Does anybody have a link to the video of Dawkins on the Late Late show?

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

When considering the nature of the universe and the technicalities of modern scientific understanding, "making up your own mind" simply isn't good enough.

I was referring to Tipler's book not the universe. Tipler uses the 3 foundational premises that Physics is based on. Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity and the Standard Model. He says when these are refuted then his conclusions can be refuted also. The thing is nobody is running to the lab to try and refute them. One would have to come up with better models to replace them, models that can be tested to the extent that these have. So why New Scientist criticizes him for basing his approach on these 3 fundamental premises is beyond me. What other approach would they have him use? He does not violate these foundational premises at all, rather he uses them to show the reader that the Christian claims are wholly consistent with the Laws of Physics. Don’t believe me? Then read it yourself. Now if this was a creationist writing this then eyebrows would (and should) be raised but this is Frank J Tipler we’re talking about, a highly respected physicist.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

He does not violate these foundational premises at all, rather he uses them to show the reader that the Christian claims are wholly consistent with the Laws of Physics.

Well, I've not read Tipler, so I can't comment on what christian claims he's saying are consistent with current physics (nor how he could take this out to book-length).

What about dying and coming back to life -- surely that's against a law of biology, or does Tipler only do physics? In which case, what's his explanation for Jesus flying into the sky after he dies and comes back to life?

cavedave

Not overly related but did anyone notice Dawkins dislikes Harry Potter.

I hope the Harry Potterites don't start up a fatwa. Didn't Ian Paisley have a similar problem with Harry potter? I can see him and Dawkins being the new chuckle brothers

Galvasean

cavedave wrote: »

Not overly related but did anyone notice Dawkins dislikes Harry Potter

Finally he and some of the religious folk have some common ground!
Anyway, he's just trying to hide this!

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Well, I've not read Tipler, so I can't comment on what christian claims he's saying are consistent with current physics (nor how he could take this out to book-length).

What about dying and coming back to life -- surely that's against a law of biology, or does Tipler only do physics? In which case, what's his explanation for Jesus flying into the sky after he dies and comes back to life?

I'm coming to those things in the next couple of chapters. Will fill you in then. He's talking about miricles in general now. He states that they are not violations of the laws of physics. He claims that this view is of Macion and Gnostic origin not Christian. The Hebrew word for Miracle is 'Oth' which means 'Sign' ther Greek word (which escapes me now) translates Wonder. Tipler believes that miracles should serve as both Signs and Wonders. For something to be miracle it would have to cause wonder and to act as sign or have some religious significance. It can't be just an 'on face value alone' violation of the laws of physics for the sake of being a violation of the laws of physics. I'll plod along through it, dying to know what He thinks of the resurrection

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now if this was a creationist writing this then eyebrows would (and should) be raised but this is Frank J Tipler we’re talking about, a highly respected physicist.

You do realise that in that very article it points out that he is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, right? Which means he is an active proponent of Intelligent Design, which means that not only is he not "highly respected", he's actually a joke.

And did you not see the quote from Wicknight where it points out the amount of claims he makes that fly in the face of the rest of the scientific community?

This is why "making up your own mind" is insufficient, most people's minds are not sufficiently armed against nonesense like this to not fall for it.

cavedave

Galvasean

Not overly related but did anyone notice Dawkins dislikes Harry Potter
Finally he and some of the religious folk have some common ground!
Anyway, he's just trying to hide this!

That is uncanny.

Weidii

This is painful to watch, Pat Kenny is such a tool.