- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 16 2008,23:51) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 16 2008,14:46) Hey Stu, I just noticed in your signature that you said “The white tile remains unexplained by the mods”. Have you thought about the possibility that your avatar is evolving and perhaps the white tile reflects just enough heat away for the icon to remain at an optimum cyber-temperature.
I mean anything is possible in Evolution. You just need to believe it is possible.
No T8,That is not evolution. Evolution is when the tile evolves into a circle because a circle is stronger than a square.
Tim
OK.We will wait and see if it changes to a circle.
But I thought triangles were the strongest.
Well if it changes shape then I will believe that an intelligence of some kind changed it and Stu could put it down to cyber-evolution.
Quote I mean anything is possible in Evolution. With creationism anything is 'explainable'. An important point of biological evolution is that many things are not possible. Read Jacob Bronowski.
Stuart
So what?
You say that certain things are possible and others aren't yet the ones that are possible all happened without any guidance from intelligence. To your mind that may be possible to others it is not.
Also you just accept that laws just existed, but you need to explain the framework that allows an expanding universe. The thing is that most science doesn't even bother to try, yet they draw very specific conclusions about pre-big bang. Quite ignorant don't you think?
i.e., they have no idea how something just appeared and got bigger, yet they say with certainty that there was no God or intelligence from a higher dimension who was the cause. Ha ha. Can you see how hypocritical that is?
In all honesty to not believe in God is the biggest fairytale around, yet it is the ones that do not believe that often persecute those who do. Many that do believe in God feel sorry for those who lack the insight, more so than persecuting them.
As I have said before, you actually need to believe in a fairytale because all possibilities to the mind with no experience are just plain unbelievable and so they should be.
A: Cosmos was created by an intelligence.
B: Cosmos came from nothing and exploded to produce galaxies, atoms, and life.
C: Cosmos is the latest stage of something that is non-intelligent that has always existed, even though it managed to produce life.I choose (A) Stu, which fairytale do you hold to Stu?
t8
Any person worth their integrity suspends judgement until there is good evidence, or at least makes it clear that if they make a conclusion it is a hunch and done without evidence. I suspend my judgement about what happened before the first millisecond after the big bang. Real science, like the upcoming experiments in the Large Hadron Collider, might give us more to go on than prayer and blind faith, as usual.
As for science not bothering, even science doing nothing and making blind guesses is more productive than any amount of thumbing through Genesis ever could. Still, don't let me put you off. Carry on in your ignorant way. Until you have an actual theory of divine deity breathing your posts are the clanging bells of Corinthians. Regarding the cosmos and its mysteries you have no love.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 21 2008,21:45) Any person worth their integrity suspends judgement until there is good evidence
There it is right there Stu.You haven't suspended your judgement have you?
You have condemned those who believe option A, even though you have no idea which one is correct.
YOU HAVEN”T SUSPENDED YOUR JUDGEMENT THEREFORE ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN STANDARD, YOU ARE LACKING IN INTERGRITY.
I am not out to get anyone, but when a person comes here and condemns other people's view while having no idea what the truth is, then surely that person is lacking in scientific integrity (at the least). You then confirm this. On this I cannot be silent.
I rest my case.
I guess we could close this topic off now that we have sorted that one out.
t8
It is not me who exclude's the other's possibility. You could be right, I have always said that. It is you who is making out the lie that I do not reserve any chance of your god. It is a vanishingly tiny chance but is infinitely larger than the uncertainty you admit.
I can understand you wanting to have the last word when your case is so indefensible. You can argue until you are bue in the face that I see to be inflexible and unyielding on the question of the origin of the cosmos, but it is you lying actually.
Stuart
What about all your accusations regarding God being Santa Claus and the like? Sounds like a person with preconceived ideas and a closed mind to me.
I choose to believe in God because I know he exists from my life experiences. So it is not just because it is the most logical explanation of the three, but I have had input from God too making it a 2-fold witness. So I am satisfied myself that he exists and for me that is all that matters. It is a personal choice to believe.
I can understand you being sceptical because you have perhaps had no evidence apart from the obviousness of the works that God has left us with, but then to answer that question for yourself, you need to seek because only those who seek will find. God doesn't work in people who are not willing to find the truth.
If you don't bother to seek God, then you won't find God and you will just have to work everything out given the works within the cosmos itself versus your own bias and mind limitations.
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 21 2008,23:04) It is a vanishingly tiny chance but is infinitely larger than the uncertainty you admit.
A vanishing tiny chance?OK, put a rough percentage on the 3 options please.
e.g.,
00.02% God created the cosmos
49.99% Cosmos came from nothing
49.99% Cosmos has always existed in some formIs the above how you see it, or do you want to move the numbers around a bit?
Hi t8
What about all your accusations regarding God being Santa Claus and the like? Sounds like a person with preconceived ideas and a closed mind to me.
Quote Not at all. I cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist either. The nature of any science is that you can make a conclusion but it is provisional. Your conclusion about god is not provisional on anything. Even if it were possible to disprove gods you would not accept that proof in any case. Quote I choose to believe in God because I know he exists from my life experiences.
Again, that is your conclusion. However when your experiences are subjected to analysis they do not stand up to the god conclusion.Quote So it is not just because it is the most logical explanation of the three, but I have had input from God too making it a 2-fold witness.
This anecdotal evidence you present has two major problems. The first is that you have not outlined how that evidence manifests itself and the second is that you cannot know for sure that you have not been deceived by your own brain, because it is entirely your experience and cannot be replicated. That said, I don’t believe your experiences are radically different from mine (that is a provisional conclusion, by the way!). We know of countless examples of our brains being deceived, in fact deception is part of the brain’s coping mechanism, and neuroscience is getting to the material cause of the experiences that religious people claim are special to them.Quote So I am satisfied myself that he exists and for me that is all that matters. It is a personal choice to believe.
Sure. But your mockery of non-believers is not justified, whereas the mockery of you by non-believers is, because natural justice requires evidence. If evidence was not the basis of justice the road would lead to an autocracy where you just do what one person says, for no justification at all.Quote I can understand you being sceptical because you have perhaps had no evidence apart from the obviousness of the works that God has left us with,
It is not obvious at all. God represents no actual explanation for anything, so even if you invoke such a thing, where does it practically get you? I suspect the answer some here would give is the non-answer that lists verse after verse of Elizabethan English prose, and not the practical details of how baryons separate asymmetrically, what the nature of dark matter is, whether dark energy is related to it, exactly how abiogenesis occurred historically. These are real mysteries and religious mythology only encourages people to adopt an ignorant position rather than actually address these real questions. Mark my words, there will be such a response to this post!Quote but then to answer that question for yourself, you need to seek because only those who seek will find. God doesn't work in people who are not willing to find the truth.
God does not work in anyone. That is my conclusion based on the evidence. Do you have evidence that negates that, evidence that cannot be interpreted in any other way but divine cause?Quote If you don't bother to seek God, then you won't find God and you will just have to work everything out given the works within the cosmos itself versus your own bias and mind limitations.
See above. The judeo-christian god provides no real answers to anything worth asking. It is virtually identical to the situation with TV psychics ‘investigating’ unsolved murders. People are sucked into the charade but not a single case has ever been solved by any such TV show. Fraud is not too strong a word for it, and in both cases people are intellectually and psychologically damaged by it.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 23 2008,20:00) Not at all. I cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist either. The nature of any science is that you can make a conclusion but it is provisional. Your conclusion about god is not provisional on anything. Even if it were possible to disprove gods you would not accept that proof in any case.
You are way off Stu.When all the complexities are boiled down, it comes out to 3 options.
1) Cosmos was created by God.
2) Cosmos came from nothing at some point.
3) Cosmos has always existed in some non-living form.Stu, if your science is too scared to tackle the real questions, then your science is worthless. It is merely some data from here and there mixed with your own imagination and bias.
Until you can tackle the above, all you say is worthless, because the 3 points above are 3 foundations on which sits all other things.
If you want to build a building without a foundation Stu, then your house will fall down and I am not going to pretend that it won't. So until you can tackle the foundation then your words are pointless and a waste of time.
Show me your foundation on which your science sits. Otherwise there is no point in proving how strong the walls or the roof is, because a faulty foundation makes the whole thing weak and it will fall.
t8
It is the same science on which is based the last antibiotic you took, or the doping of the silicon that leads to the chip that processes your typing here. If Alexander Fleming and his colleagues had needed such a 'foundation' for their work then we might still have the rates of death from bacterial infection that killed so many in the christian-dominated dark ages. I think you need to make a choice here whether you actually accept science or not. If you don't then say so publicly: send you computer back with a suitably Luddite scriptural verse pinned to it. Tell your pharmacist that you would prefer not to take pills that were the product of nothing more than his 'imagination and bias'.
Scientists have the honesty that you lack. They say that with some things (and biological evolution is not one of them) they have some guesses but they really don't know. You leap in and claim absolute knowledge gained from some divine source that cannot even be demonstrated to exist, and that demands more questions that it answers. Whose philosophy is worthless?
Stuart
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 24 2008,22:04) t8 It is the same science on which is based the last antibiotic you took, or the doping of the silicon that leads to the chip that processes your typing here. If Alexander Fleming and his colleagues had needed such a 'foundation' for their work then we might still have the rates of death from bacterial infection that killed so many in the christian-dominated dark ages. I think you need to make a choice here whether you actually accept science or not. If you don't then say so publicly: send you computer back with a suitably Luddite scriptural verse pinned to it. Tell your pharmacist that you would prefer not to take pills that were the product of nothing more than his 'imagination and bias'.
Scientists have the honesty that you lack. They say that with some things (and biological evolution is not one of them) they have some guesses but they really don't know. You leap in and claim absolute knowledge gained from some divine source that cannot even be demonstrated to exist, and that demands more questions that it answers. Whose philosophy is worthless?
Stuart
Stuart
Greetings Stu….Iam a believer in science and it is just another of the many ways the creator of all that is communicates with man..It is the huberous of man that creates the difference between science and theology,it is mans enmity towards God that prevents him from seeing that science is nothing more than the continuation of Gods creation….Science and Religion have the battleground for interllectual vandals for ages…Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 25 2008,06:35) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 24 2008,22:04) t8 It is the same science on which is based the last antibiotic you took, or the doping of the silicon that leads to the chip that processes your typing here. If Alexander Fleming and his colleagues had needed such a 'foundation' for their work then we might still have the rates of death from bacterial infection that killed so many in the christian-dominated dark ages. I think you need to make a choice here whether you actually accept science or not. If you don't then say so publicly: send you computer back with a suitably Luddite scriptural verse pinned to it. Tell your pharmacist that you would prefer not to take pills that were the product of nothing more than his 'imagination and bias'.
Scientists have the honesty that you lack. They say that with some things (and biological evolution is not one of them) they have some guesses but they really don't know. You leap in and claim absolute knowledge gained from some divine source that cannot even be demonstrated to exist, and that demands more questions that it answers. Whose philosophy is worthless?
Stuart
Stuart
Greetings Stu….Iam a believer in science and it is just another of the many ways the creator of all that is communicates with man..It is the huberous of man that creates the difference between science and theology,it is mans enmity towards God that prevents him from seeing that science is nothing more than the continuation of Gods creation….Science and Religion have the battleground for interllectual vandals for ages…
Hi theodorejScience does not care for the assumption of the existence of a deity that cannot be detected objectively, it says nothing at all about it. That is the fundamental disagreement they have. Science is about explaining, and refining the explanations. What theology is about I have no clear idea. It looks like smoke and mirrors to me, like the TV psychics who have not given by 'psychic powers' a single piece of novel evidence leading to a conviction in any unsolved murder case, in any country, ever. Science has saved countless lives and made global communication like this possible. Those are two tangible results, wherever you stand on the ethics of each.
Can you think of a single outcome of belief in christian doctrine that has done as much good as the appendectomy operation say, that could not possibly be done without christianity? Other than a placebo effect, christianity has no tangible result in any area, and has caused as much misery as any human activity that places the death of a human at its core.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 24 2008,22:04) t8 It is the same science on which is based the last antibiotic you took, or the doping of the silicon that leads to the chip that processes your typing here. If Alexander Fleming and his colleagues had needed such a 'foundation' for their work then we might still have the rates of death from bacterial infection that killed so many in the christian-dominated dark ages. I think you need to make a choice here whether you actually accept science or not. If you don't then say so publicly: send you computer back with a suitably Luddite scriptural verse pinned to it. Tell your pharmacist that you would prefer not to take pills that were the product of nothing more than his 'imagination and bias'.
Scientists have the honesty that you lack. They say that with some things (and biological evolution is not one of them) they have some guesses but they really don't know. You leap in and claim absolute knowledge gained from some divine source that cannot even be demonstrated to exist, and that demands more questions that it answers. Whose philosophy is worthless?
Stuart
Stuart
To Stuart Stuart.Sorry I didn't hear your answer in all that.
What percentage do you apply to the following foundations:
1) Cosmos was created by God.
2) Cosmos came from nothing at some point.
3) Cosmos has always existed in some non-living form.Can I safely assume that you give a .002% for the first one?
If not, then what, and what of the other 2.Remember this is the percentage of likely hood in your mind.
I have been forthcoming with you and you like to give me a hard time about my belief in God. So lets hear what you think.You say Scientists are more honest. Well lets hear your honest opinion. I have been honest with you after all.
From the Holy Wikipedia:
The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. The essential idea is that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to expand to this day. Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's General Relativity as formulated by Alexander Friedmann. After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point. The farther away, the higher the apparent velocity. If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory. But these accelerators can only probe so far into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition, rather explaining the general evolution of the universe since that instant. The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
In other words there is currently a limit to our knowledge, going backwards towards the big bang. No one knows anything definite about that millisecond or so. Now let's see real genius at work:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
…although it does not say how. Or when. It does not give a prime cause. It is bog useless mythology, explaining absolutely nothing at all.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 25 2008,06:51) Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 25 2008,06:35) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 24 2008,22:04) t8 It is the same science on which is based the last antibiotic you took, or the doping of the silicon that leads to the chip that processes your typing here. If Alexander Fleming and his colleagues had needed such a 'foundation' for their work then we might still have the rates of death from bacterial infection that killed so many in the christian-dominated dark ages. I think you need to make a choice here whether you actually accept science or not. If you don't then say so publicly: send you computer back with a suitably Luddite scriptural verse pinned to it. Tell your pharmacist that you would prefer not to take pills that were the product of nothing more than his 'imagination and bias'.
Scientists have the honesty that you lack. They say that with some things (and biological evolution is not one of them) they have some guesses but they really don't know. You leap in and claim absolute knowledge gained from some divine source that cannot even be demonstrated to exist, and that demands more questions that it answers. Whose philosophy is worthless?
Stuart
Stuart
Greetings Stu….Iam a believer in science and it is just another of the many ways the creator of all that is communicates with man..It is the huberous of man that creates the difference between science and theology,it is mans enmity towards God that prevents him from seeing that science is nothing more than the continuation of Gods creation….Science and Religion have the battleground for interllectual vandals for ages…
Hi theodorejScience does not care for the assumption of the existence of a deity that cannot be detected objectively, it says nothing at all about it. That is the fundamental disagreement they have. Science is about explaining, and refining the explanations. What theology is about I have no clear idea. It looks like smoke and mirrors to me, like the TV psychics who have not given by 'psychic powers' a single piece of novel evidence leading to a conviction in any unsolved murder case, in any country, ever. Science has saved countless lives and made global communication like this possible. Those are two tangible results, wherever you stand on the ethics of each.
Can you think of a single outcome of belief in christian doctrine that has done as much good as the appendectomy operation say, that could not possibly be done without christianity? Other than a placebo effect, christianity has no tangible result in any area, and has caused as much misery as any human activity that places the death of a human at its core.
Stuart
Greetings Stu….The appendectomy operation started as an Idea/theory that had to start with an inspiration,in this case an inspiration to to heal….And I might say the inspiration to do good for your fellow man can only come from a love that surpasses understanding…..As far has your thesis that science pays no attention to an undefined/unseen diety…If you examine the concept of Quantum physics you will see that the unknown is a key element in the equations used to draw conclusive answers…..In other words Stu it boils down to this.
Of the 3 options
1) Cosmos was created by God.
2) Cosmos came from nothing at some point.
3) Cosmos has always existed in some non-living form.You ridicule those who believe the first one and you will not admit to which of the other 2 you hold to because by doing that you open yourself up to ridicule too.
So rather than admitting that the first option has merit, you simply say that its likelihood is .002% and of the others you haven't got a clue.
So if you call that science, then God help us.
Am I right in my conclusion?
Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 26 2008,02:09) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 25 2008,06:51) Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 25 2008,06:35) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 24 2008,22:04) t8 It is the same science on which is based the last antibiotic you took, or the doping of the silicon that leads to the chip that processes your typing here. If Alexander Fleming and his colleagues had needed such a 'foundation' for their work then we might still have the rates of death from bacterial infection that killed so many in the christian-dominated dark ages. I think you need to make a choice here whether you actually accept science or not. If you don't then say so publicly: send you computer back with a suitably Luddite scriptural verse pinned to it. Tell your pharmacist that you would prefer not to take pills that were the product of nothing more than his 'imagination and bias'.
Scientists have the honesty that you lack. They say that with some things (and biological evolution is not one of them) they have some guesses but they really don't know. You leap in and claim absolute knowledge gained from some divine source that cannot even be demonstrated to exist, and that demands more questions that it answers. Whose philosophy is worthless?
Stuart
Stuart
Greetings Stu….Iam a believer in science and it is just another of the many ways the creator of all that is communicates with man..It is the huberous of man that creates the difference between science and theology,it is mans enmity towards God that prevents him from seeing that science is nothing more than the continuation of Gods creation….Science and Religion have the battleground for interllectual vandals for ages…
Hi theodorejScience does not care for the assumption of the existence of a deity that cannot be detected objectively, it says nothing at all about it. That is the fundamental disagreement they have. Science is about explaining, and refining the explanations. What theology is about I have no clear idea. It looks like smoke and mirrors to me, like the TV psychics who have not given by 'psychic powers' a single piece of novel evidence leading to a conviction in any unsolved murder case, in any country, ever. Science has saved countless lives and made global communication like this possible. Those are two tangible results, wherever you stand on the ethics of each.
Can you think of a single outcome of belief in christian doctrine that has done as much good as the appendectomy operation say, that could not possibly be done without christianity? Other than a placebo effect, christianity has no tangible result in any area, and has caused as much misery as any human activity that places the death of a human at its core.
Stuart
Greetings Stu….The appendectomy operation started as an Idea/theory that had to start with an inspiration,in this case an inspiration to to heal….And I might say the inspiration to do good for your fellow man can only come from a love that surpasses understanding…..As far has your thesis that science pays no attention to an undefined/unseen diety…If you examine the concept of Quantum physics you will see that the unknown is a key element in the equations used to draw conclusive answers…..
Huh? What 'love that surpasses understanding'? Why not have the operation invented by a smartarse doctor who just wants to massage his own ego and pick up women by seeming to be very clever? Not likely, I'll grant you, but I sure wouldn't care either way if he will saved me from the timebomb of an infectable appendix that your Imaginary Friend callously created me with. Is that another example of 'his love'? Of course it is not, the appendix is a vestigial organ from the caecum of an earlier ancestral form that is still made by our genome because it does not take much energy to make it and infection of it has not been a big enough selection pressure to favour losing it. Yet. It is either a vindictive creator, an incompetent creator or natural selection at work. All the evidence points at the latter, as you should know.By the way, exactly what do you mean by uncertainty in quantum mechanical equations?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
