If God doesn't exist...

[james bond]

If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.

Atheists do exist.

Atheists state God does not exist.

Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..

Thus, God exists.

Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.

Do you see any problems with the logic above?

Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.

No drinking or smoking the funny sticks. Aren't atheists the champions of logic?

The assumption is an universe without God, If no God, then no atheists. (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.) Can we agree on that?

I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.

So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?

 

[james bond]

If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.

Atheists do exist.

Atheists state God does not exist.

Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..

Thus, God exists.

Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.

Do you see any problems with the logic above?

Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.

Agree. That post was stupid as hell. Lol.

I just asked a question. If you're so smart, then where is the error?

 

[Bond27]

There really is nothing these days to suggest the need or existence of a creator entity. Or this creator is detached to his creation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There really is nothing these days to suggest the need or existence of a creator entity. Or this creator is detached to his creation.

"The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe." Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'


Perhaps you should contact Hawkings forthwith.

 

[Bond27]

There really is nothing these days to suggest the need or existence of a creator entity. Or this creator is detached to his creation.

"The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe." Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'


Perhaps you should contact Hawkings forthwith.

Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com

I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There really is nothing these days to suggest the need or existence of a creator entity. Or this creator is detached to his creation.

"The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe." Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'


Perhaps you should contact Hawkings forthwith.

Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com

I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.

Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart, the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:

“If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent

 

[PoliticalChic]

The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720

You may find this.....enlightening.


" …according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water.

Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist."

 

[Bond27]

There really is nothing these days to suggest the need or existence of a creator entity. Or this creator is detached to his creation.

"The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe." Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'


Perhaps you should contact Hawkings forthwith.

Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com

I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.

Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart, the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:

“If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent

Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.

 

[Militants]

Gud help my voices in my brain.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There really is nothing these days to suggest the need or existence of a creator entity. Or this creator is detached to his creation.

"The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe." Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'


Perhaps you should contact Hawkings forthwith.

Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com

I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.

Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart, the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:

“If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent

Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.

"Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."


1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
That makes said hypotheses theology.
What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.

Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
2. Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
3. Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.
   1. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
   2. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

 

[Bond27]

There really is nothing these days to suggest the need or existence of a creator entity. Or this creator is detached to his creation.

"The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe." Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'


Perhaps you should contact Hawkings forthwith.

Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com

I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.

Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart, the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:

“If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent

Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.

"Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."


1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
That makes said hypotheses theology.
What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.

Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
2. Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
3. Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.
   1. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
   2. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

What religion do you belong to?

 

[Militants]

"Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."


1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
That makes said hypotheses theology.
What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.

Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
2. Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
3. Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.
   1. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
   2. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

What religion do you belong to?

You from Hungary how have places within willings ??

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe." Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'


Perhaps you should contact Hawkings forthwith.

Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com

I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.

Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart, the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:

“If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent

Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.

"Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."


1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
That makes said hypotheses theology.
What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.

Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
2. Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
3. Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.
   1. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
   2. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

What religion do you belong to?

None of your business.

But I understand yours: science.

 

[Bond27]

Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com

I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.

Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart, the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:

“If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent

Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.

"Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."


1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
That makes said hypotheses theology.
What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.

Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
2. Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
3. Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.
   1. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
   2. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

What religion do you belong to?

None of your business.

But I understand yours: science.

It is my business if you're arguing for a creator, we need to compare your theories with the explanations of your religion. Further, I don't take people seriously who claim to follow a biblical God but don't adhere to his commandments/suggestions for his followers. Like cherry picking a religion for example. If you indulge in that, you're disagreeing with your God, while simultaneously claiming to obey him.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart, the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:

“If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent

Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.

"Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."


1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
That makes said hypotheses theology.
What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.

Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
2. Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
3. Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.
   1. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
   2. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

What religion do you belong to?

None of your business.

But I understand yours: science.

It is my business if you're arguing for a creator, we need to compare your theories with the explanations of your religion. Further, I don't take people seriously who claim to follow a biblical God but don't adhere to his commandments/suggestions for his followers. Like cherry picking a religion for example. If you indulge in that, you're disagreeing with your God, while simultaneously claiming to obey him.

1." It is my business if you're arguing for a creator,"
Nonsense.
I use logic, education and experience.

2. For purposes of clarity, there are two kinds of science.
a. Real science, which uses the Scientific Method, with which it tests hypotheses
and
b. the religion called science....which allows itself the very same methods that it disparages in theology.

3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.

I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.

He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Did you get that???
"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."

Science???

 

[Bond27]

Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.

"Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."


1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
That makes said hypotheses theology.
What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.

Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
2. Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
3. Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.
   1. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
   2. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

What religion do you belong to?

None of your business.

But I understand yours: science.

It is my business if you're arguing for a creator, we need to compare your theories with the explanations of your religion. Further, I don't take people seriously who claim to follow a biblical God but don't adhere to his commandments/suggestions for his followers. Like cherry picking a religion for example. If you indulge in that, you're disagreeing with your God, while simultaneously claiming to obey him.

1." It is my business if you're arguing for a creator,"
Nonsense.
I use logic, education and experience.

2. For purposes of clarity, there are two kinds of science.
a. Real science, which uses the Scientific Method, with which it tests hypotheses
and
b. the religion called science....which allows itself the very same methods that it disparages in theology.

3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.

I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.

He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Did you get that???
"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."

Science???

So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.

The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."


1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
That makes said hypotheses theology.
What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.

Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
2. Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
3. Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.
   1. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
   2. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

What religion do you belong to?

None of your business.

But I understand yours: science.

It is my business if you're arguing for a creator, we need to compare your theories with the explanations of your religion. Further, I don't take people seriously who claim to follow a biblical God but don't adhere to his commandments/suggestions for his followers. Like cherry picking a religion for example. If you indulge in that, you're disagreeing with your God, while simultaneously claiming to obey him.

1." It is my business if you're arguing for a creator,"
Nonsense.
I use logic, education and experience.

2. For purposes of clarity, there are two kinds of science.
a. Real science, which uses the Scientific Method, with which it tests hypotheses
and
b. the religion called science....which allows itself the very same methods that it disparages in theology.

3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.

I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.

He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Did you get that???
"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."

Science???

So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.

The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.

I'm an educated person.

I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science...."....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."



Now...that is the real industry.

 

[forkup]

Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com

I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.

Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart, the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:

“If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent

Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.

"Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."


1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
That makes said hypotheses theology.
What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.

Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
2. Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
3. Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.
   1. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
   2. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

What religion do you belong to?

None of your business.

But I understand yours: science.

Calling science religion shows you have little understanding of how science works. At its worst science starts with an assumption. Religion on the other hand stops with an assumption, namely the existence of a supreme being. The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned. Science constantly evolves and elaborates. Religion will only do so under the most pressing circumstances. Science is NOT even close to religion.

 

[Bond27]

What religion do you belong to?

None of your business.

But I understand yours: science.

It is my business if you're arguing for a creator, we need to compare your theories with the explanations of your religion. Further, I don't take people seriously who claim to follow a biblical God but don't adhere to his commandments/suggestions for his followers. Like cherry picking a religion for example. If you indulge in that, you're disagreeing with your God, while simultaneously claiming to obey him.

1." It is my business if you're arguing for a creator,"
Nonsense.
I use logic, education and experience.

2. For purposes of clarity, there are two kinds of science.
a. Real science, which uses the Scientific Method, with which it tests hypotheses
and
b. the religion called science....which allows itself the very same methods that it disparages in theology.

3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.

I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.

He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Did you get that???
"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."

Science???

So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.

The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.

I'm an educated person.

I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science...."....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."



Now...that is the real industry.

How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing?

I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart, the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:

“If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent

Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.

"Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."


1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
That makes said hypotheses theology.
What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.

Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
2. Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
3. Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.
   1. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
   2. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

What religion do you belong to?

None of your business.

But I understand yours: science.

Calling science religion shows you have little understanding of how science works. At its worst science starts with an assumption. Religion on the other hand stops with an assumption, namely the existence of a supreme being. The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned. Science constantly evolves and elaborates. Religion will only do so under the most pressing circumstances. Science is NOT even close to religion.

If it is based on faith, it is theology.

"The assumption in science, gets tested, "

Really?

When can we expect the 'scientific' understanding of the Big Bang to be tested?

How about
"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"
by Lawrence M. Krauss Richard Dawkins


Be sure to announce when this nonsense is to be tested.


I'm sure you know that if you say ‘gullible’ very slowly it sounds like ‘oranges.’