Spirituality
11 Sep 15
20 Sep 15
Originally posted by RJHindsIs this someone else's review, or is it a "rare moment of clarity" for you?
Here is my quick overview summary of the article:
1. The universe had a beginning
2. The universe is just right for life
3. DNA coding reveals intelligence
Science is unable to tell us what or who caused the universe to begin. But some believe it clearly points to a Creator.
Cosmologists, who specialize in the study of the universe and its o ...[text shortened]... ou don't get it at first. It may suddenly come to you when you least expect it. Have faith.
😏
20 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneI can't imagine why you would say something like that. I was only trying to reduce the article to what i considered the main points. A readers digest version you might say. You did notice that I did not say anything about billions or millions of years in my summary? 😏
Is this someone else's review, or is it a "rare moment of clarity" for you?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
20 Sep 15
2 edits
Originally posted by Great King RatWhat did you think was "very good" about the article? Mammy Blue seems unable to explain it.
What did you think was "very good" about the article? Mammy Blue seems unable to explain it.
Also, was the Youtuber doing the reading by any chance Stephen Hawking?
The reasoning is good.
The two concepts do not make good bed fellows.
We have no strong reason to trust out cognitive falculties given their function to produce reactions the facilitate survival. Truth takes the back seat because the trueness of our perception is not as important as what causes the reaction of survival.
Also, was the Youtuber doing the reading by any chance Stephen Hawking?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're kidding of course ?
I think there may be some software that reads English, in which you get that kind of metallic robotic like voice. I may have given the impression that I knew that a real human was reading. I don't KNOW that. It could be that the words are stored and put together and inflections are provided by an effective computer program.
Excuse me if I gave the impression that I know a human reader was employed. I don't know how they read the writings. Its a secondary point to the writings themselves.
20 Sep 15
Originally posted by sonshipI was asking about the article Mammy Blue posted. You said it was very good.
[b] What did you think was "very good" about the article? Mammy Blue seems unable to explain it.
The reasoning is good.
The two concepts do not make good bed fellows.
We have no strong reason to trust out cognitive falculties given their function to produce reactions the facilitate survival. Truth takes the back seat because the trueness of ...[text shortened]... oyed. I don't know how they read the writings. Its a secondary point to the writings themselves.[/b]
What was very good about it?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Great King RatOh. You mean this:
I was asking about the article Mammy Blue posted. You said it was very good.
What was very good about it?
Has Science Discovered God?
http://y-jesus.com/more/scc-science-christianity-compatible/
I found that the video well held my attention throughout.
Now I see things like this just about everyday.
So I would now have to review it again since I have seen others since then.
However, I think I recall that the use of quotations by scientists themselves was effective. In other words I think what struck me was words out of the mouths of many scientists.
There are quotations of Fred Holye, Einstien, Edward Milne, Edmound Whitiker, Robert Jastrow, Stephen Hawking, George Creenstien, Paul Davies, Francis Crick and others. Even Christopher Hitchens is quoted to support the premise of the video.
I think the use of quotations from atheist and agnostic scientists was good.
The Fine Tuning section was very good.
The discussion of DNA was good - "the brains behind each cell of our body."
The problems of Evolution to DNA were well discussed. Once again the quotations from the science community itself made it good to me.
20 Sep 15
Originally posted by sonshipAlright, so you are easily impressed by the Argument from authority.
Oh. You mean this:
[b]Has Science Discovered God?
http://y-jesus.com/more/scc-science-christianity-compatible/
I found that the video well held my attention throughout.
Now I see things like this just about everyday.
So I would now have to review it again since I have seen others since then.
However, I think I recall that the use of ...[text shortened]... well discussed. Once again the quotations from the science community itself made it good to me.[/b]
Newton dabbled quite a bit in alchemy. He is also arguably the greatest scientist ever.
Are you now also quite interested in alchemy?
20 Sep 15
Originally posted by Great King RatWhen Newton was interested in alchemy, which is the forerunner of chemistry, he was actually ahead of his time. Today we would refer to it as an interest in chemistry when asking the question. Just thought you might need a little education on the subject. You don't have to thank me. That is why i do what i do. 😏
Alright, so you are easily impressed by the Argument from authority.
Newton dabbled quite a bit in alchemy. He is also arguably the greatest scientist ever.
Are you now also quite interested in alchemy?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King RatAlright, so you are easily impressed by the Argument from authority.
Alright, so you are easily impressed by the Argument from authority.
Newton dabbled quite a bit in alchemy. He is also arguably the greatest scientist ever.
Are you now also quite interested in alchemy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I was that given to Argument by Authority I would probably be on the side of Evolutionists. The authority of evidence is a bit more impressive to me in ascertaining design behind the cosmos and biological life.
Newton dabbled quite a bit in alchemy. He is also arguably the greatest scientist ever.
Are you now also quite interested in alchemy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question, upon two or three readings, doesn't make too much sense to me. If there is some subtle "Gotcha!" moment somewhere in there, I don't see it.
I do think as we move more into the 21rst Century the philosophy of Naturalism will be increasingly more difficult for many thinking people to maintain. However, I expect heroic effort to continue to rule out intelligent design will occur from some quarters.
IE. If ONE universe seems just too finely tuned to support our existence as higher form of life, escape into a multiverse of an infinite number of universes to avoid the conclusion of design.
I don't think the Newton and alchemy matter, whatever you meant, is as important as the accumulative effect of many astute thinkers coming to close to the conclusion of the premise of the Video - " Has Science Discovered God ? " --- the answer being "Practically, yes, as implied by a number of scientists."
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by Mammy BlueSo, rather than "Has Science Discovered God?", it's more like "God Has Discovered Science" and the result is the Big Bang, and the slow clockwork-like unwinding of His plan.
This is truly an impressive article in my eyes.
http://y-jesus.com/more/scc-science-christianity-compatible/
I've always agreed that Science and Christianity have more in common than most people think, especially people like RJH.
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI get that you "do what you do" to give glory to God.
When Newton was interested in alchemy, which is the forerunner of chemistry, he was actually ahead of his time. Today we would refer to it as an interest in chemistry when asking the question. Just thought you might need a little education on the subject. You don't have to thank me. That is why i do what i do. 😏
But you don't give God nearly enough credit.