There is no Creation Debate

[DogmaHunter]

Nothing (not anything) comes from nothing (not anything).
In the quantum-matrix something could "pop into existence", but the quantum-matrix is not nothing, it is something, it has properties.

So, "nothingness" doesn't have any properties, then?
Then how come you can invoke it as if it IS a thing?

It seems to me that the "nothingness" you speak of does not exist by definition. Correct?

If that is the case, then your statements about "nothing from nothing, not something" are completely meaningless.

If that is not the case, then "nothingess" indeed HAS properties, which would contradict your statement in the above post.

Either way, you loose.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why should I use those four things as my criteria?

You use these criteria for EVERYTHING in your life that is not your religion.

Because it is sensible.
If you would not use these criteria, you'ld end up believing ANYTING that ANYONE tells you, or ANYTHING that your imagination can produce.

Surely, you have been down this road before. We all have. Why continue to ask for evidence that you will accept when faith is integral to the topic at hand?

To point out that there is no evidence, just "faith".

 

[Hoghead1]

It seems that we are getting into proofs for the existence of God. That's good. That is defiantly a fruitful topic we should explore here. What about Anselm's ontological argument? God, by definition is the greatest being that there is. Hence, God always takes the greater of any set of contrary predicates. To exist is greater than not to exist. Hence, by definition, God must exist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It seems that we are getting into proofs for the existence of God. That's good. That is defiantly a fruitful topic we should explore here. What about Anselm's ontological argument? God, by definition is the greatest being that there is. Hence, God always takes the greater of any set of contrary predicates. To exist is greater than not to exist. Hence, by definition, God must exist.

The Undetectable 7-headed dragon, by definition is the greatest being that there is. Hence, The Undetectable 7-headed dragon always takes the greater of any set of contrary predicates. To exist is greater than not to exist. Hence, by definition, The Undetectable 7-headed dragon must exist.


The lesson here is that it is a pretty futile exercise to try and "define" things into existence. Since it "works" for anything your imagination can produce.

 

[stevevw]

A somewhat weird religion at that in some cases, such as the idea of an infinite number of multiverses.

And the idea from Mr Krauss that nothing is really something that is really nothing for how something can come from nothing. Mr dawkins really likes Krauss's ideas. He believes him completely. Says that Krausse's idea has undeniably taken away the last bit of hope for believers in God that life could be formed from nothing. That Krauss's ideas are to physics what evolution is for biology in proving how everything can be made without God. They are the two high priests of the atheists world.

The thing is scientists want to appeal to far fetched ideas and use them without the scientific verification. But any talk of someone else using ID or creation as a possible hypothesis and thats nonsense. It seems its only OK if it comes from the church of atheistic scientists.

 

[The Cadet]

What about Anselm's ontological argument? God, by definition is the greatest being that there is. Hence, God always takes the greater of any set of contrary predicates. To exist is greater than not to exist. Hence, by definition, God must exist.

Utopia, by definition, is the greatest island on earth that there is. Hence, Utopia always takes the greater of any set of contrary predicates. to exist is greater than not to exist. Hence, by definition, Utopia must exist on earth.

The Chili Master, by definition, is the greatest hot dog on earth that there is...

 

[SkyWriting]

So if I kneecap you with a baseball bat and there were no cameras to view it, would you object to the use of DNA or forensic evidence at the court case? After all, it happened in the past.

A number of requirements are needed to gain a conviction.
Motive, opportunity, testimony, etc. Evidence is just one component.

 

[The Cadet]

Evidence is just one component.

But would you object to evidence being brought forward? Or, to put it another way, if I gave you exactly the same objections you offered here, would you consider them valid?

You would be the worst lawyer ever.

 

[SkyWriting]

But would you object to evidence being brought forward? Or, to put it another way, if I gave you exactly the same objections you offered here, would you consider them valid? You would be the worst lawyer ever.

I'm the victim in your illustration and am not
involved in evidence gathering for good reason.

 

[Black Dog]

LMAO you seem to be a very 'faithful' evangelical atheist

And you seem to have no understanding of Science. Home schooled?

Oh, and why are you using a computer if you don't believe in science? If you don't want to be a hypocrite, you're going to have to get rid of your computer, and any other device with a computer chip in it. Plus anything that uses electricity.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then you need to be explained why it is that creation can not be debunked.

First off:
Nobody knows how exactly living nature as we know it came about.

Therefore it is always possible that living nature is created.

Even if there would be a theory as to how it MIGHT have come about without intelligence, skills and (thus) a purpose, you can never state it was not created, you can only state it COULD have come about accidentally (the opposite of purposeful).

Now then, the question remaining is probably off-topic, but:
Is there a naturalistic theory that explains all we see today?

The same could be said for any supernatural force producing any observed phenomenon. You can't disprove that Leprechauns make rainbows. You can't disprove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the Crab Nebula.

This is why we don't consider bare assertions and unfalsifiable beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no creation debate. What we have is science showing how limited it is in trying to talk of creation. The debate is all about the misconceptions, limitations, and changing fables of science.

If the evidence were consistent with your dogmatic beliefs, you would have no problems citing them as support.

The fact that you have to invent excuses to ignore the evidence is the very best indication that the evidence contradicts your beliefs.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

The scientific method is a tool to obtain knowledge and objective truths.

It's a pity that not all scientists realise that when they are coming out with their wild theories and speculations about how everything came to be without the supernatural.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's a pity that not all scientists realise that when they are coming out with their wild theories and speculations about how everything came to be without the supernatural.

It's a pity that you can never back up these claims, but instead will smear the reputation of scientists worldwide for no other purpose than as an excuse to ignore inconvenient facts.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Time for that old thing again....

If atheism is a "religion", then ...
- "off" is a TV channel
- "bald" is a hair style
- "barefoot" is a type of shoe
- "healthy" is a desease
- "naked" is a type of clothing
- "silence" is a sound
- "blind" is a type of sight
- .................

If it's not a belief thing as many Atheists claim, then what do Atheists believe? They must believe in something, so what is it? Whatever the answer, it's got to be a faith-based belief, without any non-contentious evidence to support it and therefore effectively a religious belief.

 

[Loudmouth]

If it's not a belief thing as many Atheists claim, then what do Atheists believe? They must believe in something, so what is it? Whatever the answer, it's got to be a faith-based belief, without any non-contentious evidence to support it and therefore effectively a religious belief.

A religion requires a faith based belief in a deity. It isn't just any old faith based belief.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

It's a pity that you can never back up these claims, but instead will smear the reputation of scientists worldwide for no other purpose than as an excuse to ignore inconvenient facts.

I think the boot is on the other foot; it's largely the creation-believing scientists that are mocked and insulted. On the other hand, the creation scientists and those that represent them generally criticise the claims made by secular scientists. I've never heard of a single creation scientist casting doubt on the qualifications of secular scientists or slandering them by saying they are not real scientists at all, have you?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

A religion requires a faith based belief in a deity. It isn't just any old faith based belief.

Note item 3 if you will, from the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary:-

re·li·gion / Ñ rI'lIdZJn; NAmE Ñ / noun
1 the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and the activities that are connected with the worship of them:
Is there always a conflict between science and religion?
2[C] one of the systems of faith that are based on the belief in the existence of a particular god or gods:
the Jewish religion Ç Christianity, Islam and other world religions Ç The law states that everyone has the right to practise their own religion.
3[sing.] a particular interest or influence that is very important in your life: [emphasis added]
For him, football is an absolute religion.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think the boot is on the other foot; it's largely the creation-believing scientists that are mocked and insulted.

When we say they are lying about something, we actually demonstrate that they are lying. That is the difference here.

You are making accusations, and then never backing them up.

On the other hand, the creation scientists and those that represent them generally criticise the claims made by secular scientists. I've never heard of a single creation scientist casting doubt on the qualifications of secular scientists or slandering them by saying they are not real scientists at all, have you?

"It's a pity that not all scientists realise that when they are coming out with their wild theories and speculations about how everything came to be . . ."

You are accusing scientists of using wild theories and speculations. Back up this accusation or withdraw it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Note item 3 if you will,

Note 1. the belief in the existence of a god or gods,