Does Naturalism Better Explain Hoaxes?

clifford g said, "That in turn means creation at Singularity is a fact and cosmological fine tuning by a Creator is a fact."

While I agree with idea of a singularity and that a Creator is the cause, I must also say that there is still much debate in the scientific community about a singularity. The Hawking/Hartle view of an "unbounded universe" is testament to this. However, this theory also has many flaws as well. I am currently reading "New Theories of Everything" by John D. Barrow an English Physicist from Cambridge, who seems to be very objective as he lays out his ideas regarding the various cosmological theories. Such as if we will ever be able to find a "Theory of Everything," and even if we were able to find such a theory, it may not necessarily tell us all that we "hope" to find. It is all very interesting!! I am personally excited about what we might find when the Large Hadron Collider starts running its experiments in the next couple of months!!

Vera,

Joe may be referring to my callous partisan comments about RTB and Discovery Institute.

Joe,

If you don't agree with something we've said, don't be afraid, at least on my part, to tell us what it is. I would love to hear your point of view.

Vera

Clifford g. says, "There may be no contradiction in God creating other ‘persons’ in other parts of the universe. But it’s doubtful He would do that or allow us to find them because IF we do find them, we may start to idolize them, we may start worshipping the creature rather than the Creator. Would our Creator want that to happen?"

The Creator would not want us to do that, however this is not a legitimate argument. All this means is that we would need to get over the fact that some other being is more advanced. We would need to expand our understanding of things. Not to mention some of us already idolize and worship celebrities and others. Furthermore, I would assume that you would believe in angels and demons (as do I but I call them something else). Angels are more advanced then we are with the supposed exception that they have no free will. They can fly, manifest themselves from the invisible, have extraordinary strength etc., but we do not worship them. Nor is there any evidence that would suggest that these hypothetical (ETs)beings would desire us to worship them. Do we as advanced beings(compared to all life) desire to be worshipped by other life on the planet (excluding your typical egoist)? We would, however, be able to learn from an advanced civilization, much the same way a child learns from their elders, yet no idolization or worship is needed.

"Many famous scientists appear to have come to the conclusion that we are indeed at the end of major discoveries in science. We are now in the Age of Mastery."

On the contrary, many scientists believe otherwise. John Horgan's ideas ,while important to look at, represent only one viewpoint of the scientific community. Take dark matter for example. We know next to nothing about it yet with further theory and observation we will "discover" many new things about the existence of reality. Consider the following quote from Ed Witten of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study: "It could still turn out that dark energy is some as-yet-undiscovered “fifth force,” say, or the result of not understanding gravity." and "Both alternatives to the constant — some weird energy field in space, or a modification to Einstein’s theory of gravity — could vary wildly over the course of history."-http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/science/03dark.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin

The idea of whether or not we humans are intelligent enough to understand the quantum theory, or find a "Theory of Everything" have been brought up. However, the idea of whether or not we humans might be able to do anything has always been an issue, and time and time again has been overturned. This ties into whether or not we will ever be able to learn or discover everything, which is precisely the argument made by Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. There is still debate over Godel's ideas.

Vera says, "God Almighty in Jesus Christ. Do we have other accounts that He existed? Yes, Josephus."

I might add that the religious community is usually the only one that considers Josephus as a credible source. His work is debunked, in the eyes of many, and there are many arguments against the reliability of those documents. Even some in the religious community do not rely on Josephus, because they know that that the documents lacks credibility.

Jonathan,

God is a person. We have a 'personal' relationship with God, our Creator. As descendents of Adam's fallen race, we cannot have a relationship with our Creator unless we, as individuals, humbly acknowledge that we are sinners and accept the sacrifice that Jesus (one of the 3 persons of God) made on the cross on our behalf.

If God is not a person, there is no requirement for Him to show love to us by sending His Son Jesus to die on the cross and there is no requirement for us to have a relationship with Him.

The Bible says God created us in His image, and that is the reason why we as 'persons' show love, volition, have morality, intelligence etc..

There may be no contradiction in God creating other 'persons' in other parts of the universe. But it's doubtful He would do that or allow us to find them because IF we do find them, we may start to idolize them, we may start worshipping the creature rather than the Creator. Would our Creator want that to happen?

Many famous scientists appear to have come to the conclusion that we are indeed at the end of major discoveries in science. We are now in the Age of Mastery.(see End of Science by John Horgan) So attributing supernatural causes to inexplicable phenomena makes some sense.

Oh, and Jonathan ... RTB uses Science correctly (thank God!). If you want to know Creationists using Science incorrectly check out Discovery Institute.

About this thread...

The miracles that Jesus performed, there is a certain mundane/humdrum quality to them. There is nothing flashy about these miracles. They have a direct transformative impact on the witnesses. Similarly Jesus performs miracles on believers today. But it is for the believer for his edification. It was almost as if Jesus was cautioning us not to get caught up in signs and wonders, and not believe anything that we cannot test. Jesus Himself said there will be no sign given to this generation except the sign of Jonah.

The biggest problem that I have with RTB's evaluation of the rUFO phenomenon is that they wholehearted rely on the so-called impossibility of life existing elsewhere in the cosmos. They also attack the issue of space travel with the same argument of impossibility due to the constraints of the laws of physics. This is a rather bold statement because to say such a statement would infer that we actually know all there is to know about the laws of physics. It is a known fact that throughout history something that was considered to be impossible in one generation was in fact possible in the next generation. Take the issue of invisibility; this is an issue that has long thought to be impossible by scientists, yet due to recent discoveries every book on optics will have to be revised. Check these links for reference: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/11/2330897.htm http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature07247.html

My point is that while I am very much appreciative for much of the work done by RTB, I think they fall short in that they attribute a "supernatural" cause to anything that cannot be explained by today's understanding. This I think is premature and not good science. It is typical "God of the gap" argumentation. This is not to say that I do not believe in a "God"; on the contrary I consider myself a theist.

Larry said, "In my opinion, they are just replacing God with another ‘god’—-the god of ‘finding extra-terrestrial intelligent life’. As if that would really matter. Finding that life would in no way negate God’s existence."

While it is true that some may be replacing one type of god with another, I consider myself just an observer, not attaching any god-like attributes to any of it. I agree with the idea that finding such extra-terrestrial intelligent life would not negate the existence of a "God," but it does beg the question of whether or not the beings that call themselves gods are in fact these possible ETI beings? How would a primitive species know the difference? The Bible itself is full of UFO references and ETI beings. How many times was a prophet or other man taken up in the clouds in a vehicle? And can you say, "beam me up, Scotty!" Our own science can attest to the possibility of teleportation. Consider the following links: http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7007/abs/nature02858.html and watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FqLCLooayM

Christians who use a balanced approach---using faith and reason---can easily deduce what is a 'hoax' and what is plausible. I've never believed in the 'Big Foot' stories and other obvious hoaxes or 'conspiracy' theories that seem to gain traction in some segments of society---like those who think we never landed on the Moon, or those who deny the holocaust took place---or those '9/11 truthers'.

Since they don't believe in supernatural, it's easy for naturalists to dismiss any strange, out of the ordinary occurence as a 'natural' event. Both theists and naturalists would probably agree on that occurence as being 'natural' about 98% of the time. But, that remaining 2% is where disagreement comes in.

The problem is that, as it is written in scripture, the 'natural man' views spiritual things as foolishness, since he cannot comprehend or appraise the supernatural. However, a spiritual individual can appraise both the natural and the supernatural. Since it is impossible for any person to have all knowledge, the naturalist hampers himself by only accepting naturalistic answers to every proposition. Once again, as it is written, God has revealed his handiwork in nature and in the universe at large. So, in the end, there can be no excuses for anyone saying, "I didn't know".

As for UFOs---what we call residual UFOs (maybe 2% of all UFO sightings), I come down on the side of RTB. Their views on that subject are just as plausible as accepting the supposition that they are 'space aliens' or 'inter-dimensional aliens'. I find it interesting that many naturalists discount the supernatural, but readily accept the notion of alien creatures piloting UFOs and/or expecting many alien races will eventually be found in the galaxy. In my opinion, they are just replacing God with another 'god'---the god of 'finding extra-terrestrial intelligent life'. As if that would really matter. Finding that life would in no way negate God's existence.

Arthur C. Clark's third of his so-called "Three Laws" states: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "

Of course you could just as easily replace the word magic with the "supernatural." Obviously this leads to the question of where or who is using this technology. Well, this question inevitably leads directly to the question of whether or not we are alone in the universe? While the scientific community has not found any evidence for such, this does not rule out the possibility. If I am not mistaken, RTB believes that UFO's are real, but that they are "supernatural" and like many of the religious, think that they are demons. I completely disagree!!