Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:
When kept at the general level, 'God created the big bang' there's nothing problematic or unscientific about it at all.

Of course it's unscientific. Claims are unscientific if they directly contradict known facts/theories, but they're also unscientific if they're made without any evidence to support them. The "god did it" explanation is in the latter category: there isn't even the slightest reason to believe that god did it (or even exists at all), so essentially what you're saying when you say "god did it" is that it's ok to invent a story and arbitrarily declare that it's a valid explanation just because you really want it to be true. And that position is incredibly anti-scientific.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Or you can say God did it, we just don't know how yet. Lets find out

The point is that you have absolutely no reason to propose that "god" is the explanation, besides your stubborn desire to believe in a god and find a place to put one. You're inventing random stuff with no justification for it, and then claiming that it's ok because nobody has absolute 100% proof that you're wrong about it. The correct answer is "we don't know yet", without any pointless speculation about god.

 sebster wrote:
My issue with the position taken by Peregrine is that he seemed to be saying that a person couldn't attempt to use two different tools at all, if you get my meaning.

And, again, what exactly is the purpose of this second tool? All I see is a bunch of attempts to figure out a place for religion based on an assumption that it must have a purpose and be valuable, and a complete lack of explanation for why religion is necessary or productive at all.

And here we are... your issue is that you don't think it's reasonable for people to believe in God. You can talk about evidence and all that, but really what it comes down to is you really, really don't like the idea that some other people believe something you don't.

Get over it.

You're right. I don't like it when people are wrong. How is that any different from criticizing someone for claiming that 1+1=4?

That is exactly what the divine watchmaker refers to.

Yes, and my point is that the "divine watchmaker" religion exists almost entirely in forum arguments where theists attempt to find a version of "god" that the atheists can't disprove. Very few people actually believe it in their everyday lives. And the religions that they do believe in almost always make claims about how the world works that science can address.

Was I the only one that had connection issues? There were 2 times during the debate where I missed 10 minutes here and there. So I am kind of hesitant to comment. But I will comment on what I saw.

1) I thought Bill Nye was the weaker presenter, his was like watching a highschool presentation
2) Bill Nye did make some particularly good points. His kangaroo example was quite good...Got me thinking real hard on that.
3) I think Ken Ham did a great job of exposing the fallacy that you can't be a good scientist/engineer if you believe in creationism.
4) I was really disappointed that they really didn't debate, but just made presentations.
5) Ken Ham rushed his rebuttal..tried to cram too much in, instead of directly challenging Bill Nye.

I'll have to wait until I see it again to comment more.

GG

I thought Bill Nye was a strong presenter. He didn't have to bring in 3 or 4 other people to help prove points unlike Mr. Ham. Ham was also belittling Nye during parts of the debate, particularly after the rebuttal/counter rebuttal. with Nye asking show me proof of "insert event" and Ham started 2x in a row by saying, "Ya know, there is a book about that." Which to me was just disrespectful. During speeches Ham would sway back and forth, walk away to his chair, just really paying no mind to Nye. during the other portions Nye stayed "tuned in" and respectful during hams arguments, His face of disapproval wasn't the most professional, but is certainly better than hams moving around and non nonchalant attitude. IMHO

 Peregrine wrote:

And here we are... your issue is that you don't think it's reasonable for people to believe in God. You can talk about evidence and all that, but really what it comes down to is you really, really don't like the idea that some other people believe something you don't.

Get over it.

You're right. I don't like it when people are wrong. How is that any different from criticizing someone for claiming that 1+1=4?

That is exactly what the divine watchmaker refers to.

Yes, and my point is that the "divine watchmaker" religion exists almost entirely in forum arguments where theists attempt to find a version of "god" that the atheists can't disprove. Very few people actually believe it in their everyday lives. And the religions that they do believe in almost always make claims about how the world works that science can address.

And can you, an atheist definitively prove that God, or a god DOESN'T exist?? If you are telling me such, then the burden is on you to prove it to me.

