The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[Thermos aquaticus]

NEWS FLASH: The Bible reported millennia ago that skeptics, like everyone else, do wickedness. I'm self-aware of my sin, and acknowledge my need for a Savior.

It has always made more sense to ask forgiveness from the people you have harmed and to define wickedness by the wrong you have done to other humans rather than violation of rules written in a book claimed to have been written by a deity. I am sure that you don't feel that you have sinned against God for eating pork or wearing fabric of mixed fibers.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oh, so the Bible actually says "sub-elemental level?" Please share that quote with us.

What "scientists" have hated Peter's statement in the NT for millennia? Modern science didn't emerge until around the 16th Century. Subatomic particles weren't identified until 1897.

And maybe you could explain how your claim is a coincidence of some sort. I'm not seeing it.

Oy vey. Scientists scoffed at this statement, as well as philosophers, who held the smallest anything was the "atom", where Peter writes that God holds all things together below the level of atoms. In another post, you claim "I read the Bible but didn't like it," yet you cannot even remember this startling reference and you want me to "find it" for you?! Find it for yourself, because Peter claiming Jesus holding things together below the atomic level is startling in light of the 1897 discovery, right?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Um, no. The BB was *all of space* at that point...no separation into a 'lit location' and a 'dark location'.



It always amazes me when people read stuff into old books that was certainly not the intended meaning. Where, for example, is there *any* mention of a sub-elemental level?

What did the singularity expand into? Outside the singularity was there "space", "string" a multiverse? Was it lit, do you think?

Go look it up! How can skeptics not know this is what Peter said.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

My concern for you is different, your personal pride and cynicism IMHO. "God didn't do X my way when I read the Bible, so God must be wrong!"

If we can't judge for ourselves if God's actions are moral, then how can we say that God is moral? This is known as Euthyphro's Dilemma: are God's commandments moral because God command them, or does God command them because they are moral.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What did the singularity expand into? Outside the singularity was there "space", "string" a multiverse? Was it lit, do you think?

Go look it up! How can skeptics not know this is what Peter said.

We don't need to know what the singularity expanded into in order to know that the singularity did expand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The vast majority of people do not believe in fairies, but do believe in God. That's the issue--I cannot think of a single anything other than the divine where most people believe despite being presented contrary evidence.

Hate and parental abuse lead to a cycle of hate. My concern for you is different, your personal pride and cynicism IMHO. "God didn't do X my way when I read the Bible, so God must be wrong!"

Remember how I have pointed out that you have not been honest at various times? When you do not answer the questions asked of you and then try to change the question that is not being honest. @SkepticThinker even pointed out that you do that.

Pointing out that you are not being honest is not claiming that you are lying. But it is still pointing out bad behavior on your part.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Where did I claim that?



The people who claim that a deity created something bear the burden of proof.

What do you mean, "burden of proof"? 1) We exist 2) Existence/reality exists 3) Everything in this universe comes to a point of infinite regression paradox or an originator--YOU claim this whole universe MUST have "come from elsewhere/a multiverse", no? Yes?

 

[Polymath257]

What did the singularity expand into? Outside the singularity was there "space", "string" a multiverse? Was it lit, do you think?

No. You are thinking of the singularity as a point *in some external space*. That is NOT the viewpoint of general relativity. Instead, the singularity simply represents the inability to use our coordinate system past that point. For example, the north and south poles of the earth are 'singularities' in the usual coordinate system of latitude and longitude. In the GR treament, there was no 'outside' of the singularity.

Now, in other systems (like some multiverse theories), there is an outside of our universe, but in such theories, the singularity doesn't show up at all.

Go look it up! How can skeptics not know this is what Peter said.

I don't make it a point to learn every different interpretation of your religious text.

 

[Polymath257]

What do you mean, "burden of proof"? 1) We exist 2) Existence/reality exists 3) Everything in this universe comes to a point of infinite regression paradox or an originator--YOU claim this whole universe MUST have "come from elsewhere/a multiverse", no? Yes?

And, 1) there is no inherent problem with infinite regression, and 2) there may well be more than one uncaused cause. Furthermore, there is no way to conclude any one uncaused cause is actually a deity. In fact, most quantum events are uncaused in the typical sense of the word.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What do you mean, "burden of proof"? 1) We exist 2) Existence/reality exists 3) Everything in this universe comes to a point of infinite regression paradox or an originator--YOU claim this whole universe MUST have "come from elsewhere/a multiverse", no? Yes?

I don't know where this universe came from and I don't claim to know. So why would I bear the burden of proof?

You claim that God created this universe, do you not?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oy vey. Scientists scoffed at this statement, as well as philosophers, who held the smallest anything was the "atom", where Peter writes that God holds all things together below the level of atoms. In another post, you claim "I read the Bible but didn't like it," yet you cannot even remember this startling reference and you want me to "find it" for you?! Find it for yourself, because Peter claiming Jesus holding things together below the atomic level is startling in light of the 1897 discovery, right?

Again, I ask, what statement? Why can you never answer a question?

Again, I ask, where in the Bible does it mention atoms, or a "sub-elemental level?"Can you just provide it? You brought it up and made a claim about it. Therefore, you can provide the quotation you are referring to. It's pretty simple, actually. I don't understand why you are making this so difficult. I really have to wonder. Like seriously, I'm supposed to know exactly what you're talking about and where it is in the Bible? Are you kidding?



P.S.I never said that I "read the Bible and didn't like it." I said I read the Bible and it didn't make sense to me to the point where I could no longer believe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The vast majority of people do not believe in fairies, but do believe in God. That's the issue--I cannot think of a single anything other than the divine where most people believe despite being presented contrary evidence.

I'm still wondering why you think you're argument from popularity is a valid one. The number of people who believe a thing doesn't at all speak to the truth of that thing.

Hate and parental abuse lead to a cycle of hate. My concern for you is different, your personal pride and cynicism IMHO.

Not sure what this statement has to do with anything. Strangely though, you've just done the very thing I said you were doing in my last post. That is, telling me what I think or feel about a thing instead of listening to me when I tell you what I think or feel about a thing. I just told you, my parents have never abused me. So, another one of your claims bites the dust.

"God didn't do X my way when I read the Bible, so God must be wrong!"

Again, I didn't say that. I said it didn't make sense and so I could no longer believe it.
Seems like you need to put your listening ears on instead of just hearing what you want to hear.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Remember how I have pointed out that you have not been honest at various times? When you do not answer the questions asked of you and then try to change the question that is not being honest. @SkepticThinker even pointed out that you do that.

Pointing out that you are not being honest is not claiming that you are lying. But it is still pointing out bad behavior on your part.

We have two things in common here. We are both honest. We both choose when to indulge or waste time going down rabbit trails with persons with the polar opposite viewpoint.

If I accused you and others of dishonesty each time you ignored a strong point I raised, I would frequently have to do so. What happens is it looks like a thread of ad hom attacks when people can't go back easily to verify your claims.

Have I called you dishonest even once, ever? Please stop it. Or simply do as above and feel free to point out bad behavior or shifting goal posts on my part.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It has always made more sense to ask forgiveness from the people you have harmed and to define wickedness by the wrong you have done to other humans rather than violation of rules written in a book claimed to have been written by a deity. I am sure that you don't feel that you have sinned against God for eating pork or wearing fabric of mixed fibers.

You may have forgotten I'm a Jew and sifted through these very things, more than once.

But the reason it does make sense is that the Bible laws help ease the human and societal relationships you are protecting by the forgiveness you ask, as above.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If we can't judge for ourselves if God's actions are moral, then how can we say that God is moral? This is known as Euthyphro's Dilemma: are God's commandments moral because God command them, or does God command them because they are moral.

I think you can judge, but it doesn't mean you are equipped to judge rightly. When I sat on two different juries to judge felonies, I had to sift a lot of information and go carefully, to protect the rights of those involved.

I've read the entire Bible multiple times in multiple versions and fellowship frequently with people trying to live per the Bible. I should assume your judgment is right when you tend to camp out on a few verses only from among tens of thousands of verses and thousands of biblical precepts, practices and commands?

 

[BilliardsBall]

We don't need to know what the singularity expanded into in order to know that the singularity did expand.

Please cite your evidence here from science or your conjecture/gedanken that "outside" this universe is bright light and not dark "space". You can also reference any light you understand to be along a different dimension or string.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't know where this universe came from and I don't claim to know. So why would I bear the burden of proof?

You claim that God created this universe, do you not?

I think you need to take a deep breath with me. Burden of proof applies to many types of established theory or conjecture within this universe, but not to the universe entire, apart from solipsism.

The entire universe is, it exists. It is natural, normative (and biblical) to say that the ALL is created. It is natural, normative, etc. to see every other thing that is a given subset inside this universe that also contains "complexity" as designed. The universe as a totality is so complex, we cannot understand it all at this time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. You are thinking of the singularity as a point *in some external space*. That is NOT the viewpoint of general relativity. Instead, the singularity simply represents the inability to use our coordinate system past that point. For example, the north and south poles of the earth are 'singularities' in the usual coordinate system of latitude and longitude. In the GR treament, there was no 'outside' of the singularity.

Now, in other systems (like some multiverse theories), there is an outside of our universe, but in such theories, the singularity doesn't show up at all.


I don't make it a point to learn every different interpretation of your religious text.

I am aware of the concepts presented. All I know from my lay perspective of BB theory aligns with Genesis, and extremely well.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And, 1) there is no inherent problem with infinite regression, and 2) there may well be more than one uncaused cause. Furthermore, there is no way to conclude any one uncaused cause is actually a deity. In fact, most quantum events are uncaused in the typical sense of the word.

There is never a problem or an existential crisis regarding infinite regression once there is no God, and we therefore mentally unburden ourselves from reconciling the fact of existence, and of self-awareness.

Then again, deleting God also eases our moral conscience and excuses all types of moral relativism. I believe a price is paid for this choice. One price is silence. When people rage, silence is often the wisest option, to deescalate anger. Therefore, skeptics should not be surprised when God is silent before their anger.

IMHO you are missing out on so much in life and existence because you have lost touch with the Creator. I feel badly.

 

[Audie]

Remember how I have pointed out that you have not been honest at various times? When you do not answer the questions asked of you and then try to change the question that is not being honest. @SkepticThinker even pointed out that you do that.

Pointing out that you are not being honest is not claiming that you are lying. But it is still pointing out bad behavior on your part.

I think it would be well to pick out a clear example of
intellectual or other dishonesty, put it up in bold, and
as you like, analyze why it is dishonest.

I, like the bb, see you say this so much it is a blur,
and seems more like nattering than substantive.