Ravi Zacharias - no deathbed conversion to atheism. R.I.P.

[skepticalbip]

I'm just saying that it may be difficult task for theists to defend their faith on this forum for a number of reasons.

This is true.

I don't find it difficult.

There is a hell of a difference between asserting something and defending the assertion. Someone can continually assert that there is a god just as someone can continually assert that there are unicorns. Neither assertion is a defense of the assertions.

I think it's the atheists who struggle defending theirs.

Why would you think that it is a struggle to defend seeing no reason to believe something for which there is no reason to accept.

 

[Learner]

Um yes as I explained in the response to Rheas post. Sure... the obvious...theoretical to later become applied physics like missiles and airplanes....well witin our means. Multi-universes...expanding universes well... its still sci-fi.

then feel free to actually point out a flaw in the math, Learner! Or show the exact point where the physicist stops working within his or her speciality and moves to making-shit-up. Either one would be good.

The math could very well be mathematically sound in that respect, but it doesn't mean it's reality! Just as there are mathematical models for multi-universes and dimensions. In regards to Tesla having issues with Einstiens equations. He had issues with them only because he had his own particular theory. And I DO know people are still working within their specialities (some may have moved to other areas).

Because i suspect you just look at the conclusion and reject the notion. Like certain flavors of apologists are wont to do.

Well we don't know whether they are right or not... or rather, until demonstrated. I don't reject them as being theories... only if these are claimed to be actually fact.

That you reject the idea, or think it has to be reproduced in a lab doesn't make it any less science. Just that you creationists use 'the lab' the way horror movie virgins use a crucifix.

You can do science at home, but I'd say here, that a kitted-out lab would be more likely to have a better environment for testing things, unless you were fortunate enough to have that at home.

You'll note as the experimental physicist says in the video I posted above: they are still testing general-relativity decades later. (I'd probably quote mine that as text too)

Um, yes. Still testing. Meaning there's a lot to know, and they're still exploring it. Still finding new implications, new applications.
You probably think 'still testing' means it's 'only a theory?' and not yet accepted as fact? Yeah, that would be quote-mining.

You have a lot to learn, Learner. You should start any time now.

"Still testing and there's lots to know." That's what I say all the time - I'm with you on that. Just as there are those who are also, still researching and studying the bible too.

I was eager some years ago, but become focused on the theology these last few years, but yes lots to learn and catch up.

 

[Rhea]

The math could very well be mathematically sound in that respect, but it doesn't mean it's reality!

Here’s the thing, and I repeat. The theoretical math predicts things. And you can very often test that to see if it works.

Both the theoretical math and the empirical science. have a strong track record. They predict things well. When they don’t, other scientists come and refine it. The VAST MAJORTY OF THE TIME, science has used reliable methods to accurately predict that the baloon will rise, the plane won’t fall, the fire won’t explode, the sky won’t rain, the oil will kill the fish, the crops will grow better and the lights will stay on.

Religion has never once, ever, made a reliable prediction.

Science is FUN when we keep testing. Sometimes we do it to comfirm, sometimes to discover.
It’s ALWAYS more reliable than the Religious Method.

“Still testing,” doesn’t mean we know as little as, say, what heaven is like (which is absolutely nothing.)
“Still Testing” doesn’t mean we know as little as whether drinking bitter waters will abort a fetus conceived out of wedlock. Or whether a worlwide flood happened. Or whether a guy named Yeshua did,’t actually go into a garden in gethsemene and just shout, “fuuuuuck!!”
Still testing means thoughtful experiments to determine the repeatability of a claim.

“Still testing” means your plane won’t fall. And it won’t fall tomorrow, either.

 

[Learner]

.

Both the theoretical math and the empirical science. have a strong track record. They predict things well. When they don’t, other scientists come and refine it. The VAST MAJORTY OF THE TIME, science has used reliable methods to accurately predict that the baloon will rise, the plane won’t fall, the fire won’t explode, the sky won’t rain, the oil will kill the fish, the crops will grow better and the lights will stay on.

Empirical science sort of has a stronger track record than theoretical science. I mean... how do you empirically test an expanding universe? I suppose anything is possible with mathematics - there's someone probably out-there trying to devise the math for time-travel...which doesn't neccessarily mean humans have to do the travelling in the theory of course because of human physical constraints.

Religion has never once, ever, made a reliable prediction.

Well I don't know... we do like the notion of prophecy.

Science is FUN when we keep testing. Sometimes we do it to comfirm, sometimes to discover.
It’s ALWAYS more reliable than the Religious Method.

The bible is reliable in other ways. That we should be truthful, trustworthy and faithful etc..

“Still testing,” doesn’t mean we know as little as, say, what heaven is like (which is absolutely nothing.)
“Still Testing” doesn’t mean we know as little as whether drinking bitter waters will abort a fetus conceived out of wedlock. Or whether a worlwide flood happened. Or whether a guy named Yeshua did,’t actually go into a garden in gethsemene and just shout, “fuuuuuck!!”
Still testing means thoughtful experiments to determine the repeatability of a claim.

“Still testing” means your plane won’t fall. And it won’t fall tomorrow, either.

There is a verse that says "test all things". I should imagine this would apply to everything in our everday lives in the 'modern' world.

 

[Rhea]

Empirical science sort of has a stronger track record than theoretical science. I mean... how do you empirically test an expanding universe?

Oh. Seriously - you don’t know this?

Well. Pull up a chair. This stuff is fascinating. First of ll, you do know that the prediction of an expanding universe was math done on observations, right? Are you still with me? Astronomers saw stuff in their telescopes hat they could not explain. Mathemematicians, said, Well, IF this and this and this were true, that woul explain what you saw. So the astronomers said, well, if THAT were true then we’d see this and this and this. verybody! Go look! Anybody see that? Wait! YES! I see that! I never looked for that before, but the theoretical model suggested we should see it, so we all looked, and, sure as shit, there it was the whole time!

That’s how it works.


May I suggest to you the biweekly magazine “Science News”? It’s a great mag, full of neato science stuff.

I suppose anything is possible with mathematics - there's someone probably out-there trying to devise the math for time-travel...which doesn't neccessarily mean humans have to do the travelling in the theory of course because of human physical constraints.

If we live in a matrix, then time travel is possible. Ever think of that?

Well I don't know... we do like the notion of prophecy.

Sure you like it, but the track record is, like, worse than blind chance because they try to predict spectacular stuff and it just never happens.

Science is FUN when we keep testing. Sometimes we do it to comfirm, sometimes to discover.
It’s ALWAYS more reliable than the Religious Method.

The bible is reliable in other ways. That we should be truthful, trustworthy and faithful etc..

That is not a prediction, Learner. You know that, right?
It’s also what was written down by other humans hundreds of years earlier. You know that, too, right?

There is a verse that says "test all things". I should imagine this would apply to everything in our everday lives in the 'modern' world.

Except there’s another verse taht says, “never test god.”
So again, it turns out to be a useless book for learning anything.


I repeat. Religion never discovers anything.
It never predicts anything reliably.

It has no practical use in keeping a plane in the sky or the electricity on.
It will never make an experiment succeed without math and science.

 

[skepticalbip]

Empirical science sort of has a stronger track record than theoretical science. I mean... how do you empirically test an expanding universe?

An expanding universe is not 'tested" in a basement laboratory. The expanding universe is 'tested' by observing the universe. Galactic clusters are observed to be moving apart from each other. Within clusters, some galaxies are observed to be moving toward each other and some colliding. The Andromeda galaxy will merge with our Milky Way galaxy in about another 4.5 billion years.

'Testing' in science is frequently through observation rather than a controlled experiment.

I suppose anything is possible with mathematics - there's someone probably out-there trying to devise the math for time-travel...which doesn't neccessarily mean humans have to do the travelling in the theory of course because of human physical constraints.

???

Science is FUN when we keep testing. Sometimes we do it to comfirm, sometimes to discover.
It’s ALWAYS more reliable than the Religious Method.

The bible is reliable in other ways. That we should be truthful, trustworthy and faithful etc..

The Bible is reliable in that we know how much space it takes in the bookshelf. As for it being a guide for life, the Bible has a hell of a lot of vicious stuff that any reasonable person should condemn.

“Still testing,” doesn’t mean we know as little as, say, what heaven is like (which is absolutely nothing.)
“Still Testing” doesn’t mean we know as little as whether drinking bitter waters will abort a fetus conceived out of wedlock. Or whether a worlwide flood happened. Or whether a guy named Yeshua did,’t actually go into a garden in gethsemene and just shout, “fuuuuuck!!”
Still testing means thoughtful experiments to determine the repeatability of a claim.

“Still testing” means your plane won’t fall. And it won’t fall tomorrow, either.

There is a verse that says "test all things". I should imagine this would apply to everything in our everday lives in the 'modern' world.

'Testing' of already proven models in science is for the purpose refining or better defining the model. Newtonian mechanics were precise enough to land probes on Mars but Relativity gives us better resolution.

 

[Learner]

An expanding universe is not 'tested" in a basement laboratory. The expanding universe is 'tested' by observing the universe. Galactic clusters are observed to be moving apart from each other. Within clusters, some galaxies are observed to be moving toward each other and some colliding. The Andromeda galaxy will merge with our Milky Way galaxy in about another 4.5 billion years.

'Testing' in science is frequently through observation rather than a controlled experiment.

Not in a basement laboratory?

Oh dear, I will have to sleep on it for a bit.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The math could very well be mathematically sound in that respect, but it doesn't mean it's reality!

but if the math is sound, what are you using to complain that it's notvreality?

The conclusion.

The basic creationist approach to science. If you don't like the conclusion, reject the science...desperately.

. In regards to Tesla having issues with Einstiens equations. He had issues with them only because he had his own particular theory.

i really don't think that's true. Source?

Well we don't know whether they are right or not... or rather, until demonstrated. I don't reject them as being theories... only if these are claimed to be actually fact.

Learner, all science is made ofbtheories. Even the science that has been supported by successful experiments.
The split between science and theory is an artificial one woth no purpose except to justify rejecting some science.

You can do science at home, but I'd say here, that a kitted-out lab would be more likely to have a better environment for testing things, unless you were fortunate enough to have that at home.

you're still pretending science has to be 'demonstrated' to be a 'fact.' You're grossly misusing terms, here.

 

[Learner]

Oh. Seriously - you don’t know this?

Well. Pull up a chair. This stuff is fascinating. First of ll, you do know that the prediction of an expanding universe was math done on observations, right? Are you still with me? Astronomers saw stuff in their telescopes hat they could not explain. Mathemematicians, said, Well, IF this and this and this were true, that woul explain what you saw. So the astronomers said, well, if THAT were true then we’d see this and this and this. verybody! Go look! Anybody see that? Wait! YES! I see that! I never looked for that before, but the theoretical model suggested we should see it, so we all looked, and, sure as shit, there it was the whole time!

That’s how it works.

An expanding universe is not 'tested" in a basement laboratory. The expanding universe is 'tested' by observing the universe. Galactic clusters are observed to be moving apart from each other. Within clusters, some galaxies are observed to be moving toward each other and some colliding. The Andromeda galaxy will merge with our Milky Way galaxy in about another 4.5 billion years.

Are you both telling me, you DO have faith?

Are you both saying you believe we have had all those eons and eons of time to "observe" ALL of the above expanding universe? Empirical tests?

It's NOT true observation - It's not actually seeing the process in work. It was based on an interpretation of the redshift/ hubble law (disputed among scientists) i.e. there are flaws.

sorry a bit tired to answer individually, it was way past my bed-time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's NOT true observation - It's not actually seeing the process in work.

'true' observations?

Learner, when scientists say 'repeatable observations' they do NOT only mean eyewitness to the event. Your distinctions of TRUE observations is FALSE.

 

[aupmanyav]

So yes, I can easily acknowledge that religionist-scientists can come up with reliable outcomes. And that they NEVER EVER use their religion to accomplish it.

I am not a scientist, I am a science lover science follower.And I am a religionist - Advaita Hnduism (non-duality - this because we started with energy at the time of Big Bang). My beliefs and science as exactly the same. Yeah, I am a strong atheist, do not believe in existence of souls, heaven, hell, reincarnation, etc.

 

[aupmanyav]

Angry? How do you know you have no cancer?

Not at all. Never really. Just surprised. People in the US talk of people who are not at all known or relevant in India. Zacharia was such, and so was Yodananda.
And if I have, it will worry me the least. I have had my cup of life.

 

[skepticalbip]

Oh. Seriously - you don’t know this?

Well. Pull up a chair. This stuff is fascinating. First of ll, you do know that the prediction of an expanding universe was math done on observations, right? Are you still with me? Astronomers saw stuff in their telescopes hat they could not explain. Mathemematicians, said, Well, IF this and this and this were true, that woul explain what you saw. So the astronomers said, well, if THAT were true then we’d see this and this and this. verybody! Go look! Anybody see that? Wait! YES! I see that! I never looked for that before, but the theoretical model suggested we should see it, so we all looked, and, sure as shit, there it was the whole time!

That’s how it works.

An expanding universe is not 'tested" in a basement laboratory. The expanding universe is 'tested' by observing the universe. Galactic clusters are observed to be moving apart from each other. Within clusters, some galaxies are observed to be moving toward each other and some colliding. The Andromeda galaxy will merge with our Milky Way galaxy in about another 4.5 billion years.

Are you both telling me, you DO have faith?

Are you just engaging in word play rather than honest discussion?

Are you both saying you believe we have had all those eons and eons of time to "observe" ALL of the above expanding universe? Empirical tests?

More word play? The universe does not need to be observed from its beginning (if it began) until its thermal death (if it ends) to observe and know that the universe is currently expanding.

It's NOT true observation - It's not actually seeing the process in work. It was based on an interpretation of the redshift/ hubble law (disputed among scientists) i.e. there are flaws.

If you don't think it is "true observation" then you speak a very different language than the one used by us mere mortals.

And your "disputed among scientists" seems to be merely intended to be baselessly argumentative. If not then name two astronomers or cosmologists who maintain that the universe isn't currently expanding... I would like to read their theorys as to how the universe works. Even Fred Hoyle (the last astronomer I know of who resisted the BBT) gave up on his old steady state model and modified it to an expanding universe that was continually being renewed with new matter to keep the average density constant... from forty of fifty years ago until he died about twenty years ago.

 

[Lion IRC]

Angry? How do you know you have no cancer?

Not at all. Never really. Just surprised. People in the US talk of people who are not at all known or relevant in India. Zacharias was such, and so was Yodananda.

Yes, as I said in the Op, I probably never would have heard of Ravi Zacharias
if it weren't for New Atheism - which triggered a massive resurgence of Christian apologetics.

Getting atheists to stop talking about non-stamp collecting and start talking about God is something Richard Dawkins and Ravi Zacharias can both be proud of.

 

[DBT]

Atheists are simply responding to claims that are being made. If someone makes a questionable claims...why would it not be questioned?

Especially if they are fantastic claims, a Creator of the Universe, Eternal Life on offer....

 

[Rhea]

Are you both telling me, you DO have faith?

I going to not answer this just yet, because I suspect you are using two different meanings of faith, but trying to make a conclusion as if they were not different. So... hold that thought.

Although, while we’re holdng this thought, let’s ponder whether you KNOW that you are using two different meanings, or whether you really and truly do not know the difference. Either way, hold that thought.

Are you both saying you believe we have had all those eons and eons of time to "observe" ALL of the above expanding universe? Empirical tests?

I would not use the word “believe” because it is imprecise. Indeed, some people use it to mean that that accept a conclusion on no evidence. And other people use the SAME WORD to mean that they accept a conclusion based on substantial evidence, but it’s a conditional acceptance in case new evidence shows up. Still other people use the word to mean they think they are right, but their memory is faulty and they don’t want to claim perfection.

So you can see how fraught it is to use the word “believe” when precision is needed and perfectly clear alternatives are available.

So here’s what I conclude: The evidence that the universe is billions of years old has a pretty high level of consilience, wherein multiple different ways of measuring all come up with the same answer. And no ways of measuring come up with a fantastically different answer. Therefore, it becomes relatively confident to conclude that the consilient evidence points to a factual answer. It’s provisional, at this point, but I can say with near certainty that no BETTER conclusion is possible.

Moreover, the usefulness of the science that goes into those observations and measurements has so many other applications that make reliable salient predictions for my life that it inspires further confidence.

Religion, as has been noted, has never made a useful prediction, ever.

It's NOT true observation - It's not actually seeing the process in work.

A lot of people who don’t follow science say that if you didn’t see the tree fall, then it made no noise.
But, honestly, do you really conclude that?

Observation of other falling objects, including trees today suggest a strong confidence in the noise of the one that fell during the dinosaurs and then got buried in a river and later fossilized, only to become a stone exhibit in a national park in New Mexio.

Moreover, observation that any moving object can have pressure waves - and hence sound waves - measured from it adds voice to the evidence. And not only that but other evidence of sound can be found as well.

So do you REALLY “believe” that the tree that fell a million years ago made no noise because no one was there to make a “true observation”?

It was based on an interpretation of the redshift/ hubble law (disputed among scientists) i.e. there are flaws.

As far as I can tell, the dispute seems to be over how fast the universe is expanding, not whether the universe is expanding. Are you sure you know your science here? Are you sure you know it well enough to make this claim? Knowing that the dispute is about 5%-10% difference, not whether it is altogether wrong?

You are saying that you don’t know whether Usain Bolt made a world record because the two timers were off by a thousandth of a second, despite him breaking the world record by a tenth of a second.

Science is so fun, Learner, you should dive into it and Learner more.

sorry a bit tired to answer individually, it was way past my bed-time.

I hope you were up late reading at ScienceNews.org and learning about neat things like
Debate over the universe’s expansion rate may unravel physics. Is it a crisis?

Where you can read about how the questions about the hubble constant do not dispute the Big Bang, but rather whether there are more particles in the universe than we can see so far (perhaps because they do not emit light, for example)

Are you both telling me, you DO have faith?

I have faith that my seond glass of wine will be as tasty as my first.
Although even that is imprecise, isn’t it, since I’m using the same glass and just refilling it.
I only every have one glass of wine a night, I believe.

 

[DBT]

The word 'faith,' commonly used as a blanket term in reference to several separate and distinct concepts such as trust, confidence, reliance, in good will/good faith, etc, can be quite convenient for theists in their quest to justify theology.

 

[Learner]

It's NOT true observation - It's not actually seeing the process in work.

'true' observations?

Learner, when scientists say 'repeatable observations' they do NOT only mean eyewitness to the event. Your distinctions of TRUE observations is FALSE.

Take a look at the quote descriptions below. I responded with TRUE observation because of what's described in these posts... "Observing the MOVEMENT" of distant galactic stars ...is what they seem to be saying i.e. "eye-witnessing" the actual expamsion!"

Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
Oh. Seriously - you don’t know this?

Well. Pull up a chair. This stuff is fascinating. First of ll, you do know that the prediction of an expanding universe was math done on observations, right? Are you still with me? Astronomers saw stuff in their telescopes hat they could not explain. Mathemematicians, said, Well, IF this and this and this were true, that woul explain what you saw. So the astronomers said, well, if THAT were true then we’d see this and this and this. verybody! Go look! Anybody see that? Wait! YES! I see that! I never looked for that before, but the theoretical model suggested we should see it, so we all looked, and, sure as shit, there it was the whole time!

That’s how it works.
Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
An expanding universe is not 'tested" in a basement laboratory. The expanding universe is 'tested' by observing the universe. Galactic clusters are observed to be moving apart from each other. Within clusters, some galaxies are observed to be moving toward each other and some colliding. The Andromeda galaxy will merge with our Milky Way galaxy in about another 4.5 billion years.

Even as you say keith ...repeatable observations. It's still not enough, with all the time that we've had ... to ever notice any differences at all - to actually see any movement progression of distant star galaxies, between each of the observation sessions - not like we CAN, observing the movement of more local stars within our own star system.

 

[Learner]

Heard his name for the first time. Who cares!

This particular discussion was not for you then.

Thank you for caring enough for letting us know.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Even as you say keith ...repeatable observations. It's still not enough, with all the time that we've had ... to ever notice any differences at all - to actually see any movement progression of distant star galaxies, between each of the observation sessions - not like we CAN, observing the movement of more local stars within our own star system.

So, you think they're making shit up, when they say we have observed such motion? Really? No possibility that there's no deception on their part, just a lack of understanding the science on your part?

That's a little arrogant, innit? Especially for someone out to learn science?