What many of us are saying is that, a belief in a deity or deities does not necessarily hinder scientific work. It doesn't take a certain belief system to be able to "successfully" marvel at "creation" be it the perfection of the human body, or a Great White Shark, or even rock formations in SE Asia. And for many, it is that exact marvel that leads them into the scientific fields to study how those things either came to be, how to fix them, or how to preserve them.

 curran12 wrote:
Out of curiosity Manchu, what's your take on a universe-creation stance of "it is unknown now, it could be God/divine thing, but it needs evidence either way."

I don't think it tells us anything interesting about either God or the universe. I don't think it is either a scientific or a religious claim.

 Peregrine wrote:
Unless you have the kind of minimalist "divine watchmaker" religion where god stands entirely apart from our world (and the vast majority of religious people do not believe that) then your religion makes claims that science can deal with.

No, this is just a misunderstanding of religion as pseudo-science, a.k.a. magic. Your example of claiming that "prayer works," for instance, relies upon a total misunderstanding of prayer as a magical spell for obtaining things that the person praying desires. Unfortunately, that is the only idea of prayer that many people (both religious and otherwise) have. Just as with a given scientific concept, however, widespread misunderstanding of a principle in not evidence of what that principle is.

 Peregrine wrote:
But just what project does religion work on, and how does it contribute more to that project than purely secular things?

The religious project is the apprehension of transcendent meaning. Consider a book. I can scientifically investigate the book as a physical object. But I need other tools to understand the meaning of its content. Religion is one such tool and although there are secular tools that also help us investigate meaning they are not interchangeable with religion.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

And can you, an atheist definitively prove that God, or a god DOESN'T exist?? If you are telling me such, then the burden is on you to prove it to me.

That's not how the burden of proof works.

It's likely me misunderstanding what others are saying when they state "God created the Big Bang"--but if I understand that correctly, that is a classic God of the Gaps argument. To qualify for a God of the Gaps, (IMO)--a person must;

1. Be making an assertion that celestial intervention caused the effect
2. The effect is something that we currently do not understand
3. The effect is something that may be proven, disproven or explained in the future


For example, if membrane physicists are correct--and we discover how the Big Bang occurred--then the "God created the Big Bang" would then need to regress to "God caused universal membranes"--or "God causes quantum fluctuations that give rise to matter". If the statement, "God created the Big Bang" cannot survive a new scientific discovery that explains how the effect occurred---well that's as God of the Gaps as it gets.


Now, if a person really means that statement metaphorically--as in "Whatever findings you discover, God will always be instigator or fine tuner---membranes--multiverse--quantum fluctuations--it doesn't matter what you discover, the step before that was God"---that's an infinite regression that really doesn't mean much IMO (Nor can it be logically discussed). It's simply a weak deism.


@ Whomever stated that religion cannot explain science--and science cannot explain religion. I wouldn't be so sure. fMRI scans have started to help us understand consciousness, where religious belief originates in our brain--and have started providing evidence that should make us seriously question free will. I think it's very reasonable to hypothesize consciousness, emergence, spirituality and free will be scientifically explained in the coming 50-100 years as our technology and understanding grows.

And lastly, @ whomever stated they understand quantum physics but not the why--that's a pretty bold statement! To quote Steve Weinberg "If someone says they understand quantum physics, they don't understand quantum physics". Read "A Universe from Nothing" then watch quantum fluctuations in vacuum giving rise to matter (Really, there's a animated .gif of this somewhere from an experiment showing this happen). If that doesn't cook your noodle and make you question what we know--well I'm not sure what would.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

And lastly, @ whomever stated they understand quantum physics but not the why--that's a pretty bold statement! To quote Steve Weinberg "If someone says they understand quantum physics, they don't understand quantum physics".

I'm afraid I'm going to have to nitpick here. The classic "If someone says they understand quantum physics" quote is one of Richard Feynman's gems first uttered not too long after quantum mechanics really began to take shape, today there are plenty of people around the world understand a lot of quantum mechanics quite well so it's entirely possible that whoever claimed to understand it in this thread actually has a PhD in some form of quantum mechanics.

Starts around the 13 minutes, 15 seconds mark.

