Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3

    How To Debate Atheists

    Hi, my name is Mike and I am currently working on a book called, 'How to Debate Atheists.' I have completed the first three chapters and would appreciate any feedback.


    http://mikemanea.com/unapologetics/h...bate-atheists/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,098
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeBrown View Post
    Hi, my name is Mike and I am currently working on a book called, 'How to Debate Atheists.' I have completed the first three chapters and would appreciate any feedback.


    http://mikemanea.com/unapologetics/h...bate-atheists/
    Hey there Mike,

    Welcome to our forum!



    I like the title of your site "Unapologetics." Nice play on words.

    I'll review what you've written and let you know what I think.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeBrown View Post
    Hi, my name is Mike and I am currently working on a book called, 'How to Debate Atheists.' I have completed the first three chapters and would appreciate any feedback.


    http://mikemanea.com/unapologetics/h...bate-atheists/
    Hello Mike,

    I'm just beginning to read your first chapter and have ran into a couple things that I would like to give you some feedback on.

    First, you said: "She however is wrong (Barbara Forrest). We do have a methodology for discovering the supernatural. That methodology is still the scientific method via a process of elimination. If we exhaust every possible naturalistic explanation for something, we are left with the supernatural. (see ‘definition’ section below)"

    The error I see in that reasoning, is that there is no way to ever know if one has exhausted every possible naturalistic explanation, because there are an infinite number of possible unknowns that could exist. For example: before the discovery of DNA no one could have imagined how our genetic code could pass on the information of design, so they were left with a supernatural explanation of god creating each individual design.

    Secondly, you said: "Another problem that often comes up in these debates is that atheists use faulty definitions of the supernatural. They do this in several ways:

    c. They define the supernatural as a scientific blind spot. In this way the supernatural cannot really exist because it is only a matter of time before science figures it out and it becomes natural."

    I think it is incorrect to call c. a faulty definition, because the scientific method is constantly demoting observable phenomena that was once believed to be supernatural in origin, to the status of natural. So, while one cannot definitely say that the supernatural doesn't exist, it is perfectly acceptable to call it a "Blind spot", because so far all that has been observed is things that were once called supernatural being explained in a naturalistic way ...

    Am enjoying the read so far, thanks for sharing

    Kind regards,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    155

    Science "theorizing" the Supernatural

    I have been studying Quantum Physics and find it UTTERLY Fascinating. Of course much of this is still theory and not proven fact, there are tons of things that i would love to write about it, and question about it, and infer and interpret from it; however, at the moment I am lacking in the time to do so.
    For now i would like to keep this short and sweet and ask the audience about the idea that "Quantum Physics is on the verge of PROVING the Supernatural."

    I find the fact that material objects can be in two different places at the same time Supernatural. I find the fact that Quantum Information can Quantum teleport "Instantaneously", ie. faster than the speed of light quite Supernatural.

    From Wikipedia--

    " Presently, the record distance for quantum teleportation is 143 km (89 mi) with photons,[6] and 21 m with material systems.[7] In August 2013, the achievement of "fully deterministic" quantum teleportation, using a hybrid technique, was reported.[8] On 29 May 2014, scientists announced a reliable way of transferring data by quantum teleportation."


    I find the fact that a conscious observer can "force" a material to "materialize" for a state of possibly being everywhere at once quite Supernatural. It is completely fascinating.... in many ways it is helping me understand how both "Predestination" and "Free-Will" can both be True at the same time. It appears that we have Free Will to choose our actions; however, we do not get to choose the Outcome or Effect of said Action (Predestination).

    It is also very curious to me that the Large Scale Formula's of Physics of Large bodies is very Elegant and beautiful thing concerning Mass, Gravity, Light, the Speed of Light, while the world of Quantum Mechanics is very Rough and Ugly and Misshapen. How is it exactly that these 2 worlds of the very small and the very large "Work" together, or "Talk" to one another. If every Very Large thing is made up of the Very Small things "Why do they behave so differently?" Is there a Missing Link that connects these 2 worlds?

    I should really take more time at some point a write up a more in depth and analytical article.

    With Utter devotion to Love and Truth,
    Matthjar

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Mike

    Welcome to the forum and thank you for making available your book (as it is so far). You say this is only the first three chapters, what other chapters are to come?

    I have read through once and will have to read again and stop and make notes on a number of things that struck me at the time.

    I see Rose has already responded and made one comment, which indicates from the get-go that the wheels have fallen off this wagon before we get started. Rose is bringing up the infinity argument. [quote] "there is no way to ever know if one has exhausted every possible naturalistic explanation" [end quote]. This argument will go on for infinity and we do not have that amount of time available. There might be some sections of your book that could end up taking an infinite time to explain.

    Your book is pulling some fundamental threads together and has touched upon subjects that I have been discussing with Richard, but have not been taken to their conclusion. I hope that we shall progress further by discussing points you have brought up in your book. It is good that we are getting to the basics of debate.

    As I was reading the conclusion of chapter 3, my mind was already thinking about the fact that compared to the deity that is thought to exist, our mind is so inferior and our problem is reaching a limit beyond which we cannot go. Outside our limit is the province of God and inside the limit is man's province. That has already been revealed to us by the deity some of us acknowledge as God and in his province we cannot get into. (Deut 29:29) The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us
    Of course, scientists have not really got to the point of unanimous agreement that they cannot go beyond a certain point and so they are in the process of continually pushing the boundary. One of the limits is; resolution, it is the point beyond which we cannot resolve things. With telescopes and microscopes of different designs and technologies, there comes a limitation. We then get into the realms of quantum physics, which I see Mattjar has already replied bringing up this subject.

    While I have many unanswered question that have been posed on this forum, I will end this initial reply, with referring to one of my conversations with Richard in which he admits to not ruling out the possibility of a god (God). The possibility/probability of a god to Richard is incredibly small as to be almost non-existent. My argument is that if the possibility/probability is anything greater than zero, the other possibilities of what this god can do has to be considered. Richard has used the excuse that the matter is hypothetical and does not want to waste his time discussing hypothetical matters. Does not this whole debate of the existence, or non-existence of God have to deal with hypothetical matters and eventually have to discard some? Is not the CSR model you give us a hypothetical situation? What begins as hypothesis has eventually to be established into theory and then proof-positive, or else the hypothesis is abandoned for lack of proof.

    Our lifetime is incredibly short and we do not have the luxury of having infinite time to discuss everything. It is obvious which side of the debate I shall argue from. I think that God has revealed himself, and it is possible to recognize the hand of a Creator in the things that he has made. The revelations of God also give us the answers to impossible questions, which man will not find the answer to in any other way. Herein is Wisdom that comes from God. I have already mentioned the bounds which limit man beyond which bounds is the province of God. God knows that without acceptance of his truth, we shall end up in limitless debates in which we shall never reach an answer. Here is God's Wisdom expressed by the Apostle Paul;

    (2 Tim 3) (2) For men ...(5) Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof... (7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


    All the best.
    David

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Is Manea a pen name? Is Brown an alias? Your true name is not important. I expect others have noticed the difference in names.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    U.S.A., Florida
    Posts
    88

    Sufficient reason to dismiss it?

    Welcome to the community Mike,
    7) Death by lack of methodology
    In the article by Barbara Forrest mentioned above she makes a very important point. She states that while we do have a methodology for studying the natural, we have no methodology for studying the supernatural and this in itself should be sufficient reason to dismiss it. (http://mikemanea.com/unapologetics/m...ting-atheists/)

    The Story of the Neutrino
    Its own inventor doubted if anyone would ever see it. Two thirds of a century ago, physicist Wolfgang Pauli postulated a new particle to explain the apparent nonconservation of energy in radioactive decays. But the theoretical particle he described had properties that made it so elusive that even Pauli wondered whether anyone would ever observe it. And yet today, not only have scientists observed neutrinos, but researchers can carry out detailed experiments involving millions of neutrino events. (http://www-numi.fnal.gov/public/story.html)

    At the time that Wolfgang Pauli postulated the existence of the Neutrino (1930) there was no methodology in place which made viewing such an ‘elusive’ particle possible.

    By changing one word in in Barbara Forrest’s statement, the scientific community of Pauli’s time should have arrived at the same conclusion with regards to the neutrino.
    While we do have a methodology for studying the natural, we have no methodology for studying the neutrino and this in itself should be sufficient reason to dismiss it.

    Today, of course, we know that the scientific community did not dismiss it, and through perseverance they eventually developed a methodology for consistently detecting neutrinos.
    Respectfully,
    Mark
    An unsupported statement is not an argument; it is only an opinion.
    Eschew obfuscation.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post

    I see Rose has already responded and made one comment, which indicates from the get-go that the wheels have fallen off this wagon before we get started. Rose is bringing up the infinity argument. (quote) "there is no way to ever know if one has exhausted every possible naturalistic explanation" [end quote]. This argument will go on for infinity and we do not have that amount of time available. There might be some sections of your book that could end up taking an infinite time to explain.


    All the best.
    David
    Hello David

    Your remarks "from the get-go that the wheels have fallen off this wagon before we get started." are not appreciated. I was giving constructive feedback, which Mike had requested in his post.

    It also would be nice if you are going to bring up something I said that you would use the context in which it was given. No! Rose is not bringing up the infinity argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose
    First, you (Mike) said: "She however is wrong (Barbara Forrest). We do have a methodology for discovering the supernatural. That methodology is still the scientific method via a process of elimination. If we exhaust every possible naturalistic explanation for something, we are left with the supernatural. (see ‘definition’ section below)"

    The error I see in that reasoning, is that there is no way to ever know if one has exhausted every possible naturalistic explanation, because there are an infinite number of possible unknowns that could exist. For example: before the discovery of DNA no one could have imagined how our genetic code could pass on the information of design, so they were left with a supernatural explanation of god creating each individual design.
    What I was doing was responding to what Mike Brown said about exhausting every possible naturalistic explanation to uncover the underlying supernatural. My response was to say that it is impossible to exhaust every possible explanation because of the infinite number of unknowns. With that being the case, there is no way to ever discover the supernatural using the method Mike Brown proposed.



    Kind regards,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there Mike,

    Welcome to our forum!



    I like the title of your site "Unapologetics." Nice play on words.

    I'll review what you've written and let you know what I think.

    Richard
    Thanks. Waiting for your response..

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •