Author Topic: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)  (Read 23151 times)

Offline aitm

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #420 on: August 06, 2018, 09:19:10 PM »
Quote from: Mousetrap link=topic=12764.msg1226380#msg1226380 date=15332145
Only after she sinned, did she produce menses.
[/quote

But your "great and powerful oz" was stymied by it. How odd that such a all knowing and all powerful would not see this coming....almost like ten thousands of "fortune tellers" that live in poverty. LOL...your god is a useless fuck. Really child, why don't YOU read the babble like it is really written. Go ahead..read it for the FIRST time without your jism stained glasses. Read it for the FIRST time with an educated mind. You won't though, and it is easy to explain why you won't. You are emotionally involved. Too deep. You can't admit you are wrong because it will truly fuck up your life. You don't have what it takes child. But that is okay child. Stay home with momma.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Online Hydra009

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #421 on: August 06, 2018, 09:28:57 PM »
Multiverse theory is a speculative interpretation of quantum mechanics, that originally was treated as a scandal back in the 50s, but sounded better after the grad students recovered from drugs taken in the 60s.
> Implying that people only subscribe to multiverse theory because of drugs.  Classic Baruch.

Quote
If there isn't a single reality, the objectivity is futile, and science is futile.


How on Earth does that logically follow?  Like, is there someone trying to build a better solar panel and gives up when he finds out that this is universe B?

Quote
I think there is a single reality, but humans don't have direct access to it (sensorium of G-d aka omniscience).
Your opinion and a buck won't buy me a $1 soda.

Offline Baruch

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #422 on: August 07, 2018, 04:25:27 AM »
> Implying that people only subscribe to multiverse theory because of drugs.  Classic Baruch.

How on Earth does that logically follow? - Objectivity means ... one universe that all can quantitatively agree on thru repeated observation and controlled experiment.  Scientific method.  If we were literally dealing with "Sliders" then any given observation or experiment would come up differently, depending on which universe you are in.  But don't laugh, actual scientists have proposed (but haven't proved) that the constants of nature aren't constant, except in any particular universe, but vary from one universe to the next.  This has caused some scientists to accuse other scientists of being BS artists.  Feynman said that there was only one universe that we live in, which is the average of an infinity of universes we don't live in ... which is almost as bad.

Like, is there someone trying to build a better solar panel and gives up when he finds out that this is universe B? - In "Sliders" maybe.  Rick (& Morty) would simply tunnel over to that other universe and steal their superior technology.

Your opinion and a buck won't buy me a $1 soda. - Yes, theism won't help you like it helps me.  I was quoting Newton who was quoting Plato.  This is called "scientific realism" today ... that what science discovers isn't simply useful numerical pragmatism (how to make better right triangles) but are discovering some transcendent reality.  Really the dividing line between the Egyptians/Babylonians and the Greeks/Romans.

Objectivity is a useful too, but it isn't a Greco-Roman super-power unavailable to others.  It is really quite ordinary (see measure the electrical resistance of something, under the same conditions and .. surprise, the value comes out nearly the same each time) ... smacks forehead.

Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #423 on: August 07, 2018, 06:43:47 AM »
[quote author=Mousetrap link=topic=12764.msg1226380#msg1226380 date=15332145
Only after she sinned, did she produce menses.


But your "great and powerful oz" was stymied by it. How odd that such a all knowing and all powerful would not see this coming....almost like ten thousands of "fortune tellers" that live in poverty. LOL...your god is a useless fuck. Really child, why don't YOU read the babble like it is really written. Go ahead..read it for the FIRST time without your jism stained glasses. Read it for the FIRST time with an educated mind. You won't though, and it is easy to explain why you won't. You are emotionally involved. Too deep. You can't admit you are wrong because it will truly fuck up your life. You don't have what it takes child. But that is okay child. Stay home with momma.
One eye is king in the land of the Blind.
here we have a "Staff member" of the Atheist community.
And his / hers choice of words, and use of foul language is supposed to be taken seriously by a Christian.
I should be so frightened, and should run, run, run, to mommy because of old one eyed gargoyle who has literal verbal diarrhea.

It is also very nice to see how old one eye could achieve the next step of logic, and asks, ...all knowing and all powerful would not see this coming...
nicely done!

Now I hope you can go to step 3...
Did ...all knowing and all powerful would not see this coming...?
Or did He know?

Did He know you will be such a hardcore hater against Him and His creation, Or did He not?
perhaps He did not know you will be as you are, but, perhaps He does!

Anyhow, if one take your evolutionary mind, created out of unguided, non-intellectual processes, can you trust your perception of some divine presence's plans?
Or do you trust your by-chance thoughts that your carefully dissected future unraveling thinking vision, is one superior to everything else in this universe?

Jeeeeeezzz, I really surpassed my logic here.
My brain is another example of evolutionary unguided processes of chemical development that can fathom thoughts and speech just because, well...
Because there was no plan by any intelligent being who made it happen.
Or, am I wrong?
How do I trust a brain that developed from nothing, into what it is now?
is this logic within it, in any way,...something useless to only ensure that I feed and reproduce?

The Mind, what a wonderful thing if it is an entity not created by evolution!
What a useless thing if it was!
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 07:36:17 AM by Mousetrap »
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Offline SGOS

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #424 on: August 07, 2018, 09:51:32 AM »
> Implying that people only subscribe to multiverse theory because of drugs.  Classic Baruch.
How on Earth does that logically follow? 
Non sequitur, in my mind, is Baruch's biggest failure in communication, second only to his ever present snide innuendo.  I don't understand why he continually does this.

????
Doesn't understand what people are saying.
Reads into text what is not there.
Wants to change the subject.
Compulsively contrary.
Compulsively disruptive.
Compulsively outrageous.
Unable to remain logical.
Needs to confuse readers.

????

Offline trdsf

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #425 on: August 07, 2018, 10:26:58 AM »
Non sequitur, in my mind, is Baruch's biggest failure in communication, second only to his ever present snide innuendo.  I don't understand why he continually does this.

????
Doesn't understand what people are saying.
Reads into text what is not there.
Wants to change the subject.
Compulsively contrary.
Compulsively disruptive.
Compulsively outrageous.
Unable to remain logical.
Needs to confuse readers.

????
Which is why I don't bother engaging there anymore.  Which is unfortunate, because he has great potential for engagement, but it's just not worth the effort.

Communicating with him is like watching me play golf -- while I might have fun doing it, it's a waste of time for most everyone else to slog through 120+ shots that are inaccurate, not well thought out, poorly executed, or just plain ugly waiting for the two or three that are actually brilliant.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #426 on: August 07, 2018, 10:54:19 AM »
Which is why I don't bother engaging there anymore.  Which is unfortunate, because he has great potential for engagement, but it's just not worth the effort.

Communicating with him is like watching me play golf -- while I might have fun doing it, it's a waste of time for most everyone else to slog through 120+ shots that are inaccurate, not well thought out, poorly executed, or just plain ugly waiting for the two or three that are actually brilliant.
You should see me at golf.
Played with my Brother a few months ago for the first time.
He told me that if I hit a wild ball, I must shout Four!

Well guess what was my vocabulary count on that day.
Old people, birds, and dogs were not targeted, but one third was deaf, and 2 thirds did not understand the word "Four".
 
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Online Hydra009

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #427 on: August 07, 2018, 11:50:52 AM »

^ Has a gazillion posts, still can't figure out how to use the quote function correctly.  :/

So, you claim that since science relies on consistency and some universes might have different physical laws than other universes, therefore science is futile.

Again, this is a non-sequitur.  The universe that we live in is consistent, so what's the problem?  If we were to visit another universe, then the different physical laws would be a concern, but it doesn't necessarily render science an exercise in futility - it only means that our understanding of the universe would differ from one universe to the next.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 12:26:04 PM by Hydra009 »

Offline Baruch

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #428 on: August 07, 2018, 01:10:57 PM »
Non sequitur, in my mind, is Baruch's biggest failure in communication, second only to his ever present snide innuendo.  I don't understand why he continually does this.

????
Doesn't understand what people are saying.
Reads into text what is not there.
Wants to change the subject.
Compulsively contrary.
Compulsively disruptive.
Compulsively outrageous.
Unable to remain logical.
Needs to confuse readers.

????

So, you complain that I fit in with the usual suspects ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Baruch

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #429 on: August 07, 2018, 01:16:48 PM »
^ Has a gazillion posts, still can't figure out how to use the quote function correctly.  :/

So, you claim that since science relies on consistency and some universes might have different physical laws than other universes, therefore science is futile.

Again, this is a non-sequitur.  The universe that we live in is consistent, so what's the problem?  If we were to visit another universe, then the different physical laws would be a concern, but it doesn't necessarily render science an exercise in futility - it only means that our understanding of the universe would differ from one universe to the next.

I was playing devil's advocate ... like most people do here.  I happen to diss multiverse BS.  No, reality isn't consistent, but  that doesn't mean there is more than one reality.  There could be multiple self consistent universes (part of my original point per scientists) on the other hand.  Or multiple universes some of which are self consistent, and some of which are not self consistent ... or none of them could be self-consistent.

I agree, science isn't futile, but the point is, science isn't some transcendent reality that Plato can intuit with his enlarged alien brain.  That would be a religious prophet (and Plato was running his own religion, even if moderns have lost the trappings).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Online Hydra009

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #430 on: August 07, 2018, 02:11:05 PM »
I was playing devil's advocate ... like most people do here.

Quote
I agree, science isn't futile
Typically, when people are playing devil's advocate, they state that outright.  You don't. 

That makes it impossible to tell the positions you actually hold and when you're "playing devil's advocate" (which is a weird way of saying "posting nonsense to get a rise out of people").  This typically results in lengthy back-and-forths that culminate in the other person facepalming until (surprise!) you reveal that you weren't serious the whole time.

Without the initial assumption of honesty/candor, these conversations are basically gigantic wastes of time.  And you wonder why people ignore you.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 02:39:48 PM by Hydra009 »

Offline Baruch

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #431 on: August 07, 2018, 06:50:42 PM »
Typically, when people are playing devil's advocate, they state that outright.  You don't. 

That makes it impossible to tell the positions you actually hold and when you're "playing devil's advocate" (which is a weird way of saying "posting nonsense to get a rise out of people").  This typically results in lengthy back-and-forths that culminate in the other person facepalming until (surprise!) you reveal that you weren't serious the whole time.

Without the initial assumption of honesty/candor, these conversations are basically gigantic wastes of time.  And you wonder why people ignore you.

Not at all.  My last long text post was probably totally ignored.  Because of cultural illiteracy on the part of readers.  I understand why people ignore video clips longer than 5 minutes (short attention span).

I consider that heretics (me) and atheists (you) are Devil's Advocates all the time.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #432 on: August 07, 2018, 06:57:09 PM »
Non sequitur, in my mind, is Baruch's biggest failure in communication, second only to his ever present snide innuendo.  I don't understand why he continually does this.

????
Doesn't understand what people are saying.
Reads into text what is not there.
Wants to change the subject.
Compulsively contrary.
Compulsively disruptive.
Compulsively outrageous.
Unable to remain logical.
Needs to confuse readers.

????

Or maybe "all of the above." He just wants to rile us up by pushing our buttons, but it's gotten old, as old as Methuselah.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 07:01:26 PM by Unbeliever »
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Offline Baruch

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #433 on: August 07, 2018, 07:09:50 PM »
Or maybe "all of the above." He just wants to rile us up by pushing our buttons, but it's gotten old, as old as Methuselah.

If I were as old as Methuselah ... I would have bankrupted SS by now.  Kiss my wrinkled ass youngsters ;-))

If all you have is buttons, start a button collection.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #434 on: August 08, 2018, 08:56:34 AM »
One eye is king in the land of the Blind.
here we have a "Staff member" of the Atheist community.
And his / hers choice of words, and use of foul language is supposed to be taken seriously by a Christian.
Pfft. Since when have you ever taken us seriously? When have you ever given us a modocrim of respect? You've insulted us intellectually since day one, pretending that any of your puerile reading of the Bible holds even a candle to what science had discovered about the solar system, and could overturn any of the well-founded science of the protoplanetary disk. You have been unable to intellectually defend your model of solar system formation, yet you call us fools for not believing that your description matches reality when you have done nothing to fulfill the intellectual requirements of demonstrating that your idea has any merit.

Why should you be treated with respect when you have done nothing to earn it?

Quote
I should be so frightened, and should run, run, run, to mommy because of old one eyed gargoyle who has literal verbal diarrhea.
You should be run, run, running to your school to learn the science that you have obviously not bothered to learn. You cannot hope to grasp the great theories of science unless you understand some of the basics, and you clearly don't.

Quote
It is also very nice to see how old one eye could achieve the next step of logic, and asks, ...all knowing and all powerful would not see this coming...
nicely done!

Now I hope you can go to step 3...
Did ...all knowing and all powerful would not see this coming...?
Or did He know?

Did He know you will be such a hardcore hater against Him and His creation, Or did He not?
perhaps He did not know you will be as you are, but, perhaps He does!

Anyhow, if one take your evolutionary mind, created out of unguided, non-intellectual processes, can you trust your perception of some divine presence's plans?
Or do you trust your by-chance thoughts that your carefully dissected future unraveling thinking vision, is one superior to everything else in this universe?

Jeeeeeezzz, I really surpassed my logic here.
Adding premises to a consistent logical argument does not change the conclusions of that argument. An all powerful god shouldn't be stymied by menstral blood, even if there are god haters thousands of years later that he could forsee, so such a god can't be all powerful. Either he isn't stymied and only playing that he is (as such he's being a jerk to someone), or he isn't as all powerful as you claim, or he doesn't exist.

Quote
My brain is another example of evolutionary unguided processes of chemical development that can fathom thoughts and speech just because, well...
Because there was no plan by any intelligent being who made it happen.
Or, am I wrong?
How do I trust a brain that developed from nothing, into what it is now?
is this logic within it, in any way,...something useless to only ensure that I feed and reproduce?
Different species have different strategies for survival. The solution our ancestors happened upon was to smarten up. Individuals who were less capable of following the procedure, "If this bunch of conditions, then do this," didn't do as well as individuals who could. Individuals who couldn't coordinate as well with their fellows didn't do as well as individuals who could (like take down larger game). Individuals who could learn complex tasks (like weaving and making tools) did better than their less handy brethren. Individuals who could better predict outcomes of (say) throwing a spear and hitting an antelope did better than their less capable brethren. So there are evolutionary pressures that drove us to more intelligence; and we can somewhat trust this faculty because the people who couldn't didn't survive.

On the other hand, there is a diminishing returns aspect. We're smarter than the average bear, but on the whole not that much smarter. We still had to gradually piece together what logic was, a task that took one million years, and even now has to be taught in order for people to grasp it. And not all do.

Quote
The Mind, what a wonderful thing if it is an entity not created by evolution!
What a useless thing if it was!
An untrained mind is in fact very useless. Ask your newborn to do laundry for you and you will find him or her utterly not equal to the task.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu