It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

page: 17
9
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
No madness you are wrong, if the universe existed before the big bang but in another form than it is NOT a universe it is a singularity


..who said a singularity containing that much mass doesn't count as a universe?
the point is that stuff existed prior to the big bang.



and an epoch is a what? Here let me help you since I am assuming you are having trouble with this and words like "kind" ready?

Epoch = a significant event, time, or moment which is chosen as a new origin for time measurements. To put it another way madness,, the BIG BANG


yes, new time measurements...but that doesn't mean that stuff didn't exist prior to it...





if it becomes anything or as you say becomes a universe than I guess whammy was correct the first time huh


nope, whammy is off.



Well that's because an age old book you say is full of contradictions, describes it that way and who was responsible for it. That's the philosophy part, the science part is what makes the philosophy part patent.


except that no science has been provided and that old book really is full of contradictions. chapters 1 and 2 of genesis, to start off with...which i've brought up countless (ok, not countless, probably a few hundred) times before.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
Show us ONE and I don't mean micro evo I mean bona fide macro evolution where a species changed or appears to be changing into something we can show thriving finished product. I am sure I'll be able to show you why Creationist ignore it as nothing more than BUNK


tetrapod.
archaeoptryx.
legged snake.
these




there's no in between because each stage is an "in between" - Madness


Than tell me what a "stage" is so we can find the in between for each stage madness, Oh that's right a stage is an in between so there ARE in betweens after all. That's some pretty slick semantics madness.


that's some pretty slick quote mining. you actually quote mined me when the source is on the same page.

now i'm just going to cut out the rest of your stuff that addresses the straw man you've created from a quote mine.


the whole point is that there is no proper half form. even if there was a proper halfway form, the creationists would say that it creates the requirement for 2 more halfway forms...


that's the point i was making.

you can see a transitional form right now if you'd kindly look in the mirror or at an animal that might be outside a window of your place of residence.




posted on May, 12 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
you'll just shove your faith-based concept just beyond it, hiding in the gaps in knowledge.

Well, that's better than most replies, since you readily admit that there are HUGE gaps of knowledge in the anti-ID crowd. They don't know how it all started but can't, can't, CAN NOT be God. Meanwhile let's search for other intelligent life in the Universe ignore the fact that this other intelligent life just might be a creator. Obviously the lack of understanding is equivalent to anti-god. I'm amused at how one can state we don't know it all and at the same time declare there is no creator or entity that causes intelligent design as if you scoured the entire Universe and found nothing. You either know it all or you don't.



Lots of interesting stuff around in the halls of academia.

Indeed! The likes of which include Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble, Milton Humason, Stephen Hawking, etc. Every single one of these giants of science backed the Big Bang. Omitting them from your reference does not silence their opinion. The Big Bang is real (else Olbers' paradox would be true) and the Big Bounce seems an impossiblity based on the fact that the Universe is expanding at an ever incresing rate.

A Darwanist's worst enemy is Cosmology where all of the evidence seems to back a beginning, a creation point if you will. Again, please revert to my previous statement of fact:

1. Everything with a beginning has a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning.
3. The Universe was caused....by...

... Let's see, what would be able to create a finite point of infinite energy? What if there were a being made of infinite energy and light? I know, it's all madness but you'll see it my way eventually. ;-) I promise you'll get the evidence you keep asking for.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by dbates]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Well, that's better than most replies, since you readily admit that there are HUGE gaps of knowledge in the anti-ID crowd. They don't know how it all started but can't, can't, CAN NOT be God.


Didn't quite say that. And I don't know anyone who does say that. An atheist usually assesses the available real-world evidence and makes an inference.

Whereas you use a little book of stories, and make a conclusion about all kinds of very unlikely stuff.


Obviously the lack of understanding is equivalent to anti-god. I'm amused at how one can state we don't know it all and at the same time declare there is no creator or entity that causes intelligent design as if you scoured the entire Universe and found nothing. You either know it all or you don't.


Or maybe we just know some stuff, but not all.

To me, our lack of understanding = things we don't yet know. What you should try to do, perhaps, is rather than looking at gaps in knowledge and placing god there, is to say 'we don't really know'. It's actually liberating to not have to make stuff up.

Could make you an agnostic though, but it's better than just accepting stuff which has little real-world basis and is very culture bound.


Indeed! The likes of which include Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble, Milton Humason, Stephen Hawking, etc. Every single one of these giants of science backed the Big Bang. Omitting them from your reference does not silence their opinion. The Big Bang is real (else Olbers' paradox would be true) and the Big Bounce seems an impossiblity based on the fact that the Universe is expanding at an ever incresing rate.


I don't think the conclusion from such research is that a big-bang type event never happened. It is an attempt to provide a more expansive explanation and understanding of the nature of the universe. The likelihood is that the inflation we see from planck time onwards is just a part of the answer. And hypotheses, such as provided earlier, and others, like cyclic models, are where science will be heading.

You would really like to embrace the ignorance, to say 'look, a singularity, we can't understand, must be god'. Whereas science will break through these barriers in time. Just like it has done since its formation, pushing made up stuff into smaller and smaller gaps.


A Darwanist's worst enemy is Cosmology where all of the evidence seems to back a beginning, a creation point if you will. Again, please revert to my previous statement of fact:


Don't see why a darwinist per se would be bothered by cosmology. A darwinist is, I suppose, an individual who strongly holds to darwinian theory for the origin of species. That is, common descent by natural selection.

In contrast, I assume you are misusing the word to mean atheist. Evolution =/= atheism. Sorry. It's a common 'mistake' made by people in your circle to supposedly denigrate a perfectly good scientific theory by associating it with baby-eating atheists.


1. Everything with a beginning has a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning.
3. The Universe was caused....by...


Aye, Kalam argument.

Lets start at number one, have we ever found something with a true beginning that had a cause? Thus far, all matter existed at planck time, it has just been changing form over time. Before that, we don't know. Thus, although it might appear that the sunflower growing on my balcony was caused by me planting a seed. It is just a rearrangement of pre-existing stuff. So was the seed. And so am I.

When you can show matter coming into existence (i.e., a beginning), we might be able to assess 1. The problem here is that time is a property of the universe, does linear time, and therefore A to B, even exist without a universe?

Anyway, such things are being assessed, so like you say to atheists, we don't know it all, and to therefore use a logical argument containing numerous questionable assumptions is a bit hypocritical.


... Let's see, what would be able to create a finite point of infinite energy? What if there were a being made of infinite energy and light? I know, it's all madness but you'll see it my way eventually. ;-) I promise you'll get the evidence you keep asking for.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by dbates]


And if yer auntie had balls, she'd be yer uncle.

The issue you are focusing on here is most likely as result of the weaknesses of our current theory. That's why physicists are attempting to integrate quantum theory and classical theory. Then we might be able to assess things that possibly had a true beginning, rather than just changing form. Maybe that's all we will find, stuff changing form having always existed in some way.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Aye, Kalam argument.

although it might appear that the sunflower growing on my balcony was caused by me planting a seed. It is just a rearrangement of pre-existing stuff. So was the seed. And so am I.


Aye, the Buddhist argument.


You can not logically insist that there are things in the Universe that have eternally been here even if in a different state. Doing so will cause to you to fall into an infinite regression of previous time which would not allow us to be at the present. You see an object in the infinite past could never have had the ability to arrive at the present time since it would still be waiting for the infinite past to finish. An impossiblity by any standard.

Since an infinite past is impossible, and since it's impossible for the Universe to actualize itself. (It wasn't there before it began) We must look to the possiblity that some timeless, uncaused , external cause was responsible for the Universe. This cause would most likely be a personal agent since it would need to make the decision to cause a temporal Universe where there was none before. If not personal the Universe would not have began to exist since an impersonal timeless static cause would not be able to change anything. Everything would simply be static and unchanging like a picture.

You say there's no science behind ID, but in reality science (The Big Bang, a red-shifted Universe) and logic seem to point towards creatio ex nihilo.


Also for the record, I never said that Atheist ate babies. They simply have an unrealistic opinion as to the origins of the Universe.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Aye, the Buddhist argument.


You can not logically insist that there are things in the Universe that have eternally been here even if in a different state. Doing so will cause to you to fall into an infinite regression of previous time which would not allow us to be at the present. You see an object in the infinite past could never have had the ability to arrive at the present time since it would still be waiting for the infinite past to finish. An impossiblity by any standard.


I think the problem is with your assumptions yet again. The issue is that time is a property of the universe. Who's talking about past and previous time?

At this point, it looks like there is no time without a universe. It is a property of one. Does it make sense to talk of 'before' if time doesn't exist? Can we speak of eternal if time is not relevant? Can things just not be?

When we get a better grasp on such things, then we might be able to have a useful discussion on this issue. We haven't even shown assumption 1 to be in any way valid.


since it's impossible for the Universe to actualize itself. (It wasn't there before it began) We must look to the possiblity that some timeless, uncaused , external cause was responsible for the Universe.


Again, you are ignoring the fact that such cause and effect ideas require linear time. It appears that time is a property of the universe.


This cause would most likely be a personal agent since it would need to make the decision to cause a temporal Universe where there was none before. If not personal the Universe would not have began to exist since an impersonal timeless static cause would not be able to change anything. Everything would simply be static and unchanging like a picture.


Big assumptions. Decisions are made at a point in time, if time didn't exist, then that would be rather nonsensical. You making some form of anthropomorphic assumption that some god dude sat around and then thought, 'yeah, lets make a universe', then used think n' poofs to create one.

Why a personal god? Why not an impersonal god? Why not a deistic dead god? Why not a god who accidentally made the universe when he fell off his cloud? Why not a fallacy of gods*? Why not just a natural event? In a similar way that you pull a timeless uncaused external cause out from a warm dark place, I can do the same for a natural source for whatever the nature of everything is.

This is where the arrogance of some theists shows. It's not just a case of arguing that a supposed logical argument like Kalam suggests a creator, but now we have another unsupported assertion that it's a personal creator who listens to your prayers and, like santa, decides who's naughty and nice, frowns on certain bedroom deeds, and basically gives a flying flute about measly humans on one planet in one little part of a big universe.


You say there's no science behind ID, but in reality science (The Big Bang, a red-shifted Universe) and logic seem to point towards creatio ex nihilo.


Nope, the big-bang points to an inflationary universe. That's all. The rest is you making assertions. At planck time, the classical physics goes AWOL. So you just don't know. And neither do I


However, I'm humble enough to admit that I don't know.


Also for the record, I never said that Atheist ate babies. They simply have an unrealistic opinion as to the origins of the Universe.


Oh, I know that db, so don't worry. You've just picked up the lingo from the rhetoric of people you happen to read and listen to. Darwinists need not be atheists, and so ask yourself why people make that conflation.

It's not an honest mistake. But I believe in your case, it's just a case of parroting without thinking of what darwinism actually is. This sort of conflation is an attempt to make evolution and theism mutually exclusive. It need not be.

However, it's funny that by extension you think your own opinion based on some book written by a few goat-herding tribal dudes thousands of years ago is more realistic. Especially when my own opinion is more a case of 'we don't really know'.

*I believe fallacy is the collective noun for such things.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   


Originally posted by dbates
Well, that's better than most replies, since you readily admit that there are HUGE gaps of knowledge in the anti-ID crowd. They don't know how it all started but can't, can't, CAN NOT be God.


dbates you are right on the money don't let mels sophistry fool you. Consider what zoo keeper high priest Dawkins said at the end of Expelled. He postulated that aliens seeded the first the life on earth to get evolution started. See he does see the that the evidence demands an intelligent cause but his philosophy demands IT CANT BE GOD. Now thats a case of blind faith in atheism neglecting the evidence.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by melatonin
Oh, I know that db, so don't worry. You've just picked up the lingo from the rhetoric of people you happen to read and listen to. Darwinists need not be atheists, and so ask yourself why people make that conflation.

It's not an honest mistake. But I believe in your case, it's just a case of parroting without thinking of what darwinism actually is. This sort of conflation is an attempt to make evolution and theism mutually exclusive. It need not be.


Sorry Darwinsm =/= evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory. Darwinism is an ideology.


It should be clear from all this that the problem is not with evolution. The problem is with Darwinism. Evolution is a scientific theory, Darwinism is a metaphysical stance and a political ideology. In fact, Darwinism is the atheist spin imposed on the theory of evolution. As a theory, evolution is not hostile to religion. Far from disproving design, evolution actually reveals the mode by which design has been executed. But atheists routinely use Darwinism and the fallacy of the blind watchmaker to undermine belief in God. Many scientists have been conned by this atheist tactic. They allow themselves to slide, almost unwittingly, from evolution into Darwinism. Thus they become pawns of the atheist agenda.
- Dinesh D'Souza


originally posted by melatonin
However, it's funny that by extension you think your own opinion based on some book written by a few goat-herding tribal dudes thousands of years ago is more realistic. Especially when my own opinion is more a case of 'we don't really know'.

*I believe fallacy is the collective noun for such things.


A book written by 40 different authors over thousands of years - yet containing a unified message. Read by more people than other book in history. Not only the source of most ancient history which has been verified by archeology; It accurately predicts future events.

*I think the fallacy is in ignoring it.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy


dbates you are right on the money don't let mels sophistry fool you. Consider what zoo keeper high priest Dawkins said at the end of Expelled. He postulated that aliens seeded the first the life on earth to get evolution started. See he does see the that the evidence demands an intelligent cause but his philosophy demands IT CANT BE GOD. Now thats a case of blind faith in atheism neglecting the evidence.


Oh we see that here with mel too



"Why a personal god? Why not an impersonal god? Why not a deistic dead god? Why not a god who accidentally made the universe when he fell off his cloud? Why not a fallacy of gods*? Why not just a natural event?


You see? is it not surprising this comment comes for a Scientist? Or is it more like the plea of an Atheist saying Please Please ANYTHING but the Christian God!!

Why not this why not that why does it have to be the God we hate so much and not those we suggest the fake ones we can accept and the very reason mel suggests all the others as a why not option.

If it was anyone but an atheist I might have bought that, but one thing I know about Atheists, that is they have a very strong aversion to the Christian God.

