Here is Askegg's response with my comments (in red)
Get a grip on reality.
// July 19th, 2009 // Blog
Marcus McElhaney simply won’t give up, I guess because he assumes he’s right. He’s not.
In his latest rebuttal Marcus makes a number of statements displaying his ignorance and stupidity for the world to see. The first is a response to my explanation that the cosmological constants are a representation or reality, and that reality would simply be the way it is without any man made “laws” for it to follow:
I think that you are confusing “law” with “theory” A scientific law is based on models that not just describe realiity but predict reality! Things like the Gravitational Law and the Laws of Motion and Thermodynamics are really things I’d like to see you prove need changing. Now if you are referring to the Theory of Evolution, I agree with you. The theory will change when people wise up.
No Marcus – it is you who is confused, and given your statements about being “well educated in science” at the prestigious Berkeley University. Apparently you “2 degrees in Engineering and 1 degree in information technology.” I am stunned. What are they teaching you there?!
A scientific theory, as you should know, encompasses and explain multiple, observable, and verifiable facts. A scientific law does not include a model or explanation – it is simply an observation. Objects fall at a rate of 9.8 metres per second squared. This is the Law of Gravity. An Observation. It makes no mention of how gravity works (that would be a theory), or where it came from.
Laws of Physics are not simply observations. Look at Newtons 2nd Law of motion: Force is change of momentum over time or
OR what about Gauss' Law. It has a mathematical equation describing real life. We do have Newtons Law of gravitation (this is the law of gravity not that objects fall at 9.8 meters/second squared; this is an observation this number is relative to location and only good relatively close to the earth's surface):
These equations can be used to fairly accurately calculate all kinds of things. Like how the celestial bodies orbit one another and interact. If a sucker is spherically shaped I can do just about anything with it. By the way, I didn't define any of my variables in the above equations because anyone with even the rudimentary knowledge of Physics knows what they are. Do you even know how to use the above equations to show that acceleration close to the earth is about 9.i8 m/s^2. Surely you know what assumptions you can make and why, Andrew?
If you are going to malign my credentials you should provide your own, What have you got?
As for evolution, it is both a fact and a theory. We know life has changed over time – you just need to look at the fossil record to see that. How it has changed and why is explained by evolutionary theory, which is beyond the scope of this post. I recommend you pick up a copy of “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne and “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins (when it’s released), or many of the excellent web sites detailing the evidence (not the apologists who cling to their comforting delusions).
Well at least this time you provided a couple of books. However many scientists disagree for good reasons just like there are many who agree. Not all scholars who disagree with macro evolution are theists. They just don't see that there is enough evidence to accept macro evolution.
OK, let’s move on
No other religion, with the exceptions of Islam and Judaism say that the universe was created ex nihilo. They discount themselves.
Firstly, we have not yet shown that the universe was created ex nihilo – you are simply assuming that for the benefit of your theology. Secondly (assuming your statement is true for a moment), you have not satisfactory explained why Islam and Judaism have been ruled out. And lastly, you have not shown why the alternative option of an eternal universe is not possible (aside from saying “all scientists believe it started somewhere, so it must be true.”).
I never said that Islam or Judaism is ruled out when it come to discussing God creating the universe. I provided the evidence for how science shows the universe came out of nothing. Your post is supposed to be a rebuttal against the very man who is making such an assertion and you provide nothing as a rebuttal. Pathetic. Simply pathetic. Dr Hugh Ross covered the evidence for ex nihilo creation of the universe. Rebutt it if you can.
Let me give you a tip – when scientists say “the universe began with a big bang” is shorthand for “to the limits of our current ability, it seems the universe was once very small and condensed. We simply do not know what the universe was like beyond a certain limit except by extrapolating the mathematics towards the absolute values of zero and infinity.” It’s really not that hard to understand.
Who says I misunderstand. And that's a fine definition. It doesn't bother me at all. But that is what scientists are saying about the math pointing to the universe being out of nothing
When you look a the attributes of the universe, the creator must be omnipotent and omniscient in order to make it all work!
Why is it absolutely necessary for a creative force to be all powerful and all knowing? Surely being just powerful enough to create the universe and knowledgeable enough to design it would suffice? (although not so knowledgeable that he could predict the results of granting us “free will”). As complex as the universe is, I do not believe the very next step up must be the ultimate expression of power and complexity, so it seems you have some work ahead of you.
Can anyone propose a level of power and knowledge greater than what it takes to create the reality we experience? Such a creator would have to be all that. Again, you keep bringing up "free will" why? I've never said we had free will. If you truly had free will you could choose to obey everything in the Bible without failure. No one can so there is no free will.
And God care about all of his creation. (sic)
Simple question then – where did Hell come from if it were not from God? Remember, according to you bronze age mythology, there was nothing before God was bored on Monday morning.
Um the first day of the week is not Monday. God created Hell. I never said He did not. The question you need to ask is why people and demons are going to hell...they are going to hell because they do not want to be with God. They don't want to love or submit to him. God is just giving you what you want...and what you deserve. If you don't want to go to hell then repent and submit. It's really simple.
Christians do not believe that God cares only about humans and not the other parts of creation.
I know what you believe, I am asking why you believe it.
I believe it becasue the Bible says so and the way God has intervened in my personal life. He has shown me that He loves me and cares.
God demands worship not because of vanity but because He deserves it. No less. If you wrote a song or invented a car would you not deserve credit? God is responsible for our very existence, why would you not worship Him. To do otherwise is stupid.
I won’t torture you forever if you don’t like my song, or won’t drive my car. He deserves to be worshipped for threatening people in such ways? Your God is a monster. Thank goodness he does not exist.
It isn't a threat its a promise. When cancer cells attempt to kill a person, we kill those cells because they threaten healthy cells by their inability to do what they are supposed to do in the body. When a person is infected with a contagious disease, we quarantine them so that they don't infect others. That is what hell is like. We are the monsters not God. HE condescended so He could save us all though He knew some people would spit back in His Face.
You haven’t suggested an position equally tenable. You failed to do so. I only agree with you on one thing. The best Ross can argue is that there is a God who created everything.
Then you have not even listened to the lecture you sent me yourself. Numerous times Dr. Hugh Ross says these things prove the God of the Bible above all others. Now you are down playing the very people you send me who claim to have undeniable evidence of Yahweh.
Then why don't you believe Dr. Ross? I'm not down playing anything but explaining that God is ultimately know through personal relationship with Him. I agree with Ross there is plenty evidence for God's existence.
To get the God of the Bible you need revelation to know more of His character – what He is about. This what the Bible says:
Revelation is not something that can be reproduced, or verified. Only the person why has received revelation could claim divine intervention, and even then they cannot be sure they were not hallucinating, mistaken, or just plain crazy. When these apparent revelations are told to another person, they have no way of knowing if they are being lied to, or if the person genuinely believes what they are saying – and even if they do believe it it does not make it true. Many people swear black and blue they have seen Elvis, or UFO’s, or Michael Jackson in a tree stump, or the Virgin Mary in a pile of bird shit. Doesn’t make any of it true.
Revelation can be verified. Does it square with evidence. None of the Bible can be shown to be wrong or false. If it could be you would have done it by now. Appealing to hallucinations, and folk tales does not change the fact that you can't provide a single proof that none of the stories of the Bible are false only that you can't believe them.
No comments:
Post a Comment