Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- From: partso2@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 07:04:03 -0800
On Oct 24, 5:09 am, rem6...@xxxxxxxxx (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
wrote:
Sorry, I was really speaking on C14 and such. Anyway you need someFrom: part...@xxxxxxxxx
Radioactive tests are used to determine the fossil's ages, and by
that we determine the sediment's age.
No, that works only for very very recent fossils and human
artifacts where carbon-14 dating can be used. Otherwise, it's the
uranium and other long-lived isotopes in the crystals of rock
itself that provide a reliable date.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating>
biological assumptions - that the creature didn't dig itself in deep
rock before it died, etc.
Maybe. But this wasn't the point. Even if this prophecy was weaker,Jews tend to argue that Deuteronomy 31:21 implies a clear
promise that the Jews will never extinct, as well as a promise
that the Bible won't be forgotten by their descendants. Clearly,
that requires someone to guide history accordingly.
Or a big lie. While at least one Jew is still alive, he can say "I
told you so, I'm not extinct yet". After that last Jew has died,
there's nobody alive that we can gloat "see, you were wrong, you're
extinct, so your stupid religion was wrong". You're seeing the
Anthropic principle in action. Religions tend to say that their
followers are going to stay alive, and as soon as they die the
religion is gone, so the only religions we still see are the ones
that have been right so-far. Past survival is no guarantee of
future survival, despite myths to the contrary.
say, that the Jews won't extinct in the near 3000 years (or so), this
really has come true. The Jews are still alive, preserving their
original religion and culture (some of them, anyway). Despite that in
every generation people and nations tried to destroy either them or
their culture (or both) - The story of Esther, the Inquisition and
Hitler are only examples. That's an outstanding historical event, by
all definitions. No nation/culture has so survived. And it was
prophecied 3000 years ago. Don't you think it requires a guidance of
history? and Indeed, the prophecy is stronger, claiming this will
continue. Of course, past survival isn't a guarantee, but realizing it
was prophecied, it does guarantee that the One who gave this prophecy
knew what He's speaking on, and that's a guarantee. Anyway the
prophecy proclaims that history will be guided, and history (so far)
follows this prophecy.
Excellent example. No facts contradict the flood story - onlywheneven atheists claim they have an evidence contradicting
theism, they have no more than an assumption.
I think you've pulled a straw man out of your arse. Scientific
athiests mererly claim that the factual claims of this or that
religious dogma contradict the facts of nature so they must be
wrong. There could still be a supernatural being, but he'd have to
be either really stupid or not really associated with the religion.
There was no Noah flood, and whoever made up that story was either
mistaken or outright lying. I presume the former.
assumptions on which interpretations of these facts are made. These
assumptions aren't necessarily atheistic, but they are anti-Biblical.
For example, Genessis 8:22 reveals that the sequence of day-night, as
well as the year's seasons, did indeed stop (or was different) during
the flood. It may be interpreted that physics laws were different
(earth didn't preserve its angular momentum), or some other
catastrophe has occured (a tiny back hole passing by, or such).
Anyway, any extrapolation on current physics laws and solar system's
behaviour into the past, is anti-Biblical, and any conclussions you
drow out of it can't contradict the flood story.
You may investigate sediments to search for evidence. But again,
beware of your assumptions. An accepted theory in geology is
Uniformity, stating that only 'slow' changes occur. Clearly, this
assumption rules out any catastrophe of the flood's type - again, the
flood is ruled out by assumptions, not by facts.
I don't know which assumptions and facts you actually used to
exclude the flood, so I gave only two examples. But you got the point,
I hope.
for every 'evidence' against theism that was posted in this
thread (basically correlations between mental activity and brain
activity, and mental effects of material causes), I showed that it
cannot contradict theism
That's another strawman. The evidence contradicts the independent
nature of the 'mind' apart from the brain, per various ancient
philosophical beliefs. It has nothing to do with theism per se.
The 'evidence' presented here was aimed at preventing the
possibility of free will, an important concept in every religion I
know (except maybe some old Pagan ones).
There still could be a god who created a bunch of intelligent
robots that have the audacity to create an internal model
purporting that the robots contain an independent non-physical
'mind'. Heck, with a bit of work I could probably write a computer
program that recited dogma about how the computer program is alive
and thinking for itself and damn anybody who denies it.
But you can't prove it's the case with humans - all you can do is
assume it, as said above. No real evidence points in this direction.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- From: Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
- Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- From: Free Lunch
- Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- Prev by Date: Re: NY Times story on Antony Flew
- Next by Date: Re: Article: American kids, dumber than dirt
- Previous by thread: Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- Next by thread: Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
