Why in Physics we have proofs, but in Theology - arguments?

[joinfree]

Which line of reasoning would that be?

Thanks. Look it here, please, the summary of the current thread:
The time machine proof of divine

 

[quatona]

Thanks. Look it here, please, the summary of the current thread:
The time machine proof of divine

This doesn´t answer my question for the line of reasoning behind "complex = designed".

 

[AV1611VET]

You say that like questioning is a bad thing.

It goes beyond questions though.

I don't mind questions ... I invite them.

But using the question mark to blaspheme Jesus and call us "ignit" and "hoamskooled" is demonic and childish.

 

[AV1611VET]

These are false philosophers the Paul is writing about.

Correct. Today we call them "scientists."

True prophets are often not accepted so your refusal to accept the testimony of scientists is not necessarily convincing.

Since when are philosophers considered prophets?

 

[Norbert L]

It does not, no matter what Berlinski and his cohorts at the Discovery Institute have to say.

My comment was directed to the question, Do you say in school: "the argument of Pythagorean theorem is following...."? This response of yours does not explain why Pythagorean theorem isn't addressed as an argument. Do you have an explanation for the point the OP is making?

 

[DogmaHunter]

My comment was directed to the question, Do you say in school: "the argument of Pythagorean theorem is following...."? This response of yours does not explain why Pythagorean theorem isn't addressed as an argument. Do you have an explanation for the point the OP is making?

Evolution isn't a mere "argument" either - wich is the statement I was responding to.

It is a scientific theory, just like relativity, plate tectonics, atomic theory, germ theory of desease, etc.

A body of knowledge that explains a well-defined set of facts and which makes testable predictions, supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence.

It is anything but a "collection of anecdotes and hunches".

 

[Freodin]

My comment was directed to the question, Do you say in school: "the argument of Pythagorean theorem is following...."? This response of yours does not explain why Pythagorean theorem isn't addressed as an argument. Do you have an explanation for the point the OP is making?

Because there is no argument about the Pythagorean theorem. It is proven. Mathematically.

If you don't know the difference between a mathematical proof and an argument, just ask. I will explain it again.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks. Look it here, please, the summary of the current thread:
The time machine proof of divine

That 'proof' is based on a false premise. Hawking's suggestion is that the laws of physics prevent macro-scale time travel.

 

[joinfree]

... laws of physics prevent macro-scale time travel.

Sounds like you're having a wishful thinking. Can someone give us the link to the Steven's paper?

 

[joinfree]

Evolution .....an overwhelming amount of evidence. .....

Dead bones. Only dead bones, wishful thinking and no tests.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Dead bones. Only dead bones, wishful thinking and no tests.

You're again ignoring the genetic facts.

The truth is that even without a SINGLE fossil (or "dead bone", like you seem to call it), evolution theory would be as solidly supported as ever, by the genetic record alone.

Evolution theory furthermore, makes an uncountable amount of testable predictions.
If it's wrong, showing it wrong should be trivial.

 

[joinfree]

......
So, the alternative to an "infite natural past" is an "infinite supernatural past"? Why isn't that a problem? .....

"Infinite supernatural past" is supernatural, so there is supernatural component in Reality.

 

[joinfree]

You're again ignoring the genetic facts.

The truth is that even without a SINGLE fossil (or "dead bone", like you seem to call it), evolution theory would be as solidly supported as ever, by the genetic record alone.

Evolution theory furthermore, makes an uncountable amount of testable predictions.
If it's wrong, showing it wrong should be trivial.

Tell us the natural transition mechanism from DNA of human to DNA of fish or something. Is there a mathematical formula for that? LOL.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"Infinite supernatural past" is supernatural, so there is supernatural component in Reality.

yes, yes,... i know that the ultimate goal here is to include the supernatural in our common worldview, to the point of desperation.


However, you are not answering my question...
If an "infinite natural past" is somehow problematic, why isn't an "infinite supernatural past" equally problematic?

What is problematic, exactly, about an "infinite natural past" and why is this problem not present in an "infinite supernatural past"?

 

[joinfree]

Break this down into a basic logical syllogism (Premise A, Premise B, Conclusion):

Premise A: If something in nature is more complex than a watch, it is designed
Premise B: There is something in nature more complex than a watch
Conclusion: Therefore, nature is designed

Looking at this 'design-proof', I cant see how either of the premises or the conclusion are logically valid. Premise A has not been demonstrated, Premise B depends on how you define/measure complexity and the conclusion is invalid as it come from unsubstantiated premises.

For this to be valid, you need to demonstrate that
1. Something in nature is more complex that a watch
2. If something is more complex than a watch it could only be designed

For point 1, you'd need a functional definition of complexity that can be objectively applied. This would be doubly difficult, as you are comparing things that may or may not be naturally occurring, with things that we know are definitely not naturally occurring.

For point 2, you need to conclusively demonstrate two claims: That particular levels of complexity are impossible in nature. And that once that level of complexity is exceeded, the only answer is design.

Once you've demonstrated these, then you can make a conclusion of design in nature, or that nature is designed.

I tried, precious soul. I really tried. Let us consider the Pascal Wager then. If the pain is infinite there, does it make you want to make peace with God?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Tell us the natural transition mechanism from DNA of human to DNA of fish or something.

Mammals don't turn into fish in evolution theory.

Ignoring that silly statement, I'll change it into something more sensible:
What is the mechanism by which a land walking mammal can evolve into an aquatic mammal, like a whale for example?

And the answer is simply: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.
Do that for a couple million years and gradually change the habitat of the species from land to sea.

Is there a mathematical formula for that? LOL.

Sort of:
1+1+1+1+1+1+......+1+1+1 = huge number.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I tried, precious soul. I really tried.

How come you've failed?

Let us consider the Pascal Wager then.

Let's.

You should become a hindu. After all, you don't want to be reincarnated as a cockroach, do you?

If the pain is infinite there, does it make you want to make peace with God?

No, because I don't get scared from "just so" stories, nore do I feel threatened by things that I don't believe to be real.

Just like, I assume, you don't really lose any sleep over the possibility of being reborn as a cockroach or fire ant or something.

 

[Gene2memE]

I tried, precious soul. I really tried. Let us consider the Pascal Wager then. If the pain is infinite there, does it make you want to make peace with God?

No.

1) It offers no proof of any deity, just a threat
2) I dont respond positively to threats
3) The sort of deity that offers no direct evidence of its existence, but does offer eternal punishment of "infinite pain" for the finite offence of lacking belief in it does not warrant peace. That deity deserves the opposite.
4) There's no good evidence of consciousness beyond death, or for any of the Biblical supernatural constructs, so threatening me with them is meaningless.

If its one thing atheists laugh at and despise, it's Pascal's Wager. It's worse than Paley's Watch or Hoyle's Tornado.

 

[joinfree]

yes, yes,... i know that the ultimate goal here is to include the supernatural in our common worldview, to the point of desperation.


However, you are not answering my question...
If an "infinite natural past" is somehow problematic, why isn't an "infinite supernatural past" equally problematic?

What is problematic, exactly, about an "infinite natural past" and why is this problem not present in an "infinite supernatural past"?

The "infinite supernatural past" can not be measured by clock, because the clock does not measure the supernatural.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The "infinite supernatural past" can not be measured by clock, because the clock does not measure the supernatural.

You're going to have to make a lot more sense then that.

Start at the beginning and we'll go from there:
What exactly and specifically is problematic about an "infinite natural past"?
Also, why are you even talking about that? How does this "problem" (assuming it actually IS a problem) manifest, specifically?