|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
No, unless you invent some strange new constant which has the same effect as the gravitational constant.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
If God creates Evil out of His so called infinite goodness, He cannot be infinitely Good, hence the argument stands
.... God is a source of natural calamity that is sometimes called evil in a general sense, but He is not author of sinful or moral evil. If you design a rifle for hunting to put food on the table and it gets used to commit a crime, are you the ultimate source of the crime? Think about the logic of your argument. BIble clearly shows GOD is responsible for sanctioning and instigating both moral and natural calamties/evils.
If you design a rifle for hunting to put food on the table and it gets used to commit a crime, are you the ultimate source of the crime?
Think about the logic of your argument.
Your God designed/created Lucifer knowing he would fall, then God let him loose on the world with certain powers. Satan and wickedness cannot exist and operate without Gods express permission. clearly God has given evil a mission in Gods divine plan.
You completely ignore both what the bible says about God in relation to creating evil, verses that have been quoted,
and the logical implications of omniscience and omnipotence in relation to a created world, while repeating objection
that are not related to these issues.
what Bibles and Dictionaries say , are not something some christians are all that willing to accept. They will argue till blue in the face rather than accept what is verifiable and in plain sight print.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
What was God, for the sake of argument, doing for an eternity before creating this Universe?
Nothing for an eternity...suddenly, ''hey, lets create a Universe, a great big Universe, that'll be nice!'' Don't get your hopes up for a sensible answer, I've asked multiple times where God/heaven was before creation of the universe ...and where God/heaven is now relative to the universe, no christian on the CF is willing or capable of answering. nIghthawk gave some desperate feeble attempt by saying its beyond the time & space 3D world,.. yet Bible clearly talks in worldly 3D dimensions regarding the ascention of Jesus - disappearing through the clouds on the way to heaven. If they cannot mistify-baffle people with their BS they just go cold on the subject.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
nIghthawk gave some desperate feeble attempt by saying its beyond the time & space 3D world,.. yet Bible
clearly talks in worldly 3D dimensions regarding the ascention of Jesus - disappearing through the clouds
on the way to heaven.
What's so feeble about saying a supreme being is not limited by physical laws he created? Pretty much in the definition. Don't be so narrow minded. So with the great technical sophistication of 2,000 years ago how would you do the assertion thing so people would get the concept? I mean, a flash of light then nothing would have them staring at one another going WTF. Which would be funny though. Would be very Mel Brooks-ish, nu?
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Another bad argument because I did not say that God created evil out of His infinite goodness.
I said it. It's just basic logic.
God is a source of natural calamity that is sometimes called evil in a general sense, but He is not author of sinful or moral evil. If you design a rifle for hunting to put food on the table and it gets used to commit a crime, are you the ultimate source of the crime? Think about the logic of your argument.
You completely ignore both what the bible says about God in relation to creating evil, verses that have been quoted, and the logical implications of omniscience and omnipotence in relation to a created world, while repeating objection that are not related to these issues. You won't find one verse in the Bible that teaches that God is author of moral evil. You have shown that your ability to interpret the Bible is significantly compromised by your agenda. However this is off topic to the header of this thread anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
[quote=DBT]
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it' How do you know that it existed before the Big Bang? You will say because the Big Bang used it. How do you know the Big Bang used it? Because it made a Big Bang. Talk about unverifiable circular reasoning. Please pay attention. I have said that it is not known what came before the BB, whether the universe is cyclic, part of a multiverse, etc, etc,....what we do know is that a universe exists. Its nature and how matter/energy came about (if it did) is a work in progress. "God did it" is just a belief and an assertion....which doesn't really explain a thing. How is the "assertion" that "God did it" any more speculative than "God didn't do it?" You would need to have omniscient knowledge to authoritatively say "God didn't do it". In fact you would need to be what you say does not exist in order to validate the statement which you already made. There is far more statistical evidence that points towards a Being as described by the Bible than there is to support the assumptions that energy and matter always was, and that was the catalyst for a Big Bang which was the catalyst for a universe that randomly developed into a fine tuned operation. You are fighting an uphill battle that defies logic, common sense, math, and statistical probability--but that is what you must do to advance your alleged scientific cause.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence?
That would be far too rational and reasonable for some folks. Too much reality is a bad thing it seems. So if we don't assume anything can we assume that we have no reason to believe anything that is taught in our public school systems? Should parents tell their children every day they go to school, "Don't assume that anything you are taught is correct." Would it not be better to say, learn all you can, but ask for evidence about anything that doesn't sound right? No one can start the learning process without trusting in something as a starting point. It is better to seek truth than to rely on doubt as a guide--otherwise the best you can become is a doubter and I doubt that will have a good outcome. The question is: why do people assume that their own holy book, the Bible, Quran,Gita, etc, is a source of factual information about the world as it is? That the world was created by Brahman or Yahweh or Allah....? Each assuming that they have the truth, that their own book is reliable, while the other are wrong. This thread is not about which holy book ... but about the myth of evolution. We have discussed holy books on another thread. The issue being addressed is the approach to evidence and education and specifically as it pertains to evolution. I am completely skeptical of the lack of logic, lack of common sense, lack of mathematical/statistical probability in the evolutionary theory. However my starting point is to seek truth, facts, and evidence, and it is not to deny all that I can possibly deny--which is what I was pointing out. Evolutionists try to deny all that can possibly be denied except for evolution which they embrace on the basis of the remotest random possibilities. They would never allow such a remote possibility as sufficient evidence for the existence of God, but they will allow that for the possibility of evolution. The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 20,901 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 20,901 Likes: 1 |
Evolution is the ideology of man trying to explain God in their limited understanding. Fortunately, God is far above man's comprehension.
"I never thought I'd live to see the day that a U.S. president would raise an army to invade his own country."
Robert E. Lee
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
[/b]"In 1961, astronomers acknowledged just two characteristics of the universe as "fine-tuned" to make physical life possible. The more obvious one was the ratio of the gravitational force constant to the electromagnetic force constant. It cannot differ from its value by any more than one part in 10 40 (one part in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion) without eliminating the possibility for life. Today, the number of known cosmic characteristics recognized as fine-tuned for life—any conceivable kind of physical life—stands at thirty-eight. Of these, the most sensitive is the space energy density (the self-stretching property of the universe). Its value cannot vary by more than one part in 10 120 and still allow for the kinds of stars and planets physical life requires."
[b]The mathematical probabilities of all these fine-tuned characteristics randomly coming into being at precisely the right time, and then being maintained, to support the spontaneous generation of life is statistically nil. In fact there is far more probability of the most ardent atheistic evolutionist being converted to the truth than for materialistic evolution to have brought this universe with life into existence.
The fine tuning argument for God is essentially the argument from incredulity;
“I can’t imagine how X can be true; therefore, X must be false.”
“I can’t imagine how X can be false; therefore, X must be true.”
Premise 1: I can’t explain or imagine how proposition X can be true.
Premise 2: if a certain proposition is true, then I must be able to explain or imagine how that can be.
Conclusions: proposition X is false. and yet you follow the same deductive reasoning process to support evolution but without the support of any mathematical probability. The evidential and philosophical basis upon which you dismiss the evidence for God when equally applied to evolution will totally destroy it. However your syllogism is completely wrong because we do not argue from what we do "not" know, but we argue from what we "do" know. We don't begin with what we imagine but we begin with the statistics and math that we do know. However you are trying to refute what we clearly know on the basis of what you think we cannot know for sure. Our position starts with statistical knowledge whereas yours begins with a denial of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence. a. They can be and have been. b. Evolution is NOT a random occurrence. Mutations of genes may occur randomly. However, whether they (a) go away, (b) propogate throughout a population, thus causing the species to evolve, or (c) have no effect at all depends on whether or not they are good or bd for the survival and increase in the population. So did this process and it's laws begin randomly or was it order by design?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
Evolutionists try to deny all that can possibly be denied except for evolution which they embrace on the basis of the remotest random possibilities. They would never allow such a remote possibility as sufficient evidence for the existence of God, but they will allow that for the possibility of evolution. The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed. There you go again. Fake news, fake statements and just more general fakery. Evolutionist do not deny the existence of Gods. They just don't need them. Quite a different proposition. That fact has been mentioned many times in this thread, as well as many other places. They do not allow for the possibility of Evolution, they state it as a known fact - because it is. And last, you keep repeating, "The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed." Yet, you can't explain the flaws. You are a horrible debater, among other things. But you are certainly stubborn about holding onto mythical ideas in the face of the reality. I will grant you that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Well sir as we all know neither you nor any other evolutionist has a reasonable answer for the statistical impossibility of the conundrum. The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence.What is being being passed off as science is not only a myth, but also a hoax.
Not only do those anthropic principles need to be introduced at precisely the right time, but they need to be maintained with the same precision for life to be maintained. Where else do we have such precision without original design or superintending maintenance? This is incontrovertible evidence for both an Intelligent Designer and an omnipotent Being. Was the Pothole made to fit the mud puddle, or does the mud puddle conform to the existing pot hole. Image you have a road, a million miles long, and it's perfectly smooth at every point except one, where there exits a single pot hole. If it rain on the entirety of the road, there's only one place the mud puddle can form. See, part of the problem with your "statistics", is you don't know the denominator. You have no idea how long the road is, nor how long it rains, consequently you have no idea if the number that you think are so big are actually large compared to the number of total opportunities for the occurrence happen. Second, there's an additional flaw in your "fine tuning" argument. Those estimates you present are for life to occur as we know it. Change the variable and you may get a "failed Universe" by our standards, but it might be perfect for some other version of "life". Consequently, we don't have enough information to accurately calculate the probabilities in question. This just sidesteps the origin of the process. Are laws of nature by design or did they start randomly--that is the question. How did they come to respond to need? Why do they not do the opposite of what is needed? If we cannot be predictive of anything on the basis of what we do know than we have no science at all but merely speculations. For your argument to prove anything it proves too much. I love this argument of the denominator may have changed--that would be the death knell of uniformitarianism upon which carbon dating is made. If you lose this to solve one problem you now cannot logically assume that you know the age of the universe to be 13.8 billion years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,505
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,505 |
Well sir as we all know neither you nor any other evolutionist has a reasonable answer for the statistical impossibility of the conundrum. The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence.What is being being passed off as science is not only a myth, but also a hoax.
Not only do those anthropic principles need to be introduced at precisely the right time, but they need to be maintained with the same precision for life to be maintained. Where else do we have such precision without original design or superintending maintenance? This is incontrovertible evidence for both an Intelligent Designer and an omnipotent Being. Was the Pothole made to fit the mud puddle, or does the mud puddle conform to the existing pot hole. Image you have a road, a million miles long, and it's perfectly smooth at every point except one, where there exits a single pot hole. If it rain on the entirety of the road, there's only one place the mud puddle can form. See, part of the problem with your "statistics", is you don't know the denominator. You have no idea how long the road is, nor how long it rains, consequently you have no idea if the number that you think are so big are actually large compared to the number of total opportunities for the occurrence happen. Second, there's an additional flaw in your "fine tuning" argument. Those estimates you present are for life to occur as we know it. Change the variable and you may get a "failed Universe" by our standards, but it might be perfect for some other version of "life". Consequently, we don't have enough information to accurately calculate the probabilities in question. This just sidesteps the origin of the process. Are laws of nature by design or did they start randomly--that is the question. How did they come to respond to need? Why do they not do the opposite of what is needed? If we cannot be predictive of anything on the basis of what we do know than we have no science at all but merely speculations. For your argument to prove anything it proves too much. I love this argument of the denominator may have changed--that would be the death knell of uniformitarianism upon which carbon dating is made. If you lose this to solve one problem you now cannot logically assume that you know the age of the universe to be 13.8 billion years. Carbon dating has nothing at all to do with whether the universe is 13.8 billion years old or not. Take a high school physics course and I'll explain why it's 13.8 billion years old.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Evolutionists try to deny all that can possibly be denied except for evolution which they embrace on the basis of the remotest random possibilities. They would never allow such a remote possibility as sufficient evidence for the existence of God, but they will allow that for the possibility of evolution. The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed. There you go again. Fake news, fake statements and just more general fakery. Evolutionist do not deny the existence of Gods. They just don't need them. Quite a different proposition. That fact has been mentioned many times in this thread, as well as many other places. They do not allow for the possibility of Evolution, they state it as a known fact - because it is. And last, you keep repeating, "The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed." Yet, you can't explain the flaws. You are a horrible debater, among other things. But you are certainly stubborn about holding onto mythical ideas in the face of the reality. I will grant you that. Seriously as most people recognize--many, many evolutionists are atheists and most all if not all atheists believe in evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Well sir as we all know neither you nor any other evolutionist has a reasonable answer for the statistical impossibility of the conundrum. The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence.What is being being passed off as science is not only a myth, but also a hoax.
Not only do those anthropic principles need to be introduced at precisely the right time, but they need to be maintained with the same precision for life to be maintained. Where else do we have such precision without original design or superintending maintenance? This is incontrovertible evidence for both an Intelligent Designer and an omnipotent Being. Was the Pothole made to fit the mud puddle, or does the mud puddle conform to the existing pot hole. Image you have a road, a million miles long, and it's perfectly smooth at every point except one, where there exits a single pot hole. If it rain on the entirety of the road, there's only one place the mud puddle can form. See, part of the problem with your "statistics", is you don't know the denominator. You have no idea how long the road is, nor how long it rains, consequently you have no idea if the number that you think are so big are actually large compared to the number of total opportunities for the occurrence happen. Second, there's an additional flaw in your "fine tuning" argument. Those estimates you present are for life to occur as we know it. Change the variable and you may get a "failed Universe" by our standards, but it might be perfect for some other version of "life". Consequently, we don't have enough information to accurately calculate the probabilities in question. This just sidesteps the origin of the process. Are laws of nature by design or did they start randomly--that is the question. How did they come to respond to need? Why do they not do the opposite of what is needed? If we cannot be predictive of anything on the basis of what we do know than we have no science at all but merely speculations. For your argument to prove anything it proves too much. I love this argument of the denominator may have changed--that would be the death knell of uniformitarianism upon which carbon dating is made. If you lose this to solve one problem you now cannot logically assume that you know the age of the universe to be 13.8 billion years. Carbon dating has nothing at all to do with whether the universe is 13.8 billion years old or not. Take a high school physics course and I'll explain why it's 13.8 billion years old. I could have said "earth" instead of "universe," though the earth is typically considered as part of the equation of dating the universe because it is a part of the universe, and is the vantage point from which any extrapolations are made. So I will not deny the physics aspect of extrapolation, but we both know that the geological dating is based on the carbon dating method--which is heavily used as evidence to support the age of the earth--which is part of the dating equation--which assumes uniformitarianism as part of its dating methodology. Even in physics we extrapolate by what we know in the present.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/14/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 12,039 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 12,039 Likes: 2 |
The evolutionist arguments remind one of the global warming thing. It's accepted as the great what is and ever will be regardless of actual data supporting it. The argument for evolution is another one of those points that can bring together polar political, socioeconomic opposites.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
Well sir as we all know neither you nor any other evolutionist has a reasonable answer for the statistical impossibility of the conundrum. The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence.What is being being passed off as science is not only a myth, but also a hoax.
Not only do those anthropic principles need to be introduced at precisely the right time, but they need to be maintained with the same precision for life to be maintained. Where else do we have such precision without original design or superintending maintenance? This is incontrovertible evidence for both an Intelligent Designer and an omnipotent Being. Was the Pothole made to fit the mud puddle, or does the mud puddle conform to the existing pot hole. Image you have a road, a million miles long, and it's perfectly smooth at every point except one, where there exits a single pot hole. If it rain on the entirety of the road, there's only one place the mud puddle can form. See, part of the problem with your "statistics", is you don't know the denominator. You have no idea how long the road is, nor how long it rains, consequently you have no idea if the number that you think are so big are actually large compared to the number of total opportunities for the occurrence happen. Second, there's an additional flaw in your "fine tuning" argument. Those estimates you present are for life to occur as we know it. Change the variable and you may get a "failed Universe" by our standards, but it might be perfect for some other version of "life". Consequently, we don't have enough information to accurately calculate the probabilities in question. This just sidesteps the origin of the process. Are laws of nature by design or did they start randomly--that is the question. How did they come to respond to need? Why do they not do the opposite of what is needed? If we cannot be predictive of anything on the basis of what we do know than we have no science at all but merely speculations. For your argument to prove anything it proves too much. I love this argument of the denominator may have changed--that would be the death knell of uniformitarianism upon which carbon dating is made. If you lose this to solve one problem you now cannot logically assume that you know the age of the universe to be 13.8 billion years. Carbon dating has nothing at all to do with whether the universe is 13.8 billion years old or not. Take a high school physics course and I'll explain why it's 13.8 billion years old. Ok I will not deny the physics aspect of extrapolation, but we both know that the geological dating is based on the carbon dating method. not when we are talking billions of years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
Evolutionists try to deny all that can possibly be denied except for evolution which they embrace on the basis of the remotest random possibilities. They would never allow such a remote possibility as sufficient evidence for the existence of God, but they will allow that for the possibility of evolution. The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed. There you go again. Fake news, fake statements and just more general fakery. Evolutionist do not deny the existence of Gods. They just don't need them. Quite a different proposition. That fact has been mentioned many times in this thread, as well as many other places. They do not allow for the possibility of Evolution, they state it as a known fact - because it is. And last, you keep repeating, "The very critical thinking aspect of the ideology of evolution is seriously flawed." Yet, you can't explain the flaws. You are a horrible debater, among other things. But you are certainly stubborn about holding onto mythical ideas in the face of the reality. I will grant you that. Seriously as most people recognize--many, many evolutionists are atheists and most all if not all atheists believe in evolution. You are conflating atheists with evolution. Not the same. Not all evolutionists are atheists. Practice your Venn Diagrams.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,505
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,505 |
I am completely skeptical of the lack of logic, lack of common sense, lack of mathematical/statistical probability in the evolutionary theory. How's this for logic: Hypothesis: Life forms evolve over time into different life forms. Prediction: If the hypothesis is true, we should find different life forms at different times, and some intermediate between living and extinct ones. Findings: We actually found the predicted results. Prediction #2: Life forms which appear similar have similar DNA. The more similar the anatomy, the more similar would be the DNA. Finding #2: We found the DNA conforms to the predictions. Evolution is logical. Belief in God is not logical. Belief in God is a matter of faith. There is nothing it predicts that is subject to investigation to see if it is true or not.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
The evolutionist arguments remind one of the global warming thing. It's accepted as the great what is and ever will be regardless of actual data supporting it. The argument for evolution is another one of those points that can bring together polar political, socioeconomic opposites. Exactly--it's akin to Obama saying "the debate over global warming and whether it is manmade is over--science has already proven it to be beyond debate."
|
|
|
|
|
526 members (219DW, 1234, 10Glocks, 219 Wasp, 21, 1minute, 50 invisible),
2,414
guests, and
1,201
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,432
Posts18,489,316
Members73,970
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
