Aka, we're trying to keep things civil around here.
Snarky quips about if someone you disagree with has a Nobel Prize isn't going to help your cause.
As for your post, I don't feel the exercise in trying to point out why someone's faith is illogical is any different than a devout Catholic trying to proselytize. Both acts are futile, neither will convince the other of their perceived failings and the underlying notion of superiority is very telling as to the lack of strength in the logic.
Also, HR, I have never been trying to convince you of anything. Perhaps what I have been trying to do is prove is the illogicality of belief, and you, in a way, have helped me do that.
You said "faith is the absence of logic."
You claim to "believe" in a god.
When someone believes something without good evidence, s/he is believing it on faith.
By your own logic, your belief is illogical.
That doesn't even mean your belief is wrong; because if we find out there is a god, or gods, when we die, you will have been proven right. But the fact remains--again, through reasoning I drew from your own words--that, currently, your faith-based position is not based on reason, evidence, or anything supportable through testable, scientific means.
No, he didn't just go along with it. Historians debate if he became a Chrisitan but
he was the first Roman emperor with a cross in his diadem.
He got a dream from God. He had a big fight coming
up to save his empire and God spoke in the dream and told him to carry crosses into
the battle and he would win. Just think, for 300 years the emperors killed anyone
with a cross and he orders his soldiers to carry them into battle.
They did and the won and that's when Constantine saved the church then organized
it. Yes, he did it in part to save his empire but it was the strongest empire in the
world during his reign. Not sure if Constantine became a Christian but he gathered the
pope and bishops at the Nicea Council where the Nicene
Creed comes from and the church was organized and some believe the books of the
Bible were organized there as well. There's no proof that Constantine approved or
disapproved the organizing of the books into the Bible. The first Bible as is today
was published by the PUritans.
The book of Genesis was written by Jews in captivity in Babylon and it survived all
those centuries. Mathew, the first book of the new testament, was not the first book
written but was the first book to go into the New Testament.
Luke was the first book written in the New Testament but it makes sense to put
Mathew first because it gives Christ's lineage going back to King David. That's
important because he came as the Messiah exactly the way the Old Testament
said the Messiah would come.
Jews in the old testament kept strict records of their family's names that lasted
for centuries. In fact one had to be a member of Aaron's tribe to be a priest in
the temple. All the names from that tribe were written on the walls of the temple.
When the disciples marvelled over all those names Christ said don't marvel for they
will all come down and the temple will be destroyed.
It was 70 years later and the deciples, or most of them saw the temple destroyed
by the Romans. Today, orthodox Jews want to build a third temple on the same spot
where the big mosque with the golden dome is. It's called the Temple MOunt and
its the most hotly contested piece of real estate in the world today.
The Israeli gov't wont let the Jews put a temple there because it will start WW 3
but the book of Ezekial says a temple will be built in the end times. The Jews even
have a name for it and call it Ezekial's Temple.
More info is at www.templemount.com
The whole of your points can be summed up by saying you are confusing the necessity of logic with the sufficiency of logic.
Assuming you're correct ... so what? Because scientists don't know what something is doesn't mean a transcendent, timeless, sentient being exists that governs everything.
Correct. The point is, we get so carried away with all that science has unraveled, that we forget that at a fundamental level (mass-energy, gravity) our edifices we have built are floating on unknown, and potentially, irreducible matters of fact. What I mean by that is, the past two thousand years have been spent understanding how these things work. We have yet to analyze what they are, precisely because they just are. We just accept them as blunt fact. We have to. Mass-energy, just is. Gravity, just is. We are finding more and more about the interactions of these elements (mass-energy, gravity) but what are they? This is even more startling when looking at organisms. What is life? Yes we know it's these amino acids and this protein in this cell, but the actual emergent property "life" that is when these things come together. But why? This is what's so particularly damaging about saying science is the only authority on these matters, because in reality, science just gives us concrete facts, and tells us nothing about them, other than, "because". To go further would be to ask science to prove science. Let's say for example, we founded another branch of science, explaining "how" for all of science, called "super science." We would eventually exhaust "super science" to the point of needing a "super, super science.", and so on for a "super super super science" , ad infinitum. This is the danger of logic. It is a formal system and is thus limited to the rules of a formal system.
Correct. But again, here is the problem with your appealing to logic. How exactly is the idea that the universe was a nothing that turned into a something (the big bang) more logical than saying that everything came from a deity? Stephen Hawkins pioneered it, but the majority of scientists have faith in - because that's exactly what it is based on, faith- that the universe is a nothing that turns out to be a something, and that the universe created itself. Hawkins himself actually takes it one step further, he believes -or has faith in- the notion that the law of gravity formed the universe. What a marvelous contradiction, since the law of nature gravity,* by definition, presupposes the existence of the nature in which it purports to describe.* All scientific law in the last resort says that if you have X you will get Y. If only you can find any X. For those who belive in a God, that is where they find their X. Science however has chosen in this one particular instance, they don't need an X to get Y.Quote:
Doesn't mean a god or gods did it.
When it comes to these kinds of debates, I've come to the point where my only intention is for others to entertain and realize the fact that this is much more of a debate than many would have you believe; and in particular, "we must not mistake the necessity of reason for it's sufficiency."
I'm glad we can agree on the "correct"ness of my general responses to you from before.
1) The big bang theory does not say something came from nothing. It is, in fact, a great deal more complex than that, and starts with the fact that scientists use the word "nothing" differently from how we laypeople use it (much how they use the word "theory" differently).
2) Atheism and the big bang theory are completely unrelated to each other (so actually, I have no need to resolve your question). Atheism is a rejection of god claims. That is it. That's all. The only way to be a bad atheist is to accept a god claim. Which means ...
3) If the big bang theory were to be proven wrong tomorrow, I still wouldn't believe in a god. Because crossing out one answer does not mean another answer is true unless there are only two possible answers. "Big Bang" and "Magical timeless intelligence" have not been demonstrated as the only two possible answers.
4) The vast majority of scientific and natural evidence points to the fact that a big bang phenomenon did occur. There is zero evidence for the existence of a magical timeless intelligence, let alone one (if you buy into the Abrahamic religions) that cares about our sex lives, can read our minds, etc.
2) Scientists do not need faith. Scientists follow evidence. Evidence suggests a big bang phenomenon occurred.
So, what caused god?
Oh, ... nothing caused god?
So, more accurately, every reaction needs an action except for the pet causes you like. (Classic example of special pleading, a logical fallacy.)
My assertion was that faith is what people say when they are being illogical. I never said you can prove faith with logic. Either you misunderstood me or are scrambling/deflecting here.
If we both agree that your faith-based belief is illogical, then we are done here because we both agree.