Give ‘em the Silent Treatment
- Thread starter ThePhy
- Start date
- Status
servent101
New member
Zakath
What you say is true - and as far as science goes it is an attempt to find knowledge that can be verrified - though the concept of a fraternity seems to be present - that in order for us to "experience" and share what we encounter - we have to have "proof" who's paramaters are determined by a group based on the process of categorizing the physical. So all in all, all that I am saying is that this is a flaw - we cannot categorize the supernatural according to the laws of the physical - so no wonder Science denies the existence of the supernatural, the supernatural cannot be deduced by the empiracal method of deduction which was formed to study the physical.
Seems you have this fraternity or that fraternity OR - you use your own eyes, ears, mind and develop your own sort of reasoning.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
What you say is true - and as far as science goes it is an attempt to find knowledge that can be verrified - though the concept of a fraternity seems to be present - that in order for us to "experience" and share what we encounter - we have to have "proof" who's paramaters are determined by a group based on the process of categorizing the physical. So all in all, all that I am saying is that this is a flaw - we cannot categorize the supernatural according to the laws of the physical - so no wonder Science denies the existence of the supernatural, the supernatural cannot be deduced by the empiracal method of deduction which was formed to study the physical.
Seems you have this fraternity or that fraternity OR - you use your own eyes, ears, mind and develop your own sort of reasoning.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
Phy, this is my last post in this thread. And to head off accusations that your list of questions scared me off, I will answer them below. I would have LOVED to discuss with you the issue of matter being created, or eternal, or brought forth by the Big Bang. I tried immediately to focus us on the existence of matter itself (regardless of whether it was in a form “as we know it”) and I tried to get us started by focusing on the physical universe (and ignore spiritual issues). As an atheist physicist, you should have been happy with these efforts. This post explains why I’m done with this thread. When I get the chance, I will return to your comments on the BEL thread on Is Time Absolute.
As to you saying that the existence of spirit beings is irrelevant to our discussion: yes! That’s why I tried to dismiss it from the start of our discussion about the physical universe. But you held onto it as a “maybe” giving you “hesitation,” and since I want to have a great discussion on the scientific question you raised, and not waste time with games, I hoped to put a stop to distractions. You wouldn’t go along without “maybe.. hesitation” and so I decided to call you on it. Instead of just agreeing with me and proceeding with our discussion, you accused me of being guilty of the irrelevancy.
In debates I try to prevent my opponent from getting away with unfairly undermining my credibility, even if he’s only taken a shot at me in a minor way. [As for fair attacks, if I have reported a fact incorrectly, that’s fair game. And if someone attacks my credibility as a pastor by accusing me of being divorced, that is a totally fair consideration, and is relevant to their concern.] But in this thread, you corrected one of my comments which was part of my effort to start us out dealing specifically with physics and explicitly NOT with spiritual matters.
The comment you corrected, which was part of that effort, was: "The at-large scientific community does not believe spirit beings exist."
You replied: “More correctly, science does not consider supernatural things in its studies.”
In a debate, Phy, I don’t think you should allow others to “correct” you on something you said that was true. I don’t take well to that either.
Why did I ask you to indicate whether that statement was true or false? My goal was to force you into a minor humbling predicament, so that you would be less inclined to revert to this kind of distraction as we continued. To my true or false question, you answered:
By then I had unnecessarily clarified this true/false chastisement question, and to this, you answered: “I honestly don’t know,” regarding:
Your questions (hey, I like the numbering!):
BDQ1: Is it true that in your opening statement in discussing the creation of the universe you listed two options? Not one, not three, not some other number, but two.
BEA-BDQ1: Yes, it is true.
BDQ2: You itemized those options – the first one was “the universe was always here”, correct?
BEA-BDQ1: Phy, I completely trust your report of this (I haven’t re-listened. And Turbo has effectively corroborated your report). So I answer: Yes.
BDQ3: The second option you itemized was “or a creator made it”, correct?
BEA-BDQ2: Yes (as above).
BDQ4: Then you inverted the order of those ideas when you rephrased them as: “Either an eternal God or eternal matter.” Correct?
BEA-BDQ4: Yes (as above).
BDQ5: The majority of the physicists in the world subscribe to the big bang as the most likely correct explanation for the origin of the universe. Is this a true statement?
BEA-BDQ5: Yes “as we know it” today, that is, physicists believe the big bang is the explanation for the origin of the universe as we know it today! According to popular belief, prior to our physical universe taking on its current size and distribute of elements, the size and distribution of EVERYTHING was very different even just a millionth of a second prior to the Big Bang itself.
See the quotes I’ve referenced from an elementary USA educational source, and a university physics department halfway around the world, which illustrate that Big Bang theory has informed billions of people that all the matter of the universe was originally in a speck smaller than the period at the end of a sentence, AND that the said speck was not the equivalent of the Big Bang, but pre-existed the Big Bang. Thus, as taught to billions of people, the Big Bang does not assert the creation of the universe ex nihilo (from nothing), but from EVERYTHING that had been originally condensed into a nearly infinitely dense speck.
BDQ6: The two options you enumerated did not include the big bang as a possibility, right?
BEA-BDQ6: Wrong. See BEA-DBQ5.
BDQ7: Excluding the big bang but including “eternal matter” in your options means you elected to present a naturalistic idea that is not even close to the one accepted by the majority of the physics community, right?
BEA-BDQ7: Wrong. In fact, I always hope that non-believers, and especially scientists, will challenge these fundamental Christian arguments, so that we can demonstrate which side thinks clearly, and which side does not.
Phy, I still hold out hope, against contrary indicators, that we can have a good dialogue in the BEL thread about whether time is absolute or relative. In that discussion, if you consent to continue it, I will commit to being clear, honest, forthright, and to not obfuscate.
As for this thread: good bye.
-Bob Enyart
As to you saying that the existence of spirit beings is irrelevant to our discussion: yes! That’s why I tried to dismiss it from the start of our discussion about the physical universe. But you held onto it as a “maybe” giving you “hesitation,” and since I want to have a great discussion on the scientific question you raised, and not waste time with games, I hoped to put a stop to distractions. You wouldn’t go along without “maybe.. hesitation” and so I decided to call you on it. Instead of just agreeing with me and proceeding with our discussion, you accused me of being guilty of the irrelevancy.
Bob said:
In my final paragraph (the one you responded to here), I was a bit annoyed at you wasting our time and not just unequivocally agreeing that we would talk about physics and not spirits. I did call for agreement. You missed the final sentence of the paragraph, which reads: “Agreed?”Phy said:
In debates I try to prevent my opponent from getting away with unfairly undermining my credibility, even if he’s only taken a shot at me in a minor way. [As for fair attacks, if I have reported a fact incorrectly, that’s fair game. And if someone attacks my credibility as a pastor by accusing me of being divorced, that is a totally fair consideration, and is relevant to their concern.] But in this thread, you corrected one of my comments which was part of my effort to start us out dealing specifically with physics and explicitly NOT with spiritual matters.
The comment you corrected, which was part of that effort, was: "The at-large scientific community does not believe spirit beings exist."
You replied: “More correctly, science does not consider supernatural things in its studies.”
In a debate, Phy, I don’t think you should allow others to “correct” you on something you said that was true. I don’t take well to that either.
The definition of the common English term, at-large, is: as a whole; in general. That’s by the American Heritage Dictionary. It’s the same with Websters, Dictionary.com, etc.Bob said:
Phy, you should have immediately gone along with my effort to steer us away from spirits and toward physics. And having failed to do so unequivocally, when I called you on that, you could have simply agreed. But instead you upbraided me for using an extraordinarily common English idiom. And no, “at large” does not mean “the prevailing opinion of the scientific community,” but you left out my word “believe” which does indicate their opinion.” So, this is an example of why I’m not going further with this thread: because this phrase exhibits no problem with using plain English: "The at-large scientific community does not believe spirit beings exist."ThePhy said:
Why did I ask you to indicate whether that statement was true or false? My goal was to force you into a minor humbling predicament, so that you would be less inclined to revert to this kind of distraction as we continued. To my true or false question, you answered:
First you equivocate, and then you answer this question using the word “honestly,” that “I honestly don’t know!!”ThePhy said:
By then I had unnecessarily clarified this true/false chastisement question, and to this, you answered: “I honestly don’t know,” regarding:
According to Nature (1998, vol. 394, p. 313) of scientists in the various disciplines of the physical sciences (astronomers, biologists, paleontologists, physicists, whatever), the group that has the highest percentage of scientists who believe in God is mathematicians, with only 14.3% who report a belief in God, whereas other categories of scientists indicate even less belief in a God. Phy, for someone whose is a physicist, and has a strong interest in keeping up with science, and has a continuing interest in theological matters, and frequents a website called TheologyOnline, I cannot conclude that you are being sincere in saying you “don’t know” whether or not the prevailing scientific opinion rejects the existence of spirit beings. I call this immature and argumentative.Bob said:
Your questions (hey, I like the numbering!):
BDQ1: Is it true that in your opening statement in discussing the creation of the universe you listed two options? Not one, not three, not some other number, but two.
BEA-BDQ1: Yes, it is true.
BDQ2: You itemized those options – the first one was “the universe was always here”, correct?
BEA-BDQ1: Phy, I completely trust your report of this (I haven’t re-listened. And Turbo has effectively corroborated your report). So I answer: Yes.
BDQ3: The second option you itemized was “or a creator made it”, correct?
BEA-BDQ2: Yes (as above).
BDQ4: Then you inverted the order of those ideas when you rephrased them as: “Either an eternal God or eternal matter.” Correct?
BEA-BDQ4: Yes (as above).
BDQ5: The majority of the physicists in the world subscribe to the big bang as the most likely correct explanation for the origin of the universe. Is this a true statement?
BEA-BDQ5: Yes “as we know it” today, that is, physicists believe the big bang is the explanation for the origin of the universe as we know it today! According to popular belief, prior to our physical universe taking on its current size and distribute of elements, the size and distribution of EVERYTHING was very different even just a millionth of a second prior to the Big Bang itself.
See the quotes I’ve referenced from an elementary USA educational source, and a university physics department halfway around the world, which illustrate that Big Bang theory has informed billions of people that all the matter of the universe was originally in a speck smaller than the period at the end of a sentence, AND that the said speck was not the equivalent of the Big Bang, but pre-existed the Big Bang. Thus, as taught to billions of people, the Big Bang does not assert the creation of the universe ex nihilo (from nothing), but from EVERYTHING that had been originally condensed into a nearly infinitely dense speck.
BDQ6: The two options you enumerated did not include the big bang as a possibility, right?
BEA-BDQ6: Wrong. See BEA-DBQ5.
BDQ7: Excluding the big bang but including “eternal matter” in your options means you elected to present a naturalistic idea that is not even close to the one accepted by the majority of the physics community, right?
BEA-BDQ7: Wrong. In fact, I always hope that non-believers, and especially scientists, will challenge these fundamental Christian arguments, so that we can demonstrate which side thinks clearly, and which side does not.
Phy, I still hold out hope, against contrary indicators, that we can have a good dialogue in the BEL thread about whether time is absolute or relative. In that discussion, if you consent to continue it, I will commit to being clear, honest, forthright, and to not obfuscate.
As for this thread: good bye.
-Bob Enyart
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Deduction is a form of logical process. Empirical methods are forms of measurement and description.servent101 said:
That clarified, deduction could point to the supernatural... but only if the evidence warranted it. Thus far, after almost 10,000 years of recorded history, the evidence doesn't warrant it yet.
And, I'd like to concur with Taoist, science does not deny the exitstence of the supernatural. It merely doesn't deal with it. Kind of the way that I do not deal with sounds that are above my hearing range. I certainly acknowledge such things can exist, but I don't usually deal with them because I cannot hear them.
servent101
New member
Taoist,,,, / Zakath... thank you for being an up to date example
But in the same post you say
O.K. then if Science does not deal with it - who does? that being the evidence - what means do we have of dealing with the evidence of the supernatural? - as pointed out certainly not Science - so what branch of reasoning does this fall under? - there is no fraternaty out there that deals with these sorts of "occurances" So again - what do we use to develop our deduction concerning the supernatural?... how about developing some sort of skill at self-remembering (J.D. Oplinskie)
With Christ's LOve
servent101
But in the same post you say
O.K. then if Science does not deal with it - who does? that being the evidence - what means do we have of dealing with the evidence of the supernatural? - as pointed out certainly not Science - so what branch of reasoning does this fall under? - there is no fraternaty out there that deals with these sorts of "occurances" So again - what do we use to develop our deduction concerning the supernatural?... how about developing some sort of skill at self-remembering (J.D. Oplinskie)
With Christ's LOve
servent101
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Thanks! That was my point though. So how does Bob Enyarts statement deny the BB theory? Bod said "Either the universe was always here, or a creator made it. That is the only choice. Either an eternal God or eternal matter. "taoist said:
How does this inherantly ignore the BB theory since the BB theory does not account for a time when matter did not exist? What is ThePhy talking about?
taoist
New member
I'll have to leave a full answer to that one for ThePhy, Guy.
The big bang theory implies a catastrophic event some 15 billion years ago. What came before that ... who knows? Was it the big crunch or a collision in n-space or the hand of some entity that could pinch hit for a deity? I don't know. We're pretty sure something universe-shaking happened back then, but whether it was a creation event or just part of an endless cycle is still a very open question.
To claim BB theory says the universe was always here is either ignorant or just plain dishonest. Always and 15 billion years simply are not the same! It's no wonder he left this thread. He was nailed.
The big bang theory implies a catastrophic event some 15 billion years ago. What came before that ... who knows? Was it the big crunch or a collision in n-space or the hand of some entity that could pinch hit for a deity? I don't know. We're pretty sure something universe-shaking happened back then, but whether it was a creation event or just part of an endless cycle is still a very open question.
To claim BB theory says the universe was always here is either ignorant or just plain dishonest. Always and 15 billion years simply are not the same! It's no wonder he left this thread. He was nailed.
I just finished listening to Bob's "Genesis: Creation" album a few weeks ago. It answers the points ThePhy brings up. ThePhy should keep listening. It would be a lot easier than starting to debate Bob first. When ThePhy is done, he will probably believe in God, and see the error of his ways. 
Anything's possible, no?
Anything's possible, no?Bob Getting out of Vietnam
Bob Getting out of Vietnam
I suspect I will not have a great deal more to say in this thread. I am certainly satisfied to let your exact words stand in the OP, and your demonstrated attempts to deflect this thread away from the clear meaning of those words.
I should note that part of my tight focus in this thread was in emulation of something I had heard elsewhere. There is a certain radio preacher in Denver that I have heard on occasion engage someone in a dispute. The preacher posed what he felt was a relevant question to the caller. When the caller started answering by talking about something a bit to the side of the question, the preacher would interrupt and force the question to center stage again. After having to do this several times, I have heard the preacher hit the mute button on the caller, and tell the caller in a one-way conversation that he must answer the question posed to him before the preacher is going to allow the conversation to drift to go on to other topics. On a couple of occasions, the preacher simply hung up on the caller, saying that if the caller isn’t honest enough to stay on subject, he is off the air. Sound familiar, preacher?
And “God bless” the mathematicians. Maybe there’s more truth in mathematics than I had thought.
There are different ways to get out of an uncomfortable conversation. Had Bob simply said at the outset that his opening statement on the tapes was not well worded, thousands of electrons could have still been slumbering instead of cluttering our screens with obfuscation. But Bob has chosen to do a Nixon – just declare victory and then run like heck.
I am surprised the lengths that some people will go to to keep from admitting a small mistake. Pastors! Grrrrrrr ….
Bob Getting out of Vietnam
A (fond?) farewell
From BE:
That is always the right of anyone participating in these threads – to choose to stop participating. Your departure from participation in this thread levies no such requirement on anyone else.
I suspect I will not have a great deal more to say in this thread. I am certainly satisfied to let your exact words stand in the OP, and your demonstrated attempts to deflect this thread away from the clear meaning of those words.
Fear at TOL
I really have no way to know if you were “scared” by my questions or not. A more correct word would probably be “bothered”. As a pastor and person who commands the respect of a moderate number of people, I think you are quite sensitive to public revelations that you are wrong.
“Big Bang – pretty please?”
That is still an option. But not in this thread. My point was, and remains, that you seriously misrepresented the scientific consensus in your tape opening. This thread was not initiated to discuss the credibility of the big bang. I can think of several openings for your Genesis – Creation tapes that would have been more faithful to representing the scientific community. Just an opening to the effect that “There are several options for how the universe came into existence. The majority of scientists have chosen to support the big bang, an idea that, on close examination, is found to be untenable in light of science itself …”.
It is quite evident why you tried to focus on the existence of matter itself. That would have taken the focus away from your opening preemptive dismissal of the big bang.
Time Dilation
Looking forward to that. Also watching to see if the ideas you put forth in that OP show up in your arguments as BRX wraps up.
Spirits and science
I would have been fine without ever mentioning spirits. You were the one that chose to inject then into the conversation, and I had no idea where you were going with them.
Be sure to read the small print
Pardon me, but maybe this is a new twist on discussions that I have just been exposed to. You talk about a number of things over a number of paragraphs, and then call for my universal assent or dissent to all with the final word “Agreed?” This sounds like the new trend in voting that I see in some places, where you no longer can select the candidates you feel are best qualified, but are required to vote a party line. If you want to give support to the savior of the party, you must concurrently support the party derelict. Not a good way to vote, and not a good way to post.
more and more spirits
I appreciate your frankness in admitting that you were trying to steer the conversation. If indeed physics was the direction you wanted to go, then what is so objectionable about a simple admission that your opening statement in the tapes was not an accurate representation of the view of the physicists?
I should note that part of my tight focus in this thread was in emulation of something I had heard elsewhere. There is a certain radio preacher in Denver that I have heard on occasion engage someone in a dispute. The preacher posed what he felt was a relevant question to the caller. When the caller started answering by talking about something a bit to the side of the question, the preacher would interrupt and force the question to center stage again. After having to do this several times, I have heard the preacher hit the mute button on the caller, and tell the caller in a one-way conversation that he must answer the question posed to him before the preacher is going to allow the conversation to drift to go on to other topics. On a couple of occasions, the preacher simply hung up on the caller, saying that if the caller isn’t honest enough to stay on subject, he is off the air. Sound familiar, preacher?
The unbearable humiliation
Then you spectacularly failed.
Proof that scientists are smart
You can call it what you want. As I very clearly stated in my response to you in the time dilation thread, I have found Mother Nature has no interest in the religious beliefs or the personal desires of those who try to understand her secrets. More often than not, I cannot tell you the specific theological stance of many of my co-workers.
And “God bless” the mathematicians. Maybe there’s more truth in mathematics than I had thought.
A last dying gasp
You just can’t avoid one last attempt to twist the subject to make it look like the big bang was part and parcel of what you said in your opening statement on the tape, can you? In the ministry such logical contortions may be commendable, but not in science. It is well that you wear the robes, and I a lab apron.
The Scopes Trial – sequel # 897
As several of these threads have shown, your wish has been granted. Your arguments are so ineffectual that most scientists don’t even deign to acknowledge Creationism as worth responding to.
Who’s being contrary
Meet you there.
Getting out while the getting is good
Goodbye.
There are different ways to get out of an uncomfortable conversation. Had Bob simply said at the outset that his opening statement on the tapes was not well worded, thousands of electrons could have still been slumbering instead of cluttering our screens with obfuscation. But Bob has chosen to do a Nixon – just declare victory and then run like heck.
I am surprised the lengths that some people will go to to keep from admitting a small mistake. Pastors! Grrrrrrr ….
GuySmiley
Well-known member
But the BB theory makes no attempt to account of creation from nothing. So how is Bob's statement inaccurate? Maybe I just cant see it. Anyone help here?taoist said:
Well does it or doesn't it? Or does it just not address the matter, in which case ThePhy's original point is wrong.
If we took a poll, this would be a very partisan opinion. I don't see how he was nailed at all (agian - partisan). Can someone sum up how Bob's statement was wrong in reference to the BB theory? Or at point me to a reference where the BB theory accounts for a beginning of matter.
taoist
New member
Truth is not subject to a vote. Would you like a syllogism to illustrate?GuySmiley said:
taoist says the BB theory says nothing about matter being eternal.
Bob Enyart says the BB theory says matter is eternal.
Either taoist or Bob Enyart is wrong.
The taoist is not wrong.
You can vote on the conclusion, but it won't change the truth. Thanks for playing.
In peace, Jesse
GuySmiley
Well-known member
OK, thank you, I see the point now. But since the BB theory also says nothing about matter being created either, ThePhy's objection was wrong in that he specifically pointed to the BB as what Bob is leaving out. Bob's statement was incomplete in that he did not allow for natural options concerning the creation of matter from nothing. Just curious, do natural explanations concerning the creation of matter from nothing exist? Is there actually something that Bob left out of the possibilities?taoist said:
Mustard Seed
New member
Science depends on dogma.
Science depends on dogma.
Science depends on dogma.
Zakath said:
- Status