(04-10-2019 09:02 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 04:16 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 12:11 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  Atheists believe there is no God. That requires a "leap of faith" to assume the universe just came into being. Most fail to acknowledge that. As I said, agnostics are different. They are waiting to be convinced either way.

No. It's more along the lines of accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be the default position is all aspects of the universe are governed by natural laws. There's not faith there. As you learn more about the universe, you can push certain subjects into being almost certainties and work with reasonable guesses for the rest with repeated experimentation as we. The alternative hypothesis would be that the universe contains a combination of natural laws plus supernatural events. If at the end of the day if you can show that it's logical to assume that a supernatural being created the universe - you still cannot make that assumption that said supernatural being is the God mentioned in the Christian bible. Unless God make himself (herself?) available to directly interact with humanity in clear and obvious ways - there's no way to prove it. Therefore faith.

I think most atheists would simply answer "we don't know" when it comes to the question of how the universe came into being.

There are also extremely rare events that occur in nature. Some so rare that we will never observe them. Some so rare that we will never explain them.

With that being the case, they are essentially supernatural events because they are not part of our accepted natural framework.

Then you open yourself up to the "God of the Gaps" problem. Things that used to be viewed as supernatural were later redefined as natural once the science was better understood.

And the converse "Gap of Science". Things that are never observed do not have to be explained. The resulting gap in scientific knowledge has an unpredictable effect in what we believe is true. An excellent example of this is the general belief that nothing exceeds the speed of light. Much closer to the truth is we can't observe anything that exceeds the speed of light.

With science, you can correct course. Take the example of the universe once thought to contain a substance called "ether". It later became debunked - errors were admitted - and a better model for the universe was developed and has since been refined, updated, etc. This cannot happen with religions.

(04-11-2019 06:48 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 09:02 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 04:16 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 12:11 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  No. It's more along the lines of accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be the default position is all aspects of the universe are governed by natural laws. There's not faith there. As you learn more about the universe, you can push certain subjects into being almost certainties and work with reasonable guesses for the rest with repeated experimentation as we. The alternative hypothesis would be that the universe contains a combination of natural laws plus supernatural events. If at the end of the day if you can show that it's logical to assume that a supernatural being created the universe - you still cannot make that assumption that said supernatural being is the God mentioned in the Christian bible. Unless God make himself (herself?) available to directly interact with humanity in clear and obvious ways - there's no way to prove it. Therefore faith.

I think most atheists would simply answer "we don't know" when it comes to the question of how the universe came into being.

There are also extremely rare events that occur in nature. Some so rare that we will never observe them. Some so rare that we will never explain them.

With that being the case, they are essentially supernatural events because they are not part of our accepted natural framework.

Then you open yourself up to the "God of the Gaps" problem. Things that used to be viewed as supernatural were later redefined as natural once the science was better understood.

And the converse "Gap of Science". Things that are never observed do not have to be explained. The resulting gap in scientific knowledge has an unpredictable effect in what we believe is true. An excellent example of this is the general belief that nothing exceeds the speed of light. Much closer to the truth is we can't observe anything that exceeds the speed of light.

With science, you can correct course. Take the example of the universe once thought to contain a substance called "ether". It later became debunked - errors were admitted - and a better model for the universe was developed and has since been refined, updated, etc. This cannot happen with religions.

Sure it can. And it has. We don't have witch burnings and inquisitions any more. We aren't wearing red A's. There are gays and women leading Christian congregations. There are whole new religions like Moonies and Scientology. They change all the time. You don't see it because you aren't looking for it.

The self-correcting science thing is just an excuse science hides behind. The millions of people killed by bad medicinal practices far out numbers the people killed by religious conflicts. That is excused out of hand without any consideration while deaths due to religious conflicts and practices are beaten like rented mules.

When science is wrong, or just ignorant of facts, people die. It's not simply "the process". It is a deadly game. The days of dismissing that out of hand are over. Science has to be held accountable like every thing else in the world. They aren't entitled to unlimited restarts just because they say they are.

(04-10-2019 09:24 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 09:14 PM)pkptigers07 Wrote:  The headline of this article is absurd. The numbers in the GSS that this claim is based on on simply don’t support this misleading claim.

While atheism may be growing, Christians still outnumber athirst by almost 3 to 1.

That makes three of us to notice that. You, King King, and I have noted this and all been completely ignored so far.

I mentioned early on that Catholics, Evangelicals, and Protestants were listed as separate categories when they all fall under Christianity.

(04-11-2019 06:48 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 09:02 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 04:16 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 12:11 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  No. It's more along the lines of accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be the default position is all aspects of the universe are governed by natural laws. There's not faith there. As you learn more about the universe, you can push certain subjects into being almost certainties and work with reasonable guesses for the rest with repeated experimentation as we. The alternative hypothesis would be that the universe contains a combination of natural laws plus supernatural events. If at the end of the day if you can show that it's logical to assume that a supernatural being created the universe - you still cannot make that assumption that said supernatural being is the God mentioned in the Christian bible. Unless God make himself (herself?) available to directly interact with humanity in clear and obvious ways - there's no way to prove it. Therefore faith.

I think most atheists would simply answer "we don't know" when it comes to the question of how the universe came into being.

There are also extremely rare events that occur in nature. Some so rare that we will never observe them. Some so rare that we will never explain them.

With that being the case, they are essentially supernatural events because they are not part of our accepted natural framework.

Then you open yourself up to the "God of the Gaps" problem. Things that used to be viewed as supernatural were later redefined as natural once the science was better understood.

And the converse "Gap of Science". Things that are never observed do not have to be explained. The resulting gap in scientific knowledge has an unpredictable effect in what we believe is true. An excellent example of this is the general belief that nothing exceeds the speed of light. Much closer to the truth is we can't observe anything that exceeds the speed of light.

With science, you can correct course. Take the example of the universe once thought to contain a substance called "ether". It later became debunked - errors were admitted - and a better model for the universe was developed and has since been refined, updated, etc. This cannot happen with religions.

Actually, scientists have come full circle to agree with the first verse of the Bible.

(04-11-2019 08:46 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 09:24 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 09:14 PM)pkptigers07 Wrote:  The headline of this article is absurd. The numbers in the GSS that this claim is based on on simply don’t support this misleading claim.

While atheism may be growing, Christians still outnumber athirst by almost 3 to 1.

That makes three of us to notice that. You, King King, and I have noted this and all been completely ignored so far.

I mentioned early on that Catholics, Evangelicals, and Protestants were listed as separate categories when they all fall under Christianity.

My apologies for missing it. That makes four of us.

(04-11-2019 11:27 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 08:46 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 09:24 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 09:14 PM)pkptigers07 Wrote:  The headline of this article is absurd. The numbers in the GSS that this claim is based on on simply don’t support this misleading claim.

While atheism may be growing, Christians still outnumber athirst by almost 3 to 1.

That makes three of us to notice that. You, King King, and I have noted this and all been completely ignored so far.

I mentioned early on that Catholics, Evangelicals, and Protestants were listed as separate categories when they all fall under Christianity.

My apologies for missing it. That makes four of us.

Five (Me too), and I imagine many others did to as well. I didn't see hardly anyone disputing your post.

The numbers are also about how people self identity. A lot of Americans would self identify as Christian, but aren't "practicing" Christians at all, never read their Bible and never attend church. Its almost a quasi political identity today for some.

(04-11-2019 11:43 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 11:27 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 08:46 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 09:24 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 09:14 PM)pkptigers07 Wrote:  The headline of this article is absurd. The numbers in the GSS that this claim is based on on simply don’t support this misleading claim.

While atheism may be growing, Christians still outnumber athirst by almost 3 to 1.

That makes three of us to notice that. You, King King, and I have noted this and all been completely ignored so far.

I mentioned early on that Catholics, Evangelicals, and Protestants were listed as separate categories when they all fall under Christianity.

My apologies for missing it. That makes four of us.

Five (Me too), and I imagine many others did to as well. I didn't see hardly anyone disputing your post.

I didn't think about that way.

(04-10-2019 11:55 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 03:31 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 03:08 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  Atheists believe there is no God. That requires a "leap of faith" to assume the universe just came into being. Most fail to acknowledge that. As I said, agnostics are different. They are waiting to be convinced either way.

No. It's more along the lines of accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be the default position is all aspects of the universe are governed by natural laws. There's not faith there. As you learn more about the universe, you can push certain subjects into being almost certainties and work with reasonable guesses for the rest with repeated experimentation as we. The alternative hypothesis would be that the universe contains a combination of natural laws plus supernatural events. If at the end of the day if you can show that it's logical to assume that a supernatural being created the universe - you still cannot make that assumption that said supernatural being is the God mentioned in the Christian bible. Unless God make himself (herself?) available to directly interact with humanity in clear and obvious ways - there's no way to prove it. Therefore faith.

I think most atheists would simply answer "we don't know" when it comes to the question of how the universe came into being.

I disagree with the statements I bolded.

The argument for God has nothing to do with the universe being governed by natural laws.

Actually, as I read through your comments again, I have to disagree with even more.

Faith, from a Christian perspective, has nothing to do with lack of evidence. There is ample evidence.

If you use your definition of faith then atheism rests more on belief without evidence.



Is the universe infinitely self-existing?

Actually, it would have to. Even if we're talking about a theistic universe where a god took the deistic approach of being a creator only - he/she would have had to intervene at least once on a supernatural level. Even with the assumption that our universe was created by the God of the bible, God has intervened a number of times throughout the history of the universe. Granted to our limited scope of knowledge, these interventions happened on earth; however, he still suspended the laws of the universe to intervene. Virgin birth, pillar of smoke, parting of the sea, great flood, etc.

What ample evidence do you have to prove God - or any god - exists? You really don't have any. Otherwise, faith is meaningless. I've seen various apologetics articles about how you can "justify" faith by reasoning out why it makes sense to believe. However, that's not proof.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you were saying in the bolded part above:

• Actually, it would have to be
• Actually, it wouldn't have to be

Miko, any clarification here?

Thx

(04-12-2019 12:45 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 11:55 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 03:31 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 03:08 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  No. It's more along the lines of accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be the default position is all aspects of the universe are governed by natural laws. There's not faith there. As you learn more about the universe, you can push certain subjects into being almost certainties and work with reasonable guesses for the rest with repeated experimentation as we. The alternative hypothesis would be that the universe contains a combination of natural laws plus supernatural events. If at the end of the day if you can show that it's logical to assume that a supernatural being created the universe - you still cannot make that assumption that said supernatural being is the God mentioned in the Christian bible. Unless God make himself (herself?) available to directly interact with humanity in clear and obvious ways - there's no way to prove it. Therefore faith.

I think most atheists would simply answer "we don't know" when it comes to the question of how the universe came into being.

I disagree with the statements I bolded.

The argument for God has nothing to do with the universe being governed by natural laws.

Actually, as I read through your comments again, I have to disagree with even more.

Faith, from a Christian perspective, has nothing to do with lack of evidence. There is ample evidence.

If you use your definition of faith then atheism rests more on belief without evidence.



Is the universe infinitely self-existing?

Actually, it would have to. Even if we're talking about a theistic universe where a god took the deistic approach of being a creator only - he/she would have had to intervene at least once on a supernatural level. Even with the assumption that our universe was created by the God of the bible, God has intervened a number of times throughout the history of the universe. Granted to our limited scope of knowledge, these interventions happened on earth; however, he still suspended the laws of the universe to intervene. Virgin birth, pillar of smoke, parting of the sea, great flood, etc.

What ample evidence do you have to prove God - or any god - exists? You really don't have any. Otherwise, faith is meaningless. I've seen various apologetics articles about how you can "justify" faith by reasoning out why it makes sense to believe. However, that's not proof.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you were saying in the bolded part above:

• Actually, it would have to be
• Actually, it wouldn't have to be

Miko, any clarification here?

Thx

Option 1.

(04-12-2019 12:50 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 12:45 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(04-10-2019 11:55 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 03:31 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 03:08 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I disagree with the statements I bolded.

The argument for God has nothing to do with the universe being governed by natural laws.

Actually, as I read through your comments again, I have to disagree with even more.

Faith, from a Christian perspective, has nothing to do with lack of evidence. There is ample evidence.

If you use your definition of faith then atheism rests more on belief without evidence.



Is the universe infinitely self-existing?

Actually, it would have to. Even if we're talking about a theistic universe where a god took the deistic approach of being a creator only - he/she would have had to intervene at least once on a supernatural level. Even with the assumption that our universe was created by the God of the bible, God has intervened a number of times throughout the history of the universe. Granted to our limited scope of knowledge, these interventions happened on earth; however, he still suspended the laws of the universe to intervene. Virgin birth, pillar of smoke, parting of the sea, great flood, etc.

What ample evidence do you have to prove God - or any god - exists? You really don't have any. Otherwise, faith is meaningless. I've seen various apologetics articles about how you can "justify" faith by reasoning out why it makes sense to believe. However, that's not proof.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you were saying in the bolded part above:

• Actually, it would have to be
• Actually, it wouldn't have to be

Miko, any clarification here?

Thx

Option 1.

Is the universe self-existing beginning at the point of the big bang or is it self-existing infinitely?

While the poll in the OP suggests atheism is increasing in America The Times tells us that it's decreasing in the UK.

Atheism is down as UK gets spiritual
Kaya Burgess, Religious Affairs Correspondent
December 28 2018, 12:01am, The Times