If someone says they feel something to be true, but that they can't prove(like drinking a glass of poisen and not being hurt)would you take their word for it and drink too? Mark 16:18
The stakes are high, my feeling might be "no". But what's the reward, and if I don't get it, and I die, will I be disappointed?
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say âsupernaturalâ) plan.â - Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83. Stu - do you not comprehend english when a scientist explains it? How can you keep denying there is evidence of design? "Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire? Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why." http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137 regarding the other garbage you just wrote... lets go over this again... are you admitting there could be a creator of the universe? yes or no. if the answer is yes then you are back with the rational people. Congrats because you sure do go off the deep end when someone says they believe in a Creator .. which you now admit could exist.
regarding responding to you when you claim to have called me a hypocrite. apparently you called me a hypocrite for my responses to free thinker on this thread. I explained that my responses were made in response to Free thinkers statement that God can only make perfect things. The response which you and free thinker did not like... was not even a belief of mine. Get it. I never thought God only made perfect things. I was explaining that even within Free Thinkers construct he was wrong. imo. so you see you apparently called me a hypocrite for a hypothetical answer... in which I responded with hypothetical beliefs. Why would i respond to something so sophomoric.
WTF Jem, the thread was about cruelty to animals and my response was to your hypocritical comments. How the hell is some cut and paste about universes and your bullshit idea that must mean intelligent design, anything at all to do with this !?. Be honest for once, you don't understand what the hell would constitute a sensible discussion at all, do you?
You were being hypocritical. I explained why. Faffing around as usual, just like you do above, is not addressing the issue any. It's just faffing around. I laid the points out for you 1.2.3. in response to your own, but all you've managed so far is to dodge and faff. Why not try actually directly answering the points themselves for once.
Your ignorance is amusing considering you just proclaimed how rational you discussion of God has been. All this bullshit about how rational you are, yet you skipped my question: Does science allow for the possibility of a Creator of the universe... yes or no.
was this you big 1,2,3... those aren't points their detritus. there is nothing hysterical or hypocritical about asking a someone who gets upset about unwanted dogs being put down but does not get upset when unwanted human babies get put down. Your response was the hysterical one. In case you did not notice the Western world got a major part of the foundation of its law from the bible and churches. Until recently you saw the 10 commandments in court rooms and it is still on the Supreme Court. You still see bibles in courtrooms. Judeo Christian values of the foundation of the Western culture. You can take what you want out of the bible. But, you are one of the few who sees God as a homicidal mad man. Good luck with your worldview.
You're hysterical and irrational as ever I see. Suffice it to say, it will no doubt be the hypocrisy of the religious like yourself that would never condemn the act of abortion which their own worshipful Grand Mufti committed in their story book, but nevertheless do, like yourself, shout so self-righteously and hysterically against abortion at the drop of a hat, whilst the faithful make law to allow abortion, in order they may have the option of it, but then excuse themselves for <strike>not</strike> living <strike>up</strike> down to their religion Religion and morals. Two words that never belonged together.
Does science allow for the possibility of a Creator of the universe...and allow that the possibility that stu is the creator...yes or no.