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

[Politesse]

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.

 

[Learner]

Yet, unlike religion, science has enabled outstanding work on understanding the natural world and driving technological advancement.

Couldn't agree with you more...

I'd phrase it as: Religion isn't the same as science ... and science is not opposed to religion. Individuals in science, both religious and non-religious have contributed to the outstanding work.

 

[Learner]

The christian religion should be called Apologianity because it's got an army of excuse makers. Now we have excuse makers making excuses for the excuse makers.

Pretty much everyone comes under the Apologianity catagory then.

Not true. Vomit is vomit. Religious vomit is still vomit. So why the double standard?

Double speak?

It's like ... WOO is equal to Sci-Fi.

We ALL seem to have faith in something!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not true. Vomit is vomit. Religious vomit is still vomit. So why the double standard?

Double speak?

It's like ... WOO is equal to Sci-Fi.

We ALL seem to have faith in something!

What utter bullshit. You have faith in your woo because it's written in a book of woo. NO ONE who has faith in life on other planets does so because aliens are in Star Trek.
The two faith positions are nothing alike. No one sane uses your woo to support their science, though you and your ilk will use carefully filtered science to pretend your woo, or your belief in woo, can be justified.

 

[DBT]

Yet, unlike religion, science has enabled outstanding work on understanding the natural world and driving technological advancement.

Couldn't agree with you more...

I'd phrase it as: Religion isn't the same as science ... and science is not opposed to religion. Individuals in science, both religious and non-religious have contributed to the outstanding work.

Science and religion are complete opposites. Scientists may hold religious beliefs, but that is private and personal faith which is not related to their work in science.

 

[Learner]

The christian religion should be called Apologianity because it's got an army of excuse makers. Now we have excuse makers making excuses for the excuse makers.

Pretty much everyone comes under the Apologianity catagory then.


“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ”

― Nikola Tesla

He quoted on the internet....which i read on my tsblet...at the desk where i conduct training for operating nuclear missile fire control systems updated with the latest technology in computing and information acquisition.
I'm still trying to get my head around a missile gyroscope with no moving parts. No spinning inertial components, just lasers...somehow.

But still guides missiles to the intended target with demanding accuracy.
So, where exactly is the science 'excuse' being offered?

Obviously he wasn't talking about having numbers incorporated into... dialing into the machine, being that Tesla was himself both electrical and mechanical engineer who would need to have some understanding and knowledge to work with some measuring instrumentation. Natural real things as you posted the example above 'misslile guidance' etc. - that is easy/posiible to test, unlike, as he points out.... coming up with equations and mathematical models (a variety of sorts) beyond observation that some atheists believe in and oddly enough, who try to use them to argue their case with.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Not true. Vomit is vomit. Religious vomit is still vomit. So why the double standard?

Double speak?

It's like ... WOO is equal to Sci-Fi.

We ALL seem to have faith in something!

I've watched every episode of forensic files ever made. Never did a jury convict or acquit based on anything religious, like blaming a devil for a killing, or finding not-guilty because a god works in mysterious ways. Preachers and religious folk are really dumb jurors, trust me because I sat on a jury with one and she was the last person to come around to the facts.

No one was looking for invisible creatures at the crime scene or singing songs to saviors so they could have the truth revealed to them in any of those documentaries. Religion is quackery when it comes to knowledge and information. It's nothing less than sacred ignorance. Pious fraud artists are the real religious gangsters. Theirs is a different game because they simply prey on the ignorant.

 

[Rhea]

The christian religion should be called Apologianity because it's got an army of excuse makers. Now we have excuse makers making excuses for the excuse makers.

Is it really an army? The world's largest religion by a enormous margin, yet this secular website (with a google-searchable subforum devoted entirely to religious arguments) can only find maybe three Christian apologists willing to stop by on the regular. Where are all these teeming seas of apologists, don't they care about tilling the obviously prepared mission field?

This is a good question, but a double-edged sword. Because this forum would be a HIGHLY APPROPRIATE place for them to come and make their apologies for why mental gymnastics are required, but INSTEAD, they choose the highly inappropriate doorbell, office water cooler or government bully pulpit instead.

 

[Rhea]

He quoted on the internet....which i read on my tablet...at the desk where i conduct training for operating nuclear missile fire control systems updated with the latest technology in computing and information acquisition.
I'm still trying to get my head around a missile gyroscope with no moving parts. No spinning inertial components, just lasers...somehow.

But still guides missiles to the intended target with demanding accuracy.
So, where exactly is the science 'excuse' being offered?

Obviously he wasn't talking about having numbers incorporated into... dialing into the machine, being that Tesla was himself both electrical and mechanical engineer who would need to have some understanding and knowledge to work with some measuring instrumentation. Natural real things as you posted the example above 'misslile guidance' etc. - that is easy/posiible to test, unlike, as he points out.... coming up with equations and mathematical models (a variety of sorts) beyond observation that some atheists believe in and oddly enough, who try to use them to argue their case with.

Wait - is that what you think math equations are for?
And are you thinking laser missile guidance systems were developed without them?


I'm not a Tesla historian, so I could be wrong here, but I'm going to make a guess that as an electrical engineer he may have been arguing about the math analogs for electrical circuits and the electrical analogues for mechanical circuits and complaining about how at some point you have to actually test the real physical system.

But the mathematical models are absolutely necessary to find answers if you are not awash with money to conduct expensive and time-consuming physical tests all day. After you winnow out the non-viable answers via math models, THEN you have to, yes, eventually test the physical system.


But you, Learner, seem to be saying that he's talking about measurement systems, which, I really don't think he is. You have not shown an understand of what Tesla meant. Why did you decide to quote him?


Anyway - to sum up:

• Science demonstrates conclusively the reliability of things we depend on to be reliable. The methodology reduces errors and false promises. It produces confidence and measurable expectations of whether it will work. Despite Tesla's objections, it includes math models to achieve this.
• Religion has never once ever conclusively demonstrated a reliable outcome of anything, ever, not once.

 

[Keith&Co.]

He quoted on the internet....which i read on my tsblet...at the desk where i conduct training for operating nuclear missile fire control systems updated with the latest technology in computing and information acquisition.
I'm still trying to get my head around a missile gyroscope with no moving parts. No spinning inertial components, just lasers...somehow.

But still guides missiles to the intended target with demanding accuracy.
So, where exactly is the science 'excuse' being offered?

Obviously he wasn't talking about having numbers incorporated into... dialing into the machine, being that Tesla was himself both electrical and mechanical engineer who would need to have some understanding and knowledge to work with some measuring instrumentation.

um, no. That's exactly what he was talking about. The throretical physics which later became applied physics which became engineering. He just had not lived long enough to see the fruits of that research.

Natural real things as you posted the example above 'misslile guidance' etc. - that is easy/posiible to test, unlike, as he points out.... coming up with equations and mathematical models (a variety of sorts) beyond observation that some atheists believe in

atheists? Tesla was talking about science, not ideology.
You're the one who foolishly tries to make science vs. religion a matter of atheist vs. theist. Really, it's those who grok vs those whose faith cannot afford to grok.

and oddly enough, who try to use them to argue their case with.

you're way off base, here. There's no way to have gotten to the experiments that produced the Mark 6 inertial measurement unit without the math you seem to think is some discrete distance from the observable universe.

So, still asking, where is the 'excuse' being offered? Do you even have any idea what you are trying to say?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wait - is that what you think math equations are for?
And are you thinking laser missile guidance systems were developed without them?

it is crucial for the creationist to separate sciences they must accept, such as the development of engineering feats that they spend money to obtain the use of, like GPS positioning, from science they MUST dismiss, such as the age of the Earth. To them it's eyewitnessed engineering vs. 'just a theory.'
He thought Tesla supported this gratuitous and artificial split, but it's just more quote-mining.

 

[Lion IRC]

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

 

[DBT]

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

Easy to say. An objective reader may well disagree.

 

[Rhea]

By "difficult task to defend," I think Politesse meant, "successfully defend," not "successfully type apologia."

 

[Learner]

He quoted on the internet....which i read on my tablet...at the desk where i conduct training for operating nuclear missile fire control systems updated with the latest technology in computing and information acquisition.
I'm still trying to get my head around a missile gyroscope with no moving parts. No spinning inertial components, just lasers...somehow.

But still guides missiles to the intended target with demanding accuracy.
So, where exactly is the science 'excuse' being offered?

Obviously he wasn't talking about having numbers incorporated into... dialing into the machine, being that Tesla was himself both electrical and mechanical engineer who would need to have some understanding and knowledge to work with some measuring instrumentation. Natural real things as you posted the example above 'misslile guidance' etc. - that is easy/posiible to test, unlike, as he points out.... coming up with equations and mathematical models (a variety of sorts) beyond observation that some atheists believe in and oddly enough, who try to use them to argue their case with.

Wait - is that what you think math equations are for?
And are you thinking laser missile guidance systems were developed without them?

Lets put aside stating-the-obvious, discussing about system mechanics including the maths that ARE testable, that we know work, that are observable like... testing and designing the motor car....and missiles.

I'm not a Tesla historian, so I could be wrong here, but I'm going to make a guess that as an electrical engineer he may have been arguing about the math analogs for electrical circuits and the electrical analogues for mechanical circuits and complaining about how at some point you have to actually test the real physical system.

Not sure how you guessed that! He was more likely talking about certain theoretical physics, like for example his issue with Einsteins equation for the speed of light.

But the mathematical models are absolutely necessary to find answers if you are not awash with money to conduct expensive and time-consuming physical tests all day. After you winnow out the non-viable answers via math models, THEN you have to, yes, eventually test the physical system.

But you, Learner, seem to be saying that he's talking about measurement systems, which, I really don't think he is. You have not shown an understand of what Tesla meant. Why did you decide to quote him?

I used Tesla's quote in a like-wise manner ... in response to Moogy's post! But nevertheless the Tesla quote is still relevent today. Like the friendly rivary between those who do experimental physics and those who do theoretical physics!

Some atheists use theoreticals for fact, was my point.

Both camps are important repectively in research BTW.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IET9VX_Ufrc[/YOUTUBE]

Anyway - to sum up:

• Science demonstrates conclusively the reliability of things we depend on to be reliable. The methodology reduces errors and false promises. It produces confidence and measurable expectations of whether it will work. Despite Tesla's objections, it includes math models to achieve this.
• Religion has never once ever conclusively demonstrated a reliable outcome of anything, ever, not once.

Sure but do you acknowledge the individuals as scientists who are also religious, who have also come up with reliable outcomes?

 

[Learner]

um, no. That's exactly what he was talking about. The throretical physics which later became applied physics which became engineering. He just had not lived long enough to see the fruits of that research.

Tesla was talking about science, not ideology.
You're the one who foolishly tries to make science vs. religion a matter of atheist vs. theist. Really, it's those who grok vs those whose faith cannot afford to grok.

and oddly enough, who try to use them to argue their case with.

you're way off base, here. There's no way to have gotten to the experiments that produced the Mark 6 inertial measurement unit without the math you seem to think is some discrete distance from the observable universe.

So, still asking, where is the 'excuse' being offered? Do you even have any idea what you are trying to say?

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. 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)

 

[Keith&Co.]

um, no. That's exactly what he was talking about. The throretical physics which later became applied physics which became engineering. He just had not lived long enough to see the fruits of that research.

Tesla was talking about science, not ideology.
You're the one who foolishly tries to make science vs. religion a matter of atheist vs. theist. Really, it's those who grok vs those whose faith cannot afford to grok.

and oddly enough, who try to use them to argue their case with.

you're way off base, here. There's no way to have gotten to the experiments that produced the Mark 6 inertial measurement unit without the math you seem to think is some discrete distance from the observable universe.

So, still asking, where is the 'excuse' being offered? Do you even have any idea what you are trying to say?

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

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'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.

 

[aupmanyav]

Heard his name for the first time. Who cares!
His faith could not cure his cancer.
I am four years older than him, have been smoking for the last 63 years, no cancer.

 

[Rhea]

Anyway - to sum up:

• Science demonstrates conclusively the reliability of things we depend on to be reliable. The methodology reduces errors and false promises. It produces confidence and measurable expectations of whether it will work. Despite Tesla's objections, it includes math models to achieve this.
• Religion has never once ever conclusively demonstrated a reliable outcome of anything, ever, not once.

Sure but do you acknowledge the individuals as scientists who are also religious, who have also come up with reliable outcomes?

I work with a lot of religionists.
NO ONE of them uses their religion to do their science.
They never EVER use their religion to explain their science.
All explanations are science based - whether it be theoretical science (yes we use that to make estimates of how far we ought to be able to go, even though it's theoretical, we use math models for physical things every day) or whether it be experimental science. If you have neither theoretical nor experimental science on your side, you will be disdained for wasting everyone's time.
Interestingly, despite having worked with so many religionists (they seem to be more prevalent in Engineering than in Science, btw) not one of them opens an experiment with a prayer. Because - the prayer is not a saleable outcome, since no one can rely on it or predict its effect. So it';s useless. And the Religionist-scientist knows that as well as I do.

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.

 

[Lion IRC]

Heard his name for the first time. Who cares!

With an exclamation mark? WOW.
Angry?

His faith could not cure his cancer.

Having faith does not mean curing cancer. It means putting your trust in God and God's Word.

The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

I am four years older than him, have been smoking for the last 63 years, no cancer.

How do you know you have no cancer?