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

This topic contains 38 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by  LoisL 1 month, 4 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 39 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 2 months, 1 week ago by  socrat44.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week 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
    Participant

    It came from nothing

    #302847

    Sherlock Holmes
    Participant

    And where did the Creator come from? Not being snarky, it’s a legitimate question. You can’t solve a complex problem by proposing something complex behind the solution. You just create another problem that needs to be explained. Not that the math behind the creation of the universe isn’t complex, but it’s not consciousness, it’s not a cause as we understand cause. Once you say something like “Creator knew”, you just made a new level of how things are known and how that knowing came to be.

     

    @lausten

    “Where did the creator come from?” is indeed a legitimate question but if we have no answer to that we can’t then say that there was no creator can we?

    What about this “science and scientific laws govern the universe” as many will say, but then what of the question “And where did the scientific laws come from?”.

    The theories on creation of space and time as we know it involve physics that doesn’t require space and time as we know it. We are looking out from our view of reality, so it’s pretty difficult for us to figure it out, and maybe we never will. I certainly can’t explain it. I can barely understand the theories. But I can easily see the flaws in reasoning that posits a magic creator.

    Or the flaws in reasoning that posits magic laws of physics? where did the laws come from Lausen?

    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?

    #302852

    Player
    Participant

    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.”

    #302903

    Sherlock Holmes
    Participant

    @advocatus

    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.

    Why am I not permitted to inquire about the origin of these constants and laws?

    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?

    Yes I am.

    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.”

    So consider the child’s question – “Dad, where did that computer come from?” – (Dad) – “Erm well it came to be as the result of many hundreds of years of collective mathematical and scientific studies and developments in manufacturing and so on”.

    The answer certainly attributes the cause to something far more complex than the computer yet is I think you’ll agree the correct and honest answer.

    This is why Lausten and now you, are wrong.

    #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
    Participant

    Didn’t we already discuss the blind watchmaker somewhere?

    #302909

    Sherlock Holmes
    Participant

    @advocatus

    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.”

    Really? how so? the answer given by the Dad to that question is a correct answer. 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.

    There’s no recursion in that hypothetical question/answer example.

    The example does not allow you to conclude that every “thing” exists because of a preceding “more complex thing” it doesn’t lead to that nor did I say that. It does that some particular thing (computer) exists because of a preceding thing (human ingenuity and invention over many centuries) – it is a specific statement not a general one.

     

    #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 2 months ago by  3point14rat.
    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  3point14rat.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 39 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.