Powerful counter-apologetics by Jeff Lowder

[Rumraket]

You're the one who said that the second law of thermodynamics would result in heat death if the article to which I linked were true.

Since the universe has been shown to be "flat", that means that heat death is what will happen, which means that the article to which I linked is correct, and not "just so stories".

Kindest regards,

James

James

how do you concile a eternal universe, with the second law ?

Not that I believe the universe is eternal, but it could be cyclic.

 

[Visaki]

James

how do you concile a eternal universe, with the second law ?

Not that I believe the universe is eternal, but it could be cyclic.

Derailment, but somewhat an interesting one in my opinion.

How does one concile a eternal god, with the second law?

 

[Elshamah]

Derailment, but somewhat an interesting one in my opinion.

How does one concile a eternal god, with the second law?

As creator of the physical universe, the creator is not limited and exposed to the physical limitiations of his creation.

There are plenty of problems with these hypotheses like the cyclic universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MIfURwOrTU

 

[Steelmage99]

Derailment, but somewhat an interesting one in my opinion.

How does one concile a eternal god, with the second law?

As creator of the physical universe, the creator is not limited and exposed to the physical limitiations of his creation.

There are plenty of problems with these hypotheses like the cyclic universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MIfURwOrTU

Ah, a video where William Lane Craig explains theoretical particle physics and cosmology.
Whats next? A video where a mechanic explains how to cook food?

How about a video where a Muslim (or Buddhist or a Pagan) explains the finer points of Christianity and why it fails......You'd like that, wouldn't you?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

You're the one who said that the second law of thermodynamics would result in heat death if the article to which I linked were true.

Since the universe has been shown to be "flat", that means that heat death is what will happen, which means that the article to which I linked is correct, and not "just so stories".

Kindest regards,

James

James

how do you concile a eternal universe, with the second law ?

Our space-time continuum has (had) a beginning, ~13.8 billion years ago.

No matter how long our space-time continuum lasts - "eternity" - since it had a beginning, there's no issue re the "heat death paradox", understand?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Greetings,

I was initially making the point of how the four bases pair up to show that the laws of chemistry do determine what happens.

More to the point, the biochemistry of the bases themselves determines what elements can bond, and how they bond, to make up those molecules.

Chemistry is what underlies everything.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

Did you watch where he explicitly explained the fundamental logical error that question is based on? It starts at 1:02:45 in the video. Pay close attention.

By the way, I already told you this in a comment on the video.

Objection 1... doesn't apply to Christianity.

Objection 2... is based on a common misunderstanding of what scientists actually mean by "fine tuning"

Objection 3... inductive argument? Never heard that one before. What the fuck is he talking about?

 

[Rumraket]

Did you watch where he explicitly explained the fundamental logical error that question is based on? It starts at 1:02:45 in the video. Pay close attention.

By the way, I already told you this in a comment on the video.

Objection 1... doesn't apply to Christianity.

Yes it does. There is nothing in christianity that predicts biological information. Nothing.

Christians will go back to their bibles now decades after the discovery of DNA and the establishments of the fields of bioinformatics and information theory, and re-interpret verses that previously meant something else, to now mean "information in DNA" or some shit.

But it's all ad-hoc. There is no historical source where someone has actually predicted biological information based on some christian interpretation of the bible, prior to it's discovery in DNA.

Objection 2... is based on a common misunderstanding of what scientists actually mean by "fine tuning"

Not at all. Some atheists mistakenly object to the fine-tuning argument by saying things like "physicists mean something else by the laws being fine-tuned". While that may in fact be true for some of the laws and constants used and described in physics, it is actually irrelevant. Whatever you may wish to call it, there is a difference between (for example) the strength of gravity, compared to the strength of the electromagnetic force.

If these forces were altered in strength, such that the electromagnetic force became significantly weaker, and gravity significantly stronger (or stayed the same), the result would be that the entire field of chemistry would be different. Suddenly, the basis for life as we know it, the chemistry of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and so on, would be totally different (a weaker electromagnetism would cause electrons to more weakly attracted by protons, meaning chemical bonds would be weaker). The result of which might be that life as we know it could not exist. So technically the fine-tuning argument is correctly using our knowledge of the relative strengths of the fundamental forces and constants of nature.

Now, all of that is actually irrelevant to Jeff's Objection #2, which is the implied contradiction between the claim that
1. God would have to intervene in the physical world to create DNA,
while it is simultaneously claimed that
2. God set up the laws of physics such that life could exist.

Basically theists who argue both are trying to have it both ways and that, in fact, if it is true the laws of physics were set up by God such that life could exist, that would be evidence against the claim that God would have to intervene in the physical world to create DNA.

Objection 3... inductive argument? Never heard that one before. What the fuck is he talking about?

You don't know what inductive logic is? Read this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secula...e-arguments-a-new-type-of-inductive-argument/
And this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/

 

[thenexttodie]

Which parts of the 2 hour video give the best arguments?

 

[thenexttodie]

Yes it does. There is nothing in christianity that predicts biological information. Nothing.

It predicts our ability to find it, if it does exist. And it does.

Christians will go back to their bibles now decades after the discovery of DNA and the establishments of the fields of bioinformatics and information theory, and re-interpret verses that previously meant something else, to now mean "information in DNA" or some shit.

Uhh no. Actually it is the evolutionists who must constantly re-interpret there beliefs. You no longer believe bear evolved into whales, you no longer believe most of our DNA is junk. And you no longer believe in most of the fake fossils frauds.

 

[Rumraket]

Yes it does. There is nothing in christianity that predicts biological information. Nothing.

It predicts our ability to find it, if it does exist. And it does.

Then please find me a case of this being predicted prior to the discovery of biological information.

I don't want a reinterpretation of scripture by you or some guy now, decades after the fact. That's not a prediction.

Go find me a historical prediction being made by analysis of scripture that we will find biological information that follows from the truth of christianity.

 

[Rumraket]

Christians will go back to their bibles now decades after the discovery of DNA and the establishments of the fields of bioinformatics and information theory, and re-interpret verses that previously meant something else, to now mean "information in DNA" or some shit.

Uhh no. Actually it is the evolutionists who must constantly re-interpret there beliefs.

Yes, I'm proud to state I let my beliefs be informed by what the best evidence shows. If this means I must change my mind 3 times in a week, then I will change my mind 3 times in a week. Because evidence is what matters, not blind faith despite evidence.

Are you telling me you work in another way?

You no longer believe bear evolved into whales,

I wasn't aware that was ever believed, but because of the above given reasons I actually don't care. If at one point the best evidence showed that some sort of primordial bear was the ancestor of whales, but this later changed when even more evidence was added, so what? Is it a bad thing to change one's conclusions in light of new evidence?

you no longer believe most of our DNA is junk.

Actaully I do, because that's what the evidence shows. If the evidence really did show most of our DNA wasn't junk, yes, I would change my mind. But the verdict so far is that it's still mostly junk, despite a lot of grandiose press releases to the contrary.

And you no longer believe in most of the fake fossils frauds.

I believe in NONE of the fake fossil frauds. Why would I believe in a fake fossil fraud?

The 5 or 6 of them that have existed out of the literally millions of actual bona fide fossils doesn't do much to indicate that there's much hucksterism going on. And they were exposed by evolutionists and paleontologists who doubted them right from the beginning.

But I know what you want to imply. That because there have been frauds, that means the whole thing should be distrusted. Do me a favor, count the total number of proven frauds and then find out how many true fossils have been found and give me a percentage. What is the percentage of discovered fossils that turn out to be fakes? Let's be extremely courteous to your side and say 20 cases of fossil fraud have been exposed, and let's be extremely courteous to your side and say only half a million known fossil specimens are known(the true number is in the billions, there are BILLIONS of known fossils). That would make 0,004% of fossils fraudulent. Wow.. what a great number, four thousands of one percent.

 

[Rumraket]

Which parts of the 2 hour video give the best arguments?

The whole thing is good, from start to finish. There are lots of good rebuttals to christian apologetics, and there are good arguments for naturalism.