why reject christianity

[james bond]

Yes, and he went to a creation university because he believed in creation, and rode on creation horses because he believed in creation, ate creation apples because he believed in creation, and was eventually buried in a creation grave or tomb because he believed in creation. That's how it works. Once you believe in creation, everything you have and do is due to that. Your science becomes creation science.

Newton lived on the cusp of modernity, with one foot in the old world (he was an alchemist) and one in the new world (mathematician and scientist).

His mathematics and science are exactly what an atheist might have developed, and which atheists today accept as valid, important, and useful.

His alchemy is considered pseudoscience, and of course, was sterile, the fate of every wrong idea.

Your views are satirical and crazy. None of that is true, so you're wrong.

God of the gaps is not a warning. It describes the phenomenon of unknown processes being attributed to gods, and that that unknown has largely been filled in, leaving ever more narrow gaps for gods to fit into.

Once, when the apparent movement of the sun through the sky was inexplicable, it was attributed to Apollo in his chariot pulling it. Now, no gods are needed to account for sunrise and sunset.

Once, when thunder and lightning were inexplicable, they were explained as warring among the gods, or the work of Thor. Now, no gods are needed there, either.

But god was still needed to account for the universe and the diversity of life on it. Then came the Standard Model in cosmology and Darwin's theory in biology, and gods were not needed to account for the evolution of matter or life. The gaps in understanding have become quite narrow - essentially, the two origins problems - the origin of the Big Bang and the origin of the first cell, and believers have had to narrow their focus accordingly. Now, they mostly invoke God as the source of these two germs or seeds.

That's what the term god of the gaps refers to. It's not a warning to scientists to not mention God as you seem to imply.

You are wrong again. What you describe is what atheists ripped off from creation science as God of the gaps when discussing the Big Bang Theory. My explanation is historically correct.

We were just discussing Newton, who never invoked a god in his work until he reached the limits of his knowledge. The following is from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and is a nice illustration of god of the gaps thinking from Newton, who clearly didn't feel the need to keep gods out of his work until they were needed - the same attitude modern scientist hold:

Spoiler

Newton's law of gravity enables you to calculate the force of attraction between any two objects. If you introduce a third object, then each one attracts the other two, and the orbits they trace become much harder to compute. Add another object, and another, and another, and soon you have the planets in our solar system. Earth and the Sun pull on each other, but Jupiter also pulls on Earth, Saturn pulls on Earth, Mars pulls on Earth, Jupiter pulls on Saturn, Saturn pulls on Mars, and on and on.

Newton feared that all this pulling would render the orbits in the solar system unstable. His equations indicated that the planets should long ago have either fallen into the Sun or flown the coop, leaving the Sun, in either case, devoid of planets. Yet the solar system, as well as the larger cosmos, appeared to be the very model of order and durability. So Newton, in his greatest work, the Principia, concludes that God must occasionally step in and make things right:

“The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. . . . But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. . . . This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Well, the pull of gravity from another object of ginormous mass such as a black hole near our solar system could easily destroy our galaxy. Or the pull from the sun could easily destroy earth. Yet, this isn't the case because of our location and orbit. Our location is safe. What we find is that our solar system is arranged so that the earth revolves around the sun once a year. It also rotates on its axis every 24 hours. These motions form a complex combination. We find that the spin of the earth generates a surface speed of 1,000 miles per hour at the equator. The speed of the earth due to orbital motion around the sun is 66 times greater than that. The speed is 30 times faster than a rifle bullet. During an average human’s lifetime, about 70 trips around the sun, 41 billion miles are traveled. Fortunately, we do not notice earth's motion since the earth’s gravity ensures that both its atmosphere and inhabitants remain firmly in place. That is quite a bit of coincidence, so beautiful design and intelligence is involved. It's evidence for God. There you go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it's all relative. You and I would not age because one age is chronological while we are real time.

It appears that you did not see your error.

Why not? It was assumed in the past and science still worked. Creation is more about origins science and that is the main disagreement. Creation better explains how living organisms developed and how the universe came to be. If we use atheist science, then the likelihood is no universe. Even Stephen Hawking admitted this.

No, Hawking made no such admission. Bearing false witness against others is a breaking of the Ninth Commandment. And yes, all sorts of myths were assumed to be true in the past, not just Christian myths. The scientific method allows us to test those myths and find out which ones are wrong. Such as the myths of Genesis. No assumptions about the existence or non-existence of gods is allowed in actual science.

Not when discussing origins. Did you ever see the youtube about origins theories?

There is only one current origin theories that I know of. And even when we realize that the universe started with the Big Bang that does not eliminate the possibility of a God. You hate science only because your personal version of God has been shown to be wrong. That does not mean that God in general has been shown to not exist. You have a bit of an all or nothing attitude toward the concept of god.

Religion and science are opposite sides of the same coin. Science does a good job explaining what came after creation. Today's atheist science denies creation as origins science.

Sorry, but if you want to claim that there was a "creation" you put the burden of proof upon yourself. What science works with is what we can see and measure. No evidence for a creator found yet.

I said it was more difficult for Christian scientists to get funding for their projects if they use God, the supernatural and the Bible in their work. The areas with the most disagreement are geology, biology, paleontology and zoology. Thus, a creation scientist can't say they believe that a global flood caused the sedimentation strata.

That is because their ideas have been thoroughly refuted. Funding is generally not available for old refuted ideas. It has nothing to do with whether a god exists or not. Creationists may say that they believe there was a flood, but they cannot claim to be scientists while doing so. We know how sedimentary rocks were formed. It was not in a massive worldwide flood.

Here is an easy way to see if what someone is proposing is "science" or not. He should be able to give you a possible event, the answer to which was not known at the time of formation of his idea, that could have refuted his idea. If they can't come up with such a test then their idea is not scientific. See nothing there about the existence or non-existence of a god. Simply the testing of an idea to see if it is false.

Here's an article which includes few of today's scientists who happened to be Christian, so it isn't that there are none.

9 Groundbreaking Scientists Who Happened to Be Christians

Once again, just because a scientist is a Christian does not mean that he uses "creation science" in fact many of those scientists accept the fact of evolution, the very first one for example, and most are not "creationists". Remember, creationism was a reaction to the theory of evolution. Scientists before Darwin can no more be a "creationist" than a scientist before Einstein could be a denier of Relativity.

 

[james bond]

Nope, Newton was not an idiot. You can't find god in any of his equations. He did not use god when he developed them. He used the scientific method, the same scientific method that is used today. Creationists (there is no such thing as "creation science") are required not to use the scientific method.

You make yourself look amazingly ignorant when you make such bogus and false claims. Just because a scientist believes in a god does not mean that he used that god in doing his work. Newton never assumed the Bible to be literally true no matter what. That is the error that the dolts that you listen to make. It is why they are no longer scientists, scientists do science. They use the scientific method. The scientific method says nothing about the existence or non-existence of gods. It is god neutral. "Atheist science" is god neutral. It does not assume that a god does not exist. But then it does not make the gross error that you do.

That is why YOU are always wrong when it comes to science. You just can't get god out of your work.

Why don't you debate It Ain't Necessarily So?

And more ad hominem attacks. It just makes you look bad and the ignorant one.

God is not in good creation science due to God of the gaps. Otherwise, it would not pass another creation scientist's peer review. What they are more flexible is with worldview. They do not systematically exclude creation like atheist science.

 

[james bond]

It appears that you did not see your error.



No, Hawking made no such admission. Bearing false witness against others is a breaking of the Ninth Commandment. And yes, all sorts of myths were assumed to be true in the past, not just Christian myths. The scientific method allows us to test those myths and find out which ones are wrong. Such as the myths of Genesis. No assumptions about the existence or non-existence of gods is allowed in actual science.



There is only one current origin theories that I know of. And even when we realize that the universe started with the Big Bang that does not eliminate the possibility of a God. You hate science only because your personal version of God has been shown to be wrong. That does not mean that God in general has been shown to not exist. You have a bit of an all or nothing attitude toward the concept of god.



Sorry, but if you want to claim that there was a "creation" you put the burden of proof upon yourself. What science works with is what we can see and measure. No evidence for a creator found yet.



That is because their ideas have been thoroughly refuted. Funding is generally not available for old refuted ideas. It has nothing to do with whether a god exists or not. Creationists may say that they believe there was a flood, but they cannot claim to be scientists while doing so. We know how sedimentary rocks were formed. It was not in a massive worldwide flood.

Here is an easy way to see if what someone is proposing is "science" or not. He should be able to give you a possible event, the answer to which was not known at the time of formation of his idea, that could have refuted his idea. If they can't come up with such a test then their idea is not scientific. See nothing there about the existence or non-existence of a god. Simply the testing of an idea to see if it is false.





Once again, just because a scientist is a Christian does not mean that he uses "creation science" in fact many of those scientists accept the fact of evolution, the very first one for example, and most are not "creationists". Remember, creationism was a reaction to the theory of evolution. Scientists before Darwin can no more be a "creationist" than a scientist before Einstein could be a denier of Relativity.

Yawn. Give it up.

 

[james bond]

@pcarl If you want to read Stephen Hawking's final paper, one can download here.

[1707.07702] A Smooth Exit from Eternal Inflation?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science has no reason to consider creationism, at least not yet. No finding to date is better explained by a supernatural hypothesis.

Why not? It was assumed in the past and science still worked. Creation is more about origins science and that is the main disagreement. Creation better explains how living organisms developed and how the universe came to be. If we use atheist science, then the likelihood is no universe. Even Stephen Hawking admitted this.

Sure, you can stick a god into any theory you like, but it is neither necessary, nor adds any explanatory or predictive power to the theory. Perhaps you're familiar with the principle of parsimony suggested by Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation that accounts for observed phenomena is the preferred one.We can stick both a god and a dragon into our scientific theories, and then another god, but it does nothiing for the theory, so we don't.

But let an unequivocal example of irreducible complexity or a precambrain rabbit be found, and intelligent design leaps to the top of the list, since naturalistic hypotheses would no longer account for all of the relevant observed data.

That's how science is done. The hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium wasn't added to evolutionary science until there was a reason - observation that suggest that evolution occurs at an accelerated rate when there is a relatively rapid and dramatic change in the environment. The hypothesis always has to account for all relevant evidence, and should be the simplest one that can do that.

That is why gods don't appear in science. They don't add anything except unnecessary complexity without benefit. It's not about picking on creationists.

Did you ever see the youtube about origins theories?

I'm sure that there are many. I'm pretty familiar with the existing origins hypotheses from other sources.

Today's atheist science denies creation as origins science.

That's not quite right. Science does not deny that creationism is possible correct. As was already, it offers no opinion on the matter even if selected scientists speaking for themselves do.

By the way, you have repeatedly mentioned the origins problems. This is what I was discussing in the god-of-the-gaps comments. Those are the remaining gaps, although perhaps you can throw the consciousness problem in there as well. You instinctively know that you have to go to the unexplained to make theistic arguments, and there are fewer of those now than in the past. The gaps have narrowed.

I said it was more difficult for Christian scientists to get funding for their projects if they use God, the supernatural and the Bible in their work.

Why should they refer to God or the supernatural in their proposals?

Here's an article which includes few of today's scientists who happened to be Christian, so it isn't that there are none.

9 Groundbreaking Scientists Who Happened to Be Christians

Are you implying that their Christianity is what led these scientists to make these discoveries, without which they could noot have been made? If so, just how did a god belief make these findings possible.

I'm pretty sure that man would have discovered everything he has had there been no religions in the world.

you're mixing or confusing intelligent design as in ID with creation science. AIG and ICR do not argue the same as Discovery Institute.

Then perhaps you can explain what it is you are saying happened in the past, and how that is not an example of intelligent design.

The modern ID movement removed God from its public face for political reasons - the 1987 Edwards v Aguillard Supreme Court case that banned teaching creationism in American public schools - but that is just its latest incarnation. The Genesis creation story can be called a story of intelligent design, as can any other creation story.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your views are satirical and crazy. None of that is true, so you're wrong.

Not much of a rebuttal.

I've already explained to you that when you don't address an argument at the level of its elements and the reasoning that connects them to its conclusion - if you don't want to challenge the claims or the validity of the logic, then you are tacitly conceding that you cannot rebut the argument.

Imagine taking your approach in a court of law. The prosecuting attorney shows the jury the security footage, the DNA evidence, the fingerprint evidence, and argues that these three combined with your lack of an alibi lead to only one possible conclusion - guilt in this case.

If all your defense attorney offers in rebuttal is, "Your views are satirical and crazy. None of that is true, so you're wrong" you're going to prison.

What we find is that our solar system is arranged so that the earth revolves around the sun once a year.

Are you aware that that would be true however long that took? A year is defined by that duration.

Why do you think that that is relevant to this discussion?

It also rotates on its axis every 24 hours. These motions form a complex combination.

Not really. The fact that the number of axial rotations per solar orbit is a number with multiple decimal places - probably an irrational number with an infinite number of them - only created complexity for calendar makers, who can't make 365.242199 days in them. Being confined to 365 and 366 day years, they have had to come up with a complex algorithm for leap years to keep the seasons from drifting through the calendar.

Tomorrow is the vernal equinox. If we want to keep it in late March, we need a more complicated method for assigning leap years than simply every fourth year as the Julian calendar used.

Incidentally, an hour is 1/24th of an axial rotation, however long that takes. If the day were half again as long, it could still be said to have 24 hours, although the hours would be ninety minutes long.

Days, months, and years are natural units of time based in astronomical phenomena. Seconds, hours, and weeks are artificial construct made from regular fractions or multiple of them.

We find that the spin of the earth generates a surface speed of 1,000 miles per hour at the equator.

Naturally, since the circumference of the earth is about 25,000 miles. Divide that by 24 hours and you get the surface speed at the equator in miles per hour.

Once again, I don't see any relevance there to the topic at hand.

The speed of the earth due to orbital motion around the sun is 66 times greater than that. The speed is 30 times faster than a rifle bullet. During an average human’s lifetime, about 70 trips around the sun, 41 billion miles are traveled. Fortunately, we do not notice earth's motion since the earth’s gravity ensures that both its atmosphere and inhabitants remain firmly in place. That is quite a bit of coincidence, so beautiful design and intelligence is involved. It's evidence for God. There you go.

I don't see a coincidence there. What coincided with what? What is the design you see? And how do the astronomical facts point to a god?

This all seems automatic and in no need of an intelligent designer.

Why don't you [Seduction Zone] debate It Ain't Necessarily So?

Maybe because we don't have an issue to debate - at least not in this arena.

 

[Subduction Zone]

9 Groundbreaking Scientists Who Happened to Be Christians[/QUOTE]

Why don't you debate It Ain't Necessarily So?

Because we agree. Why would I debate him?

And more ad hominem attacks. It just makes you look bad and the ignorant one.

I made no ad hominmem attacks. Perhaps you should learn what that term means.

God is not in good creation science due to God of the gaps. Otherwise, it would not pass another creation scientist's peer review. What they are more flexible is with worldview. They do not systematically exclude creation like atheist science.

Once again, there is no "creation science" your own links tell us that is the case. All you could find were Christians that were scientists at best. And please point to a case where god has been systematically excluded from real science. Once again you appears that you are bearing false witness against your neighbor. Amazing that I am more "Christian" than a self proclaimed Christian.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

One of the wonderful things about science is that it does not rely on the thoughts, beliefs and experiments of one person--EVER.

Hawkings' last paper may try to lay out a way to demonstrate the multiverse theory is true, but it is not the first paper to do that. And, even if the proposal does provide a pathway for testing that theory, it might be decades before such observations can be conducted. And even if his particular solution doesn't work, there are hundreds of other proposals out there that might prove the theory (it's really not one theory, it's a bunch of theories that propose different ways to testing.

So, once hundreds or thousands of scientists have read and devised and run tests the theory (and other theories), then we might know if it's accurate or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's the thing about accepting or rejecting Christianity or any other belief system: we can steal good ideas from anywhere.

If I see something good about Christianity, there's nothing stopping me as an atheist from cherry-picking that particular thing and leaving the rest of the religion.

I can do this with almost anything I see in the religion as obviously morally good or factually correct. Doing this doesn't make me a Christian. When it comes to actually accepting the religion, this comes down to:

- benefits that I can't get without being a member, and
- all the stuff about the religion that I see as dubious or even downright wrong.

Since I've never seen good reason to believe in any benefits that I can't get without being a member, what possible reason would I have to hold my nose and accept Christianity?

 

[james bond]

Not much of a rebuttal.

No need to rebut something that is off topic and wrong. What you are saying is Sir Isaac Newton is part of Christianity and creation science, so you reject Christianity and/or creation science. Why don't you just admit you're an atheist and dislike or don't agree with the foundations of creation science? It's your opinion. That said, I don't think you're the hater type and angry, so please don't take it as an attack. Just my opinion.

Are you aware that that would be true however long that took? A year is defined by that duration.

I think it is understood. We're not in the science forum so it doesn't have to be so rigorous as an irrational number answer.

Why do you think that that is relevant to this discussion?

I think you mean the God of the gaps argument. As I explained, it's a warning to creation scientists by Sir Francis Bacon and the church to not rely on God, the supernatural or the Bible to be the source to back up one's hypothesis or to use when one gets stuck. Can you accept that at face value? It's part of the scientific method. I understand what the atheist GOTG argument is, but that was stolen from creation science and refers to the Big Bang Theory.

Not really. The fact that the number of axial rotations per solar orbit is a number with multiple decimal places - probably an irrational number with an infinite number of them - only created complexity for calendar makers, who can't make 365.242199 days in them. Being confined to 365 and 366 day years, they have had to come up with a complex algorithm for leap years to keep the seasons from drifting through the calendar.

Tomorrow is the vernal equinox. If we want to keep it in late March, we need a more complicated method for assigning leap years than simply every fourth year as the Julian calendar used.

Incidentally, an hour is 1/24th of an axial rotation, however long that takes. If the day were half again as long, it could still be said to have 24 hours, although the hours would be ninety minutes long.

Days, months, and years are natural units of time based in astronomical phenomena. Seconds, hours, and weeks are artificial construct made from regular fractions or multiple of them.

Naturally, since the circumference of the earth is about 25,000 miles. Divide that by 24 hours and you get the surface speed at the equator in miles per hour.[/quote]

I'll accept your answer. Why do you bring up leap year though? How does it relate to rejecting Christianity or even what Newton accomplished?

Once again, I don't see any relevance there to the topic at hand.

I'm just pointing out that it's not a level playing field when creation scientists get left out of peer reviews or their theories are rejected without scrutiny or proper evaluation. It goes back to not accepting creation science. One has to admit this is happening and it's due to the selective science of atheist scientists and atheist science. Where this is most evident is the topic is origins. There a Talk Origins forum where the respective scientists for each side present and make arguments. Are you familiar with it?

http://talkorigins.org/[/quote]

One should not reject Christianity on the basis that they think it contradicts science. There are scientific arguments presented. I'll try to create a topic on a creation vs atheist science issue the next time I see one on the AIG, ICR or other website. Science and religion are intertwined.

I don't see a coincidence there. What coincided with what? What is the design you see? And how do the astronomical facts point to a god?

This all seems automatic and in no need of an intelligent designer.

Again, I'm not arguing intelligent design or ID by the Discovery Institute. I use AIG and ICR which are completely different organizations. The latter use creation science and the Bible. It's like you are criticizing the Shroud of Turin belonging to Catholics when I am a Christian. Christians do not worship in front of the SOT and the majority do not believe its authenticity. The Jewish religion does not believe it either and has stricter rules against worshipping in front of it. So, please drop ID. When I say something is intelligently designed, I mean just that. Compare it to when you see an aluminum soda can or an art work of a master painter. That is well designed and has been thought out.

Maybe because we don't have an issue to debate - at least not in this arena.

We probably don't. Am I right in that you reject Christianity due to your atheist worldview and that you reject creation science because you think their origins arguments are bogus and not acceptable? This is because God, the supernatural and the what the Bible says seems incredulous to you when compared to atheist science like evolutionary thinking?

All I can say is take a look at the Talk Origins archive when you get a chance. The science and the arguments are there. Thus, I don't think its a reason to reject Christianity based on science.

 

[james bond]

9 Groundbreaking Scientists Who Happened to Be Christians


Because we agree. Why would I debate him?



I made no ad hominmem attacks. Perhaps you should learn what that term means.



Once again, there is no "creation science" your own links tell us that is the case. All you could find were Christians that were scientists at best. And please point to a case where god has been systematically excluded from real science. Once again you appears that you are bearing false witness against your neighbor. Amazing that I am more "Christian" than a self proclaimed Christian.

He presents different arguments than you. You seem to prefer ad hominems and arguing about semantics. Why do you reject Christianity? Can you answer that?

Where God has been systematically excluded from science? Let's discuss fine tuning. That was discovered by atheist scientists when investigating the Big Bang Theory. It favors the creation scientists for the existence of God in how he designed the universe, and that God didn't create life on other planets. The latter is inferred from the Bible. We've pretty much investigated all the other planets in the Milky Way and we still have not found a microbe. This also contradicts the atheist science argument that there has to be life somewhere else because of the sheer number of planets where life could arise. Yet, we find that life is rare. Even my evolution.berkeley.edu admits it. Creation scientists theorize that this is God's work. Have you seen any mention of fine tuning theory in any of your evolution websites?

 

[Subduction Zone]

He presents different arguments than you. You seem to prefer ad hominems and arguing about semantics. Why do you reject Christianity? Can you answer that?

Of course he presents different arguments. Everyone has a different approach. And you claim ad hominems, yet you could not support that claim. And please, when you misuse terms and are corrected that is not merely arguing about semantics.

I reject Christianity because the story falls apart when studied.

Where God has been systematically excluded from science? Let's discuss fine tuning. That was discovered by atheist scientists when investigating the Big Bang Theory. It favors the creation scientists for the existence of God in how he designed the universe, and that God didn't create life on other planets. The latter is inferred from the Bible. We've pretty much investigated all the other planets in the Milky Way and we still have not found a microbe. This also contradicts the atheist science argument that there has to be life somewhere else because of the sheer number of planets where life could arise. Yet, we find that life is rare. Even my evolution.berkeley.edu admits it. Creation scientists theorize that this is God's work. Have you seen any mention of fine tuning theory in any of your evolution websites?

Sorry, but you do not understand "fine tuning". Many of the "fine tuning" arguments over the years have been refuted by later discoveries. They never were evidence for God. This claim of yours only indicates once again that you do not understand the nature of evidence and it is a "God of the gaps" fallacy that you are making.

By the way, not finding life elsewhere in the solar system in no way refutes atheist claims, which you do not appear to understand.


Perhaps we should go over the nature of evidence. I am ready when you are.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Against my better judgment, but here goes...

Let's discuss fine tuning. That was discovered

No, it was not "discovered." Fine Tuning is a HYPOTHESIS (it's not even got enough evidence behind it to legitimately call it a theory) to explain why the universe has conditions that appear to be suitable for life to develop. There are several different possible explanations of how the universe came to have the properties that we observe. One is: God Did It! Another one is: in a multiverse in which every possible combination of traits will occur in some of the universes, and we came to be in one of them.

What you say is either dishonest, or you completely DO NOT UNDERSTAND anything about the hypothesis that is called Fine Tuning.

We've pretty much investigated all the other planets in the Milky Way

REALLY? How did the media manage to miss this? We've investigated 'PRETTY MUCH...ALL THE OTHER PLANETS IN THE MILKY WAY???

Son, we haven't even fully investigated all the other planets in our solar system...and it's only been about two decades since ANY extra-solar planets were detected...and we've only detected about 4,000 or so now...out of the estimated hundreds of billions of planets around a couple of hundred billion stars in the MW...and there is no way to presently tell whether or not life exists on any of the ones we have detected...

That is just plain dishonest to make such an assertion, or again, you really don't understand anything about the science behind detecting planets...or life...

Have you seen any mention of fine tuning theory in any of your evolution websites?

Fine tuning has nothing to do with evolution, nor in fact, the origin of life. What fine tuning hypothesizes is the idea that the combination of fundamental properties that we observe in the universe are conducive to the development and evolution of life.

Evolution, as has been pointed out many, many times, has to do with inheritance of traits in populations of living things under selective pressures from the environment in which they live, and to which they must adapt, or fail.

Again, either you are being totally dishonest, or you really don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[Milton Platt]

why many people reject christianity? is there a problem with the teachings and messages? the crucifixion of christ means nothing to them? don't they like a religion based on love? many people want proof. but, if there was proof, ''believing'' would be an one-way street and faith would be pointless. if there was undeniable proof, how would we choose christ as our saviour?

Most people reject Christianity (and alternately other religions) for one of two reasons. Those who follow another religion do so for the same reason most people follow Christianity. Their religion is simply the dominate one in their culture, and they were indoctrinated from early childhood. Those who do not follow Christianity or any other religion reject them all for lack of sufficient evidence to believe.

 

[james bond]

I reject Christianity because the story falls apart when studied.

Unlike your arguments. Big sarcasm.

Sorry, but you do not understand "fine tuning". Many of the "fine tuning" arguments over the years have been refuted by later discoveries. They never were evidence for God. This claim of yours only indicates once again that you do not understand the nature of evidence and it is a "God of the gaps" fallacy that you are making.

By the way, not finding life elsewhere in the solar system in no way refutes atheist claims, which you do not appear to understand.


Perhaps we should go over the nature of evidence. I am ready when you are.

I stopped reading after your first sentence. You're just not credible.

Do you know why I chose fine tuning? It's because Stephen Hawking wrote his final paper to argue against it. He's going to present an ensemble argument or hypothesis which is the multiverse. He makes a claim and then writes a paper. You can't even make a claim. I'm going back to ignoring your posts since the only valid argument you had was with GMO food safety and even then it was convoluted.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Muhammad did refer to the Torah quite a bit.

I don't know if this helps or not, but I have read the Koran. Muhammad thought the Bible was corrupt to some degree, and he wasn't all too specific to what he meant. It is true that he directed early Muslims to the Bible in some cases, but he wasn't entirely clear about when the Koran should take precedent as the more authoritative.

but Muhammad was not the Messiah who would come to usher in the Messianic Age... That was Baha'u'llah.

Yes, I am sure that is how Baha'is interpret it.

The Abrahamic religions are not my circus, as the saying goes.

Buddha Dharma - You may wish to read this link to confirm your thoughts - Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 45-61

Thank you for the reference. I'll have a look at it and see if I relate to it in any way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unlike your arguments. Big sarcasm.

You have not been able to touch my arguments. Do you understand the word "sarcasm"?

I stopped reading after your first sentence. You're just not credible.

Now you are lying about me. I can support my claims. You can't. I am not the one that is not credible here.

