2 edits
Originally posted by jaywill“...
[b]===================================
not sure; I am bothered by the word “ NECESSARILY” inserted into your above answer.
Are you implying that you MAY actually “jump to the conclusion of a supernatural cause” of the start of a particular avalanche!!! and, if so, why!?
=======================
Any given random avalanche I would not assume was s f you really don't want to have anything to do with Me, you can choose that life."[/b][/b]
Any given random avalanche I would not assume was supernaturally caused. Any given random avalanche probably has no particular theological meaning associated with it.
There is no particular issue with WHY it happened. But suppose there was ? Suppose there was a nearby town who for hundreds of years was losing young people. They were trying to climb up the side of the mountain. And the people could not take one more death of a young team of climbers. They fasted and prayed for four days asking "To Whom It May Concern" that something had to be done about the problem.
Then afterwards an avalanche made the area safer for traveling. Then the avalanche has some theological meaning associated with it. And I might consider not the how so much but the WHY at this time did it occur so coincidently. ...”
why would something happening very “coincidently” mean that it is more likely to be a reason “WHY” (as opposed to “how&rdquo😉 it happened? Couldn't many very unfortunate tragic random events happen without a reason? Mathematically, given enough time, many such meaningless events would inevitably occur.
“...I might be inclined to muse on something supernatural at work. The timing and the associated matters and petitioning of God or Someone who can hear the heartfelt cries of parents. ...”
this concerns me; that isn't rational.
“...The coincidence of it might cause me to consider the supernatural at work somewhere. But any random, run of the mill, typical avalanche, would not cause me to assume the supernatural. ...”
mathematically, given enough time and enough avalanches, some will inevitability involve some coincidences. That would be still true without any supernatural at work.
“...In the case of the origin of EVERYTHING physical in existence - our entire universe, knowing as I do how FINELY TUNED it is for the existence of human beings and life in general ...” (my emphasis)
you have made a very all-too-common error here made by so many people (sadly, even by a great many scientists) :
there is no logical reason to assume that the universe is “FINELY TUNED” because there is no logical reason to assume that the physical constants etc of the universe could have been anything other than what they are. How could you know that, for example, the gravitational constant “could” have been something significantly (or even slightly) different from what it is? How would do you know that the gravitational constant is not INEVITABLY what it is?
10 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThat previous post I wrote for this above comment was too long.
“...
Any given random avalanche I would not assume was supernaturally caused. Any given random avalanche probably has no particular theological meaning associated with it.
There is no particular issue with WHY it happened. But suppose there was ? Suppose there was a nearby town who for hundreds of years was losing young people. They were trying t it is? How would do you know that the gravitational constant is not INEVITABLY what it is?
I don't have enough faith to see no fine tuning.
I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.
I think if anyone had the power to transcend into the supernatural, that is Christ.
I am biased because God is very real to me.
I think to be a completed and more whole human being one has to recognize a spiritual dimension to life.
I think the cause of the beginning of the universe is outside of itself. That is outside of the space, time, energy and matter that the is now believed by many to have originated at the BB.
I don't think denying "fine-tuning" has much of a future as we move more into the 21rst Century. Some die hards will argue against it though.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton“....I don't have enough faith to see no fine tuning
“...
Any given random avalanche I would not assume was supernaturally caused. Any given random avalanche probably has no particular theological meaning associated with it.
There is no particular issue with WHY it happened. But suppose there was ? Suppose there was a nearby town who for hundreds of years was losing young people. They were trying ...[text shortened]... t it is? How would do you know that the gravitational constant is not INEVITABLY what it is?
I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist. ...”
...and you don't need faith to disbelieve in the existence of something in the absence of evidence of that something!
do you also “ don't have enough faith to” “see no tooth fairy” ?
Or is your disbelieve in the existence of the tooth fairy not based on “faith” but based on the absence of evidence for the tooth fairy?
If so, then do you agree with this general principle:
If there is no evidence for the existence of X then, using Occam’s razor, no faith is required to believe that there is no X
?
if so, then you don't require faith that there didn't existed “ fine tuning” (of the universe) and you don't require faith that there doesn't exist a god hence you don't require faith to be an atheist.
“...I think the cause of the beginning of the universe is outside of itself. ...”
that is assuming that there is such a cause -not saying there isn't but there has not yet been any credible evidence/deduction of such a thing so far so assuming that there MUST be a cause would certainly be an unqualified and baseless assumption at this time -we simply cannot know yet.
“...I don't think denying "fine-tuning" has much of a future as we move more into the 21rst Century. ….”
didn't you read what I said about that in my last post?
Reminder:
there is no logical reason to assume that the universe is “FINELY TUNED” because there is no logical reason to assume that the physical constants etc of the universe could have been anything other than what they are. How could you know that, for example, the gravitational constant “could” have been something significantly (or even slightly) different from what it is? How would do you know that the gravitational constant is not INEVITABLY what it is?
Well?
Originally posted by jaywillThe website tells lies by putting words into the mouths of atheists.
This Summary may be useful for some. At present I tend to come down on the side of Gap Theory or "Ruin and Reconcstruction"
[b] Five Basic Current Models of the Origin of the World
http://www.custance.org/Origin_Models.html[/b]
It says:
“...
Atheistic evolution (naturalistic evolutionism):
The universe and all the physical laws of nature were CREATED by CHANCE during the Big Bang about 15 to 20 billion years ago. We exist through a combination of random processes known as "evolution." There is no purpose or intelligent force which has directed our evolution. We are here ONLY by CHANCE; religion is a natural development in our evolutionary "progress". When we die, we no longer exist.
Examples: Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, John Gribbin, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Arthur N. Strahler.
...” (my emphases)
that simply is a totally false representation of the atheists position.
We do NOT say that it must be true that “ physical laws of nature were CREATED” let alone “ physical laws of nature were CREATED by CHANCE”.
We do NOT say that “ We are here ONLY by CHANCE” for anyone with half a brain would know that natural selection is not totally random.
We do NOT say that “religion is a natural development in our evolutionary "progress" “ whatever THAT is supposed to mean!
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=============================
The website tells lies by putting words into the mouths of atheists.
It says:
“...
Atheistic evolution (naturalistic evolutionism):
The universe and all the physical laws of nature were CREATED by CHANCE during the Big Bang about 15 to 20 billion years ago. We exist through a combination of random processes known as "evolution." There is no pur ...[text shortened]... a natural development in our evolutionary "progress" “ whatever THAT is supposed to mean!
that simply is a totally false representation of the atheists position.
We do NOT say that it must be true that “ physical laws of nature were CREATED” let alone “ physical laws of nature were CREATED by CHANCE”.
We do NOT say that “ We are here ONLY by CHANCE” for anyone with half a brain would know that natural selection is not totally random.
We do NOT say that “religion is a natural development in our evolutionary "progress" “ whatever THAT is supposed to mean!
===============================
Maybe you are of the new and improved atheistic evolution type ?
Originally posted by jaywillI don't know anything about this “new and improved atheistic evolution type”.
[b]=============================
that simply is a totally false representation of the atheists position.
We do NOT say that it must be true that “ physical laws of nature were CREATED” let alone “ physical laws of nature were CREATED by CHANCE”.
We do NOT say that “ We are here ONLY by CHANCE” for anyone with half a brain would know that natural s ...[text shortened]... =====================
Maybe you are of the new and improved atheistic evolution type ?[/b]
I am of the “old type” which is the only “type” known to me.
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou are exactly right, the universe has been existing forever and that answers the question (not that the BB is true or anything ,but it answers the question)
I always find the arguments regarding the 'first cause' from creationists a little bizarre.
The Universe had a beginning, so therefore God created the Universe.
Okay. Where or how was God created?
God has existed forever!!!
If they can believe that something can exist forever (in this case God{whatever that may mean}), w ...[text shortened]... Universe may have existed forever, in some state or another?
Why God, but not the Universe?
But it has not existed in the state that we are observing at present, as you have suggested, because the entire cosmos is constantly going though endless cycles annihilation and re-creation.
Before the present universe became manifest, it was firstly unmanifested, meaning that the energy comprising the universe has always been existing, but in its unmanifested state.
The Vedanta Sutra explains how it becomes manifest, and at the end of its eternal cycle how it becomes unmanifest.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAndrew, just like every one else with a world view, people go back, revize, rethink, reinforce their positions. They sharpen their views taking into account weaknesses.
I don't know anything about this “new and improved atheistic evolution type”.
I am of the “old type” which is the only “type” known to me.
Theists do and atheists do too. C'mon. That is why you have this phrase "the NEW atheism" and that is also why you hear about "NEO - Darwinism".
Atheist come off from high level debates and do the same thing Theists do. Get together and plan how to strengthen their position.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSelection implies the choice of free will, and an intelligent choice as well for anything to be of any use.
The website tells lies by putting words into the mouths of atheists.
It says:
“...
Atheistic evolution (naturalistic evolutionism):
The universe and all the physical laws of nature were CREATED by CHANCE during the Big Bang about 15 to 20 billion years ago. We exist through a combination of random processes known as "evolution." There is no pur ...[text shortened]... a natural development in our evolutionary "progress" “ whatever THAT is supposed to mean!
So therefore, for intelligent choices to be made consistently and constantly, there must be a Supreme Creative Spiritual Potency at the foundation of all things.
To deny this, would be dishonest.
This is the foolishness of atheism, that they present absurd theories and speculate about almost everything.
What sane man would subscribe to the fabrications of atheism.
Originally posted by jaywillCan you give me any example of a load of atheists in history that once said:
[b]=============================
that simply is a totally false representation of the atheists position.
We do NOT say that it must be true that “ physical laws of nature were CREATED” let alone “ physical laws of nature were CREATED by CHANCE”.
We do NOT say that “ We are here ONLY by CHANCE” for anyone with half a brain would know that natural s ...[text shortened]... =====================
Maybe you are of the new and improved atheistic evolution type ?[/b]
“it must be true that physical laws of nature were CREATED” let alone “ physical laws of nature were CREATED by CHANCE” ?
Or that “ We are here ONLY by CHANCE” and that natural selection is “totally random” ?
Or that “religion is a natural development in our evolutionary "progress" “ whatever THAT is supposed to mean! ?
This was NEVER the position of atheists!
Therefore, atheists NEVER changed their position from this non-existent position! 😛
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIntelligent Design the way to go in my search for truth.
Can you give me any example of a load of atheists in history that once said:
“it must be true that physical laws of nature were CREATED” let alone “ physical laws of nature were CREATED by CHANCE” ?
Or that “ We are here ONLY by CHANCE” and that natural selection is “totally random” ?
Or that “religion is a natural development in our evol theists!
Therefore, atheists NEVER changed their position from this non-existent position! 😛
&feature=channel
Originally posted by jaywillYes....intelligent design can be presented without scripture or doctrine or referencing religious material, and this is why the cheating science persons do not like it, because it appeals to common sense and truthfulness, and for the atheist this is impossible to dismiss, unless they lend themselves to dishonesty and foolishness.
Intelligent Design the way to go in my search for truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppIgFEFUpjw&feature=channel
Originally posted by vishvahetu“...Selection implies the choice of free will ….”
Selection implies the choice of free will, and an intelligent choice as well for anything to be of any use.
So therefore, for intelligent choices to be made consistently and constantly, there must be a Supreme Creative Spiritual Potency at the foundation of all things.
To deny this, would be dishonest.
This is the foolishness of atheism, that the ...[text shortened]... culate about almost everything.
What sane man would subscribe to the fabrications of atheism.
not in the context of natural selection for habitat does not have “free will” and every person that understands evolution will confirm they do not mean “free will” from “natural selection”.
“...To deny this, would be dishonest. ...”
so I am “ dishonest” to “deny” that habitat has “free will” ? 😛