The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[KrazyGlue]

Meh, I try to participate in as many threads as possible, but that's one particular topic that I have a hard time being interested in. I'd probably still try to participate a bit though.

 

[rvkevin]

I wanna start another intelligent design in schools topic in the DH. The one in the PG keeps getting violently off topic and it's pretty frustrating. Is there interest in that?

I don't think you will find many people in favor of the proposal in the DH other than Dre. and he tends to favor the PG.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[KrazyGlue]

I mean, I definitely don't want to discourage you from making a topic. If you make one, I'm sure some people will participate, myself included.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I'd prefer you getting ready for our DA thread.

Spoiler

Just kidding.

 

[rvkevin]

I guess so. I still feel that the political issue of whether intelligent design should be taught in schools is far more interesting than the scientific/religious/philosophical issue of whether or not it is correct.

What do you have in mind? It seems fairly straight forward to me. Should it be taught in the science classroom? No, it doesn't fit the operational definition of science. This was basically the task at the Dover Trial, to come up with a definition of what constitutes science and whether or not ID fits that definition. Should it be taught in schools? Why not. It could be taught in a comparative religion course, history of philosophy course, etc.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[rvkevin]

I thought it would be very interesting to talk about it in a Civics class (I'm not sure what the American equivalent of that is). That class basically talks about how the government runs. It would be pretty interesting for students to learn about it there and how separation of church and state laws evolved. That would probably be the best place to "teach the controversy".

We simply call it Government class. I could never follow the reasoning that it would violate separation of church and state. If a religion (or part) meets the standards of science, then it earns its right to be taught as such. However, it wouldn't really be teaching a religion, it would just become part of a field of science. For example, if some animist concoction passed medical trials for some particular disease, we wouldn't refer to it as animist medicine, it would just become a part of the field of medicine. As such, we wouldn't be teaching animism, we would simply be teaching medicine. It is inconsequential whether the genesis of the idea came from a religious figure/text or a scientist. The only concern should be whether it is science and if it is science, it should be taught as such.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

We simply call it Government class. I could never follow the reasoning that it would violate separation of church and state. If a religion (or part) meets the standards of science, then it earns its right to be taught as such. However, it wouldn't really be teaching a religion, it would just become part of a field of science. For example, if some animist concoction passed medical trials for some particular disease, we wouldn't refer to it as animist medicine, it would just become a part of the field of medicine. As such, we wouldn't be teaching animism, we would simply be teaching medicine. It is inconsequential whether the genesis of the idea came from a religious figure/text or a scientist. The only concern should be whether it is science and if it is science, it should be taught as such.

The thing was, that it didn't meet the standards of science and it was created by the creationist movement in an attempt to dodge the issue of the separation of church and state. It was motivated by religious interests and that was why it'd violate the separation of church and state.

You could teach it from a historical/civics perspective and look at why it was ruled unconstitutional. Or maybe in science as to why it was unscientific, but that's about all you could do. It'd probably be quite interesting though, and it would show how the scientific method works and teach the children about the separation of church and state. Both concepts really need firming up in the minds of children in the USA.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Dre89]

Yeah, because that's the entire ID argument, and isn't a straw man at all.....

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[rvkevin]

The thing was, that it didn't meet the standards of science and it was created by the creationist movement in an attempt to dodge the issue of the separation of church and state. It was motivated by religious interests and that was why it'd violate the separation of church and state.

I completely agree. I was just saying that, in principle, teaching something a religion has held true is not necessarily prohibited from the sciences and that would not violate the First Amendment. That is, only if it meets the standard of science. I said that ID didn't meet the definition of science in the post above the one you quoted.

 

[Dre89]

It may be a bit of a rude simplification, but it's an accurate one. It has nothing to do with whether or not intelligent design is true.

If I'm wrong I'm sorry, but please tell me what else there is to intelligent design.

That scientists have calculated that the probability of the universe being instantiated by chance and sustaining itself is literally one in trillions, and that the slightest tweak in the initial conditions would have resulted in the universe re collapsing into itself.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I completely agree. I was just saying that, in principle, teaching something a religion has held true is not necessarily prohibited from the sciences and that would not violate the First Amendment. That is, only if it meets the standard of science. I said that ID didn't meet the definition of science in the post above the one you quoted.

