Common Sense Deactivated?

[Deeje]

Like Ray. He's a YE. Still confused why you used him in your OP, instead of just asking your questions directly, to be honest.

It was more interesting as a video than a dry bunch of questions. I just liked the way he framed them and showed the students that believing something just because someone told you it was correct, should always be investigated and questioned. There are more avenues for research these days than ever before in history. No excuse for ignorance.

But to me, science is the very methodology by which existing scientific knowledge would be discarded...and replaced.

I have no problem with science, its methodology or its knowledge...what I have trouble with is the attitude of those who are not spiritual, assuming that spiritual people who believe in the Bible are naturally uneducated or stupid. It is just as possible that life was created by a higher intelligence, as life just magically appeared out of nowhere by some random fluke and turned into dinosaurs. To the best of my understanding, from conversations with evolutionists here, the dinosaurs then morphed into chickens....and we are the uneducated and stupid ones?

Yeah, but I chose those 2 quotes from Copernicus VERY carefully. The conflict between knowledge and the church is one thing, but the crux of my point was that Copernicus' findings were actually VERY theoretical and difficult for a layman to understand initially. They were mathematical in nature. KISS did not work. Not until later, when other inventions (such as the telescope) could provide simpler, non-theoretical methods for confirming theoretical mathematics.

KISS is all well and good, but heliocentricity is a perfect example of something that could not originally be handled in a KISS manner. That doesn't mean everything complex is correct. But it sure as heck proves it's not always wrong.

The church no longer dictates to rulers or even to many of their own flock these days. Having Copernicus vindicated by Galileo was the final blow apparently, so science eventually won out as it should have.....the dissenters were vindicated, but now we see evolution winning out over creation....not because it has any real evidence....its basically because it has better marketing, and people feel the need to get out from under God's thumb. They want to live without his rules. I don't like where it is leading us personally, but they will have to find out for themselves I guess.

 

[james bond]

Common sense? Enough common sense to realize you are unethically and dishonestly selectively citing scientist to justify a a religious agenda. IF the universe began as a singularity, there is nothing here to conclude that our universe nor our physical existence has a beginning, nor conclude that any such beginning is not natural.



This remains an unethical dishonest selective citation to justify your religious agenda.



Selective unethical dishonest cut and paste citations to justify a religious agenda does not reflect any knowledge of science whatsoever. I have been here quit a while, and I do not see any atheists nor scientists here impressed with your lack of knowledge,



The fact is you do not know what your talking about. I actually never said it was testable nor falsifiable. I said it is possible, so is a cyclic universe, and a universe originating from a Black hole. I said there is insufficient information to determine whether or not our universe nor our physical existence had an absolute beginning or not. I also said I support the multi-verse concept as Hawking and other do, and that Hawking NEVER concluded the BBT was an absolute beginning of anything.

IF I thought that the multi-verse is a falsifiable concept, at present it is not, I would conclude that there is a sufficient basis to consider the physical existence as eternal without question, but the reality is science cannot at present falsify nor determine whether or physical existence is eternal or not. Insufficient information, and selectively citing scientist to justify your agenda just makes you



ID is short for intelligent design. You may 'see' it, but no falsifiable scientific theory nor hypothesis has been proposed that falsifies Intelligent Design. Simply stating I 'see' the evidence for 'Intelligent Design' in nature is not an adequate argument.

If you can present an academic reference that presents a theory or hypothesis that is falsifiable, please do. The Discovery Institute has failed to do so. If you can come up with the academic references I will discuss it.

Still waiting. . .

You can wait until hell freezes over. I've had enough when someone continues to state I am unethical and dishonest when I have been trying to explain the TRUTH to you. You are too narrow minded to see that you contradict yourself in using common sense and having no test nor falsifiability with a multiverse. Even Stephen Hawking admitted he wanted to know the origin of the universe and why something is greater than nothing. Do you know what the something is and what the nothing is he is referring to? I doubt you know any of these things. Good day, sir ha ha.

 

[Deeje]

Exactly! And that's the problem - everyone is 'waiting' for the solution. The power is in our hands.

Is it? Are you going to be the prime mover in getting people to change their habits? Are you going to force them to drive electric cars whilst forcing fossil fuel burners off the roads? Will you force people to power their homes from the sun? Will you clean up the oceans and ban the use of petroleum based plastics right away? Will you place an immediate ban on pumping raw sewage into the oceans that are struggling with our poisonous waste? Do you know what is happening to the fish because of the drugs that are excreted from millions of human bodies being poured into ocean outfalls? Tons of the stuff is ending up in our edibles from the ocean. Nice thought, isn't it? Then you have the nuclear fallout from power plants like Fukushima and radio-active fish in that region.

The few who would volunteer to do what you do would not alter the earth's contamination one iota. It would take a collective effort from people of all nations to accomplish what you suggest. Good luck with that.

You don't have to buy the contaminated food and water etc. that you so despise. You don't have to contribute to humanity's carbon footprint by driving to work, or turning on the lights, using a refrigerator to store food and a washing machine and detergents to decontaminate your clothes while fouling the water and the soil around us. Nobody is forced to do any of these things - but we continue to do so - and wait for God to fix it for us.

I suppose we could all go and live with the Amish? But how realistic is what you suggest?

I'm sorry but the atheist scientists who created most of the poisons contaminating the earth are not waiting for God to fix anything. The people who have thrown God away are hardly trying to clean up the planet when they can't even clean up their own lives....seriously. Do you honestly believe we will see science cleaning up its own mess?

Do you think we will rid the earth of wars when so much money is to be made supplying weapons?
For the same reason we will never see the end of sickness because there is so much money to be made treating diseases. How much do environmental factors cause those diseases? Do you not see the problem?

And at the same time we blame the "greedy" capitalists - but they're only selling what people are happy to buy at a price that people are willing to pay. God has nothing to do with that and neither does Satan - its our choice.

The system controls all of us to an extent. If the products were not allowed to be sold because government actually had the guts to stand up to big business instead of delaying everything so that it becomes the next PM or President's job, we might see some change for the better....but we all know that nothing will be done. It isn't our choice...its the powers who control this world who have all the say about how we live. You can't buck the system....unless you want to become a hermit. How does that save the planet?

 

[james bond]

You're correct with H2O. That was my own mistake and didn't correctly proof read my post. Two hydrogen H2 and oxygen O. A bit red-faced for it, but it is what it is. *Grin*

Atoms cannot change from one element to another but they can be split with immense energy, but understand even though they can be split apart into two, they can also be recombined back together yet the elemental makeup of that atom will never change. What makes atoms interesting is the atomic shell that makes the elements unique in how they combine and split apart from atom to atom and the molecules that are formed that makes everything we see and are.

I don't see how in the world a creator can fit into this just because we don't know the origin of atoms other than from the intense pressures in conditions inside stars from where the elements emerge.

Why in the world would anybody think that atoms themselves are a type of proof for a creator? They can already be manipulated through science and we know a lot more about the atom then we had decades and centuries ago.

There's nothing so far that indicate any kind of intelligent design or direction is present.

The creator fits in because no one can create an atom except for the creator. For example, Gold is a symbol of divinity and an atom. Gold was given to the baby Jesus to signify his divinity. No person will be able to create gold. No person will be able to create an atom even though they are able to split an atom. Something is always greater than nothing and the only explanation why would be a creator.

 

[godnotgod]

Love him or hate him, Ray Comfort makes a good argument.

So it seems, but his logic is seriously flawed. He tries to compare a book to the universe, ignoring the fact that a book is an artifact, and as such, is a made thing, whereas The Universe is not a made thing, but an action that is in constant evolutionary change. His Christian bias is dictating that he see The Universe as an artifact, a product of a 'maker', who also 'makes' man as artifact out of clay. Ray Comfort is at his core insecure, while portraying a cocksure attitude on the outside. If he weren't insecure about the nature of things, he would not be so aggressive about trying to prove the existence of God.

Can nothing create everything?

No, but everything can come out of nothing. in fact, it can be no other way, since the 'material world' is just an illusion most think to be real. Quantum Physics is now showing us that all particles in the Universe are actually standing waves, and not material particles at all. In the dream world, everything comes out of nothing, and it also does in the 'real' world, but the 'real' world is just an illusion of a higher caliber.

What evidence would convince you that there is intelligence demonstrated in the DNA that makes up all living things?

There is, but not the way Ray Comfort thinks it is. He still sees DNA as an artifact of some outside intelligence, when DNA is intelligence itself in the form of information.

 

[james bond]

But you haven't answered the main problem I posted earlier. The question about where something else came from. I would love to know your "common sense" explanation of that.

God. God doesn't have a beginning as he is eternal, timeless (no beginning), immaterial, spaceless, uncaused, and all powerful. This follows the rules of logic. As for common sense, I would think that it depends on whether you believe this is all there is and all there will be or whether you believe you only live twice as in the title of one of my movies.

 

[james bond]

Actually, Krauss give probably the most readable concise description of contemporary Physics and Cosmology as any contemporary Physicists. Yes I have read his book.



The problem with @james bond's objection is he is appealing to Newtonian Physics for an explanation of what Krauss refers to as the Quantum 'nothing,' which is not the philosophical nothing of theologians. Of course nothing comes from absolute nothing, but the nothing of physics is Quantum Mechanics nothing that is indeed 'something' based on the concept of Quantum zero point energy and Quantum gravity where energy exists as potential energy.

I do not agree with the confusing terminology used by Krauss and others when trying to describe the physics of Quantum Mechanics, but it is what it is.

However, Hawking already admitted that he wanted to know why Newtonian physics is greater than quantum mechanics. The answer is God and checkmate atheists. Of course, I doubt you will see this is what Hawking meant.

 

[james bond]

Who suggested it did? Personally, I think science has very little to do with God, nor with 'disproving' God. Methodological naturalism is literally leaving God and the supernatural at the door when conducting science. It's a method every bit as relevant and practical to a theist as to an atheist.



There is perhaps a point you're trying to prove in this paragraph (above), but you're aiming it too broadly. Science is a way of expanding our knowledge. Anyone who thinks all knowledge ends with the boundaries of current science is severely misguided, an idiot, or a strawman.



I would have to bow to your superior knowledge. I lack the confidence to speak on behalf of 'atheist scientists'.



This is an epically good argument for a God of the gaps.

Again, atheists are disavowing God by stating he is neither testable or falsifiable. I've already said just because something is neither T nor F, then it doesn't mean that it is false. It could be true, but the test hasn't been thought of or created yet. As for leaving God and the supernatural at the door, I think that can be agreed upon. One can't use them as the cause or source. However, the Bible can't be left out. This is because one would have a difficult time explaining why they believe the earth to be formed by a global flood and not in chronological layers. Besides, the names of the layers represent geography and not chronology or time period.

 

[james bond]

Who suggested it did? Personally, I think science has very little to do with God, nor with 'disproving' God. Methodological naturalism is literally leaving God and the supernatural at the door when conducting science. It's a method every bit as relevant and practical to a theist as to an atheist.



There is perhaps a point you're trying to prove in this paragraph (above), but you're aiming it too broadly. Science is a way of expanding our knowledge. Anyone who thinks all knowledge ends with the boundaries of current science is severely misguided, an idiot, or a strawman.



I would have to bow to your superior knowledge. I lack the confidence to speak on behalf of 'atheist scientists'.



This is an epically good argument for a God of the gaps.

Again, atheists are disavowing God by stating he is neither testable or falsifiable. I've already said just because something is neither T nor F, then it doesn't mean that it is false. It could be true, but the test hasn't been thought of or created yet. As for leaving God and the supernatural at the door, I think that can be agreed upon. One can't use them as the cause or source. However, the Bible can't be left out. This is because one would have a difficult time explaining why they believe the earth to be formed by a global flood and not in chronological layers. Besides, the names of the layers represent geography and not chronology or time period.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Again, atheists are disavowing God by stating he is neither testable or falsifiable.

If you think God is testable and falsifiable, then by all means, design the scientific test and let me know what it is.
Otherwise you're talking straight out of your hat.

I've already said just because something is neither T nor F, then it doesn't mean that it is false.

Which I agreed with. Did you bother actually reading my post, or was it just 'Oooh, atheist, bad...'

It could be true, but the test hasn't been thought of or created yet.

Are you now suggesting God is NOT testable or falsifiable? You do realise that I wasn't JUDGING God by saying that, right? Science can't test the supernatural.

As for leaving God and the supernatural at the door, I think that can be agreed upon. One can't use them as the cause or source. However, the Bible can't be left out. This is because one would have a difficult time explaining why they believe the earth to be formed by a global flood and not in chronological layers. Besides, the names of the layers represent geography and not chronology or time period.

For a moment, let's assume the Bible is a credible history document. Science doesn't care. It doesn't care what Tacitus wrote of, it doesn't care about the oracle bones of China, it doesn't care about the Egyptian Book of the Dead...

People care. Science is a process. So sure, if the scientific evidence supports a global flood, then more power to it. That has nothing to do with 'Creation Science' or 'Atheist Science'. Those are nonsensical terms any decent scientist would eschew.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The creator fits in because no one can create an atom except for the creator. For example, Gold is a symbol of divinity and an atom. Gold was given to the baby Jesus to signify his divinity. No person will be able to create gold. No person will be able to create an atom even though they are able to split an atom. Something is always greater than nothing and the only explanation why would be a creator.

We've been able to see an atom through our advances in technology. We've even touched and rearranged atoms. We know it's there because of our ability to investigate and determine whether something is true or not through the process of science.

Now it's clear you're adamant about they're actually being a creator involved. How is that determined to be actually the case.

Arguments made from incredulity is not proof positive by any stretch of the imagination. All that proves is we don't understand it fully of which gives way to atomic theory because it's based on the already factual evidence of atoms.

Basically, what is there that is factual right now that can be used to determine if there's any involvement by ID in the context by which Ray Comfort maintains?

Another thing notably spurious about ID is such ideas typically start with the conclusions first and works their way backwards, while science starts with ideas first and works their way towards conclusions through a process of testing and determination.

Ray Comfort is very good with starting with conclusions and beliefs yet has an incredible amount of trouble with determinations which he tries so hard to establish.

 

[shunyadragon]

However, Hawking already admitted that he wanted to know why Newtonian physics is greater than quantum mechanics.

False, please cite Hawking directly. Hawking and others are still trying to resolve the differences between Newtonian Physics and Quantum Mechanics to explain our universe better. He did not say Newtonian Physics was greater. The problem involves explaining gravity.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

God. God doesn't have a beginning as he is eternal, timeless (no beginning), immaterial, spaceless, uncaused, and all powerful.

So you are willing to suspend your disbelief that God can come from nothing (i.e, is "uncaused"), and yet the universe cannot come from nothing.
If God is immaterial and "spaceless" and timeless, isn't he nothing?

This follows the rules of logic.

It most definitely does not.

 

[Sunstone]

Again, atheists are disavowing God by stating he is neither testable or falsifiable.

What is your falsifiable hypothesis about your god and what specific test would you make of it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Opioids such as cocaine have been used in medicine for probably as long as cannabis has over the millennia, but not in pharmaceutical concoctions with who knows what else added. People die from opioid overdoses by the hundreds of thousands each year....no one has ever died from a cannabis overdose...yet which is a legal medicine and which isn't in many places?

Yes and it has a helped a lot of people, and hurt a lot of people as well. All while being as "natural" as marijuana. Although, as pointed out by others, cocaine is not an opiod. Morphine, codeine and opium are natural opiates.

I'm just pointing out that your argument that all plants found in nature must somehow be good for us because some God put them there doesn't necessarily hold up.

We in Australia are fighting the idiots who want to keep it tied up in red tape due to propaganda and pressure from big pharma. Canadians have better access and parts of the US do too. California, I believe has even legalized it recreationally. I would be happy just to be able to use it as medicine.

It will be legal for recreational purposes in Canada this coming summer.

There is only one thing standing in the way....

Big Pharma want the profits but they also want to alter the composition of the drug so that they can patent it and make even more money from a medicine that they have altered, so that doesn't work at full capacity. They don't want drugs to cure people....they want drugs to treat symptoms that recur so that you will be their customer for life.....however short that life may be.

Nah. Big Pharma sells it too. As is. I just bought a jar full last week.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you do not accept the BBT as science, then I'll rephrase:

1. The universe had a beginning.

If that's not the case, then it just existed and we know this is pseudoscience.

As for origin of our physical existence,

1. The origin of our physical existence had a beginning.

If we add the rest of the argument, then we have a way to falsify God or creator.

How does that get you anywhere near god(s)?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, if you want to get pedantic about it.....This is from Wiki....

"The terms opiate and narcotic are sometimes encountered as synonyms for opioid. Opiate is properly limited to the natural alkaloids found in the resin of the opium poppy although some include semi-synthetic derivatives.[14][16]Narcotic, derived from words meaning 'numbness' or 'sleep', as an American legal term, refers to cocaine and opioids, and their source materials; it is also loosely applied to any illegal or controlled psychoactive drug.[17][18] In some jurisdictions all controlled drugs are legally classified as narcotics. The term can have pejorative connotations and its use is generally discouraged where that is the case.[19][20]"

Opioids and cocaine share the same legal definition. Cocaine has been used as a medicine and a "pick-me-up" for centuries.
It is the "Coke" in original Coka-Cola".

Cocaine is a stimulant.

 

[james bond]

False, please cite Hawking directly. Hawking and others are still trying to resolve the differences between Newtonian Physics and Quantum Mechanics to explain our universe better. He did not say Newtonian Physics was greater. The problem involves explaining gravity.

It's the truth except you can't get it through your thick skull. Also, mentioned already. Hawking and others have had plenty of time to explain why quantum mechanics can defeat Newtonian physics., but nothing (pun not intended). Since 2010 and more. This will be the last time I will be talking to you for some time as you'll be going on ignore. I won't accept people calling me names like that when all I did was try to express the TRUTH, but you have no common sense. Everyone knows something is greater than nothing. Like I said you can wait until hell freezes over for Hawking and others ha ha.

Stephen Hawking Quotes

 

[shunyadragon]

It's the truth except you can't get it through your thick skull. Also, mentioned already. Hawking and others have had plenty of time to explain why quantum mechanics can defeat Newtonian physics., but nothing (pun not intended). Since 2010 and more. This will be the last time I will be talking to you for some time as you'll be going on ignore. I won't accept people calling me names like that when all I did was try to express the TRUTH, but you have no common sense. Everyone knows something is greater than nothing. Like I said you can wait until hell freezes over for Hawking and others ha ha.

Stephen Hawking Quotes

Bald faced unsupported lies. No citation given here supports your false assertion that Hawking stated that Newtonian Physics is 'greater than Quantum Mechanics Physics.

Still waiting for a specific citation . . .

 

[Deeje]

I'm just pointing out that your argument that all plants found in nature must somehow be good for us because some God put them there doesn't necessarily hold up.

I don't know that I ever said "all plants found in nature must somehow be good for us because some God put them there". That is a strawman. I said that whole plants that have medicinal properties should be kept as whole plant medicines. Cannabis is a classic example. There is no reason to interfere with its composition except for financial gain.

It will be legal for recreational purposes in Canada this coming summer.

As I said, I have no interest in recreation use, though the Bible does suggest that "a little wine is good for the stomach" and can "make the heart of mortal man rejoice"....so God is not totally against the recreational use of his produce.....he just warns us about 'too much of a good thing' not being good for anyone. For some, life is so awful that even an artificial "high" for a short time seems like a good idea, but once 'hooked', going without it is impossible.

Nah. Big Pharma sells it too. As is. I just bought a jar full last week.

Do you need a prescription? You do in Australia, but very few doctors will even go on the list to prescribe it. The red tape is a nightmare. Its a harmless plant that needs to recognized for what it is. Less harmful than the alcohol and tobacco that is sold legally in my local supermarket.

The delay here in Australia is incredibly frustrating. People who could be helped are dying and suffering needlessly all because 'the powers that be' are manipulated by those who don't want this medicine 'out there', until they have the measures in place to reap all the profits. Patents can only be obtained if the plant is altered so that only a small derivative is taken as medicine. As the whole plant is what makes this medicine work to its full capacity, any alteration will reduce its efficiency as a medicine.

Cocaine is a stimulant.

Cocaine is lots of things, but most of all it is highly addictive, Cannabis is not. For recreational use, it beats alcohol and tobacco because it has no real health threats and can actually help people to beat other addictions like cocaine and heroin.

In the old days cocaine was used freely in medicine and even wine...it was given to children for toothache.

10 Cocaine and other Drug Products of the Past - Oddee