Yeah, Weinberg was actually quoting Feynman when he said that--good catch. I wouldn't agree that (at least from what I've read)--anyone 'understands' quantum mechanics--other than its application. However, this is probably an area of semantics--where after 4 posts/quote posts--we would find out we agree more than disagree--so I'll leave it at that and not venture OT .

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
fMRI scans have started to help us understand consciousness

The trouble with that statement is that it assumes what consciousness is, which is hardly a settled question whether or not neuroscience researchers think so.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
I think it's very reasonable to hypothesize consciousness, emergence, spirituality and free will be scientifically explained in the coming 50-100 years as our technology and understanding grows.

But you haven't even attempted to show what those things are, and therefore, why advanced technology makes them any more accessible. There is a distinct possibility that things like consciousness are beyond our understanding. That's not a mystification but a simple logical argument. If we can agree that the mind is finite, then there are things that the mind cannot understand. And that's without even touching the issue that there is no compelling reason to believe the non-scientific, metaphysical (and quasi-religious) notion that the materialist account of reality is exhaustive.

 generalgrog wrote:
Was I the only one that had connection issues? There were 2 times during the debate where I missed 10 minutes here and there. So I am kind of hesitant to comment. But I will comment on what I saw.

1) I thought Bill Nye was the weaker presenter, his was like watching a highschool presentation

Ken Ham's opening argument was strong... until Bill Nye (or anyone with a middle school level understanding of the scientific method) completely broke down the ridiculousness of creationism's "argument."

2) Bill Nye did make some particularly good points. His kangaroo example was quite good...Got me thinking real hard on that.

Exactly. You cannot reconcile the belief in young-Earth creationism versus what we observe the face of modern (and not so modern) scientific knowledge. Every point Bill Nye made is good because every point is backed my mountains of scientific evidence.

3) I think Ken Ham did a great job of exposing the fallacy that you can't be a good scientist/engineer if you believe in creationism.

No he didn't. Creationism is not science so if you try to pretend it is, you are not a good scientist. As a matter of fact, Bill Nye made that perfectly clear when he stated that using a creation model, you cannot predict outcomes. The bottom line is that creationism (unlike actual scientific theories) is untestable, unfalsifiable, and unable to generate predictable outcomes. In other words, creationism is not science.

4) I was really disappointed that they really didn't debate, but just made presentations.

It's probably for the better, The short time limits for rebuttals in the later parts of the debate worked in favor of Ken Ham. With only a few minutes (one or five, depending on the section) he was able to skip over the parts of Nye's argument he was unable to answer. However, there were a few times it was painfully obvious that Ken Ham had no actual rebuttal to the verifiable facts Nye used in his argument.

5) Ken Ham rushed his rebuttal..tried to cram too much in, instead of directly challenging Bill Nye.

That's because Bill Nye asked him quite a few questions that Ken Ham and creationism are unable to answer.

 sebster wrote:
God of the gaps is only wrong when it develops specific, psuedo-scientific ideas like that one about God being the reason atoms don't fly apart. When kept at the general level, 'God created the big bang' there's nothing problematic or unscientific about it at all.

"God caused the big bang" is a specific, pseudo-scientific idea. The claim that God did or does anything is a matter of faith but the big bang is a (theoretical) natural phenonmenon. Claiming that God caused the big bang is the same as claiming that God caused any other natural phenomenon. "God causes chemical reactions. God causes our finger nails to grow. God causes cars to be built. God causes bank robberies."



For those who don't have time to watch the debate, here are the basic points of Ken Ham's argument:

(1) What is generally called science is actually "operational science."

(2) Operational science requires the presence of human consciousness.

(3) Operational science cannot access the nature of the world prior to human existence.

(4) Therefore, we cannot know as a matter of operational science that nature has always operated the same way.

(5) To understand the natural world prior to human existence, we must look to a reliable first-person account; this is "historical science."

(6) The Bible is such an account.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
So far in this discussion, folks have included some scientific claims in the category of religious belief. I agree with Peregrine that doing so is problematic. It's not that being religious precludes one from understanding science; but if one gets the claims of faith mixed up with scientific claims (for example, about the nature of the big bang), then one has demonstrated a lack of understanding about science (and religion). This isn't a sentence or a punishment handed down by me or Peregrine or anyone else. It's just a consequence of thoughtlessness/confusion.

So saying that God caused the big bang is somehow wrong? It is completely possible to say God caused the big bang and still believe the science behind it. If God created everything, then he also created science. He also created man, and how man perceives his creations.

Obviously if someone believes in literal interpretations of the bible, then yes that would be problematic. But just believing that God had a hand in creating the universe, is not really an issue, unless said scientist allows it to be, which most don't.

Not technically. The big bang happened after Space God did battle with the Cosmic Turtle and lost.

 Manchu wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
fMRI scans have started to help us understand consciousness

The trouble with that statement is that it assumes what consciousness is, which is hardly a settled question whether or not neuroscience researchers think so.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
I think it's very reasonable to hypothesize consciousness, emergence, spirituality and free will be scientifically explained in the coming 50-100 years as our technology and understanding grows.

But you haven't even attempted to show what those things are, and therefore, why advanced technology makes them any more accessible. There is a distinct possibility that things like consciousness are beyond our understanding. That's not a mystification but a simple logical argument. If we can agree that the mind is finite, then there are things that the mind cannot understand. And that's without even touching the issue that there is no compelling reason to believe the non-scientific, metaphysical (and quasi-religious) notion that the materialist account of reality is exhaustive.

Yeah--physicalism vs dualism is a long running debate--from shadows on cave walls to today.

And it's true, given the fact we cannot disassociate ourselves from consciousness to study it--it is possible we will never 'convince' or 'feel' the definition/explanation--anymore than we might never get quantum mechanics in our gut (Note, that doesn't mean the scientific explanation is any less true). Even then, I think we can appreciate the physicalist argument more--even if it's difficult (Or uncomfortable) to swallow. Brain tumors, SSRIs, fMRI studies--all of these things support a very real physical biology that governs 'us'.

So, I don't really feel that consciousness is beyond our understanding--especially given the neuro-studies we've seen in the last several years. Time will tell though.

@AgeOfEgos:

The dichotomy of dualism and phsyicalism is itself a function of phsyicalism. When you say biology governs "us," you are already assuming a specific definition of "us."

To short circuit some of this, science does not provide for its own necessary premises.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

And can you, an atheist definitively prove that God, or a god DOESN'T exist?? If you are telling me such, then the burden is on you to prove it to me.

That's not how the burden of proof works.

If a person's stance is that others are ridiculous for their beliefs, and they claim that something does not exist, they must prove it. Of course in the arguments for or against their being a divine being, there is no proof either way... so to say that someone is ridiculous for believing in deities is equally ridiculous, because we simply cannot/do not know for sure.

If people are worried that Christians might ignore scientific data if it conflicts with God (although that is not something that is going to happen with the vast majority of Christians), should we also be worried that people might ignore any scientific evidence for a divine being if they don't believe in one?

You know, while we are making baseless accusations like that in this thread...

I was I was as certain of even one thing in this world as many people in this thread are of so much.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

And can you, an atheist definitively prove that God, or a god DOESN'T exist?? If you are telling me such, then the burden is on you to prove it to me.

That's not how the burden of proof works.

If a person's stance is that others are ridiculous for their beliefs, and they claim that something does not exist, they must prove it. Of course in the arguments for or against their being a divine being, there is no proof either way... so to say that someone is ridiculous for believing in deities is equally ridiculous, because we simply cannot/do not know for sure.

Once again, that's not how the burden of proof works. It's like saying we can never know if unicorns exist for sure, since it's impossible to prove they don't exist.

The burden of proof lies upon the validity or existence of the proposed argument. The proposed argument, in this case, is the existence of a god.
Even if you were to take it from the point of view you're trying to make, it's wrapped up by there being no evidence for the existence of god, and for that reason, god does not exist (default position being the skeptical one).

To that end, a belief in God is unreasonable. As unreasonable as my fear of meteor showers (blame John Wyndham for that one).

d-usa wrote:If people are worried that Christians might ignore scientific data if it conflicts with God (although that is not something that is going to happen with the vast majority of Christians), should we also be worried that people might ignore any scientific evidence for a divine being if they don't believe in one?

You know, while we are making baseless accusations like that in this thread...

Not really baseless, since a lot of Christians already do ignore scientific data that conflicts with their view of god.

In the case of ignoring evidence for a divine being if they don't already believe in one, that makes absolutely no sense.

Remind me again the point of the debate? Was this science versus religion, creationism versus evolution, or something entirely different?

Sorry, I thought Hamm lost all credibility when he ran an ad for his museum with him as a cartoon character yuking it up with dinosaurs. I really lost it when he was expressing skepticism of scientific theories for dating the Earth, then turning around and justifying other points by saying a book said so.

This was not a debate, this was an ad for creationism.

 d-usa wrote:
should we also be worried that people might ignore any scientific evidence for a divine being if they don't believe in one?

It seems to me that the Christian definition of God precludes scientific evidence for his existence. This is because God is not just another thing among the things of Creation; that is, God cannot be the object of science.

 techsoldaten wrote:
This was not a debate, this was an ad for creationism.

Very well said!

People ignore Climate Change despite all the proof not because of a god, but because they just don't like the idea of climate change being a thing.


Honestly? Were fethed, utterly, we created a system were its in the benefit of politicians to appeal to far edge fringe groups with lots of money rather than people who actually know what there talking about.

Climate Change will not be addressed because the people who paid to elect our current House of Rep's don't want to address it.

If people are willing to ignore science because its just doesn't fit into there world view, how can we ever educate people who believe they have a divine reason to ignore science?

 Manchu wrote:

 sebster wrote:
God of the gaps is only wrong when it develops specific, psuedo-scientific ideas like that one about God being the reason atoms don't fly apart. When kept at the general level, 'God created the big bang' there's nothing problematic or unscientific about it at all.

"God caused the big bang" is a specific, pseudo-scientific idea. The claim that God did or does anything is a matter of faith but the big bang is a (theoretical) natural phenonmenon. Claiming that God caused the big bang is the same as claiming that God caused any other natural phenomenon. "God causes chemical reactions. God causes our finger nails to grow. God causes cars to be built. God causes bank robberies."



For those who don't have time to watch the debate, here are the basic points of Ken Ham's argument:

(1) What is generally called science is actually "operational science."

(2) Operational science requires the presence of human consciousness.

(3) Operational science cannot access the nature of the world prior to human existence.

(4) Therefore, we cannot know as a matter of operational science that nature has always operated the same way.

(5) To understand the natural world prior to human existence, we must look to a reliable first-person account; this is "historical science."

(6) The Bible is such an account.

Can we get a similar summary for Mr. Nye's points?

I think perhaps something that matters a lot to me which is almost as important as the topics being discussed, is were the 2 men respectful or did either of them come across as condescending or disrespectful towards the other? I'd imagine they both behaved nicely in keeping with their reputations. Sadly I didn't have time to watch last night.

I maintain that while I don't agree 100% with Ham's view on creationism, it always impresses me how much preachier the non creationists are about the topic.

 d-usa wrote:
If people are worried that Christians might ignore scientific data if it conflicts with God (although that is not something that is going to happen with the vast majority of Christians), should we also be worried that people might ignore any scientific evidence for a divine being if they don't believe in one?

You know, while we are making baseless accusations like that in this thread...

The divine is by definition supernatural which is outside the realm of science. That being said, if there was scientific evidence of the miraculous or the divine, it would be one of the biggest discoveries in human history. Unfortunately, in the 12,000 years of human civilization, such evidence has yet to surface.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If people are worried that Christians might ignore scientific data if it conflicts with God (although that is not something that is going to happen with the vast majority of Christians), should we also be worried that people might ignore any scientific evidence for a divine being if they don't believe in one?

You know, while we are making baseless accusations like that in this thread...

The divine is by definition supernatural which is outside the realm of science. That being said, if there was scientific evidence of the miraculous or the divine, it would be one of the biggest discoveries in human history. Unfortunately, in the 12,000 years of human civilization, such evidence has yet to surface.

