The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-06-2016, 01:03 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
So I asked my creationist idiot to substantiate his claims that science rules out all natural origins of the universe and that "atheist naturalism (like the pagan naturalism which spawned it) is actually anti-science, because it disputes natural laws on which modern science and the scientific method is founded".

Needless to say he can't but just won't admit it and continues to argue, introduce red herrings, reverse the burden of proof and provide rather bizarre opinion pieces. I'm just wondering whether to waste any more time making fun of this idiot or not. My recent post is below (in brown) and his response follows that (in green).

You've made claim after claim and each time you wriggle and evade answering anyone who asks you for evidence to back up your claims, you fail time and time again.

You see my little furry creationist, if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that claim. If, when challenged to provide evidence to substantiate that claim and you fail to do so.........then you've lost the argument.

Simple.

That means that your claims are simply opinions. In your case wild ramblings with only the most tenuous of links to reality.

Your crude attempts to shift the burden of proof only serve to demonstrate that you might actually secretly realise this.

You stated that "Science rules out ALL NATURAL, origin scenarios as impossible....". I simply asked you to provide evidence that "science" claims this. Because you are stating something that - if it were true - would be referenced somewhere in some science paper in a journal either in printed form or on the internet. I mean you have the whole of the world wide web at your disposal (courtesy of science) and yet you've not been able to provide anything to substantiate this claim.

I also gave you the opportunity to provide evidence for your claims about atheism, naturalism and scientific inquiry. Needless to say you are unable to provide anything there either other than repeating your bonkers opinions.

Yes, weird nonsensical opinions you have in abundance but as usual anything more than that is way beyond your abilities.


So you dispute the Law of Cause and Effect.
OK then!
It is that, and other natural laws, that rule out naturalism as a possibilty, not my opinion. It is nothing to do with my opinion.
My opinion is completely irrelevant to the argument, I am simply referring you to the relevance of natural laws and scientific principles. If you knew what they are, you would know that atheist and pagan naturalism is ruled out as impossible. That is not an opinion or a claim, it is an obvious FACT ...
An uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible, and a natural cause is not adequate as a first cause of all the qualities that exist in the universe ...
That is FACT, there are no ifs or buts. I defy anyone to demonstrate otherwise?
In fact, I could safely offer a million dollars reward to anyone who could prove that wrong.

I accept that you don't like natural laws and scientific principles, but that is not my problem. I am not making any claims of my own, I am simply drawing your attention to the FACT that atheist naturalism violates natural laws. You can exist in a state of denial if you wish, that is your prerogative. You can either look carefully at the implications of those laws on your naturalist beliefs and reach the only credible conclusion, that a natural, first cause is impossible. Or you can opt to wear blinkers, and have blind faith in your ideology. The choice is yours? And the problem is yours, not mine.

I have pointed you in the right direction, you can make of it what you will. If you try to answer the question I asked, you will see clearly that there is no natural, origins scenario - no natural, first cause that does not violate natural laws and causality. But, be warned, facing that truth will shatter your cherished belief in atheist/pagan naturalism. If you prefer to remain in a blinkered, comfort zone, then please ignore the question and continue in your present state of denial. It is up to you.


I've not mentioned anything about the First Cause argument which he endlessly bangs on about because I simply want to demonstrate what an ignorant wanker he is when if comes to making claims about science. If you had this idiot being this stupid what would you say?

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 05:31 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Where is this "law of cause and effect" in science? I'm seeing it more and more lately and it seems to be the latest "gotcha" from the theists but I don't know that it ties to any actual science. From what little I know about it, in the quantum world at least there are effects without causes so the "law" doesn't hold even within our observable universe let alone any larger reality.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
13-06-2016, 07:50 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
You're right. This individual uses the term ad nauseum but I know he has no concept of its meaning. He previously tried to claim it was the same as the scientific method.

Of course it's a nonsense phrase here because he fails to define it and tries to conflate it with a failed attempt to justify his assertion that "science" has no remit in explaining the origins of the universe. I'm sure there are many hundreds of scientists at CERN and other locations worldwide who are spending their days investigating fundamental particles etc who would wonder why this guy is talking out of his arse.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 07:58 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(09-06-2016 11:08 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(09-06-2016 01:51 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  I periodically take a pop at a rather obnoxious creationist in another forum.

[Image: 2766.jpg]

Currently true. Many scientists shrug off "multiverse" as straight sci-fi, but it's like the only horse in the race. At the present level of scientific understanding, the nuts and bolts of creation may forever be beyond the scientific method.

At the same time, though; what exactly is gravity? Just because our understanding is incomplete in a specific area it is no logical reason to discard our general understanding; especially for an hypothesis that is patently absurd.

There is no such thing as gravity, it is just that the earth sucks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 08:23 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(13-06-2016 01:03 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  So I asked my creationist idiot to substantiate his claims that science rules out all natural origins of the universe and that "atheist naturalism (like the pagan naturalism which spawned it) is actually anti-science, because it disputes natural laws on which modern science and the scientific method is founded".

Needless to say he can't but just won't admit it and continues to argue, introduce red herrings, reverse the burden of proof and provide rather bizarre opinion pieces. I'm just wondering whether to waste any more time making fun of this idiot or not. My recent post is below (in brown) and his response follows that (in green).

You've made claim after claim and each time you wriggle and evade answering anyone who asks you for evidence to back up your claims, you fail time and time again.

You see my little furry creationist, if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that claim. If, when challenged to provide evidence to substantiate that claim and you fail to do so.........then you've lost the argument.

Simple.

That means that your claims are simply opinions. In your case wild ramblings with only the most tenuous of links to reality.

Your crude attempts to shift the burden of proof only serve to demonstrate that you might actually secretly realise this.

You stated that "Science rules out ALL NATURAL, origin scenarios as impossible....". I simply asked you to provide evidence that "science" claims this. Because you are stating something that - if it were true - would be referenced somewhere in some science paper in a journal either in printed form or on the internet. I mean you have the whole of the world wide web at your disposal (courtesy of science) and yet you've not been able to provide anything to substantiate this claim.

I also gave you the opportunity to provide evidence for your claims about atheism, naturalism and scientific inquiry. Needless to say you are unable to provide anything there either other than repeating your bonkers opinions.

Yes, weird nonsensical opinions you have in abundance but as usual anything more than that is way beyond your abilities.


So you dispute the Law of Cause and Effect.
OK then!
It is that, and other natural laws, that rule out naturalism as a possibilty, not my opinion. It is nothing to do with my opinion.
My opinion is completely irrelevant to the argument, I am simply referring you to the relevance of natural laws and scientific principles. If you knew what they are, you would know that atheist and pagan naturalism is ruled out as impossible. That is not an opinion or a claim, it is an obvious FACT ...
An uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible, and a natural cause is not adequate as a first cause of all the qualities that exist in the universe ...
That is FACT, there are no ifs or buts. I defy anyone to demonstrate otherwise?
In fact, I could safely offer a million dollars reward to anyone who could prove that wrong.

I accept that you don't like natural laws and scientific principles, but that is not my problem. I am not making any claims of my own, I am simply drawing your attention to the FACT that atheist naturalism violates natural laws. You can exist in a state of denial if you wish, that is your prerogative. You can either look carefully at the implications of those laws on your naturalist beliefs and reach the only credible conclusion, that a natural, first cause is impossible. Or you can opt to wear blinkers, and have blind faith in your ideology. The choice is yours? And the problem is yours, not mine.

I have pointed you in the right direction, you can make of it what you will. If you try to answer the question I asked, you will see clearly that there is no natural, origins scenario - no natural, first cause that does not violate natural laws and causality. But, be warned, facing that truth will shatter your cherished belief in atheist/pagan naturalism. If you prefer to remain in a blinkered, comfort zone, then please ignore the question and continue in your present state of denial. It is up to you.


I've not mentioned anything about the First Cause argument which he endlessly bangs on about because I simply want to demonstrate what an ignorant wanker he is when if comes to making claims about science. If you had this idiot being this stupid what would you say?

I would like to know exactly what is "pagan naturalism". Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 10:06 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
It should be "God of the Cracks", not "God of the Gaps", given that they get most of their shit from the obvious place.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 10:19 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(13-06-2016 08:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 01:03 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  So I asked my creationist idiot to substantiate his claims that science rules out all natural origins of the universe and that "atheist naturalism (like the pagan naturalism which spawned it) is actually anti-science, because it disputes natural laws on which modern science and the scientific method is founded".

Needless to say he can't but just won't admit it and continues to argue, introduce red herrings, reverse the burden of proof and provide rather bizarre opinion pieces. I'm just wondering whether to waste any more time making fun of this idiot or not. My recent post is below (in brown) and his response follows that (in green).

You've made claim after claim and each time you wriggle and evade answering anyone who asks you for evidence to back up your claims, you fail time and time again.

You see my little furry creationist, if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that claim. If, when challenged to provide evidence to substantiate that claim and you fail to do so.........then you've lost the argument.

Simple.

That means that your claims are simply opinions. In your case wild ramblings with only the most tenuous of links to reality.

Your crude attempts to shift the burden of proof only serve to demonstrate that you might actually secretly realise this.

You stated that "Science rules out ALL NATURAL, origin scenarios as impossible....". I simply asked you to provide evidence that "science" claims this. Because you are stating something that - if it were true - would be referenced somewhere in some science paper in a journal either in printed form or on the internet. I mean you have the whole of the world wide web at your disposal (courtesy of science) and yet you've not been able to provide anything to substantiate this claim.

I also gave you the opportunity to provide evidence for your claims about atheism, naturalism and scientific inquiry. Needless to say you are unable to provide anything there either other than repeating your bonkers opinions.

Yes, weird nonsensical opinions you have in abundance but as usual anything more than that is way beyond your abilities.


So you dispute the Law of Cause and Effect.
OK then!
It is that, and other natural laws, that rule out naturalism as a possibilty, not my opinion. It is nothing to do with my opinion.
My opinion is completely irrelevant to the argument, I am simply referring you to the relevance of natural laws and scientific principles. If you knew what they are, you would know that atheist and pagan naturalism is ruled out as impossible. That is not an opinion or a claim, it is an obvious FACT ...
An uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible, and a natural cause is not adequate as a first cause of all the qualities that exist in the universe ...
That is FACT, there are no ifs or buts. I defy anyone to demonstrate otherwise?
In fact, I could safely offer a million dollars reward to anyone who could prove that wrong.

I accept that you don't like natural laws and scientific principles, but that is not my problem. I am not making any claims of my own, I am simply drawing your attention to the FACT that atheist naturalism violates natural laws. You can exist in a state of denial if you wish, that is your prerogative. You can either look carefully at the implications of those laws on your naturalist beliefs and reach the only credible conclusion, that a natural, first cause is impossible. Or you can opt to wear blinkers, and have blind faith in your ideology. The choice is yours? And the problem is yours, not mine.

I have pointed you in the right direction, you can make of it what you will. If you try to answer the question I asked, you will see clearly that there is no natural, origins scenario - no natural, first cause that does not violate natural laws and causality. But, be warned, facing that truth will shatter your cherished belief in atheist/pagan naturalism. If you prefer to remain in a blinkered, comfort zone, then please ignore the question and continue in your present state of denial. It is up to you.


I've not mentioned anything about the First Cause argument which he endlessly bangs on about because I simply want to demonstrate what an ignorant wanker he is when if comes to making claims about science. If you had this idiot being this stupid what would you say?

I would like to know exactly what is "pagan naturalism". Facepalm

GirlyMan in a fundoshi? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 12:16 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(09-06-2016 01:51 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  
Quote:Anything that is not subject to the scientific method, or is in violation of natural laws, is beyond the remit of science.

I would tell the person that if we observed anything violating a natural law, that perhaps we need to revisit that natural law.

This reminds me of the silliness you get when people claim that according to the laws of aerodynamics, bumblebees can't fly. You think people would take care not to say things so stupid that my four-year-old could casually disprove them just by walking through our back yard, but whatever. Apologists gotta apologize, I suppose.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 01:07 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
All this "violation of the natural law" BS is totally wrong. The properties they think they have deduced from observation in this universe do not apply, until proven, outside it, AND they have no evidence for that.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
14-06-2016, 02:36 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
What I find so laughable is when the idiot is stating that the origins of the universe are outside the remit of science, there are several thousand scientists at establishments like CERN, Fermilab and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, not to mention the many hundreds of other research facilities around the world who's stated aim is to discover the origins of the universe.

The CERN website actually states that it is involved in investigating the origins of the universe.

CERN was also the birthplace of the world wide web. The irony of which appears to be lost on this creationist.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Silly Deity's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: