[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> If you're only rejecting materialists who insist that everything is   
   >> ultimately due to natural causes and there's no room for the   
   >> supernatural, then I have no argument with you as I too reject that   
   >> type of materialism.   
   >   
   > I wouldn't really say I reject them entirely, I just reject their   
   > paradigm.  I am completely open to looking at their work.  I just might   
   > come to different conclusions.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>> Moving on from that, you state that what you describe as   
   >>>> "materialists" have detailed explanations for starting with the Big   
   >>>> Bang   
   >>>   
   >>> No I didn't, you just did.  To paraphrase myself, the materialist   
   >>> believes the answer to origins started with the Big Bang with no help   
   >>> from anything supernatural, and have succeeded in gaining consensus   
   >>> that they are correct for a variety of reasons.   
   >>>   
   >>>> but then reject their explanations on the basis that they have no   
   >>>> explanation for what *preceded* the Big Bang. That is a non sequitur;   
   >>>> the fact that science doesn't have an explanation and probably never   
   >>>> will have an explanation for what happened before the Big Bang has no   
   >>>> bearing on their explanation for what happened after it which is based   
   >>>> on the scientific evidence that has accumulated about what happened..   
   >>>   
   >>> Hogwash.  As above, I did not say I "reject their explanations"  In   
   >>> fact, I specifically stated "I am not referring to either that (the Big   
   >>> Bang) or inflation."   
   >>   
   >> What point are you trying to make then and what is the relevance of   
   >> scientists not knowing what preceded or initially caused the Big Bang   
   >> to the work they have done about what happened during and after the   
   >> Big Bang?   
   >   
   > Again, I specifically target ONLY the conditions before the event.  A   
   > materialist absolutely has to say those things have always existed.  The   
   > Laws of Science would tell you this is impossible, but in this case   
   > materialists have to ignore those laws.  The honest answer of course   
   > would be that they just don't know.  But they are unable to really say   
   > that because then they ultimately have to answer why they can ignore the   
   > Laws of Thermodynamics and basic logic and answer the question.  They   
   > cannot open the door to anything supernatural, so they have created the   
   > greatest brute fact of all time in that the stuff that went bang has   
   > always existed.   
   >   
   > The metaphysical answer has always been the same.  No matter how many   
   > theories, or death and rebirth events you imagine, you MUST get to an   
   > initial state.  Thus, that there is anything at all is proof of the   
   > existence of God.  The materialist would of course never accept that,   
   > hence "It has always existed."   
   >   
   > If you can agree on this logic, not the result...the logic, then the   
   > relevance of how science builds theories and experiments is apparent.   
   > For me individually, if the consensus of how the universe began starts   
   > with a faulty premise, an unscientific one at that, I must look at   
   > everything else they say under a microscope.   
   >   
   >>>> As noted above, your classification of anyone who accepts science as a   
   >>>> materialist is badly founded.,   
   >>>   
   >>> I didn't do this, but I'm sure you will continue to accuse me of it.  I   
   >>> consider that odd, and more importantly, dishonest on your part.   
   >>   
   >> See what I said above about materialists and scientists. You also need   
   >> to learn that when people misunderstand what you're saying, that is   
   >> more likely to do with the way you explained it than them being   
   >> dishonest.   
   >>   
   >> […]   
   >>   
   >>>> That review is still available on Google Groups; I'd really  love you   
   >>>> to read it and tell me what in it you disagree with,   
   >>>>   
   >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/z8Yq7lvkAfU/m/um8mt8MDAgAJ   
   >>>   
   >>> You appear to have the same idea of Intelligent Design and people who   
   >>> might think it is evident in creation as Mr. O.  I am not one of those   
   >>> people.  But, I will try and make time to read what you've asked.   
   >   
   > I did come across the book mentioned before, but didn't get it at the   
   > time, I believe because some of the reviews also claimed it was a rehash   
   > of ideas.  I did just buy it and it is in the library now, but I have   
   > several things I have to get through first.   
   >   
   > As far as your review and what I disagree with, until I actually read   
   > the book, I really don't have much to say.  Just two things.  First I   
   > kind of agree with your feelings on the God of the Gaps attacks, but I   
   > disagree with your statement, "what seems to be the standard ID argument   
   > that 'nothing else works so it *must* be an intelligent designer'   
   > without any suggestion as to how or why that designer did the things   
   > they did."  In fact, the two things seem to contradict each other in   
   > your writing, but it is a small point.  I just don't think these people   
   > are saying nothing else works.  They are saying the evidence is not a   
   > gap, it's a closed door.   
   >   
   >   
   >> Until you get time to read it, I will ask one of the questions that I   
   >> posed in it.   
   >>   
   >> I'm assuming that like myself, you believe in God someone with whom we   
   >> can have a personal relationship. How do you get from someone tweaking   
   >> with atoms and particles to that type of God, the one shown in the   
   >> Bible, how does it improve your understanding of God?   
   >>   
   >> I have posed this question to several religious believers who support   
   >> ID and reject the Theory of Evolution; none of them have made any   
   >> attempt to answer, hopefully you might.   
   >   
   > Before I could answer a question like that I would have to know exactly   
   > what you mean by "tweaking atoms and particles."  I have a feeling it is   
   > going to mean things we might not agree with about what is accepted or   
   > consensus.  Explain further if you wish.   
   >   
   >> […]   
   >>   
   >>>> No, I'm not making any judgement at all about how clever you are; on   
   >>>> the contrary, I highly respect anyone who has prepared to question and   
   >>>> challenge rather than just accepting what they are told. I do however   
   >>>> think you're coming to conclusions on very limited understanding and   
   >>>> need to broaden your thinking, possibly by broadening your reading.   
   >>>   
   >>> You were doing ok, right up to the end.  I will give you the benefit of   
   >>> the doubt and accept your explanation, though.   
   >>   
   >> I gave you several examples of wholly committed religious believers   
   >> who fully accept what science has to say both in regard to cosmology   
   >> and to the TOE and have indeed made significant direct contributions   
   >> to science. At least three of them - Collins, Polkinghorne and Miller   
   >> - have published books, articles and interviews explaining their views   
   >> and how they have no difficulty reconciling science and religious   
   >> belief. How much of their work have you read or work of others   
   >> explaining how the believe science and religion can be reconciled?   
   >   
   > Let's just say I am familiar with them all, though I don't think I have   
   > read Polkinghorne.  I have found it to be harmful that anyone with a   
   > Theistic or Design background will immediately get blacklisted and their   
   > work either banned or ignored.  But, that appears to be changing, and   
   > rather quickly it seems.  But, I suppose that's just a personal opinion.   
   >   It is always going to be a problem for creationists in our "modern"   
   > culture trying to convince anyone that there is a supernatural anything.   
   >   It's just the world we live in.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)