because of obama’s speech
in On-Air Related
WHEN WILL TODAY’S EPISODE BE AIRED?
Kate,Sure, I’ll bite. =) For starters, a very isnnreetitg take on faith-based worldviews, and certainly one more well-reasoned than many I have encountered. However, I take issue with your description that atoms cannot be destroyed. Indeed they can, (as physical matter,) and converted into energy. (Look into matter-antimatter anihillations for an example.) It is the sum quantity of this matter-energy that cannot be destroyed. -But that’s a relaitve non-issue. To the point: Regarding the so-called irrationality of the atom as it contrasts the irrationality of belief in a higher being, there is for one a very important distinction between the two: Atoms may be observed and measured, whereas higher beings cannot. Therefore, no matter how peculiar the behavior of atoms, they yet persist as a physical object of study, and therefore to the skeptic, are worthly of acceptance as a part of physical reality.Secondly, I for one agree with you that the current M-Theory mathematical requirements of a 11+ dimensional reality is a stretch. While the field has proven to be wildly mathematically successful, bear in mind that there are any number of theoretical frameworks that might be mathematically successful in describing the universe without the framework actually representing reality. I, for one, do not believe that current modeling in Quantum Mechanics will be ultimately shown to be true in a physical sense, for this is one of the few fields where math now leads physical observation, (as opposed to the other way around.) This places the modern quantum mechanics researcher in very unrestricted creative space in interpreting their results. (And I think they’re off the deep end there.)Third, you mention requiring proof of the spontaneous creation of a telescope, etc., without the use of language and thought communication. Well, no one is presupposing such a thing. However, if you want the spontaneous creation of strands of self-replicating RNA, orthorhombic crystals, lipid spheres, or any number of amazingly complex chemical structures which skeptics believe can with time result in the natural formation of life, look no further than natural forces: Gravity, electromagnetism, thermodynamics leave these alone with matter and time, and we indeed are watching creations perpetually form, all without intelligent agency from stars and planets to mountains and moons. Is this life? Well, skeptics don’t yet have final evidence, but the gap is narrowing to the point of a very high degree of confidence. This is why the search for chemical precursors of life elsewhere in the solar system is such a priority for NASA we have good reason to believe there is something to find.Finally, I contend that we are all skeptics in relative states of denial, and that all believers in JC, (as you call it,) indeed do rely on empirical evidence as the root of their belief at least as much as do skeptics in their own worldviews. For the believer, this empirical evidence takes the form of recorded revelation, or scripture, as revealed in the Testaments of the Bible. Rationalist skeptics simply do not find this evidence (as it supports the existence of higher-dimensional beings) trustworthy or reliable. Believing these scriptures to be historically-accurate evidence is essential to adherents to Judaeo-Christian religions, for I contend there would be no Christians without the Bible. In this light, when weighing evidence from a universe continually available to study against historical documents alleging supernatual beings and events we find no evidence of in the modern era, it is easy to see why skeptics would choose to believe in the atom before choosing to believe in God. In the end, no matter how irrational the universe appears to function, it remains measureable and has yet to present us something something unknowable, including sticking our toes in the water of what came before the beginning of the universe and what exists beyond.Two cents.Cheers,Ben