Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Shirina wrote:
Humans are easily fooled.

If I quote an author, I quote an author. If I choose to endorse an author’s quotes, I will say so. Until such time as I so say, any statement made by another person is speculative; accordingly, if the above-referenced statement pertains to me, it is a speculative statement.

RockOnBrother wrote:

.... I post within the jurisdictions of the Sovereign State of Texas and the United States of America; thus, I should quote whatever I choose to quote, as long I do so in accordance with the laws of the Sovereign State of Texas and the United States of America.

So every time you quote the Bible but do not endorse it, we must assume under the laws of Texas that the verse is pure speculation, so the Bible is untrue until such time as you say so.

Y-ORIGINS
Science and the Origin of Life.

Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=quotes

Arthur Eddington

Shirina wrote:
Arthur Eddington practiced astrophysics during a time when no one even knew that there were other galaxies. He lived in an age when religion was still heavily pervasive even among the scientific community. Incidentally, he was raised as a Quaker, so religious indoctrination was most likely present.

Arthur Eddington
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, OM, FRS^[1] (28 December 1882 – 22 November 1944) was a British astrophysicist of the early 20th century. The Eddington limit, the natural limit to the luminosity of stars, or the radiation generated by accretion onto a compact object, is named in his honor.

He is famous for his work regarding the theory of relativity. Eddington wrote a number of articles which announced and explained Einstein's theory of general relativity to the English-speaking world. World War I severed many lines of scientific communication and new developments in German science were not well known in England. He also conducted an expedition to observe the Solar eclipse of 29 May 1919 that provided one of the earliest confirmations of relativity, and he became known for his popular expositions and interpretations of the theory.

During World War I Eddington was Secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society, which meant he was the first to receive a series of letters and papers from Willem de Sitter regarding Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Eddington was fortunate in being not only one of the few astronomers with the mathematical skills to understand general relativity, but (owing to his internationalist and pacifist views) one of the few at the time who was still interested in pursuing a theory developed by a German physicist. He quickly became the chief supporter and expositor of relativity in Britain. He and Astronomer Royal Frank Watson Dyson organized two expeditions to observe a solar eclipse in 1919 to make the first empirical test of Einstein’s theory: the measurement of the deflection of light by the sun's gravitational field. In fact, it was Dyson’s argument for the indispensability of Eddington’s expertise in this test that allowed him to escape prison during the war.

After the war, Eddington travelled to the island of Príncipe near Africa to watch the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919. During the eclipse, he took pictures of the stars in the region around the Sun. According to the theory of general relativity, stars with light rays that passed near the Sun would appear to have been slightly shifted because their light had been curved by its gravitational field. This effect is noticeable only during eclipses, since otherwise the Sun's brightness obscures the affected stars. Eddington showed that Newtonian gravitation could be interpreted to predict half the shift predicted by Einstein.

Eddington's observations published the next year[4] confirmed Einstein's theory, and were hailed at the time as a conclusive proof of general relativity over the Newtonian model. The news was reported in newspapers all over the world as a major story. Afterward, Eddington embarked on a campaign to popularize relativity and the expedition as landmarks both in scientific development and international scientific relations.

It has been claimed that Eddington's observations were of poor quality and he had unjustly discounted simultaneous observations at Sobral, Brazil, which appeared closer to the Newtonian model, but a 1979 re-analysis with modern measuring equipment and contemporary software validated Eddington's results and conclusions.^[5]

Born - 28 December 1882, Kendal, England
Died - 22 November 1944 (aged 61), Cambridge, England
Residence - England
Nationality - English
Fields - Astrophysics
Institutions - University of Cambridge
Alma mater - University of Manchester, University of Cambridge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington

Eddington luminosity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Eddington luminosity, also referred to as the Eddington limit, is the maximum luminosity a body (such as a star) can achieve when there is balance between the force of radiation acting outward and the gravitational force acting inward. The state of balance is called hydrostatic equilibrium. When a star exceeds the Eddington luminosity, it will initiate a very intense radiation-driven stellar wind from its outer layers. Since most massive stars have luminosities far below the Eddington luminosity, their winds are mostly driven by the less intense line absorption.^[1] The Eddington limit is invoked to explain the observed luminosity of accreting black holes such as quasars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_limit

Y-ORIGINS
Science and the Origin of Life.

Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=quotes

RockOnBrother, Thursday 2 May 2013, 22:59
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p540-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#39905

As the study of physics continued, I slowly realized design on a macro scale. Just the fact that phenomena like all of the mind-bending aspects of Special and General Relativity can be precisely described mathematically pretty much blew me away. One day, maybe two years into college, somewhere around twenty years of age, these self-revelations caused me to admit that the universe I studied is designed. Shortly after that, the sure knowledge that I was permeated, inundated, and surrounded by design caused me to admit that the designed universe is caused by a designer.

I don’t see arguments “from design” as being very convincing. After all, given that the universe is the only one to which we have access (after all, by definition it is “all there is”), from what basis can we make the determination that the universe is or isn’t “fine-tuned”? Such a conclusion would require the ability for one to compare the nature of this universe to a multitude of other universes by which the apparent “fine-tunedness” of the universe might be properly adjudicated. From such an analysis, we might find that the universe is not as finely tuned as it could be, or that there is a greater range of permissibility for the “delicate balance” than we could have otherwise perceived. But the fact of the matter is that we have no other universe to compare ours to, so the anthropic principle yet reigns. Despite the appearances of unlikelihood, the chances of the universe coming into its particular arrangement is precisely 100%.

