Trying to round up an Atheist for Formal Debate on I.D.

[Davian]

I am not going to get into a drawn out discussion or debate with you Loudmouth about I.D. or Neo-Darwinism, or anything else for that matter. I do not believe that it would be fruitful at the present.

Given that, historically, your posts and threads never 'bore fruit', I would concur on this point.

However, I will say this:

Either my view is true or yours is true. They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false.

What is with this predilection you have for dichotomies, false and otherwise?

Either we are the handiwork of a supernatural Creator and that Creator is Jesus Christ...

or...

we are the byproducts of a mindless, unguided, purposeless process within an ever expanding universe which sprang into existence out of nothing, by nothing, for nothing, which will one day expand until it can expand no more (this is an accurate summation of the Standard Model and of actual contemporary scientific findings in cosmology and astronomy all available for your viewing pleasure in the latest peer reviewed journals. Notice here, scientists do not count metaphysical theories and unsubstantiated hypothetical scenarios such as string theory and imaginary time as evidence).

Now, if your view is true, then when you die, you will cease to exist, or at least, that is all that the "evidence" shows. Dead body equals dead brain and no heart pumping. Dead brain equals no thoughts, no heart pumping equals no oxygen and blood to the brain and what not etc. etc. So no more Loudmouth.... no judgment for the things youve said and done in this life, no reward for the good. Nothing....No life beyond the grave...nothing...

Now, if my view is true, then whoever you really are, when you die, you will stand before Christ and give an account for how you lived your life and you will either be separated forever from God who is Love, or you will be with God forever.

Considering the utter severity and ultimate finality that is inherent in this latter scenario, I implore you to take a fresh look at the evidence available to you as objectively and as unbiased as you can. Follow it where it leads.

I have.

Where does your failure to objectively demonstrate the validity of your beliefs lead you?

And remember what the French mathematician, theologian, logician, and physicist Blaise Pascal once said:

"People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive." De l'Art de persuader ("On the Art of Persuasion"), written 1658; published posthumously

I am under no illusion that reality should conform to my wants or desires. I favor those answers that are scientifically demonstrable, even where I do not like the implications.

And yourself? Can you say that your beliefs are not driven by things such as a fear of death or desire for justice (before or after death)?

Seek the truth my friend, and only the truth. If you desire it with all your heart, you shall find it.

It would appear that you have found - and are trying to sell here - is not truth, but religion.

 

[pjnlsn]

What criteria are you utilizing to arrive at the conclusion that claims regarding the existence of God are insubstantial in nature? When was this criteria formulated? How was it formulated? Who formulated it? Who uses this criteria in their investigative research other than yourself? Why this particular set of criteria as opposed to another? What worldview is this criteria based on?

I can think of numerous questions regarding this criteria which you are basing your statement on. So if you want, start with the first question and answer them in succession if you are able to. I am eager to hear your replies.

Your saying that theistic claims are insubstantial in nature does not make them insubstantial in nature. There must be some kind of epistemic warrant or in layman's terms, some good reason to believe that theistic claims are insubstantial in nature. And what is a "good reason" to you, may not be a good reason to me.

So where does that leave you?

Mm. The most common definition of a god is of an abstract object, whose physical nature is not specified, being referred to as some kind of 'being,' 'entity,' or as a 'Creator.' It is usually given some kind of personality, and said to have great power, in some undescribed form.

"In the most general sense possible, the concept is too insubstantial for one to even know what a proof of it would look like, to definitively contradict it, to find evidence which is specifically in support, tangibly, comparing the likelihood of all alternatives."

 

[Elioenai26]

Mm. The most common definition of a god is of an abstract object, whose physical nature is not specified, being referred to as some kind of 'being,' 'entity,' or as a 'Creator.' It is usually given some kind of personality, and said to have great power, in some undescribed form.

"In the most general sense possible, the concept is too insubstantial for one to even know what a proof of it would look like, to definitively contradict it, to find evidence which is specifically in support, tangibly, comparing the likelihood of all alternatives."

Would you mind providing a source for where you obtained that definition?

 

[quilbilly]

Would you mind providing a source for where you obtained that definition?

Why not make it easy. Give him some of your conception of Gods attributes and prove him wrong

 

[Elioenai26]

Why not make it easy. Give him some of your conception of Gods attributes and prove him wrong

I think I will just give him time to supply his source(s). It should not be too difficult for him to do if they are sourced.

 

[pjnlsn]

Would you mind providing a source for where you obtained that definition?

If you don't know what the words mean, look them up. If instead you refer to the definition of god, amongst Christians, which the post comments on, it's just the standard anthropomorphic deity.

 

[Elioenai26]

If you don't know what the words mean, look them up. If instead you refer to the definition of god, amongst Christians, which the post comments on, it's just the standard anthropomorphic deity.

I asked you to supply a source(s) for the below which you typed in your post:

"The most common definition of a god is of an abstract object, whose physical nature is not specified, being referred to as some kind of 'being,' 'entity,' or as a 'Creator.' It is usually given some kind of personality, and said to have great power, in some undescribed form."

You reply by stating:

"...it's just the standard anthropomorphic deity."

Now, the above is not a source, but rather, your summation of the definition you gave earlier.

All I have asked you to do is supply a source or sources from which you have gleaned this definition. Thus far, you have not done so.

 

[pjnlsn]

I asked you to supply a source(s) for the below which you typed in your post:

"The most common definition of a god is of an abstract object, whose physical nature is not specified, being referred to as some kind of 'being,' 'entity,' or as a 'Creator.' It is usually given some kind of personality, and said to have great power, in some undescribed form."

You reply by stating:

"...it's just the standard anthropomorphic deity."

Now, the above is not a source, but rather, your summation of the definition you gave earlier.

All I have asked you to do is supply a source or sources from which you have gleaned this definition. Thus far, you have not done so.

Various theists, I suppose. It was not to impress anything upon you, but most believers are full of information about the personality of their deity, less so it's substance.

But again, and barring differences in how terms are defined between writer and reader: "In the most general sense possible, the concept is too insubstantial for one to even know what a proof of it would look like, to definitively contradict it, to find evidence which is specifically in support, tangibly, comparing the likelihood of all alternatives."

 

[Elioenai26]

Various theists, I suppose. It was not to impress anything upon you, but most believers are full of information about the personality of their deity, less so it's substance.

But again, and barring differences in how terms are defined between writer and reader: "In the most general sense possible, the concept is too insubstantial for one to even know what a proof of it would look like, to definitively contradict it, to find evidence which is specifically in support, tangibly, comparing the likelihood of all alternatives."

Until you furnish a source reference for your conceptualization of "God" from a printed, published reference work that is generally accepted in academia, or an acceptable, trusted online reference source, then your opinion that the concept of God is "insubstantial" is itself unsubstantiated. Thus far, all of your posts regarding God, which you maintain is an "insubstantial" concept, are based on your unsubstantiated, unreferenced, unsupported view.

To help you in your studies, I would recommend utilizing the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy over at www.iep.utm.edu

Or you can browse through the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy over at plato.stanford.edu/contents.htm

Just look under the heading "G" for God.

Happy researching!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I am only interested in an apologetic that leads in two directions, and the one is to lead people to Christ, as Saviour, and the other is that after they are Christians, for them to realize the lordship of Christ in the whole of life... if Christianity is truth, it ought to touch on the whole of life... Christianity must never be reduced merely to an intellectual system... After all, if God is there, it isn’t just an answer to an intellectual question... we’re called upon to adore him, to be in relationship to him, and, incidentally, to obey him."

- Francis Schaeffer
‘The Undivided Schaeffer: A Retrospective Interview with Francis Schaeffer, September 30, 1980’ in Colin Duriez, Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life (Nottingham: IVP, 2008), pp.218 & 220..

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (1)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (2)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (3)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (4)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (5)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (6)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (7)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (8)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (9)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (10)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (11)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (12)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (13)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (14)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (15) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(16)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (17)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (18)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (19)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (20)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (21)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (22)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (23)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (24)

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (25)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (26)

1. Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.
2. Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
3. Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
4. Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
5. Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
6. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.
7. Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
8. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
9. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
10. Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.
11. Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.
12. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.
13. Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.
14. Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.
15. Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.
16. Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57
17. Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
18. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.
19. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.
20. Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254.
21. Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).
22. Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, "The Creation", U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64.
23. McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276.
24. Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com
25. Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version ).
26. Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.

The above portion of quotes courtesy of www.godandscience.org

 

[Loudmouth]

Nor have I ever said the words: "My God or evolution", . . .

Yes, you did.

"Either my view is true or yours is true. They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false."--Elionai26

My view is that evolution is responsible for the biodiversity we see today. You claim that it was your God who was responsible. You state quite clearly that both can not be false meaning that it is one or the other. You ignore all of the thousands of other gods, as well as the possibility that there are other natural mechanisms at play. You are ignoring possibilities right off the bat, the very thing that you accuse others of.

What I do maintain is that this process of evolution, if true, was guided and purposed by the Creator of the cosmos. The unjustified extrapolation of the undeniable truth of biological adaptation to encompass and explain all of reality in purely naturalistic and materialistic terms is not science. It is essentially the crafting of an unfalsifiable theory by a handful of men and women who desire to reinforce their biased presuppositions about reality.

Then what verified supernaturalistic or non-materialistic mechanisms would you like them to include, and how do they include them? Please cite the scientific experiments that have demonstrated these supernaturalistic or non-materialistic mechanisms in action.

If you want blame scientists for not including them then you need to show that they are real.

You have this small group of people which make up a very miniscule percentage of the population who want their words to be taken as "law" and "truth" and use their positions of what influence they have to try as hard as they can to advance their ideologies, and the whole time this striving and struggling is going on, the average person could care less!

Then don't take their claims as truth. Do the experiments. Do the research. Show that they are wrong. DO THE SCIENCE!!!!

That is all that we have ever asked of ID supporters, but they simply refuse to do the science. Instead, they would rather spend money on pamphlets containing the same empty rhetoric as your posts.

At the end of the day, the average person could really care less about what a scientist has to say regarding their "discoveries" or "findings". At the end of the day, the average person is always going to be more concerned about the bills they have to pay, the loved ones they have to take care of, the taxes they have to pay, and how they are going to spend what little free time they have. People want to be loved, and to feel wanted. I guarantee you and anyone else in here that when the average person receives news that their loved one is dying of cancer, or has been in an accident and is injured, or is lying on their deathbed gasping for every breath, or has unexpectedly lost their job, that they are not going to be thinking about the latest discoveries and findings of scientists, or the theories and speculations of people like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, or false dichotomies, logical fallacies, and biological evolution by natural selection being a better theory than I.D.

And yet here you are showing that you do care.

What is it with this argument from apathy? What are you trying to prove?

So while science as a pursuit to know more about our world is good, it is not going to replace good old fashioned love, compassion, and faith in the One who can sustain us when the scientists and all of their "findings" are unable to help us.

Please present evidence that this "One" is sustaining anything.

And by the way, I am sure you understand that there are prominent Christian scientists who believe that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, but that they are complimentary. Just thought you might want to know that.

Yes, I do know that. I wasn't aware that if we agree on evolution that we must agree on everything else. Perhaps you could find a paper written by one of these christians where they describe experiments where they were able to conclusive demonstrate the power of God changing the DNA of species. Can you find that for us?

 

[Loudmouth]

Until you furnish a source reference for your conceptualization of "God" from a printed, published reference work that is generally accepted in academia, or an acceptable, trusted online reference source, then your opinion that the concept of God is "insubstantial" is itself unsubstantiated. Thus far, all of your posts regarding God, which you maintain is an "insubstantial" concept, are based on your unsubstantiated, unreferenced, unsupported view.

To help you in your studies, I would recommend utilizing the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy over at www.iep.utm.edu

Or you can browse through the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy over at plato.stanford.edu/contents.htm

Just look under the heading "G" for God.

Happy researching!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I am only interested in an apologetic that leads in two directions, and the one is to lead people to Christ, as Saviour, and the other is that after they are Christians, for them to realize the lordship of Christ in the whole of life... if Christianity is truth, it ought to touch on the whole of life... Christianity must never be reduced merely to an intellectual system... After all, if God is there, it isn’t just an answer to an intellectual question... we’re called upon to adore him, to be in relationship to him, and, incidentally, to obey him."

- Francis Schaeffer
‘The Undivided Schaeffer: A Retrospective Interview with Francis Schaeffer, September 30, 1980’ in Colin Duriez, Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life (Nottingham: IVP, 2008), pp.218 & 220..

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (1)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (2)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (3)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (4)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (5)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (6)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (7)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (8)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (9)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (10)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (11)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (12)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (13)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (14)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (15) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(16)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (17)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (18)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (19)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (20)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (21)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (22)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (23)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (24)

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (25)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (26)

1. Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.
2. Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
3. Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
4. Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
5. Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
6. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.
7. Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
8. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
9. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
10. Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.
11. Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.
12. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.
13. Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.
14. Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.
15. Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.
16. Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57
17. Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
18. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.
19. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.
20. Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254.
21. Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).
22. Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, "The Creation", U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64.
23. McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276.
24. Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com
25. Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version ).
26. Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.

The above portion of quotes courtesy of www.godandscience.org

Since when did name dropping become a valid scientific experiment?

Why don't you actually show us EVIDENCE instead of dropping names.

 

[Loudmouth]

What criteria are you utilizing to arrive at the conclusion that claims regarding the existence of God are insubstantial in nature?

Where is your evidence that God has any substantial effect on nature?

What evidence would lead us to concludue that God has any effect on anything in nature?

 

[Davian]

As I have maintained all along, either we are the handiwork of our Creator or we are not. There is no third option and therefore the charge of presenting you with a false dichotomy fails.

Only on your moving of the goalposts, from where you said "Either my view is true or yours is true".

Nor have I ever said the words: "My God or evolution", nor have I ever even insinuated that that was my view. Never. So you are misrepresenting my position.

Did you not say "Either my view is true or yours is true" earlier in this thread?

In fact, in one of my posts, I made it very clear that I personally see no contradiction between the Genesis accounts of creation and the theory that creatures evolved from a common ancestor.

In your opinion, are all humans direct descendants of the biblical character known as 'Adam'?

In your opinion, did all of the civilizations on Earth arise from the descendants of a single family that survived a global flood on a large wooden boat?

In fact, I have also made it clear that creatures evolving and adapting to their environment is undeniable.

What I do maintain is that this process of evolution, if true,

Did you not just say it was undeniable?

was guided and purposed by the Creator of the cosmos.

That is a claim that no one, including yourself, has yet to substantiate. Correct?

Even the OP had to put in a back door to his debate topic, so that he can make this into a debate on evolution rather than ID.

The unjustified extrapolation of the undeniable truth of biological adaptation to encompass and explain all of reality in purely naturalistic and materialistic terms is not science. It is essentially the crafting of an unfalsifiable theory by a handful of men and women who desire to reinforce their biased presuppositions about reality.

That no one has been able to falsify it (in its entirety) does not make it unfalsifiable.

The scientific theory of evolution is falsifiable. Lay off the straw men.

I think it is actually funny in a way. You have this small group of people which make up a very miniscule percentage of the population

Argument from popularity. Lay off the logical fallacies.

who want their words to be taken as "law" and "truth" and use their positions of what influence they have to try as hard as they can to advance their ideologies, and the whole time this striving and struggling is going on, the average person could care less!

The correct phrasing is "couldn't care less".

At the end of the day, the average person could really care less about what a scientist has to say regarding their "discoveries" or "findings". At the end of the day, the average person is always going to be more concerned about the bills they have to pay, the loved ones they have to take care of, the taxes they have to pay, and how they are going to spend what little free time they have. People want to be loved, and to feel wanted. I guarantee you and anyone else in here that when the average person receives news that their loved one is dying of cancer, or has been in an accident and is injured, or is lying on their deathbed gasping for every breath, or has unexpectedly lost their job, that they are not going to be thinking about the latest discoveries and findings of scientists,

I don't know why you would relate losing one's job to evolutionary biology, but for those that are sick and injured:

"To see the integral role of evolution in biomedical research, consider Nobel Prizes, a good indicator of the most important breakthroughs in biology. Reviewing the last 50 years of Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology, I asked, "Is training in evolutionary biology necessary for a thorough understanding of the award-winning discoveries and work resulting from each breakthrough?" By my criteria, understanding of evolution is necessary in 47 of 50 cases. From vaccines, viral cancer genes, and nerve cell communication to drug trials, and genes controlling cholesterol and heart disease, evolutionary insights are crucial."


Evolution is a Winner — for Breakthroughs and Prizes | NCSE

or the theories and speculations of people like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, or false dichotomies, logical fallacies, and biological evolution by natural selection being a better theory than I.D.

Biological evolution by natural selection *is* a theory.

ID is not.

No, no, no. In those moments, they are going to be concerned about being there for their loved ones and making it through the tough times.

So while science as a pursuit to know more about our world is good, it is not going to replace good old fashioned love, compassion, and faith in the One who can sustain us when the scientists and all of their "findings" are unable to help us.

Since when is the claim of science to provide comfort and compassion?

Do you have anything that could not, in some variation, be said by a member of just about any other religion?

And by the way, I am sure you understand that there are prominent Christian scientists who believe that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, but that they are complimentary. Just thought you might want to know that.

What they believe and what they can demonstrate to be true are two different things.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, you did.

I have repeatedly stated that belief in God and belief in the evolution of species from lower forms is not necessarily mutually exclusive.

"Either my view is true or yours is true. They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false."--Elionai26

You failed to provide the quote and my exposition on it together. Instead you split them apart. Why not include them together?

Either we were created or we were'nt. There is no third option. This is not debatable.

My view is that evolution is responsible for the biodiversity we see today. You claim that it was your God who was responsible. You state quite clearly that both can not be false meaning that it is one or the other.

When you use the term evolution, you need to use a qualifier or specifier. "Evolution" can mean a number of things. What you should say is "Neo-Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection" or the "unguided, blind, purposeless, matter creating mind out of chaos view of evolution." Being specific is much more conducive to fruitful discussion.

You ignore all of the thousands of other gods, as well as the possibility that there are other natural mechanisms at play. You are ignoring possibilities right off the bat, the very thing that you accuse others of.

I am not concerned with the infinite number of logically possible explanations for the cosmos, or hypothetical "natural mechanisms" which by their definition, could never be explanations for the universe anyway. Only the ones that scientists, metaphysicians, physcists, cosmologists, and astronomers posit as being worthy of being included in the live pool of explanations are explanations that I am concerned with. One of those explanations is the traditional western conceptualization of God i.e. The Greatest Conceivable Being.

So I am ignoring nothing that is meritorious.

Then what verified supernaturalistic or non-materialistic mechanisms would you like them to include, and how do they include them? Please cite the scientific experiments that have demonstrated these supernaturalistic or non-materialistic mechanisms in action.

Scientists need to be honest and speak truthfully. That is all I desire of them. When they are presented with clear evidence that the best explanation for a set of given data is a supernatural one, then I expect them to suspend their methodological naturalistic presuppositions and follow the evidence where it leads. Unfortunately, some are unable to do this for personal reasons.

If you want blame scientists for not including them then you need to show that they are real.

I can lead a horse to the water, but I cannot make it drink.

Then don't take their claims as truth.

Some of their claims are true. I take them as true. Some are not. I do not take them as true.

Do the experiments. Do the research. Show that they are wrong. DO THE SCIENCE!!!!

That is not my job. There are scientists that are doing just that as we speak.

That is all that we have ever asked of ID supporters, but they simply refuse to do the science. Instead, they would rather spend money on pamphlets containing the same empty rhetoric as your posts.

Ironic coming from someone whose beliefs are not based on science but rather an elaborate, unfalsifiable extrapolation constructed upon tidbits of truth.

And yet here you are showing that you do care.

I am also not the average person.

Please present evidence that this "One" is sustaining anything.

I do not make it a habit of presenting evidence to someone in order to persuade them of something if they have already determined before hand that said evidence does not and cannot even exist. You are asking me to do something you do not even believe is possible. So why ask?

Yes, I do know that. I wasn't aware that if we agree on evolution that we must agree on everything else.

I was not aware of that either. Nor did I say that we must agree on everything just because some Christians do not see an inherent contradiction between Christianity and the evolving of species from lower forms.

Perhaps you could find a paper written by one of these christians where they describe experiments where they were able to conclusive demonstrate the power of God changing the DNA of species. Can you find that for us?

Why go through the trouble? If I did, you would just dismiss it as name dropping or an appeal to authority or some other fallacy. So no, I won't be doing that.

 

[Elioenai26]

Since when did name dropping become a valid scientific experiment?

Why don't you actually show us EVIDENCE instead of dropping names.

I have provided references for the quotes supplied. Browse through them. That will be a good starting place.

 

[Elioenai26]

Where is your evidence that God has any substantial effect on nature?

What evidence would lead us to concludue that God has any effect on anything in nature?

Why are you asking me for something you do not even believe is possible for me to produce?

That would be like me asking you to supply evidence that demonstrates the universe caused itself to come into existence.

I would never ask you for something like that because I do not believe you could ever even do that.

You repeatedly have demonstrated your belief that all that is is natural and must have a natural explanation. So why ask for evidence of the supernatural?

 

[Davian]

Gosh, Elio, do you have me on ignore?

lol.

I have repeatedly stated that belief in God and belief in the evolution of species from lower forms is not necessarily mutually exclusive.

You failed to provide the quote and my exposition on it together. Instead you split them apart. Why not include them together?

Either we were created or we were'nt. There is no third option. This is not debatable.

When you use the term evolution, you need to use a qualifier or specifier. "Evolution" can mean a number of things. What you should say is "Neo-Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection" or the "unguided, blind, purposeless, matter creating mind out of chaos view of evolution." Being specific is much more conducive to fruitful discussion.

I am not concerned with the infinite number of logically possible explanations for the cosmos, or hypothetical "natural mechanisms" which by their definition, could never be explanations for the universe anyway. Only the ones that scientists, metaphysicians, physcists, cosmologists, and astronomers posit as being worthy of being included in the live pool of explanations are explanations that I am concerned with. One of those explanations is the traditional western conceptualization of God i.e. The Greatest Conceivable Being.

Your "Greatest Conceivable Being" has no explanatory power. It is not an explanation.

So I am ignoring nothing that is meritorious.

Scientists need to be honest and speak truthfully. That is all I desire of them. When they are presented with clear evidence that the best explanation for a set of given data is a supernatural one, then I expect them to suspend their methodological naturalistic presuppositions and follow the evidence where it leads. Unfortunately, some are unable to do this for personal reasons.

Can you provide us with an example of where scientists have been presented with clear evidence that the best explanation for a set of given data is a supernatural one? I would expect this to be in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis, as this was a presentation to scientists. It will include a testable definition of what is meant by 'supernatural' in this context.

One example will do.

I can lead a horse to the water, but I cannot make it drink.

Some of their claims are true. I take them as true. Some are not. I do not take them as true.

That is not my job. There are scientists that are doing just that as we speak.

Ironic coming from someone whose beliefs are not based on science but rather an elaborate, unfalsifiable extrapolation constructed upon tidbits of truth.

Are you referring to yourself here?

I am also not the average person.

I do not make it a habit of presenting evidence to someone in order to persuade them of something if they have already determined before hand that said evidence does not and cannot even exist. You are asking me to do something you do not even believe is possible. So why ask?

As you have a habit of making claims ("the One who can sustain us when the scientists and all of their "findings" are unable to help us"), you will be asked to provide evidentiary support for those claims.

Do you retract that claim?

I was not aware of that either. Nor did I say that we must agree on everything just because some Christians do not see an inherent contradiction between Christianity and the evolving of species from lower forms.

And yourself?

In your opinion, are all humans direct descendants of the biblical character known as 'Adam'?

Did Adam's ancestors evolve from 'lower' forms?

Why go through the trouble? If I did, you would just dismiss it as name dropping or an appeal to authority or some other fallacy. So no, I won't be doing that.

I think his asking was just his way of demonstrating that your offhand comment (there are "...Christian scientists who believe that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, but that they are complimentary") was of no value to the discussion.

 

[pjnlsn]

Until you furnish a source reference for your conceptualization of "God" from a printed, published reference work that is generally accepted in academia, or an acceptable, trusted online reference source, then your opinion that the concept of God is "insubstantial" is itself unsubstantiated. Thus far, all of your posts regarding God, which you maintain is an "insubstantial" concept, are based on your unsubstantiated, unreferenced, unsupported view.

(various inefficient conveyances of information)

Well, again, "it was not to impress anything upon you." And also, it was said "barring differences in how terms are defined between writer and reader," and was about the "majority of theists."

But, similarly to before, a 'superintellect,' or the 'Designer' of I.D., is only slightly more substantial than the general monotheistic diety.

To alter the character of the deity does not quite make it more verifiable or likely, or more of it's substance known, even as it might make certain other people believe in it, or have a preference for it, who would not be inclined to believe in the traditional deity of Christianity.

 

[Hovind]

Dunning-Kruger effect.

This is interesting. Never heard of it before. Thanks!

 

[Hovind]

Well I guess we know who won the debate. It seems Dave has gone back to the apologetics section where everyone agrees with what he says.