Atheist question

[zacchaeus]

My God existed before existence. It's obvious there are laws governing life and growth. DNA doesn't allow for an alligator to give birth to a monkey. That being said, the "laws" from our end are just our attempt to describe what we observe or consider in theory.

[RickD]

Zacchaeus wrote:
My God existed before existence.

[Kenny]

The points that DBowling makes are are really good ones. How science studies the natural world and points to the supernatural.

It appears DBowling is just playing “God of the gaps”; filling in the questions left unanswered by science (gaps) with the supernatural (God).

I was wondering when "god of the gaps" would show up...

Yeah it was bound to happen eventually. Usually when discussing with you guys on issues like this, after a half dozen or so posts; almost like clockwork you guys resort to the God of the gaps argument and I am usually quick to point that out for ya.

When logic, data, and facts don't support support your argument, I guess the next step is to pull out a handy catch phrase.

The catch phrase “God of the gaps” is used when someone claims “God did it” to the questions science does not have answers for.
You make the claim that when science does not have answers, it points to non-scientific sources for answers. (sounds like God of the gaps to me!) I ask you for examples of science actually doing this, and you give examples where science doesn't have answers, but provide no scientific theory that mentions non scientific sources as a part of the theory. (I invite you to try again, but I ain't holdin' my breath)

What do you mean when you say “natural sciences point to the existence of the Super natural causes?” How does science point to something else when it has no answers?

I've addressed this question a number of times in our dialogue already. I'm not sure how you could have missed it.
But let's try... one... more... time...

Deep diving one of the examples we have been discussing.
Science tells us that matter and energy exist.
Science tells us that we live in a finite universe which began around 14 billion years ago
The first law of thermodynamics tells us that the amount of matter/energy in our universe is a constant.

So science tells us when the matter/energy of our universe came into being.

No. The Big Bang theory does not tell us how the Universe came into being. Hence the links below;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
(From the link under misconceptions of the big bang)
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space was caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra dense and high-temperature initial state

https://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/20 ... tions.html

The Big Bang theory doesn’t say anything about what caused it because, well, it doesn’t need to…….The origin of all these other pieces requires separate theories, with their own evidence, which are being worked on

So according to the above information, science does not tell us when energy/matter of our Universe came into being.

But based on the first law of thermodynamics, the natural sciences are incapable of telling us how the matter/energy of our universe came into being.

Therefore the causal factor for the matter/energy in our universe operates outside the laws of natural science and by definition is 'super'natural.

Okay I think I get it. Due to faulty information, you make the mistake of believing natural sciences tells us how matter/energy came into being, (which contradicts the first law of thermodynamics) so rather than assuming the information you received was wrong, you proclaim “super natural”. Is that about It? Or did I miss anything.

[RickD]

Every once in a while, it's a good idea to post old posts that are relevant to current topics.

This gem of a post by Jac, couldn't be more relevant.

Jac, you hit the nail on the head with this one:
viewtopic.php?p=166839#p166839

[RickD]

For those reading, besides Kenny, who want to have a rational understanding of the topic at hand, here's the definition of supernatural:

su·per·nat·u·ral
/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/

adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

If something is beyond scientific understanding, such as the reason why the Big Bang occurred, by DEFINITION, it's supernatural.

It's no God of the gaps argument to say that the reason for the Big Bang is supernatural.

Maybe some day Kenny will be open to an honest conversation. We can only pray.

[RickD]

DBowling,

I understand if you get frustrated, and stop responding to Kenny. We've all reached that point. How anyone can completely misunderstand what you said, just shows how frustrating it has been for all of us here. Take this response by him, to your post:

DBowling wrote:
But based on the first law of thermodynamics, the natural sciences are incapable of telling us how the matter/energy of our universe came into being.
Therefore the causal factor for the matter/energy in our universe operates outside the laws of natural science and by definition is 'super'natural.

Kenny wrote:
Okay I think I get it. Due to faulty information, you make the mistake of believing natural sciences tells us how matter/energy came into being, (which contradicts the first law of thermodynamics) so rather than assuming the information you received was wrong, you proclaim “super natural”. Is that about It? Or did I miss anything.

