• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it

Molinaro said:
What we have recently found are planets that have orbits which permits the presence of liquid water on their surface.

We don't yet know if they actually have any water or anything about any atmospheres they may or may not have.
Click to expand...

The Jan/Feb issue of Discover Magazine covers this year in science and has a page on planetary discoveries including a couple that are in the so called Goldilocks zone, both rocky planets, one of which is Earth sized. IIRC
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
And, when we do find life elsewhere in the Universe as we most likely surely will, will the Elf Grinders of the world um . . . er . . . you know. Or will they move the goal posts? One hopes, at least, that they will stop grinding elves.
Click to expand...

Those goalposts will never stop moving.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
No one found any planets with the ability to support life...
Click to expand...
That's a tad harsh. We've only been able to look for about 20 years--and only in the last handful of years have we been able to look for planets that might contain life. Plus, we found some potential indications of life on a moon of Jupiter (I forget which; it's the one with liquid hydrocarbons). The data are ambiguous, but fit with one viable biochemistry in such a situation.

The actual parameters for a life supporting planet are much larger...
Click to expand...
I'm generally in agreement with the notion that exobiologists are guilty of assuming that Earth-like life is life as such. However, we've gotta start somewhere.

Quotes from 2 scientists summarize the point...
Click to expand...
Cherry picking is ubiquitious and disengenuous. Plus, I could find two scientists to agree with ANYTHING. I know a geologist that's a registered member of the Hollow Earth Society. It proves nothing.

This proves simply that it is highly unlikely that life evolved randomly
Click to expand...
Life didn't evolve randomly. No scientist believes it did. Abiogenesis was not a random process; it was the inevitable result of a series of processes and thermodynamics. Evolution--which is an entirely separate concept--is most defnitely not random either.

This is supported by the science and the probabilities derived from science

1. #planets supporting life and

2. probability that the universe was able to form using our understanding of the forces that govern its existence.
Click to expand...
#1 is an unknown. NO ONE knows how many planets have life.

#2 is known. The issue with abiogenesis isn't finding a viable pathway; these days it's picking among multiple viable options.

3. there is no direct scientific evidence of the mechanism by which evolution has taken place
Click to expand...
Flagrantly false. This statement can only be a lie this day and age. We have observed mutations leading to differential survival in numerous organisms, from bacteria to fruit flies. We have observed speciation directly, in the form of invasive species that become reproductively isolated from their parent populations. It's routine to, when possible, match paleontological cladograms with genetic cladograms for numerous Cenozoic critters, often allowing us to point to the precise genes that caused the morphological changes we see in the fossil record. de Vries' primrose experiments in the 1800s directly proved the mechanism for evolution, and we have since refined it to a very precise science.

The evidence for abiogenesis is a tad more difficult to wrap your head around, but the presence of chemical trace fossils is pretty definitive. To go into any further detail would require an understanding of the chemistry behind metabolism and of stable isotopic chemistry. The evidence for individual mechanisms is experimental in nature--as in, we've run the experiments. Repeatedly.

The only evidence of evolution is that life has appeared where it once did not appear
Click to expand...
Abiogenesis=/= evolution.

And you're right that life appearing where it wasn't isn't proof of abiogenesis. But it IS evidence. If someone presented evidence that it came from somewhere else, we'd look at that posibility. No one has--they've merely demanded we take a dusty old book that many of us don't believe in seriously. Imagine how YOU would feel if we did that to you.

Again you can't say it happened randomly because the evidence is that evolution is not random it is "punctuated".
Click to expand...
Great gods in hell....Punctuated equilibrium has nothing to do with what you're talking about. It merely means that most selection is conservative--organisms quickly reach local fitness maxima (I've been toying with the concept of "local selection minimal", but haven't fully formulated it yet) extremely quickly (in geological terms), then tend to stay there for long periods of time (compared to the time it takes to reach the maxima). This has nothing to do with abiogenesis. I've seen enough data to become convinced that this isn't the only tempo of evolutionary change, eitherr--some groups do exhibit apaprenlty continuous change. I'm not sure it mattered for the earliest life forms--horizontal gene transfer dominated evolution at the time, so this sort of consideration was a non-issue.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Carl Sagan estimates the number of planets supporting life in the universe



No one found any planets with the ability to support life...



