Page 3 of 6

Re: Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 5:33 pm
by ElShamah
Proinsias wrote:
Having had a look around the forum over the past day or two I can see that this forum attempts to create a sort of safe space for Christians and those looking to explore Chritianity further. I would like to respect that whilst hopefully adding a little and taking something from it. If my questions or opinions would be better suited to another type of forum then that is where they shall go.
I have not seen may genuinly open minded and gentle atheists, you seem a raritiy amongst many i met. I sincerly hope you will find the truth.

If you want to search beyond questions more related to science, but general questions about christianity, i recommend you to give a look at this homepage :

http://www.biblebb.com/

amongst few articles i read, these ones i enjoy'd most :

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-208.htm

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-220.htm

Re: Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 5:54 pm
by Gman
Proinsias wrote:I think the existence of god is a rather moot point here, especially when the semantics of what god is are explored - is the use of the pronoun 'he' to be taken with any weight? If it is the case that god exists then natural explanations are still all that will suffice from an atheist perspective, if it is the case that god does not exist then theists will not be convinced by only a natural explanation.

I do have some difficulty with the idea of a 'natural' explanation. God would seem a fairly natural explanation to me. Is god in this context non-natural or supernatural or something else?

I tend to try and avoid the use of the word fact or factual, I find it lends little weight to a statement..
Naturalism, in itself, is not a bad thing. It helps us to understand diseases, the weather, the planets, and more. Science, as assumed, therefore tries to account for the factual character of the natural world and tries to create theories to explain these facts. There is nothing wrong with that... But can natural facts explain everything? This is where I think we hit a wall because if you truly study the sciences it doesn't..

Religion sounds nice but we know it is wrong based on materialistic philosophy. It's almost like the heart vs. the brain conflict. The heart is what we use for religion and the brain is what we use for science. Religion essentially is what you believe because of faith. With science, you need evidence and need to back it up. Science deals with the material world of genes and cells, religion with the spiritual world of value and meaning. Science is about facts, religion is about personal values. This isn't even accurate, because Christianity does make claims about the origin of life, the material world, about the cosmos, about human nature, events in history, etc.. Just read the book of Genesis...

Re: Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 6:18 pm
by Proinsias
Thank you ElShamah.

I should mention that I am not an atheist. I signed up at the Atheist Toolbox a few years ago to try and discover why atheists are atheists. I have had many enlightening discussions with atheists, and people who are seeking, who have a far better understanding of Christianity than I do. In doing so I ended up a becoming a very small part of a community of caring and wonderful people.

I will look over the links you have presented in the next few days.

Re: Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 6:48 pm
by Proinsias
Gman wrote:
Proinsias wrote:I think the existence of god is a rather moot point here, especially when the semantics of what god is are explored - is the use of the pronoun 'he' to be taken with any weight? If it is the case that god exists then natural explanations are still all that will suffice from an atheist perspective, if it is the case that god does not exist then theists will not be convinced by only a natural explanation.

I do have some difficulty with the idea of a 'natural' explanation. God would seem a fairly natural explanation to me. Is god in this context non-natural or supernatural or something else?


Naturalism, in itself, is not a bad thing. It helps us to understand diseases, the weather, the planets, and more. Science, as assumed, therefore tries to account for the factual character of the natural world and tries to create theories to explain these facts. There is nothing wrong with that... But can natural facts explain everything? This is where I think we hit a wall because if you truly study the sciences it doesn't..
Can anything explain everything? maybe god, but then god is not a thing in my understanding. As I said earlier I don't see that the use of 'fact' helps anyone. Science tries to account for the characteristics of this world and tries to create theories to explain this. Science is useful for understanding the world around us as is theology, art, music, philosophy or whatever.

Science is a useful lens to make sense of the world, it helps. It is not fact, whatever that means.

Sorry but I have to ask again: if god is not natural then what is god?

Re: Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 7:03 pm
by Gman
Proinsias wrote:Can anything explain everything? maybe god, but then god is not a thing in my understanding.
Science does not take philosophical stances, people do. If a position takes a positive philosophical stance on a matter such as God's existence or non-existence then surely it can be guaranteed someone is mixing their science with their philosophical opinions.
Proinsias wrote:As I said earlier I don't see that the use of 'fact' helps anyone. Science tries to account for the characteristics of this world and tries to create theories to explain this. Science is useful for understanding the world around us as is theology, art, music, philosophy or whatever.

Science is a useful lens to make sense of the world, it helps. It is not fact, whatever that means.
I have no clue what you are talking about.. Did I say that science was a fact? People use science to account for the factual character of the natural world. Do we agree that the earth revolves around the sun? Do we agree that F=MA is the force of gravity? These are not facts? Just want to know..
Proinsias wrote:Sorry but I have to ask again: if god is not natural then what is god?


God is spirit, but He can be known in the natural world and through His creation.... And God also manifested himself on this planet in the form of Jesus Christ.. So God is material/natural too.

Re: Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 9:16 pm
by Proinsias
Gman wrote:
Proinsias wrote:Can anything explain everything? maybe god, but then god is not a thing in my understanding.
Science does not take philosophical stances, people do. If a position takes a positive philosophical stance on a matter such as God's existence or non-existence then surely it can be guaranteed someone is mixing their science with their philosophical opinions.
I don't think it is a bad thing to mix science and philosophy. I don't think I've ever met anyone who didn't allow their opinions on science be influenced by their philosophical stance. This site seems like a lot of people mixing their science with their philosophic opinions, this is a good thing.
Gman wrote:
Proinsias wrote:As I said earlier I don't see that the use of 'fact' helps anyone. Science tries to account for the characteristics of this world and tries to create theories to explain this. Science is useful for understanding the world around us as is theology, art, music, philosophy or whatever.

Science is a useful lens to make sense of the world, it helps. It is not fact, whatever that means.
I have no clue what you are talking about.
Sorry, I'll try again:
Gman wrote:Did I say that science was a fact?
No, you said factual science. The word 'fact' has been used quite a bit over the past few pages, I find it rarely makes a useful contribution.
Gman wrote: People use science to account for the factual character of the natural world. Do we agree that the earth revolves around the sun? Do we agree that F=MA is the force of gravity? These are not facts? Just want to know..
I don't think they are facts. Facts would always be true. I believe that there was a time when the earth was not revolving around the sun, as they did not exist, and there is a chance that in the future they will not be in an observable relationship.

F=MA is the force of gravity? I'm not sure. In physics force takes a few forms and gravity is the one that is proving tough to reconcile with the others. The equation breaks when acceleration becomes the speed of light. And when mass becomes very dense things also prove difficult.

Re: Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 9:44 pm
by Gman
Proinsias wrote:I don't think it is a bad thing to mix science and philosophy. I don't think I've ever met anyone who didn't allow their opinions on science be influenced by their philosophical stance. This site seems like a lot of people mixing their science with their philosophic opinions, this is a good thing.
Actually religion, philosophy and science must conflict. Science and religion deal with the same thing. Human life. But people try to understand it under different types of considerations..
Proinsias wrote:No, you said factual science. The word 'fact' has been used quite a bit over the past few pages, I find it rarely makes a useful contribution.

I don't think they are facts. Facts would always be true. I believe that there was a time when the earth was not revolving around the sun, as they did not exist, and there is a chance that in the future they will not be in an observable relationship.
You are denying that there aren't any facts in science? Well that is a fight you will have to make with scientists then.. Whether they be evolutionists or creationists..
Proinsias wrote:F=MA is the force of gravity? I'm not sure. In physics force takes a few forms and gravity is the one that is proving tough to reconcile with the others. The equation breaks when acceleration becomes the speed of light. And when mass becomes very dense things also prove difficult.
Perhaps you are right, maybe there isn't anything such as the force of gravity... Who knows right? Maybe there isn't any light at all either.. How do we know? Come to think about it, how do you know that you are writing on this forum?

Re: Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 5:24 am
by hopefulcynic
Proinsias wrote:F=MA is the force of gravity? I'm not sure. In physics force takes a few forms and gravity is the one that is proving tough to reconcile with the others. The equation breaks when acceleration becomes the speed of light. And when mass becomes very dense things also prove difficult.
Perhaps you are right, maybe there isn't anything such as the force of gravity... Who knows right? Maybe there isn't any light at all either.. How do we know? Come to think about it, how do you know that you are writing on this forum?
Prosinias has a point here- even if he isn't completely right- and you shouldn't be so quick to mock him. At speeds close to the speed of light, predictions made by Newtonian physics (including F = ma) break down. At these high speeds, we must use the theory of relativity to explain our observations. Of course, relativity can explain gravity at low speeds too. However, the equations are very complicated, and it is easier to describe gravity in terms of Newtonian physics, even if the results we get are slightly inaccurate.

No one is suggesting that gravity/light/people don't exist. Where did you come up with that conclusion?

Re: Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 5:36 am
by hopefulcynic
Proinsias wrote: I don't think they are facts. Facts would always be true. I believe that there was a time when the earth was not revolving around the sun, as they did not exist, and there is a chance that in the future they will not be in an observable relationship.
I disagree. Yes, at one point in time the earth was not orbiting the sun. Today it is. So what? There is no requirement that facts must always be true.

It is a fact that the earth has not always orbited the sun.
It is also a fact that the earth is now orbiting around the sun.

There is no conflict between these two statements. Both are true, and both are facts.

Think of it this way:

I don't think they are facts. Facts would always be true. I believe that there was a time when Prosinias did not exist, before he was born, and there is a chance that in the future he will have died.

Now, does that make much sense? Could I say that it is not a fact that you exist?

Re: Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:07 am
by Gman
hopefulcynic wrote:Prosinias has a point here- even if he isn't completely right- and you shouldn't be so quick to mock him. At speeds close to the speed of light, predictions made by Newtonian physics (including F = ma) break down. At these high speeds, we must use the theory of relativity to explain our observations. Of course, relativity can explain gravity at low speeds too. However, the equations are very complicated, and it is easier to describe gravity in terms of Newtonian physics, even if the results we get are slightly inaccurate.

No one is suggesting that gravity/light/people don't exist. Where did you come up with that conclusion?
No one is mocking anyone here... Sure, we can take this and splice and dice it to anything you want... Like saying that the earth eventually won't run around the sun. It will stop. There are no absolutes... Right? He stated that mass becomes very dense and things also prove difficult. At some point who is to say that humans will live forever here on earth too... One day that will stop as well. So technically there are no absolutes.. It is a possible conclusion to say that people don't exist either. And that will surely happen when our sun engulfs the earth, then it's like we will never have existed.

What is your point?

Re: Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:17 am
by hopefulcynic
Gman wrote:
hopefulcynic wrote:Prosinias has a point here- even if he isn't completely right- and you shouldn't be so quick to mock him. At speeds close to the speed of light, predictions made by Newtonian physics (including F = ma) break down. At these high speeds, we must use the theory of relativity to explain our observations. Of course, relativity can explain gravity at low speeds too. However, the equations are very complicated, and it is easier to describe gravity in terms of Newtonian physics, even if the results we get are slightly inaccurate.

No one is suggesting that gravity/light/people don't exist. Where did you come up with that conclusion?
No one is mocking anyone here... Sure, we can take this and splice and dice it to anything you want... Like saying that the earth eventually won't run around the sun. It will stop. There are no absolutes... Right? He stated that mass becomes very dense and things also prove difficult. At some point who is to say that humans will live forever here on earth too... One day that will stop as well. So technically there are no absolutes.. It is a possible conclusion to say that people don't exist either. And that will surely happen when our sun engulfs the earth, it then it's like we will never have existed.

What is your point?
Mass and gravity are known to behave strangely at speeds close to the speed of light. At these speeds, Newtonian physics is inaccurate, and we must use Einsteinian physics. This is what Prosinsias was trying to say.

I'm not sure where you go from this to asserting that everything is relative and nothing is absolute.

Re: Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:30 am
by Gman
hopefulcynic wrote:Mass and gravity are known to behave strangely at speeds close to the speed of light. At these speeds, Newtonian physics is inaccurate, and we must use Einsteinian physics. This is what Prosinsias was trying to say.

I'm not sure where you go from this to asserting that everything is relative and nothing is absolute.
But given the right conditions it can be measured to a degree... We can at least agree on that, correct? Prosinsias seems to be implying that there aren't any real scientific facts or that we shouldn't use them. The point I was trying to make is that scientists claim to use and create scientific facts all the time. This is how were get complicated scientific formulas and come up with certain laws of science. Of course those are laws in our "known" world..

I'm not sure what you are talking about either. Where are you going with this?

Re: Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:40 am
by hopefulcynic
Gman wrote:
hopefulcynic wrote:Mass and gravity are known to behave strangely at speeds close to the speed of light. At these speeds, Newtonian physics is inaccurate, and we must use Einsteinian physics. This is what Prosinsias was trying to say.

I'm not sure where you go from this to asserting that everything is relative and nothing is absolute.
But given the right conditions it can be measured... We can at least agree on that, correct?
Yeah.
Prosinsias seems to be implying that there aren't any real scientific facts or that we shouldn't use them. The point I was trying to make is that scientists claim to use and create scientific facts all the time. This is how were get complicated scientific formulas and come up with certain laws of science. Of course those are laws in our "known" world..
Yeah, I tried to address his "no facts" argument in a post above. I think we are in agreement that there are facts and that humans have the ability to discover them.
I'm not sure what you are talking about either. Where are you going with this?
You seemed to me (but I might be completely mistaken here) to be making fun of Prosinsias when he said that F = ma is not always true. Well, Prosinsias was correct when he said that. I'm not trying to go anywhere with this, or hint at something deeper, or whatever. All I am saying is that Prosinsias was correct when he said that, and you were incorrect for disagreeing with him.

Re: Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:04 am
by Gman
hopefulcynic wrote:You seemed to me (but I might be completely mistaken here) to be making fun of Prosinsias when he said that F = ma is not always true. Well, Prosinsias was correct when he said that. I'm not trying to go anywhere with this, or hint at something deeper, or whatever. All I am saying is that Prosinsias was correct when he said that, and you were incorrect for disagreeing with him.
Let's not get into a word twisting game.. He is also incorrect.. He stated that he thought they aren't facts, (like the earth revolving around the sun). He stated that facts would always be true. In his view they are not (read his previous posts).. You disagreed with him too... What I stated before was a logical conclusion to his reasoning.

Maybe we should let him speak for himself...

Re: Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:31 pm
by Proinsias
Thanks for the comments, I will try to flesh out my position a little.

Most theological discussions between people of differing viewpoints I've encountered online, including this one, involve people using the word 'fact' repeatedly. I find it unhelpful and mentioned it earlier in the thread to try and distance myself from the 'factual science' comment made by Gman. I don't want to give the impression that my opinions are based on indisputable facts, they're merely my opinions cobbled together from bits of science, philosophy, theology, art and countless other bits and bobs. I am not here to present a set of undeniable facts and then show the robustness of my worldview as it derived from them. I'm here to share in different points of view. I'm interested in different subjective opinions of objective reality.

The existence of scientific facts makes no difference. F=MA is a very useful concept for interacting with and making predictions about the world but when pushed to extremes it breaks down. Evolution is also a very useful concept for interacting with and making predictions about the world but also begins to breakdown when pushed to extremes. Questioning my own existence also has its place, who am I?, but I find it useful to just get on with things, such as typing stuff on forums, most of the time. When pushed to the extreme the concept of 'I' also becomes difficult.

This limerick nicely demonstrates the issue:

Though it seems that I know that I know,

What I would like to see, is the I that knows me,

When I know, that I know, that I know.


The term orbit implies gravity, we've not yet figured out what gravity implies. The Theory of Everything is in part the attempt to understand gravity and its relationship to other forces. If you are stating it is fact that the earth orbits the sun then you are doing so using language derived from concepts we don't fully understand.

Light is another good example that has been mentioned. We have a concept of light but that concept has been changing all the time, who would have thought hundreds of years ago that we would be using light as a basis for defining spacial measurements. To say that light is a fact is fine, as long as you are willing to be elastic in your definition of light.

hopefulcynic wrote:Yeah, I tried to address his "no facts" argument in a post above. I think we are in agreement that there are facts and that humans have the ability to discover them.
That's the age old question. Are we discovering fundamental laws of the universe of are we making up fundamental laws of the universe. I think much of it rests on the very bedrock of mathematics, are we creating mathematics or are we discovering mathematics?

Einstein said: as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

I try to aim for a balance of faith and doubt. The religious approach tends to favour faith and the scientific approach tends to favour doubt, I tend to approach religion and science with an equal measure of faith and doubt.

In closing I would add that if you choose not to believe in light, gravity, orbits, evolution or your own existence you are still able to go about your daily business, join forums and post.
If you do choose to see some of these things as fact make sure you fill in the definitions using a pencil as they will need to be continually altered.
If you believe in a god then the scope for definition is almost endless as the variety of religion found across the world shows.