Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[KWED]

Even great minds have a right to choose and adhere to a religion (or religions). I don't think that their greater intellect sways me to believe as they do. Some of the greatest scientists of all time are theists.

Indeed. In the days when (public) religious belief was almost mandatory, almost all great thinkers were religious in some way.
Even today, around 5% of members of the Royal Society and the American Academy of Science believe in god.

Scientists sometimes have leaps of faith, as well, though often this leap of faith has nothing at all to do with God. For example, scientists can't explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, so they assume (based on Friedmann Equations) that there is some unseen and hitherto (at the time) undetected dark energy that somehow repels matter (rather than attracting it with gravity as normal matter does). I understand that dark energy has been detected now, but does it have the property to repel matter? Scientists make the leap of faith that it does (until a better theory comes along).

I wouldn't call these "leaps of faith" so much as "calculated guesswork". And of course, any evidence to the contrary will be accepted rather than ignored.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No need to shout (that’s what bold text is).

Hawking may have been an atheist, or he may have shifted his opinions throughout his life, as open minded people do. Most likely he veered between agnosticism, atheism and deism before deciding that the universe did not require a creator so probably didn’t have one.

He didn’t just publish esoteric academic papers, he wrote essays and a best selling book aimed at the layperson. You could perhaps read some of those yourself, before making assumptions about how hypothetical conversations involving him might go.

To repeat myself for the last time; Hawking, like Einstein and Niels Bohr in their lifetime of discourse, referred frequently to God. What each of them meant by the word is open to debate, but the point is they used it, to illustrate scientific and philosophical concepts.

I don’t claim to be the intellectual equal of any of these great minds btw. One doesn’t have to be, to have an interest in what they discovered, and in the significance of their ideas.

Agnostics are for the most part atheists. It appears that you do not understand what an atheist is. How can you hope to refute the idea?

 

[Suave]

But the Quran doesn't say "and we have rolled up bits of the heavens like scrolls". It says "On the day when We will roll up heaven like the rolling up of the scroll". And it is part of an extended passage describing the Day of Judgement.
Therefore claiming it is referring to wormholes is simply untenable. It is clearly a metaphor for the end of something, a final event.

By God, you are right, there might be a day of reckoning with Allah having nothing to do with wormholes.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Agnostics are for the most part atheists. It appears that you do not understand what an atheist is. How can you hope to refute the idea?

Atheists on this forum keep saying this, as though atheism was a difficult concept for anyone to grasp. To be honest, I'm not that interested in refuting atheism. If I were, perhaps I'd find an atheist forum to inhabit, then I could repeatedly tell them how wrong I think they are, but what would be the point of that?

 

[blü 2]

Thats not relevant to your claim.

It's my claim and I'll tell you what's relevant to it, not the other way round.

So obviously since you cannot substantiate any of your claims

Dear oh dear, you're really in desperate retreat! Not even pausing to consider your dignity as you ─ as I said ─ flee the arena.

Without having addressed even one of the points I made.

But as I also said, I agree that flight is your best tactic, so ─ all things considered, wisely done!

Go well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheists on this forum keep repeating this. To be honest, I'm not that interested in refuting atheism. If I were, perhaps I'd find an atheist forum to inhabit, then I could repeatedly tell them how wrong I think they are, but what would be the point of that?

It should not need to be repeated. You would think that theists would learn eventually. Not all theists make this error. It is mostly limited to those that believe that they can refute atheism. It needs to be repeated for those that cannot learn from their errors.

 

[Brian2]

Examples and sources?

As Subduction Zone said, the Tyre prophecy (Ezek 26) is one such prophecy and there are hundreds more.
The Destruction of Tyre (Fulfilled Prophecy) - Engage 360 Ministries
There are attacks of Biblical prophecy by sceptics who say that the prophecies must have been written after the events and so have ended up putting the writing of prophecies after the events and so have convinced many that what they say is true (they are historians after all, and they should know) and by doing that they also have taken away from the authenticity of the whole Bible, as they have done the same thing with Old and New Testament books.
Even with Jesus they say there that the stories about Jesus were made up to try to fit prophecies.
To avoid this, believers have to go to prophecies that are being fulfilled since the time of Jesus, then the excuse is that the prophecies are too vague or have not yet been completely fulfilled etc.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It should not need to be repeated. You would think that theists would learn eventually. Not all theists make this error. It is mostly limited to those that believe that they can refute atheism. It needs to be repeated for those that cannot learn from their errors.

As I say, I have no interest in refuting atheism. I have my beliefs, you have yours. I’m interested in constructive discourse, but it seems that on this forum, discourses of that nature are destined to be derailed by belligerent atheists with an axe to grind. That’s a small but vocal subset of atheists btw, but many do seem to have this tendency. Read back through this thread if you think I’m being unreasonable in that observation.

 

[Brian2]

So I see 2 claims there, the first that prophecy exists and the second that it "proves" scriptures. I disbelieve both claims, but the second one being wrong would negate the first anyway, so I'll start there.

Lets say for the sake of argument you can show an example of a prediction that was not at all ambiguous, and that it came true in so accurately we couldn't explain it.

We have an occurrence we cannot explain, making an assertion that something is proved because there is not contrary explanation or evidence I called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Such claims are irrational by definition, and miracles which are defined as "an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency", are irrational by definition (see emboldened) as they use the same logical fallacy.

There is a forest of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible. One fulfilment and many failures means it is ridiculous to claim divine involvement.
It would be irrational to ignore them.
But of course sceptics do try to ignore them and make up other explanations which of course have to be true, because prophecies are fake. Other explanations include that the prophecies must have been written after the events or the stories of events were made up so that a prophecy could be said to have been fulfilled or the prophecies are too vague and any event could be the fulfilment of it,,,,,,etc
This is part of the atheist/sceptic propaganda that is spread around about Biblical prophecy and the Bible.

 

[Brian2]

Like what?
(Specific references please, not just vague claims)

Ezek 26:14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.
https://library.artstor.org/#/public/SS37612_37612_40550731

 

[firedragon]

It's my claim and I'll tell you what's relevant to it, not the other way round.
Dear oh dear, you're really in desperate retreat! Not even pausing to consider your dignity as you ─ as I said ─ flee the arena.

Without having addressed even one of the points I made.

But as I also said, I agree that flight is your best tactic, so ─ all things considered, wisely done!

Go well.

If you want to have the last say of an ad hominem, please get that pleasure.

But your claim was not what you responded to, and your claim was also a new topic which was already irrelevant, so now you are being irrelevant to your irrelevant topic.

Another ad hominem please. And you can have your day with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I say, I have no interest in refuting atheism. I have my beliefs, you have yours. I’m interested in constructive discourse, but it seems that on this forum, discourses of that nature are destined to be derailed by belligerent atheists with an axe to grind. That’s a small but vocal subset of atheists btw, but many do seem to have this tendency. Read back through this thread if you think I’m being unreasonable in that observation.

Really? I so often see it as being the other way around.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you want to have the last say of an ad hominem, please get that pleasure.

But your claim was not what you responded to, and your claim was also a new topic which was already irrelevant, so now you are being irrelevant to your irrelevant topic.

Another ad hominem please. And you can have your day with it.

Where did he use ad hominem? Please explain how any of his corrections we ad hominem fallacies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ezek 26:14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.
https://library.artstor.org/#/public/SS37612_37612_40550731

And that never happened. Tyre is still a thriving community today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As Subduction Zone said, the Tyre prophecy (Ezek 26) is one such prophecy and there are hundreds more.
The Destruction of Tyre (Fulfilled Prophecy) - Engage 360 Ministries
There are attacks of Biblical prophecy by sceptics who say that the prophecies must have been written after the events and so have ended up putting the writing of prophecies after the events and so have convinced many that what they say is true (they are historians after all, and they should know) and by doing that they also have taken away from the authenticity of the whole Bible, as they have done the same thing with Old and New Testament books.
Even with Jesus they say there that the stories about Jesus were made up to try to fit prophecies.
To avoid this, believers have to go to prophecies that are being fulfilled since the time of Jesus, then the excuse is that the prophecies are too vague or have not yet been completely fulfilled etc.

The Tyre prophecy is very clear as to who it applied to. It referred to Nebuchadnezzar attacking the king of Tyre at that time. It failed so badly that even old Zeke realized it so he made a BOGO deal. He wrote another failed prophecy to go with it.

 

[KWED]

Atheists on this forum keep saying this, as though atheism was a difficult concept for anyone to grasp.

The evidence suggests that many religionists do indeed find it difficult to grasp.
You yourself seemed to think that Hawking's atheism was actually some form of vacillating agnostic deism.

To be honest, I'm not that interested in refuting atheism. If I were, perhaps I'd find an atheist forum to inhabit, then I could repeatedly tell them how wrong I think they are, but what would be the point of that?

Well, this forum is open to atheists, and any open religious debate forum will naturally involve atheists and discussion of atheism.
So, how would you argue that atheism is wrong? Hypothetically, of course. I understand that you are "not interested" in actually doing it.

 

[blü 2]

If you want to have the last say of an ad hominem, please get that pleasure.

But your claim was not what you responded to, and your claim was also a new topic which was already irrelevant, so now you are being irrelevant to your irrelevant topic.

Another ad hominem please. And you can have your day with it.

Ad hominem?

That's where you attack someone personally INSTEAD of addressing their argument.

Whereas here you haven't put any argument.

A decision which I understand and have commended you for.

But if you later decide to address what I actually said on our topic, by all means do so.

I'm here to help.

 

[KWED]

As Subduction Zone said, the Tyre prophecy (Ezek 26) is one such prophecy and there are hundreds more.
The Destruction of Tyre (Fulfilled Prophecy) - Engage 360 Ministries
There are attacks of Biblical prophecy by sceptics who say that the prophecies must have been written after the events and so have ended up putting the writing of prophecies after the events and so have convinced many that what they say is true (they are historians after all, and they should know) and by doing that they also have taken away from the authenticity of the whole Bible, as they have done the same thing with Old and New Testament books.
Even with Jesus they say there that the stories about Jesus were made up to try to fit prophecies.
To avoid this, believers have to go to prophecies that are being fulfilled since the time of Jesus, then the excuse is that the prophecies are too vague or have not yet been completely fulfilled etc.

The actual siege of Tyre bears no resemblance to the Biblical narrative, so it was not "fulfilled".
And as you pointed out, there is nothing that conclusively shows the account was written before the event.

The bottom line is that there are no "fulfilled prophesies" that stand up to examination. The fact that you consider the above to be your most convincing example clearly illustrates this.

 

[KWED]

As I say, I have no interest in refuting atheism. I have my beliefs, you have yours. I’m interested in constructive discourse, but it seems that on this forum, discourses of that nature are destined to be derailed by belligerent atheists with an axe to grind. That’s a small but vocal subset of atheists btw, but many do seem to have this tendency. Read back through this thread if you think I’m being unreasonable in that observation.

IOW, "I am only interested in discussing religion etc with people who agree with me".

Really not sure how you think you can debate religion with an atheist and not have your preconceptions challenged, especially after things like the naughty Hawking episode.

Also ironic how you ***** and moan about those mean atheists when you were the one throwing around accusations of dogmatism, prejudice and wilful ignorance. The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

 

[firedragon]

Ad hominem?

That's where you attack someone personally INSTEAD of addressing their argument.

Whereas here you haven't put any argument.

A decision which I understand and have commended you for.

But if you later decide to address what I actually said on our topic, by all means do so.

I'm here to help.

Of course. That’s what ad hominem is. So saying others are fleeing the arena etc etc are just as hominem.

The topic you raised I have cut and pasted several times. So you never gave a scientific response because of course, science doesn’t work that way. So you don’t have a choice but to end with some ad hominem.