Turn away from godless philosophical discussions and the contradictions of the 'knowledge' which is not knowledge at all; by adopting this, some have missed the goal of faith." 

Which you use out of context....

[+joc]

3 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

1 Timothy 6:20
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”

Again that only makes sense in the context of the Bible. In reality there was no science 2000 years ago that even remotely  resembles the scientific methods of today.

Edited September 19, 2023 by joc

[cormac mac airt]

25 minutes ago, joc said:

Not only is that scientifically inaccurate it is also biblically inaccurate. Scientifically we have found no homo sapien remains from the dinosaur era. Scientifically we know that an asteroid 65 million years ago was responsible for the demise of the dinosaurs.

Biblically, God directed Noah to build an ark to save his family and all of the animals on the planet. Biblically, God directed all of the animals to enter the ark male and female.

While not in the canonical Bible the only other things that have been believed to be destroyed in the flood were the Watchers/Nephilim/Giants, NONE of which were dinosaurs. And the former were the product of angels and humans. Even Biblically dinosaurs have nothing to do with humanity. 
 

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

25 minutes ago, joc said:

If The majestic being had no beginning then how did it come to be and where did its intelligence originate?

Better yet what did it do before Creation? 
 

cormac

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

3 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

1 Timothy 6:20
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”

Your own translation, or your handlers'?

The Greek of the bolded:

ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως (antitheseis tēs pseudōnymou gnōseōs)

Gnōseōs isn't "of science," because science in the modern sense hadn't been invented yet. The word is usually translated as "knowledge," but can mean "doctrine" (something taught). I think "doctrine" is a good translation here, since the author who is pretending to be Paul (ironic, isn't it, that an impostor would prattle on about falsehood?) continues (verse 6:21):

[gnōseōs] which some who have gone astray from the faith are professing.

Bottom line: The verses are discussing religious teaching of which the impostor author disapproves; nothing in the least to do with "science" as we use the term.

Pro tip: You rely on the Bible a great deal for your "arguments." It would really help your case if you knew what your Bible actually says.

The bible, particularly the King James Version, have very poetic language that I enjoy employing in my day to day conversations wherever relevant. And here, it is most assuredly relevant. "I have many arguments against 'science falsely so called.' But I have no arguments against true and unbiased observations of the natural world and its principles."  

Edited September 19, 2023 by ReadTheGreatControversyEGW

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

The bible, particularly the King James Version, has very poetic language that I enjoy employing in my day to day conversations wherever relevant. And here, it is most assuredly relevant. "I have many arguments against 'science falsely so called.' But I have no arguments against true and unbiased observations of the natural world and its principles."  

Which is science, which you ignore in favor of “Goddidit”. Yes, we know. 
 

cormac

[Piney]

14 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

The bible, particularly the King James Version, have very poetic language that I enjoy employing in my day to day conversations wherever relevant. And here, it is most assuredly relevant. "I have many arguments against 'science falsely so called.' But I have no arguments against true and unbiased observations of the natural world and its principles."  

Except the verse was talking about philosophy. Not science.

[XenoFish]

What is more divine that knowledge? Knowledge of the universe, knowledge of life, knowledge of the body, knowledge of the mind. To know and see this reality in all its grandeur and monstrosity. 

Faith is a hopefulness that has its own place. To deny knowledge is to live in willful ignorance. Only fools do so. 

[eight bits]

24 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

The bible, particularly the King James Version, have very poetic language that I enjoy employing in my day to day conversations wherever relevant. And here, it is most assuredly relevant. "I have many arguments against 'science falsely so called.' But I have no arguments against true and unbiased observations of the natural world and its principles."  

Ah, so the problem is that you use a 1611 Bible, but don't know the history of modern English.

Regardless, the un-cherrypicked KJV clearly shows that the science it mentions refers to ancient religious preaching:

6:20-21a O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

The 'science" in the verse concerns religious propositions that have already been preached at the time the letter was composed (estimated at 100-150 CE). "Science" as we understand it was non-existent in ancient times, and was just coming into recognizable form in 1611. It wouldn't be widely called science in English for another century to century and a half.

[XenoFish]

4 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

The world was designed with all the things necessary for human life and happiness. Whether it be plants or trees, water or food etc., they were all intricately designed to fit with human needs. All the variety of foods providing the different nutrients for the human body, land and water animals, etc.

Sure you could run with that idea, but you have to consider how many animals, plants, and microbe's can kill us. How lethal this planet really is. It wasn't long ago we were all in lockdown because of a cough. Much of the foods we eat now have been engineered through selective breeding. It doesn't take much to turn fresh clean water into sewage. Every benefit you enjoy in life is because someone decided to do something better. To figure out how to live better. We went from hiding in caves, to huts, and now mountains of steel and glass. 

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

There are many scientists who are atheist. This is how they view the world. How they title their findings and what they put out to you. 

Hypothesis: 

"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption."

So their hypothesis is atheistic in nature and they go from there. Some think that there are no bias in science but that is not true. I'm talking about explanations for natural phenomenon. 

