Hadn’t heard of Chuck Missler until I came across this video, but apparently he’s a businessman turned preacher who started the Koinonia House ministry in 1973. In the following video clip he argues that if Evolution were true then he should, on occasion, open up a jar of peanut butter and discover new life. Yes, he’s seriously making that argument.
It’s pretty funny until you realize that a lot of nutcases out there are watching this video and nodding in agreement.
Swordsbane, EDB is fully aligned with creationism. He already gave you all of his evidence—the premise that all theories are equally valid.
Cool, so if I come up with a theory that a slice of wood cut from a tree is really a pizza, can I teach that in school? After all, it’s round and flat, it has what can be considered a crust….. it must be a pizza… right?
Absolutely. And don’t get me started on Baumkuchen
Oy, that’s been one of my pet peeves since childhood.
I hope I can still find them. They sound cute to me, anyway. In just a few short days I’ll be touring the European continent again.
Actually, the USAF found that kangaroos are really lethal. The following is a story from an Australian Wargame Club website
So perhaps the ‘roos para-dropped to Oz.
Maybe this is old news to everyone here, but I was a bit staggered last time I was in Hawaii to hear that there are feral wallabies on Oahu.. Rather mindboggling somehow.
Sadie- The only important difference between Austria and Australia is that Austria is a bit smaller. I’m pretty sure you can still get the t-shirts. Drop me a line if you’re in town and we can chat over a Doppelspänner.
There are colonies of wallabies in England, they escape from zoos.
Zilch: will do. Vienna is on the itinerary, and if nothing else I’ll give you a ring just to say hi. Regarding the Doppelspänner, I must admit that I’m embarrassingly inexperienced on the subject of European blends, but the stronger the better, right? I have plenty of experience with Turkish blends, which have the habit of leaving me shaking like a leaf up to twelve hours after their imbibing.
Sounds wonderfully cost effective compared to drinking gallons of soda for your caffeine fix though.
I resent that. My being a jerk has nothing to do with evolution.
timmeh- if you are a jerk (which I somehow doubt) it certainly has something to do with evolution. No evolution, no life; no life, no jerkiness.
Ok I’m not a jerk,but I am very strict and get called worse all the time.
I saw THIS yesterday. I don’t suppose the IDers have an explanation for it, but the rest of you might get a kick out of it
It was gods all work. See you forget that god can change sides like a striper in a room full of millionaires.
Swordsbane- Of course ID has an explanation for these mites reevolving sex: the Designer wanted them to have fun again. Darwinists are flabbergasted. Uncommon Descent and William Dembski are lauded by the scientific community.
Or maybe not. Oops.
What they need is just a new slogan: “ID- Less Popular Than Nixon”
Via Pharyngula.
Atheism is TOO simple…
Here is enough Chuck Missler for all you naysayers. It is evident you misunderstood the use of the peanut butter jar. Life comes from life. The accidental and unexplained transition of periodic table elements to human life is what so called scientists, such as Dawkins, is IMPOSSIBLE. Hence peanut butter. This is one of Dawkins premises… Given a long enough timeline the impossible can become possible…
Analyze these videos and dare to call Chuck Missler a stupid man:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=496V7OR35vs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWdiQtp9LFo
Oh, the argumentum ad youtubeum. How about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY
I love it when people use capital letters for that word… as if emphasis on a stupid idea would make it not stupid somehow.
The simple fact is that evolution makes no supposition about where life comes from, so the peanut-butter jar analogy is stupid at least in that way.
Second, if your going to use an analogy to prove something, or in this case, disprove it, then make sure the analogy has the same basic premise.
Peanut butter is already organic, and that means it invalidates the analogy, which is supposed to support the idea that you can’t get life from non-life. It would have been a better analogy (yet still stupid) if he had used a mound of sand, since life cannot come from sand spontaneously.
Going beyond that, the current scientific theory of the origins of life is barely a theory. But if I understand it correctly, the basics are that massive discharges of energy, like possibly from lightning, caused the formation of the first amino acids. Now if you want to say that God was what caused that, then that’s fine with me… until we uncover more evidence, at least.
Getting back to evolution, however, Missler is a moron. He neither understands the theory of evolution, nor is he competent to debate the theory on scientific grounds, no matter how much he likes peanut butter.
Done and done.
There is an old story about a patient who was being treated by a psychiatrist. The patient wouldn’t eat or take care of himself, claiming that he was a corpse. The psychiatrist spent many hours arguing with the patient trying to convince him he wasn’t a corpse. Finally the psychiatrist asked the patient if corpses bled. The patient replied, Of course corpses don’t bleed, all of their body functions have stopped. The psychiatrist then convinced the patient to try an experiment. The psychiatrist would carefully prick the patient with a pin and they would see if he started to bleed. The patient agreed. After all, he was a corpse. The psychiatrist gently pricked the patient’s skin with a needle and, sure enough, he began to bleed. With a look of shock and amazement the patient gasped, “I’ll be darned…corpses DO bleed!”
1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Romans 1.18-23
For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
James 1.20
Nice try, Andy. Try throwing some Koran quotes at us instead. It would at least be original.
We’ve had a creationist dry spell and now this is all we get?
Translating 1.18-23 into the modern vernacular:
Andy, your religion has components that amount to: “This religion is true, and you are wrong if you believe otherwise.” But apart from Zen, all religions have that feature; it’s standard, like power locks and a radio and the chrome trim package. What makes yours different?
Oh, right: you grew up in a country where your religion is dominant.
I’m with Elwed. The quality of the Creationists that come around here has dropped considerably. At least some of the ones in the past were funny.
Kudo’s to Swordsbane for pointing out the huge holes in Missler’s argument.
Andy, throwing Bible quotes at people who don’t believe the Bible to be true shows what a moron you truly are.
If you haven’t copyrighted that and its obvious variations, you should.
For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
Jeremiah 29:11
I do not believe in creationism, intelligent design or in the theory of evolution. I simply believe that my God created and firmed all the worlds with the power of his word. That’s my faith, that’s what I believe in. It is the word of God. And I choose to believe the word of God over any man’s opinion and wishful thinking. Do not be stubborn men, be rational men. For true reason answers questions for a man’s body, soul and spirit. Search out this matter, for I went through such a search myself and I have found the truth.
References:
1) Collins hopes to stake out the middle ground between Darwinian atheists and religious fundamentalists. “Both of these extremes don’t stand up to logic, and yet they have occupied the stage,” he told me. “We cannot let either side win.”
Steve Paulson article about Francis Collins.
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/07/collins/
Unfortunately, the idea under discussion is whether Darwin’s theories are extreme or not. Those who agree with Darwin say “Show me the contrary evidence.” Those that are against Darwin say “You’re wrong. I’m right, and it’s obvious to anyone.”
I’ll give you two guesses which is the extreme position. Learn the theory. When you can explain the theory, THEN you can dispute it. Until then, you are just making noise. So far, I haven’t heard anyone (including the video’s referenced here) who is against the theory of evolution say anything that makes me think they have more than half a clue what it really says and what it really implies. If you want to take on the theory of evolution, that is your first job. When you’ve done that, come back and prove it. Then we can talk about what you think the observable evidence really says.
Rational people have to be stubborn. Otherwise any schmo can come along and tear up their theories. Like my Dad says: “Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.”
True reason is the tool of a scientist. It does not seem to be popular among religious folk. Stubbornness, on the other hand… seems to be a renewable rescource among the faithful.
Andy writes…
Yeah, that’s called Creationism. Way to contradict yourself though.
The irony in that statement is amazing. You’re not being rational at all, but are engaging in the very wishful thinking you claim to disdain in others.
Apparently you haven’t as you’re still stuck in your delusion believing it to be reality.
And that’s the biggest problem with Creationists. They think that explaining how life develops on Earth denies the possibility of there being a god.
Evolution says that the Earth is older than the Bible says it is and that higher life forms came about as mutations of older species. Where in my biology or anthropology books can you find the passage “…and therefore, the existence of God is impossible.” ??
It seems the Creationists real agenda is to preserve the mystery, like those stupid paranormal investigator shows on TV. They’re not out to prove ghosts exist or prove that they don’t. They’re out there to promote the search, not the discovery. Creationists want us to search for truth, but only when it takes us to where they want to go. What happens to the search for truth when you’ve already made up your mind what the truth is?
Either science is valuable, or it isn’t. The same process of research and discovery that brought us evolution also brought us light, heat, medicine… all of the technological breakthroughs that make life so easy for us ‘higher life forms’ If you say that the methods we used to arrive at evolution are wrong, you’re calling into question every other discovery ever made by a scientist. I don’t know about you, but every time I flip on a light switch, I get light, and if I don’t I can figure out what went wrong and fix it so I do get light. Every single time. The scientific method gave us this. When science also says evolution is the best theory we have about how life develops on this planet, then I’m inclined to agree, even if I was totally clueless about the science involved, and if someone comes along and says “No, it’s wrong.” Then they better have something better than a Bible and a peanut butter jar.
Funny but true, they sometimes don’t think they’d beleive it if they knew science so they pretend they didn’t hear anything. Reminds me of the time as a child when I’d close my eyes thinking nobody could see me if I did. Truebelievers™ are almost primitive atheists at heart (in that they don’t think science allows it) but ones who are not logical enough to figure out either side, so they brain-wash themselves as an easy but ill-thought out bribe-possible-god option, then get trapped in by the fear that indirectly comes from brainwashing
And reality is different, and thrust upon them (like waking up)
careful, science needs policing by at least someone to maintain it’s integrity, it might not keep such a fine net if society doesn’t pressure it to
My point was that science has my trust because of the results it has produced. Science has a methodology and it is easy to see who follows that methodology and who doesn’t. This is why Creationists who call themselves scientists are defacto denying science since there is no scientific basis for Creationism. It makes no difference to me who believes in Creationism, as long as they don’t try to call it science. To call something science, it has to obey certain rules, and Creationism doesn’t hold up when those rules are applied to it.
This is also what makes science easy to police by those who don’t have any scientific background: The results are always testable. Beyond that, the scientific community does a good job of policing itself because of the competition among scientists to get published. If there is a way to refute someone’s findings, the first people to do that will almost always be other scientists. That is how the peer-review process functions. Some people have this crazy idea that all it takes to make something a fact is to get a big enough bullhorn and sound like you believe what you’re saying. Then they get upset when you say “But what about..?” Getting other scientists to agree with you is no small accomplishment. That by itself makes evolution more credible than any other theory. And as any scientist will tell you, if we do end up standing the theory of evolution on it’s head, the emotion the scientific community will be feeling is excitment not dismay.
Of course those that believe in the vast scientific consipiracy to keep mankind in the dark about the true nature of the universe won’t listen to that argument, but then.. they won’t listen to ANY argument, so I don’t even try. For them, a scientist hates to have accepted wisdom challenged and is always afraid that being proven wrong will somehow cause the downfal of science in general, so a scientist will lie to prevent that. The proof that there is a conspiracy is that Darwin was wrong, and the proof that Darwin was wrong is that there is a conspiracy. Yeaaaah.. Next!
ok listen i really think you guys need to have a good argument for once so ill try my best…
firstly we should look at darwins theory now it really boils down to natural selection and that every thing came from one organisim(i agree with those points as fact)
but the idea no higher power was involved is the real debate
now lets say you have proven natural selection and have filled in the gaps in the family tree of life and you have found the most simple fourm of life possable..
…now where did it come from more complicated now well if its the most simple form of life than that means it could only com from protons electrons nuetrons yha know atoms and stuff..
well theres the answer right…
no now what condition did those atoms have to go through to make life thats the real question…
yea i realize this was less an argument and more a
really had to answer question
wich i think the best way to disprove some one is to give them more stuff to prove
oh yea and now you have to take a buch of atoms recreat those conditions and make life without helping in any other way than makeing the conditions right in other word no moving the atomic structure your self not so easy is it…
No it’s not. It has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory. It is entirely possible and indeed very common to both accept the theory of evolution and believe in a higher power.
I’m sorry, but this is so incoherent I don’t even know how to respond. Anyone want to take a shot at translating?
first i didnt say it had to do with darwins theory i was hitting on the evolution over creation
second what i mean is that in order to completely prove that creationism is false you have to create life from the most simple thing (electrons protons and neutrons)
yea i know darwis theory im not talking about that im talking about creationism
Huh? You do understand that neither Darwin nor the theory of evolution make any conclusions or assumptions about the origins of life? The IMPLICATION in the theory of evolution is that since complex life can evolove from simple life, maybe.. MAYBE simple life can arise from molecules that are not strictly living.
Evolution is about the PROCESS whereby life develops.
What is a good argument against that process?
First off:
You are dead wrong.
As far as actual science is concerned, creationism fits the definition of not even wrong.
That’s a question for abiogenesis, not evolution.
We may never know exactly how it happened, nor may we be able to recreate the process in a lab due to the time scales involved. The long and short of it, though, is that life is probably inevitable given a suitable environment and plenty of time. One of the two youtube videos I linked to is an abiogenesis for dummies course, by the way.
What’s almost always lost in this particular debate is that the very fact that naturalistic explanations are conceivable makes the existence of gods redundant.
Richard Dawkins writes in The Blind Watchmaker: “Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.”
faith: n. 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standard of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be a breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theol. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. 9. in faith, in truth; indeed; In faith, he is a fine lad.
Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 11.1
Final attempt:
The implication, of course, is that accepting evolutionary theory is a matter of faith. This idea is flawed on multiple levels, and the example you chose to put forward only highlights this all the more. First of all, Dawkins does not say that there is no evidence for evolution; his words indicate that he believes the opposite is the case. Were there no evidence for evolution, then believing in its veracity would be a matter of faith. But this is not the case, no matter how much creationists wish it to be. It is the creationists who operate on faith.
Secondly, you seem to think that one questionable quote from a world-renowned atheist disqualifies the theory of evolution or, at best, drags it down to the intellectual level of creationism. This sort of mental gymnastics appears to be very common among those whose belief systems are grounded solely on faith and are thus highly tenuous.
I see that you’re still throwing Bible quotes at us. I think I speak for everyone here when I tell you that you can save your fingers the typing.
/done feeding the troll
I’m a bit worried- do I have to wait millions of years for sex again…
Andy challenges us to produce life from inorganic materials. When will he produce a god creating life from dust?
Andy, we’ve asked the faithful before, and we will ask you- see if you can be the first to answer. APART FROM the bible- what evidence do you have to show that all flora and fauna were created in their present forms, and do not share common ancestory.
Driving home yesterday I saw a copse of trees that included 5 or 6 different types, including lebanese cedar- I was musing at its distinctive shape, and wondered why so many diffent types of trees- I stopped and realised they did not necessarily evolve to that shape as best fit, but rather that the particular mutation that arose in each species as the evolved happened to make it very slightly different from its ‘brothers’ and these differences were exageratted by many generations- blind chance.
If there is a designer why design so many different solutions for the same niche- why is he so inordinately fond of beetles?
Exactly.
Dawkins, to his great credit, notes that every evolutionary theorist worth his salt would abandon the theory if it were ever disproven.
And here’s a great example of the scientific process at work. Here, Professor Ken Miller, from Brown University, goes through a prediction that evolutionary theory makes, that – if it were not observed – could have put the kibosh on the entire theory. Turns out we’re not rejecting evolution today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
The difference between science and non-science (nonsense?) is simply this: Scientific theories are capable of being disproven. Rationalism isn’t the key – you can ask all sorts of rational questions that are not testable. For example: Was God wearing pink bunny slippers when He created the universe? Any truly infinite, omnipotent being could have created the universe wearing whatever He wanted, and it’s rational to suppose that His attire included footwear, and if so, the possibility of celestial pink bunny slippers cannot be denied. Perfectly rational, completely unapproachable from a scientific basis and therefore, non-disprovable.
The key is asking questions that can be answered without having to resort to something outside the universe. As soon as you claim that one god or another did this or that, you’ve left the realm of science and have entered a place inhabited by magic.
Swordsbane – you are too confident in the competence of the scientific community, whilst I do respect their abililities far beyond the religous, they usually don’t see past their field. I have seen the same thing given different names and explanations by physicists than chemists, if you want an example I make my point in the casimir (levitate) thread a few days back.
http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/scientists_reverse_the_casimir_force_to_make_things_levitate/
My lecturers, who are researchers, can’t always explain what they’re teaching when put on the spot (usually when you question why the law exists, as it is), and they don’t admit it. Some of my fellow students look likely to reach teaching positions on the back of rote memory, they don’t actually understand it, they just remember, with subjects with compressed content you either need to understand the concept (because they can’t remember tons of content) or remember everything (because they can’t understand), there are people on both sides.
I can’t be bothered to get into the arguement about evolution, suffice to say it’s what you’d expect by combining probability with genetics. More curious is how it all started
Perhaps Andy would do well to actually read The Blind Watchmaker instead of just quoting Creationist websites about it as he’s taken Dawkin’s quote entirely out of context. Here’s the full text of the quote. Note that I’ve highlighted the bits that Andrew mined for his attempt at showing Evolution requires faith:
In its proper context it becomes quite clear that Dawkins wasn’t suggesting that Evolution should be accepted on faith alone at all, but rather that even without the evidence it has supporting it Evolution is still the best explanation for observed phenomena.
The fact that he’s quote mining and still spewing Bible versus shows me that Andy is not only stupid, but dishonest.
12:38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. 12:43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. 12:44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. 12:45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.
Matthew 12.38-42
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Hebrew 11.6
Gentlemen, I beg of you. Do not be foolish. It is impossible to trick God. For he is God and not a man, as it is written let all men be liars and God truthful. You son of man cannot tempt God, nor twist his arms, or have him perform magic tricks in front of you so that you will believe. It is also written, it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search the matter out. I do this in love and I come in peace, repent from your wickedness. Some of you are stupid, some of you are devils and some of you are bastards. Why will you bastard son disobey your father and neglect him. Search this matter out… For your very life depends on it. This is a wake-up call, this is a warning. Investigate the prophecies, search out for the evidence. The resurrection of Jesuschrist is true. For he is the path, the way and the life. Nobody goes to the Father unless he follows the path.
I pray to you Lord, oh Holy Spirit of God for you have kept me coming here. I do not know what you want. But there is a chosen one who will read these letters. There is one of you who will come to reason. Lord, I beg you forgive these men, and reveal to the the identity of the Messiah and Savior. Lift from them the veal of darkness, the blindshades of the evil one… For he has ticked mankind into deception. I cry Father, I beg of you… Let your words penetrate the depth of man’s earths. Do not be ashamed, you that will be transformed. Come forward to the light and the Lord will heal you and change your ways. Trust in God… Trust in God…
6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
1 Timothy 6.20-21
As Andy obviously doesn’t comprehend the written word, or he wouldn’t just spew forth bible quotes when we have asked for something a little more solid, it can be supposed he doesn’t understand the bible. Therefore anything he posts is irrelevent.
Andy seems bound and determined to illustrate that he’s an idiot. Incapable of independent thought he’s reduced to throwing Bible versus at us and whatever he can cut and paste from his favorite Creationist websites.
The sad part is he thinks he’s telling us things we haven’t already heard a million times before.
Ever tried to have a conversation with a quantum physicist about their field?
:What did you do?
:I used a wargle to prin the bliggle and then when the grubol did it’s thing, the prang hit the top and…. Tooshy
:But what good is it?
:Not sure.. but it’s cool.
:How does it work?
:Not sure, but we think feathers may be involved.
I agree that science sometimes needs translators, but my ‘faith’ if you can call it that is in the methodology, not the scientists themselves. Scientists can be an arrogant, stuffy bunch of alien beings sometimes, but the science is always either true, or eventually discarded, even if it sometimes takes too long to realize either.
I asked a quantum chemist (of which I have easier access to) why quantization applies, they had no answer
I’ve suggested to that if it was held rigerously, NO light should be absorbed by anything, because nothing would have the exact matching energy to an infinite number of decimal places, they said their is some lax in the rules from unquantized translational (movement energy) taking up the slack, but they couldn’t explain why it only takes up a small amount of slack
I attended a physics lecture by a visiting researcher and suggested that the big bang should’ve been too dense to expand, it should’ve formed a black hole, they said it was possible, but couldn’t explaion when I asked why the big bang was the size it was, or why physical constants like the speed of light or the extent of gravity, etc, should be the values they are. They suggested there is more matter than antimatter because of asymetries with time, but when I asked, they couldn’t explain why time goes forward (and not back, so is unsymetrical), and why it goes at the rate it does, it’s obvious they needed something unsymetrical to explain a bias towards matter, but nobody seemed to know why time is unsymetrical, or goes forward at all. In addition nobody could explain why laws should depend on time or other parameters (laws just are, but there seems no reason for them to stay what they are)
I’ve asked an inorganic chemist (after magnetism and nmr lecures) why spins should couple their energy at all, they had no answer
I think science is useful for explaining a great deal of the world, but it ultimately breaks down at explaining why it exists itself (as does god). I wouldn’t expect anything has a reason to exist, and the big bang had no reason to happen if there were no laws before, or nothing to be affected by the laws. Ultimately it happened because it could, and it had positive probability. We know some antimatter was projected forward in time (to make electrons from antiquarks), but I doubt it was 50:50, I suspect most antimatter (and some matter) was projected back, but why should this be possible and why in the proportions it was, if this is what happened? Why should any laws exist, in fact why don’t an infinite number of physical laws exist if they are all possible?
Science is a key piece to the puzzle to understand the world, and I want the religous to look at it too, because they should have the confidence that if they were right, the science would point towards their theory, that would be a good test. Obviously, there will always be an infinite number of dimesions which our machines can’t probe where god may hide, but in order to interact with this would or for us to get there, there would need to be a way of transcending those dimensions, that is a prerequisite to an afterlife or a god that could in any way have any knowledge of us (otherwise he’d be stuck).
The fallacy of trying to put limits on scientific discovery is that the tools for scientific discovery are always evolving. In every generation, otherwise intelligent people make predictions about what is beyond the reach of science. They have all been wrong so far. Perhaps the answers to your questions just need time for the right tools to be developed.
When you ponder the ‘ultimate questions’ what are they?? The existence of God? The creation of the Universe? Well if either of them has a beginning, then before they existed, the conditions for their creation existed. If there is one constant in the universe, it is that there is never only one of any class of thing. Not one human, one tree, one bug… and if there is a non-zero probability for something, in an infinite universe, that probability approaches a certainty. Why would God and the universe be any different? When science makes a discovery, we usually end up with more questions. If someday we prove exactly what the big bang was and exactly how it happened, there will probably be more questions beyond that. Maybe someday we’ll run out of questions, but it’s arrogance to assume that we know so much about the universe when we occupy such a small part of it and have been around for only a small span of time. It is still way too soon to be speculating on Ultimate Questions, and its way too soon to be talking about stuff that is unknowable and beyond our understanding. We can only know what is beyond CURRENT understanding, and since that changes daily it is stupid to make any sort of limit based on it.