Kjkent - I could not care less if you ever type a word here again. You are a big blowhard who likes to restate my arguments as as if it they were yours -- just like the clerk boy you are Let me see you were wrong about your "measuring time" argument and I was correct about the fact that if there were a creator he might not be governed by time and its concepts of before and after. As far as my typos go, screw off. Now if you wish to have a debate, learn some science.
actually I have read a lot of what he has written (although I am not claiming to understand it all) and I agree he has postulated a few theories that might discount the big bang, but the last links I have read seemed to indicate he brought other theories into line with big bang theory. If you have an article that you wish me to read i would be happy to read it. If you have any respected science that says we know time existed before the big bang that would help KJs position because otherwise he had no reason to call my original premise false.
i just went to a Stephen hawking uk site that claime to contain all his public lectures. While the there were no dates on the lectures he spoke of the big bang in what seemed to be his most recent public lectures.
I didn't respond to your original post -- you responded to mine, so the obvious implication is that you wanted to debate me. Now, you're threatening to cut off debate with me, after I already told you that I won't debate with you or anyone else who chooses ad hominems in preference to logic and reason. And, so, your wish is granted, and I shall debate you no longer. Hopefully, you will have the courage to return the favor.
wrong again. From what I read on the few pages before my post Turok made a comment about a designer having to come into being. This is a standard question -- of so someone created the universe - who created the creator. My response was created to show that a designer might not have to "come into being" if he were not governed by time and our limited understandings of it. now lets see you honor you commitment without mistating the facts again.
Xmas read: http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm "A Designer Universe?" by Steven Weinberg
I see the atheist/scientists are continuing to take issue with a western concept of God when they evaluate the "fairness" and "benevolence" of God as relates to the condition of mankind. Some eastern concepts of God, the Universe, and man are founded on a radically different perspective. Some eastern religions and beliefs take a perspective that the universe and its actions are absolutely fair, and all that happens to human beings is not the consequence of the whimsy a benevolent or non benevolent God, but rather the consequence of thought and action, and this sequence is all by design. A system if you will...perfectly fair by design, as design could be understood for an eternal situation. Taking this point of view, destroys the arguments against God generally used by those scientists who are attacking the western concept of God... Some physicists have even imagined parallels in certain translations of eastern religions and their explanations of creation, design, etc. Given that most of the scientific community is west centric, and as most of the theists and atheists here at ET are west centric respectively, it is not a surprise that other religions are overlooked when viewing some of the issues that are often discussed. As mentioned previously, I am not a Christian, but I do live in a mostly Christian society, so it becomes necessary to communicate primarily on the level of the understanding and beliefs of the majority. My personal beliefs would not be met with agreement by most ET members, both atheist and theist alike, given the nature of the western ways...
that was just weinberg's views if thats what you are referring to... just thought it would be interesting to have a first-hand paper from him instead of 2nd-hand quotes by prof xyz of the ID church... but you do have a point that the western concept of gods is way too simplistic... buddhism's a much higher standard...
More hubris. Who are you to say who has a higher standard? I personally don't look at any religion and say one is higher or lower, I just acknowledge that there are differences. I don't feel my beliefs are superior or inferior, they are just different. I am saying that there are different belief systems, which appeal to different people, or are the situation due to the culture one is exposed to. By the way, Buddhism has its focus on humanism as a path to perfection and liberation from the cycle of birth and death, not a focus on the need for God to achieve salvation or liberation. It does not make it a higher standard, just a different standard, because there is no way to make such evaluations without first knowing God. The evaluations you are making are purely secular, and as such they are a judgment from that perspective. You are of course free to do so, and it does fit with your general tone of superior/inferior point of view regarding humanity. Different religions teach different things, and the arguments found in ET by atheist and theist are mostly west centric is the point I was making, and the arguments against God on the basis of the lack of fairness in human life are nearly wholly based on a western Judeo Christian Muslim concept of God.
kjkent1 wrote: If someone thinks design has been established or proven simply because it âlooks that way to them,â they have obviously jumped the gun. But there is nothing wrong with the argument, âit looks designed, thus I suspect it may have been designed.â If you were walking along the beach and saw a message written in the sand that said "John loves Mary" you would immediately infer design. Why? Why not infer that the random action of wind and/or water formed the pattern? Because it looks designed! There are other ways to put it but it all really boils down to how things look. Many ID critics often pay tribute to the âlooks likeâ argument, as one of their main arguments against ID is that life doesnât look designed. According to them, for example, life is too sloppy, too wasteful, etc. to be designed. kjkent1 wrote: But following the logic of your previous argument you wouldn't bother to look for evidence of manufacturing because if you found it then you would have to explain the origin of the entity that did the manufacturing and thus the problem of infinite regress.