Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

You've made a tacit admission of Einstein's faith. Do you know what a tacit admission is?

It means you know I am right and you are wrong but you are unwilling to admit to this (even though you cannot contradict the truth). You are welcome for the schooling I have given to you.




that never happened, it's just another one of your fairy tales[/QUOTE]

 

show me the admission

 

I just covered your admission. You seem beyond help and I can't teach you a thing.

 

Einstein made the explicit statement that he was a passionate believer until the age of 12. He also stated that he hated being held up as an arbiter of the correctness of religious belief.

 

Gladly.

Jonsa makes claim s/he can't support.

 

Gladly.

S/he claims that data is fallacious but can't provide evidence of any
fallacious data. A typical response from said accuser. No data, just
false claims that s/he can't support.

Jonsa makes claim s/he can't support.

 

the alleged admission doesn't exist

if you think it does, then show it to me

 

Hahashahahahahahahah!

So you can't offer up any proof that the probability put forth in the OP are in any way anything more than a rhetorical wild arse guess.

Unless the original claim can be validated by proof, then I need not attempt to invalidate such a ridiculous claim.

I do not argue that a different balance between the fundamental forces would have resulted in a different universe and not the one we inhabit.
The odds of the forces being in our universe's particular balance are exactly 100%.

As stated, the use of probability in the OPs argument is nonsense.

 

Perhaps your Truth and my truth are the same thing, but I suspect not.

From my perspective, capital T Truth can only be found in the supernatural, not in reality. I therefore render it philosophical fantasy. Imagine that..

 

Science can only define what our universe contains. Beyond that it has no knowledge of anything else.

 

so you expect scientists to use grant monies to fund research into garden-dwelling pixies? how about big foot (which may be supernatural)?

meantime, what knowledge do you have of things not contained by our universe? what are these things? if science can't detect them, how are you able to?

 

That is probably more physics than is appropriate to this forum. Pick up any good physics text and it will explain how gravity shapes the organization of planetary systems and galaxies.

 

Quite probably because there isn't anything else except other universes.

 

You'll note they never say what these mysterious things are - it's always just 'other stuff, out there'. Evidently the world (and by extrapolation, an otherwise dull life) seems more interesting if you pretend there are dragons hiding behind every tree

 

How does atheism possess a problem of infinite regression?

 

Where did the Big Bang come from?

 

What do you mean by that? How many times to do you ask "Where did that explosion come from?" after a star goes supernova?

 

No one knows. Nor is anyone required to know.

See, that is not a problem of infinite regression because no one is claiming an absolutely affirmative belief that X occurred. Atheists do not make up fairy tales like theists.

So your claim is not on pay with the assertion that "everything has a cause and effect", everything except for god of course (Special Pleading).

 

And that is precisely my point. If you assume "cause and effect" then EVERY philosophy has an infinite regress problem.

 

If I do not assume cause and effect, because it is entirely unnecessary, then there is no problem.

 

No. A philosophy that assumes an eternal past, rather than an ex nihilo creation of the Universe features no infinite regress conundrum.

 

If you want to assume an uncaused cause I suppose that works, too. But that's as mindboggeling as an infinite regress.

- - - Updated - - -

True. But we know that is not the case.

 

We?

You got a mouse in your pocket?

 

We as in humanity.

 

Oh... You have other people inside of your head?