Originally posted by jaywilledit: “Wait. How many planets have actually been discovered, 1 billion? Have they discovered 30 billion?”
[b]=======================================
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,
===================== ...[text shortened]... =======
Get back to me when we actually find ONE or TWO other planets with life.[/b]
I merely offered the calculations of Lineweaver and Daniel Grether from the University of New South Wales, Australia, regarding the estimated number of the planets of our galaxy.
edit: “Get back to me when we actually find ONE or TWO other planets with life.”
I see what you mean -but this could really take a long time due to the fact that these probable for the arising of biological life 300.000.000 planets are quite a small number in comparison with the total amount of the planets of the universe. So I just answer you back:
-- “I will not tell you “Get back to me when we actually find ONE (not TWO!) scientific find that proves the existence of the intelligent God, but I will do tell you to get back to me when Craig’s argument will be scientifically accepted”
😵
Originally posted by jaywillI do not care too much about Dawkins.
Nope partner. Dawkins' infinite regress of having to have an explanation for the explanation renders no explanation in science possible.
As for how and what is destructive to theology, you're welcomed to explain to me what you mean by that.
Destructive to theology is philosophy -common sens. I was talking about the nonsensical ideas of the religions which must be seen "as is" and as mysteries and therefore as "absdolute truth" since they have no rational explanation. For example, the "mystery" of Trinity as my Christian friends perceive it, it seems to me not rational at all😵
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetle============================
I do not care too much about Dawkins.
Destructive to theology is philosophy -common sens. I was talking about the nonsensical ideas of the religions which must be seen "as is" and as mysteries and therefore as "absdolute truth" since they have no rational explanation. For example, the "mystery" of Trinity as my Christian friends perceive it, it seems to me not rational at all😵
I do not care too much about Dawkins.
====================================
Don't blame you for wanting to distance yourself from Richard Dawkins.
================================
Destructive to theology is philosophy -common sens. I was talking about the nonsensical ideas of the religions which must be seen "as is" and as mysteries and therefore as "absdolute truth" since they have no rational explanation. For example, the "mystery" of Trinity as my Christian friends perceive it, it seems to me not rational at all
======================================
Eternal life is not nonsensical to me. I would regard eternal life as a life which transcends typical limits as known by creatures like us.
Therefore that God is triune, I would regard as an understandable phenomenon of a limitless and transcendant divine life which is eternal.
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetle=====================================
edit: “Wait. How many planets have actually been discovered, 1 billion? Have they discovered 30 billion?”
I merely offered the calculations of Lineweaver and Daniel Grether from the University of New South Wales, Australia, regarding the estimated number of the planets of our galaxy.
edit: “Get back to me when we actually find ONE or TWO othe ...[text shortened]... I will do tell you to get back to me when Craig’s argument will be scientifically accepted”
😵
“I will not tell you “Get back to me when we actually find ONE (not TWO!) scientific find that proves the existence of the intelligent God, but I will do tell you to get back to me when Craig’s argument will be scientifically accepted”
==========================================
If you mean by "scientifically accepted" that all scientists accept that the evidence points of an intelligent design of the universe, i don't expect that kind of universality.
There is not even universal "scientific acceptance" of the Big Bang Theory.
It is signficant to some of us that even some scientists submit that the evidence of fine tuning points to intelligent design. And some do. and I think more will.
The quotation that I am submitting below is not about intelligent design per se. But it is about supernatural causes of the existence of the universe which I think is a logical step in the direction of intelligent supernatural causes.
I don't expect universal agreement on it. Usually when representative members of the science community are quoted on this skeptics get busy searching for some excuse to disqualify them.
For example, watch what happens when I submit this quotation from Robert Jastrow (a self confessed agnostic) , the founder of the NASA Institute of Space Studies.
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this ahppened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover .... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
Originally posted by jaywill"Scientifically accepted" is every non-falsified for the time being theory of reality; Dr Craig's theory is falsified, therefore it is not accepted as non-falsified regardless of the (increasing, decreasing or stable) number of the scientists and of the individuals that they maybe accept it.
[b]=====================================
“I will not tell you “Get back to me when we actually find ONE (not TWO!) scientific find that proves the existence of the intelligent God, but I will do tell you to get back to me when Craig’s argument will be scientifically accepted”
==========================================
If you mean by "scie ...[text shortened]... e would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."[/b]
Therefore, although we agree that many scientists etc. do not accept the Big Bang theory because they prefer other theories of reality (falsified or non-falsified), for the time being the Big Bang theory remains not falsified -and this is the sole reason why it is a valid theory.
I see not scientific finds and evidence, and I see not the slightest philosophic reason that would force me to bring up a creational theory that includes a supernatural entity, because if I would accept it I could still not solve and overcome the problems of the same nature regarding the creation and the origins of that supernatural existence. I already explained it to Freaky and to you in detail here at this thread when I commented on Thales' theory.
Furthermore, in the past you presented the same argument offered by Jastrow and I remember well how Andrew Hamilton and twitehead debunked it, so I have no intention to go through this once more.
Finally, I do believe that you believe that your God is triune -but I am sure that this is neither rational nor a metaphysic philosophic idea. In my opinion the Christian idea about the so called triune God is an ill-considered copy-pasted product of a by far more ancient than Christianity universal archetype concept. But in order to hijack not this thread, if you feel up to it we may sometime debate about this matter either formally (if you feel the need to offer an extended reasoning, ie as you did with rwingett at that unforgettable masterpiece regarding the ...socialistic nature of Jesus), or at another thread where every participant of this forum can offer too his opinion at the same time.
Of course, whenever you decide to establish such a thread, for the sake of the conversation I affirm that you don't have to bring up references based on specific verses of the Bible in order to prove that the Christian Trinity is really backed up; from the beginning I accept that, according to your so called "holy scripture", the Christian Trinity is a major belief of your religion. Well, I claim that this totally irrational belief is merely a product of a mambo-jumbo theology, and that it cannot be philosophically justified by any means because it lacks of the required philosophic principles. This means that, during our probable conversation, you will have to use reason instead of preaching.
Of course I accept to debate about this matter with every Christian friend of ours who believes that the idea of the Christian trinity is rational.
😵
Originally posted by jaywillThat's a very bad argument by Strobel. I will start a new thread in the forum to explain in detail why I think so.
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
6 edits
Originally posted by black beetleThe new thread points to a Talk Origins rebuttal to some other article by Hugh Ross.
The news would be to offer a very strong argument by Mr Strobel I reckon😵
There's some pretty dense discussion of Bayes's Theorem and symbolic logic which the writers claim uncovers weaknesses in Hugh Ross's article which I have not seen yet.
It is interesting. The one recorded proposed refutation of their Bayes's Theorem objection is offered by one David Kwon, which they undertake to defend against.
They say Kwon doesn't understand Bayes's Theorem as well as they do, but then again (they add) not many people do.
Wow.
But the stuff is interesting enough to prompt me to read up on Bayes's Theorem. He was an 18th century English clergyman. You know, the guys who are suppose to be dead set on holding back scientific advancement ?
Some of this reminds me of my courses in Discrete Math in college. That is probability formulas and permutations.
The multiple universes objection was dismissed by Strobel because of the lack of evidence for such unknown other universes.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOne thing is clear: you have accepted a superficial understanding of the primary issues involved with Galileo's theories, as they clashed with the established ruling power of the RCC.
Down the black hole of insanity ...
On a side note: the hardline Counter-Reformation intolerance of the RCC didn't work out very well for it.
Did you notice Freaky's fudge? The Pope's business with Galileo was 'a power struggle, nothing more' -- therefore the intellectual freedom guaranteed by Christianity remained intact! Amazing stuff.
Originally posted by black beetleYou are utterly clueless with respect to the hallmarks of religion--- what a religion truly is. Only such ignorance could lead to your unfounded claims of my "religionist approach." I am anything but religious, thank you very much.
Freaky has a religionist approach mixed with false interpretations. His argument lacks of historical, philosophic and sociological back up and it is peppered with pseudo-intellectualism and arbitrary false conclusions. Once you check how he justifies his claims it is obvious that he uses not a valid methodology; he uses a false pseudo-scientific argumen ...[text shortened]... uses this method in order to make his conclusions and his “absolute truth” appear convincing
😵
My argument (which--- it must be emphasized yet again--- has yet to be successfully challenged by anyone herein) is one of stating the obvious. The only success you and any other naysayers have offered is to challenge the obvious... without so much as a scintilia of evidence to back it up.
If I have distorted anything, it would be that I have understated Christianity's positive influence on intellectual pursuits.
Originally posted by jaywillOf course it's an interesting stuff.
The new thread points to a Talk Origins rebuttal to some other article by Hugh Ross.
There's some pretty dense discussion of Bayes's Theorem and symbolic logic which the writers claim uncovers weaknesses in Hugh Ross's article which I have not seen yet.
It is interesting. The one recorded proposed refutation of their Bayes's Theorem objection is of ...[text shortened]... as dismissed by Strobel because of the lack of evidence for such unknown other universes.
However I never said that the agent that makes a scientist "good" or "bad" is his religion;
😵
Originally posted by FreakyKBHedit: "The only success you and any other naysayers have offered is to challenge the obvious... without so much as a scintilia of evidence to back it up."
You are utterly clueless with respect to the hallmarks of religion--- what a religion truly is. Only such ignorance could lead to your unfounded claims of my "religionist approach." I am anything but religious, thank you very much.
My argument (which--- it must be emphasized yet again--- has yet to be successfully challenged by anyone herein) is one o ...[text shortened]... would be that I have understated Christianity's positive influence on intellectual pursuits.
😀
I define religion as it is defined by the science of sociology. So go on, define religion and show me "what a religion truly is" -and prove that I am ignorant
😵
On the other hand, until now you were unable to mention even one scientific find that it was caused thanks to the agent of the religion, and you were unable to mention even one philosophic virtue that it is caused thanks to the agent of the religion. You cannot, because your argument is clearly bonkers and solely a product of your religionism. A honest interlocutor reacts not the way you do react, but it is well knon that a sophist has not the slightest problem to do whatever in order to serve his personal interests
😵
7 edits
Originally posted by black beetleI think the entire advancement of science period, can be cause of thanks to the intelligent God who designed the human mind and equiped it with the ability to carry out rational thought.
edit: "The only success you and any other naysayers have offered is to challenge the obvious... without so much as a scintilia of evidence to back it up."
😀
I define religion as it is defined by the science of sociology. So go on, define religion and show me "what a religion truly is" -and prove that I am ignorant
😵
On the other hand, un ...[text shortened]... st has not the slightest problem to do whatever in order to serve his personal interests
😵
The alternative of expressing gratitute to a naturalistic, aimless, purposeless, random evolutionary agent seems to me to render rational thought unreliable because its cause is totally irrational.
Naturalism postulates a nonrational source for man’s rationality.
Accepting the naturalistic worldview compels me to accept the ultimate source of people’s reasoning faculties was not itself rational (endowed with reason). Neither was this source personal (self-aware, intelligent), or teleological (purposive) in nature.
Accepting naturalism would compel me to direct any thanks for rational scientific advancement to a chance combination of random and blind impersonal natural processes (physical and chemical in nature). But doing so renders the product of such resultant rational faculties suspect and unreliable.
How then can human intelligence and human reason be trusted?
If one does not think this is a legitimate concern, it seemed to be a legitimate one to Charles Darwin, who wrote:
“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
[Charles Darwin to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (1897; repr., Boston: Elibron, 2005), 1:285.]
One of the presumptions science is an effect requires an adequate and sufficient cause, and indeed that effect cannot be greater than the cause. I am inclined to give any "thanks" for rational scientific achievment to a greater cause and not a lesser one. In the case of a non-rational source human reasoning, I would be appreciating a clearly lesser cause for a greater effect, namely human reason.
It is more realistic to me to direct my appreciation to a cause equal with or greater than the effect. An intelligent and purposive Creator as a source of the facility of human reason is therefore where I choose to direct my thanks.
Black Beetle can thank the mud and dirt if he wishes. I choose to thank the reasoning Creator for the reasoning ability of the human mind, and that even if men choose to use that tool to argue against God, like Black Beetle.
The effect of human intelligence is exponentially greater than its supposed cause, if no intelligent design is its source. I think it is self defeating to assume the trustworthiness of the reasoning process of a mind thrown together randomly.
Where one wants to direct his thanksgiving is his free choice. Laws or academia do not dictate where to direct one's ultimate thanks for scientific advancement. Its a personal choice where a person wants to direct their ultimate appreciation.
I deeply respect your opinion -but I discard your theology as a false philosophic theory since I do not have the slightest evidence about the existence of "an intelligent God who designed the human mind and equiped it with the ability to carry out rational thought".
For the time being our science shows clearly that the concept of an intelligent God is not required neither for the so called "creation of the universe" nor for the mental ability of every sentient being of our planet. Therefore I attribute whatever we do to ourselves and not to a "creator", and I firmly believe that we do whatever we do simply because we want to do it and not because "God told us to act so"
😵
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetle===================================
I deeply respect your opinion -but I discard your theology as a false philosophic theory since I do not have the slightest evidence about the existence of "an intelligent God who designed the human mind and equiped it with the ability to carry out rational thought".
For the time being our science shows clearly that the concept of an intelligent God i atever we do simply because we want to do it and not because "God told us to act so"
😵
Therefore I attribute whatever we do to ourselves and not to a "creator", and I firmly believe that we do whatever we do simply because we want to do it and not because "God told us to act so"
====================================
That is another issue involving the freedom of the human will.
I don't think following the evidence to an intelligent Creator has to mean the loss of human free will.