Debunking Dawkins

by Shining One 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Abaddon

  AH, but Derek, we don't have faith so we haven't already decided what we believe, and thus cannot interpret facts to fit what we've already decided we believe before examining the facts, and are thus wrong.

  LOL... how can any one believe that tripe? I wonder if Shiny realises if faith without works is useless, then faith without facts is useless to. Just as works establish one truely believes what one professes, so too do facts show ones beliefs are reasonable.

  The Boreans didn't tell Paul to bugger off, they'd already decided they were right. Nope, they checked the facts as they existed at the time. Pity old Shiny isn't as good a Christian as he thinks he is... he never has explained how he could claim (as he has) that he educated himself in evolution when he continually shows he can't even define evolution... one could be charitable and say he was just being vain and boastful, but I prefer the term liar, as it does seem far more an accurate description of someone making false claims about their education. Either way, it is funny to be preached at by someone who has issues with personal honesty.
• 

  Shining One

  Dan,
  I do not have to answer anyone here. It does not follow that they are them right nor make them the winners in any argument. Abaddon never abandons any argument regardless of how he is shown to be wrong. I believe that he argues from a philosphical (or political) position that automatically denies anything contrary to his view. It settles nothing to go continually round and round over the same types of points. That is the 'merry go round' that I refuse to get on. I learned that with Jgnat and a few others as well. The only common ground is that we go round and round!
  Rex
• 

  DanTheMan

  Abaddon never abandons any argument regardless of how he is shown to be wrong.

  You seemed to try to be abandoning this argument with a (typically) sneering and condescending remark. Lame lame lame!!!!!

  I believe that he argues from a philosphical (or political) position that automatically denies anything contrary to his view.

  And you don't?
• 

  Shining One

  Hi Dan,
  I redirect you back to the article. Deal with it on a point by point basis. Perhaps you think you can? If you ever have any legitimate questions feel free to PM me.
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  Hi Abaddon,
  You can play at grandstanding but it matters very little. You do not seek honestly so I will not get into a ping-pong match, trading barbs and making snide comments back and forth. If you ever come to the point of honest seeking you can PM me. Knowing the Lord is a simple thing really and when He calls you it is unmistakable and life changing. Yes, I am sure of myself and reasoning is fine for apologetic answers. The problem is that all of the head knowledge in the world will not in itself change your heart. May God bless you and yours.
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  Hi Chuckler,
  Have you ever seen a football player get miffed because an ball carrier shows him up? So he pushed him out of bounds or gives him a 'cheap shot'. That's all that those who specialize in 'piling on' are capable of.
  Rex
• 

  AuldSoul

  I am stating at the outset that I am unafiliated with anything connected to Rex, and do not share his worldview or his dogmatism.

  While I don't believe Dawkins offers bunk and cannot technically be disproven, I believe a case can be made for some degree of belief based bias on his part.

  I believe bias due to beliefs affects everyone. In the case of the scientific community this human trait frequently demonstrates as what I call "thing-ifying" any observed or hypothesized phenomena.

  For instance, I found a definition in Merriam-Webster that describes such a phenomenon this way, "a neutral, massless particle..."

  If a phenomenon is both neutral and massless, how can it be "a body"? In other words, the definition of a "particle" as it pertains to physics begins with a description of it as "a body." How can a body, even the most minute body, be both neutral and massless? Someone please explain?

  But this "particle" is critical to the formation of matter. It is the "stuff" (thing-ified) that holds quarks together so that they form hadrons.

  How much does a five-gallon bucket full of gluons weigh? Nothing. If a particle truly is massless (and the notion is laughable) it has no weight. If it has no weight, it is not a body and therefore defies the basic definition of a particle.

  So, how about quarks? How much would a five-gallon bucket full of quarks weigh? Like the number of licks required to reach the center of the Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.

  "The fact that the supernatural has no place in our explanations, in our understanding of so much about the universe and life, doesn't diminish the awe." — Dawkins (from the link provided)

  I agree with him. Everything that exists is by its existence proven natural. However, much that is superobservable is believed in by science. And everything that is dreamt of is thing-ified into physical existence by as many properties as can be described. Whether or not "it" can exist within the physical terms we have constructed has no bearing whatsoever on our willingness to make up silly names like "gluon" to call any phenomenon that crosses our path.

  This practice of thing-ification is what ultimately makes discovery of physical manifestations of spiritual reality impossible for science to achieve.

  In other words, not only are they not looking for spiritual reality—which, if it exists, is no more supernatural than my big toe—whatever they find they label, so they will never identify any phenomenon as a physical manifestation of a spiritual reality because they will always have a label and description that rules out that possibility. While there is apparently no limit of things to find and label (thus the awe), once thing-ified a scientifically labeled phenomenon loses much of its charm of discovery. So the areas that hold the rapt attention and awe of science are in those arenas where there are phenomenon that resist labelling. I submit the scientific communities two-century long obsession with light.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Satanus

  Auldsoul

  Interesting description. I will watch for thingification. In a way, you are going in the god of the gaps direction.

  Shiner

  You do not seek honestly so I will not get into a ping-pong match

  Good use of a personal attack as a smoke screen to cover your rapid retreat. Kinda like frodo (or one of those hobbits) and his invisibility thing.

  S
• 

  AuldSoul

  I am not saying proof of God exists in the gaps that are yet to be filled. I am stating, for the umpteenth time, God cannot be proven to exist using the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is incapable of investigating spiritual reality because it assumes that spiritual reality is supernatural and, therefore, it doesn't exist.

  However, their initial assumption fails to account for the logical fact that if there is spiritual reality then its very existence proves it is not supernatural, although it may be demonstrably superobservable and/or supersensible in some ways.

  We cannot sense or observe a gluon either. But "it" exists. We cannot sense a quark for that matter. I am not proving God by stating these truths. I am proving that science labels what it cannot sense therefore preventing it from ever having to prove that what it labeled is actually physical reality. The act of labeling as good as makes it physical, because that is the only arena in which man will interact with the phenomenon from that point forward.

  Much grander and more readily discernible phenomenon have had this done to them. Magnetism, gravity, photons all thing-ified. But I defy any physicist, whatever the credential presented, to avoid metaphysical descriptors and explain how any of them WORK.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Satanus

  I defy any physicist, whatever the credential presented, to avoid metaphysical descriptors and explain how any of them WORK.

  While i read about quarks and gluons, i'm not really adept at understanding them. If they prove to be 'god' in the machine, fine. As a pantheist, it wouldn't surprise me if scientists do eventually find it in there somewhere. I don't blame scientists for being allergic to religion, as i am as well. In pantheism, even 'god' isn't religious. Thanks for pointing out the nature (wieght and mass) of buckets of gluons and quarks.

  S