Intelligent Design Mind Naturalism

Nine-year-old astrophysics freshman seeks to prove existence of God

Spread the love

From Debra Heine at Townhall:

A child genius in Pennsylvania is studying to be an astrophysicist so he can become the person who finally proves the existence of God. Nine-year-old William Maillis graduated from high school in May and is now attending a community college as he develops his theories as to how the universe was created.

William’s parents, Peter and Nancy Maillis, also have a daughter, 29, and son, 26. “[William] was our 17-year-surprise,” the elder Maillis said. He told People that he realized William was advanced when he “started accurately identifying numbers at 6 months old and speaking in complete sentences at just 7 months old.”

Priceless:

William’s parent’s are allowing him to decide for himself what courses to study. “Whatever classes he wants to take, that’s okay with me,” Maillis said. “I don’t want to push him.” More.

Sounds like that’d be a waste of time.

Incidentally, the college has not been featherbedding the boy, his profs say.

Has anyone ever wondered why human beings take so naturally to abstract thought? Whereas “science” is still stuck with: Are apes entering the Stone Age? (No. Unless, of course, octopuses are also entering the Wood Age.)

See also: Neuroscience tried wholly embracing naturalism, but then the brain got away

Would we give up naturalism to solve the hard problem of consciousness?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

40 Replies to “Nine-year-old astrophysics freshman seeks to prove existence of God

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    What happens if he decides he can’t find any evidence?

  2. 2
    johnnyb says:

    What happens if he decides he can’t find any evidence?

    They will need to check his eyesight 😉

  3. 3
    ppolish says:

    The kid is working on a Proof, Seversky – there is plenty of evidence. Atheists like Tyson & Susskind & etcetcetc acknowledge the evidence. The Proof is the tough part. Genius part.

    Elon Musk and BofA are trying to prove a simulation universe btw.
    https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/computer-simulation-world-matrix-scientists-elon-musk-artificial-intelligence-ai-a7347526.html%3famp

  4. 4
    ppolish says:

    Godel was a genius who offered a Proof. He saw the evidence also duh.

    http://m.spiegel.de/internatio.....28668.html

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_ontological_proof

  5. 5
    Vy says:

    Elon Musk and BofA are trying to prove a simulation universe btw.

    *facepalm*

    At least it’s their money.

  6. 6
    Seversky says:

    johnnyb @ 2

    What happens if he decides he can’t find any evidence

    They will need to check his eyesight

    So…don’t follow the evidence, follow your beliefs?

  7. 7
    ppolish says:

    “Can’t find any evidence”
    “Doesn’t follow the evidence”

    What next Seversky, “misinterpret the evidence”?

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    ppolish @ 3

    The kid is working on a Proof, Seversky – there is plenty of evidence. Atheists like Tyson & Susskind & etcetcetc acknowledge the evidence. The Proof is the tough part. Genius part

    Now, do you mean “Proof” in the mathematical sense or “Proof” in the sense of show to be conclusively and incontrovertibly true or “Proof” in the older sense of to test?

    As for evidence, there is all kinds. There is evidence that the Sun goes around the Earth because that is what we see and that Is what people believed probably for thousands of years. Doas all that evidence mean that the Sun does, in fact, orbit the Earth?

    If you are trying to demonstrate the existence of a being so powerful that it could completely hide any trace of its existence or manufacture evidence pointing to an entirely different conclusion if it chose, what do you think the chances are of finding anything you can trust?

  9. 9
    ppolish says:

    “If you are trying to demonstrate the existence of a being so powerful that it could completely hide any trace of its existence or manufacture evidence pointing to an entirely different conclusion if it chose, what do you think the chances are of finding anything you can trust?”

    It will be hard if not impossible to Prove, Seversky. But Elon Musk puts the odds at a billion to one that there is NOT a creator:)

  10. 10
    ppolish says:

    Trying to prove the existence of God puts the 9 year in some pretty heady company. Good luck to the kid!
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

  11. 11
    johnnyb says:

    So…don’t follow the evidence, follow your beliefs?

    I said precisely the opposite.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Well bless his heart. His motives are certainly noble. But the problem is not a lack of evidence for God. Even the ‘simplest’ cell on earth testifies to the craftsmanship of God

    First-Ever Blueprint of ‘Minimal Cell’ Is More Complex Than Expected – Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae’s transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation.
    “At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected,”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....173027.htm

    To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers – July 2012
    Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That’s a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,,
    The bioengineers, led by Stanford’s Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What’s fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell’s lifecycle processes.,,,
    ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore’s Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that’s only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,,
    http://www.theatlantic.com/tec.....rs/260198/

    Thus the problem is not a lack of evidence. The problem turns out to be one of the heart not one of the head,,,

    Romans 1:19-23
    19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
    21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

    John 3:19
    This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

    As far as rigorous ‘proof’ for God, the rigorous ‘proof’ for God is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. Dr. Holcomb puts it succinctly like this:

    The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site
    Excerpt: When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary.
    The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,,
    http://justinholcomb.com/2012/.....god-exist/

    This ‘proof’ for God is more formally laid out in Godel’s incompleteness theorem

    “In an elegant mathematical proof, introduced to the world by the great mathematician and computer scientist John von Neumann in September 1930, Gödel demonstrated that mathematics was intrinsically incomplete. Gödel was reportedly concerned that he might have inadvertently proved the existence of God, a faux pas in his Viennese and Princeton circle. It was one of the famously paranoid Gödel’s more reasonable fears.”
    George Gilder, in Knowledge and Power : The Information Theory of Capitalism and How it is Revolutionizing our World (2013), Ch. 10: Romer’s Recipes and Their Limits

    How Godel’s theorem effects cosmology and physics is gone over in the next few quotes

    Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel (ref. on cite), halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.”
    Cf., Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010) @ 15-6

    “Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons…fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time.”
    Stanley Jaki – Cosmos and Creator – 1980, pg. 49

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Godel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    A small spectral gap – the energy needed to transfer an electron from a low-energy state to an excited state – is the central property of semiconductors. In a similar way, the spectral gap plays an important role for many other materials.,,,
    Using sophisticated mathematics, the authors proved that, even with a complete microscopic description of a quantum material, determining whether it has a spectral gap is, in fact, an undecidable question.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    Here is a paper by Ewert and Marks

    A Mono-Theism Theorem: Gödelian Consistency in the Hierarchy of Inference – Winston Ewert and Robert J. Marks II – June 2014
    Abstract: Logic is foundational in the assessment of philosophy and the validation of theology. In 1931 Kurt Gödel derailed Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica by showing logically that any set of consistent axioms will eventually yield unknowable propositions. Gödel did so by showing that, otherwise, the formal system would be inconsistent. Turing, in the first celebrated application of Gödelian ideas, demonstrated the impossibility of writing a computer program capable of examining another arbitrary program and announcing whether or not that program would halt or run forever. He did so by showing that the existence of a halting program can lead to self-refuting propositions. We propose that, through application of Gödelian reasoning, there can be, at most, one being in the universe omniscient over all other beings. This Supreme Being must by necessity exist or have existed outside of time and space. The conclusion results simply from the requirement of a logical consistency of one being having the ability to answer questions about another. The existence of any question that generates a self refuting response is assumed to invalidate the ability of a being to be all-knowing about the being who was the subject of the question.
    http://robertmarks.org/REPRINT.....heorem.pdf

    And here is another paper that proved that Godel’s ontological proof for God was correct:

    Godel’s ontological proof: Computer Scientists ‘Prove’ God Exists – Oct. 23, 2013
    Excerpt: Two scientists have formalized a theorem regarding the existence of God penned by mathematician Kurt Gödel.,,,
    researchers,, say they have actually proven,, a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel,,,
    Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Gödel’s proof was correct,,,
    http://www.spiegel.de/internat.....28668.html

    Of note, although most people, as well as theologians, philosophers and logicians, would certainly think that proving Godel’s ontological argument for the existence of God logically true, and consistent, was a pretty big deal, it seems the author of the article (and researchers?) were more impressed with the advance in computer programming that it represented than they were impressed with the fact that they proved Godel’s proof was actually true. This is how the author of the article put it:

    “and the real news isn’t about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology.”

    I think someone may have their priorities a bit confused in that article.

    Like I said previously, the problem is one of the heart, not one of the head.

    And here are a couple of papers offering a Biblical view of Godel’s proof

    Taking God Out of the Equation – Biblical Worldview – by Ron Tagliapietra – January 1, 2012
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.
    1. Validity … all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.
    2. Consistency … no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.
    3. Completeness … all statements made in the system are either true or false.
    The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He (Godel) summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.
    Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.
    Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).
    http://www.answersingenesis.or...../equation#

    A BIBLICAL VIEW OF MATHEMATICS
    Vern Poythress – Doctorate in theology, PhD in Mathematics (Harvard)
    15. Implications of Gödel’s proof
    B. Metaphysical problems of anti-theistic mathematics: unity and plurality
    Excerpt: Because of the above difficulties, anti-theistic philosophy of mathematics is condemned to oscillate, much as we have done in our argument, between the poles of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. Why? It will not acknowledge the true God, wise Creator of both the human mind with its mathematical intuition and the external world with its mathematical properties. In sections 22-23 we shall see how the Biblical view furnishes us with a real solution to the problem of “knowing” that 2 + 2 = 4 and knowing that S is true.
    http://www.frame-poythress.org.....thematics/

  13. 13
    rvb8 says:

    The problem I see here is one as old as ID itself, which can trace its origins to the dawn of humanity, when we were awed by the world in which we lived, and sought answers to explain that grandeuer.

    The problem is this; we are alsways supposed to wait for the evidence, it is just around the corner, or the Infometrics Lab (or whatever) is publishing soon, just wait.

    This ‘wunderkind’ will prove God, just you wait and see. I’m done waiting where is the evidence?

    The evidence of science is out there now. ‘Talkorigins’, is positively awash with evidence, even Wikipedia has a marvellous post on, ‘The Fossil Record’ the list is nearly inexhaustable.

    I know this does not sway you, but compare it to; ‘the kid will prove mathematically God’s existance.’

    No,he won’t!

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, rubbish. Functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, on a trillion member observation base backed by quite plausible analysis, is strong evidence of design. The world of life is full of such FSCO/I. Fine tuned complex functional organisation, ditto, and it is a dominant feature of the cosmos keyed to the basis for C-chemistry, aqueous medium terrestrial planet cell based life. Then, think of grounding responsible, rational freedom required to have real discussion. All these and massively more are strong evidence for design of the world of life, design of the cosmos and for the ground of mind and moral government being the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. Playing at selectively hyperskeptical dismissals that in effect tries to pretend that dismissal of evidence is tantamount to making it go poof into non existence would be funny if it were not so sad. KF

    PS: And, I should add personally, if it were not for the God who answers prayers by miracles, I would have been dead decades ago. Childish rhetorical games of dismissal do not answer to that kind of stark reality.

  15. 15
    Marfin says:

    rvb8- PLEASE STOP, Please stop making statements as though you have researched and understand what you are talking about, EG the fossil record. You did the same with the Miller/Urey experiment , you state some test, branch, or phrase from science as though its a given that it shows full scientific support for evolution and atheism , but you don`t understand with any depth the subject matter at hand.Now if I am wrong in this and you want to enter in to an in depth discussion on the fossil record I am sure that I and many other who post on this site would be delighted to take up your challenge.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    rvb8 states

    The evidence of science is out there now. ‘Talkorigins’, is positively awash with evidence, even Wikipedia has a marvellous post on, ‘The Fossil Record’ the list is nearly inexhaustable.

    Actually it is true that the evidence is ‘out there now’ and we are ‘positively awash with evidence’, but it is not the type of evidence that rvb8 desperately wants to believe in in his rebellion from God. The evidence from modern science unambiguously supports Theism:

    Theism compared to Materialism/Naturalism – a comparative overview of the major predictions of each philosophy – video
    https://youtu.be/QQ9iyCmPmz8

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. –

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).-

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). –

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. –

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. –

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’(C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

    14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

    15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.

    16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).

    As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’

    The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uHST2uFPQY&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=4

    That Christianity should provide an empirically backed solution to the much sought out “Theory of Everything”, i.e. a primary reason for why the universe exists, should not really be all that surprising since, number 1, modern science was born out of the Christian worldview, and, number 2, the belief that there should even be a unification between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, (i.e. a mathematical theory of everything), does not follow from the math, but is a belief that is born out of Theistic presuppositions (S. Fuller), and, number 3, Christianity ‘predicts’ that “in him all things were created”

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  17. 17
    bb says:

    rvb8,

    You have no materialistic proof for how you shifted from Christianity to Atheism. Once you can give a cogent explanation for your own experience, maybe then you might have a leg to stand on.

  18. 18
    ppolish says:

    A time was you were cool if you were spiritual (Timothy Leary influence). Then it became cool to be a nerd/geek (Bill Nye / NDTyson influence). Next phase will be interesting….

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CDDMk6FCYIk

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Or related note to having ‘proof’ for God:

    Binary Pulsar Affirms General Relativity and Cosmic Creation Event By Dr. Hugh Ross – October 10th, 2016
    Excerpt: The most rigorous and compelling proof that the universe was created by an Agent that transcends space and time comes from the theory of general relativity. The best confirmation that general relativity is a true theory comes from measurements on the binary pulsar B1913+16. Thanks to a new study, that best confirmation has now become even better.,,,
    Even before the publication of Weisberg and Huang’s paper, general relativity ranked as the most exhaustively tested and best-proven principle in physics. With the addition of Weisberg and Huang’s research findings, general relativity is now even more exhaustively tested and better proven. Thanks to Weisberg and Huang’s additional tests of general relativity’s veracity, the conclusions of the space-time theorems are now even more solid than they were before.,,,
    The most potent of the space-time theorems, the one proven by Arvind Borde, Alexander Vilenkin, and Alan Guth, states that all cosmological models are subject to an initial space-time singularity, regardless of assumptions about homogeneity, isotropy (or lack thereof), or energy conditions, including cosmological models that invoke an early hyper-inflation event.9 This beginning of space and time implies that an Agent operating from beyond space and time must have caused the universe to exist.
    About a year after the publication of the theorem, Alexander Vilenkin wrote in a book, “With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”10 That problem is a causal Agent who transcends space and time. Such a causal Agent matches the description of the God of the Bible.
    http://www.reasons.org/blogs/t.....tion-event

  20. 20
    ppolish says:

    The evidence for a Creator God has always existed, but previous proofs have typically come from Philosophy, Logic, or Metaphysics. These days it is increasing coming from Physics and Cosmology. Exciting times, thanks for the infos BA77:)

  21. 21
    rvb8 says:

    Marfin,
    you are right, as I have said umpteen times, ‘I am no exoert in any of these fields.’

    However your, and your co-posters patronizing demeanor is simply not earned, it is assumed.

    I mention these sites, (and I’ll add the absolutely stunning onezoom.com) because they are ubiquitous, prolific, and supported by organizations of worldwide standing that I trust. What else can a curious rank amateur do, but follow the most rigorously, scientifically, supported data?

    When I say there are ‘mountains’ of evidence, that is not hyperbole, it is a mere statement of fact.

    You say you will discuss the fossil record with me when I decide to be serious. The simple fact is I need to know if you are qualified to do this; I seriously doubt it, therefore I read Neil Shubin. I do not go to sites such as this for a serious science discussion. I go to sites such as this to detemine your research progress; todate zero.

    ID seems to think this mass of evidence some how points to a validation that their fringe ideas are a threat to established evolutionary theory, it does not.

    No lab on earth is using the Design Inferrance to design experiments, no lab on earth is using Irreducible Complexity to explain patterns in life.

    I am a happy, curious, rank amateur. Convince me with some evidence, and I’ll pay attention.

    Also when I say I trust scientists over psudo-scientists, this is not elitism. It can not possibly be elitism when the person spends their life working towards obtaining one piece of hard evidence to support a theory; Peter and Rosemary Grant’s lifetime of work on the evolution of beak sizes on the Galapogos springs to mind.

  22. 22
    Querius says:

    rvb8 demonstrates a new scientific method:

    This ‘wunderkind’ will prove God, just you wait and see. I’m done waiting where is the evidence?

    This question reminds me of all the missing fossil evidence for evolution that we’re all still patiently waiting for after 150 years.

    And it also reminds me of the unanswered question posed to rvb8: On what grounds does an atheistic materialist consider abortion or eating human protein immoral, especially when it comes from the nutritious tissue of unaware “baby burgers” that can keep thousands of starving people people alive?

    Hurry up, We’re waiting.

    -Q

  23. 23
    rvb8 says:

    ‘Q’,

    I think we may have got our wires crossed again. You do realise the quote above by me is ironic? That is the article is about a 9 year old maths whizz who is going to prove God through maths, and I am mocking that?

    As to my non-response to your absurd hypothetical. No, I won’t eat babies. You say I have no moral basis with which to back up that position? Try this, ‘It’s wrong to eat babies.’

    Now you will arrive with a bleak, endless, philisophophical tract, explaining why, as an atheist I can not have that position. And yet I do! Now how can you analyse that anomoly. I’m tired of these shallow created, so called, ‘moral conumdrums’. For an atheist they are rather simple.

    We follow the idea Confucious espoused several centuries before Christ, but in a variation of wording, the great man said; ‘Don’t do unto others, what you don’t want others to do unto you.’

  24. 24
    Querius says:

    rvb8,

    As to my non-response to your absurd hypothetical. No, I won’t eat babies.

    Ah, so you admit the tissue involved in abortion are “babies.”

    You say I have no moral basis with which to back up that position? Try this, ‘It’s wrong to eat babies.’

    But this is just unwanted, unaware, lifeless hominid protein that you’re insisting is wrong for starving people to eat. Leopards commonly prey on hominids for food. Is it “wrong” for them to do so?

    Or is it just wrong for you and OK for anyone else who has a different preference? Do you have a problem with thinly sliced baby sushi being sold at stores?

    What right do you have in making the blanket statement above that “eating babies is wrong”? Are you God?

    -Q

  25. 25
    rvb8 says:

    “Ah, so you admit the tissue involved in abortion are “babies.”

    No, it’s fetal tissue, and I wouldn’t eat that either and for the same reason.

    ‘Q’, pay attention to the suffering of the living, and less to those you think are fully human, but will not become individuals. If you spent half the time and effort worrying about homeless, unwanted ‘real’ children, you might make it to the moral area we atheists occupy.

    That’s it! Bye!

  26. 26
    Marfin says:

    rvb8-I am 100% in support of science,and if you understood what science is you would realise that . Science does not take a position, it is just a methodology , so using science please tell me how do you test that any given fossil is an ancestor to any other given fossil,once again I await your answer.

  27. 27
    Marfin says:

    rvb8- I suppose you actually believed Lance Armstrong was not on performance enhancing drugs, seriously You need to be more sceptical, but what about all those scientific based tests for drug use he passed, yeah you need to follow the money and power,and see what wins out truth or peoples ,position, power and bank balance.Science is done and run by people , people are not as honest and unbiased as they should be.By the way what treatment was dished out to those who questioned the untouchable Lance,the record shows , abuse,law suits,threats,
    and its the same for anyone who questions the position of those in powerful positions , so if you question the evidence for evolution be ready for the same threats and abuse.

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, it seems to me that by science you by and large really mean popular science information dominated by evolutionary materialistic scientism as an ideology. This ideology is self referentially incoherent (as it inescapably undermines the rationally and responsibly free mind), and it lacks any capacity to address moral foundations. None of that prevents it from being an influential ideology. One that is doing serious harm to our civilisation. I suggest you would be well advised to re-think. KF

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    rvb8 states:

    If you spent half the time and effort worrying about homeless, unwanted ‘real’ children, you might make it to the moral area we atheists occupy.

    Really??? I happened to be homeless for many years and I recall very, very, few atheists going out of their way to help me during those many years. Whereas, on the other hand, I met very many Christians who lived selfless, self-sacrificial, lives on behalf of helping the homeless. Putting others before themselves. Many times they did the most thankless tasks for others. How they could do such menial tasks day in and day out, all for the sake of less fortunate others, was something that was beyond me. I consider some of the Christians that I met, that work in the area of helping the homeless, some of the most Godly people I have ever met in my life. I consider them saints in the true sense of the word. To this day I am amazed at the inner strength and faith they displayed, day in and day out, in such conditions.

    For people to deny themselves for the sake of helping others is simply something that makes no sense under atheistic materialism. In fact, under the auspices of social Darwinism within Nazi Germany, many times the Nazis justified killing people simply because they considered them ‘useless eaters’.

    Ben Stein “Useless Eaters” 4:49 minute mark – excerpt from ‘Expelled’ documentary
    https://youtu.be/_mo3VRBHAzo?t=290

  30. 30
    Vy says:

    and I’ll add the absolutely stunning onezoom.com

    Is that a real site?

    I just get a blank white page.

    We follow the idea Confucious espoused several centuries before Christ, but in a variation of wording, the great man said; ‘Don’t do unto others, what you don’t want others to do unto you.’

    When did Confucius become an Atheist? Or do you think poaching morality from Confucianism is any less hypocritical than poaching from Christianity?

  31. 31

    bornagain77 @ 29: Don’t ever worry about what rvb8 says. He is a swine…and you know the saying about casting pearls before swine.

  32. 32
    rvb8 says:

    TWSYF,
    “he is a swine.”

    Thank you, have a nice day.

  33. 33
    Querius says:

    Hi all,

    Notice that rvb8 did not answer the questions, except to affirm his food preferences based on . . . his preferences.

    But notice this:

    ‘Q’, pay attention to the suffering of the living, and less to those you think are fully human, but will not become individuals.

    Rvb8 is telling me what I should do or not do as if he were God. Why?

    If you spent half the time and effort worrying about homeless, unwanted ‘real’ children, you might make it to the moral area we atheists occupy.

    And now rvb8 is moralizing like a Bible-thumping preacher, shoving his values down my throat!

    Left as poor little orphans are the questions that rvb8 callously brushed aside:

    – Leopards commonly prey on hominids for food. Is it “wrong” for them to do so?

    – Is unaware, lifeless hominid protein “wrong” for starving people to eat?

    These are important questions that have the potential to end world hunger!

    While we understand that there are some foods that rvb8 doesn’t prefer to eat, which might also include some vegetables for all we know, but is it actually “wrong” to eat some things?

    And what makes it wrong?

    -Q

  34. 34
    rvb8 says:

    Vy,

    try again, perhaps push the mouse button a little harder.

    Browse ‘onezoom’ and enjoy, as I do:)

    Keep clicking on the ladybird to see how late ‘we’ arrive on the seen, it’s really quite humbling. That is, if this emotion exists within people who have already concluded arrogantly that, ‘we’ are just the bees knees!

    We, as eukaryotes are of course on the outliers of life, pretty insignificant, and sure not to last long in the scheme of things. But, be happy that the vast, vast majority of life will survive, to perhaps give it another, and better shot.

  35. 35
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @29,

    I happened to be homeless for many years and I recall very, very, few atheists going out of their way to help me during those many years. Whereas, on the other hand, I met very many Christians who lived selfless, self-sacrificial, lives on behalf of helping the homeless.

    Wow, I’m delighted to hear that Christians were so helpful to you!

    -Q

  36. 36
    ppolish says:

    OneZoom lets one sponsor a critter. I sponsored a pig oink. Looked for chimp/pig to no avail.

  37. 37
    Marfin says:

    rvb8-once again you refuse to answer my question about any topic once it goes beyond a soundbite.
    So once again rvb8 please tell me scientifically how do you test any given fossil is ancestral to any other given fossil.

  38. 38
    Vy says:

    Vy,

    try again, perhaps push the mouse button a little harder.

    I’ve done that and pressed pretty much every key on my keyboard.
    Just to try out, I changed the url to .org and it works, might wanna review your posts before posting.

    Browse ‘onezoom’ and enjoy, as I do:)

    It’s not much better than the terrible TalkOrigins website, at least it seems a bit better structured. I was expecting much more.

    And you might wanna update your understanding of the only thing on this Earth that evolves – the theory of evolution – the Darwinian “tree” of life is a myth.

    That is, if this emotion exists within people who have already concluded arrogantly that, ‘we’ are just the bees knees!

    We, as eukaryotes are of course on the outliers of life, pretty insignificant, and sure not to last long in the scheme of things. But, be happy that the vast, vast majority of life will survive, to perhaps give it another, and better shot.

    Enough of this Darwinian claptrap!

  39. 39
    Marfin says:

    rvb8 You never did answer my question re fossil ancestry did you.
    Your blind faith (faith without evidence) amazes me , and your trust in scientist`s rather than science shows why you believe what you believe.

  40. 40
    Querius says:

    Marfin,

    Rvb8 leaves most questions unanswered here since it’s so much easier to simply make new unsupported assertions and ad hominem attacks.

    However his blind faith is very robust, energized by a relentless aversion to accountability before God.

    -Q

Leave a Reply