Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Religion > Christianity


Thanks Tree24Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 18th, 2017, 11:14 PM   #101
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 14,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
The science cannot be proven. The math regarding the state of the universe and the Earth as it is, is l against the science. Science cannot explain the cause or purpose of the creation of the universe. The science and math rely on too much faith for me.
Science DOES explain the cause of the universe. Just because you can't understand it/don't like it doesn't make it go away.

"Thatís the good thing about science: Itís true whether or not you believe in it. Thatís why it works.Ē - Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

As for the "purpose" of the universe, why does the universe HAVE to have a "purpose"?
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old May 19th, 2017, 05:51 AM   #102
Senior Member
 
iolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rhondda
Posts: 1,404
It seems to me that what science produces is reasonable hypotheses which relate to experience, whereas theological ones belong to the experience of earlier generations, which was different and less informed.
iolo is offline  
Old May 19th, 2017, 06:59 AM   #103
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
I wasn't saying your God claim was wrong.

I was pointing out that you said your experience defied ANY 3D + T explanation and I was pointing out that that is a claim you can't make.

Your experience may defy any 3D + T explanation you know. (There may be one you don't know of)

Your experience my defy any 3D + T explanation currently known (There may be a 3D + T explanation to be discovered at some future date)

Your experience may be explainable by a currently known 3D + T explanation (even known to you) but you are incorrectly remembering your experience.

There are other scenarios in which there is a perfectly logical 3D + T explanation for what you experienced and you are just unaware of it.

That is the problem with relying on the Argument from Ignorance/God of the Gaps Argument for the existence for God.....the argument itself is a fallacy. It only works if you have perfect knowledge of your experience (people seldom have perfect knowledge even of their own experiences), perfect knowledge of [b]all[b] alternate possibilities and, even then, the conclusion that "God did it" is a poor explanation because, as I pointed out, saying "God did it" isn't really an explanation of anything.
Nope. And get over it. I'm neither arguing "God did it" nor for the existence of the Judeo-Christian or any other concept of a supreme being or beings. I would think this would be clear to you, but such is your utter rejection of "God" that even when I'm not arguing for God's existence, you're arguing how God can't be real, how no evidence exists to prove his existence.

Regarding my experiences, I said, carefully considered experiences. I have related some of the more dramatic incidents here previously. No "perfectly logical" 3D+T explanation fits.

This is very difficult for you to believe because you've bet the farm on a materialistic explanation for everything. You are a "Newton" in this regard, or even an Einstein who cannot or will not accept the non-deterministic aspects of quantum physics. But non-material phenomena do exist though many, many people close their eyes as tightly as possible when they encounter such experiences and those that have had them.

I say this boldly because I've lived almost seven decades and my first "spiritual" experience occurred about age five. Some of these experiences are dramatic such as twice being warned, with a voice I "heard," of immanent personal danger with no sensory input of the impending event possible, and with a witness, but other awarenesses are not so dramatic. Some are rather mundane such as thinking of someone two seconds before they call.

But you can, and will, dismiss them all because despite your claim of holding your mind open regarding the non-material you fiercely deny any such experiences are possible at every opportunity. In other words, claiming to have an open mind is how you internally justify having a mind shut tightly. But it's very clear your mind is closed on the subject and that the measure of 3D+T proof required for you to accept non-material events and explanations can never be satisfied.
imaginethat is offline  
Old May 19th, 2017, 07:01 AM   #104
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Science DOES explain the cause of the universe. Just because you can't understand it/don't like it doesn't make it go away.

"Thatís the good thing about science: Itís true whether or not you believe in it. Thatís why it works.Ē - Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

As for the "purpose" of the universe, why does the universe HAVE to have a "purpose"?
Science "explains" that the universe emerged from a singularity, but is utterly silent on the origin of it. Thus, science does not explain the cause of the universe but rather refers to it.
imaginethat is offline  
Old May 19th, 2017, 09:34 AM   #105
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 14,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Nope. And get over it. I'm neither arguing "God did it" nor for the existence of the Judeo-Christian or any other concept of a supreme being or beings. I would think this would be clear to you, but such is your utter rejection of "God" that even when I'm not arguing for God's existence, you're arguing how God can't be real, how no evidence exists to prove his existence.

Regarding my experiences, I said, carefully considered experiences. I have related some of the more dramatic incidents here previously. No "perfectly logical" 3D+T explanation fits.

This is very difficult for you to believe because you've bet the farm on a materialistic explanation for everything. You are a "Newton" in this regard, or even an Einstein who cannot or will not accept the non-deterministic aspects of quantum physics. But non-material phenomena do exist though many, many people close their eyes as tightly as possible when they encounter such experiences and those that have had them.

I say this boldly because I've lived almost seven decades and my first "spiritual" experience occurred about age five. Some of these experiences are dramatic such as twice being warned, with a voice I "heard," of immanent personal danger with no sensory input of the impending event possible, and with a witness, but other awarenesses are not so dramatic. Some are rather mundane such as thinking of someone two seconds before they call.

But you can, and will, dismiss them all because despite your claim of holding your mind open regarding the non-material you fiercely deny any such experiences are possible at every opportunity. In other words, claiming to have an open mind is how you internally justify having a mind shut tightly. But it's very clear your mind is closed on the subject and that the measure of 3D+T proof required for you to accept non-material events and explanations can never be satisfied.
I'm not denying that such experiences are possible. I'm just saying a claim of such experiences has not met a burden of proof.

You're convinced that these experiences are due to some kind of "power" outside of 3D + T all because you can't come up with an explanation using 3D + T of how these experiences are possible.

ALL I'm saying lack an explanation for A is a poor reason to believe B
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old May 19th, 2017, 11:00 AM   #106
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Science DOES explain the cause of the universe. Just because you can't understand it/don't like it doesn't make it go away.

"Thatís the good thing about science: Itís true whether or not you believe in it. Thatís why it works.Ē - Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

As for the "purpose" of the universe, why does the universe HAVE to have a "purpose"?
Science has never explained the cause or purpose of the universe. All science can state is that they are pretty sure there was a Big Bang. Science cannot explain how it happened. Science cannot explain why what happened after that happened. Science cannot prove or disprove if there was something before the Big Bang. Science cannot prove that the universe is a closed or open system.

The more we learn about the fine-tuning of the universeís constants and laws that produced life on Earth, and the changing of any of the billions of instances by as small as the local gravity between the Sun and the Earth being 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% different, neither the Earth or Sun would exist. Not just using the Earth, but a random number of planets in the universe being 10^25. The odds of any one of these planets supporting life is 10^140. That is higher than the number of atoms in the known universe. This does not take into account compounding those odds with the immeasurable odds of all the perfectly tuned anthropic constants to happen to support life on Earth. The odds of life being created anywhere in the universe is statistically impossible because 4.5 billion years is not near enough time to happen by chance.

The science regarding how the universe was created and ending up with life on Earth requires infinitely more faith than believing that God did it.
Thanks from imaginethat
Jimmyb is offline  
Old May 19th, 2017, 11:11 AM   #107
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Science "explains" that the universe emerged from a singularity, but is utterly silent on the origin of it. Thus, science does not explain the cause of the universe but rather refers to it.
But the rebuttal to that is who/what made "god/the force/creating entity"?

Isn't the assumption that there has to be a start in itself chaining yourself to 3D+T thinking?
RNG is offline  
Old May 19th, 2017, 03:03 PM   #108
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
I'm not denying that such experiences are possible. I'm just saying a claim of such experiences has not met a burden of proof.

You're convinced that these experiences are due to some kind of "power" outside of 3D + T all because you can't come up with an explanation using 3D + T of how these experiences are possible.

ALL I'm saying lack an explanation for A is a poor reason to believe B
You're still doing it: You're claiming I'm convinced that these experiences are due to some kind of intervening "power" outside of 3D + T. I'm ... not ... talking ... about ... any ... "divine" power!!!!

I'm talking about phenomena that can't be described by the Standard Model, which has been quite successful in making accurate predictions in the realm of 3D+T. It's tempting to say that considering its successes, given enough time all "supernatural" events will be explained naturally, but that's a prognostication, an assumption rather than established fact.

And my experiences have met the burden of proof ... for me. The mere fact that they've been ongoing for more than 60 years is notable. The fact that I have always been a science nut likewise is notable. My favorite scientific disciplines are cosmology, physics, astronomy, biology, and chemistry.

Of course I could be wrong, that a perfectly logical 3D+T explanation exist for a very loud voice telling me to stop as I approached a blind corner on my loud motorcycle. I stopped. My friend stopped with me. We watched a car blow through the stop sign timed perfectly to pancake us. My friend asked why did I stop? I told him. We sat down for a while considering what had just happened.

Sure a 3D+T explanation could explain that, but I can't imagine what it would be. Can you?

If you decide to answer, please keep in mind: I'm not relating that story as a reason to believe in "God."
imaginethat is offline  
Old May 19th, 2017, 03:10 PM   #109
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
But the rebuttal to that is who/what made "god/the force/creating entity"?

Isn't the assumption that there has to be a start in itself chaining yourself to 3D+T thinking?
Goodness, here you are making the same connections Nwolfe makes.

I'm not offering up the fact that science does not explain the cause of the universe as a reason that affirms the reality of God.

However, I am open to "God," as a being or beings responsible for this universe, having a creator as well.

How is assuming that the universe had a start chaining oneself to 3D+T thinking?
imaginethat is offline  
Old May 19th, 2017, 03:17 PM   #110
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Science has never explained the cause or purpose of the universe. All science can state is that they are pretty sure there was a Big Bang. Science cannot explain how it happened. Science cannot explain why what happened after that happened. Science cannot prove or disprove if there was something before the Big Bang. Science cannot prove that the universe is a closed or open system.

The more we learn about the fine-tuning of the universeís constants and laws that produced life on Earth, and the changing of any of the billions of instances by as small as the local gravity between the Sun and the Earth being 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% different, neither the Earth or Sun would exist. Not just using the Earth, but a random number of planets in the universe being 10^25. The odds of any one of these planets supporting life is 10^140. That is higher than the number of atoms in the known universe. This does not take into account compounding those odds with the immeasurable odds of all the perfectly tuned anthropic constants to happen to support life on Earth. The odds of life being created anywhere in the universe is statistically impossible because 4.5 billion years is not near enough time to happen by chance.

The science regarding how the universe was created and ending up with life on Earth requires infinitely more faith than believing that God did it.
Making up numbers isn't proof.
Here we are on one planet in the goldilocks zone, and there is life, that's 1 for 1.
And with no information beyond that, you come up with numbers that "prove" life can't exist...
Here's a clue, life exists, your numbers are wrong.
goober is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Religion > Christianity

Tags
god, idea, wrong



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RNC Picks The Wrong Fight On The Wrong Issue skews13 Current Events 69 December 13th, 2014 12:31 AM
Not a bad idea. roastpork Current Events 0 November 6th, 2014 11:31 AM
Not a good idea? roastpork Housing Market 3 October 29th, 2014 02:30 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.