Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Doctrine of Creation


Forums Forums Science and Technology Doctrine of Creation

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 36 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #302569
    socrat44
    Participant

    Yeah, modern physics ” doesn’t require space and time
    as we know it.” but they need ”an absolute spacetime”
    as we know it.

    #302602
    MikeYohe
    Participant

    Socrat44, – In the beginning was Mathematisian who created everything

    Hello Socrat44. My understand of history is there were upper and lower gods. God was a term that meant “knowledge” or people of knowledge. These people of knowledge gathered plants and animals from around the world and domesticated them. Most likely they pick up a virus that they could not defend in doing this. The history that was past down say the gods are no longer on earth.

    Now let look at their math. The gods were said to have been six digits or polydactyly or polydactylism. Also known as hyperdactyly. Is it possible that their math was built on a base six?

    #302610
    socrat44
    Participant

    The basic mathematical concepts are:
    function, geometrical figure, number . . . etc
    and they form hierarchies of more complex structures
    The problem is that quantum particles don’t have
    geometric form and therefore the ”philosophical ”
    debates of ”philosophy of science” are abstract / meaningless

    (as it can be saw in the post above )

    • This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by socrat44.
    • This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by socrat44.
    #302612
    socrat44
    Participant

    I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics
    Richard Feynman
    #
    If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it
    John Wheeler
    #
    Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense
    Roger Penrose

    #302653
    LoisL
    Participant

    Socrat44

    Big Bang doesn’t explain where matter comes from.

     

    Lois: Neither does religion. It tries but fails on logical grounds. It claims it came from a supernatural force, which explains exactly nothing.

    #302673
    socrat44
    Participant

    @LoisL
    Yeah, big-bang is ping-pong
    singularity came from big-bang and vice versa
    Therefore the problem is where the matter
    (quantum particles ) came from

    #302827
    Player
    Blocked

    It came from nothing

    #302852
    Player
    Blocked

    You say where did the laws come from?

     

    Honest answer is dont know.

    #302901
    Advocatus
    Participant

    Sherlock Holmes wrote: “If it’s OK to posit that the laws of physics gave rise to the universe without knowing where the laws came from why is it not OK to posit a non-material creative agency without knowing where that came from?
    Can you really not see the fallacies in your position here?”

    It’s not a fallacy at all.  In the one case, you are simply recognizing that the universe is in fact governed by certain physical constants.  We do not even have to ask “where they came from” because the universe evidently could not exist as it does without them.

    In the other case, you are postulating a “non-material, creative agency” which apparently has intelligence, able to think ahead and make plans.  If not intelligent, how can it have creativity?  You are certainly free to imagine such a thing if you like, but I think the point Lausten is making is that you haven’t answered the original question.  “You can’t solve a complex problem by proposing something just as complex as the solution.”

    #302905
    Advocatus
    Participant

    Congratulations, Sherlock!  You’ve just landed yourself in the Infinite Recursion Trap!  Where did God come from, Dad?  “Well, son, if we follow Sherlock Holmes’ sterling logic, God must have been created by an even more intelligent creator.”

    #302908
    Lausten
    Keymaster

    Didn’t we already discuss the blind watchmaker somewhere?

    #302920
    3point14rat
    Participant

    If one accepts that there is no way of proving anything, how does one determine the best method of understanding reality?

    Wouldn’t the best method be to analyze all options and choose the one that both reflects reality and can be used to make predictions and is testable? And/or choose the one that falls to Occam’s Razor first?

    I can understand that axioms are never provable, but to take that idea to mean that all axioms are therefore equally valid, is illogical (to me, anyways). It opens the door to an infinite number of supposedly equally valid axioms.

    The infinite number of axioms that explain the universe can be divided into two sections: self-defining (god) and empirically based (science). The only differentiation between the various self-defining ones is the human brain that they exist in. The empirically based ones are differentiated by the human brain that they exist in and empirical knowledge. The addition of empirical knowledge makes all the difference, because even though there might be all sorts of ways of interpreting data or the data might not be perfect, it is still a measurement of reality.

    This difference makes the self-defining options not worth entertaining or examining (in fact, how can they be examined?)

    • This reply was modified 7 months, 1 week ago by 3point14rat.
    • This reply was modified 7 months, 1 week ago by 3point14rat.
    #302922
    3point14rat
    Participant

    Sherlock:”It disproves your and Lausten’s claims that the proposed origin of something cannot be “more complex” (whatever that means to you) than the thing it explains.”

    Wrong. All it does is show that it is possible for humans to invent an explanation that’s unnecessarily complex… nothing more. How does the mere existence of the idea of a god make the idea equal to scientifically derived ideas? The unnecessary and absurd level of complexity is what demotes it to irrelevant.

    If the unfortunate son were to be told that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, would that be worse than if he were told that your god did it? I fail to see any difference.

    #302997
    Xain
    Participant

    From what I heard, the evidence for the “creation ex nihilo” argument isn’t strong. The prevailing notion now is that it has always been. No creator, no creation, it just is. Something from nothing hasn’t been demonstrated (although some observations in quantum physics “might” suggest that, but that’s at the quantum level). But there is really nothing to suggest a creator or a designer and more than enough to show a series of reactions that behave according to laws and rules that we have seen and observed. In short, shit just happens and there isn’t a “reason” or intelligence behind it that I can see.

    Some mystics and spiritualists would say otherwise, but all they have is their fervent say-so which means nothing.

    As it stands, it would seem that matter has always existed. No creator, no “from”. As hard as that might be to believe.

    • This reply was modified 7 months ago by Xain.
    • This reply was modified 7 months ago by Xain.
    #303003
    LoisL
    Participant

    No one intelligent has said humans came from nothing. We developed somehow, we just don’t know exactly how it happened, though we have clues. Is that a reason to make  something up, such as that a god created humans by supernatural magic? What’s wrong with saying we don’t know?

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 36 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.