PaulP
-
Posts
12 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by PaulP
-
-
1 hour ago, StringJunky said:
All timelines are arbitrary.since development is a continuum. Those definitions are usually legally defined based on medical consultation.
So you would agree with me when I said
Quote"Clearly you haven't a clue what an embryo is but thanks for sharing your totally unscientific, inaccurate view with everyone."
To someone who said this to me:
Quote"Straw-man. It is not a baby nor a proper developed embryo. People forget the abortion law is under extreme constraints. It is not about killing babies willy nilly as some people like you would like to posit. Straw-manning is all you are doing."
-3 -
When is it that an embryo is properly developed? And when it is properly developed is it then correct to call it a baby?
0 -
17 hours ago, JamesT said:
That argument seems to be, "This particular universe seems really unlikely, therefore God"
It is a failure to understand basic probability (which is sad from a mathematics professor) wrapped with an argument from ignorance. This argument is also refuted by the anthropic principle.
Vanishingly unlikely things happen every day. For example, what is the likelihood that any particular human being will be born? A particular sperm out of millions had to meet a particular egg under the right conditions, the parents had to meet, each parent was conceived by a particular sperm meeting a particular egg and so on...Yet human beings are born every day.
Can you show that the initial conditions used for the calculation represent reality or at least align with our current understanding of the universe? Also, are you just here to copy paste this quote? Lastly, if it were remotely true, wouldn't mathematicians and physicists seeing this convert or at least be more religious than currently is the case?
"There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe. One such method is the use of mathematics."
Despite claims, that's not evidence. That's some words you can write on a piece of paper -- meanwhile, the Higg's Boson wasn't proven until someone found it.
"And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. Deliberate action requires a conscious creator."
Or, you don't understand the physics you're trying to describe.
Some pathetic attempt at trying to poke holes in Penrose & Lennox and my responses.
That argument seems to be, "This particular universe seems really unlikely, therefore God". It is a failure to understand basic probability (which is sad from a mathematics professor) wrapped with an argument from ignorance. This argument is also refuted by the anthropic principle.
To all of you on here, it isn't a failure to understand basic probability. You're all failing to understand the gravity of the probability. Ironically, it is you that exhibits ignorance by criticizing the argument as being ignorant when you don't fully understand it.
Perhaps you should do some research surrounding it so you can have a more informed conclusion about it.
And no, the argument isn't refuted by the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is a philisophical consideration and nothing more, and it requires numerous prerequisites to use.
If you're going to cite principals, at least know what they are.
***
Vanishingly unlikely things happen every day. For example, what is the likelihood that any particular human being will be born? A particular sperm out of millions had to meet a particular egg under the right conditions, the parents had to meet, each parent was conceived by a particular sperm meeting a particular egg and so on...Yet human beings are born every day.
* Our chances of existing are, essentially, impossible without a creator.
* And you can't equate unlikely things happening every day in our universe to an unlikely event that, technically, occurred outside of our universe.
* And I'm quite aware of the probability of our chances of being born. But that is a flawed comparison. While our chances of us, as individual persons, being born are slim, the chances of a human being born in general aren't so slim because of those millions of sperm racing to meet the egg.
Despite claims, that's not evidence. That's some words you can write on a piece of paper -- meanwhile, the Higg's Boson wasn't proven until someone found it.
* And mathematics is evidence. It is called circumstantial evidence. It is the same type of evidence the Big Bang relies on. There is no empirical evidence of the Big Bang.
Or, you don't understand the physics you're trying to describe.”
And I very much understand the physics. **You just refuse to be receptive to the logic because it contradicts your subjective reality.**
***
Can you show that the initial conditions used for the calculation represent reality or at least align with our current understanding of the universe? Also, are you just here to copy paste this quote?
And of course the initial conditions used for the calculation represent our current understanding of the universe. Take for example the ratio between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. If such a ratio was changed by the tinest of the tinest of a fraction, we would cease to exist. This condition had to be met in order for us to exist. But the probability of that specific condition alone is staggering.
Lastly, if it were remotely true, wouldn't mathematicians and physicists seeing this convert or at least be more religious than currently is the case?
* Finally, what makes you think mathematicians and physicists aren't religious or don't believe in a higher power?
* Have you asked every single one on the planet whether or not they believe in creationism?
You're trying to infer their beliefs on the basis of their profession, which is ignorant.
Quite frankly, there have been many that have come forward and said they do believe in some form of a higher power.
Many identify themselves as Deists. If you don't know what that is, a 5-second Google query will tell you what you need to know.
***
Conclusion:
Anyway, there is no sense in debating this. You won't be receptive or open to the possibility of a higher power because it contradicts your inner-model of reality. And quite frankly, I work and have other obligations that call my attention to the real world. I'll be stopping notifications for this thread. Have a nice day.
13 hours ago, John Cuthber said:That someone is John Lennox.
Citing from wikipedia means nothing. Even if he is an atheist the argument is still sound.-6 -
There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe.
One such method is the use of mathematics. Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox quotes renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:
Quote“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe.
Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit.
But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”
Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:
Quote“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”
As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”
And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. **Deliberate action requires a conscious creator.**
0 -
So if science is 'demonstrable', can you prove and test before me transpeciation/macroevolution?
0 -
I'm so sorry for all of you people. I am praying for each one of you that the Lord would reveal His Truth to you. There is a God who created you and has an inifite love and joy beyond what we can imagine. I have that joy... Nothing would make me happier than for you to experience it too.
I cannot prove the existence of God to you. I cannot prove Him to anyone. Only God Himself can prove Himself to you - that is how someone believes in His existence and trusts in Him.
It is a basic fundamental idea - we haven't seen God, so we need faith to believe in Him.
We haven't seen the creation of the universe, the stars, the galaxies, the back holes, and everything else - so we are using faith in scientific experimentation to believe what could have happened.-6 -
55 minutes ago, Strange said:
We are observing it now. And we do know with a high degree of accuracy.
We cannot know 100%, certainly. But it doesn't require "faith" to accept the evidence.Before I go because I have had enough with this.
Let me ask you - did you witness the singularity become the observable universe? No one was around to witness such events. Faith is the belief in something you cannot see or prove.
****
Even a court of law, decisions are made based on evidence - but even with whatever evidence - unless the crime was observed can you say with 100% certainty and no doubt whatsoever that it did in fact (or not) happen?
Can you claim something to be completely true even if you have no way of going back in time to see it happen? What does this require? - Faith.
You have to possess faith to believe what you do about the universe - you cannot tell me with 100% certainty.
Can you prove to me this is how everything began with 100% confidence? And I'd be interested in seeing this evidence you speak of.
AND TO YOU JAMEST,
Of course, science claims that star formation takes longer than human lifetimes.
But even though we are still observing them in different "phases" of formation, we haven't observed it directly from start to finish - again, faith and inferences being made.
Mitosis has many different phases, yet we have fully observed the entire process from start to finish. Star formation, not really.-5 -
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:
Evidence...
-
We've actually tested the Big Bang??
-
They've created galaxies and nebulae inside of science laboratories?
-
Has science allowed us to witness the creation of a star before our eyes?
-
Has science allowed us to watch the formation of another galaxy?
You're trying to claim absolute truth on something that occurred so far in the past.
No one observed it, no one recorded it - so even if you conduct millions of experiments and attempt to try to figure it out - you have to admit we'll never know.
We cannot know 100% - it requires a degree of "faith" to believe in that part of science.
-1 -
-
16 hours ago, zapatos said:
Given your position, there is not really much to discuss here. But thanks for sharing.
What do you mean? I can't bring myself to believe it came from nothing by pure chance. It's you who believes it came about by pure chance.
Why would you believe everything came from a singularity that existed in a "nothingness" yet you can't believe that a supreme God was in full control and created all?
What is the difference between the singularity and God to you people?-2 -
Secular scientists need faith to believe how it began.
Us creationists need faith to believe how it began.
No one was there, so whether you believe in the Bible or the "Big Bang", it is impossible to know or prove.
Both require faith - one is scientific faith and the other is spiritual faith.
**********
Whether I believe in God or I believe in science, what's the difference?
Both require FAITH - science helps to explain what COULD HAVE happened, but no one was around to witness such events.
The Bible helps to explain what happened (to me, not to you of course) - but it also requires FAITH.
Faith is the belief in something you cannot see or prove.
I cannot prove to you God is real just as you cannot prove to me the actual processes that led to the formation of the observable universe.-3 -
I know all about your Big Bang theories, your evolutionary concepts, your philosophies how a God couldn't possibly exist, your statistics showing how everything came to be by pure chance, etc.
And if the universe did not come about by pure chance - what did happen? Perhaps a better question would be 'who' did it?
***********
I just choose to refuse to accept this information. I NEED FAITH. Faith is the only way I can believe it to be true. Nothing can change my worldview and my faith I have in Jesus Christ.
The faith you possess to believe how processes like evolution and the Big Bang actually occurred matches the faith I have that my God created everything in existence.
The faith you have to believe in the occurrence of the Big Bang and transpeciation is the same faith you have that the chair you're sitting in will hold you, that the building you're in will not collapse on you, that the planet you're on will not disintegrate.
**********
Unless you can construct a time machine and go back to the "very beginning", your faith in scientific explanations will be no different from my faith in Biblical interpretations.
So explain to me how you'll be 100% confident in the formation of the universe once you board a time machine and travel back to the beginning.
-3
The guy just does not get it.
in Anatomy, Physiology and Neuroscience
Posted
Me:
Anonymous Guy:
Me:
Anonymous Guy:
Me:
Anonymous Guy:
The guy just does not get it.