His beliefs directly comes from angels and he considers his wisdom far superior to mere humans. Nothing us poor earthbound humans say, nor any course is going to change his deeply deluded mind.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Creationistic Method and Why It Is Fraudulent
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
Profound Realization
Active Member
For those under potent intellectual spells, that's the predictable way to respond to someone with a jab, "Take a course in physics."
Not really.
If you ask "how is it possible for liquid oil to drive a machine like car", show me evidence... I would respond with "take an engineering course" etc.
Profound Realization
Active Member
I didn't ask for evidence, it would have been dishonest of me to do so.
Besides, natural physics already explains quite well the natural properties of weight, buoyancies, states of matter, acceleration, etc.
Last edited:
Cool. Then what were you asking for?
We listen to the scientists because they have demonstrated that their ideas and the method that produces them are sound, which is something that matters very much to reason and evidence based thinkers. We've seen the fruits of that program, so we know that those scientists are correct. One doesn't need to reproduce or even understand the science to recognize that it is correct when it accurately explains and predicts an aspect of reality.
Unfortunately for the faith based thinker, those ideas generated by science often contradict that which they have chosen to believe by faith. That is ample evidence that those faith based beliefs are incorrect. The sine qua non of a correct idea is that it allows one to make choices that result in desired outcomes. Incorrect ideas cannot do that.
Super Universe
Defender of God
I refuted all the ideas that Lambda proposes as support for the big bang.
You still have not detailed how gravity allowed the big bang to happen.
You didn't know that stars produce elements? I know.
Gamow, Alpher, and Herman predicted CMBR? That's fantastic. Do you have a poster of them on your wall? Are they going to predict anything else any time soon because it's been a long time. I mean if these guys have the solutions to all the problems we could really use them, what are they waiting for?
And once again, background radiation is not the big bang, it's background radiation.
Have you ever heard of gravity? You can look it up. Gravity won't allow big bangs to happen. That's why black holes are black holes and nothing can escape from them. Because of something called gravity.
Super Universe
Defender of God
Did you read that article? It said nothing about how the big bang supposedly exceeded the force of gravity. It talked about gravitational waves during this big bang as if gravity was acting to cause the big bang to happen.
It also mentions Einstein because any physics article has to mention Einstein but GR is GR, it's not the big bang. Einstein didn't know galaxies were spreading out when he wrote GR.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Yes, I read the article and also have fairly high reading comprehension.
From the article...
"Einstein also proposed that the universe began as a singularity, a point with zero volume and infinite density containing all the matter of the universe. Then the big bang occurred, rapidly expanding all that matter with enough ferocity to overpower the inward pull of gravity. Einstein also predicted that we'd be able to tell gravity was present during those early moments, thanks to gravitational waves (or changes in a gravitational field). All the resulting gas and dust eventually formed into the universe we know today due to gravity as well."
Um, you tell me. Maybe I'm reading this wrong. Gravity has always been an integral facet of the known universe.
Emphasis added... for those in the slow lane.
Using your model of thought a nuclear detonation would be impossible too.
If the element is heavier than iron, it was produced in a supernova.
If it is heavier than lithium but lighter than or equal to the mass of iron, it was produced in a star making light and heat.
Hydrogen was produced by the Big Bang.
Knuckleheads gave us the Genesis creation story. Scientists corrected them.
You've got it backwards. Science draw conclusions from evidence, not evidence from faith based conclusions. Filtering through the evidence to make it fit assumptions is how religious apologetics works.
Are you hoping that the scientific community will throw out ideas that unify and predict the behavior of nature for idle, faith based speculations that generate nothing of value?
If so, why? Why would they do that? To placate faith based thinkers?
Deities are not required to answer the fine tuning argument. One possibility is that there is no fine tuning - that only this assortment of physical constants is possible.
Another is that a multiverse generates countless iterations of every possible set of constants, with stable galaxies, life, and mind arising in each of them where that is possible, like ours, for example.
Furthermore, why would an omnipotent god need to finely tune the laws of nature unless it was being restricted by some other laws beyond its control? Who created those laws that govern the necessity for a god to fine tune the laws of nature? Nobody. So we can dispense with the god.
Super Universe
Defender of God
Einstein did not initially accept the big bang idea. He thought it was phyically impossible. Over time he began to accept it. Here's the thing, physicists think Einstein new everything about physics, he didn't. He only got certain information from God or angels. He was not given the grand unified theory. No one gets that. Einstein was not given any quantum physics information, he was not even given the information that the universe was expanding.
Using my model of thought a nuclear detonation would be impossible? In a nuke matter is rapidly converted to energy. The amount of gravity in a nuclear device isn't even enough to attract a house fly. The amount of gravity in an infinitely dense universe amount of matter is infinite. How is infinite gravity overcome? The pressure in a dense black hole is extreme and we don't see them exploding.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
So much for intelligent conversation. Be well, @Super Universe
Super Universe
Defender of God
Hydrogen was produced by the big bang? I will look at your evidence for this. Uhh, do you have any? If you say that the big bang proves that hydrogen came from the big bang, that is called circular reasoning.
Knuckleheads gave us Genesis story? I love Genesis, it's a fantastic story. It's not factual but neither is the movie Gladiator. In my opinion the real knuckleheads gave us animal sacrifice and stoning to death others for violating the sabbath.
Science draws conclusions from evidence? What evidence is there that black holes can explode?
Am I hoping that the scientific community will throw out ideas that unify and predict the behavious of nature? Wow, you really have a whole lot of faith in humans. Humans make mistakes but it's not just mistakes, they have agenda's. Their beliefs are not always based upon evidence, they are based upon what they WANT to be true. We input what we want into the "evidence".
Super Universe
Defender of God
This is chess, not checkers.
You think gravitational waves proves the big bang? Gravitational waves come from General Relativity which was written BEFORE the big bang idea. Einstein didn't know. Whether he came to accept the idea of the big bang is not proof of a big bang. Einstein was not this all knowing god that explained all physics to humanity.
gnostic
The Lost One
Did you get that out of your system? Are you done being a jerk?
I am not a teacher, because I don't have the patient to teach people like you, who are too indoctrinated to see outside the wall of their own religion.
I really don't know much about those who follow the Urantia religion and their Urantia Book, and didn't know anyone still follow Urantia, until I have met you here.
And I thought there cannot be more dishonest and more backward people than the Young Earth Creationists...
...well, I guess you have proven me, I was wrong.
I don't think I will take any more part in this debate with you.
Last edited:
Super Universe
Defender of God
Am I done being a jerk? Are you? You're the one who started with the insults. When you have to resort to insults you know that means you lost the argument, right?
You are not a teacher? I know.
I am indoctrinated? By who? I've never met another UB person. I just read the book. Have you taken any science courses in high school? Oh, you have. So YOU are the one who has been indoctrinated.
You didn't know anyone followed the UB? How would you know. You didn't do the work to learn.
You thought there can't be more dishonest people than the young earth creationists? There's nothing dishonest about being wrong. They don't know any better. The scientists on the other hand know about gravity and are attempting to dismiss it but only in the big bang.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Mathematically, of course there are an infinite number of hypothetical assortments that would create an infinite variety of dark cold lifeless blobs. So you are suggesting that a set of rules are enforced .. that restrict this to only one assortment, one which just happens to self extract; into a complex interactive system of physics, chemistry, life , ultimately capable of contemplating it's own existence....
what are the odds of that? Unless this automatic rule setting mechanism is in turn- also restricted to imposing only those particular rules ? by another set of rules? ad infinitum?
You could make the same argument for a watch, it is restrained by it's own laws to tell the time, it has no choice, therefore no intelligent designer required
i.e. It doesn't matter how many times you shift the improbability somewhere else, you are not changing the odds against an ultimately spontaneous creation one bit
As Krauss said, 'if your theory requires an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'
But where this 'theory' shoots itself in the foot, is that an infinite variety of creations would also be bound to create an intelligent designer of universes, in fact many think this is entirely possible for us to do.
So now a belief in an entirely undesigned universe, requires faith that we just happen to live in the original immaculate conception, virgin birth universe, not simply one of the infinite number of intelligent creations that would be bound to follow.
I'm not sure we can assume that we are all that special?
God engineered the math for the desired outcome, that's not a restriction of anything other than pure math and logic
Last edited:
Good-day to you ItAintNecessarilySo, I thank you for offering a critique of my original post!
I read it with interest. Here is my response, unfortunately its rather long and wordy owing to the fact that to give this highly complicated topic the proper justice deserved, it can't be dealt with in trite sound-bites (much as I'd like to do this). I hope you aren't bothered about this, it is necessarily long!
I had to divide it into parts:
Firstly, I never contended nor implied the existence of a supreme deity is required to explain the fine-tuning of the constants (whether relevant or marginal parameters) and initial conditions of our universe. The word "required" featured nowhere in my argument.
Rather, I expressed my personal conviction that to postulate an Intelligence outside spacetime as the reason for the existence of our fortunate universe - which exhibits signs of finely tuned parameters lying within an exceedingly narrow range necessary for complexity and carbon-based life to emerge - is an entirely defensible hypothesis (even if it is not a scientifically testable one, as I freely concede, owing to the fact it reaches for an answer beyond the laws of physics).
Now, onto your three points....
Here you are inviting me to accept a speculative argument based upon an unprovable assumption of physical necessity, which is essentially premised on "hope": the hope that a Newton or Einstein level genius will someday come onto the scene in the future and reveal how we might make currently unverifiable and implausible hoped-for-physics.... plausible?
That's a pretty picture and nice dream but I'm afraid its not a sufficiently convincing argument to make me want to rethink my position and question the original premises underlying it - for the simple reason that no mechanism of physical necessity actually exists until someone can find a realistic way of making it work mathematically and then empirically as a consequence of a testable prediction, which no one can do at present for the fine-tuning problems so identified, as I'm sure you must agree?
There is simply no evidence you can point to mandating the 'fine structure constant' or the 'cosmological constant' or the 'higgs field' are compelled by physical necessity to take the absolutely tiny, knife-edge positive/non-zero values they actually have (which turn out to be essential for us to exist and ask these very questions), such that they couldn't possibly be otherwise. If you are in possession of new evidence suggestive of this, then you must be the greatest living theoretical physicist and I'm very curious to know why you are yet to receive the Nobel Prize for such a monumental discovery!
Precluding that eventuality, your argument here rests on a moot point, in my humble estimation. It doesn't get us anywhere. Science-fiction novels envision all sorts of futuristic physics and that's why they are fiction. We can only work with the data and the models we have.
Cosmologists can, on the other hand, actually use the laws of physics as we understand them to model simulations of counterfactual universes on supercomputers and a consistent finding is that the range of constants where the universe isn't an undifferentiated cloud of hydrogen and helium, devoid of the complexity required to ultimately spawn a universe with intelligent life, is exceedingly low.
Those unnatural odds demand an explanation and the argument in question merely evades the conundrum altogether - it's a cop-out, in other words.
(continued.....)
I read it with interest. Here is my response, unfortunately its rather long and wordy owing to the fact that to give this highly complicated topic the proper justice deserved, it can't be dealt with in trite sound-bites (much as I'd like to do this). I hope you aren't bothered about this, it is necessarily long!
I had to divide it into parts:
Firstly, I never contended nor implied the existence of a supreme deity is required to explain the fine-tuning of the constants (whether relevant or marginal parameters) and initial conditions of our universe. The word "required" featured nowhere in my argument.
Rather, I expressed my personal conviction that to postulate an Intelligence outside spacetime as the reason for the existence of our fortunate universe - which exhibits signs of finely tuned parameters lying within an exceedingly narrow range necessary for complexity and carbon-based life to emerge - is an entirely defensible hypothesis (even if it is not a scientifically testable one, as I freely concede, owing to the fact it reaches for an answer beyond the laws of physics).
Now, onto your three points....
Here you are inviting me to accept a speculative argument based upon an unprovable assumption of physical necessity, which is essentially premised on "hope": the hope that a Newton or Einstein level genius will someday come onto the scene in the future and reveal how we might make currently unverifiable and implausible hoped-for-physics.... plausible?
That's a pretty picture and nice dream but I'm afraid its not a sufficiently convincing argument to make me want to rethink my position and question the original premises underlying it - for the simple reason that no mechanism of physical necessity actually exists until someone can find a realistic way of making it work mathematically and then empirically as a consequence of a testable prediction, which no one can do at present for the fine-tuning problems so identified, as I'm sure you must agree?
There is simply no evidence you can point to mandating the 'fine structure constant' or the 'cosmological constant' or the 'higgs field' are compelled by physical necessity to take the absolutely tiny, knife-edge positive/non-zero values they actually have (which turn out to be essential for us to exist and ask these very questions), such that they couldn't possibly be otherwise. If you are in possession of new evidence suggestive of this, then you must be the greatest living theoretical physicist and I'm very curious to know why you are yet to receive the Nobel Prize for such a monumental discovery!
Precluding that eventuality, your argument here rests on a moot point, in my humble estimation. It doesn't get us anywhere. Science-fiction novels envision all sorts of futuristic physics and that's why they are fiction. We can only work with the data and the models we have.
Cosmologists can, on the other hand, actually use the laws of physics as we understand them to model simulations of counterfactual universes on supercomputers and a consistent finding is that the range of constants where the universe isn't an undifferentiated cloud of hydrogen and helium, devoid of the complexity required to ultimately spawn a universe with intelligent life, is exceedingly low.
Those unnatural odds demand an explanation and the argument in question merely evades the conundrum altogether - it's a cop-out, in other words.
(continued.....)