FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Prof John Lennox rocks

Prof John Lennox rocks

Started by Beeno1268 REPLIES2,809 VIEWS· 15 Sept 2014, 14:06
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
PA
PakieCaptain17,321 posts
17 Sept 2014, 15:08
#161
17 Sept 2014, 15:08#161
I don't care about your explanations Beeno. Even if there is a creator god (whatever that may be, I don't think you even know what exactly it is you're worshipping), I see no reason to worship it. I'm a good person, I live a good life, and to the best of my human ability I don't cause others harm. It that's not good enough for this god, it can smite me now.
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2014, 15:12
#162
17 Sept 2014, 15:12#162
Becs a number of folk here would like to run like rabbits in every direction.
State why you think logic requires one to accept the Hawking fable? 
Nothing cannot create anything - simple fact as demonstarted. Hence the complete tiz Hawking, Krauss and Dawkin are in. 
I have heard not a single argument that overturns what I have posted.








PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
17 Sept 2014, 15:20
#163
17 Sept 2014, 15:20#163
Yeah, i'm done. When you get to "in the beginning...end of" then clearly there is nothing of value to contribute. Because you are talking about unsubstantiated claims when actually that IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
It's a joke actually.
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2014, 15:21
#164
17 Sept 2014, 15:21#164
So if I was presenting the truth you dont care. Thats your choice - but to find truth you need to seek.Christ died for our sins - if we accept that we are pardoned. However if we do not accept it then the just God will judge us for what we have done. It's that simple at bottom.He is not a lawless God neither would any sane person want a lawless God.
BUT before we get there we need to understand whether there is a God or not. Hence my producing this material. No one is forced to read it or agree with it.





BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2014, 15:28
#165
17 Sept 2014, 15:28#165
 Plum what is a joke. You cant have read what I have posted. 
Rebut the arguments raised. Maybe you too can write to Hawking, Dawkin and Krauss to help them out of their mess. I mean Dawkin says plainly that the notion of a universe out of nothing is "problematic". But not to you and ou rooitwit Hahahahahahahaha
Whislt these guys battle to explain it and get ripped apart for their faulty logic you and rooitwit have the answers - hilarious! 

RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
17 Sept 2014, 15:29
#166
17 Sept 2014, 15:29#166
Yes, it's a joke but don't say you weren't warned. My September 15, 2014, 18:58:42 comment on this thread included this warning:

"When having any kind of argument or debate with Baboon-ou that might include any comment on religion, note that not only is he too stupid to understand your argument, he doesn't actually hear or acknowledge anything you're saying that might contradict his naive and juvenile beliefs."

Anyone who reads Baboon-ou's tripe and still takes him seriously deserves what he gets. My advice, don't get frustrated by this blithering idiot, just poke him with a stick once in a while and have a laugh at his reaction.
BE
becsPro4,378 posts
17 Sept 2014, 15:39
#167
17 Sept 2014, 15:39#167
Beeno....what you have to accept is that you believe, others don't. 
And so it shall always be  

You cannot prove there is a God. You just think you can because you cannot disprove there isn't one and you WANT to believe there is a God. 
Others would prefer to believe they gave a Science based argument for creation. As is their right. 

Some have no idea what happened, where they came from and do not really care  As is their right also. 
 When it comes down to it, it is personal choice what we believe and why we believe it. 
We should not force a belief upon anyone else nor should we use our vanity to suggest that our belief is somehow better than someone else's, particularly not if we profess to call ourselves a Christian  
There is much wrong in this world and Religion is used as a tool for a great deal of it. It has been for Centuries. Even in the homes and Schools, not just the wider world. That is plain wrong and an abuse of a belief system in my book.
As far as I am concerned, people believe what they want to. But be a decent person that does no harm to others and do not force your belief upon anyone else. 
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2014, 15:44
#168
17 Sept 2014, 15:44#168
More hopeless bluster from ou rooitwit. Did you note what Dawking and Einstein had to say. Does the triple self contradiction of Hawking have you shaking at the knees.
Dont forget to write to the gentlemen concerned and give them the benfit of your expert advice. You could even quote wikiepedia to them asa source. I am sure they will be hugely impressed. They might even realsie that they need never have written books trying to explain how the universe created itself from noting etc. Dont forget to correct Dawkin of this comment:In reply he said that, although he agreed this was a problematic position, he did indeed believe that the first particle arose spontaneously from nothing, because the alternative explanation – God -- was more incredible.
Arose spontaneously from nothing. Come rooitwit you have so  much to teach Dawkin and of course Hawking and Krauss - confused as they are. 
Only rooitwit dont bluster to these oaks they may think your are a drooling halfwit! 

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2014, 15:51
#169
17 Sept 2014, 15:51#169
Answer the evidence presented Becs. We are dealing here with the conclusions of science and logic. Focus on the issues please. Theyare very specific and have been adressed by what i have posted.Why do you agree or disagree. You post has nothing to do with what is under review. 
Any noodle can say anything he wants - and they so evidently do. 
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,294 posts
17 Sept 2014, 15:54
#170
17 Sept 2014, 15:54#170
 Beeno when you quote Einstein or anyone else that is credible in science, can you include a link to the 3rd party source? Otherwise you are producing stuff that no one is going to believe. 
Bible bashers will often misquote credible people to substantiate their own invalid arguments.  You will watch sermons where public speakers of your faith do this, these are trained public speaker good at the art of various techniques of persuasion- including brain washing.
That is one of the issues with the bible that it has been changed so many times over the years to suit the needs of those in power at the given time. 
It is just professional practice anyway to reference where the quote was taken from, much like a decent journalist would do. 
If it was a court of law where evidence was compiled to build a case, it does matter how valid the sources are.
If Einstein or any other credible witnesses were being used that were dead, they would look for the original texts written by Einstein himself. Not what someone said Einstein said, or what someone said about another persons speaking about Einstein.
This is what science is about - objectivity. It is not blind faith of "working in mysterious ways". 

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2014, 16:19
#171
17 Sept 2014, 16:19#171
Sorry Sharkbok you are right.The rank prejudice in your statement though shines through.The reference re the Einstein quote re the Spirit bit - Letter of 24th January 1936 to a schoolgirl Phyllis Wright. Lennox always quotes his sources I might add.






BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2014, 16:25
#172
17 Sept 2014, 16:25#172
 The fact is though Sharkbok this whole dicussion revolves around a quote from Hawking's Book the Grand design (see page 180 which I referenced)
I am still to see any refutation of the issues I raised re the veracity of the statement.That statement was ripped completely apart. I have also raised a number of related points. 
All I am geeting back thus far is rooitwit like bluster . Answer the issues and points raised oaks. 
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,294 posts
17 Sept 2014, 16:27
#173
17 Sept 2014, 16:27#173
Beeno,
Take a look at how I have taken quotes from a credible website Wiki Pedia.
I first reference the source. The Religious Views of Albert Einstein
Wikipedia is not 100% conclusive but it is going to be much more reliable than most sources online. 
You want people to respond to your "butchered" quotes but do not even provide a weblink to them online that will:1. See how credibale the source of your information is2. See how credibale your interpretation of the source is.
I could state an opinion which can be challenged. However to do this, the source of the information that I provide would also need to be challenged.
You quote Einstein, but below what I have quoted shows that your information on Einstein has been subjectively misconstrued. (Therefore your take on what Einstein is saying or means is wrong). 
If you can challenge my opinion, please provide online 3rd party sources that are reliabale which can be used to support your opinion. Otherwise, you cannot make an objective and scientific argument. Everything you say must be accepted as faith, and not science. 
The Religious Views of Albert Einstein

Einstein's Views on Religion"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true". 
""I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one."
" "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own—a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. "
"It is indeed human, as proved by Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII), who was behind the Concordat with Hitler. Since when can one make a pact with Christ and Satan at the same time?" (August 1943)"
"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church... As long as I can remember. I have resented mass indoctrination". "I cannot prove to you there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar". 
"I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws".
Einstein does not like any of his comments to be quoted out of context by the religious or athiests . 
He is not atheist nor is he religious in the traditional view of a personal god.  Einstein remains a Patheist. At no time has this changed
-----------------------
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2014, 16:46
#174
17 Sept 2014, 16:46#174
 Good on ya Sharkbok. A sensible move on your part. I think anybody trying to refute this stuff is onto a hiding to nothing. You cant move the logic.
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,294 posts
17 Sept 2014, 16:58
#175
17 Sept 2014, 16:58#175
Einstein is a pantheist- as are most of the leading minds over the last 400 years. You cannot use him to support your bible bashing, because he does not believe in a personal God.
If you want to challenge my opinion on Einsteins Faith, I will only respond if you do so if you provide a web link to all of your sources online. 
1. I can then test how reliable the source is.2. I can then test how reliable your interpretation is.
If you refute my opinion that Einstein is not religious, then you must provide 3rd party proof that is available as a web link.
FO
ForeverArizonaClub Pro580 posts
17 Sept 2014, 17:44
#176
17 Sept 2014, 17:44#176
 Was he a spy becs...I think that is what I remember.
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2014, 17:48
#177
17 Sept 2014, 17:48#177
Nope all I have to get from Einstein is the fact there is a first cause this "illimitable superior spirit" as he terms it. I have all I want from Albert.  Einstein clearly didnt think the Universe came from nothing.  Man you really should do some research of your own and think a bit. This is all tooooooo easy! 

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

  1. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
  2. Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
  3. My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
  4. The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
  5. Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
  6. The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
  7. There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.
  8. The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
  9. The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science.
  10. We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
  11. Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.
  12. When the solution is simple, God is answering.
  13. God does not play dice with the universe.
  14. God is subtle but he is not malicious.
He seems to believe in God rather than Gods from the above. 11 is obviously a turn of phrase.
BO
BokBFClub Pro421 posts
17 Sept 2014, 17:52
#178
17 Sept 2014, 17:52#178
 becs I trust that you are not saying that Beeno if forcing his beliefs on others?
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
17 Sept 2014, 17:54
#179
17 Sept 2014, 17:54#179
1. I can then test how reliable the source is.2. I can then test how reliable your interpretation is.

1. Not very reliable at all. Check out www.answersingenesis.org
2. Waaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha! Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor! Baboon-ou couldn't interpret a stop sign let alone statements made by the likes of Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein.
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,294 posts
17 Sept 2014, 17:59
#180
17 Sept 2014, 17:59#180
Beeno as expected. You can only quote a religious website that has changed everything that Einstein has ever stated. 

sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,294 posts
17 Sept 2014, 18:00
#181
17 Sept 2014, 18:00#181
Try this website Beeno. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
It is more inline with what Wikipedia says. 
Check multiple sources to derive the facts, not just a bias religious website that makes things up
PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
17 Sept 2014, 18:10
#182
17 Sept 2014, 18:10#182
lol
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2014, 18:13
#183
17 Sept 2014, 18:13#183
 From the same source
  1. True religion is real living; living with all one’s soul, with all one’s goodness and righteousness.
  2. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelationship of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to form in the social life of man.
Seems Albert was in a sense very religious.
Sharkbok why dont you attempt to address the issues raised by the Hawkings comment?I believe you know you have no hope whatsoever in refuting them. Nobody can.We all saw how ou rooitwit blustered away but couldnt. Not a single seriosu attempt to overturn what has been presented
Frankly it's very obvious it's game set and match to Beeno - with full credit going to Lennox and others. Thanks as well to the many scientists who with worked so hard and in so doing ended up verifying the truth of the Bible (much to their consternation in some cases) that in the begining GOD created the heavens and the earth. No more majestic or true words were ever uttured.The fool has said in his heart there is no God. Are you, by biblical definition, a fool? Rather be like Antony Flew who saw the evidence and decided he didnt want the tag fool. The science led me to God he said - science can all point you to God if you will rid yourself of bigotory and prejudice and examine the facts. The Heavens declare the Glory of God."since what may be known about God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what is made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1 v 19-20.)

Kindly advice from Beeno to all the resident oaks belie ving in fairy tales - actually some far more malignant.




BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2014, 18:21
#184
17 Sept 2014, 18:21#184
Sharkbok I can find these quotes anywhere. Go and do some of your own research that response was pathetic.
Are you saying that Einstein never said those things I posted. Be careful now Sharkbok.
You are heading for a big fall.
Yes or No will do

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2014, 18:28
#185
17 Sept 2014, 18:28#185
 Plum please oak stop being such a pudding brain and address the issues I have realised around Hawking's rediculous statement. 
Beeno living in hope some oak will have a go but the oaks lack confidence. And rightly so 
my guess is that they are feeling a little like Flew did before he fled the sinking ship of atheism. Never mind oaks we just might get you clothed and in your right mind.
The finest atheistic minds have come crashing so naturally we get this timidity. Ro oitwit I trust you have written to the guys to tell them your solution and save the day!!  



sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,294 posts
17 Sept 2014, 18:28
#186
17 Sept 2014, 18:28#186
Compare your website "Simpleton's to remember" to the one that I listed.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
It only takes one brain cell to see which is the more credibale source.
It is obvious that your sources are religious websites who are misquoting Einstein to give their religion (interpretation of reality) some form of credibility. 
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2014, 18:34
#187
17 Sept 2014, 18:34#187
 " Because there is a law of gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing"


Can anybody point me to a more daft staement. Tree self contradictory staements and a huge misunderstyanding of what laws are about and what they can do.Oaks this worse than believing in fairies! 

What is more astonishing if ou rooitwits right (Which of course he isn't is why bother to try and defend such a hopeless position if you dont need to 
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2014, 18:40
#188
17 Sept 2014, 18:40#188
 rooitwit just to enlighten you a bit about Flew. You were wondering about this high atheistic status:

"the most famous atheist in the academic world over the last half-century, 

Professor Antony Flew of England's University of Reading, now 

accepts the existence of God" (Dallas Morning News)
"Professor Antony Flew, a prominent British philosopher who is considered 

the world's best-known atheist, has cited 

advancements in science as proof of the existence of God." (Insight On The News)
"British professor Antony Flew, for decades one of the world's leading 

philosophers of atheism, publicly announced that he now affirms the 

existence of a deity." (Dallas Morning News)
"Now, in a remarkable reversal, Mr. Flew holds that the universe 

was brought into being by an infinite intelligence." (Dallas Morning News)
"This is comparable to Hugh Hefner announcing that he is becoming

 a celibate." (Insight On The News)

 
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2014, 18:53
#189
17 Sept 2014, 18:53#189
 or On 1st November 2007, Professor Antony Flew’s book There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind was published by HarperOne. Professor Flew, who died in April 2010, has been called ‘the world's most influential philosophical atheist’, as well as ‘one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th Century’ (see Peter S. Williams’ bethinking.orgarticle “A change of mind for Antony Flew”). In There is a God, Professor Flew recounts how he came to believe in a Creator God as a result of the scientific evidence and philosophical argument.
Just google rooitwit and you will see how prominent he was as an atheist. 

PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
17 Sept 2014, 19:48
#190
17 Sept 2014, 19:48#190
Oh my! Beeno, right at the start of my first post on this subject of yours i did address the "nothing from nothing" statement!
So i will now paste it in bold...and underline it so that maybe, just maybe you will read it.
Because clearly you did not read it the first time!
"Further, it should be understood that every effect must resemble its cause. This is because, simply put, you cannot give what you do not haveso it is impossible for an effect to possess something its originating cause did not have. "
One of the leading causes for debate where black-holes are concerned. The reason being that when you start out with something, that thing MUST be present in the final result. So you can mix the particle with numerous others, or divide it into bits, or add bits to it, but ultimately it will still be there. Hence, when something crosses the event horizon of a black-hole and it is said to be entirely obliterated, it defies a very basic IDEA in physics. 
Because the information of that previous configuration was completely lost. Which is contrary to this IDEA. I am gonna say IDEA IDEA IDEA IDEA a few times, just to help you understand that it is just that, an IDEA. NOT A PROVEN FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE!
If you do some reading, you will discover that it is REALLY only a theory, not a fundamental principle of physics. And it concerns only particles and the fact that they are there and flow through various configurations with other particles as the universe goes about it's daily business. 
And here is why you and the religious world have entirely misunderstood Hawking! BIASED MUCH?
He never said nothing as in ZERO. He was talking about configurations! He was saying there were no galaxies, planets, people, mice, vibrators etc etc. He was not saying that there were no laws. HE ALSO ACCEPTS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE BIG BANG ITSELF MAY HAVE CREATED THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE, BUT THAT THE EVENT ITSELF MAY HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF DIFFERENT LAWS WHICH EXISTED PRIOR. I am going to type that in again three times in caps for you in the hopes that you will read it...HE WAS NOT SAYING THAT THERE WERE NO LAWS!HE WAS NOT SAYING THAT THERE WERE NO LAWS!HE WAS NOT SAYING THAT THERE WERE NO LAWS!
GOT IT?

So are we clear now? Have you understood what i have told you?
Wait i will just make a very simple example just in case...
I give you a box. Tell you to open it and TO tell me what's inside. You open it and you say "Huey Plum ver is nuffing in da box." Then i reply by saying, "Yes to one way of thinking you are correct, but on the other hand, there is gravity in the box." The you say "Oh!?" and scratch your head.
And again i have said nothing here that Hawking himself did not say. I think actually, unlike some, I just managed to understand what he was talking about. Probably because i don't have religious chip on my shoulder.
Unfortunately what has happened to you Beeno, is that you have fallen victim to a review of Hawking's work that tried to use ambiguities in language to discredit his ideas. It's plainly obvious from the fact that he, Hawking, who is clearly a smart man, said one thing and then elaborated on it. And the reviewers, clearly not so smart, took the word NOTHING and decided to interpret it to fit their goals. That in itself says a lot about the nature and ability of the people who wrote that.
Who are you gonna believe? The guy who predicted the existence of blackholes and stuck to his guns when even most of the scientific community argued against him...and he turn out to be spot freaking on! Or some second rate reviewer? Yeah i found the website you have been copying and pasting this stuff from.
AND AGAIN I WILL ASK YOU. WHY IS IT THAT YOU ASSUME THAT JUST BECAUSE HAWKING MAY BE WRONG, AND HE ACCEPTS THAT HE MIGHT, THAT GOD MUST EXIST? 
And i will repeat myself yet again, because it seems necessary. Hawking himself said the above not me. So don't patronize myself or others saying that we should write to the top physicists in the world and tell them we know better. What i will do though, is to write to them and tell them that although they feel they have written their work in popular science books in language that is accessible and basic enough for primary school kids to understand, they may have to dumb it down a tad more.

Right, so does this qualify as someone trying to answer to your copy and pasted statement?
And i will reiterate that you have failed to answer every single question that i have asked you. Mmm i wonder why?
I think i have been trolled
PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
17 Sept 2014, 19:56
#191
17 Sept 2014, 19:56#191
 "Can anybody point me to a more daft staement."
Sure here is one...actually one doe s not need to look very far because there are a many right here.
Frankly it's very obvious it's game set and match to Beeno 
CL
ClaydogClub Pro691 posts
18 Sept 2014, 02:10
#192
18 Sept 2014, 02:10#192
 Plum you haven't been trolled, just "been bagged."
BE
becsPro4,378 posts
18 Sept 2014, 02:22
#193
18 Sept 2014, 02:22#193
FA, he was a Propogandist and Spy, yes.

Many things in his lifetime....fitted a lot in, as well as being a minion of Satan  
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
18 Sept 2014, 14:16
#194
18 Sept 2014, 14:16#194
 He never said nothing as in ZERO.     So now nothing doesnt mean nothing. Bwahahahahahhahahahahahaha poor Hawking is reduced to this utter nonsense. It's a laugh a minute when nothing doesnt mean nothing!!!!! HahahahhahahahaNext the laws: HE ALSO ACCEPTS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE BIG BANG ITSELF MAY HAVE CREATED THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE, BUT THAT THE EVENT ITSELF MAY HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF DIFFERENT LAWS WHICH EXISTED PRIOR. 
"Because there IS a law of gravity, the Universe can and will create itself out of nothing.So now we are to understand this law came about after the big bang - clearly not what Hawking said.  So what preceded the big bang - still nothing? BUt we all know nothing comes from nothing.
Note he is talking about possibility NOT science. Is this really the best the man can do (His logic is so poor it can be taken apart with ease as lennox demostrtated!!!)Then ou Hawking  speculates that the event may have been the result of different laws which existed prior !!!  These prior existing laws cannot of course be said to be nothing - same old self contradiction. How a law of gravity can exist in a nothingness prior to the big bang is also mindless jabbering. BwahahhahahahahahaPlum you hoot as explained by Lennox laws dont create anything or cause anything in themselves. Go and read what Lennox said and try and not be such a dope. Man this is hilarous stuff! 
With poor Plum crashing and failing dismally to make a point is there anybody else wanting to have a shot at dismantling the arguments Lennox has made. To be fair on poor Plum at least he did try and address the issues even if he crashed so dismally. Nobody else tried but maybe they were smarter actually than Plum and saw the hoplesness of Hawking's (And Krauss and Dawkin) case.Suggesting as it now appears that the universe created itself out of nothing via laws that existed prior to the the big bang is pure fiction and sidesplitting stuff!! It's just getting worse and worse as Hawking digs a deeper hole for himslef. Clearly its all specualtive and  defies logic and clearly as well Hawking can't even use language correctly - now we are told the nothing wasn't nothing it contained laws like gravity. Next we learn that prior to the big bang there could have been laws that existed that caused the vent. Hawking doesnt soiund very confident that he now has to insert thsi comment that these possible prior existing laws casuethe event. But laws dont cause events in any case. Ladies and Gentlemen what existed was an eternal incredibly powerful and amazingly intelligent being who is the first cause. That much is blatantly obvious. Just as it is blatantly obvoius Hawking is up the creek without a paddle 
Why is it obvious ou Plum asks that God is the answer. Well because as demonstrated we could only exist is there was an eternal first cause (See my repsonse to Pakie's question who created God) Second it is obvious that  this eternal being must have extraordinary power. And also because the universe is so complex and refelcts such breath taking intelligence and order it shows this being has intelligence way beyond ours. Go and read what instein though about the intelligence he say in the universe. We are supposed to think as the half baked atheists do thsat mindless matter produced all thsi. Indeed that mindless matter prouced the laws of physics Bwahahahhahaha how doggedly dumb can you get. The fool has said in his heart there is no God etc
The notion that the universe created itself out of nothing etc is demonstrably absurd. Dawkin is hugely under stating things when he says its problematic.Waht really turned Flew around was the discovery of the longest word ever written. The Human genome 3.4 billion characters written in a four letter alphabet. It was game over.  

Failing any successful attempt it's GAME SET AND MATCH to Lennox.
I have tho thank Plum for such a great laugh - as laughter is the best medicine.

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
18 Sept 2014, 14:18
#195
18 Sept 2014, 14:18#195

If you want to understand where information cames from and why Flew abandoned atheism listen to this brilliant exposition right to the end. 
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
18 Sept 2014, 14:20
#196
18 Sept 2014, 14:20#196
 
Note the various excellent videos available
WA
WardadPro6,663 posts
18 Sept 2014, 14:41
#197
18 Sept 2014, 14:41#197
 Religion eh ? still the opiate of the [ uneducated ] masses I see.As someone else on here pointed out the better the education levels and overall lifestyle and economy of a nation then we see a decrease in people needing religion.If its your thing fine just dont tell me its got anything to do with science or historical fact.Beandork still too stupid other than to cut and paste either religious nonsense or cherry picked ,misquoted or plain old doctored scientific articles that make as much sense to beandork as calculus  does to a fish . .[ or beandork their intelligence is on the same level ]
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
18 Sept 2014, 14:55
#198
18 Sept 2014, 14:55#198
Bwahahahahaha ou warped DUD is so dumb he thinks character assasination will beat the facts.
That first clip is master piece of scientific thought. There are so many excellent clips by leding scientists telling how bankrupt evolution is. Expalining how information has to come from a mind and not mindles matter etc. 
Man times on so hard for these mindless atheists. Science is giving them such a hard time that really its all over for them.
Dont be so scared warped DUD. G ive it a go and listen. 
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
18 Sept 2014, 14:59
#199
18 Sept 2014, 14:59#199
 
Here an atheist professors realises what rubbish evolution is.
PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
18 Sept 2014, 15:47
#200
18 Sept 2014, 15:47#200
I've read Hawking's book, he proposes his idea. Yet he also speculates as to what the other possibilities are. There is the difference between science and retard-ligion. 
But sure, you win Beeno. 
I'll leave you with this last thought...
You think evolution is not real. I rest my case right there. 
↓ LOAD MORE (page 6 of 7)

More from Rugby

More news