251. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55717 by LeeC on July 12, 2007 at 4:08 am

Thank you Dr Benway for your puzzle. I enjoyed it.

Just goes to show how wrong common sense can be. (Or is it - you are still either right or wrong? 50/50 all the time - damn common sense)

The first choice is 1 in 3 chances of being correct.
"Common sense" says it is then 50/50 on the 2nd choice. 2 doors, 1 is right, one is wrong.

Proves to me that common sense is not the best option and mathematics shows a better picture of reality. (Just like in the quantum world)

Responding to 1277. Comment #55510 by Dianelos

And, frankly, I am pretty confident of my objective result that idealistic theism is much less complex than even the simplest naturalistic worldview.

I have lost count of how many times I have written that I disagree (my opinion of course), lets increase this number by 1.
But lets listen all the same.

Here's why: when you compare the complexity of worldview (physical X) and the worldview (N persons directly experiencing X + G) then it's impossible for the former to be less complex than the latter, unless N is very large in comparison to X's complexity or else if there is reason to assume that G is of comparable complexity to X. If X is so mind-bogglingly complex as the simplest naturalist worldview really is, then there is no contest

I missed what G was? Is that god?

I just cannot follow your maths here at all... and what does the number of people "experiencing" have to do with anything, one person or a billion looking at an observation does not change the objection.

Now I had never thought of actually comparing complexities (because I never thought that especially relevant as Occam's razor applies only to explanations that are otherwise equivalent, and I find theism versus naturalism anything but). But Lee challenged me in that department too, and interestingly enough here too theistic idealism turns out to work better than naturalism.

This is still just your opinion... you have not proven to me (or anyone) that this "theistic idealism" works better than "naturalism" (which I will point out is the title you are using for my "worldview" - being of simple scientific up-bringing I have never bothered to give a title my thoughts - I leave that to people who like to "think about thinking").

Comparing complexities is how I choose which is right and wrong with different "worldviews". It seems the best option open to me once science has reached its (current) limit in knowledge - I cannot think of a better way.

Nothing is 100%, but some things are more likely than others.

This is the Quantum world all over. (I will also add at this point I find it "interesting" (some would say "fruitless") to describe the Quantum world in words... words cannot and have not described the Quantum world precisely. Our language and mind have not evolved to understand the Quantum world in any other way than the mathematical. You can philosophise all you like trying to describe in words something like the atom, but you will be only vague at best - however if a theory can make predictions that are then accurate to the 10th decimal place (and more), then like it or not, this theory is pretty damn near correct so your philosophy better agree with it)

See ya

Lee

252. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55705 by LeeC on July 12, 2007 at 3:19 am

BMMcArdle quoted: "I see a perfectly God-shaped gap".

of course - I could see a perfectly shaped cloud that looks like a sheep - but it will still be a cloud.

A gap is just a gap in our knowledge - it makes me laugh that some theists place so much in their "god of the gaps"

253. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55428 by LeeC on July 11, 2007 at 4:32 am

Responding to 1204. Comment #55178 by _J_

LeeC, 1190

Tell me about it! Every time this debate looks like petering out, it bounces back with a vengeance. Dianelos is truly indomitable!

(I sincerely quit visiting this site just last week. That's a laugh.)

Sorry for butting in, though. I just shoot my mouth off at anything that looks interesting, these days.

Hi J,

Please do not apologise, I am glad you found it interesting and certainly welcome your input.

Everyone,

This thread is moving on so quickly though, I really cannot keep up, a whole page and more of comments have since been added after my last visit. I am amazed that anyone can keep up.

This leaves this thread with an unfortunate problem. We have so many intelligent people debating, making great points, but it is like having a discussion in a noisy and crowded room - I am unable to hear all that is being said.

Oh well... Maybe it is just me – so forget I said anything.

On with the many debates then?

Dr Benway pointed out to Dianelos in 1231. Comment #55278

No matter how complex our map of the universe, the universe + God map will always be more complex than the universe map alone.

Was this question answered by Dianelos?

No... Dianelos in post 1245 wrote:-

Ah, but the universe + God map is only what traditional theism claims (which is indeed rather problematic). Idealistic theism a la Berkeley claims an us + God map, which it turns out is much less complex than the simplest naturalistic understanding of the universe.

God is still in the equation with an added personal claim that "it turns out is much less complex" - this is an impossible claim with any god in the equation. Also, Dianelos replaces "universe" with "us"... sorry? No, No and No... This is not answering the question, merely changing the question.

Dianelos,

Can you please explain how a complex god + universe (sorry "us") is simpler than just the universe (sorry "us").

This relates to our discussions, so I hope Dr Benway does not mind me "jumping in" as well (Actually, with the speed of these posts by others, I suspect it has already been replied to)

Everyone,
(I am not writing directly to Dianelos here, merely to try and hear as many points of view as possible. Hope you do not mind Dianelos, I of course wish to hear your views as well, since you are at the centre of this debate)

Dianelos' "worldview" breaks Occam's principle. His solutions with a god are more complex than other solutions without.

The only "get-out" Dianelos has used is that I cannot apply Occam's razor until I have two "equal" solutions that answer everything.

This almost implies that I MUST accept a god in the equation until I can answer everything without a god and then apply "The razor".

Not so - science has been able to answer so much, fill in so many gaps without the need for a god, why introduce god now without any evidence for it?

History has seen many periods in which the scientific knowledge of the day failed to answer the observations... Should science have introduced god then?

NO!

Such closed mindedness would have stopped Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity and every other technological or medical advancement made in the last 400 years...

This is one of the many reasons why I hate the "god solution" - it states:-

"Stop thinking now - all the questions are answered - god did it all - no please stop asking questions, no please stop now.
It is god's will that that child died, don't try and learn from this and find a medical cure. The universe is the way it is because it is god's will... please stop asking these stupid questions... just be like all the other sheep!!!!"

If we did as the theist wanted, we would still be stuck with the Bronze Age idea of the universe as stated in the bible... what a poor world we would live in.

Science can only answer so much, and hence I feel the philosophy of Occam is required. To introduce something complex requires a lot of explaining and most importantly - evidence.

Without strong evidence, the logical and reasoned position is for a universe without a god.

So what about consciousness "problem" I heard Dianelos cry?

Well - whenever the debate is pushing any theist into a corner and is struggling to answer the questions directed at them, then a question relating to the gaps in science or our "current knowledge" is a common defence tactic that seems to be always thrown up - consciousness is the latest one on this thread.

This is a smoke screen, designed to distract us from the problems the theist actually has, that is they cannot prove god or supply any evidence for a god.

As has been repeated often, not being able to answer A, does not prove B.

Since, as I have stated, a universe with a god will always be more complex than a universe without a god, then this additional complexity needs to be justified since it does not simplify the problem trying to be answered/solved.

For example, the "consciousness" debate is the same as any other.

Theist : "Science cannot answer consciousness (A)"
Scientist : "Agreed - today I cannot answer consciousness (A) - I therefore have one problem to answer. Thank you for your help:
Theist : "HA HA - God solves this problem (A), god (B) created consciousness ."
Scientist :"God (B) created consciousness? Now your god (B) is a more complex entity than a human (A), and so god's consciousness (B) must be more complex than human (A) consciousness. So the problem has increased, you now need to address this new problem (B) which is by definition more complex and requires more explanation and evidence to prove it over the simpler solution of man (A)."
Theist : "I don't have to prove God (B), because you cannot answer consciousness (A)"
Scientist : "Not knowing A (consciousness) does not prove B (god). Solving human consciousness however difficult will be easier to explain then god"

So the question the theist is left with is always the same:
who made god?
what is god?
what came before god?
what is after god?

The theist just chooses to avoid and ignore such questions at all costs (or answered very poorly)... attack here, attack there... you do not know this, you cannot prove that. Forgetting and ignoring that the theist solution is ALWAYS more complex and so without any evidence for this god - the argument seems always a far weaker one than any science based solution is working towards.

A lot can be answered with science and its methods, and I accept a lot is left unanswered - for now. Not knowing the answer does not mean "God did it", I think J summarised this very well in post 1151 and concluded:-

It's a sad fact (I feel) that so many interesting questions will not be settled in my lifetime – and I, soulless infidel that I am, will probably never know the answers. If this is intolerable to you and you powerfully feel the need for an answer, by all means, stick with your god, who seems like a well-meaning, harmless sort. But don't be surprised if atheists don't recognise your impatience as evidence for his existence.

To this Dianelos replies

I am positing a worldview which does not require an explanation for consciousness. According to idealistic theism the whole of reality is consciousness, and indeed the whole of reality is God

Avoiding again and again the underlying problem with the argument... no evidence for this complex god "solution".

Maybe my argument is too centred on "evidence" and the "simplest" of solutions without knowing "all" the facts.

I guess I could watch more Sci-Fi movies and make up a new reality for myself.

To date, Dianelos' "worldview" seems harmless enough. I am not being forced to follow it so maybe all theists should be converted to it.

For an atheist like myself though, I do not need to have all the answers to live my life, but I want to know I am following the path – one that is searching for ALL the answers and to not accept a god merely because it is the "quick" solution.

Lee

254. God Hates the World

Comment #55148 by LeeC on July 10, 2007 at 5:49 am

I'm confused... again.

255. A force for good?

Comment #55146 by LeeC on July 10, 2007 at 5:47 am

I hate the argument that religion isn't like believing in fairies or invisible friends because people become religious as adults:

People start believing in all sorts of crap as adults, horoscopes, palm reading, psychics and homeopathy are just a few that leap to mind.

They also seem to forget that no group of adults are reinforcing the idea that Father Christmas or the Tooth fairy is a good idea. Or tell you if you do not believe in Father Christmas you will BURN – BURN I tell you – in hell forever.

This is why people can come to religion as adults… if everyone (and I mean everyone) just laughed at these people the same why we would laugh at someone who tells you "I have just discovered this wonderful man – every Christmas he puts presents under my tree." – then we would have a lot less of this religion.

OK – after you stopped laughing you point out the errors in their logic – this would help, and if no one reinforces the lies, then I wonder what would happen?

A lot less "toxic" religion that is for sure.

Lee

256. A force for evil?

Comment #55144 by LeeC on July 10, 2007 at 5:37 am

Thanks DNAtheist for the link.

Downloading now...

I look forward to my train ride to work tomorrow now.

Cheers

Lee

257. Christopher Hitchens - God Is Not Great

Comment #55140 by LeeC on July 10, 2007 at 5:16 am

Who wants to put 5 quid on McGrath mentioning C.S. Lewis in the debate with Hitchens. He has done it in the 4-5 debates I have seen him in

I don't have 5 quid, but it would be a mistake… Hitchens loves to quote CS Lewis in his book, so Hitchens will be one step ahead.

But please, where has Hitchens gotten facts wrong (pertaining to religion)?

Now I like Hitchen's I really do, but reading his book ("God is not great") – he has got his facts wrong in areas that I can question him (He needs to look up on his science) and when he can misquote science, it worries me about his other "facts".

So, no - I cannot point you to areas where Hitchen's is wrong on religion – but I can point out areas incorrect in his book on science. Does this mean he does not check his facts before writing? Could he make similar mistakes on other matters – probably.

Do I care while he is shouting at the theist?

Lee

258. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55136 by LeeC on July 10, 2007 at 4:52 am

Responding to 1166. Comment #55061

Hi Dianelos,

Thanks again for the response, I always feel it is good to talk, and I think I feel like you – a good debate is good for the soul – whatever that is.

If something cannot affect my conscious experience then it can't affect me in any way.

Silly question then, if you were unconscious, (drugs, bang to the head or deep sleep) – would someone cutting your arm off while you were unconscious affect you in anyway?

I think it would…. Sorry, I did say it would only be words to me.

If something cannot possibly affect me in any way then it is meaningless to say that it exists

Like a god who has shown no evidence of his/her existence?

We agree – it is meaningless.

And finally many things that exist are created by me (for example my ideas, my tastes, and so on), so objective existence

Do they? Well, of course I have no idea what you think or how an apple tastes to you – but since I can think and eat apples I have an idea that I know what you are saying…

This is all rather deep… and not answering the god question that you claim.

So lets move on…

It is demonstrable false that the scientific method can be used to explain the very fact that we experience life

I said science can be used to explain "much", I did not say "all" – I have already freely admited boundaries on the scientific "usefulness".

It can answer how apples fall, how planets move around stars, how stars are born, evolve and die. How life evolved from simple to complex life. How to heal and how to live a longer life.

Not bad coming from simple mammals evolved from a bunch of apes…

Science has answered more and in greater detail than any "god theory".

If you want to play the god of the gaps… then first explain to me where god came from and what was before god?

Because according to naturalism all that exists can be studied by science and it is extremely difficult, not to say laughable, to claim that consciousness does not exist,

I have not said "consciousness does not exist" – although I cannot explain it.

I will say that it can be studied by science, can you tell me why it cannot?

as everybody believes that the brain produces consciousness (I don't, but no matter)

And now here is where science could help you.

Care for an experiment? Lets just keep it as a though experiment for now, since what I am about to describe will not be pretty.

Lets cut off your arms and legs… will you still have consciousness? Yes.

Lets remove some organs… and replace them with either machines or someone else organs.

Will you still have consciousness? Yes – so it is not in the liver, heart or lungs?

Shall we go on? I think you will find that we are closing in on the head area here… or do you have a better solution?

It must be somewhere inside the body right?

Lets move on… you still have not answered how god is a better solution – merely quoted "gaps in science" and you most know how weak an argument I feel that is?

Showing me that science cannot answer A does not prove B… so come on, you can do better than that.

Right, that's what Occam's razor says, and it applies beyond science too.

We agree, and this is why I said it is a "philosophy really".

Right, but Occam's razor (or the principle of economy) is not the only criterion that help one choose what is more reasonable. Or in other works Occam's razor applies exclusively only when two alternative explanations work exactly as well under all other reasonable criteria. As you say, Occam's razor applies only in those situations where "I have two (or more) theories that are equal".

Yes… and I introduced this to you because your claim that the 6 worldviews you introduce were all "equal" in regard to sciences ability to determine which to choose.

So we still agree – this is good.

Well, as we are doing philosophy, it's not a bad idea to use basic philosophical terminology.

You guys are… I am just trying to keep up – "basic" you say? I was taught science, not philosophy. So I have to look these words up…

No matter – all part of the course in learning.

Now in what follows in your post I am afraid there is a misunderstanding. You inferred from "all worldviews are equivalent from science's point of view" that "all worldviews are equivalent". But they aren't. Starting in post 333

Words… words… words… this is why I could not follow philosophy.

And sorry - I was not aware of your post in 333 (half the number of the beast – a mini-antichrist?) so I guess I have to do even more back reading?

First of all there is no scientific evidence for any ontological worldview (including naturalism), so your first point is moot

I think you have already realised I do not have a degree in philosophy – and I do not think I need one.

So where the hell did "ontological" viewpoint come from?

Look, if a brick looks like a brick, feels like a brick, and when I throw it breaks a window like a brick – it probably is a brick.

If you tell the policeman – "NO, you do not understand – it is only a brick using your scientific point of view – I see it completely differently in my worldview" – then good luck with you in court.

As for no scientific evidence?

Do you accept science at all? Do you understand the scientific method?

If not, then please leave the modern world and go back to the bronze age.

Sorry – I assume you do, you still got me with "ontological".

So I do not think my point was "moot".


I will come back to this post – I was not going to post it tonight but the thread moves on quicker than I can write.

You have given me much to think about but it is getting late here.

Thanks again.

Lee

259. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55131 by LeeC on July 10, 2007 at 4:43 am

1184. Comment #55113 by _J_
1185. Comment #55120 by _J_

Thanks J,

Excellent response – I wish I could write as fast as you and with such detail.

It took me long enough to look up all the long words Dianelos was using…

I have better post what I have before it is too late.

260. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55108 by LeeC on July 10, 2007 at 3:22 am

Hi Dianelos,

Just seen your reply (Post 1166 Comment #55061), not had chance to read it yet, but I am looking forward to it - so lets not waste anymore time.

Thanks for persevering with me and getting through your back catalogue.

Lee

261. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55107 by LeeC on July 10, 2007 at 3:18 am

This thread moves so quickly it is hard to keep up.

I wrote this post offline (no access at work) and more posts just keep appearing.

If the group does not object I will still post it… hope it is not too far behind the thread.

Not had chance to catch-up yet.



Responding to by Dianelos
1144. Comment #54829
1148. Comment #54837

Hi Dianelos,

In fact one thing you can't understand without God is consciousness itself. At this juncture a naturalist often responds: Oh, here comes the God of the gaps again....

...And the fact that naturalists have really no idea about how anything physical could become conscious is not just one gap, but the mother of all possible gaps.

A gap is a gap however large it maybe, so you have "read my mind" - you are using the god of the gaps, and you know it.

Consciousness may be difficult for us to "understand", but whatever the solution may be to the problem it will be far simpler without god in the equations.

The consciousness of you, me or Einstein maybe difficult to explain - but your god is factors of billions more complex.

How can you hope to explain god? You cannot... so without evidence for god the simplest solution will be without such a god.

Faith is what you have when you do not have evidence.

This is a fundamental failure of naturalism, and will remain so while nobody is able to at least propose some testable idea about how something material could become conscious.

No... it is merely a gap. I am not happy about it, but that is the way it goes.

You have a more "fundamental" problem to address, that is, how to explain something more complex than the problem you say needs solving.

Consciousness may be difficult to explain, but you claim it was god "who did it", and since a god is more complex, your problem requires more explaining.

Now that is what I call a "fundamental failure" so please address it - explain god and how he/she is more likely than say, a conscious human.

My view is that, based on all the best science I can get my hands on, intelligent life should not exist in this universe.

This is your view, and my view is that you are very wrong.

Why? The simply reason that life, intelligent life at that, does exist, so science will agree to that and no science will say it should not or cannot exist.

Science cannot say intelligent life should not exist, since any such statement would be against the observations and outside the scope of science. It may say intelligent life is unlikely, but however unlikely it is, it is here on planet Earth (so we are told)

However, maybe the "science you got your hands on" says differently - "intelligent life should not exist". Care to quote it some of it?

Also, wouldn't this make the Christian view that god made Earth and universe for man completely WRONG?

I mean, most of the Earth is uninhabitable for man, the universe is even harsher. Hardly looks like a universe "created" for man - looks more like it just came together at random without a god to me. (My view, I require evidence to think otherwise.)

Responding to 1149. Comment #54838 by Dr Benway

I know your game. It's the old "you have faith just like me, Mr. Science, therefore my faith is justified." How tedious.

Or the "classic", you cannot prove A so B must be true.

Love it.

WOW so isn't life great - strange that the theist wastes it dreaming of the next or in worshiping a "leader" they have no evidence for its existence?

Lee

262. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54819 by LeeC on July 9, 2007 at 3:30 am

Hi Dianelos

Hi Lee, I haven't forgotten about this post and it's the second time you ask me to respond to it.

I merely wanted to enter the debate and it did seem that it was getting left behind.

They say a week is a long time in politics… it is an eternity in posts on this thread. I think nearly 250 posts have gone by… this makes my point a rather old one... Maybe I was worried that you were ignoring the "tough" questions?

I also wanted you to know that I am still hanging around waiting and watching.

But I am a slow (not to mention long-winded) writer and no matter how much I try to jump back and forth to respond both older and newer posts, there are always some interesting posts I never seem to find time to discuss.

Too many interesting things to distract us all?

I do not mind the slow or the long-winded… just I have been ignored before by theists, and I still do not know why.

Thanks...

Lee

263. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54597 by LeeC on July 8, 2007 at 3:33 am

Downunder,

I was with you until your last 15, 16 and especially point 17... it is then you lost me altogether - sorry. I must not have been paying attention.

Point 15 : "no one has proven that God does not exist"

You know we do not have too; the theist (or god) needs to prove that god exists, not the other way around. God adds complexity to any equation/worldview. So unless the theist has strong evidence for god, it should be thrown away.

16 : "change the human connotations of God by no longer using the word God"

God is just a word to me, change the word to Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Superman or Spiderman, it is the meaning behind the word that will cause problems. The problem will already remain – my superman is better than your Spiderman – both teams not having any evidence for the fight they are willing to kill or die for…

17. LIFE. What objections will this site produce?

Not sure what the debate here would be? What is life, how did it start, why did it start? All interesting stuff…. But the debate will be short.

I will watch and see where it goes with interest.

Thanks

Lee

264. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54568 by LeeC on July 7, 2007 at 8:52 pm

Hi Dianelos,

Still no reply to my post number 895 (Comment 53033)?

I know you have a lot of catching you to do, and maybe the debate has moved on a bit (not really, although I am sure you wish people like me and Steve99 moved on?)

However since I was replying directly to your belief (or "worldview") in which I feel you are in error in holding by choosing the more complex "worldview" over the simple – without any explanation or reason why you have done this.

And since this is fundamental to your argument and whole debate you are having here it is odd you have ignored my point for over a week, yet still feel the need to debate around the edges.

Maybe my argument against you was too weak(?) but maybe you could be courteous enough to point out my errors and where it is weak.

I wish to learn.

However I do not feel you are able to ignore my point (however weakly made) and have anything to add to the debate. The very foundations of your argument are wrong, so anything built on them will also be in error.

This is a strong opinion that I have on your worldview, but am I wrong in having it? Please tell me if I am, this is the point of a debate. Just by ignoring a question does not mean it goes away.

My original post can be found here-

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews,page18#53033

(Wish I knew how to get this as a nice comment on the screen, rather than the whole link displayed - oh well, much to learn.)

Many thanks,

Waiting your reply.

Lee

265. Interview with Dan Dennett on Danish TV

Comment #54403 by LeeC on July 6, 2007 at 10:17 pm

I like Dan, the only problem is both Dan and Richard D have a lot of "faith" in these memes.

Has anyone seen a meme or explained how one could work physically?

Lee

266. God Hates the World

Comment #53317 by LeeC on June 30, 2007 at 6:51 pm

Anyone not familliar with what a jobbi(e) is, this should explain

Thanks Billy, this morning has not been wasted, I have learnt something new.

Who ever said this thread is not educational?

Now I have to bring in this new word into polite conversation.

Since I am in Australia, they will have no idea.

Cheers

Lee

267. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53315 by LeeC on June 30, 2007 at 6:39 pm

Right. I am trying to catch up with older posts and am right now at about 50 posts before yours. I can't do this any faster,

No worries… take your time. I just like to know how well I did with my argument.

Good, Bad… could do better and all that.

English after all is my fourth language and I like to think before I write down something.

4th? I am struggling with writing all this and English is my only language. The amount of grammar, spelling and just blame wrong words I type is embarrassing sometimes

So well done. What is your 1st language BTW?

Also with all the time I spend typing on the computer my wife has started complaining that unless we are in bed she only looks at by back.

I have the same problem… women just do not understand us. Can't they see we are trying to change the world here?

Cheers

Lee

268. God Hates the World

Comment #53192 by LeeC on June 30, 2007 at 3:24 am

Those of us who doubt gods love should think on this. Why it brings a tear to my eye.
His ONLY son.
He gave us his ONLY son. think on that. he had only one son and he sent him to die for us.
WTF? Why are they comparing the sacrifice of the son of an omnipotent god who can create the world to that of the human sacrifice of our children.

Isn't it worse than that? Isn't the father and son the one in the same (and some ghost – never understood that one)?

So actually, the "great" sacrifice was to kill himself for our sins… our sins being that some couple (that never existed) ate a fruit from a tree that god planted in a garden knowing full well that it would be eaten. (And what did this fruit supposedly give to man? Knowledge… so god wanted to keep us like sheep, and are sin was to try and think for ourselves – what a god.)

Erm… but god is suppose to be omnipotent and all that.. and still living today, so it wasn't actually a sacrifice was it. Jesus/god KNEW he was not going to die, so it is a meaningless show.

And what was god/Jesus trying to prove anyway? If god wanted to forgive our sins he could have… just like that!!! No need for a silly show.

Surely god sacrificing "his son" is the equivalent of me sacrificing my toenail clippings.

A lot less if you think of the size of the universe and aren't we all supposed to be "children" of god in someway?

The bible is a poorly written book… it is out of date and should be thrown away with the other rubbish.

Lee

269. God Hates the World

Comment #53183 by LeeC on June 30, 2007 at 2:23 am

While we are off topic...

Rude place names?

http://www.i-r-genius.com/rudeplaces.html

270. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53180 by LeeC on June 30, 2007 at 2:10 am

Hi Dianelos,

I see you are a very busy poster and try to reply to your posts, so I will wait and look forward to your reply to my post No. 895

I appreciate your opinion on my worldview, and my argument against yours.

How well did I do? Any gaps?

Cheers

Lee

271. God Hates the World

Comment #53069 by LeeC on June 29, 2007 at 7:42 am

Hi Q/Billy/Philip

So this is where you guys have been hiding!!!

Thanks Q for the invite.

I will do some back reading first before I post for real...

Lee

272. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53062 by LeeC on June 29, 2007 at 7:09 am

Hi Q,

Good point... wish I thought of it.

(Aside: It is a different debate here... I like it so far, not too much bible talk, more about god and the universe. I'm still looking for the evidence though)

So to the debate:

Option 1 and 2 at least gives us all a universe to live in... the other options are just weird, and mean we do not "truly" live in the universe we think we do and more importantly have a lot of explaining to do - like how? why? and how many episodes of star trek did you watch last week?

It's getting late here… must go.

Lee

PS Good to be in a debate with again, it has been awhile.

273. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #53037 by LeeC on June 29, 2007 at 3:57 am

Hi Philip,

Simple thing would have been to allow the carnivorous animals to feed on the dead in the other boats! hehehehe

But I have now been told they were all vegetarians – even those with their big pointy teeth?

I have been following that Alistair McGrath thread, I stopped posting on it after I could not get my head around what exactly Dianelos's god actually is and what he believes in, very interesting though

I've now been over there and read Dianelo's comments…just posted a reply, not sure how well I did, I think it is a clear case of too much Matrix, Star Trek and other rubbish.

I bet also Dianelo changes his(?) worldview more times then his underpants.

Time will tell, I will give it a go for a while.

It is all good fun after all.

Oh well, I hope Theo and Mark return to this as I really have enjoyed this thread a lot, heck, I am even starting to learn stuff!

I agree, I'm getting bored… I tried the forum for a while, but this is just like drinking aftershave instead of single malt whiskey.

I'm not addicted by the way... I can stop.

Lee

274. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53033 by LeeC on June 29, 2007 at 3:42 am

With so many posts, it is hard to keep up; so again sorry if someone has already responded to the points I am about to address to Dianelos.

I wrote this without Internet access, and now posting.

RE: 870. Comment #52864 by Dianelos Georgoudis

So onto your post - you have said some "interesting" stuff.

I too believe in the scientific method, as long it is used where applicable, and it is not science's job to find out about reality

We could debate what you mean about reality, but this would just be words to me - so lets not just yet.

To repeat myself, I believe the scientific method can be used to explain much about life, the universe and everything. However we must be clear on the method, which is that it must be testable/observable, it must be repeatable, it must offer predictions, and it must be falsifiable (this is just my quick definition so if I think longer, I probably could add to it.)

One addition I make to the method - it is added philosophy really - and this is Occam's razor. If I have two (or more) theories that are equal, in that they can explain the observations, then I will choose the simplest method over the complex since this is more likely to be true. (As I said, it is a philosophy no science here)

So, with my scientific methodology, I accept that there are areas/subjects I cannot explain - they are outside science. This does not mean something does or does not exist... it just means it is outside science to be able to confirm it. Luckily I have my razor to help me chose which of these "unscientific" theories is more likely to be correct.

But the question we are discussing is ontology, namely how reality itself is. In other words we ask what objectively reality out there produces the phenomena we observe

Not me… you got me confused with "ontology", but don't let this stop you.

It turns out that there is a huge number of ways one can describe that objective reality

The right way and the wrong way… that's only two?

Sorry, I had a similar "debate" with a doctor of physics once while talking about Quantum Mechanics and probability… it either works or it doesn't. It is either there or it isn't.

All probability is 50/50 right?

all these descriptions (or worldviews) produce exactly the same phenomena that science studies, and are therefore exactly equivalent from science's point of view. So it's impossible to decide which of these different worldviews is more probable (i.e. is more reasonable to believe in) based on scientific knowledge

Your opinion has now been stated… so lets look at your argument/statements.

First, basic naturalism, i.e. the worldview that reality consists of the natural world we actually observe around us and in which we objectively exist (sub-categories here would be all the dozen or so interpretations of quantum mechanics)

Sounds reasonable to me. I like the sound of this one best. I can see stuff, test stuff and work things out… like it.

Two, traditional theism, i.e. the worldview that reality consists of God who has created and sustains in existence the natural world we observe and in which we objectively exist.

No evidence for the existence of this god.

Any such evidence could be tested with the scientific method (you could debate whether god himself could be tested but not the evidence) the lack of such evidence makes this view unlikely – extremely unlikely.

So here we have a different view, it is different from Option 1 – you say I cannot use science to decide between the two? So I will use Occam's razor – Option 1 is the best.

Why? – Option 1 does not have to explain where god came from in the first place, which is more difficult than explaining the problem it is setup to solve i.e. the universe.

Three, idealistic theism (my own view), according to which God directly produces all our experiences (including our observation of nature) without the intermediation of an objectively real physical universe.

No evidence for the existence of this god either and since this god "directly produces all our experiences" then no tests can be performed by any scientific method. (It is outside science but not Occam's razor).

Questions?

What produced/created such a god?
Why did this god produce all our experiences to point physical laws that "appear" to answer how the universe is governed, to a universe that "appears" to have a beginning that "appears" to be 13.7 billion years ago and can be observed anybody wishing to perform similar tests?

So I have two options now, option 1 and option 3 - both seem to be equal (you say) apart from option 3 requires a complex god.

So Option 1 is simpler … Bring on the razor once again.

Option 1 is still best.

Do I need to continue? The other worldviews just get stranger, weirder and have even more baggage and I reject them for the same reasons.

OK… I will continue, but I will be brief…

Four, … that reality consists of a two-dimensional hologram and that the fact we observe three-dimensional space with discrete objects in it is an illusion our brain creates for reasons of computational efficiency

No evidence for the creator of this hologram… who made it?

Similar to response in option 3, I now have two options, Option 1 and option 4 - both seem to be equal (you say) apart from option 4 requires a hologram machine that was made by "someone" (who made this someone?).

So Option 1 is simpler… this razor game is great. But through all that baggage.

Five, some really unusual theistic worldview, say that reality exists of a demonic world and that our universe is the chessboard of a game that two demons are playing to see whether good or evil will win in the end. And let's not forget

Chessboard?? No evidence… universe still looks like it does… get razor.

This is getting dull… you watch too much Star Trek.

Option 1 is still best.

Six, solipsism, namely the lonesome view that there actually isn't any objective reality out there that produces the phenomena we (or rather I) experience.

No sure if I truly understand this last one… are you saying that it is only you who exists, and you imagine everyone and everything else?

Well, if we are only talking about the "me" universe than why should I care about you and the rest of the universe?

However, this just does not work… it means that somehow I can imagine the whole works of Shakespeare, create the Mona Lisa in my mind, wrote Quantum Mechanics and invented the whole of history to put it in?

WOW… I am better than I thought?

No… this opinion is rubbish. It is simpler to say that option 1 is correct… the razor strikes again.

Now observe that science and experiment cannot help us sort out which of the above worldviews is true or false because they all, by definition, produce exactly the same phenomena and therefore would give rise to exactly the same scientific knowledge. So unless we want to resort to ontological nihilism and declare that it's impossible to know anything about external reality, we must find some methodology beyond science to compare the reasonableness of the various worldviews.

I just did… how did I do?

For example all the above six worldviews explain phenomena, but at best only one of them is true. How do we find out which one?

Use common sense? Use science as far as we can… then choose the simplest option with the knowledge that we have learnt.

Easy really.

I find that idealistic theism works better than any other worldview under each one of these criteria, and that's what I was defending in this forum.

I disagree… you still have the baggage of a god to explain (even if you cannot test it)

Option 1 does not have this baggage. No god but same observations answered.

You are choosing the more complex option. This does not make sense… think hard, and try again.

But there are two more advantages of idealistic theism

Oh Goodie… I cannot see even one advantage… zero, so what is 2 times zero? Oh yeah – nothing.

But let's hear them…

and if one then investigates the intrinsic problems of this worldview and kind of connects the dots, one finds a perfect God shaped gap

God of the gaps?

Oh dear… and this is an advantage?

The gaps are very small and getting smaller. Science can give a very good explanation from small fractions of a second after the Big Bang to today… 13.7 billion years… all without evoking a god.

Your god must be very small to fit into those gaps. And what is the point of such a god?

it turns out that idealistic theism and only idealistic theism offers a way out of this conundrum and allows us to directly observe the reality behind phenomena

No… as I have just shown. You are choosing the more complex option, and so you have more to answer.

Besides, this is an opinion, it is your opinion and my opinion is that you are wrong.

You have introduced unnecessary baggage into your explanation.

Why choose the complex over the simple?

I think I have gone on long enough.

I look forward to your reply.

Lee

275. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52913 by LeeC on June 28, 2007 at 1:44 pm

LeeC

Welcome. I am the theist in question.

Thanks for the welcome… off to work now, so I will try and read what you have written today, and post a reply tonight.

You state you are a theist… great – for the sake of debate can you narrow this down a little for me?

Which faith would you say you subscribe to?

Do you believe the theory of the big bang, evolution, a 13.7 billion year old universe, and 4.5 billion year old Earth?

(And sorry to ask, but I like to get this last question out of the way, as you can imagine some people think the Earth is 6,000 years old and the bible is 100% truth. I do not want to waste time debating on what we already agree on.)

Sorry if you have already answered these questions, but it helps me in the discussion to know where we stand.

I am, of course, an atheist. So you now know where I stand.

This to me means if you can give me evidence of a god, I will believe in that god. If you can give me a better way to understand the universe, I will use it.

Simple really.

Thanks

Lee

276. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52810 by LeeC on June 28, 2007 at 6:02 am

Dianelos,

I am trying to understand what your point is...

I apologise for coming late into the debate, I could of course spend the next 3 hours reading this thread from the beginning, but I have work tomorrow and I find a simple question can speed things along and re-focus the debate.

So what is it?

So when somebody believes that science and experiment is a way to find out about reality then I have to point out that neither science nor experiment can help us decide something as basic as whether electrons are real (i.e. objectively exist) and are not just parameters of some scientific equations

I believe in the scientific method… it's great – show me where it goes wrong in the long term? (Any mistakes made by science are corrected by science)

I think experiments are good too – they can help you explain the universe and correct any theory written if it is off the mark.

OK – my stance made.

So back to your statement – "science nor experiment can help us decide something as basic as whether electrons are real"

Lets try a little thought experiment.

Put on a blindfold… you now cannot see anything.

I tell you I am holding an iron bar… you do not believe me since you cannot see it.

I could hit you over the head with it, but then that would not be very nice.

Instead I suggest you touch and feel it.

You then pass the bar back to me, but I am clumsy and drop the iron bar on the concrete floor… "ring" the lovely sound of the bar hitting the floor.

So, you have not seen the object, but you are able to use your other senses and your knowledge of the property of metal that suggests that what I have told you is true – that I was holding an iron bar.

How did you do this?

Well, you held the bar… judged its mass and density (it was not light like wood, this is not a stick, it was not heavy like lead).

The bar was also cold (lovely cold steel).

When I dropped the bar you could hear it ring…

Now this does not 100% prove it was an iron bar, but it shows all the hallmarks or a metal (probably iron) bar. (A minor floor in the thought experiment, but you could perform further tests while blindfolded to confirm this 100%.)

From this series of experiments you performed you concluded that I was indeed holding an iron bar.

This was a simple thought experiment that you could try at home with a friend… what fun.

And so it is similar with an electron… an experiment can be performed.

We do not need to see it to know it is real… we can measure other known properties of the electron.

What type of evidence would you need?

Do I need to hit you over the head with an iron bar to prove it is real?

Cheers

Lee

277. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52792 by LeeC on June 28, 2007 at 5:08 am

Thanks epeeist for the invite.

Bloody 'ell this is a long thread…

So sorry I am late… can someone please summarise what I have missed?

Has any theist given evidence for the existence of god yet or is it the usual game of "attack the gaps in science?"

Looks like I have a lot of back reading to do.

Lee

278. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #52769 by LeeC on June 28, 2007 at 3:41 am

Hi All,

What happen here?

One minute zero new posts, then 13 come along all at once???

Still no theist though?

Hi Billy

Concerning the flood, I read on a christian's blog a totally obvious question.Why did people with boats not survive?
Simple but devastating

I heard that one too quite recently… so many problems with the story though, this is just one of them, which is why Mark does not want to talk about it I think – it must be really difficult to twist the mind to fit all this nonsense in.

I think I can answer your boat point though as a theist: -

One could say that they may have had boats, but did not know to collect food before hand. It would be "water water everywhere but not a drop to drink" for sometime.

(So how did Noah store food and water for all the animals?)

Then of course these people in boats would need food afterwards and Noah has all the animals remember and all the plants will be dead after being under miles of water for months.

It is funny…

This is why the question is rarely answered by a theist.

The best they can say is it is only a story… but then of course, if the Noah story is wrong, I wonder what else could be wrong in the bible? When do the lies stop and the truth begin?

See ya

Lee

279. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #50508 by LeeC on June 18, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Welcome back Theo...

Q is right, it has not been the same without you.

Lee

280. Review of 'Growing Up in the Universe' DVDs

Comment #50271 by LeeC on June 16, 2007 at 7:53 am

I remember the Christmas lectures… I use to watch them every year (would still, but I am no longer living in England)

I also remember this lecture the first time round; I guess I was too young to really to truly understand it then though…

However, I always found these lectures interesting on another level… they were to be aimed at 10 and 11 years old, but I remember watching some while doing my A-levels (16/17 years old) and not understanding most of them or just being bored by the style. I know I could never watch them as a 12 year old.

Maybe I was just stupid then…(maybe I am still now)?

My point is the lectures were spoken to a young age group, but aimed at a higher level…. At least this is true for most of the lectures I remember.

Still… I still NEED this DVD… where is my credit card.

281. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #50109 by LeeC on June 15, 2007 at 5:27 am

Wow, this thread is so old it practically qualifies as a sacred text.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

282. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #49917 by LeeC on June 14, 2007 at 4:52 am

Welcome Back Down_Under… are you back for good, or just passing through?

Only 38 reasons why the bible is wrong?

I'm sure the list is longer than that…

I tried to be open minded about the bible, I really have, but every time I pick it up to read I either have a passage that just makes no sense, or is plain wrong (in a scientific sense at least– probably wrong on historical as well but my knowledge is not great enough on the period).

Not having read the entire bible… I have kept my criticisms on the bible limited. The main reason being that disproving the bible does not disprove god.

However since it is the job of the theist to prove god, the bible is the Christian source for this, so I have, like you some questions that have never been answered.

The age of the universe (this is getting dull I have said it so many times)
Adam and Eve
Noah and the flood.
Tower of Babel
All the evil statements/actions by god in the Old Testament.
Is Christianity the word of Jesus or Paul?
Why do the gospels tell a different story to one another?
Why no books written at the time of Jesus?

Hey… and I've only just started – the more I read, the more questions as I have said.

Nothing adds up – it is suppose to be the word of god yet it is as if the bible is a collection of books written over a long period of time by people who knew very little about the universe around them… not a god – since any true good would not write such contradictions and lies.

Hi Philip,

A new face… hooray – only problem is that we are getting more atheists than theists so there is not much of a debate at the moment.

Mark needs some assistance.

Your bible question is a good one, but best answered by someone more knowledgeable than me. I know my limitations.

Keep up the good work

Work!!!! No one told me it was work!

Lee

283. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #48191 by LeeC on June 7, 2007 at 2:23 am

Come on Shaun, you know you want to.

Just try one more post, then you can stop again - anytime?

Lee

284. Gamma-Ray Wipe-Out

Comment #47919 by LeeC on June 6, 2007 at 3:38 am

Steve,

Now the doomsday people have to try harder and look at every new discovery in astronomy as another way to kill us all.

So we are down to comets and asteroids... although there is still a chance of a wandering planet/star/blackhole etc etc etc.

Oh... but of course, we still have global warming right, and all the oil will run out in 10 years so we will have wars and stuff.

What a happy world we live.

Not wanting to get religious or anything - but I am sure most of the fear is created by those theist nutters who want to "prove" the world is coming to an end.

Ho hum

Thanks again.

See you around.

Lee

285. Gamma-Ray Wipe-Out

Comment #47610 by LeeC on June 5, 2007 at 4:18 am

Phew...

Thanks Steve

286. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #47607 by LeeC on June 5, 2007 at 4:12 am

Hi Q,

I thought along these lines as well.

This to me means that Christians are not following Jesus (as they claim) but Paul.

Strange indeed since no one has claimed Paul was the Son of God or anything.

Makes Jesus and the bible look rather silly.

So not only do we not have any proof that the bible is written by god, it also goes against the very person it claims to be the son of god?

Interesting stuff...

Just found this web site on the subject.

http://www.anatheist.com/Articles/paul_vs_jesus.html


Lee

287. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #47336 by LeeC on June 4, 2007 at 5:52 am

Back on the net, but nothing has changed.

Mark... come back all is forgiven?

JC,

I've been reading the passages you gave me.

Thanks, very interesting. Paul really had a thing about cutting the top of willies.

Anyway, it does seem to prove my earlier point.

It is Paul who said the OT should not be followed anymore, not Jesus. The views of Jesus seem to have been lost.

At least, I have not yet read where Jesus said the OT should not be followed.

Thanks

I get off now...

Lee

288. Gamma-Ray Wipe-Out

Comment #47324 by LeeC on June 4, 2007 at 5:03 am

Sorry Pieter,

I know Steve made you feel better, so I am going to be naughty and make you worry again.

Although it is true what Steve said about the massive stars in our Milky Way, he forgot to tell you about the neutron binary star systems... they do exist in our Milky Way, and if neither of them are a pulsar, they are very hard to find.

These are probably the cause of "the other type" of gamma ray bursts mentioned in the article.

So... it is still possible today is the last day.

Probably not though.

Sleep easy... I'm sure god will protect us right?

Lee

289. Gamma-Ray Wipe-Out

Comment #47299 by LeeC on June 4, 2007 at 3:07 am

I'm calling a science foul here. Cute theory, NO evidence.

Yes and no…

Science has now seen a mechanism that would have terrible effects for life on Earth if it were to happen.

This is not in any doubt – the observations are there for all to see. The physics show that would we be F.. not very happy.

Now science starts to calculate some numbers…

How close would such an explosion need to be?
What are the chances of it happening in this galaxy?
What are the chances that the burst will be on target and hit the Earth?

It adds up to remote… but not zero.

So, what are the chances of it having already happened within the last 3 billions years… small, but possible.

With this the scientists have written a theory. They know extinctions happened long ago, and do not yet know why, so they have written a theory - seems a reasonable and scientific thing to do.

However, as they know. Just having a mechanism does not mean it happened this way.

So, you are right – it is just a theory and at the moment not a great one since it requires more evidence to point to the smoking gun (or blackhole).

Lee

BTW

Funny how it is – just the other week I was listening to a podcast on gamma-ray bursts, and now here they are making news.

If anyone is interested – I find the follow web site has some very good podcasts for the general listener on Astronomy.

http://www.astronomycast.com/

The show on Gamma-ray bursts is: -
http://media.libsyn.com/media/astronomycast/AstroCast-070514.mp3

290. Man to die over insult

Comment #47078 by LeeC on June 3, 2007 at 1:12 am

...but of course, it could have been worse right?

He could have been living in a country who do not believe in god... an atheist nation.

I mean, just think what would have happened to him in such a country if he even questioned the laws of Gravity or Quantum Mechanics... he's getting off lightly if you ask me.

Sorry... bad taste but you see the point.

As has been said before by greater minds than me, it takes religion to make good men do evil things.

We can not ban religion, we just have to educate the people somehow to make them think for themselves.

Lee

291. How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang? In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive

Comment #46827 by LeeC on June 1, 2007 at 9:38 pm

This comment was posted so long ago, I do not know why I am bothering to write a reply – I suppose it is because I do not want the last words on this thread to be stating that the universe was designed.

People make such simple statements and think they are being "clever", yet never clever enough to explain to anyone who designed this so called designer?

I am more interested in how perfect system in the universe was designed.

What perfect system is this then? And what evidence of design do you have I cannot explain with physics, evolution and a "little chance".

I will skip the perfect distance between world and sun not to get burned or frozen,

If it were too close to the sun, the Earth would be too hot, so you would not have lived to ask the question.

Too far anyway, and the Earth would be too cold, so you would not have lived to ask the question.

Is this too difficult to understand?

You are just so lucky to be living on a planet in the right place at the right time…. Enjoy life and be grateful… don't waste this life thinking you have another life in heaven.

This "luck" is not proof of god anymore than many years ago a certain sperm and egg got together to form you… if you parents decided to watch a movie instead of having sex that evening you would not be here asking the question.
The chances of the right sperm and egg coming together to form you are billions to one… so we are lucky you can ask the question.

No god… simple biology.

Enjoy it.

and rotating of the the world around itself and and sun to make us days and nights for us like a ship

No idea what you are talking about…

Sun goes up, Sun goes down.

Very pretty.

and I wonder how the Earth is tilted at an angle of twenty-three degrees

Go and wonder then…

But here is a thought for you… maybe over 4 billion years ago (I hope you are not one of these young Earth fools?) a mars size planet hit the Earth, causing the moon to form and maybe, just maybe caused the Earth to tilt on its axis.

Just a theory of course… but it is better than "God put it there".

And while you are wondering…

wonder why a god create Earth in a galaxy with over a billion other stars, in a universe with billions and billions of other galaxies… and not mention any of this wonder in his autobiography - "the bible"…

Why did he sum up this entire wonderful universe in a simple phrase "and the heavens"?

Maybe I should not question the mind of god? What god?

Maybe, just maybe, the men in the desert who wrote it only knew of the earth they walked on, and star light above them. No god told them about the rest of the universe, because no god exits to do so.


There you go… I have just wasted 30 minutes of my life…

Lee

292. Secular Thought for the Day

Comment #45734 by LeeC on May 29, 2007 at 5:12 am

Shame no one knows about this "thought of the day" it has been lost within too many other threads.

Shame.

But I now have my thought for the day

293. Spells, Counterspells and Viruses of the Mind : Pt. 1

Comment #45733 by LeeC on May 29, 2007 at 5:08 am

All Good stuff

294. The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life

Comment #45732 by LeeC on May 29, 2007 at 5:06 am

All this stuff to listen to, and no one makes a comment?

295. The Infidel Guy Show Interview

Comment #45730 by LeeC on May 29, 2007 at 5:03 am

No Comment

296. It came like yesterday

Comment #45519 by LeeC on May 28, 2007 at 4:00 am

This is a happy thread I've walked on to...

I thought it was the only the theist who stands on street corners shouting "The End Of The World Nigh"...

Just keep watching the skies!!!

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/

Just don't let Bush shoot them down with his Nukes… the cowboy probably would try – he's seen it in the movies.

297. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #45185 by LeeC on May 26, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Something's come up and I'll not be posting here for a while. Sorry to keep everyone waiting.

Nothing serious I hope.

Lee, in particular, I'm sorry: you put effort into responding to my challenge, and I've not come back to you on it. When I get back here, I'll make that a priority.

No worries, take your time…

At some point in the near future I will be changing my ISP, so will be out of action myself for 3 days!!

This is Australia and so it was suppose to be tomorrow, now they do not know - or why it should take 3 days!!! Not got the modem yet or anything!!! ARGH!!!

This is when I miss Old Blighty… things worked back there.

Lee

298. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #44979 by LeeC on May 25, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Hi Q,

Well it made me think.

I said I would post my comments there (and I did - it has to be a joke? No body is really sure), but since it quoted the bible... I wonder what the group thinks?

Looks like proof the Earth is the centre of the Universe and that it does not move? What more evidence does one need?

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …" (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…" (Isaiah 45:18)

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

Mark,

Do you have an opinion? Or are all the above quotes just taken out of context (or just plain rubbish). More questions I'm affraid - but only a short one.

Hi Billy,

Seems you were busy as well...

I like the site you posted to...

http://www.re-discovery.org/

I just feel hurt that the site does not give me 10 questions to ask my Physics teacher.

Are we not worthy? (Or more likely, they got bored when they reached 1001 questions to ask your Physics teacher...)

Lee

299. Creationist Periodic Table of the Elements

Comment #44550 by LeeC on May 25, 2007 at 4:22 am

It's all true...

300. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #44545 by LeeC on May 25, 2007 at 4:14 am

Oh... dear.

I hope this is a joke... but I fear idiots are born every day.

Time to burn all my physics books... god is obviously the way?

How can people ignore what is around them - oh yeah, of course. Faith.

I mean with evidence like:-

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …" (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…" (Isaiah 45:18)

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

Newton doesn't stand a chance... it is written in the bible so it must be true??

RE: 15. Comment #44533 by Liveliest Crib

Not sure if you actually wanted an answer – but I will use it as a springboard if you do not mind?

I am attacking the article, not your questions… your questions are very valid. I do not want to suggest you think the universe is going around the flat stationary Earth.

I'm not a physicist or an astronomer, so I don't know what I'm talking about here,

Well, a long time ago I got myself one of those degree things on the subject, so I will see if I can help you out… of course, I really should have just read the bible… it's all in there according to the article.

wouldn't it technically be possible to arrange a mathematical model of the universe that kept the earth at a particular point in space, and measured the movements of all the other objects in relation to it?

You can create a mathematical model for anything you like… does not mean it is a good model to explain reality though.

Mathematicians can happily create models until they are blue in the face… unless you have experiments and observations to back it up, it is just a toy. (Mathematicians like toys…)

Before Copernicus there was a very good "model" on how to predict the location of the planets in the night sky… and it worked as well. In fact, it worked probably better than Copernicus' model (Copernicus had circular orbits, not elliptical – Kepler solved that).

However, who's model predicted the planets location in the night sky best was not the issue - The Earth centric model failed to answer observations such as
"Why can I see phases of Venus?"
"Why does Jupiter have moons?"

I believe the bible prefers a flat Earth… well the Earth is round… get over people!!! (Of course – no one clever enough to be reading this web-site thinks that right?)

Want proof? Look at a lunar eclipse, or ships on the horizon. The ancient Greeks even measured the circumference of the Earth by using a deep well in one town, and a stick and it's shadow in another. But they did not have the bible to hold them back?