General > Off Topic
Two arguments that give the creationists the upper hand.
Testlund:
Well, there we have a dead end at the moment. God might have started out as something very simple. Like some instability of the endless void. Maybe God is dark matter, or maybe God is all the photons in the universe. I think the way to approach the problem is to try to define what God could be. What would be the most logical, and then trying to see how such a being could have formed. To just believe in the bible or saying there can't be a God is blocking ones mind from learning the truth. I haven't done much research on the cosmological constant (I'm afraid it's too much math for me) but if the creationists haven't missunderstood it completely, then they have the upper hand on that argument at least, that universe as we know it isn't possible without a creator because of the tiny chance for anything to exist and for physical laws to work.
So if God is outside of matter then he doesn't require a cosmological constant to exist, and might be something much simpler, with a mind. The mind and spirit may not be of matter either but an eternal force outside of it. Actually brain scientists haven't managed to find where the mind and awareness is located in the brain. It's just a bunch of cells sending electrical impulses. Maybe there's a soul in there holding it all together. :-)
EricL:
Testlund, your committing the classic error of assuming your conclusion. Your bascially saying "There is a god and I will grasp at straws and enguage in wild speculation no matter how non-senscial in order to weave a tortured path to justify it" instead of looking at the evidence and drawing your conclusions based on that.
So much of what you say above is not only inaccurate and flawed logically, but does not even make sense. What does it mean for something to be "outside of matter" or "all photons"? Your basically spouting psuedo-science techno babble that pretends to say something but in reality is content free.
If you can't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bullshit.
Testlund:
Then give me a better explanation! We're at the limit of our understanding about the universe here. I base my ideas on both theories and facts. Where the facts ends I try to find theories that makes most sense, and then I'm hoping those theories will either be proven wrong or right in the future. I'm open for both! It's just that right now I think that the existence of some kind of god is plausible.
You're welcome to bring some brilliance about how everything came to be which scientists agrees defies the laws of physics, because there are no physical laws before the big bang. Something must have existed outside of physical laws and matter that triggered all this.
To say it's impossible for a god to cause the existence of universe is equal bullshit to me. There's nothing wrong with theories as long as you don't force people to believe in them. I'm just giving you my point of view because I find this interesting to discuss.
EricL:
--- Quote from: Testlund ---Then give me a better explanation! We're at the limit of our understanding about the universe here. I base my ideas on both theories and facts. Where the facts ends I try to find theories that makes most sense, and then I'm hoping those theories will either be proven wrong or right in the future. I'm open for both!
--- End quote ---
I'm with you, but an explanation for what exactly? As I point out in the other thread, figuring out what questions to ask is much of the battle. Even determining whether a question is well formed can be really hard. A thousand years ago, asking what made the sun come up in the morning and go down every night was thought to be a well-formed question. Everyone assumed the sun went around the earth. Today that question (taken literally) does not make sense. It is not well formed. The sun does not come up and go down. The earth rotates. But people 1000 years ago did not know enough to ask the right question or to realize that the question they were asking was not well formed.
We are likely in a similar situation today with respect to the kinds of questions you seek answers to. Questions such as "what caused the Big Bang" or "why is PI 3.14159...?" may not be well formed questions.
--- Quote from: Testlund ---It's just that right now I think that the existence of some kind of god is plausible.
--- End quote ---
Plausable? I'll conceed that. Probable? No. Supportted by evidence? No. Necessary to postulate in order to understand the universe? IMHO, No.
--- Quote from: Testlund ---You're welcome to bring some brilliance about how everything came to be which scientists agrees defies the laws of physics, because there are no physical laws before the big bang. Something must have existed outside of physical laws and matter that triggered all this.
--- End quote ---
As above, asking "what happened before the big bang" is not a well formed question. Time itself appears to have began with the Big Bang. There was no before. To refer to a before is as incorrect as to say the sun goes around the earth. Like quantum mechanics, this is really hard for humans to grasp because we did not evolve in an environment where such understanding had any bearing on reproductive success. We have no intuition to deal with quantum mechanics or the beginning of time or to grasp that time could have had a beginning. The good news is that humans can learn, can shift their perspectives and learn to deal with the non-intuitive. It is still non-intuitive that the earth rotates, but only the uneducated or deluded would hold to the position that the sun goes aroudn the earth today. It is possible for us to overcome our intuitions through intellect and education.
--- Quote from: Testlund ---To say it's impossible for a god to cause the existence of universe is equal bullshit to me.
--- End quote ---
Note that I have not said it is impossible. It is possible. It is also possible that Peter Pan really exists and you really can get to Neverland by sprinkling yourself with pixy dust and heading towards the second star to the right until morning. An infinity of incredibly unlikly things are possible, but they are so highly unlikly and so very unsuportted by evidence as to not be worthy of discussion. The only reason that people give a supernatural being more credability that Peter Pan is historical (and perhaps a function of evolved benifit to doing so). People they trusted likely told them there was a god when they were little and forming those core neural formations. In many cases society rewards and reinforces this belief and punishes those who work against it, reinfocing the meme. Most people are plugged into the Matrix and they don't want to be unplugged and would prefer not even knowing they could be.
--- Quote from: Testlund ---There's nothing wrong with theories as long as you don't force people to believe in them.
--- End quote ---
I force no one to beleive in anything. But I do argue reasonably and with evidence for my position. If someone holds a position different from mine, I would expect no less from them. If their evidence and reasoning is superior, I will willing change my position. Holding a position isn't free. If your going to claim knowledge, then you must either defend it in the face of contradictory evidence or change your position. To not do so is irrational.
--- Quote from: Testlund ---I'm just giving you my point of view because I find this interesting to discuss.
--- End quote ---
As am I. As do I.
Moonfisher:
I think the best creationism theory is the Simulation Theory, that we're just a very complex Life game... DB3K
The rest that I know of are just too far out for me
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version