The Black Vault

orangetom1999 wrote:When you go back and read this thread from the beginning there is obviously something missing from the Scientific point of view. It is incomplete.

Of course it's incomplete, in that we haven't figured everything out yet, that's all the debate highlights. It always has been, and it always will be, unless we manage to figure out "everything about everything", which I find unlikely.

That does not mean invoking God is helpful in any way, public education boy.

As an aside, I think I know what book is next on my list:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Nothin ... 724&sr=8-1

A new attempt to tackle exactly the problem being discussed, scientifically.

You pray for me, and I'll try to convince you to get some science education.

Go buy the book!

I would also like to know what you expect to happen when you "pray for me", so I can come back here and ask you why it didn't happen.

You are doing it for a reason, so I would like to know what the reason is and what you expect the outcome to be, then we can see if there is any validity to what you are trying to do.

Make sense?

I know if you read the book I cited you will learn from it and therefore better yourself, but I have been prayed for for years, and well...here I am, being told I need more. At some point you have to reconsider the usefulness of those prayers and wonder whether there is a better use of your time, like feeding the starving, perhaps.

But no, that would be silly wouldn't it, so by all means continue to futilely, selfishly, and lazily ask God to make me agree with you, whilst feigning actual concern for my well-being.

Frrosted, just saw your edit.

TOE usually means Theory of Everything, I have not heard it explained as Table of Elements, that would not make sense to me in the context of first cause or cosmology.

Sleepwalk wrote: the idea of the universe stretching infinitely into the past all seem illogical and undermine contemporary scientific evidence in one way or another.

How so?

Sleepwalk wrote:
the idea of the universe stretching infinitely into the past all seem illogical and undermine contemporary scientific evidence in one way or another.



How so?

Agree with at1with0 here. As I understand it that is what they find when they look out into the universe with the technology of today. Infinity. To far to accurately measure...only speculate.



Humphreys,

I can't believe you are that easy to put on an emotional string back two pages ago. This is neither scientific nor good humainity...or even good common sense. But it is politic once again...and particularly telling of todays political techniques.
And once again we are back to religion ..not science.

You just cannot let it go. Your ego is to big that you are so easily put on a string. Others out here can see this in you as well and also compare it to the litany of politics who's main course is the religion of Ishmael couched in science...particularly popularty polls/statistics. This to the point that they believe themselves Entitled. Even unto rudeness and vulgarity.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 19506.html

This religion of politics has become so far gone they dont even know when they have crossed the line...by entitlement.



People like me know this about people with your fingerprint. No problem with me ..I merely point it out to those who can see, hear, and understand. That it is not scientific...but it is ego/politic/religion.

I wont have time to do much reading as spring is breaking and lots to do here. Just got back from cutting the grass and hence no time to get right back to you.
But thanks for the book suggestion.

I have a book on order about the topic of Ponerology. A new word to me of recent and I will be reading on this when I can grab some time.

And by the way Humphreys...the topic line and understanding of ego/religion, and politics is the weaknes of the debate point and I think that this individual, Craig of which you speak, knows this about the topic and the participants. This along with the knowledge that the science is incomplete...gives him a significant advantage in a debate.
So how do you change the debate points or technique to eliminate this advantage...ie..politics...and we are back to religion again!!

Nonetheless...Craig is indeed a Stumblingstone or it would not have been brought up.

But then again...there is in history past..another STUMBLINGSTONE and Rock of Offence of which many still know today. And with the same reaction by the same people.

And people are still today trying to politic/religion their way around this STUMBLINGSTONE as well.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom

orangetom1999 wrote:

Sleepwalk wrote:
the idea of the universe stretching infinitely into the past all seem illogical and undermine contemporary scientific evidence in one way or another.



How so?

Agree with at1with0 here. As I understand it that is what they find when they look out into the universe with the technology of today. Infinity. To far to accurately measure...only speculate.

One might say that something exists if it is referenceable (not necessarily in English, of course).

Reality is the totality of all that exists, whatever that might mean.

Even if the physical universe had a clear-cut beginning, which there is scant evidence for (big bang theory doesn't touch the question of what happened prior to 16 billion years ago), reality had no beginning. For instance, all currently-known mathematical objects are referenceable and thus part of that totality and those objects don't have beginnings.

humphreys wrote:

greeney2 wrote:I do not know who Craig is, but he has 2-Summa Cum Laudi, Masters degrees in theology, and has won nearly all of his debates with Atheists, so what gives you the credentials to declare, such a bold declaration?

First post and an appeal to authority and a derail attempt by bringing up a separate thread. You're on form, greeney.

A few days ago Dr Kent Hovind said dinosaurs lived among man and you rejected his claims as "ridiculous". This was before you found out he was a fraud, by the way. He was more qualified than you, but you were happy to make that statement because you were confident he was wrong, regardless of his credentials.

It's not about credentials, if it was, the debate would be settled before it started by simply seeing who had the most letters after his name.

Craig is wrong because he is wrong, it really is that simple, and I have gone to some length to show why, and you should respect that rather than just pointing at his certificate and saying "shut your mouth, Craig wins".

Any fool knows that dinasours never roamed with humans, even your science has proven that. I also spotted frodo as a phoney a long time ago. Sorry it pisses you off, several threads get linked togather, but they are related, as to point of view. You insist we should find your science explanations, something we should disregard our Faith with, and than go on to say Science is not complete either. That is exactly the point, science has not figured it all out either, yet you think we should all throw our souls in the trash, following jerks like Dawkins. Even you admit he is an arrogant jerk, rude, and outspoken. That is not the sign of someone who is comfortable in his own beliefs.


Your own Guru, Dawkins was unable to explain in laymans terms "Nothing" or the "Big Bang Theory", but the Cardinal did it perfectly. For someone so dependant on Science Dawkins did not know his subjects, and was laughed at by the audience several times. Craig, you declare is wrong, because he is wrong, because you say so, but if it were that simple, he would not have won every debate against Atheists, while you tell us all "Atheists just are not good at debating". WHY NOT, YOU TELL US HOW YOU ARE SUPERIOR CRITICAL THINKERS OVER BELIEVERS! A simple debate should be easy, or at least win a few. You tell me off here and don't answer the question to you, and a man with 2-summa cum masters is wrong becasue he is wrong, the Cardinal was ignorant, and the entire audience of that debate were illiterate and ignorant. These are all your words, so yes connecting several threads is not wrong. How many people have sided against your opinion here, and you call Orangetom "Scum" along with your summery I just discribed. If praying for you does nothing as you say, why would you call the man "Scum" for it.

Maybe becasue the arrogant rude side of your Guru Dawkins is the only spiritual attribute and message you got from him. Oh Sorry, thats just my critical thinking mind again.

orangetom1999 wrote:Humphreys,

I can't believe you are that easy to put on an emotional string back two pages ago. This is neither scientific nor good humainity...or even good common sense. But it is politic once again...and particularly telling of todays political techniques.
And once again we are back to religion ..not science.

You just cannot let it go. Your ego is to big that you are so easily put on a string. Others out here can see this in you as well and also compare it to the litany of politics who's main course is the religion of Ishmael couched in science...particularly popularty polls/statistics. This to the point that they believe themselves Entitled. Even unto rudeness and vulgarity.

You seem to be under the illusion I care about your opinion.

Thats your attitude with everyone Humphreys--and the militant atheist part you are blind to. One thing that radiates from Atheism is being spiritually empty.

greeney2 wrote:Any fool knows that dinasours never roamed with humans, even your science has proven that.

Any fool knows the cosmological first cause argument is not really a problem for atheists, too.

I'm glad you have made the concession that even fools can have PhDs though, and even people with PhDs can be completely wrong, and shown to be so by someone without one, Craig as a case in point.

greeney2 wrote:I also spotted frodo as a phoney a long time ago. Sorry it pisses you off, several threads get linked togather, but they are related, as to point of view. You insist we should find your science explanations, something we should disregard our Faith with, and than go on to say Science is not complete either. That is exactly the point, science has not figured it all out either, yet you think we should all throw our souls in the trash, following jerks like Dawkins. Even you admit he is an arrogant jerk, rude, and outspoken.

Science has never had all of the answers, that's why scientists still exist, to figure out the next problem on the list. However, if we were dumb enough to invoke God as the direct cause of everything else we didn't understand at the time, we would have been wrong every single time so far (so many examples, too!). I strongly suspect the cause of the Universe is going to be another example one day.

greeney2 wrote:yet you think we should all throw our souls in the trash, following jerks like Dawkins. Even you admit he is an arrogant jerk, rude, and outspoken. That is not the sign of someone who is comfortable in his own beliefs.

You are not comfortable with your beliefs, then?

greeney2 wrote:Your own Guru, Dawkins was unable to explain in laymans terms "Nothing" or the "Big Bang Theory",

That's not true. He said we need to define "nothing" as people's definitions differ, and he is well aware of what the big bang theory is. The audience laughed because many of them were, like yourself, ignorant.

greeney2 wrote:but the Cardinal did it perfectly.

He didn't, he made a hash of it. Sorry.

greeney2 wrote:For someone so dependant on Science Dawkins did not know his subjects, and was laughed at by the audience several times.

You have it backwards, and you are derailing again as this is completely irrelevant. Seriously, I hate to keep bringing up the moderator card but how can you justify breaking the rules by derailing every single thread?

Why are we discussing Dawkins in the William Lane Craig thread?

Why do you do this, I'm being serious.

greeney2 wrote:Craig, you declare is wrong, because he is wrong, because you say so,

No, he is wrong because of all the reasons I have given in pages upon pages of posts. You are being disingenuous, as usual.

greeney2 wrote:but if it were that simple, he would not have won every debate against Atheists, while you tell us all "Atheists just are not good at debating". WHY NOT, YOU TELL US HOW YOU ARE SUPERIOR CRITICAL THINKERS OVER BELIEVERS!

Atheists are good at debating, Craig is better than most of those he has debated so far because he has dedicated much of his life to the art. No other believer regularly wins debates but Craig, that's why a thread has been dedicated to him.

You, for instance, are appalling. Does your inability to debate at a high school level prove that atheism is true? Because you are implying the same of Craig.

Also, he has not won every debate, I strongly feel he lost pretty hard to Shelly Kagan (perhaps embarrassingly) and was perhaps equal to Hitchens.

greeney2 wrote:Maybe becasue the arrogant rude side of your Guru Dawkins is the only spiritual attribute and message you got from him. Oh Sorry, thats just my critical thinking mind again.

An entire page of words and nothing at all of substance.