Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by WalterP

  1. SCIENCE INDICATES THAT THE UNIVERSE IS FINELY – TUNED FOR LIFE. IT IS TOO IMPROBABLE FOR THE UNGUIDED FORCES OF NATURE TO DO THIS. THEREFORE, THERE MUST BE A FINE-TUNER WHO GUIDES NATURE AND FINE TUNES THE UNIVERSE TO MAKE LIFE POSSIBLE. Hello again. Rather than going into the complex details of fine tuning itself I want to closely examine what is meant by the word, ‘universe’ used by the apologists promoting this argument. To do this I’ll need to delve into probability theory. This is not as challenging or frightening as it sounds. I’ll begin with some
  2. Hello Christian. I received a notification that you'd replied to me. But it looks like you've deleted it. Please feel free to speak your mind. I'll listen. Thank you. Walter.
  3. Given the immense size of the universe, the amount of space needed for billions of humans in hell isn't really that great, AlreadyGone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_on_Zanzibar The primary engine of the novel's story is overpopulation and its projected consequences.[2] The title refers to an early twentieth-century claim that the world's population could fit onto the Isle of Wight—which has an area of 381 square kilometres (147 sq mi)—if they were all standing upright. Brunner remarked that the growing world population now required a larger island; the 3.5 billio
  4. Hello Christian. You may not know it, but you've inadvertently hit upon one of the things that helped a lot of us become Ex-Christians. Thousands of Christian denominations, cults and sects have each decided for themselves what the Bible means and they can't agree upon it. Worse, individual believers have done exactly what you've suggested and decided for themselves, drawing their own, entirely personal meanings of what scripture is saying. This kind of splintered, fractured and highly individualistic Christianity doesn't sound much like the un
  5. Even if you refuse to behave as god's word instructs you Joe, I'm going to take my cue from it. Titus 3 : 10 & 11. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 11 You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.
  6. I did try to warn you about this, Joe. Romans 13 : 1 - 7. 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be
  7. Ok, this is a re-run of the burden tennis we played with Brothermario. In a little while Joe will find himself at the sharp end of Romans 13 : 1 - 5. Bye!
  8. You said that the double slit experiment was a proof of sin. Do you stand by that? Y / N ?
  9. Very well, Joe. Please answer this question with a Yes or a No. Do you accept that an experiment cannot be a proof of anything? Thank you. Walter.
  10. DestinyTurtle was quite correct Joe. You made the claim that the double slit experiment is a scientific proof of sin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. You made that claim and we dispute it. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you to substantiate your claim with evidence.
  11. Sadly, this is how I'm starting to feel about getting a straight answer from you, Joe. My query is direct, easy to understand and simply requires you to give a straight answer to a straight question. Please do so. Here it is again. In the face of the evidence showing that physics doesn't use proofs, on what basis do you believe that the double slit experiment is a proof of sin? Thank you. Walter.
  12. No, not clever Joe. Reasonable. You made the double slit experiment the subject of this thread and you claimed that it was a scientific proof of sin. I have shown (using evidence) that the science of physics does not employ proofs. You and I are still stuck at this impasse. You haven't yet presented any verifiable evidence to support your claim about this proof. You haven't refuted, rejected or denied the evidence I presented. Nor have you retracted your claim about the proof. So, I can only surmise that you s
  13. Hello again Joe. I'm afraid that you and I are stuck on your initial claim, that the double slit experiment is a proof of sin. You've declared that this experiment is obviously a scientific proof. But I have provided evidence to show that the only proofs in science are those in mathematics. There are no proofs in physics or any other branch of the sciences. So, can you please commit yourself to accepting this fact? If not, could you please cite some evidence to support your claim that this experiment is a proof?
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. Hello Joe. Is the double slit experiment a scientific proof of sin? Thank you. Walter.
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.