Author Topic: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit  (Read 3234 times)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #375 on: Today at 09:25:45 AM »
Yes, it is a belief.  They cannot prove or demonstrate it ... nobody knows what happened in the early universe, they only suppose.  They do rationally extrapolate back in time, to a small fraction of a second of the Big Bang, because of particle physics.  To presuppose a Creator, is to irrationally extrapolate back in time.  But that is like extrapolating from a folded newspaper boat to a giant ship.  Their belief is rational, but they also deny it is a belief.  You agree that they are rational, but in denial.  I deny both rationality and belief, I cast ridicule upon extrapolation back in time.  If you can't demonstrate something, here and now, you have nothing.  There is nothing to believe and nothing to rationalize.  The Big Bang itself, cannot be demonstrated .. though they always hope that super science will prove them right, eventually.  Like the ugly girl who thinks every year, she will be invited to the Prom ;-)  It will never happen, physics knows now, to have ultimate knowledge ... infinite power is required.  This is unobtainable, forever.  Seeing before the 3.5 K radiation is also probably impossible, the constitution of the universe at that time was uniformly chaotic.  If a naturalist moves far enough, he becomes a theist and vice versa.
Baloney.  A scientist can tell the difference between a theory and an hypothesis.  But both are based on rational thinking; thinking that can be demonstrated.  And scientists using hypothesis to describe as best they can the early universe know that it is an hypothesis.  Some day that working hypothesis may become a theory, but it is still a hypothesis until then.  There is no indication that a belief in any god will ever go beyond that--just a belief with no foundation.   Just because we don't know something right now does not mean it will remain unknown in the future.  Considering theists have had thousands of years head start and all they can come up with is just a set of beliefs with no foundation and science has only just started and has a set of theories and working hypothesis based upon reason and critical thinking is amazing.  Yet theists such as yourself just don't want to see it.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Online Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #376 on: Today at 01:06:13 PM »
Sorry, you need to take Cosmos original or Cosmos remake ... with a little more skepticism.  Or do you really believe in Popular Mechanics?

I know that Ohm's law works ...  have used it as an electrical engineer.  I also know that it is semi-empirical ... it isn't "G-d's Truth" (TM).  That is a far cry from claiming to know, know ... what happens inside a black hole, or what happened in the first few seconds of the Big Bang.  Yes, scientists do know the difference between hypothesis and demonstrated theory ... but not at grant time ... they are paid by being on the bleeding, unconfirmed edge.  Life by the grant, die by the grant.  Publish or perish.
שלום

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #377 on: Today at 03:07:21 PM »
Sorry, you need to take Cosmos original or Cosmos remake ... with a little more skepticism.  Or do you really believe in Popular Mechanics?

I know that Ohm's law works ...  have used it as an electrical engineer.  I also know that it is semi-empirical ... it isn't "G-d's Truth" (TM).  That is a far cry from claiming to know, know ... what happens inside a black hole, or what happened in the first few seconds of the Big Bang.  Yes, scientists do know the difference between hypothesis and demonstrated theory ... but not at grant time ... they are paid by being on the bleeding, unconfirmed edge.  Life by the grant, die by the grant.  Publish or perish.
Ah yes, of course.  The grant.  What is worse--living by the grant--or living by the tithe basket?  Which supports more lies and fairy tales?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline trdsf

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #378 on: Today at 03:37:10 PM »
Ah yes, of course.  The grant.  What is worse--living by the grant--or living by the tithe basket?  Which supports more lies and fairy tales?
I might also add that the 'bleeding, unconfirmed edge' is where all the interesting science is done.  No one's going to give out grant money for re-demonstrating that water is composed of H2O.  There's a reason scientific research goes to the edges of knowledge: to push back those edges, and uncover new and yet-unexplained phenomena.

No amount of money thrown in a collection plate can compete with that.
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin and Hobbes
"Confused? At a loss for what to do? Wow, sounds like you're human. Good luck." -- Welcome to Night Vale

Online Sorginak

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #379 on: Today at 06:02:26 PM »
Its not a scientific fact that unguided naturalistic forces could cause a universe to exist or did cause a universe to exist. Its not a scientific fact time always existed, its not a scientifically established fact its naturalistic forces all the way down.

Theistic Faith believed that the earth was flat.
Science proved that it is not.

Theistic Faith believed that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Science proved that it is not.

Theistic Faith believed that the Earth was only approximately six thousand years old.
Science proved that the Earth is much older.

Is it so far fetched that one should trust science over theistic Faith?
Hardly.
If Obama had been assassinated, placing men in women's restrooms would be respected.

Online Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #380 on: Today at 06:11:20 PM »
Ah yes, of course.  The grant.  What is worse--living by the grant--or living by the tithe basket?  Which supports more lies and fairy tales?

And that is why, half the science (peer reviewed) is un-repeatable (aka fake).  Monetary inducement.  If money is bad, let the academics do without ... that would match their Marxism.

Or ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize

With the levitating frog experiment, we will soon understand Unobtainium ;-)
שלום

Online Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #381 on: Today at 06:13:39 PM »
I might also add that the 'bleeding, unconfirmed edge' is where all the interesting science is done.  No one's going to give out grant money for re-demonstrating that water is composed of H2O.  There's a reason scientific research goes to the edges of knowledge: to push back those edges, and uncover new and yet-unexplained phenomena.

No amount of money thrown in a collection plate can compete with that.

You give plenty at the Church of Government ... and I do thank you for that.  Give 100% of income, whenever you can .. I need a new car.
שלום