Liberty News Forum
Political News Forum - Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. Not for wimps!
Political Opinion Page - Recent Posts - LNF Forums LNF in the Age of Empowerment! Algorithm free!
Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Entertainment - Sports Forum
Military - A1 News Page - Computers Tech - Financial News - Bunker - Presidential Tracking Poll
The House - Off the Wall News - Page 2 - Rasmussen Reports Polls - Chat Room
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HereReligion Forum › Where's the evidence for nothing existing and then something existing?
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Where's the evidence for nothing existing and then something existing? (Read 620 times)
EF
LNF Speaker
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Online


Posts: 10,720
Joined: Jan 21st, 2012
Re: Where's the evidence for nothing existing and then something existing?
Reply #10 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 5:38pm
Print Post  
I think I know where Brother Dawkins is coming from.  Excerpt from Wikipedia is a pretty good summary:

At the end of chapter 4 ("Why there almost certainly is no God"), Dawkins sums up his argument and states, "The temptation [to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself] is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable".[19] In addition, chapter 4 asserts that the alternative to the designer hypothesis is not chance, but natural selection.

Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable (see Occam's razor) and that an omniscient or omnipotent God must be extremely complex (Dawkins argues that it is logically impossible for a God to be simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent). As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God.[20]


I disagree with this statement: "It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable."

I don't understand why he, or anybody else, thinks the existence of a creator, outside the constraints of time and space, no beginning and no end, who can make something from nothing, is harder to swallow than the possibility that all this came from nothing without benefit of such OR that it has always existed outside the constraints of time and space.

And the invoking of a creator does NOT beg the question of "who created the creator" unless one does not understand the underlying assumption of the creator.  It is NOT a "created" being.  It is the only such being there is.  Everything else, living or not living, is created and has a defined beginning at least.  The creator has no beginning because the term beginning implies time.  The creator CREATED time.

I do agree with Brother Dawkins that morality is not a byproducct of religion, and that atheists can be as ethical and compassionate (and often are moreso) as "religious" people.  Including some who claim to be Christian.
  

non sumus stulti
but
accidit stercore
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BowHunter
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Online


Posts: 19,600
Location: America
Joined: Dec 5th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: Where's the evidence for nothing existing and then something existing?
Reply #11 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 5:49pm
Print Post  
EF wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 5:38pm:
I think I know where Brother Dawkins is coming from.  Excerpt from Wikipedia is a pretty good summary:

At the end of chapter 4 ("Why there almost certainly is no God"), Dawkins sums up his argument and states, "The temptation [to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself] is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable".[19] In addition, chapter 4 asserts that the alternative to the designer hypothesis is not chance, but natural selection.

Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable (see Occam's razor) and that an omniscient or omnipotent God must be extremely complex (Dawkins argues that it is logically impossible for a God to be simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent). As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God.[20]


I disagree with this statement: "It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable."

I don't understand why he, or anybody else, thinks the existence of a creator, outside the constraints of time and space, no beginning and no end, who can make something from nothing, is harder to swallow than the possibility that all this came from nothing without benefit of such OR that it has always existed outside the constraints of time and space.

And the invoking of a creator does NOT beg the question of "who created the creator" unless one does not understand the underlying assumption of the creator.  It is NOT a "created" being.  It is the only such being there is.  Everything else, living or not living, is created and has a defined beginning at least.  The creator has no beginning because the term beginning implies time.  The creator CREATED time.

I do agree with Brother Dawkins that morality is not a byproducct of religion, and that atheists can be as ethical and compassionate (and often are moreso) as "religious" people.  Including some who claim to be Christian.



I know you're used to things being "a bible", dummy, but Wikipedia is not.
  

When Q hears gallop noises he doesn't think zebras; he thinks there's a Democrat behind a curtain, making gallop noises.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Limey.
LNF Speaker
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 19,147
Location: the County Palatine
Joined: Dec 14th, 2012
Re: Where's the evidence for nothing existing and then something existing?
Reply #12 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 6:20pm
Print Post  
EF wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 5:22pm:
I think you can do that.  Just get you one of those funny hats and start calling yourself Bishop Limey.  Might hurt your employment prospects and social life, though.

I may get Dawkins' book, but I'd rather have an objective summary of it.  And I think I have, essentially, had that objective summary, if piecemeal.  But I am willling to give him another look.

I do not agree that science and religion are mutually exclusive, though, and I think he does.  If I did, I would likely be an atheist, too.



It wouldn't hurt me in any way if I only wore it in private.

Dawkins' position on science and religion seems to be that you can indeed be both scientist and have faith. The qualifier is that, when you have evidence that faith demands you discard, and you discard it, you have diminished yourself both as scientist and as a human.

Can't see much wrong with that, really. Pick 'n choose literalism in the study of Scripture is sensible, given how it's a bit of a jumble of authors, allegory, parable and hard fact.
  

Under Capitalism, Man exploits Man.

Under Communism, it's the exact opposite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BowHunter
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Online


Posts: 19,600
Location: America
Joined: Dec 5th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: Where's the evidence for nothing existing and then something existing?
Reply #13 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 6:46pm
Print Post  
Limey. wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 6:20pm:
It wouldn't hurt me in any way if I only wore it in private.

Dawkins' position on science and religion seems to be that you can indeed be both scientist and have faith. The qualifier is that, when you have evidence that faith demands you discard, and you discard it, you have diminished yourself both as scientist and as a human.

Can't see much wrong with that, really. Pick 'n choose literalism in the study of Scripture is sensible, given how it's a bit of a jumble of authors, allegory, parable and hard fact.


Hard fact? Really?
  

When Q hears gallop noises he doesn't think zebras; he thinks there's a Democrat behind a curtain, making gallop noises.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Running Deer
LNF Majority Leader
LNF Bunker
***
Offline

Disloyal Opposition

Posts: 5,064
Joined: Dec 10th, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Where's the evidence for nothing existing and then something existing?
Reply #14 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 6:47pm
Print Post  
EF wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 5:38pm:
I disagree with this statement: "It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable."

I don't understand why he, or anybody else, thinks the existence of a creator, outside the constraints of time and space, no beginning and no end, who can make something from nothing, is harder to swallow than the possibility that all this came from nothing without benefit of such OR that it has always existed outside the constraints of time and space.


It's not "hard to swallow", per se.  It's that introducing the Creator makes more questions than answers.  Occam's Razor says that you should choose the simplest answer that fits the evidence, and introducing a Creator makes a much more complicated theory than fluctuations in interlocking quantum fields.

Quote:
I do agree with Brother Dawkins that morality is not a byproducct of religion, and that atheists can be as ethical and compassionate (and often are moreso) as "religious" people.  Including some who claim to be Christian.


St. Paul agrees.  See Romans 2.
  

"If cousins, I would much prefer to marry one my Neanderthal relatives than a screeching chimpanzee which might bite my face off as has happened recently. Of course, chimps are not even a human species so procreation between humans and chimps is out of the question." - joe_christian, on sex
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EF
LNF Speaker
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Online


Posts: 10,720
Joined: Jan 21st, 2012
Re: Where's the evidence for nothing existing and then something existing?
Reply #15 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 8:03pm
Print Post  
Running Deer wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 6:47pm:
It's not "hard to swallow", per se.  It's that introducing the Creator makes more questions than answers.  Occam's Razor says that you should choose the simplest answer that fits the evidence, and introducing a Creator makes a much more complicated theory than fluctuations in interlocking quantum fields.


St. Paul agrees.  See Romans 2.


I just don't see it.
  

non sumus stulti
but
accidit stercore
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EF
LNF Speaker
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Online


Posts: 10,720
Joined: Jan 21st, 2012
Re: Where's the evidence for nothing existing and then something existing?
Reply #16 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 8:04pm
Print Post  
Limey. wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 6:20pm:
It wouldn't hurt me in any way if I only wore it in private.

Dawkins' position on science and religion seems to be that you can indeed be both scientist and have faith. The qualifier is that, when you have evidence that faith demands you discard, and you discard it, you have diminished yourself both as scientist and as a human.

Can't see much wrong with that, really. Pick 'n choose literalism in the study of Scripture is sensible, given how it's a bit of a jumble of authors, allegory, parable and hard fact.


If you're only going to wear it in private, what's the point?

I have never been faced with any scientific fact that my faith required me to discard.  My faith lies in the Creator, and there is no scientific "fact" that refutes that.  Dawkins says there is, or almost is, but he's wrong.

It's those who take the Bible as a science book who have a problem.  I never have done that. I know what it is, and it ain't a science book.
  

non sumus stulti
but
accidit stercore
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Seawolf
LNF Moderator
LNF Bunker
*****
Online

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 24,380
Joined: Oct 31st, 2011
Gender: Male
Re: Where's the evidence for nothing existing and then something existing?
Reply #17 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 9:15pm
Print Post  
EF wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 8:04pm:
If you're only going to wear it in private, what's the point?

I have never been faced with any scientific fact that my faith required me to discard.  My faith lies in the Creator, and there is no scientific "fact" that refutes that.  Dawkins says there is, or almost is, but he's wrong.

It's those who take the Bible as a science book who have a problem.  I never have done that. I know what it is, and it ain't a science book.

It is not a science book, but it does have science.  It is also a history book as well as letters of personal accounts from the Apostles.
  


"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Charles Carroll, signer of the DOI
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Limey.
LNF Speaker
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 19,147
Location: the County Palatine
Joined: Dec 14th, 2012
Re: Where's the evidence for nothing existing and then something existing?
Reply #18 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 9:56pm
Print Post  
EF wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 8:04pm:
If you're only going to wear it in private, what's the point?


I would want to be an expert in wearing Bishopy hats before unleashing my Bishopy hat amazingness on the world.

Quote:
I have never been faced with any scientific fact that my faith required me to discard.  My faith lies in the Creator, and there is no scientific "fact" that refutes that.  Dawkins says there is, or almost is, but he's wrong.

It's those who take the Bible as a science book who have a problem.  I never have done that. I know what it is, and it ain't a science book.


You and he would get along fine on that; the examples he uses are mainly around the growing certainty within science about the age of the Earth and the problems that caused (causes) for people who choose to believe the bits of the Bible which contradict.
  

Under Capitalism, Man exploits Man.

Under Communism, it's the exact opposite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Limey.
LNF Speaker
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 19,147
Location: the County Palatine
Joined: Dec 14th, 2012
Re: Where's the evidence for nothing existing and then something existing?
Reply #19 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 9:58pm
Print Post  
BowHunter wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 6:46pm:
Hard fact? Really?



Yeah, loads, mostly about various cities, rulers and wars.

Seawolf can help you here.
  

Under Capitalism, Man exploits Man.

Under Communism, it's the exact opposite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Send TopicPrint
 
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HereReligion Forum › Where's the evidence for nothing existing and then something existing?

LNF Home - Political Opinion Page
LNF Forums

Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Sports Forum - Entertainment - House
Military, History - Cooking and Crafts - Creative Writing
Off the Wall News - Science Forum - Tech Gadgets - Financial News - Humor
Bunker - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Chat Room





Drudge Report - News Max - Rush Limbaugh - FrontpageMag
Advertise on the LNF - Twitter LNF - LNF Archive - LNF News
LNF Blog
News and Political Links
Political Blogs
Add your website or blog
Political Columnists
Political Humor
A1 News Page
David Limbaugh
Political Frog
Conservatives Directory
President Trump Approval Poll
Presidential Party Election Poll News forum posting, privacy policy and member rules