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.
We certainly cannot use it to determine whether or not it was created by your god. But then, neither can you. That's a given. Science only deals with natural phenomena. An since nothing in this universe has been demonstrated to have anything other than natural processes involved, asking whether something other than a natural process involved is beyond the realm of science, since science is, by definition, a method of determining natural processes.
So are you now agreeing that the idea that we can test and falsify a naturalistic origin for the universe was incorrect?
Once again, since all of these are readily determined to be naturally produced, there is no reason to assume that the space/time that contains them does not also have a ntraul origin.
But they would also be produced if the universe was purposely created, so how are they evidence for naturalistic creation?
Quote:
The fine-tuned Universe argument is nonsense. It is anything but fined tuned. As I've pointed out numerous times, the universe is far and above completely hostile to life.
Yet life is able to thrive in it for billions of years, here and almost certainly elsewhere.
Quote:
In fact, the vast bulk of it is utterly incapable of sustaining any life whatsoever.
Just like most people who play the lottery don't win. That doesn't mean that the lottery isn't set up for people to win now and then.
Yes I can and in fact that is what I have been doing so that clearly proves I can say it.
It doesn't make sense, though.
Quote:
However I reiterate, what I am talking about here is two different failed cases for god. One that fails because it is wrong and appeals to purely ludicrous arguments.
If it appeals to purely ludicrous arguments, then it's not a "reasonable argument", correct?
Quote:
The other fails because it is wrong but at least it appears to serious subjects. It involves sitting down and talking physics, biology, philosophy. It may not still be a valid or credible or reasonable argument for god, but at least you can take such people "seriously".
You seem to be ignoring that "serious" applies to "case", not the person making the case. "Serious case" means that that "case" is to be taken seriously, not (necessarily) the person making it. A case cannot be "serious" without also being "reasonable". If it wasn't reasonable, no one would take the case seriously.
Quote:
And again if you stop wasting time talking to me and watch the entire debate in context you will see this is what he meant. "Serious" in this context was meant to mean "not ludicrous" and not to mean "convincing" in any way.
I agree it means "not ludicrous". In other words, it's reasonable. "Serious case" doesn't necessarily mean "convincing", but "reasonable argument" also doesn't necessarily mean "convincing". I'm seriously not trying to convince anyone here that God exists, just that there is a "reasonable argument" for God. Since Dawkins, who doesn't believe in God, admits that there is a "serious case" for God, he's clearly someone who agrees that there is.
To you. But be aware that something not making sense to you is not synonymous to it not making sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
You seem to be ignoring that "serious" applies to "case", not the person making the case. "Serious case" means that that "case" is to be taken seriously
Now you are getting it! Yahoo!
Exactly the point. What he was saying in the debate is that the people making a case for god... as in the deistic god... can at least be taken seriously.
The people making the case for gods... as in the theistic ones who care who you have sex with, what days you collect sticks on, or who send angels to dictate text to illiterate pedophiles.... you can not.
This is my whole point so it is good to see you getting it now! In the quote which was taken out of context this is all Dawkins meant. He did not in any way mean there was a "good" case on offer for a god. Just one that can at least be taken seriously enough to enter into a discourse about it.
No, but they are, as I've been claiming, set up so that there are occasional winners. If no one ever won, everyone would stop playing.
OK, so people set up the lottery using laws of nature and math to achieve a specific goal. This to you is evidence that god created the natural universe from nothing via supernatural means for an unknown purpose. OK, if it makes you feel better, but I don't see how the two have anything to do with each other.
I'm not arguing against the Big Bang, only against naturalistic creation. How does the CMBR suggest that the universe has a naturalistic origin rather than "God did it"? Would we not have CMBR if God created the universe rather than nature?
Then prove that I'm bearing false witness by FINALLY telling us how naturalistic creation can be tested and falsified instead of avoiding the question yet again.
You'll have to explain to the rest of us how it is that we can punch in all the natural variables and natural laws and get in a simulation to a great degree what we see in the real world, and why these simulations do not come up with a "creator" instead. The fact is that all our scientific evidence clearly shows the universe having been formed by natural processes. The CMBR is unambiguously explainable by natural processes. If it wasn't, that would still not be evidence for your god. You are still arguing for the god of the gaps.
I know that you think this argument makes sense, but it's no different than someone pointing to a top spinning on a table and pointing out how it remains spinning without any guiding hand, and then determining that no guiding hand set it spinning in the first place.
It does make sense. As for your spinning top, we can see the person who initiated the top spinning. We can put sensors on him, and measure his presence. We can photograph him and video tape him initiating the top spinning. What evidence do you have for existence of your invisible sky daddy?
Quote:
I'm not asking anyone to do it, just for you to explain how naturalistic creation is testable and falsifiable.
And I've already told you that if it could be shown that the CMBR was not a natural phenomenon, that would falsify the Big Bang, which is the natural explanation for the origin of our universe.
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.
