Atheists: Alternatives to Creation?

[skinfan133]

its funny, we seem to be able to hold inteligent debate (the active debaters of this topic) but all around the site it seems more evident than ever that the art of inteligent debate has been lost, no one makes points any more; they just insult each other never giving reasons for disagreeing. and the best form of debate is insulting someone without actually doing it:D

[dfitzo53]

its funny, we seem to be able to hold inteligent debate (the active debaters of this topic) but all around the site it seems more evident than ever that the art of inteligent debate has been lost, no one makes points any more; they just insult each other never giving reasons for disagreeing. and the best form of debate is insulting someone without actually doing it:D

Does that make us the master debaters?

[iheartskins]

And thus the loophole which keeps this argument going and going and going and going is presented;

Creationists: the universe cannot have come from nothing, it had to have been created.

Scientists: Well then what about god? What created god?

Creationists: ....God was not created. He just was.

Scientists: But then why can't the universe follow that same rationale?

Creationists: ...because that doesn't fit in with our views of god, so we reject that hypothesis.

That's not exactly a fair or accurare portrayal.

Creationists would say that the universe did come from nothing, and that G-d created it. And that G-d has been here all along. Thus, your whole portrayal of that discussion is unfair--further, the rigidity with which the scientists (or you as the case might be) hold on to the 'science is right, G-d is wrong' argument is not that much different from the rigid 'science is wrong, G-d is right.'

Further, have you considered those scientists who beleive in creationism? There are many--and they aren't the random fringe psychos. See the book above for a list.

[Ancalagon the Black]

LMAO!!

My wife is a third grade teacher who teaches science.

She just asked me if she should stop teaching gravity to her kids. She is on Newton as we speak.

:laugh: :laugh: :notworthy

In physics class in high school, right at the beginning the teacher informed us of the relativistic constant that Einstein used to modify many Newtonian laws. He then told us to ignore it, since Newton works well enough for "the real world."

But every time he wrote down an equation after that, we hassled him: "What about the relativistic constant?"

If I had been the teacher, I woulda killed us.

[iheartskins]

don't forget that there are many who follow both science and religion. In fact, the man who first propsed the big-bang theory was a Jesuit priest...

As was Newton, as was Capernicus...

[portisizzle]

And thus the loophole which keeps this argument going and going and going and going is presented;

Creationists: the universe cannot have come from nothing, it had to have been created.

Scientists: Well then what about god? What created god?

Creationists: ....God was not created. He just was.

Scientists: But then why can't the universe follow that same rationale?

Creationists: ...because that doesn't fit in with our views of god, so we reject that hypothesis.

Rock,

This is my point. This all comes down to infinity as the explaination. But is doesn't make logical sense. (OK it doesn't make logical sense to me.)

HOF didn't own me. HOF made the best argument that could be made to my logic. I gave the man my honest answer.

I do not buy that GOD has always been. So it is fair game to ask me who created GOD or how long has GOD existed.

That being said we are all asking these questions based on flawed logic that ultimately directs us to infinity.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Creationists would say that the universe did come from nothing, and that G-d created it.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe the argument to be "the universe did NOT come from nothing: God created it, and God is Something."

[portisizzle]

Exactly...I believe most credible scientists, if presented with irrefutable proof of God's existence, would agree (after their own testing, of course) that God does in fact exist.

And also, don't forget that there are many who follow both science and religion. In fact, the man who first propsed the big-bang theory was a Jesuit priest...

I'm thinking that scientists might actually want to discover creationism. So why does the community need to be presented irrefutable proof? Why not go seek this out on their own?

You could say seeking the Big Bang theory is an attempt to explain the beginning as a singlularity. The catch seems to be to accept a singlularity you must accept that their was a beginning. Therefor science has gone on a hunt for 10, no 12 universes that never had a beginning.

Dr. Sizzy has spoken. :notworthy

[PokerPacker]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe the argument to be "the universe did NOT come from nothing: God created it, and God is Something."

i thought that maybe the arguement is that: a*0=0 ,unless a=god

[iheartskins]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe the argument to be "the universe did NOT come from nothing: God created it, and God is Something."

I guess it really depends on whether you seperate G-d from creation to the extent that His (and I'm going to adopt the male convention/pronoun for this discussion) existence and/or being is separate from any creation--and that there was a void upon which G-d looked. For me, the concept of G-d as separate from "something" and from the creation is implicit in my understanding of the "coming from nothing" concept as understood in certain branches of creationism.

But it's very possible that my understanding is incorrect.

[portisizzle]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe the argument to be "the universe did NOT come from nothing: God created it, and God is Something."

My argument stops at nothing......

The universe did not come from nothing.

[HOF44]

Man this thread blew up while i was at dinner.

portisizzle you know your my man we have been around the barn before and came away with respect.

jrock, appreciate the support, but in light of the tailgate environ lately gotta leave the owned stuff out. Like someone said it doesn;t do anything to move the discussion in a positive way.

Sorry guys if I drone on about M-Theory, but its promise really does excite me. Could parts of it need to be refined or rethought, after some experiments become possible I'd be surpsrised if changes to it didn't occur.

Here is some info on sting theory and gravity.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html

In String Theory, the myriad of particle types is replaced by a single fundamental building block, a `string'. These strings can be closed, like loops, or open, like a hair. As the string moves through time it traces out a tube or a sheet, according to whether it is closed or open. Furthermore, the string is free to vibrate, and different vibrational modes of the string represent the different particle types, since different modes are seen as different masses or spins.

One mode of vibration, or `note', makes the string appear as an electron, another as a photon. There is even a mode describing the graviton, the particle carrying the force of gravity, which is an important reason why String Theory has received so much attention. The point is that we can make sense of the interaction of two gravitons in String theory in a way we could not in QFT. There are no infinities! And gravity is not something we put in by hand. It has to be there in a theory of strings. So, the first great achievement of String Theory was to give a consistent theory of quantum gravity, which resembles GR at macroscopic distances. Moreover String Theory also possesses the necessary degrees of freedom to describe the other interactions! At this point a great hope was created that String Theory would be able to unify all the known forces and particles together into a single `Theory of Everything'.

I admit fully that this is untested mathmatics at this point just as relativity was whe developed by Einstein. I am very excited to see what the new supercolliders coming online show. They will allow scientist for the first time to test some of the mathmatical theories and see if things occur as predicted.

[portisizzle]

i thought that maybe the arguement is that: a*0=0 ,unless a=god

I also stop at a*0=0

[jrockster21]

That's not exactly a fair or accurare portrayal.

Creationists would say that the universe did come from nothing, and that G-d created it. And that G-d has been here all along. Thus, your whole portrayal of that discussion is unfair--further, the rigidity with which the scientists (or you as the case might be) hold on to the 'science is right, G-d is wrong' argument is not that much different from the rigid 'science is wrong, G-d is right.'

Further, have you considered those scientists who beleive in creationism? There are many--and they aren't the random fringe psychos. See the book above for a list.

Okay...but I think both sides tend to view their argument as the "more rational" of the two. One argument is based on faith and the other argument is based on the refusal to accept faith as a scientific argument. Is that a more accurate portrayal?

To a creationist, of course faith is enough...that is the basis of their entire religion. There is no proof of God, they simply believe that he exists...and that is enough for them.

The scientist (those who are athiest, mind you), however, must refute the idea of "God" simply because there is no proof. But that is the nature of science...nothing is believed until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But, science is not infallible just as religion is not infallible, all you have to do is look at previous scientific theories that were way off to see this (i.e. the sun orbits the earth, the earth is flat, etc...).

I guess that is what I was trying to get at with my previous post, I just maybe added to much of an athiestic tilt to it. Is this post a little clearer?

[PokerPacker]

portis, i really want you to explain to me how you can say that infinity is not real, when it appears in simple algebraic equasions? i would really like to hear what makes it so impossible

[jrockster21]

jrock, appreciate the support, but in light of the tailgate environ lately gotta leave the owned stuff out. Like someone said it doesn;t do anything to move the discussion in a positive way.

Already addressed, my man!

Fair enough...I'll refrain from using the "owned" post anymore!

[Ignatius J.]

HOF44,

these colliders won't test string theory at all. They can look for something called supersymmetry which is neccesary for string theory to make any sense at all, but they won't be able to test any predictions of string theory, let alone M-theory.

But more importantly, it doesn't address portis's problem.

My biggest problem with this thread is that it is a straw man thread. Scientists don't say god doesn't exist. At least not any scientist worth his salt. WE have no explanation for how the universe came into being and think that is really cool.

[jrockster21]

I'm thinking that scientists might actually want to discover creationism. So why does the community need to be presented irrefutable proof? Why not go seek this out on their own?

You could say seeking the Big Bang theory is an attempt to explain the beginning as a singlularity. The catch seems to be to accept a singlularity you must accept that their was a beginning. Therefor science has gone on a hunt for 10, no 12 universes that never had a beginning.

Dr. Sizzy has spoken. :notworthy

And I think this is the great divide...why can't there be a time t=0?? The beginning of everything?? Its a hard concept for even scientists to wrap their heads around, but I don't think its impossible...

Now whether or not t=0 was proceeded by some god-like figure who exists outside of time and pushed a button, well we may never know...and its probably impossible to know. :whoknows:

[portisizzle]

portis, i really want you to explain to me how you can say that infinity is not real, when it appears in simple algebraic equasions? i would really like to hear what makes it so impossible

It is pervasive throughout all my conversations on this subject.

Let's try this......

What is the circumference of a circle whos radius is 10?

Tell me what number you use for pi.

[portisizzle]

And I think this is the great divide...why can't there be a time t=0?? The beginning of everything?? Its a hard concept for even scientists to wrap their heads around, but I don't think its impossible...

Now whether or not t=0 was proceeded by some god-like figure who exists outside of time and pushed a button, well we may never know...and its probably impossible to know. :whoknows:

Because infinity doesn't allow this. If the beginning is T=0 then what does T = today?

[PokerPacker]

It is pervasive throughout all my conversations on this subject.

Let's try this......

What is the circumference of a circle whos radius is 10?

Tell me what number you use for pi.

don't try to dodge this question with more questions, tell my how infinity is impossible. your question proves nothing.

[HOF44]

HOF44,

these colliders won't test string theory at all. They can look for something called supersymmetry which is neccesary for string theory to make any sense at all

I stand corrected. But at at least if supersymmetry is found it will be a positive step for string theory.

[iheartskins]

Okay...but I think both sides tend to view their argument as the "more rational" of the two. One argument is based on faith and the other argument is based on the refusal to accept faith as a scientific argument. Is that a more accurate portrayal?

To a creationist, of course faith is enough...that is the basis of their entire religion. There is no proof of God, they simply believe that he exists...and that is enough for them.

The scientist (those who are athiest, mind you), however, must refute the idea of "God" simply because there is no proof. But that is the nature of science...nothing is believed until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But, science is not infallible just as religion is not infallible, all you have to do is look at previous scientific theories that were way off to see this (i.e. the sun orbits the earth, the earth is flat, etc...).

I guess that is what I was trying to get at with my previous post, I just maybe added to much of an athiestic tilt to it. Is this post a little clearer?

If you change the title from "creationist" to "creationist who doesn't believe in any science" and "scientist" to "athiest (and/or agnostic) but are interested in science" then I think your portrayal is right.

[Ignatius J.]

What is the circumference of a circle whos radius is 10?

Tell me what number you use for pi.

20 Pi ? :paranoid:

Your desire to perform science without calculus is admirable, but there's a reason newton invented/stole calculus to do physics.

[dfitzo53]

It is pervasive throughout all my conversations on this subject.

Let's try this......

What is the circumference of a circle whos radius is 10?

Tell me what number you use for pi.

Since I'm doing this in my head, I'm going to make things simple, and approximate pi as 3.14.

EDIT: The circumference is 62.8.