Stephen Hawkings vs. God

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

There is a difference between preconceived notions and knowledge building on itself.  A simple example is Galileo.  There was a preconceived notion in Chris

Equivocation (Fallacy).  RCC doesn't = Christianity.

 

Where in Scripture does it say that the Earth is the Center?

 

Did you know, that as a result of the "Error" filled CMB (COBE/WMAP/Planck) that now they think that the Earth is @ the Center of the entire Universe.  It's called "The Axis of Evil".  What do you think about that?

 

I consider myself Christian and am part of the "RCC"  

 

 

===============================================================================================================

 

Does that mean the RCC = Christianity then?  Nope.  A brief walk through the history of the RCC should rectify this.  I can't go into any more detail....they frown on talking about this here @ Worthy. PM me, and we can talk.

[gray wolf]

I think that's a very good policy

[Enoch2021]

 

@Enoch

 

 

"Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only"

 

We can't always see the past. You cannot even observe. i.e. a creation - no matter existing, then matter all of a sudden exists.

 

We can see evolution has happened in the past and those creatures have evolved. Which is far more than you have for a nothing, then something, or in other words a creation.

 

 

 

==================================================================================================

 

"Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only"

 

We can't always see the past.

 

Nobody can see the past without a Time Machine or the more recent past (Video/Film)

 

If you can't Predict....Then you can't form "Valid" Hypothesis; Ergo....Can't be TESTED/Experiment; Ergo....it can't Validated: Ergo....It's not "Science".

 

 

We can see evolution has happened in the past

 

 

Please provide the Make/Model and Serial Number of your Time Machine?

 

 

those creatures have evolved

 

 

Why, cause you said so?  This is a Begging The Question (Fallacy)-----Validate evolution; via the Scientific Method please....?

 

 

 

Which is far more than you have for a nothing, then something, or in other words a creation

 

 

All you have are Fallacies.... as Illustrated.

 

We have the Holy Bible, Christ's Sacrifice for all, "Specific Complexity", Irreducible Complexity", "CODE"/Software/Information-----the sine qua non of life.  To name just a few.  Anyone of those scuttles Materialism.

 

In Fact, Scientists have Scuttled Materialism; Validated Repeatedly via Quantum Mechanics....

 

The act of a conscious observer creates the existence of Matter (Particles) and the objects they entail, Instantly!  A Reality Independent of Observation...doesn't exist! Experimentally Validated, Repeatedly; SEE:

Double Slit Experiment

A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047

Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdf

Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice GedankenExperiment: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0610241.pdf

 

"[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics,...materialism is not".

Eugene Wigner PhD, Pioneer of Quantum Mechanics (Nobel laureate Physics)

 

 

 

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

 

There is a difference between preconceived notions and knowledge building on itself.  A simple example is Galileo.  There was a preconceived notion in Chris

Equivocation (Fallacy).  RCC doesn't = Christianity.

 

Where in Scripture does it say that the Earth is the Center?

 

Did you know, that as a result of the "Error" filled CMB (COBE/WMAP/Planck) that now they think that the Earth is @ the Center of the entire Universe.  It's called "The Axis of Evil".  What do you think about that?

 

I consider myself Christian and am part of the "RCC"  

 

 

===============================================================================================================

 

Does that mean the RCC = Christianity then?  Nope.  A brief walk through the history of the RCC should rectify this.  I can't go into any more detail....they frown on talking about this here @ Worthy. PM me, and we can talk.

 

one of the most interesting things I've seen in my meanderings in the interweb is the acceptance of Roman Catholics, Mormons, etc when evangelicals want to conflate the number of Christians to suit there needs (i.e. so many people believe it must be true...).  The number approaches 2 billion with these groups included and about 800k when it's only evangelicals.  I just want consistency...tell me Enoch, how many Christians are there?   I can tell you there are at least 2x Hindus, 2xMuslims, 1x Budhists, 1xMormons...Please don't ever assert number of adherents is any indication of a correct belief.

[Enoch2021]

one of the most interesting things I've seen in my meanderings in the interweb is the acceptance of Roman Catholics, Mormons, etc when evangelicals want to conflate the number of Christians to suit there needs (i.e. so many people believe it must be true...).  The number approaches 2 billion with these groups included and about 800k when it's only evangelicals.  I just want consistency...tell me Enoch, how many Christians are there?   I can tell you there are at least 2x Hindus, 2xMuslims, 1x Budhists, 1xMormons...Please don't ever assert number of adherents is any indication of a correct belief.

 

 

 

 

======================================================================================================================================

 

What's your point with this?  You Conjure this Strawman from thin air then you say..... "Please don't ever assert number of adherents is any indication of a correct belief".  Did you Prime the Flame Thrower just before or right after you conjured this?

 

Please post anything whatsoever that I ever wrote concerning Numbers/VOTE/Consensus to justify anything....?  In Fact, my position has always been the Exact Opposite.

 

 

Lets get back "actual" to cases, Have you thought about this....

 

DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.

It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

That's just the Hardware!

 

DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!

 

To refute:

 

1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....

2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.

 

??

[Guest]

....I just want consistency....

 

....tell me....

 

....how many Christians are there....

 

....Please don't ever assert number of adherents is any indication of a correct belief.....

 

 

Beloved, It's Hard To Tell

 

But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Romans 11:3

 

Looking Through Man's Eyes

 

For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. 2 Chronicles 16:9(a-b)

 

But With God

 

And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,

 

And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

 

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

 

And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. Genesis 22:15-18

 

All Things

 

Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. Genesis 18:14

 

Are Possible

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

 

 

 

I don't think God is irrelevant to many scientists, even in assessment of evidence.  They are investigating the universe to discover mechanisms and explanations that are not supernatural, but that does not mean they are not cognizant of His reality and do not harbor a sense of awe.  You need look no further than the case of Francis Collins.

Preconceived notions are very deleterious to good science.  If God is everywhere, then think of it as a math equation where you reduce things to their least common denominator.  Like 2x * 5x = 10x. No matter what "x" is, it does not impact the equation...like supernatural does not impact the natural world.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your point - how does this example demonstrate that preconceived notions are deleterious to good science?

 

All science requires preconceived notions just in order to get started. Science hasn't proven that our memory is reliable, that reality is reliable, that we have the capacity to accurately understand nature, etc. Those are all presuppositions that are simply assumed, and yet are necessary for the reliability of the enterprise of science. Additionally these are all things that make perfect sense if there is an orderly Creator who created an orderly creation, within which are beings made in His image and are therefore able to sense and comprehend His creation, and yet naturalism has no explaination of why would could trust any of these things if we're all just matter in motion, physically projected by some mechanism of universal expansion.

 

Further, every hypothesis rests upon the shoulders of a world of previously confirmed hypotheses. You don't test everything every time you test something.

 

Could you clarify what you mean please?

 

There is a difference between preconceived notions and knowledge building on itself.  A simple example is Galileo.  There was a preconceived notion in Christianity that the Earth was the center of all creation.  Galileo pointed his telescope to the sky and noticed that there were some bodies that orbited a non-Earth object.  We built on Galileo's observations and did away with the preconceived notion.  Hope that clarifies it some for you.

 

 

I don't understand how your example demonstrates the harm of those preconceived notions. What about the alpha character introduced to your equation demonstrates an injuirous preconception?

 

Further, I don't understand how you deal with those preconceived notions upon which science is based, if such notions are so damaging to the enterprise of science. What about the preconception that our minds are capable of understanding patterns, or that natural laws will continue to be uniform? If preconceptions are so damaging to science what do we do about those preconceptions that, without which, there would be no science?

 

Finally, I think it's worth noting that geocentrism didn't find its origins in Christianity - it came from Greek naturalism. Funny how that example is always chalked up to an error on the part of Christianity just because the church made the mistake of uncritically accepting 'the science'. If it's a lesson in what we should more critical of, it wouldn't be God's word but man's.

[Guest Teditis]

 

 

 

 

I don't think God is irrelevant to many scientists, even in assessment of evidence.  They are investigating the universe to discover mechanisms and explanations that are not supernatural, but that does not mean they are not cognizant of His reality and do not harbor a sense of awe.  You need look no further than the case of Francis Collins.

Preconceived notions are very deleterious to good science.  If God is everywhere, then think of it as a math equation where you reduce things to their least common denominator.  Like 2x * 5x = 10x. No matter what "x" is, it does not impact the equation...like supernatural does not impact the natural world.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your point - how does this example demonstrate that preconceived notions are deleterious to good science?

 

All science requires preconceived notions just in order to get started. Science hasn't proven that our memory is reliable, that reality is reliable, that we have the capacity to accurately understand nature, etc. Those are all presuppositions that are simply assumed, and yet are necessary for the reliability of the enterprise of science. Additionally these are all things that make perfect sense if there is an orderly Creator who created an orderly creation, within which are beings made in His image and are therefore able to sense and comprehend His creation, and yet naturalism has no explaination of why would could trust any of these things if we're all just matter in motion, physically projected by some mechanism of universal expansion.

 

Further, every hypothesis rests upon the shoulders of a world of previously confirmed hypotheses. You don't test everything every time you test something.

 

Could you clarify what you mean please?

 

There is a difference between preconceived notions and knowledge building on itself.  A simple example is Galileo.  There was a preconceived notion in Christianity that the Earth was the center of all creation.  Galileo pointed his telescope to the sky and noticed that there were some bodies that orbited a non-Earth object.  We built on Galileo's observations and did away with the preconceived notion.  Hope that clarifies it some for you.

 

 

I don't understand how your example demonstrates the harm of those preconceived notions. What about the alpha character introduced to your equation demonstrates an injuirous preconception?

 

Further, I don't understand how you deal with those preconceived notions upon which science is based, if such notions are so damaging to the enterprise of science. What about the preconception that our minds are capable of understanding patterns, or that natural laws will continue to be uniform? If preconceptions are so damaging to science what do we do about those preconceptions that, without which, there would be no science?

 

Finally, I think it's worth noting that geocentrism didn't find its origins in Christianity - it came from Greek naturalism. Funny how that example is always chalked up to an error on the part of Christianity just because the church made the mistake of uncritically accepting 'the science'. If it's a lesson in what we should more critical of, it wouldn't be God's word but man's.

 

 Excellent point!!