The actual parameters for a life supporting planet are much larger...



The probability that the universe formed is low as well...



Quotes from 2 scientists summarize the point...





This proves simply that it is highly unlikely that life evolved randomly

This is supported by the science and the probabilities derived from science

1. #planets supporting life and

2. probability that the universe was able to form using our understanding of the forces that govern its existence.

3. there is no direct scientific evidence of the mechanism by which evolution has taken place (which is happening non randomly). The only evidence of evolution is that life has appeared where it once did not appear - a tautology not evidence of any mechanism by which it appears. Again you can't say it happened randomly because the evidence is that evolution is not random it is "punctuated".

I can hear atheists silently weeping
Click to expand...

The article in your OP is behind a paywall, so I didn't read it; but it appears, from this post of yours, and the responses to it, that your "God Exists, Science proves it" theme is the usual creationist tactic of framing an argument against one thing (evolution) as necessarily proof of something else (goddidit). No, just...no. If you want to play the game of science, you need to play by its rules; this means your own "theory" needs its own merits, its own evidence, to stand on, entirely apart from any holes you may think you see in another. Re the highlighted above- aside from the fact that (as others here have pointed out) you're conflating evolution with abiogenesis...how is "goddidit!" any less a tautology, or any more explanatory of the mechanism by which life appeared? It's a bald declaration, not an explanation at all.

As JayUtah says of CTists, they are never willing to subject their own theories (when they even have discernible ones) to the same standard of evidence they demand for the ones they oppose; it seems the same is true of creationists. Bottom line is, you cannot "prove" that god exists just by opposition to evolution; science isn't a zero-sum game where there are only two theories- "goddidit!" and evolution- and yours wins by default when (you think) you've ruled out evolution (which you clearly don't understand anyway).
 
Dinwar said:
Quote:
This proves simply that it is highly unlikely that life evolved randomly
Click to expand...
Life didn't evolve randomly. No scientist believes it did. Abiogenesis was not a random process; it was the inevitable result of a series of processes and thermodynamics. Evolution--which is an entirely separate concept--is most defnitely not random either.
Click to expand...
EG's use of "randomly" here is another example of what seems to me to be a habit creationists have of projecting their own expectations onto what science says. When they say "random," what they really mean is "without purpose." It seems obvious, without the normative preconception of religion, that there is nothing at all random about life developing as a result of (and within) the constraints imposed by the universe. But if you look through the lens of religion, it must be random if there was no intent.

From a rational POV, I can't imagine anything more actually random than a god who can do anything.
 
I'm going to ask the question I always ask when this subject comes up. Maybe I'll actually get an answer this time.

Elf Grinder - silently weeping? Seriously, what makes you think that atheists or agnostics see this stuff as some kind of contest? "Neener, neener, you're wrong, there's a god." Is that really how you think it works for us? Why would we "weep" if it turned out there was a god? We're not betting the farm on it, for pity's sake. We just need evidence (real evidence, scientifically sound evidence) to believe in anything, and we certainly haven't seen any for god yet.

That's literally all there is to it.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
This is supported by the science and the probabilities derived from science

1. #planets supporting life and

2. probability that the universe was able to form using our understanding of the forces that govern its existence.

3. there is no direct scientific evidence of the mechanism by which evolution has taken place (which is happening non randomly). The only evidence of evolution is that life has appeared where it once did not appear - a tautology not evidence of any mechanism by which it appears. Again you can't say it happened randomly because the evidence is that evolution is not random it is "punctuated".

I can hear atheists silently weeping
Click to expand...

Notably lacking are the citations to support your assertions.

Which science, where exactly, please do tell.
 
I just read that article on a friends FB post and found the title to be completely misleading. Science has not now nor ever pointed to god as the answer. Rather the author, through assertion and misunderstanding, reveals his own incredulity towards the existence of life without there being a god. That is a far cry from science pointing towards the existence of god.

It is also dishonestly or lazily written. The author quotes Fred Hoyle almost verbatim from wikipedia. The article notes the Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" but fails to point out that Hoyle did not develop the big bang theory and actually opposed that theory. Instead the author would have you believe that the creator of the Big Bang theory was a proponent of intelligent design. Whether this was done intentionally or out of ignorance on the author's behalf is unknown.

(He also fails to mention that Hoyle believed AIDS arrived on a comet but that's none of my business...)

Religion needs to get over it's obsession with misusing and misunderstanding science. It's embarrassing.
 
Religion is a needy and mendacious father figure delusion fixated on sex and death.

Why does the all knowing god of Abraham appear to require 21st century scientific validation at every turn when inflicting its twisted morality on humankind? How would the world be any different if a god were actually proven to exist by dint of these silly arguments for vindication? Would it then peer sheepishly down from its heavenly aerie and agree to stop all the suffering and war or confess he got it wrong on slavery and other bronze age pipe dreams that have served only to mess with humans' progress?

Who cares?
 
turingtest said:
EG's use of "randomly" here is another example of what seems to me to be a habit creationists have of projecting their own expectations onto what science says.
Click to expand...
Given my discussions with Creationists, I believe that this is what they think we think. Obviously different data sets will yield different results, but the Creationists I've spoken with tend to believe scientists really believe evolution to be a genuinely random process. If you understand the mathematical term, getting them to pin down what random is is REALLY fun, by the way!

Biscuit said:
Religion needs to get over it's obsession with misusing and misunderstanding science.
Click to expand...
Let's not attribute to the entire enterprise the mistakes of a small subset. For every idiot who cherry-picks quotes out of context, I can find a religious scientist. I've read a number of Bakker's works, and have yet to find any evidence that his religious beliefs (he is an Evangelical preacher) have contributed...well, at all, really, to his scientific interpretations.

isissxn said:
Elf Grinder - silently weeping? Seriously, what makes you think that atheists or agnostics see this stuff as some kind of contest? "Neener, neener, you're wrong, there's a god." Is that really how you think it works for us? Why would we "weep" if it turned out there was a god? We're not betting the farm on it, for pity's sake. We just need evidence (real evidence, scientifically sound evidence) to believe in anything, and we certainly haven't seen any for god yet.
Click to expand...
Well said. While a few may hold atheism as a key component of their world-view, most of us non-believing scientists simply don't hold the concept of deities as of any importance. If evidence is presented I'll evaluate it and draw my conclusions. A lack of evidence is itself evidence.

You want us to believe something? Show us the evidence. It's really as simple as that. Evidence against something doesn't count. A book of ambiguous and often clearly fraudulent authorship (by today's standards, anyway) doesn't count. Personal experience doesn't count--because as soon as you tell me about it it's not personal experience, it's hearsay. You need to provide evidence that fits the criteria used by science. Nothing else is worth talking about, and anything less is an admission that you can't--or won't--provide real evidence.
 
Olowkow said:
Religion is a needy and mendacious father figure delusion fixated on sex and death.

Why does the all knowing god of Abraham appear to require 21st century scientific validation at every turn when inflicting its twisted morality on humankind? How would the world be any different if a god were actually proven to exist by dint of these silly arguments for vindication? Would it then peer sheepishly down from its heavenly aerie and agree to stop all the suffering and war or confess he got it wrong on slavery and other bronze age pipe dreams that have served only to mess with humans' progress?

Who cares?
Click to expand...

For the yucks? :crazy:
 
isissxn said:
I'm going to ask the question I always ask when this subject comes up. Maybe I'll actually get an answer this time.

Elf Grinder - silently weeping? Seriously, what makes you think that atheists or agnostics see this stuff as some kind of contest? "Neener, neener, you're wrong, there's a god." Is that really how you think it works for us? Why would we "weep" if it turned out there was a god? We're not betting the farm on it, for pity's sake. We just need evidence (real evidence, scientifically sound evidence) to believe in anything, and we certainly haven't seen any for god yet.

That's literally all there is to it.
Click to expand...

When folks like EG try to use science to prop up a faith that should only ever need its own legs to stand on, it's not disbelievers they're trying to convince; the contest isn't with anyone but themselves.
 
God of the Gaps. Same story we've seen over and over again. I guess since there is no evidence of their gods, theists will continue to use fallacious arguments to "prove" their particular god exists.
 
Elf Grinder 3000, I assume you believe God created the universe and life on Earth, yes? I have a serious question: How did God do it? I mean specifically how? The Bible, from my understanding, just says He spoke things into existence, so... how does that work, exactly?

Honest question.
 
Belz... said:
Originally Posted by Elf Grinder 3000 View Post
I can hear atheists silently weeping
Click to expand...
Every ignorant layman who thinks they've overturned facts that they disagree with thinks so. In reality they are just that: ignorants who don't like facts that disagree with their pet ideas.
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums up JeffreyW here (split from his "general theory of stellar metamorphosis" thread)- absolute ignorance made invincible by attitude.
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
That pretty much sums up JeffreyW here (split from his "general theory of stellar metamorphosis" thread)- absolute ignorance made invincible by attitude.
Click to expand...

I too have figured out the Secret of LIFE. It's . . . argh . .. huff . . . oh . . . oh . . . . . . . . CLUMP . . . NO CARRIER . . .
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
I can hear atheists silently weeping
Click to expand...

Yes, as already pointed out, they are weeping, not because your posts prove them wrong, but because of sadness that so few posts can get so much so very wrong. In fact, these are the same old "arguments" that are periodically posted here, most often as part of an assignment to students by religious schools. Others here have already replied on a more factual level, but frankly I don't have the time or desire to re-iterate corrections to your mis-understandings that I have already posted many times in other threads. If you do wish to find out the actual facts, you can look them up in any of a number of science sites on the web, and/or read the many other threads on these topics that have been posted here.

At some point, I suspect that you will grow tired of being deceived and lied to by the fundamentalist sites and leaders who know the real facts, but who intentionally distort them so as to manipulate people such as yourself. When you do, you will find that there are many sources out there from which you can learn the real scientific facts, and thus think for yourself what they mean.
 
Giordano said:
Yes, as already pointed out, they are weeping, not because your posts prove them wrong, but because of sadness that so few posts can get so much so very wrong. In fact, these are the same old "arguments" that are periodically posted here, most often as part of an assignment to students by religious schools. [...].
Click to expand...


I was thinking of Bob Jones University myself.
 
I'm weeping because the username "Elf Grinder 3000" reminds Me of the combination ham radio, book-straightener and barbecue lighter I got from the gnomes at Mount Nevermind one Yule. The grilled ham was delicious, although it tasted slightly of charred books.

So, EG3K, where *is* this alleged god of yours? We haven't contacted any extraterrestrials, but neither have we contacted the supposed creative deity either. Until and unless the blighter bothers to shows up, I say we just continue on as if it isn't there.
 
foophil said:
Oh well. I guess we should just stop looking then. I mean, we've managed to look at a whopping 0.00000000000001% of all planets in the universe (I may be off by many orders of magnitudes), and done so with tools that couldn't possibly tell us if life existed on them. So therefore, life doesn't exist. God wins. Good argument. </sarcasm off>
Click to expand...

I interpret the Anthropic Principle in its 'weak' sense. The 'Anthropic Principle' to me is the claim that our sample set is too small to make a valid statistical analysis.

There is only one planet currently observable where we have strong evidence that life exists. Hence, there is no statistical way to evaluate whether such an event is probable or not, with or without the existence of Providence. Obviously, we can exclude the impossibility of life existing because life has been observed. However, statements about 'probability' are meaningless.

There is only one region of the visible universe where we can determine fundamental constants of physical law. Therefore, we can't make a statistical analysis of whether those constants are probable or not.

The constants we observe happen to be consistent with the existence of our type of life. We have observed our type of life to exist, so it makes perfect sense that the constants are consistent with it. However, we have no other constants and no other form of life to compare. So statements about the 'probability' of these constants, with or without Providence, are nonsense.

The 'multiverse' models constitute claims that the sample set is much larger than just the obviously visible universe. The claim is made that there are other regions of space, designated 'other universes', which can be indirectly observed through careful observations of the universe. So according to this view, we can make a very rough estimate of the probability of the conditions of life occurring elsewhere in the 'multiverse'. According to this hypothesis, the estimated probability is high that there are other places where there is life somewhat like ours in some way.

I don not have enough information to make even an interesting conjecture whether the 'multiverse' models are right or not. However, I find this conjecture interesting. I think this conjecture is worth some money and some resources investigating further. Others may disagree. However, I think it is irrelevant to whether there is a Providence or not.

The OP apparently isn't a Deist in the full, philosophical definition of the word. A Deist can believe in a Deity that created the universe, but does not believe in Deity that cares about mankind. The OP does not provide any evidence that the Great Designer cares about mankind. Note that the OP says God whether than Providence. The commonly accepted difference in meaning is that Providence does not have to have motivations consistent with any human system of morality. The actions of Providence does not have to be consistent with any description in the Bible or any other scripture.

Whether life is 'probable' or not, there is nothing that supports either a Loving God or a Biblical God (may they never meet). So the OP may have presented a hypothesis slightly too strong for the Anthropic Principle.

At any rate, I still think the Anthropic Principle is merely a statement about statistical uncertainty. We obvious don't know enough to make definite statements about Providence.
 
Astreja said:
I'm weeping because the username "Elf Grinder 3000" reminds Me of the combination ham radio, book-straightener and barbecue lighter I got from the gnomes at Mount Nevermind one Yule. The grilled ham was delicious, although it tasted slightly of charred books.

So, EG3K, where *is* this alleged god of yours? We haven't contacted any extraterrestrials, but neither have we contacted the supposed creative deity either. Until and unless the blighter bothers to shows up, I say we just continue on as if it isn't there.
Click to expand...

Lovely! :)

I've always like you Atreja. You should post more.........
 
Biscuit said:
~snip~

It is also dishonestly or lazily written. The author quotes Fred Hoyle almost verbatim from wikipedia. The article notes the Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" but fails to point out that Hoyle did not develop the big bang theory and actually opposed that theory. Instead the author would have you believe that the creator of the Big Bang theory was a proponent of intelligent design. Whether this was done intentionally or out of ignorance on the author's behalf is unknown.
Click to expand...

That is what I thought when I read the article; wasn't Hoyle a proponent of the 'steady-state' universe? And didn't he inadvertently 'prove' the Big Bang theory while looking to disprove it instead? And yet in spite of that, remained a steady-state guy to the end?

If I got any of that wrong, it is because I am not a scientist. It is just what I think I remember from reading Simon Singh's Big Bang almost 10 years ago.

Biscuit said:
Religion needs to get over it's obsession with misusing and misunderstanding science. It's embarrassing.
Click to expand...

That embarrassment is what led me away from creationism and into ID (Yeah, I know, I know, but making a leap from 6K year old earth to Big Bang was a hell of a leap). I have since moved from ID to...... you all. Another quite big leap, but easier this time.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Carl Sagan estimates the number of planets supporting life in the universe



No one found any planets with the ability to support life...



The actual parameters for a life supporting planet are much larger...



The probability that the universe formed is low as well...



Quotes from 2 scientists summarize the point...





This proves simply that it is highly unlikely that life evolved randomly

This is supported by the science and the probabilities derived from science

1. #planets supporting life and

2. probability that the universe was able to form using our understanding of the forces that govern its existence.

3. there is no direct scientific evidence of the mechanism by which evolution has taken place (which is happening non randomly). The only evidence of evolution is that life has appeared where it once did not appear - a tautology not evidence of any mechanism by which it appears. Again you can't say it happened randomly because the evidence is that evolution is not random it is "punctuated".

I can hear atheists silently weeping
Click to expand...


Apart from the fact that all your listed points are wrong and extremely silly, atheists would not be "weeping" if anyone did ever discover evidence of a supernatural God. All that most atheists say about God (and other gods) is that they don't believe it, because all evidence points to natural causes for human life (and the origin of the planet, and the rest of the universe) ... atheists are just being sensible and objective about what the evidence shows (evolution for example, as the explanation for homo sapiens).

But in the last 20-30 years we have made quite a lot of progress in both experimental and theoretical physics towards understanding how our universe came into existence via what we now all know as "the Big Bang". There's no shortage of research papers on all aspects of that. One element of that was in fact the recent confirmation of the Higgs Field by the LHC projects, to mention something that even most non-scientists have heard about.

However, all of those scientific discoveries and theoretical Big Bang models, show purely natural events. There is zero evidence of anything supernatural such as a God, ever involved anywhere.

So far from any atheists weeping about anything, those atheists who are interested in science and education, which seems to be rather a lot of them, have (as always) rather a lot of wonderful and ongoing research to be fascinated by and interested in.

What is rather sad, and perhaps a cause for some “weeping” is the way that even in the 21st century religious people still have to delude themselves and remain in scientific ignorance simply in order to keep up the pretence that there remains any good reason to believe in 1st century supernatural gods.
 
IanS said:
What is rather sad, and perhaps a cause for some “weeping” is the way that even in the 21st century religious people still have to delude themselves and remain in scientific ignorance simply in order to keep up the pretence that there remains any good reason to believe in 1st century supernatural gods.
Click to expand...
Babies and bathwater should be treated differently. The group that can be called "religious" and the group that rejects science ARE NOT the same; there is some overlap, but again, there's also overlap between the group "religious" and the group "active scientists making major contributions to their fields".

Darwin123 said:
There is only one planet currently observable where we have strong evidence that life exists. Hence, there is no statistical way to evaluate whether such an event is probable or not, with or without the existence of Providence.
Click to expand...
Not true. We are learning the processes, and once we know those we can determine the probability of those processes operating in other areas. For example, if amino acids came from space, we can determine the probability of amino acids ariving at specific planets (obviously their distribution would not be homogenous). If we find that life is extremely easy to form, we can give a qualitative estimate of the probability of life in other parts of the universe. And so on. Not necessarily the arguments astronomers or physicists are used to working with, but it's certainly the type of arguments I'm used to dealing with. There's a certain art to dealing with bad datasets.
 
isissxn said:
Why would we "weep" if it turned out there was a god? We're not betting the farm on it, for pity's sake. We just need evidence (real evidence, scientifically sound evidence) to believe in anything, and we certainly haven't seen any for god yet.

That's literally all there is to it.
Click to expand...

I second this. I, for one, am quite terrified at times that one day I'll die with nothing waiting for me on the 'other side'. I believe I'll turn into dust and eventually my atoms will be recycled for a while. Heck, I'm already the product of 'recycled atoms' to begin with. Then the Sun will absorb the Earth, blast out my atoms to the universe (cool!), and eventually the universe will cool into to the point where nothing in theory could survive (bummer).

That scares the hell out of me sometimes. Seriously. I don't want to die and have there be nothing waiting for me. I would GLADLY accept an afterlife of some sort - an immortality in a spiritual sense. That being said, I demand real evidence of it if I'm going to spend what little time I have left in this universe on worshiping it.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Carl Sagan estimates the number of planets supporting life in the universe
Click to expand...
First of all, how about some citations for these quotations? Given that astrophysicists and biologists have radically altered their views about the variety of environments in which life can exist over the last few decades, it's easy to find old quotes from such scientists who now no longer agree with what they once said.


No one found any planets with the ability to support life...
Click to expand...
And? How thorough a survey do you think we've conducted so far? Even now, our survey methods only allow us to search for limited types of planets.



The actual parameters for a life supporting planet are much larger...
Click to expand...
Evidence?


The probability that the universe formed is low as well...
Click to expand...
Low and zero are a long way apart.
 
foophil said:
I believe I'll turn into dust and eventually my atoms will be recycled for a while.
Click to expand...

I intend to fossilize myself. Not sure about the specifics yet, but a man has to have SOME fun. :D My wife, for some reason, thinks thinking about yourself as a fossil is creepy.
 
Dinwar said:
I intend to fossilize myself. Not sure about the specifics yet, but a man has to have SOME fun. :D My wife, for some reason, thinks thinking about yourself as a fossil is creepy.
Click to expand...

You could go the Han Solo route. But why would you not want your atoms to be reused elsewhere? Seems so selfish! :D


ETA - My wife is planning on having my skull articulated. It is in my will. We are kind of weird.
 
foophil said:
You could go the Han Solo route. But why would you not want your atoms to be reused elsewhere? Seems so selfish! :D
Click to expand...

Well, the squishy bits would be; I don't care about those. But the hard bits, I want them preserved for posterity. Gotta give the cockroaches something to dig up, and there's something to be said about providing for the continuation of my profession. ;)
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God


In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself. <snip>
Click to expand...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
Click to expand...
Why do you need science to verify the existence of God? Is faith not enough for you?
 
Son of Inigo said:
That is what I thought when I read the article; wasn't Hoyle a proponent of the 'steady-state' universe? And didn't he inadvertently 'prove' the Big Bang theory while looking to disprove it instead? And yet in spite of that, remained a steady-state guy to the end?

If I got any of that wrong, it is because I am not a scientist. It is just what I think I remember from reading Simon Singh's Big Bang almost 10 years ago.



That embarrassment is what led me away from creationism and into ID (Yeah, I know, I know, but making a leap from 6K year old earth to Big Bang was a hell of a leap). I have since moved from ID to...... you all. Another quite big leap, but easier this time.
Click to expand...

Hoyle was a proponent of the steady state all his life and rejected the Big Bang theory, you are correct.

Congratulations on your leaps, I doubt that was easy to do.

The thrust of the authors argument seems to be argument by assertion and appeal to authority. He also quote mines amd quite possibly commits plagerism if one can plagerise from Wikipedia. The authors assertion the the absence of evidence for life elsewhere in the universe is evidence for absence and FOR the existence of his specific choice of God is breath takingly arrogant and silly. God and life elsewhere are not mutually exclusive and one is not evidence of the other or vice versa.
 
Biscuit said:
God and life elsewhere are not mutually exclusive and one is not evidence of the other or vice versa.
Click to expand...
That is a curiousity in the argument. Why would a lack of life elsewhere be proof of a god? It's historically ignorant; previously religious thinkers thought that all celestial bodies had life, because on God worth the name would create so much useless, empty space. The discovery of uninhabited rocks in space was rather devistating. For another, I've read enough science fiction to be familiar with the fact that extraterrestrial life--even complex life--wouldn't be considered incompatable with Christianity, not by Christians. Read the books after Ender's Game if you want to see an example of such a thing.

Any argument about a deity--for or against--must necessarily start with a discussion of the nature of that deity. This thread has none, and therefore we cannot know what counts as evidence for or against it. In my less-charitable moments I'm inclined to believe it's intentional on the part of many theists in these debates; leave your god open enough to interpretatoin and literally nothing can disprove it. Theologians do better, in my experience, but few that look into theology in any depth bother to debate on forums like this.

Anyway, my point is twofold. First, if we assume a traditional Judo/Christian/Islamic view of God (not unlikely in the USA and Europe) we can dismiss the argument as nonsense. If we DON'T make that assumption, but instead leave the definition to the arguer, in a very real sense no argument has been made, as the criteria for evidence for or against has not been established.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom