National Academy of Sciences says about creation of the universe by Go

[kimmy]

You keep saying this, and yet come back post after post to discuss this with the same people you say you won't discuss it with.

Why is that?

It's part of Betsy's version of the Gish Gallop. Present a torrent of blather, repeat yourself when people pose questions, and when people keep posing questions, tell them you're done and act like you've made your case.

-k

[betsy]

Does that mean you don't have an explanation why none of the top minds in Christian Apologetics or theology seem to be aware of any of this evidence for theistic evolution you keep going on about?

-K

I can't speak for every Apologist. Besides, we're talking about Theistic EVOLUTION!

For crying out loud.....that should be a big clue to you why there would be some religious apologists who wouldn't take to this!

If you want to know their views about the NAS statement, then you go contact each and every one of them and ask them yourself! It's bad enough when you don't even want to read the booklet you're arguing about....but it's showing how little you understand.

Bye for now!

Edited March 27, 2016 by betsy

[eyeball]

I'm not asking why you should suspend your belief.

Disbelief I said. The difference is vast don't you think?

It's like we're using using different senses and speaking in different tongues.

I'm simply asking what's the basis for the atheistic belief that God doesn't exists.

Atheists don't believe, they disbelieve. What is it about this simple concept that is apparently impossible for theists to get their head around?

[waldo]

It's bad enough when you don't even want to read the booklet you're arguing about....but it's showing how little you understand.

Bye for now!

"Betsy's version of the Gish Gallop" (h/t MLW member kimmy)

.

[kimmy]

I can't speak for every Apologist. Besides, we're talking about Theistic EVOLUTION!

For crying out loud.....that should be a big clue to you why there would be some religious apologists who wouldn't take to this!

Most serious Christian Apologists, like Ravi Zacharias and Alvin Plantinga, are completely comfortable dealing with evolution and divorce themselves from the Six Days type thinking. Physical evidence for theistic evolution would be PERFECT for their world view! Why wouldn't anybody have told them about it?

What makes you so sure that you've discovered something that everybody else on the planet doesn't seem to have heard about? These are guys who made it their lives' work to study this kind of information, and you're proposing that they just didn't hear about it?

Major apologetics websites like Reasons To Believe also don't seem to be aware of this.

If your interpretation of the NAS is correct, the discovery of physical evidence for theistic evolution would have had profound impact in the fields of science and philosophy. But we don't witness that impact ANYWHERE.

Don't you think it's more likely that your interpretation of the NAS statement you keep quoting is just plain wrong?

Bye for now!

THERE it is!! ( ™ Chris Christie)

-k

[Bob Macadoo]

It's part of Betsy's version of the Gish Gallop. Present a torrent of blather, repeat yourself when people pose questions, and when people keep posing questions, tell them you're done and act like you've made your case.

-k

Kind of like some other verbose commenter on here.

[kimmy]

As to the original question... how does this affect my world view?

Obviously since the information Betsy has presented is simply not true, it doesn't affect my worldview at all.

If at some point we do find this long-sought, never-seen evidence of a creator, it will definitely change my world view.

At that point I'd be forced to wonder about the nature of this creator... who is he? Does he know or care what we do? Are any of the organized religions right about who this creator is or what he wants us to do? or are all of the organized religions completely wrong about the creator? Does the creator want anything at all? Does the creator have any interest in our planet or the people on it? Does the creator care about me or what I do with my life? All of these things.

I'd stop being an atheist, for sure. I'd become a deist, and spend more time thinking about those questions.

-k

[Guest]

Betsy, it's clear to everyone here that you have really stretched the meaning of a statement by the NAS to reach the conclusion that scientists claim there is evidence for god(s) creating the universe. I suspect you are also aware of this. Your tactic to keep repeating your false claim is a little like a politician attempting to dupe a barely interested public. You're a little like Fiorina and the Planned Parenthood, trafficing baby parts fiasco. However, this isn't a campaign, just a discussion. What do you get out of repeating false statements on a sight like this? Nobody is going to come away from this thread thinking scientific evidence for a god exists, not even you.

[betsy]

Some of you ask the views of Christian Apologists regarding Theistic Evolution. That would depend on each and every apologist, depending on how they take the Bible. I cannot speak for them.

Christianity is based on reason and logic. It has to, since we're told to use reason to determine....and I believe that's why we've been given reason/logic, that we may be able to discern.

My position regarding science is positive: I firmly believe that science is specially created for a special reason.

Perhaps to reveal to us the glory of God. To help reveal the true God.

Here's one apologist who's not limited to the literal translation of the Book of Genesis. Alvin Plantinga was quoted, too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9h-hmlMz5c

This is not to be considered as an opening to discuss the validity of Evolution, but rather merely to give an example of an apologist's view. Any desire to pursue any evolution discussion should be done on a separate thread.

Edited March 27, 2016 by betsy

[cybercoma]

I'm sorry Kimmy. If there's anyone here who's already wasted so much time giving explanations, that's gotta be me.

I'll just have to let you go, too. You're halfway to getting it, except that something in you is resisting and refusing to see what the NAS is simply stating.

Come back to me when you've got something substantial to say.

It's hilarious how you write people off when they ask for evidence you claim to have, instead of just posting the evidence. I have no Idea how you could be so dishonest with not only others but with yourself.

[eyeball]

At that point I'd be forced to wonder about the nature of this creator... who is he? Does he know or care what we do? Are any of the organized religions right about who this creator is or what he wants us to do? or are all of the organized religions completely wrong about the creator? Does the creator want anything at all? Does the creator have any interest in our planet or the people on it? Does the creator care about me or what I do with my life? All of these things.

I'd stop being an atheist, for sure. I'd become a deist, and spend more time thinking about those questions.

-k

I'd also be left with the question of whether I chose to believe in Her, as in to follow or listen to.

I think the question 'do you believe in God' is secondary, at best, to the question 'do you think God exists'.

First things first.

Edited March 28, 2016 by eyeball

[Guest]

I'd also be left with the question of whether I chose to believe in Her, as in to follow or listen to.

I think the question 'do you believe in God' is secondary, at best, to the question 'do you think God exists'.

First things first.

That makes sense if you approach the subject as an adult, but the question of the existence of a god is generally indoctrinated long before sufficient critical thinking skills have developed.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

I'd also be left with the question of whether I chose to believe in Her, as in to follow or listen to.

I think the question 'do you believe in God' is secondary, at best, to the question 'do you think God exists'.

First things first.

If I actually believed she existed I don't think I could avoid believing in her. I'd be praying all day. That's one thing I can't understand about religious people. If I actually believed my time on Earth was but an insignificant blip on the path to an eternity in Paradise, I would spend all day washing the feet of lepers. (Christian God, anyway. I'm not sure what gets other folk into Heaven)

Edited March 28, 2016 by bcsapper

[kimmy]

I'd also be left with the question of whether I chose to believe in Her, as in to follow or listen to.

I think the question 'do you believe in God' is secondary, at best, to the question 'do you think God exists'.

First things first.

Well, the premise was: what if we had concrete evidence of a creator? Given that premise, we're assuming the question of a god's existence has been answered in the affirmative.

To me the next step, after passing that hurdle, is to wonder what is the nature of that creator?

Why would such a being create all of this in the first place? Was he bored? Lonely? Were we an intentional part of the creation, or something that just happened along the way, like the weed that unexpectedly starts growing in your terrarium?

Would such a being be personal, in any sense that we tiny creatures can comprehend? Would human concepts like "bored" and "lonely" or any other human feeling even apply to such a being? Does the concept of "want" apply to such a being?

Would such a being want to relate to me personally in any sense, any more than I want to relate to an individual tendril in the fungus colony that I assume is growing inside the expired sour creme container in my fridge? That fungus tendril weighs micrograms and it might not live a whole day... but that fungus tendril in comparison to me, is immeasurably greater than me in comparison to a hypothetical creator. Why would a hypothetical creator concern itself with the goings-on of a being whose life is so infinitely tiny and brief as myself?

Would it make sense that a being that could create the whole vastness of this universe would care about minutia like what I eat, what I wear, or who I have sex with?

-k

[eyeball]

No doubt there'd be no end to our curiosity but if he suddenly decided to whip out his magnifying glass and turn it into a death ray or was completely indifferent to us I'd probably conclude that I knew everything I really needed to know.

The premise seems to be a prelude to the more important expectation that knowing he/she/it exists will automatically lead to me spending all my time glorifying it/she/him. Why that is strikes me as bizarre. It would be even more so if God expected it too.

Edited March 28, 2016 by eyeball

[waldo]

still none? MLW member betsy still hasn't provided any "scientific finding evidence"? Still?
.

[BubberMiley]

still none? MLW member betsy still hasn't provided any "scientific finding evidence"? Still?

.

I believe the evidence they were speaking of was "That's a rather ornate and complicated system. Hard to believe it got that way by itself."

[Guest]

No doubt there'd be no end to our curiosity but if he suddenly decided to whip out his magnifying glass and turn it into a death ray or was completely indifferent to us I'd probably conclude that I knew everything I really needed to know.

The premise seems to be a prelude to the more important expectation that knowing he/she/it exists will automatically lead to me spending all my time glorifying it/she/him. Why that is strikes me as bizarre. It would be even more so if God expected it too.

What's the point in being a God then? If I was God, you'd bloody well do as you were told!

[eyeball]

Figures you'd use the Old Testament approach. How conservative. If you've seen one you've seen them all.

[Guest]

I believe the evidence they were speaking of was "That's a rather ornate and complicated system. Hard to believe it got that way by itself."

The knowledge we have gained about life, the universe and everything, through science is not consistent with the interested and interfering biblical god. The supernatural idea that our scientific knowledge can be consistent with is a hands off, first mover, deist god that simply started the universe in motion and then either sat back and watched or lost interest, going off to do whatever imaginary, supernatural entities do with their spare time. This notion is incompatible with all the major religions which involve revelations from the gods. However, it is a position that can almost certainly never be disproved.

Some still claim scientific compatibility with Christianity through an ever shrinking 'god of the gaps' idea. This limits gods to the yet unexplained natural phenomena and involves a severe amount of retreat and creative, apologetics to explain away the inconsistencies between science and the bible as new discoveries are made. For instance, evolution which used to be inconsistent with the Bible has now become acceptable to this type of believer, but as a process seeded or initiated by a god who no longer needs to interfere. However, as science has filled the gaps at an ever increasing rate and historians have shredded the credibility for the existence of a living Jesus, the 'theistic evolution' or 'god of the gaps' position is like walking the plank towards the eventual plunge into deism or non-belief.

[Guest]

Figures you'd use the Old Testament approach. How conservative. If you've seen one you've seen them all.

This is how it's done...

Edited March 29, 2016 by bcsapper

[betsy]

This thread is about the position of the National Academy of Sciences regarding Theistic Evolution -

the belief that God created the universe and all the processes etc.,

The NAS did not identify or relate their findings to any God/gods.

This thread also aims to give corroborating evidences by scientists, most of whom are former atheists.

This thread is not about the Old Testament, or the Bible. Let's not go off-topic, please.

Edited May 5, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

EINSTEIN employed a "fudge factor" to suit what he wanted.

A fudge factor is an ad hoc quantity introduced into a calculation, formula or model in order to make it fit observations or expectations. Examples include Einstein's Cosmological Constant, dark energy, dark matter and inflation.^[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor

The Origin of the Universe

This stand-off persisted unaltered until 1917, the year in which Albert Einstein made a cosmological application of his newly discovered General Theory of Relativity.6 To his chagrin, he found that GTR would not permit a static model of the universe unless he introduced into his gravitational field equations a certain "fudge factor" L in order to counterbalance the gravitational effect of matter. Einstein's universe was balanced on a razor's edge, however, and the least perturbation would cause the universe either to implode or to expand. By taking this feature of Einstein's model seriously, Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre were able to formulate independently in the 1920s solutions to the field equations which predicted an expanding universe.7

The monumental significance of the Friedman-Lemaitre model lay in its historization of the universe. As one commentator has remarked, up to this time the idea of the expansion of the universe "was absolutely beyond comprehension. Throughout all of human history the universe was regarded as fixed and immutable and the idea that it might actually be changing was inconceivable."8 But if the Friedman-Lemaitre model were correct, the universe could no longer be adequately treated as a static entity existing, in effect, timelessly. Rather the universe has a history, and time will not be matter of indifference for our investigation of the cosmos. In 1929 Edwin Hubble's measurements of the red-shift in the optical spectra of light from distant galaxies,9 which was taken to indicate a universal recessional motion of the light sources in the line of sight, provided a dramatic verification of the Friedman-Lemaitre model. Incredibly, what Hubble had discovered was the isotropic expansion of the universe predicted by Friedman and Lemaitre. It marked a veritable turning point in the history of science.

"Of all the great predictions that science has ever made over the centuries," exclaims John Wheeler, "was there ever one greater than this, to predict, and predict correctly, and predict against all expectation a phenomenon so fantastic as the expansion of the universe?"10

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-ultimate-question-of-origins-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz47mGM17CE

Einstein eventually became a deist.

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. However, it is interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

4

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

Edited May 5, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

The "orderly harmony," used by Einstein, or the "order" used by the NAS to describe the universe.........

...........is just another term for "fine-tuned." Really. Whom are they kidding?

The Laws of Physics, have no politics.

Edited May 5, 2016 by betsy

[kimmy]

Einstein's "cosmological constant" was something he incorporated into his model to explain why the universe was seemingly stationary. Edwin Hubble's discovery that the universe wasn't stationary rendered the "cosmological constant" completely unnecessary and was simply dropped from the model.

As always, science is superceded... by better science.

-k