Has science gotten arrogant?

[Byblos]

So not only do you postulate an infinite number of universes, you also postulate that these universes must be parallel to ours without a hint of evidence. Okay, sure let's keep going with this absurdity a bit longer, so what? So what if God sent multiple Jesuses to save an infinite number of sinners? The fact is since God is the first uncaused cause (which you did not deny and which, by the way, proves that an infinite number of universes is irrational) then He can choose to save whomever and however many He wishes to save. Next you will tell me but what about contradictions like a person being saved in one universe and damned in another. Well since we're postulating absurdities then I submit to you that those are not the same person, they are two different souls.

That is the beauty of parallel universes... You can practically imagine an alternative reality and that reality could actually exists in a parallel place...

The only problem is this is just your imagination. It has no basis in either reality or rationality whatsoever. It is certainly your prerogative to imagine all kinds of fantastic scenarios for existence. I, on the other hand, prefer reality.

No, you didn't directly say anything about mutiverses invalidating the existence of God but let's face it, you provided it as an alternative. But let's not get bogged down with semantics so on we go.

I was just trying to point out that many people are assuming that there is ONLY ONE uncaused cause. But let's play with this idea for a bit. If every universe has a first uncaused cause, then we could in theory say that every parallel universe has its own first uncaused cause. It's quite hard to imagine such a network of parallel uncaused causes and at the same time quite interesting. But anyways, I want to stress out "just imagine". At the moment science has not proven anything in practice.

Bryan, you're off into your own imaginary world again. By definition, there can be one AND ONLY ONE uncaused cause. If this uncaused cause is the God of the Bible, i.e. a timeless, changeless, intelligent entity, then there can be no other. The reason for that is rather simple, if there were 2 such entities with 2 distinct wills and one of them decides to create and the other not to create, then NOTHING gets created. Since there is a creation then there can be only one uncaused cause.

As for the multiverse, science is more and more proving that the idea is untenable. Whether it be from the law of non-contradiction (from nothing nothing comes), the law of entropy (entropy increases with every universe, with an infinite number of universes before this one entropy ought to be at its maximum, yet it isn't), to the anthropic principle (the chances of creating life, any kind of life gets exponentially smaller and smaller with every universe), etc, etc. Science is not on your side my friend, and neither is logic, reality, and rationality. But you're more than welcome to stick with your imagination.

[BryanH]

Bryan, you're off into your own imaginary world again. By definition, there can be one AND ONLY ONE uncaused cause. If this uncaused cause is the God of the Bible, i.e. a timeless, changeless, intelligent entity, then there can be no other. The reason for that is rather simple, if there were 2 such entities with 2 distinct wills and one of them decides to create and the other not to create, then NOTHING gets created. Since there is a creation then there can be only one uncaused cause.

Science may not yet be on my side, but history is...
When Copernicus said that the Earth is not the center of the universe lots of people argued with that...
When Albert Einstein launched his theory about relativity lots of people said that can't be true, yet it is.
and so on, I could provide more examples...

Anyways, one of interesting predictions of scientists is that in about 50 years from now we will be able to actually upload ourself into a computer and thus becoming immortal. Now that's a scary thought. Living inside a computer.

[Byblos]

Bryan, you're off into your own imaginary world again. By definition, there can be one AND ONLY ONE uncaused cause. If this uncaused cause is the God of the Bible, i.e. a timeless, changeless, intelligent entity, then there can be no other. The reason for that is rather simple, if there were 2 such entities with 2 distinct wills and one of them decides to create and the other not to create, then NOTHING gets created. Since there is a creation then there can be only one uncaused cause.

Science may not yet be on my side, but history is...
When Copernicus said that the Earth is not the center of the universe lots of people argued with that...
When Albert Einstein launched his theory about relativity lots of people said that can't be true, yet it is.
and so on, I could provide more examples...

Anyways, one of interesting predictions of scientists is that in about 50 years from now we will be able to actually upload ourself into a computer and thus becoming immortal. Now that's a scary thought. Living inside a computer.

Lol, okay Bryan. Apologies for not recognizing greatness among us such as the likes of Copernicus and Einstein.

And if you want to look back in history, there have been far, far more ideas that did not pan out, so er, no, history is most certainly not on your side. To summarize, neither philosophy nor history nor science nor logic nor rationality is on your side. Ah yes, but you still have your imagination.

[BryanH]

And if you want to look back in history, there have been far, far more ideas that did not pan out, so er, no, history is most certainly not on your side.

Far, far more ideas? How many? Did you count them or just saying that? Maybe you would like to name a few important ones that did not pan out.

Your statement just says that there are some ideas that didn't work out? Your point? Not all ideas work out. I was just saying that there are many ideas that in the past were thought to be impossible, but here we are today and possible.

The fact that in the present you perceive something as being impossible doesn't make it necessarily impossible. That is what I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to count good ideas vs bad ideas. I was just saying that there is a possibility.

[domokunrox]

Its possible that I can have millions of dollars in the bank.

Possible does not mean it is reality. Lots of things are "possible", but there is only one absolute truth. I suggest you check out my truth and knowledge topic.

[BryanH]

Thanks for the invite.

[CallMeDave]

Thanks to this website and others I have seen plenty of scientific evidence that proves God exists. I never realized just how much thought and work has been put into this proof until I started digging through alot of the information that is out there. One thing I have learned from doing this is just how limited science is and how little science actually knows. Now that I know this I have become aware of something that is "nagging" at me: The arrogance of atheist scientists. They make the claim there is no scientific evidence of God's existence therefore God doesn't exist. The reason I find this arrogant is they seem to be saying that science is the ultimate authority on anything and everything. How can this be so if science can't explain everything. Saying "we're working on it" is no excuse. I think science should stick to researching and studying our world and universe and not be concerned as much with the existence of God for now at least. I think these scientists have gotten "too big for their britches". That is my opinion at least.

What do you think? Is saying "no evidence = no God" an arrogant position to take?

It is very arrogant to say this, in addition to having a personal ulterior motive . There isnt an 'atheist' scientist alive who truly thinks his human brain ultimately derived from a one celled pond protozoa coming accidentally on the scene from accidental atmospheric chemicals when our vast modern technology cant begin to duplicate our brains with the finest of scientific ability . Atheistic science is psuedo-science and its foundational construct is based on an apriori-philosophical bias never allowing intelligent causes (viz. an intelligent Source / Creator) a foot thru the door. Richard Dawkins is perhaps the best example of a 'staunch atheist' scientist who speaks as if Theism always was a reality by alluding to 'God like Creatures who brought first life to Earth' . In the next decade, we will see even greater incredulty toward the once high held belief of atheistic origins . Eventually, it will be run out of town as an utter fraud.

Consider :

" It is therefore a MATTER OF FAITH on the part of the biologist that
biogenesis (evolution) did occur and he can choose whatever method of
biogenesis happens to suit him personally ; the evidence for what did
happen is not available" --- Evolutionist Prof. G.A. Kerkut of the
University of Southampton. Source : Implications of Evolution. London.
Pergamon Press, 1960, page 150.



" The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that
evolution is based on FAITH ALONE" -- Evolutionist Prof. T.L. Moor .
Origins ? The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988 page 22.



" We Palenontologists have said that the history of life supports (the
story of gradual adaptive change) , all the while really knowing that it
does not" -- Dr. Niles Eldredge. Darwin on Trial. Regnery Gateway,
1991, page 59.


" The record of reckless speculation of human origins is so astonishing
that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in
this field at all" -- Evolutionist Dr. Solly Zuckerman. Darwin on
Trial. 1991. page 82.

From an article in Science Digest Special---

" Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest
growing controversial minorities ... Many of the scientists supporting
this posiiton hold impressive credentials in science" . -- Educators
Against Darwin. winter 1979, page 94



" I believe that one day the Darwinnian myth will be ranked the
greatest deciet in the history of science "--- Prof. Soren Lovtrup,
Embriologist. Darwinism : The Refutation of a Myth. 1987. page 422.

" The more i examine the Universe and the details of its architecture,
the more evidence i find that the Universe in some sense must have known
we were coming"--- Prof. Freeman Dyson, Physicist from Princeton Univ.
'Disturbing the Universe' . 1979. page 250.



" The more man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events, the
firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of
this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature (than a Creator)"
-- Albert Einstein. His LIfe and Times. page 286.

And finally, the bottom line from an "agnostic" Astronomer (and my
favorite) ----

" For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason,
the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of
ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak and as he pulls
himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of Theologians who
have been sitting there for centuries reading Genesis 1:1 : In the
Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" --- agnostic Prof. Robert
Jastrow founder of Nasa's Goddard Institute. His book, 'God and the
Astronomers. page 116

[Ivellious]

Perhaps you should stop quoting half-century old material in order to fulfill your arguments, Dave. Seriously, if you want anybody to take that crap seriously, find even semi-modern arguments, not stuff taken out of books written before evolution was legal to be taught in schools.

[jlay]

I
How long ago was Darwins theory proposed? Pot meet kettle.

[Ivellious]

Not sure if I understand your objection, jlay. Sure, evolution was proposed a long time ago, and it has significantly changed as the years have gone by. Hence, citing articles from 1960 regarding it is stupid. If the point those quotes were making still stand, than Dave should be able to find quotes from within the past 2 decades, at the very least, not stuff written by people 50 years ago. Are you saying that I can't make an argument for gravity because it was proposed long ago? Or perhaps that the Bible is irrelevant because it was written 2000 years ago? My point is, referencing the source of an idea is one thing, but arguing against it using outdated materials is ignorant and misleading.

[jlay]

I,
The age of the quote is NOT the issue. That is a chronological fallacy. Just as the age of the theory doesn't negate or confirm whether its sound. Now, a valid criticism would be that there where a lot of things Darwin didn't understand such as cellular structure or DNA. Based on his ignorance of cellular biology his theory was a snap.

I'm saying you seem to have a double standard. Many of the quotes are from later dates. How old can a quote be in your mind and be valid? My guess is, you don't like what the quote has to say. Therefore you look for any reason to dismiss the quote. If you have anything factually about the quote, then fine, I understand. But to dismiss something ONLY on its age is a fallacy, and unscientific BTW.

[CallMeDave]

Perhaps you should stop quoting half-century old material in order to fulfill your arguments, Dave. Seriously, if you want anybody to take that crap seriously, find even semi-modern arguments, not stuff taken out of books written before evolution was legal to be taught in schools.

All of the quotes were made within the last few decades so your rebuttal is a non sequitur . The bottom line is, you dont want to consider the psuedo science of pond scum to a human brain by accidents even remotely fallacious due to the personal implications a Creator means for you. (ie : being owned , being morally culpable , and forfieting autonomy..... as is the case with all atheists/agnostics) . Been there done that for over 10 adult years before I had to be honest with myself. You can be too.