Time and Energy are now shown to exist prior, outside our universe,
Never heard anything like this - source please?
Coded Logic
JoinedPosts by Coded Logic
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Coded Logic
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Coded Logic
Why wouldn't they respond to evidence? Most of us on this site have.
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Coded Logic
One other note here, when Occam's Razor says the simplest explination is often the most likely - simplest doesn't mean the least amount of steps. Simplest means the answer with the least amount of assumptions. And I cannot think of a bigger assumption than an all powerful God.
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Coded Logic
--interesting, Do you sell anything in theis store that made itself--?
- prologos
This is a falacious arguement on two accounts. Firstly, it's a false equivication. Everything in the store was not "made" in the same sense that the universe was "made." Everything in the store is the rearangment of positive energy. The universe, however, comes from the quantum fluctuations of equal amounts of negitive and postive energy. Thier orgins are entirely different in the sense that your trying to equate them.
Secondly, this arguement is also bad inductive reasoning. It's like saying, "all sheep have mothers - therefore the flock must have a mother." Or like saying, "all water drops are round - therefore all oceans must be round." What applies to the individual parts does not neccissarly apply to the whole. What applies to the formation of things inside the universe does not neccissarly apply to the formation of the universe itself.
the theory still posits that something very potent existed from the very beginning and something caused a disturbance in that field.
This is not true. The theory postits that "nothing" is inherently unstable and will seek a lower entropy. Thus, quantum fluctuations. It does not say that "something" causes it.
we have no right at this time to say which of those two causes, God or random energy fluctuations, is more likely
Quantum fluctuations are known to exists. Gods are NOT known to exists. Your arguement is like saying, "We can't know which two causes, General Motors or magical pixies, is more likely to have created all Corvetts."
You cannot solve one mystery with another mystery. You cannot explain one unknown by postulating the existance of another unknown. And you certainly can't say an unknown is as likely as a known. Knowns are ALWAYS more likely.
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Coded Logic
It was just probing for your personal insight into the Big Question
You should have just asked. Ever since I learned the total sum energy in our univers is zero that was pretty much the nail in the coffin. My video pretty much sums up my thoughts:
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Coded Logic
One can't "disprove" the existance of an unknown. As far as the God Hypothesis goes, it gives us no explanitory nor predictive capabilities. And, as far as anyone can tell, our universe works just fine without a creator.
It's like your asking me to "disprove" that the Nile river wasn't designed by aliens.
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Coded Logic
Your PROGRESSION from a believer in Creation to your present, different position interests us.
I fear we may be cross talking here. Are you asking why I am no longer convinced there is a creator?
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Coded Logic
coded logic, explain to us why you think there could not be a creator?
You're attempting to shift the burden of proof by saying that I believe, "there cannot be a creator." However, this is NOT the position that I've taken nor is it a belief that I hold. I don't know if there "can" or "cannot" be a creator.
The burden of proof is on the person saying "there is a creator" to show evidence for that claim. In the absense of evidence we disbelieve the proposition. But just because I'm not convinced of the proposition DOESN'T mean I have taken the opposite position (null hypothesis). Here's some more information on the topic for you:
-
11
What's Your Definition of TTATT ?
by Pete Zahut ini need to explain this to someone later and need a concice way of putting it.
f you had to give a "in a nutshell" definition of ttatt, what would you say or what main points would you use to define it ?.
( thanks in advance for your help ).
-
-
Coded Logic
I know it's supposed to be - the truth about the "truth" - but every time I see it I think - the "truth" aint the truth. Weird role reversal on which truth ends up with the scare quotes.
I also like the latter because it better sums up my feelings about it. The so called "truth" isn't true at all. It's a lie being regurgitated by self-righteous men with no introspective or meta-cognitive abilities. People just stroking their own ego for finding a way to feel superior to everyone else.
-
26
Dammit Jim, I'm a psychopath not an all loving God!
by Coded Logic inwhen did you discover that the god of bible - and the loving god that you had worshiped your entire life - were not the same?
how did it affect you?.
.
-
-
Coded Logic
An all powerful God should never have to use lethal force. If God was truly worried about man "ruining the earth" he could have dried up every womans womb except for Noahs family. Wiping out the entire biosphere shows a complete lack of omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
God also let Jeptha sacrafice his own daughter so he could win in battle.