The Signs of God's Existence

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: chr0naut
So I take it you didn't watch the video in the OP? Your comment suggests you didn't, and you don't even know what the topic of the thread is.

The video is arguing against things well-founded in science, like evolution. Evolution is not considered opinion but scientific fact, or are you denying evolution too and calling it an opinion?


Nothing is particularly well founded in science.

Take for instance our knowledge of dark matter, an understanding of which would be highly likely to completely revise all we know of cosmology.

How many dark matter particles are there? What is their mass? How weakly or strongly do they interact with known baryonic matter? How could they be incorporated into the standard model? Do we even get to keep the standard model?

It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that anything much is unequivocally 'well founded' in science. Scientific knowledge changes all the time, old, disproven theories are discarded and new ones take their place.




posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Way to change the topic!!!

The OP video denies evolution.

You change the subject to Dark matter. It's not even a relevant comparison because dark matter is something we admit we know little about. We still have a lot to learn about the details of evolution but that some kind of evolution occurred is scientific fact. There is literally no debate in the scientific community about whether or not evolution occurred, they only debate different models of evolution.



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: chr0naut

Way to change the topic!!!

The OP video denies evolution.

You change the subject to Dark matter. It's not even a relevant comparison because dark matter is something we admit we know little about. We still have a lot to learn about the details of evolution but that some kind of evolution occurred is scientific fact. There is literally no debate in the scientific community about whether or not evolution occurred, they only debate different models of evolution.


Since the actions one may attribute to evolution could also be the product of the creative actions of God, evolution is not the only theory on the table.

There are many scientists, some who are geneticists and biologists, who are believing Christians. The tension between evolution and Christian belief that you seem to be implying is easily reconcilable.

God could use the mechanism of evolution, or He could use another means. Either way, it is likely to appear to conform to the result of an evolutionary development.

The assumption by both sides of the argument that God has stopped acting in the world after "completing" creation, is neither supported by reason or revelation. It is not the Christian view.

Evolution as a field of science could still be overturned tomorrow. Just like new discoveries in Physics look like they will overturn our previous ideas. To argue a special case for evolution, in this regard, would be to remove it from the body of science and make it into a religious dogma.



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
God could use the mechanism of evolution, or He could use another means. Either way, it is likely to appear to conform to the result of an evolutionary development.
Had the video posted in the OP used that argument, it wouldn't have earned the "retard" cartoon. But it didn't, instead denying evolution, and so it does earn the retard cartoon for denying science.



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Brighter
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Hahaha, what? Please elaborate this argument.


God is supposed to exist outside the universe. How can you find evidence for something that exists outside the universe from within the universe?


No, no, just...no. You're just misunderstanding the argument. In fact, the beauty of the fine-tuning argument is just that it *doesn't* presuppose a fine-tuner. And there is plenty of independent scientific evidence for the fine-tuning of each of the constants that I mentioned (see the end of my post). In fact, no sane physicist (atheist or otherwise) *denies* the fine-tuning of all of these constants. They *have* to accept them based on the scientific data (again, see the articles at the end of my post). What atheists are now forced to do is to posit insane theories to try to explain it away, such as the multiverse theory, for which there is no (and never will be) any real evidence. To get an even better idea of just how desperate atheists are getting in trying to get around the fine-tuning problem, you have Stephen Hawking releasing his latest book "The Grand Design" in which he attempts to argue that the universe will create itself from nothing because the law of gravity exists (cue laughter). I hope you can see that this isn't even science. It's complete nonsense. In fact, in one of my posts above I've already demonstrated the problem that the existence of *any* law gives an atheist. Not to mention that Hawkings 'theory' has been *thoroughly* debunked by Oxford University Professor John Lennox in "God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?".


I'm not misunderstanding the argument. I understand the argument JUST fine. The fine tuning argument establishes an assumption (that god exists) then builds evidence in favor of this concept by using flawed logical analysis that looks at the finished product and determines that it is too complex to arise naturally. When in fact you should be looking at the beginning and seeing how small changes added up over time can produce a LOT of complexity.

I'm already familiar with most of your "evidence" that makes the same argument that I just laid out. Intelligent Design of the Fine Tuning argument is just bad science because it relies on an unproven assumption to be true. The argument violates the scientific method from the get go. No amount of evidence can save it, except for definitive proof of god's existence. And that won't happen until we can detect things outside our universe.
edit on 20-4-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: chr0naut
God could use the mechanism of evolution, or He could use another means. Either way, it is likely to appear to conform to the result of an evolutionary development.
Had the video posted in the OP used that argument, it wouldn't have earned the "retard" cartoon. But it didn't, instead denying evolution, and so it does earn the retard cartoon for denying science.


The scientific process means that science itself denies previous science. Those who pursue these new discoveries would be, by definition, polar opposites to 'retarded'.

As belief in a Creator God has not and cannot be disproved by science, and is rationally consistent based upon the premise that God exists, I also cannot see how you could call Creationists (as a group) retarded (some of whom will be intellectually challenged and some will be gifted).

In actuality, it does not take a great intellectual engine to accept orthodoxy and side with those who propose evolution and no other.

Finally, I have found many who are intellectually handicapped to have other abilities and capabilities. To dismiss them as 'retarded' is to miss their humanity and denigrates their person. It is an ugly label.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
None of what you said will end up showing that evolution is false, as the OP video claims. People that don't like that label applied to their denial of evolution have a simple solution available to them. Stop denying evolution.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: chr0naut
None of what you said will end up showing that evolution is false, as the OP video claims. People that don't like that label applied to their denial of evolution have a simple solution available to them. Stop denying evolution.


I am not denying evolution. I have insufficient data to deny or confirm it and am also able to see alternate possibilities (which I can also neither deny nor confirm).

I will dispassionately evaluate the evidence as presented because it will not affect my beliefs one iota.

If some scientist found unequivocal evidence that disproved evolution, I strongly doubt that many could dispassionately alter their opinion because, for them, evolution has become a religious dogma, informing their core beliefs.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join