The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Harika · 26-06-2016 07:38PM

J C wrote: »

These eminent scientists are making their conclusions based on the scientific evidence available to them ... so just like I don't need any peer review on my doctor's opinion of my state of health ... I trust her opinion because her conclusions are based on the scientific evidence available to her ... neither do I go all pedantic and look for peer review of the considered scientific opinons expressed by eminent scientists like Richard Dawkins and Michio Kaku.

The point is they believe it, as you wrote down yourself. That has nothing to do with a proof. They also don't have evidence, else they would show it in a paper and get famous.
Unfortunately, now hold yourself, your doctor also makes an assumption what you have, if you go to him or her with symptoms. He or she might be correct, but that doesn't proof that it is correct, until proven e.g. the prescription drugs are working. If they are not working, the second best option gets tried or more tests are ordered. and so on

DownOneTourist · 26-06-2016 07:43PM

I can't believe that I got into this debate. I saw it on the homepage and decided to jump in. Anyway I think that you [J C] would enjoy reading about Euler's God equation if you were intrigued by Michio Kaku's comments.

looksee · 26-06-2016 07:55PM

I think, on balance, we will have to let JC away with his argument. This is the Christianity forum, which is totally based on belief, and accepts belief as proof, so his argument about having proof of God, by which he means he believes that other people believe they have come to a definitive answer, is the only logical way this argument can go.

robdonn · 26-06-2016 09:40PM

looksee wrote: »

I think, on balance, we will have to let JC away with his argument. This is the Christianity forum, which is totally based on belief, and accepts belief as proof, so his argument about having proof of God, by which he means he believes that other people believe they have come to a definitive answer, is the only logical way this argument can go.

Nuh huh, "I believe the universe is 10,000 years old because that's just what I believe (and my belief in Christianity confirms this)" is a valid argument on this forum to go without question.

"I believe that the universe is 10,000 years old and there is scientific evidence to back up my claim" is something that demands scrutiny.

DownOneTourist · 26-06-2016 10:13PM

robdonn wrote: »

Nuh huh, "I believe the universe is 10,000 years old because that's just what I believe (and my belief in Christianity confirms this)" is a valid argument on this forum to go without question.

"I believe that the universe is 10,000 years old and there is scientific evidence to back up my claim" is something that demands scrutiny.

But don't you realise that were going round in circles. There is no point. Lets just allow this mod to break the wheel and we will all move on to our own things.

robdonn · 26-06-2016 11:44PM

DownOneTourist wrote: »

But don't you realise that were going round in circles. There is no point. Lets just allow this mod to break the wheel and we will all move on to our own things.

Nah, I want to be convinced. It just requires something more than "If you read this part of the Bible, turn it upside down, smudge it a bit with a wet brush, squint at it and read it backwards, it kind of looks like the Callan-Symanzik equation."

looksee · 26-06-2016 11:47PM

DownOneTourist wrote: »

But don't you realise that were going round in circles. There is no point. Lets just allow this mod to break the wheel and we will all move on to our own things.

If you mean me, I am not a mod here, just a regular poster.

Leroy42 · 27-06-2016 08:55AM

J C wrote: »

As a scientist, all he can definitively conclude is that an Intelligence was required to create it.

The question for Atheists and like-minded people is do you accept this?

You keep saying that you would believe in an intelligent creation if you had evidence for it ... so here is evidence ....

Quote:-
"While working on this theory, Kaku discovered what he says is the evidence that the universe was created by an intelligence rather than by random forces. To put it simply, as stated by Catholic.org, he said that we live in a Matrix-style universe.
"I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence," the scientist said. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."
So does this mean that he believes in the omnipotence of God? Yes, and no. Despite his theory of an intelligence being the maker of the universe, he may also be referring to Spinosa's God, which is a sort of deitification of the laws of the universe itself. This is the kind of God that Einstein also concluded years before."

But JC, this actually doesn't help your case at all.

The scientist is simply replacing the current 'big bang' with the term creator. The term 'Big Bang' doesn't mean anything really, its just a label for the point in time that we have no understanding of, and a term the media can use and people can understand. Science doesn't know what created the big bang.

What Kaku is saying is that based on all the known laws of the universe, we can see everywhere as constant, we can trace them all back to a certain point but that there is no explanation as to how these laws came about. The current scientific thinking is the concept of the big bang, but Kaku is arguing that due to the complex and interrelated nature, and the fact they have remained constant would indicate that something, or someone, created them.

But he is not arguing that that creator has any interaction with the universe since that point, in fact his whole hypothesis is based on the observance that the laws have remained constant, everything that happens in the universe is based on those laws. There is no chance involved, and everything conforms to these laws.

So no miracles, no divine intervention, no hand reaching down to create Eve from a rib. So in effect he is giving the big bang a more personalised stature but it actually takes more away from your position that it adds.

You are, in effect, praying to a being that has no influence and any outcomes are based purely on the laws of the universe.

hinault · 28-06-2016 11:47AM

DownOneTourist wrote: »

It isn't evidence. It's an untestable hypothesis. .

It isn't hypothetical. The evidence is there that the Universe is highly ordered and design. The orderliness and intelligence of that design is not in dispute.

The only thing that is in dispute is the source of that orderliness and intelligence.
Kaku says that that orderliness and intelligence is God.

PopePalpatine · 28-06-2016 12:38PM

hinault wrote: »

It isn't hypothetical. The evidence is there that the Universe is highly ordered and design. The orderliness and intelligence of that design is not in dispute.

The only thing that is in dispute is the source of that orderliness and intelligence.
Kaku says that that orderliness and intelligence is God.

Oh for the Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake...point out where he was referring to the Judaeo-Christian god. He just referred to an undefined deity, which a Vatican rag spun as proof of their god.

steamengine · 28-06-2016 12:53PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh for the Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake...point out where he was referring to the Judaeo-Christian god. He just referred to an undefined deity, which a Vatican rag spun as proof of their god.

If the atheist position is that there is no god of any type, won't Kaku's God do fine for the purpose of the argument whether a God had a hand in the creation of the universe ? It sounds like atheists are crying foul - 'Sorry wrong God guys'. Kaku's God is indeed undefined which leaves open the possibility of the Christian God, would it not ?

robdonn · 28-06-2016 01:28PM

hinault wrote: »

It isn't hypothetical. The evidence is there that the Universe is highly ordered and design. The orderliness and intelligence of that design is not in dispute.

The only thing that is in dispute is the source of that orderliness and intelligence.
Kaku says that that orderliness and intelligence is God.

Hi hinault.

The "design" is very much in dispute.

Kaku can say that the universe is made of overly ripe bananas. The opinion of one man is not a theory or a fact. When he publishes his data, then we'll see.

robdonn · 28-06-2016 01:29PM

steamengine wrote: »

If the atheist position is that there is no god of any type, won't Kaku's God do fine for the purpose of the argument whether a God had a hand in the creation of the universe ? It sounds like atheists are crying foul - 'Sorry wrong God guys'. Kaku's God is indeed undefined which leaves open the possibility of the Christian God, would it not ?

The "atheist position" is that there is a lack of evidence to support the proposition that a god exists. Kaku has not shown any evidence that a god exists.

Opinion ≠ Fact

Leroy42 · 28-06-2016 02:26PM

hinault wrote: »

It isn't hypothetical. The evidence is there that the Universe is highly ordered and design. The orderliness and intelligence of that design is not in dispute.

The only thing that is in dispute is the source of that orderliness and intelligence.
Kaku says that that orderliness and intelligence is God.

No he doesn't he says that it was a creator. Yes you believe that God is the creator but he is much more than that. He is the one directing everything, having placed our planet, and us in particular as the central, in fact the very reason, for the existence of everything else.

In takes an active role in the outcomes of our daily lives, decides who lives and dies, who suffers and who gets a free pass. We must offer our thanks and praise to him and live by his rules in order to satisfy him.

Kaku creator is none of those. You have taken one word and used it to back-up your position without fully understanding the point he is making. If Kaku is right, and I would lean towards his opinion of this, then whilst God may well exist, he does not exist as we understand him.

He did not send send his son down to save the world, that would be an interference with the laws and orderliness that Kaku is using to argue for the creator. He did not interfere to create a flood to wipe out all life on earth. He did not make the earth in 6 days, Kaku's opinion is actually based on this being completely false.

You should be running a million miles away from Kaku, he is doing more damage to you position than anything an atheist can do.

Safehands · 28-06-2016 11:27PM

J C wrote: »

Here are eminent scientists (Richard Dawkins and Michio Kaku) who are respectively saying that in their professional opinion and based on what they observe as scientists, it is possible that life and certain that the universe was intelligently created.

Fantastic answer JC. You finally cite Richard Dawkins, the eminent scientist, as evidence, based on what he said in that interview. This is incontrovertable corroboration, from a source completely ensconced in creationism, that Darwinian evolution is an acceptable theory in your beliefs.
Thank you JC.

hinault · 30-06-2016 12:55PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Kaku creator is none of those. You have taken one word and used it to back-up your position without fully understanding the point he is making. If Kaku is right, and I would lean towards his opinion of this, then whilst God may well exist, he does not exist as we understand him.

You should be running a million miles away from Kaku, he is doing more damage to you position than anything an atheist can do.

Take it up with Kaku, he used the word God.

It's you who fail to understand what Kaku said and what he means.

I understand your disappointment when an eminent scientist decides to conform his view to accepting the existence of God.
Hopefully in time, you too might come to be illuminated with wisdom.

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-06-2016 01:09PM

hinault wrote: »

Take it up with Kaku, he used the word God.

It's you who fail to understand what Kaku said and what he means.

I understand your disappointment when an eminent scientist decides to conform his view to accepting the existence of A God.
Hopefully in time, you too might come to be illuminated with wisdom.

FYP

robdonn · 30-06-2016 01:16PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

FYP

No no no, only Christians use the word 'god' so it can only mean the Christian god.

Harika · 30-06-2016 06:59PM

Again, the Argument from Authority. Because a clever man says something, you suggest we should believe it. That is not the way it should work. The clever man should present evidence, and we regard him as clever because the evidence is convincing. Michio Kaku has presented not evidence for a god, only his opinion. We don't have to take that. You may, if you wish, but you cannot say that I should.

hinault · 01-07-2016 02:02AM

Harika wrote: »

Again, the Argument from Authority. Because a clever man says something, you suggest we should believe it. That is not the way it should work. The clever man should present evidence, and we regard him as clever because the evidence is convincing. Michio Kaku has presented not evidence for a god, only his opinion. We don't have to take that. You may, if you wish, but you cannot say that I should.

I bet you bought his String Theory though.

robdonn · 01-07-2016 11:19AM

hinault wrote: »

I bet you bought his String Theory though.

When he backed it up with data, yeah...

Safehands · 04-07-2016 11:27PM

hinault wrote: »

I bet you bought his String Theory though.

This is an interesting comment. I would back any ongoing scientific research into the size and makeup of the universe. Some scientists speculate that there are 10 to the power of 24 stars in the universe, (That is a one with 24 zeros). Some speculate that there are multiverses, that is, we are present in one "universe" but there are many others, maybe identical to ours.

The only real truth is that we have no idea, because there is so much out there which hasn't been discovered yet. There are laws, there are facts and there are realities that we are simply unable to comprehend. No doubt we will have a better idea at some stage in the future.

So to suggest that we know how it all - (meaning the observable universe) - started because of a book written 4 or 5 thousand years ago is just adopting an ostrich pose.
I would be very happy to take on board the content of any such book, if it transpired that the facts written in this book were corroborated by contemporary scientific knowledge and discoveries. Unfortunately the content of the old testament writings do not reveal any verifiable facts or any data which scientists can look at and state with certainty that it is undeniably correct. In truth, it gets basic facts verifiably wrong. If it were inspired by a Deity it would be absolutely correct and beyond criticism by our most respected scientists. It's facts would be scientifically and mathematically provable and that would be fantastic.

String theory will probably turn out to be wrong, and if it transpires thus, the current supporters of the theory will just say, "Sorry, but the theory is wrong and here are the reasons why" That's the way real scientists work!

Leroy42 · 05-07-2016 10:00AM

hinault wrote: »

Take it up with Kaku, he used the word God.

It's you who fail to understand what Kaku said and what he means.

I understand your disappointment when an eminent scientist decides to conform his view to accepting the existence of God.
Hopefully in time, you too might come to be illuminated with wisdom.

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here. What is your understanding of God? My understanding of what Kaku is saying is that based on all the evidence he concludes that a creator, and intelligence was involved and not simply chance. He does not claim that God is still working in the universe. Do you believe in a creator God (God simply replaces the word Big Bang for all the impact it has in our lives) or do you believe in an all seeing God who is concerned about our daily lives and will punish or reward us based on how we live those lives?

I never said that Kaku didn't say God did it, or that he believes in God, or even that God doesn't exist. But you do know that he is not the worlds only scientist, don't you? If you are prepared to place such faith is his announcement, based on his understanding of science, then why not the same level of faith in the vast majority of scientists who of of the view that if a God does exist it is the the deity that we think of and that he plays no active role in the universe.

As I already pointed out, it is the very 'no active role' that allows Kaku to hypothise that God created the universe. By the very nature of the constant laws of the universe scientists can trace the universe back billions of years with stunning accuracy but hit a wall close to the perceived beginning.

Kaku has come to the conclusion that rather than using this to dismiss God, the very unknown nature of the beginning, along with the rules based nature of the universe since then points to a creator, rather than the 'just happened' big bang.

So yes, it is an argument for God, but is actually quite a damning argument against the God as many understand him. God may have created the universe, but clearly, based on the rules we can verify, plays no active role in the universe. Basically he is a Chairman who set up the company and then went off to something else. He plays no active role and so believe in him is fine. Praying to him is a waste of time. Thinking he pays any attention to your life, the earth, the universe at all goes against what Kaku is actually saying. Believing in the God that Kaku is espousing is to call into question the viability of the Jesus narrative. To call into question the whole basis for religion. You are as well off praying to this God as you are to a rock, a star, the sun or any other deity that humans has created over history in order to satisfy the areas of the world we do not understand

hinault · 05-07-2016 12:47PM

Safehands wrote: »

The only real truth is that we have no idea, because there is so much out there which hasn't been discovered yet. There are laws, there are facts and there are realities that we are simply unable to comprehend. No doubt we will have a better idea at some stage in the future.

So to suggest that we know how it all - (meaning the observable universe) - started because of a book written 4 or 5 thousand years ago is just adopting an ostrich pose.
I would be very happy to take on board the content of any such book, if it transpired that the facts written in this book were corroborated by contemporary scientific knowledge and discoveries. Unfortunately the content of the old testament writings do not reveal any verifiable facts or any data which scientists can look at and state with certainty that it is undeniably correct. In truth, it gets basic facts verifiably wrong. If it were inspired by a Deity it would be absolutely correct and beyond criticism by our most respected scientists. It's facts would be scientifically and mathematically provable and that would be fantastic.

String theory will probably turn out to be wrong, and if it transpires thus, the current supporters of the theory will just say, "Sorry, but the theory is wrong and here are the reasons why" That's the way real scientists work!

I have no doubt that God is perfectly content with man coming to know and understand far better, His universe.
God trusted man sufficiently to grant dominion over Earth.
He wants us to know more!:)

Trial and error are each part of the learning process. So be it.

My own view is that Genesis was never purported to be a scientific explanation as to how the Universe was conceived and created.
In my view what Genesis seeks to tell us is that God is the catalyst for the material creation of this universe.

I see no contradiction between reason - even scientific reason - and faith.
Of course, there has been a deliberate attempt by certain elements in the atheist/scientific community to create such a contradiction.

God is rational. Therefore it is logical that God would allow for man to obtain more understanding of how the universe and all that is in it operates.

hinault · 05-07-2016 01:00PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here. What is your understanding of God? My understanding of what Kaku is saying is that based on all the evidence he concludes that a creator, and intelligence was involved and not simply chance. He does not claim that God is still working in the universe.

Kaku doesn't have to claim that God is still working in the universe to validate his claim that God is the source, the Creator, of the universe.

Whereas before Kaku held that the creation of the Universe was due to something other than God

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do you believe in a creator God (God simply replaces the word Big Bang for all the impact it has in our lives) or do you believe in an all seeing God who is concerned about our daily lives and will punish or reward us based on how we live those lives?

That is an interesting question.

I don't see this existence as punishment or reward.
As a person of faith, I hold that God exists and that He wants us to freely conform our lives to His teaching. He leaves that choice decision entirely to us.

Is God concerned with my daily life? I'm presuming that He is aware of every thought and action that I have. But again I'm entirely free to behave as I choose with regard to each and every action.

Timberrrrrrrr · 05-07-2016 01:09PM

hinault wrote: »

Kaku doesn't have to claim that A God is still working in the universe to validate his claim that A God is the source, the Creator, of the universe.

Whereas before Kaku held that the creation of the Universe was due to something other than A God ;)
.

FYP

Leroy42 · 05-07-2016 01:11PM

hinault wrote: »

I have no doubt that God is perfectly content with man coming to know and understand far better, His universe.
God trusted man sufficiently to grant dominion over Earth.
He wants us to know more!:)

Trial and error are each part of the learning process. So be it.

My own view is that Genesis was never purported to be a scientific explanation as to how the Universe was conceived and created.
In my view what Genesis seeks to tell us is that God is the catalyst for the material creation of this universe.

I see no contradiction between reason - even scientific reason - and faith.
Of course, there has been a deliberate attempt by certain elements in the atheist/scientific community to create such a contradiction.

God is rational. Therefore it is logical that God would allow for man to obtain more understanding of how the universe and all that is in it operates.

But there is a clear contradiction in your position. You are saying that God is happy for us to get to know how the universe works, but we never can because we can never understand God, and God can do whatever he likes, change whatever laws he likes at whatever time.

So your belief in a God that interacts with the Universe, by extension, means that you already believe how the universe works; God did it. If you already have that answer why would you bother looking for anything else.

Why does the sun rise, God does it. What about the tides? God does that too. And earthquakes, and rain, and sunamis, and infections and people surviving plane crashes, and plane crashes? God does that too. And Jesus resurrection? Yeh, that God guy came down and changed the accepted known laws of the universe, just that once, in just that tiny part of a tiny part of the world and then was never seen again. And other than that one time we have no evidence whatsoever that God has ever manipulated the forces of the universe, but that one time he did

So you think that God told the Genesis story as a sort of illustration of what he can do, but he made the details up on the basis that we would eventually find it out ourselves, even though finding out ourselves would call into question the very story, and therefore the whole basis of the belief in him? And yet you somehow have decided that he is rational. Which parts are made up? Adam & Eve, the apple, sin? And maybe he didn't give man dominian over the earth, we just adapted quicker.

Leroy42 · 05-07-2016 01:21PM

hinault wrote: »

Whereas before Kaku held that the creation of the Universe was due to something other than God

i think you will find that science (if one can put such a diverse group into a single label) is actually unconcerned about the existence or otherwise of God.

Again, I think it important that we are clear on what we mean by God. Did a God create the universe, it is as reasonable as any other scenario that we have come up with. Does that God play any part in the ongoing universe, care about sin, care about morality, listen to prayers, selects chosen people? All the evidence, says that no. There is no evidence of anything happening in the universe that cannot be traced back to the fundamental laws. Anytime we think we seen an example of God direct intervention it turns out that we simply didn't know better. God of the Gaps territory.

hinault · 05-07-2016 01:35PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

But there is a clear contradiction in your position. You are saying that God is happy for us to get to know how the universe works, but we never can because we can never understand God, and God can do whatever he likes, change whatever laws he likes at whatever time.

:rolleyes:

What laws has God changed? When were these laws changed?

Leroy42 wrote: »

So your belief in a God that interacts with the Universe means that you already believe how the universe works, God did it. If you already have that answer why would you bother looking for anything else.

I know that if I get in to my car and drive southwards for 2.5hrs I will arrive in Cork.
If I get a puncture during that journey, I'd like to be able to change the tyre.
OK that's a clumsy analogy.

My point is that gaining an understanding of how matter operates radiates better the glory of God.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you think that God told the Genesis story as a sort of illustration of what he can do, but he made the details up on the basis that we would eventually find it out ourselves, even though finding out ourselves would call into question the very story, and therefore the whole basis of the belief in him?

Each one of us are called to believe in God with all our body, soul and mind.
Our mind is supposed to be the seat of reason.

Genesis conveys the story of creation not as a scientific synopsis. Therefore to read Genesis as a scientific treatise is pointless.

God didn't make up Genesis. What Genesis conveys is the truth. God created the Universe and everything that is in the Universe.

Timberrrrrrrr · 05-07-2016 01:38PM

hinault wrote: »

:rolleyes:

What laws has God changed? When were these laws changed?

I know that if I get in to my car and drive southwards for 2.5hrs I will arrive in Cork.
If I get a puncture during that journey, I'd like to be able to change the tyre.
OK that's a clumsy analogy.

My point is that gaining an understanding of how matter operates radiates better the glory of God.

Each one of us are called to believe in God with all our body, soul and mind.
Our mind is supposed to be the seat of reason.

Genesis conveys the story of creation not as a scientific synopsis. Therefore to read Genesis as a scientific treatise is pointless.

God didn't make up Genesis. What Genesis conveys is the truth. God created the Universe and everything that is in the Universe.

That's a lie.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments