Atheist scientists asking for help with their Elephant

[Bravus]

One more try.

Arguments from probability make one untestable assumption: the the probabilities of all outcomes are equal.

The article I linked simply points this out, and explains why it's flawed.

If a single die is fair, the probability of getting a 2 is exactly the same as that of getting a 6. If the dice are loaded, it's impossible to know these probabilities exactly, but they can be approximated by doing a large number of tests.

In terms of the 'fine-tuning' of the universe, we simply do not know - and can have no way of knowing - whether the 'dice are loaded'. Whether a universe in which life can exist is more probable than one in which it can't.

Given that simple fact, arguments from probability are fallacious.

[Overaged]

Two points:

1. The cosmological constant is relevant *only* in an evolving universe, not a specially created universe. Whatever this is an argument for, it is not an argument in favour of special creation, particularly recent creation.

2. Bob has failed to understand the point that I am making with his 'thunderstorm wrote my essay' 'argument'. The point is, if the universe were other than as it is, *we would not be here*. The fact that we *are* here is not, in itself, evidence for any particular set of claims about why the universe is as it is.

I am not sure how you can know this for sure. How do you know what the "cosmological constant" is;" and how do you know that we would not be here if the universe were not as it curently is?

[Bravus]

Because I understand physics, through having studied it.

If the universe were not as it is, our atoms would not hold together, among other consequences.

[Overaged]

Because I understand physics, through having studied it.

If the universe were not as it is, our atoms would not hold together, among other consequences.

LOL, well this time I am seriously not trying to argue; but I don't think you do understand physics that well. Oh sure, you know more about it than I do; however, I would still submit that the world/universe, is actually not quite as we "know it to be." There is so much that we don't understand. I have studied physics just enough to see that it always has to be revised; which I know you would agree is OK; but this would also mean that the universe may not have to be the way it is for us to be in existence. I am kind of looking ahead to "when we all get to heaven." Do you get the picture yet?

[fccool]

Quote:

The salient point to be "tested" is whether the research on sidereal time by NASA ever involves going back in time and checking their calculations against direct observations made over 1000's of years of time as a way to check accuracy.

And how exactly one would find a "missing day", if we take the current trajectories and speed and go backwards? You don't have to be the sidereal time scholar in order to grasp the concept. It's fairly common sense in terms of how we understand and extrapolate the data. The NASA sources denied that such story is possible. On top of that, there's plentiful research into this urban legend that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that it's simply not true.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970325g.html

[fccool]

Quote:

but this would also mean that the universe may not have to be the way it is for us to be in existence. I am kind of looking ahead to "when we all get to heaven." Do you get the picture yet?

Sure, we can all defy the rules of physics by flying through space at speed of thought using our new bodies (this idea was of course given when flight was not invented yet, and people did not know what happens to objects when they collide with even small particles and debris at even minor speeds), and if that's scientific and scriptural, perhaps science should embrace Harry Potter as plausible reality :)

[CoAspen]

It would be equally plausible to have a thread call.....

Creation scientists asking for help with their Elephant

Then we could have two elephants in the room!!!!

[Dr. Shane]

It would be equally plausible to have a thread call.....

Creation scientists asking for help with their Elephant

There is a bit of a difference because the creationists recognize their elephant and even have a name for it. The name is the Holy Bible. They don't run from that or try to hide it. Creationists admit that one must have faith to believe in creation.

Evolutionists try to argue that they have a corner on logic and their ideology requires no faith at all. They ignore their elephant and say it doesn't exist.

[phkrause]

There is a bit of a difference because the creationists recognize their elephant and even have a name for it. The name is the Holy Bible. They don't run from that or try to hide it. Creationists admit that one must have faith to believe in creation.

Evolutionists try to argue that they have a corner on logic and their ideology requires no faith at all. They ignore their elephant and say it doesn't exist.

[fccool]

Quote:

There is a bit of a difference because the creationists recognize their elephant and even have a name for it. The name is the Holy Bible. They don't run from that or try to hide it. Creationists admit that one must have faith to believe in creation.

To say that one has to have faith in order to believe is like saying that one has to operate a motorized vehicle in order to drive. Faith and belief are interchangeable concepts. Neither of them rests on proof or solid evidence.

You don't have to have faith that earth is an ellipsoid. You have to have faith that when someone does something, they will indeed do it.

These are two different concepts. You can't say that evolutionists have "faith". Perhaps you may say that they have a belief, but it's a different kind of belief than a religious one.

For example, we have the theory of gravity. We've had progressively different explanations as scientific hypotheses went through extermination stages. As a result we have a more (closer to complete) understanding of mechanics of gravity, although we don't have a complete one.

To point to Theory of Gravity and claim that it requires belief and faith, and that scientists have an elephant in the room because of the incomplete understanding is quite ignorant.

Quote:

Evolutionists try to argue that they have a corner on logic and their ideology requires no faith at all. They ignore their elephant and say it doesn't exist.

You mixing up religious faith with something else that science relies on. Religious faith rests on completely different concepts that are rather abstract.

We never seen sub-atomic particles, but we can derive their existence through direct experimentation... so much so, that certain predictions can be confirmed in a way the supposed particle behaves. I does not necessarily mean that it's a complete picture of reality, but it's nevertheless an accurate one,in terms on established facts of observable experimentation.

In terms of evolution there are some very concrete examples of something that should not be "ideas of belief, or faith".

If we take dog being a sub-species of wolves, then we can extrapolate wolves being derivative species of their predecessors based on certain predictions. If we find such group of species that can be shown to have similar characteristics as wolves, it's not too far out to think that they are related, based on what we find about wolves and dogs.

As we go back, the morphologies change ever so slightly that there is a very convincing evidence that such process indeed happens, although we can't directly see and observe it, except on very gradual scale.

On the other hand, the evidence that daemons exist, for example, next to none. In that case, it takes faith in Bible to believe that they are there, because we don't even have indirect falsifiable evidence that would verify something in predictable manner.

[John317]

To say that one has to have faith in order to believe is like saying that one has to operate a motorized vehicle in order to drive. Faith and belief are interchangeable concepts. Neither of them rests on proof or solid evidence.

Check out the difference between pisteuo (Strongs #4100) and pistis (Strongs #4102).

They are used this way:

Hebrews 11:6

And without faith [pistis] it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe [pisteuo] that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: fccool

To say that one has to have faith in order to believe is like saying that one has to operate a motorized vehicle in order to drive. Faith and belief are interchangeable concepts. Neither of them rests on proof or solid evidence.

Check out the difference between pisteuo (Strongs #4100) and pistis (Strongs #4102).

They are used this way:

Hebrews 11:6

And without faith [pistis] it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe [pisteuo] that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

[Dr. Shane]

Evolutionists try to argue that they have a corner on logic and their ideology requires no faith at all. They ignore their elephant and say it doesn't exist.

[CoAspen]

I think you missed my point......creation isn't provable, evolution isn't provable! Yet each side brings what it believes is proof and both reject the others position!

I don't think either side has recognized 'what' the 'elephant' is!!

[Dr. Shane]

I think you missed my point......creation isn't provable, evolution isn't provable! Yet each side brings what it believes is proof and both reject the others position!

You are almost right.

1. You say creation isn't provable. And you are right.

2. You say evolution isn't provable. And you are right.

3. You say each side brings what it believes is proof. You are only half right.

Evolutionists claim the evidence is their proof and that logic rules in their favor.

Creationists believe the Bible is their proof and faith is required.

[Igakusei]

You can't say that evolutionists have "faith". Perhaps you may say that they have a belief, but it's a different kind of belief than a religious one.

[Dr. Shane]

I imagine that there's probably a natural explanation for the universe and life forming as a result of natural processes

[BobRyan]

There is a bit of a difference because the creationists recognize their elephant and even have a name for it. The name is the Holy Bible. They don't run from that or try to hide it. Creationists admit that one must have faith to believe in creation.

Evolutionists try to argue that they have a corner on logic and their ideology requires no faith at all. They ignore their elephant and say it doesn't exist.

Indeed - that is the whole basis for their marketing campaign which is why they cannot simply ignore the elephant.

For them to admit that they must appeal to blind-faith no matter the odds against their view given actual observations in nature - means that they might as well put up a building with a tall steeple and call it "the church of no-hope-just-death evolutionism".

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Quote:

The salient point to be "tested" is whether the research on sidereal time by NASA ever involves going back in time and checking their calculations against direct observations made over 1000's of years of time as a way to check accuracy.

And how exactly one would find a "missing day", if we take the current trajectories and speed and go backwards? You don't have to be the sidereal time scholar in order to grasp the concept.

Obviously you cannot check calculations against observations in the future to validate the correctness of the algorithm you have selected.

Observations of solar eclipse, lunar eclipse and star positions in history - can be checked against calculations using sidereal time. It is a away to validate your calculations over thousands of years.

If the recording of the eclipse is off by a day - you have a puzzle that may indicate your calculations need a small adjustment. This is in agreement with the folks at NASA I have spoken with. It has nothing to do with NASA trying to test the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

[Igakusei]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

I imagine that there's probably a natural explanation for the universe and life forming as a result of natural processes

That's faith! You've got it! A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

but I'm not betting anything on it...

You're betting your eternal life on it. Your betting your chance to meet a loving Creator and spend eternity with Him.

You're a little slow on the uptake, so I'll try to spell this out for you. I don't have "faith" that the universe and life came into existence purely as a result of natural processes. I think that they probably did, but honestly it's really just a hunch based on my experiences. I don't put any weight on it. Like I said, Deism is still 100% compatible with my experiences. I really don't care one way or another, and I don't have a strong belief one way or another. That's not faith, that's indifference.

You have faith that the universe (or at least our corner of it) was magically poofed into existence several thousand years ago, in spite of the billions of hours of research that indicate otherwise. You organize your entire life around this faith, blindly assuming that there really is an answer to all these questions and that we're just too small-minded as humans to comprehend it.

You trying to equate the two is dishonest, especially when you only quote a small piece of my post out of the context provided by the rest.

[SivartM]

You're betting your eternal life on it. Your betting your chance to meet a loving Creator and spend eternity with Him.

That's assuming that there is an eternal life and loving Creator. If one does not find enough evidence to convince them of those ideas then your statement is like saying that they are betting their ascension to cosmic consciousness, or the blessing of Marduk.

[Dr. Shane]

That's assuming that there is an eternal life and loving Creator. If one does not find enough evidence to convince them of those ideas then your statement is like saying that they are betting their ascension to cosmic consciousness, or the blessing of Marduk.

Not at all. If there is an eternal life and if there is a loving Creator, its existence does not depend on whether or not some atheist believes in it.

It is like a man telling me that if I walk down two blocks and check in a black mailbox I will find Super Bowl tickets with my name on them. I can scuff at them and tell them not only are there no Super Bowl tickets there, there is no mail box because there is no mail delivery - everyone on the street has PO boxes. The man can then say, but think of what you have to lose. I can respond, I have nothing to lose because there are no tickets and there is no black mail box. However in reality if there really are tickets and there really is a black mailbox there... I could lose a trip to the Super Bowl. The reality of whether there are Super Bowl tickets waiting for me is not dependent upon whether or not I believe it. They are either there or they are not.

[SivartM]

Not at all. If there is an eternal life and if there is a loving Creator, its existence does not depend on whether or not some atheist believes in it.

It is like a man telling me that if I walk down two blocks and check in a black mailbox I will find Super Bowl tickets with my name on them. I can scuff at them and tell them not only are there no Super Bowl tickets there, there is no mail box because there is no mail delivery - everyone on the street has PO boxes. The man can then say, but think of what you have to lose. I can respond, I have nothing to lose because there are no tickets and there is no black mail box. However in reality if there really are tickets and there really is a black mailbox there... I could lose a trip to the Super Bowl. The reality of whether there are Super Bowl tickets waiting for me is not dependent upon whether or not I believe it. They are either there or they are not.

That analogy only works if you cannot go and look for the tickets unless you promise the man that you will do everything he says for the rest of his life, pledging yourself to a life in his service before you can even find out if the tickets exist.

There is no way for anyone to know for sure whether or not there is an afterlife unless they die and then are not dead anymore. But that promise, which has no empirical evidence and is not a convincing idea for many people, requires that in order to obtain eternal life you have to spend your entire life on earth, which is the only one that we know exists, living a certain way and believing in certain things, in order to achieve one unprovable outcome.

Even if there is a reward, there is no guarantee that it will be as you promise; there could be an angry, evil god in control, who sends everyone to the torture chambers forever.

Whether it's true or not, telling people to "believe just in case" seems very ethically questionable. You either believe something is true or you don't. I don't believe in an afterlife, and I can't simply change my opinion as an insurance policy. What kind of just God would accept that sort of "faith"?

[Dr. Shane]

That analogy only works if you cannot go and look for the tickets unless you promise the man that you will do everything he says for the rest of his life...

No. The analogy still works. Either there is eternal life and a loving Creator or there isn't. It doesn't matter what anyone believes about it. There either is or there isn't. Those that insist that there isn't, have eternal life to lose. That that believe there is will live a happy life filled with hope and loving other people, being generous and kind and worse case scenario is that when they die they slip off into nothing.

[SivartM]

No. The analogy still works. Either there is eternal life and a loving Creator or there isn't. It doesn't matter what anyone believes about it. There either is or there isn't. Those that insist that there isn't, have eternal life to lose. That that believe there is will live a happy life filled with hope and loving other people, being generous and kind and worse case scenario is that when they die they slip off into nothing.

Lots of people who believe in it don't live happy lives, and someone who believes it because they're afraid of losing something that only might exist almost certainly won't live a happy life. Nor will they necessarily be more hopeful, loving, generous, or kind than someone who does not believe in it.