Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About JamesT

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That argument seems to be, "This particular universe seems really unlikely, therefore God" It is a failure to understand basic probability (which is sad from a mathematics professor) wrapped with an argument from ignorance. This argument is also refuted by the anthropic principle. Vanishingly unlikely things happen every day. For example, what is the likelihood that any particular human being will be born? A particular sperm out of millions had to meet a particular egg under the right conditions, the parents had to meet, each parent was conceived by a particular sperm meeting a particular egg and so on...Yet human beings are born every day. Can you show that the initial conditions used for the calculation represent reality or at least align with our current understanding of the universe? Also, are you just here to copy paste this quote? Lastly, if it were remotely true, wouldn't mathematicians and physicists seeing this convert or at least be more religious than currently is the case? Despite claims, that's not evidence. That's some words you can write on a piece of paper -- meanwhile, the Higg's Boson wasn't proven until someone found it. Or, you don't understand the physics you're trying to describe.
  2. I suggest you watch this well rasoned video by QualiaSoup about faith: EDIT: Apologies I quoted the wrong person. I changed it now. This is meant for Lasse. Sorry I am not used to this site. Everybody asks for evidence in every area of life - except believers and only when it comes to their chosen religion. Popes look both ways before crossing the road just like atheists. The Reformed Epistemology bullshit ("you have no evidence against sollipsism") is just rhetoric. Yes, there are degrees of certainty. Still, the evidence that the belief in the external world is better than the belief in sollipsism lies in the observable epistemic productivity of the former. So, yeah, we all use evidence unless we willingly make an exception for irrational reasons. In one of my links on page 1 of this thread I have given a few examples around this (baring in mind this is from a whole different conversation - but the underlying point about faith and science is still there): Anyways I have to go now. Bye all of you lovely people.
  3. The creation of a star can be observed through a telescope. You won't see the entire process on a film because it takes very long time, longer that the human life span, longer than the time humans had telescopes that allowed them to observe those events. However, they can see different stars in different phases of their formation. If you had read more books than just the bible, you could have seen some intriguing pictures there. Here is a link to some devilish speculations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
  4. Wait a minute, isn't your title basically appalling to an argumentum ad ignorantiam? I think it is. Just because we can't explain the origin of the universe or that there isn't an answer yet that it makes your position and more valid or, my position any less. You are appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. "We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must or he there is good chance he does or that this claim is just as likely as any other theories." Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence. Your title: are like these common phrases : This is basically what you are saying? If so: that's called the argument from ignorance fallacy. Ignorance here being not knowing or not understanding how this or that could be explained, therefore god must exist. (is kinda saying: I don't know how the universe started, therefore Magic or therefor magic is on equal footing with any other competing). Well, science honestly doesn't know whether the universe had a beginning or not! In fact, a major new hypothesis gaining ground right now is that the universe is in fact eternal. But that is beside the point. Science doesn't know, but that is okay. We don't need answers for everything, and just because we don't have an answer doesn't mean God makes sense as one. This is known as an argument from ignorance. A simple example: What if I put a die into a bag (6 sided), but you didn't know how many faces it had on it. Then I asked you, "Can I roll an 8 on the die in this bag?". Would the fact that you don't know what type of die is in the bag actually make it possible to roll an 8? Of course not. A standard six sided die cannot physically roll an 8. ever. Many people argue for God saying, "Well we don't really know, and if the universe is infinite, then mus'nt that mean it is likely there is a God?". This is fallacious, as shown by my example above. Just because we don't know another explanation for sure doesn't actually mean God is a legitimate explanation, or even possible. And indeed, very little evidence supports the idea that our universe had to have been created by a supreme being. There are a million other possibilities as to what created the universe, all as equally likely as if not more so than God. I mean people say, "But the universe looks designed!", or, "It had to have a creator!". But none of that actually is solid evidence for God. I mean, by those standards magical unicorns or tap-dancing creator-leprechauns are also possible explanations. Without some substantial evidence to support the assertion "God did it", and to show that God is the only plausible explanation, we don't actually have a convincing argument. Just because you don't understand something or don't know yet or something is too complex does not mean a supernatural deity is behind. We just do not know yet. Simple. No more assumptions should be made than necessary. Scientific ignorance. Moving the goal posts. Cowardly stance to retain an unreasoned position. This is not rational and therefore does not make sense, i'm sorry to say. No, no I wouldn't. What males you think it's a whom?
  5. Thought I might introduce myself. I have been somewhat of a regular browser of the science forums but never made an account until now. I just need to find where I can change my profile pic. I'll figure it out. I'm 25 still thinking I'm 21. I'm Irish. I am in Digital Marketing but I love to delve into science (moreso cosmology) and philosophy in my spare time. I like my cup of tea in the morning... and lunch and evening. Barry's Tea!!!! EDIT: Found it. Changed my pic.
  6. Before I write anything (and before I take a shower as I have to get ready for some drinks with the lads), I am going to give 3 links of my argument to a person who said some of the things you are saying here, although his own focuses more on the origin of life instead of the origin of the universe but since you mention both here they are. Link 1: http://docdro.id/6r5nwvo Link 2: http://docdro.id/34pMf7b Link 3: http://docdro.id/WYtI3Gv Take from these what you will. I might be back later to focus on what you have said but for now, I hope this will have to answer a few of your questions and claims you have made PaulP, especially the claim that it takes faith to believe in certain scientific theories and hypotheses in comparison to your faith in a supernatural creator. Equating these and putting them on a 50/50 footing is ludicrous indeed. Nobody can say for sure whether or not a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, but that doesn't mean the probability is midway. First of all, science is a organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. It goes through regiments of falsifiable tests. So no, I don't have faith in it. You seem to be ignorant of this while dishonest theists like to conflate what you call "faith" (belief in something without evidence) with "reasonable expectation" that is based in either pattern of behaviour or evidence-backed assumptions. There is a reasonable explanation of the big bang and the universe existing without the need to posit supernatural deity to them. There is no need for that hypothesis. Perhaps a little introduction of the definitions and differences of theories, hypotheses facts and law's might be a good way to start. As it does seem you are conflating abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection. Evolution makes no claims about how life began. This is your first mistake PaulP. And if anybody else wants to have a look at my links, please be my guest. If you have any corrections again I welcome them.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.