Do you know why I chose fine tuning? It's because Stephen Hawking wrote his final paper to argue against it. He's going to present an ensemble argument or hypothesis which is the multiverse. He makes a claim and then writes a paper. You can't even make a claim. I'm going back to ignoring your posts since the only valid argument you had was with GMO food safety and even then it was convoluted.

You make these claims about others but you cannot support them. I have asked you to support your claims and you don't. When you do not support claims about others, that are sometimes quite vile, that indicates to others that you are lying. Once again support your claims please.

And you ignore me simply because you can't refute my corrections. You know it, I know it. Why lie about others? Once again you are not following the rules of your own Bible.

 

[james bond]

Against my better judgment, but here goes...

No, it was not "discovered." Fine Tuning is a HYPOTHESIS (it's not even got enough evidence behind it to legitimately call it a theory) to explain why the universe has conditions that appear to be suitable for life to develop. There are several different possible explanations of how the universe came to have the properties that we observe. One is: God Did It! Another one is: in a multiverse in which every possible combination of traits will occur in some of the universes, and we came to be in one of them.

What you say is either dishonest, or you completely DO NOT UNDERSTAND anything about the hypothesis that is called Fine Tuning.

This is what I learned from reading Stephen Hawking, so you're questioning his work and the work of others when trying to explain the moments after the Big Bang.

REALLY? How did the media manage to miss this? We've investigated 'PRETTY MUCH...ALL THE OTHER PLANETS IN THE MILKY WAY???

Son, we haven't even fully investigated all the other planets in our solar system...and it's only been about two decades since ANY extra-solar planets were detected...and we've only detected about 4,000 or so now...out of the estimated hundreds of billions of planets around a couple of hundred billion stars in the MW...and there is no way to presently tell whether or not life exists on any of the ones we have detected...

That is just plain dishonest to make such an assertion, or again, you really don't understand anything about the science behind detecting planets...or life...

**** man, the media has. I guess you've been sleeping. Here's a list of probes.

List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia

The remaining planet (not even a planet) we have not deeply probed in the hope of finding life or evidence to support life like Mars, is Europa, one of Jupiter's moons. The other planet was Mars and we have deeply probed that. All the other planets have been probed, but not as much as Mars.

"Fine tuning has nothing to do with evolution, nor in fact, the origin of life. What fine tuning hypothesizes is the idea that the combination of fundamental properties that we observe in the universe are conducive to the development and evolution of life.

Evolution, as has been pointed out many, many times, has to do with inheritance of traits in populations of living things under selective pressures from the environment in which they live, and to which they must adapt, or fail.

Again, either you are being totally dishonest, or you really don't understand what you're talking about.

You didn't mention the anthropic principle. Look up John Leslie and fine tuning and read his paper.

If anyone is being dishonest, it's you. Fine tuning isn't a hypotheses. It's FACT. Both creation scientists and atheist scientists use it.

Fine-tuning refers to the supposed fact that there is a set of cosmological parameters or fundamental physical
constants that are such that had they been very slightly different, the universe would have been void of intelligent life.

It was discovered when studying the BBT when the early expansion speed seems fine-tuned. Had it been
very slightly greater, the universe would have expanded too rapidly and no galaxies would have formed. There would only have been a very low density hydrogen gas getting more and more dispersed as time went by. In such a universe, presumably, life could not evolve. Had the early expansion speed been very slightly less, then the universe would have collapsed very soon after the big bang, and again there would have been no life. Our universe, just happened to have the right conditions for life. Not just earth, but UNIVERSE. Moreover these atheist scientists found other parameters that were fine tuned. No creation scientists were involved or asked to participate.

I'm not the one being dishonest. Why don't you admit that you do not understand and are wrong about fine tuning?

 

[james bond]

Here are the fine tuning parameters. These are facts as discovered by the atheist scientists.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Parameter Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electronsrotons 1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:1055
Mass Density of Universe1 1:1059
Cosmological Constant 1:10120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning