|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
Persuasive objective evidence for not only the existence of the biblical Jesus but for his actual resurrection as well would make history and change my world.
No bated breath here."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
Faith writes: I think it takes a pernicious sort of obtuseness to deny the evidence of the empty tomb. Only if you already believe. Consider the magician who steps into the sword cabginet. He tells you this is gonna be magic. His assistant runs swords through at all angles. We hear screams. She opens the cabinet--and it is empty. After she closes the cabinet and withdraws the swords, she reopens it to reveal our triumphant magician. He tells you it was magic. Do you believe it was magic? How can you be so perniciously obtuse as to deny the evidence of the empty cabinet? Because you already don't believe in this magician. You consistently call many of us here deluded for not being persuaded by something that would only persuade those who already believe in the magic. When you get frustrated enough by it, you call us pernicious, twisted, satanic... That doesn't make your magic more credible either."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
ICANT writes: "I believe in a supernatural God. Everybody says why? Scientific fact: The universe has not always existed.Scientific fact: The universe had a beginning to exist. Scientific fact: The universe exists. Well, 1 out of 3 ain't bad; out of 2, really, since your second point merely restates your initial unwarranted assumption. Could you tell me what scientific work demonstrated that the universe has not always existed? You've stated it as a scientific fact (a warning flag for anyone who understands the least bit about science), so there must be a plethora of evidence to support your statement, taking mere seconds on Google. I guess I have to dock you on the third point as well, unless you can demonstrate a scientific consensus on just what comprises the universe and what it means for it to exist. So maybe 0.3 out of 2.0. You're just looking around, saying, "Whoa! Look at me, I exist! There must be a god!" People did that long before any notion of science. You're whistling in the dark, abusing science to justify the same conclusions drawn by primitive peoples.
I have my mind made up. More than made up--tarted up and rouged with the trappings of pseudo-science, trolling the boardwalk for suckers..."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
ICANT writes: So I will let you take up your argument as to whether the universe has not always existed and had a beginning about 15 billion years ago with Stephen Hawking. Um, no. I'll take it up with you. You're the one misinterpreting his remarks. He has flatly declared that no supernatural agency was required for the Big Bang. I guess the discussion should end here, given your faith in Dr. Hawking... So let me confirm that you accept Stephen Hawking's views on cosmogyny as final. Is that right? Because, you know, what the great man said:
quote: quote: Hawking doesn't say there was nothing before the Big Bang--he says we have no way to know anything about those conditions. Sure, he's saying time began with the Big Bang, and the universe as we know it, as we can know it, began with time. He's said that multiple times in multiple ways. How many would you like? You're simply filling the unknown with what you prefer to believe. Don't blame Dr. Hawking."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Actually, in that lecture he is tracing the intellectual history of modern cosmosyny. That's why most of my previous quotes that contradict yours came from the same lecture--I just read further into the account.
You are cherry-picking narrative bits in order to misrepresent a contemporary, complex view. Hawking has flatly declared that no supernatural or other external agency was required for the Big Bang, so he doesn't even seem to be the appropriate authority to whom you should fallaciously appeal. So I won't trade any more Hawking quotes with you. If his actual words in context don't enlighten you, certainly I cannot. Read the lecture again."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
So you agree that an appeal to Dr. Hawking's authority is pointless, since the two of you are diametrically opposed on the very issues on which you cite him for support.
Got anything else? Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
ICANT writes: Hawking is not all knowing and therefore is not infallible.I am not all knowing and therefore I am not infallible. Good. We can cut out Dr. Hawking as the middleman (since he's useless to your argument).
ICANT writes: I thought you believed in the Big Bang Theory, am I wrong? Yes, in several ways. I don't "believe" in any theory. That's way-you're-wrong number one. I do think the BB theory is the best explanation we have for the current state of the universe. Unlike you, I understand that the math breaks down at T=0, and the theory cannot say anything valid about it--most especially, it cannot reveal the state of affairs prior to T=0, and it doesn't point to energy requirements from outside the universe. That's way-you're-wrong number 2."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
ICANT writes: So why does the universe exist rather than nothing? I don't know. Neither do you. Could you define this state of affairs that you call "nothing"? What makes you think it could exist? Why is the universe expanding at an accelerating rate? I don't know. Neither do you. You've latched onto your own intuitive understanding of physicists attempting to explain complex mathematical/theoretical models in plain language, always an inadequate approximation, and used your human sensory experience of space and time to make arguments about theology. This led you to declare that Hawking's work supports your theology when it doesn't, as he has made clear. If these cosmological concepts move you, and make you feel as if a supernatural force was necessary, well, good for you. I don't care one way or the other. But the BB doesn't give you scientific grounds for that, and your theo-logic is based only on a feeling."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
ICANT writes: A supernatural power could cause a previous universe to melt with fervent heat (which Peter tells us will happen again in the future and science agrees with him) and then have it produce a universe just like we have today. Which science would that be?"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
ICANT writes: Every hypothesis that has been put forth requires existence to exist and a source of energy and mass for the universe to exist. You can say that a thousand tiimes, and it still won't be true. In the above quote, it's not even a scientific matter: as a simple fact of plain text, there are hypotheses that do not stipulate either your existential tautology or a "source" for energy and mass. So why bother? You've proven unable to report scientific theories accurately, and you're only using them as a platform to insist on the supernatural anyway. Invariably, ineluctably, your statements and replies will boil down to "Because God." Just say so upfront and don't be cute. Stop abusing science like a redheaded step-child. Pisses me off."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
i haven't read the book, just the quote and kbertche's comment.
Is mischaracterizing this: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." as "Stephen Hawking claims that the law of gravity can create a universe from nothing" worthy of consideration? No. I wouldn't consider doing it. It's dishonest."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
*duplicate*
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given. Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Admin writes: Given what Hawking and Mlodinow *did* say, Kbertsche's misinterpretation seems an honest one. Or so I rule. I defer to your ruling."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
GDR writes: I get that. But the point of the expression is, as you say, about infinite regression. I am using the argument of infinite regression and applying it to a strictly material, universe of mindless origins. It would require an infinite regression of mindless processes to arrive in a world teeming with life, and ultimately sentient life with a sense of morality. There is a bit of pathos in watching you pace this circle round and round... Why is an infinite regression required? I'm quite comfortable with the idea of an origin point for the universe sans extrinsic cause, supernatural or otherwise. You state this requirement as though it were established by science or logical proof, but you neglected to show your work.
If we are making a case for this world being the result of a moral sentient intelligence then we can get around the argument of infinite regression by theorizing, as science does for other reasons, to postulate the idea of multiple dimensions of time where life can be infinite. The problem of infinite regression arises when you postulate a supernatural being as creator of the universe. Science doesn't do that; the infinite regression problem belongs to you, not scientists. By the way, some scientists theorize multiple dimensions because the math shows the possibility, and observation does not yet confound it. They show their work.
Certainly, the idea of multiple dimensions of time is highly theoretical but if science can do it why can't theologians. Theologians can't run from the logical and scientific difficulties of supernatural belief. That they are reduced to lurking in the obscurities of theoretical astrophysics is mere bathos. But if you especially like multidimensonal gaps for your God, rather than the shrinking ones here in this space-time, sure, tuck him in. Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
ICANT writes: Omnivorous writes: How does math show anything prior to T=040? By the way, some scientists theorize multiple dimensions because the math shows the possibility, and observation does not yet confound it. Who said it did?"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024