Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 8:00 PM
372 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,870 Year: 16,476/21,208 Month: 2,365/3,593 Week: 478/882 Day: 99/97 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
26Next
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4762
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 301 of 377 (677475)
10-30-2012 4:07 AM


In summary, as soon as it was clear (virtually immediately) that nothing could be actually proved one way or the other factually, the thread degenerated into linguistic twaddle - as it always has and always will.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2896
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 302 of 377 (677512)
10-30-2012 10:32 AM


I know that God does not exist
I think things are best summed up in the way suggested early on in the thread:

Modulous writes:

If I can say I know there is no Santa Claus
If I can say I know there are no fairies
If I can say I know there are no secret CIA bases on the moon controlling our thoughts
Then I say I know there is no God.
---From, interestingly, Message 42

I ended up using a similar version near the end of the thread:

Stile writes:

I'm saying that today I know that God does not exist.
I wouldn't say that I know God is never going to exist in the future.

I also say that I know the sun will rise tomorrow.
But I wouldn't say that I know there will never be a day where the sun doesn't rise.

There is an inherent acknowledgement of possible-wrongness included in anything anyone says they "know."
All they mean is that it's their best result obtained from the data they have available to them.
---From Message 283

There seem to be two large factors to keep in mind:

1. The definition of "knowing things" as given in Message 1. Remember that saying "I know ...." always includes a certain level of fallibility. If we change the definition of "knowing things" to mean something more along the lines of absolute truth, then the conclusion about God does not follow. To me, forcing "knowledge" to be equivalent to "absolute truth" removes the ability for us to say that we know many of the things we understand.

2. The definition of God as given in Message 63. I attempted to use a definition of God that is as broad as possible, with a few caveats indicated in the linked message. Again, if we change the definition of "God" to be something other than discussed, of course the conclusion does not follow. I have yet to understand any reason to accept any alternative proposals of "God." Of course, God is a very personal concept and therefore it should be expected for this definition to vary greatly.

As for TrueCreation's final message where I requested an example of scientific work that cannot be inferenced from existing data, my only point is to indicate that I've never requested for anything to be "demonstrably inferred from the data," only "rationally inferred from the data, as a possibility."
To me, his provided examples are clearly rationally inferred possible lines of investigation from the previously existing data.
Others may have alternative views, but I've run out of time for further discussion.

After the thread, I conclude that my original statement of "I know God does not exist" stands up as a valid statement as long as I remember to keep in mind the fallibility of knowledge and my proposed defintion of God.

I fully admit that if someone uses their own definition for "knowing things" or their own definition of "God," then yes, of course, my conclusion will not necessarily follow.

Edited by Stile, : Spelling is for losers! If you feel the need to point out any existing spelling mistakes, I will feel the need to hunt you down. I won't... but I'll feel the need. Like a Top Gun pilot. All cool and playing volleyball and stuff.


    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13181
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 303 of 377 (677531)
10-30-2012 12:04 PM


Loose definitions produce loose "knowledge".
  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 304 of 377 (677541)
10-30-2012 2:03 PM


Summary
Definitions of knowledge that incorporate infallibility or insist that we can only know things that have already happened are unscientific and useless in any practical sense. We have seen the ludicrous results of such definitions in this thread.

Scientific, evidence based knowledge is tentative and potentially fallible but still the most reliable form of "knowing" we have.

To insist that the question of God demands a greater degree of certainty than any other scientific evidence based conclusion is just special pleading.

ALL of the scientific evidence tells us that gods are humans inventions rather than real things. So it is perfectly valid to say that we know (tentatively and potentially fallibly) that God does not exist.


  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9419
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 305 of 377 (677577)
10-30-2012 4:16 PM


Summary
I can honestly say that I can know that God is unprovable.

I also can honestly say that my relationship with Him is in my mind and soul, if you will. I am trying to know Him.

I believe that God can be known if one seeks Him with their whole heart. (integrity)

I also believe that God draws men to seek Him. We have no desire to do so in our natural state of mind...unless the God we seek is one created entirely on our own terms and desires.


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 306 of 377 (677727)
11-01-2012 8:59 AM


Summation
I don't know that God exists, but I believe that he does.

--Percy


    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 307 of 377 (677744)
11-01-2012 10:24 AM


You don't know that god doesn't exist. But you can define that statement into a fact.
  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1152 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(5)
Message 308 of 377 (677781)
11-01-2012 12:06 PM


We have people saying that god is undefined, and if something is undefined then we can't know anything about it - despite them happily defining their own god.

We have had people that say that they know almost nothing. (If true, I don't think their opinion has much weight.)

We have had people say that if we can't find an elephant in a room then that is not evidence of an absence of elephants in that room.

We have had people say that they don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow.
'Nuff said.

I think Mod said it most succinctly:

Modulous writes:

If I can say I know there is no Santa Claus
If I can say I know there are no fairies
If I can say I know there are no secret CIA bases on the moon controlling our thoughts
Then I say I know there is no God.

Is there an unevidenced and undefined thing somewhere?
LOL

Is there a god?
No.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2687
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 309 of 377 (678143)
11-05-2012 3:50 PM


There is room in my universe for the possibility of God.

Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2896
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 310 of 377 (720744)
02-27-2014 12:27 PM


Evidence that God does not Exist
This is a continuation from another thread where a response would have been off-topic.

Here is the message I'm replying to:

Eliyahu writes:

I'm very interested in the proof that God does not exist. Can you give me some of that lots and lots of evidence?

Preferably the most strong and compelling you have available.

Message 30
Y-H-W-H is God; besides him there is nothing.

First, you're not interested in proof.
Proof has no meaning to you. You don't have proof for the position you already hold (assuming that you think God exists).
Therefore, even if you did get proof for another position, it likely wouldn't mean anything to you.

I can, however, show you the lots and lots of evidence for why God does not exist, which is what I claimed.

Preferably the most strong and compelling you have available.

Well, let's use a statement you've made so that it hits home with you:

Eliyahu writes:

Only God exists.

Besides Him there is nothing.

And when I say nothing I mean NOTHING.

Of course there are always obstructionists who will claim that there is a whole universe filled with all kind of things big and small, and that therefore there do exist things beside God.

To them I say: There is NOTHING except for God.

Message 1
Y-H-W-H is God; besides him there is nothing.

And, as I said, I can show you lots of evidence that you're completely incorrect about this.
Lots and lots of evidence that God does not exist.

What am I holding in the palm of my hand?

The answer, of course... is "nothing."
I'm not holding air, I'm not holding space, I'm not holding God... I'm holding nothing in the palm of my hand.

There is nothing there.
Certainly no God.
That, for one... destroys all your repeated capital letters in a single blow. And all I had to do was look at my own hands.

This is evidence that God does not exist.
But it is not lots and lots of it.

So, we start to look at where else God may be:

Some say God is at church. But, no God at church.
Some say God is in the miracle of life. But, no God when two people get together and have a baby. No God at conception, no God at birth, no God in any of the middle parts. Just two people. (That's why it's called "the miracle of life" and not "the miracle of God").
Some say God answers prayers, but no God has ever answered a prayer.
Some say God is in the details, but we've looked at the details and no God is there either.
Some said God powered the weather, but we looked there and there was no God.
Some said God created the earth, but we looked there and there was no God.
Some said God created the universe, but we looked there and there was no God.

We have looked everywhere anyone has ever said to look for God. No God is ever there. No sign of God, no shred of God, no God is ever found, anywhere... ever.

This is "lots and lots of evidence" that God does not exist.

Now, you just have to decide if you're the sort of person who thinks "following the evidence, when there is lots and lots of evidence" is something that helps lead us towards reality.

It's certainly known to make mistakes.
But it's also certainly known to be the best method we've ever used for understanding the way things really are.

I'm just here to give you the information. I really don't care what you do with it... that's your life and you're free to do whatever you'd like.
I'm not even sure if I fully believe in it.

But the evidence is still there.
My belief (or non-belief) in it is irrelevant.
Your belief (or non-belief) in it is irrelevant.

The evidence exists, and there's lots and lots of it.
And all of it is telling us that God does not exist.


Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Phat, posted 02-27-2014 7:39 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 312 by Phat, posted 03-03-2014 2:27 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 313 by Eliyahu, posted 03-03-2014 11:59 PM Stile has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9419
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 311 of 377 (720841)
02-27-2014 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Stile
02-27-2014 12:27 PM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
All you seem to be asserting is visual evidence. How do you even know what you are looking for?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Stile, posted 02-27-2014 12:27 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9419
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 312 of 377 (721082)
03-03-2014 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Stile
02-27-2014 12:27 PM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
Meet me in chat and we can discuss this topic
This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Stile, posted 02-27-2014 12:27 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 313 of 377 (721130)
03-03-2014 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Stile
02-27-2014 12:27 PM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
We have looked everywhere anyone has ever said to look for God. No God is ever there. No sign of God, no shred of God, no God is ever found, anywhere... ever.

This is "lots and lots of evidence" that God does not exist.

Bs'd

You really think that if you cannot see it, then it doesn't exist??

Science tells us that lots and lots of things we cannot detect with out senses really exist.

So not being able to see God does not mean He isn't there.

Now, you just have to decide if you're the sort of person who thinks "following the evidence, when there is lots and lots of evidence" is something that helps lead us towards reality.

It's certainly known to make mistakes.
But it's also certainly known to be the best method we've ever used for understanding the way things really are.

What science is telling us, is that that what we experience as "the material wold", simply doesn't exist.

It is telling us that mind is at the basis of matter, and not the other way around.

Science also gives us the anthropic principle, which strongly points to God:

Nowadays there is strong irrefutable scientific proof that God exist, in the form of the anthropic principle, the fine tuning of the universe.

The laws of nature which govern the universe, and the set up of the universe, in order to enable the possibility of life, must be so extremely critically fine tuned, that it is impossible to say that the universe came into existence by pure chance. Scientists are discovering more and more constants in the universe that must be set up in an extremely precise way, in order to make life possible in the universe.

In 1961 just two of those constants were known, of which the most sensitive was the ratio of the gravitational force to the electromagnetic force. If that varies more than one part in 10^40 (that is 10 to the power of 40, = a 1 with 40 zero's = 10,000 trillion trillion trillion), no life will be possible.
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.

In order to get an idea of the size of these numbers, something about the observable universe: It has a width of about 156 billion light years, that is about 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 miles. It contains about 50.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 stars in about 80 billion galaxies. The total amount of atoms in this observable universe is 10^80.

The chance that our universe came out the way it did, so that life, any life, would be possible, is only 1 in 10^173.

For more information on this subject look here: http://www.reasons.org/...ic-principle-precise-plan-humanity

A mathematician, Borel, calculated that the probability of something happening that has a chance of happening of only 1 in 10^50, is zero, meaning, something with odds of 1 in 10^50, will never happen: http://boards.fool.com/...ding-this-other-than-22202050.aspx :
"It was Dr. Emile Borel who first formulated the basic Law of Probability which states that the occurrence of an event where the chances are beyond 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power (the 200th power is used for scientific calculations), is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, regardless of the time allotted or how many opportunities could exist for the event to take place.(Emile Borel, Probabilities and Life, Dover 1962, chapters 1-3)"

As everybody can see, the fine tuning of the universe is way above that. This points irrefutably to intelligent design, and with that to an Intelligent Designer.

About this anthropic principle Stephen Hawking, arguably the greatest scientist now alive, said: "Most sets of values, would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no-one able to wonder at that beauty. One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in creation and choice of the laws of science, or as support for the strong anthropic principle."
A brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, page 139

Ibid page 140: "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

His book "A Brief HIstory of Time" can be found online here: http://alleeshadowtradition.com/...g_a_brief_history_of_time

My quotes can be found in chapter 8.

So there we have it, the anthropic principle which provides the proof that God exists.

.
.
.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Stile, posted 02-27-2014 12:27 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Pressie, posted 03-04-2014 2:18 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 316 by Stile, posted 03-04-2014 10:30 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 319 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2014 1:40 PM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 323 by Pressie, posted 03-05-2014 1:08 AM Eliyahu has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1620
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 314 of 377 (721138)
03-04-2014 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Eliyahu
03-03-2014 11:59 PM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
Eliyahuh writes:

The laws of nature which govern the universe, and the set up of the universe, in order to enable the possibility of life, must be so extremely critically fine tuned, that it is impossible to say that the universe came into existence by pure chance.


Luckily nobody claims that the Universe came about by pure chance. You set up a strawman. You told untruths about what people say. So, everything else you wrote is of no value at all. Just nonsense.

Eliyahuh writes:

About this anthropic principle Stephen Hawking, arguably the greatest scientist now alive, said…


A God is not necessary.

Hawking writes:

God no longer has any place in theories on the creation of the Universe due to a series of developments in physics.


That’s what he wrote in a later book. Why did you ignore that? Are you trying to mislead people?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Eliyahu, posted 03-03-2014 11:59 PM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Eliyahu, posted 03-04-2014 6:48 AM Pressie has responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 315 of 377 (721144)
03-04-2014 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by Pressie
03-04-2014 2:18 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
Luckily nobody claims that the Universe came about by pure chance.

Bs'd

Either it was pure chance or it was intelligent design. Do you see other possibilities?

About this anthropic principle Stephen Hawking, arguably the greatest scientist now alive, said…

A God is not necessary.

Why do you ignore and delete what he said about the anthropic prinicple?

The anthropic principle is a fact.

Stephen Hawkin never said that the AP doesn't exist anymore.

And anyway, with of withoud SH, the anthropic priniciple is a fact:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."
(27)Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

1. Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
2.. Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
3. Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
4. Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
5. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.
6. Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
7. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
8. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
9. Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.
10. Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.
11. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.
12. Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.
13. Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.
14. Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.
15. Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57
16. Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
17. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.
18. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.
19. Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant 20. supernovae Nature 401: 252-254.
20. Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).
21. Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, "The Creation", U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64.
22. McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276.
23. Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com
24. Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version).
25. Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.

.
.
.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Pressie, posted 03-04-2014 2:18 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2014 12:23 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 318 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2014 1:24 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 320 by Tangle, posted 03-04-2014 2:01 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 321 by Pressie, posted 03-05-2014 12:17 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 322 by Pressie, posted 03-05-2014 12:43 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
26Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017