R
ribozyme
Guest
Do you really believe in that, or you were sarcastic? I hope itâs the latter.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
Writer
Guest
A good account of Lewisâ conversion might also be interesting, since his main concern was the lack of proof for the resurection. I suggest the book by Joseph Pearce.I will do it after I read The God Delusion by Professor Richard Dawkins. I cannot wait to read that book.
Incidentaly, a good book which touches on the accounts of Christ from the Jewish perspective is Salvation is from the Jews by a convert from Judaism named Roy Schoeman. I also have a book somewhere which includes a compilation of the âgreat documentsâ of world history. The early letters between the Roman elite concerning Christ are fascinating stuff. While there are no eyewitness accounts in the letters I am thinking of, they are definitely historicaly enlightening to read. The Romans were initially very confused regarding the early Christians.
As a more general aside to the Forum, our Popeâs recent speech at the University of Regensburg is touching on a similar line of reasoning as discussed here. While faith and reason are never mutually exclusive, theology also canât be boiled down to a scienceâsince neither faith or inspiration can be explained by science.
B
buffalo
Guest
Mathematically either model works. It is very intrigueing.Do you really believe in that, or you were sarcastic? I hope itâs the latter.
Do your own homework.If you really want to know some of my reasons, I would recommend you to type this on Google search engine: âprofessor joyce orgel shapiro bartelâ and good to the top result.
Find the relevant information, post it, and provide a link to your research.
But do not expect me to do research for your side of the argument. Your research is your problem, not mine.
R
ribozyme
Guest
As a digression, I expect them to publish their arguments for a geocentric Earth in a respected scientific journal. Why hasnât Nature, Science, or PNAS recieve their manuscript. Why does he attempt to convince layman, not scientists, of geocentrism?Mathematically either model works. It is very intrigueing.
I do not have to. It is established fact.Well, could you test the idea that God created the universe? Could you tell how that is not accepted on a matter of faith too? Fine, everything about the origin of the universe is currently conjecture.
Besides, in any given debate, it is the positive assertion (yours, that there are alternatives to God creating the universe) that requires the backing.
I only need debunk it.
R
ribozyme
Guest
I already did: my main example was Turok and Steinhardtâs proposal. It is an alternative to the idea of God creating the universe, but it is an âalternativeâ that might potentially be universially accepted among cosmologists.I do not have to. It is established fact.
Besides, in any given debate, it is the positive assertion (yours, that there are alternatives to God creating the universe) that requires the backing.
I only need debunk it.
No, what I was asking for is whether the idea of God creating the universe yields testable predictions. If not⌠how could it be an establish fact confirmed by science. If it cannot be confirmed by empirical observation, then do you have some logical proof?
B
buffalo
Guest
Actually he had a challenge offering 1500.00 (I think) for any scientist or anyone to prove him wrong. As far as I know no one has. Perhaps you could try.As a digression, I expect them to publish their arguments for a geocentric Earth in a respected scientific journal. Why hasnât Nature, Science, or PNAS recieve their manuscript. Why does he attempt to convince layman, not scientists, of geocentrism?
M
mlchance
Guest
The T&S proposal isnât evidence to support your contention that God doesnât exist and, therefore, didnât create the universe. Remember? Science cannot make claims for or against Godâs existence? If T&S made their proposal as âan alternative to the idea of God creating the universe,â they have ceased to be cosmologists.I already did: my main example was Turok and Steinhardtâs proposal. It is an alternative to the idea of God creating the universeâŚ
Whatâs more, by your own admission, the T&S proposal is mere conjecture for which there is no demonstration. IOW: Itâs still turtles all the way down.
â Mark L. Chance.
R
ribozyme
Guest
I think Neil Turok is an atheist⌠I am not that sure though. And most cosmologists are atheists too. (see this paper: pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.pdf). I think T&S believe their hypothesis eliminates the need for God; they do not state this directly in their papers though.The T&S proposal isnât evidence to support your contention that God doesnât exist and, therefore, didnât create the universe. Remember? Science cannot make claims for or against Godâs existence? If T&S made their proposal as âan alternative to the idea of God creating the universe,â they have ceased to be cosmologists.
Whatâs more, by your own admission, the T&S proposal is mere conjecture for which there is no demonstration. IOW: Itâs still turtles all the way down.
â Mark L. Chance.
But my question to you is how the hypothesis of God creating the universe has evidence or is more plausible than Turok and Steinhardtâs hypothesis.
No, I know little about astronomy. You cannot ask me to criticial examine their work⌠that is why scientific peer review is important. Regarding the cash offer, Kent Hovind has a $250k offer for anyone who will provide evidence for evolution. Most people regard him to have a poor understanding of evolution. If you have a groundbreaking discovery concerning the natural world (e.g. a falsification of evolution or the Earth is stationary) then get it published in a scientific journal, and I will bet discoveries of that magnitude will easily merit a Nobel Prize.Actually he had a challenge offering 1500.00 (I think) for any scientist or anyone to prove him wrong. As far as I know no one has. Perhaps you could try.
N
Nullasalus
Guest
I think the larger question is - once you admit that science cannot pass judgement on God one way or the other, why bother trying to prove what you already know (or claim to know) canât be done?I think Neil Turok is an atheist⌠I am not that sure though. And most cosmologists are atheists too. (see this paper: pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.pdf). I think T&S believe their hypothesis eliminates the need for God; they do not state this directly in their papers though.
But my question to you is how the hypothesis of God creating the universe has evidence or is more plausible than Turok and Steinhardtâs hypothesis.
Letâs say the Big Bang is true in every hypothetical sense we can make of it, favoring the theists. All of the universe, all of time, seemingly comes into being at a fixed point in the past. Matter (something) has apparently been formed out of nothing by a mechanism that is utterly mysterious, possibly eternally unknowable.
Obviously, someone could argue that this indicates a God - a force outside of the known universe (or similarly situated) acting with intention, capable of willing something out of nothing by some mechanism. But already, I bet you can think of how to argue in the other direction; you can say that this âunknowable forceâ is not necessarily a god in any way we know it. It could be an accident, it could be the result of a transdimensional flux. It could even be the result of a god who has since left the scene - either out of a lack of interest, or death, or something else. Youâve already said you would accept deism as valid, or at least reasonable.
So, why even wrestle with the topic anymore? Youâve already made up your mind (Though it seems like youâve done so based purely on credentials - Richard Dawkins has great credentials and is lauded by many, so he probably knows a lot about whether God exists. And Anthony Flew is highly regarded and a deist, so he must know a lot about whether God exists as well. Thatâs a strange way to operate, but hey, do as you will.) Even displaying hope to find the theory that proves God doesnât exist when youâve already asserted He doesnât exist (or at least, is unnecessary, and therefore not worth consideration) indicates that youâre not convinced yourself, or at least have a problem with the lack of certainty.
To be fair, most contests of this variety (Including James Randiâs - thereâs plenty of skeptical models as well) tend to be rigged games. Especially when you consider that the sort of person willing to throw down money to prove them wrong tends to have an ego, eh?No, I know little about astronomy. You cannot ask me to criticial examine their work⌠that is why scientific peer review is important. Regarding the cash offer, Kent Hovind has a $250k offer for anyone who will provide evidence for evolution. Most people regard him to have a poor understanding of evolution. If you have a groundbreaking discovery concerning the natural world (e.g. a falsification of evolution or the Earth is stationary) then get it published in a scientific journal, and I will bet discoveries of that magnitude will easily merit a Nobel Prize.
