Creationists: Here's your chance

[tumbleweed41]

You are confusing causality with predictability.

No, you are confusing predictability with probability.

Unless you can show cause/effect beyond the Universe/Singularity, or predict with accuracy a quantum event, or show the cause of certain quantum events, then your cause/effect argument is worthless.

 

[Danmac]

I suggest you send an article to a Physics Journal, explaining this to them.

The fact that we can't predict something at subatomic levels doesn't prove that it has no cause. This is just a cosmological constant of sorts that attempts to cast doubt on the foundation of scientific law.

 

[Autodidact]

The fact that we can't predict something at subatomic levels doesn't prove that it has no cause. This is just a cosmological constant of sorts that attempts to cast doubt on the foundation of scientific law.

Admit it--you don't know any more about Physics than I do, do you?

 

[tumbleweed41]

One does not need to "prove" an event has no cause. That would be an attempt to prove a negative.
One must find the cause. If no cause exists, it cannot be found. If a cause exists, further investigation may find it.
The best Quantum Physicists so far have been unable to predict quantum events, or find any cause for those same quantum events.
Spontaneity is an accepted explanation in quantum physics, whether the creationist layman wants to believe it or not.

 

[darkendless]

The fact that we can't predict something at subatomic levels doesn't prove that it has no cause. This is just a cosmological constant of sorts that attempts to cast doubt on the foundation of scientific law.

Lack of evidence for subatomic phenomina is not evidence counting against science.

 

[Danmac]

Lack of evidence for subatomic phenomina is not evidence counting against science.

Nor the law of causality.

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

No, I am saying that cause/effect laws did not exist before the Big Bang, nor do they exist outside the singularity, nor are they necessary at the quantum level.

Thus taking out your necessity for a cause.

You seem to think that means "Nothing was the cause". What it really means is, no cause was/is necessary.

By saying no cause was necessary, that is the same thing as saying NOTHING was the cause. Or nothing caused it.

So, since that is a contradiction, it’s not TRUE.

One does not need to "prove" an event has no cause. That would be an attempt to prove a negative.
One must find the cause. If no cause exists, it cannot be found. If a cause exists, further investigation may find it.
The best Quantum Physicists so far have been unable to predict quantum events, or find any cause for those same quantum events.
Spontaneity is an accepted explanation in quantum physics, whether the creationist layman wants to believe it or not.

The very foundation of science is to find out why things work or are the way they work or are. That means, to find the cause for this or that. So this statement you said above is a science stopper. Just because scientists don’t understand something on the quantum level does not mean there is no answer. So the answer is there is no answer and you know this because no answer is yet found?

That is logic for ya.


The_Evelyonian

Like I said, declaration by fiat.

I said it as a statement yes, because you misunderstood my former statement. So instead of saying it’s a declaration by fiat, tell me why it’s wrong. It’s not wrong just because I state it. That is basically what you’re saying. Tell me why it’s wrong.

All complex things are designed ACCEPT God. Tell me why that is wrong?

Now your dipping into philosophy. Please provide tangible scientific evidence that this 'eternity' exists.

Science uses philosophy, theory and hypotheses all the time to explain data.

Actually when you take the “I don’t know position” according to the apostle Paul he thinks you DO KNOW there is a God, but that you just suppress it. But regardless of that, if you don’t hurry up and FIND OUT if I am right for SURE and then die and find out I am right, THEN you’re in trouble. That’s why it’s not good to take the “I don’t know” position, you think it makes you safe, IT DOES NOT make you safe IF I AM RIGHT. Because if I am right it involves commitment.

Also this eternity, all it is, is an infinite amount of moments or now’s going by and by. Why would that not exist? Moments are not tangible, but yet we know they exist. So, what you’re asking me for makes no sense.

That's not my claim. I already explained. I don't know how the universe began. If you want an in-depth answer as to how the Universe 'might' have begun find a cosmologist and ask him/her.

Does this mean if I found an answer for why the universe began from a cosmologist’s perspective, that you would believe his/her view?

You say one of those four must be right. If you wish to limit yourself to those choices then go right ahead.

Ok, now you’re just speaking meaningless talk. There is and has never been a 6 view on the table anytime throughout history, both then, now and intuitively never will be a 6th view come out on the table. All there ever was and is and intuitively ever will be are just the same views packaged in different words and ways.

First view, energy is mindless and eternal and it created the universe in it’s present form.
Second view, nothing + chance + time created the universe
Third view, the universe created itself
Fourth view, God created the universe
5th view, I don’t know what happened, but I know the first 4 are not it.

Again, there never was a 6th view on the table throughout all history and STILL is no 6th view.

If you want to say or imply there is, TELL ME WHAT the 6th view is so we can examine it.

I stake my life on it, you can research on Google till doomsday, there is NO 6th view.

Good luck trying to find it.

These are your ONLY options and these will always BE your ONLY options.

Now I am telling you, if I am right, YOU’RE in trouble, your soul. If I am wrong, it doesn’t matter.

You are in a rock and a hard place here, where if you don’t choose, reality, whatever it is, will choose for you. That is how reality works, if we don’t take a choice, it chooses for us.

Well, I'm sorry, but without evidence to back up your claim it is not scientific and hardly worthy of the title 'theory'.

Actually, if atheism is a theory, the God view is all the MORE a theory. And I would personally go one step further and call it the most plausible theory. But even if it’s not the most plausible, it certainly would be a theory on equal grounds.

Painted_wolf

the idea that everything needs a cause... except god is a totally hypocritical cop out.
I'm a theist and even I can't bother with such patently absurd circular logic.

Ok, why are you a theist then?

substitute the flying spaghetti monster or an invisible pink unicorn for god and the absurdity becomes apparent.

I wish people would understand why this argument is OLD and DRY. Pink unicorns and spaghetti monster is polytheism, it’s not the kind of God I am referring to. Polytheism implies those gods would be created or have a beginning.

 

[Jollybear]

As for the snow flake, why if it's created by chance, does it not form some other way? Also using physics to explain the snow flake does not dampen the fact that it's designed, the laws on how it works and forms, are designed.

 

[painted wolf]

There are several different ways snowflakes can form... most people are only familiar with one way.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Ok, why are you a theist then?

Faith mostly

I wish people would understand why this argument is OLD and DRY. Pink unicorns and spaghetti monster is polytheism, it’s not the kind of God I am referring to. Polytheism implies those gods would be created or have a beginning.

No it isn't polytheism at all... clearly you miss the point. Either the IPU or the FSM is just as easily argued to be eternal and unchanging as god.
It is still special pleading and still a hypocritical ploy requiring circular logic.

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

By saying no cause was necessary, that is the same thing as saying NOTHING was the cause. Or nothing caused it.

So, since that is a contradiction, it’s not TRUE.

Only in your limited understanding of physics.

The very foundation of science is to find out why things work or are the way they work or are. That means, to find the cause for this or that. So this statement you said above is a science stopper. Just because scientists don’t understand something on the quantum level does not mean there is no answer. So the answer is there is no answer and you know this because no answer is yet found?

That is logic for ya.

I never suggested scientists should ever stop looking. I encourage it. Knowledge is only gained through constantly striving to perfect the answers.
So far, the answer is, quantum mechanics is spontaneous. To interject any cause without evidence would be non-conducive to finding any real answers.
Although, I can understand why you would feel the way you do, Creationist love to insert the supernatural in any missing piece of information.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The_Evelyonian



I said it as a statement yes, because you misunderstood my former statement. So instead of saying it’s a declaration by fiat, tell me why it’s wrong. It’s not wrong just because I state it. That is basically what you’re saying. Tell me why it’s wrong.

All complex things are designed ACCEPT God. Tell me why that is wrong?



Science uses philosophy, theory and hypotheses all the time to explain data.

Actually when you take the “I don’t know position” according to the apostle Paul he thinks you DO KNOW there is a God, but that you just suppress it. But regardless of that, if you don’t hurry up and FIND OUT if I am right for SURE and then die and find out I am right, THEN you’re in trouble. That’s why it’s not good to take the “I don’t know” position, you think it makes you safe, IT DOES NOT make you safe IF I AM RIGHT. Because if I am right it involves commitment.

Also this eternity, all it is, is an infinite amount of moments or now’s going by and by. Why would that not exist? Moments are not tangible, but yet we know they exist. So, what you’re asking me for makes no sense.

This thread is about providing evidence. Now, you claimed that all complexity required a designer. I called you on that because it would mean that god would require a designer too. You created a loophole for god and called it 'eternity'. Unless you can provide evidence that this 'eternity' exists then the claim is meaningless assertion and has no place here.

As for "Why wouldn't eternity exist?". I can make the same claim for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Celestial Teapot. Simply asking why something wouldn't exist is not evidence that it does.

Also, please stop using the "you'll find you're wrong when you die" line of reasoning. Threats of eternal damnation are meaningless to me.

 

[Tristesse]

As for the snow flake, why if it's created by chance, does it not form some other way? Also using physics to explain the snow flake does not dampen the fact that it's designed, the laws on how it works and forms, are designed.

In a game of poker, what are the odds that you are dealt a royal flush? The same odds that you're dealt any random hand. You're looking at a particular outcome and differing design. Design needs to be demonstrated.

 

[Autodidact]

As for the snow flake, why if it's created by chance, does it not form some other way? Also using physics to explain the snow flake does not dampen the fact that it's designed, the laws on how it works and forms, are designed.

It's not created by chance, but by the laws of physics, which of course are the opposite of chance.

There's a world of difference between asserting a Deist God who created the laws of nature and allowed them to unfold, and a God who directly intervenes in the material world. Which one are you asserting?

In the same way, God designed the laws of nature that work and form to develop a variety of species according to ToE.

Get it?

 

[bossbozz]

All complex things are designed ACCEPT God. Tell me why that is wrong?

It's wrong because you meant to say EXCEPT? Surely if you were designed by god you would not be prone to make such basic syntax errors? I mean why wait a few hundred thousand years for your proudest creation to develop syntax checking technology when you could just wire one into the brain from the start?

Actually when you take the “I don’t know position” according to the apostle Paul he thinks you DO KNOW there is a God, but that you just suppress it.

Was the apostle Paul a psychologist? Did he have any ground to make that statement a credible one? He is entitled to his opinion but that doesn't make it true. Generally people suppress things they find traumatic in some way, makes you wonder why this mass supression would be happening if indeed Paul is correct?

But regardless of that, if you don’t hurry up and FIND OUT if I am right for SURE and then die and find out I am right, THEN you’re in trouble. That’s why it’s not good to take the “I don’t know” position, you think it makes you safe, IT DOES NOT make you safe IF I AM RIGHT. Because if I am right it involves commitment.

So your whole belief system is based on fear? No wonder your argument is irrational. Does this mean that every human who lived before Jesus and therefore had no knowledge of the Christan god was doomed to eternal damnation? Anyway you are only 'right' in the terms of your religion... what if you chose the wrong religion? (That is assuming you actually made a choice and weren't just indoctrinated by your families existing beliefs from a young and impressionable age?)

Does this mean if I found an answer for why the universe began from a cosmologist’s perspective, that you would believe his/her view?

I may find it more plausible than the magic invisible man in the sky and certainly it would be more open to scientific and rational debate.

Actually, if atheism is a theory, the God view is all the MORE a theory. And I would personally go one step further and call it the most plausible theory. But even if it’s not the most plausible, it certainly would be a theory on equal grounds.

These are more belief systems than theories. A theory in the scientific sense is the closest thing to actually having mathematical proof. Of course with blind faith you don't need any proof, atheists see a lack of proof as a serious stumbling block to having faith and believing in something.

 

[Jollybear]

Painted_wolf

Faith mostly

Interesting. Let me ask you this: why do you choose to put faith in the existence of God, but you don’t choose to put faith in atheism?

No it isn't polytheism at all... clearly you miss the point. Either the IPU or the FSM is just as easily argued to be eternal and unchanging as god.
It is still special pleading and still a hypocritical ploy requiring circular logic.

I am not missing the point. I went over this argument before. But I will do it again.

If you mean flying sphegheti monster is God in the sense of you want to call God this, but not define him as a monster that has two meatballs incircled with spheghetti, then that is FINE with me, we can call him spheghetti monster. BUT if you DEFINE God to BE or LOOK like this, that is two meatballs encircled with spheghetti, THEN YES YOU ARE describing POLYTHIESM. If you deny that, then you speak meaningless words.

Polytheism is FINITE gods, and two meatballs encircled with spheghetti noodles that has two eye balls is FINITE.
The God I am referring to is NOT finite but is INFINITE. But if you don’t want to LABEL him as “God” but rather wish to label him as “spheghetti monster” that is just fine with me, for it’s not what we call him that matters, it’s how we DEFINE him.

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

Only in your limited understanding of physics.

So I showed you your contradiction and you say this to me? So you want to believe that NOTHING caused the big bang.

Ok. I don’t have enough faith to believe that though.

I never suggested scientists should ever stop looking. I encourage it. Knowledge is only gained through constantly striving to perfect the answers.

Agreed, and I am glad you say this. Wow, we actually have some common ground there.

So far, the answer is, quantum mechanics is spontaneous.

Spontaneity, even that has a cause, if I spontaneously decide to get up and get a glass of water, there was still causes behind all that.

Also once again, just because scientists have a limited understanding of quantum mechanics does not mean there are no causes for what goes on at that level.

It&#8217;s like a child saying &#8220;I don&#8217;t understand how a flower grows, so therefore a flower has no reasons for why it grows.&#8221; < That is absurd reasoning. And it&#8217;s not how science works.

Plus there has been cases where they looked at the quantum particles and they STOP, and then when they look AWAY, they start flying all over the place, then when they LOOK again, the particles STOP. And this is a pattern. So, there is EVIDENTLY CAUSES at the quantum level.

To interject any cause without evidence would be non-conducive to finding any real answers.

Likewise to say there IS NO cause is non-conducive to finding any real answers.

Although, I can understand why you would feel the way you do, Creationist love to insert the supernatural in any missing piece of information.

Atheists love to insert either nothing or chance in any missing piece of information.

Plus, I already said there are only 5 views on the table, there is no 6th.

1: eternal mindless energy made by chance this universe we see now.
2: nothing plus chance, plus time created the universe we see now
3: the universe created itself
4: God created the universe
5: I don&#8217;t know, but I know the 4 views above are not it.
And 6: there IS NO 6, never was, and never will be.

Basically it&#8217;s a thing of PREDICTIONS, all 5 of these views can make predictions. The first view predicts that as science progresses, they will find out that energy is eternal and mindless and by chance it created the universe. The second view predicts that as science progresses they will find out nothing plus chance plus time created the universe. The third view predicts that as science progresses they will find that the universe created itself. The fourth view predicts that as science progresses they will find that God created it. And the 5th view predicts that as science progresses it will never find the answer but yet still holds that it knows the first 4 are not the answer.

And 6, well there is no 6 and never will be a 6.

NEVER, EVER, will there be a 6. (that is my own prediction). Mark my words; there never will be a 6. And I am so confident in that prediction, that I would stake my life on it.

 

[Jollybear]

The_Evelyonian

This thread is about providing evidence. Now, you claimed that all complexity required a designer. I called you on that because it would mean that god would require a designer too. You created a loophole for god and called it 'eternity'. Unless you can provide evidence that this 'eternity' exists then the claim is meaningless assertion and has no place here.

Do moments exist? Yes, but there is no TANGIBLE evidence that moments exist. Time, or moments are NOT tangible. Eternity is not tangible. The universe did not always exist, but this in the middle of nowhere sort of speak there was just an eternal moments going by and by. That is what eternity is. If you don&#8217;t believe eternity exists, tell me how eternity CANNOT exist?

Eternity would exist for ALL 4 views. Look at number 2 in particular, assuming it&#8217;s true for the moment, that would mean nothing was there for eternity, and then nothing blew elements into being and then by chance they evolved over much time.

Perhaps you don&#8217;t understand my terms. Eternity is basically nothing, it&#8217;s just a bunch of &#8220;now&#8217;s&#8221; or moments going by forever.

Do you understand?

As for "Why wouldn't eternity exist?". I can make the same claim for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Celestial Teapot. Simply asking why something wouldn't exist is not evidence that it does.

Why does eternity not exist?

Also, please stop using the "you'll find you're wrong when you die" line of reasoning. Threats of eternal damnation are meaningless to me.

Ok, that is fine if they are meaningless to you. But what if I am right? It&#8217;s not a threat, it&#8217;s a strong worldview that I have. What if I am right? Then what? Do you KNOW I am WRONG?

All I am trying to show you is that your &#8220;I don&#8217;t know&#8221; position is NOT safe as you may THINK it is.

Keep that in mind. You need to be SURE.

 

[Jollybear]

Tristesse

In a game of poker, what are the odds that you are dealt a royal flush? The same odds that you're dealt any random hand. You're looking at a particular outcome and differing design. Design needs to be demonstrated.

Why does chance IF it&#8217;s true not make some snowflakes look square? Why does it make them all have a similar pattern and structure?

 

[Jollybear]

Audodidact

It's not created by chance, but by the laws of physics, which of course are the opposite of chance.

Awesome, I am glad you said that. Now I have a question for you: are the laws of physics created by chance or created also by physics?

There's a world of difference between asserting a Deist God who created the laws of nature and allowed them to unfold, and a God who directly intervenes in the material world. Which one are you asserting?

I am asserting that this God does BOTH. He creates the universe and also sustains it and sometimes INTERVENES in it.

Think of it like a person who builds a house, and then lets it run, but sometimes he may intervene when something goes wrong with it. But he don&#8217;t have to sustain the house after he builds it, the universe however needs to be sustained by God. Without his word of command holding it all together, it vanishes. In other words if God ceased to exist, so would the universe, but of course he would never cease to exist.

In the same way, God designed the laws of nature that work and form to develop a variety of species according to ToE.

Get it?

So you believe God designed the laws of nature?