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

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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....

Sometimes when I hear a person saying they have a god, it's like they're arguing that they have a super power, and the god is their super power. At a fundamental psychological level they are identical to the god they claim to have, they are the god, which is why they can tell you so much about it. It says a lot about natural selection and how some brains are wired.

 

[skepticalbip]

If there are refutations anyway in the science community, then just by there being doubts ...the expansion theory is not reliable.

Therein lies the problem, your 'if'. I know of no astronomer or cosmologist who do not accept that the universe is currently undergoing an expansion. I do know of several that don't accept the superluminal inflation that has been suggested because it creates more problems than it solves. But none that I know of that do not accept the expansion of the universe. Even Fred Hoyle, who was the last hold out that I am aware of for the steady state universe, had to accept something like forty or fifty years ago (because of the data) that the universe really was expanding.

You continue to refer to these mysterious 'scientists' who reject expansion and yet have ignored my asking for the names of just two of them. Even better would be if you would offer a link to their papers where they showed their work.

Quite possibly there are some FLAT EARTHERS or maybe some preachers who reject expansion.

 

[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....

Sometimes when I hear a person saying they have a god, it's like they're arguing that they have a super power, and the god is their super power. At a fundamental psychological level they are identical to the god they claim to have, they are the god, which is why they can tell you so much about it. It says a lot about natural selection and how some brains are wired.

Yep;


"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

 

[Learner]

I vaguely remember someone said to another or me that they were being sarky if I'm not mistaken - that's where it could of stemmed from.

Well this is funny. I thought it was a simple typo and you meant “snarky” and that worked and I went with it.

LOL

I had no idea you were using a word you didn’t know.

snark noun
\ ˈsnärk \
Definition of snark
informal
: an attitude or expression of mocking irreverence and sarcasm
… no human endeavor is beyond snark these days, so lots of people enjoy hijacking a corporation's marketing hashtag to mock the company …
— Paul McFedries

That's it!!!

I realise now why I had confused myself. People sometimes pronounce and use sarky rather than sarcasm in the UK and Snarky (which I don't use) got me muddled between the two, in some momentarily absent-mindedness (probably due to the few things I was concerned about, with little time to do it, that needed attention for this morning).

 

[Rhea]

Well this is funny. I thought it was a simple typo and you meant “snarky” and that worked and I went with it.

LOL

I had no idea you were using a word you didn’t know.

That's it!!!

I realise now why I had confused myself. People sometimes pronounce and use sarky rather than sarcasm in the UK and Snarky (which I don't use) got me muddled between the two, in some momentarily absent-mindedness (probably due to the few things I was concerned about, with little time to do it, that needed attention for this morning).

Fair enough.

So if you were not being sarcastic, and you were actually using the word "belief" one way for you and a different way for us, would you please respond the content? I'd like to know why you don't know that the answer to your question about our "belief" or "faith" is "NO," and why you don't know that asking us if we have faith, like it's the sdame meaning of the word for your faith, is bad communication.

(chuckling at the irony of talking about the meaning of the word "Believe" after having to go through the meaning of the words "sarky" and "snarky." But heh, I'm all for irony in the wild.)


Here it is for you to finally comment on, after all this roundabout dodging. You could have just answered this the first time around...

Originally Posted by Learner View Post
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.

 

[Learner]

still doesn't explain how you use it to mean sincere and sarcastic at the same time.

I'll explain in response to Rhea's post as not to "avoid."

no one who knows what a theory is tries to ckaim it's a fact. Theories are used to explain the collected facts. I fear you did not follow tge discussion when someone explained why a theory was the best explanation, or maybe said something like 'evolution is a theory AND a fact.' Which is talking about two different things, not claiming one = the other.

Atheists that discuss and claim theories as true i.e. reality ...not the scientists who propose best explanations/ or theories that is not yet empirically tested. Obviously, If they were, then there wouldn't be any doubters to the theory! It would be universally/ uninamously accepted.

but your point is incoherent. Quoting is a tool.
Quote mining is a fraud.
They are not equivalent acts. so, no. You do not grok the distinction.

I could have had better choice of words or rather...the phrasing of the point I tried to make admittedly. My point was in context to: taking from, borrowing from, quoting from someones text or explanation to make the point.

it was pointed out to you that they did not challenge tge theory, just details OF the theory.
Presenting these quibbles as rejection is either a fraudulent use of the quote, or straight up ignorance.

I only wanted to know if you agreed with the issues some scientists had with the theory ... or the details, now that you mentioned it? (despite my having little short-falls of ignorance)

I didn't ask you about doing any homework ...just the definition of observation use thats correctly preferable for continuing further.

But you have already formed your conclusion and stated it. You're flat out wrong. You should have looked into it the first time tou did not understand the claim.

Ok, but what type of observation definition do YOU adhere to then? To clarify a little more where I got it wrong - Are there right ways and wrongs ways for observation? Do you mean the meaning of the word I've got wrong or a particular technique,a specific method of observation to measure the subject matter? I suppose it depends on the scenario and experiment.

If there are refutations in the science community then just by that...the expansion theory is not fully accepted as true.

you did not offer or refer to a refutation. You just said it was not a True Observation, because of a bullshit justification. NOW you want to pretend that quibbles about theory details, that a lack of unanimity in the community, justifies flat out ignoring the observations.

Now ...it's you (plural) who want to keep on the expansion theory discussion 'expanding' it a little further. Well at least we all accept it as a theory.

 

[Learner]

Bear with me Rhea ...I do need to rest early.
Back soon.

 

[Rhea]

Atheists that discuss and claim theories as true i.e. reality

An atheist can rightly claim something is REALITY when they are talking about the theory that not only best describes it, but has been through many levels of cross checking. Technically, it is the "theory" but it is so strongly supported that you can act as if it is reality. The uncertainty is minuscule. May I introduce you to the "Theory of Gravity"?

...not the scientists who propose best explanations/ or theories that is not yet empirically tested.

Be careful that you actually understand what "empirically tested" means before you use it.
"Empirical testing is a research method that employs direct and indirect observation and experience."

but your point is incoherent. Quoting is a tool.
Quote mining is a fraud.
They are not equivalent acts. so, no. You do not grok the distinction.

I could have had better choice of words or rather...the phrasing of the point I tried to make admittedly. My point was in context to: taking from, borrowing from, quoting from someones text or explanation to make the point.

Nope. Not what that means.

, the free encyclopedia. Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

it was pointed out to you that they did not challenge tge theory, just details OF the theory.
Presenting these quibbles as rejection is either a fraudulent use of the quote, or straight up ignorance.

I only wanted to know if you agreed with the issues some scientists had with the theory ... or the details, now that you mentioned it? (despite my having little short-falls of ignorance)

You wanted to know if we agreed that the expanding universe is in dispute. IT. Is. Not.

you wrote previously,

Multi-universes...expanding universes well... its still sci-fi

.

and you doubled down later,

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.

That's your shortfall of ignorance. We tried to explain it, and you're still failing to address that explanation. None of the scientists disputes the expanding universe. None. The "dispute" is whether it's going speed (A) or speed (A+5%). So your question, do we agree with the dispute about the fact of an expanding universe is - THERE IS NO DISPUTE about whether the universe is expanding by anyone who knows anything about Hubble's Constant.

Ok, but what type of observation definition do YOU adhere to then? To clarify a little more where I got it wrong - Are there right ways and wrongs ways for observation? Do you mean the meaning of the word I've got wrong or a particular technique,a specific method of observation to measure the subject matter? I suppose it depends on the scenario and experiment.

Okay - again, pull up a chair. This is fabulous stuff.

You can observe directly or indirectly, and it is still an observation. it is still empirical science. You can observe effects, and after-effects. You can observe explosions, and you can observe debris.

This is fascinating, so stay with me. I just recently finished an experiment where we didn't have time or money to run an experiment, so we had to go back through old manufacturing data to try to find the story. (Really, the "experiment" had already been "run" on it's own without anyone doing it on purpose. Our job was to find out what caused it.)

The problem being, there is no record of the bad events we're looking for. Hmmm. What to do, what to do. Well, it turns out, whenever the event happened, someone reacted to it. They turned up the volume. A-HA! we can go back through the record, find out every time someone turned up the volume and look at the manufacturing conditions at that time. We used this PROXY for the event to determine what was causing the event, even though no one ever wrote down that the event happened. By comparing the proxy to the operating conditions, we could conclude that whenever the speed of two drivers became mismatched more than a certain amount - our bad event would happen. So we added controllers and an interlock to make sure the two drivers never got out of sync.

We used an indirect observation to fix the driver problems that were causing the event.

That was all empirical. We were not there when the event happened. No one wrote down the times when it happened. But we empirically "observed" something that we could then fix.


Isn't that great? Is fun stuff for scientists and engineers.

If there are refutations in the science community then just by that...the expansion theory is not fully accepted as true.

you did not offer or refer to a refutation. You just said it was not a True Observation, because of a bullshit justification. NOW you want to pretend that quibbles about theory details, that a lack of unanimity in the community, justifies flat out ignoring the observations.

Now ...it's you (plural) who want to keep on the expansion theory discussion 'expanding' it a little further. Well at least we all accept it as a theory.

Learner - do you accept yet that you are the ONLY ONE who does not accept the expansion theory? And that you don't understand empirical science, or indirect observations, or scientific disputes, or the red shift?

 

[Lion IRC]

...how do you empirically test an expanding universe?

Easy. The same way you can prove that Earth isn't at the center of the universe.

Oh WAIT.

Science^TM wrote;

The [isotropic] universe looks the same whichever direction you look.

Maybe we are at the center after all.

 

[DBT]

Relativity.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Atheists that discuss and claim theories as true i.e. reality ...not the scientists who propose best explanations/ or theories that is not yet empirically tested.

wrong. NO theory is ever tested empirically.
It's the observations that are tested. The theory that best explains the observations, all the observations, is better accepted, but still never tested. Never proven.

You still don't know what you're talking about. Meaning you are in no position to evaluate what anyone else is talking about.

Obviously, If they were, then there wouldn't be any doubters to the theory! It would be universally/ uninamously accepted.

That is not a quality of science.Dude, we cannot even say "Earth = oblate spheroid" is universally/unanimously accepted

I could have had better choice of words or rather...the phrasing of the point I tried to make admittedly.

i know what you tried to say...but if you don't know what 'quote-mining' is, then your effort to defend against the accusation is doomed to fail.

I only wanted to know if you agreed with the issues some scientists had with the theory ...

Whether i do or not, it's still not going to helpnyou pretendvtgat their issues mean the theory is thus made weaker, or less likely to be true.

Ok, but what type of observation definition do YOU adhere to then? To clarify a little more where I got it wrong - Are there right ways and wrongs ways for observation?

Learner, your problem is still that you don't understand the word 'observation' as a scientist uses it. Nyou think it means eyewitness to the results of a laboratory experiment.

Now ...it's you (plural) who want to keep on the expansion theory discussion 'expanding' it a little further. Well at least we all accept it as a theory.

No, you do not, as you misunderstand the significance of 'theory,' too.

 

[skepticalbip]

An atheist can rightly claim something is REALITY when they are talking about the theory that not only best describes it, but has been through many levels of cross checking. Technically, it is the "theory" but it is so strongly supported that you can act as if it is reality. The uncertainty is minuscule. May I introduce you to the "Theory of Gravity"?

... snip ...

I think a problem here is that Learner is using a very different meaning for 'theory' than the one used in science... Sorta like Lerner's selective choice of meaning for 'belief' and 'faith'. Lerner seems to believe that the word 'theory' means 'just a wild guess'. OTOH, science means by 'theory' a detailed mathematical description and interpretation of observations. In science, if the math does not fit current and future observations then the theory is scrapped.

 

[Rhea]

I think a problem here is that Learner is using a very different meaning for 'theory' than the one used in science... Sorta like Lerner's selective choice of meaning for 'belief' and 'faith'. Lerner seems to believe that the word 'theory' means 'just a wild guess'. OTOH, science means by 'theory' a detailed mathematical description and interpretation of observations. In science, if the math does not fit current and future observations then the theory is scrapped.

One can easily imagine why religionists would be terrified of that definition, though, right? Because if you applied it to god-theories... **poof!**

 

[Keith&Co.]

Because if you applied it to god-theories... **poof!**

Nah. God-theories are just myths spoken with sciency words to pretend it's a similar process.
If we somehow vonvinced them they needed, say, equations, they'd make them the same way. Start with "= God" and then fill in the math.
Observations? One time this guy hated doctors cause they never get anything right, so he never got seen until it was way too late to cure his cancer but the whole church prayed and when he went back to the doctor there was no sign of the cancer they'd said was terminal. I think it was in Austria. Or Australia. Maybe Austin? But, whatever, true story.
Repeatable observations? Yeah, my mom heard about the Australian in Austin, too.

 

[Learner]

I also meant it as well. I would have rephrased it a little. I thought to mention it just in case someone took offence. No harm done!

Learner, anyone who takes offence at someone as polite, charitable and well-meaning as you must have
anger management issues.

Cheers mate for that, you understood.



At least they're passionate to defend this theoretical idea quite strongly by 'all means wordy' ..."you don't understand words so there for reality..."

A reminder of previous vid, it's normal to disagree with theoretical theories.

Experimental Physicists vs. Theoretical Physicists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IET9VX_Ufrc&feature=youtu.be

 

[Learner]

I also meant it as well. I would have rephrased it a little. I thought to mention it just in case someone took offence. No harm done!

What?

You just completely contradicted yourself.

(Also, I don't take offense when someone else says something really uninformed. Your absurdity was on you, not me.)

So now you're saying it was NOT snark, it was serious?
Well, then, please address the serious answer - that you are misusing the terms "faith" and "belief" to make a discussion more muddy instead of more clear.

You can see from my original reply why those words show a very poor understanding of both atheists and science. Can you comment on that please?

There's NO contradiction lol. You can be sarcastic in serveral ways. Sarcastic to insult or be sarcastic using as verbal-irony - non-offensive.

If I had rephrased my quote: "Are you telling me you both DO have faith?" I'd say something like: "Do you really believe this to be true?" or something like asking "why do you believe this is a real thing?" etc..& etc..

Gah. This is why we think religionists are not out to actually learn anything, they just want to wave around the smoke and move around the mirrors so no one can pin down the absolute barrenness of their ideas. They act exactly like someone who is not discussing in good faith. Ha ha. It's just a game of words, not a pursuit of knowledge.

Erm..ok.

Take note. The reason I posted: "Are you telling me you both DO have faith?" was BECAUSE of the 'religious' connotation (irony, banter) and it's ALSO asking, "if you believe this to be true" at the same time!

Well this is funny. I thought it was a simple typo and you meant “snarky” and that worked and I went with it.

LOL

I had no idea you were using a word you didn’t know.

snark noun
\ ˈsnärk \
Definition of snark
informal
: an attitude or expression of mocking irreverence and sarcasm
… no human endeavor is beyond snark these days, so lots of people enjoy hijacking a corporation's marketing hashtag to mock the company …
— Paul McFedries

Laughter is good for you...

I don't think I have ever heard anyone here in the UK use the snarky term ...did you consider for that, detective? I have seen it used on the forum (wasn't fully focused in mind at that time posting response) - 'snide or snidey' sounds closer to how snarky is expressed to me.

Paul Mc Fedries a Canadian? Perhaps there lies the answer,

 

[bilby]

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) ...

I seem to recall that back in the '80s, pretty much everyone was confident that a global nuclear war was possible (although they differed on their assessments of its likelihood).

I am equally sure that this confidence was entirely theoretical.

I mean, if somebody in the Soviet Union had made an actual, physical, demonstrative test of their hypothesis that they could put a thermonuclear warhead onto a target in the continental United States; Or if someone in the US had made a similar test of their otherwise entirely theoretical ability to hit a target in the USSR with a nuclear weapon, I am fairly certain that the consequences of that experiment would have been very noticeable. Albeit fairly briefly.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with entirely theoretical knowledge, as long as it is well founded in extrapolative reasoning from related experimentation.

 

[bilby]

I also meant it as well. I would have rephrased it a little. I thought to mention it just in case someone took offence. No harm done!

Learner, anyone who takes offence at someone as polite, charitable and well-meaning as you must have anger management issues.

Or just despise passive-aggressive bullshit.

Saying something hugely offensive or mind-bogglingly stupid 'nicely' doesn't (and shouldn't) shield it from criticism.

No matter how polite you are, your claims are still only as good as the evidence you bring to support them.

 

[bilby]

...how do you empirically test an expanding universe?

Easy. The same way you can prove that Earth isn't at the center of the universe.

Oh WAIT.

Science^TM wrote;

The [isotropic] universe looks the same whichever direction you look.

Maybe we are at the center after all.

Every observer is at the centre of his universe.

This isn't profound or even particularly interesting.

But the fact that the universe doesn't look different in any given direction is profound - it implies that the position of the observer is arbitrary, and that there's absolutely nothing special about his situation, despite the fact that he is the centre of his universe.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I also meant it as well. I would have rephrased it a little. I thought to mention it just in case someone took offence. No harm done!

Learner, anyone who takes offence at someone as polite, charitable and well-meaning as you must have anger management issues.

Or just despise passive-aggressive bullshit.

Exactly.
Lion thinks the ends justify the means, so anything Learner does gets a pass if it could save a soul.
But not everyone has that same outlook, and will hold people responsible for the means.
Thus the diagnosis is, as usual for him, unwarranted.