Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 17252627
Results 261 to 264 of 264

Thread: Common theist argument: "You know, I used to be an atheist myself..."

  1. Top | #261
    Industrial Grade Linguist Copernicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    2,088
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Proponents and skeptics
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

    Proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Hugh Everett,[23] Brian Greene,[24][25] Max Tegmark,[26] Alan Guth,[27] Andrei Linde,[28] Michio Kaku,[29] David Deutsch,[30] Leonard Susskind,[31] Alexander Vilenkin,[32] Yasunori Nomura,[33] Raj Pathria,[34] Laura Mersini-Houghton,[35][36] Neil deGrasse Tyson,[37] Lawrence Krauss, Sean Carroll[38] and Stephen Hawking.[39]

    Scientists who are generally skeptical of the multiverse hypothesis include: David Gross,[40] Paul Steinhardt,[41][42] Anna Ijjas,[42] Abraham Loeb,[42] David Spergel,[43] Neil Turok,[44] Viatcheslav Mukhanov,[45] Michael S. Turner,[46] Roger Penrose,[47] George Ellis,[48][49] Joe Silk,[50]Carlo Rovelli,[51] Adam Frank,[52] Marcelo Gleiser,[52] Jim Baggott[53] and Paul Davies.[54]
    Thank you for reminding us that scientists debate each other and publish documents to support their side of the debate. Non-scientists do this, too. Wikipedia is a good place to look up such information.

  2. Top | #262
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    734
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,533
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Proponents and skeptics
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

    Proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Hugh Everett,[23] Brian Greene,[24][25] Max Tegmark,[26] Alan Guth,[27] Andrei Linde,[28] Michio Kaku,[29] David Deutsch,[30] Leonard Susskind,[31] Alexander Vilenkin,[32] Yasunori Nomura,[33] Raj Pathria,[34] Laura Mersini-Houghton,[35][36] Neil deGrasse Tyson,[37] Lawrence Krauss, Sean Carroll[38] and Stephen Hawking.[39]

    Scientists who are generally skeptical of the multiverse hypothesis include: David Gross,[40] Paul Steinhardt,[41][42] Anna Ijjas,[42] Abraham Loeb,[42] David Spergel,[43] Neil Turok,[44] Viatcheslav Mukhanov,[45] Michael S. Turner,[46] Roger Penrose,[47] George Ellis,[48][49] Joe Silk,[50]Carlo Rovelli,[51] Adam Frank,[52] Marcelo Gleiser,[52] Jim Baggott[53] and Paul Davies.[54]
    There is a good discussion on the subject by Linde based on the latest Planck data that can be found here:

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0526


    Check it out if you are interested in more than a 5-second scan of the Wiki page (the PDF is free to download). You can also find the lectures that this summary is based on online, but I am too lazy to find the link for you.

    Inflation is a cosmological model that attempts to describe the early expansion of the universe before the much more sedate, dark energy driven expansion that followed. It makes certain predictions that can be tested and have been tested, and some that cannot be tested with the current technology available to us. It is probably not complete as written, but it is a start. And it is infinitely better than the Biblical model that creationists cling too.

    The Bible comes to us through revelation; or at least that is what some anonymous scribe in the deserts of the primitive Middle East in the middle of the Bronze Age would have you believe. Divine revelations are terrible models for reality; they provide no useful insights into how reality works, they make no predictions, and they cannot be falsified. Moreover, they cannot be challenged. You either believe based on no evidence, or you don't. Cosmic inflation on the other hand is based on observations of reality coupled with physics and logic; it can be tested, it can be falsified, and it can be debated and criticized, even discarded if observations show it to be wrong. Inflation is a far superior model of reality than the Bible could ever be.

  3. Top | #263
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    734
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,533
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    I explicitly define God as the Creator of your 'universe'.
    By making the claim that God is not part of the set of everything that exists, you are telling us that God does not exist.

    Logic. So easy, yet so hard for some people.
    Where did I say God is not part of the set of things which exist?
    Forget logic pal. You can't even read.
    You were responding to a post by Bilby that defined the universe as the set of everything that exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post

    Hand waving is an acceptable response to your special pleading that God is part of "the set the universe".

    Creationists use the two perfectly sound epistemological categories of creator and creation. (Designed/Undesigned. Intentionality/Sponteneity. Caused/Uncaused. Teleology/Atheology.)
    There is nothing controversial about the category of contingent things.

    But your special pleading metaphysics expects us to simply accept on blind faith that a) the universe has always existed and b) that its 'laws' and deterministic nature lack any ontological contingency whatsoever.

    You're making that up. You have nothing but hope that we will believe your claim and give you a hall pass.

    Aren't you even a little embarrassed to be doing exactly what you accuse creationists of doing?
    I explicitly defined that by 'universe' I mean 'all things that exist'.

    It's not 'special pleading' to include in that set anything that exists; So are you claiming that God does not exist, or are you just hoping that nobody will notice that this is a requirement in order for your counter argument to work?
    [Emphasis mine]

    If the universe does not include God, then God does not exist. Or are you now going to try to define the word "everything" to mean something else? Like how you tried to redefine the word omniscient and still failed miserably to refute my argument that your god is a programmed automaton. In fact, you left that debate with your panties in a wad pretending to be butthurt, instead of showing some backbone and acknowledging that you were wrong.

  4. Top | #264
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,240
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,186
    Rep Power
    58
    nm

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •