reply to post by bigbert81
And I wonder, did you even bother to read my last post? Yes, I did hear Dr. Lennox describe the 'red coin' thing, and him admitting to a 'chance',
especially when it's not known how many 'chances' are given in any period of time (I have a 1 in 10 chance of picking the right number, but I get
100 tries every day), does by no means make it 'impossible', as you would like your viewers to believe.
Its was 1 in 10 ^40 it is called statistically absurd or statistically impossible.
How many times? Canard city... Creation only happens once.
Are you actually arguing 1 in 10^40 is something likely to occur?
That is only one of many factors that are to similar tolerances. When you put them all together it is over whelming. This video was an an overview.
The whole of the anthropic principle evidence is converting honest atheists like Dr Flew.
Really? 'God must've made it' is 'solid' to you? Well, now I can see what I'm dealing with.
Yes... You are dealing with a believer in God.
I claimed the evidence for the creation event was solid.
No, Whammy. Just because it exists does not mean it has a cause. You're making stuff up again.
It's called a logical proof. It is rock solid as well. I would love
to see you shoot a hole in it.
And honestly! I am trying to be more civil but JPhish nailed you perfectly L2R bert. That has always been my issue with you - it makes it very hard
fo rme to be nice - when you over simplify everything and just refute straw men. And I am
trying. I keep editing out my satires. But it needs
to be said.
I never said "it exists therefore it has a cause".
Science is founded on the law of causation which is premise one.
Read the first premise over 3 times until the difference sinks in:
1."Everything that begins to exist
has a cause"
2. "Everything that begins to exist
has a cause"
3. "Everything that begins to exist
has a cause"
Do you deny that? Well you can throw out science then. Science is a search for causes.
The second premise is "the universe began to exist". This the one atheists used to deny creation with until the evidence squashed their primitive
eternal universe beliefs. So do you deny that? Then you are stuck in a 19th century view of physics. Most people would call that primitive.
From their you need to take a logic lesson on Modus ponens
but if 1 and 2 are true the universe has a cause.
bigbert you are a smart enough guy it is just that as long as you deny God it will always be that way. So the solution to your problem is simple
enough. Stop denying the reality of God and your reason and logic problems will be solved.
perhaps you should read Dr Antony Flews book:
Here now, I would assume that we would need some sort of definition of what 'God' is. Knowing you are a Christian, I have to assume that when you
say 'God', you are referring to the Christian God. I hope you, of course, are NOT making the crucial mistake of saying that 'A (being the
definition of 'supernatural')=X ('supernatural') and B (definition of 'God')=Y (God)', therefore X must equal Y, because that's what I'm
seeing going on here. Because of this, I can't quite agree with your 'reasonable inference' label.
Fair enough. I am not claiming this proves the Christian God specifically.
But a Supernatural (which you conceded) cause of the universe meets the broad definition of God pretty well. I still make the claim it is a very
reasonable inference. My extrapolation to Chritianity is based on other factors - I concede that.
My main goal here was to establish the case for a creator in broad terms.
t talks of a MULTIverse, not a UNIverse. It has more explanations in it than 'Well something had to create it, so therefore God exists'. This link
is a much more scientifically accepted model to the uni/multiverse's origin and creation.
This link alone should help get those wheels turning. THIS is quickly becoming the 'consensus'. Sorry if it blows your theory about God and the
creator of the Big Bang sky high...
Ohhhhh noessss the universe is so finely tuned that it can't be an accident so "Just add universes"
I have studied it. It is only the consensus amoung desperate materialists who want to explain away the anthropic principal that Dr Lennox was talking
about. The impossible oddas that convinced Antony Flew.
So "just add universes" is a lot crazier than "Goditit". It offers no explanation for where they came from. Back to the primitive denying of the
second law of thermo. Back to denying Einstein. Its called New Age dreaming. There is zero evidence for it which is even admitted by its proponents.
Its just and idea for thise trying to escape the philosophical implication of the Creation event.
You 'know', or you want to believe? How noble you are when someone challenges your belief in God, and therefore your faith. I'm sure you'll get
extra points for that one, so feel good about it, since you have apparently shut your mind off to other possibilities. Of course, EVERYONE 'knows'
their beliefs are correct, right?
I know it as well as I can know anything else. Yes my personal testimony is that if you ask the Lord God in a humble manner he will reveal himself to
you in a way you will never be able to deny. I suggest you try it sometime. It does require sincerity. But a couple billion people agree with me.
However, I don't speak for everyone.
Yes, poor little me, who challenges my beliefs over and over again in an attempt to gain more knowledge. Pity me, please...oh wait, you apparently
already do. It must feel good to just shut out all evidence and science for a belief system for which you feel comfortable, doesn't it? BTW, I've
never admitted to being an atheist.
No you seem to be the closed minded one. Any thing but God....
Claiming secular humanism and that we should do away with religion is considred atheism to most folks. I believe you did make that claim. You also
repeatedly ridicule belief in God. But I understand. I would never want to confess a canard belief like atheism either.
Ahhh yes, and here come the insults. Boy, it's a good thing that you felt your post wasn't quite complete without the usual insult thrown in at the
last moment. I was getting worried there.
I'm looking to science and logic, and you're looking for magic. Which do you think is more 'savage'?
I said "might be a more apt term for your displayed demeanor. " referring to your hostility to God. It is a reasonable description of your attitude
not an insult.
You invoked the "how many times" creation happened canard to explain Oxford Mathematician Dr John Lennox facts. Which is completely illogical.
You denied the rock solid cosmological proof. So you must deny premise one or two to deny the consequent.
Premise one is the logical law of causation. Science is founded on it. So you have to deny logic and science to deny premise one.
Premise two was "the universe had a beginning". The Big Bang is sciences best answer. So to deny premise two you deny science.
Then you invoked M- theory (multple universe) to try to rationalize the anthropic principle.
According to Witten and others, the M in M-theory could stand for master, mathematical, mother, mystery, membrane, magic, or matrix. Witten
reluctantly admits the M in M-theory can also stand for murky due to the fact that the level of understanding of the theory is so primitive.
So the M actually stands for "magic" bigbert .
What did you say?
"Im looking to science and logic, and you're looking for magic."
You denied logic. You denied science. You invoked magic.
Thanks for playing.
[edit on 7/5/2008 by Bigwhammy]