Is God mute?

Science is to "random chance" created it atheists what the internet news sites are to the main stream media.

Just look at what the true state of science does to random chance did it trolls like Stu.

It absolutely drives them nuts... that many scientists state our Universe appears to be incredibly fine tuned... and that there is no proof that life evolved from non life by random chance. Toi most its just science getting deeper understand that our universe is very complex and not likely created by random chance.

To Stu... its intolerable for a person to even quote scientists who state it.


nitro said:
What is funny is, Christians, because of the printing press and general other informational revolutions like the internet, fax machines, etc, have slowly progressed away from religion, though still chained to it.

Christians do not see themselves in Muslims. Muslims are stuck in the 15th century versions of Christians because Muslim "Kings" forbade the printing press, and in general oppress many forms of freedoms and free exchange of ideas. Freedoms Christians formed (or took back) from the church in the Renaissance - let alone today!

Scientists are to modern religious Christians/Jews, what moderate Muslims are to ISIS/Daesh. The progression away from mysticism, maintaining a moral center with strong tolerance for opposing points of view, is the key to the future.
More...
 
Last edited:
jem said:
... and that there is no proof that life evolved from non life by random chance.
More...

You're getting there. Not random chance at all. Random chance being the red herring you keep trotting out.

Just the inevitable consequence of natural events. That would suffice.

Reading posts you make is constantly like watching someone fall into a hole they've just dug for themselves.
 
lets think your statement through to its conclusion. whether you admit it or not if you are going to deny the existence of creator or creation maker or designer or tuner... you are going to have to argue for random chance.

The odds of Stu not responding with sophistry are almost as remote as life evolving from non life given the time frame and starting conditions we had.



stu said:
You're getting there. Not random chance at all. Random chance being the red herring you keep trotting out.

Just the inevitable consequence of natural events. That would suffice.

Reading posts you make is constantly like watching someone fall into a hole they've just dug for themselves.
More...
 
jem said:
... you are going to have to argue for random chance.
More...

I'm not having to. As there is no essential requirement for random chance.
However, you've been unable to do little else.
 
of course there is no essential element for random chance...

as we have covered this before ... but that discussion points to a creator or you need to exhibit faith in a multiverse.



stu said:
I'm not having to. As there is no essential requirement for random chance.
However, you've been unable to do little else.
More...
 
Last edited:
I looked this up again... and found this great article for those who wish to learn about how unlikely Stu's 1950s ideas are. Our universe appears so incredibly designed that one most speculate there are almost infinite other universes to explain how it could be we are so tuned for life.



http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

“I don’t think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator,” Weinberg says. “What it does is remove one of the arguments for it, just as Darwin’s theory of evolution made it unnecessary to appeal to a benevolent designer to understand how life developed with such remarkable abilities to survive and breed.”

On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”
 
Last edited:
A good question:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

Strikingly, the temperature of space is everywhere the same, just 2.7 degrees Celsius above absolute zero. How could different regions of the universe, separated by such enormous distances, all have the same temperature?

In the standard version of the Big Bang, they couldn’t. The universe as a whole has been cooling ever since it emerged from the fireball of the Big Bang. But there’s a problem: For all of it to reach the same temperature, different regions of the universe would have to exchange heat, just as ice cubes and hot tea have to meet to reach the uniform temperature of iced tea. But as Einstein proved, nothing—including heat—can travel faster than the speed of light. In the conventional theory of the Big Bang, there simply hasn’t been enough time since the universe was born for every part of the cosmos to have connected with every other part and cooled to the same temperature.
More...
 
jem said:
... but that discussion points to a creator or you need to exhibit faith in a multiverse.
More...

Neither.
It points to a universe from the inevitable outcome of natural evolving forces making the creator part unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
"Strikingly, the temperature of space is everywhere the same, just 2.7 degrees Celsius above absolute zero. How could different regions of the universe, separated by such enormous distances, all have the same temperature?"

OddTrader said:
A good question:
More...

Addressed some time ago by Alan Guth and Andrei Linde with Inflation theory. Recent detection of gravitational waves within the cosmic microwave background radiation support Inflation theory which says different regions were close enough for the temperature to be uniform, then space expanded so fast, the regions spread that same temperature throughout the visible universe.

Jem will often drum up on any old article containing unresolved outdated questions in the hope they suggest a gap for a creator to loiter in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top