danot Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 creationism The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. God is defined in the bible which is the biblical account and that God is imposible so didn't creat anything. Would you class pantheists as creationists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 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. 1) Rephrasing one of my statements as a double negative that means the same thing does not make the question relevant. It's just mincing words that have already been said. 2)Who has suggested that some people (past infancy) have never had a single conscious thought about the "reason for the universe's existence" I certainly haven't. 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. Again, just who do think think has suggested nobody has had a conscious thought about it? Your posts seem terribly self-confused and have broken/erratic continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 I thought it was you using the unknown phenomena idea for the creation of the universe. As an atheist I certainly don't subscribe to that idea.Should I have said- "The hypothetical spontaneous causeless phenomena that atheists do subscribe to"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Should I have said- "The hypothetical spontaneous causeless phenomena that atheists do subscribe to"? Which phenomena are you talking about? I keep asking you. Do you understand what a phenomena is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 You're doing it again. When did I claim any of this? You appear to be VERY confused about who has said what. Also, what is are you referring to by "unkown phenomena" ? I'm referring to the unknown phenomena that caused the completely random quantum fluctuations to spontaneously pop into existence. If the universe did spontaneously pop into existence due to random quantum fluctuations; which are themselves a manifestation of natural law according to physicists, i.e. The laws of quantum mechanics, why do physicists also claim that quantum fluctuations are the cause of natural law? They can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Would you class pantheists as creationists? creationism the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. pantheism a doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God. No they are different but based on what you have told us about your belief; I would say you are a pantheist because you have stated that you don’t believe in the biblical God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Should I have said- "The hypothetical spontaneous causeless phenomena that atheists do subscribe to"? What’s that then because I don't subscribe to anything that comes close to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I'm referring to the unknown phenomena that caused the completely random quantum fluctuations to spontaneously pop into existence. If the universe did spontaneously pop into existence due to random quantum fluctuations; which are themselves a manifestation of natural law according to physicists, i.e. The laws of quantum mechanics, why do physicists also claim that quantum fluctuations are the cause of natural law? They can't have it both ways. You would have to ask the physics because as far as I know the universe didn’t spontaneously pop into existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Yes it conforms to everything we know and can prove, everything else is speculation, myth, or theory. When you say "we know" and "we can prove", I assume that you actually mean 'the logical argument and scientific theories with which you 'concur'? If no, could you provide me with evidence of the proof you're speaking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 In post #422 I say that you've not replied to a question in an earlier post, which you hadn't. Later, in post #443 you then post a reply, which I then responded to in #449. Now, in post #490 you re-quote my question, and re-quote your reply and announce "yes I did". I think perhaps you should take janie48's advice. I answered it twice?... must have been a cracking question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.