God's purpose

[jimbob]

Cockney slang for wife is "trouble and strife".

"The old ball and chain" is also slang for wife, but has nothing to do with Cockneys. The distinguishing feature of Cockney slang is that it rhymes.

And something that misogynist was about as funny as a joke about lynching.

 

[Thor 2]

Well I'm not actually "looking" (as you put it), because I think that by now, if there was any such evidence, then we'd have found it long ago.

But there really is only one "kind" of evidence, and that is real material, reproducible, measurable properly existing things which can be detected and studied by objective science, at least in principle if not directly in practice at any particular moment in time.

If instead the best that the faithful can offer is that we should listen to stories about peoples feelings for God, about their beliefs of apparent "intelligent design" all around us, about claims that the existence of the universe is itself evidence of God, or about any such mystical, vague or misguided ideas as "evidence", then it should be made clear to them (for their own sake, apart from anything else) that such things are not evidence of an intelligent Creator God.

The fact that the symmetry of snowflakes (or any crystals) may look as if it has been intelligently designed, or the fact that humans and the universe exist, may be evidence of all sorts of things. But it is not evidence of a biblical-type creator God.

In biblical times people believed that almost everything was direct evidence of God - thunder & lightening, earthquakes, floods, night turning to day, disease, death, famine ... it was all the direct work of God. And thousands of people (even millions) swore that they had personally witnessed not only God, but angels, demons, the devil and all sorts of heavenly creatures actually causing all these events.

But when mankind eventually discovered what we now call modern science, roughly from the time of Galileo circa.1600, slowly each of those things was explained by science and shown to be nothing at all to do with any God.

Now in 2016 we are at a point where almost all original God claims have been completely explained to show that none of those things were ever evidence of any God. The God claims were all untrue. None of it was evidence of God.

Today theists are really reduced to saying that there are two important questions that science has still not answered in such complete and unarguable detail as to make the explanation a "Theory". And they are (1) exactly how life first began on Earth, and (2) exactly what happened 13.7 billion years ago to produce our universe from the Big Bang.

Both of those issues are of course areas of active research. And every year thousands more research papers are published to narrow down the most likely explanations.

It's entirely possible that a very complete explanation will be found for both problems within our lifetime. But in any case, even in those two areas, with vast mountains of research discoveries about both processes, and evidence for all sorts of processes in chemistry and physics, so far even there, not a single microscopic spec of evidence for any supernatural God.

Well said IanS.

Mind you it doesn't matter how well science can explain all manner of phenomenon, as some theists remain ignorant. Bill O'Rielly for example thinks the reason for tidal movement is still a mystery.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Well said IanS.

Mind you it doesn't matter how well science can explain all manner of phenomenon, as some theists remain ignorant. Bill O'Rielly for example thinks the reason for tidal movement is still a mystery.

Citation? For schadenfreude, not to argue the point.

 

[ynot]

Citation? For schadenfreude, not to argue the point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzkRHFl2ppw

 

[Thor 2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzkRHFl2ppw

Thanks for that ynot and apologies to Hlafordlaes. I thought all atheists would be familiar with this.

 

[IanS]

Well said IanS.

Mind you it doesn't matter how well science can explain all manner of phenomenon, as some theists remain ignorant. Bill O'Rielly for example thinks the reason for tidal movement is still a mystery.

True ... most devout and vocal theists will reject any science if they believe it to be seriously contradicting their religious beliefs. The obvious example of that is how many theists find it difficult to fully accept evolution (some don't accept it all, of course).

Science is not infallible (well, scientist's aren't), but for established theories, it's unarguably by far the best explanation we have for what is now a huge number of things explained by science (almost everything in fact, if you include tentative explanations for certain remaining problems/discoveries that are either relatively new or else very difficult to solve, such as what exactly happened 13.7 billion years ago to produce the Big Bang ... though even in that case, theists should realise that we now have a pretty thorough and detailed explanation what happened up to the point of about/roughly one thousandth of a sec. after the BB ... so when theists argue that science cannot explain the origin of our universe, they are actually only disputing what happened in that first one thousandth of a second!

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Thanks for that ynot and apologies to Hlafordlaes. I thought all atheists would be familiar with this.

LOL!

 

[Thor 2]

True ... most devout and vocal theists will reject any science if they believe it to be seriously contradicting their religious beliefs. The obvious example of that is how many theists find it difficult to fully accept evolution (some don't accept it all, of course).

Science is not infallible (well, scientist's aren't), but for established theories, it's unarguably by far the best explanation we have for what is now a huge number of things explained by science (almost everything in fact, if you include tentative explanations for certain remaining problems/discoveries that are either relatively new or else very difficult to solve, such as what exactly happened 13.7 billion years ago to produce the Big Bang ... though even in that case, theists should realise that we now have a pretty thorough and detailed explanation what happened up to the point of about/roughly one thousandth of a sec. after the BB ... so when theists argue that science cannot explain the origin of our universe, they are actually only disputing what happened in that first one thousandth of a second!

Another well put statement from you IanS but you did not close the ).

 

[IanS]

Another well put statement from you IanS but you did not close the ).

Quite correct ... my apologies (I'll try not to let it happen again!)

 

[Jodie]

I consider myself to be a theist and I have no issue with evolution. I don't even have an issue with the BB, but I do wonder what caused it to happen and what was there before. I'm not certain science has the answers to those questions. To say science has the answers to just about everything is kind of like saying religions do a really good job of explaining the afterlife IMO.

 

[Pup]

To say science has the answers to just about everything is kind of like saying religions do a really good job of explaining the afterlife IMO.

I think there's an important distinction between saying science has the answers to just about everything, which I don't agree with, and the scientific method is the way to eventually find the answers to just about everything, which I do.

 

[Jodie]

The scientific method only really works if you know all of the variables that could affect your results. In that respect it will never be a method that can provide answers to just about everything.

 

[Pup]

The scientific method only really works if you know all of the variables that could affect your results. In that respect it will never be a method that can provide answers to just about everything.

The problem is that people use any gap in what we know as a place to insert what they want to be true without evidence.

I think that in the future, just as in the past, the gaps will close and understanding will increase. In the meantime, my viewpoint is "we don't know and we might never know, but we're still working on it." I see no reason to fill in the gap with any random thing based on less evidence. We don't know, or we don't know yet, is a perfectly good answer.

 

[IanS]

I consider myself to be a theist and I have no issue with evolution.
I don't even have an issue with the BB, but I do wonder what caused it to happen and what was there before. I'm not certain science has the answers to those questions. To say science has the answers to just about everything is kind of like saying religions do a really good job of explaining the afterlife IMO.

Well, first re evolution - I assume you do, however, realise that you are not the only theist on this planet, and that many theists do have a huge problem accepting evolution (which is supported by overwhelming evidence).

On the BB - science most certainly does have very detailed answers to questions such as why the BB occurred (and how it occurred). What we do not have yet, are such highly confirmed & universally accepted explanations such that they are approaching anywhere near the rigour required to produce a "theory".

But you make a monumental mistake if you think that the published research on issues such as the BB (inc. research discussing possible causes of the BB), is anything remotely like the sort of level of detail and evidence presented in any other field of study or any other interest area which ever make claims about anything. That is - even for something as difficult to study accurately as a cosmic universal origin occurring 13.7 billion years ago, published scientific research is still light years ahead of anything else you would ever find in any other subject ...

... IOW, we certainly do have explanations for the sort of questions you might ask about the BB, extremely detailed explanations in fact, but that's still nowhere near good enough in research science. In science the aim is to establish our understanding to the level of a "Theory", and that requires much more detailed confirmation than science can honestly claim about the BB so far in 2016. But no other field of study, and certainly not any religion, theology, or any mystical subjects, come even within in a million miles of the most tentative published scientific papers that attempt to explain various features of the BB and ideas of how and why that BB produced our universe.

To take the other example (which may make the point clearer, because it's easier to understand and appreciate than the BB) - we have, of course, highly detailed explanations of how life on Earth probably first began. For which there are several likely models. Each with a huge amount of highly detailed published research behind them, inc. a vast amount of supporting experimental evidence, and in many cases also even with considerable levels of mathematical precision. But that's still far short of what is required in science to say that any one of those models is probably the correct one for how life first began. But the point is - science most certainly does have those explanations ... it's just that for some particularly complex problems, those explanations are still work in progress and we are not yet at the stage where one particular explanation is sufficiently refined to be gaining universal acceptance across all of science as a whole.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Cockney slang for wife is "trouble and strife".

"The old ball and chain" is also slang for wife, but has nothing to do with Cockneys. The distinguishing feature of Cockney slang is that it rhymes.

Thanks. Usually I check before posting but was in a hurry. A little voice was telling me it did not rhyme, and I did not listen.

 

[Jodie]

Well, first re evolution - I assume you do, however, realise that you are not the only theist on this planet, and that many theists do have a huge problem accepting evolution (which is supported by overwhelming evidence).

Yes, fundamemtalists have issues with evolution but there are many, many variations of theism. You just kind of lumped us all together so I was responding.

On the BB - science most certainly does have very detailed answers to questions such as why the BB occurred (and how it occurred). What we do not have yet, are such highly confirmed & universally accepted explanations such that they are approaching anywhere near the rigour required to produce a "theory".

So basically no one really knows so it's anybody's guess.

But you make a monumental mistake if you think that the published research on issues such as the BB (inc. research discussing possible causes of the BB), is anything remotely like the sort of level of detail and evidence presented in any other field of study or any other interest area which ever make claims about anything. That is - even for something as difficult to study accurately as a cosmic universal origin occurring 13.7 billion years ago, published scientific research is still light years ahead of anything else you would ever find in any other subject ...

I call bull on this, the scientific method is the the scientific method whether you are looking at fruit flies or the center of the universe.

... IOW, we certainly do have explanations for the sort of questions you might ask about the BB, extremely detailed explanations in fact, but that's still nowhere near good enough in research science. In science the aim is to establish our understanding to the level of a "Theory", and that requires much more detailed confirmation than science can honestly claim about the BB so far in 2016. But no other field of study, and certainly not any religion, theology, or any mystical subjects, come even within in a million miles of the most tentative published scientific papers that attempt to explain various features of the BB and ideas of how and why that BB produced our universe.

In other words, we really don't know but we think we are on the right track. Religions espouse essentially the same opinion on matters of origin minus any application of science. The net result is the same, everyone has an opinion and everyone is guessing.

To take the other example (which may make the point clearer, because it's easier to understand and appreciate than the BB) - we have, of course, highly detailed explanations of how life on Earth probably first began. For which there are several likely models. Each with a huge amount of highly detailed published research behind them, inc. a vast amount of supporting experimental evidence, and in many cases also even with considerable levels of mathematical precision. But that's still far short of what is required in science to say that any one of those models is probably the correct one for how life first began. But the point is - science most certainly does have those explanations ... it's just that for some particularly complex problems, those explanations are still work in progress and we are not yet at the stage where one particular explanation is sufficiently refined to be gaining universal acceptance across all of science as a whole.

I understand that and have no issues with educated guesses. I imagine that despite the refinement necessary, one or more of those theories as a work in progress, is correct. Not all theists see that as contradictory depending on what faith or philosophy you happen to follow.

 

[Pup]

In other words, we really don't know but we think we are on the right track. Religions espouse essentially the same opinion on matters of origin minus any application of science. The net result is the same, everyone has an opinion and everyone is guessing.

Not how I see it.

Religion (Abrahamic at least): we know how it happened. God told us. If you doubt beyond what we say you can doubt, you'd better repent, because our God is always right and he can get angry.

Science: we don't know how it happened. Here's the information we have currently, so you can see the evidence we're using. If you can come up with a better hypothesis to explain the evidence, publish a paper, and we'll talk about it.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

So basically no one really knows so it's anybody's guess.

"We don't know everything, therefore we don't know anything, therefore my wild-ass guess is as valid as your reasoned hypothesis."

Maybe this is de rigeur in theological debates, where the turgidity of one's belief is all anyone really has to go on, but in science, no. Just no. Even when there may be no way to directly test them, hypotheses can still be falsifiable. They can still be compared for validity with existing models of physics, can still be ruled out by testing the assumptions they'd need to be correct.

"Anybody's guess" does not cover it when the guesses can include the universe being farted out of a giant Space Unicorn, on the basis that someone once said so and it feels truthy enough.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Maybe this is de rigeur in theological debates, where the turgidity of one's belief is all anyone really has to go on

I just learned a new word!

 

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well, first re evolution - I assume you do, however, realise that you are not the only theist on this planet, and that many theists do have a huge problem accepting evolution (which is supported by overwhelming evidence).

Yes, fundamemtalists have issues with evolution but there are many, many variations of theism. You just kind of lumped us all together so I was responding.

On the contrary fundies do not seem to troubled by evolution, they just outright reject it. The one that do have a problem are the progressive ones, who have the intellectual integrity to agree that evolution is proven, and have to somehow weave this into there dogma. Now this may not be an issue for some lesser known brands of woo, but it certainly is so for followers of the Abrahamic three. Christianity is the hardest hit, as not only do its adherents have to tackle the origin of souls issue, but must also try and get original sin in there also. Without original sin Geebus is out on his arse and Christianity crumbles.