[Kenny]

For those reading, besides Kenny, who want to have a rational understanding of the topic at hand, here's the definition of supernatural:

su·per·nat·u·ral
/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/

adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

If something is beyond scientific understanding, such as the reason why the Big Bang occurred, by DEFINITION, it's supernatural.

It's no God of the gaps argument to say that the reason for the Big Bang is supernatural.

Maybe some day Kenny will be open to an honest conversation. We can only pray.

The discussion at hand is not whether or not the Big Bang is supernatural or not, it is whether science points to non-scientific sources as a part of it’s theories. I say it does not; do you agree?

[RickD]

I'm afraid that Kenny has been dishonest with all of us. He said that he is here to learn. Yet time and time again, he asks the same questions that he has been given the answers to. If he were truly here to learn, he would not be asking the same questions over and over, after people have been extremely patient with him.

He has proven himself intellectually dishonest. He certainly isn't open to learning anything new, especially things that he disagrees with.

Maybe he is asking the same questions because no one has answered them yet in a way that resonates with him?
At least he's asking

You mean that nobody has agreed with Kenny's version of truth?

[Kenny]

Every once in a while, it's a good idea to post old posts that are relevant to current topics.

This gem of a post by Jac, couldn't be more relevant.

Jac, you hit the nail on the head with this one:
viewtopic.php?p=166839#p166839

I remember that discussion. If you will notice, all I was trying to do was to get a straight answer from you guys and at that time there were a lot of people who thought if they don’t like your answers, they could intimidate you by slandering you with personal attacks, and calling you insulting names, that this would scare you to silence.
I wasn’t intimidated then nor now; and though some of the personal attacks continue, it definitely isn’t to the extent as it was back then. Some of the guilty seem to have gone away; others seem to have a better attitude towards my replies and actually make an attempt to answer my questions, and I’ve noticed many of the type of questions posted now are a bit different than the questions posted back then; there seems to be less confrontation and hostility towards non believers today than there was back then, so the responses are a bit more civil.

[RickD]

For those reading, besides Kenny, who want to have a rational understanding of the topic at hand, here's the definition of supernatural:

su·per·nat·u·ral
/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/

adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

If something is beyond scientific understanding, such as the reason why the Big Bang occurred, by DEFINITION, it's supernatural.

It's no God of the gaps argument to say that the reason for the Big Bang is supernatural.

Maybe some day Kenny will be open to an honest conversation. We can only pray.

The discussion at hand is not whether or not the Big Bang is supernatural or not, it is whether science points to non-scientific sources as a part of it’s theories. I say it does not; do you agree?

Nope. DBowling never mentioned that science points to non-scientific, i.e. supernatural sources as part of scientific theories. You were the one who inserted the asinine question about why there's no scientific theories about the supernatural. And since you're going to ask, it's asinine because the supernatural is beyond the scope of science, and therefore, cannot be part of a scientific theory.

[RickD]

Every once in a while, it's a good idea to post old posts that are relevant to current topics.

This gem of a post by Jac, couldn't be more relevant.

Jac, you hit the nail on the head with this one:
viewtopic.php?p=166839#p166839

I remember that discussion. If you will notice, all I was trying to do was to get a straight answer from you guys and at that time there were a lot of people who thought if they don’t like your answers, they could intimidate you by slandering you with personal attacks, and calling you insulting names, that this would scare you to silence.
I wasn’t intimidated then nor now; and though some of the personal attacks continue, it definitely isn’t to the extent as it was back then. Some of the guilty seem to have gone away; others seem to have a better attitude towards my replies and actually make an attempt to answer my questions, and I’ve noticed many of the type of questions posted now are a bit different than the questions posted back then; there seems to be less confrontation and hostility towards non believers today than there was back then, so the responses are a bit more civil.

People have responded to you less and less, now that they realize you cannot have a rational conversation.

So technically, there's less hostility to your posts, but that's because there are less responses to your posts.

You twist what others say.

You have no idea what you are talking about, on the majority of the things you discuss.

That in itself isn't bad. But the fact that you refuse to learn about subjects you are ignorant on, is extremely frustrating, to say the least.

You repeat the same questions, multiple times, even after you have been given answers. You don't like the answers, because they don't fit your version of the truth, so you just dismiss the answers with no rational reasoning behind your dismissal.

[DBowling]

The points that DBowling makes are are really good ones. How science studies the natural world and points to the supernatural.

It appears DBowling is just playing “God of the gaps”; filling in the questions left unanswered by science (gaps) with the supernatural (God).

I was wondering when "god of the gaps" would show up...

Yeah it was bound to happen eventually. Usually when discussing with you guys on issues like this, after a half dozen or so posts; almost like clockwork you guys resort to the God of the gaps argument and I am usually quick to point that out for ya.

And like clockwork 'you guys' resort to the 'god of the gaps' rhetorical sleight of hand when you need to sidestep the implications of the scientific data or you just want to provide a rhetorical distraction with a good old fashioned strawman.

When logic, data, and facts don't support support your argument, I guess the next step is to pull out a handy catch phrase.

The catch phrase “God of the gaps” is used when someone claims “God did it” to the questions science does not have answers for.
You make the claim that when science does not have answers,

That is not my claim at all.
I claim that science provides some very specific answers.
I claim that science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago.
I claim that science tells us that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Therefore, any causal agent for the creation of matter/energy by definition is acting outside the physical laws that govern our universe.
There is no 'gap' in what science tells us there.

So based on your refusal to accept what the scientific data indicates, you fabricate a nonexistent gap.
And then you falsely claim that those who do accept what the scientific indicates are arguing 'god of the gaps'.

The big gap here is the gap between what the scientific evidence indicates and your presumptions about God.

[Kenny]

For those reading, besides Kenny, who want to have a rational understanding of the topic at hand, here's the definition of supernatural:

su·per·nat·u·ral
/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/

adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

If something is beyond scientific understanding, such as the reason why the Big Bang occurred, by DEFINITION, it's supernatural.

It's no God of the gaps argument to say that the reason for the Big Bang is supernatural.

Maybe some day Kenny will be open to an honest conversation. We can only pray.

The discussion at hand is not whether or not the Big Bang is supernatural or not, it is whether science points to non-scientific sources as a part of it’s theories. I say it does not; do you agree?

Nope. DBowling never mentioned that science points to non-scientific, i.e. supernatural sources as part of scientific theories. You were the one who inserted the asinine question about why there's no scientific theories about the supernatural. And since you're going to ask, it's asinine because the supernatural is beyond the scope of science, and therefore, cannot be part of a scientific theory.

First of all, I didn’t say “scientific theories about the supernatural” I said non-scientific sources as a part of scientific theories; big difference!
However; his exact words from post #44
Agreed... but the natural sciences can (and do) exhibit a number of observable characteristics in nature that cannot be explained by unguided natural repeatable processes alone.
Thus the many evidences found in the 'natural sciences' that point to 'supernatural' (and intelligent) causes (ie God).

These were his exact words. Now a scientific theory is “a well established explanation for Scientific data”.
https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of ... try-605932

Now if he is not talking about scientific theory when he spoke of the evidence found in natural science that point to the supernatural, what is he talking about? If he is talking about various scientists who speculate on questions science does not have an answer to, that could hardly be considered scientific evidence. So what do you suppose he was talking about here, if he is not talking about scientific theory?

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
First of all, I didn’t say “scientific theories about the supernatural”

I never put that in quotes, that you said an exact quote.

In post #37, you said:

Are you saying there are established scientific theories pointing to the existence of God? This is new to me; can you provide the name of some of these theories?

It's asinine.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Kenny]

I claim that science provides some very specific answers.

I agree!

I claim that science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago.

Here is where you are wrong. I provided 2 links that shows the Big Bang theory does NOT claim energy/matter ever came into being. The Theory starts with energy and matter already in place in the form of the singularity. How or if the singularity ever came into being will be a different theory all together; one that has not been established yet.

I claim that science tells us that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

I agree!

Therefore, any causal agent for the creation of matter/energy by definition is acting outside the physical laws that govern our universe.
There is no 'gap' in what science tells us there.

No, there is no gap, just false information. Your entire argument seems to be based on the false idea that science claims matter and energy came into being. I provided outside sources that proves your claim wrong. Either you need to prove my outside sources in error, or accept your argument has failed.