Anonymous wrote:how stupid. 19 pages of this? clearly there is no proof of God, nor is there proof of no god.

either you have faith or you do not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.

I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.

I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."

That's interesting. My father and I are very close. He was diagnosed with a terribly aggressive and deadly form of cancer. I didn't ask anyone to pray for him and I said no prayers. My mother, though, told me I didn't really love or care about him if I wasn't praying for his full recovery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.

The way I think about it is this: Suppose the only thing that exists, pre-universe, is the possibility of a universe. Let's say that there is a 1 in infinity minus one chance that there will be a universe. Fortunately, there are infinite opportunities for a universe to happen, so a universe happens. (This all takes place when there's no time either, but let's not try to bend our mind around that.) Let's say that unlike our universe, the universe that happens is one in which fundamental truths about our universe to not hold true. Instead of E = MC^2, for example let’s say in this universe E=MC^3. I have no idea what that would specifically mean, but I understand it that fundamentally messing with the laws of the universe would make it unstable, in which case it collapses on itself we’re back to the no universe state with nothing but the possibility of another universe. But again, we have infinite chances, so another universe inevitably happens. Maybe that’s our universe, or maybe it takes infinity minus one tries to get to our universe, but eventually you get a stable universe, and here we are.

So that gets rid of the design argument.

this is so stupid. E=mc^3 isn't even dimensionally correct. What idiocy! And the odds calculation reminds me of the high school teacher who said the odds that the LHC would create a black hole that devours the universe is 50/50. What an uninformed attempt at a calculation of odd!

What are you, a lawyer or something?

Not the PP, but...in a thread suffused with sophistry and sloppy logic, way to nit-pick there. My guess is that you're a theist, but probably have a science background, and are dismayed at the arguments your side's offered up, so you thought you'd take out your frustrations on PP.

Anyway, it was pretty damned obvious what the point was: a universe where the Planck constant was 7.5 might not be a viable one. No reason to get worked up over what was actually a valid point. I'm guessing you have no response to the actual point made, though, otherwise you'd have made it by now.

nope. not a theist. Just a science teacher who is horrified that somebody, trying to defend science or use science in an argument, would use something in his argument that you learn is stupid during the first day of class in any science course beyond the elementary level. I guess this person must have taken science at some point, or he wouldn't be so enamored of it. It is frustrating and an embarrassment to my profession that he learned so little. (I hope it is not a she!)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curiosity is what takes us further. We'd have made no strides in science and medicine without if. It's human nature, not proof of intelligent design. If anything, it points towards evolution.

Curiosity, asking why, is only found in intelligent, sentient creatures. For billions of years, there were only unintelligent, unconscious processes of matter, energy, motion, force. Yet, apparently, things continued to get more complex. At some moment, the formerly unintelligent became intelligent, became capable of self reflection, and asking why. How was there an utter lack of intelligence before, and pointless intelligence (there is no "why") now?

If there is one thing that science has learned during the last fifty years, it is that we are increasingly less unique in our cognitive abilities. We didn't recognize intelligence because we did not know how to understand behavior that was not represented in spoken English. Now, the more we study, the more we realize that "uniquely human" traits show up in more places in the animal kingdom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curiosity is what takes us further. We'd have made no strides in science and medicine without if. It's human nature, not proof of intelligent design. If anything, it points towards evolution.

Curiosity, asking why, is only found in intelligent, sentient creatures. For billions of years, there were only unintelligent, unconscious processes of matter, energy, motion, force. Yet, apparently, things continued to get more complex. At some moment, the formerly unintelligent became intelligent, became capable of self reflection, and asking why. How was there an utter lack of intelligence before, and pointless intelligence (there is no "why") now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curiosity is what takes us further. We'd have made no strides in science and medicine without if. It's human nature, not proof of intelligent design. If anything, it points towards evolution.

Curiosity, asking why, is only found in intelligent, sentient creatures. For billions of years, there were only unintelligent, unconscious processes of matter, energy, motion, force. Yet, apparently, things continued to get more complex. At some moment, the formerly unintelligent became intelligent, became capable of self reflection, and asking why. How was there an utter lack of intelligence before, and pointless intelligence (there is no "why") now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.

The way I think about it is this: Suppose the only thing that exists, pre-universe, is the possibility of a universe. Let's say that there is a 1 in infinity minus one chance that there will be a universe. Fortunately, there are infinite opportunities for a universe to happen, so a universe happens. (This all takes place when there's no time either, but let's not try to bend our mind around that.) Let's say that unlike our universe, the universe that happens is one in which fundamental truths about our universe to not hold true. Instead of E = MC^2, for example let’s say in this universe E=MC^3. I have no idea what that would specifically mean, but I understand it that fundamentally messing with the laws of the universe would make it unstable, in which case it collapses on itself we’re back to the no universe state with nothing but the possibility of another universe. But again, we have infinite chances, so another universe inevitably happens. Maybe that’s our universe, or maybe it takes infinity minus one tries to get to our universe, but eventually you get a stable universe, and here we are.

So that gets rid of the design argument.

this is so stupid. E=mc^3 isn't even dimensionally correct. What idiocy! And the odds calculation reminds me of the high school teacher who said the odds that the LHC would create a black hole that devours the universe is 50/50. What an uninformed attempt at a calculation of odd!

What are you, a lawyer or something?

Not the PP, but...in a thread suffused with sophistry and sloppy logic, way to nit-pick there. My guess is that you're a theist, but probably have a science background, and are dismayed at the arguments your side's offered up, so you thought you'd take out your frustrations on PP.

Anyway, it was pretty damned obvious what the point was: a universe where the Planck constant was 7.5 might not be a viable one. No reason to get worked up over what was actually a valid point. I'm guessing you have no response to the actual point made, though, otherwise you'd have made it by now.

nope. not a theist. Just a science teacher who is horrified that somebody, trying to defend science or use science in an argument, would use something in his argument that you learn is stupid during the first day of class in any science course beyond the elementary level. I guess this person must have taken science at some point, or he wouldn't be so enamored of it. It is frustrating and an embarrassment to my profession that he learned so little. (I hope it is not a she!)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curiosity is what takes us further. We'd have made no strides in science and medicine without if. It's human nature, not proof of intelligent design. If anything, it points towards evolution.

Curiosity, asking why, is only found in intelligent, sentient creatures. For billions of years, there were only unintelligent, unconscious processes of matter, energy, motion, force. Yet, apparently, things continued to get more complex. At some moment, the formerly unintelligent became intelligent, became capable of self reflection, and asking why. How was there an utter lack of intelligence before, and pointless intelligence (there is no "why") now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.

The way I think about it is this: Suppose the only thing that exists, pre-universe, is the possibility of a universe. Let's say that there is a 1 in infinity minus one chance that there will be a universe. Fortunately, there are infinite opportunities for a universe to happen, so a universe happens. (This all takes place when there's no time either, but let's not try to bend our mind around that.) Let's say that unlike our universe, the universe that happens is one in which fundamental truths about our universe to not hold true. Instead of E = MC^2, for example let’s say in this universe E=MC^3. I have no idea what that would specifically mean, but I understand it that fundamentally messing with the laws of the universe would make it unstable, in which case it collapses on itself we’re back to the no universe state with nothing but the possibility of another universe. But again, we have infinite chances, so another universe inevitably happens. Maybe that’s our universe, or maybe it takes infinity minus one tries to get to our universe, but eventually you get a stable universe, and here we are.

So that gets rid of the design argument.

this is so stupid. E=mc^3 isn't even dimensionally correct. What idiocy! And the odds calculation reminds me of the high school teacher who said the odds that the LHC would create a black hole that devours the universe is 50/50. What an uninformed attempt at a calculation of odd!

What are you, a lawyer or something?

Not the PP, but...in a thread suffused with sophistry and sloppy logic, way to nit-pick there. My guess is that you're a theist, but probably have a science background, and are dismayed at the arguments your side's offered up, so you thought you'd take out your frustrations on PP.

Anyway, it was pretty damned obvious what the point was: a universe where the Planck constant was 7.5 might not be a viable one. No reason to get worked up over what was actually a valid point. I'm guessing you have no response to the actual point made, though, otherwise you'd have made it by now.

nope. not a theist. Just a science teacher who is horrified that somebody, trying to defend science or use science in an argument, would use something in his argument that you learn is stupid during the first day of class in any science course beyond the elementary level. I guess this person must have taken science at some point, or he wouldn't be so enamored of it. It is frustrating and an embarrassment to my profession that he learned so little. (I hope it is not a she!)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.

The way I think about it is this: Suppose the only thing that exists, pre-universe, is the possibility of a universe. Let's say that there is a 1 in infinity minus one chance that there will be a universe. Fortunately, there are infinite opportunities for a universe to happen, so a universe happens. (This all takes place when there's no time either, but let's not try to bend our mind around that.) Let's say that unlike our universe, the universe that happens is one in which fundamental truths about our universe to not hold true. Instead of E = MC^2, for example let’s say in this universe E=MC^3. I have no idea what that would specifically mean, but I understand it that fundamentally messing with the laws of the universe would make it unstable, in which case it collapses on itself we’re back to the no universe state with nothing but the possibility of another universe. But again, we have infinite chances, so another universe inevitably happens. Maybe that’s our universe, or maybe it takes infinity minus one tries to get to our universe, but eventually you get a stable universe, and here we are.

So that gets rid of the design argument.

this is so stupid. E=mc^3 isn't even dimensionally correct. What idiocy! And the odds calculation reminds me of the high school teacher who said the odds that the LHC would create a black hole that devours the universe is 50/50. What an uninformed attempt at a calculation of odd!

What are you, a lawyer or something?

Not the PP, but...in a thread suffused with sophistry and sloppy logic, way to nit-pick there. My guess is that you're a theist, but probably have a science background, and are dismayed at the arguments your side's offered up, so you thought you'd take out your frustrations on PP.

Anyway, it was pretty damned obvious what the point was: a universe where the Planck constant was 7.5 might not be a viable one. No reason to get worked up over what was actually a valid point. I'm guessing you have no response to the actual point made, though, otherwise you'd have made it by now.

Anonymous wrote:Curiosity is what takes us further. We'd have made no strides in science and medicine without if. It's human nature, not proof of intelligent design. If anything, it points towards evolution.