tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post116049266285425053..comments2023-11-03T11:48:36.234+00:00Comments on Chris Hamer-Hodges: Undeniable DesignChris Hamer-Hodgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1163609759378897972006-11-15T16:55:00.000+00:002006-11-15T16:55:00.000+00:00Island, I did appreciate the sentiments, but not t...Island, I did appreciate the sentiments, but not the parting shot. Since it's my blog, I reserve the right to have the last word, and as I already said, I'm ending this discussion.<BR/><BR/>If you want to post one last thing, without allegations of misrepresentation, then I'll allow it.Chris Hamer-Hodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1163607571382138432006-11-15T16:19:00.000+00:002006-11-15T16:19:00.000+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1163607061250118112006-11-15T16:11:00.000+00:002006-11-15T16:11:00.000+00:00I think on sober reflection you will agree that yo...I think on sober reflection you will agree that your own lack of faith cannot be submitted as either proof or evidence against the existence of God.<BR/><BR/>You don't believe in a god who is a creation of man. Good. Neither do I. It's entirely the other way round.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to draw this to a close now, but it has been good to have this exchange with you.<BR/><BR/>> What's wrong with you?<BR/><BR/>The answer is in Romans, chapter 3. When you know the answer maybe we can talk again.<BR/><BR/>Every blessing<BR/>ChrisChris Hamer-Hodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1163605624742876702006-11-15T15:47:00.000+00:002006-11-15T15:47:00.000+00:00Say what?... I don't think so, or I would probably...Say what?... I don't think so, or I would probably be a believer, since I haven't been prejudiced against supernatural entities by anything other than the fact that I find no reason to buy the invention. I could point out that any number of natural explanations will be preferred, like "cyclic models", evolutionary models, quantum fluctuations... whatever plausible natural explanation is going to be preferred over superstition. Cause and effect are strictly relational terms, since every cause is also an effect, but regardless... <BR/><BR/>So.What?<BR/><BR/>You think that the fact that a big bang started time in this universe is reason to leap to a supernatural entity?!?<BR/><BR/>What's wrong with you?... ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1163583059413477292006-11-15T09:30:00.000+00:002006-11-15T09:30:00.000+00:00Yet we also have presidence that every natural cau...Yet we also have presidence that every natural cause of effect, is itself an effect of a prior cause.<BR/><BR/>There are only two logical conclusions: either their is an infinite chain of causality stretching back to infinity past, or there was a primal cause that is unlike anything we have president for, in that it was not dependant on anything prior for its existence.<BR/><BR/>Unless you believe, contrary to the rest of the scientific community, that the Universe had no beginning, then the very president that you use to axiomatically exclude the supernatural, is one of the most compelling 'evidences' that there is a God.Chris Hamer-Hodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1163549314522988352006-11-15T00:08:00.000+00:002006-11-15T00:08:00.000+00:00No, that's not correct, because we have presidence...No, that's not correct, because we have presidence which tells us that every know cause of effect is natural, so there is no reason to leap beyond this continuity to presume otherwise without direct proof.<BR/><BR/>And yet you try to "infer" supernatural cause.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, that ain't the way that it works, and I agree with Einstein since creationists are the only ones to recognize purpose in nature, so both clueless sides are equally necessary to the anthropic balance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1163543927853903432006-11-14T22:38:00.000+00:002006-11-14T22:38:00.000+00:00You are no doubt aware that there is a difference ...You are no doubt aware that there is a difference between <I>evidence</I> and <I>proof</I>. You cannot dismiss the former because it is not the latter. Any scientific theory is only as good as its ability to fit with the gathered evidence. Your own view has "unproven extras" too.<BR/><BR/>Also, it is only natural and logical that a study of creation should lead on to think about the Creator. <BR/><BR/>So, like Newton, you also are free to believe what you like, but your view that to be "scientific" is to be atheistic is not shared by all!<BR/><BR/><I>I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. ~ Albert Einstein</I>Chris Hamer-Hodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1163526589988923332006-11-14T17:49:00.000+00:002006-11-14T17:49:00.000+00:00Island, I am a BSc., having received first class h...<I>Island, I am a BSc., having received first class honours in physics, so I do know a little about science myself.</I><BR/><BR/>And yet, you attempt to prove the existence of a supernatural entity with science.<BR/><BR/><I>What you refer to as "the scientific default position" is an unprovable axiom that is not held by all in the scientific community.</I><BR/><BR/>Huh? The scientific method necessarily prefers the most accurate answer that doesn't add unproven extra entities.<BR/><BR/><I>It was not held by the great scientific minds of the past either: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein.</I><BR/><BR/>I beg your pardon. Einstein recognized evidence for method to nature's non-deistic madness, and like I said, extra entities beyond this are not justified without direct proof, so Newton can believe whatever he wants to, as long as he doesn't call it science without direct proof.<BR/><BR/><I>"Why is there this underlying need?"</I><BR/><BR/>Because there is an **observed** imbalance in the energy that prevented the big bang from producing a perfectly symmetrical object, so mechanisms arise to satisfy this most apparent need for absolute thermal equilibrium.<BR/><BR/>This article is only a part of the whole story, but it does give you an idea of the kinds of evidence that scientists recognize to support my assertion:<BR/><BR/>http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1163525023570044942006-11-14T17:23:00.000+00:002006-11-14T17:23:00.000+00:00Island, I am a BSc., having received first class h...Island, I am a BSc., having received first class honours in physics, so I do know a little about science myself.<BR/><BR/>What you refer to as "the scientific default position" is an unprovable axiom that is not held by all in the scientific community. It was not held by the great scientific minds of the past either: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein.<BR/><BR/>Since you cannot prove that there is such a "need" you must accept it by faith. So why should you look down on me because I choose to have faith in something that is entirely more logical - that there is a God - a faith that was shared by the greatest scientific minds of all time?<BR/><BR/>The question remains, because answering the question "Why are the physical laws of nature just right for life?" with "because there is an underlying physical need" just raises the question "Why is there this underlying need?"Chris Hamer-Hodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1163523298080963892006-11-14T16:54:00.000+00:002006-11-14T16:54:00.000+00:00Hi Chris,What simple physical need are you referri...Hi Chris,<BR/><BR/><I>What simple physical need are you referring to? Or is this something you take on faith too?</I><BR/><BR/>Not that I don't have good reason for what I say, but regardless, it's the default scientific position if we're not here by accident, without direct proof that there is something more to it than that.<BR/><BR/><I>Even if there were such an underlying "need" that gave rise to the conditions for life. This does not answer the question, it just shifts it somewhere else.</I><BR/><BR/>Which question is that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1163510302985004642006-11-14T13:18:00.000+00:002006-11-14T13:18:00.000+00:00Thanks for the comment, Island.What simple physica...Thanks for the comment, Island.<BR/><BR/>What <I>simple physical need</I> are you referring to? Or is this something you take on faith too?<BR/><BR/>Even if there were such an underlying "need" that gave rise to the conditions for life. This does not answer the question, it just shifts it somewhere else.<BR/><BR/>You can debate the proof, but the evidence remains.Chris Hamer-Hodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1163436822206781662006-11-13T16:53:00.000+00:002006-11-13T16:53:00.000+00:00It is just a shame that when faced with this unden...<I>It is just a shame that when faced with this undeniable evidence that the Universe was designed...</I><BR/><BR/>Nope, you make an unfounded leap of faith to assume that evidence that we're not here by accident is representative of something greater than a simple physical need for us to be here.<BR/><BR/>You have to provide direct proof that the "intent" that you perceive in the physics isn't the same thing as any other form of **natural bias**.<BR/><BR/>uh... AmenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1160650760414495992006-10-12T11:59:00.000+01:002006-10-12T11:59:00.000+01:00Ricky, this argument came from an atheistic scient...Ricky, this argument came from an atheistic scientist who had thought the issues though. I merely added my own editorial.<BR/><BR/>It is the big-crunch to big-bang cycles that do not wash scientifically, because you are transitioning from a point of maximum entropy to one of minimum entropy; something that is entirely un-scientific.Chris Hamer-Hodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1160582761239062552006-10-11T17:06:00.000+01:002006-10-11T17:06:00.000+01:00Chris,I'm afraid this argument doesn't wash with a...Chris,<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid this argument doesn't wash with atheist scientists who have thought the issue through. <BR/><BR/>One line of scientific thinking is that the 'universe' has gone through many many cycles of big bang to big crunch. For each of those cycles, there are a set of 'universal constants' which govern the behaviour of their particular universe. In most of those cycles the constants are not arranged in such a way that the universe can give life the opportunity to evolve. But given an infinite amount of tries, it is certain that a set of constants which will lead to the evolution of life will eventually occur. And it is only on those rare occasions when the constants are 'set' just right, that the universe is observed and this question is ultimately asked...<BR/><BR/>Of course, given an infinite amount of bang-crunch cycles, it is certain that a universe will exist at some time where there is a God who will create a planet called earth and give life to little bipedal animals who will come to ask awkward questions like this...<BR/><BR/>;o)Ricky Carvelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975085318645232701noreply@blogger.com