Debate on Creationism

[leov]

Is Big Bang creationism, or physics?

both and neither. physics and metaphysics

 

[IndigoChild5559]

both and neither. physics and metaphysics

How is the Big Bang metaphysics? It is based entirely on empirical evidence and math.

 

[whirlingmerc]

How is the Big Bang metaphysics? It is based entirely on empirical evidence and math.

The big bang is not a causal explanation. It's like pulling rabbit out of a hat without a rabbit, without a hat and without a magician.

From secular scientist Dr Marcello Gleiser, winner of the Templeton Prize,

"It's extremely arrogant from scientists to come down from the ivory towers and make these declarations without understanding the social importance of belief systems."

"When you hear very famous scientists making pronouncements like ... cosmology has explained the origin of the universe and the whole, and we don't need God anymore. That's complete nonsense," he added.

"Because we have not explained the origin of the universe at all."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The big bang is not a causal explanation. It's like pulling rabbit out of a hat without a rabbit, without a hat and without a magician.

From secular scientist Dr Marcello Gleiser, winner of the Templeton Prize,

"It's extremely arrogant from scientists to come down from the ivory towers and make these declarations without understanding the social importance of belief systems."

"When you hear very famous scientists making pronouncements like ... cosmology has explained the origin of the universe and the whole, and we don't need God anymore. That's complete nonsense," he added.

"Because we have not explained the origin of the universe at all."

I stand by what I said.

 

[Valjean]

we talking about poinrs o

Huh?
Care to rephrase?

e.g. Atheistic Cosmological Argument[/QUOTE]
OK, an interesting POV, and quite at odds with most creationists, who claim the Big Bang is evidence of a Creator.

 

[Valjean]

[

The big bang is not a causal explanation. It's like pulling rabbit out of a hat without a rabbit, without a hat and without a magician.{/quote] The BB is a hypothesis; an observation derived from the expansion of the universe. An "explanation" of it is far from established.

From secular scientist Dr Marcello Gleiser, winner of the Templeton Prize.

"It's extremely arrogant from scientists to come down from the ivory towers and make these declarations without understanding the social importance of belief systems."

"When you hear very famous scientists making pronouncements like ... cosmology has explained the origin of the universe and the whole, and we don't need God anymore. That's complete nonsense," he added.

"Because we have not explained the origin of the universe at all."

I've never heard any scientist making such a declaration. You're interpreting; putting words in their mouths. You're not hearing what they're actually saying.

 

[Valjean]

both and neither. physics and metaphysics

So not religion, then?

 

[stvdv]

Whatever is experienced in the "no mind state" is probably not the mysteries of the universe, unless this experience contains (among other things) understandings of quantum field theory and the standard model, and understandings of why the functioning of the universe can be described via mathematics, and a million other details. From what I've heard about it and the little bit of experience I've had, it's more like an ecstatic experience in which you think you possess all knowledge; similar to the kind of experience generated by certain illegal drugs.

IF you have more experience then of course you understand it's totally different from just the experience generated by certain illegal drugs. You can compare it to an 8 year old who won't be able to understand Einstein talking relativity theory. It all comes down to putting effort in what you research.

Whatever is experienced in the "no mind state" is probably not the mysteries of the universe
How do you come to this conclusion? How long did you stay in the "no mind state" to be able to make such BIG statement?
And if you come to this conclusion, do you think that science has a better chance to unravel all the mysteries?
Or do you not know the value and power of the "no mind state"?
Have you ever experienced the power of the "no mind state"?

I would not make such a BIG statement unless I stayed maybe 40 days in this "no mind state". For Scientists it takes sometimes decades of trial and error and lots of efforts to discover new things. And here you come, with as you said little experiences, dismissing "Spiritual Truth" as useless to discover things about the Universe. That does not sound very Scientific to me.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Hi NoToReligion.
I wont mind talking to you one on one.
NoToReligion and SA Huguenot creation evidence.

 

[tayla]

Or do you not know the value and power of the "no mind state"?
Have you ever experienced the power of the "no mind state"?

Scanning someone's brain while they are in the "no mind state" would reveal brain activity. Therefore, it is generated by the brain.

To be scientific about it, someone would have to explain how it is possible for non-physical conscious states to imprint themselves upon the brain. There is only one way I know of and that is via the randomness of quantum mechanics wave function collapse. If some agency external to the physical realm chose where an electron (for example) would appear, this would influence subsequent biochemical processes.

But the difficulty with such a process is that it is micromanagement in the extreme; controlling the outcome of every quantum mechanics wave function collapse (while still making them look random in aggregate). Also, how could any agency control anything this way?

So the scientific conclusion is that, any conscious state that registers in the brain, is caused by brain function. Without consideration of the physical aspects, we are not talking about science.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Hello. I am going to challenge Creationists, more specifically Muslim or Christian Creationists, to present their best logical evidence for God. Since this is not science vs. religion, I don't want anything that's trying to pointlessly debunk evolution since it will only extend the argument or anything like that. I'll try to disprove yours logically, and the cycle will continue until one side stops debating.

Uhhhh, so you view stopping debating as a win. That works at a Debate.org where two parties are expected to come up with an argument in a time frame. But in most forums, people stop debating because of multiple reasons:
1. They have a life, and possibly dates/job/medical issues and can't be at the beck and call of someone who can be home all day debating.
2. They have explained why you are wrong several times and you aren't listening (I got done debating whether or not the Earth is flat and the sun rotates around the Earth, and people I talked to were completely unable to realize that moving objects has friction and momentum, only to get a bad headache from arguing the same points over and over).
3. They actually are wrong.
4. They just don't care enough to continue.
5. You don't seem to treat them with respect, so they stop wanting to debate.

Real world debates are a two-way street.

 

[stvdv]

Scanning someone's brain while they are in the "no mind state" would reveal brain activity. Therefore, it is generated by the brain.

To be scientific about it, someone would have to explain how it is possible for non-physical conscious states to imprint themselves upon the brain. There is only one way I know of and that is via the randomness of quantum mechanics wave function collapse. If some agency external to the physical realm chose where an electron (for example) would appear, this would influence subsequent biochemical processes.

But the difficulty with such a process is that it is micromanagement in the extreme; controlling the outcome of every quantum mechanics wave function collapse (while still making them look random in aggregate). Also, how could any agency control anything this way?

So the scientific conclusion is that, any conscious state that registers in the brain, is caused by brain function. Without consideration of the physical aspects, we are not talking about science.

Okay, that is clear, you repeat just some "technical words you read" as to masquerade the fact that you have no actual personal experience on this.

 

[tayla]

Okay, that is clear, you repeat just some "technical words you read" as to masquerade the fact that you have no actual personal experience on this.

I'm willing to consider your claims, but I'm unsure what they are or why they are worthy of belief.

Please provide a proposal for how you would scientifically test your claims in a way that is falsifiable. And what specifically are these claims?

 

[Aupmanyav]

""When you hear very famous scientists making pronouncements like ... cosmology has explained the origin of the universe and the whole, and we don't need God anymore. That's complete nonsense," he added.
Because we have not explained the origin of the universe at all."

In spite of what Dr. Glieser says I have discarded God/Gods/Goddesses from my life (like so many other people have done) and am no worse for it.
True, that is a great mystery, and in my humble opinion, there is only one answer: Ex-nihilo ('Out of Absolute Nothing' by some Quantum quirk). Because any existence prior to that will require explanation, whether God or force-fields. Perhaps we will get the answer by end of this Century.

Stvdv, yes, I have experience of 'no-mind state' have found answers to all my questions. Spiritual, religious and being a theist are all different things.

 

[stvdv]

I'm willing to consider your claims, but I'm unsure what they are or why they are worthy of belief.

Please provide a proposal for how you would scientifically test your claims in a way that is falsifiable. And what specifically are these claims?

I did not make any claims.

I only said that it's not scientific or logical to dismiss or belittle Spirituality as being of value to understand things in the universe, when we have no personal actual deep experience in this field. That would be as foolish as if an eight year old would dismiss Einsteins E=mc2, without ever studying it. Only dismissing it, because he does not understand, and Einstein is not able to explain it to him does not make this a smart choice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because extremely complex, interactive information exists

Do you think such information arises by chance?

Define "information".

Empirical science states otherwise.

We'll see, after you've properly defined your terms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

“Debunk”?

No; it can only ‘bring into question’ His existence. Not debunk it.

For a logical argument to debunk X, one has to first define X in a debunkable way.

Off course if X is unfalsifiable, then X won't ever be falsified. But then again, X would be a meaningless proposition also.

And if you don’t think atomic structure, or cell function, is complex, then where to go from there?

You need to define what you mean by "complex". Just listing things that you think are examples of complexity without actually explaining how the word "complexity" applies to said examples, is not how one defines terms.

I’d say, “make one”. But then, if you could, that would only show it’s origin requires an intelligent source.

Ow, so it's a bit a case of "heads I win, tails you lose"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Created things exists, so the creator also must exist.

Here's what you sound like:

P1: unicorns fart rainbows
P2: rainbows exist

Therefor, unicorns exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

you mean atheist form of creationism, like Big Bang Theory?

So much fail in so few words....

1. big bang theory isn't a theory of cosmic origins, it's a theory of cosmic development

2. scientific theories aren't "atheistic" any more then toothpaste is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

i understand that, two sides of the same medal. Beginning of physical world from atheistic point of view and theistic pov.

Again, no.


ps: the guy that actually came up with big bang theory was a physicist named George LeMaitre. A belgian physicist who was also a catholic priest.

Please stop with this nonsense of "atheist science". There is no such thing. There is just science. That science doesn't include your god of choice, only means that there is no evidence for your god of choice, nore any evidence that such a god has any detectable manifestation in reality or is a factor in any natural process.

That's it.

The day this god is shown to be a factor in some phenomenon, is the day this god will be included in a scientific hypothesis and not a second sooner.