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

Funny, whenever a Christian says 'God in heaven did this, even though it is a violation of scientific law' , it is ridiculed as 'poofism'.

But when another says 'I believe this happened in a unknown place outside the universe (for which we have no evidence) in violation of scientific law because scientific laws don't apply there', then somehow you cannot see that it is also an appeal to the supernatural.

By definition, it is.

Hope you are having a great day FM. Supposed to have snow here today. Cool

0 Replies

We have again another example of your inability to argue logically. No one has said "I believe this happened in a unknown place outside the universe (for which we have no evidence) in violation of scientific law because scientific laws don't apply there"--and this is a classic case of setting up a strawman, something of which you chronically accuse others, apparently without understanding what it means. Look at what you've written, and then compare that to what others have written. No one has written what you have written, and therefore, you are arguing against what you prefer to argue against, rather than what people have said.

I have no brief to defend someone else's position, although i will point out to you that what was written was that it is possible that there are n dimensions, and that the appearance of matter in the four dimensions of which we are aware could have been as a result of a phenomenon of n dimensional space, which is of course, something which is postulated, but for which we have no evidence. However, examining a postulate is not at all the same as someone saying "I believe this to be true." Therefore, what passes for logic in your position is false, because it is an informal fallacy, an attempt to misrepresent the argument of another in order to create another argument which you are prepared to deal with.

I will go back to the truncated definition that you provided, even though we already have FM's evidence on that, and you are attempting to wriggle away from the imputations of what he posted.

Quote:

Main Entry:
su·per·nat·u·ral

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

Once again, you indulge an informal fallacy by your ham-handed editing of the definition upon which you hoped to rely, because you had at least that small amount of sense necessary to recognize that omitting the second clause of definition 1 and omitting definition 2b would (you apparently thought--i guess you must have thought people were too stupid to go find your source for themselves) allow you to offer a plausible argument which did not refer to your imaginary friend superstition.

Next, heavily editing my response to your use of the truncated definitions, you respond thus:

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
Would you agree that anything fitting the definition of 'supernatural' that I have given (deity or no), would therefore NOT fit the definition of 'scientific' ?

No, i would not. For example, your partial copy and paste job lists this as a definition of supernatural:

"departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature" (emphasis added)

I have highlighted the verb "appear" because it is crucial to pointing out the flaw in what passes for logic at your house........

The most that could be said in such a case is that those whose arguments you deride are the mere victims of ignorance, but "ignorance in good faith."........................

No, we are not talking about one who is incorrectly perceiving something.

I am specifically referring to those who KNOW that the universe CANNOT have been created without violating scientific law (i.e. it cannot have originated by NATURAL processes).

As for the rest, well, you responded to a lot of things I didn't say. (dull-witted emoticon removed in the interest of good taste and serious discussion)

In fact, i was speaking of someone who had failed to perceive something--such as the failure of the ancient Greeks to perceive that the asteres planetai were not in fact stars,

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

All in all, you're in a deep hole here, and frantically digging deeper.

I agree. The Poofmeister is displaying rare levels of inadequacy with this subject matter. It's quite entertaining.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

However, examining a postulate is not at all the same as someone saying "I believe this to be true."

Obviously. So let us examine the postulate that there is a God as that rancid old atheist Voltaire did on his deathbed.

I don't suppose you would want to argue that only your postulates are worth examining.

Many people, I'm told a largish majority of US citizens, postulate that there is a God. A lot of them are unconscious of it except at certain times which, of course, is at their discretion.

They may think of God in different ways. They postulate types of God. It seems just as reasonable to postulate any of those things as it does to postulate" n dimensional space, n postulated as infinite or that It began when an infinite mass in an infinitessimal space popped and here we are walking down Broadway with a dresser on our arm to an eaterie she likes because they do Tibetan goat's-milk yoghurt with a twirl of raspberry jam topping ($9.99).

Can [/I]n dimensional space show anything like that. That's pretty good management I reckon. You should say grace for that. On your bloody knees. Nobody knows what the phuck n dimensional space is.

You're on A2K not lecturing advanced physics at the Sorbonne where the undergrads want to believe in such things because they've seen the salaries in the Sits Vac at the back of Physics Today whose editorial staff believe it too, or seem to. It's easy finding way to discuss n dimensional space because the uninitiated are incapable os detecting flaws in the argument because those in the discussion don't know what they're talking about so it's hardly fair to expect gumps like us to.

If someone postulates God what is your reply?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
All in all, you're in a deep hole here, and frantically digging deeper.

I agree. The Poofmeister is displaying rare levels of inadequacy with this subject matter. It's quite entertaining.

To a great extent, that's because he has allowed himself to be suckered into a discussion he has always so assiduously avoided--an actual discussion of whether or not there is any evidence for a theistic creation. He probably thought he would be safe because he is employing his usual tactic of not directly addressing that subject, but rather of attempting to ridicule a scientific view of cosmic origins. Unfortunately for him, he wandered into a morass with which he was not prepared to deal.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

We have again another example of your inability to argue logically. No one has said "I believe this happened in a unknown place outside the universe (for which we have no evidence) in violation of scientific law because scientific laws don't apply there"--and this is a classic case of setting up a strawman,

If you had followed the thread, you'd know what was presented was as I stated.

Now you put quotation marks around it in an effort to say that nobody phrased it EXACTLY that way.

Lame.

The argument was substantively just as I posted it, and your attempt to strain at a gnat is hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

Setanta wrote:

this is a classic case of setting up a strawman, something of which you chronically accuse others,

Actually, the instances of this are infrequent. How many can you find out of 6000+ posts?

Setanta wrote:

I have no brief to defend someone else's position, although i will point out to you that what was written was that it is possible that there are n dimensions,

What is possible was not the issue, but what there is evidence for. Those claiming to hold a scientific position have an obligation to base it on evidence, not on speculation.

Setanta wrote:

--i guess you must have thought people were too stupid to go find your source for themselves.

Really? Is that why I provided the link?

You're really reaching now. But please continue.

Setanta wrote:

You were not referring to those who know that the universe cannot have been created without violating scientific laws.

In fact, I was.

Setanta wrote:

Most crucially, you don't want to address his cogent observation that scientific "laws" are abstract constructs of humans

Scientific laws operate whether humans are aware of them or not. Any other implication is nonsense.

Hope you are having a super day. I enjoy talking with you.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If you had followed the thread, you'd know what was presented was as I stated.

No, it wasn't, which is why i made my objection.

Quote:

Now you put quotation marks around it in an effort to say that nobody phrased it EXACTLY that way.

Apart from noting that you use precisely that technique frequently, it is a point worth making because the post to which you objected was offered as an example of how the matter in the universe could come into existence without reference to the "laws" of thermodynamics, and was definitely not offered as a statement of belief.

Quote:

Lame.

Yes, your arguments are almost always lame, but we enjoy them for the entertainment value.

Quote:

The argument was substantively just as I posted it, and your attempt to strain at a gnat is hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

The only pathos here resides in your continued attempt to claim that anyone here has claimed to believe that anything happened in an unknown place outside the universe in violation of scientific laws because scientific laws don't apply there. No one has said anything even remotely resembling that.

Quote:

Actually, the instances of this are infrequent. How many can you find out of 6000+ posts? (This refers to you falsely accusing others of having set up strawmen).

You very recently accused me of setting up a straw man when i asked you a question. I asked the question, because, as is usual, you made a statement from authority without either providing evidence or a plausible argument for your claim that one who created matter could not itself be composed of matter. I asked the question in the attempt to get you to explain the basis for your statement. As is usual, you attempted to argue anything but the basis for your statement from authority.

I also recall a recent instance when you accused someone else of erecting a straw man, in an instance when that member quoted your post directly. A straw man can only be erected by misstating your position--someone who quotes what you wrote and argues against it is not employing the informal fallacy known as a straw man.

I assure you, however, that your typical failure to effectively employ logic is not of sufficient interest to me that i'm going to search you posts to find examples of your failures.

Quote:

What is possible was not the issue, but what there is evidence for. Those claiming to hold a scientific position have an obligation to base it on evidence, not on speculation.

This is hilarious, coming form someone who assiduously avoids providing any evidence for his claims. As i have already pointed out, more than once, the post to which you objected simply pointed out one of the theses which are current and contemporary (and by no means the only thesis) about the origin of the matter in this cosmos. The member posting did not posit it as a belief, nor state that it was a scientifically established fact. Therefore, there is no basis for you to allege that the member in question holds a scientific position for which he has no evidence.

Quote:

Really? Is that why I provided the link?

You're really reaching now. But please continue.

I will. You frequently provide links to what are either unreliable sources, as is so often shown by other members here, or you provide links which don't say what you claim they say, as was the case with the definitions which you butchered before posting them. The only reasonable conclusion i can come to is that you think those with whom you are discussing these topics are too stupid to check up on you.

Quote:

Setanta wrote:
You were not referring to those who know that the universe cannot have been created without violating scientific laws.

In fact, I was.

I have quoted myself here for sake of clarity.

No, you were not referring to anyone who "knows" that the universe cannot have been created without violating scientific laws. Firstly, as i pointed out, because the member did not use the term create, and your use of it is a feeble and transparent attempt to couch the argument in your terms. Second, because the post which sparked this current round of stupid arguments on your part was not an allegation by that member that he knew what he postulated to be the a factual statement of the origin of the universe. Finally, you were not referring to those who "know" that the universe cannot have originated without violating scientific laws because you have failed to make your case.

I'd almost be tempted to say that you are willfully lying, were it not more likely that you are, as usual, out of your depth in discussions of science, and attempts to debate on the basis of logic.

Quote:

Scientific laws operate whether humans are aware of them or not. Any other implication is nonsense.

No, "scientific laws" are only statements by humans of their (almost always) imperfect understanding of how the cosmos operates. What is nonsense is your attempt to cast "scientific laws" in the same light as the dogmatic dicta which you allege came from your imaginary friend. No one with a sound understanding to the scientific method fails to understand that any "scientific law" is a subjective statement, subject to revision based on any reliable new datum.

Quote:

Hope you are having a super day. I enjoy talking with you.

Liar . . . mealy-mouthed hypocrite. You are a "whited sepulcher, full of rotting flesh and dead men's bones."

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Just to summarize so other can laugh. RL goes on to show his total ignorance of anything that doesn't fit into his own dogmatic views of the world.

He doesn't understand science so can not accept ideas such as the laws of thermodynamics did not exist at the BB as there were no time or space in which these laws could operate.

That the theory is well developed and even uses this fact that these laws did not immediately exist in the quick changing conditions at the earliest stages of creation along with a second point, the unusual stability of the proton, to explain the existence of the universe.

These "LAWS" are not absolute even now in the sense of statutorily certitude; even though it has been pointed out to him that his favorite law to misuse (the second law of thermodynamics) is statistical in nature.

That if these laws are absolute the creation of virtual particle pairs could not take place and our calculations at the QM level which often rely on them as intermediate steps would not be able to predict the magnetic moment of the neutron (for example) to over 20 decimal places; which of course they can.

That you get the picture.

You want to have some fun; here is a list of questions he is quite incapable of answering but very capable of ignoring or picking terms upon which to obfuscate.

So here we go oh great one

Exactly how many conservation laws are there?

Are all forces bounded by the same laws, if not, which force is bounded by which of the laws?

Do these laws operate differently at the quantum level than at the level that classical physics describes?

And the eternal question:
If you are right and all the physicists in the world are wrong how come we don't see your papers in The Physical Review Letters explaining the errors in all the other published papers?

Some continue, for their own reasons, to interact with this fool, others like myself stop by occasionally to laugh or to demonstrate the continued drivel he spouts, others have just moved on.

(Evidence of a well-merited derision for "real life's" understanding removed in the interest of good taste.)

This is the post from which your stupid argument derives. I have highlighted a portion of it, which is the most germane point, and from which you have woven a fabric of lies about what actually has been stated. I would only correct it to say that rather than assuming, as TheCorrectResponse does, that you don't understand, i would opine that you are just being your usual cute self, which is to say, deceitful.

To this, you responded as follows, hacking up TCR's post shamelessly (and doing the same to the definition of "supernatural"):

real life wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
......the laws of thermodynamics did not exist at the BB as there were no time or space in which these laws could operate.......

And you KNOW this to be a fact exactly how?

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
......the laws of thermodynamics did not exist at the BB as there were no time or space in which these laws could operate.......

Would you agree that IF this was correct, that it fits the definition of 'supernatural' ?

from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

TCR was accurate in pointing out that you would completely avoid answering his questions which would demonstrate your ignorance of the topic under discussion.

TCR then responded to your response:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

RL:

Quote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
......the laws of thermodynamics did not exist at the BB as there were no time or space in which these laws could operate.......

And you KNOW this to be a fact exactly how?

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
......the laws of thermodynamics did not exist at the BB as there were no time or space in which these laws could operate.......

Would you agree that IF this was correct, that it fits the definition of 'supernatural' ?

Well one possible reason I KNOW this is because I know the answers to these questions (and a bit more):

Exactly how many conservation laws are there?

Are all forces bounded by the same laws, if not, which force is bounded by which of the laws?

Do these laws operate differently at the quantum level than at the level that classical physics describes?

Or it may be that I understand that all of these "Laws", hypothesis", theories", etc. are abstract constructs made by man to give him the ability to make useful predictions.

How do I KNOW that time started at the BB, because we define that point as when time started. My world is filled with levels of uncertainty that I am not afraid of and ideas that I would gladly change for others that produce better predictions. Yours seems to be filled with dogma and your fear of having to discard any piece of that dogma ever, for any reason.

My world is filled with facts certain enough to create MRIs to help the ill, computers to aid in the acquisition of new knowledge, and space probes to demonstrate new and great wonders of the universe. Yours is filled with opinions that

And no, nothing leads me to the supernatural. If our universe is a bud from another universe (for example) it leads me to redefine the term universe.

So those are my answers to YOUR questions, how long will it be until I get answers to MINE, restated at the beginning of this post.

I have highlighted TCR's statement upon which you leapt in the dull-witted belief that you could erect a plausible straw man argument.

TCR prefaces his remark with the conjunction "if," noting that the conditional aspect would lead him to redefine the term universe.

You have taken it and attempted to run with it. TCR did not state as fact our cosmos is a "bud" of another universe. TCR did not state that he believes that our cosmos is a "bud" of another universe. TCR made no statement which even remotely resembles a statement that he "believes" that the universe were "created" in a manner which you believe you can allege violates "scientific laws."

Liar.

Finally, despite your sneering rhetoric, in which you display your ignorance of these matters, you keep asking how anyone can "know" that the laws of thermodynamics did not exist at the time of the "Big Bang." It has been pointed out to you that this is not a fact that anyone is asserting, but rather that this is the definition for the beginning of space/time, without which there can be no "laws" of thermodynamics.

No one here is surprised to see you ignore that.

0 Replies

Setanta,

I would advise you to go back and read the last 15-20 pages of the thread before you post again.

You seem to be assuming that much of the material being referred to (by me) is from discussions with TCR, when in fact he was only a minor participant during this period.

Most of the discussion came from other members and you seem to be unaware of who said what.

0 Replies

You continue to peddle the story that someone here "believes" that the universe were "created" in an unknown location in a manner which violates the "laws" of thermodynamics. If that is so, it were a simple matter for you to quote their posts.

0 Replies

Quote:

If someone postulates God what is your reply?

You're going to a great deal of trouble to hide yourself away from that question Setanta.

Some might think that you home in on the easy stuff, which is as old as the hills, to avoid facing such questions. Bombast and bluster it is known as. It is obvious what your straw man is and how large it looms.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You continue to peddle the story that someone here "believes" that the universe were "created" in an unknown location in a manner which violates the "laws" of thermodynamics. If that is so, it were a simple matter for you to quote their posts.

Or I could just reply as you did:

Quote:

I assure you, however, that your typical failure to effectively employ logic is not of sufficient interest to me that i'm going to search you posts to find examples of your failures.

I'll let you read the 15-20 pages.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
We have again another example of your inability to argue logically. No one has said "I believe this happened in a unknown place outside the universe (for which we have no evidence) in violation of scientific law because scientific laws don't apply there"--and this is a classic case of setting up a strawman,

If you had followed the thread, you'd know what was presented was as I stated.

I actaully specificaly stated that refering to outside of the bounds/domain of the universe as a "place" is too simplistic.

But above you still choose to refer to it as a place.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
We have again another example of your inability to argue logically. No one has said "I believe this happened in a unknown place outside the universe (for which we have no evidence) in violation of scientific law because scientific laws don't apply there"--and this is a classic case of setting up a strawman,

If you had followed the thread, you'd know what was presented was as I stated.

I actaully specificaly stated that refering to outside of the bounds/domain of the universe as a "place" is too simplistic.

But above you still choose to refer to it as a place.

T
K
O

Suggest a term.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I'll let you read the 15-20 pages.

I've read every page of this thread as it has unfolded. Unless and until you provide a quote of someone's post in which that member states that he or she believes that matter in the cosmos originated in an unknown place, and which you assert is in defiance of the "laws of science," i will continue to refer to you as a liar.

Even if you do come up with that, you still have the burden of making your case that said claim violates the "laws of science." You don't have a good track record in efforts of that sort, but good luck anyway.

0 Replies

Whether the place is known or not, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed by natural means.

Quote:

The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter:

E = mc2
In the equation above, energy (E) is equal to matter (m) times the square of a constant (c). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.

from http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e.html

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
We have again another example of your inability to argue logically. No one has said "I believe this happened in a unknown place outside the universe (for which we have no evidence) in violation of scientific law because scientific laws don't apply there"--and this is a classic case of setting up a strawman,

If you had followed the thread, you'd know what was presented was as I stated.

I actaully specificaly stated that refering to outside of the bounds/domain of the universe as a "place" is too simplistic.

But above you still choose to refer to it as a place.

T
K
O

Suggest a term.

I prefer refering to the universe as a singularity and not what exists outside of it's domain. I'm not even fond of wording "outside," but for sake of easy language it will suffice for the purpose of this discussion.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

.......provide a quote of someone's post in which that member states that he or she believes that matter in the cosmos originated in an unknown place

Quote:

The theory that all the mass and energy in the universe comes from outside the universe would actually be supported by the first law. If the all matter in the universe could not be created here, yet it is here, it must able to be created, just not here.

Quote:

I predict that outside of the domain of our universe, by laws of nature yet to be discovered, energy in different forms can be created from nothing .......

Quote:

I believe the evidence will be discovered.....

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
We have again another example of your inability to argue logically. No one has said "I believe this happened in a unknown place outside the universe (for which we have no evidence) in violation of scientific law because scientific laws don't apply there"--and this is a classic case of setting up a strawman,

If you had followed the thread, you'd know what was presented was as I stated.

I actaully specificaly stated that refering to outside of the bounds/domain of the universe as a "place" is too simplistic.

But above you still choose to refer to it as a place.

T
K
O

Suggest a term.

I prefer refering to the universe as a singularity and not what exists outside of it's domain. I'm not even fond of wording "outside," but for sake of easy language it will suffice for the purpose of this discussion.

T
K
O

Not a prob. Either is quite sufficient as far as I'm concerned.

As you can see, your views have caused quite a stir.

You may become famous.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
.......provide a quote of someone's post in which that member states that he or she believes that matter in the cosmos originated in an unknown place

Quote:
The theory that all the mass and energy in the universe comes from outside the universe would actually be supported by the first law. If the all matter in the universe could not be created here, yet it is here, it must able to be created, just not here.

Quote:
I predict that outside of the domain of our universe, by laws of nature yet to be discovered, energy in different forms can be created from nothing .......

Quote:
I believe the evidence will be discovered.....

The first quote qualifies the statement with the conjunction "if," which i suspect you choose to ignore.

The second statement is a prediction, not a statement of belief. It is possible that this member believes what is there written, but it is that energy of different forms is what that member alleges (or predicts) may be found. Not matter, and that is not a statement on the origin of this cosmos.

The third statement is that the member believes that evidence will be discovered . . . but you have conveniently truncated the quote so that it does not show that this member believes that evidence will be found that our cosmos was "created" in a manner violating the "laws of science."

Finally, of course, you still have the burden of proving that what anyone here speculates about constitutes a violation of the "laws of science." As far as i can see, you remain mute on the boundary between the "big bang" and the existence of space/time, without which there are no "natural laws" in our cosmos.

I have quoted entire posts. Why don't you stop playing silly games, and provide the entire post, so that it can be viewed and judged in context?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know