1. Subscribersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    12632
    12 Oct '21 13:331 edit
    @avalanchethecat
    You are insistent in regarding this position as rendering the universe inscrutable, or revealing a lack of curiosity and inquiry.


    I have no position that the universe is "inscutable".
    I agree with Einstein's amazement that the universe is comprehendable.

    "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible" from "Physics and Reality"(1936), in Ideas and Opinions, trans. Sonja Bargmann (New York: Bonanza, 1954), p292.

    I think we are reading OUT of nature the LOGIC that was put INTO nature by an intelligent Mind.

    My suspicion is that the more we find out the more we will realize what we don't know. But that is not an inscrutable universe. That is just an infinitely challenging one to the limited mind FROM an unlimited Creator's mind.

    Same man, Albert Einstein - "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call my self a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That , it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

    Now I know he had no concept of a personal God. But he believed in a creating and intelligent non-personal God.

    "I want to know how God created this world .. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Quoted in Timothy Ferris, Coming of Age in the Milky Way, (New York, Morrow, 1988), 177.

    Science flourished in the Judeo-Christian West rather than other parts of the world. We have to include Islamic theism as also fertile ground for the science enterprise to advance. That is not to say China also saw significant science advancements. So I am not saying by any means that pre-Judeo-Christian culture had no science advancement.

    Empirical science developed in the Christian Europe. It is absurd to argue that monotheism stifled Newton or Galileo. I think Newton wrote more about theology then he did about mathematics.

    I believe that technology is reading OUT of nature the logic imbedded in nature by a logical mind. I don't think the appearance of design for a purpose is an illusion. I don't think a pseudo Buddhist view of the world being an illusion transfers well to modern attitudes of some atheists like biologist Richard Dawkins that there is only an illusory appearance of design for a purpose in biology.

    In the biological world as well as non-biological world I see design for purpose. And man's ability to channel some of those designs enables technology to utilize these relationships for inventions of all kinds.

    Our discovery reflects the logical mind behind the creation of the laws of nature.


    It is, in fact and of course, quite the contrary.


    I don't own your presupposition that I believe in an inscrutable universe.



    Why would the religious mind search for laws of nature, you already know that your god made everything, why then seek the principles of the universe, it's written in your book that you can't comprehend the mind of god.


    The "religious mind" may mean something to you which I would say is limiting.
    Albert Einstein we might say was not very religious. But he was extremely curious and wanted to know God's thoughts as far as how the cosmos work.

    And the list of scientists I gave above seemed not to have their curiosity dulled though they had deistic or theistic beliefs.

    I think you should get familiar with Dr. James Tour and see some of the nano technology inventions he has had patented. He is a Christian theist. It hasn't dulled his inventive mind to invent nano technological devices.

    Nanotech and Jesus Christ - James Tour at Georgia Tech

    YouTube&t=1s
  2. Subscribersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    12632
    12 Oct '21 13:561 edit
    This is not Christian video.
    This is not a theistic lecture.

    But it is well worth watching to stimulate contemplation.
    Where did this number come from ?

    Why Is The Universe Perfect?

    YouTube

    Once again this is not a religious or faith based video.
    Don't blame Christians for the title of the video.

    It is about WHERE did the constants of the universe come from.
    Constants built into the fabric of the universe have to cause one to ask not only HOW we are here but WHY.
  3. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    The Flat Earth
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14776
    12 Oct '21 15:311 edit
    @sonship said
    @avalanchethecat
    You are insistent in regarding this position as rendering the universe inscrutable, or revealing a lack of curiosity and inquiry.


    I have no position that the universe is "inscutable".
    I agree with Einstein's amazement that the universe is comprehendable.

    [i] "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is co ...[text shortened]... sus Christ - James Tour at Georgia Tech

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZrxTH-UUdI&t=1s
    This is all irrelevant to the point under discussion. You don't seem to be able to grasp that the universe MUST be amenable to our evolution.
  4. Subscribersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    12632
    12 Oct '21 20:564 edits
    @avalanchethecat

    This is all irrelevant to the point under discussion. You don't seem to be able to grasp that the universe MUST be amenable to our evolution.


    That's your religion speaking.

    You see, ultimately we both have a faith a trust in something / Someone. And we look at the available evidence through our respective final belief perspectives.

    The difference between us is that I am write willing to say up front that I have one. You think you have something different. But you have a secular religion. That's all.

    So even IF your evolution on a chemical and macro level took place, we would still have to count that as a miracle.

    What do you imagine was the universe's very first instance of natural selection?
  5. Subscribersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    12632
    12 Oct '21 21:081 edit
    You don't seem to be able to grasp that the universe MUST be amenable to our evolution.


    Does that mean that if the clock of time could be wound back to the big bang, given eons and billions of new years the result would be exactly the same as we see today ?

    Since it is so much dependent on chance why wouldn't the outcome, given it could all happen again, be completely different ?
  6. Subscribersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    12632
    12 Oct '21 23:061 edit
    James Tour is a Nanotechnology inventor.
    He has many patents to his credit.

    Here he speaks to the issue -

    Nanotechnology, Life’s Origin and Evolution: Facts vs. Conjecture

    YouTube
  7. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    The Flat Earth
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14776
    13 Oct '21 06:00
    @sonship said
    @avalanchethecat

    This is all irrelevant to the point under discussion. You don't seem to be able to grasp that the universe MUST be amenable to our evolution.


    That's your religion speaking.

    You see, ultimately we both have a faith a trust in something / Someone. And we look at the available evidence through our respective final belief p ...[text shortened]... as a miracle.

    What do you imagine was the universe's very first instance of natural selection?
    No. Just logic.
  8. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    36409
    13 Oct '21 09:341 edit
    @sonship said
    Here is an interesting (to me) interview with Eric Metaxas from (Socrates in the City). He discusses with an interview book Is Atheism Dead.

    He stresses recent scientific and archeological findings.

    The Big Bang.
    Fine Tuning of universal constants.
    He discusses discovery of Sodom.
    Is faith at odds with science and logic?
    Resistance to evid ...[text shortened]... Metaxas Interview - The Becket Cook Show Ep. 46

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSY1_WIqoqA
    It's always been dead.

    There's nowhere to go with it.

    No faith, no hope. There's just no up side to it.

    It may be having a current growth in popularity, but to what end?

    Science and logic are available to believers, so that's not really an answer.
  9. Subscribersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    12632
    13 Oct '21 11:391 edit
    @avalanchethecat

    No. Just logic.


    Is an ultimate uncaused Supreme Cause of all things not logical ?
    Why if so?

    Why do you exclude the possibility of God altogether then in your logic ?

    Why for you does "logic" by default not consider the possibility of a supreme authority , a supreme ground of all being?

    By the way, the video I recommended which was not by theists or Christians I thought is excellent. I don't believe you would find it offensive but well done for thought provoking.
  10. Subscribersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    12632
    13 Oct '21 11:552 edits
    @medullah

    Anecdotally I think that have met more people of late who don't believe, with the main reason given that they cant believe that if there is a God who cares that he would stand by while all the terrible things that are happening in the world are.

    I understand the sentiments, but don't concur.


    I certainly understand and sympathize with the sentiment.
    I am human and can have it also.

    But I notice the Bible is a linear journey. And though the path is long it ends in a total, complete universal vanquishing of all death, sorrow, evil, curse, wars, scarcity, defeat of love but an eternal triumph of truth, beauty, and everlasting life.

    When you take a journey it is good to keep your eyes the destination.

    I recommend to people to first read the final two chapters Revelation - Revelation 21 and 22 whether or not they understand all things written there. Get a firm grasp of the culmination. Get a grip on where everything in the universe and history is moving TOWARDS regardless of the roadblocks along the way.

    Then go back to the beginning in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible. You just remember the final climax. You just remind yourself - EVERYTHING that happens is moving the story towards that final climactic destination of Revelation 21 and 22.

    The Bible is not arbitrary in its contents.
    It is not a scape book of miscellaneous, disjointed, unrelated patches of stuff,
    There is a linear progression toward a universal triumph over sin and death.
    There us a ultimate culmination of Divine will over the tragedy of rebellion against
    God.

    This definitely helps me and furnishes me with strength to withstand the roadblocks of discouragement that the Bible is realistic and candid about their existence.
    I recommend
  11. Subscribersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    12632
    13 Oct '21 12:023 edits
    @BigDogg

    Are the known constants of physics 'tunable' in the first place? If so, how does the 'tuning' happen?


    HOW is a good question.
    I don't see anyway around the HOW Includes someone's knowledgeable and wise designing. SOMEONE!
    That there are many such finely calibrated constants is a fact.
    It has many minds perplexed and astounded.

    One agnostic said it seems a super intellect has monkeyed with them.

    How did this happen is a good question.
    I believe I know.

    Whether we believe we know or not it is better to recognize they exist imo.
    Apathy to me suggests something else may be being avoided by the one suggesting "Yawn. So what ?"
  12. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    The Flat Earth
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14776
    13 Oct '21 15:33
    @sonship said
    @avalanchethecat

    No. Just logic.


    Is an ultimate uncaused Supreme Cause of all things not logical ?
    Why if so?

    Why do you exclude the possibility of God altogether then in your logic ?

    Why for you does "logic" by default not consider the possibility of a supreme authority , a supreme ground of all being?

    By the way, the vid ...[text shortened]... ought is excellent. I don't believe you would find it offensive but well done for thought provoking.
    I don't exclude the possibility of a creator, and I haven't done so at any point during this conversation.
  13. Subscribersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    12632
    13 Oct '21 15:58
    @avalanchethecat

    Okay.

    It seems that "logic" was used by you to of course exclude the possibility of God.

    You know design inference is something that readily is employed in such fields as
    archeology, forensic science, intellectual property law, insurance fraud detection, cryptology, search for extra terrestrial intelligence, and random number generation.

    There exist empirical methods for eliminating alternative explanations and detection of intelligent agency in these fields. These methods can be rigorous.

    Shall we talk about the more rigorous methods used to detect ID ?
    There is something called an "explanatory filter" which examines the criteria for
    inferring intelligent agency was the producer of something.

    The "explanatory filter" can be used in ascertaining the bet explanation for the existence of human beings in this universe.
  14. Subscribersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    12632
    13 Oct '21 16:102 edits
    @avalanchethecat said
    I don't exclude the possibility of a creator, and I haven't done so at any point during this conversation.
    Some people believe that there are "laws of logic".

    Let me ask you a curious question. Do you believe that laws require a legislator?

    Or do you believe that laws can simply be - having no origin and being eternally existent?

    I lean towards believing that there probably are laws of logic.
    What I wrestle with philosophically is whether mind preceded laws of logic or did laws of logic precede mind.

    Do you have any thoughts on that matter?
  15. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    The Flat Earth
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14776
    13 Oct '21 16:37
    @sonship said
    @avalanchethecat

    Okay.

    It seems that "logic" was used by you to of course exclude the possibility of God.

    You know design inference is something that readily is employed in such fields as
    archeology, forensic science, intellectual property law, insurance fraud detection, cryptology, search for extra terrestrial intelligence, and random number generation.

    ...[text shortened]... can be used in ascertaining the bet explanation for the existence of human beings in this universe.
    I specifically stated that I have no idea whether the universe was created or whether it is all a sequence of happy accidents. I was just pointing out that logically, the fine-tuning of the universe is a non-starter as a position to argue from.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree