why reject christianity

beenherebeforeagain · Mar 19, 2018

james bond said:
This is what I learned from reading Stephen Hawking, so you're questioning his work and the work of others when trying to explain the moments after the Big Bang.

**** man, the media has. I guess you've been sleeping. Here's a list of probes.

List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia

The remaining planet (not even a planet) we have not deeply probed in the hope of finding life or evidence to support life like Mars, is Europa, one of Jupiter's moons. The other planet was Mars and we have deeply probed that. All the other planets have been probed, but not as much as Mars.

You didn't mention the anthropic principle. Look up John Leslie and fine tuning and read his paper.

If anyone is being dishonest, it's you. Fine tuning isn't a hypotheses. It's FACT. Both creation scientists and atheist scientists use it.

Fine-tuning refers to the supposed fact that there is a set of cosmological parameters or fundamental physical
constants that are such that had they been very slightly different, the universe would have been void of intelligent life.

It was discovered when studying the BBT when the early expansion speed seems fine-tuned. Had it been
very slightly greater, the universe would have expanded too rapidly and no galaxies would have formed. There would only have been a very low density hydrogen gas getting more and more dispersed as time went by. In such a universe, presumably, life could not evolve. Had the early expansion speed been very slightly less, then the universe would have collapsed very soon after the big bang, and again there would have been no life. Our universe, just happened to have the right conditions for life. Not just earth, but UNIVERSE. Moreover these atheist scientists found other parameters that were fine tuned. No creation scientists were involved or asked to participate.

I'm not the one being dishonest. Why don't you admit that you do not understand and are wrong about fine tuning?

Just as soon as you admit that we haven't yet extensively studied all the plants and moons (and dwarf planets, etc.) in our solar system, and cannot definitively confirm or rule out life in our solar system...

And you admit that you're wrong about having investigated almost all of the planets in the Milky Way...

And you admit that you really don't understand that "The fine-tuned Universe observation is closely related to, but is not exactly synonymous with, the anthropic principle, which is often used as an explanation of apparent fine-tuning."

Yes, it's wikipedia, but the article conforms to everything I've read about either phrase.

As I said, the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE is one possible explanation (that if the universe wasn't "tuned" for life, we wouldn't be here to discuss it...a major underlying hypothesis is that there's a multiverse), while another alternative explanation--which is not testable even in theory--is that "God did it," just tuned the universe perfect for life to exist, which it then magically placed here...

Me wrong? I don't think so. You wrong? I'm pretty certain you are.

Especially about hypotheses being "discovered." If you think there's all these hypotheses out there, just waiting for someone to "discover" them by tripping over them, then you really don't understand science in the least. And if that's really something Hawking said, please copy and paste it here, with it's full context (like a paragraph before and after).

Trailblazer · Mar 19, 2018

Buddha Dharma said:
I don't know if this helps or not, but I have read the Koran. Muhammad thought the Bible was corrupt to some degree, and he wasn't all too specific to what he meant. It is true that he directed early Muslims to the Bible in some cases, but he wasn't entirely clear about when the Koran should take precedent as the more authoritative.

Thanks. Baha'u'llah addressed the Muslims in the Kitab-i-Iqan and admonished them for saying that the Bible had been corrupted, telling them that the Bible had only been corrupted in specific instances which are very limited.

Buddha Dharma said:
Yes, I am sure that is how Baha'is interpret it.

Muslims do not claim that Muhammad was the Messiah or the return of Christ because Muhammad made no such claim.

Buddha Dharma said:
The Abrahamic religions are not my circus, as the saying goes.

Lucky you. This gig is no fun... I wish I was a Buddhist.

james bond · Mar 19, 2018

beenherebeforeagain said:
Just as soon as you admit that we haven't yet extensively studied all the plants and moons (and dwarf planets, etc.) in our solar system, and cannot definitively confirm or rule out life in our solar system...

And you admit that you're wrong about having investigated almost all of the planets in the Milky Way...

And you admit that you really don't understand that "The fine-tuned Universe observation is closely related to, but is not exactly synonymous with, the anthropic principle, which is often used as an explanation of apparent fine-tuning."

Yes, it's wikipedia, but the article conforms to everything I've read about either phrase.

As I said, the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE is one possible explanation (that if the universe wasn't "tuned" for life, we wouldn't be here to discuss it...a major underlying hypothesis is that there's a multiverse), while another alternative explanation--which is not testable even in theory--is that "God did it," just tuned the universe perfect for life to exist, which it then magically placed here...

Me wrong? I don't think so. You wrong? I'm pretty certain you are.

Especially about hypotheses being "discovered." If you think there's all these hypotheses out there, just waiting for someone to "discover" them by tripping over them, then you really don't understand science in the least. And if that's really something Hawking said, please copy and paste it here, with it's full context (like a paragraph before and after).

What you are proposing is you have nothing. You just want to waste taxpayers money because you can't demonstrate scientifically what you are proposing. You base things on ignorance and what you want in order to not admit you are WRONG.

I just showed you the evidence that we have probed all the planets that we need to. Future probes are still a work in progress. We've had plenty of time and we know from other observation that this is all that's out there. We have very powerful telescopes that show us what's out there and we can deduce and gather the information that we need. The facts are out there and we got or can get them. The probability is high that there are no other life in our solar system. To further show you are wrong, listen to a few top atheist scientists and their theories on how multiverses formed. This is the chaotic inflation hypothesis and the best that these scientists can come up with. This includes the late Stephen Hawking. I rather go with them than listen to further ignorance. In the near future, we'll have the James Webb telescope come online, so scientists can look for further evidence. I believe it will be to change the age of the universe and add 2 more billion years to the current.

Instead of continuing to demonstrate ignorance, why don't you learn about the multiverses or chaotic inflaion hypothesis. Then you could pick which scientist has the best explanation from Guth, Weinstein or Linde below. There are others on youtube from Turok. Then it would give me food for thought. Here's one link to show a few of the differing views I mentioned.

Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean

Why don't you try to understand that instead of trying to say I am dishonest, wrong and that God created the universe is wrong? You notice that there is no creation scientist to argue the creation theory. That's systematic elimination of God, the supernatural and the Bible and it reflects the tremendous bias on the part of atheist science. It's one possibility that they choose to turn a blind eye to. Thus, I don't have anyone representing creation in the game. When you state there is no testable theory for God, it could be there has been no test yet proposed. It does not mean there is no test. Besides, not being able to test does not mean that it's not true. What creation thinks it has is M-theory which is multiple dimensions instead of multiverses. This is where God may reside and where we go in the afterlife. One way is to see if a graviton can be found using the Large Hadron Collider. It would show there is another dimension above our three dimensions. The Bible states that the universe is like a scroll, i.e. flat and able to be rolled up. The rolling up would have to be in another dimension. We've already found out the universe is flat in 2015, so it matches the flat part of the scroll. Thus, science has again backed up the Bible.

The following is what Hawking said, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The chances are great that we would not exist because the fine tuning facts, but yet we exist and are here.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Hawking's explanation is multiverses, too. I don't think so. All of them involve eternal inflation from one state to another. Invisible particles do not just pop in and out of existence and then expand to form a universe. Too many other factors are invovled. One can use statistics or math to show practically anything. It doesn't mean that it happened or else where is the invisible Coke, hamburger and fries that I ordered virtually.

beenherebeforeagain · Mar 19, 2018

james bond said:
You just want to waste taxpayers money

And this kind of nonsense is WHY I'm done talking to you, ever again. :facepalm:

Where in the F*** do you get your nonsense?

Done.

Saint Frankenstein · Mar 19, 2018

beenherebeforeagain said:
And this kind of nonsense is WHY I'm done talking to you, ever again.
Where in the F*** do you get your nonsense?

Done.

Too bad everyone else doesn't give up talking to him and let him keep dragging the thread off topic.

Shadow Wolf · Mar 19, 2018

beenherebeforeagain said:
And this kind of nonsense is WHY I'm done talking to you, ever again.

Welcome to the club.

Subduction Zone · Mar 19, 2018

james bond said:
This is what I learned from reading Stephen Hawking, so you're questioning his work and the work of others when trying to explain the moments after the Big Bang.

No, he is questioning your interpretation of Hawking's work. You have not been able to support those claims of yours even though we have asked multiple times for valid links to what he said. By your inability to support your claim it appears that you are wrong without even anyone even trying to refute you.

**** man, the media has. I guess you've been sleeping. Here's a list of probes.

List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia

The remaining planet (not even a planet) we have not deeply probed in the hope of finding life or evidence to support life like Mars, is Europa, one of Jupiter's moons. The other planet was Mars and we have deeply probed that. All the other planets have been probed, but not as much as Mars.

You realize that none of those probes left the Solar System. Your claim was about the entire Milky Way. In case you did not know the Milky Way is the galaxy that we live in. No life was expected to be found in the Solar System besides on the Earth, now there is hope, but not much, for life elsewhere in our very Solar System.

You didn't mention the anthropic principle. Look up John Leslie and fine tuning and read his paper.

If anyone is being dishonest, it's you. Fine tuning isn't a hypotheses. It's FACT. Both creation scientists and atheist scientists use it.

No, it is merely a hypothesis. Some of the early "fine tuning" parameters have been explained. You really need to learn what the difference is between a fact, a hypothesis, and a theory is.

Fine-tuning refers to the supposed fact that there is a set of cosmological parameters or fundamental physical
constants that are such that had they been very slightly different, the universe would have been void of intelligent life.

No, it does not say that at all. It says that life, if it existed would be very different or in many cases non-existent. But it does not make the claim that you say that it does.

It was discovered when studying the BBT when the early expansion speed seems fine-tuned. Had it been
very slightly greater, the universe would have expanded too rapidly and no galaxies would have formed. There would only have been a very low density hydrogen gas getting more and more dispersed as time went by. In such a universe, presumably, life could not evolve. Had the early expansion speed been very slightly less, then the universe would have collapsed very soon after the big bang, and again there would have been no life. Our universe, just happened to have the right conditions for life. Not just earth, but UNIVERSE. Moreover these atheist scientists found other parameters that were fine tuned. No creation scientists were involved or asked to participate.

And that is one that has been explained.

I'm not the one being dishonest. Why don't you admit that you do not understand and are wrong about fine tuning?

You are largely in error. I am not sure if you have been dishonest here. And you have demonstrated that you do not understand what you are talking about.

Now I have made some claims here. I will gladly support them. Once you support your claims about Hawking, after all, you made your claims first and we asked first.

Subduction Zone · Mar 19, 2018

james bond said:
Here are the fine tuning parameters. These are facts as discovered by the atheist scientists.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above

ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above

expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed

entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support

age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit

density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material

average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun

decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life

12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life

ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above

decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry

ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes

initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation

polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result

supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry

ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form

number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result

number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result

mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense

big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form

size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result

uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable

cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Parameter Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electronsrotons 1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:1055
Mass Density of Universe1 1:1059
Cosmological Constant 1:10120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

At least try to find a reliable source when making claims. Now you just look as if you are a Poe and are trolling the thread. You can do better than this.

It Aint Necessarily So · Mar 20, 2018

james bond said:
We've pretty much investigated all the other planets in the Milky Way and we still have not found a microbe.

This doesn't help your credibility, either. Do you know what the estimate is for the number of planets in the Milky Way is? Do you know that their moons need to be investigated as well? Do you know how many planets and moons there are in just our solar system, much less our entire galaxy of at least 100 billion stars. And do you know what fraction of those have been explored for life? Just our moon and Mars to my knowledge.

james bond said:
Why do you bring up leap year though? How does it relate to rejecting Christianity or even what Newton accomplished?

You brought up the relations of the rotation of the earth about its axis to its orbit around the sun, as if it were some kind fortuitous, complex coincidence. I was pointing out that it wasn't. It was only complex for calender makers.

james bond said:
I'm just pointing out that it's not a level playing field when creation scientists get left out of peer reviews or their theories are rejected without scrutiny or proper evaluation.

It is a level playing field.

Bring science to the referees, and you will be treated like any other scientist. Bring religious beliefs not scientifically confirmed, and your work will be rejected for publication.

james bond said:
It goes back to not accepting creation science. One has to admit this is happening and it's due to the selective science of atheist scientists and atheist science

Correct. The scientific community at large and many if not most lay people don't accept that there is any such thing as creation science.

james bond said:
One should not reject Christianity on the basis that they think it contradicts science.

We need a reason to accept Christianity. Getting the science right would have been a good start. Getting it wrong doesn't help.

james bond said:
Am I right in that you reject Christianity due to your atheist worldview and that you reject creation science because you think their origins arguments are bogus and not acceptable?

I am an atheist because I reject Christianity (and all other religions and god claims), not the other way around

There is no such thing as an atheist worldview. My worldview is called secular humanism, not atheism. Atheism makes room for it.

I think that if you want to be more effective dealing with skeptics, you should consider reading what we tell you and assimilating it. As I have said before, I am not asking you to believe it, just be aware of your audience's beliefs. Continually referring to atheist science, creation science, and the atheist worldview, for example, demonstrate a lack of understanding of the orientation of your target audience, and repeating mistakes that have corrected repeatedly indicates a disinterest in what others are telling you.

Aren't you hoping that they care what you have to say? If so, using that language that immediately defeats your purpose.

james bond said:
Let's discuss fine tuning ... It favors the creation scientists for the existence of God

Not in my opinion. The multiverse hypothesis is the most parsimonious explanation for what appears to be fine tuning. It accounts for fine tuning without injecting the complexity of a god.

9-10ths_Penguin · Mar 20, 2018

james bond said:
I'm just pointing out that it's not a level playing field when creation scientists get left out of peer reviews or their theories are rejected without scrutiny or proper evaluation.

Science, unlike creationism, cares about evidence. "Creation science" doesn't get published in reputable journals because it isn't based on evidence.

The playing field is level; it's just that the team you're cheering for sucks at the game.

All I can say is take a look at the Talk Origins archive when you get a chance. The science and the arguments are there. Thus, I don't think its a reason to reject Christianity based on science.

Have you checked it out?

In particular, have you seen where it systematically lists creationist and "creation science" claims along with detailed explanations of why they're wrong?

An Index to Creationist Claims

Polymath257 · Mar 20, 2018

james bond said:
We've pretty much investigated all the other planets in the Milky Way and we still have not found a microbe.

how in the world do you get this? The Milky Way has hundreds of billions of stars, with the sun as *one* of them. We know there are planets around most of the other stars, but we have not been able to do more than *detect* such planets around *close* stars. And we have investigated NONE of the planets outside of our solar system: the planets orbiting our sun.

Even among the bodies of our solar system, we have extensively investigated only Mars and the existence of microbes in the past there is still open. Whether life exists on Europa or Titan is still very much open: we have *investigated* neither one more than taking a few pictures and some spectral analysis. In particular NOTHING we have done would h expected to detect a microbe on either of them.

So, your claim is simply false: we have NOT investigated all the other planets in the Milky Way. We have hardly investigated all in our tiny little solar system.

From some of your posts, I am speculating you don't know the difference between our solar system and our galaxy.

james bond · Mar 20, 2018

It Aint Necessarily So said:
This doesn't help your credibility, either. Do you know what the estimate is for the number of planets in the Milky Way is? Do you know that their moons need to be investigated as well? Do you know how many planets and moons there are in just our solar system, much less our entire galaxy of at least 100 billion stars. And do you know what fraction of those have been explored for life? Just our moon and Mars to my knowledge.

Ok, so you want to continue probing if we discover Europa can't support life? You think that there will be an extinction event and we should be prepared to be multiplanetary? What practical uses are you proposing?

It Aint Necessarily So said:
You brought up the relations of the rotation of the earth about its axis to its orbit around the sun, as if it were some kind fortuitous, complex coincidence. I was pointing out that it wasn't. It was only complex for calender makers.

It is a level playing field.

Bring science to the referees, and you will be treated like any other scientist. Bring religious beliefs not scientifically confirmed, and your work will be rejected for publication.

I pointed it out as part of the basis for creation science and the Bible. Where you're wrong is that it isn't religious beliefs, but part of creation science. Science backs up the Bible. For example, what does atheist science do when their Multiverse hypothesis gets rejected? It's a ridiculous belief that there are parallel universes, infinite numbers of universes (this is impossible; the math cannot be done), dead universes and the like. You can't just ignore origins thinking.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
Correct. The scientific community at large and many if not most lay people don't accept that there is any such thing as creation science.

Then they and you ignore the history of science. The past great scientists were creation scientists. Science doesn't systematically eliminate competing theories, but finds a better theory. For example, the arguments for multiverses are ridiculous. Invisible particles can exist, as experiment has shown, but singularity cannot exist in nature. One has to have more rigorous evidence.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
We need a reason to accept Christianity. Getting the science right would have been a good start. Getting it wrong doesn't help.

I'm not saying to accept Christianity, but creation science. It was accepted in the past and the scientific method still flourished.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
I am an atheist because I reject Christianity (and all other religions and god claims), not the other way around.

That's your prerogative. I'm not trying to convert anybody.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
There is no such thing as an atheist worldview. My worldview is called secular humanism, not atheism. Atheism makes room for it.

Secular humanism is another word for Communism. It's atheism. If it believes in science, then it's only atheist science. For example, if I stated that there was a multiverse with God in it, then it would not be accepted. Oh no, it had to be invisible particles that created everything and lined up everything so it's just right for life on earth and nowhere else.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
I think that if you want to be more effective dealing with skeptics, you should consider reading what we tell you and assimilating it. As I have said before, I am not asking you to believe it, just be aware of your audience's beliefs. Continually referring to atheist science, creation science, and the atheist worldview, for example, demonstrate a lack of understanding of the orientation of your target audience, and repeating mistakes that have corrected repeatedly indicates a disinterest in what others are telling you.

I do, but their explanations for origins is ridiculous and lacking evidence. It uses circular reasoning. For example, the next time I look up, people are stating that I am an ape. Nothing of the kind. Just because someone changed the words in the taxonomy doesn't make it so. We get stupid science like that of Degrasse saying there was a proto chicken to lay the chicken egg when the chicken was shown to have come before the egg. Bill Nye's science is stupid, too.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
Aren't you hoping that they care what you have to say? If so, using that language that immediately defeats your purpose.

What I say in a forum is not necessarily the terms that will be used. That's up to the governing bodies of creation science.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
Not in my opinion. The multiverse hypothesis is the most parsimonious explanation for what appears to be fine tuning. It accounts for fine tuning without injecting the complexity of a god.

Ha ha. I'm laughing at those atheist scientists who make the claim including Stephen Hawking. What a stupid last paper he wrote. It must have been important to him. It's not even science. That's because one can't test it. Nor is it falsifiable. It was just made up cosmological (cosmology is philosophy) hypotheis to counter the facts of fine tuning and to back up the BBT and origins. We already established that life is rare beyond earth (maybe non-existant) in another thread. How does a parallel universe even work? This isn't science fiction we are discussing.

It Aint Necessarily So · Mar 20, 2018

james bond said:
What you are saying is Sir Isaac Newton is part of Christianity and creation science, so you reject Christianity and/or creation science.

That is not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that there is no such thing as creation science and therefore no creation science to reject, it's irrelevant that Newton was a Christian unless you can demonstrate that without being a Christian, he couldn't have generated the same mathematics and science that he did, and that I rejected Christianity because it doesn't seem either correct or useful to me.

james bond said:
I don't think you're the hater type and angry, so please don't take it as an attack. Just my opinion.

I don't take it as an attack, and I appreciate your civility and good humor. Thank you for the kind words.

james bond said:
As I explained, it's a warning to creation scientists by Sir Francis Bacon and the church to not rely on God, the supernatural or the Bible to be the source to back up one's hypothesis or to use when one gets stuck.

And I explained why god of the gaps wasn't a warning. When I did, I rebutted your claim. I explained what the phrase god of the gaps means, and why it is not a warning. I then provided some of Newton's words invoking a transhuman intelligence.

This then is yet another of those impasses we frequently arrive at. It happens every time that you make a claim, it is rebutted with what I consider to be a sound argument, the elements of which you don't address, and then repeat the claim already rebutted having not explained why you think you're right and the rebuttal was deficient.

y answer to the above is to go back to its rebuttal. My position has not changed because you've given no reason for me to change it. You've given me no reason to not believe that it was a sound argument, nor have you given me any reason to believe that there is any merit to your unsupported claim. As far as I know, Bacon's message was that science was to be done by consulting nature (empiricism) from a skeptical perspective (not accepting older truths on authority).

That may seem anti-God to you, and one might interpret it as a warning to not invoke God in science (I would use the word advice, not warning), but it has nothing to do with the god of the gaps phenomenon, which I explained was only a description of the ever narrowing number of places for a god to fit in, not a warning.

james bond said:
I understand what the atheist GOTG argument is, but that was stolen from creation science and refers to the Big Bang Theory.

The evidence suggests that you don't understand the phrase. You haven't written anything that describe what you think it means except to call it a warning to not invoke gods in science.

It's not an argument or a warning, nor does it refer to the Big Bang, although as I'll get to shortly, it can be tangentially connected to it..

It's an observation. Do you not recall me enumerating several areas in which natural phenomena had once been explained using gods when there was no other explanation, but that now, people mostly accept them as not being controlled by gods?

We now have a theory for material evolution - how matter formed and evolved galaxies of stars. which then generated the elements heavier than lithium. Unless a got stepped in at this point and created a population of cells, we presume that this matter underwent chemical evolution to spontaneously generate cells from their basic building blocks, and that this led to biological evolution. Once, the whole chain was unknown, and all attributed to God. That could be called a huge gap in knowledge.

Now, we have filled in much of that space with useful theories, but there is still a gap between material evolution and biological evolution, and not surprisingly, that is what the creationist targets. Isn't that what you mean when you reference the origins problems? You're talking about the left side of each piece we have and asking where did this early universe come from that underwent material evolution, and where did this first cell come from that underwent biological evolution.

james bond · Mar 20, 2018

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Science, unlike creationism, cares about evidence. "Creation science" doesn't get published in reputable journals because it isn't based on evidence.

The playing field is level; it's just that the team you're cheering for sucks at the game.

Have you checked it out?

In particular, have you seen where it systematically lists creationist and "creation science" claims along with detailed explanations of why they're wrong?

An Index to Creationist Claims

That's where you're wrong. Creation science looks for evidence and provides the evidence. It's science the way it was done in the past.

The playing field isn't level and atheist science sucks at origins.

Yes, I have checked it out and creation scientists debate in the forum. I'll point it out when applicable in the future.

It Aint Necessarily So · Mar 20, 2018

james bond said:
Ok, so you want to continue probing if we discover Europa can't support life?

Of course. Why not?

james bond said:
You think that there will be an extinction event and we should be prepared to be multiplanetary?

That's an argument for colonizing other planets and not related to the search for extraterrestrial life

james bond said:
What practical uses are you proposing?

None. There may be a practical application to finding life elsewhere, but at this point, it's just basic science. You never know what the reward will be.

james bond said:
Science backs up the Bible.

Then you've got a lot of needlessly anti-science creationists. They seem to feel threatened by it. Look at the great length so many go to to protect their children from learning it - Christian schools, home schooling, and in some cases, discouraging college attendance.

james bond said:
Where you're wrong is that it isn't religious beliefs, but part of creation science.

I'll just assume that when you use the phrase creation science, you're talking about creationism. Creationism is faith based belief. If you believe that a God created the universe without supporting evidence, and have ruled out competing hypotheses without disproving them, then that is typical of religious thought.

james bond said:
For example, what does atheist science do when their Multiverse hypothesis gets rejected?

And I will henceforth convert atheist science to science, since you still use the term.

If the multiverse hypothesis can be ruled out - and I can't imagine how - science will assimilate that new knowledge and continue on its centuries-long project of investigating how physical reality works.

Did you expect any different answer?

james bond said:
It's a ridiculous belief that there are parallel universes, infinite numbers of universes (this is impossible; the math cannot be done), dead universes and the like.

That's an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. You are basically saying that you just can't see how it can be, and therefore it cannot be. That does nothing to change my opinion of the viability of the hypothesis.

It Aint Necessarily So · Mar 20, 2018

james bond said:
I'm not saying to accept Christianity, but creation science. It was accepted in the past and the scientific method still flourished.

I have no reason to accept creationism. Skeptics need a reason before believing.

Notice that that is not the same as declaring creationism false. Gods remain on my lists of candidate hypotheses both for the source of the universe and for the source of the first life in it, because they are logically possible, and I have no experiment, argument, observation, or algorithm that can disprove their existence

james bond said:
Secular humanism is another word for Communism.

Communism is a political ideology that is not part secular humanism. I am a secular humanist and am not a Communist, although the two seem compatible to me. My problem with Communism is that it too often degenerates into brutal dictatorships, not its principles on paper.

james bond said:
if I stated that there was a multiverse with God in it, then it would not be accepted.

No, neither the multiverse nor the God part. Why would we accept either of them based on a claim? Remember, skeptics need a reason to believe better than a claim.

james bond said:
people are stating that I am an ape. Nothing of the kind. Just because someone changed the words in the taxonomy doesn't make it so

Science tells us that you and I are both apes.

Did you know that orangutan is Malay for forest man? I've got a framed photograph of myself standing with an uncaged orangutan at the Surabaya (Indonesia) zoo. I used it at a recent presentation that I made on human evolution to our local freethinkers group to illustrate the differences and similarities between the two of us.

He was shorter than I am, hairier, had a much bigger chest, couldn't speak, occasionally brachiates on arms that are longer and more powerful than mine, had a "snout" and a prominent brow, a smaller cranial capacity, and he had more powerful muscles of mastication, but the similarities remain that make us both apes, including similarities that aren't visible, such as our genomes and chromosomes.

Did you know that besides being an ape in the eyes of science, you're also a vertebrate, a mammal, and a primate? If so, why resist the idea that you are also a type of ape? Is it because the science contradicts your creationist beliefs? If so, please note that after saying that science backs up the Bible, here you are now resisting it.

james bond said:
We already established that life is rare beyond earth (maybe non-existant) in another thread.

You cannot establish that with words.

Would finding extraterrestrial life be a problem given your religious views? Isn't there room for a god that created life in multiple places, or the conditions for it to arise spontaneously where possible?

james bond · Mar 20, 2018

It Aint Necessarily So said:
That is not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that there is no such thing as creation science and therefore no creation science to reject, it's irrelevant that Newton was a Christian unless you can demonstrate that without being a Christian, he couldn't have generated the same mathematics and science that he did, and that I rejected Christianity because it doesn't seem either correct or useful to me.

You are wrong. I thought we got past this. Look it up, it's in the dictionary, Britannica, wikipedia, talk origins etc. Creation science has it's own magazines and publications because Nature and Science won't publish..

It Aint Necessarily So said:
I don't take it as an attack, and I appreciate your civility and good humor. Thank you for the kind words.

You're welcome.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
And I explained why god of the gaps wasn't a warning. When I did, I rebutted your claim. I explained what the phrase god of the gaps means, and why it is not a warning. I then provided some of Newton's words invoking a transhuman intelligence.

This then is yet another of those impasses we frequently arrive at. It happens every time that you make a claim, it is rebutted with what I consider to be a sound argument, the elements of which you don't address, and then repeat the claim already rebutted having not explained why you think you're right and the rebuttal was deficient.

y answer to the above is to go back to its rebuttal. My position has not changed because you've given no reason for me to change it. You've given me no reason to not believe that it was a sound argument, nor have you given me any reason to believe that there is any merit to your unsupported claim. As far as I know, Bacon's message was that science was to be done by consulting nature (empiricism) from a skeptical perspective (not accepting older truths on authority).

That may seem anti-God to you, and one might interpret it as a warning to not invoke God in science (I would use the word advice, not warning), but it has nothing to do with the god of the gaps phenomenon, which I explained was only a description of the ever narrowing number of places for a god to fit in, not a warning.

I'm not trying to change your explanation, but to explain it's history. The Christian warning came first.

Wikipedia: ""God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The "gaps" usage was made by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1][2]"

Henry Drummond (1904). The Ascent of Man. p. 333.
See, for example, "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The Lowell lectures on the ascent of man : Drummond, Henry, 1851-1897 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Teleological Arguments for God's Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Here's your argument from post #233, "God of the gaps is not a warning. It describes the phenomenon of unknown processes being attributed to gods, and that that unknown has largely been filled in, leaving ever more narrow gaps for gods to fit into.

Once, when the apparent movement of the sun through the sky was inexplicable, it was attributed to Apollo in his chariot pulling it. Now, no gods are needed to account for sunrise and sunset.

Once, when thunder and lightning were inexplicable, they were explained as warring among the gods, or the work of Thor. Now, no gods are needed there, either.

But god was still needed to account for the universe and the diversity of life on it. Then came the Standard Model in cosmology and Darwin's theory in biology, and gods were not needed to account for the evolution of matter or life. The gaps in understanding have become quite narrow - essentially, the two origins problems - the origin of the Big Bang and the origin of the first cell, and believers have had to narrow their focus accordingly. Now, they mostly invoke God as the source of these two germs or seeds.

That's what the term god of the gaps refers to. It's not a warning to scientists to not mention God as you seem to imply.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
The evidence suggests that you don't understand the phrase. You haven't written anything that describe what you think it means except to call it a warning to not invoke gods in science.

It's not an argument or a warning, nor does it refer to the Big Bang, although as I'll get to shortly, it can be tangentially connected to it..

It's an observation. Do you not recall me enumerating several areas in which natural phenomena had once been explained using gods when there was no other explanation, but that now, people mostly accept them as not being controlled by gods?

We now have a theory for material evolution - how matter formed and evolved galaxies of stars. which then generated the elements heavier than lithium. Unless a got stepped in at this point and created a population of cells, we presume that this matter underwent chemical evolution to spontaneously generate cells from their basic building blocks, and that this led to biological evolution. Once, the whole chain was unknown, and all attributed to God. That could be called a huge gap in knowledge.

Now, we have filled in much of that space with useful theories, but there is still a gap between material evolution and biological evolution, and not surprisingly, that is what the creationist targets. Isn't that what you mean when you reference the origins problems? You're talking about the left side of each piece we have and asking where did this early universe come from that underwent material evolution, and where did this first cell come from that underwent biological evolution.

I don't have the time to look up all the history right now, but want to try and relate God of the gaps to Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon, as well as discuss "god of the gaps" as used today. It was discussed before the 19th century and Henry Drummond. This requires more in-depth discussion since we have delved into it and is a sticking point. I'll look this up when I get a chance. Thanks.

Subduction Zone · Mar 20, 2018

james bond said:
You are wrong. I thought we got past this. Look it up, it's in the dictionary, Britannica, wikipedia, talk origins etc. Creation science has it's own magazines and publications because Nature and Science won't publish..

That is because what those magazines publish is not science. You need to come up with a different term. The scientific method is a problem solving approach and to work or publish at those fake journals one must first swear not to use the scientific method. After that the requirements to publish are very very low. The articles are always filled with errors.

You're welcome.

I'm not trying to change your explanation, but to explain it's history. The Christian warning came first.

Wikipedia: ""God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The "gaps" usage was made by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1][2]"

Henry Drummond (1904). The Ascent of Man. p. 333.

See, for example, "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The Lowell lectures on the ascent of man : Drummond, Henry, 1851-1897 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Teleological Arguments for God's Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Here's your argument from post #233, "God of the gaps is not a warning. It describes the phenomenon of unknown processes being attributed to gods, and that that unknown has largely been filled in, leaving ever more narrow gaps for gods to fit into.

Once, when the apparent movement of the sun through the sky was inexplicable, it was attributed to Apollo in his chariot pulling it. Now, no gods are needed to account for sunrise and sunset.

Once, when thunder and lightning were inexplicable, they were explained as warring among the gods, or the work of Thor. Now, no gods are needed there, either.

But god was still needed to account for the universe and the diversity of life on it. Then came the Standard Model in cosmology and Darwin's theory in biology, and gods were not needed to account for the evolution of matter or life. The gaps in understanding have become quite narrow - essentially, the two origins problems - the origin of the Big Bang and the origin of the first cell, and believers have had to narrow their focus accordingly. Now, they mostly invoke God as the source of these two germs or seeds.

That's what the term god of the gaps refers to. It's not a warning to scientists to not mention God as you seem to imply.[/quoit

I don't have the time to look up all the history right now, but want to try and relate God of the gaps to Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon, as well as discuss "god of the gaps" as used today. It was discussed before the 19th century and Henry Drummond. This requires more in-depth discussion since we have delved into it and is a sticking point. I'll look this up when I get a chance. Thanks.

So are you admitting your error in regards to the "God of the gaps"?

james bond · Mar 20, 2018

Polymath257 said:
how in the world do you get this? The Milky Way has hundreds of billions of stars, with the sun as *one* of them. We know there are planets around most of the other stars, but we have not been able to do more than *detect* such planets around *close* stars. And we have investigated NONE of the planets outside of our solar system: the planets orbiting our sun.

Even among the bodies of our solar system, we have extensively investigated only Mars and the existence of microbes in the past there is still open. Whether life exists on Europa or Titan is still very much open: we have *investigated* neither one more than taking a few pictures and some spectral analysis. In particular NOTHING we have done would h expected to detect a microbe on either of them.

So, your claim is simply false: we have NOT investigated all the other planets in the Milky Way. We have hardly investigated all in our tiny little solar system.

From some of your posts, I am speculating you don't know the difference between our solar system and our galaxy.

I'll ask you the same questions I asked IANS from post #274: "Ok, so you want to continue probing if we discover Europa can't support life? You think that there will be an extinction event and we should be prepared to be multiplanetary? What practical uses are you proposing?" The same goes for Titan since you bring it up.

My original argument was limited to our solar system with probes, but we have studied our galaxy, too. Not with probes, but our telescopes. Do you have reason to do more? Can we build probes to go that far in a reasonable time? Just because you think it's open isn't a valid reason. Do you think we can be multiplanetary? The evidence from fine tuning parameters argues against it.

Robert Landbeck · Mar 20, 2018

syo said:
why many people reject christianity? is there a problem with the teachings and messages? the crucifixion of christ means nothing to them? don't they like a religion based on love? many people want proof. but, if there was proof, ''believing'' would be an one-way street and faith would be pointless. if there was undeniable proof, how would we choose christ as our saviour?

I can only speak for myself, but I personally rejected Christianity because I came to the conclusion that it had nothing to do with Christ or God. That it is no more than a theological counterfeit. And yes I do expect a returning Christ to offer an absolute 'proof for faith' that is a one way street to the confirmation of ultimate reality and a return to the original covenant, 'as in the beginning'.

why reject christianity

Rogue Animist

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Rogue Animist

Wanderer From Afar

Certified People sTabber

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Think & Care

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Member