Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

real life wrote:

Again Wolf you ignore the fact that the existence of the Sun is easily verified.

You have NO evidence that a 'singularity' preceding the origin of the universe actually existed.

None.

No evidence so far.

So, according to you, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity used to be a description of supernatural events, right? After all, at one point, there was no evidence to prove his theory correct and the things he describes in those theories appeared to defy the known laws of physics.

I am not ignoring the point that the Sun is easily verified. It is no surprise that the things we know about are more easily verifiable than the things we don't know about. That's why we don't know about those things, because they're not as easily verifiable and hence have not been verified yet. Something's ease of verification is irrelevant to whether that something is natural or not.

What matters is that you can eventually test whether such a thing exists or not. That makes the concept scientific.

And I provided you with a way to test whether the Universe arose from a singularity by quoting two research papers by Neil Turok et al.

You, however, seem to be ignoring key concepts about science and how it works, just so you can score cheap points on semantics, as has been noted by other people here on these forums.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
OK.. let me provide the answers then..
Your first post on "supernatural" on this thread other than discussing "creationism" as "supernatural."
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2945238#2945238

Quote:
Excluding the supernatural is not important to your definition of a 'natural process' , eh?

OK, let's remember this when you begin to discuss why ID can't be brought up in a science classroom.

I must admit I am surprised.

No definition from you.

It might help if you quoted the correct post. Post # 2945238 actually says:

Quote:

Was the BB a result of natural forces operating within the laws of science?

If the laws of science (i.e. naturalism) were NOT operative prior to the BB, then isn't the cause of the BB 'supernatural' by definition?

clearly indicating what I meant by use of the term 'supernatural'.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Just to make this painfully obvious to those that seem to be in denial
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3305762#3305762

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
1. You claimed you provided a dictionary definition when you first used the word "supernatural.

Provide a quote.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3297007#3297007

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
If you were truly honest you would have explained your meaning the first time you used "supernatural".

You should have looked back at the point 2 months ago from which this portion of the discussion began, and you would have seen that I did exactly that.

And I have repeated my meaning numerous times since, including citing the fact that it is a standard dictionary definition.

Don't give me your 'if you were honest' garbage.

If you can't keep up on the discussion then your comments are worthless.

Your value judgements are especially ridiculous in light of your position on morality.

It is absurd for a moral relativist to ever accuse anybody of anything.

Where did I say that I cited a dictionary definition the first time I used the term?

I stated that I had initially explained my meaning and in subsequent conversation cited the dictionary as well.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
Again Wolf you ignore the fact that the existence of the Sun is easily verified.

You have NO evidence that a 'singularity' preceding the origin of the universe actually existed.

None.

You can say all day long that 'well, it MIGHTA existed, yeah it COULDA come into being, you can't prove a negative so we'll never know FOR SURE that it wasn't there'.

But that's not evidence. It's speculation.

Was the singularity composed of matter, Wolf?

.....we don't know if they are really composed of matter.

Thank you for your honesty.

parados wrote:

What is your evidence they are composed of matter?

I never said they were. I asked a question.

My point is that if we don't know if they are composed of matter (or not) , then predicting their behavior is little more than a game of Multiple Guess, especially since if they are NOT composed of matter then what are they made of and what are the properties of this novel material?

0 Replies

I love the way you clipped the REST of my statement real life

And then the way you failed to answer the question.

Quote:

Black holes exist yet we don't know if they are really composed of matter.

Do you think black holes exist? What is your evidence they are composed of matter?

Black holes exist. We have evidence of them existing. We don't know what happens to matter that enters them.

So, simple questions for you real life. Do you believe Black Holes exist? Do you believe science has any evidence of black holes? Since you don't know if black holes contain matter or if that matter exists in a form similar to our normal universe does that make black holes supernatural?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
OK.. let me provide the answers then..
Your first post on "supernatural" on this thread other than discussing "creationism" as "supernatural."
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2945238#2945238

Quote:
Excluding the supernatural is not important to your definition of a 'natural process' , eh?

OK, let's remember this when you begin to discuss why ID can't be brought up in a science classroom.

I must admit I am surprised.

No definition from you.

It might help if you quoted the correct post. Post # 2945238 actually says:

Quote:
Was the BB a result of natural forces operating within the laws of science?

If the laws of science (i.e. naturalism) were NOT operative prior to the BB, then isn't the cause of the BB 'supernatural' by definition?

clearly indicating what I meant by use of the term 'supernatural'.

My mistake in quoting the post. But your definition is not clearly indicated.

The only thing that IS clearly indicated is this from wiki

Quote:

This distinction between the two types of naturalism is made by philosophers supporting science and evolution in the creation-evolution controversy to counter the tendency of some proponents of Creationism or intelligent design to refer to 'methodological naturalism' as 'scientific materialism' or as 'methodological materialism' and conflate it with 'metaphysical naturalism'.[3] These proponents of creationism use this assertion to support their claim that modern science is atheistic, and contrast it with their preferred approach of a revived natural philosophy which welcomes supernatural explanations for natural phenomena and supports theistic science.

So, it's obvious your intent was NOT to give a clear definition at all. Your attempt was to muddy the waters by claiming the "laws of science" were "naturalism".

Quote:

methodological naturalism is the view that the scientific method (hypothesize, predict, test, and repeat) is the only effective way to investigate reality.

Your argument that unless we can actually observe something it can't be science is complete bunk.

Can we observe black holes? Do they exist? All you have to do is answer the questions.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

neologist wrote:
What's this about?

Well, it's not about time.

But maybe it's time to discuss Time.

BBers commonly postulate that Time came into being at the BB.

Yet they also given rather detailed explanations of the sequence of events that befell the 'singularity' that eventually expanded, culminating in BB.

In your opinion Neo, does (or doesn't) the listing of a sequence of events imply duration , i.e. Time ?

(I ask you because of your timely entrance into the discussion.)

Hope you're having a great day.

I'm not sure that's an accurate description of the BB point of view; but I do think the theory is fuzzy on the concept of 'before'. And, while I believe that natural law has an author, I hesitate to speculate on the nature of time - or space - beyond what we perceive in our day to day life. Consider that the Author of Genesis crammed thousands of years into each creative day and then lumped all the days together in Genesis 2:4.

The bible was not written to dazzle us with the intricacies of quantum physics. It was written to explain to us why we have war and crime and sickness and death, and what God intends to do about it.

0 Replies

neo, You are again confusing the bible; if those days represents thousands of years, they did without sunlight for those thousands of years, and nothing would have survived.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

The bible was not written to dazzle us with the intricacies of quantum physics. It was written to explain to us why we have war and crime and sickness and death, and what God intends to do about it.

I agree, except that it doesn't tell us what God intends to do about it, it tells us what the authors thought their mythical God intended to do about it.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
The bible was not written to dazzle us with the intricacies of quantum physics. It was written to explain to us why we have war and crime and sickness and death, and what God intends to do about it.

I agree, except that it doesn't tell us what God intends to do about it, it tells us what the authors thought their mythical God intended to do about it.

Hmm. If we could agree on what they thought would happen, that statement would be falsifiable, would it not?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
The bible was not written to dazzle us with the intricacies of quantum physics. It was written to explain to us why we have war and crime and sickness and death, and what God intends to do about it.

I agree, except that it doesn't tell us what God intends to do about it, it tells us what the authors thought their mythical God intended to do about it.

Hmm. If we could agree on what they thought would happen, that statement would be falsifiable, would it not?

I don't know. That sentence was too confusing for me.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

The bible was not written to dazzle us with the intricacies of quantum physics. It was written to explain to us why we have war and crime and sickness and death, and what God intends to do about it.

In so many cases, mankind suffers from war and crime and sickness and death because your boy god had inflicted them on mankind for no apparent reason, in a capricious and arbitrary manner.

0 Replies

About death; with life, death is a given. If Adam and Eve were responsible for original sin, and was responsible for "death," then none of us that came after them would have been born. There's a mis-connect between the promise of life after death, and why billions of people were born and died - not believing in the christian god.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

neologist wrote:
The bible was not written to dazzle us with the intricacies of quantum physics. It was written to explain to us why we have war and crime and sickness and death, and what God intends to do about it.

In so many cases, mankind suffers from war and crime and sickness and death because your boy god had inflicted them on mankind for no apparent reason, in a capricious and arbitrary manner.

Not the God I worship, but a god nevertheless.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

About death; with life, death is a given. If Adam and Eve were responsible for original sin, and was responsible for "death," then none of us that came after them would have been born. There's a mis-connect between the promise of life after death, and why billions of people were born and died - not believing in the christian god.

Perhaps because there is no promise of life after death.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
real life wrote:
You (and parados) want to gloss over a complete lack of evidence as being simply 'unknown'.

Liar. *I* wanted to point out how parados could've gotten that impression concerning your idea of the supernatural.

Yeah, he could've gotten that impression........

......if he ignored the numerous times that I explained my use of the term.

Which he did.

Way to miss the point, "real life". Should I just start assuming intentional dishonesty?

real life wrote:

I see you've learned the ad hom strategy and decided to employ it on a continual basis to cover your lack of anything useful to say.

Stop lying and you won't be called a liar. Certainly you're not going to attempt to deflect by claiming ad-hom when the *entirety* of the ad-hom is claiming (evidenced) your mendacity, are you? That would be silly, and anyone could see through that Wink

.

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

real life wrote:
Shirakawasuna wrote:
real life wrote:
You (and parados) want to gloss over a complete lack of evidence as being simply 'unknown'.

Liar. *I* wanted to point out how parados could've gotten that impression concerning your idea of the supernatural.

Yeah, he could've gotten that impression........

......if he ignored the numerous times that I explained my use of the term.

Which he did.

Way to miss the point, "real life". Should I just start assuming intentional dishonesty?

Assume it? Sir, you have clothed yourself with it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

neologist wrote:
The bible was not written to dazzle us with the intricacies of quantum physics. It was written to explain to us why we have war and crime and sickness and death, and what God intends to do about it.

In so many cases, mankind suffers from war and crime and sickness and death because your boy god had inflicted them on mankind for no apparent reason, in a capricious and arbitrary manner.

That is the only proof Creationists have that their God exists, His unending brutality which, as all masochists do, they accept, they cherish, they proclaim as love.

Joe(except when they declare we should be afraid, sore afraid.)Nation

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Setanta wrote:
neologist wrote:
The bible was not written to dazzle us with the intricacies of quantum physics. It was written to explain to us why we have war and crime and sickness and death, and what God intends to do about it.

In so many cases, mankind suffers from war and crime and sickness and death because your boy god had inflicted them on mankind for no apparent reason, in a capricious and arbitrary manner.
Not the God I worship, but a god nevertheless.

Liar.

0 Replies

Just in case you missed it real life, I would like your answers to my questions.

parados wrote:

I love the way you clipped the REST of my statement real life

And then the way you failed to answer the question.

Quote:
Black holes exist yet we don't know if they are really composed of matter.

Do you think black holes exist? What is your evidence they are composed of matter?

Black holes exist. We have evidence of them existing. We don't know what happens to matter that enters them.

So, simple questions for you real life. Do you believe Black Holes exist? Do you believe science has any evidence of black holes? Since you don't know if black holes contain matter or if that matter exists in a form similar to our normal universe does that make black holes supernatural?

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know