There is an evident need to arbitrate the competing claims on this thread, to establish whose "Expert" is more expert than anybody else's Expert.

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, OM, FRS[1] (28 December 1882 – 22 November 1944) was a British astrophysicist of the early 20th century. The Eddington limit, the natural limit to the luminosity of stars, or the radiation generated by accretion onto a compact object, is named in his honor.

Eddington: He regarded the tantalizing concern for a proof for the existence of God as of minor importance in comparison with "conviction of the revelation of a supreme God." For "consciousness alone determines the validity of a conviction."

Personal truth is truth.

It is personal truth related to the person only and even then it might not be truth. Just because the person believes it to be true doesn't make it true.

Vera Kistiakowsky, (MIT physicist): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=quotes

I here find myself in agreement with MIT physicist Vera Kistiakowsky.

Arno Allan Penzias
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics.

Penzias was born in Munich, Germany, the son of Justine (née Eisenreich) and Karl Penzias, who ran a leather business.^[2][3] At age six, he was among the Jewish children evacuated to Britain as part of the Kindertransport rescue operation. Some time later,^[4] his parents also fled Nazi Germany for the U.S., and the family settled in the Garment District of New York City in 1940. In 1946, Penzias became a naturalized citizen of the United States. He graduated from Brooklyn Technical High School in 1951 and received a bachelor's degree from the City College of New York in 1954. From Columbia University, he received his Master's degree in 1958 and his Ph.D. in 1962.^[5]

He went on to work at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey, where, with Robert Woodrow Wilson, he worked on ultra-sensitive cryogenic microwave receivers, intended for radio astronomy observations. In 1964, on building their most sensitive antenna/receiver system, the pair encountered radio noise which they could not explain.^[6] It was far less energetic than the radiation given off by the Milky Way, and it was isotropic, so they assumed their instrument was subject to interference by terrestrial sources. They tried, and then rejected, the hypothesis that the radio noise emanated from New York City. An examination of the microwave horn antenna showed it was full of pigeon droppings (which Penzias described as "white dielectric material"). After the pair removed the dung buildup, and the pigeons were shot (each physicist says the other ordered the deed), the noise remained. Having rejected all sources of interference, the pair published a paper announcing their findings. This was later identified by Robert Dicke ^[7] as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the radio remnant of the Big Bang. This allowed astronomers to confirm the Big Bang, and to correct many of their previous assumptions about it.

He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1975.[8] Penzias and Wilson received the 1978 Nobel Prize, sharing it with Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa (Kapitsa's work was unrelated to Penzias and Wilson's). In 1977, the two had received the Henry Draper Medal of the National Academy of Sciences.^[9] Penzias is also the recipient of The International Center in New York's Award of Excellence. In 1998, he was awarded the IRI Medal from the Industrial Research Institute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Allan_Penzias

If 99% of people thought you would not get burnt if you put your hand in the fire, presumably in your opinion you would take no notice of the 1% who said you would.

there has been many more occurances and discoveries that completely discredit his findings that presume life began by chance.

The actaull facts are related in the examples I gave

and if you do not accept the findings of the most respected scientists several of whom were evolutionists then their is little hope that anything you say can be considered as reasonable.

Vera Kistiakowsky.

Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics.

For believers, God is crack.

For fundamentalists, God is crack.

Only the defunct know whether such belief is worth a damn.

I think belief in God is like an addiction to drugs with all the physical and psychological dependency associated with addiction. It encompasses all of the characteristics of addiction like delusion, self-loathing, lying, denial, obsession, compulsion.

Since that time we have also had DNA and all that followed proves beyond any doubt that the highest intelligence is involved in the creation of all forms of life.

Since that time we have also had DNA and all that followed proves beyond any doubt that the highest intelligence is involved in the creation of all forms of life.

Paul Davies is a British astrophysicist and popular science author currently based at Arizona State University. An agnostic, much of his writing has focussed on the extraordinary "fine tuning" of the Universe that allows life to exist and why the universe's order and intelligibility defy a purely naturalistic explanation.

http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={12AF479A-6ED6-4F57-BBF6-D931469DC742}

Arguments Creationists Should Avoid - Answers in Genesis

Why should a Christian ministry maintain a list of arguments creationists should avoid? As a ministry, we want to honor God and represent Christ well when we defend His Word. This means using honest, intellectually sound arguments that are based in Scripture, logic, and scientific research. Because there are so many good arguments for a recent creation (which the Bible clearly teaches), we have no need to grasp at straws—arguments using questionable logic and tenuous or no evidence. Answers in Genesis is not willing to distort evidence or resort to bad logic to defend the Bible.

Furthermore, there is little harm in avoiding questionable arguments—or, at least, stating that certain interpretations of evidence are doubtful—since there are plenty of valid arguments with well-documented evidences against molecules-to-man evolution, atheism, and the like. Using bad arguments allows evolutionists to easily “refute” creationists by sidestepping the actual case for biblical creation. Even one instance of using a faulty argument can lead someone to write off creationism as pseudoscientific and dismiss creationists as shoddy researchers—or charlatans!

we cannot understand.

If not then explain.