Fw: Nothing Created Everything? Atheism Is Scientifically Impossible.
Michele Gennette
| |||||||||||||||||
flying gorilla
On Oct 6, 6:24 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> -- On Tue, 10/6/09, American Vision <announceme...@americanvision.com> wrote:
>
> Nothing Created Everything? Atheism Is Scientifically Impossible.
> Having trouble viewing this email?
> Click here
>
>
> The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution
>
> Now, as the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species" approaches, Comfort debunks this prominent view with his latest book: "Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution".
> "Nothing Created Everything" offers readers a fascinating and intensely thought-provoking glimpse into Comfort's world-an ongoing dialogue with professed atheists.
> Comfort dedicates the book to popular contemporary atheist evolutionist Richard Dawkins, who introduced the oxymoronic concept "Nothing Created Everything": "To Richard Dawkins, in the sincere hope that he looks beyond the hypocrisy of organized religion, before he goes to meet his maker."
> Dawkins wrote in his 2004 book "The Ancestor's Tale": "The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing-is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
> "Nothing created Everything" is Comfort's informative, loving, and no-holds-barred response to Dawkins. "Anyone who tries to actually justify that nothing created everything has to be insane," writes Comfort. "This is a scientific impossibility." He continues, "There's no way to say it kindly, but such thoughts show that the atheist doesn't think, and proves the Bible right when it says that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God." Hardback, 224 Pages.
> RETAIL $25.95 • ONLY $19.95! • ORDER NOW!
>
> Is Religion GOOD For The World?
>
> Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson
>
> "There are two tenets of atheism. One, there is no God. Two, I hate him." - PASTOR DOUGLAS WILSON
>
> PRE-ORDER FOR $19.95 & GET A FREE BOOK, GOD IS!
> NOTE: This is a pre-order. Your credit card/ PayPal account will be charged today to secure your copy of Collision, which will ship in mid to late October.
>
> OVERVIEW: In May 2007, leading atheist Christopher Hitchens and Christian apologist Douglas Wilson began to argue the topic “Is Christianity Good for the World?” in a series of written exchanges published in Christianity Today. The rowdy literary bout piqued the interest of filmmaker Darren Doane, who sought out Hitchens and Wilson to pitch the idea of making a film around the debate.
> In Fall 2008, Doane and crew accompanied Hitchens and Wilson on an east coast tour to promote the book compiled from their written debate titled creatively enough, Is Christianity Good for the World?. “I loved the idea of putting one of the beltway’s most respected public intellectuals together with an ultra-conservative pastor from Idaho who looks like a lumberjack”, says Doane. “You couldn’t write two characters more contrary. What’s more real and punk rock than a fight between two guys who are on complete opposite sides of the fence on the most divisive issue in the world? We were ready to make a movie about two intellectual warriors at the top of their game going one-on-one. I knew it would make an amazing film.”
> In Christopher Hitchens, Doane found a celebrated prophet of atheism. Loud. Funny. Angry. Smart. Quick. An intimidating intellectual Goliath. Well-known for bullying and mocking believers into doubt and doubters into outright unbelief. In Douglas Wilson, Doane found the man who could provide a perfect intellectual, philosophical, and cinematic counterpoint to Hitchens' position and style. A trained philosopher and and deft debater. Big, bearded, and jolly. A pastor, a contrarian, a humorist--an unintimidated outsider, impossible to bully, capable of calling Hitchens a puritan (over a beer).
> It was a collision of lives.
> What Doane didn’t expect was how much Hitchens and Wilson would have in common and the respectful bond the new friend/foes would build through the course of the book tour. “These guys ended up at the bar laughing, joking, drinking. There were so many things that they had in common”, according to Doane. “Opinions on history and politics. Literature and poetry. They agreed on so many things. Except on the existence of God.”
> IS!
> Doug Wilson's response to Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great displays Doug's abilities as a writer and apologist at their finest and exhibits the level of manliness and talent for which an opponent like Hitchens begs. The literary ability involved raises the stakes for any response, and Doug rises well to the occasion.
> NOTE: This is a pre-order. Your credit card/ PayPal account will be charged today to secure your copy of Collision, which will ship in mid to late October.
>
> If Darwin knew what we know today, would he have ever formulated his theory of evolution? This first-ever Creationist documentary on Darwin retraces his controversial steps on site at the Galapagos Islands and across the globe on the HMS Beagle.
>
>
> 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his book, ‘Origin of Species’. The Voyage that Shook the World retraces Darwin’s journey, exploring the places and discoveries crucial to the formulation of his Theory of Evolution.
> Filmed in South America, UK, North America, Australia and Europe, The Voyage features dramatic period recreations and stunning nature cinematography interwoven with scholars sharing their perspectives on the man and the controversy.
> A fascinating and thought-provoking opportunity to gain new insight into The Voyage that Shook the World. Directed by Steve Murray. DVD, 55 minutes.
> Special features include: The making of The Voyage, Extended interviews, Director’s introduction, Theatrical Trailer, and more...
>
> RETAIL $22.95 • ONLY $19.95! • ORDER DVD NOW!
>
> © 2009 The American Vision™ • 1-800-628-9460
>
> 3150-A Florence Rd.
> • Powder Springs, GA 30127
>
> Forward email
>
>
> Email Marketing by
>
Brock Organ
>
> Nothing created god? God is scientifically impossible.
I don't agree that such a conclusion is tenable. The scientific
method is indeed wonderful. But it has significant and noteworthy
limitations. For example, as one professor notes:
"Mankind has never devised a better tool for solving the mysteries of
the universe than science. However, there are some kinds of questions
for which scientific problem solving is unsuited. In other words,
science has limitations.
There are three primary areas for which science can't help us answer
our questions. All of these have the same problem: The questions they
present don't have testable answers. Since testability is so vital to
the scientific process, these questions simply fall outside the venue
of science.
The three areas of limitation are
* Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no
scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is
prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of
course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one
ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the
element gold, but if what you need is something to build a
skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So
there's no way to scientifically determine value.
* Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding
good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of
science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us
solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what
is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right
or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and
social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.
Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from
consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all
humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.
* Finally, science can't help us with questions about the
supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means
"above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains
only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are
outside their reach. In view of this final point, it's interesting
how many scientists have forgotten their own limitations. Every few
years, some scientist will publish a book claiming that he or she has
either proven the existence of a god, or proven that no god exists. Of
course, even if science could prove anything (which it can't), it
certainly can't prove this, since by definition a god is a
supernatural phenomenon.
So the next time someone invokes "scientific evidence" to support his
or her point, sit back for a moment and consider whether they've
stepped outside of these limitations."[1]
Regards,
Brock
ornamentalmind
philosophy and its love of wisdom which includes science and all
pursuits to wisdom.
On Oct 8, 9:14 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Michele Gennette
| --- On Thu, 10/8/09, flying gorilla <ryan....@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
Michele Gennette
| --- On Thu, 10/8/09, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote: |
>Brock, this is one reason why I embrace the ancient notion of |
|
|
flying gorilla
everyone with half a brain accepts evolution as fact. If you don't
accept evolution as fact, then you are uneducated and delusional.
Anyone in the world with a real education would see that you are the
real idiot.
On Oct 8, 5:41 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Michele Gennette
| --- On Fri, 10/9/09, flying gorilla <ryan....@gmail.com> wrote: |
>what makes me an idiot? |
|
|
|
|
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Chris
On Oct 9, 12:17 pm, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> everyone with half a brain accepts evolution as fact. If you don't
> accept evolution as fact, then you are uneducated and delusional.
> Anyone in the world with a real education would see that you are the
> real idiot.
by which impulses are delivered to my fingers in order to type this
message? And I do not accept evilution as fact. In fact - now that's a
fact - the underlying notions of evilution can never ever be proven
(ok short of some evil scientist managing to demonstrate how a pig
becomes a polar bear).
I are not uneducated. Neither am I delusional. I have some questions
for you. Would you like to play? It will prove beyond a shadow of a
doubt that I most definitely are as logical, if not way more then you
is.
Tell me when to start.
Michele Gennette
| --- On Fri, 10/9/09, Chris <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote: |
>>On Oct 9, 12:17 pm, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
Bridge
On Oct 9, 10:09 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is a fine line between poking fun and calling people idiots.
Members of this forum are committed to an absence of the latter.
Nobody's perfect.
Thanks.
Michele Gennette
| --- On Sat, 10/10/09, Bridge <bqs4...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
Bridge
On Oct 10, 2:47 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> xnun
Tao
assertion "God is scientifically impossible" with "Perhaps
position here. You seem to acknowledge that God is in fact
"scientifically" impossible. If a God as the Bible describes exists
there is no question that he could make flying gorillas, or make
gorillas fly, one way or the other. So flying gorillas being
impossible "in any frame of reference," there can be no such of a God.
On Oct 10, 3:47 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Michele Gennette
| --- On Sun, 10/11/09, Tao <taoch...@hotmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
|
JFG
On Oct 8, 12:06 pm, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nothing created god? God is scientifically impossible.
>
to try.
But a note on semantics: when we say something like [noun] [transitive
verb] [noun] we usually do mean that the first noun does the verb
thing to the second noun. So "x created y" generally means that x
created y. The exception to this rule is when we use the word
"nothing" in place of 'x.' Then, "x created y," where 'x' means
'nothing,' usually means, "there is no x," and not, rather, that "x
(nothing) did something." Obviously, what is not anything cannot do
anything. Absence of anything cannot create anything.
So when we say, "nothing created God," we do not mean that there is an
entity we name "nothing" that is God's creator. We mean, rather, that
God had no creator, i.e., God is uncreated.
Hope this clears up your confusion.
Bridge
I was wondering, what do you think about the supportability of the
original post?
Is "atheism is scientifically impossible" water tight?
JFG
certainly blame it at least in part on stupid atheists who really
think something can and has come from literally nothing. But the
impossibility of that does not entail the impossibility of atheism,
which is simply the belief that whatever it is that preceded
everything we see does not have the character of the theistic God.
Quote:
"
Dawkins wrote in his 2004 book "The Ancestor's Tale": "The fact that
life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the
universe evolved literally out of nothing-is a fact so staggering that
I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
"
out of nothing" indicates at least one of the following:
1. Dawkins is a dishonest propagandist for atheism,
2. Dawkins is unforgivably credulous.
The first, if he does not believe his own words; the second, if he
does.
But science --- real science, not propaganda --- does not indicate
that anything ever comes from literally nothing.
1. Spontaneously produced particle pairs come from the base energy of
the vacuum, which is not nothing.
2. The universe itself, if it was not created by God, is speculated to
have come out of a larger multiverse of intersecting branes, which are
not nothing.
3. Expanding universe theory takes us back to a very hot and dense
quark-gluon plasma, not to a point-like singularity. A mathematical
singularity is where equations break down because certain values
approach infinity. That means we are unable to speculate past a
certain point, not that there is literally "nothing" past that point.
flying gorilla
OP. That is to say if one is using the "something can't come from
nothing" argument, then that applies to god. Unless, of course god is
"nothing". If you are going to say "nothing except god can come from
nothing", that is preposterous. Does the bible even claim that only
god can come from nothing? Of course, evolution doesn't state that
something comes from nothing in the first place. That is what people
who are ignorant of evolution insist upon, but they are wrong. Tao
brings up a good point, though. Nothing- including evolution- can be
impossible if god exists.
JFG
On Oct 12, 12:02 pm, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am only saying that god is scientifically impossible in light of the
> OP. That is to say if one is using the "something can't come from
> nothing" argument, then that applies to god.
rather, "God did not come from anything," which is actually a
completely different proposition.
Dawkins, on the other hand, did assert that the universe came from
literally nothing, which is patently absurd, if Reason is to retain
its validity.
>Unless, of course god is
> "nothing". If you are going to say "nothing except god can come from
> nothing", that is preposterous. Does the bible even claim that only
> god can come from nothing? Of course, evolution doesn't state that
> something comes from nothing in the first place. That is what people
> who are ignorant of evolution insist upon, but they are wrong. Tao
> brings up a good point, though. Nothing- including evolution- can be
> impossible if god exists.
>
exists.
The case can also be made that "God does not exist" is a logical
contradiction.
Tao
itself is defined as a creature unable to fly. There are several ways
this can mean. A gorilla may be placed on an airplane and would then
be "flying". A gorilla may be taught to work the controls of a small
plane and fly the plane. If there was a God it could accomplish either
of these, and could also cause the gorilla to sprout wings able to
support it in flight, or dispense with the operation of gravity over
it. The same is with evolution. If there is a God it can create things
capable of evolution, for there is no logical contradiction inherent
in evolution. If there is please show me it. If it can not then there
is not a God.
flying gorilla
would never assert the position that god definitely doesn't exist.
However, so far, I find all of what theists consider to be evidence to
be extremely unconvincing.
So if god did not come from nothing, where did he come from? Because I
don't see the difference between "god came from nothing" and "god did
not come from anything."
Michele Gennette
| --- On Wed, 10/14/09, Tao <taoch...@hotmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
Tao
Christian. I am dissuaded from even trying.
On Oct 14, 6:04 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Michele Gennette
| --- On Wed, 10/14/09, Tao <taoch...@hotmail.com> wrote: |
>It is clear that I lack the meanness and pettiness required to be |
|
Joe
What is x in that sentence?
Joe
On Oct 14, 12:22 pm, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well I, and many other people I know who consider themselves atheists,
> would never assert the position that god definitely doesn't exist.
> However, so far, I find all of what theists consider to be evidence to
> be extremely unconvincing.
>
literally nothing? How does that work?
> So if god did not come from nothing, where did he come from?
>Because I
> don't see the difference between "god came from nothing" and "god did
> not come from anything."
>
there was x, and x spontaneously arose from literally nothing.
"Did not come from anything" could simply imply that x has always
been, and does not require to arise at all.
Chris
On Oct 10, 3:47 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
unrecorded. Just that we need to work to be better.
> xnun
Chris
God takes in the book of Exodus - I AM. Meaning the one who is, no
beginning, no end. Meanwhile we're down here wondering how things came
into being, but the reality is there had to be *somethink* that began
it all. Simon, a newbee on AvC attributes ultimate origins to some
cosmic bend or bubbly foam. The theist posits that all *things*
require creation. God is not a thing. Careful w/that.
If you care to and take the time to examine the fundamental tenets of
the bible, it really is the most incredible book. And contemporaneous
w/many other rather preposterous origin myths.
Joe
On Oct 14, 5:20 pm, Tao <taochach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It is clear that I lack the meanness and pettiness required to be a
> Christian. I am dissuaded from even trying.
>
Christians. Nice going!
But I am neither mean nor petty, and I am a Christian, which proves
you are talking out your ass.
Would be happy to discuss anything you like, in a civil manner as per
the requirements of this group. But kindly drop the mean and petty
blanket insults. They are unbecoming of one claiming not to be mean
and petty.