• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

DOC said:
These forums are about discussing.
Click to expand...
Then why do you insist on avoiding questions? I've answered your's, yet you evade mine.

It seems you are preoccupied with motes instead of beams.
 
Although the OP is a clear example of DOC's ongoing war with reality, there is some merit to the question posed.
The miracle of the universe is far greater than we usually realise. And I must admit that meditating on the size and complexity of it all sometimes gives me a warm, fuzzy, pantheist feeling. If I'm in a romantic mood.

By the way, this is my first post. So I guess that makes me an ex-lurker.
 
DOC said:
Was the force that caused the Big Bang a "natural" force or a "supernatural" force?
Click to expand...
DOC said:
Water is converted to steam by natural forces, but natural forces didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang. If they did what were those natural forces?
Click to expand...
DOC said:
Would you say the Big Bang was caused by natural forces or supernatural forces. If you believe natural forces, what were they?
Click to expand...
DOC said:
Name two natural physical laws that existed at the time of the Big Bang?
Click to expand...
This is ridiculous. It's obvious what you're trying to do. Creationists and other woo believers do it all the time. You know that you can't win the argument, so you're trying to find one thing that your opponents don't understand fully and then you intend to point at that and just act as if you just won the argument. It's pathetic.

Your question doesn't even make sense, since there's no definition of "time" that's valid at the big bang (see #48 and #59). And even if it did, it wouldn't get you any closer to winning the argument.

Now can you please explain why you're asking about this? Suppose that there had existed a theoretical framework such that the question had made sense, and that we wouldn't have been able to answer it. How exactly does that win the argument for you, or support your beliefs in any way?

400 years ago no one knew why the orbits of planets are (approximately) elliptical. Does that mean that the force of gravity was supernatural 400 years ago? Did it suddenly become natural when Newton found his theory? 100 years ago, no one knew why the orbit of Mercury didn't look exactly as was predicted by Newton's theory. Does that mean that gravity went back to being supernatural again at some time before that? Did it once again become natural 1915 when general relativity had been found?
 
DOC said:
See post 97 for my response to this? You and others seem to be saying "Hey this stuff is too complex to discuss in Randi!" You don't see me saying that about the Bible, I discuss things.
Click to expand...

You're a liar. We're not saying it is too complex to discuss, we're saying that it is complex enough to require a background THAT WE ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE FOR FREE.

You would absolutely challenge anyone who rejected the Bible without reading it to actually read it first. We are extending the same reasonable challenge to you, and since the Bible is free and the books we suggest are not free, we are willing to pay for you to read them.

If you are too afraid, just admit it. If you aren't a coward, accept the challenge, accept the free books, and read them. The choice is yours.
 
Riddle me this, DOC...

You tell us you have no interest in reading the material cited... but demand that it be cited when people quote the knowledge from said material.

I am stating an opinion here based off of your specific actions in this particular thread. I believe you are merely here to attack a position that directly challenges (in your mind) your dearly held beliefs in a series of superstitions. Not a single thing you have said in here makes me believe that you have the slightest interest or intention of having your questions answered or discussed in any kind of logical form.

Now please do not misunderstand me, I am not trying to make a personal attack on you, but I offer up my personal observation based off of what I have experienced here.

You mention the purpose here is discussion, yet it certainly appears that you have zero interest in discussing anything that was not proposed by you.
 
DOC said:
I'll answer your questions if you admit you were wrong about what a singularity is.
Click to expand...
Unrelated and dishonest request. I've already admitted the mistake I've made.

So, will you answer my 3 questions?

1.) Do you believe that when the universe was a singularity (or something similar) that it did not exist?
2.) What are the natural forces which convert water to steam?
3.) Why are these natural forces not at play during the big bang?

I had asked more questions, but I figure if you answer these, I'll assume you are truly interested in discussion as you claim.
 
DOC said:
Non Sequitur
Click to expand...
Hardly. Do you read what you write, and what you reply to?


DOC said:
Scientists as little as 100 years ago believed the universe was eternal. But they now believe the universe had a definite beginning -- much like Genesis believes the universe had a definite beginning.
Click to expand...

If the scientists of one hundred years ago now believe something different, they must be over one hundred years old.

zooterkin said:
Please name just one of these centenarian scientists.
Click to expand...

I asked you to name one of these scientists who was over one hundred years old.

DOC said:
Einstein for one.
Click to expand...

zooterkin said:
Einstein lived to be over a hundred? News to me.
Click to expand...

Born March 14, 1879(1879-03-14)
Died April 18, 1955 (aged 76)


Perhaps what you meant to say initially was that the consensus among scientists a hundred years ago was that the universe was eternal (do you have a reference for that?), but that now the Big Bang is thought most likely. Given the amount of evidence that has been gathered in that time, it would be more surprising if the consensus had not changed.
 
JoeEllison said:
You would absolutely challenge anyone who rejected the Bible without reading it to actually read it first. We are extending the same reasonable challenge to you, and since the Bible is free and the books we suggest are not free, we are willing to pay for you to read them.
Click to expand...
What if someone was to reject the bible because they were creeped out by the immoral behavior of symbolic canabalism?
 
DOC said:
See post 97 for my response to this? You and others seem to be saying "Hey this stuff is too complex to discuss in Randi!" You don't see me saying that about the Bible, I discuss things.
Click to expand...

It is possible that "this stuff" is too complicated to discuss at length and is best learnt from an expert . It is also possible that the Bible is not too complicated to discuss "in Randi"
It takes an open enquiring mind to absorb the former.... this takes effort.
It takes a closed mind, a defensive attitude and blind faith to believe the latter.... Not much effort required
 
Last edited:
Joobz, you continue to ask the questions that I, for one, would most certainly like the answers to!
 
joobz said:
What if someone was to reject the bible because they were creeped out by the immoral behavior of symbolic canabalism?
Click to expand...

They should still have at least read the relevant passages, right? I think the point is to get away from a poster's interpretation of a layman's book which is giving a view on an expert's findings. I think we'd like to force DOC to get as close to actual research, and as far away from his strawmen, as is reasonably possible.
 
JoeEllison said:
They should still have at least read the relevant passages, right? I think the point is to get away from a poster's interpretation of a layman's book which is giving a view on an expert's findings. I think we'd like to force DOC to get as close to actual research, and as far away from his strawmen, as is reasonably possible.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's why in all my discussions in this forum regarding the bible, I'll refer to biblegateway.com.

ETA: like I've heard before. The best argument against the bible is the bible itself.
 
joobz said:
I agree. It's why in all my discussions in this forum regarding the bible, I'll refer to biblegateway.com.

ETA: like I've heard before. The best argument against the bible is the bible itself.
Click to expand...

And, by the same token, the best arguments for science come from science, and we're not afraid to provide DOC with the best science has to offer. The question is whether or not he's brave enough to deal with it.
 
It doesn't matter what I know and don't know; this thread is not about DOC.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, it is. It's all about DOC and what DOC believes and DOC trying to pull some sort of sad 'gotcha' on all us dumb atheists.

Sigh.

Sorry DOC, I must agree with all those who offered to buy you books. You really need to get out more.
 
JoeEllison said:
And, by the same token, the best arguments for science come from science, and we're not afraid to provide DOC with the best science has to offer. The question is whether or not he's brave enough to deal with it.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that the best arguments against specific scientific theories have come from science as well. It's this self-corrective mechanism that is at the heart of the scientific method and what prevents it from being dogmatic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom