05 Oct 12
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat a loopy line of argument. It is just nonsense cubed.
Worthless suggests to me that you've not taken anything seriously. I cannot say that what people present to me to show me the universe is billions of years old as worthless, but I don't have to agree if I don't buy into why the claims are being made.
The argument that the Earth is billions of years old, and the manner in which they arrived at that figure, ...[text shortened]... how or why all of this is here, that God created is still
a valid possible way.
Kelly
You CAN work out how long a candle has been burning and frankly that applies whether it is on an altar or on a birthday cake.
Forensic scientists work out the details of a death without having a clue of the motivation or the planning behind what may or may not be a murder - something they will establish, not something they always know in advance. They do not announce a murder and then investigate - they look at the evidence and describe what it shows.
There is absolutely no necessity to know anything on the lines of why we are here. It is a meaningless question. "Why" may refer to a prior cause, it may refer to a future purpose, or it may refer to some judgement about our value in the grand scheme of things, or it may mean other stuff but it is not a question that has any priviliged part to play in studying our cosmos nor our place in the cosmos.
Furthermore there is no sanction in the Bible to justify expecting any answer whatever to the question "why." The point of attirbuting everything to God is precisely the impossibiity of ever obtaining a better explanation. Allah has written and so it is.
05 Oct 12
Originally posted by finneganNo, you cannot, mainly because a candle can be started and stopped, and
What a loopy line of argument. It is just nonsense cubed.
You CAN work out how long a candle has been burning and frankly that applies whether it is on an altar or on a birthday cake.
Forensic scientists work out the details of a death without having a clue of the motivation or the planning behind what may or may not be a murder - something they wil ...[text shortened]... ely the impossibiity of ever obtaining a better explanation. Allah has written and so it is.
started and stopped with some events you need more information! They can
tell you how long IF and its the if you do not have in this discussion know
how and why it all started. Not knowing that means you've no idea what state
it began in, was it fully functional as we see it now, or did it start off some
other way. Only a "BELIEF" inside of you can answer that, and that is not
enough to call anything factual or even to suggest one claim is any better than
another without using ones beliefs or faith.
Kelly
05 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayNope. We've been over this ad nauseum.
Worthless suggests to me that you've not taken anything seriously. I cannot say that what people present to me to show me the universe is billions of years old as worthless, but I don't have to agree if I don't buy into why the claims are being made.
The argument that the Earth is billions of years old, and the manner in which they arrived at that figure, how or why all of this is here, that God created is still
a valid possible way.
Kelly
Here you make a couple of outrageously false claims.
The first outrageously false claim you make is that one cannot apply any system of measurements to a thing if one doesn't know "why" that thing exists. That's blatantly false: the "why" it is here is irrelevant to the application of such systems of measurements. It may as well turn out that there is no such "why" in the first place.
The second outrageously false thing you imply is that because it is broadly possible that God created the universe recently but in an already mature-looking form, it follows that one cannot know the universe is billions of years old. That's inane. You may as well just tell us that because it is broadly possible that not-P, one cannot know that P. That only holds under infallibilist views regarding justification and knowledge; and guess what, all such views are completely bonkers. As I have told you before, if you're going to trot out this type of infallibilist nonsense, then I will insist you hold to such a view consistently. The consequence of that will be your having to admit that you know virtually nothing at all! Are you ready to admit that?
As I have told you before, I readily agree with you that it is broadly possible that God created the universe only recently but in a mature-looking form that naturally appears and tests as much older than what it actually is. As any good scientist knows, that fact (1) deals with an idea regarding cosmological origins that fails to have any conceivable disconfirmation conditions and therefore gets justifiably ignored, and (2) is entirely irrelevant and has no bearing on our ability to come to knowledge on the age of the universe.
05 Oct 12
Originally posted by sonhousemeanwhile back on earth Dr Zarkoff Sonhouse perfects his mind ray, from a laboratory
Now imagine you are on the surface of Venus. What would you think of the creator then?
One thousand degrees F, atmosphere mostly sulfuric acid and the pressure there 1500 PSI, 100 times that of Earth, no oxygen....
far in the hills.
05 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayif you stop the candle than the flame is not burning. duh. but i bet a forensic scientist can estimate how many times it was put out and started again based on the melt pattern.
No, you cannot, mainly because a candle can be started and stopped, and
started and stopped with some events you need more information!
05 Oct 12
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayOne of the arguments against your candle starting and stopping and starting and stopping is by Descartes. In effect you are arguing that God might be setting out to deceive us with confusing evidence. In any case you are arguing that the laws of physics can be switched on and off. In the first case you run into conflict with all notions of God's perfection. In the second, you run into the problem that there is no evidence of the laws of physics ever having switched on or off, because there are no breaks in the chain of evidence and there is no evidence of anything taking place contrary to the laws of physics. If you insist on still clinging to your awfully sceptical notion of God the trickster hiding in the interstices between instants of time and space, then the trouble becomes that this [version of] God has no relevance and does not alter anything one way or another. He could exist or not and it would not matter either way.
No, you cannot, mainly because a candle can be started and stopped, and
started and stopped with some events you need more information! They can
tell you how long IF and its the if you do not have in this discussion know
how and why it all started. Not knowing that means you've no idea what state
it began in, was it fully functional as we see it now, or to suggest one claim is any better than
another without using ones beliefs or faith.
Kelly
If you insist on asserting that God has a role to play in cosmology then you are obliged to describe at least in principle what this role might be. Let's say He is the creator - then how does this conflict with the scientific picture of cosmology? If it does not conflict at all, then you are not providing a refutation of the scientific account at all. At best, you can choose to both believe in God and also to accept the scientific account. Many people do that very cheerfully and are content with their position.
I often get told that the Biblical acccount of creation is in conflict with the scientific account. With the best will in the world, I cannot agree that Genesis for example describes anything very much at all, either in conflict or in agreement with the scientific account. It whips through the topic in a couple of pages flat. It devotes far more time to sex than it does to any other aspect of nature, to the joy and delight of many an adolescent. Biblical so called literalists are building castles in the air based on a hugely imaginative extrapolation from what is written.
If you could get your head around the widely acccepted idea that the Bible is a document with many claims to value but is not a manual for the manufacture of a world by a creator then you might make progress.
As for why, the bible tells you that is a waste of time asking and that you're not going to get an answer. Try the Book of Job for starters. It is a fine read and utterly out of tune with your opinions. You complain when you cannot understand science then you appear to claim that you understand God. That is a very big claim and the Book of Job says you are wrong.
06 Oct 12
Originally posted by sumydidI don't think there is a direct answer. Or rather there are so many answers one doesn't know where to start - and some are so obvious that it is clear the questioner doesn't actually want that sort of answer. The question is asked as if he is saying 'what would be the minimum amount of evidence that would convince you of the existence of a creator', and that question, I think is impossible to answer without actually encountering such evidence and changing your beliefs.
I went through a lot of the posts and it doesn't seem your question was ever answered. Mockery and snide remarks? Plenty of those.
You asked a very deep question that strikes at the core of the issue.
What is the 'issue' that this is the core of?