tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1706555754604718664..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Can we ever know if god exists?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64563073289111834422016-09-27T18:11:54.439-04:002016-09-27T18:11:54.439-04:00Fine tuning is bs? Well jurmac, all you have to do...Fine tuning is bs? Well jurmac, all you have to do is provide evidence that it is so, and that intelligence can do better at fine tuning than <i>random universal draft</i> or something to that nature. <br /><br />So far, the best human intelligence could do is the Hubble Telescope. Unfortunately, it is so far off to the cosmological constant that only stupid, mindless morons like you can bluff like that. I have the details if you need it... Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14319423739172613852016-09-27T17:51:35.912-04:002016-09-27T17:51:35.912-04:00Larry,
I'm just curious. What is your defini...Larry, <br /><br />I'm just curious. What is your definition of God (s)? I'm pretty sure you have one.Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56456083654325086002016-09-26T16:17:18.888-04:002016-09-26T16:17:18.888-04:00"that would need to include evidence of how h...<i>"that would need to include evidence of how he came to be."<br /><br />Why do you think this is required?</i><br /><br />Because you keep telling me that we can't accept common descent unless we know how each mutation became fixed. Does that seem familiar to you?<br /><br />For the rest, it's unclear what you mean. "several lines of evidence that is consistent with current scientific thinking"? Whatever is that trying to say?<br /><br />Would you agree that god is a very big hypothesis, such that we should require very good evidence before accepting it?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55393527832518565742016-09-26T15:08:24.696-04:002016-09-26T15:08:24.696-04:00I'm familiar with the book and the argument. ...I'm familiar with the book and the argument. Read about the "landscape," as I suggested in my earlier comment.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78201650430785154272016-09-26T14:31:14.036-04:002016-09-26T14:31:14.036-04:00so a self replicating robot doesnt need a designer...<i>so a self replicating robot doesnt need a designer?</i><br /><br />I don't see how you came to that conclusion?<br /><br />Any chance of your attempting to answer my questions?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62388420532391304742016-09-26T14:05:30.050-04:002016-09-26T14:05:30.050-04:00hi ace. so a self replicating robot doesnt need a ...hi ace. so a self replicating robot doesnt need a designer? ok. but we need a big proof for a big claim. do you agree?scdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00260945727618051024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64999379122868722962016-09-26T13:50:09.829-04:002016-09-26T13:50:09.829-04:00John,
What then are factoids?
" God is a big...John,<br />What then are factoids?<br /><br />" God is a bigger hypothesis to swallow than any phenomenon in the universe."<br /><br />This is the same as Dawkin's argument from personal incredulity.<br /><br />" Before you accept him as an explanation you ought to have some evidence that he does exist."<br /><br />I agree with this. HeKs argument sites several lines of evidence that is consistent with current scientific thinking.<br /><br />"that would need to include evidence of how he came to be."<br /><br />Why do you think this is required?Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22941964005452083452016-09-26T13:41:43.080-04:002016-09-26T13:41:43.080-04:00Its not required to make informed inferences. When...<i>Its not required to make informed inferences. When the detective arrives at the crime scene and someone lies dead on the floor with a knife on his back, he inferes immediately, that someone murdered that person.</i><br /><br />Yes, if he favours the explanation that a natural entity, like a human being, did it. But if he tries to pin the crime on an invisible, immaterial being that consists only of a "startlingly simple divine mind", how far do you think he will when he presents that in a court of law? Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29458168951328454222016-09-26T13:38:18.583-04:002016-09-26T13:38:18.583-04:00What did I tell you? Creationists are so predicta...What did I tell you? Creationists are so predictable.<br /><br /><i>a divine mind is startlingly simple</i><br /><br />What is "startlingly simple" is the mind of a dunce like William Lane Craig.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12543067116739168252016-09-26T13:21:23.419-04:002016-09-26T13:21:23.419-04:00Bill, you aren't reading carefully. He didn...Bill, you aren't reading carefully. He didn't say "no amount of evidence", he said "no amount of factoids that you might find astounding" (and the accent was clearly on "you"). This is not disqualifying god up front. It's pointing out that personal incredulity is not evidence. All those factoids make the implicit argument "we don't know how that happens, therefore god did it". That can be turned around: how did god happen? God is a bigger hypothesis to swallow than any phenomenon in the universe. Before you accept him as an explanation you ought to have some evidence that he does exist. And if we believe your general line elsewhere, that would need to include evidence of how he came to be.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44744189220616987222016-09-26T12:47:07.403-04:002016-09-26T12:47:07.403-04:00Photsynthesis
"No amount of factoids that you...Photsynthesis<br />"No amount of factoids that you might find astounding, or improbable, or anything else, would make gods more likely. The main problem is, as I explained before, that gods have this excellent record of being imaginary. Remember, thunder gods, volcano gods, rain gods, harvest gods, etc."<br /><br />Thanks for responding to HeKS argument. <br /><br />I see your argument, like Dawkins is to disqualify God up front by claiming the whole concept is absurd. <br /><br />How can you back up the claim that no amount of evidence can make God more likely?<br /><br />Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63821770925820394292016-09-26T12:44:21.377-04:002016-09-26T12:44:21.377-04:00judmarc
"We went through the "fine tuni...judmarc<br /><br />"We went through the "fine tuning" thing - it's pretty much BS "<br /><br />Then why do top atheist astronomers like Martin Rees disagree with you ? <br /><br />Is the fine-tuning real?<br /><br />Yes, it’s real and it is conceded by the top-rank of atheist physicists. Let me give you a citation from the best one of all, Martin Rees. Martin Rees is an atheist and a qualified astronomer. He wrote a book called “Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe”, (Basic Books: 2001). In it, he discusses 6 numbers that need to be fine-tuned in order to have a life-permitting universe.<br /><br />Rees writes here:<br /><br />These six numbers constitute a ‘recipe’ for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator?<br /><br />There are some atheists who deny the fine-tuning, but these atheists are in firm opposition to the progress of science. The more science has progressed, the more constants, ratios and quantities we have discovered that need to be fine-tuned. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265343573323745994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59373454236483685782016-09-26T12:41:46.891-04:002016-09-26T12:41:46.891-04:00lutesuite wrote
" And, somehow, the creation...lutesuite wrote<br /><br />" And, somehow, the creationist bears no responsibility for calculating the probability of the existence of an invisible, undetectable, supernatural "designer" that just popped into being without any cause? How does that work, exactly? "<br /><br />Its not required to make informed inferences. When the detective arrives at the crime scene and someone lies dead on the floor with a knife on his back, he inferes immediately, that someone murdered that person. When you see a message on a sand dune, you immediately infer someone wrote it there...... <br /><br />Judmarc<br /><br />William L. Craig answers your point :<br /><br />http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion<br /><br />God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entityAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265343573323745994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23977561003362734692016-09-26T12:36:31.319-04:002016-09-26T12:36:31.319-04:00Cue the "sophisticated" theological resp...Cue the "sophisticated" theological response: God is supremely simple, even more simple than an amoeba. He has to be, because complex things can only be created by an intelligent designer (so the "sophisticated" creationist theologian says).<br /><br />You have to wonder, if simplicity increases an agent's creative powers, why it isn't the amoeba who are designing space stations and cell phones.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14516955487145021542016-09-26T12:31:52.231-04:002016-09-26T12:31:52.231-04:00The atheists task is to provide explanations that ...<i>The atheists task is to provide explanations that top probabilistically design</i><br /><br />That's childishly simple. I mean that quite literally, as even a child can figure this out. <br /><br />Design presupposes a designer. <br /><br />If you do this scientifically, that means you have to create a designer, an entity much, much more complex and sophisticated than what any branch of science has proposed for the origin of life. Thus less probable, and nature wins over design.<br /><br />If you do this religiously, then the universe can magically poof an amoeba or something even simpler into existence just as readily as it can an all-powerful designer, so it's a tie.<br /><br />Science's record, one win and one tie. Religion's record, one loss and one tie. Science wins.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67144555444797274482016-09-26T12:04:25.796-04:002016-09-26T12:04:25.796-04:00The atheists task is to provide explanations that ...<i>The atheists task is to provide explanations that top probabilistically design, and show that non guided natural processes have better capabilities to produce complex and instructional/specified complexity....</i><br /><br />And, somehow, the creationist bears no responsibility for calculating the probability of the existence of an invisible, undetectable, supernatural "designer" that just popped into being without any cause? How does that work, exactly?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43867281103296123082016-09-26T11:53:08.456-04:002016-09-26T11:53:08.456-04:00N.Manning writes
" And then goes on to list ...<br />N.Manning writes<br /><br />" And then goes on to list some human acts as analogies. In other words, the BEST that he can offer for IDcreationism is analogies to human activities premised on contrived and idiosyncratic definitions of "intelligence."<br /><br />And what exactly is the problem with that ? The atheists task is to provide explanations that top probabilistically design, and show that non guided natural processes have better capabilities to produce complex and instructional/specified complexity found in epigenetic systems and genes, and irreducible , interdependent molecular machines and biosynthetic and metabolic pathways in biological systems, complex energy supply and self replication, error detection and repair mechanisms all at once, right from the start. Splicing machines, information retreaval systems, translation capabilities, trashbins etc. etc. As far as i am informed, when it comes to show that, the answer is a big emptiness. No answer whatsoever. Guess work and just so stories at their best. Thanks to Larry, which is a showcase of this behavior. haha. This blog is becoming a showcase of how atheism is bankrupt, and naturalism a no-case. kk.... what a pitty. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265343573323745994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41754967591509368872016-09-26T11:46:42.764-04:002016-09-26T11:46:42.764-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265343573323745994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88047495772681963572016-09-26T09:54:28.712-04:002016-09-26T09:54:28.712-04:00I see the usual suspect arguing via quote and copy...I see the usual suspect arguing via quote and copy paste. In other words, the usual suspect has nothing of merit to offer for IDC.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68081984056668505632016-09-26T09:52:07.850-04:002016-09-26T09:52:07.850-04:00Otangelo - I have found over 2 decades of interact...Otangelo - I have found over 2 decades of interacting with creationists that those that rely almost entirely on the essays of the faithful, links to websites, and paraphrased arguments by charlatans are really not worth the effort.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31051655217783189182016-09-26T09:50:40.021-04:002016-09-26T09:50:40.021-04:00Otangelo writes:
"We know how to detect the ...Otangelo writes:<br /><br />"We know how to detect the "handywork" of intelligence. "<br /><br />And then goes on to list some human acts as analogies. In other words, the BEST that he can offer for IDcreationism is analogies to human activities premised on contrived and idiosyncratic definitions of "intelligence." But analogies to human activity are NOT evidence for a deity 'creating' anything. Any child can see this.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50933138984842723882016-09-26T09:47:52.199-04:002016-09-26T09:47:52.199-04:00Crugler - how much scientific evidence do you have...Crugler - how much scientific evidence do you have that yahweh exists?<br />At least naturalists are actually doing research on hypoptheses of abiogenesis - what are creation scientists doing to test hypotheses of yahweh's creation?<br /><br />nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9244791649607912812016-09-26T07:45:05.805-04:002016-09-26T07:45:05.805-04:00– The origin of the universe (including its matter...<i>– The origin of the universe (including its matter, energy, space and physical laws) in the finite past</i><br /><br />It is comedic (unintentionally, I'm sure) that a statement which would have gotten one burned at the stake years ago (e.g., Giordano Bruno) is trotted out as proof of God's existence.<br /><br />The trouble with these statements is they always rely on a level of ignorance about science. Why, for example, was the Universe created in such a way that it is fundamentally probabilistic (quantum), and as such *cannot* to a mathematical certainty be fully known, planned, or controlled in the way that has always been ascribed to the Biblical God?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60539929165764360852016-09-26T07:33:22.139-04:002016-09-26T07:33:22.139-04:00"natural, aka non-intelligent mechanisms are ..."natural, aka non-intelligent mechanisms are sufficient to cause the orgin of the universe, its fine-tuning, the origin of life, and biodiversity, yes,requires a leap of faith."<br /><br />We went through the "fine tuning" thing - it's pretty much BS, and what isn't provable BS is simply unknown at this time and will very likely never be known (e.g., the existence of the "landscape" - if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be holding forth on fine tuning arguments).<br /><br />As for "leap of faith," do you know what an untuned TV channel looks like - those random dots crawling all over the screen? That's the cosmic microwave background radiation from the Big Bang. So you can confirm the scientific explanation of the origin of the universe just by pulling the cable from the back of your TV set. That's not exactly a huge leap of faith, is it?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29547804053084324972016-09-26T07:14:34.850-04:002016-09-26T07:14:34.850-04:00Nobody has access to all reality, otherwise we wou...<i>Nobody has access to all reality, otherwise we would be all knowing.</i><br /><br />This might take us off topic, but I have a theological question to ask. It seems to me that the idea that God is all-knowing is logically impossible. God can only know what he knows, he cannot know what he does not know. It is possible that God was created by an even more powerful deity who made sure that God did not know of this deity's existence and instead mistakenly believed he was all-powerful and all-knowing. God may <i>believe</i> he is all-knowing, but there is no way he can confirm this for certain. He can only presume it to be true.<br /><br />IOW, God (if he exists) is in exactly the same position as the rest of us WRT your quote above.<br /><br />Have any of the sophisticated theologians ever addressed this seeming contradiction?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.com