Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[DogmaHunter]

Don't be silly.
Naturalism and / or materialism is a view on reality restricted to our space time reality.
But now we're looking for the CAUSE of our reality.
Our reality can't have caused itself, otherwise it would have had to exist prior to its existence.
You wouldn't go look for a car's cause of existence in the car itself, now would you?

Causality itself is a phenomena of our reality.
You have the exact problem that you are blaming others for.

You are trying to invoke a phenomena OF the universe, to explain something that alledgedly happened BEFORE the universe (and its phenomena) itself existed.

If you remove our universe, then you also remove its phenomena and its physics. Causality is one of them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

BECAUSE IT HAPPENED IN THE DISTANT PAST

And you are of the opinion that science can't investigate what happened in the past?

 

[Hieronymus]

Causality itself is a phenomena of our reality.

So what caused it?
Why is it here?
It being the fine tuned universe and life plus its premises.

But you don't have an answer, so why bother replying?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So what caused it?
Why is it here?

What makes you think that asking "what is the cause of the universe" is even a sensible question to begin with?

As it stands, for the phenomena of causality to apply, serveral ingredients are required.
Causality is a sequence of events, of causes and effects.
A sequence of events requires time to unfold, as the events happen one after the other.

When you ask "what caused the universe", you are thus implying a sequence of events before time itself existsed.
What does "before" mean, when time itself does not exist?

It being the fine tuned universe and life plus its premises.

Science is working on the questions of the origins of the universe and the origins of life. Until they come up with an answer, I'll go with the good 'ol "I don't know".

It's called intellectual honesty. You should try it sometime.

But you don't have an answer, so why bother replying?

I don't have an answer, nore do I feel the need to simply invent one, or simply "believe" whatever some bronze-age nomads had to say about it because it sounds pleasing.

 

[Hieronymus]

What makes you think that asking "what is the cause of the universe" is even a sensible question to begin with?

What makes you think it isn't?
The universe can't have created itself, otherwise it would have had to exist before it existed.

When you ask "what caused the universe", you are thus implying a sequence of events before time itself existsed.

No, a sequence implies time, but that's (apparently) a part of the universe.
So let's eliminate time from the equation.
What manifests the universe and everything in it?

You don't (want to) know, so why bother commenting?

 

[rjs330]

Just for the record Biologos has the quote in full....

“On the other hand, it is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fish-like ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet, it is just such impossibility that is demanded by antievolutionists when they ask for “proofs” of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory. This is about as reasonable a demand as it would be to ask an astronomer to recreate the planetary system, or to ask an historian to reenact the history of the world from Caesar to Eisenhower” (Dobzhansky 1957, p. 388).

Clearly, the key form of impossibility Dobzhansky has in mind in this passage is the impossibility of experimentally observing or bringing about the evolutionary transformation of a fish-like ancestor into a land-dwelling tetrapod, say, because of both the time limitations and the contingency involved in such a transformation. There is no hint here that experimental methods cannot be applied to evolution as Morris suggests. Rather, the theme of Dobzhansky’s American Scientist article is that “The chief method of evolutionary biology is the experimental method”[4] and he gives numerous examples of this.

The fact that you keep repeating this dishonest tactic reflects very badly on you. Do you not wonder why these videos are feeding you this garbage? I realize you must really want to believe it, but why is that?

He's not being Dishonest in the least. When taken in context the evolutionists are being honest in admitting the flaws and downsides and sometimes the purposes of their theory. They admit the theory can't be proven and admit that divine creation can't be thought of as a possibility. What's wrong with that? At least they are being honest. It doesn't stop them from believing in evolution. They believe in it regardless of its flaws.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Derek Meyer]

So what caused it? Why is it here?
It being the fine tuned universe and life plus its premises.

What caused God? Why is God there?

 

[Hieronymus]

What caused God? Why is God there?

Original Cause is not caused by definition.
Bye

 

[Gene2memE]

Original Cause is not caused by definition.
Bye

Special pleading is a fallacy, by definition.

 

[Hieronymus]

Special pleading is a fallacy, by definition.

Nothing special about the meaning of the word "original"
It means first, it's in the dictionary.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Original Cause is not caused by definition.Bye

Special pleading.

Why does God exist?

You can't answer the question.

 

[Hieronymus]

READ:

Nothing special about the meaning of the word "original"
It means first, it's in the dictionary.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What makes you think it isn't?

Because time is an integral part of the universe and the word "before" requires the existence of time to make sense.........

Remove the universe = remove time.
What does "before" mean, when time does not exist?

The universe can't have created itself, otherwise it would have had to exist before it existed.

Perhaps it merely changed form?

No, a sequence implies time, but that's (apparently) a part of the universe.

All evidence suggests it is. It's not for nothing that the universe is also called "space-time".

So let's eliminate time from the equation.
What manifests the universe and everything in it?

Now, we're getting somewhere.
My answer, by the way, is "I don't know".

You don't (want to) know, so why bother commenting?

I do want to know.
But I can't know things that I don't know.

You, you just want to believe.
I want to believe also, but I actually care about being justified in my beliefs.

 

[The Cadet]

He's not being Dishonest in the least. When taken in context the evolutionists are being honest in admitting the flaws and downsides and sometimes the purposes of their theory. They admit the theory can't be proven and admit that divine creation can't be thought of as a possibility. What's wrong with that? At least they are being honest. It doesn't stop them from believing in evolution. They believe in it regardless of its flaws.

Really? You don't see any difference between "We can't provide evidence X..." and "We can't provide evidence X any more than a historian can do over the entire roman empire."?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nothing special about the meaning of the word "original"
It means first, it's in the dictionary.

Arbitrarily calling it "original" is what the special pleading is.............

 

[Hieronymus]

Arbitrarily calling it "original" is what the special pleading is.............

But it's not arbitrary.
Give it up, you're not gonna win this. (i.e. you have lost this one)
Your arguments don't make sense nor do they hold water.

 

[Jimmy D]

He's not being Dishonest in the least. When taken in context the evolutionists are being honest in admitting the flaws and downsides and sometimes the purposes of their theory. They admit the theory can't be proven and admit that divine creation can't be thought of as a possibility. What's wrong with that? At least they are being honest. It doesn't stop them from believing in evolution. They believe in it regardless of its flaws.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Have you read this thread? Don't you think it's dishonest taking someone's words out of context to imply that they hold the opposite view to what they actually do?

The rest of your post is not specific enough to answer, who are these 'evolutionists'? what are the flaws you mention? Why do you think that they can't hold religious beliefs?

 

[DogmaHunter]

But it's not arbitrary.

It is abritrary, because it is just defined to be so.
This is not a conclusion based on observation or investigation of said deity or "cause".

It's just an arbitrary definition which is carefully designed to close the circular loophole of theistic apologetics. And that's why it's special pleading.

Give it up, you're not gonna win this. (i.e. you have lost this one)
Your arguments don't make sense nor do they hold water.

Please try to formulate your rebuttals with a bit more meat instead of just such bare assertions.

 

[Derek Meyer]

READ:

Special pleading. That's all you have. Hey, Hieronymus, what's the reason for God existing? Why does God exist? Do you have an answer?

 

[Hieronymus]

Special pleading. That's all you have.

'.......' is all you have it seems...
You're ignored.
May God bless you.