Originally posted by jaywillThat's a big jump he makes. Not a shred of logic in sight. The fact that he cannot explain it doesn't mean that God is involved. This is one man trying to sell his faith as science. If he wants to stipulate that because he can't (or even the entire scientific community can't) explain the origins of the universe this in no way stipulates that God "must have done it".
I don't understand the Big Bang? Well perhaps. But would you consider that astronomer Robert Jastrow would understand the Big Bang? I think he would understand it well enough.
Robert Jastrow is the founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Maybe he knows a thing or two about the Big Bang. He says he is an agnostic. But he wrote a book call ...[text shortened]... rces being scientifically proven.
You might read [b]"God and the Astronomers".[/b]
We do not have a full theory of gravity yet. Are you suggesting that God is there pushing everything down? We don't know how the brain works on a neutron by neuron basis - does that mean God is there doing that too? We don't understand the life cycle or the toxicity of many diseases, is that God too? What happens when we work these things out? Does God stop doing them? I'm afraid Dr Jastrow's testimony is as pointless and scewed by opinion as any tele-evangelist. The only thing I think he's done well is extort money out of stupid people.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzAll that he is saying is that the evidence from Astronomy points towards God.
That's a big jump he makes. Not a shred of logic in sight. The fact that he cannot explain it doesn't mean that God is involved. This is one man trying to sell his faith as science. If he wants to stipulate that because he can't (or even the entire scientific community can't) explain the origins of the universe this in no way stipulates that God "mu ngelist. The only thing I think he's done well is extort money out of stupid people.
How can you offhand reject this evidence and then say that God does not exist because there is no evidence?
That is the sign of a bigot.
Edit: I am still waiting for your philosophical refutation of the existance of God.
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo, it is not the sign of a bigot. There is no evidence for god, despite what this guy says. His entire thesis is this;
All that he is saying is that the evidence from Astronomy points towards God.
How can you offhand reject this evidence and then say that God does not exist because there is no evidence?
That is the sign of a bigot.
Edit: I am still waiting for your philosophical refutation of the existance of God.
There are things in the universe that I cannot explain. Therefore God exists.
It's ludicrous!
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzThere is no evidence for god, despite what this guy says.
No, it is not the sign of a bigot. There is no evidence for god, despite what this guy says. His entire thesis is this;
There are things in the universe that I cannot explain. Therefore God exists.
It's ludicrous!
I am afraid that is the sign of a bigot.
There are things in the universe that I cannot explain. Therefore God exists.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. It's more like this:
There are things in the universe that only the existence of God can explain.
Man has the questions, God has the answers.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI am afraid that is the sign of a bigot.
[b]There is no evidence for god, despite what this guy says.
I am afraid that is the sign of a bigot.
There are things in the universe that I cannot explain. Therefore God exists.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. It's more like this:
There are things in the universe that only the existence of God can explain.
Man has the questions, God has the answers.[/b]
Stop jumping on Jaywill's bandwagon.
There are things in the universe that only the existence of God can explain.
You and I both know you cannot say that without perfect knowledge. Caught by your own trap now, eh sonny?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzAs no human being has demonstrated to have absolute knowledge, and thus all the answers to mans questions, it is reasonable to claim that a being with absolute knowledge would be able to answer all mans questions.
[b]I am afraid that is the sign of a bigot.
Stop jumping on Jaywill's bandwagon.
There are things in the universe that only the existence of God can explain.
You and I both know you cannot say that without perfect knowledge. Caught by your own trap now, eh sonny?[/b]
Unlike yourself, I do not claim to be that being with absolute knowledge, by making the statement that no such being exists.
All I need to be able to made the claim that such a being exists is a little bit of evidence that such a being exists. To the contrary, for you to make the claim that such a being does not exist, you need absolute knowledge, which both you and I know that you don’t possess.
If I were to say there is gold in China, all I need is to find a spec of gold in China to prove my statement correct. On the other hand, for you to say that there is no gold in China, you need absolute knowledge about China.
The same applies to the universe and the existence of God.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI do not claim absolute knowledge, in fact it's you who makes that claim by suggesting that there is no natural explanation for certain phenomena.
As no human being has demonstrated to have absolute knowledge, and thus all the answers to mans questions, it is reasonable to claim that a being with absolute knowledge would be able to answer all mans questions.
Unlike yourself, I do not claim to be that being with absolute knowledge, by making the statement that no such being exists.
All I need ...[text shortened]... d absolute knowledge about China.
The same applies to the universe and the existence of God.
But hey, feel free to find your spec of God. Tellme when you've found it. Prove to me it is God, and not Muffy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Prove, if you can that there is no natural explanation. You'll find out that it's an impossible task.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI do not claim absolute knowledge
I do not claim absolute knowledge, in fact it's you who makes that claim by suggesting that there is no natural explanation for certain phenomena.
But hey, feel free to find your spec of God. Tellme when you've found it. Prove to me it is God, and not Muffy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Prove, if you can that there is no natural explanation. You'll find out that it's an impossible task.
You said "God does not exist", that is a claim to absolute knowledge.
in fact it's you who makes that claim by suggesting that there is no natural explanation for certain phenomena.
I was referring to 'known' explanations. If you want to make the claim that somewhere, somehow there might still be an explanation, then it is ignorance on your part.
But hey, feel free to find your spec of God. Tell me when you've found it.
I believe you cannot put place everything that exists in a test-tube or examine it under a microscope. Especially not in the metaphysical realm. Have you ever places your feelings in a test tube? Or examined your thoughts under a microscope?
Prove to me it is God, and not Muffy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Prove, if you can that there is no natural explanation. You'll find out that it's an impossible task.
It is impossible to prove anything to a person who will not examine the evidence, and claims that there is no evidence. Such a person has already made up their mind. The nice word they use in English is 'bigot'.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe man is an agnostic. What faith is he trying to sell? Agnosticism if any.
That's a big jump he makes. Not a shred of logic in sight. The fact that he cannot explain it doesn't mean that God is involved. This is one man trying to sell his faith as science. If he wants to stipulate that because he can't (or even the entire scientific community can't) explain the origins of the universe this in no way stipulates that God "mu ngelist. The only thing I think he's done well is extort money out of stupid people.
He's honest about where he thinks the current research has led astronomers. To see his logic in fuller measure you should probably read his book God and the Astronomers, which I doubt you'll read.
Rather, you'll take comfort that everybody who isn't bent on eliminating the possibilty of a Creator is stupid.
Anyway, I think his credentials on understanding the Big Bang exceed yours. And for that reason I don't dismiss his comment as trivial.
The fact that you cannot explain it also doesn't mean that God was not involved. Or as the man put it forces ligitimately described as "supernatural".
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnztest 1,2,3
[b]I am afraid that is the sign of a bigot.
Stop jumping on Jaywill's bandwagon.
There are things in the universe that only the existence of God can explain.
You and I both know you cannot say that without perfect knowledge. Caught by your own trap now, eh sonny?[/b]
1 edit
I think our ability to reason had to come from one of two places.
1.) Our ability to reason came from preexisting intelligence.
2.) Our ability to reason arose from mindless matter.
Scientific observation seems to contradict that an effect could be greater than the cause. What something doesn't have, how can it give it?
The Darwinist/materialist can explain how mindless and unintelligent matter gave rise to intelligent life. He or she can excercise faith that it is so. But again I ask which requires more faith? To believe that uncreated intelligence produced intelligence or mindless matter produced intelligence, which requires more faith?
An explosion in a print shop could hardly produce the Library of Congress. Even if repeated 90 octillion times it is unlikely that an explosion in a print shop could produce the Library of Congress.
And the Big Bang explosion of all matter, time, energy was supposed to have produced an intelligent reasoning mind ?
I think it requires less faith to believe that God created man in the image of God, therefore we reflect some attributes and abilities that the Creator possesses.
Originally posted by jaywillThis perversely misrepresents creation and you know it! To even try
An explosion in a print shop could hardly produce the Library of Congress. Even if repeated 90 octillion times it is unlikely that an explosion in a print shop could produce the Library of Congress.
to use this as analogy is insidiously disingenuous, or so woefully
misinformed that you should spend a few years studying the universe
before you comment upon it again.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWhat if the example given were the one with the monkeys at the typewriters?
This perversely misrepresents creation and you know it! To even try
to use this as analogy is insidiously disingenuous, or so woefully
misinformed that you should spend a few years studying the universe
before you comment upon it again.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat one is merely misinformed, for it fails to take into account
What if the example given were the one with the monkeys at the typewriters?
that some variations are preferable than others. Mr Wizard showed
that on a IBMPC using BASIC back in the 1980s, as I recall.
Did you personally need me to explain it?
I'm not opposed to a faith-oriented belief in ID -- in fact, the 'tinker
model' is sorta how I personally feel about it -- but there is no reason
to believe that it is a requirement for the development from the
'Big Bang' (I'm using the term colloquially, since it's no longer an
accurate description of the universe's origin) to the present day. Since
it is not a requirement and since there is no definitive evidence of ID
at work, it has no place in the classroom (but plenty of place in the
'faith houses'😉.
Nemesio