Search results

God is purportedly a perfect being. Humans get their generally accepted definition of perfection purportedly from God's own words. Therefore, for example, it is a perfect expression of God's divine will that all women, who have ever been born and/or who will ever be born, should suffer...

The question is whether or not there is hard evidence of biblical errancy -- not whether there is hard evidence of string theory universes. There is hard geological, fossil and radiological evidence that contradicts scripture. You may not like the evidence, but it exists. You can dismiss it by...

Kindly identify something which you would agree is absolutely true.

So, let's see. As it stands, I've provided scientific proof of randomness, and you've provided an argument from incredulity. And, now, as a diversion, you want me to discuss "thought," since you can't respond to my proof of randomness with anything other than nonsensical ravings. I'll be...

I hope you all followed Z's lucid monologue on Uncertainty, above. It certainly clears things up about his chances for this year's Nobel Prize.

The hard evidence is that biblical scripture is directly contradicted by geological, fossil and radiological evidence, with respect to age of the planet, occurrences of biblical events, existence and development of life. Also, the Bible permits slavery (both old and new testament). It also...

Yes, well, all that blather aside, I'm still waiting for you to refute the uncertainty principle -- because, until you do, randomness is a proven fact in this universe, whether or not you declare otherwise.

No, I'm suggesting that there is an array of the most illuminated minds of the last 100 years, all of whom would find your argument without merit. Yes, but this is the right place and the right time, so the question is not silly at all. Ad hominem. Try and stick to the subject, Z. You must be...

My questions weren't/aren't silly to Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Feynman, Weingberg, Hawking, et. al. They all took/take the questions quite seriously. So, I think the evidence reasonably shows the questions profound, and your response rather silly. So, come on now, Z. Show all the silly...

Why don't you tell us why a single electron fired at an opaque screen with two pinholes produces an interference pattern on a photographic plate mounted behind the screen? Also, please explain how we may reliably predict the precise strike point of each electron on the photographic plate...

You forgot the really important phrase: "In my opinion." The proof is simple. It's called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and it proves that certain microscopic events in this universe are objectively random. If something is objectively random, then it cannot be under the control of...

Proving design requires proof of the designer -- nothing else will suffice. We humans know that certain things are designed because we designed them -- that is scientifically verifiable. Inferential proof based on the perception of human observers -- the very observers who know for an absolute...

:) I was trying to stop an irrelevant tangent before it got started. But, I accept the possibility of Design, because there is no absolute means of proving it impossible. There is, however, a mountain of positive evidence in support of evolution, and none supporting design -- which causes me...

The Constitution is both intelligently designed and continuously evolving. I guess that proves both are true.

Yes...something to do with who's running the asylum, as was previously alluded to.

Really? Do tell...

Ditto that. Add the fact that quantum uncertainty among all of the various turbulences which might affect the shuffle, right down to the nervous system electrical charges that cause the hands of the dealer to shuffle imperfectly, make it impossible for us to know the outcome of the card shuffle...

Go to a Vegas casino, walk into the blackjack pit. Observe that the games are played with 1 to 6 decks. Every time one of those decks or shoes is shuffled, the order that results is so impossible that the probability that any of those orders will reoccur during some future shuffle is practically...

I'm well aware of the science. But, Hansel is arguing philosophy as much as physics, and once the door is open to metaphysics, all natural proofs are rendered irrelevant. I've tried to argue pure science in this thread before. The fact is that Steven Weinberg calculated the cosmological...

What's your point? Seriously, I don't know whether your arguing for or against design.