View Full Version : Hello

11-03-2016, 05:57 PM
I posted this in the Christian only forum but haven't got a response yet, so I'm putting it here too. Can anybody who is studied about the origins of the universe point out what's wrong with this video?;

11-03-2016, 07:20 PM
I'm not really focused on such forms of argument on the origin of the universe, but this is an opportunity to be distracted for now.

The first anachronistic thing the video offers is that theories can only be valid if they are falsifiable. As I have learned (at least by passing mention in my theology class) is that such falsifiable theories are not plausibly expected -- maybe not since the 1700s. Maybe someone can elaborate on this. But it seems that this goal cannot be achieved within most fields of knowledge.

Similarly, not all things can be reasoned from some set of basic common knowledge; through the recognition that not everyone held the same cultural viewpoint, as held by European white men, there was no common foundation to reason from 'basic knowledge' in order to test whether some 'idea' is valid (or 'well-reasoned').

The video then seemed to focus on the Prager presentation regarding the guy's incredulity at something improbable happening. Albeit there was an emotional appeal at this time, the fact remains that the odds against an accidental tuned universe speak against any rational expectation that we could have an accidental universe like we have.

There was no real argument in the video to show that the universe was able to form without divine direction. It merely indicates that the narrator felt he could imagine the universe forming sans divine direction -- what benefit is this to us? His own feeling that he can imagine the improbable universe forming (i.e. into the universe we now know) does not therefore mean that the universe evolved without divine direction.

Those are my thoughts on the failure of the video to make any decent point.

On another thought...
I don't quite understand the point about 'Is God responsible for every improbable outcome that ever occurred?" nor about the subsequent questions in that vein.

Well maybe he is saying that there is no improbability (i.e. from the viewpoint of the Christian in his understanding of God) such that we can't talk about the universe in terms of probabilities -- or more specifically that a Christian could not speak consistently of things being probable or not. Even as I recognize this as being his potential argument, the narrator has formed a straw man view of Christians here.


11-10-2016, 12:11 PM

11-11-2016, 06:05 AM
The reality of the Methodological Naturalism of legitimate science is that it is neutral to Theological/Philosophical questions beyond the 'scientific evidence' of our physical existence. The approaches in these references are unethically and dishonestly misrepresenting science for a theological agenda.

The science of the origins of our physical existence, nor the science of evolution does not propose that accidents are a part of the determining process of why our physical existence is as it is.

11-14-2016, 12:15 PM

11-15-2016, 06:06 AM
There is one problem supposing God can be ruled out. God's identity. Traditional appologics fails to actually deal with this. The universe created or somehow just happened. 1 + 1 = 2. The identity of God is key.

The Hebrew Name of God is often not literally translated. Being translated "the LORD" or transliterated as "Jehovah" or "Yehwah." The Strong's Hebrew dictionary number H3068 has "(the) self Existent or Eternal." There is only one "thing" which can be self existent - uncaused existence. And that is God's fundamental idenity.

In order for there to be anything for any reason, there has to be existence. And uncaused existence, the Self Existent is the identity of God. And this remains true, even if not believed.

"There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD." -- Proverbs 21:30.

The LORD who is the Uncaused Existence the Name meaning self Existent.