Although, Andrew said that he will not responding to me again apparently he really likes me. My comments are in red. Here is part 6 from him.
Marcus misses the point (again)
// July 19th, 2009 // Blog
Well, Marcus has posted a “rebuttal” to my refutation of Dr. Ross’s horrible argument for the existence of the God of the Bible. I will try and keep comments in context, which is difficult at times due to the nature of these multi-threaded conversations. Let’s see what he has to say:
Andrew, I take this as a jab against the Bible. Why? Ross really didn’t bring up any story in the Bible that you reject aside from Genesis chapter 1. Ross’ point is that the universe is too complex and intricate to be developed by itself over billions of years. So are arguing with the fine-tuning or that it makes sense that all of it came out of no where on it’s own with everything lining up that we just happen to be the logical resort?
Actually I was not singling out the God of the Bible for special treatment here, but all Gods and deities that have ever existed through out human history. They are all bogus.
Second, just because some musty old book begins with “In the beginning” means nothing. We are not even sure there was a beginning to the universe. The 14.7 billion years since the big bang may not be the true age of the universe. We have no idea what the universe was like before the Planck length and may never know. To say a supernatural being spoke it into existence is a statement of pure faith.
Are you willing to say that the prevailing scientific understanding is that the universe is eternal? If you are, what are your sources?
As for the remainder of your points regarding the apparent “fine tuning” of the universe, I address these later. Perhaps you should actually read the entire article before shooting your mouth off?
How do you know that life on earth evolved? You assert this without any proof what so ever. We have nothing to do with keeping the universe together now. Ross was in no way arguing that the Universe needs us.
How do I know life on Earth evolved? Because of the massive amount of evidence there is to support it.
Who was saying the universe needs us? I was pointing out that for the overwhelming majority of time since the big bang (14.7 billion year) that universe did just perfectly fine without humans being present at all. When some religious nut job decides to bring about Armageddon with the technology science has delivered us, the universe will go back to existing just fine without us. Thanks for proving my point.
You misunderstood. I did to. We agree that the universe does not need us. You seemed to miss my whole point. God does have a purpose more than just our existence. I think that if there is someone who causes a nuclear war or a plague through bioengineering it will not be someone who is a Bible believing Christian.
I was hoping for better from you! Who says God has to have a creator? The universe – space and time – all have a beginning, which all scientists today agree (name one who does not) . We have no evidence that God had a beginning. God is infinite. Deal with it.
The argument from design makes the assumption that complexity requires a designer. If God is in the least bit complex then (by exactly the same argument) God must also be designed. The “fact” something had a beginning, or is infinite, is irrelevant.
It isn't irrelevant at all. If you could prove that the universe is eternal, then you prove that the Bible is wrong. You win and I will surrender. You won't prove it because the universe is not eternal.
If you simply assert that “God does not require creation” without providing some logical reason why, then I can simply assert that “the universe does not require creation”. Where does that get us? Now we seem to have two hypothesis of apparent equal value. How should we determine them apart? How can we decide which one is true, and which is not?
You can't assert that the universe does not require a creation because it does. It is not eternal. It has a beginning and an ending. If something has an end it has a beginning. Even reknowned atheists such as Christopher Hitchens agree that the universe is going to end according to the evidence. The means it's not eternal. Simple logic. God however has no ending or beginning. Do we have emprical and observable scientific proof of God's eternalness? None that I've seen. Do we have evidence that God is eternal? Yes. The fact that time exist at all shows that who ever made it is not bound by it.
I can already hear your rebuttal (pathetic as it is) – the universe had a beginning, therefore must have been created. Let me put aside the fact that no one knows the origins of the universe for now (least of all some ignorant, illiterate, desert dwelling, goat herders). It’s entirely possible the universe originated from an even greater multidimensional universe. Perhaps our reality is the echo or shadow of some greater physical reality? Perhaps the big bang is just a “local” event in an even more massive universe? There are a great many possible explanations one could put forward without ever invoking the supernatural.
All your conjecture does not change the fact that the universe is finite. Your ideas have no proof and I have heard all of these ideas before now. How do the author's of the Bible know the origins of the Universe? God told them. It's so simple.
The reason you have no evidence of God having a beginning is simple – you have no evidence of God at all. Oh, and simply stating “God is infinite” does not make it so.
In order for this argument to work, you would have prove such life exist. (referring to silicon based life)
For someone claiming to be a logical I am flabbergasted by this comment. Just what do you go around doing all day (besides posting junk on the internet?). Who the Hell employs you to be an Engineer or scientist, or whatever it the you do? Do they know what sort of pseudo scientific and illogical nonsense you spew? ‘Cause I’ll tell you now – if you worked for me I would fire you on the spot. Not because your a Christian. Not because your religious, or spiritual. Not because of your beliefs. But because you have demonstrated a complete lack in critical thinking skills, rational thinking, and reasoned conclusions. I would fire you because you could not be trusted to make realistic decisions based on the information in front of you.
Setting aside the unfounded personal attacks, it's hilarious that you make all these unkind and uneeded personal attacks and provide no evidence of other forms of life. I'm not saying that one day we won't find any such life all I pointed out is using the supposed existence of lifeforms that are not carbon-based to disprove God's is sily if you can't prove such life exists.
No one can claim complete and total knowledge (excluding your fantasy concept of God). You do not know for certain that Leprechauns do not exist, or that Martians are not controlling your brain waves from a secret base on the moon. It is not up to others to look under every four leaf clover and chase every rainbow to disprove Leprechauns, or forensically examine every square millimetre of Mars and the Moon to disprove your fantastic ideas. That’s not a productive use of time and anyone with a background in science (as you have claimed you have) would know this.
I'm not arguing or even care if Martians or Leprechauns exists. It's not the point. You said you wanted evidence that the Bible is true and I have provided it and you have not interacted with it. The point is you can't prove God does not exist or that the Bible is wrong. If it comes to either agreeing with you fantasies of macro evolution, and non-carbonbased life, I will follow the evidence that we do have and trust God.
As you yourself have said “any claim worth anything must stand on its own” (or words to that effect). Then you turn around and say something like this. You’re mentally ill. Seriously. Get some help.
Say something like what? I don't see a point being made.
No comments:
Post a Comment