The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Dre89]

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

But the problem is, when I first came, I challenged BB and evolution without God, and everyone told me it was scientific fact (not that I was even disputing that, I was disputng that it couldn't occur without God). People are always saying BB is fact.

If you guys are going to keep changing your mind, then there's no point me listening to you when you say something is scientific fact. It'd be like me saying "logical positivism was the main shcool of thought up until the 1950s" then saing "logical positivism only began as a the prominent school of thought in the 1950s", you'll just stop taking my word as credible. Is that a fair point?

 

[AltF4]

It would be a fair point if all atheists were in some giant club where we coordinated our efforts and thoughts. (Like, btw, most theists actually do)

Rather than trying to lump all atheists into one big group and getting frustrated when some make statements contradictory to one another, instead try debating individuals. I don't know who told you the Big Bang was or was not fact. I'm not going to take responsibility for it.

I don't hold it against opponents that some other previous debater said something contradictory.

Come on. Am I really having to explain this?

 

[Dre89]

Firstly, theists don't collaborate anymore than atheists do.

The difference is that atheists claim that certain theories are universaly accepted scientific fact. Theists never claim their theory is universally accepted as fact. My point is, there is simply no point in accepting anything as scientific fact if there is going to be so much divide and mind-changing.

 

[KrazyGlue]

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

A fair point. But I really don't read things from either "side". I'm agnostic, so I'm skeptical of any kind of "proof" either atheists or theists offer. I mean, in theory I'd like to read the book, but asking me to read 300 pages or whatever is a bit much. Just something you can't really get around in internet debates.

Is there any short summary of the logic in this book?

 

[Reaver197]

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

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.

Well, considering how a debate is supposed to be all about logical arguments put forth back up by evidence, one would imagine that science would tend to be a hefty and oft used resource.

I don't know where you're pulling this "improbability" talk from, but last I could tell, no one currently has the information to perform a statistical analysis of a universe existing or not existing.

As for the Big Bang theory, I don't know who claimed it as absolute "fact", but it is currently the best and most accurate picture we have for the cosmological evolution. It's not so much a theory of how the universe got started in of itself, but more of an explanation of the nature and size of the universe, and it's evolution, from its earliest point until now.

If you do some basic and preliminary readings of it, I'm sure it will be to your benefit. Here's some stuff I pulled up on a quick google search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bigbangredux.html

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/The Big Bang Theory.htm

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_bigbang.html

 

[Dre89]

The improbability argument is not arguing that the BB didn't occur, it actually hinges on BB being scientific fact, and given the improbabiltiy of it happening by chance (I linked a source in the ID thread), which is literally one in trillions, it's far more rational to believe it came about as a result of a designer.

But anyway, I don't feel BB is an important factor in God debates anyway. No matter what theory of the origin of the unvierse the atheist puts forward, the science of it alone will never prove that it did not require God's existence to happen. The atheist will need to answer metaphysical questions to successfully prove that God was not necessary for it.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Dre's youtube videos which he didn't feel like re-posting for our convenience. Skimming over his posts in the "Should Intelligent Design be Taught In Schools?" thread, Dre references the following two videos: Video 1 and Video 2. For convenience.

 

[ballin4life]

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.

So what are these properties that force the first cause to be the intelligent being we usually call God as opposed to simply being the universe itself?

 

[Reaver197]

The improbability argument is not arguing that the BB didn't occur, it actually hinges on BB being scientific fact, and given the improbabiltiy of it happening by chance (I linked a source in the ID thread), which is literally one in trillions, it's far more rational to believe it came about as a result of a designer.

But anyway, I don't feel BB is an important factor in God debates anyway. No matter what theory of the origin of the unvierse the atheist puts forward, the science of it alone will never prove that it did not require God's existence to happen. The atheist will need to answer metaphysical questions to successfully prove that God was not necessary for it.

If you could, send me the link, as I don't read the ID thread so I won't know where to find it in it.

Edit: Acrostic has provided them, while I was typing this out it seems.

Anyway, that's not what I said at all about the improbability argument, I'm saying that there is currently no way to statistically judge the probability of a universe being made. You can say it's one in trillions, but that sounds more of a completely random guess, not to mention that it completely ignores the possibility of there being more than one universe, or the how inevitable it may be for there to be a universe in the first place. It's a statement that demands data that we do not have.

Also, it seems to me, no matter how you slice it, whatever the improbability there may be in having a universe start, that improbability is only compounded when you also try to add a deity that is complex enough to create and design a universe as well. So, I don't see how that argument, even if it holds water, adds any weight to invoking a deity.

Yeah, science may never be able to completely disprove a deity having made or started the universe (how does one conclusively prove a negative?), but it doesn't help that theists generally have a moving definition of what a deity is and does so that they may hide behind what is currently not yet known or understood.

It also smacks of double standards to say there are metaphysical impediments to an atheists' argument, but that theists somehow have free pass. How do you lay claim to a field of knowledge that, by definition, cannot be arbitrated or conducted by us as it is non-empirical?

 

[Dre89]

Dre's youtube videos which he didn't feel like re-posting for our convenience. Skimming over his posts in the "Should Intelligent Design be Taught In Schools?" thread, Dre references the following two videos: Video 1 and Video 2. For convenience.

The end of video 1, and the start of video 2 to be specific.

Ballin4death- Self necessity, eternal, simple, single and unified principle, as opposed to multiple being co-existing without a prior cause.

Reaver- I never said theists were immune to metaphysical criticisms. Positing the universe came from nothing, or that the universe was actuated by a deity are equally metaphysical claims, because they make reference to osmething has no knowledge of- what preceded the universe.

Secondly, God is not complex, He is totally, simple, you're confusing power for complexity. It's a long argument to explain, so I really don't want to have to get into it, but I'll have to if you continue to object to it.

That improbabiltiy refers to the universe coming out of nothing by chance. A deity isn't acting on chance, it's atcing on design. It's highly improbable that I roll 10 6s in a row, because that is chance, but I don't see how it's improbable that I intentionally just place the die down with the 6 facing up ten times in a row, that's not improbable, because that is by deisgn, or intention, not by chance.

But again, the improbabiltiy by chance argument isn't necessary to logically sustain theism, that's not why people are theists. the question pertains to philosophy of religion, there are metaphysical issues, it's not a scientific debate, because science is only concerned with what can be observed within time and space.

 

[AltF4]

Firstly, theists don't collaborate anymore than atheists do.

Theists don't collaborate more than atheists?! Come on, now. Surely you can't actually think this is true. There is no atheist handbook, we have no meetings, we have no authorities, we have no creed, we have nothing in common in one another aside from an agreement that there is insufficient evidence as the the existence of any deities.

Is it atheists who line up in pews every week to listen to their authority figure tell them what they should think? Come now. I must appeal the the better senses of the audience reading this to see how simply absurd this assertion is.

You can believe in god or not, but one thing you cannot say is that atheists are as organized and single-minded as theists are. We're just simply not. If we were, then we would have more of an impact come election time. Quite the contrary, atheists seem to disappear at the polls, because there's absolutely no collaboration amongst atheists.

The difference is that atheists claim that certain theories are universaly accepted scientific fact. Theists never claim their theory is universally accepted as fact. My point is, there is simply no point in accepting anything as scientific fact if there is going to be so much divide and mind-changing

Theists never claim their theory as fact? ... Seriously?

And what exactly do you think science IS!? It is the eagerness to change your mind when new evidence appears which violates your theory, and an effort to seek out new evidence. You try actually make this sound like a bad thing. Like scientists should be ashamed of themselves for not sticking to their theories after they've been disproven.

Do you think we should just stop claiming that the Earth is round since we've changed our minds on the subject? Or we should remain agnostic about what is at the center of the solar system?

 

[ballin4life]

Dre - why can't the universe satisfy those criteria? It seems that "single" is the only one that is even debatable.

I also don't see why you can't have multiple coexisting Gods.

 

[Dre89]

Theists don't collaborate more than atheists?! Come on, now. Surely you can't actually think this is true. There is no atheist handbook, we have no meetings, we have no authorities, we have no creed, we have nothing in common in one another aside from an agreement that there is insufficient evidence as the the existence of any deities.

Is it atheists who line up in pews every week to listen to their authority figure tell them what they should think? Come now. I must appeal the the better senses of the audience reading this to see how simply absurd this assertion is.

You can believe in god or not, but one thing you cannot say is that atheists are as organized and single-minded as theists are. We're just simply not. If we were, then we would have more of an impact come election time. Quite the contrary, atheists seem to disappear at the polls, because there's absolutely no collaboration amongst atheists.




Theists never claim their theory as fact? ... Seriously?

And what exactly do you think science IS!? It is the eagerness to change your mind when new evidence appears which violates your theory, and an effort to seek out new evidence. You try actually make this sound like a bad thing. Like scientists should be ashamed of themselves for not sticking to their theories after they've been disproven.

Do you think we should just stop claiming that the Earth is round since we've changed our minds on the subject? Or we should remain agnostic about what is at the center of the solar system?

Now you're just straw-manning. I'm talking about theist philosophers, and arguments for God's existence, not religions. Theists claim their theories are true, not that everyone in the world accepts their theory to be true. Atheists here have continually claimed that BB is universally accepted as scientific fact.

Ballin4death- that's a whole debate in itself. If you wnat, start a threa don it and I'll participate.

 

[ballin4life]

Looks like I will have to buy premium and change my name to ballinAgainstAbortions.

 

[Reaver197]

Reaver- I never said theists were immune to metaphysical criticisms. Positing the universe came from nothing, or that the universe was actuated by a deity are equally metaphysical claims, because they make reference to osmething has no knowledge of- what preceded the universe.

Secondly, God is not complex, He is totally, simple, you're confusing power for complexity. It's a long argument to explain, so I really don't want to have to get into it, but I'll have to if you continue to object to it.

That improbabiltiy refers to the universe coming out of nothing by chance. A deity isn't acting on chance, it's atcing on design. It's highly improbable that I roll 10 6s in a row, because that is chance, but I don't see how it's improbable that I intentionally just place the die down with the 6 facing up ten times in a row, that's not improbable, because that is by deisgn, or intention, not by chance.

But again, the improbabiltiy by chance argument isn't necessary to logically sustain theism, that's not why people are theists. the question pertains to philosophy of religion, there are metaphysical issues, it's not a scientific debate, because science is only concerned with what can be observed within time and space.

That's the thing, knowing how the universe came to be as being only a metaphysical question might not be the case. There could very well be discoveries or observations made that give clues or understandings to how a universe is started, and from what it came from. So, I guess, the idea of what is metaphysical and what is not is hard to say until it is actually knowable by observation and evidence, especially when it comes to cosmology.

Either way, having no evidence or determination of a deity than there not being one, it seems to be an unfounded faith-based position to claim there is, as adding agents and concepts to an already speculative field would only make it even more speculative and unlikely.

I am unconvinced that you can just say "god is simple", yet also hold the idea that it is this being that plans out everything, made everything, and has a particular goal for it (from what I can recall on your previous posts on this topic), as not being a complex being or supposition. I would very much like to see what argument you have for it, as I've never really heard a whole one on that particular subject before.

Once again, our conceptions of what "nothing" is (or whatever there "is" outside of the universe as we know it) makes the whole argument spurious. We don't know anything about the inevitability, the frequency, or the nature of universes' starting (or what exactly a "universe" entails being, as it could simply be the unraveling of different dimensions, or what ever it might be). Evolution and natural selection is a perfect example of a system that operates without a designer or creator, that overtime can build complex systems, so one does not necessarily need to invoke one just because something seems complex.

It could also something like rolling six die, and finding it improbable to get all sixes on every one, but maybe it's a scenario where you have to roll those die a billion times. Inevitably, you will end up with all sixes numerous amounts of times. Maybe a similar thing could be true for universes?

Also, to employ such ideas as "design" and "intention" outside of anything that could remotely represent space and time as we know it seems a bias of our cognitive functions, and not something that should be assumed as intrinsic to the nature of things.

Anyway, I stand by my previously made argument that all our knowledge and assertions only function within empirically gained and formulated notions anyway.

 

[Crimson King]

Looks like I will have to buy premium and change my name to ballinAgainstAbortions.

Eh, that sounds a bit lame. It just looks to "look at me!"

 

[Dre89]

Plus you're going to get loads of people who want to shove their opinions down your throat, because for some reason they feel their opinion has more authority than others, despite having no qualifications in bio ethics.

 

[AltF4]

Now you're just straw-manning. I'm talking about theist philosophers, and arguments for God's existence, not religions. Theists claim their theories are true, not that everyone in the world accepts their theory to be true. Atheists here have continually claimed that BB is universally accepted as scientific fact.

Don't expect me to read your mind, if that's actually what you try to mean. When you say theist, I'm going to take it to mean "theist" not "academic theist philosophical scholars which whom I'm familiar". Though I'm getting the impression that philosophers don't speak with the intention of clarity, but rather suitable complexity to mask to idiocy of their statements.


And after so many clearly uninformed statements, I'm thoroughly convinced that you haven't a clue what the Big Bang actually is. The Big Bang is as much a fact as there can be in science. The precise details about what "banged" is unknown, the details about the fleeting moments immediately after the bang are unknown. That's all fine, there are always unanswered questions.

But it is fact that all galaxies today are moving away from one another. If you track their motions backward in time, they would all be in the same place 13.75 billion years ago. This number also happens to be independently confirmed by dozens of other pieces of evidence like cosmic background radiation.

 

[Sucumbio]

Plus you're going to get loads of people who want to shove their opinions down your throat, because for some reason they feel their opinion has more authority than others, despite having no qualifications in bio ethics.

oh pish. I don't have my MCSE does that mean I shouldn't be posting on the internet? Don't answer that, actually.

 

[ballin4life]

Eh, that sounds a bit lame. It just looks to "look at me!"

Plus you're going to get loads of people who want to shove their opinions down your throat, because for some reason they feel their opinion has more authority than others, despite having no qualifications in bio ethics.

Uh ... I'm not serious - but Dre keeps calling me ballin4death, which I am certainly not.

perhaps ballin2death then

 

[El Nino]

Plus you're going to get loads of people who want to shove their opinions down your throat, because for some reason they feel their opinion has more authority than others, despite having no qualifications in bio ethics.

I also see people running their mouths about evolution and cosmology despite having no qualifications in either biology or astrophysics. But it's the Internet, and that's what we do.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I also see people running their mouths about evolution and cosmology despite having no qualifications in either biology or astrophysics. But it's the Internet, and that's what we do.

Hey, I'm just a layman when it comes to this, and probably not really a man either. Well, it looks as if I shouldn't hold any opinions at all!

 

[Dre89]

Yeah but there's a difference between debating for the sake of debating, and trying to convince someone you're right.

I don't want people to convert to my beliefs because of me, because I realise I'm not a qualified authority on those issues.

Alt- Use the principle of charity. If you're going to attack theism, you don't achieve anything unless you attack the strongest arguments, which are academic, not those of some fundie. You wouldn't want me to attack straw mans of atheism.

 

[El Nino]

Hey, I'm just a layman when it comes to this, and probably not really a man either. Well, it looks as if I shouldn't hold any opinions at all!

That's right. Women aren't allowed to have opinions.

Yeah but there's a difference between debating for the sake of debating, and trying to convince someone you're right.

I don't want people to convert to my beliefs because of me, because I realise I'm not a qualified authority on those issues.

I guess. Though I'm not sure what would make a person a qualified authority. And if you were "qualified," would that then give you the right to try to convert people? Persuasion is an art form, in a way. I always thought one of the goals was to try to get someone to acknowledge the holes is their argument and maybe reconsider their position.

Granted, I don't really debate for the sake of it, and if I could get more opinion pieces published, I probably would be doing that instead of this.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

That's right. Women aren't allowed to have opinions.

No, I'm not an adult. I am a male though.

 

[Dre89]

That's right. Women aren't allowed to have opinions.

Sucumbio's wife posted her opinions here before. Didn't know they kept their computer in the kitchen.

Just kidding I'm not sexist (had to make that call though). The ironic thing is, I always stir my female friends with women jokes (the ones who know me well enough to know I'm kdidng), yet they know in my last relationship my girlfirend wore the pants, and I was the biggest pushover when it came to her.

 

[Dre89]

Don't expect me to read your mind, if that's actually what you try to mean. When you say theist, I'm going to take it to mean "theist" not "academic theist philosophical scholars which whom I'm familiar". Though I'm getting the impression that philosophers don't speak with the intention of clarity, but rather suitable complexity to mask to idiocy of their statements.

You do know many developments in science came from philosophers right?

Secondly, you should be applying the principle of charity. Attacking theism achieves nothing if you're not attacking the strongest theistic arguments, which are academic. Criticising fundies does nothing. You expect me to attack either your points specifically, or the strongest atheist arguments, so I expect the same in return.

And besides, no religion, no matter how fanatical, has ever claimed their religion is universally accepted. They've claimed it is the universal truth, but not that it is universally accepted, there's a difference. People tell me BB is universally accepted as fact, then once I present evidence suggesting the BB happening by chance is ridiculously improbable, people start telling me the BB could be wrong.

And after so many clearly uninformed statements, I'm thoroughly convinced that you haven't a clue what the Big Bang actually is. The Big Bang is as much a fact as there can be in science. The precise details about what "banged" is unknown, the details about the fleeting moments immediately after the bang are unknown. That's all fine, there are always unanswered questions.

But it is fact that all galaxies today are moving away from one another. If you track their motions backward in time, they would all be in the same place 13.75 billion years ago. This number also happens to be independently confirmed by dozens of other pieces of evidence like cosmic background radiation.

I don't understand why you even said this. I never said the BB didn't happen...

My point was to highlight the disunity in science, and why I'm starting to lose trust in it. People tell me BB is universally accepted fact, then as soon as evidence arises suggesting that it is astronomically improbable that it occurred by chance, people al lof a sudden start telling me it could be wrong. If something considered fact can be dismissed so quickly by those claiming it was fact, I don't see why I should listen to them. So I'm not saying the BB is necessarily wrong, it's more of a criticism of the theorists rather than the theory.

But this brings up something I was curious about. Do the separating galaxies effectively disprove infinite regress? In that if time was infinite, the galaxies would be an infinite distance away from each other, which apart from being impossible, we know that they're not. Just something I was curious about.

 

[AltF4]

If the "them" which is feeding you this information is high school sophomores in the Proving Grounds, then sure it's fair to stop trusting what they have to say about astrophysics. I would recommend looking to real astrophysicists.

You know, I ran into some middle school girls the other day at a play ground saying logical fallacies are okay and metaphysics doesn't exist. I think I'm going to stop listening to all philosophers as a result.

 

[Sucumbio]

actually...

our computer is in fact... very near the kitchen.

>.>

 

[Reaver197]

My point was to highlight the disunity in science, and why I'm starting to lose trust in it. People tell me BB is universally accepted fact, then as soon as evidence arises suggesting that it is astronomically improbable that it occurred by chance, people al lof a sudden start telling me it could be wrong. If something considered fact can be dismissed so quickly by those claiming it was fact, I don't see why I should listen to them. So I'm not saying the BB is necessarily wrong, it's more of a criticism of the theorists rather than the theory.

But this brings up something I was curious about. Do the separating galaxies effectively disprove infinite regress? In that if time was infinite, the galaxies would be an infinite distance away from each other, which apart from being impossible, we know that they're not. Just something I was curious about.

ಠ_ಠ

Have you literally ignored everything that was said before about the Big Bang theory?

Listen, if you think there is some "disunity" in science over the validity of the Big Bang theory, ask an actual, professional astronomer if it is. See what answer you get. All I can think is that where ever you are getting your scientific information from, it is / they are either misinformed about it or deliberately trying to mislead you.

Even if you could somehow conclusively show that the Big Bang theory is a highly improbable event, that doesn't change the fact that it could, and did, happen. Life starting is a highly improbable event, but that doesn't mean it can't ever happen or is "wrong" because of it.

Pretty much the whole point of the Big Bang theory is that the universe started from a smaller point, and grew (explosively) to a larger size, a growth that still carries on to this day (not nearly as fast though). The particulars of the theory for how matter arose, interacted, how gravity, dark matter, and dark energy interacted with that growth and the formation of matter, the exact nature of what caused the explosion in the first place, and whether our "universal laws" really are as universal as we assumed they are, are all things that might get revised, adjusted, or changed totally, but the overall principal of the Big Bang, the point of its hypothesis, will remain pretty much the same.

But, yes, time is not infinite, especially if it turns out to be the case that time is not actually a formal dimension, but actually a result of the interaction of systems of matter. Therefore, without matter, there really is no time.

 

[El Nino]

No, I'm not an adult. I am a male though.

I really am too old for this. -_-;

in my last relationship my girlfirend wore the pants

Never knew you were into that.

You do know many developments in science came from philosophers right?

I can't comment on Big Bang, but science and philosophy have diverged in modern practice, no matter how they were connected in the past. Science is a method; that's all it is. It's a method used to examine naturally occurring phenomena. A theoretical science like cosmology is still rooted in basic observable facts, even if the theory itself is an extrapolation.

My point was to highlight the disunity in science, and why I'm starting to lose trust in it. People tell me BB is universally accepted fact, then as soon as evidence arises suggesting that it is astronomically improbable that it occurred by chance, people al lof a sudden start telling me it could be wrong. If something considered fact can be dismissed so quickly by those claiming it was fact, I don't see why I should listen to them. So I'm not saying the BB is necessarily wrong, it's more of a criticism of the theorists rather than the theory.

As AltF4 said, unless you were talking to real astrophysicists, I don't know why you would lose trust in science because a few people who may have seen a documentary on the Big Bang theory proved to be real pushovers in the face of your mad debate skillz. It takes a long time to become knowledgeable in a scientific field, and most lay people wouldn't be able to defend a theory unless they went to school for it.

Furthermore, it's a part of the scientific method to discard concepts that don't hold up to scrutiny, but more importantly, all concepts have to be backed by hard evidence. Even if a particular theory appears to defy all logic, if the observations and the evidence support the theory, if it holds up to intense scrutiny, then it could be that it was our pre-conceived notion of reality that was false.

 

[Dre89]

Well when you guys say to ask astrophysicists, it depends on what we're asking.

If we're asking whether the BB existed or not, then yeah I don't know if there would be disunity.

If we're talking about whether God was necessary for the BB, then yeah you'd have disunity, because I've heard of astrophysicists converting to theism based on what they've discovered.

So are you guys telling me that no scientists have ever disputed the BB, and that it is universally accepted as true amongst the scientific community? Don't theoretical physicists have theories which conflict with it?

 

[El Nino]

If we're talking about whether God was necessary for the BB, then yeah you'd have disunity, because I've heard of astrophysicists converting to theism based on what they've discovered.

Some scientists are religious. I'm not sure why there would be a conflict.

So are you guys telling me that no scientists have ever disputed the BB, and that it is universally accepted as true amongst the scientific community? Don't theoretical physicists have theories which conflict with it?

I should probably let someone with a background in physics handle this, but based on my readings, the Big Bang is well established in cosmology. "The scientific community" is an umbrella term that includes all disciplines of science, but cosmology is the field that deals specifically with the origin of the universe. There may be theories that conflict with it, but to my knowledge those theories don't hold up to the level of scrutiny that the Big Bang has. Maybe something will emerge in the future to contradict it. However, until we reach that point, the currently accepted theory is Big Bang.

Essentially my point is, all theories have to go through a process of scrutiny before it is considered "accepted." Currently, Big Bang is the theory that passes the method. Another hypothesis may show up, but once it does, it would have to go through the same process as well before any changes are made to what is considered "accepted."

So, simply holding a contrasting view is not enough to knock down an established theory.

 

[Dre89]

I'll accept your last two paragraphs, but some non religious scientists have converted to theism based on what they've discovered.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'll accept your last two paragraphs, but some non religious scientists have converted to theism based on what they've discovered.

Would you mind sourcing that?

And yes there have been scientists who disputed the Big Bang. I believe that Fred Hoyle was one of them, he was pretty much proven wrong. However, the Big Bang is fairly well accepted as far as scientific theories go.

 

[Dre89]

I'm on my iPhone at the moment, but Paul Davies was one of them.

Then you have the late Antony Flew, the atheist who converted to deism because of Dawkins lol.

 

[AltF4]

What a profoundly dishonest way of trying to make a point, Dre. "Some scientists even convert to theism based on what they've discovered"? You point to one abnormal case in a sea of contradictory data.

As usual, you make statements cleverly worded so as to be true, strictly speaking. SOME have. MOST have been the exact opposite, however. But you conveniently left that part out. And the truth of the matter is precisely the opposite of what you are insinuating.

Some demographics of atheism, particularly amongst scientists:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Scientists

Atheism amongst scientists is the norm, and vastly more so than the population average. Pointing to a minority of cases and trying to make a judgment as if there's some deeper truth in it is just dishonest.

 

[Reaver197]

Alt beat me to it, taking the words out of my mouth.

Not to mention, there are plenty of cases one could also cite for theists turning to atheists. People changing their beliefs doesn't validate or invalidate a theory on its own. You'd have to look at the reasoning and evidence, because people can change beliefs with good or bad reasoning, scientists being no more free from this than anyone else.

Also, dude, you really have to get off your strange obsession with Dawkins. No one else ever really talks about him, but you keep bringing him up (not to mention you seem to have a particularly biased view of him anyway). There wasn't any point to mentioning Anthony Flew or Dawkins, since we were talking about specifically cosmology and scientists, neither of which Flew is related to.

 

[Dre89]

What the hell did you guys even see why I brought that point up?

I never said atheists weren't the majority of scientists.

El Nino said that the scientists who believe in God do so because they are religious. That isn't true, there are scientists who converted to theism because of what they discovered. That's all I was contending. I didn't say science proves God or anything.

And no I don't think Dawkins represents atheism, he's an
embarrassment to atheism. He's the equivalent of a fundie. I just find it hilarious that a book could be so bad it converts someone away from the book's position lol.

 

[rvkevin]

If it were true that Flew changed his beliefs because of Dawkins, I don't see how Flew's conversion would put Dawkins in any more of a negative light than himself. How intellectually unstable does your belief system have to be to change your position based on no evidence or reason to the contrary? By the way, it is disputed that Flew changed because of the evidence. Long story short, Flew didn't even write his book. Feel free to cite fringe characters, but don't expect anyone to pay attention to them. They may have converted based on what they discovered, but that does not mean that that is what the evidence bears out.

Francis Collins is a textbook example of this. He converted to Christianity after seeing a frozen waterfall split in three parts. If that is evidence of the Christian God, then anything can be evidence of anything. Just because you can find other cases where scientists have let their mind wander does not give credence to your position nor does it make it scientific. If DNA was instead a triple helix rather than a double helix, would it give any credence to Christianity if some biologists took it to be a sign of the trinity? How is it any different than looking at the frozen waterfall? Scientists making unscientific claims based on unscientific evidence is not impressive to us and to insinuate that they are not doing so is offensive to the senses.

Also, almost every time I hear a theist talk about Dawkins, they make factually incorrect statements about what he advocates, even when he explicitly says otherwise in his book. To say that he is the equivalent of a fundamentalist in the pejorative is to tarnish the entire scientific enterprise. Being stern and assertive about what the evidence bears out is not the mark of a fundamentalist. Theists mistake tone of voice to mean that he is absolutely certain of his position, when all it means is that he is passionate about science.