- Con



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

who said a singularity containing that much mass doesn't count as a universe?


The question madness so I may keep you message centered, is this
Does the word universe mean singularity and is singualrity symantic for universe. Yes Or No will suffice. anything more will be seen as more attempts to avoid being incorrect, which you are.

The reason no one has said a singularity containing that much mass doesn't count as a universe is NOT because it is, but because they assume the reader already knows this. They know the two are entirely differen't words having differen't meanings. If not they shouold have enough sense to get a dictionary and understand what the difference is.

Since you seem to be having problems with simple words like "kinds" and Universe, I suggest you think about why their ARE differen't words to signify, identify, distinguish one thing from another. The reason we do that is so we don't make the same mistake with cosmology, Atheists have done with Biology. You know, making it so incoherent so obfuscated so full of circular semantics, one gets dizzy listening to it and just says yeah what ever.



the point is that stuff existed prior to the big bang.


What "stuff" are you talking about.



yes, new time measurements...but that doesn't mean that stuff didn't exist prior to it...


did I say that?

Nope I was just correcting your problem understanding the word "epoch".

I am delighted to see you have.




nope, whammy is off.


Nope You are off and have no idea what the words mean and why they have different meanings. When whammy talks about a universe, a universe is what he means. God only knows what you mean.



except that no science has been provided and that old book really is full of contradictions. chapters 1 and 2 of genesis, to start off with...which i've brought up countless (ok, not countless, probably a few hundred) times before.


This coming from a guy that doesn't understand what the word kinds means when it talks about the seed in fruit being of the same kind that the fruit came from which grows the same fruit again carrying the same seed that kind of fruits grows. No maddness your the last person to be saying anything about genesis.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
Show us ONE and I don't mean micro evo I mean bona fide macro evolution where a species changed or appears to be changing into something we can show thriving finished product. I am sure I'll be able to show you why Creationist ignore it as nothing more than BUNK


tetrapod. gufaw! you cant be serious
archaeoptryx. = bird like dodo is extinct
legged snake. = lizard
these





that's some pretty slick quote mining. you actually quote mined me when the source is on the same page.

now i'm just going to cut out the rest of your stuff that addresses the straw man you've created from a quote mine.


Please show me the strawman madness and before you do,, keep in mind THAT might be the very strawman you make for me.

Go ahead dazzle me with your grasp of logical fallacy.


the whole point is that there is no proper half form. even if there was a proper halfway form, the creationists would say that it creates the requirement for 2 more halfway forms...


what do you care what the creationists say? seriously ,, you said that twice now and I think if there are these forms the creationists should not deny it.



you can see a transitional form right now if you'd kindly look in the mirror or at an animal that might be outside a window of your place of residence.


sigh, man has looked man since man first appeared, sharks like sharks crocs like crocs cock roaches like cock roaches.

The bit about the mirror is absolutley right and you should cherish this post as one of the few times I agree with you. .

Every ten years or so I look in the mirror and see I have changed.

Im still human,

just older

- Con





[edit on 13-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


You've completely misunderstood what he's saying. He's saying that in this one specific example - Earth - life could have started somewhere else. The alien life he's speaking of is simply a few alien microbes somehow landing on earth, via a meteorit or from dust clouds. It's not him saying evolution HAS to be started by intelligent life. He's not saying anything even closely related to that.

Are you getting this stuff wrong on purpose, or is this how you fuel your argument (and ignorance)?



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
All of you brilliant monkey chasers please explain the evolution of something very specific. Sight.............

Please explain how and why simple dividing organizims developed "sight". What was the stimulus? How were the genes developed?

Now extend that to human full color eye sight, and the development of the human brain to understand what is seen................

Now extend that to understanding how certian shapes developed into written language............

Now when you have done all this calculate the "odds" of such eye sight developing in a random way...............

When all that is calculated provide the calculation of the odds of being able the provide such calculations starting with two cells dividing............

When you are finished calculating there is one answer.............someone provided the blueprints...........

Or please provide the odds of the specific combination of every atom into every molecule into every biological entity of everything that lives in our world...........please skip the last 100,000,000,000 places in the odds.........there is not enough room on the servers for even a single expresion of the "odds".....of a single complete organizim...........

[edit on 13-5-2008 by heliosprime]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
He postulated that aliens seeded the first the life on earth to get evolution started. See he does see the that the evidence demands an intelligent cause but his philosophy demands IT CANT BE GOD. Now thats a case of blind faith in atheism neglecting the evidence.


No, that is just you parroting the deceptions of the expelled crew, whammy.

Dawkins was asked to think of any situation where a form of ID could be true. He hypothesised a scenario where aliens seeded the earth. He doesn't accept it, he just made the best case he could for ID.

That's what some people can do. They can play with ideas, but still not really accept them. It's part of being an intelligent human.


Sorry Darwinsm =/= evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory. Darwinism is an ideology.


No, darwinism would best be described as an individual who holds strongly to common descent by natural selection. That is one major process that is part of the many processes available to evolutionary theory.

Darwinian processes are inextricably linked to evolution, and if you want to propose otherwise, then you are being deceptive.

The problem is that people like you, whammy, like to misuse Darwin to associate it with atheism. I couldn't give a fig about D'Souza. He's slimey fool*.

*I think you didn't understand my footnote style. Because what your response says to me is that it would be a fallacy to ignore a fallacy of gods.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Oh we see that here with mel too


"Why a personal god? Why not an impersonal god? Why not a deistic dead god? Why not a god who accidentally made the universe when he fell off his cloud? Why not a fallacy of gods*? Why not just a natural event?


You see? is it not surprising this comment comes for a Scientist? Or is it more like the plea of an Atheist saying Please Please ANYTHING but the Christian God!!


Not really. I don't accept any of the magical explanations. I was showing how db goes beyond his own 'logical' argument to then posit a personal god with little real justification.

Again, like Dawkins, I'm am raising possibilities. Why not a impersonal god? Why not a dead god? Why not a group of gods? etc etc. If you're going to posit magical explanations, then you can make any old crap up.

We haven't even been able to justify premise 1 of the kalam argument, and db has already attempted to justify a personal god who listens to his prayers.

I know you might not understand how such logical arguments work, but we might need to work on premise 1, then eventually those that follow, before we go off on imaginary tangents.


If it was anyone but an atheist I might have bought that, but one thing I know about Atheists, that is they have a very strong aversion to the Christian God.

- Con


Heh, what I have noticed is that both you and whammy have been honing your abilities to misrepresent and create strawmen of other people's positions. Probably a result of reading the work of the likes of Jonathan Wells and D'Souza.

Something like getting down with dogs and fleas comes to mind.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
We haven't even been able to justify premise 1 of the kalam argument


Skip ahead to premise 2 of the kalam arguement. Hubble's discovery of a red-shifted Universe and Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem both prove that the universe had a point in the past where all matter was contained in a finite point. Science does show that this is in reality the only possibility. There can be no Big Bounce since we can not have an infinite series of events. (Bounce/Bang) An infite series of events would imply that every possible event would have already happened leaving us with an essentially static universe that never changes. Let me demonstrate.

Take two planets that revolve at a different rate. Planet 1 roatates at a rate that is 10 times faster than planet 2. Now suppose that Planet 1 is speeding up so that it gradually rotates faster and faster. After one year we can mark that planet 1 has rotated much more than planet 2 but given an infinite amount of time, which planet has rotated more? You can't say planet 1 even though you would like to because after an infinity planet 2 could have easily rotated as much as planet 1. How can you say it didn't rotate as many times as planet 1 when it had an infinity of time to do so?

Given this impossible state, and given the other proofs above, it's clear that this is the singular instance of the universe and it has never happened before. Now we can go on to premise 3 and ask "why now?" and "how long did the universe exist before it expanded?" It couldn't have existed for an infinite amount of time before the Big Bang else we would not be done waiting for it to arrive at the Big Bang event. Since we have proof that the universe existed for a finite time before it expanded we have to ask "What created or caused the universe?"

You see premise 1 is actually unnecessary in the kalam arguement. It can still be proved that the universe had a beginning and that the universe had a cause. Now the only question left is "What was the cause?" We have two possible answers. One is that some natural eternal cause (Timeless) caused the universe. Since I've already shown that anything eternal is stateless it doesn't seem as if there would ever be the change needed to create the universe. The only other alternative is that a personal being caused the universe. This seems to be the only escape from the paradox of a eternal external cause since a personal being could make a decision to change and create the universe. Of course the change would just be from our perspective.

Now if you want to argue that there could be more than one Creator or that the Creator died while creating the universe, I would like to welcome you to theology. Please cite your religious text of choice for discussion.


[edit on 13-5-2008 by dbates]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Skip ahead to premise 2 of the kalam arguement.


Okie doke. But the complete logical argument fails until premise 1 can be shown to be true.


Hubble's discovery of a red-shifted Universe and Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem both prove that the universe had a point in the past where all matter was contained in a finite point. Science does show that this is in reality the only possibility. There can be no Big Bounce since we can not have an infinite series of events.


Problem is though, db, there are consistent theoretical conceptions of cosmology that do result in such a bounce. Moreover, there are conceivable testable cyclic models of the universe (e.g., Steinhardt & Turok, Baum-Frampton).

And so, by extension, it can't be impossible, no? The real issue is that the results of general relativity are currently leading to a nonsensical state (i.e., singularity). So whilst the evidence clearly supports inflationary cosmology, at the smaller scales (i.e. below planck time), that physics is failing. And this is where quantum theories will likely cut through the fog of ignorance. And some of these concepts do lead to cosmic bounces and cyclic models.

Therefore, we have two possibilities. General relativity is correct, and we do really reach a nonsensical singularity and physics has reached a dead-end. Or general relativity is not the whole story - and this is already true at quantum scales.

So the thought games are useful for philosophy and table talk, the real-world is rather different. Logical arguments require the premises being shown to be true, and I don't feel that can be established for the Kalam argument.


Now we can go on to premise 3 and ask "why now?" and "how long did the universe exist before it expanded?" It couldn't have existed for an infinite amount of time before the Big Bang else we would not be done waiting for it to arrive at the Big Bang event. Since we have proof that the universe existed for a finite time before it expanded we have to ask "What created or caused the universe?"


Again, if time is not relevant pre-universe, and maybe it is or isn't, then this is really of no consequence. Time can't be a factor if it doesn't exist. People like Hawkings have proposed such things as 'imaginary' time, but he also uses the same ideas to raise the idea of a universe that can poof into existence without cause (i.e., wave function ideas)


Not sure you would like that idea. We need quantum theories to go beyond the veil, and they appear to be going where you don't want them to.


You see premise 1 is actually unnecessary in the kalam arguement. It can still be proved that the universe had a beginning and that the universe had a cause. Now the only question left is "What was the cause?"


But you haven't shown this to be necessarily true. Therefore the argument as a whole is pretty weak. You can hold to it, doesn't bother me, but I don't find it convincing at all.

You would need to show that the universe itself needed a cause. Whilst we can show that matter and energy - the basic materials of the universe - can change form, and this appears to need a cause. It doesn't necessarily apply to the universe itself. Two wildly different classes of object/concept.


Now if you want to argue that there could be more than one Creator or that the Creator died while creating the universe, I would like to welcome you to theology. Please cite your religious text of choice for discussion.


Heh, I'm not interested in theology in the least. I was more concerned that you jumped from a weak logical argument to a personal god without any real justification.

Plus, I'm sure you can actually discuss theology without needing to hold to a holy book.

Anyway, hopefully you can see I really don't have answers to these questions. Lots of possibilities, but only science will determine which are valid in the real-world, rather than tenuous logical arguments. That's been the way since natural philosophy broke from philosophy per se.

Pity you can't just say 'don't know' yourself, but instead are locked into a pre-conceived answer.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Pity you can't just say 'don't know' yourself, but instead are locked into a pre-conceived answer.

Okay, I don't know but I have ideas that seem based on logic. Yes, I admit that much of this is assumptions. At some point you have to have an element called faith. Scary stuff to say the least because you can't be 100% sure. If I was 100% sure of everything would I even discuss this? I doubt it. Personally I enjoy the banter and it's even more fun when you have an opposing view that makes a good case as well.

So you don't like the planet rotation analysis? Pity, that's such a fun pradox to ponder. While it's true that it's not science you'll be hard pressed to find any science that explains the oddity. All the best anyway. Keep raising the roof.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Okay, I don't know but I have ideas that seem based on logic. Yes, I admit that much of this is assumptions. At some point you have to have an element called faith. Scary stuff to say the least because you can't be 100% sure. If I was 100% sure of everything would I even discuss this? I doubt it. Personally I enjoy the banter and it's even more fun when you have an opposing view that makes a good case as well.


That's cool, db. I appreciate and respect theists who are able to hold an honest discussion. And I have always classed you in that category.

The problem with logic is that it always depends on the integrity of the premises. We can make all sorts of seemingly logical arguments that lead to absurdities.

Which is why I prefer logic constrained by empiricism (i.e., science).


So you don't like the planet rotation analysis? Pity, that's such a fun pradox to ponder. While it's true that it's not science you'll be hard pressed to find any science that explains the oddity. All the best anyway. Keep raising the roof.


We can think into existence all kinds of paradoxes. Quantum theory appears to be loaded with them, the notion of a singluarity is also quite a paradox (i.e. zero volume, infinite density), and so suggests there is something amiss.

Will keep raising, db.

Cheers



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


You've completely misunderstood what he's saying. He's saying that in this one specific example - Earth - life could have started somewhere else. The alien life he's speaking of is simply a few alien microbes somehow landing on earth, via a meteorit or from dust clouds. It's not him saying evolution HAS to be started by intelligent life. He's not saying anything even closely related to that.

Are you getting this stuff wrong on purpose, or is this how you fuel your argument (and ignorance)?


Oh is that so Dave? Gee, I read the quote by Dawkins too and I fail to see where YOU know what he means better than Dawkins.

What DID he say Dave? I mean verbatim!

Now here is one for YOU dave,, just what kind of alien technology was used as a heat shield for those "microbes" to survive getting through our atmosphere? Just how long can microbes survive while making that long journey without water, food to sustain itself in the vacuum of space.

I think YOUR version is even more ridiculous than whammy's version of what Dawkins is saying. Then again, if anyone understands Dawkins trying to explain evolution like he did that time they stumped him, you already know he doesn't know spit from shinola what he is saying.

- Con



[edit on 13-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Not really. I don't accept any of the magical explanations. I was showing how db goes beyond his own 'logical' argument to then posit a personal god with little real justification.


Oh yeah Mel,, I understand that part and you give a damn good explanation for what db has done to justify your opinion it weakens the logic in his argument. I understand why db tends to lean on a stable datum or standard of truth that has proven to him anyway, that he can have faith in it that what it says is also true of cosmology in as much as we needed to know.

I don't know db that well, never talked to him but I have read his thoughts on various topics from science to morality and he seems to be quite content with both his feet squarely on the ground.

I believe it is his faith that grounds him and whether he is right or wrong never seems to be his passion, he simply enjoys the discussion period.

The difference between you two isn't one of intellect and this may be hard for you to swallow, but for someone using the word "stuff" as much as you do, I sometimes think you have been listening to too many George Bush speech's. DB is no less intelligent on the matter of cosmology for leaning toward what his core belief is. Nor that which he would LIKE to believe is true, than you are and that includes your contradiction using empiricism to justify you being more sound and scientific.

What I keep seeing however is what I said before.

I think I can speak for db when I say this, that we don't have a problem admitting our faith is where we lean. That should not be taken as "lean on like a crutch" however but to be more specific, the DIRECTION we tend to go naturally would be Big Bang?

I'd say yeah, probably so.

You however, while suggesting anecdotal examples and analogies to position yourself as the superior Atheist, I take as just plane silly myself for someone so scholarly as you have always maintained you are.

Example's of how you do this is seen below:



Didn't quite say that. And I don't know anyone who does say that. An atheist usually assesses the available real-world evidence and makes an inference.

Whereas you use a little book of stories, and make a conclusion about all kinds of very unlikely stuff.


Now, keep that "unlikely "stuff"" in mind while I cite a couple more.



However, it's funny that by extension you think your own opinion based on some book written by a few goat-herding tribal dudes thousands of years ago is more realistic. Especially when my own opinion is more a case of 'we don't really know'


Now, simply saying "The Bible" you'll agree would have been sufficient. You however can't resist adding your own Melatonian sarcasm we have all grown to overlook for any reason or excuse that would diminish an otherwise respectable argument.

Coming from someone we would otherwise have less reason to go selectively deaf and more reason to believe you don't harbor an angst or bias that would otherwise be seen as the direction YOU lean.

Another words any and all possible cosmological arguments in the opposite direction of big bang because big bang = bible to you.

If I am wrong, allow me the indulgence to suggest while admitting I may be,,, it sure looks that way to me. That's not a strawman Mel, that is just what I said it is, and my opinion of course



Again, like Dawkins, I'm am raising possibilities. Why not a impersonal god? Why not a dead god? Why not a group of gods? etc etc. If you're going to posit magical explanations, then you can make any old crap up.

We haven't even been able to justify premise 1 of the kalam argument, and db has already attempted to justify a personal god who listens to his prayers.

I know you might not understand how such logical arguments work, but we might need to work on premise 1, then eventually those that follow, before we go off on imaginary tangents.



Well Mel, the parts I quoted above not withstanding, this why I enjoy reading your posts because more often than not, they are what refreshes me after reading one of Daves form letter posts and offsets any notion I might have drawn as a foregone conclusion and or stereotypes about Atheists in general.

I see both of us have a tendency to do that from time to time. I also want you to know I DO try to overcompensate for my faith based bias and as ashely and whammy would most likely agree, I have no problem disagreeing with Christians who are assuming similar leanings in Science DB has and share your reasoning for your response to him as being more susceptable to logical fallacy.

We all have our reasons to believe what we do and as far as empiricism being the one regraded by you as a more solid foundation for what is more realisticly and logically sound, again you give an impressive explantion between logic and logic done right.

However I don;t think you can escape the fact that you don't DO that yourself and have seen it here in this thread.



Heh, what I have noticed is that both you and whammy have been honing your abilities to misrepresent and create strawmen of other people's positions. Probably a result of reading the work of the likes of Jonathan Wells and D'Souza.


Whammy is much smarter than I am, and although he is too self effacing to agree, he got much better grades in Physics and Science than I did lol.
He also (in my opinion) pays a lot more attention to detail where I am a big picture kinda guy. I tend to appeal to the reader on an emotional level whether that makes them more emotional or not I don't know but whammy usually appeals to the logical errors to exploit them.

Together, we seem to compliment each others research but we are in many ways worlds apart when it comes to our Faith. He believes things I am astonished he thinks that way. They are always issues that are in the grand scheme, not that important and ceratainly not worth risking a friendship over.

You are right about one part of your assumption regarding D'Souza, Whammy likes him a lot and probably for the same reason we compliment each other, D'Souza appeals to the emotions of the listener and is quite effective for that kind of audience.

The axiom, sell the sizzle not the steak is one I used quite a bit when I was doing the seminar circuit teaching Chemistry and Marketing for Redken labs. When it comes to what we both like, I am a lennox fan all the way. probably because I suck at the very area of knowledge he has mastered being mathmatics.

This isn't an opposites attract premise, I am just telling you the truth as I understand it. That goes for the strawman you accuse me of setting up. Gee mel if that's the best you think I can do to hide my strawman long enough to use it against you OR think that you would not see that one coming, you are mistaken. It is just what I think and was said for you to make clear if I am wrong.

If I am, then ,,



Something like getting down with dogs and fleas comes to mind.


you can at least see why I would think such a thing LOL

Hope all is well with you and yours mel

- Con








[edit on 13-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I don't know db that well, never talked to him but I have read his thoughts on various topics from science to morality and he seems to be quite content with both his feet squarely on the grounded.


Yup, db's cool.


but for someone using the word "stuff" as much as you do, I sometimes think you have been listening to too many George Bush speech's.


Heh, I doubt it. I've only heard a full speech of his a couple of times. I just use more relaxed language on't intertubz. If 'stuff' can be intelligible and cover numerous concepts, it'll do.


That should not be taken as lean on like a crutch however but to be more specific, the DIRECTION we tend to go naturally would be where?

Big Bang? I'd say yeah, probably so.

You however, while suggesting anecdotal examples and analogies to position yourself as the superior Atheist, I take as just plane silly myself for someone so scholarly as you have always maintained you are.


Trust me, I mix with people I consider much more 'superior' than myself. I ain't nothing special, and I don't think I suggested so with db. I do often use an acerbic and colourful style, but then again, I want the reader's attention. Nothing to do with appeals to emotion.

And after all my positioning as 'superior', it led to the humble state of not knowing stuff/things/answers/meaning of life.

I can use boring tedious language if you like. TBH, I don't really care, that's my style. If ATS doesn't like it, fine. I'll be gone again in a few days or they can eject me from the party against my will. Lots of other much more important things to do. I ain't gonna cry about it.

Whilst you find my colourful writing style a worry, I find dishonesty and misrepresentation a more pressing worry.


Now, simply saying "The Bible" you'll agree would be sufficient, you however can't resist adding your own Melatonian sarcasm we have all grown to overlook for any reason or excuse that would diminish an otherwise respectable argument coming from someone we would otherwise have less reason to go selectively deaf and more to believe in fact you don't harbor an angst or bias that would otherwise be seen as the direction you lean. Another words any and all possible cosmoligical arguments in the opposite direction of big bang because big bang = bible to you. If I am wrong, allow me the indulgence to suggest while admitting I may be,, but, it sure looks that way to me.


Yes, con. So what? I have a big feeling of pot and kettle here. If it means you have to replace 'book written by goat-herding tribal dudes' with 'bible' in your mind, then do so. But there was also a point in there about the context of realism.

I go on the internet to burn time and have a bit of fun (when not working). Not to drone on. If I manage to have a useful discussion, then that's great. I enjoyed the one with db. Hope you did too. It was nice to get away from talking evolution.


Well Mel, the parts I quoted above not withstanding, this why I enjoy reading your posts because more often than not they are what refreshes me after reading Daves and offsets any notion I might have drawn as a foregon conclusion about Atheists in general.


Glad you liked it.


However I don;t think you can escape the fact that you don't DO that yourself.


Ummm, OK. I probably don't at all times. It's something to aim for, not a intrinsic ability.


Whammy is much smarter than I am, and although he is too self effacing to agree, he got much better grades in Physics and Science than I did lol. He also (in my opinion) pays a lot more attention to detail where I am a big picture kinda guy. I tend to appeal to the reader on an emotional level whether that makes them more emotional or not I don't know but whammy usually appeals to the logical errors to exploit them.


Yet you both appear to enjoy misrepresenting atheists and science in general.


That goes for the strawman you accuse me of setting up. Gee mel if that's the best you think I can do to hide my strawman long enough to use it against you OR think that you would not see that one coming, you are mistaken. It is just what I think and was said for you to make clear if I am wrong.


Just something I noticed when I came back to check the forum out. A lot of misrepresentation of others positions, particularly astyanax. And it seems to happen when you get shown to be blustering. I can't but think of a recent discussion with whammy to see the misdirection and misinterpretation in action. You can try to cover it up by cheerleading (I also like the projection from ash - pom-pom's indeed), but it's pretty clear.


Hope all is well with you and yours mel

- Con


It is con. Going very well indeed. Are you praying for me or something?


Hope the same is true for you as well.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join