RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster

RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/31/2017 9:01:45 AM)
quote: The observable Universe That simply means that there is a part of our universe we cannot see. The reason we are able to see distant galaxies is because we are receiving their light but light has a fixed speed limit. So, some galaxies are so far away their light hasn't reached us yet. The notion of a Multiverse is something else again. quote: There is no "God!" why half you of are fixated on that one I dont understand. We are trying to come to grips with our after life destinies. Man knows he is going to die but then what?

WickedsDesire -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/31/2017 9:34:01 AM)
CMB - 1% of the current/past static on the TV if you ever wondered - heh sometimes my memory works More an expansion really - the Big Bang - More a white hole really, and we may be a mere product-consequence of one black hole from another universe. or even this universe out of sight and mind :) Why do you presume the speed of light is constant? The theory of the big bang comes about because things-galaxies are moving away from us...not the gravitational bound ones. And they simply count back time to the initial point of the initial explosion-expansion (singularity) what is nothing lets say such a thing exists can you get something from nothing?

WhoreMods -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/31/2017 9:40:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire More an expansion really - the Big Bang - More a white hole really, and we may be a mere product-consequence of one black hole from another universe. or even this universe out of sight and mind :) I'm not sure the idea that the big bang is the other end of every black hole in the universe and all the matter comes out there once everything's been absorbed gets taken very seriously outside of science fiction. Isn't the idea of everything contracting back to the origin point again once it stops expanding and then exploding outwards again the current version of that?

WickedsDesire -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/31/2017 10:57:07 AM)
~~I never mentioned the Cyclic Models - Although I do favour those ones~~ Well one of those, but I am quite mad :)

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/1/2017 12:34:17 AM)
quote: I'm not sure the idea that the big bang is the other end of every black hole in the universe and all the matter comes out there once everything's been absorbed gets taken very seriously outside of science fiction. Isn't the idea of everything contracting back to the origin point again once it stops expanding and then exploding outwards again the current version of that? some cosmogonists have proposed that the singularity was the final collapse of a black hole, yes, but this of necessity leads to a greater Multiverse where other black holes have collapsed and exploded, creating other universes. There's about six different scenarios for the end time but it is all above my pay grade level and I cannot sort them. Maybe you can. Here is a link to a Wiki article on the subject. Knock yourself out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

WickedsDesire -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/1/2017 12:43:20 AM)
Idiots -when my bottom parts are not exploding, naturally, unless its a Tuesday?

blnymph -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/1/2017 7:34:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph If "creation" requires a "creator" who or what creates that creator then, and the creator of the creator, and the creator of the creator's creator ... creationism as such is nonsense Then do you believe the "Big Bang" nonsense that something came from nothing? Or what they now believe that there was something there that the "Big Bang" came from? And where did the something that was there before the "Big Bang" come from? Did it come from nothing or was it always there, much like those who believe in God believe he was always there? So it seems you believe in nothing whereas those who believe in God at least believe in something. It is not a matter of believing or not, it is a matter of logic.

WhoreMods -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/1/2017 9:07:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: I'm not sure the idea that the big bang is the other end of every black hole in the universe and all the matter comes out there once everything's been absorbed gets taken very seriously outside of science fiction. Isn't the idea of everything contracting back to the origin point again once it stops expanding and then exploding outwards again the current version of that? some cosmogonists have proposed that the singularity was the final collapse of a black hole, yes, but this of necessity leads to a greater Multiverse where other black holes have collapsed and exploded, creating other universes. There's about six different scenarios for the end time but it is all above my pay grade level and I cannot sort them. Maybe you can. Here is a link to a Wiki article on the subject. Knock yourself out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe Thanks. I was forgetting the "black holes spawn baby universes" thing if I'm honest.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/1/2017 8:07:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I'm not sure that it's a clever argument to claim that it's better to believe in "something". There's a long list of murderous ideologues who all believed in "something" when the entire world would have been far better off had they believed in nothing. Self proclaimed believers in ideologies and belief systems that claim to be absolutely right have far more blood on their hands than nihilists. I fail to see any merit in the argument that it's better to believe in one version of a fairy tale than to with hold judgement until the question is resolved. I do see a lot of potential dangers in this position, and am reminded of those dangers every time a religious fundamentalist (of whatever hue) insists against all reason that their particular fairy tale is the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth and threatens to kill anyone who disrupts their childish certainties. Sure there is a "long list of murderous ideologues who all believed in "something"" but then what about the even longer list of those who believed in "something" and were not "murderous ideologues" and whose belief changed the world for the better? An inconvenient truth?

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/1/2017 8:16:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph If "creation" requires a "creator" who or what creates that creator then, and the creator of the creator, and the creator of the creator's creator ... creationism as such is nonsense Then do you believe the "Big Bang" nonsense that something came from nothing? Or what they now believe that there was something there that the "Big Bang" came from? And where did the something that was there before the "Big Bang" come from? Did it come from nothing or was it always there, much like those who believe in God believe he was always there? So it seems you believe in nothing whereas those who believe in God at least believe in something. The Big Bang Theory itself is based upon measurements of spectrometer Red Shift in light coming from distant planets. Scientists have also identified and measured the Cosmological Microwave Radiation that is "left over" from the Big Bang. Sort of like static. In fact, depending how old you are, if you go back to the days when television stations did not broadcast 24 hours but signed off in the wee hours and went black except for a hissing noise, that hissing noise was the CMR reaching us through our television antennae. BTW, if you are going to speculate in the realm of metaphysics, you might consider there are three ontological choices: There was nothing from which matter arose. There always was a Creator before there was nothing. Or there always was matter and energy. The last one is just as valid as the Creator myth but obviously not as satisfying. Of course, the thought is that before the Big Bang there was a massive singularity (a pinpoint of matter and energy) that overcame the black hole gravity and exploded. Unfortunately, that has the same First Cause problem as who created the Creator? Eternal matter/energy is just as valid as the spooky eternal Creator. How do you know which is true? The reason it is not so satisfying is that it holds out no hope of everlasting life for humans. I should add that Red Shift measurements do suggest that the galaxies are moving away from one another so the universe is expanding. Maybe. My comment was to someone doing the "who created the creators creator" reasoning and thus calling belief in a Creator nonsense and I was just pointing out that the "Big Bang" that they seemed to think so "reasonable" had the same "nonsense" at it's core. ;-)

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/1/2017 8:24:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph If "creation" requires a "creator" who or what creates that creator then, and the creator of the creator, and the creator of the creator's creator ... creationism as such is nonsense Then do you believe the "Big Bang" nonsense that something came from nothing? Or what they now believe that there was something there that the "Big Bang" came from? And where did the something that was there before the "Big Bang" come from? Did it come from nothing or was it always there, much like those who believe in God believe he was always there? So it seems you believe in nothing whereas those who believe in God at least believe in something. It is not a matter of believing or not, it is a matter of logic. What I was pointing out is that your "who created the creators creator" reasoning and thus calling belief in a Creator nonsense also applies to the "Big Bang" and thus you are not directing the same "logic" at things that you may "believe" or think are true.

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/1/2017 9:30:28 PM)
quote: My comment was to someone doing the "who created the creators creator" reasoning and thus calling belief in a Creator nonsense and I was just pointing out that the "Big Bang" that they seemed to think so "reasonable" had the same "nonsense" at it's core. ;-) I understand your point Mr. MilesnMilesnMiles-to-go :0) There are some differences, however. The Big Bang is derived from observations of changes in the measurement of the red spectrum shift in light gathered from distant galaxies, that reasonably suggests the galaxies are moving apart and thus the universe is expanding in size. There are even newer observations that the furthest galaxies are accelerating away faster. This evidence allows cosmogonists to extrapolate back in time to a possible singularity and sudden expansion. Some other points: the Cosmic Background Radiation has been measured and quantified. Variations in density and temperatures have been noted, and there is a tentative time passage since the occurrence of the event of about 20 million years. The Creation alternative is based only upon the authority of words from the Bible. There are no measurements, etc., so it is of religion, not of science; we are comparing apples to oranges; Faith to reason. They share the First Cause Fallacy. They both suffer from it. There is evidence to suggest that black holes might collapse into a tiny, incredibly dense region of matter/energy called a singularity that was so chock full of cosmic crap, they can overcome unbelievable gravitational forces and explod. Which begs the question: where did the cosmic crap come from before it was gathered into the black hole, which leads to speculation of the eternal existence of a matter/energy in a multiverse, of which we have no evidence. I think it was a Mesopotamian Religion that believed the world was supported on the back of a huge turtle, and that turtle rested on the back of another turtle, upon another turtle, all the way down to the first turtle, which suffered from the First Cause Fallacy. So, I wonder if matter/energy were eternal forever since forevermore, which would make the Big Bang reasonable. As a side note, there is no longer any such thing as "nothing" in our universe. Never really was. "Pure vacuums" have been demonstrated to contain matter, and to exert outward pressure. Who knew? Science is filled with surprises.

blnymph -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/2/2017 2:28:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph If "creation" requires a "creator" who or what creates that creator then, and the creator of the creator, and the creator of the creator's creator ... creationism as such is nonsense Then do you believe the "Big Bang" nonsense that something came from nothing? Or what they now believe that there was something there that the "Big Bang" came from? And where did the something that was there before the "Big Bang" come from? Did it come from nothing or was it always there, much like those who believe in God believe he was always there? So it seems you believe in nothing whereas those who believe in God at least believe in something. It is not a matter of believing or not, it is a matter of logic. What I was pointing out is that your "who created the creators creator" reasoning and thus calling belief in a Creator nonsense also applies to the "Big Bang" and thus you are not directing the same "logic" at things that you may "believe" or think are true. Religious myths about the creation of the world are: religious myths, to explain something that needed to be explained. (But there is less need than once was, in the meantime more phenomena have been observed, facts have been gathered, theories have been tested.) Whatever myth you choose to believe in whether a creation in six days with one day of rest, or by the churning of the ocean of milk, or by the hatching from the world egg - it is your personal choice. This your belief, however, should neither include that everybody has to believe it the way you do, nor that everybody believes what you believe. If you think so, then it is your assumption only, based on nothing but your assumption. Your belief is no proof of anything. And certainly not a proof of "truth" ... btw: Evading logic will not make it vanish.

tweakabelle -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/2/2017 3:05:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I'm not sure that it's a clever argument to claim that it's better to believe in "something". There's a long list of murderous ideologues who all believed in "something" when the entire world would have been far better off had they believed in nothing. Self proclaimed believers in ideologies and belief systems that claim to be absolutely right have far more blood on their hands than nihilists. I fail to see any merit in the argument that it's better to believe in one version of a fairy tale than to with hold judgement until the question is resolved. I do see a lot of potential dangers in this position, and am reminded of those dangers every time a religious fundamentalist (of whatever hue) insists against all reason that their particular fairy tale is the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth and threatens to kill anyone who disrupts their childish certainties. Sure there is a "long list of murderous ideologues who all believed in "something"" but then what about the even longer list of those who believed in "something" and were not "murderous ideologues" and whose belief changed the world for the better? An inconvenient truth? The "inconvenient truth" is that it is facile to argue that belief in "something" is better than belief in nothing. It all depends on what that "something" is, and how that "something" is interpreted and put into practice by believers. It's a case by case thing, and it's riddled with unavoidable value judgements. Generalising it, as you have done, at best only muddies the waters. So I am afraid that, if your intention is to advance a persuasive argument, you are going to have to do a lot better than: 'It's better to believe in something than nothing'. Perhaps it might be, but then again perhaps it might not be. So it neither adds weight to your argument nor does it advance the discussion an iota.

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/2/2017 3:45:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: My comment was to someone doing the "who created the creators creator" reasoning and thus calling belief in a Creator nonsense and I was just pointing out that the "Big Bang" that they seemed to think so "reasonable" had the same "nonsense" at it's core. ;-) I understand your point Mr. MilesnMilesnMiles-to-go :0) There are some differences, however. The Big Bang is derived from observations of changes in the measurement of the red spectrum shift in light gathered from distant galaxies, that reasonably suggests the galaxies are moving apart and thus the universe is expanding in size. There are even newer observations that the furthest galaxies are accelerating away faster. This evidence allows cosmogonists to extrapolate back in time to a possible singularity and sudden expansion. Some other points: the Cosmic Background Radiation has been measured and quantified. Variations in density and temperatures have been noted, and there is a tentative time passage since the occurrence of the event of about 20 million years. The Creation alternative is based only upon the authority of words from the Bible. There are no measurements, etc., so it is of religion, not of science; we are comparing apples to oranges; Faith to reason. They share the First Cause Fallacy. They both suffer from it. There is evidence to suggest that black holes might collapse into a tiny, incredibly dense region of matter/energy called a singularity that was so chock full of cosmic crap, they can overcome unbelievable gravitational forces and explod. Which begs the question: where did the cosmic crap come from before it was gathered into the black hole, which leads to speculation of the eternal existence of a matter/energy in a multiverse, of which we have no evidence. I think it was a Mesopotamian Religion that believed the world was supported on the back of a huge turtle, and that turtle rested on the back of another turtle, upon another turtle, all the way down to the first turtle, which suffered from the First Cause Fallacy. So, I wonder if matter/energy were eternal forever since forevermore, which would make the Big Bang reasonable. As a side note, there is no longer any such thing as "nothing" in our universe. Never really was. "Pure vacuums" have been demonstrated to contain matter, and to exert outward pressure. Who knew? Science is filled with surprises. Opps, sorry wrong number. The correct number in my post above should have been 13.7 or 14.7 Billion years. Apologies. Getting a little shoddy in my doddering years. Anyway, happy birthday to the universe. You were very much a restless child, always eager to expand your horizons. (my bad) Special shout outs to the elegant writing and clear points made by the two ladies above, Binymph and Tweake. Awesome.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/2/2017 3:47:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: My comment was to someone doing the "who created the creators creator" reasoning and thus calling belief in a Creator nonsense and I was just pointing out that the "Big Bang" that they seemed to think so "reasonable" had the same "nonsense" at it's core. ;-) I understand your point Mr. MilesnMilesnMiles-to-go :0) There are some differences, however. The Big Bang is derived from observations of changes in the measurement of the red spectrum shift in light gathered from distant galaxies, that reasonably suggests the galaxies are moving apart and thus the universe is expanding in size. There are even newer observations that the furthest galaxies are accelerating away faster. This evidence allows cosmogonists to extrapolate back in time to a possible singularity and sudden expansion. Some other points: the Cosmic Background Radiation has been measured and quantified. Variations in density and temperatures have been noted, and there is a tentative time passage since the occurrence of the event of about 20 million years. The Creation alternative is based only upon the authority of words from the Bible. There are no measurements, etc., so it is of religion, not of science; we are comparing apples to oranges; Faith to reason. They share the First Cause Fallacy. They both suffer from it. There is evidence to suggest that black holes might collapse into a tiny, incredibly dense region of matter/energy called a singularity that was so chock full of cosmic crap, they can overcome unbelievable gravitational forces and explod. Which begs the question: where did the cosmic crap come from before it was gathered into the black hole, which leads to speculation of the eternal existence of a matter/energy in a multiverse, of which we have no evidence. I think it was a Mesopotamian Religion that believed the world was supported on the back of a huge turtle, and that turtle rested on the back of another turtle, upon another turtle, all the way down to the first turtle, which suffered from the First Cause Fallacy. So, I wonder if matter/energy were eternal forever since forevermore, which would make the Big Bang reasonable. So? Reasonable or not, "scientific" or not, as you say the "Big Bang" still suffers from the "First Cause Fallacy", which was the point I was making. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML As a side note, there is no longer any such thing as "nothing" in our universe. Never really was. "Pure vacuums" have been demonstrated to contain matter, and to exert outward pressure. Who knew? Science is filled with surprises. That is why part of what I said to was; "Or what they now believe that there was something there that the "Big Bang" came from?"

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/2/2017 4:04:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph Religious myths about the creation of the world are: religious myths, to explain something that needed to be explained. (But there is less need than once was, in the meantime more phenomena have been observed, facts have been gathered, theories have been tested.) Now you are getting into the ""God" only "exists" to explain the yet unexplained" reasoning. First, calling something a "myth" doesn't make it so and if God actually exists there is no need for him to depend of our understanding of the universe for his existence. quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph Whatever myth you choose to believe in whether a creation in six days with one day of rest, or by the churning of the ocean of milk, or by the hatching from the world egg - it is your personal choice. Yes, what a person believes is a personal choice but personal choice in a matter doesn't make it a myth. quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph This your belief, however, should neither include that everybody has to believe it the way you do, nor that everybody believes what you believe. If you think so, then it is your assumption only, based on nothing but your assumption. Unlike you, saying; "creationism as such is nonsense", I have not asked anyone to believe as I do, I have only defended my beliefs. quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph Your belief is no proof of anything. And certainly not a proof of "truth" ... But certainly you must agree that my belief doesn't disprove anything or make it untrue. quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph btw: Evading logic will not make it vanish. I'm not sure that you know what logic is, I don't believe anything I have said is illogical.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/2/2017 4:12:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The "inconvenient truth" is that it is facile to argue that belief in "something" is better than belief in nothing. It all depends on what that "something" is, and how that "something" is interpreted and put into practice by believers. It's a case by case thing, and it's riddled with unavoidable value judgements. Generalising it, as you have done, at best only muddies the waters. And yet you do it so well. The statement; "There's a long list of murderous ideologues who all believed in "something" when the entire world would have been far better off had they believed in nothing", is hardly a "case by case thing" is it. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle So I am afraid that, if your intention is to advance a persuasive argument, you are going to have to do a lot better than: 'It's better to believe in something than nothing'. Perhaps it might be, but then again perhaps it might not be. So it neither adds weight to your argument nor does it advance the discussion an iota. Oh okay, so, show me where the belief in nothing has advanced anything.

tweakabelle -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/2/2017 4:43:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle So I am afraid that, if your intention is to advance a persuasive argument, you are going to have to do a lot better than: 'It's better to believe in something than nothing'. Perhaps it might be, but then again perhaps it might not be. So it neither adds weight to your argument nor does it advance the discussion an iota. Oh okay, so, show me where the belief in nothing has advanced anything. If you want to argue that a belief in say, fascism/racism/ultra-nationalism/Wahhabism/Salafism is better than declining to believing in such evils, please be my guest. But unless and until you are prepared to argue those extremely dubious propositions, it would appear that not even you are persuaded by your own claim that it's better to believe in "something" rather than nothing. Whatever the case, unless you can post something intelligent that actually advances the discussion, I don't see any point in participating any further

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/2/2017 7:03:54 AM)
quote: So? Reasonable or not, "scientific" or not, as you say the "Big Bang" still suffers from the "First Cause Fallacy", which was the point I was making. The distinction is that the Big Bang is based on empirical evidence and measurement which leave an open ended possibility as and when new data comes in. Whereas Creationism(acknowledging your concerns about the word but you gave me no alternative) is derived from the thoughts and perceptions of desert wanderers circa ten centuries BCE, and in competition with other creation mythologies from other parts of the world. The original conjurers of Genesis are not likely to come back and provide us with new data, not that they had any to begin with. So, Genesis is at a dead end. But we do not yet know the end of the story of the Big Bang. Bottom line is that you are unable to defend your position without pivoting off Evolution of the Universe and Evolution of Life in the Universe. Both are continuing adventures at the moment. In trying to defend your position you are obliged to either criticize science or borrow from science. That is an intellectually dishonest endeavor and no longer worthy engaging. Until you stop depending on the "god of the gaps" or the "god who could also do that" your arguments are no longer interesting. I hope we meet again in a different thread. I am convinced you are a pleasant enough fellow but we have exhausted the topic here. Cya!!![:)]

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625