Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think that we are agreeing. And so would Krauss. What people traditionally call "nothing" does not appear to exist. Krauss's a universe from nothing only deals with how people misunderstand how conservation of energy is applied.I know.
That's why it's not nothing.
I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear....
I'm not making any demands...How would one "prove God"? Earlier you mentioned ID, as far as evolution goes there is no evidence for an Intelligent Designer. At best one could claim to have found evidence for an Incompetent Designer. The various "proofs" given by IDists have all been refuted.
And where and when has Krauss ever tried to disprove God? I think that you are mistaken. Now one can disprove the God of the Bible if one is at all literal in their interpretation of that book. Which is why it is not a wise belief to have. But I have never seen anyone try to disprove God.
And of course the demand that others disprove God is not a proper argument. The burden of proof is upon those that claim a God exists.
I don't believe I ever said that Krauss tries to disprove God...I know he's rather mocking of the idea of a God.I think that we are agreeing. And so would Krauss. What people traditionally call "nothing" does not appear to exist. Krauss's a universe from nothing only deals with how people misunderstand how conservation of energy is applied.
And when did Krauss ever try to disprove God? I think I added that in an edit. I would still like that question answered.
I said the claims of all IDists have been refuted. It is another idea with no evidence behind it.I'm not making any demands...
I said we cannot prove God exists scientifically.
Intelligent Design is a new idea,,,how can it be disproven when it takes years to reach any conclusion?
Krauss makes fun of God. If you know him, you should be aware of this. I'm not taking the time to show this to you...anyone here that knows him knows what he believes.
Incompetent Design...
Think of math....
Think of our reasoning power.
HOW do YOU reason?
Is it your brain?
Your soul?
What IS a soul?
Too many questions not to believe in the metaphysical.
How quickly people forget:I don't believe I ever said that Krauss tries to disprove God...I know he's rather mocking of the idea of a God.
I don't know HOW God could be disproved...
UNLESS we can find concrete proof of how the universe started and how life started.
I think that would be the only way.
I agree.I said the claims of all IDists have been refuted. It is another idea with no evidence behind it.
And reasoning appears to be an emergent process. We see that other apes have fairly decent reasoning skills. Other simians less so, and varying amounts in other mammals. What you are proposing now is an argument from ignorance. To have scientific evidence one must be willing to put one's money where one's mouth is, so to speak. Before one can even have scientific evidence one needs a model and a way to test it. In other words one must construct a model that explains the observations and a test based upon the model's own merits must be found that could possible refute it. Without that one only has an ad hoc explanation. Behe claimed to have such a model. It was quickly refuted.
Intelligent Design is a new idea,,,how can it be disproven when it takes years to reach any conclusion?
What I meant is that Krauss is not interested in disproving God....he's not interested in God at all, except to say that God doesn't exist and he rather makes fun of those that believe He does.How quickly people forget:
"And you said you do not see ANYONE trying to disprove God...
Krauss is one...."
EDIT: Even knowing how the universe started would not refute God. It would only tell us if a God was needed or not for that.
Right !Not that new an idea. A lot of the modern versions of ID are extensions of Paley's watch argument.
This also has to do with cosmology.
Just a little closer to the sun and we'd burn...
Just a little further away and we'd freeze.
Paley introduced the analogy of the watch in his 1802 book Natural Theology or the Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. Darwin was a great admire of Paley, taking a copy of the book with him on the voyage of the Beagle. If I recall correctly he used some of the structure of that work in planning the layout of On the Origin of Species.Right !
I remember hearing the watch argument way back in the 60's. If there's a watch,,,there must be a watch maker.
So, biblical creationists have to satisfy deluded evolutionists while not using God or the scriptures. Got it.
I agree.
There is no scientific evidence for ID.
I also believe there is no model.
As to apes reasoning...
Do they reason...or is it instinct?
Even apes that can sign language talk,
or point to images....are they just remembering or are they really thinking?
I don't know the answer to this.
I know that we all have a body, we all have a soul, but we do not all have a spirit.
And I do think, at times, about NDE...what's that all about? There's just too much that goes on that we do not understand.
I agree with you on that. Science is useful and awesome. But it doesn't explain creation and its current theories on the subject are full of glaring holes. But engaging in that argument is really fruitless in my opinion. It's basically a religious argument. You have to have as much or more faith to believe the theory of evolution as you do to accept that God created the universe.
And if aliens made us...where did THEY come from?
There just doesn't seem to be an answer other than something must have made us...if it's God, so be it.
I do believe that God, or some spirit, made us, and space, and time, all at the same moment.
Creationists do not understand the infinite regress that they invoke when they try to abuse the Kalam Cosmological argument.If God made us, where did HE come from?
You are missing the point of the discussion. Saying that scientific theories about the origin of the universe and the stars, and the evolution of living things, are full of glaring holes is not evidence that creationism is true.
By the way, what is a 'glaring hole'?
No, "created" is a loaded term. More properly the universe as we know it had a beginning.The universe was created. We know that and the evolutionary theorists agree with that. If it wasn't then we're going to have to start arguing about whether it exists or not.
Obvious.
If we could find concrete proof that you were conceived by your parents, would that prove that God didn't make you? By the same argument, would concrete scientific evidence of the origin of the universe and of life prove that the universe wasn't created by God?UNLESS we can find concrete proof of how the universe started and how life started.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?