Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again you misrepresent. Once again, there is not MUST, naturalism is the conclusion of science precisely because the evidence fits (even if there is some greater power behind naturalism).
And what are the conclusions from his valid works? Naturalism, maybe?
Again, naturalism is the ruling paradigm because no other paradigm is worth considering until new information is available to move the posts. I can only conclude people allegedly seeking metaphysical Truth MUST represent this is because they are not really seeking metaphysical Truth.
You really need some serious philosophical training. Naturalism is a PRESUMPTION of science, NOT a conclusion, and certainly NOT a scientific finding.
You really need some serious philosophical training. Naturalism is a PRESUMPTION of science, NOT a conclusion, and certainly NOT a scientific finding.
What else are the conclusions, the supernatural? No, because there is not evidence for this.
Even you reject the supernatural, so the only conclusion you can logically come to (since you look at the same evidence) is naturalism UNTIL WE GET NEW EVIDENCE FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
But for some reason you refuse to give us this evidence you claim to have (only deflecting us to go study QM and QED because you do not really have a credible answer).
Where did you learn your philosophy, Sesam Street?
You really need some serious philosophical training. Naturalism is a PRESUMPTION of science, NOT a conclusion, and certainly NOT a scientific finding.
Witten, Susskind, and many others would understand what you mean when you say we are the universe experiencing itself. The volume would become a topic of discussion.
but we are talking to people that don't care about that. They are only here to say anything, anything at all, that helps the war on religion.
What do you think of this astrophysicist who talks at length about how the Bible contains scientific information, to a degree not found in other ancient religious texts?
There is an interesting part where he describes a chance meeting an Atheistic physicist on an airplane, who turned out to have a series of Bible related questions which matched the exact sequential order in a book he had written answering the same questions.
They determined that their conversation's synchronicity had a chance of one in several billion.
(This part starts at 35:00)
What else are the conclusions, the supernatural? No, because there is not evidence for this.
Even you reject the supernatural, so the only conclusion you can logically come to (since you look at the same evidence) is naturalism UNTIL WE GET NEW EVIDENCE FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
But for some reason you refuse to give us this evidence you claim to have (only deflecting us to go study QM and QED because you do not really have a credible answer).
Where did you learn your philosophy, Sesam Street?
You keep pretending that we KNOW what we are assigning the evidence TO but we do NOT! Science PRESUMES it is NOT God without knowing what it IS.
He offers anyone to read any chapter (their choice) of his books for free. I've never even heard of another author doing that. So, if you were to find his writing useless, you wouldn't have to pay anything to discover it.
He offers anyone to read any chapter (their choice) of his books for free. I've never even heard of another author doing that. So, if you were to find his writing useless, you wouldn't have to pay anything to discover it.
That seems more than fair to me.
People who offer me a book of fairy tales for free and even offer to read it for me are - still offering fairy -tales. And a fairy tale (cover to cover) is what the Bible is.
Ok I began the video. So far so good. He had a fairly neutral upbringing, with curiosity and a love of astronomy (me too) and was curious about Cosmic origins while accepting the Big Bang, which of course i irrelevant because it has a natural explanation, but 'what made the stuff the BB -event was made from?' I can see where this is going but let's get on...
Oh dear. Ok Philosophy won't answer the question and cosmology hasn't an answer yet. So he went to religion. Hinduism he dismisses because the figure of 4.5 million or was it billion?...4.32 bilion years... was wrong. Beats 8,000 as per the Bible....
Wow 2 businessmmen come into a public schiil with two boxes of Bibles. Ok, when he was at school maybe they and their Bibles would not have been slung into the street - just as in my schooldays. So at age 17 (just as I had concluded that whatever a god was it was the god of the Bible he started to read and (presumably) got past Genesis considering this was specific, testable and makes predictions. Is this guy for real an astronomer? Did he swallow the account of Biblical cosmology? Let's see. He couldn't find an error? Then he just claims that he became convinced and signed over to Jesus. Really? He read the whole thing through and got from Cosmic Origins to Jesus? Did he even bother with the objections and problems he appears to have missed like Cosmic created in one day and the sun and moon (night and day; morning and eveing) made after the plants...we'll he'd have to make the sun pretty quick or the plants would die.
This guy expects us to believe as an astronomer he swallowed that? He has to be a fraud. I'll go on but so far he hasn't done anything but Witness.
Hugh Norman Ross (born July 24, 1945) is a Canadian Astrophysicist, Christian apologist, and old Earth creationist.
Ross obtained his Ph.D. in Astronomy from the University of Toronto[1][2][3] and his B.Sc. degree in physics from the University of British Columbia.[4] He established his own ministry in 1986, called Reasons to Believe that promotes progressive and day-age forms of old Earth creationism. Ross rejects both evolution and abiogenesis as explanations for the origin and history of life, instead promoting the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design.[Wiki]
Ok he an astronomer and physicist and an Old Earth creationist. So he presumably doesn't believe a 6 day creation and an 8,000 yer old earth.
Let's see how he explains that and how he gets to Jesus from an Intelligent designer. Oh dear. His fiddling of the 'scientific method' to fit it into the 'frame of reference' of genesis page 1 and totally ignoring that 'darkness over the waters' is contradicting astonomy because the sun already existed.
I'm sorry, I've heard enough. He must be in denial about what astronomy he knows and is talking Creationism. I may go on, to see how he reconciled '6 days' with Old earth and gets from there to Jesus, but this fellow is talking nonsense.
Ozzy, you have got to do better than this confirmation bias - propaganda.
Oh, my hat. He goes to the 'science in the Bible' arguments to support Genesis, and he trots out the Kent Hovind 'cloud cover' excuse for 'darkness'. He cites Venus covered in cloud. He overlooks that Ver
sus is dead and nothing can live there. Then he gets onto the fine tuning argument. Ok, I'm not dismissing all of the fine tuning arguments - essentially the conditions have to right for life to happen. You have to have gravity or nothing would happen. And you could (if you assumed an intent, argue that the Bible has the most detailed account of Creation. But it's wrong (it is NOT in the correct chronological order - if you believe in Old Earth) and the Hovind excuses don't work. For instance Moses wasn't there - God told him but told him the sun was created later, but not that the earth was covered in cloud that obscured the sun.
The Bible does not predict an expanding universe. Indeed it wasn't until ..let me think... It was the 17th c astrononer who discovered parrallax and disproved the crystal -sphere idea of the universe (based on the Bible) Kepler I think, but notb until LeMaitre was there any hint of an expanding universe. I'd like to see these Jewish theologians who talked about it because I've never heard of it.
Oh come on...the
a man's a fraud. He says (ok) that darkness is an absence of light, but he says the Bible says darkness is a substance. So he talks about Dark matter - which is nothing to do with darkness that is an 'absence of light'. That is such a blatant fiddle that he loses all credibility.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-25-2020 at 02:28 PM..
You keep pretending that we KNOW what we are assigning the evidence TO but we do NOT! Science PRESUMES it is NOT God without knowing what it IS.
You keep pretending ad nauseam I am doing things that I am not. Why do you need to dishonestly attack this straw man instead of my actual arguments while ironically pointing out how invalid YOUR position is?
YOU keep pretending that we KNOW what we are assigning the evidence TO but we do NOT! YOU PRESUMES it IS God without knowing what it IS.
I am pointing out the evidence that we do have (natural forces without design), and the evidence you claim to have (conscious intent) but do not present. The only evidence you do present are the same claims creationists use, and fallacies such as we are conscious, therefore our ultimate reality must be conscious.
Science 'presumes' it is not a god because there is no evidence it is a god UNTIL SOMEONE FINDS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR A GOD.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not Mystic's tedious inane argument AGAIN.
