This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#161  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 02, 2017 10:15 am

DavidMcC wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter. Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him. :dunno:


The former definition of 'why' ("what was the cause?") was addressed in my post. It is functionally equivalent to asking "how did" which reflects a need for certainty which, absent a time machine, cannot be achieved for events in the deep past.

It also fundamentally assumes that there is a cause for everything lest the question lead to infinite regression halted only by the assertion that there must have been a First Cause (so beloved by creationists).

Nonsense. The use of the word does not assume that there is an answer, only a question (that may or may not have an answer).

To ask a question is to assume it is a valid question, i.e. it has an answer.
In other words, to ask why the universe exists (in the motivation sense), is to assume there must be a motivation or purpose to the existence of the universe.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27634
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#162  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 02, 2017 10:23 am

DavidMcC wrote:Thomas, In demonstrated it on pages 6 and 7 of the LQG thread, years ago, OK. You obviously didn't bother to read it, in spite of the many occasions that I have linked to it.
(Late edit for spelling)

Please link to or quote the relevant posts that demonstrate:
1. That
it is scientificlly absurd to argue that it always existed (a mistake that some astronomers continue to turn a blind eye to, perhaps because they mistakenly think that it would involve a god to be otherwise).


2. That
my cosmology over others, because they fail to make sense of any of the experimental evidence about the universe. The stand-alone universe simply can't be correct - it's an irrational model.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27634
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#163  Postby Just A Theory » Sep 04, 2017 12:24 am

DavidMcC wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter. Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him. :dunno:


The former definition of 'why' ("what was the cause?") was addressed in my post. It is functionally equivalent to asking "how did" which reflects a need for certainty which, absent a time machine, cannot be achieved for events in the deep past.

It also fundamentally assumes that there is a cause for everything lest the question lead to infinite regression halted only by the assertion that there must have been a First Cause (so beloved by creationists).

Nonsense. The use of the word does not assume that there is an answer, only a question (that may or may not have an answer).
At some point it's OK to say "I don't know" or "We don't know yet". In scientific circles, this is seen as a virtue and a spur for further research. In creationist circles, those statements are an increasingly small place within which to shoehorn their god.

Obviously, the universe isn't "for" anything. However, it is scientificlly absurd to argue that it always existed (a mistake that some astronomers continue to turn a blind eye to, perhaps because they mistakenly think that it would involve a god to be otherwise).


I heartily recommend you read the book "The Arrow of Time" by Sean Carroll which addresses precisely the statement that you have made above. In the book, a possible solution is to examine the postulated heat death of the universe which bears striking similarities to a vast Boltzmann gas. Given sufficient time, an ideal gas can assume highly implausible configurations and a static, unchanging universe certainly has that time. That is, the universe we observe could possibly be a statistical aberration in an otherwise unchanging low energy state.

Worth a thought anyway.

Others think that it was a case of something from nothing when it was created in a "big bang", which is equally absurd. This is why I prefer my own cosmology, in which the "big bang" was from the collapse of a massive body (almost certainly one of many) within the "mother universe" (itself formed in a "very big bang", but directly from the proposed hyperspace continuum, under the law of quatum gravity.
The reason our own universe cannot have formed that way is the lack of synmetry in the laws of physics, as well as various other factors, discussed in the LQG thread (pp 6 & 7).


You are, of course, welcome to propose any cosmology you prefer. There's at least as little evidence for yours as there is for any others :)

(Already dealt with, in post #159.)


If you aren't going to engage, why post?
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1282
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#164  Postby Zadocfish2 » Sep 05, 2017 7:35 pm

DavidMcC wrote:Thomas, In demonstrated it on pages 6 and 7 of the LQG thread, years ago, OK. You obviously didn't bother to read it, in spite of the many occasions that I have linked to it.
(Late edit for spelling)


Um... Instead of responding to a point, or even posting a link to the relevant thread, you're just... mentioning that you once did post links to a possibly-relevant thread?

(Already dealt with, in post #159.)


You just made a reference to a reference you made to another thread, in which a possibly-relevant argument was made years ago. As an argument.

Sorry, that... really doesn't do your point any favors. Actually, I think it can be called an "alleged point" now... there's two degrees of separation from the actual argument you may or may not be trying to make...
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 26
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#165  Postby quas » Jan 26, 2018 7:23 pm

Matt_B wrote:It has to be said that evolution would be doing a heck of a better job if it wasn't possible for creationists to reproduce. ;)


Because an evolutionist and a creationist couldn't possibly reproduce*, therefore evolution is false.

Check mate.

* Someone that smart couldn't possibly make babies with someone that stupid.
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem
those who think alike than those who think differently. -Nietzsche
User avatar
quas
 
Posts: 2490

Print view this post

Previous

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest