“The Laws”

[Non sequitur]

Some things need further investigation. Some of the interpretations and understanding of the Bible is based on outdated 500 year old science. The Bible is true and each generation needs to learn how the Bible applys to them and their generation.

I was following you, logically, up until the unverified "The Bible is true" statement.

Dick and Jane? I do not use the Bible to validate on this forum. I take advantage of my opportunity to teach people the truth. I use science to show the Bible is true, again and again and again.

You have used quotes and passages countless times to validate claims.

 

[Naraoia]

Back in 1968 I read a book called "The Double Helix" written by James D Watson. Back then they use to put a little Nobel Prize seal on the cover of the book. That is a good example of the type of books I read. Stuff that is easy to understand and written for most anyone and everyone. A recent book I read was: "The Language of Life: How Cells Communicate" by Debra Neihoff. That one was awesome! Not to be confused with Francis Collins book: "The Language of Life". Another book that I read that is amazing.

That particular comment by me was more of a general observation than a jab at you That said, good for you!

"Outspoken evangelical geneticist Francis Collins revealed that combative atheist Richard Dawkins admitted to him during a conversation that the most troubling argument for nonbelievers to counter is the fine-tuning of the universe." Francis Collins: Atheist Richard Dawkins Admits Universe's Fine-Tuning Difficult to Explain, Christian News

My first problem with fine-tuning, and the whole debate surrounding it, is that we only have this one universe as a sample, and we clearly don't know all the rules. In other words, we have no idea how (im)probable a universe suitable for life is. It's great to try to find reasons for fine-tuning, but as an argument for gods, it strikes me as flimsy.

The second issue is that it's problematic to apply probability to events that already happened.

Improbable does not mean impossible, and our observations are obviously biased, see anthropic principle. Assuming a universe with natural laws exists*, each of its physical constants must have a value. Absent any laws that restrict the possibilities (and we don't know of any, do we?), all sets of values are equally, in fact, infinitely improbable. It is only the fact that we can think about its origin that makes this particular configuration special.

*Why the universe would behave consistently is a huge philosophical question in itself, and one I've also seen advanced as an argument for gods. As with fine-tuning, I think we don't (can't?) know enough to figure out the implications.

 

[Jazer]

I was following you, logically, up until the unverified "The Bible is true" statement.

Ok, I will qualify the statement. A vast majority of people Generation after Generation for the last 3500 years have accepted the Bible as true. Even they have accept the principles found in the Bible up to 4500 years ago. They have found that the Bible can be applied to their life and is a valid solution to their problems. They have found that the Bible offers valid guidelines on how to live their life in harmony with others and in harmony with the natural world around us. A very small minority is stuborn and rebellious and rejects the truth. Often this is younger people just going through a stage in their life and they come around to discover the truth for themselves. Or sinners will reject the truth because they do not choose to live right before God. Some people never come to realize that the truth and the word of God is life, health, healing, prosperity, joy and all so very much more.

Of course your opinion maybe different then mine, but that is what I have found to be truth and this is the way I see it. Good the founding fathers of this country and the supreme court gives us the right to express our opinions.

 

[British Bulldog]

Ok, I will qualify the statement. A vast majority of people Generation after Generation for the last 3500 years have accepted the Bible as true.

It's worth taking into account that the majority of the world isn't Christian and never has been.

 

[Non sequitur]

Ok, I will qualify the statement. A vast majority of people Generation after Generation for the last 3500 years have accepted the Bible as true. Even they have accept the principles found in the Bible up to 4500 years ago. They have found that the Bible can be applied to their life and is a valid solution to their problems. They have found that the Bible offers valid guidelines on how to live their life in harmony with others and in harmony with the natural world around us. A very small minority is stuborn and rebellious and rejects the truth. Often this is younger people just going through a stage in their life and they come around to discover the truth for themselves. Or sinners will reject the truth because they do not choose to live right before God. Some people never come to realize that the truth and the word of God is life, health, healing, prosperity, joy and all so very much more.

Of course your opinion maybe different then mine, but that is what I have found to be truth and this is the way I see it. Good the founding fathers of this country and the supreme court gives us the right to express our opinions.

Many people live their life in harmony with out a god or gods, as well.

And yes, I agree that freedom of religion and speech is a great thing.

 

[Jazer]

we only have this one universe as a sample, and we clearly don't know all the rules.

We do know the elements. From what we can tell the elements are the same anywhere in the universe. The elements can only fit together one way. So the building blocks remain consistant. I have a book on this somewhere, but I am still looking for it. But the arguement is that no matter where you go in the universe life is always going to turn out pretty much the same, because the elements or the building blocks of life remain consistant.

 

[Jazer]

Many people live their life in harmony with out a god or gods, as well.

Close but no banana. What do they live in harmony with? God's law, even though they deny there is a God. My wife said she knows non believers that live a better life and treat people better then Christians do. They do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Jesus said to treat people the way you want them to treat you. They follow that teaching even if they reject a lot of christianity because they feel it is nonsense.

Jesus has a lot of students. You can follow the teachings of the Teacher without having to get to involved with what the other students are saying. I wonder if a lot of our discussion and debate are on things that Jesus never talked about and was not a part of His teaching.

 

[Thobewill]

But what about in other universes?

 

[Non sequitur]

Close but no banana. What do they live in harmony with? God's law, even though they deny there is a God. My wife said she knows non believers that live a better life and treat people better then Christians do. They do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Jesus said to treat people the way you want them to treat you. They follow that teaching even if they reject a lot of christianity because they feel it is nonsense.

Jesus has a lot of students. You can follow the teachings of the Teacher without having to get to involved with what the other students are saying. I wonder if a lot of our discussion and debate are on things that Jesus never talked about and was not a part of His teaching.

You in no way, shape or form showed that people do not live their life in harmony with out a god or gods.

 

[Jazer]

But what about in other universes?

Are there other universes?

 

[Jazer]

It's worth taking into account that the majority of the world isn't Christian and never has been.

One third of all people, tongues, nations will be saved. Even if people are not christian all they more they do not agree. Evolutionists do not agree with each other.

Some evolutionists that say life will always turn out different. It is not consistant at all. For them maybe a reptile could have been the intelligent species rather then a mammal. It is all pretty much a crap shoot. So there is a debate and difference of opinion between evolutions in this regard. Just like there is a differnce of opinion between Stephen Jay Gould and his belief in punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism that so many other evolutionists support. Even Goulds fellow Harvard Professor did not agree with him. So if the Harvard boys can not get this figured out among them themselves then what hope does that leave for the rest of us?

 

[Thobewill]

We don't know.

 

[Jazer]

We don't know.

But you mean another universe outside of this one. Not parallel universes?

 

[Thobewill]

But you mean another universe outside of this one. Not parallel universes?

Yes

 

[Naraoia]

We do know the elements. From what we can tell the elements are the same anywhere in the universe. The elements can only fit together one way. So the building blocks remain consistant. I have a book on this somewhere, but I am still looking for it. But the arguement is that no matter where you go in the universe life is always going to turn out pretty much the same, because the elements or the building blocks of life remain consistant.

I don't really see what the periodic table has to do with the likelihood of a universe like ours

Some evolutionists that say life will always turn out different. It is not consistant at all. For them maybe a reptile could have been the intelligent species rather then a mammal.

In fact, some reptiles are pretty darn smart... ("Reptiles" in the cladistic sense, of course)

What "the" intelligent species. As if "intelligence" were a yes/no trait.

It is all pretty much a crap shoot. So there is a debate and difference of opinion between evolutions in this regard. Just like there is a differnce of opinion between Stephen Jay Gould and his belief in punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism that so many other evolutionists support. Even Goulds fellow Harvard Professor did not agree with him. So if the Harvard boys can not get this figured out among them themselves then what hope does that leave for the rest of us?

Why is it such a bad thing to have unanswered questions in a field?