The Signs of God's Existence

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
Well, some scientists say that this can be explained by the presence of a gradient of multiverses, each with their own constant. In such a hypothesis, the "right" universe (with the "right" constants) is bound to exist for life to occur.

BTW I am agnostic. So my personal opinion is not really biased towards any side on this God issue.


Yes, that's the multiverse theory that is often put forward by atheists as a response to the fine-tuning argument.

There are a couple of very grave (and likely insurmountable) problems with it.

The first is that there is no independent evidence for any other universe other than our own, and in fact it is in principle impossible that we could ever have any direct evidence of another universe.

Another problem is that it doesn't even remove the fine-tuning problem. Whatever it is that is generating the infinite number of universes (and what actually is generating them?) would have to be governed by a complex set of physical laws, and we have no reason to believe that they wouldn't also have to be fine-tuned.

What I find most interesting about the multiverse theory is just how desperate the atheists are getting in attempting to defend against the existence of fine-tuning. They're now forced to posit the most outrageous theories of infinite numbers of universes (for which we have no independent evidence) just to cling to their beliefs. But when you're desperate, basic principles of reasoning such as Occam's Razor and that little thing called "evidence" just get thrown out the door.




posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Dreams,Imagination,Thought and Conversation!



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Brighter
Incorrect. It's not just a 'small number', it's astonishingly small, precise and extraordinarily significant. The cosmological constant, lambda, was most recently calculated at 10^-122 in "The Value of the Cosmological Constant", by John D. Barrow and Douglas J. Shaw in a March 2011 issue of the journal _General Relativity and Gravitation_.
You're citing the guys who say there doesn't need to be any fine tuning to support your fine tuning argument?

Cosmological constant

Cosmologists John Barrow and Douglas Shaw of the University of Cambridge have now proposed a new approach to solve the cosmological constant problems, without any fine tuning involved.

The essence of their new approach is that the bare cosmological constant is promoted from a parameter to a field, making the entire Universe a quantum mechanical wave function...



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Oh, I most certainly agree with you, a 6,000 year old earth is ridiculous. But then again, not all creationists are young Earth believers. There are creationists (old Earth creationism) who believe in divine intervention yet who agree with scientism's assertion of the age of Earth, physics, and even evolution.

And, well, your cartoon is making fun of them too. It's prejudice to assume all creationists are young earth creationists.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Brighter
there is no independent evidence for any other universe other than our own

The same can be said about God. No direct evidence for him either.


Whatever it is that is generating the infinite number of universes (and what actually is generating them?) would have to be governed by a complex set of physical laws

Actually I discovered what could very well be the precise mechanism of multiversial formation: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The mechanism far from complex. In fact, please allow me to explain it to you in only one sentence: Any faster-than-light particles (such as tachyons) would by definition have the capacity move back in time (STR), creating new histories in the past, that is, their own alternate universes.


What I find most interesting about the multiverse theory is just how desperate the atheists are getting in attempting to defend against the existence of fine-tuning. They're now forced to posit the most outrageous theories of infinite numbers of universes

I am agnostic.

Just think - do you not realize that an infinite set of probabilities would by definition validate the probability of the existence of a God?

You are digging your own grave, here.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne
The OP video denies evolution. I don't apologize for MacFarlane's cartoon in this context.
edit on 29-1-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I cannot watch the video on my device.

And the OP made no mention of denying evolution in his post.

In which case, I concede your point would be justified.

But the cartoon? Still unfair - it portays ALL creationists as stupid, including old earth creationists who are making the efforts to be compatible with scientism.

(I am done editing
)
edit on 29-1-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne
www.merriam-webster.com...

cre·a·tion·ism

the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
If they don't believe in evolution I fail to see what problem you'd have with the cartoon. Evolution is a scientific fact.

If you aren't happy about the OP breaking the site terms and conditions by not describing the content of the video, report the OP, don't complain to me, I'm not happy about the lack of description either.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


If they don't believe in evolution I fail to see what problem you'd have with the cartoon.

Because not ALL of them "don't believe in evolution".

This is just a common misconception which gave birth to prejudice.

Let me explain:

Old Earth Creationism


Old Earth creationism is an umbrella term for a number of types of creationism, including gap creationism, progressive creationism, and evolutionary creationism.[1] Old Earth creationism is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of physics, chemistry, geology and the age of the Earth, in comparison to young Earth creationism.



Evolutionary creationism, or theistic evolution, asserts that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes."[3] According to the American Scientific Affiliation:

"A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life)"



The Genesis account is then interpreted as an account of the process of cosmic evolution, providing a broad base on which any number of theories and interpretations are built. Proponents of the day-age theory can be found among theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists.
The day-age theory tries to reconcile these views by arguing that the creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time—or as the theory's name implies: the "days" each lasted an age. Most advocates of old Earth creationism hold that the six days referred to in the creation account given in Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, as the Hebrew word for "day" (yom) can be interpreted in this context to mean a long period of time (thousands or millions of years) rather than a 24-hour day.[9] According to this view, the sequence and duration of the creation "days" is representative or symbolic of the sequence and duration of events that scientists theorize to have happened, such that Genesis can be read as a summary of modern science, simplified for the benefit of pre-scientific humans.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne
What you wrote doesn't change the dictionary definition of creationists, as well as the common usage in language that creationists tend to deny evolution, which is why the dictionary says what it says.

If people who believe in theistic evolution choose to call themselves "creationists" for some unfathomable reason, which then associates them with the evolution deniers, don't find this behavior to be that intelligent. Why not call themselves "theistic evolutionists"?

For theistic evolutionists who refer to themselves as theistic evolutionists, the cartoon doesn't say "theistic evolutionists" and thus is not applicable to those with such beliefs. For theistic evolutionists who refer to themselves as creationists, this seems to be an extremely silly thing to do so I still fail to see how the cartoon wouldn't be applicable, especially given the way the dictionary defines creationist as a denier of evolution.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

What you wrote doesn't change the dictionary definition of creationists, as well as the common usage in language that creationists tend to deny evolution, which is why the dictionary says what it says.

Well, the dictionary definition is wrong. Perhaps it has been written by secularists who had only a partial knowledge of creationism.

"Creationism" only refers to the belief that God created some parts or some force of the Universe. Since there exist creationists who believe that God created evolution, the sentence "all creationists deny evolution" is false.


If people who believe in theistic evolution choose to call themselves "creationists" for some unfathomable reason, which then associates them with the evolution deniers, don't find this behavior to be that intelligent. Why not call themselves "theistic evolutionists"?

Because although theistic evolutionists do acknowledge that things such as physics, geology and evolution are true, they nevertheless believe that God is the orignal creator of all these forces. Hence the name "creationists".



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Brighter

I'll give you a refutation of the fine tuning argument, there is no valid evidence for god either. Everything you JUST said about the infinite universe theory holds true for the god argument as well. At least the infinite universe theory is something considered after extrapolating physical laws and effects within the universe to outside the universe (admittedly a huge jump in logic, I'll give you that). The god argument starts with the premise that god exists then created the evidence to support it. In fact, that IS the fine tuning argument in a nutshell. The confirmation bias that god exists.





new topics




 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join