Come on, Creationists!

[firedragon]

#83

A non answer.

Same verse you quoted in your own OP. Absolutely the same verse, same topic.

How do you understand Nuthfah? Is it Semen or a small portion of many or is it speaking of an Amshaj? Please explain. ...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No, but it should tell us first of all to question anything scientists think they know. If they actually don't know what's going on on the quantum level, then why assume they know how anything in the universe works? It's all connected.

I think you have a skewed view of science. Scientists don't purport to "know." That is not how it works. I guarantee you have heard this from others as well, but you couldn't possibly represent it for what it is because then it would be too hard to make it seem sophomoric or incorrect in some way. Scientists observe the universe AS IT IS. That's what they do. They then try and develop models (possibly mathematic, possibly algorithmic or functional in nature) that allow them to use that modeling to predict or react appropriately to outcomes. Basically, viewing what is present, and how it appears to function, and then developing a sort of "instruction manual" ALWAYS after-the-fact, to let others know what to expect when "using" the universe. Scientists do not try to describe or tell anyone "why" the fundamental aspects of the universe are what they are - only what they appear to be and how they appear to function. So... what "Scientists think they know" is that the model they are working from is the best one yet to use to be able to predict how the universe is going to function or behave under a given set of parameters in a given scenario. That's it. They don't know "why" the model ends up being what it is... only that that is what it is, or appears to be. And this is precisely because pretending you know "why" is ludicrous and idiotic. All we have are our observations... because we interface with the universe with our senses, and those senses are nothing more than a method of "digitizing" the universe for our mind's consumption. We simply can't (that we currently know of) observe a universe being "setup," such that we can then discern why various things end up the way they are. And it is very, very easy to imagine that there wasn't even any such "setup" phase to the universe in the first place - since the universe itself can only be observed to just "be here" and remain here, and go on about the business of existing under the given parameters that play out within it. No one can report that they have observed anything else!

And if our observation changes reality then we have a problem that so far is beyond science.

No we don't. We have what appears to be a fundamental, rock-bottom portion of the system that is so sensitive to outside "forces" that even the mere act of trying to observe it changes a small, nearly insignificant "setting" of that fundamental cog in the gargantuan, otherwise stable machine. So what? You think suddenly things will be flipped on their heads and we'll have to drink gasoline and breathe hair spray to survive, just because someone looks at a quark funny? No. Unless we observe that to be the case... then nope. There's nothing to "worry" over until there is. Same with God. Nothing to attribute to anything there until there is.

Yes the idea that God affects reality by observation is conjecture, but it's logical from what we know so far.

Why is it "logical?" What do you see changing in our universe without some other possible explanation that would (if one were being logical) require a stamp of "not sure" until further evidence revealed a documentable, measurable and reproducible explanation?

If a tree falls in the woods and no one's there too hear it...well you know...or rather it seems we don't know.

From all observations, and given an understanding of how our senses work, One could easily conclude that if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to "hear" it that the falling of the tree still went on to produce all of the vibrations necessary to produce what we call "sound" as is interpreted by our ears. That no one was there to interpret such vibrations (temporary or permanent changes in the surrounding matter) as sound is of little importance. The objective event can be understood to have still happened. And this can be evidenced any number of ways even after the fact! Was there a significant displacement of other matter surrounding the tree in the place that it fell that would indicate that the tree certainly did conform to the standard pulling of Earth's gravity that we are prone to experience affects everything that comes within a particularly close distance of our planet? Did the tree itself sustain damage of the kind you would expect due to the forces exerted on it by the Earth and other matter around it, due to an acceleration of its weight toward the ground and those opposing forces stopping it suddenly such that the absorption of those forces causes the types of changes we would expect, and have seen consistently in every interaction of like course throughout the recorded history of man? We could even install a recording device of some sort, and while no one might be physically present for the fall, can we "hear" the "sound" of the tree falling on the recording - a device used to mimic the presence of an observer who can reproduce the sensory input it takes in. Could we do that, do you think? You would be a fool to answer that we're just "not sure" whether or not we could make such a recording. In other words... I can know for certain where your bet would be placed on a "sound" or "no sound" wager when playing back such a recording.

Regardless what our sense pick up and run with to represent the world around us, the fact remains that whatever is there for our sense to react to is there and by all observational accounts ever taken unto - it will be there regardless whether we are.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I do not see any connection between those two statements. Certainly no causal connection.

How can time exist for a being that is omnipresent and all powerful? A being who created time therefore can not be subject to it?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I think you have a skewed view of science. Scientists don't purport to "know." That is not how it works. I guarantee you have heard this from others as well, but you couldn't possibly represent it for what it is because then it would be too hard to make it seem sophomoric or incorrect in some way. Scientists observe the universe AS IT IS. That's what they do. They then try and develop models (possibly mathematic, possibly algorithmic or functional in nature) that allow them to use that modeling to predict or react appropriately to outcomes. Basically, viewing what is present, and how it appears to function, and then developing a sort of "instruction manual" ALWAYS after-the-fact, to let others know what to expect when "using" the universe. Scientists do not try to describe or tell anyone "why" the fundamental aspects of the universe are what they are - only what they appear to be and how they appear to function. So... what "Scientists think they know" is that the model they are working from is the best one yet to use to be able to predict how the universe is going to function or behave under a given set of parameters in a given scenario. That's it. They don't know "why" the model ends up being what it is... only that that is what it is, or appears to be. And this is precisely because pretending you know "why" is ludicrous and idiotic. All we have are our observations... because we interface with the universe with our senses, and those senses are nothing more than a method of "digitizing" the universe for our mind's consumption. We simply can't (that we currently know of) observe a universe being "setup," such that we can then discern why various things end up the way they are. And it is very, very easy to imagine that there wasn't even any such "setup" phase to the universe in the first place - since the universe itself can only be observed to just "be here" and remain here, and go on about the business of existing under the given parameters that play out within it. No one can report that they have observed anything else!

No we don't. We have what appears to be a fundamental, rock-bottom portion of the system that is so sensitive to outside "forces" that even the mere act of trying to observe it changes a small, nearly insignificant "setting" of that fundamental cog in the gargantuan, otherwise stable machine. So what? You think suddenly things will be flipped on their heads and we'll have to drink gasoline and breathe hair spray to survive, just because someone looks at a quark funny? No. Unless we observe that to be the case... then nope. There's nothing to "worry" over until there is. Same with God. Nothing to attribute to anything there until there is.

Why is it "logical?" What do you see changing in our universe without some other possible explanation that would (if one were being logical) require a stamp of "not sure" until further evidence revealed a documentable, measurable and reproducible explanation?

From all observations, and given an understanding of how our senses work, One could easily conclude that if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to "hear" it that the falling of the tree still went on to produce all of the vibrations necessary to produce what we call "sound" as is interpreted by our ears. That no one was there to interpret such vibrations (temporary or permanent changes in the surrounding matter) as sound is of little importance. The objective event can be understood to have still happened. And this can be evidenced any number of ways even after the fact! Was there a significant displacement of other matter surrounding the tree in the place that it fell that would indicate that the tree certainly did conform to the standard pulling of Earth's gravity that we are prone to experience affects everything that comes within a particularly close distance of our planet? Did the tree itself sustain damage of the kind you would expect due to the forces exerted on it by the Earth and other matter around it, due to an acceleration of its weight toward the ground and those opposing forces stopping it suddenly such that the absorption of those forces causes the types of changes we would expect, and have seen consistently in every interaction of like course throughout the recorded history of man? We could even install a recording device of some sort, and while no one might be physically present for the fall, can we "hear" the "sound" of the tree falling on the recording - a device used to mimic the presence of an observer who can reproduce the sensory input it takes in. Could we do that, do you think? You would be a fool to answer that we're just "not sure" whether or not we could make such a recording. In other words... I can know for certain where your bet would be placed on a "sound" or "no sound" wager when playing back such a recording.

Regardless what our sense pick up and run with to represent the world around us, the fact remains that whatever is there for our sense to react to is there and by all observational accounts ever taken unto - it will be there regardless whether we are.

I know that the tree still produces sound waves, so it's a silly example, but on the quantum level whether we observed the " tree" does change things.
And supposedly sane scientists make up these ideas like the cat being dead or not being dead depending on whether we open the box, and the possibility of multiple universes to explain what you are trying to claim isn't a big issue.
It's a fundamental part of reality that changes from energy to matter or vice versa depending on whether we look at it...at least if they are doing the experiment right, that seems pretty significant... And not at in line with the laws of physics as we understand them.

 

[ppp]

How can time exist for a being that is omnipresent and all powerful?

That question makes no sense. What does omnipotence or omnipresence matter? Why shouldn't time exist for that being? Do ducks exist for that being? Light? Spheres? Relationships? Snoring? Weight?

Are you seriously suggesting that some features of the universe don't exist for the being that created those features?

I mean think about it. If time does not exist for god, then he literally cannot count to ten and have the number ten come after the number one.

That is ridiculous.

You theists are so frustrating. You come up with these elaborate, hyperbolic definitions and characteristics of your purported creator, but then completely fail to think the ramifications of your claims about that being through to their logical conclusions.

There are only two options. Either your god chose his nature, or he did not. If he is unchanging then he could not have chosen his nature, because that would be a change; so his nature would have had to come from elsewhere something external to him. And if he chose his nature then he has changed at least once; and is there for unchanging.

So, which is it?

 

[Wildswanderer]

That question makes no sense. What does omnipotence or omnipresence matter? Why shouldn't time exist for that being? Do ducks exist for that being? Light? Spheres? Relationships? Snoring? Weight?

No, he obviously doesn't have weight or snoring, lol. He owns all the ducks, and all light, but he doesn't live only on earth so how can time have meaning? At the very least time God have to be in an infinite number of time zones at once.
Time exists in our reality but God is not bound by any physical laws. How could he be? He exists before they did. Are you trying to say that time is the same everywhere, even outside our universe? If there's a billion universe's, God is bigger than all of them, that's what omnipresent is.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Are you seriously suggesting that some features of the universe don't exist for the being that created those features?

Of course they don't. He observes them but isn't bound by them.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I mean think about it. If time does not exist for god, then he literally cannot count to ten and have the number ten come after the number one.

That is ridiculous.

Lol, you can't comprehend anything outside of your little science box?

 

[Wildswanderer]

There are only two options. Either your god chose his nature, or he did not. If he is unchanging then he could not have chosen his nature, because that would be a change; so his nature would have had to come from elsewhere something external to him. And if he chose his nature then he has changed at least once; and is there for unchanging.

So, which is it?

His nature always was. Nothing is external to an infinite being. He can certainly choose his actions in relationship to us, but they will always be in tune with his nature.

 

[ppp]

Lol, you can't comprehend anything outside of your little science box?

You are so funny. This isn't science. This is logic.

If you are scoffing at logic then you are simply being illogical and at that point I have no interest in what you have to say.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You are so funny. This isn't science. This is logic.

If you are scoffing at logic then you are simply being illogical and at that point I have no interest in what you have to say.

Logic only goes so far. It can't comprehend the incomprehensible. Let your hair down and try to see outside your little box.

 

[ppp]

Logic only goes so far. It can't comprehend the incomprehensible. Let your hair down and try to see outside your little box.

If it's incomprehensible, then you lack the capacity to say any anything about your god. I mean seriously, dude. You are literally incapable of knowing anything about the incomprehensible.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If it's incomprehensible, then you lack the capacity to say any anything about your god. I mean seriously, dude. You are literally incapable of knowing anything about the incomprehensible.

That's not exactly true. We can understand when someone or something is beyond science and reason.
Logic alone can't take us farther but faith can.
Look at how humans are infatuated and obsessed with the supernatural .. it's everywhere in our TV shows and movies, far beyond church and religion. We can't get enough of it. Why? In a solely material universe why would we even think of these things? It's useless for survival. It doesn't make sense in a world created by chance.

 

[ppp]

That's not exactly true. We can understand when someone or something is beyond science and reason.

No. You can't. You are incapable of telling the difference between something that you find incomprehensible, and something that is incomprehensible.


But that is irrelevant to you claim you claimed that God is incomprehensible. F you claim that something is incomprehensible and then claim that you comprehend something about it, then you are full of it. Incomprehensible means not goddam comprehension.

This is what I mean that theists don't think their claims though.

 

[ppp]

Logic

Until you convince me that you understand what logic and its processes and rules are, I am not going to take anything you say about logic seriously. I am not being mean. Just candid.

 

[ppp]

Look at how humans are infatuated and obsessed with the supernatural .. it's everywhere in our TV shows and movies, far beyond church and religion. We can't get enough of it. Why? In a solely material universe why would we even think of these things? It's useless for survival. It doesn't make sense in a world created by chance.

What an interesting thought. Are you claiming that everything that we imagine to be true is actually true ? Or is this some cheesy bait and switch where only the stuff that you claim to be true is real?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not true. On the quantum level observation effects reality... defying All laws of physics...All that we see is happening for a reason, because Someone is observing and guiding it.

First you misrepresent quantum physics and then draw a conclusion that doesn't even logically follow from your strawman.

That's grade A fallacious thinking right there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Apparently Einstein thought so.. he struggled with accepting quantum theory and its implications.

Einstein also struggled with relativity because he couldn't imagine black holes being real. But they are.
The lesson here, is that it matters not what people believe or imagine. What matters is what the evidence tells us - no matter how counter intuitive it may seem.

“I cannot seriously believe in quantum theory because … physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance.”

Right. In other words, man doesn't dictate to reality how it should work. The evidence of reality must reveal it to us instead. If we go by our intuitions instead, chances are rather likely that we will end up with the wrong answer.

This is the moment where you should reflect on your "intuition" motivated beliefs concerning things like causality, origins etc. Then try taking an honest look at the actual evidence.

It's okay to be wrong. There's no shame in that. Einstein was a genius and he made the exact same "mistake". And it even concerned his own theories, his own equations. But they felt counter-intuitive so he thought he had to be wrong somewhere because "black holes are absurd". And then we found blackholes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How can time exist for a being that is omnipresent and all powerful? A being who created time therefore can not be subject to it?

How do you create, or otherwise "do", anything in a timeless environment?
If there is no flow of time, that means there is no sequence of events, of moments.

But to "create" implies the presence thereof.
First you decide to create a thing and then you create it.
The creative process also involves a sequence of moments - the steps of creation.

So what you say, makes no sense at all.

It's like saying that there is movement or distance in a spaceless environment.
It's self-contradictory.
It's a married bachelor.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Logic alone can't take us farther but faith can.

How exactly?
Is there anything that you couldn't believe on faith?

Look at how humans are infatuated and obsessed with the supernatural .. it's everywhere in our TV shows and movies, far beyond church and religion. We can't get enough of it. Why?

Because humans have psychological propensity to engage in superstition and type 2 cognition errors.
This actually is the case for most of the animal kingdom.

In a solely material universe why would we even think of these things?

It's actually pretty much a side effect of a survival instinct.

It's useless for survival

It absolutely isn't. Type 2 cognition errors in particular (the false positive) and our tendency to infuse agency in random events, are even quite vital for survival in the wild.

The classic example being if you hear a noise in the bushes. Is it a dangerous predator, or just the wind?
Engaging in type 2 cognition error here would mean that you'll go ahead and assume (without good evidence) that it's a dangerous predator that is sneaking up on you, looking to kill and eat you.

The psychology here is that you are the center of attention - it's all about you.
You infuse agency in the event of mere noise - you assume it's a predator with certain intentions, and those intentions are bad for you

So you run.
Those who stick around to gather more evidence instead of just running with the first idea they have, will be lunch in case it actually is a predator.

The result is that those who are more inclined to engage in such cognition errors, are harder to catch for a predator then those that don't.

It doesn't make sense in a world created by chance.

There is chance involved in the world, in the sense that events happen randomly with respect to other events. But the entire process isn't "by chance".

Evolution isn't random at all. Evolution is very much guided by the environment and survival.
For example, it isn't at all "random" that polar bears are white while grizzly bears are brown.

Natural selection is a filter and not a random one. It's a selective filter. The input (genetic variation) is random (with respect to fitness). The output is not at all random.