<p>i cannot find it sorry…what is it about?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps you mean that proving the existence of God has been attempted before. I have seen many of these attempts, and I find none of them convincing in the least. In fact, Aquinas admitted that his “proofs” were intended to reinforce the belief of people who already believed in God, not to serve as airtight, irrefutable arguments to convert atheists. As far as I know, no argument exists that proves the existence of God, any more than one that proves the existence of invisible pink unicorns.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>FountainSiren, please stop repeating this tired argument. This is perhaps the most flawed point you have made on this subject, yet you continue to advance it. Here is a sample of what is wrong with it:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You are inferring that these scientists believed in God because they believed their science proved it. This is not so. Belief in God is not something that most people have because they think they can prove it. A more accurate statement would be “These scientists believed in God,” which gets us nowhere, which brings me to the next problem with your argument:</p></li>
<li><p>Your argument consists of one huge “appeal to authority” fallacy. You’re arguing that since some scientists belive in God, then God exists, without giving any actual evidence to support your claim. I could just as easily come up with a list of atheist scientists, or better yet, statistics that show that belief if God decreases as education level increases. However, truth is not a democratic process. This is the same tactic that creationists use: coming up with a list of scientists that support their claims and then using it to justify their position, despite a total lack of evidence.</p></li>
<li><p>Your appeal to authority is compounded by the fact that you are using the opinions of experts outside of their respective fields. It would be bad enough if you provided a list of philosophers who believed in God, but you give us a list of scientists with regard to a religious opinion! Your tactics are analogous to me listing a bunch of sociologists who hold a particular opinion in the field of quantum mechanics.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I believe all these flaws have been pointed out before, but you are obviously an adherent of Joseph Goebbels: “If you repeat a lie frequently enough, people will sooner or later believe it.”</p>
<p>GDWider [without shame] said:</p>
<p>you are obviously an adherent of Joseph Goebbels</p>
<p>What an abysmal level youve taken this sometimes heated discussion to. To call this comment an ad hominem attack is to understate the revulsion and lack of civility involved.</p>
<p>In the past, have you found that these obnoxious and bullying slurs clear the intellectual ground, or given you a rhetorical edge?</p>
<p>One may well be left wondering what form of polemical comparison will be left for you when you will need to find analogues for mass murders and terrorists; do you have a more malicious rhetorical device for Osama Bin Laden? I wonder what it might be.
…</p>
<p>As Mr.B (with whose position I otherwise disagree with regarding the OP) sensibly stated in a piece of common wisdom, I don’t think anyone benefits from name calling.</p>
<p>Or as CGM put it (perhaps tongue in cheek, though I will take her at her word) when you call names, to be honest, you lose credibility.</p>
<p>Or as EK4 wrote, seemingly condescendingly (though the central point is worth considering, and I have), what hubris to know “everything” at such a young age- makes me wonder what they will be able to learn in college.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now take a moment to read a couple things the person you compared me to has actually said:</p>
<p>“the Jews will pay with extermination of their race in Europe and perhaps beyond”
<a href=“http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbles.html[/url]”>http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbles.html</a></p>
<p>Anyway, in my view the more Jews who are liquidated the more consolidated the situation in Europe will be after the war. Let there be no phony sentimentalism about it. The Jews are Europe’s misfortune. They must somehow be eliminated otherwise we are in danger of being eliminated by them.
<a href=“http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p-2_Irving.html[/url]”>http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p-2_Irving.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I will not otherwise dignify your hateful method of speech with a response, nor will I address any of your points with this in mind. If someone else happens to restate them in a civil manner befitting an exchange of opinions and ideas I will at that time address them with pleasure, humor, and at least a modicum of civility.</p>
<p>As to those who take special umbrage at name calling, feel free to opine.</p>
<p>Let us argue with the issues not with the posters, please there is no justification for the Joseph Goebbels comparrison, if that is what you were trying to do GDWILNER, but the arguments that might (or popularity) doesn’t make right (contrary to the rules of family feud) and that repeating a false argument will not make it a truth…are reasonable comments for many of us posters.</p>
<p>“As far as I know, no argument exists that proves the existence of God, any more than one that proves the existence of invisible pink unicorns.”</p>
<p>maybe we simply do not know enough. i believe FS’s post brings up the question why are there prominent scientists who stand for similar theories as ID? If any one of us can make scientific discoveries like them, then he or she would have the right to even comment on whether or not their science proves the existence of God.</p>
<p>Obviously, I think you’ve read too much into the comparison. The only comparison I was making was that FountainSiren has used the same tactics to advance that argument that a propagandist like Goebbels would have. I was certainly NOT calling her a mass murderer. I think this is a classic examply of the “extended analogy” fallacy, and within the context that I intended it (and only within that context), the comparison holds. The idea is that FountainSiren’s argument has severe flaws that have been repeatedly pointed out, yet it continues to be advanced for some reason, hence the quote, “If you repeat a lie frequently enough, people will sooner or later believe it.” My only regret is that my comment has taken attention away from the actual point that I am trying to make, that this argument is B.S.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The short answer to your question is that there really aren’t prominent scientists who stand for ID. It’s a pseudoscientific fringe movement that does not have the support of the scientific community in any way, and the lists that creationist organizations come up with are somewhat deceptive anyway. The long answer is that science is not conducted by a vote. Evidence must stand for itself, so the number of people who believe something is irrelevant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If there is an argument to made that science proves the existence of God, I would certainly like to hear it. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the fact that a scientist believes in God doesn’t mean that he/she believes that science proves it. As we all know, religious belief is not empirical; rather, it is, well, belief.</p>
<p>I’ll end this post with a less controversial quote:
“The fact that an opinion is widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.”
-Bertrand Russell</p>
<p>While I know that many ID supporters do not feel this is a religious point of view… What might happen if the supreme court said it was but that it is okay to teach religion in schools.</p>
<p>Under the be careful what you wish for department. I wonder how many religious people would actually be happy if public school teachers were teaching religion in schools? Picture the state standards come out and four of the ten commandments are described as essential standards, two are standards but not essential and a new one to summarize the remaining three because a state professor’s college research paper said 7 is an easier number to remember.</p>
<p>Or a classroom debate on whether coveting the neighbors wife includes or excludes divocees or unmarried couples, lesbian couples etc.</p>
<p>Be careful what you wish for.</p>
<p>“The short answer to your question is that there really aren’t prominent scientists who stand for ID.” </p>
<p>is the list not prominent enough?</p>
<p>your long answer, that science is not something one can vote for, does not answer at all why many prominent scientists would even think that there is a creator. i am not implying that because they do that it makes it a fact; i am saying that why would they even think that there is a creator.</p>
<p>i believe teaching religion in classrooms is not really what Christians would wish for. The Bible wishes that people would give God a chance to re-establish the relationship He longs for, and that people would live harmoniously as a whole.</p>
<p>I honestly believe religion is better taught in school by the behavior and attitude of the people there not by the lectures or the curricullum.</p>
<p>Honesty, integrity, loyalty and other virtues are best taught by example.</p>
<p>Mr.B,</p>
<p>In Canada, we were/are taught religion in schoolcivilization there seems to be handling the budding pressures of an open dialogue meeting open minds.</p>
<p>As to the scientists that I have mentioned, they did not happen to believe in god and science, but rather, by their own account were driven into their investigations and conclusions based on the assumption of design; ergo, science and design have functioned quite well together and with fantastic results. </p>
<p>This does not prove design and I have never suggested it does, I was disproving a different fallacy, I suppose many here are familiar with it, its aptly called the poisoning the well fallacy; in fact, they seem to know and employ it very well, whether by design or chance;).</p>
<p>I am aware of no flaws in my argument (what argument? what flaws?), though I suppose some flaws may appear to rise like green weeds through the chaff of a straw man in the minds of those who fashion wheat-less men to scare away foreign ideas that invade their intellectual fieldskeeping away the circling rooks I suppose.</p>
<p>There is no fallacy in this statement:</p>
<p>Moreover, Copernicus believed his science did prove the existence of design, as did
Kepler,
Da Vinci,
Decartes,
Newton,
Boyle,
Faraday,
Mendel,
Kelvin,
Plank,
Einstein–who said, "I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. Einstein, in his own words, was a Pantheist in Spinozas sense of Intelligent Design.</p>
<p>This is a fact: Pure and simple.
It is not a fallacy in any way shape or form, quite the opposite. Copernicus did believe his science proved the existence of design. Where is the fallacy? Point it out in the quote you chose or give it up.</p>
<p>Try these (although a quick google search will pull up many more):</p>
<p>Copernicus’ published works give unmistakable, if indirect, indications of his reasons for devoting himself to astronomy. He valued his theory of planetary motion not because it improves navigational procedures but because it reveals the true harmony, symmetry, and design in the divine workshop. It is wonderful and overpowering evidence of God’s presence. Writing of his achievement, which was thirty years in the making, Copernicus expressed his gratification</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/PineCh4.html[/url]”>http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/PineCh4.html</a></p>
<p>Indeed, Copernicus believed that God designed and created the universe. He further believed that God’s design was mathematical with the everywhere appearing symmetry of nature supporting this belief.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.math.wfu.edu/~kuz/Stamps/Copernicus/Copernicus.htm[/url]”>http://www.math.wfu.edu/~kuz/Stamps/Copernicus/Copernicus.htm</a></p>
<p>You realize that for many of those scientists, not publically supporting church beliefs would have been very unpopular with the powers in charge. Copernicus had to dedicate his book to the pope, as it was he had great difficulty getting any of it published before he died but in records I read was not in favor of the final published work which indicated he still believed the sun revolved around the earth…and this solar system model was just an interesting idea. But I have said all that and to avoid being redundant I won’t comment on the way the church treated the others. </p>
<p>GDWiner’s comments on repetition are well taken. There is no indication that repetition brings understanding or truth to an argument.</p>
<p>MrB’s point is well taken. Overtly claiming that God was <strong>not</strong> responsible for the state of the universe would have resulted in fates ranging from death to social ostracism for most of the listed scientists. What would you expect them to say on the subject? Professing God’s role in the universe cost them nothing, required no sacrifice, and allowed them to cover their work with a protective veneer of socially acceptable PR. That’s not to say they didn’t believe in God, just that they’d be likely to proclaim that they did whether or not they had any firm “scientific” opinions on the subject one way or the other.</p>
<p>There were women that practiced natural medicine, were widows, were strong, that lived their own lives, that questioned the church, and they were tortured and burned and killed. How honest could people be? </p>
<p>And today, we can have discourse on both side, but we must be careful. Faith in God, one’s religion, should be personal, not government supported, which is very differet from government protected. </p>
<p>We have seen what governments that are based or use a religion as the base of its programs and beliefs often goes too far. And that religion is used to subject people to discrimination, subjegation, and more. </p>
<p>I do believe one can have a faith system and be a scientist, but to blend the two in one’s research seems counterproductive. Science is the seeking of solid verifiable answers. Belief in God requires faith. That is why it is so special. It is accepting what is not known and giving it to God. It is pure trust. </p>
<p>Science, on the other hand, requires skepticism, curiousity, doubt, and vision. What if polio was seen as a punishment or one of God’s mistakes, would people have looked for its cure? When AIDS/HIV was first being spread, people said, well, its God’s punishment for living like they do. I found that scary and repulsive. It was almost saying, why bother looking for a cure cause it was God’s plan.</p>
<p>That is why science and religion must be separate in practice, and I am pretty sure many of the scientists listed did that. They didn’t just stop and say, well, its God, its ID. They kept looking and kept finding scientific and mathematical answers.</p>
<p>these scientists could’ve ignored talking about the origin of life altogether. Regarding the ‘veneer’ hypothesis, i think most of these prominent scientists were rather selfless for the truth. I believe they themselves did not have firm scientific evidence, yet unlike the general public, they acknowledged the complexity of their discoveries.</p>
<p>to citygirlsmom, as i have posted in the other thread, as far as I know, if a Christian government tortures, burns, kills, and discriminates, they themselves act against Christian doctrines and are not really Christians. What they claim does not make them what they want to be. Regarding science and religion, there is one Truth. Yet, I believe a god i can understand thoroughly is actually ‘lower’ than me, and is not really God. </p>
<p>Regarding the AIDS talk, i think it is a major concern…yet, think about it the other way, if God can introduce a disease, He can give one the wisdom to cure it. People can ask for forgiveness at any time… there are AIDS patients cured without medication, and even when there is an acceptable cure people will die by other means. anyway, a motive of curing the sick is never against God’s plan, yet God regards healing of the soul much more important than that of the body.</p>
<p>Im sure there are those of a pedantic nature that will point out that three of the last five posts are engaged in the poisoning the well fallacy.</p>
<p>That is to say, by implying that there is something wrong with some of those who practice Christianity or in the practice of faith as such, that therefore all that results from Christianity or faith must be suspect, if not untrustworthy.</p>
<p>Im dazzled by the prescience that seems to come joined at the hip with cynicism. It seems to lend to its kill-joy devotees the ability to see back into the past and theologically and psychologically evaluate the sincerity of the earnestly stated beliefs of some of the greatest minds in all history: what a gift!</p>
<p>Nonetheless, I will remain skeptical of the skeptics, and withhold my endorsement of their righteous judgment when they render their verdicts about the deepest theological beliefs and courage of the likes of Copernicus and Galileo and Einsteinreally, because they were afraid? doesnt say much for your view of the moral constitution of scientists.</p>
<p>Stated clearly: simply repeating this dogma of yours over and over again, so as to poison the well, does not make it true or poisonous, in fact.</p>
<p>If I go back through this thread and count how many times these allegations have been made I could only come to the conclusion that there are those who do in fact believe, despite their protestations to the contrary, that repetition brings understanding or truth to an argument. (Mr.B)</p>
<p>Making a cursory glance I can see that such repeated accusations are well into the double digits. Either there is nothing else to say, or some believe that by repeating a myth it will come true.</p>
<p>Let me illustrate: there are numerous crimes against science and humanity in general committed by duly elected democratic governments, but if some scientist, say Einstein, says he still believes in democracy, even after the production of the atomic bombs that would be unleashed on the people of Japanagainst his sincere pleadingsresulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians (not simply his own skin), I assume he believes in democracy without doubting his sincerity in saying so. </p>
<p>On the other hand, there are those who may think that he was too cowardly to publicly renounce his faith in the efficacy of democracy (maybe they naturally distrust the sincerity of physicist–bad personal experiences with gravity).</p>
<p>"Im sure there are those of a pedantic nature that will point out that three of the last five posts are engaged in the poisoning the well fallacy.</p>
<p>That is to say, by implying that there is something wrong with some of those who practice Christianity or in the practice of faith as such, that therefore all that results from Christianity or faith must be suspect, if not untrustworthy."</p>
<p>I’m sorry, FountainSiren, but you’re wrong.</p>
<p>That’s not the point that any of the three posts was making; a fair reading of them would not lead a reasonable person to that conclusion. It certainly was not the point I was making; I don’t see any support for that assertion in what Mr.B or citygirlsmom wrote either. None of us said, and there is no basis to believe that any of us meant to imply, that there is “something wrong” with “some of those who practice Christianity” or have faith.</p>
<p>What thesaurus are you using, FountainSiren?</p>
<p>Rogets.</p>
<p>I would ask you the same but it is clear you are not wasting time using one.</p>
<p>However, I did particularly like the incisiveness of your summation:</p>
<p>My only regret is that my comment has taken attention away from the actual point that I am trying to make, that this argument is B.S.</p>
<p>B.S …Ive got to work that into a REJOINDER (Rogets for comeback).</p>