Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


WalterP last won the day on September 13 2020

WalterP had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

317 Excellent

About WalterP

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Merry Olde England
  • Interests
  • More About Me
    Armchair astronomer under marmalade skies.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. These links are for you, Joe. They are evidence to back up what I've said about proofs in science. Proofs exist in mathematics, but not in any other branch of science, including physics. Therefore, your claim that the double slit experiment is 'obviously' a scientific proof of sin is just wrong. Being wrong, your claim has no value. Now, please read and learn. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof#:~:text=Proofs exist only in math
  2. You claimed that the double slit experiment was a scientific proof of sin, Joe. I have shown that it is not, citing evidence to that effect. Therefore, your initial claim about the double slit experiment being a proof of sin has no value. Furthermore, anything else you claim, based upon that experiment is also without value. But, if you can demonstrate (and not just claim) that the experiment is a proof, please cite your evidence. Thank you. Walter.
  3. Joe, Since the double slit experiment is not a proof of anything, let alone sin, that leaves the rest of your claims high and dry. Everything you claim about physicality, spiritual death, scalar fields, measurement, entropy, the spiritual universe, coherence and decoherence rests upon the double slit experiment proving sin. Because it doesn't do that (no experiment ever proves anything) your claims are empty and without value. Thank you. Walter.
  4. Sorry Joe, but you're wrong. In science proofs are only used in mathematics. None of the other branches of science employ proofs. That's why physicists use a level of confidence in an experiment by declaring that it is 3 sigma, 4 sigma or 5 sigma. https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-5-sigma-means-0423423/ If an experiment could result in a proof then scientists wouldn't need to use the sigma system of levels of confidence. So, you're mistaken about the double slit experiment. It's not a scientific proof o
  5. Hello again Joe. Please be so kind as to answer this simple question. Is the double experiment a scientific proof of sin? Thank you. Walter.
  6. Hello Joe. Is the double slit experiment a scientific proof of sin? Thank you. Walter.
  7. Hello. This thread is about the fine-tuned universe argument and its use in the apologetics of Christianity and other religions. If you are unfamiliar with it, this Wiki page is a fairly good introduction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe As we can see from the list below, the fine-tuned universe argument is very popular in Christian apologetic circles. (I apologize for the quantity of links. But I cite them here to give you an idea of the scale of the popularity of this argument among religiously-minded people. There is
  8. Thanks for this Pantheory. However, my prime reason for selecting the Den isn't the hope that I will find any Christians there willing to defend this argument. If they rise to challenge, fine. If they don't, no matter. Should the Mods judge my input worthy they might pin it there, waiting for any future Christians to tackle it. No, the main reason why the Den is the best place is because this argument plays a HUGE role in current Christian apologetics. Therefore, this topic is not just about science. It's about how science is used and misused
  9. Hey Josh! I may have something in the pipeline that would fulfil that brief. The fine-tuning of the universe is a much beloved argument oft used by Christian apologists and bloggers. However, I think I've detected a fatal flaw in their (mis)use of it. It was BAA's work from several years ago that started me thinking in a new direction, btw. Rather than posting the thread in the Science vs Religion area, I was wondering about putting it in the Den? (When it's ready to go, that is.) The reason being that this argument is a
  10. Ah... but Krowb, you did have the clarity of thought and insight to... A. Take note of the list in the first place. B. Realize that Biologos commit many of these errors themselves. and... C. Add your emphasis, drawing our attention to where they are tripping up themselves. Deserved credit to you, I think. Thank you. Walter.
  11. It's worse than you think Krowb. Your excellent list should have this added to it. "Capitalizing on common public misconceptions about the universe to sell their agenda." Thank you. Walter.
  12. Blatant, conscious intellectual dishonesty is ok for Christians if it ultimately leads people to Jesus or keeps them in the Kingdom. The end justifies the means.
  13. There are two points from this article that deserve further inspection. And multiverse theories do not eliminate fine-tuning; the multiverse would still need some parameters to be fine-tuned to produce fruitful universes. This is false. Throw a bucket of coins into the air often enough and eventually all of them will land face up. There is no fine tuning or design involved in this result. The exponential multiplication of universes caused by inflation is more than adequate to produce many, many life-friendly universes. No fine-tuning needed, thank you very much!
  14. Weezer, Why do I refuse to let others bait me? Because if I stick ONLY to the issue under discussion and never deviate from it, how others possibly accuse me of veering off into ad hominems, disparagements or even insults? They simply can't get any traction against me. Btw, when it comes to Brothermario, I had this up my sleeve but never had the chance to play it. He wrote... Posted December 29, 2020 Let me tell you guys what is going to happen. You’re going to run to each other for support, commit the ad hominem against me all day long and n
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.