R
Reepicheep
Guest
Um. You validate Aclausen’s point. Bradski expresses skepticism and you insult his intelligence.
How would you respond to this common argument from atheist?
- Status
R
Reepicheep
Guest
I agree. Science is agnostic. That’s because it doesn’t actually address the issue of the existence of God. It’s the wrong tool for the job. The Theory of Gravitation or the Theory of Relativity are equally valid whether God exists or not.
One may use scientific methods to investigate the historical evidence for the existence of Yeshua of Nazareth, or to ascertain whether the appearance and qualities of the Shroud of Turin are compatible with the claims made for it. The results will not settle the debate over the existence of God. Science is the wrong tool for that.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
No, yours is the backwards one. What you are doing is this:You are doing this backwards, JK.
You need to start from eternity, if, as you posit, the universe is eternal. And give me the integer you have to add to get to today.
So what number would that be again?
It is obvious to any intelligent person that you can’t deny the existence of the beginning, then make claims that rely on the existence of a beginning.
In other words, what you are doing is analogous to asking “what is the smallest integer?” The answer is that there is no smallest integer. There is no “first” integer from which all the integers are counted off.
The numbering scheme I gave previously is consistent with the claim “the universe is eternal” because there would be an infinite number of years, each one mapped to exactly one of the infinite integers. The difference between any two years (i.e. between any integers) is finite. I won’t bore you with the mathematical proof since it an easy, first-week-of-real-analysis-class sort of problem. This means that we can prove mathematically that the difference between now and any particular past year is finite.
The reason you’ve weakly tried to turn the problem backd on me (and used the wording “start from eternity”) is that you’re aware of *both *your inability to use the word “beginning” *and *your inability to provide an actual number that would have the properties you need to validate your objection. Therefore, rather than concede the point, you’ve answered my question by repeating your objection. If you would like, you can start the discussion over by following this link, but I don’t feel any need to address this particular objection any further.
J
JMartyr73340
Guest
This is laughable.
As I said before, Huxely’s original intent, when he created Agnosticism, was to avoid philosophical/logical argumentation. “The Verification Principle” (all statements that lack empirical evidence are false) was used by the great Atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russell, for exactly the same reason.
Aquinas is the greatest logician who ever lived; his arguments cannot be casually dismissed. Huxley and Russel knew this, which is why they resorted to the demand for empirical evidence. Like the person who originally started this thread, many people did not know how to challenge this argument. I believe it was the great philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, in a letter to Bertrand Russell, who provided the simple answer: The Verification Principle cannot be verified.
Most Atheists and Agnostics I’ve argued with desperately try to salvage the “empirical evidence argument” using ad hominem (name calling and mocking emoticons). When that fails, they simply do what DaddyGirl had done: they abandon their demand for empirical (scientific verification) and simply declare that the great Christian philosophers: Aquinas, Augustine, Kierkegaard, Chesterton (to name a few) were all fools.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Chesterton wasn’t really a philosopher
J
JMartyr73340
Guest
He was a far deeper thinker than most of the philosophers of his time. Chesterton was just too humble to call himself one.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
To clarify, he was brilliant in his own way, and to be fair the philosophers of his day weren’t true philosophers, they were linguistic-atomists. Chesterton was a little over confident in his literary style as a true philosophy (just because you’re chubby doesn’t mean your humble). We should also clarify for the non-Catholics that we for the most part believe Aquinas had the greatest body of work ever written by a single person because of its genius and it’s importance in material content. We, at least not me that is, are not saying he has a greater intellect than Einstein or Descartes or Aristotle. They all had genius in their own ways and used those of the past for guidance
S
Solmyr
Guest
Your question is against the forum rules, which say: “DO NOT answer a question with another question”. If you have NO answer, simply admit it. There is nothing wrong with admitting: “I don’t know”.
Moreover, your question is superfluous, since I already answered it before you asked. As I said, there is nothing wrong with referring to an authority, as long as there is some authority in the chain, who can actually verify the claim. It is not necessary to actually go and find that someone. The important part is that this authority MUST exist. And it does in the case of the pilot. They are required to take frequent, periodic tests in flight simulators, where the testing procedure is much more stringent than any real life scenario can produce. No one can “cheat” in a simulator. Actual, verifiable evidence is that there are almost NO pilot error related accidents.
There is no such “authority” for the claims of religion - to my best knowledge. Not even the Pope or the whole congregation of members who comprise the magisterium can provide direct, repeatable verification about the existence of God - again, according to my best knowledge. But I am not omniscient, so that is why I asked IF you (or anyone) has such evidence. The ball is in your court. No more attempts to derail. And remember: “I don’t know” is always an acceptable, even respectable answer.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
The Gospels may not be eye witness account, but they do reflect a very early tradition about the resurrection. We know this. We even find it in 1 Corinthians 15 which many scholars believe to be a creed written about 6 months to five years after the cross. There is little doubt among New Testament scholars that 1 Corinthians 15 reflects very early tradition. The content of the story also tells us that early Christians probably didn’t make it up. Now, we do know for a fact that the tomb was found empty. Historian Michael Grant has even said, “By normal historical methods, we know the tomb was empty.” Now of course, this doesn’t automatically mean resurrection. And this is where I’d like to take the debate forward.
C
chris62
Guest
I’m not asking Aclausen anything. The word “spiritually” was omitted, and it shouldn’t have been. Have another read.
C
chris62
Guest
There are dozens and dozens.
The NASA scientist, biophysicist, and USDA entomologist Philip Callahan wrote the report “The Tilma under infra-red radiation” in 1979.
C
chris62
Guest
You are wrong. Bradski did accuse the ophthalmologist, Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann of lying when he wrote: “You must read the bit about the images in the eye. One eye was magnified to such a resolution that they could apparently make up 13 figures reflected in the iris. Pretty good, eh?”
The “Pretty good, eh?” is Bradski sarcasm for saying: “They made it all up.”
He has also written that all these professionals who have independently examined the tilma are biased because they all have some “skin in the game”. As if an atheist is going to shout “Miracle, Miracle” from the roof tops. He, this anonymous athiest, has labelled all these professionals, fabricators, frauds and fools with the only reason given: “Has this ever happened before”?
C
chris62
Guest
Hope you didn’t drive home after you wrote that.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Could you direct me to where this rule is, Sol?
I wonder why you are so resistant to my question.
As I said, your answer will only help me better answer your question.
P
PRmerger
Guest
In order to have a “decision” you need a Decider, yeah?
Think about it…
Egg-zactly, Sol. Eggzactly! :extrahappy:We are the deciders, Think about it,
<cue the sound of angelic choirs!>>
You have exactly made my point for me.
Without a decider, you can’t have a decision.
See?
*So you have articulated, albeit unwittingly, something that is simply common sense: you need an Agent in order to have an action.
*
There was an action billions of years ago: the universe began to exist.
Practically every sane scientist agrees to this.
As physicist Paul Davies says, “The universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium and state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist”.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Again, with the inability to continue to engage in discussion and refute the very well reasoned arguments of Believers (and physicists)!
Sheesh!
So just to review, for another nail in the coffin of the nonsensical (and science-denying) “The universe has always existed!” folks , as well as for the lurkers:
Imagine that you want to display your marble collection. You want to display them when you’ve counted all of them.
So if you have 12 marbles, you will display them pretty quickly.
If you have a million marbles, it will take quite a long time to get to the day when you can display them. But you would, eventually, get to the day.
But if you have an infinite number of marbles, you will never get to the day when you display your marbles. There will always be one more marble to count.
But I see your marble display. (That is, in this parallel, equal to “TODAY”. Today is happening, therefore that means you’ve displayed your marbles).
Therefore, I can conclude that you didn’t have an infinite number of marbles.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Based upon my online search, there appears to be at least two scientists named Philip S. Callahan. The first PSC has worked for NASA for 35 years and specializes in radar imaging. He earned his PHD at Caltech in Physics and Astronomy. The second PSC is an entomologist who, in addition to teaching, has worked for the USDA and the DOD. He earned his PHD at Kansas State University in entomology. I can find no indication that he has ever worked for NASA.
Is it possible that the two PSCs have been confused for each other? Based on their areas of expertise and bibliographies, I’d say that the second PSC is likely to be the author of the report you referenced, though that would likely remove any connection between the report and NASA.
In any case, even if a NASA employee did write a report on the tilma, that doesn’t necessarily entail that NASA sponsored, endorsed or even knew of the employee’s activities. For that reason alone, I think it’s inaccurate to refer to the referenced report as a “NASA investigation” until some solid connection between the report and the agency can be demonstrated.
C
ccmnxc
Guest
With all due respect PR, while I agree with your conclusion re. the beginning of the universe, it seems JK has a point here. The scenario you envision requires your hypothetical person to begin counting forward from 1 ad infinitum. On that view, you are correct, we would never get to today. Let’s take the analogy of a ray which looks like this: <-------------o
We are at the point on the end (right side). Your scenario necessitates that there simultaneously be an infinite distance between our point and whenever the counting begins, and that the person does indeed begin counting. But to begin counting is to start at some particular point, and given that there is a finite distance between any selected point on the ray and on the end, your imagined scenario asks us to do contradictory things: Count from infinity and count from a (non-infinitely distanced) point.
That being said, it always seemed to me that after an infinite time, all possibilities are actualized, including the the corruption of everything in a state such that there is no activity, such that there might be “stuff” in a loose sense, but nothing is actually doing anything, and thus cannot organize itself into what we see now. Thus, if the corruption of the physical universe into a state such that it cannot “reassemble” itself is even a remote possibility, it would be certainly actualized given an infinite time-span.
B
Bradski
Guest
That is so cool…
S
steve53
Guest
What music did they play when they put you on hold?
- Status