Guest Praise Jebus Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Hello all, My latest venture was to spread rationality to christians by going to their own turf, so I did, and Ive got quite a tough one right now. Basicly He brought up this: We were discussing the pros and cons of Atheism vs Theism. Here is one for you from the website you directed to me about the eye. It was in part of the reply from the creationist.... Sir Isaac Newton once played a joke on an atheist friend of his. Newton had a model or our solar system built. He then invited his atheist friend over for dinner. His friend saw the model of the solar system and was impressed, asking, "Who made it?" Newton said no one made it. Incredulous, his atheist friend replied that Newton must not have understood his question. Again, he asked, "Who made it?" Newton replied once more that no one had made it, that it came into existence by chance, all by itself. Newton's atheist friend was insulted. He asked Newton if he thought he was a fool. Newton then drove home his point by noting that his friend scoffed at the idea that his model of the solar system resulted from chance processes, and yet he argued that the real thing, the real solar system, which was far, far more complicated, originated from purely random processes. Newton noted that if his friend was certain the solar-system model came from intelligent design, then surely he should conclude that the much more sophisticated solar system after which it was patterned must also be the product of intelligent design. It's really just that simple, yet this realization is also deeply profound. Your thoughts? Now I of course know this had not scientific viability at all, but I have no way how to show this. Does any one have a rebuttal to this claim? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callyn Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 The solar system is not the product of chance, it is the product of forces of nature. Mainly gravity. When an object has enough mass, gravity automatically forms it into a ball. At another point, it begins undergoing fusion. When two objects get near each other, gravity attracts the less massive one to the more massive one. If they are traveling at a sufficient speed, they never meet but the less massive one orbits the more massive one. No design necessary for that. Also, throw in that Newton was an alchemist and rejected the belief that Jesus was equal to Yahweh. However, why do you feel the need to "witness" to Christians? Let them be happy in their delusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Praise Jebus Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 Thanks, that sounds quite good. Also, I feel I should because my friends are witnessing to me all the time. I'm just evening the scores Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callyn Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 But if you don't witness, you can (rightfully) claim moral superiority in at least that area. I say that's a more potent weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 PJ, I find that "witnessing" to Christians much easier, and they are more receptive, when you come from a perspective there is a god, but not the Christian one. What you want to do is make them doubt, question, and think. It's too much of a knee jerk reaction to atheism right off the bat. Taph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 PJ, I find that "witnessing" to Christians much easier, and they are more receptive, when you come from a perspective there is a god, but not the Christian one. What you want to do is make them doubt, question, and think. It's too much of a knee jerk reaction to atheism right off the bat. Taph As true as that is, pretending that God exists seems to be dishonest. Most people will at least listen to what you have to say as long as you're not abrasive. I'm very good at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 PJ, I find that "witnessing" to Christians much easier, and they are more receptive, when you come from a perspective there is a god, but not the Christian one. What you want to do is make them doubt, question, and think. It's too much of a knee jerk reaction to atheism right off the bat. Taph As true as that is, pretending that God exists seems to be dishonest. Most people will at least listen to what you have to say as long as you're not abrasive. I'm very good at that. I call it being hypothetical. They don't have to know what you believe. Just because they assume that you believe it, doesn't mean you are being dishonest. I never said to pretend god exists, I said present the position that it does. There is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 PJ, I find that "witnessing" to Christians much easier, and they are more receptive, when you come from a perspective there is a god, but not the Christian one. What you want to do is make them doubt, question, and think. It's too much of a knee jerk reaction to atheism right off the bat. Taph As true as that is, pretending that God exists seems to be dishonest. Most people will at least listen to what you have to say as long as you're not abrasive. I'm very good at that. I call it being hypothetical. They don't have to know what you believe. Just because they assume that you believe it, doesn't mean you are being dishonest. I never said to pretend god exists, I said present the position that it does. There is a difference. Oh, okay, that's acceptable to me. I do that all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 Ohhhh.....Newton was terrible example for this Christian, cause Newton was unitarion, ie rejected the trinity doctrine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Religious_views So does he still consider Newton a Christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godlessgrrl Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 Sounds like a variation on the First Cause argument to me... Which argument hasn't ever made much sense to me anyway. Existence is here, but that only demonstrates that existence exists. It might have gotten here any number of ways, might always have been here, but it's quite the leap to assume that the existence of the universe somehow means that it was made by a