Jump to content

Even the kid, (who is writing his doctoral thesis), gets it


Spaulding
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hard to imagine, indeed...

 

I can only begin to picture all the complications. I mean, in their teen years, my kids started thinking they knew more than their parents (and, I suspect, so did I at their age...) This kid probably started thinking that way at 7 or 8.

 

With normal teens, we usually chalk up this "affliction" to hormones. With this kid, it probably came from actually knowing more than his parents... 😵😣😵😣😵😣😵

 

I'd be more in awe of the parents...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really fell badly about saying this, but sorry, @Spaulding and Lynn, his logic for the existence of God is just wrong.  He's got a convoluted sense of logic, which means he's just plain talking in circles.  Again, I feel bad saying this about a boy genius, but he lacks common sense, which comes with age.

 

I applaud his trying to prove the existence of God, but such a thing just can't be explained logically, no matter what your IQ is.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very cool!  Very cool indeed.  In fact, I think I'd like to meet this kid.  However . . . 

1 hour ago, Spaulding said:

I think he's still missing some of it, (like how does anyone know how old the universe is)

The only thing I would take issue with is this as well, Spaulding.  I sure don't believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old.  That's ludicrous.  I'm a young-earther, personally, and I believe the universe is somewhere around 6,000+ years old.  The article said William Maillis is a preacher's son.  You'd think a preacher's kid would know better than that from the get-go . . . 

 

Nonetheless very interesting.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The universe should have no age, it should be infinitely old. But it's not, it's 13.8 billion years old. And something can't come from nothing, because it would have to exist in order to cause itself to exist, which is illogical."

 

I'm impressed with the understanding this young man demonstrates.  First he points out the fallacy in the thinking of so many scientists who have rejected God.  They claim the universe is 13.8 billion years old (not sure how they can say that with any certainty to begin with) and then also claim it came from nothing.  These two claims contradict one another, as young William points out so eloquently.  You cannot insist that the laws of physics are immutable and unbreakable, while at the same time breaking those laws to explain how the universe came to be.  Something must have caused the universe to spring into being with its unbreakable laws in place.  And as William points out, what else could that something be?  

 

Or the better question:  WHO else could that be?

 

This all reminds me of a college geology professor who attended a Bible class I once taught.  While discussing the creation of the world, I commented on how the Bible's description in Genesis has a logical, scientific sequence.  The professor was immediately offended, admonishing me that "you cannot trust the Bible's description of scientific events since the Bible is purely allegorical."

 

I don't see it that way.  I see the Bible as a first-hand description of events that happened long, long ago, given to men to write down, spoken to those men by the one who saw those events unfold because he is the One who spoke and caused those events to occur.

 

If anyone knows just how old the universe actually is, it isn't scientists who were born at most 80 years ago.  It is the One who commanded this universe to come to life and shaped the laws by which the universe operated from its birth until now.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2021 at 2:54 PM, suspensewriter said:

I really fell badly about saying this, but sorry, @Spaulding and Lynn, his logic for the existence of God is just wrong.  He's got a convoluted sense of logic, which means he's just plain talking in circles.  Again, I feel bad saying this about a boy genius, but he lacks common sense, which comes with age.

 

I applaud his trying to prove the existence of God, but such a thing just can't be explained logically, no matter what your IQ is.

 

 

 

If God is void of logic, then there is no logic. Before 50 years ago, all science was based on the assumption of God. What's the kid missing?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2021 at 2:55 PM, Grey_Skies said:

Very cool!  Very cool indeed.  In fact, I think I'd like to meet this kid.  However . . . 

The only thing I would take issue with is this as well, Spaulding.  I sure don't believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old.  That's ludicrous.  I'm a young-earther, personally, and I believe the universe is somewhere around 6,000+ years old.  The article said William Maillis is a preacher's son.  You'd think a preacher's kid would know better than that from the get-go . . . 

 

Nonetheless very interesting.

I'm a somewhere-in-betweener. If the earth is 13,800,000,000 years old than Man has been around for 13,799,999 years old + 358 days. In which case, seriously? This is all the better we could do?

 

But 6000 comes from counting up the ages of the early dudes, (Adam to Noah), as if the Bible records every generation. I can't imagine every generation was worth recording. (The most exciting thing my family has done in the last three generations was one of my grandfathers went from private to general in the Army. And he was a paper-pushing general.) There are numeric themes with recording in the OT. 6, 7, 12, 40, and even 50, are numbers repeated. And the words mean something else in Hebrew. I don't remember the number, but if you take the generations legal, there are the exact same generations before the flood, and then up to Abraham. It's possible, but I'm an in-betweener.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am somewhat familiar with the way scientists calculate the age of the universe, the age of the earth, and the age of fossils.  All of these calculations are estimates, and honest scientists will acknowledge that fact.  What many scientists won't acknowledge is that the estimates are based on many, many assumptions, and if any of those assumptions are wrong, the estimates are also very, very wrong. 

 

When conducting an experiment, the scientist should observe the experiment from start to finish, recording data each step of the way.  How does a scientist observe the behavior of the Universe and collect data on events that happened before the Earth was even formed?  How does a scientist even guess at the way the Earth was formed?  At the way life developed (was created) upon the Earth?  We weren't there.  We didn't see it happening.  

 

Or did we?  Moses recorded events in the book of Genesis that were shown to him by God.  Scientists in ages past trusted those descriptions as a reliable guide.  It's only today that we're too proud to listen to what God willingly shares with us.

 

Anything science has to claim regarding these origins and the age of things is merely guesswork.  Arguing about the accuracy can get as silly as making the guesses in the first place.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Spaulding said:

If God is void of logic, then there is no logic. Before 50 years ago, all science was based on the assumption of God. What's the kid missing?

 

I'm not saying that God is void of logic, just that the child is using circular logic in his thinking.

Edited by suspensewriter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And no, before 50 years ago, all science was not based on the assumption of God, it just wasn't.  Even a 100 years ago.  But that doesn't disprove the existence of God.  That would be a ridiculous hypothesis.  Whether or not man doesn't believe in God, God still is.

Edited by suspensewriter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@suspensewriter

You're right.  I misspoke. Not all science, but most scientists had some kind of belief in God over 50 years ago, and it did direct their hypotheses.

 

Here's a partial lists of scientists who believed in God:

Aristotle

Galileo

Frances Bacon

Blaise Pascal

Isaac Newton

Robert Boyle

Alessandro Volta

Charles Darwin

Carl Fredrick Gauss

Mary Anning (She figured out dinosaurs diets.)

Michael Faraday

Charles Babbage

George Washington Carter

Florence Nightingale

Gregory Mendel

Samuel Morse

William Thompson (Lord Kelvin)

John Ambrose Fleming

Werner Heisenberg

Albert Einstein

J.J. Thomson (Made the Mass Spectrometer)

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

     How about this?  Job chapters 39:2-42

xxxxxxxxxxx

Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said:

 “Who is this who darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
  Now prepare yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer Me.

   “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
    Who determined its measurements?
   Surely you know!
   Or who stretched the line upon it?
   To what were its foundations fastened?
   Or who laid its cornerstone,
   When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

                     (Continued)

     I hope that what I'm posting here isn't too long.

                                  #############

  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job 38&version=NKJV

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job 39&version=NKJV

  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job 40&version=NKJV

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job 42&version=NKJV

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2042&version=NKJV

    

Edited by William D'Andrea
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This youngster is so intelligent, his argument seems illogical.  But I understand where he's coming from.  He's pointing out the fallacy of saying that the Universe is finite (because scientists have established an age of so many billions of years) and at the same time infinite (because the laws of the Universe have always existed and always will exist).  He is using this discrepancy to point out the illogical assumption that there is no God.  His reasoning is very logical.  If the Universe has a starting point, then someone must have been there to start it off. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nick Cole said:

This youngster is so intelligent, his argument seems illogical.

 

I don't think that's the problem at all, Nick.  He's just using circular logic; that's the problem.

 

Look anyone who says that they can prove the existence of God logically is just flat out wrong.  I"m sorry, but it's a matter of faith.  We just can't reason our way to a belief in God or Jesus.

 

3 hours ago, Nick Cole said:

He's pointing out the fallacy of saying that the Universe is finite (because scientists have established an age of so many billions of years) and at the same time infinite (because the laws of the Universe have always existed and always will exist).  He is using this discrepancy to point out the illogical assumption that there is no God.

 

He's using this discrepancy, but in so doing he is hoisting on his own petard, so to speak.  It neither proves the existence of God or the non-existence of God. It's irrelevant to the existence of God. 

 

As for his aging of the universe, that's a matter up for discussion, but relatively not germane to this discussion.

Edited by suspensewriter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2021 at 2:54 PM, suspensewriter said:

I really fell badly about saying this, but sorry, @Spaulding and Lynn, his logic for the existence of God is just wrong.  He's got a convoluted sense of logic, which means he's just plain talking in circles.  Again, I feel bad saying this about a boy genius, but he lacks common sense, which comes with age.


Well, consider that the other side talks in contradictions, and you begin to understand that this debate will never truly be solved through rational debate or study.

 

The reality of the situation is that the Universe is vastly complicated, and yet we are led to believe that the forces and systems that exist to make the planets spin, make the Universe grow (yes, it's still growing), and eventually create intelligent life on earth to actually ponder these concepts, have either always existed, or somehow just showed up without any sort of design.

 

That nature just sort of determines its own rules and balances itself...because it just does.

 

It's the equivalent of throwing a bunch of rocks into a box, agitating them for a billion years, and having an android step out, fully-formed and cognizant.

 

It's nuts.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jeff Potts
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeff Potts said:

It's the equivalent of throwing a bunch of rocks into a box, agitating them for a billion years, and having an android step out, fully-formed and cognizant.

 

🤣 Yes, or having tornado hit a junkyard and leave behind a Leer jet.

 

We may actually be reinforcing the youngster's point here.  To say that a Universe as complex as our--complete with an integrated set of laws of operation and a planet of intelligent life--formed by accident, is illogical and requires just as much faith as believing it happened by random chance.

 

As @suspensewriterpointed out, believing in God requires faith.  Without faith, we cannot get to a point where we accept and trust in Him.  

 

But we don't have to throw logic out the window to believe in God.  Rather, logic can lead us to God.  Many of the great scientists @Spaulding listed were logical thinkers who found no contradiction between Science and faith.  This young man was taught about God by his pastor father and was taught logic by his schooling.  He seems to be comfortable having both.  As am I.  After all, God is logical.  He created us in His image, which includes having a logical mind.  

 

Having logic without faith in God requires a bit of mental gymnastics, because you must ignore the evidence before your eyes.  "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20, NIV.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, suspensewriter said:

Look anyone who says that they can prove the existence of God logically is just flat out wrong.  I"m sorry, but it's a matter of faith.  We just can't reason our way to a belief in God or Jesus

We cannot reason ourselves to belief, because God is the belief giver, however, if we cannot prove God is real, then the Bible is nothing but a lie, Jesus never lived, there was no flood, there was no creation, and there was no reason for Jesus.

 

Logically speaking, there are two sides to every argument ever made: that something is and that something isn't. You really cannot prove a negative.

 

Therefore the side that says something does exist has to prove it. God is. And God is who he says He is. Which way would you like me to prove that?

 

As for living on faith? Which kind of faith? The kind of faith that says my team will win the championship game because I have faith in them? (Blind faith.) Or there is God, because I've seen the evidence... and so have you. (Real faith.)

 

Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.