Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Universe: Designed?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    Let's get even MORE real - for positing YOUR god, of the many thousands of gods people have invented.
    No Phank, I am quite capable of conducting a logical argument on the existence of a creator God without the necessity if imposing my belief about the details of the character of that God or how we might interact with that God. Your inability to argue impassionately on these topics is here being projected outward onto me. I know the difference between what I believe to be true and what can be shown to be true through logical argument.

    This is exactly backwards. In a complex universe with countless independent processes occurring simultaneously, the result is guaranteed to be one preposterous coincidence after another. Now, if we ring in a superman (and let's be real again - the Christian god is treated as a person with human emotions and motivations, but great physical powers),
    No Phank, the human is believed to be created in the image of God, and so some aspects of who He is are mirrored in us. And so it is you who have gotten it 'completely backwards'. The God of Christian faith is not comprehensible by mankind except in so much as He accommodates Himself to us. However, WE, in our descriptions of Him, tend to explain what we understand of Him in terms of how we perceive our own world.

    What you need to try to do is back away and look logically at the situation. There are two ways for anthropomorphisms to appear in a description of a superior being. One is for the being to be produced by the imagination of the inferior being (this is your belief/assumption). The other is for the inferior being to describe their interactions with the real superior being using their own language and experience.

    I submit that to tell the difference is a non-trivial exercise.

    presumably that superman will impose predictability and coherence onto that universe. We see little of this, and the future remains as opaque as ever.
    Odd, the capacity of science to offer a reliable and competent explanation of the universe relies upon the predictability and coherence of that same universe. So by the statement above, why do you trust what science has to say about anything, including your belief science tells you there is not a God or gods?

    Except of course that ANY conceivable universe is so improbable as to be near impossible. So we're back to the "every bridge hand is a miracle" argument. Just THINK of the infinity of ways the puddle's container could fail to precisely fit the puddle. Could it possibly be that the exact shape and size of the puddle's container came first, and that any water that filled it HAD to be an exact fit? Could it not also be the case that any universe is necessarily going to constrain what is possible within it?
    The design argument from improbability, whatever its merits or flaws, is not the argument that every bridge hand is a miracle. It is the argument that designed, created objects require the direct manipulation of natural materials and laws. Watches do not self-assemble from ores and plants. It requires a sentient being to refine the ores, shape the parts, cultivate the plants, extract the oils for plastics, and most of all, to purpose to create the thing in the first place. Somewhere between a man-made watch and naturally occurring objects like a rock is a no man's land where it is impossible to differentiate between the two. The design argument from improbability attempts to use probability as a crude detector of that boundary (whether that is a valid measure of design is a useful discussion)

    This gets annoying. Why do you never identify the particular god you wish, and explain why any of the other gods, equally devoutly believed in, are disqualified? At the very least, you could refer to "the Christian God", to distinguish it from the Islamic or Hundu gods.
    Again, my argument at this point simply relates to the argument for a creator God. Clearly by keeping it singular, that would tend to disqualify polytheistic beliefs. But beyond that I'm not making any distinction. And even more to the point, while I speak in the singular, I don't think that these kinds of generic arguments can be used to differentiate between mono and poly theism. There is no reason that even if we can logically, objectively, conclude the universe was designed, that we necessarily could limit that creator to a single entity as opposed to a corporate entity.

    And of course it's sheer coincidence that nearly all believers accept the god of their parents and their culture, and take THAT god for granted while ignoring all the others. If I had been raised from infancy believing in the Great Green Arkleseizure, and everyone around me did the same, and there were Green churches on every other street corner, and prayers were submitted to the GGA before public meetings, and so on ad nauseum, then it would be amazing if my experience and life did NOT tell me that the GGA is real. Of course, there are potentially other explanations (the least complex of which need not explain the origin or existence of the GGA), but TO ME no other explanation would be remotely as satisfying as the GGA, whom I know in my heart of hearts is as real as sunshine.
    These kinds of FSM arguments fail to recognize why people believe in God in the first place. While what they believe ABOUT God tends to be related to their culture and environment, it emanates more from something internal that senses or feels that such a belief is warranted. Beliefs about God do not come from random conjecture, but real experiences. When you create some straw man mockery of those beliefs and traditions, you simply illustrate your own lack of understanding of the entirety of human religious belief. I believe that behind these beliefs is something real. A God best revealed and understood in the Bible, but understood and recognized across the world nevertheless by most people and cultures in some form.

    I agree. Beliefs not based on evidence, cannot be altered with evidence. But here we're getting into the discussion of whether the lack of utility of a superfluous god matters, except in the imaginations of those trained to believe in them. So we can say "here is how this works" OR we can say "here is how this works AND there is this god I believe in." Nothing is added to the explanation, but perhaps a great deal is added to the emotional requirements of the explainer.
    [/QUOTE]

    Perhaps you would benefit by shelving your caustic and superior attitude towards belief and trying to lay aside your own preconceived notions and look rationally at what it is you are observing. There is no need for the attitude you display in these discussion - it is in fact a hindrance to understanding - on both sides.


    Jim
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Roy View Post
      Ok, I understand that. But I've never seen anything to support the 10^60 fine tuning claim outside of apologetics (your own source refers to another work that I can't find on-line). And without that I'm unconvinced that the required precision can be calculated so finely when the actual value is so hard to measure.

      I'm also unimpressed that none of the sources I've ever seen using this 1060 precision ever mention that we don't know the actual value to that level of precision.
      Source: Robin Collins


      [url="http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Collins-The-Teleological-Argument.pdf"]Of course, if one cites this fine-tuning of gravity, one cannot then treat the fine-tuning of the force of the Big Bang or matter density of the Big Bang as an independent fine-tuning.

      © Copyright Original Source

      Like they do in this video?

      Roy
      I hope you noticed that the Robin Collins article I linked to was posted on an atheist website, not a Christian apologetics website. Robin Collins referenced Paul Davies for the 10^60 fine tuning values [Davies, P. (1982) The Accidental Universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]. Paul Davies is not a Christian apologist. I'm not even sure if he is a theist, or if so, what type of theist he may be.

      If you really want to dig into the science of these fine-tuning parameters, I recommend the compendium Universe or Multiverse?, edited by Bernard Carr, but it's definitely not an easy read! It contains contributions from many of the leaders in the field, including Bjorken, Carr, Davies, Hawking, Linde, Rees, Susskind, Tegmark, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wilczek, etc. I don't believe there is any serious disagreement between the authors regarding the fine-tuning values.
      Last edited by Kbertsche; 12-31-2014, 03:02 PM.
      "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        No Phank, I am quite capable of conducting a logical argument on the existence of a creator God without the necessity if imposing my belief about the details of the character of that God or how we might interact with that God. Your inability to argue impassionately on these topics is here being projected outward onto me. I know the difference between what I believe to be true and what can be shown to be true through logical argument.
        This is nonresponsive. I'm only asking that you distinguish your god from all the others.

        No Phank, the human is believed to be created in the image of God,
        I love your passive voice here. The human "is believed to be". What you mean is YOU believe this. I certainly don't.

        and so some aspects of who He is are mirrored in us. And so it is you who have gotten it 'completely backwards'. The God of Christian faith is not comprehensible by mankind except in so much as He accommodates Himself to us. However, WE, in our descriptions of Him, tend to explain what we understand of Him in terms of how we perceive our own world.
        And who is "we"? Since one can take the position that there are no gods and find no contradictions anywhere, "we" might justifiably take that position, right?

        What you need to try to do is back away and look logically at the situation. There are two ways for anthropomorphisms to appear in a description of a superior being. One is for the being to be produced by the imagination of the inferior being (this is your belief/assumption). The other is for the inferior being to describe their interactions with the real superior being using their own language and experience.

        I submit that to tell the difference is a non-trivial exercise.
        I submit that you are assuming your conclusion here. FIRST you must establish that there ARE any "superior beings". If you are not taking this as an axiom, your question becomes moot. And needless to say, you have not derived your axiom from anything except preference and training. But I lack both your preference and your training. I need no imaginary gods. You do.

        Odd, the capacity of science to offer a reliable and competent explanation of the universe relies upon the predictability and coherence of that same universe. So by the statement above, why do you trust what science has to say about anything, including your belief science tells you there is not a God or gods?
        Science can't say anything about gods. The best science can do is successfully explain whatever it investigates without resorting to any. Which it does. I'm not saying the universe is incoherent, since of course it is not. I'm saying the future can't be predicted retail, there are too many independent variables operating.

        The design argument from improbability, whatever its merits or flaws, is not the argument that every bridge hand is a miracle. It is the argument that designed, created objects require the direct manipulation of natural materials and laws.
        But when the "intelligent design" folks were challenged to identify a NON designed object, they ran away. What sensible people do is examine the history of an object in light of external knowlede. Sure, intelligence can design. But if we do not know of any non-imaginary universe designers, isn't it more sensible to assume that there aren't any, rather than dreaming them up and THEN running away from the question of who designed your designer? It's not like we need one, you know.

        o not self-assemble from ores and plants. It requires a sentient being to refine the ores, shape the parts, cultivate the plants, extract the oils for plastics, and most of all, to purpose to create the thing in the first place. Somewhere between a man-made watch and naturally occurring objects like a rock is a no man's land where it is impossible to differentiate between the two.
        A very narrow no man's land indeed. Occasionally there is disagreement among archaeologists as to whether a given rock was used as a tool, but not often since enough excavations have occurred for us to know the practices and technologies of the time.

        The design argument from improbability attempts to use probability as a crude detector of that boundary (whether that is a valid measure of design is a useful discussion)
        But this argument is being used post facto, saying "Gee, our universe must have been very unlikely, SOME unlikely things have been designed (by KNOWN agencies, of course), therefore the universe was designed by an unknown agency! Talk about assuming your conclusion!

        Again, my argument at this point simply relates to the argument for a creator God. Clearly by keeping it singular, that would tend to disqualify polytheistic beliefs. But beyond that I'm not making any distinction. And even more to the point, while I speak in the singular, I don't think that these kinds of generic arguments can be used to differentiate between mono and poly theism. There is no reason that even if we can logically, objectively, conclude the universe was designed, that we necessarily could limit that creator to a single entity as opposed to a corporate entity.
        Yes,this sounds reasonable. Why assume a whole bunch of unnecessary gods, when we can simplify it down to only one unnecessary god? You are SO CLOSE.

        These kinds of FSM arguments fail to recognize why people believe in God in the first place.
        I doubt there is any single reason. Some of it is toilet training, some of it is peer pressure, some of it is inability to admit ignorance, some of it is emotional dependence, and I'm sure there are plenty more. People are complex.

        While what they believe ABOUT God tends to be related to their culture and environment, it emanates more from something internal that senses or feels that such a belief is warranted. Beliefs about God do not come from random conjecture, but real experiences. When you create some straw man mockery of those beliefs and traditions, you simply illustrate your own lack of understanding of the entirety of human religious belief. I believe that behind these beliefs is something real. A God best revealed and understood in the Bible, but understood and recognized across the world nevertheless by most people and cultures in some form.
        Again, ships in the night. Yes, humans have a human nature, which is variable but varies around central notions. People don't like admitting they don't know things. People want to know there is a purpose in life. People observe the steady stream of astounding coincidences fate throws at them, and they want a REASON for it. People fear death, and want reassurance. And in most cultures, gods have served all these purposes.


        Perhaps you would benefit by shelving your caustic and superior attitude towards belief and trying to lay aside your own preconceived notions and look rationally at what it is you are observing. There is no need for the attitude you display in these discussion - it is in fact a hindrance to understanding - on both sides.
        Perhaps, in the interests of understanding, you lay aside your god entirely, and look at a world without it. Look rationally. Try to find something, anything (outside human emotional need) that loses something by omitting the god.

        What I see is the attitude that OF COURSE my god exists, of course it is real, of course it explains everything from human curiosity to the origin of the universe and everything in between. Sure, there have been many successful societies around the world and throughout history that never heard of my god, but He was actually there guiding them all the time and their gods were imaginary, and I know this because He tells me so!

        And you ask ME to be rational. None so blind, and all that.
        Last edited by phank; 12-31-2014, 01:53 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by phank View Post
          This is nonresponsive. I'm only asking that you distinguish your god from all the others.
          If a person wishes to be combative in a discussion, there is little the other can do. I was responding to the context of your statement. Now you act as if it had no context. As you wish.

          I love your passive voice here. The human "is believed to be". What you mean is YOU believe this. I certainly don't.
          Again, you created a context where you were discussing my belief. I was merely pointing out you don't understand my belief. Now, to keep youself pure of any potential mistake or misunderstanding, you again resort to a combative response designed to try to put down my beliefs and exalt your own.

          Understanding does not come from this kind of conversation. I leave you with yourself Phank. Not a place I'd want to be, but a place you clearly love more than all others.

          Jim
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            If a person wishes to be combative in a discussion, there is little the other can do. I was responding to the context of your statement. Now you act as if it had no context. As you wish.



            Again, you created a context where you were discussing my belief. I was merely pointing out you don't understand my belief. Now, to keep youself pure of any potential mistake or misunderstanding, you again resort to a combative response designed to try to put down my beliefs and exalt your own.

            Understanding does not come from this kind of conversation. I leave you with yourself Phank. Not a place I'd want to be, but a place you clearly love more than all others.

            Jim
            I guess it's mutual, since you seem to regard any rejection of your beliefs as combative. I freely confess I am baffled by your beliefs, which seem to have no external referent. They reinforce themselves in a tightly circular manner, and you seem unable to realize this. Or perhaps you've long since decided that circular reasoning makes you happy.

            But just for the sake of a little bit of completeness here, look at the context you seem so enamored of. You wrote that the human is "believed to be" created by your god, in the image of your god. I pointed out that this is passive voice. It IS passive voice. I pointed out that I do not share your belief, and the passive voice (the human is believed to be...") puts everyone in the position of believing as you state. I do not accept this. I felt it would be more honest to say "some people believe this".

            NOW here you are stating that you can present your beliefs as though they were truths, and that leads to understanding. But if I present my beliefs, this is combative and does not lead to understanding. Pasting your beliefs all over everything somehow doesn't create a context, but trying to wash off the paste somehow does. Preaching your beliefs is communication, but stating my own beliefs "exalts" them. You exalt your beliefs with everything you write.

            But I feel as you do in this way: enjoy echoing around in your imagination. Not a place I'd like to be, but you can't escape it until you question it. And you can't question what you so dearly love, so good luck with that.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by phank View Post
              I guess it's mutual, since you seem to regard any rejection of your beliefs as combative. I freely confess I am baffled by your beliefs, which seem to have no external referent. They reinforce themselves in a tightly circular manner, and you seem unable to realize this. Or perhaps you've long since decided that circular reasoning makes you happy.

              But just for the sake of a little bit of completeness here, look at the context you seem so enamored of. You wrote that the human is "believed to be" created by your god, in the image of your god. I pointed out that this is passive voice. It IS passive voice. I pointed out that I do not share your belief, and the passive voice (the human is believed to be...") puts everyone in the position of believing as you state. I do not accept this. I felt it would be more honest to say "some people believe this".

              NOW here you are stating that you can present your beliefs as though they were truths, and that leads to understanding. But if I present my beliefs, this is combative and does not lead to understanding. Pasting your beliefs all over everything somehow doesn't create a context, but trying to wash off the paste somehow does. Preaching your beliefs is communication, but stating my own beliefs "exalts" them. You exalt your beliefs with everything you write.

              But I feel as you do in this way: enjoy echoing around in your imagination. Not a place I'd like to be, but you can't escape it until you question it. And you can't question what you so dearly love, so good luck with that.
              Phank,

              The difficulty is that you are not understanding my words but rarher overlaying some precocieved notion of what a 'beliver' must be trying to say. I have no means of piercing that reinterpretation of my words, so entrenched are your predjudices against those who express belief.

              I would encourage you to reread my earlier attempts to engage you until you see what is actually there. You will know when you have accomplished that feat when you realize your responses to my posts were not actually adressing the points I was making.

              Until then we cant have a useful conversation because your predudices keep you blind to the actual content of my posts.

              Best wishes

              Jim
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                Most of the facts that are presented in this 6-minute clip have been know for some time now. I show it here only because it's a pretty neat presentation that brings many of these things together rather nicely.

                The astonishingly remarkable thing to me -- and it's been that way for decades -- is that despite these facts (and they are facts) there remains a species of folks known as Materialists/Humanists/Atheists and related subspecies that utterly refuse to give in.

                Then, as if that weren't enough, those same folks will yell at the top of their voice, "WE FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE TO WHERE IT LOGICALLY LEADS!!!" I mean, if that isn't the MOTHER of all ironies then I don't know what is.

                The "EVIDENCE" points in one and only one direction - anyone with at least two connected neurons can see this. Of course - and needless to say - that "direction" is one that those aforementioned folks want no part of. The rub is ideological/spiritual, not scientific. The "scientific" label is nothing more than a ruse.

                Thus, it comes as no surprise that those people abandon all reason and concoct things such as "multiverses" and "self-organization" (with ZERO evidence) in a desperate attempt to appear to the world as "sophisticated scientists" instead of as deluded, intellectually-dishonest buffoons.

                It's actually too bad for them : they don't realize that the harder they work on their concoctions - the more that they allow their vain imaginations to rule their "science" - the further they venture into Buffoon Land. Slowly, more and more people are realizing this.

                Errrr ... the above 'surely' doesn't apply to anyone at TWeb, right? Bwahahahaha

                Hope y'all had a nice Christmas.
                Watch out for 2015 - it'll be a lulu!

                Oops, almost forgot, here's that 6-minute video clip: http://player.vimeo.com/video/111335043

                Jorge
                Poor Jorge. You are the embodiment of Confirmation Bias.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by phank View Post
                  ........But when the "intelligent design" folks were challenged to identify a NON designed object, they ran away........... .
                  when where what?
                  nevermind, I would give the same answer that Paul Steinhardt used to describe what would have happened without inflation, although inflation failed also, "very uneven, nonuniform, turbulent" (at around 6:00 of the video I cited earlier)
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvV9Oo5Kvx0

                  or as he writes in his book "wildly turbulent and nonuniform, with huge variations in density and temperature from place to place, and with space curved and warped in unpredictable ways...":

                  Source: [B

                  ENDLESS UNIVERSE Paul J Steihardt page 52-53 ISBN 9780767915014[/B] ]
                  "....In the inflationary picture, the big bang was the moment of creation. How exactly this happened remains unexplained. The universe is simply assumed to have appeared out of nothing, filled with all kinds of exotic matter and energy, at nearly infinite temperature and density. Cosmologists differ on the precise properties of this starting state, but many believe it would have been wildly turbulent and nonuniform, with huge variations in density and temperature from place to place, and with space curved and warped in unpredictable ways.
                  As we have emphasized, the existence of a beginning to time is an unproven assumption, based on using Einstein's theory of general relativity to extrapolate the expansion of the universe back in time and finding that the density and temperature reached infinite values about 14 billion years ago. Cosmologists understand that this infinity indicates a mathematical breakdown and that Einstein's theory of gravity has to be replaced by new physical laws. Nevertheless, in the inflationary picture, the presumption is made that even after the new physical laws are found and understood, this moment will turn out to be the beginning of the universe. If this idea is right, the only way to explain how the universe became so large, smooth, and flat is that the creation event was immediately followed by a spectacular burst of expansion.
                  According to this model, this magic is worked by introducing a special ingredient known as inflationary energy, which, combined with gravity, drove an astonishing amount of expansion in a fleeting interval of time...."

                  source

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Steinhardt attempts to solve the failure of inflationary expansion with his cyclic model.
                  To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    on the other hand,
                    the challenge, if we say something is designed then should we have to describe what is non-design.

                    Why do we have to?

                    I liked the answer several years ago, by Alan Dershowitz, I think, debating on the side of Freedom From Religion Foundation, when challenged "what is good"
                    he wouldn't give an answer, he said I cant tell you what good is, but I can tell you what is evil.

                    I can't tell you what is non designed, how can you tell if something that appears to be non designed wasnt designed that way on purpose, for example, a fire looks like an accident, but there is such a thing as arson.

                    If I see a cloud that looks like a bear or a rabbit or an SUV, well, i suppose it could be designed, but its probably just a matter of , with so many different shapes of clouds, theres bound to be some that have a shape similar to a rabbit, bear or SUV.
                    i cant claim that is designed.

                    BUT, if its my birthday, and i see a cloud that says HAPPY BIRTHDAY JORDANRIVER,
                    I bet there's a skywriting airplane up there somewhere.

                    if i see inherent rhythmicity in the heart muscle but not any other muscle, to me, that was done on purpose.
                    maye im just a suspicious type or something.
                    To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      I think the reason for positing a designer (let's get real, for positing God) is that from what we know, intelligent causes are what typically produce events or constructs with real probabilities indistinguishable from zero. So if the probability of our universe is so vanishingly low as to be non-existent, we can , based on what we know, posit an intelligent cause as a 'reasonable' conclusion.
                      Jim, I understand the reasoning. But I see two major flaws with it. First, as I said, you're merely postponing the question: Why does the universe exist? There's a creator. Why does the creator exist? um...

                      Second, even if something created the universe - and as I said, I don't have any idea what caused the 'big bang' or where the preceding singularity came from - there is no reason to link that something to the common concepts of 'God'.

                      But 'getting real', the reason we posit God or don't posit God is dependent more on our own internal sense of whether or not such a being exists. My experience and life tells me there is a God. It's not an objective thing, in that there are potentially other explanations for that which I accept as evidence for God, but, to me, those explanations seem far less likely than that the God of the Bible is in fact a real being who interacts with us based on our faith.
                      Unfortunately my subjective experience tells me the opposite - that if there was some intelligent being originally responsible for the universe, it's not interested in us.

                      Roy
                      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                      MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                      MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                      seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                        So why would God want to design a flawed universe like this, when he had already had trouble in heaven with the angels? And how did he design it, then make it? These important questions you never answer in a logical, evidence based manner, Jorge.
                        You really shouldn't begin 2015 by fibbing, Roland. I have indeed answered those questions in the past (more than once!) but it cannot be helped if people like you refuse to accept the answers. By the way, your rejection is on ideological/spiritual grounds, certainly not on logical, evidence-based grounds.

                        TO WIT: the short 6-minute clip presents FACTS (i.e., evidence which you claim here I never provide) which, unless you are prepared to refute them with something other than personal incredulity then you MUST follow to its logical conclusion (that is, if you are to be intellectually honest). Will you? I'd bet my prized pony that you won't.

                        Jorge

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                          This is an excellent video! The science is solid. It briefly presents the fine-tuning of the universe. It does not push YEC; rather, it implicitly assumes an old universe and a Big Bang. I'm surprised that Jorge recommended it, but I recommend it as well.
                          Yes, it may seem a bit odd that I would recommend such a video. Now try giving me some credit and your "surprise" will quickly dissipate.

                          FIRST step: demolish (with hard facts/evidence) the patently absurd metaphysic known as Materialism. This video summarizes some of the evidence that pretty much accomplishes that goal.

                          Second and later steps: demolish the other metaphysics/ideologies that oppose Biblical Creationism.

                          One step at a time, brother ... one step at a time.

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                            I hope you noticed that the Robin Collins article I linked to was posted on an atheist website, not a Christian apologetics website. Robin Collins referenced Paul Davies for the 10^60 fine tuning values [Davies, P. (1982) The Accidental Universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]. Paul Davies is not a Christian apologist. I'm not even sure if he is a theist, or if so, what type of theist he may be.
                            I did! I also noticed it was uploaded to the atheist website because they were discussing it, not because they necessarily agreed with it. I hope you're not trying to claim that a paper originally published in a Theology book edited by William Lane Craig is outside apologetics simply because a copy can be found on an atheist website. Incidentally, The accidental universe was the reference I can't find.

                            If you really want to dig into the science of these fine-tuning parameters, I recommend the compendium Universe or Multiverse?, edited by Bernard Carr, but it's definitely not an easy read! It contains contributions from many of the leaders in the field, including Bjorken, Carr, Davies, Hawking, Linde, Rees, Susskind, Tegmark, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wilczek, etc. I don't believe there is any serious disagreement between the authors regarding the fine-tuning values.
                            There may not be, but I simply haven't managed to find an accessible source for the numbers or the calculations behind them. I have read Penrose's paper on the initial entropy level of the universe, and while I'm not sure I fully understood it, I did have reservations regarding some of his argument.

                            Roy
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by phank View Post
                              No Phank, the human is believed to be created in the image of God,
                              I love your passive voice here. The human "is believed to be". What you mean is YOU believe this. I certainly don't.
                              I don't see why Christians, especially intelligent ones like Jim, make this claim.

                              What does it mean?

                              Most of the ancient religions, with the notable exceptions of the Mayans and Hindus, viewed god(s) as being physically built like humans, but larger, more muscular, and generally lacking in spots, scars and blemishes. I'm fairly sure that this is also what was meant in the OT, and is the origin of the phrase "in the image of God". But modern Christians don't generally consider their God to be 6'5", sleek-haired, bronzed, brown-eyed and possessing 32 flawless teeth. So in what way are we "created in the image of God", if not physically? Mentally? Emotionally?

                              Roy
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                You really shouldn't begin 2015 by fibbing, Roland.
                                Not much chance of that, since Roland made that post two days ago. Attention to detail never was Jorge's strong point.
                                I have indeed answered those questions in the past (more than once!) but it cannot be helped if people like you refuse to accept the answers.
                                I don't recall ever seeing any detailed answer, by Jorge or anyone else for that matter, as to how 'God' designed and created the universe. Nor do I ever expect to. Agian, Jorge is not paying attention to details.
                                TO WIT: the short 6-minute clip presents FACTS...
                                Really? Is it a FACT that the universe is 1020 seconds old? I don't think so.

                                Roy
                                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X