R
ribozyme
Guest
No, I only reference Dawkins because I hoped to read his book. He is an extremely insightful person. Regarding Flew, I just said he was a deist. No, my views are mostly my own.So, why even wrestle with the topic anymore? Youâve already made up your mind (Though it seems like youâve done so based purely on credentials - Richard Dawkins has great credentials and is lauded by many, so he probably knows a lot about whether God exists. And Anthony Flew is highly regarded and a deist, so he must know a lot about whether God exists as well. Thatâs a strange way to operate, but hey, do as you will.) Even displaying hope to find the theory that proves God doesnât exist when youâve already asserted He doesnât exist (or at least, is unnecessary, and therefore not worth consideration) indicates that youâre not convinced yourself, or at least have a problem with the lack of certainty.
So tell me exactly how did I use the argument from authority?
M
mlchance
Guest
So?I think Neil Turok is an atheist⌠I am not that sure though. And most cosmologists are atheists too.
Youâre dodging. How can any scientific statement eliminate the need for God when, as youâve said, science can in no way either confirm or disconfirm Godâs existence?I think T&S believe their hypothesis eliminates the need for GodâŚ
How can a cosmological hypothesis based on empirical science (for which there is no evidence, BTW) have anything to say about Godâs existence?But my question to you is how the hypothesis of God creating the universe has evidence or is more plausible than Turok and Steinhardtâs hypothesis.
The very idea that anyone has come up with a scientific explanation for why God isnât needed is ludicrous.
Again, I thought atheists were supposed to be the folks concerned about hard facts, critical distinctions, logic, et cetera.
â Mark L. Chance.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Youâre dodging. How can any scientific statement eliminate the need for God when, as youâve said, science can in no way either confirm or disconfirm Godâs existence?
Show me where I said that. I remember saying that science currently does not have enough information regarding the universeâs origin to confirm or disconfirm the existence of God.
M
mlchance
Guest
Okay:Show me where I said that.
Therefore, you much ballyhooed T&S proposal, which is presumably current science since I assume you donât have access to material published at some future point in time when science suddenly develops the tools to empirically test Godâs existence, has nothing to say about Godâs existence.âŚscience currently does not have enough information regarding the universeâs origin to confirm or disconfirm the existence of God.
Once again: Itâs turtles all the way down.
So: How is that you expect anyone to believe a scientific proposal eliminates the need for God when science cannot confirm or disconfirm Godâs existence?
â Mark L. Chance.
N
Nullasalus
Guest
No, I wonât presume to judge your thoughts. I just noticed you were following some patterns - âI admire these people for their works in science, and theyâre all atheists. Anthony Flew was an atheist who became a deist, so deism must have some merit.âNo, I only reference Dawkins because I hoped to read his book. He is an extremely insightful person. Regarding Flew, I just said he was a deist. No, my views are mostly my own.
So tell me exactly how did I use the argument from authority?
This wasnât about an argument from authority, just a personal trait.
I am somewhat curious hereâŚI think Neil Turok is an atheist⌠I am not that sure though. And most cosmologists are atheists too. (see this paper: pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.pdf). I think T&S believe their hypothesis eliminates the need for God; they do not state this directly in their papers though.
But my question to you is how the hypothesis of God creating the universe has evidence or is more plausible than Turok and Steinhardtâs hypothesis.
All of these âatheistsâ propose theories that are completely unprovable in an effort to disprove God. What makes their faith more attractive to you then the knowledge of God?
M
mlchance
Guest
It does very much seem as if many atheists have a dogma that doesnât hunt.All of these âatheistsâ propose theories that are completely unprovable in an effort to disprove God. What makes their faith more attractive to you then the knowledge of God?
- buh-dum-ching!*
R
ribozyme
Guest
Hmm⌠I would say that it avoids the problem of evil. Deism does too.I am somewhat curious hereâŚ
All of these âatheistsâ propose theories that are completely unprovable in an effort to disprove God. What makes their faith more attractive to you then the knowledge of God?
Hardly. All atheism does with evil is allow it to propagate.Hmm⌠I would say that it avoids the problem of evil. Deism does too.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.