Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why stop there?
Perhaps. I really lost my fascination with theoretical science while in college. Maybe black holes can help with space travel somehow down the road. Can you even think of a benefit to the TOE that genetics alone would not produce? I can't.
I only use it if it involves something that is knowable as suggestive not proof. For example how many people believe there are men on Pluto is not meaningful since we can't know, but claims that men has been visited by aliens if in huge numbers might be suggestive because we can know that. But yes it is tricky.
I don't think at the time smell differentiated to much. I think everyone probably stank pretty bad. My point was this cannot be evaluated by a study of the natural because this was not a natural event.
I can't remember the context but I remember I was right. Give up?
Let me ask you this. If in 1980 some obscure Russian technician had said it was a launch instead of a malfunction would you still prefer modernity in a nuclear waste land? If you were wrong there would be no body around to know.
Ok the Sun's accurate weight down to a thousand decimal places exists regardless of our knowing it. The factual truth of God's existence exists whether you know it or not. I am not stuck on the term if you do not like the word "knowledge" then substitute one you do like. I acre about the point not the semantics.
Quantity was not relevant (especially for later civilizations). Who originated it would be important depending on what it was. I don't think Aqueducts would be miraculous at any point. They are very easily deduced from nature, which is why I did not list it originally. Now Germ theory is a whole other ball game. It is counter intuitive and completely unknowable which is why even after Israel knew about it, 3000 years later we were still killing people by the tens of thousands in our ignorance.
No because the slavery I referred to is 19th century chattel slavery. One that was in a whole other time. Biblical "slavery" was almost exclusively voluntary debt slavery. One person would owe another. He would contract his labor to a third person who would pay off his debt. There was another type of lifelong slavery that had to do with people like prisoners of war but it was not chattel slavery. Biblical slavery was a crude form of welfare and bankruptcy that our sin required. God never liked it or divorce but our faults made them necessary at least for that time frame. Regardless the biblical rules about it are the most benevolent in the ANE. Now make of that what you will but it will never be modern slavery. My point was that the slavery we think of could only be broken using a foundation only God provides. If I wanted to stop slavery I can't appeal to atheism. I could kill slavers as an atheist but I can only find foundation for doing so in theism. Whether you agree or not do you get my drift?
The problems existence does not depend on your belief. Whatever it's cost to you is only dependent only on it's existing. If it does exist your paying a price whether you believe or not. I would even argue that even if God does not exist there is a cost to chunking faith. I would probably do so anyway as I hate false hope but it would cause problems.
In that case I did not claim a miraculous cause but there is no loss of probability to claiming so. The miraculous has no probability effect on anything. For example the idea that water turned to wine by miraculous means does not suffer loss by claiming it miraculous. A miracle by it's nature is an exception.
Well it depends. I am certainly obligated to and in fact if insisted upon I will waste much time in examining them. However if not insisted upon circumstances and mood get involved. Actually it is a personal obligation not a formal one. In professional debates no one is required to produce every scrap of data to prove every claim they make. I take on the obligation but do not technically have one. Anyway if you really want to get into it I will.
I don't think so. If you claim that in spite of the tendency of everything to come apart or deconstruct over time that in one specific and exclusive area this trend acts in the exact opposite way then only an example with that level of complexity can add to the reliability of your claim. Showing rocks kind of get sorted by size, at times, and in certain places does not indicate that 3.2 billion bits can assemble in the right order to be DNA. Likes with likes are very relevant here.
Not bad. Now that is humorous.At least, we start with reality
I think it would but I have as of yet not resolved to get into that long and torturous argument.
Your humor is either on or off or my comprehension must be. I do not see how the type of car is relevant to my response.
How are cats in a box any help? Another Schrodinger perhaps? That was kind of a trick. The explanation I hear so often is that no mathematics works for that event. It appears the atom does not go anywhere but that the information that represents the atom's construction mysterious get transferred and rebuilds another atom in another place virtually identical to the first. I have never heard any explanation for that process much less a mathematical one. It's a trick another way as well. If you have another explanation that would just show that no general agreement exists as I have said.
Benzene is the compound C6H6. Did I say atom instead of molecule? It makes little difference either way. I heard it in Chemistry which I hated. My instructor was Asian and invented many new elements. I remember he said crom-i-um instead of Chromium constantly.By the way: what is a benzene atom? Could not find it on the periodic table
It is still the deep-end and is still unexplained. I just saw an atheist scientist use it to some bizarre purpose but he admitted as is well known that no one yet has figured out why this occurs. Hard to use what is not known to prove anything. I view science as a graph plot versus reliability and thorough understanding. It is not an age issue.
This is just tragic. Two car jokes and I got neither one. I did not mention a car, a road, driving or anything automotive.
Well given the Quantum I at least can see no threat to the theorem. Has anyone asked Vilenkin to give his latest review given the state of the Quantum. I like Vilenkin do not make absolutes in this case. I only say that according to the best science we have currently the best conclusion is X but maybe one day some Y will change that. That allows for your deep end if it ever gets shallower but still at this time your stuck with no recourse that I snot in this deepest most unknown section of knowledge. We should be able to leave it there as it is true.
Again until the quantum is better understood I do not see how this is meaningful. You might as well be saying well the Antikythera machine or ancient alien theory is evidence against the modern evolution of science. Well I can't say that is impossible but it is not a persuasive or meaningful counter position based on our knowledge of it at this time. Plus another problem. The Quantum even once it is understood sufficient by Phd's will not be understood by the average person. So even when that occurs there will still be a persuasive gap there. Plus just gong by probability and the lack of credential so far I have trouble believing you understand these issues sufficiently. If you do why are you wasting time here every day instead of in a lab making bank?
No I do not but I think that is the first time I have heard that question. Let me add something here. I can't imagine being able to do so now, but I can imagine that I could learn if hedonism or some other drive trumped my morality and I started down that road. People can develop sexual desire for inanimate objects so I can't put anything past our moral insanity.
That is not really a moral claim. It is very conditional and specific. God also said to not eat pork and that was not a moral demand. It gets confusing because disobedience in general might be moral but the act it's self not. There can be situational theological ethics that are not purely moral issues. Anyway lets simplify this. I would suggest you select another action like murder, lying, torture or something similar.
I only rarely make a claim that I will later not want to hash out in detail. However I think you can easily see ho that can occur from time to time. Many times I make secondary points to support a primary one. I find your side gets obsessed with semantics and technicalities to the exclusion of the whole point the secondary claim was made at all. For example whether benzene or molecule was the proper term is irrelevant. The point is that nature can never ever tell what should be. I did not want to have a chemistry discussion.
I never even hinted at that. I said in my experience some science is more reliable than others. I have grown to be very skeptical of theoretical science but even some of that is intuitive and easily grasped. It is the purely abstract and not well known and new that I have trouble having confidence in. The last straw was at a faculty dinner where the same scientists argued passionately for both holographic theory and string theory which are mutually exclusive.
"Cosmologists assume that natural quantum fluctuations allowed the Big Bang to happen spontaneously. Now they have a mathematical proof" https://medium.com/the-physics-arxi...ormed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3
If you don't like using recent examples, and I chose them to make the point as clear as possible, you can use the oldest historical novel ... the Iliad, it points to the same issue, a tale of legend threaded in and out of real like.
Well that's funny because at least lists of the greatest scientists in history is dominated by men of faith. Science has become political these days and just as politics has swings over time in phases. However over long periods of time science and faith cannot be separated. In fact even the atheist (can't remember his name) who wrote the most authorities several volume work on the rise of modern science had to conclude it was faith that produced the entire fields of abstract science themselves. Every single atheist scrimping for grant money today is standing on a theists shoulders. Confining science to only the last few decades is arbitrary and meaningless. The most damage you could possibly due to modern science is subtract theistic contributions it is built on. I would not recommend debating theism on scientific personalities and contributions.
There is inexhaustible evidence which is why that historical scientific greats in mountains have been theists. Even in todays arbitrarily dominated atheist scientific world some of the absolute best scientists are theists. look at Kripke the father of modal logic. He formulated the notation of modal logic in his teens and is a theist. Or Collins who cracked the genome and is a theist. If you removed theistic contribution to science you would almost fatally effect science and modern science may never have existed at all. Your arbitrarily modern atheists ALL stand firmly on either Christian or Jewish shoulders.
Ok that will be fine. You have claimed it was a book and is false. Is there any other reasons you feel it appropriate to compare the bible with before I show it's comparative failures in all relevant categories comparatively. I have no objection to it's use but as I already know it fails the test miserably when compared I am reluctant to think you would want to use it.
Please show me how you arrived at that number.
Unfortunately most of the greatest scientists in history knew less than a bright middle school student does today.
You don't even know who did what. Collins did not "crack" anything. He is a brilliant administrator, but no great shakes as a pure scientist. He ran the program, no mean feat, but you make it sound like he did it himself.
My understanding is that scientists (not doctors and dentists and mathematicians and mining engineers) are predominantly atheists or agnostics.
No, not really.
I asked for the basis for the declarations because that is the ontological issue on which all your epistemological responses depend on. You can take Hitler and Charles Manson give each apiece of paper and tell them to write out a bunch of morals they think are true. They would each produce some and probably many you would affirm but neither their writing them nor your affirming them would make them either the source of moral truth nor a standard for it. If this UN decree is true in every claim it would not mean very much unless you had the foundation they based them on.
What do you mean? You quoted the link to the calculations in your own post...
Yes exactly the point. "Just go back ten generations and the chances of you being born at all is at most 1 in 60000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000". Obviously the agent must have intended exactly you to be born because with those odds against exactly you being born it is unthinkable that your DNA could be due to chance? Isn't that what you're saying?
Boy this just keeps getting worse. Did Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Di Vinci, Descartes, Copernicus, Galileo, kepler, Augustine, Volta, Ampere, Babbage, Maxwell, Riemann, Lavoisier, Marconi, Carver, Hershel, etc times thousands only have the equivalent of a modern middle school education? Not even close. Most of what they discovered is not even available in high school. I have a degree in math and some of the stuff they dreamed up I still can't understand.
He received the Albany Medical Center Prize in 2010 and the Pro Bono Humanum Award of the Galien Foundation in 2012. I was going to get into what he specifically did but it does not matter. I don't think even you would deny that he is very very familiar with the science as it exists today in genetics and has found no reason in it to challenge his faith. This is true of hundreds of top scientists like Sandage, etc.... The point was the never the exact level of his contribution, as usual you guys get obsessed with technicalities and miss the entire point. The point is that so many theists are at the top levels of scientific research it can't be an impediment to faith. Th evidence suggests that whatever faith preference you have going in colors the science. I have even given many quotes from secular scientists who admitted such. So science is not impediment to faith and should never be said to be.
That is only if you arbitrarily restrict it to certain decades. Looking at science as a whole, especially it's moment of greatest glory and you will find theists way over represented. What you need to show is that the predominance of theists in the modern and far more political and money driven age of science is the result of sciences disproving God. You can't so nothing to see here, lets move along. The zenith of science corresponded exactly with the amount of theists in it but I never make claims that proves God exists why do you attempt the opposite without any correlation at all and arbitrary criteria?
A declaration in direct conflict with the evidence is not a persuasive argument. It is not even an argument at all. Not even a bad one.
Don't have to when you constantly remind me of it.
There is some reason your claims are perfectly and utterly wrong. I was being generous and saying you had not thought them through.