RE: Bad Arguments for God
August 31, 2012 at 11:37 pm
(This post was last modified: August 31, 2012 at 11:39 pm by yoda55.)
Ant wrote: "Your criticisms of carbon dating are simply naïve. This is just another religionist canard."
The 'shroud of Turin' was an example of the world's desire to validate or reject the claim that the wrapping was old enough to even be considered as a candidate for the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth - an attempt to debunk that he even existed. The scientists applied radio-carbon dating, and declared that the results pointed to lack of authenticity - that is was a modern manufacture, even though the fiber of the cloth itself resembled ancient manufacture. Further research, by those other than that 'collection of brilliant scientific minds', reported the Abbey which housed it during the Middle Ages suffered a fire, and that (when considered) was isolated as what threw the estimate off by centuries... With volcanic activity and tectonic plate movement, new materials are brought up routinely. This material artficially changes the amount of material scientists presume is available - and points to questioning the reliability of the process. The same goes for other methods - what is not taken into account will screw up an experiment every time (and that's experience speaking).
Ant wrote: "(Allow me a tu quoque: Where was Moses when God said fiat lux!?)"
Allow me the riposte: Moses recorded that God was to have said, "יְהִי אוֹר". [Latin postdating the event and the recorder... so much for a dead language...]
Ant wrote" "Yet, quite simply, there is not one shred of empirical evidence that one does, nor is one necessary to explain how the world works."
It is partially true that "how" it works may not require the inclusion, in order to investigate some behaviors. But the "why" does. That it (universe) exists, now, is not a debate. That it exists at all needs to include "why".
Ant wrote: "Ingersoll: ...'We are explaining more every day. We are understanding more every day; consequently your God is growing smaller every day.' (And think how much smaller God is now than he was Ingersoll’s day!)"
If you select a line segment from an infinite number line, has the line become shorter? Has the fraction of that line become significantly greater from any previous, smaller selection? I don't think so. What is (small / infinity)? Nearly zero, I think.
Ant wrote: "The fact that we see no evidence for such effects anywhere in the world or cosmos, at any time, does not falsify the hypothesis, but makes holding the hypothesis valid irrational. This applies equally to ghosts, fairies, Thor, Zeus, the Abrahamic God, Santa Claus, and so on."
Consider 'what if the entire universe is the evidence of it'? Do you look for fingerprints at a crime scene when all suspects have none to leave? Or, are you suggesting that some residue of a creator would necessarily be left behind within the creation? Based upon what supposition - that a creator has a failing and forgot to clean up afterwards (imposing a projection of human failing upon an infinite being who is not human)?
Ant wrote: "Thus, scientists do not ignore the 'answer', they just see it as a baseless one."
They ignore it, because the challenge of building tools that can reach beyond the confines of the dimensional limitation we occupy seems impossible. If human beings are as inventive as you seem to think, then there is no limit. So, for what are we waiting - a technology?
Just curious... In what disciple did you earn your PhD?
.
The 'shroud of Turin' was an example of the world's desire to validate or reject the claim that the wrapping was old enough to even be considered as a candidate for the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth - an attempt to debunk that he even existed. The scientists applied radio-carbon dating, and declared that the results pointed to lack of authenticity - that is was a modern manufacture, even though the fiber of the cloth itself resembled ancient manufacture. Further research, by those other than that 'collection of brilliant scientific minds', reported the Abbey which housed it during the Middle Ages suffered a fire, and that (when considered) was isolated as what threw the estimate off by centuries... With volcanic activity and tectonic plate movement, new materials are brought up routinely. This material artficially changes the amount of material scientists presume is available - and points to questioning the reliability of the process. The same goes for other methods - what is not taken into account will screw up an experiment every time (and that's experience speaking).
Ant wrote: "(Allow me a tu quoque: Where was Moses when God said fiat lux!?)"
Allow me the riposte: Moses recorded that God was to have said, "יְהִי אוֹר". [Latin postdating the event and the recorder... so much for a dead language...]
Ant wrote" "Yet, quite simply, there is not one shred of empirical evidence that one does, nor is one necessary to explain how the world works."
It is partially true that "how" it works may not require the inclusion, in order to investigate some behaviors. But the "why" does. That it (universe) exists, now, is not a debate. That it exists at all needs to include "why".
Ant wrote: "Ingersoll: ...'We are explaining more every day. We are understanding more every day; consequently your God is growing smaller every day.' (And think how much smaller God is now than he was Ingersoll’s day!)"
If you select a line segment from an infinite number line, has the line become shorter? Has the fraction of that line become significantly greater from any previous, smaller selection? I don't think so. What is (small / infinity)? Nearly zero, I think.
Ant wrote: "The fact that we see no evidence for such effects anywhere in the world or cosmos, at any time, does not falsify the hypothesis, but makes holding the hypothesis valid irrational. This applies equally to ghosts, fairies, Thor, Zeus, the Abrahamic God, Santa Claus, and so on."
Consider 'what if the entire universe is the evidence of it'? Do you look for fingerprints at a crime scene when all suspects have none to leave? Or, are you suggesting that some residue of a creator would necessarily be left behind within the creation? Based upon what supposition - that a creator has a failing and forgot to clean up afterwards (imposing a projection of human failing upon an infinite being who is not human)?
Ant wrote: "Thus, scientists do not ignore the 'answer', they just see it as a baseless one."
They ignore it, because the challenge of building tools that can reach beyond the confines of the dimensional limitation we occupy seems impossible. If human beings are as inventive as you seem to think, then there is no limit. So, for what are we waiting - a technology?
Just curious... In what disciple did you earn your PhD?
.
DO... or DO NOT... there is no TRY!
