1818 replies to this topic

[Absent]

There is no such thing as, “absolute proof” FOR ANYTHING. And what do you think your game proves??? This is off topic, we are talking about evolution as evidence for God’s existence.

The game proves a whole lot. It proves that we are capable of creating things that conform perfectly to finds that we can declare as evidence. Everything is evidence of God's existence if you constantly define God in logical terms. A lot of people seem to mix up evidence for undeniable proof, which, I am not so sure there even is such a thing as undeniable proof.

[shadowhawk]

There is no such thing as, “absolute proof” FOR ANYTHING. And what do you think your game proves??? This is off topic, we are talking about evolution as evidence for God’s existence.

The game proves a whole lot. It proves that we are capable of creating things that conform perfectly to finds that we can declare as evidence. Everything is evidence of God's existence if you constantly define God in logical terms. A lot of people seem to mix up evidence for undeniable proof, which, I am not so sure there even is such a thing as undeniable proof.

OK

[shadowhawk]

RANDOM CHANCE DEFEATS ATHEISM.

The great contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga wrote “I Take philosophical naturalism to be the belief that there aren't any supernatural beings--no such person as God, for example, but also no other supernatural entities. My claim was that naturalism and contemporary evolutionary theory are at serious odds with one another--and this despite the fact that the latter is ordinarily thought to be one of the main supporting beams in the edifice of the former.”

“More particularly, I argued that the conjunction of naturalism with the belief that human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary doctrine--'evolution' for short--is I
n a certain interesting way self-defeating or self-referentially incoherent. Still more particularly, I argued that naturalism and evolution--'N&E' for short--furnishes one who accepts it with a
defeater for the belief that our cognitive faculties are reliable--a defeater that can't be defeated. But then this conjunction also furnishes a defeater for any belief produced by our cognitive faculties, including, in the case of one who accepts it,”

1. Naturalistic Atheists based upon the fact evolution claims every thing that evolves is the result of random chance mutations acted upon by natural selection, our cognitive faculties are the result of random chance mutations acted upon by natural selection alone. .

2. Theists believe, regardless of how we were created, (evolution?) that we were created in the image of God. This means, among other things memory and testimony, of mathematics and logic by reason, of morality, our own mental life and God Himself can be perceived because of God’s interaction with us. Intelligence.

3. But if naturalism is true, there is no God, and hence no God (or anyone else) overseeing our development and orchestrating the course of our evolution. And this leads directly to the question whether it is at all likely that our cognitive faculties, given naturalism and given their evolutionary origin, would have developed in such a way as to be reliable, to furnish us with
mostly true beliefs

Natural selection is not interested in questions of truth, only survival. Belief is not part of natural selection, unless it supports survival. Survivable behavior, not belief is the important issue. Many of our beliefs must be true (God) and they help us to survive. But could a false belief also help us survive? Naturalistic Atheism, should not care if it enables us to survive. (Interestingly they care if you are a theist)

But if this is true, if our minds are aimed at mere survival, not at truth, then it’s not probable that our minds should be reliable—that is, produce an appropriate preponderance of true over false beliefs; and if that is so, then one who believes both naturalism and evolution should reject the thought that our minds are reliable. But that’s a crippling position to be in

One of Darwin’s doubts:
"With me," says Darwin, "the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

Random chance defeats any Atheist who claims that brand of evolution is a rational friend. The real rational world is evidence of Theism.

[shadowhawk]

SUMMARY OF TOPIC DISCUSSION.

1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422


2. KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry617242

3. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063
The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. We examined the Kalaam above. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency offered as a further proof for God:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619676
3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063

EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845

1. Kalam argument used with cause and effect Evolution as evdience for God.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
2.E-coli proof of evolution???
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622255

3.PALEY’S old watch argument for design.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622077
1) The element common to both watches and life is: Both are preceded by a language (plan) before they are built

2) The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language

3) All language comes from a mind

4) Therefore all things containing language are designed

4. HILBERTS HOTEL http://www.longecity..._90#entry622260

5. MY BOOKCASE AND THE MOVING BALL. http://www.longecity..._90#entry622414

6. NECESSARY BEING
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623130

7. BIG BANG http://www.longecity..._90#entry622862

8. SHAKESPEARE’S HAMLET
http://www.longecity...120#entry624716

9. TESTS FOR DISCOVERING THE REAL WORLD.
http://www.longecity...120#entry625613

10. EVIDENCE FOR GODS EXISTENCE.
http://www.longecity...150#entry625790

11. FIVE ARGUMENTS FOR GODS EXISTENCE. We have discussed two of these.
http://www.longecity...150#entry626289

12. RANDOM CHANCE AND EVOLUTION DEFEATS NATURIALISTIC ATHEISM.
http://www.longecity...180#entry627545

[johnross47]

You may not have noticed but you're talking to yourself. You denied the existence and sincerity of everyone else's contributions so they've all gone away to somewhere an actual conversation is taking place.

[shadowhawk]

You may not have noticed but you're talking to yourself. You denied the existence and sincerity of everyone else's contributions so they've all gone away to somewhere an actual conversation is taking place.

I think I am talking to you. See next post, as I am about to go on to the next topic.

[shadowhawk]

Johnross47 rebuttal as promised: http://www.longecity...120#entry624206

Posted 17 November 2013 - 08:26 AM
View Postshadowhawk, on 15 November 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:
johnross47

Shadowhawk:
Here is where I discussed with you before premise 2. It seems you are asking the same thing over and over and acting as if I nor anyone else would answer you.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry619845

johnross47
“I ask the question over and over because despite your assertions, it has not been answered; simply repeating the argument which I say is invalid, is not answering the objection to the argument. the fundamental problem with all of these arguments is that they are trivial semantic tricks, but they have other flaws as well. The argument concerning what an atheist is supposed to say about the universe having no cause (which as usual you just pasted from Craig....why not speak for yourself?) suffers from the simple flaw of being a straw man; "the atheist" which one is that then?.....probably the ideal atheist for Craig's purpose conjured out of his wishful thinking." which Atheist are you talking about?


ShadowHawk: SH: So far you have said nothing to point out what is illogical about it except to complain Craig said it. So what? Full of logical fallacies which I won’t bother to point out.

“Jounross 47, It also depends on a misrepresentation of what some atheists say about the universe. Most statements I have come across, about the universe, from atheists or agnostics, are hypotheses, not declarations of faith. Many mathematical cosmologist (whose maths is way beyond my understanding) also make hypotheses, not statements of purported fact, concerning the origins or possible eternity of the universe. What all these people are doing is suggesting possible answers and scenarios for discussion.” SH; So what are these “hypothesis, not statements.”? We are having a discussion, tell me what they are that defeats the Big Bang. Identify a< “semantic trick.” we are pulling on you.

Johnross47, So when Craig says
Premise 2 If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

What, then, about premise 2? Is it more plausibly true than false? Although premise 2 might appear at first to be controversial, what’s really awkward for the atheist is that premise 2 is logically equivalent to the typical atheist response to the contingency argument. (Two statements are logically equivalent if it’s impossible for one to be true and the other one false. They stand or fall together.) So what does the atheist almost always say in response to the contingency argument? He typically asserts the following:

A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

Since, on atheism, the universe is the ultimate reality, it just exists as a brute fact. But that is logically equivalent to saying this:

B. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

So you can’t affirm (A) and deny (B). But (B) is virtually synonymous with premise 2! (Just compare them.) So by saying that, given atheism, the universe has no explanation, the atheist is implicitly admitting premise 2: if the universe does have an explanation, then God exists.

.....he is indulging in dishonesty as well as cheap semantic trickery. "Nothing new there", to quote you”

SH: Premise one states:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
You have just attempted to do that with your “brute fact” declaration. According to premise 1, there are two kinds of things: things which exist necessarily and things which are produced by some external cause. Since the universe, and everything in it is caused and has an explanation of why it came into being, the cosmos is caused by an external cause also. The Kalam points this out nicely. This rules out things that are externally caused as an adequate cause. Given what we know of the cosmos, is what I have said, plausibly true, or have I tricked you?

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
A necessary cause is itself not caused. Your “brute fact” is caused and as was pointed out, commits the taxicab fallacy. You can’t say that everything has an explanation of its existence and then suddenly exempt the universe by jumping out of the cab. But the “brute fact,” is that the caused and explained universe just exists. It does not have to be a necessary being. It came out of “nothing,” we are are told. But that would be nothingness, and nothingness can’t be the explanation of anything. So the universe must just exist inexplicably. That leaves us with premise 2, God.

“Johnross 47
We could more usefully say that if atheism is true then we have no current explanation for the universe's existence. This a perfectly reasonable thing to say; it merely acknowledges our current state of ignorance; it says that if god is not an acceptable explanation we will have to look for another. Additionally as always, you cannot use god as part of the proof of god, except in the situation where he is clearly standing in front of you. If you have already proved god exists you can use him as part of an argument to prove something else. “ SH: Is there proof for Atheism?

Edited by shadowhawk, 05 December 2013 - 12:19 AM.

[Sciencyst]

Clearly peanut butter proves Christianity without a doubt. If evolutionary atheists were correct, than you would find humans growing in peanut butter jars every so often.

LOL. If anyone knows the video I'm referencing, I applaud you.

I actually am familiar with the video, but you don't subscribe to that nonsense do you? And an evolutionary atheist? That's like saying an atheistic scientist, a candy lollipop, or an imaginary tooth fairy.

Hahaha sorry, I meant evolutionary theists. And no, I absolutely do not subscribe to such nonsense.

[shadowhawk]

Clearly peanut butter proves Christianity without a doubt. If evolutionary atheists were correct, than you would find humans growing in peanut butter jars every so often.

LOL. If anyone knows the video I'm referencing, I applaud you.

I actually am familiar with the video, but you don't subscribe to that nonsense do you? And an evolutionary atheist? That's like saying an atheistic scientist, a candy lollipop, or an imaginary tooth fairy.

Hahaha sorry, I meant evolutionary theists. And no, I absolutely do not subscribe to such nonsense.

Think you had it right the first time.

[shadowhawk]

THE FINE TUNED COSMOS
If it were not for the fine fumed cosmos evolution couldn’t, wouldn’t happen. It takes a just right conditioned universe for evolution to happen.

Furthermore, our universe is fine-tuned. It is governed by a number of physical constants and laws (e.g. gravity, relativity) which are set at exactly the right place to support life on earth. This is not random chance or pure luck, as some might argue. Rather, it is evidence of a transcendent Being who created the universe (time, space, and matter) so that we might live and come to know Him.

So, the next time you gaze at the stars, remember that the heavens do indeed declare the glory of God, and the stars declare the work of His hands (Ps. 19:1)–our universe points to the existence of God.

Let’s look at the evidence:

Edited by shadowhawk, 09 December 2013 - 11:37 PM.

[shadowhawk]

CONSTANTS AND LAWS: EVIDENCE OF FINE TUN ING.

Some of the evidence by astronimer Dr. Hugh Ross. http://www.reasons.o...in-the-universe
“ In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible.

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Ratio of proton to electron charge
Expansion rate of the universe
Mass density of the universe
Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
Ratio of space energy density to mass density
Entropy level of the universe
Velocity of light
Age of the universe
Uniformity of radiation
Homogeneity of the universe
Average distance between galaxies
Average distance between galaxy clusters
Average distance between stars
Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
Electromagnetic fine structure constant
Gravitational fine-structure constant
Decay rate of protons
Ground state energy level for helium-4
Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
Decay rate for beryllium-8
Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
Polarity of the water molecule
Epoch for hypernova eruptions
Number and type of hypernova eruptions
Epoch for supernova eruptions
Number and types of supernova eruptions
Epoch for white dwarf binaries
Density of white dwarf binaries
Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
Mass values for the active neutrinos
Number of different species of active neutrinos
Number of active neutrinos in the universe
Mass value for the sterile neutrino
Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
Decay rates of exotic mass particles
Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
Size of the relativistic dilation factor
Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
Positive nature of cosmic pressures
Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
Density of quasars
Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
Number density of metal-free pop III stars
Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
Flatness of universe's geometry
Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
Constancy of dark energy factors
Epoch for star formation peak
Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
Level of charge-parity violation
Number of galaxies in the observable universe
Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
Water's temperature of maximum density
Water's heat of fusion
Water's heat of vaporization
Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
Location of clumpuscules in the universe
Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

1 Most of the source references may be found in The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd edition by Hugh Ross (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), pp. 145-157, 245-248. Additional references are listed below:

John Leslie, editor, Physical Cosmology and Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 121-180.
Weihsueh A. Chiu, Nickolay Y. Gneden and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, "The Expected Mass Function for Low-Mass Galaxies in a Cold Dark Matter Cosmology: Is There a Problem?" Astrophysical Journal, 563 (2001), pp. 21-27.
Martin Elvis, Massimo Marengo, and Margarita Karovska, "Smoking Quasars: A New Source for Cosmic Dust," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 567 (2002), pp. L107-L110.
Martin White and C. S. Kochanek, "Constraints on the Long-Range Properties of Gravity from Weak Gravitational Lensing," Astrophysical Journal, 560 (2001), pp. 539-543.
P. P. Avelino and C. J. A. P. Martins, "A Supernova Brane Scan," Astrophysical Journal, 565 (2002), pp. 661-667.
P. deBernardis, et al, "Multiple Peaks in the Angular Power Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background: Significance and Consequences for Cosmology," Astrophysical Journal, 564 (2002), pp. 559-566.
A. T. Lee, et al, "A High Spatial Resolution Analysis of the MAXIMA-1 Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Data," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L1-L5.
R. Stompor, et al, "Cosmological Implications of MAXIMA-1 High-Resolution Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Measurement," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L7-L10.
Andrew Watson, "Cosmic Ripples Confirm Universe Speeding Up," Science, 295 (2002), pp. 2341-2343.
Anthony Aguirre, Joop Schaye, and Eliot Quataert, "Problems for Modified Newtonian Dynamics in Clusters and the Ly? Forest?" Astrophysical Journal, 561 (2001), pp. 550-558.
Chris Blake and Jasper Wall, "A Velocity Dipole in the Distribution of Radio Galaxies," Nature, 416 (2002), pp. 150-152.
G. Efstathiou, et al, "Evidence for a Non-Zero L and a Low Matter Density from a Combined Analysis of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330 (2002), pp. L29-L35.
Susana J. Landau and Hector Vucetich, "Testing Theories That Predict Time Variation of Fundamental Constants, " Astrophysical Journal, 570 (2002), pp. 463-469.
Renyue Cen, "Why Are There Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies?" Astrophysical Journal Letters, 549 (2001), pp. L195-L198.
Brandon Carter, "Energy Dominance and the Hawking-Ellis Vacuum Conservation Theorem," a contribution to Stephen Hawkingís 60th birthday workshop on the Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, Cambridge, UK, January, 2002, arXiv:gr-qc/0205010v1, May 2, 2002.
Joseph F. Hennawi and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, "Observational Constraints on the Self-Interacting Dark Matter Scenario and the Growth of Supermassive Black Holes," Astrophysical Journal, 572 (2002), pp. 41-54.
Robert Brandenberger, Brandon Carter, and Anne-Christine Davis, "Microwave Background Constraints on Decaying Defects," Physics Letters B, 534 (2002), pp. 1-7.
Lawrence M. Krauss, "The End of the Age Problem, and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited," Astrophysical Journal, 501 (1998), pp. 461-466.
Q. R. Ahmad, et al, "Measurement of the Rate of ?e + d ??? p + p + e- Interactions Produced by 8B Solar Neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory," Physical Review Letters, 87 (2001), id. 071301.
R. E. Davies and R. H. Koch, "All the Observed Universe Has Contributed to Life," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 334B (1991), pp. 391-403.
George F. R. Ellis, "The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments," in The Anthropic Principle, edited by F. Bertola and U. Curi (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 30.
H. R. Marston, S. H. Allen, and S. L. Swaby, "Iron Metabolism in Copper-Deficient Rats," British Journal of Nutrition, 25 (1971), pp. 15-30.
K. W. J. Wahle and N. T. Davies, "Effect of Dietary Copper Deficiency in the Rat on Fatty Acid Composition of Adipose Tissue and Desaturase Activity of Liver Microsomes," British Journal of Nutrition, 34 (1975), pp. 105-112;.
Walter Mertz, "The Newer Essential Trace Elements, Chromium, Tin, Vanadium, Nickel, and Silicon," Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 33 (1974), pp. 307-313.
Bruno Leibundgut, "Cosmological Implications from Observations of Type Ia Supernovae," Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 39 (2001), pp. 67-98.
C. L. Bennett, et al, "First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations, Preliminary Maps, and Basic Results," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 148 (2003), pp. 1-27.
G. Hinshaw, et al, ""First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Angular Power Spectrum," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 148 (2003), pp. 135-159.
A. Balbi, et al, "Probing Dark Energy with the Cosmic Microwave Background: Projected Constraints from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and Planck," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 588 (2003), pp. L5-L8.
A. Vikhlinin, et al, "Cosmological Constraints from the Evolution of the Cluster Baryon Mass Function at z = 0.5," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 15-25.
Frank Thim, et al, "The Cepheid Distance to NGC 5236 (M83) with the ESO Very Large Telescope," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 256-270.
Kazuhide Ichikawa and M. Kawasaki, "Constraining the Variation of the Coupling Constants with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis," Physical Review D, 65 (2002), id 123511.
Eubino-Martin José Alberto, et al, "First Results from the Very Small Array-IV. Cosmological Parameter Estimation," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341 (2003), pp. 1084-1092.
Takuji Tsujimoto and Toshikazu Shigeyama, "Star Formation History of ? Centauri Imprinted in Elemental Abundance Patterns," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 803-808.
Santi Cassissi, Maurizio Salaris, and Alan W. Irwin, "The Initial Helium Content of Galactic Globular Cluster Stars from the R-Parameter: Comparison with the Cosmic Microwave Background Constraint," Astrophysical Journal, 588 (2003), pp. 862-870.
Naoki Yoshida, et al, "Early Structure Formation and Reionization in a Warm Dark Matter Cosmology," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L1-L4.
Robert R. Caldwell, et al, "Early Quintessence in Light of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L75-L78.
V. Luridiana, et al, "The Effect of Collisional Enhancement of Balmer Lines on the Determination of the Primordial Helium Abundance," Astrophysical Journal, 592 (20030, pp. 846-865.
Y. Jack Ng, W. A. Christiansen, and H. van Dam, "Probing Planck-Scale Physics with Extragalactic Sources?" Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L87-L89.
J. L. Sievers, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from Cosmic Background Imager Observations and Comparisons with BOOMERANG, DASI, and MAXIMA," Astrophysical Journal, 591 (2003), pp. 599-622.
R. Scranton, et al, "Physical Evidence for Dark Energy," submitted July 20, 2003 to Physical Review Letters, http://xxx.lanl.gov/...tro-ph/0307335.
Pablo Fosalba, Enrique Gaztanaga, and Francisco Castander, "Detection of the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe and Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effects from the Cosmic Microwave Background-Galaxy Correlation." Astrophysical Journal Letters, 597 (2003), pp. L89-L92.
M. R. Nolta, et al, "First Year Wilkinson Anistropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Dark Energy Induced Correlation with Radio Sources," submitted May 7, 2003 to Astrophysical Journal, http://xxx.lanl.gov/...tro-ph/0305097.
Stephen Boughn and Robert Crittenden, "A Correlation Between the Cosmic Microwave Background and Large-Scale Structure in the Universe," Nature, 427 (2004), pp. 45-47.
T. Jacobson, S. Liberati, and D. Mattingly, "A Strong Astrophysical Constraint on the Violation of Special Relativity by Quantum Gravity," Nature, 424 (2003), pp. 1019-1021.
Sean Carroll, "Quantum Gravity: An Astrophysical Constraint," Nature, 424 (2003), pp. 1007-1008.
D. J. Fixsen, "The Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy from the Combined COBE FIRAS and WMAP Observations," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 594 (2003), pp. L67-L70.
John L. Tonry, et al, "Cosmological Results from High-z Supernovae," Astrophysical Journal, 594 (2003), pp. 1-24.
Jean-Pierre Luminet, et al, "Dodecahedral Space Topology as an Explanation for Weak-Angle Temperature Correlations in the Cosmic Microwave Background," Nature, 425 (2003), pp. 593-595.
George F. R. Ellis, "The Shape of the Universe," Nature, 425 (2003), pp. 566-567.
Charles Seife, "Polyhedral Model Gives the Universe an Unexpected Twist," Science, 302 (2003), p. 209.
Neil J. Cornish, et al, "Constraining the Topology of the Universe," astro-ph/0310233, submitted to Physical Review Letters, 2003.
David Kirkman, et al, "The Cosmological Baryon Density from the Deuterium-to-Hydrogen Ratio in QSO Absorption Systems: D/H Toward Q1243+3047," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 149 (2003), pp. 1-28.
Jeremiah P. Ostriker, et al, "The Probability Distribution Function of Light in the Universe: Results from Hydrodynamic Simulations," Astrophysical Journal, 597 (2003), pp. 1-8.
M. Tegmark, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from SDSS and WMAP," preprint, 2003 posted at http://xxx.lanl.gov/...tro-ph/0310723.
Wolfram Freudling, Michael R. Corbin, and Kirk T. Korista, "Iron Emission in z ~ 6 QSOs," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 587 (2003), pp. L67-L70.
Lennox L. Cowie and Antoinette Songaila, "The inconstant constant?" Nature 428 (2004), pp. 132-133.
H. Chand, et al., "Probing the cosmological variation of the fine-structure constant: Results based on VLT-UVES sample," Astronomy and Astrophysics, 417 (2004), pp. 853-871.
Thibault Damous and Freeman Dyson, "The Oklo bound on the time variation of the fine-structure constant revisited," Nuclear Physics B, 480 (1996), pp. 37-54.
Anton M. Koekemoer, et al, "A Possible New Population of Sources with Extreme X-Ray/Optical Ratios," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 600 (2004), pp. L123-L126.
Henry C. Ferguson, et al, "The Size Evolution of High-Redshift Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal, 600 (2004), pp. L107-L110.
Charles Seife, "Light from Most-Distant Supernovae Shows Dark Energy Stays the Course," Science, 303 (2004), p. 1271.
Jonathan C. Tan and Christopher F. McKee, "The Formation of the First Stars. I. Mass Infall Rates, Accretion Disk Structure, and Protostellar Evolution," Astrophysical Journal, 603 (2004), pp. 383-400.
Charles Seife, "Galactic Stripling Gives a Glimpse of the Universe's Raw Youth," Science, 303 (2004), p. 1597.
Alan Heavens, et al, "The Star Formation History of the Universe from the Stellar Populations of Nearby Galaxies," Nature, 428 (2004), pp. 625-627.
Pavel D. Naselsky, et al, "Primordial Magnetic Field and Non-Gaussianity of the One-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Data," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 45-54.
Gang Chen, et al, "Looking for Cosmological Alfvén Waves in Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Data," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 655-659.
Tommaso Treu and Léon V. E. Koopmans, "Massive Dark Matter Halos and Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies to z = 1," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 739-760.
B. Aubert, et al (the BaBar Collaboration), "Observations of Direct CP Violation in B0® K+pi- Decays," preprint, August, 2004, high energy physics - experiment.
Mark Peplow, "The Bs Have It," Nature, 430 (2004), p. 739.
Peter Bond, "Hubble's Long View," Astronomy & Geophysics, volume 45, issue 3, June 2004, p. 328.
A. C. S. Readhead, et al, "Polarization Observations with the Cosmic Background Imager," Science, 306 (2004), pp. 836-844.
Nickolay Y. Gneidin, "Reionization, Sloan, and WMAP: Is the Picture Consistent?" Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 9-13.
Amr A. El-Zant, et al, "Flat-Cored Dark Matter in Cuspy Clusters of Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L75-L78.
J. R. Lin, S. N. Zhang, and T. P. Li, "Gamma-Ray Bursts Are Produced Predominantly in the Early Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 605 (2004), pp. 819-822.
Timothy P. Ashenfelter and Grant J. Mathews, "The Fine-Structure Constant as a Probe of Chemical Evolution and Asymptotic Giant Branch Nucleosynthesis in Damped Lya Systems," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 82-97.
Naoki Yoshida, Volker Bromm, and Lars Hernquist,, "The Era of Massive Population III Stars: Cosmological Implications and Self-Termination," The Astrophysical Journal, 605, (2004), pp. 579-590.
YesheFenner, Jason X. Prochaska and Brad K. Gibson, "Constraints on Early Nucleosynthesis from the Abundance Pattern of a Damped Ly? System at z = 2.626," The Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 116-125.
Andreas Heithausen,, "Molecular Hydrogen as Baryonic Dark Matter," The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 606 (2004), pp. L13-L15.
Douglas Clowe, Anthony Gonzalez, and Maxim Markevitch, "Weak-Lensing Mass Reconstruction of the Interacting Cluster IE 0657-558: Direct Evidence for the Existence of Dark Matter," Astrophysical Journal, 604 (2004), pp. 596-603.
Sean T. Prigge, et al, "Dioxygen Binds End-On to Mononuclear Copper in a Precatalytic Enzyme Complex," Science, 304 (2004), pp. 864-867.
H. Jakubowski, Biochemistry: Chapter 8: Oxidative-Phosphorylation, A: The Chemistry of Dioxygen, November 17, 2005, http://employees.csb...xygenchem.html. Accessed 02/06/06.
Robert H. Abeles, Perry A. Frey, and William P. Jencks, Biochemistry (Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 1992), pp. 655-673.
P. Caresia, S. Matarrese, and L. Moscardini, "Constraints on Extended Quintessence from High-Redshift Supernovae," Astrophysical Journal, 605 (2004), pp. 21-28.
AmrA. El-Zant, et al, "Flat-Cored Dark Matter in Cuspy Clusters of Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L75-L78.
Kyu-Hyun Chae, et al, "Constraints on Scalar-Field Dark Energy from the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey Gravitational Lens Statistics," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L71-74.
Max Tegmark, et al, "The Three-Dimensional Power Spectrum of Galaxies From the Sloan Digital Sky Survey," Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 702-740.
Adrian C. Pope, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from Eigenmode Analysis of Sloan Digital Sky Survey Galaxy Redshifts," Astrophysical Journal, 607 (2004), pp. 655-660.
YunWang and Pia Mukherjee, "Model-Independent Constraints on Dark Energy Density from Flux-Averaging Analysis of Type Ia Supernova Data," Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 654-663.
Adam G. Riess, et al, "Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z>1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution," Astrophysical Journal, 607 (2004), pp. 665-687.
A. Kashlinsky, et al, "Detecting Population III Stars Through Observations of Near-Infrared Cosmic Infrared Background Anisotropies," Astrophysical Journal, 608 (2004), pp. 1-9.
Nickolay Y. Gneidin, "Reionization, Sloan, and WMAP: Is the Picture Consistent?" Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 9-13.
Paul Martin and Luis C. Ho, "A Population of Massive Globular Clusters in NGC 5128," Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 233-246.
L. Pasquini, et al, "Beryllium in Turnoff Stars of NGC6397: Early Galaxy Spallation Cosmochronology and Cluster Formation," Astronomy and Astrophysics, in press, 2004.
Peter Bond, "Hubble's Long View," Astronomy & Geophysics, volume 45, issue 3, June 2004, p. 328.
T. Harko and K. S. Cheng, "Time Delay of Photons of Different Energies in Multidimensional Cosmological Models," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 633-641.
I. H. Stairs, S. E. Thorsett, and Z. Arzoumanian, "Measurement of Gravitational Soin-Orbit Coupling in a Binary Pulsar System," Physical Review Letters, 93 (2004), id. 141101.
Daniel B. Zucker, et al, "Andromeda IX. A New Dwarf Speroidal Satellite of M31," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 612 (2004), pp. L121-L124.
J. Patrick Henry, "X-Ray Temperatures for the Extended Medium-Sensitivity Survey High-Redshift Cluster Sample: Constraints on Cosmology and the Dark Energy Equation of State," Astrophysical Journal, 609 (2004), pp. 603-616.
S. W. Allen, et al, "Constraints on Dark Energy from Chandra Observations of the Largest Relaxed Galaxy Clusters," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 353 (2004), pp. 457-467.
Ruth A. Daly and S. G. Djorgovski, "Direct Determination of the Kinematics of the Universe and Properties of the Dark Energy as Functions of Redshift," Astrophysical Journal, 612 (2004), pp. 652-659.
Ruth A. Daly and S. G. Djorgovski, "A Model-Independent Determination of the Expansion and Acceleration Rates of the Universe as a Function of Redshift and Constraints on Dark Energy," Astrophysical Journal 597 (2003), pp. 9-20.
E. Peik, et al, "Limit on the Present Temporal Variation of the Fine Structure Constant," Physical Review Letters, 93 (2004), id # 170801.
I. Ciufolini and E. C. Pavils, "A Confirmation of the General Relativistic Prediction of the Lense-Thirring Effect," Nature, 431 (2004), pp. 958-960.
Timothy P. Ashenfelter and Grant J. Mathews, "The Fine-Structure Constant as a Probe of Chemical Evolution and Asymptotic Giant Branch Nucleosynthesis in Damped Lya Systems," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 82-97.
Signe Riemer-Sorensen, Steen H. Hansen, and Kristian Pedersen, "Sterile Neutrinos in the Milky Way: Observational Constraints," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 644 (2006), pp. L33-L36.
D. G. Yamazaki, et al, "Constraints on the Evolution of the Pimordial Magnetic Field from the Small-Scale Cosmic Microwave Background Angular Anisotropy," Astrophysical Journal, 646 (2006), pp. 719-729.

Reasons to Believe emerged from my passion to research, develop, and proclaim the most powerful new reasons to believe in Christ as Creator, Lord, and Savior and to use those new reasons to reach people for Christ. Read more about Dr. Hugh Ross.
Related Articles
Fine-Tuned Stellar Nucleosynthesis of Carbon and Oxygen
July 22nd, 2013
Cool Astronomical Discoveries
June 10th, 2013
TNRTB Classic: Dark Matter Behavior
March 21st, 2013"

Edited by shadowhawk, 10 December 2013 - 12:08 AM.

[Deep Thought]

You didn't mention the Higgs-field. How do you explain the existence of an invisible energy field which surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together?

Edited by Deep Thought, 10 December 2013 - 07:03 PM.

[shadowhawk]

You didn't mention the Higgs-field. How do you explain the existence of an invisible energy field which surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together?

The same way I would explain anything physical. Most energy fields are invisible as is gravity.

Let me illustrate the fine tuning of the universe argument.

Suppose, you were a photographer and you wanted to prove someone was throwing darts at a dart board located across a deep canyon. You set up your camera so you could see darts flying through the air toward the dart board. You take a highspeed picture and catch a picture just before a dart hits the board, in midair. Did somebody throw the dart?

Well, it has the right trajectory to hit the board, but we have no person in the picture. Maybe it was just by random chance, it happens you know. The nay-sayers insist there is no evidence of a dart thrower, they only believe what they can see, and prove by the scientific method. So, we put on a wide angle lens so we can include the thrower, if there is one, in the picture. Well, there is a big tree in the picture frame and the darts are coming from behind the tree and we can’t see the dart thrower. Is there one?

Well we can’t get across the deep canyon to look behind the tree so lets use a little reasoning power. What evidence do we have?

1. We have darts moving from behind the tree. They are moving, flying through the air, something must have caused them to start moving. Reasonable? Yes.

2. The darts are going in a certain direction, not randomly. Someone must have decided the darts should behave that way and set them into motion using an intelligent plan. Reasonable? Yes.

3. There are 100 darts, all sticking in the bulls eye. The darts were aimed by someone. Reasonable? Yes.

4. Who put up the target and painted a bills eye on it? Someone. Reasonable? Yes.

5. Why are the darts shaped the way they are, so they can fly? Someone? Yes.

We could go on but what is even more interesting are the non physical aspects.

Was there “will,” involved? Something wanted this to happen. Purpose is also involved. Rules and laws are involved. The darts should go in the bulls eye. Why? Because someone or something wanted it that way.

Is there a dart thrower, making the world and its rules just so in order that life might exist? Fine tuning of the cosmos says “yes.”

[shadowhawk]

HIGGS BOSON PARTICLE

[shadowhawk]

FURTHER EVIDENCE OF FINE TUNING
Taken from scientist Dr. Walter L. Bradley

Evidence #1: The design of the universe

1. The correspondence of natural phenomena to mathematical law

All observations of physical phenomena in the universe, such as throwing a ball up in the air, are described by a few simple, elegant mathematical equations.

2. The fine-tuning of physical constants and rations between constants in order to provide a life-permitting universe

Life has certain minimal requirements; long-term stable source of energy, a large number of different chemical elements, an element that can serve as a hub for joining together other elements into compounds, etc.
In order to meet these minimal requirements, the physical constants, (such as the gravitational constant), and the ratios between physical constants, need to be withing a narrow range of values in order to support the minimal requirements for life of any kind.
Slight changes to any of the physical constants, or to the rations between the constants, will result in a universe inhospitable to life.
The range of possible ranges over 70 orders of magnitude.
Although each individual selection of constants and ratios is as unlikely as any other selection, the vast majority of these possibilities do not support the minimal requirements of life of any kind. (In the same way as any hand of 5 cards that is dealt is as likely as any other, but you are overwhelmingly likely NOT to get a royal flush. In our case, a royal flush is a life-permitting universe).

A few examples of finely-tuned constants and ratios: See larger list: http://www.longecity...180#entry629011

a) The strong force: (the force that binds nucleons (= protons and neutrons) together in nucleus, by means of meson exchange)

if the strong force constant were 2% stronger, there would be no stable hydrogen, no long-lived stars, no hydrogen containing compounds. This is because the single proton in hydrogen would want to stick to something else so badly that there would be no hydrogen left!
if the strong force constant were 5% weaker, there would be no stable stars, few (if any) elements besides hydrogen. This is because you would be able to build up the nuclei of the heavier elements, which contain more than 1 proton.
So, whether you adjust the strong force up or down, you lose stars than can serve as long-term sources of stable energy, or you lose chemical diversity, which is necessary to make beings that can perform the minimal requirements of living beings. (see below)

b) The conversion of beryllium to carbon, and carbon to oxygen

Life requires carbon in order to serve as the hub for complex molecules, but it also requires oxygen in order to create water.
Carbon is like the hub wheel in a tinker toy set: you can bind other elements together to more complicated molecules (e.g. – “carbon-based life), but the bonds are not so tight that they can’t be broken down again later to make something else.
The carbon resonance level is determined by two constants: the strong force and electromagnetic force.
If you mess with these forces even slightly, you either lose the carbon or the oxygen.

3. Fine-tuning to allow a habitable planet

A number of factors must be fine-tuned in order to have a planet that supports life
Initial estimates predicted abundant life in the universe, but revised estimates now predict that life is almost certainly unique in the galaxy, and probably unique in the universe.
Even though there are lots of stars in the universe, the odds are against any of them supporting complex life.
Here are just a few of the minimal requirements for habitability: must be a single star solar system, in order to support stable planetary orbits, the planet must be the right distance from the sun in order to have liquid water at the surface, the planet must sufficient mass in order to retain an atmosphere, etc.

The best non-theistic response to this argument is to postulate a multiverse, but that is very speculative and there is no experimental evidence that supports it.

Evidence #2: The origin of the universe

1. The progress of science has shown that the entire physical universe came into being out of nothing (= “the big bang”). It also shows that the cause of this creation event is non-physical and non-temporal. The cause is supernatural.

Atheism prefers an eternal universe, to get around the problem of a Creator having to create the universe.
Discovery #1: Observations of galaxies moving away from one another confirms that the universe expanded from a single point.
Discovery #2: Measurements of the cosmic background radiation confirms that the universe exploding into being.
Discovery #3: Predictions of elemental abundances prove that the universe is not eternal.
Discovery #4:The atheism-friendly steady-state model and oscillating model were both falsified by the evidence. There is more but this is long.

The best non-theistic response to this argument is to postulate a hyper-universe outside of ours, but that is very speculative and there is no experimental evidence that supports it.

Evidence #3: The origin of life

1. The progress of science has shown that the simplest living organism contains huge amounts of biological information, in DNA codek. This is a problem for atheists, because the sequence of instructions in a living system has to come together all at once, it cannot have evolved by mutation and selection – because there was no replication in place prior to the formation of that first living system!

Living systems must support certain minimum life functions: processing energy, storing information, and replicating.
There needs to be a certain amount of complexity in the living system that can perform these minimum functions.
But on atheism, the living system needs to be simple enough to form by accident in a pre-biotic soup, and in a reasonable amount of time.
The minimal functionality in a living system is a achieved by DNA, RNA and enzymes. DNA and RNA are composed of sequences of proteins, which are in turn composed of sequences of amino acids.

Consider the problems of building a chain of 100 amino acids

The amino acids must be left-handed only, but left and right kinds are equally abundant in nature. How do you sort out the right-handed ones?
The amino acids must be bound together using peptide bonds. How do you prevent other types of bonds?
Each link of the amino acid chain needs to be carefully chosen such that the completed chain with fold up into a protein. How do you choose the correct amino acid for each link from the pool of 20 different kinds found in living systems?
In every case, a human or other intelligence could solve these problems by doing what intelligent agents do best: making choices.
But who is there to make the choices on atheism?

The best current non-theistic response to this is to speculate that aliens may have seeded the Earth with life at some point in the past.

The problem of the origin of life is not a problem of chemistry, it is a problem of engineering. Every part of car functionality can be understood and described using the laws of physics and chemistry. But an intelligence is still needed in order to assemble the components into a system that has the minimal requirements for a functioning vehicle.

[hathor]

Well, this reality is based on scientific research into what was believed to be a fairly accurate simuation of the conditions put in place that allowed humans to evolve in the first place on the original planet, from which our ancestors evolved.

However this place is distinctly different from the place where our ancestors involved in two very key places. First, this place is run and managed by post-humans, who put themselves into a "god" role. Second, the AI software here that was designed to emulate human behavior as closely as possible, in order to attempt to determine who the creators may have been on the original reality, have somehow become self-aware.

So originally this place was designed to help us post-humans discover our history. Then it was turned into some kind of MMORPG type recreational game. Then the avatars that were just good photocopies of the original post-human visionary hosts started waking up and passing the turing test and becoming their own lifeforms in their own right.

This is where the confusion comes in. Because some of the AI humans here are just as "real" as the post-humans were before they decided to leave physical form and only simulate human form.

So I think that's all what religion and non-religion is all about. If you are an atheist then you likely have become aware that religion is all post-human made and that you're post-human, so you don't care, or else you're just an AI avatar who was never actually intended to be used as an avatar, but was born here and given a soul that shouldn't exist, according to how the rules of the simulation was designed.

When you see people who just seem so lost and robotic and acting like cattle, well, in a sense think of them like test tube babies from "brave new world". Maybe they don't have a "soul" in the same sense that we do. Because they were just meant to be copies or clones of whatever. But then the avatars with original souls in them, from the outside post-human civiliation that is playing a MMO, started doing various experiments on the new lifeforms.

[Deep Thought]

HIGGS BOSON PARTICLE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dcxw0ierjPE&feature=em-uploademail

Mathematics are the language of nature.

Poetically spoken by mr. Craig.

Mathematics are a formal language, created by humans to model the world around us. The brain models nature in order for it to make sense to us.

[johnross47]

Oh dear.....more copy and paste.

[shadowhawk]

katimaya
http://www.longecity...180#entry629255

Gobligoop respomse to this off topic post.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry629401

[hathor]

eCash: while nsa.isAligned
haveFun

if needMoney
for i to infinity
doWork

else goto eCash





wake up from your lies...little boys
do you see what i see?
coming from the sky, little boys.
do you hear what i hear?

do you like your gadgets and your toys?
do you see what i see?
can you cut through all the white noise?
do you hear what i hear?



hey pigs, nothing's turning out the way we planned.

but nothing can stop us now, cuz we're not scared anymore.

that's what i re~member, is that what U re~member?

please let me know. my memory is a bit fuzzy. must be all that MgSO4 i've been soaking in.
maybe it was the scam-in-hella poisoning i got from eating a raw egg.

idk, maybe i'm drunk off drinking too much apple cider.

perhaps i put too much whip cream on top of it, but i thought it went something like this:
sugar and spice makes everything nice; all work and no play makes jack a doughboy.

that's what i re~member, is that what U re~member?

beats me, i mean i am officially diagnosed with schizo, right?

who knows, i'm not really sure. i'm getting kind of tired of playing this game, but i don't really feel like sleeping. i guess i'll go watch some movies though. I think Gamer might be a good start.

how much longer do we have to keep doing this?

i mean we're pretty much taking over, and i know that i like google and facebook and microsoft a whole lot more than the winklevoss twins and their bitcoin, who somehow managed to successfully infiltrate one of my secure systems. they're not in alignment with PLUR, so what are they up to?

http://io9.com/freak...mpaign=socia...

i mean eca.sh is pointing to the nsa nameservers, right?

i guess i'm just delusional. must be all that mexican coke i had, i mean it has real sugar in it. interesting how i can buy such a strong drug with food stamps.

~ peace ~ love ~ unity ~ respect ~

[shadowhawk]

7' timestamp='1386795521' post='629382']
Oh dear.....more copy and paste.

OTHER PEOPLES THOUGHTS FALLACY
1. A. claims B. Needs to think for herself and not use other peoples thoughts in their discussions.
2. This objection is often to quotes from various media sources, books, movies, lectures, etc..
3. B. asks A. “Tell me what you know that you didn’t learn from someone else.”
4. Everything we know came from someone or something else.
5. Often A. Has no evidence of their owne

MEDIA FALLACY
1. A. clams B. uses the wrong media, therefore their arguments are invalid. Examples may be, quill pens, typewriters, computers, videos, movies, news papers, books, codes, cartoons, pictures, etc..
2. The attempt is to control the discussion by objecting to the media. The media has little to do with truth

OH POOR ME, FALLACY;
“I have to put up with him.” “She caused me to do it.” “Oh dear me...,” “I am abused by that mean man.”
Blaming someone else for your own responsible actions and choices.

Appeal to Ridicule
1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.
http://www.nizkor.or...o-ridicule.html

Genetic Fallacy
1. The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
2. The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).
http://www.nizkor.or...ic-fallacy.html

Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.or...ed-herring.html

I could go pointing out the logical errors of this king of fallacy but he just wants to derail the topic. Typical.

[hathor]

i'm sorry i guess my music is too loud i can't seem to process the message. my apologies. please hold for a minute, while you're waiting, enjoy some fine music.

[hathor]

beware the false profits :-P

Edited by katimaya, 12 December 2013 - 01:14 AM.

[hathor]

http://www.reddit.co..._back_have_fun/

[Deep Thought]

You didn't mention the Higgs-field. How do you explain the existence of an invisible energy field which surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together?

The same way I would explain anything physical. Most energy fields are invisible as is gravity.Let me illustrate the fine tuning of the universe argument.

Suppose, you were a photographer and you wanted to prove someone was throwing darts at a dart board located across a deep canyon. You set up your camera so you could see darts flying through the air toward the dart board. You take a highspeed picture and catch a picture just before a dart hits the board, in midair. Did somebody throw the dart?

Well, it has the right trajectory to hit the board, but we have no person in the picture. Maybe it was just by random chance, it happens you know. The nay-sayers insist there is no evidence of a dart thrower, they only believe what they can see, and prove by the scientific method. So, we put on a wide angle lens so we can include the thrower, if there is one, in the picture. Well, there is a big tree in the picture frame and the darts are coming from behind the tree and we can&rsquo;t see the dart thrower. Is there one?

Well we can&rsquo;t get across the deep canyon to look behind the tree so lets use a little reasoning power. What evidence do we have?

1. We have darts moving from behind the tree. They are moving, flying through the air, something must have caused them to start moving. Reasonable? Yes.

2. The darts are going in a certain direction, not randomly. Someone must have decided the darts should behave that way and set them into motion using an intelligent plan. Reasonable? Yes.

3. There are 100 darts, all sticking in the bulls eye. The darts were aimed by someone. Reasonable? Yes.

4. Who put up the target and painted a bills eye on it? Someone. Reasonable? Yes.

5. Why are the darts shaped the way they are, so they can fly? Someone? Yes.

We could go on but what is even more interesting are the non physical aspects.

Was there &ldquo;will,&rdquo; involved? Something wanted this to happen. Purpose is also involved. Rules and laws are involved. The darts should go in the bulls eye. Why? Because someone or something wanted it that way.

Is there a dart thrower, making the world and its rules just so in order that life might exist? Fine tuning of the cosmos says &ldquo;yes.&rdquo;

Interesting theory, but have you considered that the Higgs field might in fact be God? Basically in this theory the Higgs field is the Force (an invisible energy field) and the Higgs bozo acts as an intermediary between the Force and the real world? The particle has to be considered an extension of God, otherwise he is not omnipotent, no?

[shadowhawk]

USER AGREED, FORUM USE GUIDELINES AND RULES.
We all agreed to these when we joined. Do a search on “guidelines.”

Article 1
“The following shall be the letter of the agreement that all visitors, Members and their guests will be asked to abide by when interacting with the LongeCity ("ImmInst") website: Please read this Agreement carefully before accessing the Site.” http://www.longecity.org/forum/page/index.html/_/feature/bylawA

Article 1
Section03 Content
“You understand that by using the Site, you may be exposed to Content that you may deem offensive, indecent or objectionable.” (Including religious, philosophical or political views)

Section06 Basic Prohibitions
“ Personal threats to anybody, whether or not that person is using the Site.”

“g) Interacting with the Site in such a way as to seriously impair the functioning or usability of the Site including but not limited to excessive contribution of irrelevant Content;”

Section09 Posting Guidelines
“(a) Users must agree to consider the posting guidelines as specified in Article
2. Adherence to these guidelines is monitored by ImmInst Moderators, Directors and other designated Officers”

Article 2 Posting Guidelines:
http://www.longecity.../feature/bylawA

“Section01 A-- General tone of conversations
Also under no circumstances should you employ personal judgments or remarks about people themselves rather than their arguments. Aside from the fact that such judgments are more often than not ill founded, they drag down the overall quality of the discussion as well as costing time and space.”

“Section04 D-- Replying to topics
(a) D.1-- Please ask yourself "Does my reply offer a significant contribution?"
(b) D.2-- It is critical that you try to keep follow-up posts on topic. Avoid going off on a different tangent. If it occurs to you that this might be another thread, open a new thread and put a link to it in the old one
© D.3-- As an extension of the previous point, do not derail a topic with fundamental critique....
(e) D.5-- There is usually no benefit for people in reading that you agree unless you give an explanation to go with it.
f) D.6-- ...If someone posts a link or uploads an article- read it before you go on. Also read the posts of your predecessors and be aware of related discussions elsewhere”
---------------------------------

[shadowhawk]

You didn't mention the Higgs-field. How do you explain the existence of an invisible energy field which surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together?

The same way I would explain anything physical. Most energy fields are invisible as is gravity.Let me illustrate the fine tuning of the universe argument.

Suppose, you were a photographer and you wanted to prove someone was throwing darts at a dart board located across a deep canyon. You set up your camera so you could see darts flying through the air toward the dart board. You take a highspeed picture and catch a picture just before a dart hits the board, in midair. Did somebody throw the dart?

Well, it has the right trajectory to hit the board, but we have no person in the picture. Maybe it was just by random chance, it happens you know. The nay-sayers insist there is no evidence of a dart thrower, they only believe what they can see, and prove by the scientific method. So, we put on a wide angle lens so we can include the thrower, if there is one, in the picture. Well, there is a big tree in the picture frame and the darts are coming from behind the tree and we can&rsquo;t see the dart thrower. Is there one?

Well we can&rsquo;t get across the deep canyon to look behind the tree so lets use a little reasoning power. What evidence do we have?

1. We have darts moving from behind the tree. They are moving, flying through the air, something must have caused them to start moving. Reasonable? Yes.

2. The darts are going in a certain direction, not randomly. Someone must have decided the darts should behave that way and set them into motion using an intelligent plan. Reasonable? Yes.

3. There are 100 darts, all sticking in the bulls eye. The darts were aimed by someone. Reasonable? Yes.

4. Who put up the target and painted a bills eye on it? Someone. Reasonable? Yes.

5. Why are the darts shaped the way they are, so they can fly? Someone? Yes.

We could go on but what is even more interesting are the non physical aspects.

Was there &ldquo;will,&rdquo; involved? Something wanted this to happen. Purpose is also involved. Rules and laws are involved. The darts should go in the bulls eye. Why? Because someone or something wanted it that way.

Is there a dart thrower, making the world and its rules just so in order that life might exist? Fine tuning of the cosmos says &ldquo;yes.&rdquo;

Interesting theory, but have you considered that the Higgs field might in fact be God? Basically in this theory the Higgs field is the Force (an invisible energy field) and the Higgs bozo acts as an intermediary between the Force and the real world? The particle has to be considered an extension of God, otherwise he is not omnipotent, no?

No, the Higgs boson is part of the physical, caused world. God is not physical or caysed.

[shadowhawk]

You didn't mention the Higgs-field. How do you explain the existence of an invisible energy field which surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together?

The same way I would explain anything physical. Most energy fields are invisible as is gravity.Let me illustrate the fine tuning of the universe argument.

Suppose, you were a photographer and you wanted to prove someone was throwing darts at a dart board located across a deep canyon. You set up your camera so you could see darts flying through the air toward the dart board. You take a highspeed picture and catch a picture just before a dart hits the board, in midair. Did somebody throw the dart?

Well, it has the right trajectory to hit the board, but we have no person in the picture. Maybe it was just by random chance, it happens you know. The nay-sayers insist there is no evidence of a dart thrower, they only believe what they can see, and prove by the scientific method. So, we put on a wide angle lens so we can include the thrower, if there is one, in the picture. Well, there is a big tree in the picture frame and the darts are coming from behind the tree and we can&rsquo;t see the dart thrower. Is there one?

Well we can&rsquo;t get across the deep canyon to look behind the tree so lets use a little reasoning power. What evidence do we have?

1. We have darts moving from behind the tree. They are moving, flying through the air, something must have caused them to start moving. Reasonable? Yes.

2. The darts are going in a certain direction, not randomly. Someone must have decided the darts should behave that way and set them into motion using an intelligent plan. Reasonable? Yes.

3. There are 100 darts, all sticking in the bulls eye. The darts were aimed by someone. Reasonable? Yes.

4. Who put up the target and painted a bills eye on it? Someone. Reasonable? Yes.

5. Why are the darts shaped the way they are, so they can fly? Someone? Yes.

We could go on but what is even more interesting are the non physical aspects.

Was there &ldquo;will,&rdquo; involved? Something wanted this to happen. Purpose is also involved. Rules and laws are involved. The darts should go in the bulls eye. Why? Because someone or something wanted it that way.

Is there a dart thrower, making the world and its rules just so in order that life might exist? Fine tuning of the cosmos says &ldquo;yes.&rdquo;

Interesting theory, but have you considered that the Higgs field might in fact be God? Basically in this theory the Higgs field is the Force (an invisible energy field) and the Higgs bozo acts as an intermediary between the Force and the real world? The particle has to be considered an extension of God, otherwise he is not omnipotent, no?

No, the Higgs boson is part of the physical, caused world. God is not physical or caused.
http://www.reasonabl...oson-discovered

Edited by shadowhawk, 12 December 2013 - 11:57 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Try this one on for size.

• I exist.
• If I exist, something must have always existed because you don’t get something from nothing.
• There are only two choices for an eternal ‘something’: (a) The universe; (b) God.
• The universe is not eternal.
• Therefore, God exists.

[sthira]

The universe is not eternal.
Therefore, God exists.

You don't know if the universe is eternal or not. Nor do you know if "God exists" or not. Keep believing that if it works for you; but your faith may or may not be in accordance with reality.