Examining "Darwin's Doubt"

What if created universes, by their nature, require constant “maintenance” in order to continue to exist?

1 Like

Because you wrote:

So I guess that you are retracting your ALWAYS?

I’m not saying that is his only falsehood. How many would it take to convince you?

My sources are the people who actually do the work that Meyer misrepresents.

Have you bothered to check ANY of Meyer’s claims against ANY other sources, Guy?

Ya why just call someone ignorant or dishonest when you can call them ignorant and dishonest…
Two for the price of one!
As to what uncalled for name-calling does to a discussion… Who cares right?

What if they don’t? How would you tell?

1 Like

It is no “failure” on the part of the God Who transcends time and space to create a universe that constantly depends, moment-by-moment, upon His active maintenance to exist. You err with a faulty conception of the necessary multidimensionality of the transcedent God… in other words, your “god” is too small.
It’s late, and I’m headed for bed. Good night, for now!

1 Like

I’m seeing assertions, but I’m not seeing arguments. I see an assertion of what would not be a failure, and I see an assertion that I have a faulty conception. Surely there should be more than that in any real conversation.

One last suggestion: familiarize yourself more on the topic of multidimensionality. Good night!

Not helping.

1 Like

Try this, for example.

Sorry, but that all seems like woo to me. How can they possibly find 11 dimensions of neuron structures when space itself only has 3? And whatever does this have to do with God sustaining the universe?

Even better, what does this conceivably have to do with Darwin’s Doubt?

Well, you already know better. You experience four dimensions daily, time being the fourth. Now, take it from there, and let it woo you.
https://www.reasons.org/explore/publications/tnrtb/read/tnrtb/2007/06/08/what-s-all-this-higher-dimensionality-stuff-part-1-of-7 Seriously, dude, good night!

Seriously, dude, I am unable to take any of that seriously.

3 Likes

This is how every conversation here should start!

:smiley:

3 Likes

You can’t learn from what you won’t even look at… isn’t there even the slightest hint of a physicist or an astrophysicist in you? These are the topics and implications that derive from an expanding universe that had a beginning. They can’t be avoided.

There isn’t. If you’re talking about the tiny, curled up extra dimensions postulated by various versions of string theory, that’s of interest only to those explaining string theory. They can have no use for anything else and are made so as not to be detectable. What does this have to do with Darwin’s Doubt?

Well, you are alleging that somehow God is a poor designer, if He didn’t make the kind of universe that shunts Him to a corner, undetectable.
You won’t even begin down the path of exploring the actual universe implied in the observation that matter, space, energy and time all had a simultaneous beginning a finite time ago, and what that means regarding the regularity in behavior of natural laws… not to mention their anthropic fine-tuning. Has everything to do with everything!
Take a look at, say, the Podolsky-Rosen experiment, for the mind-boggling implications of what it demonstrated.
You have effectively ruled out any number of phenomena, like electron “spin,” in exploring the means by which natural law unfolds, much less any notion of whether the transcedent God has myriads of means available to change the usual course of things. Your causality matrix is artificially constrained to four dimensions.

1 Like

Not what I said. But isn’t that exactly the kind of universe we seem to be looking at?
The rest of your post seems a veritable Gish Gallop of buzzwords to me. Are you a physicist?

3 Likes

Are you a scientist, or just aware of one discipline?

Yes, I am a scientist. Thanks for asking. What does any of this have to do with Darwin’s Doubt?

1 Like

What does the very structure of reality itself have NOT to do with everything?