Indeed scientists can hold a range of personal beliefs, including atheism. This is not an earth shattering revelation. 
 

However, the point is that the scientific method itself is designed to minimize biases and personal beliefs in the pursuit of objective knowledge/empirical knowledge.

For ex: when scientists form a hypothesis, they are proposing a “potential” explanation for a specific observation or phenomenon. This hypothesis is then subject to rigorous testing through experimentation and gathering empirical evidence. The goal is to evaluate the hypothesis based on the evidence and determine its validity. 

The scientific process itself aims to ensure that conclusions are based on evidence and data. Scientific findings are held to high standards of scrutiny and must be replicable and consistent with previous knowledge. Peer review and the critical evaluation of research by other scientists are crucial steps in this process to guard against bias and confirm the reliability of the findings.

Bias does exist in various areas it simply must be accounted for. 

It is important for you to differentiate your own personal beliefs and biases from the scientific process. 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

4 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Exactly. The laws of nature. Someone set them there. 

 

Regarding your statement that someone set the laws of nature, it is important to clarify that scientific laws are not set or predetermined by a “conscious entity.” Rather, scientific laws are derived from careful and systematic observations and are used to describe and predict natural phenomena. They are based on empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and the consistent and reproducible patterns observed in nature. 

And, it's important to note that scientific laws describe how things work in the natural world, but they do not provide explanations for why things happen the way they do. The laws of nature are not a result of deliberate design or conscious intent. They are our best current understanding of how the natural world operates based on the accumulated knowledge gained through scientific investigations. By studying and uncovering the laws and principles of nature, scientists aim to decipher the underlying mechanisms that govern the physical and natural processes in the universe.

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Sherapy

[+joc]

1 hour ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

The bible, particularly the King James Version, have very poetic language that I enjoy employing in my day to day conversations wherever relevant. And here, it is most assuredly relevant. "I have many arguments against 'science falsely so called.' But I have no arguments against true and unbiased observations of the natural world and its principles."  

You just said God's flood killed the dinosaurs. That isn't true. So your words emboldened above are not the truth. You cannot have it both ways. You, in fact, DO have arguments that you make regularly against established and credentialed science. The disingenuousness of your words is very telling.

[+joc]

4 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Very soon you'll most likely find yourself in a world very different than the one you've known. Creatures you've never seen before. 'Aliens' are one of them.

What biblical Scripture are you going to back that ridiculous statement with?

Oh, don't tell me...I already know... Revelations.

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

5 minutes ago, joc said:

What biblical Scripture are you going to back that ridiculous statement with?

Oh, don't tell me...I already know... Revelations.

Which would be ridiculous as the Book of Revelation was written as an alleged event expected to occur sometime later in the 1st century AD. It was an abysmal failure. 

cormac

[Piney]

2 hours ago, Piney said:

The Timothys, because forging letters of Paul to a imaginary person was divinely inspired...

The actual passage translated from the Koine....

6:20 " My dear Timothy, take great care of all that has been entrusted to you. Turn away from godless philosophical discussions and the contradictions of the 'knowledge' which is not knowledge at all; by adopting this, some have missed the goal of faith." 

Which you use out of context....

 

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Ah, so the problem is that you use a 1611 Bible, but don't know the history of modern English.

Regardless, the un-cherrypicked KJV clearly shows that the science it mentions refers to ancient religious preaching:

6:20-21a O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

The 'science" in the verse concerns religious propositions that have already been preached at the time the letter was composed (estimated at 100-150 CE). "Science" as we understand it was non-existent in ancient times, and was just coming into recognizable form in 1611. It wouldn't be widely called science in English for another century to century and a half.

See my quote above yours. 

[Piney]

27 minutes ago, joc said:

What biblical Scripture are you going to back that ridiculous statement with?

Oh, don't tell me...I already know... Revelations.

Worse. Ellen G. White and her demons and "tall inhabitants of Jupiter". 

[+Hammerclaw]

The whole creation story in the Bible is just stuff people made up. People who want to believe it believe it was divinely inspired by God. I suppose they were inspired by God to believe it was divinely inspired and so on. Obviously, there were no eyewitnesses to record the events recounted and that is where--in the critical mind--the whole rickety house of cards comes tumbling down. These Hebrew fairy tales may be culturally inspired, with origins deep in the region's past, but that is the extent of their historicity. 

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

The whole creation story in the Bible is just stuff people made up. People who want to believe it believe it was divinely inspired by God. I suppose they were inspired by God to believe it was divinely inspired and so on. Obviously, there were no eyewitnesses to record the events recounted and that is where--in the critical mind--the whole rickety house of cards comes tumbling down. These Hebrew fairy tales may be culturally inspired, with origins deep in the region's past, but that is the extent of their historicity. 

And the sad part is these stories aren't even original to the Hebrews, they're ripped off from older cultures and reworked to fit an Hebraic agenda. It's simultaneously laughable and pathetic IMO. 

cormac