Originally posted by jaywillOh jaywill I had in mind that Lee Strobel has a journalism degree from University of Missouri and a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School, and therefore I thought of his book titled “The case for a Creator”, at which he interviewed Dr William Lane Craig. There, in fact Strobel makes solely a presentation of Craig’s theory amongst else, who about that time he had not undergraduate degree in mathematics, cosmology or physics -Craig has credentials in theology and philosophy.
[b]=================================
What exactly would you like us to talk about Strobel's interviews?
===================
As far as my intention in submitting that link there were not "interviews" (plural). I put up one link about the evidence in physics for the Creator's intelligent tuning of the universe for life.
======= ...[text shortened]... oesn't reveal "intellectual impoverishment" on the part of those who find it compelling.
Anyway, I can easily prove that the cosmological argument is as solid as Thales’ theory that I presented earlier here at this thread at the third paragraph of my last post at page 8, and that therefore it is not accepted by the scientific community for the same reason.
Now, since we (maybe) agree that Strobel cannot back up on his own this "fine tuning etc" theory but he interviews for this purpose Dr Craig, what is Dr Craig’s thesis that Strobel presents?
Craig says that only things that begin to exist require a cause/ creator, and since God has always existed he does not require a cause; he argues also that, since the universe began with a big bang, it must have had a cause. So it is obvious that Craig offers a sophism: he claims that the universe requires a cause on his account and at the same time he excludes God from this requirement just because this is in accordance with his personal “absolute truth”. Well, this is neither science nor philosophy -it’s merely theology: since there is no practical way to test this theory of reality because it fails to make testable predictions, it seems to me that we are merely in front of a speculation that lacks any philosophic and scientific value.
Finally, I never stated that our theist friends demonstrate “intellectual impoverishment”; I respect everybody's beliefs. I merely said that Freaky KBH has a totally false theory that is based on his personal unjustified “absolute truth” alone.
😵
Originally posted by jaywillGod is a destructive god. The biblical god kills. There are more creative gods, as I see it. So I wonder which god that fine-tuned the universe to harbour life, 15 billion of years before the biblical Adam and Eve, The biblical god it wasn't, because he was not there billions of years ago.
[b]=========================================
This could be a proof of existance of any creative god, not the christian god per se.
=========================================
That's no great devestating set back to me as a Christian. I didn't say "christian god" had to be indicated there. I don't know if Mr. Stobel said that.
...[text shortened]... n. That fine tuning discussion presents evidence for intelligent God who is purposeful.[/b]
A proof that any god exists is fine, but it's not a proof that the biblical god exist per se.
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleOther than you stubberness and strong will to not accept reasonable evidence for intelligent and purposeful design of the universe for life existence, I don't know what it is you want me to be impressed with.
Oh jaywill I had in mind that Lee Strobel has a journalism degree from University of Missouri and a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School, and therefore I thought of his book titled “The case for a Creator”, at which he interviewed Dr William Lane Craig. There, in fact Strobel makes solely a presentation of Craig’s theory amongst else, wh a totally false theory that is based on his personal unjustified “absolute truth” alone.
😵
So you have a strong will power to exploit any possible objection to the evidence for design our cosmos to support life. I am not surprised.
I don't take seriously skeptical attempts to surpress these findings. I fail to regard their excuses as more reasonable. And the scientists quoted by Strobel in the presentation seem no adapt your view either.
What skeptics like yourself demonstrate to me is the fertile imagination to concoct any possible loophole to posture their beliefs in a "reasonable" appearance. It just doesn't impress me.
And moving into the 21rst century, I think a good representative number of thoughtful people including scientist will follow the evidence to the conclusion of a purposeful intelligent God.
( By the way, you have a nice little graphic smile there. Its kind of cute)
Originally posted by jaywillHow could I impress you? My intention is not to impress but to hear, to understand and to evaluate the story of my interlocutor.
Other than you stubberness and strong will to not accept reasonable evidence for intelligent and purposeful design of the universe for life existence, I don't know what it is you want me to be impressed with.
So you have a strong will power to exploit any possible objection to the evidence for design our cosmos to support life. I am not surprised.
...[text shortened]... ligent God.
( By the way, you have a nice little graphic smile there. Its kind of cute)
I have no problem to discuss with everybody about any theory of reality. I believe that, just as a philosopher of science can offer a theory that is not necessarily scientifically accepted, a theologian or whoever can too offer a theory that is not scientifically accepted -and vice versa. I would reject a falsified theory of reality as such regardless of the person who offers it, and of course regardless of his religion and his nationality.
So I have no problem with the monitored finds -but I do have problem with the interpretation and with the deductions made by Dr Craig, which are totally different than the interpretation and the deductions that are for the time being accepted from the scientific community. Craig, like every theologian and every other citizen, and Strobel, like every journalist and every other citizen, and you and me and everybody, we all have the right to have our personal theory of reality, but this means not that every theory of reality that we bring up is scientifically accepted -and this is the case with Strobel, Craig and whoever tried till today to prove that this specific argument is indeed a scientific theory. Well it is not, because of the reasons I explained to you earlier.
However, although this is another story and in my opinion irrelevant to the topic of this thread, if you have reasonable evidence regarding this theory and you want to bring it up and to discuss it further in order to let us evaluate if it is philosophically -not theologically!- accepted, this would be fine with me.
Finally, I respect everybody's conclusion -some of my best friends are theists. However, for the time being nobody (scientists, philosophers and theologians etc) can prove that the conclusion of "a purposeful intelligent God" is scientifically backed up.
I inhale negativity and I exhale positive energy. I see, I evaluate and I act. If I have to accuse somebody I have to accuse myself. I smile😵
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetlePut aside for the moment the "concencious" of the scientific community.
How could I impress you? My intention is not to impress but to hear, to understand and to evaluate the story of my interlocutor.
I have no problem to discuss with everybody about any theory of reality. I believe that, just as a philosopher of science can offer a theory that is not necessarily scientifically accepted, a theologian or whoever can too o I see, I evaluate and I act. If I have to accuse somebody I have to accuse myself. I smile😵
What do you personally think? Do you think the cosmos is fine tuned for the support of biological life or no ?
After all doesn't it really come down to where you as an individual take your stand, in the final analysis.
I personally believe that the universe is fine tuned for the existence of life. I did not do all this grunt work myself. I examined work done by others.
I think eventually you have to stand upon your own personal decision about these things. We can hide in the crowd only so long, deflecting the matter to the "concencious" of the "community."
Originally posted by jaywillI prefer reading to watching stuff on youtube.
This is what they are objecting to folks, if you didn't know:
Intelligent Design for Life Support seen in Physics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN2oc7l1mPU&feature=related
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
My gut feeling is well expressed by Victor Stenger:
"... The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon".
Why shouldn't this 'fine-tuned universe' have been created by aliens?
Originally posted by jaywillI think that Kosmos must not neseccarily be fine tuned in order to support the biological life because of the following reason: the case of Earth proves that the probability of the arising of the biological life in our galaxy, which it contains from 1 billion up to 30 billion planets, is hovering at the slot 1/1.000.000.000 up to 1/30.000.000.000. The galaxies of the universe are about 100 billion billions, so if we suppose that the statistic probaility of the arising of biological life is 1/30.000.000.000, we notice that this ultra rare event could have take place at least 300.000.000 planets of our universe -and I conclude that one of those 300.000.000 planets is ours.
Put aside for the moment the "concencious" of the scientific community.
What do you [b]personally think? Do you think the cosmos is fine tuned for the support of biological life or no ?
After all doesn't it really come down to where you as an individual take your stand, in the final analysis.
I personally believe that the universe i ...[text shortened]... in the crowd only so long, deflecting the matter to the "concencious" of the "community."[/b]
Therefore I see not why should I have to accept a theory that proposes the "fine tuning" process by an intelligent God
😵
Originally posted by jaywillI find Dawkins' writings on atheism (not science) somewhat 'intellectually impoverished', but I fail to see what that has to do with the current discussion.
Atheist Richard Dawkin's philosophy is destructive to science.
Craig explaina why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw&feature=related
Are you going to explode in a cloud of youtube links?
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetle=======================================
I think that Kosmos must not neseccarily be fine tuned in order to support the biological life because of the following reason: the case of Earth proves that the probability of the arising of the biological life in our galaxy, which it contains from 1 billion up to 30 billion planets, is hovering at the slot 1/1.000.000.000 up to 1/30.000.000.000. The g ...[text shortened]... I have to accept a theory that proposes the "fine tuning" process by an intelligent God
😵
I think that Kosmos must not neseccarily be fine tuned in order to support the biological life because of the following reason: the case of Earth proves that the probability of the arising of the biological life in our galaxy, which it contains from 1 billion up to 30 billion planets,
=====================================
Wait. How many planets have actually been discovered, 1 billion? Have they discovered 30 billion?
Seems your speculating here on the unknown. I am excited that some planets have been discovered. But no water, which is the very first thing the are eager to look for. And they are all gas giants inhospitiable for life as we know it.
I think you'd have a case on the day we find ONE other planet with life. So far not forthcoming.
==========================================
is hovering at the slot 1/1.000.000.000 up to 1/30.000.000.000. The galaxies of the universe are about 100 billion billions, so if we suppose that the statistic probaility of the arising of biological life is 1/30.000.000.000, we notice that this ultra rare event could have take place at least 300.000.000 planets of our universe -and I conclude that one of those 300.000.000 planets is ours.
==================================
Get back to me when we actually find ONE or TWO other planets with life.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI happen to agree with this line of thinking, but it doesn't advance your case in the slightest.
Get back to me when we actually [b]find ONE or TWO other planets with life.[/b]
What if we never do? Will you argue that the infinitesimal chance of life existing means that this planet, at least, is 'fine-tuned for life'?
That sounds catchy ...
Originally posted by jaywillNope padre, it seems to me that common sens is destructive to theology😵
Atheist Richard Dawkin's philosophy is destructive to science.
Craig explains why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw&feature=related
Unfortunately our server gives us no authorization to link at youtube, which anyway is not at all of my taste -so I do not understand what you mean;
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleNope partner. Dawkins' infinite regress of having to have an explanation for the explanation renders no explanation in science possible.
Nope padre, it seems to me that common sens is destructive to theology😵
Unfortunately our server gives us no authorization to link at youtube, which anyway is not at all of my taste -so I do not understand what you mean;
As for how and what is destructive to theology, you're welcomed to explain to me what you mean by that.