Is there a worse argument??

[_Ren]

Correct. [That the Big Bang has not been 'established'] Certainly not like gravity has been 'established' or the existence of Saturn has been 'established,' etc. That said, however, I do think evidence points to a big bang having occured.

OK - well - it's a consistent answer.
But I'm wondering a couple of things about your position.

Firstly, if something isn't 'scientifically established' (in your mind), what practical consequences does this have?
For example, if the Big Bang isn't 'established' (according to your standards), should it be getting taught to students in school?


Secondly, I'm wondering what else is 'unestablished' in your mind...

...plate tectonics? (Has anybody actually seen a continent shift?)
...black holes? (Can black holes be truly 'observed' in the sense you mean?)
...Quarks? (Have we ever truly 'seen' these, or is it just that the world we can observe 'behaves like those entities are real'?)


I - for one - respect your right to your opinion on this matter. But I am also - myself - perfectly confident that science is more far-reaching than you are giving it credit for.


Every time a jury convicts - or acquits - someone of a crime, they 'establish' a conclusion based not on what they have directly observed, but from the 'available evidence'.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I have memories that are reasonably interpreted as part of the "real world." I also know there are lots of memories that are false. Likewise, I have intuitions about others' minds that are reasonably interpreted as real while understanding not everything intuitively seen as the product of a mind actually is.

JSM -

When Mikwut is saying "objectively correlated with the real world in some manner," I think the term "some manner" is crucial here. After all, phantom limb pains are correlated with the real world in some manner. It's that the most straightforward interpretation of that experience, a pain in a real limb, is not correct. False perceptions abound. It's not like Mikwut isn't aware of the existence of visual illusions that are a byproduct of faults in how we process visual stimuli. But understanding that is enough to understand how trivial the comment is. After all, you don't deny people have spiritual experiences that are correlated with the real world in some manner. It's a particular kind of causal interpretation of those experiences that you are denying.

Yes. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my posts.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Found a pretty dumb argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_FDI5XY ... 91&index=1

The fact that there aren't any metal birds proves there is a god.

[_Sethbag]

Found a pretty dumb argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_FDI5XY ... 91&index=1

The fact that there aren't any metal birds proves there is a god.

Rofl, the "Argument from Biological Fauna".

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Found a pretty dumb argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_FDI5XY ... 91&index=1

The fact that there aren't any metal birds proves there is a god.

Rofl, the "Argument from Biological Fauna".

And somewhere there are crystalline intelligences go "Argument from Silicate Fauna"

[_Ren]

Found a pretty dumb argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_FDI5XY ... 91&index=1

The fact that there aren't any metal birds proves there is a god.

Rofl, the "Argument from Biological Fauna".

It gets even better...!
...check this video out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaSZtf5 ... re=related

Most of it is the usual kind of stuff. (The way Dawkins' 'possibly could have been aliens' answer to Stein continues to get abused is pretty low stuff - but to be expected I guess. I accept theists are often quote-mined out of context by atheists also...)

But check out 1:45 on that video...

"The fact remains that God gave man the knowledge and ability to modify [the banana], so that it could fit perfectly into his hand.

They did the same with big dogs - so that they could fit into his car.
..and with wild cats - so that they perfectly fit for his wife!"

I'm pretty sure this is legit - it was posted on youtube by 'thewayofthemaster' - which seems to be the official poster name for Comfort and Cameron's little 'project'.

It looks like they really mean it!

So - are there worse arguments than 'looking into a child's eyes'?
...it appears so...

Every time you see:

* A banana
* A dog in a car
...and...
* A cat sitting on a wife's lap. (Not sure if any women counts - they might have to be a 'wife')

...you see evidence for God. Apparently...

[_mikwut]

E and JSM:

When Mikwut is saying "objectively correlated with the real world in some manner," I think the term "some manner" is crucial here. After all, phantom limb pains are correlated with the real world in some manner. It's that the most straightforward interpretation of that experience, a pain in a real limb, is not correct. False perceptions abound. It's not like Mikwut isn't aware of the existence of visual illusions that are a byproduct of faults in how we process visual stimuli. But understanding that is enough to understand how trivial the comment is. After all, you don't deny people have spiritual experiences that are correlated with the real world in some manner. It's a particular kind of causal interpretation of those experiences that you are denying.

Yes. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my posts.

'Some manner' simply refers to and accounts for mistakes, we all know those occur. False limbs and illusions aren't "faculties" - they are experiences we have in regards to particular faculties, but they are not faculties in and of themselves. I am asking which faculty do we have (i.e. reasoning, memory, sight, hearing, etc..) that doesn't correlate to the real concrete world?

regards, mikwut

[_EAllusion]

I think you are defining faculty, especially since you are telegraphing "seeing the divine" as a faculty, in a way that does not correspond to my understanding of contemporary psychology of perception. But I already had anticipated this, which is why there was a portion of my post not directly addressed to JSM. Spiritual experiences generally are things that are part of or part of the break down in various cognitive processes that do have an appropriate time and place. But we can slice the pie creatively like is being implied here and call a something generally thought of as superstitious paranoia, say the feeling of needing to avoid walking on certain lines, a faculty. That does not belong in a sound understanding of the "real world."

[_Brackite]

...

As to evidence of evolution, I grant that micro-evolution (such as Darwin's Finch beaks) is established. Macro-evolution, the kind that allegedly produces entirely new biological systems, species, phylum, classes, etc. is not established. It is, rather, extrapolated from micro. It is by definition, unobservable since it requires millions of years to observe. Scientists can piece together various bones and can note such things as the types of fossils found in certain layers and then develop hypotheses based on what they find, but that does not establish macro-evolution. Evidence can be interepreted in such a way as to support the theory of macro-evolution, but, again, that does not establish it as fact. Nevertheless, having said all that, there is no evidence--again to the best of my knowledge--no facts that establish life from non-life.

Now if that is a correct observation--and I think it is--then the atheist has a problem... if there is no God, where did life come from? On the other hand, to be fair, the traditional believer in a literal 6 day creation just a few thousand years ago also has a problem since real-world evidence seems to indicate a fairly old universe. The "truth" may lie somewhere in the middle.

...

Hi Roger,

There is more evidence for Human Evolution, than there is for the Spaulding/Rigdon Theory for the Book of Mormon. Yet, It very much seems like you have some trouble believing in Human Evolution, but that you don't really have any trouble believing in the Spaulding/Rigdon Theory for the Book of Mormon. Why is that???

Here is Theist Dr. Kenneth Miller on Human Evolution:


Ken Miller on Human Evolution:

[_Roger]

SB:

Harping on abiogenesis is really a "God of the Gaps" argument, and will undoubtedly share the same fate as all the other God of the Gaps arguments, in due time.

Possibly so... but it's a pretty good one. The article you cited frankly admits that abiogenesis is taken as axiomatic. My point is that life exists. Assuming a big bang happened then life apparently (as least as we know it) has not always existed. Where did it come from? Is there any evidence that supports the notion that life came from non-life? Back in the 1950's scientists thought they were on the verge of creating life from non-life. Eventually they discovered that is a lot more tricky than they had imagined--even when intelligent minds are attempting to make it happen.

So the idea that life somehow arose from non-life without any input from some outside force or intelligence is problematic. The article you cited brushes this difficulty aside as though it is really no big deal. I think that observation provides a balanced perspective on a thread that criticizes a radio theist for the types of arguments he used while on the air.