An Open Question

[Dave Ellis]

Richard Dawkins.

Can you demonstrate where he said that? I haven't heard of Dawkins proclaiming any evidence for the existence of God exists at all.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It is not at all difficult to come upo with other universes as mathematical abstractions. What might be just a little more difficult, however, is to arrange for a big bang.

The charge on an electron might be just a little bit less, the weak nuclear force might be just a little bit stronger..... Theoretical physicists can play all sorts of games like that, and see what happens when they crunch the numbers.

Just like I can make abstractions like rainbow coloured elephants.... It doesn't mean they are in any way real though.

Making probabilities on whatever stuff you happen to think up is like debating which superhero would win a gang war out of every superhero ever made. It's complete nonsense.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I know... I know...

It goes to 11...

Sadly.... it is the type of logic we have to refute on here.

Spinal Tap - These Go To 11 - YouTube

 

[Dave Ellis]

As I have already said, the "circle theory" is a non starter:

1.) Because we now know that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing.
2.) Because we now also know that there is not enough mass in the universe to precipitate a big crunch.

So you are just left saying, "Doesn't PROVE God."

No it doesn't, but it is strong EVIDENCE pointing in that direction.

How on earth is that evidence for God at all?

 

[Dave Ellis]

What if GOD reveals HIMSELF to you in time to come through your circumstances,and HE makes it obvious to you that HE'S REAL. Will you believe in HIM then??

Sure, why wouldn't we?

That would be an example of being provided evidence.

 

[lesliedellow]

I can conceptualize species of elephant that come in any possible colour. There could have been pink, purple, red, orange, green, blue, indigo, maroon, off-white, lavender, elephants etc.

So I can take every possible colour and say the likelihood of elephants turning out grey was 1 in billions. Where it's just simply not correct....

The difference is that relatively little hangs on the colour of an elephants skin. There is, however, something very special about a universe in which chemistry is possible, and for it to be possible, the fundamental constants have to have values very very close to those they actually do have. Much different, and either the universe wouldn't exist at all, having collapsed back in on itself shortly after the big bang, or, at most, we would have a universe full of hydrogen and helium and nothing else.

Now you can make what you like out of that. This argument is just going to keep going round and round in circles forever.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So says you.

So says him.... and luckily he's correct.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

The difference is that relatively little hangs on the colour of an elephants skin. There is, however, something very special about a universe in which chemistry is possible, and for it to be possible, the fundamental constants have to have values very very close to those they actually do have. Much different, and either the universe wouldn't exist at all, having collapsed back in on itself shortly after the big bang, or, at most, we would have a universe full of hydrogen and helium and nothing else.

Now you can make what you like out of that. This argument is just going to keep going round and round in circles forever.

Oh look. Circle theory.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The difference is that relatively little hangs on the colour of an elephants skin. There is, however, something very special about a universe in which chemistry is possible, and for it to be possible, the fundamental constants have to have values very very close to those they actually do have. Much different, and either the universe wouldn't exist at all, having collapsed back in on itself shortly after the big bang, or, at most, we would have a universe full of hydrogen and helium and nothing else.

Now you can make what you like out of that. This argument is just going to keep going round and round in circles forever.

It doesn't make a difference how much "hangs on that reality", the concept is the same. Merely thinking about a bunch of things that could possibly exist gives you no reason to think they actually do exist.

Making probabilities out of one thing that we do know, and a million things you invented in your head is not compelling. It's also no evidence for fine tuning, or God.

We have no evidence to suggest the properties of the universe could have worked out any other way than they did. And even if it was possible, it's obvious they didn't work out that way. Just because things are they way they are doesn't mean God made it that way.

Essentially you're arguing "things wouldn't be the same if they were different". It's an absurd argument to try to prove any point with.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

No one has yet responded to my postive/negative evidence. I am dissapointed in you!

 

[lesliedellow]

So says him.... and luckily he's correct.

I don't want to get all intellectual on you, but......... Nuts.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

I don't want to get all intellectual on you, but......... Nuts.

... what?

 

[Treebarky]

I don't want to get all intellectual on you, but......... Nuts.

I've been reading this since it was created but I really want to see where you plan to go with this rather than leaving an empty pointless post.

 

[lesliedellow]

I've been reading this since it was created but I really want to see where you plan to go with this rather than leaving an empty pointless post.

Leaving this pointless thread is where I plan to go. I am never going to convince the atheists, and they are never going to convince me. So we just go round and round in circles.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't want to get all intellectual on you, but......... Nuts.

It's quite clear going by this thread that you don't want to get intellectual....

 

[Treebarky]

Leaving this pointless thread is where I plan to go. I am never going to convince the atheists, and they are never going to convince me. So we just go round and round in circles.

Anyone can be convinced of anything if enough time and evidence is given.

 

[Elioenai26]

Anyone can be convinced of anything if enough time and evidence is given.

Evidence is subject to interpretation by the mental faculties of the interpreter; and not in and of themselves, but the heart, which dictates what is received as credible or incredible by the mental faculties, instructs them to interpret the evidence to determine the judgment in agreement with the heart.

 

[Belk]

I don't want to get all intellectual on you, but......... Nuts.

While I do disagree with you, I understand the frustration embodied by your response.

 

[Belk]

Evidence is subject to interpretation by the mental faculties of the interpreter; and not in and of themselves, but the heart, which dictates what is received as credible or incredible by the mental faculties, instructs them to interpret the evidence to determine the judgment in agreement with the heart.

The heart pumps blood. The only organ we think with is the brain.


(Though I do find it humorous that we still have idioms in the English language because the ancient Egyptians thought the heart the seat of consciousness and had no clue what the brain was. )

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Higgs boson: scientists 99.999% sure 'God Particle' has been found - Telegraph

^ this basically proves physics as we know it is right, nothing to do with whether god exists or not, but its fairly interesting.