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

Setanta wrote:

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 'if' doesn't mean that he is unsure whether matter could be created here. He KNOWS it can't.

Substitute 'since' and you may see the meaning more clearly.

Setanta wrote:

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.

Matter and energy are interchangable. Hello?

When pressed for evidence of this, the third statement says it is his 'belief'.

Setanta wrote:

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."

He believes that by moving the location of the creation out of our universe that it avoids a violation of the 1st Law.

That is why he postulates an 'outside' of the universe existence.

Setanta wrote:

Finally, of course, you still have the burden of proving that what anyone here speculates about constitutes a violation of the "laws of science."

I posted a summary of the 1st Law. If matter/energy were created, that would be a violation of same.

Setanta wrote:

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.

And you KNOW this how? What existed prior to BB and how do you KNOW it to be so? (Your statement implies a factual basis.)

Setanta wrote:

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?

You stated that you've read every page. What's the prob?

0 Replies

RL, your argument is that the matter in the unverse does in fact exist and are citing the 1st law that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. fRom that We are given two knwn paths.

1) That in fact matter can be created.
2) That matter cannot be created but the first law can be violated by supernatural forces.

You choose path two despite having zero evidence and no acceptable reason to logically find option 2 more sound.

The first option still can acount for matter not being created nor destroyed, but takes the laws and would define a domain for this statement to be true.

The idea that we and the rest of the universe are created is counter intuitive and requires several contrary beliefs to coexist at the same time.

T
K
O

P.s. - As a last little thought, you'd be amazed at what we don't know about the nature of gravity. There's nothing magical about it. We used to think it just made things go down, but then we learned it was not about up and down but to and from etc.

0 Replies

rl wrote-

Quote:

You may become famous.

If that happens he will be asked to provide an answer to someone postulating that there is a God.

He can only carry on as he does as long as the heat isn't turned up.

Look how Setanta is ducking and diving on that question. He claims I write drivel and thus is excused from responding.

If someone postulates that there is a God what answer can he come up with to refute it. That we should be living in caves would be the obvious Darwinian answer if Bernie's stories about GW are to be believed.

0 Replies

The concept of god is counter intuitive, refuting it is unessisary because no real argument for its existance has been presented to even refute.

T
K
O

0 Replies

The concept of "no God" is counter intuitive.

There was no talk of the existence of God. Not from me anyway. There was talk of postulating the existence of God as opposed to postluation of "no God".

Judging from what little we know about history if the concept of God or Gods is counter intuitive then the human race has evolved as a counter intuitive species.

If you postulate, a thought experiment, that there is a God you can then proceed in a certain way. If you postulate there is no God you can also proceed in a certain way. A profoundly different way of course.

You need to show that proceeding on the assumption that there is no God is a superior method of organising society than proceeding on the assumption that there is a God. And to show it all the way back to, say, the Venus of Willendorf. Or Homer. Or the Gothic springtime.

I would say that every moment of your day, your dreams as well, is conditioned on the postulate that there is a God.

If you say that the concept of god is counter intuitive, and people believe you, all of them, and why not all of them if it's a fact, as you've stated, we are in new territory. An epochal change. As you are personally responsible for this change you now have the duty to map out the future based on the postulate you have asserted.

Could you provide a rough outline for us so we can judge.

You could of course say that the human race is counter intuitive and as you are by definition intuitive that you are "different". Superior even.

We will, as you might expect, take into account that you might intuit there is no God for no other reason than to escape from those strictures which the postulated God of our culture is postulated to take a dim view of whilst at the same time taking advantage of the benefits our postulated God has delivered and failing to consider the social consequences of us all agreeing with you.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

RL, your argument is that the matter in the unverse does in fact exist and are citing the 1st law that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. fRom that We are given two knwn paths.

1) That in fact matter can be created.
2) That matter cannot be created but the first law can be violated by supernatural forces.

Your two options are simply variants.

Actually the two options that follow are:

-- Matter was created. (This one runs afoul of the 1st Law)

-- Matter was NEVER created, it is eternally existent. (This one runs afoul of the 2nd Law because the expected effect from entropy is not evidenced.)

Have a good weekend. Beware the ice. Cool

0 Replies

That's a "pincer" movement TCR.

0 Replies

The first law of thermodynamics simply holds that in a system the amount of increase of energy is equal to the amount energy added by heating the sytem, less the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings. If you are going to postulate that there is no other "where" with regard to the cosmos, you cannot invoke the first law to deny that matter or energy can be "created," because there would be no surroundings upon which the system can work. So if you deny that there is an "unknown other place," you remove the first law from consideration.

None of which alters the fact that you have failed to provide a quote for your strawman. In your Post #2976504 you write: "So when someone tells me that they 'believe' (but have no evidence) that there exists a place outside our universe where the 1st Law of Thermodynamics doesn't prohibit matter from being created . . . they are postulating a 'supernatural' plane of existence. They are making a statement of faith, not a scientific statement."

You have not provided any quote in which anyone has said that they "believe" that there exists a place outside our universe where the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't prohibit matter from being created. Not only that, the first law doesn't "prohibit matter from being created"--it doesn't address the concept at all.

Finally, as the boundary between the "Big Bang" and space/time--it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that the laws of thermodynamics apply in the four dimensions of space/time with which we are familiar, but that space/time did not exist until the "Big Bang" had occurred[/i]. You can remain obtuse about this point, but it doesn't authorize your attempts to warp people's statements about matter and energy coming into existence as a result of the Big Bang, of space/time coming into existence as a result of the "Big Bang."

You have failed to make your case, and none of the quotes you provided are statements that anyone "believes" that there exists a place outside our universe where the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't prohibit matter from being "created. " Both because that is not a part of what the first law says, and because you have no quote in which anyone makes that claim.

*****************************************************

The most important consideration, of course, is that in none of the drivel you have posted have you offered any evidence for creationsim. You are simply pursuing your favorite tactic of attempting to discredit science, as though that would then authorize your imaginary friend supestition--which is not a logical conclusion.

What evidence do you have to offer us, "real life," that a creation ever took place?

0 Replies

It's very simple, "real life"--provide the name of the member who made the statement you claim was made in the post of yours which i linked above, and provide the complete post in which that member said it, so that it can be read in context. You have so far failed to do it. I don't need to re-read the entire thread, i've read it and seen no such statement. If you claim it was made, you are obliged to prove your statement, i'm not obliged to do your leg work for you.

Then you can get down to the job of providing evidence for creationism.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

P.s. - As a last little thought, you'd be amazed at what we don't know about the nature of gravity. There's nothing magical about it. We used to think it just made things go down, but then we learned it was not about up and down but to and from etc.

The member "real life" does not address gravity. It's too embarrassing for him. The postulate of a closed universe, i.e., one in which there is sufficient mass to cause the universe to collapse at such time as the entropic minimum is reached, embarrasses his thesis because it would imply that matter has and will always exist, and that there is an oscillating process of "Big Bangs" and expansion leading to collapse and yet another "Big Bang" and expansion. I'll bet he'd rather not consider the issue of gravity.

0 Replies

It is a well known fact that those who strain their anal sphincter to avoid the slightest semblance of vulgarity bring to a fine art the concealment of any personal allusions to their personal character in a wealth of ingenious and incomprehensibe circumlocutions some of which often pass unnoticed even by the person/s to whom they are addressed.

For those in need of guidance, who's bullshit detector is a cheapo or possibly in for a service, these last posts, and others, when de-coded, mean that Setanta is dead good, really really clever, highly intelligent and a cut above us ordinary Joes. His general all round superiority shines through his prose. Dazzling us all.

And how very convenient it is that there is a place outside the Universe, an arena so to speak, in which that sort of operation can be conducted safely for ever and a day.

It is almost as convenient as Setanta saying that my posts are drivel and that it is easier to pity me and turn aside than it is to have a go at providing answers to my points.

Such is the calibre of some of those who seek to influence the education of our up-coming generation in whom we necessarily pin all our hopes.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

The concept of "no God" is counter intuitive.

incorrect. Scinece does not require god. The idea that something can exist and exist outside of the laws of nature subjectively is counter intuitive.

spendius wrote:

There was no talk of the existence of God. Not from me anyway. There was talk of postulating the existence of God as opposed to postluation of "no God".

You'd better be able to provide evidence of God if you are claiming that the universe was created.

spendius wrote:

Judging from what little we know about history if the concept of God or Gods is counter intuitive then the human race has evolved as a counter intuitive species.

Your statement presurposes that "we know" little about history. Next, it projects your knowledge base onto others which is a poor assumption to make. The rest is false because, human's existance don't defy natural law.

spendius wrote:

If you postulate, a thought experiment, that there is a God you can then proceed in a certain way. If you postulate there is no God you can also proceed in a certain way. A profoundly different way of course.

If you proceed under the postulate there is a god, you don't have any rules to follow. It would hardly and experiment.

spendius wrote:

You need to show that proceeding on the assumption that there is no God is a superior method of organising society than proceeding on the assumption that there is a God. And to show it all the way back to, say, the Venus of Willendorf. Or Homer. Or the Gothic springtime.

I need to do nothing of the sort in a debate about the existance of god and the creation of the universe. My opinions on the role of religion in the organization of society, are separate from the idea of whether or not the universe was created.

As an aside, I believe religion stunted the development of society.

spendius wrote:

I would say that every moment of your day, your dreams as well, is conditioned on the postulate that there is a God.

You are once again making assumptions which projects yourself onto another person. My dreams are in no way conditioned on the postulate that thee is a god. Would you care to explain how I or my cat for thaty matter would not dream if there was no god?

spendius wrote:

If you say that the concept of god is counter intuitive, and people believe you, all of them, and why not all of them if it's a fact, as you've stated, we are in new territory. An epochal change. As you are personally responsible for this change you now have the duty to map out the future based on the postulate you have asserted.

Incorrect. The future being mapped out is a religious idea. There is no reason why I would have to do something like this.

spendius wrote:

Could you provide a rough outline for us so we can judge.

Even if I were to provide an outline, your judgement would mean nil. Why would I need to provide one of these?

spendius wrote:

You could of course say that the human race is counter intuitive and as you are by definition intuitive that you are "different". Superior even.

How are we different? From what are you making reference? Again, humans don't vuiolate the universe, they must follow the laws of science etc.

spendius wrote:

We will, as you might expect, take into account that you might intuit there is no God for no other reason than to escape from those strictures which the postulated God of our culture is postulated to take a dim view of whilst at the same time taking advantage of the benefits our postulated God has delivered and failing to consider the social consequences of us all agreeing with you.

Your use words like "we" and "our [culture]" is inaccurate. In what ways do I take advantage of the postulate that there is a god? Don't make claims you can't back up. What exactly "strictures" am I trying to "escape?"

Your claims are unfounded and are operating on several assumptions about the universe and other. Your assumptions on the universe, I'll forgive, but your assumptions on other people are ignorant.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Slam dunk, TKO

Joe(poof goes the imaginary friend)Nation

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

As an aside, I believe religion stunted the development of society.

and continues to stunt the development of society.

0 Replies

YEP!!!...

0 Replies

Joe (I never did get the hang of reading) Nation wrote-

Quote:

Slam dunk, TKO

Care to explain Joe? He didn't answer one point. He just wriggled. Wasn't a "Slam dunk" argument used to justify the war.

Quote:

Diest TKO wrote:
As an aside, I believe religion stunted the development of society.

and continues to stunt the development of society.

Care to explain ros? Like how do you see society developing when "unstunted"? That's the question I asked and, as usual, it was evaded. Perhaps you will offer us a glimpse of the way forward unhindered by the stunting effect of religion. What will happen?

Nobody can prove the existence or the non-existence of God. And nobody ever will. So arguing about that is stunting your own intellectual development unless you think going around in circles is intellectual development.

Do you not notice that what you said there you have been saying for years and do you not also notice that it is meaningless because it depends upon your subjective usage of "stunt" which is a pejoritive.

Saying meaningless things year in year out is stunting. Seriously.

Because we cannot know whether a God exists or not we have no choice but to postulate one or the other. There's no in between.

Then the matter is open to intellectual debate and not otherwise.

What are the developmental implications of postulating that there's no God and organising as if that postulate is true starting from a place which has postulated the opposite for all history and is organised as if the postulate is true.

If you are refusing to even try to answer the social consequences problem after all this time and all the money that has been spent on your education then everything you have to say on the matter is meaningless. A mere snort. However long winded.

TKO simply doesn't understand the argument and neither does his claque.

I don't think understanding is on the claque's agenda for the simple reason that effort would then be required which none of its members are willing to put in.

All they seem to want is to post meaningless irresponsible tripe of no use to anybody in any way whatsoever, (tautology for emphasis). Until the end of their days.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Saying meaningless things year in year out is stunting. Seriously.

Then perhaps you should stop.

0 Replies

Pray Wolf-- explain to us all, for I am at a loss how I might, just exactly what is meaningless about asking atheists to tell us what the society they wish to see will be like.

I expect you yourself expect that of politicians or of someone arguing to move house or which bedroom suite to buy.

Those are not facetious examples. They imply having to persuade another to take a decision which is to some extent being resisted and the resistance is easily smeared with such meaningless dross as "stick-in-the-mud" and knuckledragging" to mention but two out of a long practiced list of similar meaningless dross. The resistance is defeated by either force or temptation.

Right? Now you can't use force. Or at least not yet. So what tempters do you offer if everyone adopts your position and the way of life from which it derives?

What do we get when we get there? Bearing in mind most of us think it isn't so bad here as we are now. You won't have the slightest effect with n-dimensions with n as infinite or with infinite mass popping out of infinitessimal space.

Which opens up two interesting possibilities-

1- You don't want to have any effect other than to make meaningless noises like you used to do banging on pans with a wooden spoon while your Mum was warming your milk.

2- That you are not one of those who think things are not so bad. You're pissed off with things so your just protesting using arguments you know won't have any effect.

I could tempt them. If I wanted to prosletyse atheism I could tempt them goodstyle but then I don't have your hang-ups you see. It would be the only meaningful way to go. With a bit of effort I could have them buldozing the churches by next week such would be their yearning for the lifestyle I could dream up once I had persuaded them how foolish, anti-Darwinian even, they had been all this time in believing in a set of rules. My general laziness is here reinforced by my humility. I would not dare do such a thing because I'm not sure things would turn out the way I had envisaged. But why do you refrain? Is it your hang-ups or is it that you have no clue?

Democracy is a system, especially in the US, which ensures that power goes to those with some ability who want it most and it has done quite well I think. Of course there are costs. Which we continually seek to reduce. You just don't want any because you're too idle and lacking in ability. You just want to barrack.

No only is that not meaningless it is the only question that has any meaning. All this other stuff is meaningless.

You're reduced to blurting insults.

0 Replies

spendius - If you need an examples of religion stunting our development I'll give you three (out of many) for both the bast and the present.

PAST - Think about the developments in science. Many of these develpments could have happened earlier but you were considered a heretic if you claimed the world wasn't the center of the universe. The great minds that were finding these truths were put to death, and obviously detered from doing their work. Man could have developed so many more things by now had the religious not made themselves a deadly obstacle.

PAST - Ending slavery. Look at the Vatican and there invovlement in this. They came last in the parade! The only reason they came at all is becasue they didn't want to be seen as culturally invalid.

PAST - The burning of homosexuals. This set a long preceedant even after the act was no longer done that homosexuals were to be feared , hated and worse that they needed to be punished. Society could have developed much sooner the degree of acceptance that would have helped several societies to be less violent when faed with things they don't understand.

PRESENT - The intervension by the religious to prevent SCNT stem cell research that could create therapies and cures for serious diseases. It could also provide organs for those in need.

PRESENT - The money black holes that are the mid-western mega-churches. These places take money from midclass and lower class families and promote many things which ironically are not in the interest of lower class and middle class citizens.

PRESENT - The fighting in the "holy land." The ground is practically red now from the ongoing fighting between muslims and jews. The US's invovlement in this affair is not one of objectivitiy but a show of loyaly to judeo-christian values etc.

In summary, Spendi, you're argument id full of crap. You are right about one thing, noone will ever prove God exists. As fo proving God doesn't exist, that is a proof of a negitive, and is unessisary. The burden of proof falls on those making the claim that god is real. Science does not require god or the absence of god, so it really doesn't matter to me. It doesn't matter to me that is unless you're strapping me to a post and gathering the villagers and their torches.

T
K
O

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know