I Don't Believe There is a God

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
F

FormerAtheist

Guest
#21
#21
I'm reading things about there being no proof that God exists, and people constantly making these references to science as this 'objective' thing based on the 'facts', whereas belief in God is this thing you have to accept based purely on Faith. I don't agree. Yes, Faith is a part of it, but if one looks at Science you'll find logical problems, from the positivists, relativists, and Popperian Falsificationists. But do people question the foundation upon which Science is based? No, they accept it because it 'must' be true. They also assume that the practice of Science unavoidably leads to Atheism. Just a few thoughts.
 
D

DannyC

Guest
#22
#22
Hungry said:
Rycag, let me introduce you to some facts. Pay attention, schools in session. The reason it is called the theory of evolution is simply because there is NO conclusive proof whatsoever. None. At all. They can't even definitively date the Earth or the dinosaurs. Carbon dating is inaccurate past a few thousand years. With recent scientific discoveries more and more experts have concluded that our world MUST have been created. Intelligent design is the only correct answer. If you had a solid background is chemistry you would see that things just don't happen. If you believe in evolution conduct an experiment to prove yourself right. Grab a 5000 piece puzzle. Put it in a garbage bag and shake it for about an hour. Then pour it out onto the table and see if it is compete like the picture. This is what evolutionists believe. They think that it all started with one piece. Then for no reason all these pieces swirling around in this elemental soup. Then began reproducing themselves millions of times a minute. That's why they think the world must be billions of years old. However in order to conclude that is even possible you would have to have a complete puzzle in perfection at the end of an hour. If your experiment failed you would have to draw a separate conclusion. If you could not do it in an hour (or even two) then all over the world life could not have generated on it own. As well you would be faced with a new group of questions starting with who put this cosmic puzzle together. If it was aliens, who put their cosmic puzzle together. If you are even slightly intelligent, which I believe you to be then you would have to conclude...... THERE MUST BE GOD. Class dismissed.
Click to expand...

I believe you should have listened more in science class, what you stated is not a scientific theory. A theory is held at the highest regard in the scientific community.
 
H

Hungry

Banned
#23
Nov 26, 2012
3,095
1,050
113
#23
DannyC said:
I believe you should have listened more in science class, what you stated is not a scientific theory. A theory is held at the highest regard in the scientific community.
Click to expand...
A theory in any regard is something that has not been proven, otherwise it would be law.
 
F

FormerAtheist

Guest
#24
#24
Ah, but give it enough time and speculation turns into a Theory, and if given even more time it gets the title of Law. Science is guessing for adults.
 
D

DannyC

Guest
#25
#25
FormerAtheist said:
Ah, but give it enough time and speculation turns into a Theory, and if given even more time it gets the title of Law. Science is guessing for adults.
Click to expand...
No that's not how the titles work, theories do not graduate into laws, laws are statements which tell you what something is, a theory describes how something works they don't graduate into laws ever.
 
D

DannyC

Guest
#26
#26
Hungry said:
A theory in any regard is something that has not been proven, otherwise it would be law.
Click to expand...
Read the comment I just wrote about theories and laws, I got the same response from both of you so no point just copying and pasting it thanks.
 
H

Hungry

Banned
#27
Nov 26, 2012
3,095
1,050
113
#27
Hungry said:
A theory in any regard is something that has not been proven, otherwise it would be law.
Click to expand...
To show you I'm open to rebuke I'm even correcting my own post. I checked on the definitions since and theory means currently accepted but not nessesarily fact. The "scientific" community is leaving a loophole. On two sites it states that today's theories may change by tomorrow's discoveries. Theory in essence translates to working hypothesis. In regards to evolution however they sure do ignore much common sense and glorify a great deal of nonsense to support the illusion that is macroevolution.
 
F

FormerAtheist

Guest
#28
#28
Yes, but the central point being that the laws telling you how something 'is' suffer from logical problems. The foundation is not firm.
 
F

FormerAtheist

Guest
#29
#29
You're debating definitions, whereby we're concerned with the nature of science and how it's related to Truth as an objective fact.
 
D

DannyC

Guest
#30
#30
Hungry said:
To show you I'm open to rebuke I'm even correcting my own post. I checked on the definitions since and theory means currently accepted but not nessesarily fact. The "scientific" community is leaving a loophole. On two sites it states that today's theories may change by tomorrow's discoveries. Theory in essence translates to working hypothesis. In regards to evolution however they sure do ignore much common sense and glorify a great deal of nonsense to support the illusion that is macroevolution.
Click to expand...
Again no. A theory is factual it contains facts and laws if it didn't it would be a hypothesis and again you play to the idea if one part is wrong scrap the whole thing. The theory of evolution might be modified and slightly altered within respected areas but the theory will never be debunked or abandoned, there is far too much evidence supporting it.There is absolutely no other valid explanation other than the theory of evolution.

The word 'Theory' is not the same as the words 'scientific theory' and your reference to a 'theory' being no more than a working hypothesis makes no claim because we are not talking about colloquial terms we are discussing the words 'scientific theory'.A scientific theory is not a working hypothesis you can't slip that in and make it sound verified.It's just an erroneous statement and you are making up your own definitions in essence a straw man argument over what the words mean.
 
D

DannyC

Guest
#31
#31
FormerAtheist said:
Yes, but the central point being that the laws telling you how something 'is' suffer from logical problems. The foundation is not firm.
Click to expand...

I didn't say a law tells you 'how' something is, I said a law tells you what something is. The foundation for science is the most validated approach to reason and research to disagree with the scientific method is just willing ignorance and I propose you suggest a far more valid approach since you find the flaws in the science.
 
F

FormerAtheist

Guest
#32
#32
DannyC, Theory is still based on the inductive method. Using a limited number of observations or 'facts', to arrive at a general conclusion pertaining to the whole. And as such, it suffers from the problem of induction. You can't logically defend any conclusion that follows induction as it assumes more in the conclusion than is contained in the premises. Furthermore, science can't even be defended on 'probable' grounds as there is no way of knowing how much data 'confirms' a hypothesis which supports a theory or not. And if you retreat to Falsificationism as a way of logically arriving at scientific conclusions through ad hoc deductivism, you have the problem of whether it's the data that is at fault or the theory that is at fault. Yet again, science either way you look at it, tells us absolutely nothing about the way the world works in a logical sense.
 
F

FormerAtheist

Guest
#33
#33
And disagreeing with the scientific method is not willing ignorance. The fact that you haven't even addressed these well known problems in the Philosophy of Science on your part shows ignorance if anything. And I'd be entertained to see how you resolve these logical problems in science.
 
D

DannyC

Guest
#34
#34
FormerAtheist said:
DannyC, Theory is still based on the inductive method. Using a limited number of observations or 'facts', to arrive at a general conclusion pertaining to the whole. And as such, it suffers from the problem of induction. You can't logically defend any conclusion that follows induction as it assumes more in the conclusion than is contained in the premises. Furthermore, science can't even be defended on 'probable' grounds as there is no way of knowing how much data 'confirms' a hypothesis which supports a theory or not. And if you retreat to Falsificationism as a way of logically arriving at scientific conclusions through ad hoc deductivism, you have the problem of whether it's the data that is at fault or the theory that is at fault. Yet again, science either way you look at it, tells us absolutely nothing about the way the world works in a logical sense.
Click to expand...

Using a limited number of observations or 'facts'
Explain why is it limited and limited to what.

Also theories are not based on the inductive reasoning alone.I find this laughable you presume so much about science yet know so little, I just read a straw man argument play out with yourself when you decide to listen then we can maybe talk. The first point you made was theories graduate into laws with that statement alone you displayed so much ignorance about science it's almost impossible to go any further.

Even so Inductive reasoning is one of the best methods for discovering facts, but when you go to the doctor, or the electrician or the builder or any known profession be sure to remember all of them base their work on science from biology, physics and chemistry. To assert the method is wrong is to put yourself in a small box of ignorance.To be honest I prefer not to talk to someone who can't even move from step 1 to step 2. This is a conversation for someone who's is willing to put up with your pseudo-scientific analysis, I am not one of those people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
F

FormerAtheist

Guest
#36
#36
I find it ironic you're accusing me of a straw man fallacy and then you resort to going on a personal attack and assuming I'm being ignorant. In your own words: You presume so much about science yet know so little.

Any scientific conclusion is based on a limited number of observations. It is impossible to observe every single event of a specific thing happening. And as such arriving at a general conclusion which has any predictive power is logically absurd. Do you honestly believe scientific conclusions are based on every possible observation of a specific event happening?

Theories as they are related to observable fact are based on inductive reasoning. And I stated, if you even tried to base science on ANY form of reasons, such as Ad Hoc deductivism, instead of Inductivism, you would still have a logical problem with the method.

Then you say 'even so, inductive reasoning is one of the best methods for discovering fact'. Really? You haven't even addressed the logical problem with the inductive method and then you go ahead an claim it's the 'best method' for discovering fact. And then to support yourself further, you refer to how so much of the world is based on the inductive method. That is in itself not an argument in support of the inductive method. If you were to show me evidence in the past and the present of how much science has contributed to the world, and for that reason it 'must be right', then that is itself an inductive argument and suffers from the same problems I already mentioned.

Yet again, you haven't addressed any of the logical problems I've stated.
 
F

FormerAtheist

Guest
#37
#37
The fact that you are taking my points of critique as 'ignorance' regarding Science is quite ridiculous, and there are professional Academics today debating these same points.
 
H

Hungry

Banned
#38
Nov 26, 2012
3,095
1,050
113
#38
DannyC said:
Again no. A theory is factual it contains facts and laws if it didn't it would be a hypothesis and again you play to the idea if one part is wrong scrap the whole thing. The theory of evolution might be modified and slightly altered within respected areas but the theory will never be debunked or abandoned, there is far too much evidence supporting it.There is absolutely no other valid explanation other than the theory of evolution.

The word 'Theory' is not the same as the words 'scientific theory' and your reference to a 'theory' being no more than a working hypothesis makes no claim because we are not talking about colloquial terms we are discussing the words 'scientific theory'.A scientific theory is not a working hypothesis you can't slip that in and make it sound verified.It's just an erroneous statement and you are making up your own definitions in essence a straw man argument over what the words mean.
Click to expand...
Again, we are both arguing from information we collect. I went on two separate sites on scientific terms and both said that a theory is currently accepted as "true" but all science it objective and changes continually. It is all an ongoing study and conclusion of observations. When all the facts are in we can conclude carbon dating is extremely flawed. It once dated a mammoths butt 50,000 years older than its head. As well a baseball cap found near a volcano was over a million years old. Your science figures that the moon erupted into the sky from Earth some 2 billion years ago to account for the distance that the moon continues to move away from the Earth annually. Not to mention the natural cooling of the sun since it is a burning source of fuel would have made it thousands of degrees hotter on Earth a couple million years ago. Theory or "fact" call it what you want, but there has been much refuting evidence swept under the rug. If you are familiar with chemistry and the complexity of even single organisms, or how the body produces energy from food and ignore that for macroevolution to even have a grain of validity, each and every day we would continue to see frogs turning into birds and monkeys building houses and farming then you have a stronger faith it scientific theory than any Christian has in God.
 
D

DannyC

Guest
#39
#39
FormerAtheist said:
The fact that you are taking my points of critique as 'ignorance' regarding Science is quite ridiculous, and there are professional Academics today debating these same points.
Click to expand...
And they would be laughed at if they thought theories turn into laws.
 
D

DannyC

Guest
#40
#40
Hungry said:
Again, we are both arguing from information we collect. I went on two separate sites on scientific terms and both said that a theory is currently accepted as "true" but all science it objective and changes continually. It is all an ongoing study and conclusion of observations. When all the facts are in we can conclude carbon dating is extremely flawed. It once dated a mammoths butt 50,000 years older than its head. As well a baseball cap found near a volcano was over a million years old. Your science figures that the moon erupted into the sky from Earth some 2 billion years ago to account for the distance that the moon continues to move away from the Earth annually. Not to mention the natural cooling of the sun since it is a burning source of fuel would have made it thousands of degrees hotter on Earth a couple million years ago. Theory or "fact" call it what you want, but there has been much refuting evidence swept under the rug. If you are familiar with chemistry and the complexity of even single organisms, or how the body produces energy from food and ignore that for macroevolution to even have a grain of validity, each and every day we would continue to see frogs turning into birds and monkeys building houses and farming then you have a stronger faith it scientific theory than any Christian has in God.
Click to expand...
That's not the theory of evolution, your mixing a few different theories and you're not even getting them right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.