Physicist Sean Carroll refutes supernatural beliefs has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.

OK I'm confused by the title. Do physicists know a little or do they know a lot? Do they know a superposition of both states? Have I collapsed the waveform by questioning the syntax of the title?

Yo! I heard you like waveforms! We physicists put some waveforms in your matter so you can have waveforms in your waveforms!

If scientists are those that practice science then every creation scientist who has published a peer reviewed paper is a scientist.

Well, yes. you can be a scientist and a creationist. That doesnt make Creationism science. The link you provided referred to a biologist creationist publishing a paper without creation/god/whatever mentioned and a creationist physicist publishing non-biological papers. All fine.

The site also says/implies that mentioning ceationism/design will prevent publishing. This is probably true in most cases, but not for the conspiratorial reasons creationists think.

Suppose you are a biologist working on understanding say, a particular enzyme, what it does and how it works, now suppose you reach a point where you just cant figure the fuck out how the enzyme is made exactly or exactly how it works. Now suppose you are writing an article for peer-review about said enzyme. Suppose you note in the article that you hit a dead end in your research, unable to figure out the excact workings of the enzyme: Thats fine.

What is NOT fine, however, is to speculate that unicornpiss is required for the enzyme to work. Thats not because your peers are biased against unicornpiss, its just that there is no evidence for it, no detailed description of what it is, what it contains, how it works or that it even exists, nor is there any reason to link it to a particular enzyme.

Replace "unicornpiss" with "creation" or "design" or "god" or whatever, the example still works.

In science you need to be specific, descriptive, and evidence-based. The reason words like Creation and Unicornpiss does so poorly in the peer-review wordcloud is because they are essentially dealing with the imaginary.

So if you want more creationism published, start by defining exactly what is meant by creation, design etc, who? what? how? is there a designer behind the flagellum? describe him/her/it! define the limitations, the exact method used, the magic involved in detail, then present the direct or indirect evidence of the now precicely defined designer.

At present this concept of design is just castle-in-the-sky nonsense. Empty piffle. A complete non-starter.

This is why the "mere mention" of "design" will get you "banned" from peer-review, because you could just as well have made a "mere mention" of Bigfoot and the loch ness monster in your zoology report, it's a big tell to your peers that you are a nut who fails to understand the nature of evidence and science, and a big sign that you are in for some fuzzy logic and dumb assumptions instead of solid science.

Dara O'Brien is meant to be a highly qualified physicist, dunno how he could let that slip.

Who is the guy explaining the equations/graphics? I'd be interested to know.

Also, as per his own statement at the end, the video's description is incorrect:

one physicist suggests that there is a fundamental base code that makes up the entire fabric of space and matter.

Should be:

one physicist suggests that there is a fundamental base code that describes the entire fabric of space and matter.

Good luck to you! Hope that does good things for you =).

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^draak13:
Apologies for the fiery comment earlier; I do prefer an actual discussion as you're marching on with. No beef against physicists, either...I'm an electical/biomedical engineer turned analytical chemist/physicist =).
Sorry to hear about your scoliosis. Apart from a shoulder issue, I don't really have too much that separates me from ideal at this point. Nonetheless, as humans, the good many of us fall within the portion of the distribution that this stuff matters. This is clearly indicated by her results, which are supported by the foundations of countless other experiments many learn about even in introductory psychology courses.
Your comment about us choosing to act differently from our body language is extremely valid on all levels of neurophysiology. For example, a person can lift their arm, or a person can imagine lifting their arm while keeping it still. In both cases, the primary motor cortex lights up the same way, though in the case where the person keep their arm still, the signal is inhibited further down the pathway. That's an example rooted in the old brain, and there are certainly examples within the higher level cognitive portions of the brain. Smiling makes us feel happy, and we often feel happier simply by smiling, but we can choose to be happy while not smiling, or choose to be sad while smiling.
In this case, what was described was a method in which we can bring out dominant behaviors in ourselves through our body language feedback. For those who are do not have a naturally dominant personality, this is an excellent way to step into the shoes of a slightly more dominant self. Continuing with your comment, her 'make it until you become it' conclusion is very much a person choosing to act in a more dominant way, without the need for the postures to make it so. Once those neural pathways are better understood within ourselves, it's much easier to call upon them and make that conscious decision as necessary. Until then, many less dominant people have an easily accessible means to explore themselves with a slightly more dominant attitude.
>> ^criticalthud:
i grew up with a pretty gnarly scoliosis. Body language that wasn't strained or uncomfortable was nearly impossible.
Most of us have distortion in our spines that effects who we are, how we move, and how we present. Perhaps you do not, but ignoring the physical realities of the species to pretend that how we are perceived is mostly a conscious choice, is understating the matter.