deity. I'd probably interrogate the Christian in question about how exactly existence of the universe is evidence of a deity, since I don't draw the same conclusion as a theist does about why anything exists. Bleah. I'm tired... doing the insomniac shuffle and I've been up all night. I need to go to bed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadouKen24 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Sounds like a variation on the First Cause argument to me... It's actually just a reformulation of the Teleological argument. A very bad one. Sir Isaac Newton once played a joke on an atheist friend of his. Newton had a model or our solar system built. He then invited his atheist friend over for dinner. His friend saw the model of the solar system and was impressed, asking, "Who made it?" Newton said no one made it. Incredulous, his atheist friend replied that Newton must not have understood his question. Again, he asked, "Who made it?" Newton replied once more that no one had made it, that it came into existence by chance, all by itself. Newton's atheist friend was insulted. He asked Newton if he thought he was a fool. Newton then drove home his point by noting that his friend scoffed at the idea that his model of the solar system resulted from chance processes, and yet he argued that the real thing, the real solar system, which was far, far more complicated, originated from purely random processes. Newton noted that if his friend was certain the solar-system model came from intelligent design, then surely he should conclude that the much more sophisticated solar system after which it was patterned must also be the product of intelligent design. It's really just that simple, yet this realization is also deeply profound.Your thoughts? Simply put, there are too many important points of disanalogy between the model and the real thing. The model is a model. We see models of things all the time. Never have we ever seen a model that might be formed by natural processes. It is reasonable to conclude that the model is made by a person. On the other hand, we've never directly seen an actual solar system being built. Given the vast differences in scale, size, and materials between the model and the actual thing, it is extremely unreasonable to assume that they were formed through the same processes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Laurier Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 You gotta love the creationist tricks gallery, Yes this story was created by a creationist, and no it has no support from history, It was created to posthumously recruit Newton for the creationist agenda, Newton himself rejected the idea of the bible as anything more than a collection of alegorical tales and moral lessons. He would NOT have been a creationist, And why does the story not tell the name of the supposed atheist freind? BECAUSE HE NEVER EXISTED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest patster14 Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Hello all, My latest venture was to spread rationality to christians by going to their own turf, so I did, and Ive got quite a tough one right now. Basicly He brought up this: We were discussing the pros and cons of Atheism vs Theism. Here is one for you from the website you directed to me about the eye. It was in part of the reply from the creationist.... Sir Isaac Newton once played a joke on an atheist friend of his. Newton had a model or our solar system built. He then invited his atheist friend over for dinner. His friend saw the model of the solar system and was impressed, asking, "Who made it?" Newton said no one made it. Incredulous, his atheist friend replied that Newton must not have understood his question. Again, he asked, "Who made it?" Newton replied once more that no one had made it, that it came into existence by chance, all by itself. Newton's atheist friend was insulted. He asked Newton if he thought he was a fool. Newton then drove home his point by noting that his friend scoffed at the idea that his model of the solar system resulted from chance processes, and yet he argued that the real thing, the real solar system, which was far, far more complicated, originated from purely random processes. Newton noted that if his friend was certain the solar-system model came from intelligent design, then surely he should conclude that the much more sophisticated solar system after which it was patterned must also be the product of intelligent design. It's really just that simple, yet this realization is also deeply profound. Your thoughts? Now I of course know this had not scientific viability at all, but I have no way how to show this. Does any one have a rebuttal to this claim? Thanks. hey Jebus, actually, Eienstien said that it is far too infinite a possiability to have this exact sequence of events to happen with out a design, so he choose to believe in god, i believe this is where the debate of infinite demensions comes in to explain how randomness could happen in infinite possiabilities Hello all, My latest venture was to spread rationality to christians by going to their own turf, so I did, and Ive got quite a tough one right now. Basicly He brought up this: We were discussing the pros and cons of Atheism vs Theism. Here is one for you from the website you directed to me about the eye. It was in part of the reply from the creationist.... Sir Isaac Newton once played a joke on an atheist friend of his. Newton had a model or our solar system built. He then invited his atheist friend over for dinner. His friend saw the model of the solar system and was impressed, asking, "Who made it?" Newton said no one made it. Incredulous, his atheist friend replied that Newton must not have understood his question. Again, he asked, "Who made it?" Newton replied once more that no one had made it, that it came into existence by chance, all by itself. Newton's atheist friend was insulted. He asked Newton if he thought he was a fool. Newton then drove home his point by noting that his friend scoffed at the idea that his model of the solar system resulted from chance processes, and yet he argued that the real thing, the real solar system, which was far, far more complicated, originated from purely random processes. Newton noted that if his friend was certain the solar-system model came from intelligent design, then surely he should conclude that the much more sophisticated solar system after which it was patterned must also be the product of intelligent design. It's really just that simple, yet this realization is also deeply profound. Your thoughts? Now I of course know this had not scientific viability at all, but I have no way how to show this. Does any one have a rebuttal to this claim? Thanks. hey Jebus, actually, Eienstien said that it is far too infinite a possiability to have this exact sequence of events to happen with out a design, so he choose to believe in god, i believe this is where the debate of infinite demensions comes in to explain how randomness could happen in infinite possiabilities and if that is the case , of alternate demensions, then im sure at least half of my millions of souls will choose God, while the rest have some fun, lol Hello all, My latest venture was to spread rationality to christians by going to their own turf, so I did, and Ive got quite a tough one right now. Basicly He brought up this: We were discussing the pros and cons of Atheism vs Theism. Here is one for you from the website you directed to me about the eye. It was in part of the reply from the creationist.... Sir Isaac Newton once played a joke on an atheist friend of his. Newton had a model or our solar system built. He then invited his atheist friend over for dinner. His friend saw the model of the solar system and was impressed, asking, "Who made it?" Newton said no one made it. Incredulous, his atheist friend replied that Newton must not have understood his question. Again, he asked, "Who made it?" Newton replied once more that no one had made it, that it came into existence by chance, all by itself. Newton's atheist friend was insulted. He asked Newton if he thought he was a fool. Newton then drove home his point by noting that his friend scoffed at the idea that his model of the solar system resulted from chance processes, and yet he argued that the real thing, the real solar system, which was far, far more complicated, originated from purely random processes. Newton noted that if his friend was certain the solar-system model came from intelligent design, then surely he should conclude that the much more sophisticated solar system after which it was patterned must also be the product of intelligent design. It's really just that simple, yet this realization is also deeply profound. Your thoughts? Now I of course know this had not scientific viability at all, but I have no way how to show this. Does any one have a rebuttal to this claim? Thanks. hey Jebus, actually, Eienstien said that it is far too infinite a possiability to have this exact sequence of events to happen with out a design, so he choose to believe in god, i believe this is where the debate of infinite demensions comes in to explain how randomness could happen in infinite possiabilities Hello all, My latest venture was to spread rationality to christians by going to their own turf, so I did, and Ive got quite a tough one right now. Basicly He brought up this: We were discussing the pros and cons of Atheism vs Theism. Here is one for you from the website you directed to me about the eye. It was in part of the reply from the creationist.... Sir Isaac Newton once played a joke on an atheist friend of his. Newton had a model or our solar system built. He then invited his atheist friend over for dinner. His friend saw the model of the solar system and was impressed, asking, "Who made it?" Newton said no one made it. Incredulous, his atheist friend replied that Newton must not have understood his question. Again, he asked, "Who made it?" Newton replied once more that no one had made it, that it came into existence by chance, all by itself. Newton's atheist friend was insulted. He asked Newton if he thought he was a fool. Newton then drove home his point by noting that his friend scoffed at the idea that his model of the solar system resulted from chance processes, and yet he argued that the real thing, the real solar system, which was far, far more complicated, originated from purely random processes. Newton noted that if his friend was certain the solar-system model came from intelligent design, then surely he should conclude that the much more sophisticated solar system after which it was patterned must also be the product of intelligent design. It's really just that simple, yet this realization is also deeply profound. Your thoughts? Now I of course know this had not scientific viability at all, but I have no way how to show this. Does any one have a rebuttal to this claim? Thanks. hey Jebus, actually, Eienstien said that it is far too infinite a possiability to have this exact sequence of events to happen with out a design, so he choose to believe in god, i believe this is where the debate of infinite demensions comes in to explain how randomness could happen in infinite possiabilities and if that is the case , of alternate demensions, then im sure at least half of my millions of souls will choose God, while the rest have some fun, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Jebus, et al The argument of first cause has troubled me in that the normal responses seem weak to me. They always place (however correctly) the responsibility on the xtian to explain who made god. You and I can grasp that but xtians, for whatever reason, don't find that a compelling argument. Other approaches delve into astrophysics which I don't grasp very well and only lead to xtians saying that some esotheric point that neither understands substantiates their view and negates yours. No win situation! So far I like Callyn's simple response best: "it is the product of forces of nature. Mainly gravity" This approach keeps it in the realm of nature / science and keeps it simple. I think it would be harder to explain why gravity needs a creater than to explain why a solar system needs a creator. Is this a better approach? What do you think? Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Does anyone know if that story is even true? I tried to Snopes it to no avail, but it just smells like typical xian legend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts