Ryedo40 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 ...I'm fairly sure that as yet, physicists have not been unable to establish whether or not creationism is flawed. Quite a few, if not all versions of creationism are flawed. 'For there to be a creator, the creator must have had a creator also.. and so on and so on. which presents us with an infinite regressive loop which couldn't possibly be the case, therefore, we have to accept that any creator must must have always existed without cause, which opens up another possibility. Or you could just accept that the universe exists entirely as a natural, and not yet fully understood phenomenon; one that doesn't require a creator(a god with intellectual faculties). Some physicists prefer to believe that there is no reason to invoke a creator if (before time and space existed)the universe just popped into existence out of nothing without cause, which implies that physicists believe that things which don't exist can pop into existence out of nothing, which opens up another possibility. If physicists believe that it is possible that things which don't exist can pop into existence out of nothing, we might as well assume that a creator popped into existence out of nothing... I'm not a physicist, but I have a difficult time imagining that something could exist before time and space(or outside of time and space). That aside, and from what I've read(and if I've understood correctly), physicists do - based on research - believe that virtual particles(or quantum vacuum fluctuations) pop in and out of existence all the time; and that the universe is the result of those fluctuations. What they don't see is a creator[a god with intellectual faculties] popping into existence and creating the universe. They also don't see fairies, demons, spirits, devils, jinns & other imaginative characters popping into existence to do their creative thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 You seem to think that you can't hold views on creationism unless you're a follower of the Bile and Koran. You make that same mistake by assuming we can't hold views on the universe unless we follow the physicists, you have to believe in a creator to assume it was created and a creator would have to have almost unlimited power and knowledge to create the universe, sounds like the definition of a God to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 But has it been proved that it was created by some spontaneous reaction, or is it just an hypothetical theory based on abstract mathematical structures of quantum physics? No it hasn't, the big bang if it happened, was just an event in already existing universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 That's not what Halibut said. He said that the fossil record discredits creationism, not the idea that the universe had a creator.Creationism is the idea that the universe has a creator isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 You seem to think that you can't hold views on creationism unless you're a follower of the Bile and Koran. What do you mean by bile? Was that just a spelling error,or a deliberate provocation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Why would it dispel or discredit? The "idea" is no more relevant than the idea that you are a God. Man has been convinced of a creator in some form or other, probably as long as he has existed. Are you saying that Neanderthal man based his knowledge on science..or could it be a natural human phenomena like fear?It stands to reason that the fossil record has discredited the argument of those who refuse to accept the evolutionary process. And I don't quite understand what you're asking when you refer to Neanderthal man's Knowledge being based on either science or fear. Neanderthal man's knowledge of what exactly? Posted by ronthenekred You seem to be advocating that any idea shouldn't be dismissed regarding the creation of the universe just because it's an idea alone. Do I? Well, I'm not quite sure why you would think, especially since I didn't say that. I said that the fossil record discredits those (and only those) who refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence of the evolutionary process. Which isn't the same as saying- "any ideas" regarding the creation of the universe shouldn't be dismissed, is it? I'm sure there are numerous ideas about the creation of the universe, but the fossil record doesn't discredit all of them, it only discredits the idea that the evolutionary process didn't take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 I haven't failed to mention that question, you've just invented it now. it means the same as having a belief that God exists, but since you phrased it as a double negative (complicating it for no reason) I'm not sure if the true opposite to your wording would be a) HAVING a belief that God doesn't exist (opposing the NOT having) or b) HAVING a belief that God DOES exist (opposing both the NOT having and the DOESN'T exist) .....semantically speaking. I don't know why you decided to mince your words like this but it's got me wondering on a purely pendantic level now about semantics in double negatives! I decided to "mince my words" as you say, because I feel that it's a relevant question to ask if we're to believe (which incidentally, I don't) that some people have never had a single conscious thought about the reason for the universe's existence. Posted by RootsBooster Still not seeing the relevance. Are you saying that you think a person has to have conscious thoughts about the reason for the universe's existence to qualify as an atheist? I'm saying that the likelihood of there being anyone that has never had a single conscious thought about the reason for the universe's existence is none existent. Obviously, there are people who do qualify by definition- such as babies for instance, but I'd prefer not to quibble with you over technicalities when it is plainly obvious that I was speaking exclusively about the consciousness mind and the human psyche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Yes you did, look... See? No, I don't see. I didn't use my analogy about driving to illustrate how "hypocrisy" works. I used it to illustrate how "faith" would be killed if we knew that God does exist. Look... This is what RootsBooster posted. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8492511&postcount=270 And this was my reply, the one that you have taken out of context. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8493559&postcount=349 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 No, I don't see. I didn't use my analogy about driving to illustrate how "hypocrisy" works. I used it to illustrate how "faith" would be killed if we knew that God does exist. Look... This is what RootsBooster posted. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8492511&postcount=270 And this was my reply, the one that you have taken out of context. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8493559&postcount=349 You appear to be very confused about your own posts. You were talking about hypocrisy, to which I replied about your OWN hypocrisy, to which you replied.... No that's not hypocritical. Put it this way- To give you an example I'll use the analogy that most drivers... (etc etc) How have I taken that out of context? You were talking about hypocrisy then tried to give an example which you are now claiming is an example of how "faith would be killed if we knew God existed". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 I don't really agree with the term 'created'. It implies there is a creator with intent. I see the universe as having no intention or purpose behind it. So, IMO, it hasn't been created.And most physicists would agree with you. Which makes me wonder why they have an interest in finding out how what caused it to pop into existence out of nowhere, without a cause, without a purpose, and without an intention. Seems a pointless exercise really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.