Post Number:#46 February 12th, 2012, 3:17 pm
False theories give birth to philosophy not flase philosophy. When you practice philosophy by questioning authority.
Post Number:#46 February 12th, 2012, 3:17 pm
Post Number:#47 February 12th, 2012, 3:40 pm
Fanman wrote:Hi Xris,
I'm saying that God existed before the universe did.
Post Number:#48 February 12th, 2012, 4:31 pm
Post Number:#49 February 12th, 2012, 7:46 pm
what "standard" fallacies am I guilty of committing? Perhaps you could be more specific?
...I have made the choice that the universe was created by God. And not by a Big Bang and evolution.
As far as I am aware, the concept of proof is evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true
As I understand it, the main objective of science is to discover the nature and composition of the world around us.
our own existence is a result of billions of years of coincidences and evolution
Science argues that the universe has no creator.
Does science explain these emotions too a result of coincidence and evolution, or does it suppose that emotions are a result of chemical reactions inside the body? If so how does it explain empathy?
We cannot demonstrate an example of where coincidence has created something from nothing, therefore why do scientists suppose that the Big Bang created the universe, and why has such an occrance never happened again, why were other intelligent life-forms not created by evolution except us humans, or other planets which are capable of supporting life?
Science cannot answer many, many questions - therefore why do we put such faith in it?
With regards to education, I think that it is wrong to teach a scientific theory which itself cannot be proven to be the actual truth.
The dilemma becomes "do we have faith in what science is telling us or do we have faith in God," as both can present very compelling arguements.
Due to my experiences and the evidence that I am confronted with, I have made the choice that the universe was created by God. And not by a Big Bang and evolution.
I mean, what evidence can be shown or how can it be demonstrated, that an explosion can be the 'coincidental' creator of life or matter? ... Explosions can be shown to destroy life and matter, not create it.
I mean, how does one isolate the element which causes a species to adapt to its conditions? I think that scientists would argue that the element is survival, but how does a species 'will' or 'need' to survive, activate evolution without intelligent programming?
Can science even answer with 100% accuracy the origins of life? No it can't, yet we put such faith in sciennce. Why?
Post Number:#50 February 12th, 2012, 8:28 pm
Post Number:#51 February 13th, 2012, 3:17 am
Post Number:#52 February 13th, 2012, 5:47 am
First of all, apologies for talking about you, not to you, earlier. It was very rude.
Post Number:#53 February 13th, 2012, 10:06 am
Post Number:#54 February 13th, 2012, 10:26 am
Post Number:#55 February 14th, 2012, 9:30 am
Thanks for the apology, it is appreciated.
I think though, that you have turned the discussion more towards semantics, meaning and understanding, rather than the topic's title?
When I stated that I don't think that the universe was created by the Big Bang and evolution, it is implied we humans and life as we know it are included in the universe that was created. Therefore evolution - which is essentially the development as life as we know it, is a direct consquence of the Big Bang. The two theories are inextricably linked in my opinion.
in that evolution would not have been possible without the Big Bang. The Big Bang is theorised as being responsible for the creation of the universe, and evolution is theorised as being responsible for life as we know it.
I am aware that the concept of the Big Bang is not just described as a simple explosion, but I would argue that in essence, that is what is theorised to have occured - "rapid expansion." In much the same way as with an explosion, can the rapid expansion of anything we know of be shown to have created life or the possibility for life?
In my view, from what I have read, the concept of the Big Bang does not have enough evidence to establish it as being true. It is just a theory.
Especially when the universe displays the concepts of time, order and intelligent design. How did the unintellgent rapid exansion of the universe create those concepts?
With regards to the main objective of science, I think that the genre of science is so vast that both of our explanations of its main objectives could be correct.
You're right, I would argue that we were created by an intelligent being (God), and that-that being is the first cause, or first intelligence (there being no intelligence prior to that being). That said, my belief is based upon religious faith, which you don't have. So I can understand why the concept of an intelligent creator would become a circular argument for you, as in "which intelligence created the intelligence that created us, or who created God."
I would say that religion (Christianity) explains empathy as putting God first and loving our neighbour.
It generally teaches and advocates the importance of caring for amd understanding our fellow man.
I do not believe that empathy could of evolved from something that did not have empathy.
For me coincidence is something that happens by chance i.e. - The Big Bang leading to evolution.
I don't think that such an occurance is possible, what are the chances? What are the chances that the sun, earth and moon just happened to be where they are by coincidennce, considering the size of the universe, surely the chances of such coincidences are infinitesimal, what is the correlative pattern of these coincidental occurances? Is it not the concept of design?
Post Number:#56 February 14th, 2012, 10:13 am
Post Number:#57 February 14th, 2012, 10:36 am
Post Number:#58 February 14th, 2012, 1:51 pm
There is a slightly deeper point which is often made about the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants of the Universe. If Planck’s constant, or the universal gravitational constant were slightly different then the physics of the Universe would be such that life would not be possible. The conclusion drawn by many is that an intelligent creature must have decided that it wanted life to exist so setup the Universe in such a way that it would evolve.
Post Number:#59 February 14th, 2012, 2:42 pm
A Poster He or I wrote:Steve3007 saysThere is a slightly deeper point which is often made about the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants of the Universe. If Planck’s constant, or the universal gravitational constant were slightly different then the physics of the Universe would be such that life would not be possible. The conclusion drawn by many is that an intelligent creature must have decided that it wanted life to exist so setup the Universe in such a way that it would evolve.
Steve3007, if you didn't see it already, the November book-of-the-month in this forum tackled this very issue of fine-tuning with physicist Victor Stenger's The Fallacy of Fine Tuning. Stenger takes the approach that the "fine tuning" is an artifact of the very mathematics humans have created to interpret the world, so it is another manifestation of the anthropic principle. My review may be of interest to you.
By the way, my favorite anecdote on the anthropic principle is from Richard Feynman, which I'll paraphrase here: "As I was driving home last night, I noticed the license plate of the car in front of me was ARW 327. Can you believe it? Of all the millions of cars in the state, to think that that specific license number should be right in front of me. Amazing!"
Post Number:#60 February 14th, 2012, 3:01 pm
How can you imagine such stupid remarks count as evidence?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
The November book of the month is On the Internet by Hubert L. Dreyfus. Pick it up, read it and discuss it with us as a group!