Doesn't it seem odd that the "evidence for the existence of god" is completely hidden from the greatest human minds who spend their professional lives exploring how the universe functions, yet it is perfectly clear to uneducated simpletons who have access to internet-linked terminals?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Doesn't it seem odd that the "evidence for the existence of god" is completely hidden from the greatest human minds who spend their professional lives exploring how the universe functions, yet it is perfectly clear to uneducated simpletons who have access to internet-linked terminals?
after all the time I have been producing evidence for you delustional atheists, I though you would be too embarrased to lie about the science... Why don't you explain the fine tunings to theses scientists....
here are more quotes... from top scientists.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God â the design argument of Paley â updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html
here are more quotes... from top scientists.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God â the design argument of Paley â updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html
Quote from jem:
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html [/B]
geeze jem. think. all of your sources have a motive. that being they are christians first and have a need to believe.
how do you propose to test christianity in a scientific way and get a positive result? so far christianity has failed every scientific test.
Quote from Free Thinker:
geeze jem. think. all of your sources have a motive. that being they are christians first and have a need to believe.
how do you propose to test christianity in a scientific way and get a positive result? so far christianity has failed every scientific test.
if you are going to pretend to take the scientific high ground... try addressing the science
Do you accept that there is evidence of design in our universe or do you deny current scientific understanding?
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God â the design argument of Paley â updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
Quote from jem:
if you are going to pretend to take the scientific high ground... try addressing the science
Do you accept that there is evidence of design in our universe or do you deny current scientific understanding?
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God â the design argument of Paley â updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
jem. think. all of your sources boil down to this: i think its too complicated to have happened naturally so it had to be designed. that is opinion not evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP_QHbrkrQM
Jem I can't remember if you've said or not, but what are your religious beliefs. Baptist, general Christian, Muslim, one of the many other recognized gods or just believe in god with no specifics.
To be fair for me since there is absolutely no evidence of a god I dont believe there is one. No evidence = atheist. And putting up quotes that say it appears there is a designer isn't proof, not for me.
To be fair for me since there is absolutely no evidence of a god I dont believe there is one. No evidence = atheist. And putting up quotes that say it appears there is a designer isn't proof, not for me.
this is one of the nobel prize winning scientists jem is fond of claiming support intelligent design:
Stanford University theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind rejects the idea of "intelligent design" as a theory for the origins of the universe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDgzRIiQ4b8
Stanford University theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind rejects the idea of "intelligent design" as a theory for the origins of the universe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDgzRIiQ4b8
Quote from Free Thinker:
this is one of the nobel prize winning scientists jem is fond of claiming support intelligent design:
Stanford University theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind rejects the idea of "intelligent design" as a theory for the origins of the universe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDgzRIiQ4b8
first of all that is only one of the many quotes I have given you from many nobel prize winners.
but free thinker does not even understand english. - listen to the qualification Susskind puts on his response. The whole response by Susskind is premised on the idea of almost infinite universes... the multiverse.
here is Susskind's from the now famous New Scientist magazine interview.
"If, for some unforseen reason, the landscape [i.e., the many-universes version of string theory] turns out to be inconsistent â maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation â I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of natureâs fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. "
now... why don't you address the science of fine tunings...
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God â the design argument of Paley â updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
Where is the science? "Take your choice" is not science!Quote from jem:
first of all that is only one of the many quotes I have given you from many nobel prize winners.
but free thinker does not even understand english. - listen to the qualification Susskind puts on his response. The whole response by Susskind is premised on the idea of almost infinite universes... the multiverse.
here is Susskind's from the now famous New Scientist magazine interview.
"If, for some unforseen reason, the landscape [i.e., the many-universes version of string theory] turns out to be inconsistent â maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation â I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of natureâs fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. "
now... why don't you address the science of fine tunings...
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God â the design argument of Paley â updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
I've said to you before, scientists, Nobel winners or not, are not treated in the way which religionists like yourself are, blindly accepting what a Pope or a priest a bible or their own fanciful ideas might tell them.
If Ed Harrison can show ANY actual science to do with deity or intelligent design, not just his personal opinion and assertions about so called 'fine tunings', and " it looks designed" , then he will be the first to ever do that.
The intelligent design argument of Paley has been so widely and comprehensibly refuted, it's just strange to be digging up such old chestnuts still.
It is in any case completely self refuting. If universes need a designer, then so do those designers need a designer , ad infinitum. Thatâs no explanation at all.
If an intelligent designer would not need designing, then neither would the universe.
Can you explain why you want to be so attached to arguments for intelligent design, when there is no evidence for it , overwhelming evidence of all kinds against it, and only ever groundless argument made in its defense?
Do you have a soft spot for dead horses and floggings or something?
Quote from Free Thinker:
Doesn't it seem odd that the "evidence for the existence of god" is completely hidden from the greatest human minds who spend their professional lives exploring how the universe functions, yet it is perfectly clear to uneducated simpletons who have access to internet-linked terminals?
A devious question!
Doesn't it seem odd to you that a very significant minority of scientists believe in God? Are these believers uneducated simpletons?
In any case, it doesn't seem odd at all that scientists, theist or atheist, can't find scientific evidence for God because they spend their lives exploring how the universe functions on an immediate, material level, not at the deepest metaphysical level. A brilliant scientist can be a naive philosopher because scientists have no reason to be concerned with metaphysical issues.
It's been unarguable for centuries that the world we know and can know is not the world-in-itself independent of interpretive bias and limitations.
Once again: the fact that science finds no evidence for God is irrelevant; science can't find God if science isn't looking for God or is incapable of knowing God even if God is sitting on science's face. God doesn't manifest as God-in-Godself to scientists or anybody else.
BTW how did scientists get to be designated the 'greatest human minds' anyway? All that's required to be a successful scientist is an interest in the subject, some imagination, and an aptitude for math. [I assume you equate those who explore how the universe functions with scientists].