Understanding the Mentality and World View of the Christian Fundamentalist

[BluePhantom]

Precisely...the WOW Signal....if evidence disappears does it become a myth?

Not likely. Most scientists are not very superstitious, and although astronomers use mythological figures to describe stellar associations, they aren't very superstitious, either.

So what would be their scientific basis for professing that the signal happened if there is no longer any physical evidence? According to your position on religion, it exists as myth because of the lack of evidence. Therefore, things can only exist as real so long as physical evidence exists. Without physical evidence of the WOW Signal why does it not become myth where religion does?

I don't "believe" in Socrates. If you are asking me if I believe he existed, my answer is I believe he probably did, but then, I am about as sure of that as any other scholar. I cannot say when it comes to Sun-Tzu, because I don't know enough about that character to come to an educated conclusion, other than to say the Chinese believe he existed in their history.

You you are willing to entertain the idea that Socrates existed and give it a "probably" degree of certainty. So you do believe in the existence of something for which there is no physical evidence, or at least rate it as "probably". Yet when the same amount of evidence is applied to theology, you speak in absolutes, such as 'God does not exist'. This suggests a pretty strong anti-religious bias and yet another self-contradiction. That being, the belief in something is ok, at least to the degree of "probably", as long as it's not God. Thus, by speaking in absolutes, you imply that what is reasonable for others to believe in is dependent upon your personal definitions. This is incredibly narcissistic and egocentric. You clearly think a great deal about yourself.

That is a false equivalence IMO.

We have archaeological evidence for the existence of the ancient Greeks. We don't have evidence that states this was the tomb of Socrates and inside we find his bones. So it is fair to be skeptical that writings ascribed to him might have been penned by someone else. But there is no doubt whatsoever that the society in which Socrates lived most certainly existed. His writings are not the only evidence for the existence of that society.

Compare that to the complete and utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for the existence of God outside of the writings of those who had a vested interest in convincing bronze age people that their religion had the one and only "true God". Self serving and self referencing documents with absolutely zero corroborating evidence is not a fair comparison to the one proposed above for the existence of Socrates.

I respectfully disagree. It's completely applicable. Plato had a vested interest in advancing a philosophy and avoiding persecution and possible death. It makes sense that he could have written his own philosophy and attributed it to Socrates in order to achieve both those goals. All we have to establish Socrates as a historical figure are the second-hand writings of a very few people, mostly Plato. Why is their testimony any more acceptable than the testimony of those who walked with Jesus? Now, keep in mind, I am merely playing Devil's Advocate, here. I imagine Socrates was a historical figure, but that creates no contradiction with me, because I allow for the belief in things for which there is no proof. Now I do say that one must distinguish between "facts" (regarding that which can be demonstrated or proven) and "beliefs" (regarding things which cannot be demonstrated or proven).

The problem Orogen advances is that he is attempting to establish his personal beliefs as facts and he does not seem to apply consistent criteria for what he accepts as probable and improbable . Yet, he is quick to point out to theists that since their beliefs lack evidence, they are nothing more than myth. Hence the contradiction in his positions.

I respectfully disagree. There is no parallel between a "mythical Socrates" and a "mythical Jesus".

The former is portrayed as an ordinary man who had failings. His lessons were recorded by his direct followers and not embellished as "miracles" and no one tried to turn him into a martyr on which to found a religion.

The latter is claimed to be reincarnation of God himself in human form, given powers beyond that of mere mortals and is alleged to have been martyred in order to found a religion that worships a deity. Furthermore the myth of a "son of God" has existed in many other religions that predate Christianity.

So this is a comparison of apples and oranges and as such is not a valid foundation on which to challenge Oregonicman IMO.

Well that depends on who you read though and how you view Jesus. Jesus is depicted differently across the Biblical gospels. In Mark, for example, He is not depicted as God in human form. That only happens in John. Even Paul did not advance Jesus as God incarnate. I don't tend to look at Jesus as being perfect. In fact, I think Jesus fucked up a few times and I can show you where if you are really interested.

BTW...Socrates was killed for his beliefs and teachings. He most certainly was martyred.

 

[BluePhantom]

Ok the wife is giving me the stare of death because I have been posting all day. Have to go turn her frown upside down. Nice talk to both of you. Enjoyed the discussion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I suggest that you go back reread your own lies. In #150 you claimed that Galton was an Agnostic.

Actually I posted that the article said Galton was an agnostic. But, given your limitations, I don't expect you to understand.

And you are lying about not being a creationist too. Only creationists lie about Atheism being a "religion".

Silly.

Religion is defined as the belief in the existence of a deity.

Atheism is defined as the disbelief that any deity exists.

Check out some dictionaries and you'll find other definitions. So you are wrong. Again. Not that you have the character to admit it.

Those were dictionary definitions.

Onus is on you to provide others that say differently.

But no one expects anything more than disingenuous gainsaying from creationists like you who can't support their own positions which anything remotely credible.

 

[orogenicman]

That was not your claim, nor what the link you provided was claiming. You said that the universe was fine-tuned for life.

It is not. Not by any stretch of the imagination is it fine-tuned for life.

Repeating your statement doesn't make it true. You don't seem to understand the concept.

I've lectured on it. So of course I wouldn't know anything about it. Sigh...

Quote from my earlier link: The fine-tuning of the universe is seen most clearly in the values of the constants of nature. There are many such constants, the best known of which specify the strength of the four forces of nature: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. If these forces took on even slightly different strengths, the consequences for life would be devastating.4 Two of these in particular, the strong and electromagnetic forces, are responsible for the unusually efficient production of carbon, the element upon which all known life is based. The forces cooperate in such a way as to create a coincidental match up of energy levels, which enables the production of carbon from the fusing of three helium atoms. For three helium atoms to collide and create carbon is very unlikely, however, because under normal circumstances, the energies would not match up perfectly, and the three helium atoms would come apart before they had time to fuse into carbon. It takes a little extra time to deal with the energy mismatch. But, if there is a statistically unusual match of the energies, then the process is much faster. The slightest change to either the strong or electromagnetic forces would alter the energy levels, resulting in greatly reduced production of carbon and an ultimately uninhabitable universe.

Yes, I've heard these arguments. They are specious, at best. We only have one point on our universe graph so there is nothing to compare it to. What we can look at in minute detail is the rest of the entire universe, and when we do that, we find that the bulk of the universe is utterly inhospitable to life. So to suggest that such and such constant and such and such atom means we are special in this universe is utterly ridiculous. We are utterly inconsequential when compared to the massively fatal nature of nearly all of the universe. And that is a problem for you Christians, I know. That scares you to death, only it shouldn't. Because we know, ultimately, of whence we came. Every atom in our body came from a star, because that is where all the elements except hydrogen and helium came from. And those two came from the big bang. we are star stuff. Now that may make us feel inconsequential, but it also make us intimately connected to the universe.

So just think about it - somewhere a star died so we could be here today.

Maybe you should worship the sun. At least you can see it, and know it does great things for you. Even the Aztecs understood this.

A lot easier, but that is not the point. Is this a challenge for this child? Or is it an awful defect that no loving god would ever allow?
[/quote=thunderbird]I know a lot of anti-Christian fanatics want to kill off such handicapped kids.

Abortion of Disabled Babies Increasing at an Alarming Rate

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. You didn't answer my question.

Leading atheist Peter Singer wants to kill them even after they are born! I think, however, with all their suffering, their lives are valuable, maybe even a blessing to those around them

Again, irrelevant to the issue at hand. Don't change the subject in the middle of the conversation. it is rude...

I notice you ignored my questions: What is real? Is empirical evidence what is real? Is this because you can't answer them?

Good question. I feel that the table I am sitting at is hard. I feel it's hardness, its graininess. But science tells us that hardness is an illusion brought on by the atomic forces that binds atoms together. What is real? What is an atom? It is mostly empty space. So if you think about it, reality is also mostly empty space with the ocassional electromagnetic field and baryonic matter floating around. But there is also something else floating around If you take a volume of space, and suck everything out of that volume, after everything is removed, and you weigh it and it weighs something, then there is something there. But how can that be when the space is utterly devoid of anything? What scientists have found is that this utterly empty space is not empty because virtual particles are popping in and out of existence constantly. And yes we have empirical evidence for all of this. So is it real? Empirical evidence says it is, and it fits with what we already know about the universe.

All you have to do is throw your hands up and declare "God did it", [/quote=thunderbird]Actually the fine-tuning argument is the opposite of a "God of the gaps" argument. God is not sprinkled on top of the universe, he's baked right in.

Pure speculation. Watch this video. It does into detail about the futility of the argument from a finely-tuned universe.

it is the rise of fundamentalist religious dogma that is killing science in the west.

Atheists have been as anti-science as anyone: Lysenkoism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Lysenko? Really? That you would try to make that argument takes my breath away. 87% of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), one of the largest scientific organizations in the planet list themselves as holding to no particular religious belief.

Lazy system, as I said. it doesn't require you to think. In fact, it discourages independent thought.

Sounds like those closed-minded petulant atheist adolescent boys you meet on the internet. They follow slavishly the fashion for atheism the media bosses try to create.

Resorting to ad hominem tells me that you have exhausted all your arguments.

I'm not "some" atheist. I am an atheist who doesn't believe in the supernatural.

Earlier you described atheists in general.

I an atheist. I am allowed to do that.

Utter lack of evidence. Full Stop.

Why do you feel only empirical evidence counts?

Because it is quantifiable, repeatable. What's more, we can make predictions using empirical evidence and then test them to see if they work.

I studied anthropology for four years, psychology for two years (including abnormal psychology - my girlfriend is a psychiatric nurse), and geology for five years.

This biographical information does not answer my questions: What is your evidence there is no such thing as the supernatural? Why do you believe in the materialist philosophy Why do you feel empirical evidence describes reality?

Definition from Wikipedia:

The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "nature", first used: 1520–30 AD)[1][2] is that which is not subject to the laws of physics or, more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature.

Can you name anything that is not subject to the laws of physics, or is said to be beyong nature? If there was such a thing, how could you measure it? You can't. So there is no way to know whether or not it exists. It is a tautology, like "god did it". It is an unfalsifiable concept. If it exists, it is quantifiable and is part of the natural world. But we haven't seen anything in the natural world that leads us to the conclusion you want. Sorry.

I have read about hundreds of cultures and religious beliefs,

And you seem to despise them all.

Not believing in their voodoo does not mean that I don't find them fascinating. I don't hate anyone, TB. I simply don't believe in the supernatural, and wish everyone would grow out of thisMedieval delusion. we've got way too many problems that need solving to waste it on this nonsense.

and have seen more than a few up close and personal. I have studied this planet, and the life on it, including the prehistoric life in great detail. Nothing I have seen, heard, or read leads me to believe that any of this religious dogma is anything other than wishful thinking. And much of it is pure slight of hand and scams perpetrated on the weak and vulnerable. There are no ghosts. There are no fairies. There are no angels. There are no devils. There are no monsters under your bed. There are no gods. Every holy man is not holy. They are lying or deluded.

Wow, what ridiculous arrogance! lol You somehow know all holy men in all the world's culture are all wrong. Only Western white males who have been carefully indoctrinated could possibly be correct.

Yeah, isn't truth a bitch?

You believe in one god. The Greeks believed in many gods. You are an atheist wrt to ancient Greek religion.

I think many of the world's spiritual traditions have something offer.

Yes, they have fine and interesting rituals, poems, etc. It is the religious dogma, and the irrational, destructive things that it emboldens men to do that I abhor.

 

[orogenicman]

Precisely...the WOW Signal....if evidence disappears does it become a myth?

Not likely. Most scientists are not very superstitious, and although astronomers use mythological figures to describe stellar associations, they aren't very superstitious, either.

So what would be their scientific basis for professing that the signal happened if there is no longer any physical evidence? According to your position on religion, it exists as myth because of the lack of evidence. Therefore, things can only exist as real so long as physical evidence exists. Without physical evidence of the WOW Signal why does it not become myth where religion does?

I don't "believe" in Socrates. If you are asking me if I believe he existed, my answer is I believe he probably did, but then, I am about as sure of that as any other scholar. I cannot say when it comes to Sun-Tzu, because I don't know enough about that character to come to an educated conclusion, other than to say the Chinese believe he existed in their history.

You you are willing to entertain the idea that Socrates existed and give it a "probably" degree of certainty. So you do believe in the existence of something for which there is no physical evidence, or at least rate it as "probably". Yet when the same amount of evidence is applied to theology, you speak in absolutes, such as 'God does not exist'. This suggests a pretty strong anti-religious bias and yet another self-contradiction. That being, the belief in something is ok, at least to the degree of "probably", as long as it's not God. Thus, by speaking in absolutes, you imply that what is reasonable for others to believe in is dependent upon your personal definitions. This is incredibly narcissistic and egocentric. You clearly think a great deal about yourself.

That is a false equivalence IMO.

We have archaeological evidence for the existence of the ancient Greeks. We don't have evidence that states this was the tomb of Socrates and inside we find his bones. So it is fair to be skeptical that writings ascribed to him might have been penned by someone else. But there is no doubt whatsoever that the society in which Socrates lived most certainly existed. His writings are not the only evidence for the existence of that society.

Compare that to the complete and utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for the existence of God outside of the writings of those who had a vested interest in convincing bronze age people that their religion had the one and only "true God". Self serving and self referencing documents with absolutely zero corroborating evidence is not a fair comparison to the one proposed above for the existence of Socrates.

I respectfully disagree. It's completely applicable. Plato had a vested interest in advancing a philosophy and avoiding persecution and possible death. It makes sense that he could have written his own philosophy and attributed it to Socrates in order to achieve both those goals. All we have to establish Socrates as a historical figure are the second-hand writings of a very few people, mostly Plato.

Plato wasn't the only one who wrote about him. The problem is that we know his works existed but were destroyed.

]The problem Orogen advances is that he is attempting to establish his personal beliefs as facts and he does not seem to apply consistent criteria for what he accepts as probable and improbable . Yet, he is quick to point out to theists that since their beliefs lack evidence, they are nothing more than myth. Hence the contradiction in his positions.

To what personal beliefs are you referring?

 

[sealybobo]

See if the far left drones can answer this:

So is Jeremiah Wright a "Christian Fundamentalist"?

Hard to know unless we got to ask him a few questions. Does he take the bible stories as literal or allegories? And does he believe non christians go to hell?

OH FUCK! EVERYONE TAKE COVER...SEALY IS HERE!!!!!

Read orogenicman post right after your comment to me. Its exactly what I've been saying. Reply to him why he is wrong. Seems I'm not alone and he sounds pretty rational to me. Maybe its how I tell you that bothers you.

 

[sealybobo]

Neither does it demonstrate that it is anything but myth.

And hence we find ourselves in the stalemate that has existed between atheists and theists since the beginning of human history.

The wow signal? It could have been anything. For all we know, it could have been the scratchings of a cockroach as it crawled across the antennae horn.

Possible, but science has yet to explain it. Regardless, that's not the point. The point is that there exists evidence that science cannot explain. All science can do is shrug its shoulders and say 'I don't know what the hell it was'. So if that evidence disappears does it suddenly become myth? You are avoiding the question.

The definition of a myth is that it is a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Precisely...the WOW Signal....if evidence disappears does it become a myth?

Paul Bunyon was a myth. Do you believe in Paul Bunyon?

Do you believe in Socrates and/or Sun-Tzu? I have noticed you like to ask questions but you sure don't like to answer them

We say we dont know and keep looking for the answers. You say must be god. Its called god of the gaps and its based on ignorance.

 

[sealybobo]

More people have died in the name of money and greed than religion. Would you throw out all manner of economics because of that?

If I could? Yes. Alas, we are all slaves to the economy. We are not slaves, however, to a magical sky daddy because he doesn't actually exist.

Ironically, that is a statement of faith. You can disprove the existence of God no more than I can prove the contrary. Thus, your statement of an absolute ("....he doesn't exist") is actually a statement of faith. You have an absolute belief that God doesn't exist despite an inability to prove it. Welcome to the community of faith.

Nope!

Logically God cannot exist because of the Omnipotence paradox.

Logic is not faith.

That only works if you believe that God is omnipotent. Besides, while it's an interesting logical exercise, it hardly establishes any proof. Thomas Young's two-slit experiment established that light acts as both a particle and a wave until observed or measured. This is totally illogical and, according to our life experience and scientific understanding, completely impossible. Yet it happens....every single time the experiment is replicated. Thus, there are things that science can observe that defy logic and are "impossible" according to our degree of understanding. Therefore, a logical argument cannot be used to establish fact. It can certainly add weight to a position, or provide an aspect of interest that acts as a catalyst for greater understanding, but it doesn't ice the cake.

I am not the one who believes in an omnipotent creator. However those that do have to deal with the logical paradox that comes with the inanity of omnipotence. It is far easier to accept the known facts about the universe and come to the logical conclusion that it has always existed and will always exist in one state or another. No omnipotent creator is necessary ergo there is no omnipotent God either.

As far as not fully understanding everything there is to know about the Universe goes I fully appreciate our current limitations of knowledge. Compare what we knew back when this nation was founded to what we know today. Better yet compare what we didn't know 25 years ago to what we know today. We had no knowledge of any planets outside of our solar system. Today we have identified not only the existence of those planets but their sizes and orbits.

Knowledge builds on knowledge. 3 million years ago our primate ancestors were learning how to use stone tools. Today we launch our tools into space to answer questions such as what is the age of the current state of the Universe? We have learned that all of the elements in the periodic table exist throughout the Universe and are made in stars. We, ourselves, are made of matter that was once inside of something much like our own sun.

We are nothing special, we are just one tiny part of a massive Universe that happens to have reached a level of self awareness and the ability to manipulate our environment to learn more about it. It is the height of hubris to assume that we are the only such intelligence in an eternal Universe.

Compare what we know now to what we knew 500 years ago. OK, now imagine what we will know in 500 years that we dont know now.

It would probably blow us away the same way everything we know now would blow away our ancestors in 1500 the year of our lord.

 

[Thunderbird]

I've lectured on it. So of course I wouldn't know anything about it. Sigh...

You lectured on it!? Wow, there's an indictment of our educational system. lol And I don't think it's called lecturing in the 2nd grade. It's just called teaching.

we find that the bulk of the universe is utterly inhospitable to life.

Yea you keep saying this, and you keep missing the point.

This statement, is it true or false: The slightest change to either the strong or electromagnetic forces would alter the energy levels, resulting in greatly reduced production of carbon and an ultimately uninhabitable universe.

This statement, is it true or false: There are many such constants, the best known of which specify the strength of the four forces of nature: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. If these forces took on even slightly different strengths, the consequences for life would be devastating.

Why do you feel the universe is not designed to produce life?

And life can exist even in outer space.

We are utterly inconsequential when compared to the massively fatal nature of nearly all of the universe.

This sort of sadness and contempt for life are typical of atheists. Fortunately they are based on the flawed philosophy of materialism.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. You didn't answer my question.

Philosophers have long debated why people, even good people, suffer. A few possibilities:

1) Some suffering is caused by evil individuals who reject Jesus' call for forgiveness, kindness, and human dignity. God can't interfere with their decisions without violating their freedom.
2) Satan, who possesses undetermined powers, is partly responsible for evil.
3) Suffering can lead to good. I'm sure we can all think of times when suffering has led to personal growth.
4) The earthly death we suffer is not the end, only the beginning.
5) God's noble goals come intertwined with suffering.

Dr. Francis Collins: the same forces that produced a life-sustaining planet including the laws of physics, chemistry, weather and tectonics, can also produce natural disasters.

In the Christian understanding God is love. Jesus suffers - he shows solidarity with those who suffer.

I notice you ignored my questions: What is real? Is empirical evidence what is real? Is this because you can't answer them?

Good question. I feel that the table I am sitting at is hard. I feel it's hardness, its graininess. But science tells us that hardness is an illusion brought on by the atomic forces that binds atoms together. What is real? What is an atom? It is mostly empty space. So if you think about it, reality is also mostly empty space with the ocassional electromagnetic field and baryonic matter floating around. But there is also something else floating around If you take a volume of space, and suck everything out of that volume, after everything is removed, and you weigh it and it weighs something, then there is something there. But how can that be when the space is utterly devoid of anything? What scientists have found is that this utterly empty space is not empty because virtual particles are popping in and out of existence constantly. And yes we have empirical evidence for all of this. So is it real? Empirical evidence says it is, and it fits with what we already know about the universe.

That's a lot of words to avoid a simple question. lol

I ask "Is empirical evidence what is real?" And you answer "Empirical evidence says it is," Even you must realize the inadequacy of this answer. Please try again.

Watch this video. It does into detail about the futility of the argument from a finely-tuned universe.

You are relying on Neil deGrasse Tyson!? There goes the rest of your credibility. He's just a pop culture fraud who's been fabricating quotes for years.

Did Neil deGrasse Tyson Just Try To Justify Blatant Quote Fabrication

Lysenko? Really? That you would try to make that argument takes my breath away.

Because it demolishes your belief that only Christians and not atheists are anti-science?

87% of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), one of the largest scientific organizations in the planet list themselves as holding to no particular religious belief.

According to this article: What do scientists think about religion - latimes a slight majority of scientists believe in God.

Another article: 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God

Resorting to ad hominem tells me that you have exhausted all your arguments.

You seem to forget about all the ad hominems you've employed.

Why do you feel only empirical evidence counts?

Because it is quantifiable, repeatable.

You are only describing empirical evidence not telling me why it is valid.

What's more, we can make predictions using empirical evidence and then test them to see if they work.

Test them using... empirical evidence? lol

I despair you'll ever understand the problem. How do you know the world described by science is the real world? How do you know empirical evidence is describing the real world? Try to avoid circular reasoning.

I studied anthropology for four years, psychology for two years (including abnormal psychology - my girlfriend is a psychiatric nurse), and geology for five years.

Can you name anything that is not subject to the laws of physics, or is said to be beyong nature? If there was such a thing, how could you measure it? You can't. So there is no way to know whether or not it exists.

Okay so now we don't know if the supernatural exists?

Not believing in their voodoo does not mean that I don't find them fascinating.

Fascinating like a snake it seems. You hate all the world's cultures all that "voodoo" based on lies and delusion.

I don't hate anyone, TB. I simply don't believe in the supernatural, and wish everyone would grow out of thisMedieval delusion.

And think just like you. As we know all human achievement culminates in your godlike wisdom.

we've got way too many problems that need solving to waste it on this nonsense.

For example all the high-tech weapons that kill so many people.

Yes, they have fine and interesting rituals, poems, etc. It is the religious dogma, and the irrational, destructive things that it emboldens men to do that I abhor.

As we've seen atheists have murdered as much as any religious group. If you were consistent you would abhor atheist violence as much as religious violence.

 

[orogenicman]

I've lectured on it. So of course I wouldn't know anything about it. Sigh...

You lectured on it! Wow, there's an indictment of our educational system. lol And I don't think it's called lecturing in the 3rd grade. It's just called teaching.

There is a conjugate half of teaching. It is called learning, something you don't do very well, apparently.

we find that the bulk of the universe is utterly inhospitable to life.

Yea you keep saying this, and you keep missing the point.

This statement, is it true or false: The slightest change to either the strong or electromagnetic forces would alter the energy levels, resulting in greatly reduced production of carbon and an ultimately uninhabitable universe.

This statement, is it true or false: There are many such constants, the best known of which specify the strength of the four forces of nature: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. If these forces took on even slightly different strengths, the consequences for life would be devastating.

Why do you feel the universe is not designed to produce life?

The fine-tuning argument is nothing more than the argument from intelligent design rephrased. And the problems the fine tuning argument has is just as bad. A problem arises from the premise that the cosmological constants are in fact 'fine tuned' at all. This premise assumes that there is a certain range of values that each constant could assume. The greater these ranges, the more unlikely that a given set of constants would have assumed the values we observe. However, to simply imagine a certain range of possible numerical values that each constant could assume and calculating the probability that this value would be arrived at by mere chance is fallacious for two reasons. Currently, we have no access to data that would tell us a) what range the constants could possibly assume in reality and b) how many trials there were in which the constants assumed certain values. If in a lottery one number were drawn from a pot of five numbers, then winning the lottery would become comparatively likely. Likewise, even if a trial with an extremely unlikely outcome - say winning an actual national lottery - were repeated a sufficient number of times, the outcome would become likely to occur overall.

The universe is not fine-tuned for us, though I can well understand how such a fallacious conclusion gets made. If we were shellfish living at the bottom of the ocean where conditions are usually stable for a very long time geologically,. I can imagine us shellfish would also believe that the universe was fine-tuned just for us, that is, until some catastrophy come along and wakes us from our intellectual complacency.

And life can exist even in outer space.

We have evidence that a handful of Earth species are adapted to such a wide variety of extreme environmental conditons that they can live for a time in outer space. In no way does this support the thesis that the universe is fine tuned. What it supports is that life is fine tuned to its environment, not the other way around.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. You didn't answer my question.

Philosophers have long debated why people, even good people, suffer. A few possibilities:

1) Some suffering is caused by evil individuals who reject Jesus' call for forgiveness, kindness, and human dignity. God can't interfere with their decisions without violating their freedom.

2) Satan, who possesses undetermined powers, is partly responsible for evil.

3) Suffering can lead to good. I'm sure we can all think of times when suffering has led to personal growth.

4) The earthly death we suffer is not the end, only the beginning.

5) God's noble goals come intertwined with suffering.

Then again, perhaps my mentor is right on this issue:

"Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very
often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been
attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.

In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon
himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.

These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it
not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."

- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002

Dr. Francis Collins: the same forces that produced a life-sustaining planet including the laws of physics, chemistry, weather and tectonics, can also produce natural disasters.

No shit. That is what I've been telling you. That is not evidence of a universe that is finely tuned for us.

In the Christian understanding God is love. Jesus suffers - he shows solidarity with those who suffer.

Why is it when cornered on some scientific or philosophical issue, the religious always resort to dogma?

I notice you ignored my questions: What is real? Is empirical evidence what is real? Is this because you can't answer them?

Good question. I feel that the table I am sitting at is hard. I feel it's hardness, its graininess. But science tells us that hardness is an illusion brought on by the atomic forces that binds atoms together. What is real? What is an atom? It is mostly empty space. So if you think about it, reality is also mostly empty space with the ocassional electromagnetic field and baryonic matter floating around. But there is also something else floating around If you take a volume of space, and suck everything out of that volume, after everything is removed, and you weigh it and it weighs something, then there is something there. But how can that be when the space is utterly devoid of anything? What scientists have found is that this utterly empty space is not empty because virtual particles are popping in and out of existence constantly. And yes we have empirical evidence for all of this. So is it real? Empirical evidence says it is, and it fits with what we already know about the universe.

]That's a lot of words to avoid a simple question. lol

I answered your question. That it was not the answered you wanted or expected is not my problem.

I ask "Is empirical evidence what is real?" And you answer "Empirical evidence says it is," Even you must realize the inadequacy of this answer. Please try again

And I submit to you that because you fear that this world we live and die in is all we have, all there is, you keep insisting that there must be something else, another answer. As Mark twain once said, "Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first."

Watch this video. It does into detail about the futility of the argument from a finely-tuned universe.

You are relying on Neil deGrasse Tyson!? There goes the rest of your credibility. He's just a pop culture fraud who's been fabricating quotes for years.

Yeah, how dare I rely on one of the most respected Astrophysicists and educators today,who was mentored by Carl Sagan. What was I thinking??? Get a life, thunderbird.

Lysenko? Really? That you would try to make that argument takes my breath away.

Because it demolishes your belief that only Christians and not atheists are anti-science?

I don't know what you thought it proves, but that ain't it.

87% of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), one of the largest scientific organizations in the planet list themselves as holding to no particular religious belief.

According to this article: What do scientists think about religion - latimes a slight majority of scientists believe in God.

Yes overall. But the AAAS is where you find the best scientists on the planet. And I can almost guarantee that if you ask those overal folks if they leave their religious biases at the laboratory door, those who would answer in the affirmative would be in the high 90s.

Another article: 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God

I'm not going to get into a testosterone contest with you on this issue. I've already agreed that there are scientists who believe in god. It is irrelevant to the fact that to do impartial science, they must leave all of their biases at the lab door, and that includes their religious biases.

Resorting to ad hominem tells me that you have exhausted all your arguments.

You seem to forget about all the ad hominems you've employed.

Do you or do you not want to have an adult conversation here? I do, but it's up to you.

Why do you feel only empirical evidence counts?

Because it is quantifiable, repeatable.

You are only describing empirical evidence not telling me why it is valid.

Nonsense. Emperical evidence works, counts, because it is quantifiable, repeatable, falsifiable. That is why it is vital to the scientific methos. I'll repeat this as many times as necessary until it sinks in. Capiche?

What's more, we can make predictions using empirical evidence and then test them to see if they work.

Test them using... empirical evidence? lol

Is english a second language for you. Hablar Ingles? Care to reread what I posted

I despair you'll ever understand the problem. How do you know the world described by science is the real world?

Because I don't live in a vaccum. I have lived in this world and seen first hand the truth contained in science, and efforted to teach it to others.

How do you know empirical evidence is describing the real world?

How do you know that when you wipe your arse, that that's poop on the paper? Really? You want to go there? How old are you?

I studied anthropology for four years, psychology for two years (including abnormal psychology - my girlfriend is a psychiatric nurse), and geology for five years.

Can you name anything that is not subject to the laws of physics, or is said to be beyong nature? If there was such a thing, how could you measure it? You can't. So there is no way to know whether or not it exists.

Okay so now we don't know if the supernatural exists?

No, and we don't know that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, either. That doesn't mean they do. Science is all about probabilities. Given what we know, and the history of the term, the probability that there is such a thing is as supernatural is vanishingly small, and impossible to falsify because it is a tautology.

Not believing in their voodoo does not mean that I don't find them fascinating.

Fascinating like a snake it seems. You hate all the world's cultures all that "voodoo" based on lies and delusion.

When you put words in my mouth, it makes you look like an ass.

I don't hate anyone, TB. I simply don't believe in the supernatural, and wish everyone would grow out of thisMedieval delusion.

And think just like you. As we know all human achievement culminates in your godlike wisdom.

This is where I am supposed to apologize for who I am and the efforts I put into trying to understand the world around me. I don't have to apologize to you or anyone else. If you have a problem with that, leave the discussion. No one is stopping you.

we've got way too many problems that need solving to waste it on this nonsense.

For example all the high-tech weapons that kill so many people.

And their availability - and radical fundamentalism, global warming, desertizication, ocean acidification, rapid increase in extinction of species, obesity, heart disease, cancer, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, they have fine and interesting rituals, poems, etc. It is the religious dogma, and the irrational, destructive things that it emboldens men to do that I abhor.

As we've seen atheists have murdered as much as any religious group. If you were consistent you would abhor atheist violence as much as religious violence.

I abhor violence from whereever it comes. But if you can't see that nearly all of the world's violent conflicts today, and in the past, are/have been over religion, then you 've lived your life in the dark[/quote]

 

[sealybobo]

I've lectured on it. So of course I wouldn't know anything about it. Sigh...

You lectured on it!? Wow, there's an indictment of our educational system. lol And I don't think it's called lecturing in the 2nd grade. It's just called teaching.

we find that the bulk of the universe is utterly inhospitable to life.

Yea you keep saying this, and you keep missing the point.

This statement, is it true or false: The slightest change to either the strong or electromagnetic forces would alter the energy levels, resulting in greatly reduced production of carbon and an ultimately uninhabitable universe.

This statement, is it true or false: There are many such constants, the best known of which specify the strength of the four forces of nature: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. If these forces took on even slightly different strengths, the consequences for life would be devastating.

Why do you feel the universe is not designed to produce life?

And life can exist even in outer space.

We are utterly inconsequential when compared to the massively fatal nature of nearly all of the universe.

This sort of sadness and contempt for life are typical of atheists. Fortunately they are based on the flawed philosophy of materialism.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. You didn't answer my question.

Philosophers have long debated why people, even good people, suffer. A few possibilities:

1) Some suffering is caused by evil individuals who reject Jesus' call for forgiveness, kindness, and human dignity. God can't interfere with their decisions without violating their freedom.
2) Satan, who possesses undetermined powers, is partly responsible for evil.
3) Suffering can lead to good. I'm sure we can all think of times when suffering has led to personal growth.
4) The earthly death we suffer is not the end, only the beginning.
5) God's noble goals come intertwined with suffering.

Dr. Francis Collins: the same forces that produced a life-sustaining planet including the laws of physics, chemistry, weather and tectonics, can also produce natural disasters.

In the Christian understanding God is love. Jesus suffers - he shows solidarity with those who suffer.

I notice you ignored my questions: What is real? Is empirical evidence what is real? Is this because you can't answer them?

Good question. I feel that the table I am sitting at is hard. I feel it's hardness, its graininess. But science tells us that hardness is an illusion brought on by the atomic forces that binds atoms together. What is real? What is an atom? It is mostly empty space. So if you think about it, reality is also mostly empty space with the ocassional electromagnetic field and baryonic matter floating around. But there is also something else floating around If you take a volume of space, and suck everything out of that volume, after everything is removed, and you weigh it and it weighs something, then there is something there. But how can that be when the space is utterly devoid of anything? What scientists have found is that this utterly empty space is not empty because virtual particles are popping in and out of existence constantly. And yes we have empirical evidence for all of this. So is it real? Empirical evidence says it is, and it fits with what we already know about the universe.

That's a lot of words to avoid a simple question. lol

I ask "Is empirical evidence what is real?" And you answer "Empirical evidence says it is," Even you must realize the inadequacy of this answer. Please try again.

Watch this video. It does into detail about the futility of the argument from a finely-tuned universe.

You are relying on Neil deGrasse Tyson!? There goes the rest of your credibility. He's just a pop culture fraud who's been fabricating quotes for years.

Did Neil deGrasse Tyson Just Try To Justify Blatant Quote Fabrication

Lysenko? Really? That you would try to make that argument takes my breath away.

Because it demolishes your belief that only Christians and not atheists are anti-science?

87% of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), one of the largest scientific organizations in the planet list themselves as holding to no particular religious belief.

According to this article: What do scientists think about religion - latimes a slight majority of scientists believe in God.

Another article: 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God

Resorting to ad hominem tells me that you have exhausted all your arguments.

You seem to forget about all the ad hominems you've employed.

Why do you feel only empirical evidence counts?

Because it is quantifiable, repeatable.

You are only describing empirical evidence not telling me why it is valid.

What's more, we can make predictions using empirical evidence and then test them to see if they work.

Test them using... empirical evidence? lol

I despair you'll ever understand the problem. How do you know the world described by science is the real world? How do you know empirical evidence is describing the real world? Try to avoid circular reasoning.

I studied anthropology for four years, psychology for two years (including abnormal psychology - my girlfriend is a psychiatric nurse), and geology for five years.

Can you name anything that is not subject to the laws of physics, or is said to be beyong nature? If there was such a thing, how could you measure it? You can't. So there is no way to know whether or not it exists.

Okay so now we don't know if the supernatural exists?

Not believing in their voodoo does not mean that I don't find them fascinating.

Fascinating like a snake it seems. You hate all the world's cultures all that "voodoo" based on lies and delusion.

I don't hate anyone, TB. I simply don't believe in the supernatural, and wish everyone would grow out of thisMedieval delusion.

And think just like you. As we know all human achievement culminates in your godlike wisdom.

we've got way too many problems that need solving to waste it on this nonsense.

For example all the high-tech weapons that kill so many people.

Yes, they have fine and interesting rituals, poems, etc. It is the religious dogma, and the irrational, destructive things that it emboldens men to do that I abhor.

As we've seen atheists have murdered as much as any religious group. If you were consistent you would abhor atheist violence as much as religious violence.

I'll take Tyson's word over yours.

You know who thought the universe was fine tuned for life? Marcians. How did that work out for them? And when life eventually all dies on this planet and you look around you and see zero life, what will you say then?

 

[BluePhantom]

See if the far left drones can answer this:

So is Jeremiah Wright a "Christian Fundamentalist"?

Hard to know unless we got to ask him a few questions. Does he take the bible stories as literal or allegories? And does he believe non christians go to hell?

OH FUCK! EVERYONE TAKE COVER...SEALY IS HERE!!!!!

Read orogenicman post right after your comment to me. Its exactly what I've been saying. Reply to him why he is wrong. Seems I'm not alone and he sounds pretty rational to me. Maybe its how I tell you that bothers you.

Post #182? To which point are you referring? He makes about 80 of them and I am not going to take them one at a time. My wife is pissed as it is. Besides, that is a conversation between he and Thunderbird that I have not been paying attention to. That argument is between them.

If you are referring to post #183 where he challenges me to provide proof, I will say clearly and confidently "there is none". But as a scientist he should be fully aware that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Further, as I have pointed out, neither can anyone provide evidence that God does not exist. If God could be proven or disproven we would not be having this conversation. For a scientist, that Orogen professes himself to be, I have found myself quite stunned to see how quickly and casually he ignores basic principles of science when they disagree with his personal beliefs.

BTW...you don't bother me at all. Neither does DT, or Orogen or most other atheists. Frankly, I learn more from you and DT in our discussions than I learn from most Christians. I can learn nothing from someone who agrees with me all the time. You will probably be disappointed to discover, however, that the learning you provide strengthens my faith instead of diminishes it.

 

[BluePhantom]

Neither does it demonstrate that it is anything but myth.

And hence we find ourselves in the stalemate that has existed between atheists and theists since the beginning of human history.

The wow signal? It could have been anything. For all we know, it could have been the scratchings of a cockroach as it crawled across the antennae horn.

Possible, but science has yet to explain it. Regardless, that's not the point. The point is that there exists evidence that science cannot explain. All science can do is shrug its shoulders and say 'I don't know what the hell it was'. So if that evidence disappears does it suddenly become myth? You are avoiding the question.

The definition of a myth is that it is a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Precisely...the WOW Signal....if evidence disappears does it become a myth?

Paul Bunyon was a myth. Do you believe in Paul Bunyon?

Do you believe in Socrates and/or Sun-Tzu? I have noticed you like to ask questions but you sure don't like to answer them

We say we dont know and keep looking for the answers. You say must be god. Its called god of the gaps and its based on ignorance.

Are you calling me ignorant Sealy? (tapping fingers)

 

[sealybobo]

See if the far left drones can answer this:

So is Jeremiah Wright a "Christian Fundamentalist"?

Hard to know unless we got to ask him a few questions. Does he take the bible stories as literal or allegories? And does he believe non christians go to hell?

OH FUCK! EVERYONE TAKE COVER...SEALY IS HERE!!!!!

Read orogenicman post right after your comment to me. Its exactly what I've been saying. Reply to him why he is wrong. Seems I'm not alone and he sounds pretty rational to me. Maybe its how I tell you that bothers you.

Post #182? To which point are you referring? He makes about 80 of them and I am not going to take them one at a time. My wife is pissed as it is. Besides, that is a conversation between he and Thunderbird that I have not been paying attention to. That argument is between them.

If you are referring to post #183 where he challenges me to provide proof, I will say clearly and confidently "there is none". But as a scientist he should be fully aware that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Further, as I have pointed out, neither can anyone provide evidence that God does not exist. If God could be proven or disproven we would not be having this conversation. For a scientist, that Orogen professes himself to be, I have found myself quite stunned to see how quickly and casually he ignores basic principles of science when they disagree with his personal beliefs.

BTW...you don't bother me at all. Neither does DT, or Orogen or most other atheists. Frankly, I learn more from you and DT in our discussions than I learn from most Christians. I can learn nothing from someone who agrees with me all the time. You will probably be disappointed to discover, however, that the learning you provide strengthens my faith instead of diminishes it.

Yes I realize how deep the brainwashing goes. I was once a theist myself and the road or path to truth wasn't easy.

Maybe not always but in this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Its why when we are new to it and ask for proof theists say " you just gotta have faith". All that is telling me is "you just gotta want it to be true". Well I'm sorry but what you want to believe is getting in the way of what you should believe. And no wonder the masses are such sheep when they think this way. If you can be convinced a god that cares exists without any proof what can't you be convinced of?

 

[sealybobo]

Neither does it demonstrate that it is anything but myth.

And hence we find ourselves in the stalemate that has existed between atheists and theists since the beginning of human history.

The wow signal? It could have been anything. For all we know, it could have been the scratchings of a cockroach as it crawled across the antennae horn.

Possible, but science has yet to explain it. Regardless, that's not the point. The point is that there exists evidence that science cannot explain. All science can do is shrug its shoulders and say 'I don't know what the hell it was'. So if that evidence disappears does it suddenly become myth? You are avoiding the question.

The definition of a myth is that it is a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Precisely...the WOW Signal....if evidence disappears does it become a myth?

Paul Bunyon was a myth. Do you believe in Paul Bunyon?

Do you believe in Socrates and/or Sun-Tzu? I have noticed you like to ask questions but you sure don't like to answer them

We say we dont know and keep looking for the answers. You say must be god. Its called god of the gaps and its based on ignorance.

Are you calling me ignorant Sealy? (tapping fingers)

Who me? Never. Lol. Remember how michael jackson said "no that's ignorant" when Diane sawyer said it want normal to sleep naked with kids?

 

[BluePhantom]

Plato wasn't the only one who wrote about him. The problem is that we know his works existed but were destroyed.

Then how do we know they existed? Go back and look at the WOW signal argument. You may be finally starting to get the point I was making.

]The problem Orogen advances is that he is attempting to establish his personal beliefs as facts and he does not seem to apply consistent criteria for what he accepts as probable and improbable . Yet, he is quick to point out to theists that since their beliefs lack evidence, they are nothing more than myth. Hence the contradiction in his positions.

To what personal beliefs are you referring?

[/quote]

Your beliefs in regard to religion. You clearly have one set of criteria for evaluating the probability of things that are not theological and a totally different set of criteria for evaluating things that are. You say Socrates probably existed although there is no proof that he did, yet God absolutely does not exist because there is no proof that He does. You use the same criterion with the exact same result to reach two opposite conclusions.

I respectfully reject DT's argument that it is not a contradiction because one deals with a historical event and one deals with what we would consider a supernatural event. "Supernatural" essentially means "beyond the laws of nature". But light existing as both a particle and a wave until observed is beyond the laws of nature and therefore supernatural. Yet we accept it despite our inability to understand it. This is because Young's two slit experiment has demonstrated it to happen regardless of whether we understand it or not. Therefore, an event cannot be disqualified as a possibility simply because it happens to be supernatural. If that was the case, we can throw quantum mechanics right out the window. M Theory requires the acceptance of eleven dimensions and gravitons (which, according to Orogen's criteria, would be mythical) flowing freely throughout the multi-verse from brane to brane. Science can accept that possibility but the existence of God is flat out impossible? What an incredibly selective application of scientific methodology.

 

[BluePhantom]

Yes I realize how deep the brainwashing goes. I was once a theist myself and the road or path to truth wasn't easy.

Or perhaps you got distracted by the shadows cast on the wall and forgot about the light casting them. It's Plato. Nevermind.

Maybe not always but in this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Its why when we are new to it and ask for proof theists say " you just gotta have faith". All that is telling me is "you just gotta want it to be true". Well I'm sorry but what you want to believe is getting in the way of what you should believe. And no wonder the masses are such sheep when they think this way. If you can be convinced a god that cares exists without any proof what can't you be convinced of?

No, no, no.....you can't say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless we are talking about God and then it is". Now you are starting to talk like Orogen and applying criteria as it fits your personal set of beliefs. That's total bullshit and making that argument has a negative impact on your credibility. You can provide much better arguments than 'well it's true when it suits me and false when it doesn't' which is exactly what you are saying.

 

[sealybobo]

Neither does it demonstrate that it is anything but myth.

And hence we find ourselves in the stalemate that has existed between atheists and theists since the beginning of human history.

The wow signal? It could have been anything. For all we know, it could have been the scratchings of a cockroach as it crawled across the antennae horn.

Possible, but science has yet to explain it. Regardless, that's not the point. The point is that there exists evidence that science cannot explain. All science can do is shrug its shoulders and say 'I don't know what the hell it was'. So if that evidence disappears does it suddenly become myth? You are avoiding the question.

The definition of a myth is that it is a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Precisely...the WOW Signal....if evidence disappears does it become a myth?

Paul Bunyon was a myth. Do you believe in Paul Bunyon?

Do you believe in Socrates and/or Sun-Tzu? I have noticed you like to ask questions but you sure don't like to answer them

We say we dont know and keep looking for the answers. You say must be god. Its called god of the gaps and its based on ignorance.

Are you calling me ignorant Sealy? (tapping fingers)

It feels like us athiests are in an insane asylum and this belief in god while insane is keeping the patients calm. Do you attack the psychosis or leave it alone? Do the pros outweigh the cops? Will you ever truly be cured if the psychosis remains? I guess some of you are harmless as far as cutting our heads off but you still do stupid things like make gays feel bad about themselves, blow up abortion clinics, dont encourage birth control or stem cell. On the crazy spectrum I'm glad I'm in america and not Iran.

 

[BluePhantom]

Neither does it demonstrate that it is anything but myth.

And hence we find ourselves in the stalemate that has existed between atheists and theists since the beginning of human history.

The wow signal? It could have been anything. For all we know, it could have been the scratchings of a cockroach as it crawled across the antennae horn.

Possible, but science has yet to explain it. Regardless, that's not the point. The point is that there exists evidence that science cannot explain. All science can do is shrug its shoulders and say 'I don't know what the hell it was'. So if that evidence disappears does it suddenly become myth? You are avoiding the question.

The definition of a myth is that it is a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Precisely...the WOW Signal....if evidence disappears does it become a myth?

Paul Bunyon was a myth. Do you believe in Paul Bunyon?

Do you believe in Socrates and/or Sun-Tzu? I have noticed you like to ask questions but you sure don't like to answer them

We say we dont know and keep looking for the answers. You say must be god. Its called god of the gaps and its based on ignorance.

Are you calling me ignorant Sealy? (tapping fingers)

Who me? Never. Lol. Remember how michael jackson said "no that's ignorant" when Diane sawyer said it want normal to sleep naked with kids?

Actually, what I find most interesting about this conversation is that the "scientist" is the one talking in absolutes and demonstrating intolerance of possibilities, while the theist is the one saying 'we must consider all possibilities, it's just a question of probabilities'. It is the "scientist" that is applying criteria selectively and it is the theist who is applying it consistently. I think that's really curious, don't you?

 

[sealybobo]

Plato wasn't the only one who wrote about him. The problem is that we know his works existed but were destroyed.

Then how do we know they existed? Go back and look at the WOW signal argument. You may be finally starting to get the point I was making.

]The problem Orogen advances is that he is attempting to establish his personal beliefs as facts and he does not seem to apply consistent criteria for what he accepts as probable and improbable . Yet, he is quick to point out to theists that since their beliefs lack evidence, they are nothing more than myth. Hence the contradiction in his positions.

To what personal beliefs are you referring?

Your beliefs in regard to religion. You clearly have one set of criteria for evaluating the probability of things that are not theological and a totally different set of criteria for evaluating things that are. You say Socrates probably existed although there is no proof that he did, yet God absolutely does not exist because there is no proof that He does. You use the same criterion with the exact same result to reach two opposite conclusions.

I respectfully reject DT's argument that it is not a contradiction because one deals with a historical event and one deals with what we would consider a supernatural event. "Supernatural" essentially means "beyond the laws of nature". But light existing as both a particle and a wave until observed is beyond the laws of nature and therefore supernatural. Yet we accept it despite our inability to understand it. This is because Young's two slit experiment has demonstrated it to happen regardless of whether we understand it or not. Therefore, an event cannot be disqualified as a possibility simply because it happens to be supernatural. If that was the case, we can throw quantum mechanics right out the window. M Theory requires the acceptance of eleven dimensions and gravitons (which, according to Orogen's criteria, would be mythical) flowing freely throughout the multi-verse from brane to brane. Science can accept that possibility but the existence of God is flat out impossible? What an incredibly selective application of scientific methodology.[/QUOTE]
Let's start over. From the very beginning. You have no holy books and I have no opinion. You walk up to me and say " you know a god created the universe". I first need you to tell me what a god is. Ask 200 different theists that and you get 200 different answers. But let's say you mean something that created the universe. Forget about proving he cares and that heaven and hell exist. I'm just talking about a generic thing that you claim created the universe because "how could all this be by itself" argument that my dad gives me when he doesnt want to listen to the answers science gives to a lot of his quesfions. This I see is why religion hates science. Because science tries to answer your philosophical questions. You think there must be a god and there really is not. The cosmos is eternal and created us.

You say a god who cares did. Prove that.