22 of 28
22
will freethinkers accept god if they find evidence?
Posted: 02 May 2013 06:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 316 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
Adonai888 - 02 May 2013 02:18 PM
DarronS - 02 May 2013 02:11 PM

W4U has permission to include me in his use of “we” on this subject.

you have not been able to present solit rebuttals to my case, and neither solid positive evidence for strong atheism. Despite of this, you think atheism is true. Thats your business, you are free to think so,  it does not affect me in the slightest sense.

And yet you stay, and post…and post…and post. (W4U also includes me in his use of ‘we’.)

[ Edited: 02 May 2013 06:57 PM by asanta ]
 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 07:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 317 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03

I suggested you take a college level biology class earlier because you seem to completely misunderstand evolution. Evolution is a fact.

following scientists do not agree with you:

http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

“It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms.”  (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)

“Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all.” (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)

“There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life.  There is no question about that. That’s a real phenomenon.”  (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)


“It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position.” (Cracraft, J., “Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism,” 1983, p. 180)

No one has ever presented any scientific evidence to back the intelligent design argument.

I will…..

http://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-intelligent-design.html

Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-intelligent-design.html#ixzz2SBtgupqq

if you want to educate yourself more, here you have a go :

http://www.faithandevolution.org/topics/intelligent-design/scientific-evidence-for-id.php

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 07:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 318 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
DarronS - 02 May 2013 05:40 PM

. Fine tuning is nothing more than a fallacy.[/url]
.

so these guys were all wrong ?

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=quotes

“The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications” (John Boslough, Stephen Hawking’s Universe, p. 121).

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.”

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/fine-tuning-the-multiverse-theory.htm

Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p.125.

The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life… It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty.


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.”


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.”


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.”

John O’Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
“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.”


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?”


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.”


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.”


Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”


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.”


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


Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”


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


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.”


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].”


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


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’.”


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.”


Henry “Fritz” Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
“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.”


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.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 07:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 319 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4615
Joined  2007-10-05

Once again, you are quote mining. I will not continue debating someone who insists on using dishonest tactics.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 07:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 320 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
DarronS - 02 May 2013 07:19 PM

Once again, you are quote mining. I will not continue debating someone who insists on using dishonest tactics.

Exactly.  Obviously at least half those guys are deists or theists.  What are they supposed to say?
They’re also pondering from an Anthro/Solar point of view.
And I’ll take Hawking’s quote…the first one I believe.
Narrow bands of numbers...or whatever he said. Small ranges...whatever.
No…No it’s not narrow bands of numbers.  There’s millions of points in space that don’t support life.  Points that life will obviously never spring forth from.
So that’s not narrow.  It’s like a million monkeys banging away at a million typewriters…one of them will eventually type out Hamlet.
He sees us as a narrow probability.  Yeah, because he’s pondering from our Id. Our Ego.  No one is pondering the fascination of life on Pluto.  Because no one is there.
I’m sure we aren’t the only ones in the Universe either. Those monkeys will bang out Othello,  Romeo and Juliet and the dollar menu from McDonalds.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 07:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 321 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4615
Joined  2007-10-05
VYAZMA - 02 May 2013 07:36 PM

Obviously at least half those guys are deists or theists.  What are they supposed to say?
They’re also pondering from an Anthro/Solar point of view.

Adonai cannot seem to understand that opinions are not evidence. He keeps throwing out these quotes as if they provide evidence a creator god exists. Opinions do no such thing. That is not how science works. Einstein believed quantum mechanics was bad science, and he was wrong. We need testable theories with evidence Adonai, not out-of-context quotes.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 07:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 322 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
DarronS - 02 May 2013 07:42 PM

Adonai cannot seem to understand that opinions are not evidence. He keeps throwing out these quotes as if they provide evidence a creator god exists. Opinions do no such thing. That is not how science works. Einstein believed quantum mechanics was bad science, and he was wrong. We need testable theories with evidence Adonai, not out-of-context quotes.

well, these guys obviously did not make these comments out of nothing, or out of fantasy, but based on scientific knowledge. There is plenty of evidence that the universe is finely tuned.

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday Papers/Faraday Paper 4 Polkinghorne_EN.pdf

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t31-the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 08:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 323 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
Adonai888 - 02 May 2013 07:49 PM
DarronS - 02 May 2013 07:42 PM

Adonai cannot seem to understand that opinions are not evidence. He keeps throwing out these quotes as if they provide evidence a creator god exists. Opinions do no such thing. That is not how science works. Einstein believed quantum mechanics was bad science, and he was wrong. We need testable theories with evidence Adonai, not out-of-context quotes.

well, these guys obviously did not make these comments out of nothing, or out of fantasy, but based on scientific knowledge. There is plenty of evidence that the universe is finely tuned.

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday Papers/Faraday Paper 4 Polkinghorne_EN.pdf

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t31-the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

I doubt you will get this..but who cares.
Finely tuned compared with what?
What does finely tuned even mean?
We are only observing this reality..our reality. Would you know what a coarsely tuned universe would look like?
How do you know our universe isn’t very coarsely tuned..and there are other universes that are much more finely tuned?
You can’t know this.  Saying “finely tuned” is just another way of saying “blessed” or “divinely tuned”.
What evidence do you have that our universe is “finely tuned”?  Please be sure to include comparative samples so that we can scale the “fine tuning” of our universe with other universes.

What you are saying is no different than if there were 3 guys.  They each shared 1 car.  It was the only car in existence. They couldn’t even conceptualize another car, or the possibility of there being another car.
Now the car was a junker, it barely ran.  But it conveyed them along from place to place.  They didn’t know it was a junker.  They considered it to be finely tuned.
Even though it smoked and sputtered and stalled out many times.  To them it was finely tuned!

[ Edited: 02 May 2013 08:34 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 08:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 324 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
VYAZMA - 02 May 2013 08:26 PM

What evidence do you have that our universe is “finely tuned”?  Please be sure to include comparative samples so that we can scale the “fine tuning” of our universe with other universes.

obviously you have not taken your time to read the links i provided.

without fine tuning, our universe would not exist. Neither would we.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 08:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 325 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
Adonai888 - 02 May 2013 08:29 PM
VYAZMA - 02 May 2013 08:26 PM

What evidence do you have that our universe is “finely tuned”?  Please be sure to include comparative samples so that we can scale the “fine tuning” of our universe with other universes.

obviously you have not taken your time to read the links i provided.

without fine tuning, our universe would not exist. Neither would we.

Yes, I only follow links 1% of the time here.  I’m interested in what forum members have to say.
Can you tell me what fine tuning is please?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 08:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 326 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
VYAZMA - 02 May 2013 08:35 PM

Can you tell me what fine tuning is please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that “There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 09:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 327 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
free_of_belief - 01 October 2012 07:25 AM

it seems that you atheists are haunted by terrorism of monotheistic faith: christianity, islam and judaism so much so that you cannot think up of a god who is non violent. pity on you.

Have you read the bible? I mean actually READ it, front to back, cover to cover, you know…like a BOOK, and thought about what you were reading. I have. That is why I am an atheist.It is nothing but A Big Book of Fairy Tales.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 10:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 328 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
VYAZMA - 02 May 2013 08:26 PM
Adonai888 - 02 May 2013 07:49 PM
DarronS - 02 May 2013 07:42 PM

Adonai cannot seem to understand that opinions are not evidence. He keeps throwing out these quotes as if they provide evidence a creator god exists. Opinions do no such thing. That is not how science works. Einstein believed quantum mechanics was bad science, and he was wrong. We need testable theories with evidence Adonai, not out-of-context quotes.

well, these guys obviously did not make these comments out of nothing, or out of fantasy, but based on scientific knowledge. There is plenty of evidence that the universe is finely tuned.

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday Papers/Faraday Paper 4 Polkinghorne_EN.pdf

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t31-the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

I doubt you will get this..but who cares.
Finely tuned compared with what?
What does finely tuned even mean?
We are only observing this reality..our reality. Would you know what a coarsely tuned universe would look like?
How do you know our universe isn’t very coarsely tuned..and there are other universes that are much more finely tuned?
You can’t know this.  Saying “finely tuned” is just another way of saying “blessed” or “divinely tuned”.
What evidence do you have that our universe is “finely tuned”?  Please be sure to include comparative samples so that we can scale the “fine tuning” of our universe with other universes.

What you are saying is no different than if there were 3 guys.  They each shared 1 car.  It was the only car in existence. They couldn’t even conceptualize another car, or the possibility of there being another car.
Now the car was a junker, it barely ran.  But it conveyed them along from place to place.  They didn’t know it was a junker.  They considered it to be finely tuned.
Even though it smoked and sputtered and stalled out many times.  To them it was finely tuned!

Exactly, the concept of probability (expressed as odds) in the universe is naïve.
What does the term “odds for occurrence” mean, when you have an unlimited number of tries at it?

Draw four random lines of equal length of say 3” and let the computer randomly rearrange their configuration over the entire space of the screen. What are the odds that the computer will hit on an arrangement in the shape of a square?
Now introduce a potential for attraction of the ends (poles) of the lines. IOW. Now the lines want to touch and try to configure while attached to the other lines. How long will it take a computer to form a square? In a random distribution of equal lines, a single potential for attraction can completely change the probability for the evolution of a square plane.  Is a square, or a circle, or a triangle, or a WAVE an irreducible complex system? They all express inherent universal potentials, an Implication of that which is to be come Explicate in reality.

Odds mean nothing in the universe, universal potential for complexity is unlimited and even a mathematical function which seems to defy the puzzle solvers (scientists) is by no means proof that it is not a very simple universal potential from which forms the Implicate, which then expresses itself in the Explicate.

The universe functions on the principle of “probabilities” (by universal constants)  and there is an almost infinite number of potential possibilities for “expression in reality”. Thus even the rarest occurring events will manifest over time. There is only inevitability.

[ Edited: 02 May 2013 10:40 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 11:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 329 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
Adonai888 - 02 May 2013 07:49 PM

well, these guys obviously did not make these comments out of nothing, or out of fantasy, but based on scientific knowledge. There is plenty of evidence that the universe is finely tuned.

There are many people who have difficulty with the idea that there is no meaning in the universe laid out for them, that from the point of view of the universe, our existence is of no importance at all. Scientists are people too. Most of them are convinced by the strength of the scientific method, and see that there is no empirical evidence for a creator or pre-given meaning of the universe, and as theories explain more and more, i.e. fill the theoretical gaps, see no reason to believe in God at all. They also see no reason why this process of filling theoretical gaps will end. But there are exceptions: scientists who cannot personally arrange with the empirical facts, and continue to believe in something higher, and still fill some gaps with ideas that seem to give objective meaning to human life: they see free will in quantum uncertainty, or the mind in Gödel’s theorem, or God in the Big Bang or in ‘fine tuning’. Many of your citations are from such scientists. These scientists do not form the majority of scientists.

For the case you did not notice: all your scientist’s citations are ‘God of the gaps’ kind of statements: ‘We cannot imagine how…’, ‘We have no explanation…’. That is not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is when God openly presents us to us, and we can verify his existence empirically. For that he needs to tell us what supernatural powers he will demonstrate, and then actually do them. He can start with letting his voice come from a burning bush, but that is only enough for a start…

And, btw, being a Nobel price laureate does not protect against wrong ideas: e.g. Linus Pauling about vitamin C, or Brian Josephson about telepathy.

[ Edited: 02 May 2013 11:38 PM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2013 02:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 330 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
GdB - 02 May 2013 11:03 PM
Adonai888 - 02 May 2013 07:49 PM

well, these guys obviously did not make these comments out of nothing, or out of fantasy, but based on scientific knowledge. There is plenty of evidence that the universe is finely tuned.

There are many people who have difficulty with the idea that there is no meaning in the universe laid out for them, that from the point of view of the universe, our existence is of no importance at all. Scientists are people too. Most of them are convinced by the strength of the scientific method, and see that there is no empirical evidence for a creator or pre-given meaning of the universe, and as theories explain more and more, i.e. fill the theoretical gaps, see no reason to believe in God at all. They also see no reason why this process of filling theoretical gaps will end. But there are exceptions: scientists who cannot personally arrange with the empirical facts, and continue to believe in something higher, and still fill some gaps with ideas that seem to give objective meaning to human life: they see free will in quantum uncertainty, or the mind in Gödel’s theorem, or God in the Big Bang or in ‘fine tuning’. Many of your citations are from such scientists. These scientists do not form the majority of scientists.

For the case you did not notice: all your scientist’s citations are ‘God of the gaps’ kind of statements: ‘We cannot imagine how…’, ‘We have no explanation…’. That is not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is when God openly presents us to us, and we can verify his existence empirically. For that he needs to tell us what supernatural powers he will demonstrate, and then actually do them. He can start with letting his voice come from a burning bush, but that is only enough for a start…

And, btw, being a Nobel price laureate does not protect against wrong ideas: e.g. Linus Pauling about vitamin C, or Brian Josephson about telepathy.

lets say, God would prove his existence to you unequivocally, and it would be the God of the bible. What would you do ? Continue living as if he does not exist, or start worship him, seek him, and start to live with him, and follow him ?

Profile
 
 
   
22 of 28
22