Posts by Coded Logic

posted

116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
chris 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

Do you become more complicated when you have a complex thought on your mind?

- Apognophos

Yes. Please see neuroplasticity. More importantly, people are more complex than any single idea they have.

To account for the number of throws of the dice to have US and OUR universe to happen

prologos

This is pure conjecture and is not supported by science. Without knowing how many sides are on a dice - and not knowing how often numbers repeat on that dice - there is no way to know what the odds are for rolling any particular number. Likewise, our universe is the only one we can look at so we have no way of knowing if other kinds of universes are possible. Our universe could be unlikely. Or, our universe could be the only possible kind of universe there is. We just don't know.

Some scientest think there might be a multiverse because certain branches of String Theory make that prediction. But the multiverse is NOT made up to solve or explain the likelyhood of the physics we see inside our universe.
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
chris 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

universal expansion derives it's energy from the void that it expands into

I'm pretty sure this is not true.

the total energy content of the universe is increasing

and this is 100% wrong.
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
chris 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

Time and Energy are now shown to exist prior, outside our universe,

Never heard anything like this - source please?
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
chris 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 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
chris 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 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
chris 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.

- Apognophos

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

- Apognophos

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 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
chris 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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2_CCHQo_AA
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
chris 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 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
chris 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.

-prologos

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 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
chris 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?

prologos

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:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof