Quote:
If you meant to say the Big Bang - not the Universe - it is true there is no known natural cause. That is hardly evidence for God.
It is presenting God as the best possible explanation, and in fact the only currently plausible explanation,
Quote:
No, Jl. It clearly indicates that morality is learned - your own words. There are many things "taught everywhere with remarkable consistency". No one claims them to be evidence for God.
Actually, it has been used as evidence for God for a long, long time. It's called the moral argument.
Quote:
I'll pass over the insult. Your conclusion that gravity is evidence for God makes me start to think you don't really understand what evidence is. No insult intended. Simply because a thing may not be understood does not mean it is evidence for God. History is filled with natural events being thought to be evidence for God until science came along and proved the actual causes.
It was not an insult but rather an observation. Actually, the data for gravity is very well understood and it is that data that tells us that the fine tuning is incredible as the material I posted at the bottom of the page clearly showed.
Quote:
I hesitate to challenge this because I don't want to get into Bible Bingo. Tell you what - if you can show evidence for the Resurrection that we can check and verify, I'll consider it. To head you off at the pass, quoting Paul, Luke, Matthew, or your friend at Church or paraclete or the Pope as evidence is simply their belief, what they believe, - not evidence.
Well, it does begin with what is historically valid evidence, and that is eye witness testimony from hundreds of individuals. Then there is the willingness of those witnesses to suffer greatly and, in fact, die in defense of it. There is the changing of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday which for Jews would have been unthinkable. The extra-biblical evidence is very strong including Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and others. The incredibly rapid spread of the Christian faith, against great opposition and including great persecution of those who believed, with not one shred of military operations to support it, is great evidence.
Quote:
You mean the Big Bang - not the Universe. (Cleared up earlier). That's not what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says. In plain language, it says the Universe has a tendency to disorder (entropy) losing complexity leading ultimately to particles separating. This leads to lack of motion, therefore lack of friction, and therefore lack of heat. A universe without heat or motion is a dead Universe. How you get God from this is a mystery. As to the Universe having a cause, it therefore has a God is speculation, not evidence - and bad logic.
For something to wind down, it must at first been wound up. That is presently characterized as the Big Bang. The point is that the universe is not a repeating cycle.
Quote:
Once again, your lack of knowledge displays itself. Always the insult.
Again, not an insult so much as an observation.
Quote:
No one familiar with the complexity of even the most "simple" living organism would make such an absurd comment. My "absurd" comment was that you make statements and call them evidence even tho you present no evidence. I called such statements non-sequiturs.
My comment about life was not an observation. It is empirically demonstrable.
Quote:
Your comment about Dr. Jastrow, "exhibits an odd lack of knowledge for a scientist in his own field," is so funny that it's hard to describe it. He had a doctorate in theoretical physics from Columbia, established the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and was the director of the Mt. Wilson Observatory.
I'm glad you're amused. (Note insult from Jl). I'm aware of his CV - very impressive. He's not infallible.
There is no point in your continued whining. You have no substantial science background, and yet you decided that Jastrow had an "odd lack of knowledge". It was, for you, a regrettable statement.
Quote:
So for you to question his knowledge is the absolute height of arrogance.
(Another insult).
If you don't want to wear it, then don't put it on.
Quote:
I have every right to question his knowledge when he offers such a non-sensical proposition. To repeat it, " That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” Let me ask you - Does that comment make any sense to you? Do you see the contradiction? At least he qualified it by "I think". At best, he was employing hyperbole. He never offered any evidence for his statement (I looked).
Semi-fair point except that he was using a great deal of evidence to make his point. Perhaps you should have qualified your statement by "I think".
Quote:
If you reply to this, please hold the insults and address each point.
Like you did when you said, "Wow - Mr. Nasty raises his nasty head?"
