The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Aupmanyav]

Where is the battle? Creationism is squarely defeated.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Please enlighten me on why not? The concept is coherent, as it does not violate any logic. But I will tell you what concept is incoherent, the idea that infinity can be traversed..which is what one must believe if a timeless cause is negated. If you cannot demonstrate how a timeless cause is a irrational belief, then you have no argument.

*facepalm*
You cannot "sit" in a timeless state. You do not exist in a timeless state. There is no before, no after, no cause, no change. You cannot be viewed. EVERYTHING we know about logic and physics break down so you cannot use logic that is dependent upon causal and temporal things.

Cause requires a before. In a timeless state there is no "before". Ergo it is illogical to say that an atemporal "cause" exists.

Makes no sense.

What you have been saying makes no sense. There can be no "beginning" or "ending" or "before" or "after" in an atemporal state. You cannot "exist" and "then" something "comes" into existence from the perspective of an atemporal state.

You havent demonstrated why the idea of a timeless cause is irrational.

I have. You haven't understood it.

What you did was change the scenario. In the analogy, whether you like it or not, what I described was a state of atemporality. The only thing you did was attempt to change this state in to temporality, which I refused to let ride. All you can do is state "You cannot sit in a timeless state", which is what you said above, WITHOUT explaining why not?

I did so in depth several times now.

Let me challenge you to something else. Hopefully this will help you understand. You are now sitting in a chair. You do not have height. It is not that your height is zero but simply that direction does not exist. You have width and you have depth. You are a 2 dimensional creature. Tell me how you have gotten "up" in a direction you don't have and put a 3 dimensional box in a direction that does not exist to you.

Deny a timeless cause and welcome to the realm of absurdities (infinity).

Defend your claim that a timeless being has the ability to create time. Do not use arguments from ignorance. Bring me evidence and reasoning. Your analogy was not changed by me but presented back at you when I pointed out the flaws within it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Where is the battle? Creationism is squarely defeated.

In call of the wild's mind. Where logic and evidence do not exist and the holy word of god is infallible.

 

[Simurgh]

In call of the wild's mind. Where logic and evidence do not exist and the holy word of god is infallible.

...didn't you mean "where his interpretation of what he thinks the word of god is, is infallible"?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

*facepalm*
You cannot "sit" in a timeless state.

And you say this based on what? What is the refutation? And the whole concept is based on the complete impossibility of the only other alternative, which is infinite regression.

So explain to me how infinity can be traversed. I will wait.

*
You do not exist in a timeless state. There is no before, no after, no cause, no change. You cannot be viewed.

I repeat, based on what? Empty claims. I gave a complete argument as to why this "timeless" view is logical and necessary. If you disagree with this, fine, but disagree with an actual refutation...not these rather empty and non-substantial claims.

EVERYTHING we know about logic and physics break down so you cannot use logic that is dependent upon causal and temporal things.

I am not using logic based on temporal things.

Cause requires a before. In a timeless state there is no "before". Ergo it is illogical to say that an atemporal "cause" exists.

In the analogy, the atemporal being caused something to exist, which was in time. If the argument was that God created the universe OUTSIDE OF TIME, then you would have a point. But that isn't the argument. The argument is God existed in a timeless state (whether you like it or not) casually prior to the universe, but when God created the universe, time was created and that was the first temporal act. The universe was created in time.

What you have been saying makes no sense. There can be no "beginning" or "ending" or "before" or "after" in an atemporal state.

The "before" is the causal agent which existed necessarily in a timeless state. In the analogy, if I sat perfectly still in a chair for all eternity...there is no temporal before or after....if a horse pops in to being next to me, my existence still precedes the horse, just not in a temporal sense.

Or how about this, instead of telling me how crazy my analogy is, tell me how infinity can be traversed in a past-eternal material world. If you can do that, then I will abandon my POV, since it "makes no sense". Go ahead.

You cannot "exist" and "then" something "comes" into existence from the perspective of an atemporal state.

Explain to me what is incoherent about the idea of God existing in a timeless state before the universe? Explain to me the illogic. So far, all you've made is empty claims.

God could not have existed in a timeless state because ______________?

Let me challenge you to something else. Hopefully this will help you understand. You are now sitting in a chair. You do not have height. It is not that your height is zero but simply that direction does not exist. You have width and you have depth. You are a 2 dimensional creature. Tell me how you have gotten "up" in a direction you don't have and put a 3 dimensional box in a direction that does not exist to you.

If you have depth, you should have height. Just sayin.

Defend your claim that a timeless being has the ability to create time. Do not use arguments from ignorance. Bring me evidence and reasoning. Your analogy was not changed by me but presented back at you when I pointed out the flaws within it.

I already did. Please answer my questions above. There is nothing flawed about my analogy. What is flawed is infinite regression. That is flawed. Explain to me how infinity can be traversed based on a past-eternal material universe that is constantly in a state of change.

Enlighten me, and if you can successfully do that, I will abandon my way of thinking. But I will predict that you can't, so you won't.

 

[McBell]

And the whole concept is based on the complete impossibility of the only other alternative, which is infinite regression.

False Dichotomy.

but I bet you already knew that...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

False Dichotomy.

but I bet you already knew that...

More pebbles?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

False Dichotomy.

but I bet you already knew that...

Not to mention that, as always, theists know that the infinite regression is the more intuitively plausible option, even granting the (false) dilemma, which is why their continued inability (case in point: WLC) to rule out the infinite regression gives them such anxiety. Until that long-awaited and oft-attempted refutation of the infinite regress makes an appearance (and we certainly shouldn't hold our breath on this count, after hundreds of years of failed attempts), there really isn't anything to talk about here.

 

[johnhanks]

You cannot "sit" in a timeless state.

And you say this based on what? What is the refutation?

Sitting necessitates a gravitational field. A gravitational field involves a local warping of space-time. No space-time, no gravity, no sitting.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Sitting necessitates a gravitational field. A gravitational field involves a local warping of space-time. No space-time, no gravity, no sitting.

There's also the simple fact that sitting is an act, you can't act when there is no time....

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Sitting necessitates a gravitational field. A gravitational field involves a local warping of space-time. No space-time, no gravity, no sitting.

Look, the argument was meant to demonstrate timelessness, not to be scientifically accurate, obviously. Second, your objection assumes the natural law under those current conditions, I can just as easily conceive of a universe at which a person is sitting in a chair for an infinite amount of time...at which there is no gravity whatsoever.

Just like you naturalists always say "there could be universes with different laws of nature", well, I can conceive of the same thing, at which my analogy would still stand....or I can picture a immaterial person who is completely stationary, never moved, and since this person is immaterial, he occupies no space and is not subjected to gravitational fields or anything of such matter.

Either way, the analogy stands, even though I wasn't trying to be scientifically accurate, just trying to demonstrate timelessness...so lets not take things out of perspective here.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There's also the simple fact that sitting is an act
, you can't act when there is no time....

How is it an act if for every moment after the first change there were no prior moments?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

How is it an act if for every moment after the first change there were no prior moments?

How can something change? It has to be in a state prior, then you have to ask how it got to that stage. In timeless there is no time and conversely there is no space as the two are intrinsically bound. Now if you are saying that outside the boundaries of our universe exist different laws of time and space I can work with that. But if you are using it in context of our universe it's kinda faulty to describe something outside our universe in terms of our universe.

 

[shawn001]

Look, the argument was meant to demonstrate timelessness, not to be scientifically accurate, obviously. Second, your objection assumes the natural law under those current conditions, I can just as easily conceive of a universe at which a person is sitting in a chair for an infinite amount of time...at which there is no gravity whatsoever.

Just like you naturalists always say "there could be universes with different laws of nature", well, I can conceive of the same thing, at which my analogy would still stand....or I can picture a immaterial person who is completely stationary, never moved, and since this person is immaterial, he occupies no space and is not subjected to gravitational fields or anything of such matter.

Either way, the analogy stands, even though I wasn't trying to be scientifically accurate, just trying to demonstrate timelessness...so lets not take things out of perspective here.

"I can picture a immaterial person who is completely stationary, never moved, and since this person is immaterial, he occupies no space "

Were sure you can. However, in this universe that would mean "he" doesn't exist or could interact with this universe.

God is a "he" ? What would make him a 'he' human organs or what?

Now if you could only picture the way evolution works and the billions of facts that support it, well that would be good and you would be more scientifically literate.

 

[McBell]

More pebbles?

I would much rather be known for the "pebbles" I spew than the blatant, out right bull **** you spew.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I would much rather be known for the "pebbles" I spew than the blatant, out right bull **** you spew.

Niceeee :yes:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

How can something change? It has to be in a state prior, then you have to ask how it got to that stage. In timeless there is no time and conversely there is no space as the two are intrinsically bound.

Right, there was no time and space...now is a coincidence that you said that there is no time and space, and God just HAPPENED to be timeless and HAPPENS to be immaterial (non-spatial). So the characteristics that you claimed are REQUIRED...God has always been said to have? Coincidence? Hmmm.

 

[McBell]

Right, there was no time and space...now is a coincidence that you said that there is no time and space, and God just HAPPENED to be timeless and HAPPENS to be immaterial (non-spatial). So the characteristics that you claimed are REQUIRED...God has always been said to have? Coincidence? Hmmm.

How do explain the paradox?

Or do you merely ignore it like all the other things you have to ignore to hold the beliefs you hold?

 

[johnhanks]

Look, the argument was meant to demonstrate timelessness, not to be scientifically accurate, obviously...

In other words, you want free licence to make up whatever fantasies you believe will shore up your ideas, and reality can go to hell.

Oh, and while we're on that subject:

Originally Posted by Call_of_the_Wild

... explain to me how can a dog that is alive today every get to the point of producing a non-dog. Explain to me how can that happen??

I will patiently wait.

Your wait was over some time ago.

 

[cottage]

It’s back to the fray after two days away
And nothing has changed much I see
There’s more than enough of all the same stuff
But it’s all just imagin-a-r-y