3 edits
Little by little I am able to piece together some more of Freeman Dyson's beliefs. Apparently he does not believe that God is either ominscient or omnipresent. He thinks that God "learns."
It is difficult, with Dyson, to get beyond a flavor of God being everything and somehow made up from out of our own human minds. His philosophy is very much a kind of calling all collective humanity's mental powers "God" or all human purpose as "God".
He discribes his beliefs in God to be similar to those of H.G. Wells. I would then have to go and study what H.G. Wells believed.
1 edit
Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe, discusses his new book Treasure From the Book of Job and all the things written therein on creation. (about 45 mins)
No. Just because ViodSpirit slanders the man doesn't mean I won't refer to him anymore. Sorry. Just don't watch if you believe VoidSpirit's accusations.
&feature=related
Originally posted by jaywillit aught to be entertaining. i'm already intrigued by the title "treasure from the book of job."
Dr. Hugh Ross of [b]Reasons To Believe, discusses his new book Treasure From the Book of Job and all the things written therein on creation. (about 45 mins)
No. Just because ViodSpirit slanders the man doesn't mean I won't refer to him anymore. Sorry. Just don't watch if you believe VoidSpirit's accusations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3irPqCV-1Y&feature=related[/b]
the book of job portrays god as a complete a-hole who gambles with people's lives and then utters some poetic macho-nonsense when people question his motives. i wonder what "treasure" ross thinks he found among that filth.
Originally posted by jaywillVoidSpirit backed up his accusations by listing several errors / lies supposedly told by Ross. You have struggled really hard to counter just one of those items and eventually failed to actually do so. At best you can say Hugh Ross might have been mistaken on that particular point. I don't think you have even attempted to address the other items VoidSpirit listed.
Just don't watch if you believe VoidSpirit's accusations.
Now I know that nobody is perfect and I am often willing to listen to people who are known to have made errors or told lies, but here you seem to be saying "Hugh Ross is perfect and if you don't believe me then don't listen to him".
Is he a leader in your religion? Why are you so desperate to defend him?
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo I have not gone to too many of the other complaints. If you want to agree with VoidSpirit on everything go ahead.
VoidSpirit backed up his accusations by listing several errors / lies supposedly told by Ross. You have struggled really hard to counter just one of those items and eventually failed to actually do so. At best you can say Hugh Ross might have been mistaken on that particular point. I don't think you have even attempted to address the other items VoidSpiri t listen to him".
Is he a leader in your religion? Why are you so desperate to defend him?
I already wrote Reasons To Believe and got some information, not from Ross, but from a colleague. VoidSpirit exagerrates to poison the well and make people want to totally dismiss Hugh Ross.
I won't do that. I think the next complaint I'll examine may be the good old "God of the Gaps" complaint.
I totally agree with Ross and others that the universe is apparently fine tuned for the existence of human life. And I do think that this evidence will become more and more compeling as we move more into the 21rst Century.
By the way. I say NO ONE is perfect except Jesus Christ. I like some of the things I read in Ross's books. No, he is not my leader.
Originally posted by jaywillI haven't looked at the validity of VoidSpirits claims. But the fact that he made them and they remain unchallenged leaves me with the impression that they are likely valid.
If you want to agree with VoidSpirit on everything go ahead.
And I do think that this evidence will become more and more compeling as we move more into the 21rst Century.
Its interesting how many people try to present as evidence a claim that evidence will appear in the future. Why would you think the evidence will become more compelling? You have no logical reason for such a belief.
I like some of the things I read in Ross's books.
And there is nothing wrong with that. But your desperate refusal to accept that he might be wrong about some things is a concern. If you know that nobody is perfect, then stop acting like you think Hugh Ross is.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
I haven't looked at the validity of VoidSpirits claims. But the fact that he made them and they remain unchallenged leaves me with the impression that they are likely valid.
[b]And I do think that this evidence will become more and more compeling as we move more into the 21rst Century.
Its interesting how many people try to present as evidence a c s a concern. If you know that nobody is perfect, then stop acting like you think Hugh Ross is.[/b]
I haven't looked at the validity of VoidSpirits claims. But the fact that he made them and they remain unchallenged leaves me with the impression that they are likely valid.
Oh really ? Excuse me if my mouth does not drop open in shock.
VS didn't even watch the video. He looked at just enough to throw out his standard trashing of each and every possible thing a Christian could contribute to this Forum.
I don't think it is necessary for me to try to "rescue" either you or VoidSpirit from your strident atheism's opposition to Creation research. As I have time, I called him on some things. He will only come out with more things to trash.
Its OK. Some seekers of truth may derive some benefit from the link, just the same.
Its interesting how many people try to present as evidence a claim that evidence will appear in the future. Why would you think the evidence will become more compelling? You have no logical reason for such a belief.
I think the smart scientists will start to look for order where there appears to be chaos. I have a suspicions that even the arrangement of the stars has a well planned scheme to them.
Do you think Charles Darwin would have kept his ideas if he had had the knowledge of microbiological chemistry we have today ? I doubt it. I think he would have been overwhelmed by the evidence of Intelligent Engineering in the cell.
And there is nothing wrong with that. But your desperate refusal to accept that he might be wrong about some things is a concern. If you know that nobody is perfect, then stop acting like you think Hugh Ross is.
There is no desperate refusal here. I said more than once that both I and Ross may be wrong, and Dyson may indeed be a Theist.
When you look at his own words, he seems to want to keep his beliefs rather private concerning God. The God he believes in seems to be not omnipresent, not personal, not omnipotent. And it is rather difficult to know what his dictionary means when he uses the word God.
It is a kind of Pantheistic or Panentheistic approach. I grant that this may be a Theism of sorts. He seems a tad bit friendlier to theism perhaps than Einstien, but not by much.
I will continue to pay attention to Dyson, regardless of this argument. There is nothing desperate about it. I am curious. And many times you can learn something from someone like Dyson. I mean, the mingling of God and man in the New Testament does approach a deification of humanity to produce God-men.
Dyson seems to hold humanity in a very high regard. He should realize that God became a man in Jesus Christ. And he should realize that Christ's full salvation is a deification and glorification of God's redeemed people.
But I don't think he sees a plan of redemption in Christ at all. And for the Nth time I see no LYING on Hugh Ross's part. He may be wrong though. And he may be more familiar with the man's actual position then either of us.
Originally posted by jaywillHe looked at enough to point out some obvious problems with it. That you will not address those problems is telling.
VS didn't even watch the video. He looked at just enough to throw out his standard trashing of each and every possible thing a Christian could contribute to this Forum.
I don't think it is necessary for me to try to "rescue" either you or VoidSpirit from your strident atheism's opposition to Creation research.
I don't need rescuing. This has nothing to do with 'strident atheism's opposition to Creation research'. That you see it as such probably explains your behavior so far.
Do you think Charles Darwin would have kept his ideas if he had had the knowledge of microbiological chemistry we have today ? I doubt it. I think he would have been overwhelmed by the evidence of Intelligent Engineering in the cell.
I cannot hope to know for sure what Charles Darwin would think, but the best I can do is guess that he would be a typical scientist and typical scientists are not 'overwhelmed by the evidence of Intelligent Engineering in the cell.'. Why do you think Charles Darwin would be the exception? What did he know that they typical scientist of today does not?
There is no desperate refusal here.
Its blatantly obvious.
The God he believes in seems to be not omnipresent, not personal, not omnipotent. And it is rather difficult to know what his dictionary means when he uses the word God.
But you have either missed the point or are desperately trying to miss it. He was presented specifically as an atheist/agnostic in order to make a claim that depended on that being the case. If his actual beliefs are unknown or vague, then the whole argument falls over.
I will continue to pay attention to Dyson, regardless of this argument. There is nothing desperate about it.
I was referring to Ross, not Dyson.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
He looked at enough to point out some obvious problems with it. That you will not address those problems is telling.
[b]I don't think it is necessary for me to try to "rescue" either you or VoidSpirit from your strident atheism's opposition to Creation research.
I don't need rescuing. This has nothing to do with 'strident atheism's opposition to C rgument. There is nothing desperate about it.[/b]
I was referring to Ross, not Dyson.[/b]
He looked at enough to point out some obvious problems with it. That you will not address those problems is telling.
His "problems" were rather flimsy. The "problems" of lies was an exagerration.
I don't need rescuing.
Then stop acting like you need it.
This has nothing to do with 'strident atheism's opposition to Creation research'. That you see it as such probably explains your behavior so far.
The universe is finely tuned, my "behavior" being of no effect to that truth.
I like to come back to the big picture here.
"Why the Universe is the Way it is" had some good things in it about the fine tuning of the universe.
My behavior is not the focus or the central issue.
I cannot hope to know for sure what Charles Darwin would think,
You seem to have an opinion about everything else. What not this too ?
but the best I can do is guess that he would be a typical scientist and typical scientists are not 'overwhelmed by the evidence of Intelligent Engineering in the cell.'.
I still think the man would have been impressed to the point of dropping his theory of Gradualism as an explanation of the biosphere.
Your former Atheist Anthony Flew finally dropped his atheism at the evidence of intelligent design. And numbers don't matter that much. Right? Its not popularity that determines truth. Right ?
Scientists are people too. People express emotion sometimes. People can be strongly struck and "overwhelmed".
We know you're underwhelmed. But I think you are in denial.
We all like the portrait of the cool, detached and objective scientist in the white coat. Let's just say, I think he would have been impressed with the evidence of intelligent forethought and engineering.
I think he might have said "Paley appears to be right." That's my opinion.
Why do you think Charles Darwin would be the exception? What did he know that they typical scientist of today does not?
I have a hunch that he would have been impressed that there was much more to the biological cell then he realized.
Since you have no idea how he would have reacted, then you have no idea and thus little reason to be skeptical about it.
But you have either missed the point or are desperately trying to miss it. He was presented specifically as an atheist/agnostic in order to make a claim that depended on that being the case. If his actual beliefs are unknown or vague, then the whole argument falls over.
I didn't miss the point. He may be an Atheist / Agnostic underneath his verbage. He's rather hard to really pin down. And when one person viciously accuses another of being a liar then it is worth some time to demonstrate that the latter's disagreement doesn't constitute the accused as guilty of lying.
I leave room for the possibility that Ross knows more about Dyson's stand and can with confidence say he's Atheist / Agnostic. That possibility exists.
So Dyson may indeed be an Agnostic and Atheist. Then he may not be.
VS painted Ross as a definite liar. I disagree. But Ross may be wrong.
I will continue to pay attention to Dyson, regardless of this argument. There is nothing desperate about it.
I was referring to Ross, not Dyson.
I'll continue to pay some attention to both.
5 edits
Some other people besides Hugh Ross speaking about their impressions from a finely tuned universe.
Theoretical Physicist Paul Davies says that he is "very very struck" by being able to understand the universe on a deep level.
(Atheists, please keep your snoring down low.)
Originally posted by jaywill"Theoretical Physicist Paul Davies says that he is "very very struck" by being able to understand the universe on a deep level."
Some other people besides Hugh Ross speaking about their impressions from a finely tuned universe.
Theoretical Physicist Paul Davies says that he is [b]"very very struck" by being able to understand the universe on a deep level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guHodt-7Q7A
(Atheists, please keep your snoring down low.)[/b]
What makes him think he or anyone understands it on a deep level, after only a few thousand years of study?
Originally posted by jaywillThen you would have no problem addressing them. But you refuse to do so.
His "problems" were rather flimsy. The "problems" of lies was an exagerration.
My behavior is not the focus or the central issue.
I never said it was, nor tried to make it so. That you suggest I did, is only because you have no other answer.
You seem to have an opinion about everything else. What not this too ?
Because I think it is ridiculous to try and put words into the hypothetical mouth of a long dead person especially when it applies to something we cannot predict easily from what we know about him.
I still think the man would have been impressed to the point of dropping his theory of Gradualism as an explanation of the biosphere.
So you say, but that is just wishful thinking, there is no logical reason for thinking that.
Its not popularity that determines truth. Right ?
But popularity is a good predictor of what another like minded person believes. If you want to make a guess at what someone believes, start by asking what is the prevailing belief, then to narrow it down, ask what is the prevailing belief amongst people with similar education/wealth/profession etc. It is of course not guaranteed to give the right answer but it is the best (and only) way to make an educated guess.
But I think you are in denial.
Despite the total lack of evidence that I am in denial. That speaks more to your denial than mine.
We all like the portrait of the cool, detached and objective scientist in the white coat. Let's just say, I think he would have been impressed with the evidence of intelligent forethought and engineering.
We can say it, but the only reason you want to say it is you want to give the illusion of having authority on your side. You want to say "look, even your beloved Darwin supports me". Why are you so dishonest if you really think you have a valid argument?
Since you have no idea how he would have reacted, then you have no idea and thus little reason to be skeptical about it.
I have every reason to be skeptical. I am skeptical of any claim that lacks any evidence.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Then you would have no problem addressing them. But you refuse to do so.
[b]My behavior is not the focus or the central issue.
I never said it was, nor tried to make it so. That you suggest I did, is only because you have no other answer.
You seem to have an opinion about everything else. What not this too ?
Because I think it is ridic b]
I have every reason to be skeptical. I am skeptical of any claim that lacks any evidence.[/b]
Then you would have no problem addressing them. But you refuse to do so.
Could you quote me where I said I would not or refused to respond anymore to VS's posts going back several pages now ?
I'm not on your timetable. I'll write some more about VS if and when I want to set aside some time to do so.
I never said it was, nor tried to make it so. That you suggest I did, is only because you have no other answer.
The universe seems finely tuned for life to many of us. Hugh Ross is one of those people who think so also.
VoidSpirit doesn't think so.
Because I think it is ridiculous to try and put words into the hypothetical mouth of a long dead person especially when it applies to something we cannot predict easily from what we know about him.
That's right. We can only imagine. So I imagined. I think it is probably an accurate imagination. It is probably like saying the US Forefathers would be amazed at the invention of the Internet, and say "My! That is really incredible."
Do I KNOW that is what Ben Franklin might say ? Of coure not. My hunch is that he would not yawn. And I think Darwin would be impressed with microbiology.
I still think the man would have been impressed to the point of dropping his theory of Gradualism as an explanation of the biosphere.
So you say, but that is just wishful thinking, there is no logical reason for thinking that.
My "wishful thinking" might just be accurate too. That is possible.
Its not wrong just because it is "wishful."
Funny thing. The more you argue against it, the more likely it seems to me that Darwin would be amazed at the discoveries of microbiology and cell functions. Seems that your attempts to lull me to sleep are not working.
But popularity is a good predictor of what another like minded person believes. If you want to make a guess at what someone believes, start by asking what is the prevailing belief, then to narrow it down, ask what is the prevailing belief amongst people with similar education/wealth/profession etc. It is of course not guaranteed to give the right answer but it is the best (and only) way to make an educated guess.
Back to the big picture. Some of us are really impressed with the apparent fine calibration of the constants of the universe to permit life to emerge and survive.
You're welcomed to have another opinion about it.
Despite the total lack of evidence that I am in denial. That speaks more to your denial than mine.
There's a lack of evidence that you have an excuse to site lack of evidence.
You're in denial.
Some scientists do not agree with your "total lack of evidence" attitude.
I think you have the problem rather than they.
You don't persuade some of us that we are unreasonable to see fine calibration in the cosmos for the existence of life. Try as you may, your argument is simply not effective. The evidence of fine tuning speaks louder than your bemused puzzlement at our assessment of this evidence.
Your Atheism neither persuades as the default and objective view of the matter. Regardless of how you depict us as "funny thinkers" we recognize finely calibrated tuning for life's existence as apparent.
I think to many people, as scientific knowledge encreases in coming years, this realization will encrease. Of course the rationals of Atheists will also be on the encrease as well.
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357We could always go deeper.
"Theoretical Physicist Paul Davies says that he is [b]"very very struck" by being able to understand the universe on a deep level."
What makes him think he or anyone understands it on a deep level, after only a few thousand years of study?[/b]
Besides, you would probably be the first to insist that science knows so much.
Don't you think they understand the universe "deeper" than those babylonians who thought of the world balanced on the back of four turtles ?
Don't you think they understand it "deeper" than the writer of Genesis?
I'm pretty sure that you think on a relative scale, what science knows is deeper than the ancient cosmogonies.