Looking for a debate with creationists (I am an atheist)

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you name one thing that didn't come from any thing else that can be shown by evidence?

So a thing that basicly came from absolute nothingness?
One would have to have access to "absolute nothingness" in order to see if things can come from it. Which by itself is nonsensical even, because to be able to study "absolute nothingness", such nothingness would have to "exist", which would immediatly invalidate it as being "nothingness".

Needless to say, it's an invalid nonsensical question.

Having said that, virtual particles seem to pop in and out of existance from seemingly "nothing" all the time.
But that's off course just "seemingly" nothing. Chances are rather enormous that it's not "absolute nothingness" that generates these particles and that instead, we just don't know yet.

Because here again, we have to "invoke" this nothingness to "generate" particles.
Once you invoke it, it becomes "something" and ceases to be "nothing".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Quote - "And they didn't"
Just this week Jerusalem Post article on the diggings at Shiloh. This was "capital" of Israel
before the Philistines destroyed it (Read book of Samuel) Here was evidence of the cultic
center - the "horn of the altar" and the symbolic pomegranate and evidence for where the
priests would cut off the flesh of the young sacrificial animal, on the right side only. It's all
here. Skeptics claim this Shiloh story of Eli, Samuel, the Philistines and the ark of the
Covenant was made up a thousand years later. No. Wrong. Fail.
And we know who are the priest's descendants - the tribe of Levi, from Moses down is
revealed through DNA. And now we have the evidence for King David. And new tech is
helping us see Israel was far more populous than we first thought.

Marvel comics mentions New York, Time Square, Manhatten, events in New York and elsewhere in the world, president Obama and I'm pretty sure that there was / is at least one "Peter Parker" registered as a resident in Manahatten. But that doesn't mean Spiderman is real.

So yeah, I am happy that bit by bit, the bible's "mythic" account is slowly been revealed
through science.

Only because you are completely ignoring the massive failures. You are focussing on the pixel and completely oblivious of the bigger picture as a result.

There was no flood, no exodus, no "sun standing still in the sky for a couple days", no eden, no babel, no.... etc

As for Special Pleading. This is super-special pleading because if God made the universe
then by definition god is not within the universe, and subject to its laws.

You don't seem to realise that special pleading is a logical fallacy..............................................

But Genesis tells us that God created the world we see, not directly through His agency, but by his laws or
"command."

Genesis says nothing of the sort.
Genesis is a religious creation myth like there are thousands of others.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Things that aren't supported by evidence are never "reasonable" - especially not if the nature of the claims are extra-ordinary and outlandish, like the "god" claim surely is.

I used to be a fanatical atheist. I found out I was dead wrong and that God does exist after years of investigation. That is something we can only find out for ourself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I used to be a fanatical atheist.

Owkay. Not sure how that is in any way relevant to the post you are responding to, but owkay.

For my interest though: what's the difference between "an atheist" and a "fanatical atheist"?

I found out I was dead wrong and that God does exist after years of investigation. That is something we can only find out for ourself.

If you can't show your work, then you don't have any work.

The point made in the post you're responding to, remains standing.
Things that are believed on bad or no evidence, are never reasonable.
And the more outlandish / extra-ordinary the thing being believed, the more unreasonable the belief is.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Owkay. Not sure how that is in any way relevant to the post you are responding to, but owkay.

For my interest though: what's the difference between "an atheist" and a "fanatical atheist"?




If you can't show your work, then you don't have any work.

The point made in the post you're responding to, remains standing.
Things that are believed on bad or no evidence, are never reasonable.
And the more outlandish / extra-ordinary the thing being believed, the more unreasonable the belief is.

I used to oppose all religion very actively.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh but they did.
It was the general idea of the hadean theory that was beginning to show errors as more observation were discovered on the formation of the earth.
Nigel Henbest was one of the scientists (when he was still a scientist and not this alien hunter nowadays) who traced the theories of the origins of the Universe and solar sustem and gave a description of Swedenborg, Kant and Laplace's explanations.
He himself noted that Kant was the only one that was correct, and scientists are moving towards the Kantean nebular theory and rejecting Laplace's Hadean theories where the planets were slung out of the sun.
I am amaized that you do not know about these facts.
Oh, and as for Kant.
He took the theory from the Bible pal, frm Genesis.

First off you are misusing the term "theory". And second you are dead wrong. The nebular hypothesis has been accepted for quite a while. Second Laplace modified it in 1796. I cannot find any of your hadean nonsense. Perhaps you conflated the Hadean era with this, but that is not about material coming out of the Sun at all. A couple of articles for you:

Nebular hypothesis - Wikipedia

Hadean - Wikipedia

And since you go everything else wrong I have doubts about Kant's supposed inspiration. As the saying goes: Citation needed.

 

[Polymath257]

Where does the BB fit into multi-universe theory where there is a possibility there could be billions of universe's?

The BB theory is based on general relativity, which does not include quantum mechanics. Typically, the multiverse theories attempt to merge GR and QM. When this is done, one of the possibilities is that there is an eternal multiverse where our universe 'buds off' at the BB.

There are other possible scenarios and at this point we cannot test between them, so it is all speculation for anything prior to the inflationary stage of our universe.

 

[blü 2]

Sure there is amaizing evidence of creation in the birth process.

The man giving that lecture in your video is ignorant of evolution. Since evolution is a fact, explained by the theory of evolution, that makes his talk meaningless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I used to oppose all religion very actively.

And now you only oppose those that you don't believe in?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, a cheap laugh can easily be obtained by deliberately misunderstanding somebody's words. Creationists so often do this kind of thing. Rhetoric for the stupid, at the expense of honesty. I love it!

Seriously though, the laws of thermodynamics are obviously consistent with the formation of living things. If they were not, the whole of physics would be up in arms against biology.

....unless of course one subscribes to a huge conspiracy theory, by the whole of science worldwide, to hide "The Truth".

There need be no conspiracy for genuine scientists to misinterpret data.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Being ill-informed isn't foolish, refusing to learn would be. As I said, matter isn't a well defined scientific term, it refers to some subset of particles but which depends on the context. Energy is well defined and conserved but it's wrong to think of it as some kind of "stuff" that could be created or destroyed.

Einstein's famous equation relates mass and energy, not matter and energy. Both mass and energy are properties of stuff, not stuff.

See: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

I notice you avoided the point about a universe created by a god that just happens to exist being every bit as mysterious and unexplained as just a universe that just happens to exist....

It's the Law of Conservation of Mass? Hmmm....

 

[BilliardsBall]

You did not answer my question.

Why is it a problem for you to accept the established scientific theory of evolution, when other Christians don't have any issues with it conflicting with their faith? Why do you choose to take a denier position instead of an acceptor position? What about accepting evolution, denies God for you, while not for other Christians? Why is your faith challenged, while theirs is not?

I do accept evolution. Evolution is true, however, I do not believe it can create changes across kinds of plants or animals.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Before Planck time - that is like saying 'run a marathon before 1 kilometer.'

Crawl before you walk and try to answer my question, then!

 

[BilliardsBall]

The problem is that, like the God concept, people seem to mean very different things when they use the word 'consciousness'. For example, I have seen a philosopher claim that a thermostat might be conscious and others claim we are conscious when asleep. All that means to me is that they are using a *very* different notion than I am.

Without more precision of language, no more discussion seems to be possible.



Why do you think it is even meaningful to talk about 'before Planck time'?

You are right! We CANNOT EVEN DISCUSS THE MYSTERY OF CONSCIOUSNESS SINCE WE CANNOT DEFINE TERMS. NOR CAN WE DARE TO SUPPOSE A GOD INCEPTED THE UNIVERSE SINCE OUR KNOWLEDGE STOPS AT PLANCK TIME.

Therefore, when he hear the Nazis are taking Jews, and we're not Jews, we can sit here complicity since we don't know what we don't know.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then how did god come into existence? You could say he just always was, but then couldn't I use that argument also?

You CAN use that argument! GOD ALWAYS WAS. Help yourself!

Then explain how the UNIVERSE always was WITHOUT God, using the Law that teaches the universe's matter and energy cannot have been created (come into existence).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do accept evolution. Evolution is true, however, I do not believe it can create changes across kinds of plants or animals.

So what exactly do you mean by "kind" in this context?

 

[Polymath257]

You are right! We CANNOT EVEN DISCUSS THE MYSTERY OF CONSCIOUSNESS SINCE WE CANNOT DEFINE TERMS. NOR CAN WE DARE TO SUPPOSE A GOD INCEPTED THE UNIVERSE SINCE OUR KNOWLEDGE STOPS AT PLANCK TIME.

Well, we should attempt to define our terms first and then move on to discussion. Among other things, we may find that there are several distinct phenomena in a situation where only one word is commonly used. In that case, it can be helpful to coin new words to make the necessary distinctions.

Any discussion prior to defining terms should be toward collecting the phenomena we want to discuss and determining what the most relevant boundaries are for the discussion.

Therefore, when he hear the Nazis are taking Jews, and we're not Jews, we can sit here complicity since we don't know what we don't know.

I have absolutely no idea how you made that leap. We can investigate. In this case, we know all of the relevant definitions, the issue is one of what is actually happening.

 

[Polymath257]

You CAN use that argument! GOD ALWAYS WAS. Help yourself!

Then explain how the UNIVERSE always was WITHOUT God, using the Law that teaches the universe's matter and energy cannot have been created (come into existence).

Easy. The UNIVERSE always was. No God required.

Alternatively, the UNIVERSE 'just is'. Again, no God required.

 

[Polymath257]

It's the Law of Conservation of Mass? Hmmm....

Prior to Einstein, there were two conservation laws here. One was the conservation of mass and the other was the conservation of energy.

After Einstein, the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy were merged (mass was realized to be a form of energy), so now there is the conservation of energy.

There *are* other conservation laws (momentum, angular momentum, charge, etc). In fact, the *real* version of the conservation of energy is the conservation of 4-momentum. The energy is just the fourth component of the energy-momentum 4-vector.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's the Law of Conservation of Mass? Hmmm....

I can't make you learn if you don't want to - but choosing not to learn and repeating your mistakes is foolish.

And you're still ignoring my point about a god...