• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

God is the answer; here are the questions

RAMOSS said:
That also could be true. That is why I am trying to get clarification.
Click to expand...

It's neither here nor there. Metanarratives add nothing to the discussion, which is why I don't care to indulge in them.
 
the_recruit said:
Well, no. There are scientific explanations for the 'fine-tuning problem'. The question itself closely mirrors the 'fine-tuning problem' of conditions on earth. Why does the earth happen to have just the right size, temperature, atmosphere, chemical composition for existence of life? If the earth had just been a smidge closer or further from the sun, no life would be possible. What a miracle! Surely this couldn't happen by chance. Right? :roll:

That 'fine-tuning' seems to you to point toward God moreso than the other perfectly plausible scientific explanations (eg multiverse) that fit nicely within (and is even predicted by) the rest of our understanding of the universe (eg inflationary theory) is just textbook confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

How many other places in the universe has this happened that we actually know about?
 
Goshin said:
Many recent scientific discoveries have led to speculative statements such as "the universe is a simulation" or otherwise an artifact or construct. Findings on certain universal constants have provoked wonder, as they turn out to be exactly what was necessary to have a universe in which life as we know it was possible, and yet there is no evidence to believe that random forces would have preferred such constants... indeed evidence suggests the odds were against it.

Interesting (but not surprising) that more knowledge of the fundamental nature of the universe strongly suggest it isn't as it is by random chance.
Click to expand...

Physics professor tells students scientific evidence points to a ‘designer' - The College Fix

I just found this article.
I thought it was interesting.

The finding of higgs has put the brakes on other scientific theories of how the universe came into existence.

The one thing about God is that he is always correct and he is never wrong.
the universe exists because he willed and spoke it into action.

It isn't like Strauss is some off the beaten path physicist either he is a highly respected scientist in this field.
you don't get access to the CERN collider for no reason.
 
the_recruit said:
Well, no. There are scientific explanations for the 'fine-tuning problem'. The question itself closely mirrors the 'fine-tuning problem' of conditions on earth. Why does the earth happen to have just the right size, temperature, atmosphere, chemical composition for existence of life? If the earth had just been a smidge closer or further from the sun, no life would be possible. What a miracle! Surely this couldn't happen by chance. Right? :roll:

That 'fine-tuning' seems to you to point toward God moreso than the other perfectly plausible scientific explanations (eg multiverse) that fit nicely within (and is even predicted by) the rest of our understanding of the universe (eg inflationary theory) is just textbook confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

the problem exists is that science simply cannot explain it. it has no answer for it.

Even the most notable of scientists from Rodger Penrose to hawking himself has stated that the big bang as it was theorized was not possible.
that it doesn't meet the needed criteria that makes it remotely scientific.

The entropy odds of the big bang are so out there in left field that they are out there.
Hawking even calculated in his early work (now supported by higgs).

from a brief history in time.

"Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size."

While hawking would later claim that this was a mistake, higgs bosen would prove him to be correct in his original statement.

Universe Shouldn't Be Here, According to Higgs Physics

Penrose would join Hawkings initial assessments when he estimated the entropy levels of the big bang. This findings were thus.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1

But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^123 zeros.

In practical terms, in probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the “accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility

Penrose would comment on his findings.

"This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10^123rd power. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10^123 successive 0's." Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

This is just the creation of the universe. the entropy odds of life randomly occurring are just as insane.
 
I'm skeptical of scientific and rationalist efforts to perceive the creator and/or the metaphysical. I've increasingly come to believe that it is something that is experiential.
 
it's just me said:
Ran across this while perusing C.B. Moss' book, "The Christian Faith". Scientism cannot answer these questions.

3. God is the Best Answer to Four Questions

He is therefore aware of four questions, to each of which God is the true answer.

a) The Problem of Nature – The first is the question, Why was the universe made, and
what is its purpose? The universe shows, as we shall see, many signs of having been
made by design and with very great skill, which seems to show that it was made by
Someone, and that He had a reason for making it.

b) The Problem of Mind – The second is the question, What is the conscious self? We
know of no other self-conscious beings in the whole vast universe of which natural
science tells us. Are we to believe that the human race is a mere accident in a material
universe, or that the universe itself has behind it a Person like, but infinitely greater than,
human beings?

c) The Problem of Conscience – The third is the question, What is the meaning of the
difference, which we all feel, between right and wrong? Every human being possesses
this power to distinguish between right and wrong, which we call the conscience; and it
does not correspond to anything else in nature. Do the words "I ought" belong to
something universal, or are they merely an accidental result of the development of life in
this planet?

d) The Problem of Beauty – The fourth is the question, What is meant by beauty? Is
beauty merely something that gives pleasure to a particular person, or is it a permanent
principle corresponding to something in the nature of the universe?

The right answer to these questions is:

a) God made the universe, for His own glory.

b) God has made us self-conscious beings after His own likeness; man is the crown of
creation.

c) God has made us capable of knowing His will by means of our conscience, or sense of
duty.

d) God is eternal and perfect beauty, and whatever is beautiful is a means by which He
displays His beauty.

Yes, I have heard many alleged "explanations" for nature, consciousness, conscience, and fewer for beauty, but none of them are definitive, no more definitive than the religious explanations. For example, many believe that the universe has always been here or if it did appear suddenly it was purely coincidence, with no cause or purpose. In that universe elements came together accidentally and formed living things, some of which are capable of consciousness and some are not. (It's funny that some would call human beings "animals" leaving out the part that even the most savage among us recognize that there is such a thing as right and wrong, while animals do not have this capacity.)

The question of beauty is the one that really struck me - who has not seen the milky way in a sky not polluted by city light and marveled at the beauty of it?
Click to expand...

god is the easy answer that you want to hear
 
RAMOSS said:
How does this actually explain anything? This seems to be the classic argument from ignorance , also known as 'argument from personal belief'. It poses questions that several of them are meanlingless and calls them 'problems', and the jumps to the conclusion of 'God did it'. This kind of metaphysics, where an answer is assumed, and questions are worked backwards to reach that conclusion is horrible philosophy, and even worse theology.
Click to expand...

"even worse theology" carries with it the implication that there is such a thing as 'good theology', a notion that I would dispute.
 
ludin said:
the problem exists is that science simply cannot explain it. it has no answer for it.

Even the most notable of scientists from Rodger Penrose to hawking himself has stated that the big bang as it was theorized was not possible.
that it doesn't meet the needed criteria that makes it remotely scientific.

The entropy odds of the big bang are so out there in left field that they are out there.
Hawking even calculated in his early work (now supported by higgs).

from a brief history in time.

"Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size."

While hawking would later claim that this was a mistake, higgs bosen would prove him to be correct in his original statement.

Universe Shouldn't Be Here, According to Higgs Physics

Penrose would join Hawkings initial assessments when he estimated the entropy levels of the big bang. This findings were thus.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1

But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^123 zeros.

In practical terms, in probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the “accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility

Penrose would comment on his findings.

"This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10^123rd power. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10^123 successive 0's." Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

This is just the creation of the universe. the entropy odds of life randomly occurring are just as insane.
Click to expand...

wait if the universe can bang into existence on its own even if it collapses back in on itself cant that just happen over and over till one that stays for a while emerges? anything above zero seems posble if you have no limit on the time you can try for it
 
blarg said:
wait if the universe can bang into existence on its own even if it collapses back in on itself cant that just happen over and over till one that stays for a while emerges? anything above zero seems posble if you have no limit on the time you can try for it
Click to expand...

the resulting energy would be spent or dispersed. the constantly exploding big bang runs into the same issue only this time according to the theories on this.
it would have to contend with gravity etc ... other laws that we have established would come into play.

the likelihood of it doing it over and over again get even more ridiculous.

even if it did explode again it would have less energy and less material than the first time. the entropy levels would go lower so would the rate of expansion.
 
ludin said:
the resulting energy would be spent or dispersed. the constantly exploding big bang runs into the same issue only this time according to the theories on this.
it would have to contend with gravity etc ... other laws that we have established would come into play.

the likelihood of it doing it over and over again get even more ridiculous.

even if it did explode again it would have less energy and less material than the first time. the entropy levels would go lower so would the rate of expansion.
Click to expand...


How do you know this?? Can you show that entropy is a condition that would be a concern per-inflation?? Show your math.
 
RAMOSS said:
How do you know this?? Can you show that entropy is a condition that would be a concern per-inflation?? Show your math.
Click to expand...

I did I posted it in the previous page. please see rodger Penrose calculations on the first initial entropy levels.
the calculations have already been done. scientifically it doesn't look good for the big bang.

higgs boson adds to the issue as it confirms both penrose and hawkings initial findings.

it is even quoted in the post right above this one. so I am not going to post it again please go read.
 
ludin said:
the resulting energy would be spent or dispersed. the constantly exploding big bang runs into the same issue only this time according to the theories on this.
it would have to contend with gravity etc ... other laws that we have established would come into play.

the likelihood of it doing it over and over again get even more ridiculous.

even if it did explode again it would have less energy and less material than the first time. the entropy levels would go lower so would the rate of expansion.
Click to expand...

how do you disperse energy when it all falls back into a single point?
 
ludin said:
I did I posted it in the previous page. please see rodger Penrose calculations on the first initial entropy levels.
the calculations have already been done. scientifically it doesn't look good for the big bang.

higgs boson adds to the issue as it confirms both penrose and hawkings initial findings.

it is even quoted in the post right above this one. so I am not going to post it again please go read.
Click to expand...

Well, Penrose is posting some hyperbola. To all intents and purposes, it means he doesn't know, so he postuates something. Neil Tyson did a little lecture on that phenomena known as "The parameter of ignorance'"

Here is his lecture on it

 
it's just me said:
Ran across this while perusing C.B. Moss' book, "The Christian Faith". Scientism cannot answer these questions.

3. God is the Best Answer to Four Questions

He is therefore aware of four questions, to each of which God is the true answer.

a) The Problem of Nature – The first is the question, Why was the universe made, and
what is its purpose? The universe shows, as we shall see, many signs of having been
made by design and with very great skill, which seems to show that it was made by
Someone, and that He had a reason for making it.

b) The Problem of Mind – The second is the question, What is the conscious self? We
know of no other self-conscious beings in the whole vast universe of which natural
science tells us. Are we to believe that the human race is a mere accident in a material
universe, or that the universe itself has behind it a Person like, but infinitely greater than,
human beings?

c) The Problem of Conscience – The third is the question, What is the meaning of the
difference, which we all feel, between right and wrong? Every human being possesses
this power to distinguish between right and wrong, which we call the conscience; and it
does not correspond to anything else in nature. Do the words "I ought" belong to
something universal, or are they merely an accidental result of the development of life in
this planet?

d) The Problem of Beauty – The fourth is the question, What is meant by beauty? Is
beauty merely something that gives pleasure to a particular person, or is it a permanent
principle corresponding to something in the nature of the universe?

The right answer to these questions is:

a) God made the universe, for His own glory.

b) God has made us self-conscious beings after His own likeness; man is the crown of
creation.

c) God has made us capable of knowing His will by means of our conscience, or sense of
duty.

d) God is eternal and perfect beauty, and whatever is beautiful is a means by which He
displays His beauty.

Yes, I have heard many alleged "explanations" for nature, consciousness, conscience, and fewer for beauty, but none of them are definitive, no more definitive than the religious explanations. For example, many believe that the universe has always been here or if it did appear suddenly it was purely coincidence, with no cause or purpose. In that universe elements came together accidentally and formed living things, some of which are capable of consciousness and some are not. (It's funny that some would call human beings "animals" leaving out the part that even the most savage among us recognize that there is such a thing as right and wrong, while animals do not have this capacity.)

The question of beauty is the one that really struck me - who has not seen the milky way in a sky not polluted by city light and marveled at the beauty of it?
Click to expand...

I have read apologetics, and I'm sure you have no need. This book asks numerous questions. Have you read it and tried to answer?
https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Versus-Fact-Religion-Incompatible/dp/0143108263

For me it comes down to the fact that there is no proof of God, and that the Christian Bible literalist position (Christianity being the only religion I've studied enough to speak to) has too many holes for me. If you remove the literalism, it can work, but not in the absence of the virgin birth, resurrection and original sin.

Peace.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, Penrose is posting some hyperbola. To all intents and purposes, it means he doesn't know, so he postuates something. Neil Tyson did a little lecture on that phenomena known as "The parameter of ignorance'"

Here is his lecture on it
Click to expand...

lol yeah you have no qualifications to say that at all.
you think so you prove him wrong. let see your work.

LOL Tyson.

penrose, hawking > Tyson any day of the week.
that is your only rebuttal LOL.
 
blarg said:
how do you disperse energy when it all falls back into a single point?
Click to expand...

The first explosion will disperse a % of energy not all of it will be captured back.
 
ludin said:
The first explosion will disperse a % of energy not all of it will be captured back.
Click to expand...

why do you say that?

energy seems to dissipate through out the universe but where is it spreading out to in order to not be recaptured if the entire universe collapses back in on itself?
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
lol yeah you have no qualifications to say that at all.
you think so you prove him wrong. let see your work.

LOL Tyson.

penrose, hawking > Tyson any day of the week.
that is your only rebuttal LOL.
Click to expand...


Basically, what Neil Tyson did was point out that in every generation, the scientists who were religious invoked God at the frontiers of the science where they didn't understand it. The next generation found the solution, talked about the problem in a precise and clear way, but quite often, in the areas that they could not yet explain, invoked God. Basically, it's GOd of the Gaps.. and that is exactly what Penrose is doing.
 
ludin said:
The first explosion will disperse a % of energy not all of it will be captured back.
Click to expand...

Well, you got at least one thing wrong, right at the very begining. THe big bang isn't really an 'explosion'. It is an 'expansion.'. Now, show that entropy matters when there is no space-time.
 
Porkuloss said:
I have read apologetics, and I'm sure you have no need. This book asks numerous questions. Have you read it and tried to answer?
https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Versus-Fact-Religion-Incompatible/dp/0143108263

For me it comes down to the fact that there is no proof of God, and that the Christian Bible literalist position (Christianity being the only religion I've studied enough to speak to) has too many holes for me. If you remove the literalism, it can work, but not in the absence of the virgin birth, resurrection and original sin.

Peace.
Click to expand...

I have read apologetics too, and I have a friend who is an apologist. I'll ask him. Personally, I don't have time for atheist literalism.
 
it's just me said:
I have read apologetics too, and I have a friend who is an apologist. I'll ask him. Personally, I don't have time for atheist literalism.
Click to expand...

I'm an agnostic. STEM education does that to people. Sorry if you don't understand, but I require proof beyond, "my impossible scenario makes more people feel good than your impossible scenario." Who/what made your God? "unknowable" is not a valid debate answer.

Please remember that I'm an agnostic. I admit I don't know, I wonder, and don't say, "I don't have time" for other views unless I've already decided they are not worth considering. Christianity is not in that realm, yet, though the evangelicals are pushing me in that direction. Prove something to me through logical argument. Note that the argument must be scientifically plausible. I admit to have accepted that paradigm.

Again, :peace
 
it's just me said:
How many other places in the universe has this happened that we actually know about?
Click to expand...

None. But we've never been to any other star systems. So our one lonely data point doesn't tell us much.

But this isn't the end of the story. We can develop estimates from other related knowledge. Given what we understand about the number of observable stars and planet formation we can be pretty confident there are - for lack of a word that does it better justice - many planets (on the order of a trillion trillion). And that's just the observable universe. Given a trillion trillion planets the appearance of one with just the conditions earth has is no longer an impossible stroke of luck, it becomes a mathematical inevitability many times over. Maybe 100 billion in our galaxy alone.

So too may be the case with the "lucky" physical "constants" we observe in our neck of the universe. It may be a simple consequence of big numbers.
 
it's just me said:
Ran across this while perusing C.B. Moss' book, "The Christian Faith". Scientism cannot answer these questions.

3. God is the Best Answer to Four Questions

He is therefore aware of four questions, to each of which God is the true answer.

a) The Problem of Nature – The first is the question, Why was the universe made, and
what is its purpose? The universe shows, as we shall see, many signs of having been
made by design and with very great skill, which seems to show that it was made by
Someone, and that He had a reason for making it.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that the universe has a "purpose". If one sees a stone in the middle of a field, you don't say "Why is this stone in the middle of the field, what is it's purpose?"

b) The Problem of Mind – The second is the question, What is the conscious self? We
know of no other self-conscious beings in the whole vast universe of which natural
science tells us. Are we to believe that the human race is a mere accident in a material
universe, or that the universe itself has behind it a Person like, but infinitely greater than,
human beings?
Click to expand...

No life is a pure accident. Every species was evolved through the process of natural selection which is the exact opposite of randomness.

c) The Problem of Conscience – The third is the question, What is the meaning of the
difference, which we all feel, between right and wrong? Every human being possesses
this power to distinguish between right and wrong, which we call the conscience; and it
does not correspond to anything else in nature. Do the words "I ought" belong to
something universal, or are they merely an accidental result of the development of life in
this planet?
Click to expand...

Evolution explains this as well. Just the same, not every human being possess the ability to determine right from wrong. For example a sociopath doesn't have the conscience the rest of us have. Moreover, what is right and wrong changes over time. If Moses were alive today, he would be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. If Abraham were alive today, he would lose custody of his kids as no one would see anyone that was ready to sacrifice a child as a fit parent. Lot would lose custody of his daughters, go to prison, and have to register as a sex offender for his attempt to offer them up to a crowd to gang rape. Not to mention impregnating them.

d) The Problem of Beauty – The fourth is the question, What is meant by beauty? Is
beauty merely something that gives pleasure to a particular person, or is it a permanent
principle corresponding to something in the nature of the universe?
Click to expand...

Beauty is highly subjective so it can't possibly be a "permanent principle". For example, I find much of Arkansas to be absolutely beautiful and much of Texas to be incredibly ugly. Does that mean that Arkansas glorifies God's purpose while much of Texas is an abomination?

There are some decent philosophical arguments for the existence of God, but these are terrible ones.
 
Last edited:
Porkuloss said:
I'm an agnostic. STEM education does that to people. Sorry if you don't understand, but I require proof beyond, "my impossible scenario makes more people feel good than your impossible scenario." Who/what made your God? "unknowable" is not a valid debate answer.

Please remember that I'm an agnostic. I admit I don't know, I wonder, and don't say, "I don't have time" for other views unless I've already decided they are not worth considering. Christianity is not in that realm, yet, though the evangelicals are pushing me in that direction. Prove something to me through logical argument. Note that the argument must be scientifically plausible. I admit to have accepted that paradigm.

Again, :peace
Click to expand...

I'm not looking to convince you of anything, this was for people who are already believers. And no, I don't have time for other views, I have probably already considered them.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Why do you assume that the universe has a "purpose". If one sees a stone in the middle of a field, you don't say "Why is this stone in the middle of the field, what is it's purpose?"



No life is a pure accident. Every species was evolved through the process of natural selection which is the exact opposite of randomness.



Evolution explains this as well. Just the same, not every human being possess the ability to determine right from wrong. For example a sociopath doesn't have the conscience the rest of us have. Moreover, what is right and wrong changes over time. If Moses were alive today, he would be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. If Abraham were alive today, he would lose custody of his kids as no one would see anyone that was ready to sacrifice a child as a fit parent. Lot would lose custody of his daughters, go to prison, and have to register as a sex offender for his attempt to offer them up to a crowd to gang rape. Not to mention impregnating them.



Beauty is highly subjective so it can't possibly be a "permanent principle". For example, I find much of Arkansas to be absolutely beautiful and much of Texas to be incredibly ugly. Does that mean that Arkansas glorifies God's purpose while much of Texas is an abomination?

There are some decent philosophical arguments for the existence of God, but these are terrible ones.
Click to expand...

If you know anything about the author you know that this is dogmatics, aimed at believers, and no, I don't generally argue about the existence of God with people whose minds are made up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom