14-04-2003 02:20									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

That's what I read, at least.

	14-04-2003 02:29									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by yavoon if we were at the beginning of such an event which would be a miscalculation of the scale of the universe by many many powers of 10. there would still e another issue, if we were off by that much we are already supposing unseeable matter as 90% of the universe. the new amt of matter in the universe required to contract the universe back on itself(considering the strength of gravity) would quickly become (INCOMING PUN) astronomical.

I never said the entire universe would collapse. I said my opinion was that black holes fall into each other until reaching a critical point where they "explode" like the Big Bang. And since I tend to believe the universe is infinite, the amount of matter is infinite, and it's existence infinite; it is a localized event (local by meaning in our region of the universe, but by no means small).

	14-04-2003 02:31									#93
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boshko Exactly Boris. Good to see someone who knows the difference between strong and weak (or as you term it hard and soft) belief. Strong/hard atheism doesn't make any sense since we have no way of knowing that our senses aren't so completely fallable what we're not missing moutains of evidence to theism (so God is very improbable but possible).

But Strong Atheism is still more rational than Theism. Theism is stating absolute belief in something for which there is not any concrete evidence, while Strong Atheism is stating an absolute disbelief in something for which there is not any concrete evidence. Just as it is most rational to operate under a presumption of innocence in our justice system, it is most rational to operate under a presumption of Atheism when talking about theology. After all, believing someone guilty of a crime for which there is no evidence is not equally as rational as believing them innocent.

Burden of proof is on those who affirm the positive, which are the Theists.

	14-04-2003 02:32									#94
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

While I tend to agree with you Boris on the whole burden of proof thing, logically, both are equally as wrong.

	14-04-2003 02:35									#95
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

if u say so=P

	14-04-2003 02:40									#96
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: I never said the entire universe would collapse. I said my opinion was that black holes fall into each other until reaching a critical point where they "explode" like the Big Bang.

Hey, I thought of that theory first!

	14-04-2003 02:45									#97
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Sava While I tend to agree with you Boris on the whole burden of proof thing, logically, both are equally as wrong.

Explain the logic behind stating that an absolute belief in something sans evidence and an absolute disbelief in something sans evidence are equally irrational?

That's just not so. I would argue both are less rational than the Soft Atheistic belief, yes, but I wouldn't make then equal on the rational scale.

Are presumed innocent and presumed guilty equally rational?

	14-04-2003 02:45									#98
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Azazel quote: I never said the entire universe would collapse. I said my opinion was that black holes fall into each other until reaching a critical point where they "explode" like the Big Bang. Hey, I thought of that theory first!

Prove it.

	14-04-2003 02:47									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Explain the logic behind stating that an absolute belief in something sans evidence and an absolute disbelief in something sans evidence are equally irrational? That's just not so. I would argue both are less rational than the Soft Atheistic belief, yes, but I wouldn't make then equal on the rational scale. Are presumed innocent and presumed guilty equally rational?

It isn't rational presume anything in a scientific experiment until the results can be proven. Your hypothesis may be rational, but that's something different.

	14-04-2003 02:50									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Wow, this got threadjacked...
I'd just like to reiterate my eternal and unchanging opinion that religion and science perform two completely different functions within society and to compare one to the other is like comparing a car engine to an oil pump; superficial similarities, different tasks. I'm not directing the statement at anyone in particular, just spitting out my broken-record routine as usual. Now I'll get the hell outta dodge before the argument really gets ugly. Good day, ladies and germs.

	14-04-2003 02:51									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Sava It isn't rational presume anything in a scientific experiment until the results can be proven.

That's what I'm saying. Presuming the existence of God is not equal to presuming the non-existence of God, since science (which often operates on assumptions, but rational ones) states that in the absence of evidence, it is more rational to assume the negative is true.

	14-04-2003 02:52									#102
	Inflate your Upload Space

More rational, but not logical.

	14-04-2003 02:53									#103
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Sava More rational, but not logical.

Ok, you're being neither rational nor logical. Are you sure you're not a creationist?

	14-04-2003 05:14									#105
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

OK it's been about a hundred posts now. Have we got the definitions down yet? Anyway, if God must reveal himself before he is known it is only normal to be "without God." Therefore atheism is rather normal for anyone who has not studied DNA and the information it contains. But after such a study the belief that life arose without intelligent input requires blind faith in miracles. There is no known law of physics that allows for the creation of information such as is contained in DNA. Therefore an atheist certainly is not basing his belief (or lack of it) on the laws of physics.

	14-04-2003 06:33									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov quote: Originally posted by Azazel actually, AFAIK it's not like that. Soft Atheist: god doesn't exist. Hard Atheist: god CANNOT exist. That makes no sense, as there is no practical difference between the two beliefs.

Soft Atheist: Opinion
Hard Atheist: Belief

Is everyone happy yet?

	14-04-2003 06:45									#107
	Put an end to popups!

quote: There is no known law of physics that allows for the creation of information such as is contained in DNA.

The God in the gaps argument doesn't hold that much water, especially since gaps keep on disappearing. For example it didn't make much sense to believe that volcanos were the result of God-vomit in the Classical Age despite no known natural process being known at the time. Basically "I don't know what causes X therefore God must have done it" doesn't have a very good track record.
Also there really isn't that much of a DNA gap, there's self-catalyzing cycles that are sort of proto-DNA and its believed that the most primitive organisms had only RNA in any case.

	14-04-2003 06:58									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by St Leo Soft Atheist: Opinion Hard Atheist: Belief Is everyone happy yet?

Um, "Opinion" and "Belief" are synonymous...

	14-04-2003 07:07									#109
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I am aware the method has evolved since its creation, but its basic philosophy remains the same. Believing in science is believeing this fundamental philosophy. Believing in religion is also believing in a fundamental philosophy. I don't need either one.

Fundamentally, you either hold that your sensory inputs closely approximate that of reality, or you don't. If you don't, there's nothing more to discuss, since nothing is reliable to you, as you can be just be a brain in a vat. Philosophically, I posit that having such an idea ("brain in a vat") excludes it from actuality, but we are already gettting too far away.

Now, if you hold that your senses are good (I call it "primacy of senses," not sure of the actual term), you will hold that observations is the only approach to acquire data of nature. That really is all there is to Empiricism.

	14-04-2003 07:15									#110
	Got spare money?

Speer - Do you believe that giant purple banana eating monkeys control each and every one of our movements from atop a cliff in Nepal?

No? Prove it

	14-04-2003 07:22									#111
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh No, I am argueing precisely about the methodology. It is possible, some would say inevitable, that scientific methodology will not be able to explain everything in the universe, ever. This is a matter of principle - not just an inibility of scientists to do their job. To say that it will be able to, as you just did , is a statement of faith.

On the contrary, Rogan, your position requires a contradiction in your fundamental outlook. If you posit that it is possible that something in this universe can't be known by applications of our senses, you are just saying that this something is completely unknowable, thus diving into a mud bog of metaphysics where empty assertions bounce off each other.

My question is this. If this something is completely unknowable, how do you know it is even there? On what basis do you argue for it?

	14-04-2003 07:24									#112
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Abiogenisis posits the following possible sequence:

simple chemicals -> basic building blocks -> catalytic polymers + abiotic metabolism pre-RNA world -> RNA world -> DNA/protein world

DNA did not need to develop spontaneously--it was a slow evolutionary progression.

	14-04-2003 07:28									#113
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara No you can't. The very definition of atheism is no belief in gods. A=none, theism=belief in deities.

Precisely.

Hence, Atheism is no belief in deities, not belief in no deities.

	14-04-2003 07:34									#114
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ari Rahikkala GRAH! Would you please, please, please, please repeat this after me a couple hundred times: Agnosticism does not mean that you aren't sure about the existence of (a) god. Agnosticism does not mean that you aren't sure about the existence of (a) god. Agnosticism does not mean... Agnosticism means that you believe there is no proof about the existence of (a) god. More accurately, weak agnosticism means that you believe there is no proof about the existence of (a) god, while hard agnosticism means that you believe there can't ever be any proof about the existence of (a) god.

Nope.

Agnosticism is a term attributed to Huxley, who made it in a semi-joking way in response to people asking his beliefs.

If you recall, Gnostics are a ancient sect who supposedly held knowledge of spiritual truths, i.e., gods. Therefore, Agnosticism is the lack of such knowledge. It does not reflect a person's standing on the question per se.

	14-04-2003 07:38									#115
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ramo However, my experience allows me to assign a probablity distribution to various concepts.

You're odd. You belief that probablity holds sway in the objective reality but you can't tell if you are in touch of it. Something is missing there somewhere.

	14-04-2003 07:40									#116
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boshko Exactly Boris. Good to see someone who knows the difference between strong and weak (or as you term it hard and soft) belief. Strong/hard atheism doesn't make any sense since we have no way of knowing that our senses aren't so completely fallable what we're not missing moutains of evidence to theism (so God is very improbable but possible).

You have to accept that your senses are infallable, otherwise you might as well throw in your towel and be content to be a brain in a vat.

I am not saying that the senses of each individual person are flawless every time. I am saying that, collectively, our senses make an accurate picture of the objective reality over time.

	14-04-2003 07:47									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln Therefore atheism is rather normal for anyone who has not studied DNA and the information it contains. But after such a study the belief that life arose without intelligent input requires blind faith in miracles. There is no known law of physics that allows for the creation of information such as is contained in DNA. Therefore an atheist certainly is not basing his belief (or lack of it) on the laws of physics.

Lincoln, would you gracefully quit this regurgitation of the same tripe over and over again? Last time when there was a serious discussion on this, you failed to substantiate your position. As I told you before, I still have the thread archived.

	14-04-2003 07:57									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Abiogenisis posits the following possible sequence: simple chemicals -> basic building blocks -> catalytic polymers + abiotic metabolism pre-RNA world -> RNA world -> DNA/protein world DNA did not need to develop spontaneously--it was a slow evolutionary progression.

Boshko is right. Creationists (including the so called Intelligent Design types) have adopted the "God in the Gap" position.

All the Creationist literature consist of the following:

- lies
- misquotes
- ridiculous misconstrutions
- pointing to something that hasn't been explained by science, yelling, "Look, God!"

	14-04-2003 08:04									#119
	Full PM-box? Change here!

My biggest problem with the "God in the gaps" arguments is not that they are necessarily wrong (can't prove that at this point), but rather if there is some sort of intelligent design process, why does it have to be proof of the Christian God? Why can't it be Vishnu, or a multitude of gods, or some other god/entity/higher power that no one has yet conceived?

	14-04-2003 08:09									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The other problem with "intelligent design" is that our design and that of other species isn't always so intelligent. Thanks for the appendix, Lord. Oh, and the tailbone remnant, that's really useful. And having the testicles dangle outside the body in a vulnerable position was a real great idea, yessirree!