Yeah, I know. And it's a good point you've raised.

That scientists have calculated that the probability of the universe being instantiated by chance and sustaining itself is literally one in trillions, and that the slightest tweak in the initial conditions would have resulted in the universe re collapsing into itself.

Source please? If you're making a point about scientific consensus you should source the claims. Secondly, I doubt that any self-respecting scientist would comment on the ability of the universe to sustain itself. As far as we know, it there's nothing going to make it fall apart. Also, the laws of conservation and mass and energy suggest that if something exists, it's going to keep on existing. I think the contents of this universe abide by this rule and that's why it sustains itself.

 

[Dre89]

I'm on my iPhone at the moment, but I sourced it in the ID thread.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[KrazyGlue]

That scientists have calculated that the probability of the universe being instantiated by chance and sustaining itself is literally one in trillions, and that the slightest tweak in the initial conditions would have resulted in the universe re collapsing into itself.

1. The Big Bang is not the only way the universe may have been created.

2. Perhaps the universe did collapse into itself a trillion times before it finally created what we have today.

3. There is still no evidence at all of ID here.

 

[ballin4life]

This is the problem with public schools. When the curriculum is the same for everyone, interest groups are going to try to use that to shove their agenda down everyone's throat.

Private schools can decide whether to teach intelligent design or not, and if you don't like whatever they choose then you can go to a different school.

 

[AltF4]

What an asinine argument. A simple "god of the gaps", again? Point to something not yet fully understood by science, claim that there can be no rational explanation, and insert god. How boring.

 

[Dre89]

Man, everyone here says BB is fact, I don't know what to believe anymore.

 

[jaswa]

What an asinine argument. A simple "god of the gaps", again? Point to something not yet fully understood by science, claim that there can be no rational explanation, and insert god. How boring.

Where exactly has anybody used "god of the gaps"? That normally refers to something that happens within creation, we're talking about preceeds creation, which science can't... and won't ever answer.

Do you mind sharing your rational explanation as to how the universe came into being?

 

[Reaver197]

"Can't" and "won't ever" arguments have been made before...and were proven wrong. It takes an awful amount of assurance to lay claim for something like that.

 

[jaswa]

"Can't" and "won't ever" arguments have been made before...and were proven wrong. It takes an awful amount of assurance to lay claim for something like that.

Allright, you just keep waiting around for science to observe the unobservable...
Tell me how that goes

 

[AltF4]

Unobservable is a very strong statement. One that requires a lot of support. In the history of knowledge, saying that something is unknowable has been a losing bet.

And, for your information, there ARE consistent scientific theories of the origin of the universe. It's just a matter of finding if they match with our universe. That's what all of string theory is, and the No Boundary proposal is.

Asking a question like "What happened before creation" is nonsense. (See my thread) It is a self contradictory question. If there was something before, then it wasn't creation. Furthermore, it only demonstrates a lack of understanding about how time works. Time is not linear and unchanging. It can be bent and warped, such that there is no creation and no time before creation.


And Dre, don't be a troll. Surely you took 5th grade Science class? All the galaxies are moving away from one another, this is a fact. If you track their movement backward in time, they'd all be in the same place 13.75 billion years ago, this is also a fact. They must have exploded apart from one another to make up the distance. This is called the Big Bang.

There are still open questions. Where did the mass come from? Why is the universe in this particular configuration? Etc... But the existence of open questions doesn't discount what facts we have.

You know that gravity is the least understood fundamental force? At a basic level, we have no idea what causes gravity. I suppose you would point to this and claim that all of gravitational theory is baloney. Don't be absurd.

 

[Crimson King]

I for one no longer believe in gravity since it is just a theory. Magical elves obviously hold us in place.

Alt, general question for my knowledge bank, but what else is a theory that we utilize daily? The gravity one is hard to explain.

 

[Reaver197]

Allright, you just keep waiting around for science to observe the unobservable...
Tell me how that goes

In addition to Alt's reply, wouldn't your proposition of "creation" being unobservable also count against a notion of believing a deity caused it be a spurious claim as well?

"We have no way of knowing what happened before the start of the universe, observation cannot tell us anything about it, but, therefore, I know a god is there."

Edit: Quantum electrodynamics (and by extension, quantum mechanics). Some of the most confusing physics out there, but yet the most accurate model ever put together in physics. Every time you use a computer, or piece of electronics, it is a vindication of those principals.

 

[ballin4life]

Where exactly has anybody used "god of the gaps"? That normally refers to something that happens within creation, we're talking about preceeds creation, which science can't... and won't ever answer.

Do you mind sharing your rational explanation as to how the universe came into being?

Do you mind sharing your rational explanation as to how God came into being?

And then explain why that wouldn't work for the universe.

 

[jaswa]

Do you mind sharing your rational explanation as to how God came into being?

And then explain why that wouldn't work for the universe.

All I need is the Bible!

It gives us the 'watchmaker argument'

For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.

and shows that God is eternal.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

I guess it's irrational to believe just a book that's rife with circular logic such as

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

hmm...

 

[Crimson King]

Yes, because there is nothing circular about using the bible to prove the bible and god are correct.

 

[Reaver197]

lol, are you trying to troll, Jaswa? It seems like you are.

 

[Crimson King]

It was sarcasm.

 

[Reaver197]

I was actually referring to Jaswa's post, but I'm still sure it was sarcastic either way.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Jaswa, I'm still wondering how you can prove anything by using the Bible? How do we even know the text in the Bible is actually the correctly-interpreted word of God?

 

[AltF4]

Alt, general question for my knowledge bank, but what else is a theory that we utilize daily? The gravity one is hard to explain.

That's a good question actually. Let me see... things which are commonly used, but actually are unsolved problems...

There's the n-body motion problem. It is unsolved for n > 2. Which means that if you consider the problem of taking 3 balls in space, rotating around one another according to gravity, nobody really knows how to model their movements!

It's quite the embarrassment among mathematicians. It seems like such a simple problem, and has been the target of intense research ever since Isaac Netwon. Note that there are partial solutions, and solutions to constrained problems, but not the general form.

To better understand...

Consider the 1-body motion problem. This is just a single ball, floating in space. It's quite trivial to map its movement through space: It just goes in a straight line.

Consider the 2-body motion problem. This is two balls moving in space. It gets a little more complicated. Now there's orbits and other gravitational effects. But this is a solved problem. Given any two bodies, in any given configuration, we know the mathematics required to exactly predict their movements indefinitely into the future.

Now consider the 3-body motion problem. Suddenly the complexity explodes, and nobody knows how to accurately predict the movements of the objects anymore! We have to resort to constrained versions of the problem, or approximate answers.

For fun, try watching the animated GIF on the Wikipedia page. You can see that there's no readily apparent repeating pattern to the movements. (Which leads into the branch of math called Chaos Theory)

Fun conversation starter, right there! This kind of thing is why there are physics engines for games.

 

[Dre89]

Jaswa is just trolling. But really, his point was that science is considered omnipotent by the DHers here.

Ballin, asking how God came into being is showing a midunderstanding of the notion of God. If theists thought God came into being they wouldn't believe in Him at all. The whole point is that the first cause had to be eternal, and to be eternal you have to meet certain conditions, and to theist, naturalistic beings don't meet that those conditions.

And guys stop hiding behind "just because science doesn't have an explanation now, doesn't mean Gid exists, that's an argument from ignorance". The improbability of the BB occurring by chance is not why theists believe in God, that's not a scientific question, it just forces the atheist into a different explanation.

But seriously, everyone said BB is fact, now that it's challenged, all of a sudden it's not fact. It seems as if you guys just change your story to what suits atheism best.

 

[AltF4]

If by "changed your story" you mean "practice good science by adjusting your theories and world views according to new evidence", then yes.

 

[jaswa]

While I did format my post to be a tool, I still do believe it

Krazy, you should read the book that Nicholas refers to in the 'Evidence behind the NT' thread in the PG. Read stuff from the other side once in a while