Science 'versus' God?

[austintorn@aol.com]

God is the Intelligent Designer that
Is deducible from not understanding design,
But wait, he is of infinite design—
Now I know that something had to make Him!

[michael turner]

faith

Michael,
We straight out observe the randomness of the quantum realm. Faith is for invisible unknowns unseen.


Mikal,
Now, what is your disproof of evolution? It's only fair that you provide the details.

An external chaos is a guess,faith. Limited ability to understand.
You hVe both the faith and the blindness of the religious right in your own pathway of belief.

[austintorn@aol.com]

An external chaos is a guess,faith.

No need for me to restate the quantum indeterminate chaos proofs here again about how we measured what it does. Go here for the proof stated a bit differently (note the fuzzy quantum part) and some science and a bit of fun:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/religi...html#post92059


Now for some fun scientific fun to relieve the seriousness…

The Near Decline of Physics
Due to Its Undressed Terms

The quarks, those constituents of the orgy
Playfully bound within the nucleons’ chamber
Are named up, down, strange, charm, bottom & top,
The last two once being called beauty and truth;

However, when just one of a type was contained
It became referred to, say, as a naked beauty,
And thus nude tops and bottoms: charms revealed—
To ever be in a closeness, binding & bonding;

So, they even tried just using u, d, s, c, b and t,
To prevent some ultimate collapse of physics,
But the truth of the flavors beneath the veils
Remained as the sheerest vision preferred.

So, we have these vibrant dancing ladies:
The naked heavyweight top, charming up,
And, down, the strange beauty of the raw truth,
With a bare bottom just around and behind.

They gyrate, spinning their charms, twirling,
In the universal dance of stunning motion,
The polarity sometimes reversed,
Whirling, their bottoms up and tops down.

And then there are Eden’s many colors,
In this flower garden filled with flavors,
Such as red bottom beauties, blue tops,
And magenta undulations unstopped.

Gluons are the bees of the flower beds,
Carrying pollen back and forth to bond
The many relationships that make
This loving world go around as reality.

Eyed in views that probe the fundamental,
Quarks strangely swirl in and out of sight,
Pulsing, throbbing with elemental delight,
In and out—the love-made life of eternity.

These attractions in the altogether denuded,
In the buff, became the strong force, manifest,
That the mother-nature-naked terms exposed
To denote the stark beauty of truth uncovered.


“Three Quarks for Muster Mark”

Naked quarks would love to go out, wild, and dance,
But there’s only a finite amount of energy & chance;
So, they would spiral out of control, having a blast!
They’ve been thus confined within the proton—to last.

They’re made bottoms-up;
Can we see them tops-down, a go-go?
No, for the Quantum Censor
Now protects their charm show…

Their strange beauty & flavor is bound up and down,
As the proton is now immune to disturbance around.

[michael turner]

Austin, I have read what you have written. First you critize, use, the false opinions of the religious extreme to say that all Christianity is incorrect. You really are a naive, ignorant amatuer here. Don't you know that the New Testament methodically elevates, fulfills, step by step the the old testament. The old testament shows that the new testament is true, that Jesus took everything written about him and had to make it come true. Your ignorance of your opposition is embarrassing. You really need to stop being an idiot with this aspect because it totally interferes
with everything you say after that.
Next, your proofs are imaginary assumptions and false mind games that are anything but scientific, pure imagined falsehoods. Your position has only reveiled your ignorance of religion and scientific method.
You are who you critize, and I have pity for you.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Austin, I have read what you have written. First you critize, use, the false opinions of the religious extreme to say that all Christianity is incorrect. You really are a naive, ignorant amatuer here. Don't you know that the New Testament methodically elevates, fulfills, step by step the the old testament. The old testament shows that the new testament is true, that Jesus took everything written about him and had to make it come true. Your ignorance of your opposition is embarrassing. You really need to stop being an idiot with this aspect because it totally interferes
with everything you say after that.
Next, your proofs are imaginary assumptions and false mind games that are anything but scientific, pure imagined falsehoods. Your position has only reveiled your ignorance of religion and scientific method.
You are who you critize, and I have pity for you.

Before one claims that God did anything, on must show that God exists. Is this never designed God of complexity having been around forever without cause done by some kind of magic? What magic? Whose magic? Where did His own design come from? How is it possible and in keeping with God as fundamental and not some kind of alien? Explain.

In other words, you cannot answer to any details except by calling names. The way I deal with name-callers is by calling attention to it as not furthering the debate but stalling it.

You cannot answer. Thus you have no case. Simple as that.

I have pity for those feeling so ugly inside as to call names and demean an individual's character. Go read the ToeQuest rules or leave. Is this what your religion taught you?

[michael turner]

Austin, I never claimed the necessity to prove the existance of God, nor do I feel obligated to. You are the one who falsely claims proof of no God.
I have made two general statments concerning your claims,
1). You use false understandings of religion, Christianity and Judism, specifically your statments concerning the belief held by the majority of Christian theolog Genesis and Evolution. They, in general, do not believe the statments you claim they do. I do not twist your beliefs, why do you?

2). You can not understand that the essence of your claimed proofs is acutally a form of faith itself.

It is this lack of understanding of your own position and it's limits concerning the proof of no God claim that makes me wonder how you can not see both sides are blind with there own view.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The burden of disproof is mine and I have attended to it. The burden of proof is on the believer. Since 'faith' cannot prove, then the claim is of no concern whatsoever, for it is just a theory; yet you will never admit this, still saying 'God did it' and that God is true and not just a theory.

That is perhaps why one must resort to name-calling, but that does not add proof. If anything, it demonstrates all the more a lack of basis.

So, magic?

What are your details refuting the disproof and showing a proof. It is not not enough that people wished for hundreds of Savior myths and seized upon one, though, strangely not the people who were there at the time.

[Profpat]

"..Before one claims that God did anything, on must show that God exists. Is this never designed God of complexity having been around forever without cause done by some kind of magic? What magic? Whose magic? Where did His own design come from? How is it possible and in keeping with God as fundamental and not some kind of alien? Explain..."

Austin you are confusing the Eternal ( Always is, Always was, Always will be ) GOD, with your image of a created god. The Design is Eternal as is The Designer.

Best to you Austin,

Pat

P.S. The magic is our universe coming from a point smaller than an atom. There must be a magician some where behind those drapes and veils.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Design is Eternal as is The Designer.

How does that work; An eternal causeless God Designer having design without a DESIGNER?

Note: A created 'God' would not be a God—not fundamental.


Michael,
You can't use uproved faith as refuting the God disproof.

[Mikal]

Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”




George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”




Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”




Alan Sandage
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”




John O'Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”




George Greenstein
(astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”




Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”




Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“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 ‘supernatural’) plan.”




Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”




Tony Rothman
(physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”




Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”




Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”




Alexander Polyakov
(Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”




Ed Harrison
(cosmologist)
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—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.”




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].”




Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”




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’.”


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.”




Henry "Fritz" Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
“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.”




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.”


Mikal