- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God--WSJ--Eric Metaxas
Posted on 1/3/15 at 11:47 am to Bestbank Tiger
Posted on 1/3/15 at 11:47 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
It's not an appeal to authority when you're quoting a proven expert in a field.
Sure it is. The authority of someone like Hawking, for instance, is based on work he has done in the past. That does not give him free reign to pontificate about every mystery of the universe and have others take his opinion as fact.
quote:
Quoting Hawking in a different area because he's smart would be--ie, accepting his wisdom on a matter of theology.
But that is essentially what you are doing by quoting him on string theory. That is the point I was making. If string theory is science (and that is debatable), it is very poor science. One man's belief that it may eventually lead to something concrete does not change that fact.
1
Posted on 1/3/15 at 11:49 am to LSUSaintsHornets
Posted on 1/3/15 at 11:51 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
I thought he'd be someone you were familiar with.
Very much so.
quote:
Brian Greene, Peter Higgs, François Englert, etc would be but a few of several thousand others
Peter Woit, Lawrence Krauss, Lee Smolin, ect. Oh wow I can name drop physicists who agree with me too! Way to make a real argument!
This post was edited on 1/3/15 at 11:53 am
Posted on 1/3/15 at 12:00 pm to LSUSaintsHornets
quote:Bright guys.
Peter Woit, Lawrence Krauss, Lee Smolin
Perhaps they were in the audience when the gentlemen I named received their Nobel Prize a few years back?
This post was edited on 1/3/15 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 1/3/15 at 12:01 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Bright guys
Indeed
quote:
Perhaps they were in the audience when the gentlemen I name received their Nobel Prize a few years back?
Who knows.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 12:30 pm to TK421
quote:
That does not give him free reign to pontificate about every mystery of the universe and have others take his opinion as fact.
Of course not, but it does mean his opinion on such matters is more valuable than that of the average poster on this board. There are well-informed opinions based on a lifetime of study and research, and then there are just opinions.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 12:40 pm to Revelator
quote:
I'd like a head count of how many became atheists after going to college.
The average person lives 50+ years after graduating college, and of the 18 or so years they live prior to it only a few are at an age where they are even cognitively capable of objectively assessing topics such as this. The fact that so many kids are baptized and "saved" prior to the age of 10 shows just how little objective assessment is actually involved in this decision for many people.
Besides, what you are essentially saying here is that losing one's faith AFTER getting a higher education and expanding one's horizons is a bad thing.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 12:42 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
his opinion on such matters is more valuable than that of the average poster on this board.
I don't think anyone would deny this is the case. However Hawking isn't the only voice in theoretical physics and to argue from the authority of one person or even a large segment of physicists isn't a real argument.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 12:51 pm to LSUSaintsHornets
I would say that if a given opinion is the prevailing one amongst a large group of qualified experts then it should be considered at least a valid piece of evidence. After all, it's good enough to be viewed as evidence in our judicial system. We convict people of very serious crimes based on the opinions of experts all the time, even in the face of a minority dissenting opinion.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 1:00 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Of course not, but it does mean his opinion on such matters is more valuable than that of the average poster on this board.
In some ways this is probably true, but it fails to address the bigger point. String theory is not falsifiable. Therefore, it isn't science. This is the same argument I have against creationism as science. If your belief is that anything we find in nature proves the existence of God, that may be a fine philosophical outlook, but it isn't science. In the same way, there is currently (and likely eternally) no possible way to disprove string theory.
Does that mean I place Hawking on the same scientific plane as Ken Hamm? Of course not, but that is due to his work in other scientific arenas. NC just name dropping physicists and saying, "see these guys agree with me" is the opposite of the scientific method and the tactic of an intellectual lightweight.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 1:28 pm to Revelator
quote:that's pretty much what I said
I would say Rob in your situation that you didn't become an atheist/agnostic but always was one. You can't say that you were a believer simply because your parents brought you to church or that you inherited your parents faith. You self admittedly revealed that you had never even read the bible, so you didn't even know the doctrine that leads to salvation.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 1:46 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The average person lives 50+ years after graduating college, and of the 18 or so years they live prior to it only a few are at an age where they are even cognitively capable of objectively assessing topics such as this. The fact that so many kids are baptized and "saved" prior to the age of 10 shows just how little objective assessment is actually involved in this decision for many people.
Besides, what you are essentially saying here is that losing one's faith AFTER getting a higher education and expanding one's horizons is a bad thing.
Actually, weakened religious affiliation is more prevalent among those who never attended college:
LINK
Posted on 1/3/15 at 1:51 pm to Bestbank Tiger
I don't really care one way or the other, I was responding to his clear insinuation that losing one's faith after college is a bad thing.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 2:12 pm to Roger Klarvin
I would like to point out that even Hawking and other advocates of string theory as something to pursue acknowledge the current problem of it not being testable. Tons of stuff is out there written by string theorist covering that reality. A scientific theory MUST have two key elements. It must make predictions and it must be testable. This is why string theorist are working extremely hard in these two areas. Even your biggest proponents of string theory would tell you this so I don't actually see what the conflict in this thread is.
String theorist would tell you they have an awesome idea that seems to marry very well with observation. But, they know they need to meet those two hurdles.
String theorist would tell you they have an awesome idea that seems to marry very well with observation. But, they know they need to meet those two hurdles.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 2:47 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
that's pretty much what I said
Well it applies to many on here that say they became atheists. A person isn't born a believer or baptized as a baby to become a believer like some teach.
A person has to make a conscious decision to believe. A decision that comes only after God gives them the faith to believe and draws him.
It would be a better description if some simply said," I was never a believer.'
Posted on 1/3/15 at 2:55 pm to Revelator
quote:
decision that comes only after God gives them the faith to believe and draws him.
What does this even mean?
Did you have to attend some sort of art school?
I'd be interested to know the signs that occurred and convinced you that the Christian god was the one true god.
Not the age old BS, I felt god's warmth and love and shite.
Tangible signs.
Because, frankly, if there were signs then this would actually be proof of the Christian mythos as the correct one.
Just sayin.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 3:00 pm to ShortyRob
So it should be String Hypothesis? Doesn't have the same ring to it but it's a lot more accurate to be labeled as such.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 3:01 pm to asurob1
quote:
Not the age old BS, I felt god's warmth and love and shite.
Tangible signs.
You can't touch faith. So your right in that respect.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 3:08 pm to asurob1
You can throw fact after fact, evidence after evidence, reason and logic after more reason and logic in their faces.
It does no good. They close their ears and sing to themselves. Tragic they go through their whole lives like that.
Then they try to debate string theory and cosmological constants. As if they have a clue.
It does no good. They close their ears and sing to themselves. Tragic they go through their whole lives like that.
Then they try to debate string theory and cosmological constants. As if they have a clue.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 3:09 pm to Loveland Tiger
Who's they? Every Christian? 
Page 22 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News