|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with both Creationism and Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: This is nothing but wordplay. I define the universe as having always existed. Does this definition change anything? I think not. The Tao is defined as having always existed, has it? ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Keep it in context. You argued that 'God, by DEFINITION....'so I argued by DEFINITION as well, and see what fit you had? quote: The PROBLEM is that there is no good evidence of the God of the Bible. If you want to blindly believe that god has always existed on faith- that's fine with me. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I object to you using an argument for your cause on one hand then changing the terms and using the SAME ARGUMENT against another claim. What don't you understand? A 'by definition' argument is nothing but 'cause I said so' ie. meaningless. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 1) Same argument could hold for God. 2) This is essentially Xeno's paradox, and it has been solved. It isn't actually paradoxical, it just plays one on TV. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: And it rests on the same wierd properties of infinity as Xeno's paradoxes.
quote: So yeah, it is what we are talking about. But since you have given a more detailed formulation...
quote: Quantum theory suggest that this is not the case. Strike one.
quote: This is a conclusion based upon an incorrect formulation of a reductio ad absurdam argument. It is fallacious. Strike two.
quote: Same as before. Incorrect reductio ad absurdam. Strike three.
quote: Wait a minute. Wasn't this premise one? Strike three, again. The whole thing revolves around the wierd mathematical properties of infinity, and the incorrect inference that "if it doesn't make sense then it is fallacious"
quote: Prior to the big bang, if such can be at all, is effectively outside of time. Causality as we know it doesn't apply.
quote: How can God exist before time when there was no "before" before time existed? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 08-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
You are going to have to back up some of your physics. For example...
quote: This isn't an accurate portrayal of quantum theory. It isn't about observability. Quantum theory is the idea the energy comes in chunks-- quanta, hence the name. The universe is bumpy in QM. This doesn't mesh with general relativity, which implies a smooth universe. Me thinks it is you who has your physics confused. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Not necessarily. Causality breaks down at a singularity. Cause and effect no longer apply. None of our physics and mathematics work at a singularity, so it is very hard to tell what must have happened.
quote: Same problem as above really. No one quite knows what happens at a singularity. Also note that 'no time' is not the same as 'time stopped' just as 'no water in the river' is not the same as 'the water in the river stopped flowing.'
quote: You are just making up something to fill in a blank in knowledge. There is no support for any of this. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: No. Logic breaks at a singularity as well, as it is nothing but a method for analyzing causal relationships. No causality, no logic.
quote: This may be your conclusion, but it isn't logical.
quote: I already did.
quote: Current physics and mathematics cannot help. What future discoveries will unravel remains to be seen. A lot of people are working on the problem, and there are some interesting theories though none of them are yet verifiable.
quote: To claim that there can be no support for a theory means that you know the future. Is this your claim?
quote: A thousand things fit the evidence, because there is so little evidence. Essentially, anything that ends in '... and that is what caused the universe' fits the evidence, but that is a far cry from having a sufficiently supported position.
quote: Do you now?
quote: And you choose instead an undefined un-natural cause lacking proof or even evidence? That makes little sense.
quote: Oh... you can through, but you are missing. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Good. Lets make a note of that.
quote: 1) This is irrelevant. Bad logic is bad logic. It doesn't matter whether another position contains bad logic as well. 2) It is also a fallacy-- tu quoque. Congrats!
News Wire » Internet Infidels 3) It is also just wrong. That there is no current solutions does not imply that there cannot be a solution. You might notice, by the way, that there are no conclusions within science on this issue. There are proposals only, as yet. It is a tough nut.
quote: How so? You just conceded the point. Remember that note we made at the top?
quote: The validity of an argument depends upon its own internal structure, not upon a comparison with other arguments. Besides, just for kicks, if a friend said that 2+2=6 and you said 2+2=8, would you be proud that your argument is 'just as valid'?
quote: I hope you mean that. But here is a question for you, right now you are chasing a theory that has no evidence at all, why not chase a theory that actually has a we bit of support even if just mathematical?
quote: No. You are misreading. I did not say that nothing can work. I said nothing works-- none of the physics and math we have function at a singularity. This does not mean that no physics or math will ever be able to handle the problem. Hawking avoids the problem altogether with his 'no boundary' idea. He essentially redefines the geometry of the universe and hence the singularity at its beginning.
quote: No. I told you that there is no sufficiently supported position. Please try to keep this straight.
quote: There isn't a sufficiently supported position at the moment. This is not a prediction of the future. There are some very interesting ideas, some of which have scraps of evidence. One hopes there will be a breakthrough eventually.
quote: It isn't sarcasm. This unnamed evidence was proposed as support for your tendency to ascribe creation to God.
quote: Yet that evidence still remains unnamed.
quote: No. If God did not do it, there will never be any evidence to that effect. If you don't do something, you don't leave evidence. I'll believe God did it when I see evidence that he did, not lack of evidence that he didn't. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024