Also keep in mind that a lot of atheists would actually appreciate the existence of some form of divinity. The idea of some great will for order in the Universe can be quite comforting.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 sebster wrote:
God of the gaps is only wrong when it develops specific, psuedo-scientific ideas like that one about God being the reason atoms don't fly apart. When kept at the general level, 'God created the big bang' there's nothing problematic or unscientific about it at all.

"God caused the big bang" is a specific, pseudo-scientific idea. The claim that God did or does anything is a matter of faith but the big bang is a (theoretical) natural phenonmenon. Claiming that God caused the big bang is the same as claiming that God caused any other natural phenomenon. "God causes chemical reactions. God causes our finger nails to grow. God causes cars to be built. God causes bank robberies."



For those who don't have time to watch the debate, here are the basic points of Ken Ham's argument:

(1) What is generally called science is actually "operational science."

(2) Operational science requires the presence of human consciousness.

(3) Operational science cannot access the nature of the world prior to human existence.

(4) Therefore, we cannot know as a matter of operational science that nature has always operated the same way.

(5) To understand the natural world prior to human existence, we must look to a reliable first-person account; this is "historical science."

(6) The Bible is such an account.

Can we get a similar summary for Mr. Nye's points?

I think perhaps something that matters a lot to me which is almost as important as the topics being discussed, is were the 2 men respectful or did either of them come across as condescending or disrespectful towards the other? I'd imagine they both behaved nicely in keeping with their reputations. Sadly I didn't have time to watch last night.

I maintain that while I don't agree 100% with Ham's view on creationism, it always impresses me how much preachier the non creationists are about the topic.

Congratulations, you are now in the group of people who think that advocating education is bad because "I don't like being advocated to" as well as everyone else who dislike things just because of how a few of the people put the message across.

People getting mad because people chose not to acknowledge the facts is not a new thing. Would you be mad if someone was a bit harsh as the described how you needed to get out of your house because its on fire when the guy currently sitting on the flaming couch invited you for a sit down to enjoy the heat?

 Aerethan wrote:
Can we get a similar summary for Mr. Nye's points?

Nye did not offer an epistemological counterpoint, except to briefly ask Ham what evidence he had that natural law operated any differently in the past compared to in the present.

I would summarize Nye's argument thusly:

(1) The conclusions of creationism are contrary to observable phenomenon.

(2) Any methodology that asserts conclusions contrary to observable phenomenon is non-scientific.

(3) Considering non-scientific accounts of the natural world to be equivalent to scientific ones is harmful to civil society.

 Aerethan wrote:
were the 2 men respectful or did either of them come across as condescending or disrespectful towards the other?

Keeping in mind that how they delivered their arguments has no bearing on the validity of their arguments, both men seemed sincere, polite, and attentive to me. Some folks ITT say that Ham was disrespectful because he sat down when Nye spoke but I didn't get that impression.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
People ignore Climate Change despite all the proof not because of a god, but because they just don't like the idea of climate change being a thing.


Honestly? Were fethed, utterly, we created a system were its in the benefit of politicians to appeal to far edge fringe groups with lots of money rather than people who actually know what there talking about.

Climate Change will not be addressed because the people who paid to elect our current House of Rep's don't want to address it.

If people are willing to ignore science because its just doesn't fit into there world view, how can we ever educate people who believe they have a divine reason to ignore science?

My only thought to consider on this:

Evolutionists believe in insane probabilities and statistical nightmares that brought about the state of everything as it is. Just the right conditions, the right time, all of it. The odds are incredibly small. Yet they believe it entirely as truth. The very idea of God or intelligent design offends them, in almost the exact same way that their view offends hardcore creationists.

So while atheists may feel superior in their worldview, they are just as stubborn as creationists in that they deny the possibility of any answer that isn't the one they believe.

In my post I should have said it differently, not blatant disrespect, just poor debate form in small instances, Nye also made a few mistakes, during Kens speech he ripped his paper off the pad that made a louder noice under the mic, he noticed his mistake, and from that point on he proceeded to fold the paper behind the notebook instead.