reply to post by edmc^2
I understand your point and even though I disagree I have to admit that it is tempting to believe the way you do. However, I have a serious problem
with just assuming it is a loving entity that has done it and that he is a God and not just a more powerful, longer lived entity then we are.
The Fine Tuned Universe - affirms and confirms the Creator's existence! No?, page 1
Topic started on 6-4-2012 @ 06:59 PM by edmc^2
The Awesome Fine Tuned Universe created by an intelligent and loving God!
Every time I think about this matter it always amazes me why and how seemingly "intelligent" people can come to a conclusion that such AWESOME grandeur, moving harmoniously with split-second timing does not require a Maker? When presented scientific facts in support of a Creator, their mind somehow crumbles, becomes illogical and can't see the logical conclusion behind the obvious. They can't go or will NOT go beyond the obvious but will instead say "we don't know" and to say otherwise (to them) "is hubris".
So evidence such as shown in the short video below (even though scientific) is attributed to unscientific chance event.
Yet the same people when shown a small piece of sharp flint shaped like an arrowhead convinces them that it was designed by man as an arrow or spear. They go ooh--aah and say, look at that! What a fine tool designed for hunting! It shows the creativity of "our ancestors the brute 'cave men'".
Is it fatuity or lack of education? It can't be because most will claim to be scientifically minded. Most will show their impressive and extensive knowledge on the subject. But why can't they see the beyond obvious? I don't know about you but imho - close-mindedness is one of the obvious reasons.
I say close-mindedness for the simple fact that a flint arrowhead requires a maker but a highly fine-tuned universe does not. Why? Because their pre-supposition or I might add desire has already determined the outcome.
Case in point (out of hundreds):
"The Symbiotic Universe" by George Greenstein, professor of astronomy and cosmology.
I can't find an eform of the book so here's a quick synopsis link of the book:
innovationwatch.com...
Here's a longer review of the book.
www.eetimes.com...
In short Prof. Greenstein states that "The Symbiotic Universe" is governed by physical constants. Some of these constants are so fine-tuned that if they (he states) were off to the very slightest degree, the universe will not / can't exist. He also stated that without these fine-tuned constants life will not be possible.
The more he dug into his research Prof. Greenstein can't help but state the obvious and admitted the following:
***
So overwhelming the obvious ("coincidences"), so repulsive they are that the Prof. was confronted to ask the questions:
Then the bombshell, he concluded:
Why not?
Like I said - imho - close-mindedness for the simple fact that a flint arrowhead required a maker but a highly fine-tuned universe doesn't. The other reasons - no guts to admit the obvious conclusion because to do so will not only destroy a long held pre-conceived belief but suffer the consequences of being proven wrong and excommunicated from atheistic community.
Anything changed today?
What's your take?
tc.
Note:
***long quote and will not fit here so the short quotes above are provided to quickly highlight the illogic of some. If you have access to the book please go to pages 25-28 of the book before you start accusing me of misquoting or quote mining.
Quoted from "Greenstein G., "The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos," William Morrow & Co: New York NY, 1988,pp 25-28"
Every time I think about this matter it always amazes me why and how seemingly "intelligent" people can come to a conclusion that such AWESOME grandeur, moving harmoniously with split-second timing does not require a Maker? When presented scientific facts in support of a Creator, their mind somehow crumbles, becomes illogical and can't see the logical conclusion behind the obvious. They can't go or will NOT go beyond the obvious but will instead say "we don't know" and to say otherwise (to them) "is hubris".
So evidence such as shown in the short video below (even though scientific) is attributed to unscientific chance event.
Yet the same people when shown a small piece of sharp flint shaped like an arrowhead convinces them that it was designed by man as an arrow or spear. They go ooh--aah and say, look at that! What a fine tool designed for hunting! It shows the creativity of "our ancestors the brute 'cave men'".
Is it fatuity or lack of education? It can't be because most will claim to be scientifically minded. Most will show their impressive and extensive knowledge on the subject. But why can't they see the beyond obvious? I don't know about you but imho - close-mindedness is one of the obvious reasons.
I say close-mindedness for the simple fact that a flint arrowhead requires a maker but a highly fine-tuned universe does not. Why? Because their pre-supposition or I might add desire has already determined the outcome.
Case in point (out of hundreds):
"The Symbiotic Universe" by George Greenstein, professor of astronomy and cosmology.
I can't find an eform of the book so here's a quick synopsis link of the book:
" The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos
by George Greenstein
New York: William Morrow and Company, 1988
George Greenstein, professor of astronomy at Amherst College, believes we are faced with a mystery, and one of immense significance. In his fascinating new book, The Symbiotic Universe, he argues that our existence, and indeed that of every other form of life, is an utterly astonishing thing. The deeper one looks, the more surprising it becomes that life ever arose in the cosmos. For in fact our existence depends on a network of unlikely circumstances, a remarkable series of coincidences. That they occurred at all is testimony that ours is fundamentally a universe of life. In looking for an explanation, Professor Greenstein begins with an insight suggested by the theory of quantum mechanics. He proposes that in the fitness of the cosmos for life, we are witnessing the effects of a gigantic symbiosis– a symbiosis between the physical universes on the one hand and life on the other. Between these two there is a union, a great metaphysical dance by which each supports the other. How did it come to pass that against all odds the cosmos succeeded in bringing forth life? It had to –in order to exist.
innovationwatch.com...
Here's a longer review of the book.
www.eetimes.com...
In short Prof. Greenstein states that "The Symbiotic Universe" is governed by physical constants. Some of these constants are so fine-tuned that if they (he states) were off to the very slightest degree, the universe will not / can't exist. He also stated that without these fine-tuned constants life will not be possible.
The more he dug into his research Prof. Greenstein can't help but state the obvious and admitted the following:
***
“So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance. But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this ‘something’ in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort..."
So overwhelming the obvious ("coincidences"), so repulsive they are that the Prof. was confronted to ask the questions:
"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?”
Then the bombshell, he concluded:
“I also believe that reference to God will never suffice to explain a single one of these discoveries. God is not an explanation."
Why not?
Like I said - imho - close-mindedness for the simple fact that a flint arrowhead required a maker but a highly fine-tuned universe doesn't. The other reasons - no guts to admit the obvious conclusion because to do so will not only destroy a long held pre-conceived belief but suffer the consequences of being proven wrong and excommunicated from atheistic community.
Anything changed today?
What's your take?
tc.
Note:
***long quote and will not fit here so the short quotes above are provided to quickly highlight the illogic of some. If you have access to the book please go to pages 25-28 of the book before you start accusing me of misquoting or quote mining.
Quoted from "Greenstein G., "The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos," William Morrow & Co: New York NY, 1988,pp 25-28"
edit on 6-4-2012 by edmc^2 because: title edit
reply posted on 6-4-2012 @ 07:58 PM by edmc^2
Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by edmc^2
I understand your point and even though I disagree I have to admit that it is tempting to believe the way you do. However, I have a serious problem with just assuming it is a loving entity that has done it and that he is a God and not just a more powerful, longer lived entity then we are.
It's not an assumption friend but based on facts evidence by observation.
Case in point - location of the planet earth.
Why do they call it the "Goldilocks Zone"?
Is it just by coincidence that we're in this specific zone?
Consider also the neighboring planets and Galaxies - did they just came to be there or were they strategically placed there? For what reason?
Any idea?
tc.
edit on 6-4-2012 by edmc^2 because: put - place
reply posted on 6-4-2012 @ 08:17 PM by EnochWasRight
reply to post by edmc^2
The universe is an enigma for sure. Were it not for the Bible, we would have no idea that it does indeed have an origin connected to consciousness. One very simple fact extracted from the Bible is the tipping point as far as I am concerned. This one little bit of knowledge from the Bible's symbolism is enough to define the entire story as accurate and from God. Here it is:
Genesis says this from the beginning. Man would be tempted to use the one fruit God says not to use. He called it the fruit of knowledge. He then called the fruit from the tree of life to be something that would allow mankind to live forever if manipulated. Until today, we would have no idea what these two fruits are. Were it not for John on an island prison, we would lack a 2000 year old clue as a key for discovery. He said that the mark of this fallen system of knowledge would be 666. From here, we can now define the rest. DNA is the fruit of the Tree of Life. Carbon is the fruit of knowledge (Technology).
18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[e or of mankind] That number is 666.
Carbon is the mark of mankind. It has 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons. WOW! Now we have the key to the symbols. Carbon is the fruit of knowledge and the ability to construct fuel and technology. Our system of government and commerce is tied to the number. We will soon die by its use. Or will we?
Matthew 24
22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.
Again, the Bible reveals more than the men should have known at the time. There is a hidden hand behind the words. We also witness history before it happens.
Then, when you examine the linguistics! Let's look at just two words. WORD and WORLD. The L is a Lamed. Lamed is the ancient Hebrew pictograph of the shepherd's crook that leads the sheep. Can we find God in the Hebrew?
YES WE CAN. LINK
Here are all the relevant evidence topics I did on ATS while I was Superiored - LINK
Want more? Follow the link in my signature.
The universe is an enigma for sure. Were it not for the Bible, we would have no idea that it does indeed have an origin connected to consciousness. One very simple fact extracted from the Bible is the tipping point as far as I am concerned. This one little bit of knowledge from the Bible's symbolism is enough to define the entire story as accurate and from God. Here it is:
Genesis says this from the beginning. Man would be tempted to use the one fruit God says not to use. He called it the fruit of knowledge. He then called the fruit from the tree of life to be something that would allow mankind to live forever if manipulated. Until today, we would have no idea what these two fruits are. Were it not for John on an island prison, we would lack a 2000 year old clue as a key for discovery. He said that the mark of this fallen system of knowledge would be 666. From here, we can now define the rest. DNA is the fruit of the Tree of Life. Carbon is the fruit of knowledge (Technology).
18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[e or of mankind] That number is 666.
Carbon is the mark of mankind. It has 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons. WOW! Now we have the key to the symbols. Carbon is the fruit of knowledge and the ability to construct fuel and technology. Our system of government and commerce is tied to the number. We will soon die by its use. Or will we?
Matthew 24
22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.
Again, the Bible reveals more than the men should have known at the time. There is a hidden hand behind the words. We also witness history before it happens.
Then, when you examine the linguistics! Let's look at just two words. WORD and WORLD. The L is a Lamed. Lamed is the ancient Hebrew pictograph of the shepherd's crook that leads the sheep. Can we find God in the Hebrew?
YES WE CAN. LINK
Here are all the relevant evidence topics I did on ATS while I was Superiored - LINK
Want more? Follow the link in my signature.
edit on 6-4-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 6-4-2012 @ 08:24 PM by EnochWasRight
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
The same Neil Degrasse that did that video also appears in this video. Science is a child that is full of his own early knowledge, yet lacks the wisdom to see the larger picture. The larger picture emerges, even with the very images produced by those who disbelieve. The larger picture is a divine Creator. Rational minds would never discount the possibility if they were honestly looking for truth. Truth emerges, even when presented in counterfeit. We're all connected straight to our source. Nothing rises above its source, but flows from it. If you think the Sun and Moon are our source, how is it we are greater than our source? Again, a rational mind sees beyond the bias of fear. I am a speck on a planet, yet God loves me individually. He knows the number of hairs on my head.
Luke 12 6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7 Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
The same Neil Degrasse that did that video also appears in this video. Science is a child that is full of his own early knowledge, yet lacks the wisdom to see the larger picture. The larger picture emerges, even with the very images produced by those who disbelieve. The larger picture is a divine Creator. Rational minds would never discount the possibility if they were honestly looking for truth. Truth emerges, even when presented in counterfeit. We're all connected straight to our source. Nothing rises above its source, but flows from it. If you think the Sun and Moon are our source, how is it we are greater than our source? Again, a rational mind sees beyond the bias of fear. I am a speck on a planet, yet God loves me individually. He knows the number of hairs on my head.
Luke 12 6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7 Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
edit on 6-4-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 6-4-2012 @ 09:10 PM by madhatr137
reply to post by edmc^2
The video does not show evidence, it expands on theory.
The difference between those who see the "fine tuned" nature of the universe as evidence if an intelligent creator of the universe and the "fine tuned" construction of an ancient arrowhead created by an intelligent creator of arrowheads is that we can trace the history of that arrowhead backwards from relatively recent ancestors of those ancient creators. We can reverse engineer that arrowhead, in a sense, and literally, physically trace it's development.
On the other hand, all theories of an intelligent creator of life and the universe are exactly that, theories. And not only that, they are theories that not only do not have any actual, physical, traceable, qualitative or quantitative evidence to back them up; they are also theories that simply will never have such evidence and will remain unprovable theories.
My problem with the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe is that the argument is that it is very similar to Anselm of Canterbury's Ontological Argument. Despite the lack of empirical evidence to support the a priori conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed, one concludes it must have been merely because we can conceive of an intelligent designer for it.
This is not scientific reasoning. And in science, not accepting or even acknowledging a theory that has no empirical evidence to back it up is not closed mindedness.
Science requires more than ego-centric rhetoric.
Life arose here because conditions here were sufficient enough to produce life.
We understand the universe not because the universe was designed for us to understand it but because we developed an understanding of it.
Every day we learn that we understand less about the universe than we thought we knew.
Every day we learn that we understand less about life and it's place in the universe than we thought we knew.
If we accept an ontoligical styled argument for the universe and life...what is the point of trying to further understand it?
The video does not show evidence, it expands on theory.
The difference between those who see the "fine tuned" nature of the universe as evidence if an intelligent creator of the universe and the "fine tuned" construction of an ancient arrowhead created by an intelligent creator of arrowheads is that we can trace the history of that arrowhead backwards from relatively recent ancestors of those ancient creators. We can reverse engineer that arrowhead, in a sense, and literally, physically trace it's development.
On the other hand, all theories of an intelligent creator of life and the universe are exactly that, theories. And not only that, they are theories that not only do not have any actual, physical, traceable, qualitative or quantitative evidence to back them up; they are also theories that simply will never have such evidence and will remain unprovable theories.
My problem with the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe is that the argument is that it is very similar to Anselm of Canterbury's Ontological Argument. Despite the lack of empirical evidence to support the a priori conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed, one concludes it must have been merely because we can conceive of an intelligent designer for it.
This is not scientific reasoning. And in science, not accepting or even acknowledging a theory that has no empirical evidence to back it up is not closed mindedness.
Science requires more than ego-centric rhetoric.
Life arose here because conditions here were sufficient enough to produce life.
We understand the universe not because the universe was designed for us to understand it but because we developed an understanding of it.
Every day we learn that we understand less about the universe than we thought we knew.
Every day we learn that we understand less about life and it's place in the universe than we thought we knew.
If we accept an ontoligical styled argument for the universe and life...what is the point of trying to further understand it?
reply posted on 6-4-2012 @ 09:19 PM by EnochWasRight
reply to post by madhatr137
Then again, a man in a cave, 2000 years ago, knew Carbon had 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons. He further knew that God told us not to mess with the fruit of knowledge and life. How did Moses know to write about DNA and Carbon? Science cannot see with blind eyes. Sight requires a mechanism built by intelligence. Knowledge is good, but wisdom deciphers the knowledge for meaning and intent. No purpose acting from a design lacks intent. Intention is a hope. Intent is a designed outcome. The universe drips with intent.
Revelation 13
18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.
What did the Bible mean when it said the Veil was rent asunder? What is the veil?
Matthew 27:51
At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.
It covered the holy place where God resides in the temple. We then find out from the NT that the temple was a symbol for our body. We also know we have a spirit. The veil keeps the outside from the inside. We must live by faith. The veil being torn is yet again another symbol. We now have the ability to see past the veil and look at God. Are you looking?
Be as skeptical as you want, but there is no way to deny that the Bible outlined our history before it happened fully. Deny all you want but you will soon face the conclusion of the story. It doesn't end well for those who are blinded by bias and pride.
Why do you suppose we are here wasting a perfectly good Friday night helping you see clearly? Love covers many sins. Love is patient and kind.
John 15
Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
My problem with the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe is that the argument is that it is very similar to Anselm of Canterbury's Ontological Argument. Despite the lack of empirical evidence to support the a priori conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed, one concludes it must have been merely because we can conceive of an intelligent designer for it. This is not scientific reasoning. And in science, not accepting or even acknowledging a theory that has no empirical evidence to back it up is not closed mindedness.
Then again, a man in a cave, 2000 years ago, knew Carbon had 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons. He further knew that God told us not to mess with the fruit of knowledge and life. How did Moses know to write about DNA and Carbon? Science cannot see with blind eyes. Sight requires a mechanism built by intelligence. Knowledge is good, but wisdom deciphers the knowledge for meaning and intent. No purpose acting from a design lacks intent. Intention is a hope. Intent is a designed outcome. The universe drips with intent.
Revelation 13
18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.
What did the Bible mean when it said the Veil was rent asunder? What is the veil?
Matthew 27:51
At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.
It covered the holy place where God resides in the temple. We then find out from the NT that the temple was a symbol for our body. We also know we have a spirit. The veil keeps the outside from the inside. We must live by faith. The veil being torn is yet again another symbol. We now have the ability to see past the veil and look at God. Are you looking?
Be as skeptical as you want, but there is no way to deny that the Bible outlined our history before it happened fully. Deny all you want but you will soon face the conclusion of the story. It doesn't end well for those who are blinded by bias and pride.
Why do you suppose we are here wasting a perfectly good Friday night helping you see clearly? Love covers many sins. Love is patient and kind.
John 15
Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
edit on 6-4-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 6-4-2012 @ 10:52 PM by xxsomexpersonxx
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by madhatr137
Then again, a man in a cave, 2000 years ago, knew Carbon had 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons. He further knew that God told us not to mess with the fruit of knowledge and life. How did Moses know to write about DNA and Carbon?
You know, you've got no one convinced that Moses, or any other biblical writer exhibited any knowledge of Carbon, or DNA. I don't think anyone see's your reasoning in completely reinterpreting scripture to apply present knowledge, and then acting as if the scripture had that knowledge.
Also, Moses, if he existed at all, did not live "2000 years ago." Your wording implies you're talking about Moses there.
reply posted on 7-4-2012 @ 07:34 AM by EnochWasRight
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by madhatr137
Then again, a man in a cave, 2000 years ago, knew Carbon had 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons. He further knew that God told us not to mess with the fruit of knowledge and life. How did Moses know to write about DNA and Carbon?
You know, you've got no one convinced that Moses, or any other biblical writer exhibited any knowledge of Carbon, or DNA. I don't think anyone see's your reasoning in completely reinterpreting scripture to apply present knowledge, and then acting as if the scripture had that knowledge.
Also, Moses, if he existed at all, did not live "2000 years ago." Your wording implies you're talking about Moses there.
The man in the cave 2000 years ago was John in the first century.
reply posted on 7-4-2012 @ 09:04 AM by tetriswoooo
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by edmc^2
I understand your point and even though I disagree I have to admit that it is tempting to believe the way you do. However, I have a serious problem with just assuming it is a loving entity that has done it and that he is a God and not just a more powerful, longer lived entity then we are.
It's not an assumption friend but based on facts evidence by observation.
Case in point - location of the planet earth.
Why do they call it the "Goldilocks Zone"?
Is it just by coincidence that we're in this specific zone?
Consider also the neighboring planets and Galaxies - did they just came to be there or were they strategically placed there? For what reason?
Any idea?
tc.edit on 6-4-2012 by edmc^2 because: put - place
yes it is just coincidence there also alot of planets outside the goldilocks zone and the neighboring planets and Galaxies dident just appear they formed by small things colliding and gaining gravity drawing other small things closer its actually quite simple
Christians help me debunk these non sense atheistic beliefs about Genesis please
Posted 3 days ago with 14 member flags
Posted 3 days ago with 14 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
North Korea ready to return to 6-party talks on its nuclear program, China says
Breaking Alternative News: 23 minutes ago
Breaking Alternative News: 23 minutes ago
"What If" - Rapid Incurable "Super-Virus" Wipes Out Half Of Humans Within A Year....
General Chit Chat: 38 minutes ago
General Chit Chat: 38 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
We'll be uploading our entire MINDS to computers by 2045 Google expert claims
Science & Technology: 12 hours ago, 18 flags
Science & Technology: 12 hours ago, 18 flags
Pics from The Akron Zoo - Honest Feedback? Like them or not and why?
Member Art: 17 hours ago, 17 flags
Member Art: 17 hours ago, 17 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
The Cartoon That Will Destroy America And/Or Entertain Some Children
General Conspiracies: 9 hours ago, 152 replies
General Conspiracies: 9 hours ago, 152 replies
We'll be uploading our entire MINDS to computers by 2045 Google expert claims
Science & Technology: 12 hours ago, 76 replies
Science & Technology: 12 hours ago, 76 replies
Russell Brand on MSNBC Mocking Media through intellectual comedy
Education and Media: 9 hours ago, 41 replies
Education and Media: 9 hours ago, 41 replies
Supreme Court rules against the 5th Amendment, your right to remain silent.
US Political Madness: 9 hours ago, 38 replies
US Political Madness: 9 hours ago, 38 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.009 seconds
Page processed in: 0.871 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.009 seconds
Page processed in: 0.871 seconds
