science makes case for god
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2015, 03:54 PM
RE: science makes case for god
(03-01-2015 03:16 PM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  in the hope that one day you can find someone, somewhere, that can trip me or any other creationist up.

What variety of creationist is he? Evil_monster

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 04:34 PM
RE: science makes case for god
(03-01-2015 03:54 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(03-01-2015 03:16 PM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  in the hope that one day you can find someone, somewhere, that can trip me or any other creationist up.

What variety of creationist is he? Evil_monster

He's a Christian YEC. But not the kind that goes to church. He finds faults with every church he's been to. And chooses to do his worship at home. All my wife's friends warned me about him before I met him. He didn't like me when we first met because I was raise Mormon, even though I had left that belief at 16. I didn't see him again after our first meeting for 6 1/2 years till I married his daughter and he realized that he was stuck with me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 05:03 PM
RE: science makes case for god
Wow! Sounds like a piece of work.

A YEC. Oh goody! I call dibs on the geochronology drumstick!

Point him this way. We have a forum just for people like him.

Until then ask him: How are ice caps possible? Ice floats. Mount Ararat is a little over 5 km high. A global flood that covered it should have lifted the ice sheets from Greenland and Antarctica.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 05:20 PM
RE: science makes case for god
Here's his latest:

So it's okay to be wrong (as Krauss is) as long as you have a degree? And why should the WSJ publish a non-factual diatribe as an argument to, a fact based argument? Now, a fact based rebuttal should be allowed. You want one side to argue the facts (Christians) and the side to (atheists) to argue opinion PRESENTED as factual. Don't forget, I presented 5 other pre-eminent scientists that rebutted Krauss. Why must my side always have to be factual but yours opinion based? That would be stupid on my part to allow such a one-sided argument.

I get it, you don't want God and you feel that makes you smarter than others (because you don't believe in fairy tales).

You just don't want to admit that your atheism is nothing more than faith based also (so you can feel superior to believers), If your atheism can be shown to be also faith based then you're just as much a believer as everyone else, you just believe in nothing.What Krauss said is that, since we are on Earth, we can understand and talk about the factors and requirements for life on Earth. But even on Earth, not every life form requires the same things to live, right? So it's not absurd to think that life in other parts of the universe might require completely different things than us.  WHERE ARE THEY , proof, not theories.

Bacteria and viruses don't need air to live. You do. PROVE IT.

Plants only need water and the sun, you need much more, that is not sufficient. Not true (what about carbon dioxide), PROVE this statement.

However this is more evidence that "we are tuned to the environment" than the opposite. PROVE this statement, it's just an opinion.

We have evolved to fit the environment, and not that the environment was created appositely for us. Prove IT, just a hypothesis.

See how easy it is to argue like you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 05:24 PM
RE: science makes case for god
(03-01-2015 05:03 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Wow! Sounds like a piece of work.

A YEC. Oh goody! I call dibs on the geochronology drumstick!

Point him this way. We have a forum just for people like him.

Until then ask him: How are ice caps possible? Ice floats. Mount Ararat is a little over 5 km high. A global flood that covered it should have lifted the ice sheets from Greenland and Antarctica.

I've been going through the global flood myth with him for the past 2 months. I haven't brought up the ice caps yet. He thought the underground water reservoir was proof for the flood. I shot that down pretty quick.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 05:28 PM
RE: science makes case for god
(03-01-2015 04:34 PM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  And chooses to do his worship at home.

I like them kinky types too.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 05:57 PM
RE: science makes case for god
(02-01-2015 06:03 PM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  Has anyone seen this article. A YEC sent me to it as scientific proof for god.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas...1419544568

Why did I click on that ? Once again...no evidence.

The second mouse gets the cheese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 06:04 PM
RE: science makes case for god
(03-01-2015 03:11 PM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  Krauss didn't refute the facts of the article

There were no facts in the article, just claims.

Quote:Krauss is only saying that we have a given set of conditions here so the life we find here relies on those conditions (So he doesn't deny the 200 conditions needed HERE to exist, which was the original premise of his reason for writing the rebuttal).

No, the rebuttal is needed because the article claims that changing any of those conditions would make life impossible.
Prove that any of those conditions CAN be different.
Prove that the values can be changed independently.
Prove that no form of life could ever exist under different conditions.
Those are some of the assumptions that are built into the argument that are opinions being presented as facts.

Quote:If your answer falls apart, as Kraus's' does, then just say it must be something else that nobody has figured out yet.

For everything where we have an answer that has been the case. Saying "god did it" has never provided any actual answer to any question. It's just a way to pretend to have an answer until science finds an actual answer.

Quote:"then maybe there would be no life and maybe there would be different life."

Don't lose sight of the above. Kraus's started out trying to deny the article and now, after the facts don't support him, he's back to MAYBE this MAYBE that.

That wasn't Krauss, or me putting words in Krauss's mouth. That was me explaining the argument the way I understand it. I do not pretend to speak for anybody but myself. The article claims that life is dependent on a specific set of conditions. That is no less opinion than anything Krauss is being accused of and even if Krauss agreed that the answer is "maybe this, maybe that" it would still refute the article because the article is making an unfounded claim.

Quote:If atheists were following the EVIDENCE, they'd rule out NOTHING, not even God, and allow the evidence to direct and steer them.

What EVIDENCE do you have for a god? You can't caluclate the odds of the universe being as it is without a god because you have exactly 1 universe so there is nothing to calculate odds from. We don't know that this is the only universe. We don't know that the conditions could be different. We don't know what the possible sets of conditions are. We don't know that life could not develop under other possible sets of conditions. In other words the answer is "we don't know". Assuming a god is just a cop-out unless you have actual evidence that it has to be a god, not just that it could be a god.

Quote:By denying God, they are NOT following the evidence, because they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of a God.

I don't refuse to acknowledge that. It is possible, or at least I have no way to demonstrate that it is impossible which means that door has to stay open. It is also possible that our universe is just an experiment in a lab in some larger universe. It is possible that we are an elaborate simulation. It is possible that none of what I experience is real and I'm actually in an insane asylum in some other universe just dreaming all this. It is possible that a god existed and didn't create the universe, he transformed himself into the universe. I just don't know of any way to differentiate between any of the many things that can be proposed.

The problem isn't recognizing that something is possible, it's jumping to the conclusion that it is even likely without any good reason to do so. Saying something is possible says nothing about how probable it is. Estimating probability would require evidence. Is this guy willing to acknowledge the possibility that there is no god and actually evaluate the evidence on that basis?

Quote:And that's the bottom line, Kraus's has no EVIDENCE, he has conjecture and hypothesis that you want to believe. You aren't following evidence, you're following emotion.

Not quite. We're admitting when we've reached the end of our understanding of the available evidence. We just aren't willing to make a leap to assume an emotionally satisfying answer like theists try to do.

I second the motion that he should join the forum and try to argue his views here himself. Some of the people here might be able to pry open at least one eye just a bit.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
03-01-2015, 07:07 PM
RE: science makes case for god
(03-01-2015 06:04 PM)unfogged Wrote:  [quote='Ocean theRAPIST' pid='713192' dateline='1420319467']

I second the motion that he should join the forum and try to argue his views here himself. Some of the people here might be able to pry open at least one eye just a bit.

The problem with sending him here is that I like this forum for my own learning and resources. I'm not sure how that would work with him in here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OceanTherapist's post
03-01-2015, 07:34 PM
RE: science makes case for god
(03-01-2015 05:20 PM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  And why should the WSJ publish a non-factual diatribe as an argument to, a fact based argument?

I love this little double standard.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: