God As A Baseball Fan

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,283
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. Atheist Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria."

Gould wrote about baseball, too....This from a review of one of his books on the subject: "Science meets sport in this vibrant collection of baseball essays by the late evolutionary biologist. Among Stephen Jay Gould's many gifts was his ability to write eloquently about baseball, his great passion."





2. But, today, there are scientists, largely those who are atheists and/or Marxists, who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict. They cannot both be right. Let us get rid of the one that is wrong!’ And, not just tolerated, today they are admired. It is a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism- but a skepticism supposedly built of science. Physicist Victor Stengler and Taner Edis have both published books championing atheism. Both men exhibit the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics: They are willing to believe anything.

That makes it a religion....not science.


3. Despite the immense ideological power that the American scientific establishment wields, it still resents the stature of organized religion. On crucial matters of faith and morals, which loom so large in the lives of most individuals, they take a back seat. Members of the National Academy of Sciences are by a large majority persuaded that there is no God; men and women by the millions that there is.
(Covered in "The Devil's Delusion," by Berlinski)




4. Here is the nexus at which the two "Non-overlapping magisteria" actually do overlap: faith.

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11.1

The irony is that so very much of what the atheist/Marxist scientists advance is based, not on evidence...but on faith:

The Multiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming



But....just as the atheist/Marxist scientists are wrong to attack religion when the above is based on the same things as theology is, so are religious folks wrong to attempt to use reason to convince others to join them in their beliefs.

Faith should be the province of religion.

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas

Two examples.....one from science, and one from baseball, that might just tend to indicate that there is an intelligent force behind what happens in our universe.


Coming right up.
 
The Multiverse Theory
String theory
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming
Perfect example's of scientific "faith". ...... :cool:
No, it's all based on observation and facts and the theories are constantly evolving as we discover more things. Unlike religion which is frozen in time and no longer makes any sense in today's world.
 
Two examples.....one from science, and one from baseball, that might just tend to indicate that there is an intelligent force behind what happens in our universe.


6. Scientsts have concluded that our world seems to have been perfectly designed to support human life.


a. A physicist wrote the following:
"…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 believethat 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 otherfundamental 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 wordanthropic, 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."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720


"...fine-tuned" to allow the existence of life."



How do atheist/Marxist scientists attempt to explain this fine-tuning?

Their explanation for such 'fine-tuning,' next.....
 
"...fine-tuned" to allow the existence of life."


No. life adapts to many strange and inhospitable environments. The sea is teeming with marine life but you will die withing minutes under water and all the fish in the sea would die within minutes if exposed to the air.

The universe is not fine tuned to support life, some life forms evolve in unlikely places and thrive in elements that would kill other life forms.
 
Last edited:
"...fine-tuned" to allow the existence of life."


No. life adapts to many strange and inhospitable environments. The sea is teeming with marine life but you will die withing minutes under water and all the fish in the sea would die within minutes if exposed to the air.

The universe is not fine tuned to support life, some life forms evolve to survive in unlikely places that would instantly kill other life forms.




"The universe is not fine tuned to support life,...."


You don't have to be stupid your entire life....take a day off.

Read the essay by Lightman......here:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
 
"...fine-tuned" to allow the existence of life."


No. life adapts to many strange and inhospitable environments. The sea is teeming with marine life but you will die withing minutes under water and all the fish in the sea would die within minutes if exposed to the air.

The universe is not fine tuned to support life, some life forms evolve to survive in unlikely places that would instantly kill other life forms.




"The universe is not fine tuned to support life,...."


You don't have to be stupid your entire life....take a day off.

Read the essay by Lightman......here:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720


Don't try and sweet talk me.....lol..

If the universe was fine tuned to support life why does anyone need life support in space or under the water?

The universe is hostile to life, not unlike you.
 
Are there 'laws of nature'....or are there not?


"....the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

An example of a fundamental principle in physics, first proposed by Galileo in 1632 and extended by Einstein in 1905, is the following: All observers traveling at constant velocity relative to one another should witness identical laws of nature.

From this principle, Einstein derived his theory of special relativity. An example of a fundamental parameter is the mass of an electron, considered one of the two dozen or so “elementary” particles of nature. As far as physicists are concerned, the fewer the fundamental principles and parameters, the better. The underlying hope and belief of this enterprise has always been that these basic principles are so restrictive that only one, self-consistent universe is possible, like a crossword puzzle with only one solution. That one universe would be, of course, the universe we live in.

Theoretical physicists are Platonists. Until the past few years, they agreed that the entire universe, the one universe, is generated from a few mathematical truths and principles of symmetry, perhaps throwing in a handful of parameters like the mass of the electron. It seemed that we were closing in on a vision of our universe in which everything could be calculated, predicted, and understood."
Ibid.
 
I don't know about God being a baseball fan, but Allah sure is.

Every time his team gets a runner to third, he calls for a suicide squeeze.
 
I don't know about God being a baseball fan, but Allah sure is.

Every time his team gets a runner to third, he calls for a suicide squeeze.



Did you know that baseball is mentioned in the Old Testament?

It starts "In the Big Inning....."
 
7. If one is an bull-horn shouting atheist, and a Marxist, and resentful of those who are religious.....what to do when the reality is that our planet is 'fine-tuned' to protect life???




In a panic over the idea of our planet being "...fine-tuned" to allow the existence of life," the aggressive response by atheist/Marxist scientists is some mumbo-jumbo about our universe being simply one of an infinite number of universes...each with their own set of constants.


This is called "The Multiverse Theory."

Humans appearing on this particular planet, which just happens to have the exact parameters for life, is ......a coincidence.

If one attempts to explain events as either 'coincidence,' of the result of 'an infinite number of possibilities'....well, quite a stretch if the view is claimed to be science.




There are arguments that seem to make sense, until they are examined in the light of reality. Take "infinity."
Given an infinite number of trials, any outcome that has a non-zero probability, will occur. No matter how unlikely....it will happen.

This is where one should review the definition of a paradox.


The monkey is sitting in front of a typewriter, randomly hitting keys forever, will, after an unbelievably long time....that 'infinity' thing, type Hamlet and all of Shakespeare's works. That means all the letters, the correct sequence, and every other factor necessary....about 30,000 words, average 5-6 letters each word, or about 150,000 characters the monkey needs to get right....and in the right order.
Now add spaces and punctuation.

On the first try, the probability is one divided by 26 to the 150,000th power. That makes it very, very close to zero.


What is exposed is the aspect of pure mathematics that makes it, at the very least, disingenuous to use 'infinity' as proof: it is not reality-based.
It has no connection to the real world.


a. " Now, before one attempts to explain away the obvious problem by inserting the term ‘infinity,’ let’s agree that infinity does not exist in the real world. So, without ‘infinity,’ it follows that everything in the universe is finite, therefore had a beginning….and, an end."
Andrew Parker, "The Genesis Enigma," chapter nine.




So....what is required to explain the 'fine-tuning,' and the Multiverse Theory?
As Physicist Lightman puts it...
"Theoretical physics is the deepest and purest branch of science. It is the outpost of science closest to philosophy, and religion."
The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine


Yup.
Faith.
 
Is God a baseball fan???

Now for the clincher....pun intended.


8. Baseball, like religion, and like the Multiverse Theory, is about faith, too.....remember the NY Mets' motto back in '73...."Ya' gotta believe!'

Faith, noting that the seemingly impossible might occur is an inherent part of the national pastime......just as I've shown it to be the major element of theoretical physics!




And, speaking of baseball......consider the following and see if you explain it via 'coincidence.'

There is the MVP (Most Valuable Player) Award, which few have won....and even fewer have won but for two consecutive years.


Take a look at the first nine consecutive year winners of that prestigious award.....


Pitcher: Hal Newhouser, Detroit Tigers, '44 and '45

Catcher: Yogi Berra, Yanees, '54 and '55

First Base: Jimmy Foxx, Phila. Athletics, '32 and '33


Second Base: Joe Morgan, Cinn. Reds, '75 an '76

Shortstop: Ernie Banks, Chicago Cubs, '58 and '59

Third Base: Mike Schmidt, Phila. Phillies, '80 and '81


Left Field: Dale Murphy, Atlanta Braves, '82 and '83

Center Field: Mickey Mantle, Yankees, '56 and '57

Right Field: Roger Maris, Yankees, '60 and '61




Did you notice?

"....the first nine men to win the award back-to-back (since the modern form of the award, 1931) could fill the nine spots on a lineup card..."
"Baseball as a Road to God: Seeing Beyond the Game,"
by John Sexton




So....God created the universe, fine-tuned just so our form of life can exist....and, when He isn't busy.....

...God is a baseball fan...

And sent an acknowledgement by seeing to it that the first nine consecutive MVP winners, amazingly, represented




My suspicion is that the great 'Strat-O-Matic' player in the sky also leans toward the Yanks.
 
"If it weren’t for the coronavirus outbreak, this week would mark the opening of the Major League Baseball season. Instead the league has indefinitely postponed opening day, ...
... “a precautionary approach is often used to explain” the cancellations, but ask, “when does an abundance of caution become counterproductive?”

It’s a rhetorical question. One doesn’t need to be a public health expert to answer it, just a baseball fan. “When does an abundance of caution become counterproductive?” When it leaves Americans without baseball on opening day, is exactly when.

If necessary, the games can be played before empty stadiums. At least that would give all those Americans stuck at home, or in hospital beds, something to watch on television and listen to on the radio. The players are socially distanced by the 90 feet between bases. The catchers and umpires even already wear masks.
Fans could be allowed, too, depending on the city. Make them sit in every third seat, or in every other row.

Winter has lasted long enough. Let a portion of the game’s revenues be devoted to coronavirus relief or prevention, if the team owners think it appropriate. Let the scoreboards flash handwashing reminders. Let the fans arrive and leave gradually to allow for appropriate six-foot distancing on subway platforms and sidewalks. Adjust as necessary to minimize the risks, but for heaven’s sake, or at least for the fans, and for America, play ball. "
 

Forum List

Back
Top