and sorry if i came off as a snot.
as to the vid, honestly i find a presentation of "ease" in a person to be the most attractive, rather than dominance.
as for the scoliosis, been working hard at it for 12 yrs and we're over some big practical hurdles. By understanding neurology this way (in terms of pressure and compression), we're quickly gaining on being able to dynamically change the spine.
to explain, in short:
i imagine you are familiar with thoracic outlet syndrome? - basically a compression of the brachial plexus at the clavicle and rib 1, which results in an interruption and weakening of the nervous signal, weakness in the hand, pain etc. To solve it, doctors cut a hole for it. From that, we can take an understanding that compression of neurology is a fairly bad thing.
But if you look at the main branches of neurology, what you'll note is that the nervous system at some point in the body always runs through a bone space (interosseous space). Between vertebrae, between ribs, etc. Over time and trauma these spaces compress, resulting in variances in compression all throughout the body, thus varying neurological feed all throughout the body. The neurological system is a fluid system. As you vary compression, you vary the pressure within the fluid system. These variances in pressure and fluid transfer start dictating our tendencies. How we move, how we look, who we are.
anyway, here's some of it
www.ncrtheory.org
so far, the practical end (manual therapy) is proving the theoretical. I'm just balancing neurological space. pretty unbelievable. today is a big day. wish me luck.

>> ^draak13:

Apologies for the fiery comment earlier; I do prefer an actual discussion as you're marching on with. No beef against physicists, either...I'm an electical/biomedical engineer turned analytical chemist/physicist =).
Sorry to hear about your scoliosis. Apart from a shoulder issue, I don't really have too much that separates me from ideal at this point. Nonetheless, as humans, the good many of us fall within the portion of the distribution that this stuff matters. This is clearly indicated by her results, which are supported by the foundations of countless other experiments many learn about even in introductory psychology courses.
Your comment about us choosing to act differently from our body language is extremely valid on all levels of neurophysiology. For example, a person can lift their arm, or a person can imagine lifting their arm while keeping it still. In both cases, the primary motor cortex lights up the same way, though in the case where the person keep their arm still, the signal is inhibited further down the pathway. That's an example rooted in the old brain, and there are certainly examples within the higher level cognitive portions of the brain. Smiling makes us feel happy, and we often feel happier simply by smiling, but we can choose to be happy while not smiling, or choose to be sad while smiling.
In this case, what was described was a method in which we can bring out dominant behaviors in ourselves through our body language feedback. For those who are do not have a naturally dominant personality, this is an excellent way to step into the shoes of a slightly more dominant self. Continuing with your comment, her 'make it until you become it' conclusion is very much a person choosing to act in a more dominant way, without the need for the postures to make it so. Once those neural pathways are better understood within ourselves, it's much easier to call upon them and make that conscious decision as necessary. Until then, many less dominant people have an easily accessible means to explore themselves with a slightly more dominant attitude.
>> ^criticalthud:
i grew up with a pretty gnarly scoliosis. Body language that wasn't strained or uncomfortable was nearly impossible.
Most of us have distortion in our spines that effects who we are, how we move, and how we present. Perhaps you do not, but ignoring the physical realities of the species to pretend that how we are perceived is mostly a conscious choice, is understating the matter.


and sorry if i came off as a snot.
as to the vid, honestly i find a presentation of "ease" in a person to be the most attractive, rather than dominance.
as for the scoliosis, been working hard at it for 12 yrs and we're over some big practical hurdles. By understanding neurology this way (in terms of pressure and compression), we're quickly gaining on being able to dynamically change the spine.
to explain, in short:
i imagine you are familiar with thoracic outlet syndrome? - basically a compression of the brachial plexus at the clavicle and rib 1, which results in an interruption and weakening of the nervous signal, weakness in the hand, pain etc. To solve it, doctors cut a hole for it. From that, we can take an understanding that compression of neurology is a fairly bad thing.

But if you look at the main branches of neurology, what you'll note is that the nervous system at some point in the body always runs through a bone space (interosseous space). Between vertebrae, between ribs, etc. Over time and trauma these spaces compress, resulting in variances in compression all throughout the body, thus varying neurological feed all throughout the body. The neurological system is a fluid system. As you vary compression, you vary the pressure within the fluid system. These variances in pressure and fluid transfer start dictating our tendencies. How we move, how we look, who we are.
anyway, here's some of it
www.ncrtheory.org
so far, the practical end (manual therapy) is proving the theoretical. I'm just balancing neurological space. pretty unbelievable. today is a big day. wish me luck.

Apologies for the fiery comment earlier; I do prefer an actual discussion as you're marching on with. No beef against physicists, either...I'm an electical/biomedical engineer turned analytical chemist/physicist =).

Sorry to hear about your scoliosis. Apart from a shoulder issue, I don't really have too much that separates me from ideal at this point. Nonetheless, as humans, the good many of us fall within the portion of the distribution that this stuff matters. This is clearly indicated by her results, which are supported by the foundations of countless other experiments many learn about even in introductory psychology courses.

Your comment about us choosing to act differently from our body language is extremely valid on all levels of neurophysiology. For example, a person can lift their arm, or a person can imagine lifting their arm while keeping it still. In both cases, the primary motor cortex lights up the same way, though in the case where the person keep their arm still, the signal is inhibited further down the pathway. That's an example rooted in the old brain, and there are certainly examples within the higher level cognitive portions of the brain. Smiling makes us feel happy, and we often feel happier simply by smiling, but we can choose to be happy while not smiling, or choose to be sad while smiling.

In this case, what was described was a method in which we can bring out dominant behaviors in ourselves through our body language feedback. For those who are do not have a naturally dominant personality, this is an excellent way to step into the shoes of a slightly more dominant self. Continuing with your comment, her 'make it until you become it' conclusion is very much a person choosing to act in a more dominant way, without the need for the postures to make it so. Once those neural pathways are better understood within ourselves, it's much easier to call upon them and make that conscious decision as necessary. Until then, many less dominant people have an easily accessible means to explore themselves with a slightly more dominant attitude.

>> ^criticalthud:

i grew up with a pretty gnarly scoliosis. Body language that wasn't strained or uncomfortable was nearly impossible.
Most of us have distortion in our spines that effects who we are, how we move, and how we present. Perhaps you do not, but ignoring the physical realities of the species to pretend that how we are perceived is mostly a conscious choice, is understating the matter.

and, our planet is an insanely complex web of inter-relationship. All science applies.
The human body is an expression of the planet. It is an insanely complex web of inter-relationship. All science applies - especially hydrodynamics. We're 70% water. The planet is 70% water.
and thanks for mistaking me as a physicist. that's high praise.

i grew up with a pretty gnarly scoliosis. Body language that wasn't strained or uncomfortable was nearly impossible.
Most of us have distortion in our spines that effects who we are, how we move, and how we present. Perhaps you do not, but ignoring the physical realities of the species to pretend that how we are perceived is mostly a conscious choice, is understating the matter.


>> ^draak13:

Dude...this is what happens when physicists think they're neurologists.
You should write up a proposal on that fiend of gravity idea and send it in to NIH. You could propose an experiment to replace the actual science, real observations, and real experimental work that she went through. You could describe how the solitons traveling down the neural pathway are intercepted by the higgs field, causing the altered hormone levels and improvements in interview scores that she observed. You could then go on to say how all of that was not an idea worth spreading, because surely nobody would benefit from performing better in interviews and presentations.
Come off it, man. This was the best TED I've ever heard, and everyone who listened to it, except for you, is a better person for it.
>> ^criticalthud:
Our neurology dictates our tendencies, which includes our structure and our posture.
Amy -a good try from a psych/freudian perspective but this is probably not an idea worth spreading.
a better idea worth spreading is that your neurological system is a pressure based, fluid system that is still trying hard to adapt to being upright, and in the process must deal with a myriad of pressure distortions within that occur as the body, over time and trauma, distorts in the field of gravity.

I would test it, if I could. By “God”, I’m assuming you’re still talking about Yahweh specifically, and not just any random god-type entity. If that’s the case, then I’ve already falsified the claim that the Bible is perfect, so that argument is gone.

You haven't falsified it. If you have, show me where. If you're referring to Matthews lineage using Chiastic structure, that isn't an imperfection. Chaistic structure is a literary device, so Matthews genealogy is not giving us the entire line, but rather like an artistic summation of it. To say it is wrong would be like telling a painter his painting is wrong.

If you’re merely making a deist claim, then I can’t argue with you. I take no position on deism other than if some deity created the universe and set it in motion, I have no reason to believe it cares about humans, and it certainly has made no edicts that I perceive as to how I should live my life.

Since you have no argument against a potential God, and couldn't tell whether you were living in His Universe or not, then how would you know if this God cares about humans or if it has laid down any edicts about how you should live your life?

You’re not listening to me. Seriously. I do have ways of determining which story is more likely. Occam’s razor is the best for this problem. The complexities introduced by faith in Yahweh and the Bible are necessarily more complex than the problems they solve. They are also blind faith (I'm talking about the vast majority of the faithful, and about what you're recommending I do), which is willful self-delusion. The theories that physicists and biologists have come up with are quite convincing, especially if you understand how science works.

I have been listening to you and what I have found is that if you can find some kind of excuse to dismiss something that seems even potentially legitimate, then you run with it. You only seem interested in trying to falsify the question, because you apparently have already decided it isn't true. You don't have any real evidence to prove it, but in previous conversations you have said you see no reason to bother thinking about it. In short, you don't care.

You say I'm talking about blind faith, and I'm not. I believe what I believe because God convinced me of its truth. I had no reason to believe it otherwise, and I wouldn't. I am telling you that if you draw near to God, He will draw near to you. He loves you and wants you to know Him. You just don't want to know Him and that is the problem.

Neither do you understand the law of parsimony. The law states that in explaining a given phenomenon, we should make as few assumptions as possible. Therefore, if we have two theories which are equal in explanatory power, but one has fewer assumptions, we should choose the one with fewer assumptions. However, a more complex theory with better explanatory power should be chosen over a more simplistic theory with weaker explanatory power. I think John Lennox kind of sums this all up at 3:00



Agreed. I find myself in an environment in which my species was capable of evolving. It says nothing of how statistically improbable it is.

You were created in your parents womb; this says nothing about evolution. It only says that you have some way to come into existence, personally. It says nothing about the particulars of how that came to be.

Disagree. I’m lucky that of all the possible combinations of molecules that could have come together to create our terrestrial environment, the right ones came together to create life, then the right DNA strands combined to eventually create me. I’m lucky, sure, but given the length of time we’ve had, there’s no reason I should be surprised, especially when there's no reason to assert that this is the only universe.

There is no reason to assert it isn't, either. In a finely tuned Universe, it is more plausible to believe it was designed rather than it just happened to be one Universe out of trillions that implausibly just looks like it was designed because if you have enough Universes eventually one will form that appears that way. Remember Occams Razor?

You ask why multiple universes are more likely than a deity? Because you and I both know for sure there is at least one universe, so positing some more of them is less of a stretch than asserting a self-contradictory entity, alien to our objective experience, defying any consistent and meaningful description, so vastly complex that it cannot be properly understood, and so full of human failings that it looks man-made.

That would be true if God were any of those things. I can agree with you though that your understanding of God is self-contradictory, alien to your experience, etc. You believe you have God figured out, when you don't know Him at all. You would actually do anything to know God, but you are rejecting Him out of ignorance.

In the scenario between multiple universes or God as a theory to describe a finely tuned Universe, God wins every time. It doesn't matter how complex God might be; the explanatory power afforded by the theory is by far superior.

I’m sceptical of all your claims because that’s how I roll. I’m sceptical of everything, especially big claims. It’s the smartest way to avoid being duped.

You're skeptical of everything that doesn't agree with your presuppositions about reality. Those I have rarely if ever seen you seriously question in all the time I have spoken to you. Regarding knowledge that agrees with those presuppositions, you feel free to speculate about that all day long and will say that virtually any of it is more plausible with no evidence. The thing is, I used to be on your side of the fence, and I know what a search for the truth looks like. This isn't it.

The smartest way to avoid being duped is to understand that you might be duped at this moment and not realize it. That's the trouble with being deceived; you think you're right when you are really wrong.

You have been telling me that I must believe in the one true thing that is true that is Yahweh and the Bible and creation because it’s true because it’s true because it’s true because it’s the only possibility.

What I've been telling you is that God is not hiding from you. You are hiding from Him. It's not that you don't know there is a God so much as you don't want to know that there is. You simply want to do whatever you think is right and you automatically reject any possibility that says this is wrong and you are in fact accountable to a higher authority. In short, your attitude towards God is not skeptical but rebellious.

Now, I conceive of another possibility: my 10^trillion universes. You agree it’s possible, so there’s no reason for me to believe yours is necessarily true. If I have to choose between them, the one that doesn’t require the further explanation of a sentient deity more complex than 10^trillion universes is simpler. And even then, I DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE one or the other. I can remain sceptical. To me, it’s foolish not to.

I concede its possible that God could have created other Universes, but I don't concede the idea that Universes just happen by themselves. This is really a very foolish idea. It's like coming across a coke can and believing wind and erosion created it. It only seems plausible to you because you must have a naturalistic explanation for your existence to make sense of your reality.

I don't expect you to believe in God unless He gives you some kind of revelation. I frequently pray that you will receive this revelation, both for you and the sake of your family.

Since I already pointed out this flawed understand of the law of parsimony, I won't reiterate that argument here.

While we’re talking about being honest with ourselves, I’d like to hear it from you that the following things are *at least technically possible*: that Yahweh doesn’t exist; that your relationship with Yahweh is an illusion created by you inside your head because you are human and human minds are prone to occasional spectacular mistakes; that the Bible was created by deluded humans; that the universe is around 14 billion years old; that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old; that life on Earth started 1-2 billion years ago; and that all species evolved from primitive life forms. To be clear, I’m not asking you to accept them as true or even probable, just state whether this collection of statements is possible or impossible.

This is what Paul said:

1 Corinthians 15:17,19

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

I wasn't there at the resurrection; I take it on faith. My faith has been borne out by the evidence, such as being born again, witnessing miracles, and experiencing the presence of God in my daily life. I don't admit any of those things; I have most definitely received revelation from God, and there is no other plausible explanation for the evidence. If you can concede that God can give you certain knowledge then you can understand why I don't doubt that knowledge.

Notice what George Wald said?

I notice that you only quote scientists out of context, or when they’re speaking poetically. I guarantee he never said that in a scientific paper. Life may be a wonder, not a miracle.

I *only* do? That's a false generalization. This quote is right on target, and I challenge you to show me where I have taken George out of context. This is what scientists believe, that time + chance makes just about anything possible. Has life ever been observed coming entirely from non living matter? That's a miracle, and that's what you must believe happened either here or somewhere in the Universe.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Near the end, you’ll find this gem: “The history of physics has had that a lot, … Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to [be] so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”

If you haven't done so already, watch the first 10-20 minutes of this: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson. It's "creationism/intelligent design" laid bare as a position of weakness. Your "fine tuning" trope is part of "intelligent design" and has the same historical flaw.

It's the God of the gaps argument which is flawed. It's not a God of the gaps argument when the theory is a better explanation for the evidence.

It's just a bare fact that there is a number of physical constants in an extremely narrow range which conspire to create a life permitting Universe. It's even admitted on the wikipedia page:

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[2] However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

What do you mean, “they hate that possibility”? Why should a scientist hate any possibility? If there were science that pointed to the real existence of God, that’s exactly the way their investigations would go. That’s what motivated early modern scientists – they believed unravelling the laws of the universe by experiment would reveal God’s nature. It was only when the scientific path of experimentation split conclusively away from the biblical account that anybody considered that religious faith and scientific endeavour might become separate enterprises.

The roost of the scientific establishment today is ruled by atheistic naturalists, and they very much hate the idea of God polluting their purely naturalistic theories. They consider science to be liberated from religion and they vigorously patrol the borders, expelling anyone who dares to question the established paradigm. A biologist today who questions the fundamentals of evolutionary theory commits professional suicide. It is now conventional wisdom and you either have to get with the program or be completely shut out of the community.

Here are some other interesting quotes for you:

Richard Lewontin “does acknowledge that scientists inescapably rely on ‘rhetorical’ proofs (authority, tradition) for most of what they care about; they depend on theoretical assumptions unprovable by hard science, and their promises are often absurdly overblown … Only the most simple-minded and philosophically naive scientist, of whom there are many, thinks that science is characterized entirely by hard inference and mathematical proofs based on indisputable data

Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.

As for the “much” stronger evidence, as stated in the article, every time scientists solve a mystery of something they thought was “finely tuned”, they realized that there is a much simpler explanation than God. Evolution, for instance, eliminates the question of "fine tuning" in life. “God” is a metaphor for “things outside my understanding”. Once they move within our understanding, nobody claims that they’re God anymore. And FWIW, some of the most famous scientists ever came to the same "Because God" conclusion, which held until someone else got past it and solved what they couldn't.

I'm glad you understand that the whole enterprise of science was initially driven by the Christian idea that God created an orderly Universe based on laws, and thus we could reason out what was going on by investigating secondary causes. Yet God wasn't a metaphor for something we didn't understand; God was the reason we were interested in trying to understand in the first place, or even thought that we could.

You say there is this "because God" brick wall that we break down by determining the operations of the Universe. We can then see that it was never God at all, but X Y Z, yet what does that prove? Genesis 1 says "God created", and that He controls everything. What you're confusing is mechanism with agency. Can you rule out a clockmaker by explaining how the clock works? That's exactly what you're saying here, and it is an invalid argument.

You also act as if evolution has been indisputably proven. Let me ask you this question, since you claim to understand science so well. What is the proof and evidence that evolution is a fact? Be specific. What clinches it?

So to your conclusion, how do you figure that the appearance of fine tuning—which seems to go away when you look close enough—is stronger evidence?

It only goes away when you come to a series of false conclusions as you have above. The evidence is there, even the scientists admit it. To avoid the conclusion multiple universes are postulated. However, this is even more implausible for this reason; the multiple universe generator would be even more fine tuned than this Universe. Therefore, you are pointing right back at a fine tuner once more.

Eh??? But in your last nine paragraphs, YOU yourself, a limited temporal creature, have been trying to prove God’s existence with your “fine tuning” argument (corrupt reasoning, like you say), even after you've repeatedly asserted in the other threads that the only possible evidence for God is that he’ll answer our prayers. Why are you bothering? It is laughable how inconsistent you’re being here.

I wouldn't know the truth on my own; only God can reveal what the truth is. There are two routes to the truth. One is that you're omnipotent. Another is that an omnipotent being tells you what the truth is. Can you think of any others?

Keep fishing. Either the patient being prayed for recovers or doesn't recover. If not, the sincere prayers weren't answered. Unless you’re suggesting God secretly removed the free will of the scientists and the people praying so that the tests would come back negative? Gimme a break.

You seem to believe that free will means God doesn't interfere in the Creation, and this isn't the case. Free will means, you have the choice to obey or disobey God. It doesn't mean you are free from Gods influences. That's the whole idea of prayer, that God is going to exert His influence on creation to change something. God is directly involved in the affairs of men, He sets up Kingdoms, He takes them away. He put you where He wanted you and He will take you out when He has sovereignly planned to do it.

Even if the prayers are sincere, God isn't going to heal everyone. Yes, either way the patient recovers or doesn't recover, and either way, God isn't going to reveal His existence outside of what He has ordained; faith in His Son Jesus Christ. Anyone trying to prove Gods existence any other way will always come away disappointed.

And all of this was written only after the prophesy was fulfilled. A little too convenient.

Actually it was written hundreds of years before hand.

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all.

I know. I'm assuming they were consecutive. How could 70 weeks be concurrent? That makes no sense at all. Even if you meant to say “not consecutive”, what does it mean to declare a time limit of 70 weeks if they're not consecutive? It means nothing. That time limit could extend to today. What's your source for saying they're not concurrent/consecutive/whatever?

This is why I suggested you become more familiar with theology. Yes, you're right, I meant to say consecutive. You would know they were not consecutive if you read the scripture. The prophecy identifies they are not consecutive. Please see this:

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/

Again, conveniently, this “prediction” doesn't appear in writing until after the fall of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem fell in 70 AD. The gospels were written beforehand. If they were written afterwards, there would have been a mention of the fall of the city, if only to confirm the prophecy, but there is no mention of it in any of the gospels.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is.

Which clearly defined prophecies did he fulfil, not including ones that he knew about and could choose to do (like riding on a donkey)?

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/messiah.htm

Except for all the religions that aren't Christian. They don’t belong to him, and they have surely had enough time to hear his voice.

The world belongs to Christ. The difference between the Lord and the other religions is this:

1 Chronicles 16:26

For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens

You really think that’s unique to Christianity? Do you know much about Islam? And I don't mean Western stereotypes of it. I mean, really know how normal Muslim people live their lives.

Muslims don't have a personal relationship with God. Allah keeps them at arms length, and they mostly serve him out of fear. They also have no idea whether they are going to heaven or not. They only hope that at the end of time their good works will add up more than their bad ones. The reason Muslims choose martyrdom is because under Islam it is the only guaranteed way to go to Heaven.

I get it. It’s a test of sincerity. For whom? Who is going to read and understand the results? To whom is the sincerity proven that didn't know it before, requiring a test? I think you’re avoiding admitting it’s God because that would mean there’s something God doesn't know.

Why do metalworkers purify gold? To remove the dross. That's exactly what God is doing when He tests us:

1 Peter 1:6

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

@shinyblurry

Therefore, the question is, how would you tell if you're in a Universe that God designed?

I would test it, if I could. By “God”, I’m assuming you’re still talking about Yahweh specifically, and not just any random god-type entity. If that’s the case, then I’ve already falsified the claim that the Bible is perfect, so that argument is gone. If you’re merely making a deist claim, then I can’t argue with you. I take no position on deism other than if some deity created the universe and set it in motion, I have no reason to believe it cares about humans, and it certainly has made no edicts that I perceive as to how I should live my life.

The real question is, why is either possibility more or less likely than the other? … leap of faith in favor of your atheistic naturalism... you have to discard your assumptions about what you have seen or haven't seen and think about this on a deeper level.

You’re not listening to me. Seriously. I do have ways of determining which story is more likely. Occam’s razor is the best for this problem. The complexities introduced by faith in Yahweh and the Bible are necessarily more complex than the problems they solve. They are also blind faith (I'm talking about the vast majority of the faithful, and about what you're recommending I do), which is willful self-delusion. The theories that physicists and biologists have come up with are quite convincing, especially if you understand how science works.

A created being should expect to find himself existing in an environment capable of creating him.

Agreed. I find myself in an environment in which my species was capable of evolving. It says nothing of how statistically improbable it is.

In the same way, you should be surprised to find yourself to be a created being in a finely tuned Universe. A finely tuned Universe should tip the scales of that evidence, if you are being honest about what you can really prove.

Disagree. I’m lucky that of all the possible combinations of molecules that could have come together to create our terrestrial environment, the right ones came together to create life, then the right DNA strands combined to eventually create me. I’m lucky, sure, but given the length of time we’ve had, there’s no reason I should be surprised, especially when there's no reason to assert that this is the only universe. You ask why multiple universes are more likely than a deity? Because you and I both know for sure there is at least one universe, so positing some more of them is less of a stretch than asserting a self-contradictory entity, alien to our objective experience, defying any consistent and meaningful description, so vastly complex that it cannot be properly understood, and so full of human failings that it looks man-made.

[me:]… it could be that 10^one trillion universes with different physical properties have formed and collapsed, and when a balanced one finally came out of the mix, it stuck around, and here we are.

[you:] It could be, except there is no evidence there is. Why is it you that can imagine an infinite number of hypothetical Universes with no evidence, but you object to supernatural creation as somehow being less plausible than that.

I’m sceptical of all your claims because that’s how I roll. I’m sceptical of everything, especially big claims. It’s the smartest way to avoid being duped. You have been telling me that I must believe in the one true thing that is true that is Yahweh and the Bible and creation because it’s true because it’s true because it’s true because it’s the only possibility. Now, I conceive of another possibility: my 10^trillion universes. You agree it’s possible, so there’s no reason for me to believe yours is necessarily true. If I have to choose between them, the one that doesn’t require the further explanation of a sentient deity more complex than 10^trillion universes is simpler. And even then, I DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE one or the other. I can remain sceptical. To me, it’s foolish not to.

While we’re talking about being honest with ourselves, I’d like to hear it from you that the following things are *at least technically possible*: that Yahweh doesn’t exist; that your relationship with Yahweh is an illusion created by you inside your head because you are human and human minds are prone to occasional spectacular mistakes; that the Bible was created by deluded humans; that the universe is around 14 billion years old; that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old; that life on Earth started 1-2 billion years ago; and that all species evolved from primitive life forms. To be clear, I’m not asking you to accept them as true or even probable, just state whether this collection of statements is possible or impossible.

Notice what George Wald said?

I notice that you only quote scientists out of context, or when they’re speaking poetically. I guarantee he never said that in a scientific paper. Life may be a wonder, not a miracle.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Near the end, you’ll find this gem: “The history of physics has had that a lot, … Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to [be] so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”

If you haven't done so already, watch the first 10-20 minutes of this: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson. It's "creationism/intelligent design" laid bare as a position of weakness. Your "fine tuning" trope is part of "intelligent design" and has the same historical flaw.

They acknowledge there are only two possibilities, one being God, but since they hate that possibility more than they hate embracing the anthropic principle, they go with that instead, having absolutely no evidence to base that conclusion on. They simply don't want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that a finely tuned Universe is *much* stronger evidence for an omnipotent God than it is for multiple Universes.

What do you mean, “they hate that possibility”? Why should a scientist hate any possibility? If there were science that pointed to the real existence of God, that’s exactly the way their investigations would go. That’s what motivated early modern scientists – they believed unravelling the laws of the universe by experiment would reveal God’s nature. It was only when the scientific path of experimentation split conclusively away from the biblical account that anybody considered that religious faith and scientific endeavour might become separate enterprises.

As for the “much” stronger evidence, as stated in the article, every time scientists solve a mystery of something they thought was “finely tuned”, they realized that there is a much simpler explanation than God. Evolution, for instance, eliminates the question of "fine tuning" in life. “God” is a metaphor for “things outside my understanding”. Once they move within our understanding, nobody claims that they’re God anymore. And FWIW, some of the most famous scientists ever came to the same "Because God" conclusion, which held until someone else got past it and solved what they couldn't.

So to your conclusion, how do you figure that the appearance of fine tuning—which seems to go away when you look close enough—is stronger evidence? What is your rationale for the weighting so strongly in favour of God? Couldn't it be that we simply don’t know yet how the universe came to be the way it is? To me, that’s actually the most likely scenario, since that’s what’s happened with so many other erroneous theological claims, including by some of science’s greatest minds ever.

A limited temporal creature, trying to disprove Gods existence with his own corrupt reasoning is kind of laughable, isn't it?

Eh??? But in your last nine paragraphs, YOU yourself, a limited temporal creature, have been trying to prove God’s existence with your “fine tuning” argument (corrupt reasoning, like you say), even after you've repeatedly asserted in the other threads that the only possible evidence for God is that he’ll answer our prayers. Why are you bothering? It is laughable how inconsistent you’re being here.

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

Keep fishing. Either the patient being prayed for recovers or doesn't recover. If not, the sincere prayers weren't answered. Unless you’re suggesting God secretly removed the free will of the scientists and the people praying so that the tests would come back negative? Gimme a break.

The Jews are historically from Israel, and there is archaeological evidence to prove this. The reason they came back to Israel is because it is historically their homeland. Given the opportunity, they would have come back to Israel with or without the bible saying they were entitled to. The point is that they were predicted to come back, not only around the date that they did, but their migration pattern was in the exact order, their currency was predicted, their economic and agricultural condition was predicted, and many other things.

And all of this was written only after the prophesy was fulfilled. A little too convenient.

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all.

I know. I'm assuming they were consecutive. How could 70 weeks be concurrent? That makes no sense at all. Even if you meant to say “not consecutive”, what does it mean to declare a time limit of 70 weeks if they're not consecutive? It means nothing. That time limit could extend to today. What's your source for saying they're not concurrent/consecutive/whatever?

Second, Jesus is the one who predicted the fall of Jerusalem:

Again, conveniently, this “prediction” doesn't appear in writing until after the fall of Jerusalem.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is.

Which clearly defined prophecies did he fulfil, not including ones that he knew about and could choose to do (like riding on a donkey)?

Christ speaks, however, and from that moment all generations belong to him.

Except for all the religions that aren't Christian. They don’t belong to him, and they have surely had enough time to hear his voice.

The other founders of religions had not the least conception of this mystic love which forms the essence of Christianity.

You really think that’s unique to Christianity? Do you know much about Islam? And I don't mean Western stereotypes of it. I mean, really know how normal Muslim people live their lives.

The metaphor that is used for testing is that of impurities being refined out of gold or silver. Tests are to prove your sincerity, not necessarily what God knows.

I get it. It’s a test of sincerity. For whom? Who is going to read and understand the results? To whom is the sincerity proven that didn't know it before, requiring a test? I think you’re avoiding admitting it’s God because that would mean there’s something God doesn't know.

Dude...this is what happens when physicists think they're neurologists.

You should write up a proposal on that fiend of gravity idea and send it in to NIH. You could propose an experiment to replace the actual science, real observations, and real experimental work that she went through. You could describe how the solitons traveling down the neural pathway are intercepted by the higgs field, causing the altered hormone levels and improvements in interview scores that she observed. You could then go on to say how all of that was not an idea worth spreading, because surely nobody would benefit from performing better in interviews and presentations.

Come off it, man. This was the best TED I've ever heard, and everyone who listened to it, except for you, is a better person for it.

>> ^criticalthud:

Our neurology dictates our tendencies, which includes our structure and our posture.
Amy -a good try from a psych/freudian perspective but this is probably not an idea worth spreading.
a better idea worth spreading is that your neurological system is a pressure based, fluid system that is still trying hard to adapt to being upright, and in the process must deal with a myriad of pressure distortions within that occur as the body, over time and trauma, distorts in the field of gravity.

I have a bit of an issue with Dr.Naku and his musings about biology, especially after seeing him butcher and mangle the theory of evolution and say that humans have "by-and-large" stopped evolving. Which is bullshit. (http://bigthink.com/ideas/26647)

I'm sure Dr.Naku is an excellent theoretical physicist, but he has shown that he doesnt really master biology all that well. I have a feeling he does the same thing here. There are all sorts of problems that might not be solvable here. Animals are more, biologically speaking, than a DNA "recipe" that you can simply "put into an egg", there are all sorts of evo-devo that comes in to complicate this tremendously. It is not at all clear that simply sequencing a genome (assumming its a complete and 100% accurate sequencing, which I'm pretty sure it isnt for the neanderthal and mammoth) that comes into play here. In other words, the limitation might not be our technology. Its a bit like the zoom-in-and-enhance-it problem you have in Hollywood movies. it doesnt matter if you have a billion-dollar computer from the year 4350 if the original recording is an old VHS tape of a CCTV recording.