I can't think of a Good reason to believe in God anymore

[artqween]

I'd still like you to expand upon your response to my post.

I still believe that God created all we see. And ur unique term/.. I still see/..
Lol Gods awesome ach. all around..
U r somewhat a unique member..
This is somewhat laughible.. Also take back the dense part! Now plez?

 

[Hawisher]

I still believe that God created all we see. And ur unique term/.. I still see/..
Lol Gods awesome ach. all around..
U r somewhat a unique member..
This is somewhat laughible.. Also take back the dense part! Now plez?

Take back laughable, and we'll talk. I wasn't saying you are dense, I was saying you were being dense, and you seem to be misunderstanding my position. I'm a theistic evolutionist. I believe God created everything we see today through natural forces that He put in motion billions of years ago. I believe that the Bible is a spiritual text rather than a scientific one because it doesn't mention scientific knowledge that we have today.

 

[artqween]

Take back laughable, and we'll talk. I wasn't saying you are dense, I was saying you were being dense, and you seem to be misunderstanding my position. I'm a theistic evolutionist. I believe God created everything we see today through natural forces that He put in motion billions of years ago. I believe that the Bible is a spiritual text rather than a scientific one because it doesn't mention scientific knowledge that we have today.

There r scientific text/.. In some bibles?
U may want to find out before u say this? So u dont really mean the beginning part starting with take back the "laughable..."?? U stuck ur tongue out?? Rude??..

 

[Habakk]

Take back laughable, and we'll talk. I wasn't saying you are dense, I was saying you were being dense, and you seem to be misunderstanding my position. I'm a theistic evolutionist. I believe God created everything we see today through natural forces that He put in motion billions of years ago. I believe that the Bible is a spiritual text rather than a scientific one because it doesn't mention scientific knowledge that we have today.

Science is only a tool to try and understand the natural world and its remit is severely limited to the naturalistic. The scientific method will always default to naturalistic explanation and because of this many underlying scientific principles are based upon naturalistic assumptions.

Evolution is postulated to work by two mechanisms of micro and macro evolution and results in modification by decent from a common ancestor. An assumption. Instead of a common ancestor we can have a common creator however this would be beyond the remit of science to test empirically. Any scientific hypothesis or theory has to be falsifiable and the falsifiable criteria must be empirically determined. So why should we read about science in the bible when science has no remit in the supernatural.

Also there is no such thing as theistic evolution, simply because the ToE proposes a self sustaining mechanism, so to say God used evolution is scientifically incorrect in many ways.

 

[artqween]

Science is only a tool to try and understand the natural world and its remit is severely limited to the naturalistic. The scientific method will always default to naturalistic explanation and because of this many underlying scientific principles are based upon naturalistic assumptions.

Evolution is postulated to work by two mechanisms of micro and macro evolution and results in modification by decent from a common ancestor. An assumption. Instead of a common ancestor we can have a common creator however this would be beyond the remit of science to test empirically. Any scientific hypothesis or theory has to be falsifiable and the falsifiable criteria must be empirically determined. So why should we read about science in the bible when science has no remit in the supernatural.

Also there is no such thing as theistic evolution, simply because the ToE proposes a self sustaining mechanism, so to say God used evolution is scientifically incorrect in many ways.

Wow way to tech..

 

[Hawisher]

Science is only a tool to try and understand the natural world and its remit is severely limited to the naturalistic. The scientific method will always default to naturalistic explanation and because of this many underlying scientific principles are based upon naturalistic assumptions.

Evolution is postulated to work by two mechanisms of micro and macro evolution and results in modification by decent from a common ancestor. An assumption. Instead of a common ancestor we can have a common creator however this would be beyond the remit of science to test empirically. Any scientific hypothesis or theory has to be falsifiable and the falsifiable criteria must be empirically determined. So why should we read about science in the bible when science has no remit in the supernatural.

Also there is no such thing as theistic evolution, simply because the ToE proposes a self sustaining mechanism, so to say God used evolution is scientifically incorrect in many ways.

Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There emphatically is such thing as theistic evolution. You can tell because there are theistic evolutionists. I strongly recommend you actually evaluate the claims you make before making them, or at least gain a basic level of education on the subject. I would recommend starting with Gould or with Ted Peters. For that matter, you could also read some of William Craig's writings on the subject.

 

[Habakk]

Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There emphatically is such thing as theistic evolution. You can tell because there are theistic evolutionists. I strongly recommend you actually evaluate the claims you make before making them, or at least gain a basic level of education on the subject. I would recommend starting with Gould or with Ted Peters. For that matter, you could also read some of William Craig's writings on the subject.

I do know what I am talking about and there is no need for personal remarks.

Evolution postulates a self sustaining mechanism of macro and micro evolution, there is no need for external input to drive it. Postulation of theistic evolution suggests that the evolution is controlled or manipulated and as there is simply no way to elaborate that mechanism. It is therefore not scientifically viable, unless you are able to produce an empirical mechanism that is testable.

Theistic evolution may be a theological proposition but it is not a scientific one.

From the link you provided from Wikipedia (emphasis added for clarity):

Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation.

The viewpoint of theistic evolution carries no scientific validity at all because it is simply void of any empirically testable mechanism. To postulate theistic evolution actually goes against the very theory of ToE as a self sustaining mechanism.

The argument that God is the creator is the only alternative, as it necessitates a change of assumption from naturalistic to supernatural causation.

 

[Hawisher]

I do know what I am talking about and there is no need for personal remarks.

What personal remark did I make?

Evolution postulates a self sustaining mechanism of macro and micro evolution, there is no need for external input to drive it. Postulation of theistic evolution suggests that the evolution is controlled or manipulated and as there is simply no way to elaborate that mechanism. It is therefore not scientifically viable, unless you are able to produce an empirical mechanism that is testable.

Theistic evolution may be a theological proposition but it is not a scientific one.

Please, show me where I said it was a scientific theory. I would love that.

The viewpoint of theistic evolution carries no scientific validity at all because it is simply void of any empirically testable mechanism.

Did I say it did?

To postulate theistic evolution actually goes against the very theory of ToE as a self sustaining mechanism.

No, it actually doesn't. The theory of evolution merely says that life arrived at is present state by a series of gradual accumulated changes.

The argument that God is the creator is the only alternative, as it necessitates a change of assumption from naturalistic to supernatural causation.

Naturalistic processes can have a supernatural cause. Evolution functions the same way in an uncreated universe (however that comes about) as one in which a deity caused the Big Bang to occur.

 

[Habakk]

No, it actually doesn't. The theory of evolution merely says that life arrived at is present state by a series of gradual accumulated changes.

Changes by a well elaborated mechanism of macro and micro evolution that requires no external driving force.

Naturalistic processes can have a supernatural cause. Evolution functions the same way in an uncreated universe (however that comes about) as one in which a deity caused the Big Bang to occur.

The current “hot big bang” theory is not proposed as the causation event of the universe, there are other postulations concerning that.

The current “hot big bang” theory is based upon the Copernican principle, which is itself an assumption. The assumption being of an unbounded universe on the model of a 4D hypersphere.

 

[Generik]

I'm not sure about the exact distance, but our telescopes (and our own eyes) can see objects billions of light-years away.

Riddle me this: If the universe is 8,000 years old, why can we see farther than 8,000 light-years away? A photon from a star that is 5 million light-years away would need 5 million years to travel to our humble little planet.. and yet we can see stars and galaxies that are much farther away than that.

 

[artqween]

I'm not sure about the exact distance, but our telescopes (and our own eyes) can see objects billions of light-years away.

Riddle me this: If the universe is 8,000 years old, why can we see farther than 8,000 light-years away? A photon from a star that is 5 million light-years away would need 5 million years to travel to our humble little planet.. and yet we can see stars and galaxies that are much farther away than that.

I have no doubt this is in a bible old or new..

 

[Generik]

I have no doubt this is in a bible old or new..

are you going to show me a verse? or just assume that it's in there?
you're just going to go on assuming it's explained at some point.. aren't you?

 

[Hawisher]

Changes by a well elaborated mechanism of macro and micro evolution that requires no external driving force.


The current “hot big bang” theory is not proposed as the causation event of the universe, there are other postulations concerning that.

The current “hot big bang” theory is based upon the Copernican principle, which is itself an assumption. The assumption being of an unbounded universe on the model of a 4D hypersphere.

Are you trying to throw buzzwords at me until I give up? Firstly, I never implied that evolution required a driving force but merely stated that evolution does not rule out a supernatural driving force -- because it doesn't.

Secondly, I don't know what you're on about. The big bang theory revolves around the idea that a singularity, which was not a universe, expanded into a universe.

 

[Habakk]

Are you trying to throw buzzwords at me until I give up? Firstly, I never implied that evolution required a driving force but merely stated that evolution does not rule out a supernatural driving force -- because it doesn't.

I don’t see that I am using any buzzwords, they are terminology and standard models used by those conversant with the theories.

I know that you never stated that evolution required a driving force, however my point was that theistic evolution does imply that. Theistic evolution is a mere theological idea, it is not in any way science and there is no real scriptural support either. The term theistic evolution is somewhat an oxymoron.

Secondly, I don't know what you're on about. The big bang theory revolves around the idea that a singularity, which was not a universe, expanded into a universe.

Yes, the current hot big bang is a theory in regards to the expansion phase of the universe, however it is not postulated to be the first causation event.

 

[Hawisher]

I don’t see that I am using any buzzwords, they are terminology and standard models used by those conversant with the theories.

I know that you never stated that evolution required a driving force, however my point was that theistic evolution does imply that. Theistic evolution is a mere theological idea, it is not in any way science and there is no real scriptural support either. The term theistic evolution is somewhat an oxymoron.

Not really. It's merely an indication of a belief in both a creator deity and evolution. I don't think I ever implied it was a scientific theory in and of itself. Rather, it's an acceptance of both the scientific explanation for the genesis of life and the theistic explanation for the genesis of the universe.

Yes, the current hot big bang is a theory in regards to the expansion phase of the universe, however it is not postulated to be the first causation event.

Now I'm kind of interested. What is postulated to be the first causation event?

 

[Habakk]

Not really. It's merely an indication of a belief in both a creator deity and evolution. I don't think I ever implied it was a scientific theory in and of itself. Rather, it's an acceptance of both the scientific explanation for the genesis of life and the theistic explanation for the genesis of the universe.


Now I'm kind of interested. What is postulated to be the first causation event?

There are several postulations concerning the precursor to the hot big bang. One of them is a modified ekpyrotic universe involving the collision of two p-branes (a concept of string theory). There are also other novel and stranger theories abounding but they are very theoretical and speculative in nature.

The hot big bang theory is good at explaining phenomenon such as red shift, microwave decoupling and background microwave radiation but it does have a lot of difficulties associated with it. It is basically just an extrapolation backwards.

The primordial universe would have to consist of non baryonic material that defies current laws of physics. There is also little explanation as to why matter was created in slightly greater proportion to antimatter. The big bang, logically a high entropy event would defy the second law of thermodynamics that requires an initial low entropy event. There are some quantum theories proposed as a work around, but they are theoretical and speculative. Also there is not an established mechanism that would account for the initial expansion of the singularity. All we have is an extrapolation backwards to that point, no firm science of the actual event.

The 4D hyper sphere model that the big bang rests upon is now tending to give way to evidence of flat Euclidian space.

Normal matter via quantum pair production is a contradiction of hot big bang theory.

Dark matter is required to offset the imbalance of the universe.

Stars formed from unknown means.

There are many other major problems with hot big bang theory.

 

[artqween]

There are several postulations concerning the precursor to the hot big bang. One of them is a modified ekpyrotic universe involving the collision of two p-branes (a concept of string theory). There are also other novel and stranger theories abounding but they are very theoretical and speculative in nature.

The hot big bang theory is good at explaining phenomenon such as red shift, microwave decoupling and background microwave radiation but it does have a lot of difficulties associated with it. It is basically just an extrapolation backwards.

The primordial universe would have to consist of non baryonic material that defies current laws of physics. There is also little explanation as to why matter was created in slightly greater proportion to antimatter. The big bang, logically a high entropy event would defy the second law of thermodynamics that requires an initial low entropy event. There are some quantum theories proposed as a work around, but they are theoretical and speculative. Also there is not an established mechanism that would account for the initial expansion of the singularity. All we have is an extrapolation backwards to that point, no firm science of the actual event.

The 4D hyper sphere model that the big bang rests upon is now tending to give way to evidence of flat Euclidian space.

Normal matter via quantum pair production is a contradiction of hot big bang theory.

Dark matter is required to offset the imbalance of the universe.

Stars formed from unknown means.

There are many other major problems with hot big bang theory.

Meaning??

 

[Habakk]

Meaning??

Science has progressed in leaps and bounds in recent years. Such discoveries as quantum tunnelling have enabled our advance in modern semiconductor technology, along with many other remarkable discoveries.

However even with all this we still know so very little of the natural world to what there is to know. Ask ten physicists what is mass and you will get ten almost identical answers, ask the same physicists what is the nature of matter and you will probably get ten quite different answers. We know so very little about the actual building blocks of creation.

The bible is not a science text book because science is continually changing by current consensus but God’s word never changes.

God is the creator, he alone created the heavens and the earth by the power of his word alone.

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding. (Jeremiah 51:15).

 

[artqween]

Science has progressed in leaps and bounds in recent years. Such discoveries as quantum tunnelling have enabled our advance in modern semiconductor technology, along with many other remarkable discoveries.

However even with all this we still know so very little of the natural world to what there is to know. Ask ten physicists what is mass and you will get ten almost identical answers, ask the same physicists what is the nature of matter and you will probably get ten quite different answers. We know so very little about the actual building blocks of creation.

The bible is not a science text book because science is continually changing by current consensus but God's word never changes.

God is the creator, he alone created the heavens and the earth by the power of his word alone.

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding. (Jeremiah 51:15).

I still say God /.. Was involved??

 

[Hawisher]

I still say God /.. Was involved??

I never said He wasn't.