Give ‘em the Silent Treatment

Status
Not open for further replies.

ThePhy

New member
One of the items Bob sells through his radio show and website is a set of audiotapes called “Genesis – Creation”. I felt that these tapes might be relevant to any Age-of-the-Earth debate that might materialize between Bob and I, so I ordered them. The relevance showed itself in less than 30 seconds.

Very near the start of the first tape, Bob says this:
Either the universe was always here, or a creator made it. That is the only choice. Either an eternal God or eternal matter.
When I first heard that I immediately stopped the tape and cleaned out my ears. Then I started the tape from the front again. The same words were heard. I thought, “There has to be a mistake here.” But alas, after playing it over several times, the sad reality was clear.

Let me make an analogy. I realize Bob was recording the Genesis Creation tapes knowing the vast majority of his audience would be fundamentalist Christians who largely agreed with him. Assume I were to go to Japan, where Buddhism is the predominant religion, and I was invited to speak on the subject of God. Just as Bob did, I might consider my audience, and elect to say in my opening:
There are only two options. Either God as understood in Buddhism is true, or the atheists are right in saying there is no God. Those are the only choices.
Later when you hear a recording of my statement, what will you think? Would you feel I had been honest in my claim? Or would you recognize that I had been blatantly deceitful in summarily dismissing from consideration the Christian understanding of God?

What was it in Bob’s opening statement that equates to my omitting Christianity in mine? It is this - He is clearly addressing a scientific question of the origin of the universe. He restricts the purely scientific options to one choice – the eternal existence of matter. But considering universe as we know it to have existed eternally is a scientific philosophy that has been abandoned for nearly a half-century by over 95% of the tens of thousands of physicists in the world. Why did he elect to summarily disregard the idea that these same scientists feel there is strong and growing evidential support for, the Big Bang? I would be most interested to see if he could specifically tell us why he chose to restrict the scientific options to a single view held by a small minority of the physics community and totally omitted any mention of the majority scientific view.
 

Livingthelife4e

New member
ThePhy said:
One of the items Bob sells through his radio show and website is a set of audiotapes called “Genesis – Creation”. I felt that these tapes might be relevant to any Age-of-the-Earth debate that might materialize between Bob and I, so I ordered them. The relevance showed itself in less than 30 seconds.

Very near the start of the first tape, Bob says this: When I first heard that I immediately stopped the tape and cleaned out my ears. Then I started the tape from the front again. The same words were heard. I thought, “There has to be a mistake here.” But alas, after playing it over several times, the sad reality was clear.

Let me make an analogy. I realize Bob was recording the Genesis Creation tapes knowing the vast majority of his audience would be fundamentalist Christians who largely agreed with him. Assume I were to go to Japan, where Buddhism is the predominant religion, and I was invited to speak on the subject of God. Just as Bob did, I might consider my audience, and elect to say in my opening: Later when you hear a recording of my statement, what will you think? Would you feel I had been honest in my claim? Or would you recognize that I had been blatantly deceitful in summarily dismissing from consideration the Christian understanding of God?

What was it in Bob’s opening statement that equates to my omitting Christianity in mine? It is this - He is clearly addressing a scientific question of the origin of the universe. He restricts the purely scientific options to one choice – the eternal existence of matter. But considering universe as we know it to have existed eternally is a scientific philosophy that has been abandoned for nearly a half-century by over 95% of the tens of thousands of physicists in the world. Why did he elect to summarily disregard the idea that these same scientists feel there is strong and growing evidential support for, the Big Bang? I would be most interested to see if he could specifically tell us why he chose to restrict the scientific options to a single view held by a small minority of the physics community and totally omitted any mention of the majority scientific view.

The problem with your thinking seems to be that buddhism doesn't disagree with the idea that the universe has existed eternally or by means of a big bang.

Your analogy is poor.

Creation isn't just a Christian concept. Bob is only saying that there are only a few logical ways to explain our existance. Something created it or it has always been here. Seems logical enough to me. You brought it down to religion vs religion he was just going on two logical theories (not to call a perpetual motion machine logical...)
 

AltarEgo

New member
ThePhy said:
What was it in Bob’s opening statement that equates to my omitting Christianity in mine? It is this - He is clearly addressing a scientific question of the origin of the universe. He restricts the purely scientific options to one choice – the eternal existence of matter. But considering universe as we know it to have existed eternally is a scientific philosophy that has been abandoned for nearly a half-century by over 95% of the tens of thousands of physicists in the world. Why did he elect to summarily disregard the idea that these same scientists feel there is strong and growing evidential support for, the Big Bang? I would be most interested to see if he could specifically tell us why he chose to restrict the scientific options to a single view held by a small minority of the physics community and totally omitted any mention of the majority scientific view.
Have you tried asking Bob?
 

Turbo

Friendly Neighborhood Admin
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
ThePhy said:
I would be most interested to see if he could specifically tell us why he chose to restrict the scientific [sic] options to a single view held by a small minority of the physics community and totally omitted any mention of the majority scientific view.
I think you meant naturalistic or atheistic there where you said "scientific."

If you wanted to know why Bob dismisses the possibility that matter came into existence through natural means, you should have continued to listen for a few minutes.

It is because the laws of nature (namely, the first law of thermodynamics) logically eliminate the possibility that the matter/energy that makes up the universe came into existence naturally.

Also, Bob goes on to explain that the laws of nature (namely, the second law of thermodynamics) logically eliminate the possibility that the universe has always existed.

Therefore, since scientific discoveries about the laws of nature eliminates the possibility that the universe has always existed and the possibility that it came into existence naturally, yet the universe exists, we are only left with the possibility that the universe originately supernaturally.
 

Bob Enyart

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Phy,

ThePhy said:
But considering [the] universe as we know it to have existed eternally is a scientific philosophy that has been abandoned...

Would you do me a favor and drop those four words from your objection, so that you can actually present a position different than mine?

If you can drop those words, then I will be able to see that we actually disagree on this :patrol: .

Also, to save time, can we agree that the universe = everything that exists? (Let's not consider anything spiritual, such as spirit beings, as part of the universe.)

Thanks, -Bob
 
Last edited:

ThePhy

New member
The Pastor of (un)science

The Pastor of (un)science

Turbo said:
I think you meant naturalistic or atheistic there where you said "scientific."

If you wanted to know why Bob dismisses the possibility that matter came into existence through natural means, you should have continued to listen for a few minutes.

It is because the laws of nature (namely, the first law of thermodynamics) logically eliminate the possibility that the matter/energy that makes up the universe came into existence naturally.

Also, Bob goes on to explain that the laws of nature (namely, the second law of thermodynamics) logically eliminate the possibility that the universe has always existed.

Therefore, since scientific discoveries about the laws of nature eliminates the possibility that the universe has always existed and the possibility that it came into existence naturally, yet the universe exists, we are only left with the possibility that the universe originately supernaturally.
The point is not what your or Bob's (mis)understanding of physics is, it is why he summarily didn’t even mention the scientific idea that is by far the one most accepted in the world of physics, and instead only presented the one that was rejected decades ago. Is Bob now an authority that dictates to the world of science what it’s prevailing understandings are?
 

Turbo

Friendly Neighborhood Admin
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
ThePhy said:
The point is not what your or Bob's (mis)understanding of physics is, it is why he summarily didn’t even mention...
...(in the first thirty seconds of his six-hour Genesis: Creation album)...
...the scientific idea that is by far the one most accepted in the world of physics, and instead only presented the one that was rejected decades ago...
...(in the first thirty seconds of his six-hour Genesis: Creation album).

As I said before, you should have kept listening. I would think that after spending $30 or so on a six hour album to learn more about your opponent's views about the age of the Earth, you would have listened to more than the first minute.
 

ThePhy

New member
Bob Enyart said:
Phy,

Would you do me a favor and drop those four words from your objection, so that you can actually present a position different than mine?

If you can drop those words, then I will be able to see that we actually disagree on this :patrol: .

Also, to save time, can we agree that the universe = everything that exists? (Let's not consider anything spirit beings as part of the universe.)

Thanks, -Bob
Glad to see you respond. I am not sure that the 4 words that you seem to take issue with are crucial to the question of whether the big bang or an eternal universe best represents the views of the physics community. Restating it as you recommend: “But considering [the] universe to have existed eternally is a scientific philosophy that has been abandoned...” – I find that acceptable, maybe. My hesitation derives from the further conditions you ask for, that the “universe = everything that exists”, yet you immediately exclude spirit beings. Doesn’t this immediately force the conclusion that spirit beings don’t exist? (I am not sure that the existence of spirits beings is something that is germane to dictating what the overwhelming majority of scientists believe about the origin of the universe.)
 

fool

New member
Hall of Fame
Turbo said:
I think you meant naturalistic or atheistic there where you said "scientific."

If you wanted to know why Bob dismisses the possibility that matter came into existence through natural means, you should have continued to listen for a few minutes.

It is because the laws of nature (namely, the first law of thermodynamics) logically eliminate the possibility that the matter/energy that makes up the universe came into existence naturally.

Also, Bob goes on to explain that the laws of nature (namely, the second law of thermodynamics) logically eliminate the possibility that the universe has always existed.

Therefore, since scientific discoveries about the laws of nature eliminates the possibility that the universe has always existed and the possibility that it came into existence naturally, yet the universe exists, we are only left with the possibility that the universe originately supernaturally.
And hence, the Super Natural must have been created by the Super Super Natural.
 

Turbo

Friendly Neighborhood Admin
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
fool said:
And hence, the Super Natural must have been created by the Super Super Natural.
Ah, living up to your name as usual, I see.
 

ThePhy

New member
Turbo said:
...(in the first thirty seconds of his six-hour Genesis: Creation album)...
...(in the first thirty seconds of his six-hour Genesis: Creation album).

As I said before, you should have kept listening. I would think that after spending $30 or so on a six hour album to learn more about your opponent's views about the age of the Earth, you would have listened to more than the first minute.
I have said nothing about whether or not I listened to the album in its entirety. The truth or falsity of the statement that caught my attention is not dependent on anything that follows. Bob may well present an array of arguments against the big bang, but the point still stands, he chose to only present a stance about the creation of the universe that is supported by a small minority of the physics community.
 

fool

New member
Hall of Fame
ThePhy said:
I have said nothing about whether or not I listened to the album in its entirety. The truth or falsity of the statement that caught my attention is not dependent on anything that follows. Bob may well present an array of arguments against the big bang, but the point still stands, he chose to only present a stance about the creation of the universe that is supported by a small minority of the physics community.
Isn't that what they call a strawman?
 

Turbo

Friendly Neighborhood Admin
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
ThePhy said:
I have said nothing about whether or not I listened to the album in its entirety. The truth or falsity of the statement that caught my attention is not dependent on anything that follows.
From your opening post:
Why did he elect to summarily disregard the idea that these same scientists feel there is strong and growing evidential support for, the Big Bang?​
Here again, you left off "in the first 30 seconds of his six-hour album," giving readers the impression that Bob never bothered to address the Big Bang theory.

Bob may well present an array of arguments against the big bang, but the point still stands, he chose to only present a stance about the creation of the universe that is supported by a small minority of the physics community.
...in the first 30 seconds of his six-hour album, after which he thoroughly explained why the view that is currently popular among atheist physicists doesn't hold water.

The real question is, why did ThePhy chose to omit from his opening post the fact that Bob did in fact address and and present refutations to the Big Bang theory on his Genesis: Creation album?
 

Bob Enyart

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Perfect love casts out fear

Perfect love casts out fear

ThePhy said:
I am not sure that the 4 words that you seem to take issue with ["as we know it"] are crucial to the question
Phy, let's speak clearly and directly with each other. I didn't "seem to take issue," I did take issue. And those four words are crucial to your objection. I think you should realize that, especially once I drew attention to them. If the physical universe has always existed, simply in different forms, other than the way "we know it" today, that would qualify for the first theoretical possibility I raised, that "the universe was always here," just in different forms, other than as "we know it." Agreed? I hope so. Otherwise, how can we dialogue?

How many times have we heard:

Google6: "Billions of years ago, everything in the universe was crunched up into a tiny speck that was smaller than the period at the end of this sentence."

Google21: "it only took a millionth of a second for EVERYTHING in our universe to go from a point smaller than the period at the end of this sentence to a ball the size of the galaxy!). " [All caps emphasis in the original, at a website from a physics department at a Taiwan university.]

Thus, if EVERYTHING in the universe was in that little speck, and then it exploded, as the Big Bang theory has been presented to billions of people, then the matter pre-existed the Big Bang, although perhaps not "as we know it" today, for EVERYTHING was crammed into that little speck.

So, Phy, I think you need to acknowledge that those four words REALLY have to go, for you to even present a disagreement with my position, let alone find it shockingly ignorant. No?
Phy said:
Restating it as you recommend: “But considering [the] universe to have existed eternally is a scientific philosophy that has been abandoned...” – I find that acceptable, maybe.
Phy, Can you drop the maybe? I hope so. Don't be like Sam... and come to think of it, don't be like Zakath. Don't be afraid of your position, and don't toss in so many caveats that you make the discussion so abstruse as to be able to safely hide in the confusion. Just drop the maybe, and boldly stick to your position.
Phy said:
My hesitation derives from the further conditions you ask for, that the “universe = everything that exists”, yet you immediately exclude spirit beings. Doesn’t this immediately force the conclusion that spirit beings don’t exist? (I am not sure that the existence of spirits beings is something that is germane to dictating what the overwhelming majority of scientists believe about the origin of the universe.)
This is the kind of fear-based obfuscation I'm talking about. In a Battle Royale, I have to put up with that kind of immaturity. But not here. You don't believe spirit beings exist. The at-large scientific community does not believe spirit beings exist. The laws of physics do not take spirit beings into account. The Big Bang does not consider the existence of spirit beings (neither before nor after the inflationary period). So just drop the fear-based obfuscation, and restate your disagreement, that is, if you actually have one. Agreed?

Thanks, -Bob
 

Bob Enyart

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
fool said:
And hence, the Super Natural must have been created by the Super Super Natural.

Fool, can you figure out what my rebuttal to that would be? If not, I'll not discuss it with you, for it's probably been said hundreds of times on TOL, and saying it one more time won't help.

-Bob
 

fool

New member
Hall of Fame
Bob Enyart said:
Fool, can you figure out what my rebuttal to that would be? If not, I'll not discuss it with you, for it's probably been said hundreds of times on TOL, and saying it one more time won't help.

-Bob
I asked your buddy Knight once, He said God came from Kmart.
Perhaps You would like to enlighten :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top