Author Topic: Present Evidence Here II  (Read 112842 times)

Offline Hydra009

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #840 on: March 22, 2020, 07:46:26 PM »
Intelligent design
Uggh.  Now there's a blast from the past, a winning idea with a (literally) cult following.  Cdesign proponentsists, I believe was the second draft.  There was a guy here who called it "Intelligent God" which was just a tad too on the nose.

How'd that movement work out?  It's funny how a country smothered in religiosity and frequently controlled by right-wing loons that a "sneaky" (but not so sneaky that its dullard proponents couldn't figure it out) ideology like that failed so badly that the term itself is like a period piece.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2020, 07:52:27 PM by Hydra009 »

Offline Baruch

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #841 on: March 22, 2020, 07:52:59 PM »
Then you're wrong.  The Big Bang is an OBSERVATION, not a faith-based position.  And it didn't come from nothing.  Fact is, we don't know what triggered the Big Bang -- science does not have the blind arrogance to assert facts, it states observations.  What triggered the Big Bang is an active area of research.

Also, there's no such thing as the nothing you pretend the Big Bang came out of.  There are always quantum fluctuations, even in a spaceless space.  You can't have nothing -- the Uncertainty Principle is clear on that.

Literally ... a geometric point by itself is an exact position, which would contain a totally unknown momentum/mass.  Only an inexact position, however small, can have a inexact momentum/mass.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't to that.

Online trdsf

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #842 on: March 22, 2020, 08:01:21 PM »
You are touching on another many faceted subject - Intelligent design vs. blind chance.   For example how our universe and planet are fine tuned for the existence of life - notably life on the surface of the earth. This involves precise scientific measurements such as the strength of the 4 primary forces of physics.  I think this subject deserve a separate thread -  but in which forum section of this forum?

On your last point - how did the elements come to exist?   Besides hydrogen and lithium, don't they require supernovas?

But how did stars come to exist?   Didn't they require a fine tuned expansion rate of our universe?   See Isaiah 40:22,26.

And don't the laws governing our universe (Job 38:33) require a lawgiver?
The universe is NOT fine-tuned for the existence of life.  Life fits the laws that exist, and if the laws were otherwise, then life would be different.  Or impossible.

We are not *implicit* in the universe.  We are merely *possible* in the universe.  You have the unspeakable arrogance to think that this is all about us.  It's not.  The universe is not here for our benefit.  We're just one possible arrangement of molecules and systems within it, and we *are* an accident of all the events leading up to now.

Hydrogen *and helium* and trace amounts of lithium came from Big Bang nucleogenesis.  Everything else came from supernovae.  They didn't require so-called "fine tuning" either.  They are merely possible under the laws this universe operates on.

Saying laws require a lawgiver is wordplay.  The "laws" are how the universe operates.  They're not like laws on drinking ages or when you can get a driver's license.  They're implicit in existence and require only existence, not a "lawgiver" whose existence is both unprovable and unnecessary.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Offline Hydra009

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #843 on: March 22, 2020, 08:43:12 PM »
Life fits the laws that exist, and if the laws were otherwise, then life would be different.  Or impossible.
And of course, any universes without life tend to not have anyone around to wonder about it.

Imagine playing blackjack and automatically folding if your starting hand is less than 20.  Then remarking at the "miracle" that your current hand is a pair of kings.  What are the odds!

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #844 on: April 02, 2020, 02:26:56 PM »
Whatever.

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #845 on: April 02, 2020, 02:30:48 PM »
God is not the answer.

Offline Baruch

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #846 on: April 02, 2020, 02:54:23 PM »
God is not the answer.

Ah, but what is the question? - Deep Thought
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't to that.

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #847 on: April 02, 2020, 03:26:08 PM »
The question is irrelevant, for the answer is always FOO WASN'T HERE.

Offline Baruch

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #848 on: April 02, 2020, 07:41:20 PM »
The question is irrelevant, for the answer is always FOO WASN'T HERE.

No, the answer is always "42".
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't to that.

Re: Present Evidence Here II
« Reply #849 on: April 02, 2020, 08:57:43 PM »
No, the answer is always "42".
Jackie Robinson would be pleased
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?