Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[DMC]

Did you see it happen? Were you there?

Did you see your grass grow?

[Chinook]

Example: Could you chose to believe the Earth does not exist? Probably not. That means you cannot choose to believe it does. People who can choose to believe something that's not obviously true are considered to be delusional. I don't think you're delusional. You probably did not choose to believe in a god, so what evidence forced your hand? With the Earth, well it's so "there" all the time.

Non-personal god: A god that doesn't give a about you, didn't create the universe for you or anyone else.

Thanks for the clarification.

As I said, I believe that that is the best (most rational) way to explain the causal chain. Accepting the existence of a "prime mover" as you put it does nothing to disrupt my view of the chain, while not believing disrupts it quite a bit. As a person with an open mind, I can indeed come up with atheistic scenarios to explain the causal chain, but I feel like all that does is add another step on the puzzle instead of ending it. Another turtle, as they say. Like if the universe were really started like it was in "The Last Question," I would still feel like more explanation was needed. Like, "What started this cyclical system in the first place?" Maybe it always was. I just doesn't seem rational to me to think about a truly atheistic system.

[RD2191]

Did you see your grass grow?

No, but if I put a camera out there I can see it happen. I can cut it and see it happen again. It doesn't take millions of years for it to grow.

[phyzik]

Talking out of my ass here but don't laws and rules and facts or whatever the you wanna call them only apply to what is in our observable universe? Could it be possible that there is a place somewhere out there where these laws/facts no longer exist or apply?

Yes, there is a possibility.... It is actually called String theory. Are you trying to imply that "god" exists in another plane of existence? The problem with that is that String Theory does not allow one plane of existence to effect another. If that were the case, we would see all kinds of anomaly's happening day in and day out.... And who is to say one "god" being in one state of existence is any different that another "god" being in another state..... and if they were truelly able to effect our "state" of existence, why not just prove it?

[DMC]

Thanks for the clarification.

As I said, I believe that that is the best (most rational) way to explain the causal chain. Accepting the existence of a "prime mover" as you put it does nothing to disrupt my view of the chain, while not believing disrupts it quite a bit. As a person with an open mind, I can indeed come up with atheistic scenarios to explain the causal chain, but I feel like all that does is add another step on the puzzle instead of ending it. Another turtle, as they say. Like if the universe were really started like it was in "The Last Question," I would still feel like more explanation was needed. Like, "What started this cyclical system in the first place?" Maybe it always was. I just doesn't seem rational to me to think about a truly atheistic system.

But ending the puzzle by forcing a piece into it that doesn't make sense doesn't actually solve anything. Infinite regress isn't solved by creating an en y that can side step it.

[spurraider21]

Talking out of my ass here but don't laws and rules and facts or whatever the you wanna call them only apply to what is in our observable universe? Could it be possible that there is a place somewhere out there where these laws/facts no longer exist or apply?

IMO dinosaurs completely on the biblical timeline

[DMC]

No, but if I put a camera out there I can see it happen. I can cut it and see it happen again. It doesn't take millions of years for it to grow.

A camera records series of stills. It doesn't capture movement. Fossils are a series of stills.

[phyzik]

No, but if I put a camera out there I can see it happen. I can cut it and see it happen again. It doesn't take millions of years for it to grow.

But we can look at "grass" particles buried deep in the ground and see what lead to the current state of your grass....

I have to ask, are you just trolling or do you really not understand this concept? or are you just unwilling to accept it because it s on what you want to believe?

[Chinook]

Darwin predicting that a species of moth with an infathomably long proboscis wasn't really based on math. Besides the likes between physics and math are pretty blurred so it's sort of foolish to say "oh that's math not science." Sometimes one precedes the other. An equation or calculation can confirm a theory to explain phenomena and other times a theory is needed to explain what appears to be an inconsistency in the math

I mean math as a concept and not as an actual series of equations. Darwin made his prediction without math, that's true. But later on, the system of math was expressed that legitimized his claim. As crazy as it may sound, I believe mathematical truths are only discovered, not created. So while I think people may make mistakes when trying to do math, and that empiricism may help mediate disputes, mathematical truths are indisputable in the face of any empirical evidence.

[RD2191]

Yes, there is a possibility.... It is actually called String theory. Are you trying to imply that "god" exists in another plane of existence? The problem with that is that String Theory does not allow one plane of existence to effect another. If that were the case, we would see all kinds of anomaly's happening day in and day out.... And who is to say one "god" being in one state of existence is any different that another "god" being in another state..... and if they were truelly able to effect our "state" of existence, why not just prove it?

I'm not implying anything. I'm not going anywhere with this. It was just something I was curious about.

[pgardn]

But there is knowledge that isn't provable by anything other than personal experience. For example, you cannot learn to play a guitar by reading about it. You'd have to do it. You cannot know what loss feels like by reading Grapes of Wrath. You'd have to experience loss. That however doesn't work with belief in a non-personal god, because it doesn't communicate with anyone. It has to be a conclusion you've drawn and therein lies the issue.

Playing the guitar, I don't consider that knowledge about the physical universe. I consider understanding simple harmonic motion, wave interference, resonance, etc.. Knowledge about the physical universe; Helping one understand how the guitar works is more knowledge than playing, which is a craft even though we say, I KNOW how to play the guitar. Knowing how to play does not necessarily lead to the fundamental physical rules of how the instrument works. I should really call this an art.

So in this way science is very limited. Science cannot tell you how it feels to experience loss, but it can sure delve into the question of why loss can be so "painful" to the a Human nervous system from an evolutionary perspective. What purpose loss, envy, love, might play from an evolutionary point of view and which part of the brain needs to be excited to illicit the aforementioned responses.

[spurraider21]

Did you see it happen? Were you there?

I didn't see your great great great grandfather give birth to you. How can I know for sure you are of the same lineage?

[Chinook]

But ending the puzzle by forcing a piece into it that doesn't make sense doesn't actually solve anything. Infinite regress isn't solved by creating an en y that can side step it.

We disagree on the extent to which the piece makes sense.

[RD2191]

But we can look at "grass" particles buried deep in the ground and see what lead to the current state of your grass....

I have to ask, are you just trolling or do you really not understand this concept? or are you just unwilling to accept it because it s on what you want to believe?

If I was trolling would I ever admit it?

[RD2191]

I didn't see your great great great grandfather give birth to you. How can I know for sure you are of the same lineage?

Ancestry.com, you're welcome.

[pgardn]

I disagree. I assert that logic and math are the ONLY things we actually know. The rest, we just believe to be true based on evidence.

We have a different working definition of Knowledge.
And that's fine.

[phyzik]

I'm not implying anything. I'm not going anywhere with this. It was just something I was curious about.

String Theory is actually quite interesting and mind bending TBH.... If there was any chance of an omnipotent being, that is where it would most likely be found.

[spurraider21]

Ancestry.com, you're welcome.

You know exactly what I mean, tbh

[phyzik]

Ancestry.com, you're welcome.

Not making this up.... Did you know Ancestry.com is founded by/for the Mormon faith? It was created to keep track of people so that when their belief of the end time comes, they could try to save as many people as possible according to their faith?

It is a database for the Mormon faith originally created in Provo, Utah by Paul Allen and Dan Taggart, for the Latter-Day Saints.

Look it up.

[RD2191]

You know exactly what I mean, tbh

[RD2191]

Not making this up.... Did you know Ancestry.com is founded by the Mormon faith? It was created to keep track of people so that when their belief of the end time comes, they could try to save as many people as possible according to their faith?

It is a database for the Mormon faith originally created in Provo, Utah by Paul Allen and Dan Taggart, for the Latter-Day Saints.

Look it up.

That's very interesting. I don't really use the site. I was just messing with spurraider.

[pgardn]

We have a different working definition of Knowledge.
And that's fine.

I really don't see how one can gain knowledge of the rules by which the universe functions without measurement and observation. Then throw in the math and reasoning and now we got a very useful set of rules that can be used for predictions.

How can one KNOW anything about the physical universe without observing and then communicating data on measurement via agreed upon standards. We have a very different definition of knowledge. You can't just know something about the universe solely by thinking about it using logic and math. You can't even use the correct math models if you don't have some trend observed that can be described with math.

very different indeed...

[Chinook]

For intents and purposes, there's not a start since to have a start you'd have to have a stop, and a time between stop and start. What is the time between the stop and start of the universe? How long was it stopped?

You're using incompatible concepts. If you're going to use time, you have to live within it, not outside of it as a remote viewer. Your conclusions about god are from within time, yet you somehow think you can understand the start of the universe as if you see it on a timeline. That presents a paradox.

Well, my source Xmas says god is the ultimate parodox...

Kidding about that. What do you mean about my conclusions of god being from within time?

If time stops, time has ended. When there are no events, there is no time. That doesn't mean "oh but later on there's an event" because time is the distance between events, and without the events there is simply no time. So yes, if there are no events, there is no time. You cannot magically put yourself at entropy and say "but if we sit here then time goes by" because you've contaminated the experiment.

But the inverse is true as well. When time ends, it stops. So there's a start that we consider to be 13 Billion years ago, and there's an end we predict will be Billions upon Billions of years in the future. Between the first event of the universe and the last, there is a theoretically measurable gap of time. We can estimate that gap now despite not being able to observe any but a minute fraction of it.

[Chinook]

We have a different working definition of Knowledge.
And that's fine.

Of course it is.

[phyzik]

tell you what Robdiaz... Watch this video and post your counter arguments.



Then you can post ANY video you want, and I guarantee I will watch it and critique it as well. I don't care if your video is 3x as long, I will watch it.

Let's make this a true debate if you are up to it.