Skunks on Noah's Ark.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2015, 11:53 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 11:19 AM)Valaista Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 10:15 AM)julep Wrote:  Glad I was able to amuse you. You're the one who claimed that all revolutionary ideas sound stupid (I don't agree with that generalization); I simply pointed out that stupid ideas also sound stupid.

Given that I'm not a scientist, I don't evaluate scientific theory. However, if I did want to do that, I could take classes and read books and do enough math so that I could. That's why I trust scientific theory more than religious theories about how the universe works. Given the time and equipment, I can verify for myself.

I don't and did not call the idea of a creator stupid, but it is a religious claim and not a scientific one. I don't take a stand one way or the other on whether there is a creator. My best guess is no, but I understand that that position is an axiom that I have chosen to hold as true, not an objective truth.

How do I differentiate an idea that sounds stupid from an idea that is stupid? If interested enough, through education in the subject, research, and testing. The idea of a creator as a first cause is meaningless to me, as such a being has no effect on how I would choose to live or my understanding of the universe. The idea of a personal creator such as the god of the Abrahamic religions I find highly implausible (and pretty stupid), but if that god exists, I would not worship it because of its immorality--my analysis there is ethical, of course, and not scientific. I'm comfortable with my conclusions even though their absolute truth/certainty is not established.

(1) When I said all revolutionary ideas sound stupid I meant it in a positive light as anyone could clearly tell from the context in which I wrote it in.

(2) The concept that the universe has a purpose is not solely religious. It just so happens that almost all religions past and present agree that we are here for a purpose. I've watched a lot of well known atheists on YouTube. To be honest, they have some really interesting and truthful things to say. The main objection I find with their perspective is not their critique on religion, but rather it is how they mix God with religion. They look at the irrationality of organized religion, and therefore claim that belief in God is irrational. Most scientists are spiritual or at least agnostic. And there is a difference between atheism and being an agnostic. However, people fling to atheism due to their own contentment for being a conformist. And the cultural/historical baggage of organized religion. Examples would be the genocide of the Native Americans, the colonization of Africa, and the crusades as radical Christianity. The 9/11 attacks, the insanity of ISIL, beheadings, subjection of women, and xenophobia as examples of radical Islam. Examples can be made from any religion or political ideology, or even atheism (Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin). The fact is that there is no such thing as radical Christianity or radical Islam, just false and perverted interpretations of true Christianity or true Islam. Organized religions and spiritual beliefs are simply different perspectives and interpretations of a “Designer” Regardless of what religion someone believes, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í Faith, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Slavic neopaganism, Celtic polytheism, Wicca, Roman Mythology, or maybe we live in the matrix lol, what’s important is that it is logical and scientifically likely (Sommerfeld's constant) for there to be a designer/creator. And that is what atheist’s absolutely hate to argue. Because it is in science that god’s existence can be realized. For the purpose of this thread, when I say god, I mean an ambiguous creator, as a form of protective coloration, that can be perceived and applied to any religious and or scientific idea. This, in turn, will suggest a logical concept in which God created the universe, set it in motion, controlled, after writing natural law and possibly retired from the scene. God transcends the personal/impersonal duality and moves beyond such human terms. Also, this means that it makes no sense to state that God intervenes or does not intervene, as that is a human characteristic which God does not contain. This in essence is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of those who pervert the purpose of organized religions for their own deviance, and the rejection of the arrogance of atheists.

(3)What's more important to you, truth or Happiness?

(4) You seem smart enough to know that the only answer that atheists have to the fact that 1/137.036 is the value of the fine-structure constant, is the idea of a multiverse. QUESTION: I know your not a scientist but do you "trust" the idea of a multiverse as scientific claim?

1) When you give a great straight line, I'm going to take advantage.
2) Defining a first cause of the universe does not inexorably give the universe or human life a purpose. I agree that a god with human characteristics is irrational. To me, a creator giving "purpose" to the universe is also a rather anthropomorphic notion. I don't accept or deny the watchmaker concept, as the pragmatic usefulness is nil for me and the truth has not been established. Scientists' feels about a creator god's existence are still feels, like everybody else's.
3) Happiness. I know I can be happy. I know I can't know capital-t Truth. Little-t truths make me happy, though.
4) I think that scientists will be able eventually to verify, refine, or discredit the idea of a multiverse. I have no opinion on that concept other than to think it's interesting and to hope that one day some great piece of technology will grow out of explorations of that idea, or that some great piece of music or literature will come out of that idea to make my life richer and more interesting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 11:55 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 11:39 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 11:19 AM)Valaista Wrote:  (3)What's more important to you, truth or Happiness?

See my tagline, above. It's Latin for, "Do not give me comfort, but truth!"

As to your little speech about "atheist arrogance", go fuck yourself. We're sick to death of hearing that shit from arrogant little fucks who think they know something about the universe because they read a conspiracy website about amoral atheist scientists wanting us all to go communist, or whatever nonsense it is this week. The sheer, astounding arrogance it takes to claim that a top-level cosmologist like Hawking "wants us to believe" anything, especially in suggesting in a paranoid fashion that knowledge attained from scientists is questionable because you don't like the implications, is the type of dumbfuckery we don't treat nicely around here.

If you have better information, PROVE IT. Not to us... go publish your paper disproving the quantum models of Hawking et al, and collect your Nobel in Physics.

Am I comfortable with the Multiverse model? Yeah, I am. As comfortable as Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, and all the other proponents of M-theory. Could it be wrong? Yep! Am I comfortable with that? Yeah, I am.

What I am not comfortable with is leaping to definite conclusions based on my own prejudices/hopes and incomplete information. You call us "arrogant", despite arrogantly claiming you have some special insight into the deeper nature of the universe beyond what the physicists can apprehend, while we have no equivalent claim. So fuck you, if all you're here to do is call us names with baseless accusations.

I'm so sick of that shit.

Typical atheist temper tantrum!! Anger is often used as a strategy to cause people to conform to his or her wishes or to essentially control them. When this is the case, the anger tends to be directed at people who are seen as "subordinate" or appropriate to control. Obviously I don't know you or know everything about your emotional need to rebel, but it sounds like this may be what's happening.
But anyway, watch this and then tell me what you think about the Multiverse theory!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHMAfofFCN8
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 12:34 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 11:53 AM)julep Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 11:19 AM)Valaista Wrote:  (1) When I said all revolutionary ideas sound stupid I meant it in a positive light as anyone could clearly tell from the context in which I wrote it in.

(2) The concept that the universe has a purpose is not solely religious. It just so happens that almost all religions past and present agree that we are here for a purpose. I've watched a lot of well known atheists on YouTube. To be honest, they have some really interesting and truthful things to say. The main objection I find with their perspective is not their critique on religion, but rather it is how they mix God with religion. They look at the irrationality of organized religion, and therefore claim that belief in God is irrational. Most scientists are spiritual or at least agnostic. And there is a difference between atheism and being an agnostic. However, people fling to atheism due to their own contentment for being a conformist. And the cultural/historical baggage of organized religion. Examples would be the genocide of the Native Americans, the colonization of Africa, and the crusades as radical Christianity. The 9/11 attacks, the insanity of ISIL, beheadings, subjection of women, and xenophobia as examples of radical Islam. Examples can be made from any religion or political ideology, or even atheism (Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin). The fact is that there is no such thing as radical Christianity or radical Islam, just false and perverted interpretations of true Christianity or true Islam. Organized religions and spiritual beliefs are simply different perspectives and interpretations of a “Designer” Regardless of what religion someone believes, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í Faith, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Slavic neopaganism, Celtic polytheism, Wicca, Roman Mythology, or maybe we live in the matrix lol, what’s important is that it is logical and scientifically likely (Sommerfeld's constant) for there to be a designer/creator. And that is what atheist’s absolutely hate to argue. Because it is in science that god’s existence can be realized. For the purpose of this thread, when I say god, I mean an ambiguous creator, as a form of protective coloration, that can be perceived and applied to any religious and or scientific idea. This, in turn, will suggest a logical concept in which God created the universe, set it in motion, controlled, after writing natural law and possibly retired from the scene. God transcends the personal/impersonal duality and moves beyond such human terms. Also, this means that it makes no sense to state that God intervenes or does not intervene, as that is a human characteristic which God does not contain. This in essence is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of those who pervert the purpose of organized religions for their own deviance, and the rejection of the arrogance of atheists.

(3)What's more important to you, truth or Happiness?

(4) You seem smart enough to know that the only answer that atheists have to the fact that 1/137.036 is the value of the fine-structure constant, is the idea of a multiverse. QUESTION: I know your not a scientist but do you "trust" the idea of a multiverse as scientific claim?

1) When you give a great straight line, I'm going to take advantage.
2) Defining a first cause of the universe does not inexorably give the universe or human life a purpose. I agree that a god with human characteristics is irrational. To me, a creator giving "purpose" to the universe is also a rather anthropomorphic notion. I don't accept or deny the watchmaker concept, as the pragmatic usefulness is nil for me and the truth has not been established. Scientists' feels about a creator god's existence are still feels, like everybody else's.
3) Happiness. I know I can be happy. I know I can't know capital-t Truth. Little-t truths make me happy, though.
4) I think that scientists will be able eventually to verify, refine, or discredit the idea of a multiverse. I have no opinion on that concept other than to think it's interesting and to hope that one day some great piece of technology will grow out of explorations of that idea, or that some great piece of music or literature will come out of that idea to make my life richer and more interesting.

(1) There was nothing to take "advantage" of, as it was clear what the context was. Lol you actually think its cool to purposely misconstrue a statement that had an absolute transparency with regards to its meaning?

(2) It does give a purpose. Name one thing in the known universe that has absolutely no purpose? And you say anthropomorphic notion because you are human, and naturally our comprehension can go so far.

(3), QUESTION: why do you give more legitimacy to the multiverse theory and not and not the concept of a creator? You say intelligent design cant be tested? Ok! How is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is a bigger leap of faith than invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires a bigger leap of faith.

(4) You say you want happiness more than truth! Ok, that's a choice. But how can happiness be influenced by things we don't have, were never going to have, and wouldn't have missed, if the thought hadn't occurred? Ignorance is Bliss huh lol?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 12:44 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 11:55 AM)Valaista Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 11:39 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  See my tagline, above. It's Latin for, "Do not give me comfort, but truth!"

As to your little speech about "atheist arrogance", go fuck yourself. We're sick to death of hearing that shit from arrogant little fucks who think they know something about the universe because they read a conspiracy website about amoral atheist scientists wanting us all to go communist, or whatever nonsense it is this week. The sheer, astounding arrogance it takes to claim that a top-level cosmologist like Hawking "wants us to believe" anything, especially in suggesting in a paranoid fashion that knowledge attained from scientists is questionable because you don't like the implications, is the type of dumbfuckery we don't treat nicely around here.

If you have better information, PROVE IT. Not to us... go publish your paper disproving the quantum models of Hawking et al, and collect your Nobel in Physics.

Am I comfortable with the Multiverse model? Yeah, I am. As comfortable as Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, and all the other proponents of M-theory. Could it be wrong? Yep! Am I comfortable with that? Yeah, I am.

What I am not comfortable with is leaping to definite conclusions based on my own prejudices/hopes and incomplete information. You call us "arrogant", despite arrogantly claiming you have some special insight into the deeper nature of the universe beyond what the physicists can apprehend, while we have no equivalent claim. So fuck you, if all you're here to do is call us names with baseless accusations.

I'm so sick of that shit.

Typical atheist temper tantrum!! Anger is often used as a strategy to cause people to conform to his or her wishes or to essentially control them. When this is the case, the anger tends to be directed at people who are seen as "subordinate" or appropriate to control. Obviously I don't know you or know everything about your emotional need to rebel, but it sounds like this may be what's happening.
But anyway, watch this and then tell me what you think about the Multiverse theory!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHMAfofFCN8

According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

Unfortunately, while Hawking's argument is being hailed as controversial and ground-breaking, it is hardly new. For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity. It is a simplistic approach, yet in our secular age it is one that seems to have resonance with a skeptical public. But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking's claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict. But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything; they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency! His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine. That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the damn thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own. Hence, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

Hawking’s idea of nothing isn't really nothing. It includes at least a law of gravity. So they are smuggling something into their idea of 'nothing.' They aren't really starting with nothing at all - with nothing nothing, as we might say. And this is cheating. Where did this law of gravity come from? They say that such a law must exist. No, it mustn't. Really mustn't. If there is nothing, there is nothing. including no scientific laws. And if there is nothing, that nothing cannot do something. It cannot create itself, or anything else. Philosophers have understood for centuries that nothing comes from nothing. Hawking and would like to reverse this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 12:34 PM)Valaista Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 11:53 AM)julep Wrote:  1) When you give a great straight line, I'm going to take advantage.
2) Defining a first cause of the universe does not inexorably give the universe or human life a purpose. I agree that a god with human characteristics is irrational. To me, a creator giving "purpose" to the universe is also a rather anthropomorphic notion. I don't accept or deny the watchmaker concept, as the pragmatic usefulness is nil for me and the truth has not been established. Scientists' feels about a creator god's existence are still feels, like everybody else's.
3) Happiness. I know I can be happy. I know I can't know capital-t Truth. Little-t truths make me happy, though.
4) I think that scientists will be able eventually to verify, refine, or discredit the idea of a multiverse. I have no opinion on that concept other than to think it's interesting and to hope that one day some great piece of technology will grow out of explorations of that idea, or that some great piece of music or literature will come out of that idea to make my life richer and more interesting.

(1) There was nothing to take "advantage" of, as it was clear what the context was. Lol you actually think its cool to purposely misconstrue a statement that had an absolute transparency with regards to its meaning?

(2) It does give a purpose. Name one thing in the known universe that has absolutely no purpose? And you say anthropomorphic notion because you are human, and naturally our comprehension can go so far.

(3), QUESTION: why do you give more legitimacy to the multiverse theory and not and not the concept of a creator? You say intelligent design cant be tested? Ok! How is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is a bigger leap of faith than invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires a bigger leap of faith.

(4) You say you want happiness more than truth! Ok, that's a choice. But how can happiness be influenced by things we don't have, were never going to have, and wouldn't have missed, if the thought hadn't occurred? Ignorance is Bliss huh lol?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHMAfofFCN8
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 01:09 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 12:34 PM)Valaista Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 11:53 AM)julep Wrote:  1) When you give a great straight line, I'm going to take advantage.
2) Defining a first cause of the universe does not inexorably give the universe or human life a purpose. I agree that a god with human characteristics is irrational. To me, a creator giving "purpose" to the universe is also a rather anthropomorphic notion. I don't accept or deny the watchmaker concept, as the pragmatic usefulness is nil for me and the truth has not been established. Scientists' feels about a creator god's existence are still feels, like everybody else's.
3) Happiness. I know I can be happy. I know I can't know capital-t Truth. Little-t truths make me happy, though.
4) I think that scientists will be able eventually to verify, refine, or discredit the idea of a multiverse. I have no opinion on that concept other than to think it's interesting and to hope that one day some great piece of technology will grow out of explorations of that idea, or that some great piece of music or literature will come out of that idea to make my life richer and more interesting.

(1) There was nothing to take "advantage" of, as it was clear what the context was. Lol you actually think its cool to purposely misconstrue a statement that had an absolute transparency with regards to its meaning?

(2) It does give a purpose. Name one thing in the known universe that has absolutely no purpose? And you say anthropomorphic notion because you are human, and naturally our comprehension can go so far.

(3), QUESTION: why do you give more legitimacy to the multiverse theory and not and not the concept of a creator? You say intelligent design cant be tested? Ok! How is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is a bigger leap of faith than invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires a bigger leap of faith.

(4) You say you want happiness more than truth! Ok, that's a choice. But how can happiness be influenced by things we don't have, were never going to have, and wouldn't have missed, if the thought hadn't occurred? Ignorance is Bliss huh lol?


2. (aren't numbered lists fun!) "Purpose" is a mental construct by human beings. I don't agree that anything has a purpose in the grand cosmic sense.

3. If scientists eventually prove there was a creator, I'll be fascinated to learn why so much of the universe seems to have been designed rather unintelligently… But again, this kind of god existing has no practical use or implications for me. I have no objection to scientists trying to figure out if there's a creator. Now if some great technology application comes out of that finding--like a Tabletop Universe set where You Get to Play God--I'd put that on my birthday present wish list. Not on my wish list: people telling me what I think instead of asking me what I think, as you seem to be doing.

4. Meh--I'm okay with the happiness I have, even though in theory there might be different or better kinds of happiness. I like knowledge and information, too. Big-T Truth, not so much, I'm okay with people who think they have that considering me ignorant of it.

1. People without a sense of humor can have a difficult time on this forum. I see you're already feeling the strain…you've just thrown a typical theist temper tantrum.

Good luck with your interactions here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes julep's post
26-10-2015, 01:14 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 08:56 AM)Valaista Wrote:  Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number”

[Image: skeptical-sm_zps59fc1324.png]

No, I wouldn't say that.


(26-10-2015 08:56 AM)Valaista Wrote:  “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” 1 John 1.5 (King James Bible)
The Number 137 is well-known throughout the physics community as the approximate inverse of the Fine Structure constant. It even has a name - alpha - which seems to be a supernatural coincidence given the context in which this number appears - John 1.1-5 - and the numerous highly significant identities associated with the Greek word Alpha.
The history and precise value of alpha can be found on the U.S. Government's National Institute of Standards and Technology site. The current value reported from NIST is:
alpha = 7.297352533 x 10-3
+/- 0.000000027 x 10-3 alpha-1 = 137.0359997
+/- 0.0000006
The value of alpha is extremely well established, with an uncertainty of about 2.7 x 10-11 - i.e. about three parts in 100 billion. It appears in Quantum Electrodynamics (aka QED) as the probability of interaction between Light and Matter. It has been the subject of intense study - many of the best physicists have felt that there must be some connection between alpha and the underlying structure of the Universe.

Are you trying to say that God set this all up because the Bible vaguely talked about the same topic? The same Bible that says pi = 3? It's probably best to chalk that up to a coincidence.



I note that your response in no way responded to what I said, despite you quoting me...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
26-10-2015, 01:31 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 11:55 AM)Valaista Wrote:  Typical atheist temper tantrum!! Anger is often used as a strategy to cause people to conform to his or her wishes or to essentially control them. When this is the case, the anger tends to be directed at people who are seen as "subordinate" or appropriate to control. Obviously I don't know you or know everything about your emotional need to rebel, but it sounds like this may be what's happening.
But anyway, watch this and then tell me what you think about the Multiverse theory!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHMAfofFCN8

"A strategy to cause people to conform to his or her wishes or to essentially control them."

"...your emotional need to rebel"

Someone got an F in interpersonal relations. I don't give a shit what you do, and I have no need to control you... but you can bet your sweet ass that if you come into a place called The Thinking Atheist and start making statements about what atheists are (angry! arrogant!! rebellious!!!) then you can expect some backlash over your bigotry. We hear those accusations endlessly, and always when we have the temerity to actually speak out boldly and/or to contest issues that have traditionally been areas in which religionists were able to hold unchecked sway for centuries.

You came in here, leading the way with slurs and insults, and you have the audacity to call a legitimately angry reply "typical atheist temper tantrum".

Gee, I wonder what kind of person you think would react in any way other than hostility to such an attitude? Seriously, I'm curious to know just exactly how meek and mild you expect us to be to avoid your bigotry in declaring us all so typically angry.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 02:19 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 01:09 PM)julep Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 12:34 PM)Valaista Wrote:  (1) There was nothing to take "advantage" of, as it was clear what the context was. Lol you actually think its cool to purposely misconstrue a statement that had an absolute transparency with regards to its meaning?

(2) It does give a purpose. Name one thing in the known universe that has absolutely no purpose? And you say anthropomorphic notion because you are human, and naturally our comprehension can go so far.

(3), QUESTION: why do you give more legitimacy to the multiverse theory and not and not the concept of a creator? You say intelligent design cant be tested? Ok! How is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is a bigger leap of faith than invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires a bigger leap of faith.

(4) You say you want happiness more than truth! Ok, that's a choice. But how can happiness be influenced by things we don't have, were never going to have, and wouldn't have missed, if the thought hadn't occurred? Ignorance is Bliss huh lol?


2. (aren't numbered lists fun!) "Purpose" is a mental construct by human beings. I don't agree that anything has a purpose in the grand cosmic sense.

3. If scientists eventually prove there was a creator, I'll be fascinated to learn why so much of the universe seems to have been designed rather unintelligently… But again, this kind of god existing has no practical use or implications for me. I have no objection to scientists trying to figure out if there's a creator. Now if some great technology application comes out of that finding--like a Tabletop Universe set where You Get to Play God--I'd put that on my birthday present wish list. Not on my wish list: people telling me what I think instead of asking me what I think, as you seem to be doing.

4. Meh--I'm okay with the happiness I have, even though in theory there might be different or better kinds of happiness. I like knowledge and information, too. Big-T Truth, not so much, I'm okay with people who think they have that considering me ignorant of it.

1. People without a sense of humor can have a difficult time on this forum. I see you're already feeling the strain…you've just thrown a typical theist temper tantrum.

Good luck with your interactions here.

(1) I do have a sense of humor. Hence the numerous "lol's". Example: What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with an atheist?
Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason!

(2)The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.

If we trace this series of events back in time, then what do we find? There seem, at first glance, to be two possibilities: either we eventually reach the first event in the series, the cause at the beginning of the universe that set everything going, or there is no first event in the series and the past stretches back into infinity.the second of these is not possible, that the past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning. The argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God. Hence purpose is not just a human construct. QUESTION: If it is a human construct, how to you explain entropy? If you are using the term in another way, you should either define what you mean, or provide a reference to a different definition. Saying that you can avoid entropy is saying you avoid heat or temperature, which of course is non-sense.

(3) "fascinated to learn why so much of the universe seems to have been designed rather unintelligently"? What may seem unintelligent to a person may indeed be the epitome of human construct. Think about the Entropy again!! The increasing randomization of energy, entropy, is part of the design of the universe. The energy dilemma does not involve the amount of energy that is available; it involves the form in which the energy is available. The universe is involved in a constant process of converting one form of energy into another form and in doing so, it inevitably must convert part of the original energy into more randomized, less usable, heat energy. Potential energy is organized energy whereas heat represents randomized, DISORGANIZED energy. Heat energy is irretrievable energy. Although the energy contained in heat is not destroyed, it has become unavailable for producing work. All forms of energy are degraded incessantly and irreversibly to an inferior, lower-quality, more-randomized form of energy: Heat.

(4)A person may not care weather or not a creator exists. A person may not see any way that that would effect his or her life. We can debate axioms and philosophy all day but what this really boils down to is my last QUESTIONS: QUESTION #1: Religion aside(and all the baggage that comes with it), what reason do atheists have to deny that a creator exists? Knowing that (1) We know that there is a fine structure constant, (2) we know that there are only 2 possible explanations (Multiverse or Design), (3) both cannot be observed or tested, however, there exists enormous amounts of logic to support design (godel ontological proof,The First Cause Argument, the Argument from Consciousness, etc), but no logic to support the multiverse, rather the math that a multiverse would require makes no sense at all. QUESTION #2: Have the laws of thermodynamics ever been proven wrong?(Knowing that even with "Chaos theory" entropy keeps coming through. All the examples of chaos going to order, required energy to do so, and once the energy submitted to entropy then so would the temporary chaos to order. This temporary chaos to order is all part of the road to entropy in the end.) QUESTION #3: If question number 2 is no, then does the theory of "Macro-Evolution" contradicts itself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 02:41 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2015 03:17 PM by Valaista.)
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 01:31 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 11:55 AM)Valaista Wrote:  Typical atheist temper tantrum!! Anger is often used as a strategy to cause people to conform to his or her wishes or to essentially control them. When this is the case, the anger tends to be directed at people who are seen as "subordinate" or appropriate to control. Obviously I don't know you or know everything about your emotional need to rebel, but it sounds like this may be what's happening.
But anyway, watch this and then tell me what you think about the Multiverse theory!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHMAfofFCN8

"A strategy to cause people to conform to his or her wishes or to essentially control them."

"...your emotional need to rebel"

Someone got an F in interpersonal relations. I don't give a shit what you do, and I have no need to control you... but you can bet your sweet ass that if you come into a place called The Thinking Atheist and start making statements about what atheists are (angry! arrogant!! rebellious!!!) then you can expect some backlash over your bigotry. We hear those accusations endlessly, and always when we have the temerity to actually speak out boldly and/or to contest issues that have traditionally been areas in which religionists were able to hold unchecked sway for centuries.

You came in here, leading the way with slurs and insults, and you have the audacity to call a legitimately angry reply "typical atheist temper tantrum".

Gee, I wonder what kind of person you think would react in any way other than hostility to such an attitude? Seriously, I'm curious to know just exactly how meek and mild you expect us to be to avoid your bigotry in declaring us all so typically angry.

The only real examples of hostility are your comments. It is unfortunately common that many important questions and challenges go unanswered. There are surely many reasons, but a common one may be a desire to avoid admitting that they might be wrong. They might not have a good answer, and while “I don’t know” is certainly acceptable, it may represent an unacceptable admission of at least potential error. This may happen when the responder either doesn't know the answer and wants to avoid embarrassment, or when the responder is being interrogated or questioned in debate, and wants to avoid giving a direct response. In any case, swearing doesn’t make your argument valid; it just tells the other person you have lost your class and control.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: