The average Fox News viewer has an IQ 20 points lower than the US average

[Dawkinsrocks]

Jprd

Explain the point of prayer when 'God's plan is immutable'

If he changes the plan because you ask it wasn't perfect

If he doesn't there's no point asking for ANYTHING

Go jprd knock yourself out

 

[TheJPRD]

Jprd

Explain the point of prayer when 'God's plan is immutable'

If he changes the plan because you ask it wasn't perfect

If he doesn't there's no point asking for ANYTHING

Go jprd knock yourself out

You've made a significant error in your assessment of my belief system, kid! That's not really surprising since leftists don't accept the fact that human beings are individuals, NOT just sheep in some homogeneous good or evil group! I am indeed a Christian, but I'm wise enough to differentiate between truth and Church doctrine, dogma, and Biblical writings that don't ring true to me as being the word of God.

When I began reading the Bible, most of the Christian philosophy described therein rang true to me, and I'll argue that such philosophy is or should be accepted as "universal truth". Those Bibilical teachings I accept as factual and easily supported in debate. Other statements in the Bible impress me more as the thoughts or concepts of individual human beings, and therefore are open to question and critique. Unlike some Christians and ALL leftists, I don't claim to know God's will nor His means and methods.

Nice try, kid, but you picked the wrong person to debate statements that I myself see as questionable and inconsistent! As for the existence of God, however, I have no doubt, nor should any intelligent human being. Something cannot be created from nothing, and that's a fact of physical science, not a Biblical point of view. Perhaps you should explain how something CAN be created from nothing? Once you've done that successfully, you'll have made a worthy stab at disproving God's existence. Till then, don't keep delving into concepts you're incapable of understanding! So much for the "intelligence" of a non-FOX viewer!

 

[PLC1]

Sounds like fun! It should be recognized, however, that it's the logical interpretation of credibly-sourced facts that most-accurately reflect the winning position. Facts in and of themselves are not answers. Understanding what the facts do and don't tell us about the "issue" in question is what's important! I'd suggest that the debate be conducted in the classical style, with one debater accepting a premise, and the other arguing the contrary. I'll play whichever role openminded is afraid to take..... unless, of course, it's the leftist-progressive position that he/she fears to take.

What about it, Openmind? Are you game?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Ahh, so jprd you are going for the allegorical defence of the harry potter er er I mean the bible

Two points

Christians have seen science destroy the ludicrous biblical accounts of lots of stuff and some of them have used the allegorical argument to try to get round this inconvenience. This argument fails of course because who is to say which bits are fact and which aren't? Obviously as science develops, more of the 'fact' stuff has to move to the 'allegorical' category.

So that argument just doesn't work

The second point is that even if it did work it still doesn't answer my point

Unless of course you are saying that God's perfection and his immutable plan are not facts

In which case I completely agree so will you please accept that god isn't god?

 

[TheJPRD]

I anwered this similar post of your's on the other thread about Costas I think. No point in doing it multiple times.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You haven't

You can't

 

[TheJPRD]

You haven't

You can't

Lagboltz and I have been having what's so far been a civil discussion of "religion", "atheism", and related issues. Lagboltz strikes me so far as being a civil man who respects the rights of religious folks, even though he doesn't believe in a religious God himself. Because of his tolerance and civility, I've tried to be as respectful and civil toward him as he's been toward me. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated an outright hatred of Christians and Jews, an outlook that's not civil, respectful, nor tolerant. Your discussions here have been bigoted toward religious believers, no different than those who'd tell you that all atheists are evil. It's time that you grow up and start acting like a responsible adult!

You should occasionally try using your brain when posting, instead of just your mouth. I did reply to your post, and those questions that I couldn't answer, I clearly told you so. Simple-minded leftists often ask such questions as those you asked. Many Christians will tell you that one needn't understand the answers to those questions because their religious beliefs are a matter of "Faith". I didn't tell you that! I admitted that I didn't know. Apparently, honesty isn't something that meets with your approval.

If you feel such questions are relevant, allow me to ask you a similar one. How was the universe created from nothing, since science tells us that something can't be created from nothing????

Answering my question intelligently could make you look like a "Star". Failing to answer my question correctly will indicate that your disbelief in God is also a matter of "Faith". The pot calling the kettle black??? You may now proceed to explain your Faith in atheism.

 

[Lagboltz]

How was the universe created from nothing, since science tells us that something can't be created from nothing????

If you allow me to butt in on the challenge to Dawkins, actually science doesn't say that. Science has clearly demonstrated the existence of virtual particles, where, in lay terms, energy can be borrowed from the future to create particles which annihilate and return that same energy to the past. "Nothing", i.e. the vacuum is swarming with virtual particles.

As far as the universe, it was known dozens of years ago that the negative potential energy of gravitation in the entire universe is about equal to the positive mass energy of the all the stars, etc. The two energies cancel out to zero (within experimental error), so it is not out of the question that the universe did come from nothing. It has been proposed that at the singularity of the big bang, a swarm of virtual particles were permanently created, where the total energy of the creation remained at zero and did not violate the laws of physics, although the singularity itself is still a mystery.

I know you are trying to embarrass Dawkins with a mystery, but you will have to use a different one. And thank you for the complement.

 

[TheJPRD]

If you allow me to butt in on the challenge to Dawkins, actually science doesn't say that. Science has clearly demonstrated the existence of virtual particles, where, in lay terms, energy can be borrowed from the future to create particles which annihilate and return that same energy to the past. "Nothing", i.e. the vacuum is swarming with virtual particles.

As far as the universe, it was known dozens of years ago that the negative potential energy of gravitation in the entire universe is about equal to the positive mass energy of the all the stars, etc. The two energies cancel out to zero (within experimental error), so it is not out of the question that the universe did come from nothing. It has been proposed that at the singularity of the big bang, a swarm of virtual particles were permanently created, where the total energy of the creation remained at zero and did not violate the laws of physics, although the singularity itself is still a mystery.

I know you are trying to embarrass Dawkins with a mystery, but you will have to use a different one. And thank you for the complement.

Dawkins does quite well embarrassing himself without my help. To your comment that "it's not out of the question that the universe did come from nothing", I might respond that it's also not out of the question that God created it.

I'm not trying to be a smartass on this, but it still appears to be a matter of Faith. When one allows his mind to float into the universe looking for an "End", one recognizes that there cannot be an end. The universe cannot be like a house in a State in a nation in a world, and there cannot be walls to infinity. I can't imagine that all this is simply a matter of particles, and that particles or anthing else just "happened". Assuming that it did happen as you're postulating strikes me as requiring far more Faith than a belief in God.

 

[cashmcall]

If you allow me to butt in on the challenge to Dawkins, actually science doesn't say that. Science has clearly demonstrated the existence of virtual particles, where, in lay terms, energy can be borrowed from the future to create particles which annihilate and return that same energy to the past. "Nothing", i.e. the vacuum is swarming with virtual particles.

As far as the universe, it was known dozens of years ago that the negative potential energy of gravitation in the entire universe is about equal to the positive mass energy of the all the stars, etc. The two energies cancel out to zero (within experimental error), so it is not out of the question that the universe did come from nothing. It has been proposed that at the singularity of the big bang, a swarm of virtual particles were permanently created, where the total energy of the creation remained at zero and did not violate the laws of physics, although the singularity itself is still a mystery.

I know you are trying to embarrass Dawkins with a mystery, but you will have to use a different one. And thank you for the complement.

"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1o80 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1o18 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec) the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:
1/1089 x 1/10-18 x 1/1o49 =1/1o143
So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.

 

[cashmcall]

Evidence for design?

The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.
The Big Bang

The Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10-36 to 10-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.
Excess quarks

Quarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge�parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families.1 However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.
Even so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.2 Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 larger,3 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Early evolution of the universe

Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into the[se] 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.4
Just right laws of physics

The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect

 

[cashmcall]

Evidence for design?

The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.
The Big Bang

The Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10-36 to 10-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.
Excess quarks

Quarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge�parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families.1 However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.
Even so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.2 Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 larger,3 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Early evolution of the universe

Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into the[se] 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.4
Just right laws of physics

The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect[/quote

by Rich Deem ...SORRY

 

[Lagboltz]

Dawkins does quite well embarrassing himself without my help. To your comment that "it's not out of the question that the universe did come from nothing", I might respond that it's also not out of the question that God created it.

I'm not trying to be a smartass on this, but it still appears to be a matter of Faith. When one allows his mind to float into the universe looking for an "End", one recognizes that there cannot be an end. The universe cannot be like a house in a State in a nation in a world, and there cannot be walls to infinity. I can't imagine that all this is simply a matter of particles, and that particles or anthing else just "happened". Assuming that it did happen as you're postulating strikes me as requiring far more Faith than a belief in God.

Sure I agree with everything you say. But to a physicist, "God created it" goes nowhere further. It is an empty statement. It's only when Christians say you should get down on your knees and honor God that I must disagree. I would rather honor what you call God by studying the the nature of physics as far as it takes me. I don't use the word "God" as the source of the big bang because it carries too much historical baggage, such as praying, etc. Simply calling it the big bang eliminates that baggage.

 

[Lagboltz]

Evidence for design?
.................... etc.

The essence of your post contains well known problems for cosmologists. They have carried out analysis to the first few nanoseconds (maybe picoseconds) after the big bang. In the history of cosmology, problems have become more and more resolved and understood. It was only about 100 years ago that it was discovered that the universe was finite and expanding. In another 100 years, science will surely have answered some of the questions in your post. The nature of science is to continue to push back the borders of understanding, and turn mysteries into theories, and theories into verifications. They have just verified the Higgs Boson. There is hope that newer theories on supersymetry will start explaining how the plethora of possible configurations of the laws of physics resolve into the ones in this universe.

 

[dogtowner]

Sure I agree with everything you say. But to a physicist, "God created it" goes nowhere further. It is an empty statement. It's only when Christians say you should get down on your knees and honor God that I must disagree. I would rather honor what you call God by studying the the nature of physics as far as it takes me. I don't use the word "God" as the source of the big bang because it carries too much historical baggage, such as praying, etc. Simply calling it the big bang eliminates that baggage.

aint it great that God reveals the mechinisms as we're able to comprehend it ?!?

ive no doubt that this will continue.

but ive also no doubt that no matter how much more we.come to understand, there will always be a point at which the only reasinable us 'and then a muracle happened'.

its no wonder that the way ancients described things sound odd today. but consider the perspective if their day and their ability to describe things.