In relation to a 2-minute scene I seen on a show called Young Sheldon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y4T7DnSeo0
and a small second 1-minute video in the same episode (think) about creation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTbtsf1eY-g
I have a few thoughts that most of the atheists here can't solve or afraid admit or continue on.
*******************
1) It's amazing how a lack of intelligence can be turned into a deception of reality, no matter how smart they think they are.
*******************
2a) it is the truth if it wasn't for faith there is no science. You have to have faith in science to believe what science is.
I know this is so so so hard for you to understand.
You can't have one with out the other. Science would not exist with out God. Full stop.
2b) Science starts w the proposition of hypotheticals based on what, what, what, hunches, so no science is not based in facts, science establishes facts based on probabilities arisen from hypotheses.
*******************
3a) Well doesnt it boil down to infinity or divinity? Always is and was, versus self creation?
Equally bizarre concepts, so how can humans fully understand either?
Maybe we can’t.
3b) Sheldon isn't right to attribute 0 % probability to God's existence either. It is simply not possible to measure the probability of its existence.
That's why Dawkins's campaign supporting billboards on London buses with the motto "most likely is that God doesn't exist" seemed to me to be a fraud. And not just statistical, but that's another subject.
*******************
4) About Sheldon's arguments against creation are lazy.
Indeed God would be beyond the bin bang and to be a photon, if there was, of course.
The facts are simply not enough. Things can be inferred from them, some reasonably consistent that they acquire the status of scientific theory, but the scientific method itself constantly submits to these inferences and new facts could derail the most settled and "believed" theories.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Uh-oh..... This should be fun. *elbow on table, arm upright, resting chin in palm of hand*
Old Man! Quick! Bring the popcorn! I've got the drinks!
hey Old Tin come here I have front seats tickets of the show and I've unlimited supply of pop corns. :)
@Ranjeet
My man!!! *Big Smile* Excellent. Here, have a drink. Oh, and I brought some plastic sheeting for when the splattering starts. This is gonna be better than a Gallagher show. *munching on a handfull of popcorn*
I'm here..I've got the desanguinator kit and the Dummies book of Really Big Words as well so we can look stuff up....
@Old Man
About time you showed up. Good thinking on bringing the kit and book. Quick, grab a section of plastic sheeting. You missed a couple of good splats, but I'm sure there will be a few more. Oh, and have some popcorn and a drink.
@ TM
Didnt miss a thing I got this pause and rewind remote ...see? Cool aint it.
@Old Man
Oh. Yeah. Awesome. Here, put on these 3-D glasses. Makes it look like the splat is coming right at you.
AR also have one Sheldon and he is also that smart and I think he would like to answer your questions. but those questions doesn't look new to me.
"My thoughts"
"You have to have faith in science to believe what science is."
brilliant mind..very bright bro..i never thought of that...
seriously? u really thought about these?
oh my fucking god...
Holey Funk! Someone was home schooled or just skipped out on science class.
"Lack of intelligence can be turned into deception?" Agree. "We call it religion. "
"Religion supports science?" Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ,,, Explain that to Hypatia, Roger Bacon, Pietro d' Abano, Cecco d' Ascoli, Michael Servetus, Girolamo Cardano, Giordano Bruno, Lucilio Vanini , Tommaso Campanella, Kazimierz Lyszczynsk, Galileo, and hundreds more. The Church does not support science and has always attempted to separate itself from objective reality just as it continues to do today.
"Science begins with assumptions?" Where in the ___ did you learn science. Science begins with direct observation of the world around us, the creation of a hypothesis, and then testing.
The probability of God existing is at 0% for some (And I have never heard that figure. Most assert the probability to be 99.999%) Still there is a very good reason for this.
1. "Special Pleading." There are millions of failed gods. Modern religions regard them all as false. At the same time they regard their gods as real. The arguments to justify any gods at all are all the same and all fallacious.
2. Choose your fallacy. The cosmological argument, the argument from design, teleological arguments, argument from morality, presuppositionalism, Pascal's wager, God of the Gaps, and anything else you can think of have all been completely and thoroughly debunked. There is no argument for the existence of a god that is not based on fallacious assumptions.
3. We have 10,000 years of failed Gods. Gods have failed since the beginning of recorded history. And they continue to fail today.
4. There is no definition of God that stands against critical inquiry. An invisible, no-corporal god that exists beyond time and space that no one can define is the same thing as nothing. It's useless.
5. There are 32 thousand Christian sects. On any given day 1/3 of these sects will swear on the Bible that the other 2/3s are going to burn in hell for following false teachings., After all there will be many false prophets in the end of times. It's all BS.
6. Not even getting into the fact that half the books in the bible (New Testament) are either forged or contain massive forgeries as well as contradiction after contradiction and is a demonstrable creation of men that took place over a thousand years. (See the lectures of Bart Erhman)
7. Given the absolute lack of evidence for anything even resembling a God or gods anywhere, it takes only a small leap of logic to make the assertion that there probably isn't one. That is how we get to zero. It's easy.
Have you not heard of the null hypothesis. The Christians have not proved their position. The Muslims have not proved their position. The Buddhists have not proved their position. The Hindus have not prove their position. Any and all God claims can be REJECTED. That which can be asserted without facts and evidence can be rejected without facts and evidence. It's just that simple. You do not get to assert a god into existence.
At first glance, I would have to say I was about 50/50 in agreement with what you said. Perhaps 30/70. Now, after a little think, I agree with very very little. Yes, people have a hunch before science gets started and yes the scientific theories sometimes change when new evidence comes in. From this, I understand your confusion.
Keeping in mind the clips you linked are only 3 minutes long put together and the fact we are starting from a script from a tv show.
I have to go soon and may not have time to make my points succinct or reflect on them. Sorry if they are abstract or all over the place or repeated.
I may mention evolution just as an example of my point. And I may also go into why the word 'theory' is considered different in science.
[I will try your layout with the line separations.]
********************
First, I want to correct something you did not mention but was mentioned by Pastor Jeff in the clip. That is that "Einstein, Newton and Darwin believed in God." I will keep this part short. This is an appeal to authority fallacy. Incredibly smart people believe dumb stuff all the time. Newton believed in alchemy for crying out loud. Do you believe in alchemy? But I'd like to add to this that even assuming they were true believers, even they could not provide any evidence to support their faith.
Correction: 1/3 of the people mentioned believed in a personal God.
- Newton believed in God. Mind you he only invoked God into the gaps of his knowledge.
- Einstein didn't believe in a personal God. He was a pantheist. Any mention of God from him was simply another word for nature or universe. He was a pantheist which I don't see as any different to an atheist. If you really want to push it, you can argue he was a pantheist deist but you would have to fight hard for that.
- Darwin didn't believe in God. His deathbed conversion was a blatant fabrication to further indoctrinate the faith-based. If you are going to cite a sentence from page 92, I think, in his book then may I suggest you read page 93.
********************
While it may be true that before we even touch the stages of the scientific method, we thought about things, may have to believe them to be true but once these ideas have surpassed the scientific method even the Hypothesis Stage, faith is no longer concerned.
Science doesn't rely on faith, though. We don't need it. Instead, we have evidence. Everything we know from science, is supported by some amount of evidence. For some things, we have a lot of evidence, and so our confidence that our understanding is correct is higher.
That our understanding of the universe changes, is a good thing. It does not mean that the things we know now are believed "on faith".
NotJustAtheory.com (http://notjustatheory.com/) does a good job of boiling things down, so I'll borrow:
Evolution, as a system of explanations for the many observations about life on this planet, both current and historical, meets this definition of "theory". It's overwhelmingly supported by many decades of evidence in multiple, distinct fields of science, including geology, physics, the many disciplines of biology including genetics, zoology, botany, and so on. And, like other scientific theories, it provides testable predictions which continue to come true. It's also useful in that it provides practical applications that would not occur if it weren't for our understanding being generally accurate."
********************
I agree with this statement. Probably the only statement of your I agree with. But just to make sure we are on the same page. I will elaborate.
As mentioned above yes hypotheticals may be based on hunches. This is why we have the scientific method. What is your point?
Sheldon is not entirely wrong when he said: "Science is based on facts""that a single experiment does not mean our hypothesis is true" that would be correct BUT it would be wrong to say that evolutionary theory is not supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. In fact, it was Stephen Jay Gould who once remarked that:
In this sense, evolution is a fact: it's a fact that life changes over time, and it's a fact that our broad understanding of the mechanisms at work (natural selection, mutation, etc) is generally correct.
What science can discover is limited by technology, time, distance, etc. No one would suggest otherwise. But technology advances, time advances, distances are closed by technology advancing, etc. Hard-working women and men discover new things using science every day. Some of the things they discover will be incomplete -- maybe forever. Some of the things they discover may be misattributed or misinterpreted for a time.
One great thing about science is that it continually corrects for past mistakes when necessary. Models are updated, projections are tweaked, predictions become more precise, instrumentation gets more sensitive, ideas are replaced, etc. It's an onward march into the unknown, and with each step, it leaves behind it a road paved in knowledge.
Science is not "facts" -- it is the best way we have of uncovering facts. Science and facts are interrelated
So, Young Sheldon is not entirely wrong.
********************
Again it's a comedy show. Details are not really there and the show more than likely have theists working on it.
This is essentially an argument from ignorance. God of the Gaps. While we are at it, indeed there is a teapot orbiting the Sun or that unicorns exist and is God's pet.
As what we can currently know by utilizing our best methods of understanding the world and universe is science. Anything else is based on conjecture and pseudoscience and faith. To make a claim like that, something is outside of this reality or that is beyond what we can know is a self-cancelling contradiction.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin
Say if something is a mystery.. One doesn't solve a mystery by injecting a deeper mystery, as all of this 'supernatural otherworldly' is pointless. When you posit a supernatural god it brings more questions than answers. No more assumptions should be made than necessary.
Anything that can't be investigated by some method is beyond the realm of investigation... and also claims to need to be falsifiable to be meaningful. Of course, I doubt the claim could even be properly defined. By stating there can be no way to ever measure anything related to your claim, it's unfalsifiable and therefor useless. Techniques not using evidence from reality are only valid within abstract systems, and the results only applicable to those systems unless it's reasonably shown that they correlate back to reality. This requires evidence, and not just at the premises stage. Trying to extend knowledge beyond what can be measured in some way is not sophisticated, it is worthless blind speculation.
************************
What you are doing is undermining the epistemology of science and it's methodology. Inductive inferences is not the same as religious faith. Inferring from empirical data at least appears to consistently works. While believing in something without data and in spite of data does not consistently work. That is an important distinction here. One doesn't have to prove a belief in order for a belief to be a reasonable, non-faith belief, as long as it is inferred from the evidence.
Just because theories may change in the future doesn't make your argument valid. That our understanding of the universe changes, is a good thing. It does not mean that the things we know now are believed "on faith".
Every scientific theory, result, or law has mountains of evidence to back it up. In a way, a scientific theory is stronger than a fact, because a “theory” ties in more than one observable fact. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories adapt while new evidence is discovered. It is self-correcting.
It's a proven hypothesis/model which can be recreated independently and is able to make accurate predictions! As long as the theory can provide proof for many questions, or predict answers for future questions it can basically be seen as a "fact". But Science doesn't say "fact" because any theory is subject to change. This is how science works, it is repeatable and re-testable and always being critiqued. That is how it is our best method of knowing about really, of how and then why things work.
Theories are subject to change hence why they are theories. But Science doesn't say "fact" because any theory is subject to change. This is how science works, it is repeatable and re-testable and always being critiqued. That is how it is our best method of knowing about really, of how and then why things work. In science, a theory is something that is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
************************
I will leave the rest for others to critique. Like I believe I skipped your number 3 point.
@towerpiller
You posted a youtube video of a "TV" show as proof of atheism and how it is wrong?
1) TV isn't reality, so it isn't proof of anything.
You said that atheists have faith in science.
No atheists rely on the FACTS of science. Maybe you don't understand science that is quite evident. Science is a method of discovery. It isn't a belief as you so ignorantly portray it. Science deals in facts, not faith. Every theory fact and discovery in science is tested peer review and scrutinized.
1) You said that "it is the truth if it wasn't for faith there is no science. You have to have faith in science to believe what science is."
That is a bald face lie. Science exists despite faith. So it isn't a truth of what you state.
2) You said, " It's amazing how a lack of intelligence can be turned into a deception of reality, no matter how smart they think they are."
That is just an ignorant attack and not worthy of discussion other to just point out its utter stupidity.
3) You said, "Science starts w the proposition of hypotheticals based on what, what, what, hunches, so no science is not based in facts, science establishes facts based on probabilities arisen from hypotheses."
It's clear from this statement that you DO NOT understand the scientific process.
I posted a child's learning website because you display a child's mind and therefore need to LEARN on that level.
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-...
4) You said,"Well doesnt it boil down to infinity or divinity? Always is and was, versus self creation?"
No that is not what it boils down to. You can't define things the way you want just because you WANT them that way! You are not demonstrating logic. You are demonstrating a predetermined outcome. A common christian fallacy!
5) You don't understand the laws of probability or possibility. And therefore your assessment is wrong. In this case, Sheldon was correct.
So your whole post is nothing more than an ad hominem attack and fallacy. It assumes things that simply are not true. It states things as facts that ARE not facts.
You point of view is simplistic unrealistic and childish. You did not use logic. You didn't post any facts.
There is no god is the default situational fact until a god is PROVEN.
Also, you are a hypocrite. You apply YOUR logic for an argument against science but DON'T apply the same criteria for your god THEORY/MYTH!
So go home, get an education, and maybe try again.
Oh. BTW, the BIG BANG is a PROVEN FACT!
@towerpiller
I will try and keep this short, as others already have covered most of it and, so far I have no reason to not suspect this is a "drive by" posting where you create a new thread, maybe respond to one or two post then disappear when you fail to convert atheist with your supposed divine brilliance. Thinking in your brilliance you brought up a point we atheist have never properly considered or answered when have, multiple times.
1. Happy to admit atheist can not solve the problem of: "lack of intelligence can be turned into a deception of reality, no matter how smart they think they are." Speaking for myself, (as an atheist,) I never thought I could solve this problem of people thinking they are smarter than they are and that they can deceive themselves.
2a. Others have already answered this so I will keep it short. Look up the word faith. Then look up the scientific method, I argue the scientific method is the opposite of faith. Science very much exist w/o god. There is no god. Also, what about all scientific discovery that happens by atheist, or by religious folk that follow a different god then yours? They are simply confused and all credit goes to your particular invisible undetectable "god?"
2b. You twisted this statement up pretty badly trying to bend it to how you want to use it. You added the sentence "so no science is not based in facts" in the middle of a different argument trying to equate the two that does not equate them it only makes it confusing. Also the scientific method while not strictly requiring every step, generally goes: make an observation, ask a question, then form a hypothesis, experiment, then accept or reject hypothesis, (going back to forming hypothesis step if rejecting previous hypothesis as neccessary.) So it starts with observation, NOT faith.
3a. I agree we humans cannot fully comprehend infinity. You make a logical fallacy presenting only 2 options. There are other options.
3b. I agree, we cannot measure the probability of existence. But we can measure the probability of human ideas/thought constructs, god being one of them. We measured, and it is extremely, EXTREMELY! unlikely there is a god, by every tool we can measure this human thought concept. Go ahead, measure using tools the probability for a: rainbow farting unicorn god thought concept I just presented to you. How do you dismiss this ridiculous idea? If your standard of proof is "faith" then you can prove anything by using faith, that you really have 3 arms, santa exist, there is monsters under your bed etc.
4. That is an unsupported opinion. Also, exhaustive well supported arguments cannot be made in 1 or 2 minutes.
Edited a few typo/grammatical errors.
Since our OP is an apparent coward and yet another drive by, I was wondering about what inspired him to seek out an atheist website to bitch and moan.
It was a TV show of all things. Not a documentary. Not a news broadcast. A fucking sitcom for cryin' out loud!
Now I watch a lot of TV. A LOT! I even watch the odd sitcom(rarely). In all my years of doing so, I have seen numerous "pro-god" programs. There have even been whole "pro-god" series. And they make no illusion that they want YOU to fucking believe their bullshit. Touched by an Angel, Little House on the Prairie to name a few. And watching this bullshit, it has NEVER prompted me to find a christian website and bitch about it!
Sure I have bitched on political forums about "movies" that were nothing but political lies and propaganda like 13 Hours in Benghazi which was nothing but a total fabrication, not EVEN literary license. One of several Michael Bays propaganda films.
So what goes through the minds of people like towerpiller? Does he sit around in his underwear all day and binge watch "no-brainer" sitcoms? And when one of his favorites goes against his myth does he think "I'm going to do something about that! I am going to the first atheist website I find and whine like a baby! Then I'll just leave! That'll teach 'em!"
Of course, just because we are atheists doesn't mean we speak for ALL of atheism real or imagined. How the fuck can we be held responsible for what a religious nut saw on a sitcom for cryin' out loud?! Some people's kids!
I remember Towerpiller from about a year ago. His arguments were based on the same theist inanities, but his English was largely coherent and intelligible. Now we have gibberish like this.
Indeed God would be beyond the bin bang and to be a photon, if there was, of course.
The bin bang: The sound made by the implosion of religion as humanity tosses its last gods into the bin of history and slams the lid.
OK! A cheesy spin off from a cheesy sit com about pseudo physicists......and?
Discovery is driven by doubt, not faith. If we had only faith, we would be certain of everything.
Beautifully said, Sapporo.
In the way that science thrusts in unproven axioms, I suppose you're kind of right. But axioms aren't like faith. Axioms are ideas that, while unprovable, are self evident, like that 2+2=4. It's these simple, self evident kind of assumptions that form the backbone of science. Can you see how that's not really the same thing as faith?
I noticed that everything that science came up with, religion already knew. This applies to almost everything and all laws. It is just that it is written in complex language and encrypted as much as possible in the Bible. I can give you an example of the emergence of man. Scientists have recently concluded that we are all created from a single cell. And the Bible says that God makes a man "out of the dust of the earth." I think you know what I mean. And there are a lot of examples like that. That is why I always like to come to church services https://firstchurchlove.com and learn something new and exciting.