Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[Loudmouth]

Exactly why I dismiss your abiogenesois claim without providing evidence because it is asserted without evidence.

What are my abiogenesis claims? Please quote my posts with post number.

An atheist professor? No thanks.

You have some serious avoidance mechanisms. I said a professor of logic, not an atheist professor.

Funny how you keep using the "I just cain't see it!" excuse over and over again! That is getting rather old. Why not try something new?

Funny how you refuse to present any evidence.

 

[Radrook]

What are my abiogenesis claims? Please quote my posts with post number.

You said you find it more feasible.

You have some serious avoidance mechanisms. I said a professor of logic, not an atheist professor.

Avoidance of an exercise in futility is justifiable.
An unbiased professor of logic would simply acknowledge that there are ideas of that kind right now being considered by physicists. If he said otherwise I would question his credentials.

Funny how you refuse to present any evidence.

Funny how yo keep demanding that I parrot everything I say because you just cannot seem to fathom its meaning.

 

[Radrook]

Well, I am out! Been nice conversing. God bless!

 

[Loudmouth]

You said you find it more feasible.

Last I checked, I said this:

"I consider abiogenesis research more feasible because you can easily construct hypotheses and experiments. As to the origin of life, I don't know where life came from. I haven't reached any conclusion."

I said that the research was more feasible to do. I also stated that I don't know where life came from, and that I haven't reached any conclusions.

Once again, you are trying to misrepresent my position.

Avoidance of an exercise in futility is justifiable.

Concluding that you have no evidence when you can't present any evidence is much more justified.

Why don't you try to that in a court of law? Tell them it would take too much effort to present evidence, so you aren't going to do it. See how they react.

An unbiased professor of logic would simply acknowledge that there are ideas of that kind right now being considered by physicists. If he said otherwise I would question his credentials.

Please cite the scientific papers you are referring to.

Funny how yo keep demanding that I parrot everything I say because you just cannot seem to fathom its meaning.

Yet another post where you failed to present one iota of evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, I am out! Been nice conversing. God bless!

This happens often when theists are asked to present evidence for their claims.

 

[Radrook]

On the contrary, if you can identify a universe that you feel would be a suitable heaven, based on the physics or maths underlying some acknowledged physical model, I have no objection at all. Your best option is probably to look at String Theory, which gives you a potential 10^500 (ten to the power 500) possible universes to select from. My doubt is that you have any idea of the physical parameters that would describe heaven, but if you have, by all means post them.

You are obviously ignorant of the limits of human scientific investigation and are assuming attributes of omniscience.
The truth is that your declarations that a place where a creator resides is impossible is based on wishful thinking. It has absolutely no basis in any mathematical model in existence. the mathematical model ploy is simply a smoke screen behind which your illoguical claim strives to gain respectability.

However, that claim remains illogical because such a claim demands omniscience and you don't have that attribute that makes such a certainty possible. Even physicists admit that they don't know what lies beyond the detectable universe or even if indeed our universe is the only one. Each universe might contain dimensions which are not necessarily bound by our mathematical predictions. Physicists admit the limits of their knowledge and do not make the claims that their followers make on their behalf as you are doing.

Besides, you already unintentionally admitted that the real issue is the existence of a being in some other realm who might have the unnerving ability to peek at you and violate your need for privacy.

Terminology note: In physics, a 'dimension' is a coordinate axis of a particular space, not a comic book or Twilight Zone alternate universe or reality where alien beings might live.

Then you need to tell that to the physicists who propose the ideas involving possible lifeforms in different dimensions.

I haven't rejected anything - I just said that your unsupported assertion, "That heavenly realm should not be too hard for physicists to imagine" doesn't follow.

Why would physicists who hypothesize about the possible existence of alternate Earths with different time;lines and universes where creatures resembling cartoon characters and mythological creatures suddenly freeze in their cerebral tracks when confronted with the possibility of a creator residing in one of those places? Hmmm?

I'm not limiting the possible at all - I'm saying that a hypothetical universe won't be taken seriously by physicists unless it has some coherent mathematical basis, and such bases are derived from what we've learnt of our own universe.
Talking of rhetorical ploys, it would be more helpful if you were to explain where my understanding of Hume is mistaken; what did I say that was incorrect? how have I twisted his argument?
Hitchen's Razor applies, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Nevertheless, you'll find many atheists will be prepared to engage, given a reasonable or plausible argument.

Wrong! The statements physicists make contain admissions that they just don't know what exactly lies far beyond the areas which they cannot detect. They have never claimed that the mathematical principles of our universe are applicable everywhere. In fact, they even speak about gravity not being the same everywhere and that the manifestation of our gravity is merely a leakage from a dimension where it is far stronger. Some have reached the conclusion that our universe displays holographic qualities and wondered about what or who might be projecting the holograph. They humbly admit their own mortal human limits. You on the other hand seem to hold a different view.

What can be asserted without evidence. I asserted that physicists have views which can encompass the view of a ID existing somewhere, Whereupon you claim inability to understand what I said and begin griping about some deity spying on you when you are naked.

Life in other dimensions is possible, says Stephen Hawking


Stephen Hawking, in his new book The Grand Design, says that God did not create the universe, but interestingly, he leaves open the possibility of life in other universes. M-theory, a form of string theory, would make this possibl
https://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/life-in-other-dimensions-possible-says-hawking/

 

[Radrook]

This happens often when theists are asked to present evidence for their claims.

Wrong!
It tends to happen when theists are repeatedly told that they are unintelligible and that they should parrot everything they say ad infinitum.
It also happens when the theist is accused of making claims he never made and asked to defend issues he never brought up.
Also when the theist comes across a total refusal to reason logically.
Then it might happen.

Life in other dimensions is possible, says Stephen Hawking


Stephen Hawking, in his new book The Grand Design, says that God did not create the universe, but interestingly, he leaves open the possibility of life in other universes. M-theory, a form of string theory, would make this possibl
https://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/life-in-other-dimensions-possible-says-hawking/

https://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/life-in-other-dimensions-possible-says-hawking/


Michio Kaku: Alien Life & Other Dimensions

 

[The Cadet]

Not limitless but open to considering reasonable ideas. But then what seems reasonable to one may be silly to another.

Well... yeah. What's being proposed is an entity that somehow exists outside of any independent confirmation, without presenting any viable ways to demonstrate it. I think that's silly. I don't know how you could make the case that it was reasonable to yourself, let alone anyone else.

An atheist professor? No thanks.

I love how you immediately jump from a professor who teaches logic to an atheist professor.

 

[Radrook]

Last I checked, I said this:

"I consider abiogenesis research more feasible because you can easily construct hypotheses and experiments. As to the origin of life, I don't know where life came from. I haven't reached any conclusion."

I said that the research was more feasible to do. I also stated that I don't know where life came from, and that I haven't reached any conclusions.

Once again, you are trying to misrepresent my position.

You favor abiogenesis over life coming from life concept. That isn't a misrepresentation.

Concluding that you have no evidence when you can't present any evidence is much more justified.

Why don't you try to that in a court of law? Tell them it would take too much effort to present evidence, so you aren't going to do it. See how they react.

This called a war of attrition via constant misrepresentation and refusal to reason. That is why I am extremely reluctant to participate in this type of discussion.

Please cite the scientific papers you are referring to.

I'm not referring to any specific scientific paper.
Are you?

Yet another post where you failed to present one iota of evidence.

Evidence for your misrepresentation?

 

[Loudmouth]

Wrong!

RIGHT!!!

Show us one post where you presented a shred of evidence.

It also happens when the theist is accused of making claims he never made and asked to defend issues he never brought up.

My irony meter just exploded. This is exactly what you did to me with respect to abiogenesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

You favor abiogenesis over life coming from life concept. That isn't a misrepresentation.

Yes it is. It is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of what I said.

Also, life coming from life does not explain where the first life came from.

This called a war of attrition via constant misrepresentation and refusal to reason. That is why I am extremely reluctant to participate in this type of discussion.

Yet another post where you don't present a shred of evidence.

I'm not referring to any specific scientific paper.

It appears that you aren't referring to anything a physicist has said.

Evidence for your misrepresentation?

You have yet to present a shred of evidence for any of your claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

The truth is that your declarations that a place where a creator resides is impossible is based on wishful thinking.

Where did anyone say that it was impossible? Yet another case of you misrepresenting what others say.

What is being asked for is for you to present the model that makes it possible. As usual, you can't back up your claims.

However, that claim remains illogical because such a claim demands omniscience and you don't have that attribute that makes such a certainty possible. Even physicists admit that they don't know what lies beyond the detectable universe or even if indeed our universe is the only one. Each universe might contain dimensions which are not necessarily bound by our mathematical predictions. Physicists admit the limits of their knowledge and do not make the claims that their followers make on their behalf as you are doing.

One of those dimensions could contain pink unicorns with magical powers. Does that mean it is logical to conclude that there is a universe with magical pink unicorns? Is it up to you to disprove that there is a universe with magical pink unicorns?

Besides, you already unintentionally admitted that the real issue is the existence of a being in some other realm who might have the unnerving ability to peek at you and violate your need for privacy.

What humors us is the belief that there is an all powerful deity who creates an entire universe that just happens to be hung up on what humans do in their bedrooms.

Why would physicists who hypothesize about the possible existence of alternate Earths with different time;lines and universes where creatures resembling cartoon characters and mythological creatures suddenly freeze in their cerebral tracks when confronted with the possibility of a creator residing in one of those places? Hmmm?

Why would anyone think that a possibility indicates a reality?

The statements physicists make contain admissions that they just don't know what exactly lies far beyond the areas which they cannot detect.

Then how can you say that there is a God?

 

[Freodin]

Why would you consider something that doesn't occur in nature and can't be forced to happen in a lab more feasible than something based on what is repeatedly observable in nature and which justifies the inductive leap that life comes only from previous life? I mean-you are entitled to your belief. However, I just can't understand your logic.

Hm... something like "divine creation"? Something that doesn't occur in nature and cannot be "forced to happen" in church?

You can repeat "life coming only from previous life" as often as you want: you should be aware what that principle encompasses... and what it doesn't.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The truth is that your declarations that a place where a creator resides is impossible is based on wishful thinking.

Where did I declare it impossible? You must have misread my post - I explicitly allowed the (unlikely) possibility of fantasy universes!

Besides, you already unintentionally admitted that the real issue is the existence of a being in some other realm who might have the unnerving ability to peek at you and violate your need for privacy.

Are you sure you're replying to the right post? Where did I admit that?

Then you need to tell that to the physicists who propose the ideas involving possible lifeforms in different dimensions.

Physicists such as whom? I guess a physicist might say something like that when talking to people who wouldn't understand the correct terminology, but that doesn't make it right; it seems careless - they're mostly quite keen to get it right. Are you sure they weren't talking about 'higher dimensional spaces' ? Can you post up a link to one of these? I'm curious.

Why would physicists who hypothesize about the possible existence of alternate Earths with different time;lines and universes where creatures resembling cartoon characters and mythological creatures suddenly freeze in their cerebral tracks when confronted with the possibility of a creator residing in one of those places? Hmmm?

I have no idea - have you asked them?

Wrong! The statements physicists make contain admissions that they just don't know what exactly lies far beyond the areas which they cannot detect. They have never claimed that the mathematical principles of our universe are applicable everywhere. In fact, they even speak about gravity not being the same everywhere and that the manifestation of our gravity is merely a leakage from a dimension where it is far stronger.

Lol! All these ideas are derived from our understanding of the mathematical consistencies of our own universe and tweaking the various constants - they weren't just invented from nothing.

Some have reached the conclusion that our universe displays holographic qualities and wondered about what or who might be projecting the holograph.

Kind of. The holographic principle is directly derived from theories about our universe (e.g. quantum gravity) - it applies to event horizons (including black holes and the cosmological horizon). It's a mathematical equivalence: the information content of a 3D volume can be encoded on its 2D surface. I'm curious to know which physicists really wonder who's projecting the hologram! You seem to have encountered some rather, er... 'unorthodox' physicists

They humbly admit their own mortal human limits. You on the other hand seem to hold a different view.

No, I'm mortal and limited too - but I can spot the Dunning-Kruger effect when I see it

I asserted that physicists have views which can encompass the view of a ID existing somewhere, Whereupon you claim inability to understand what I said and begin griping about some deity spying on you when you are naked.

ROFL!! where did I say that? - post a link or quote; I say it's pure fiction (yes, a lie). I pity any deity dumb enough to spy on me naked!

 

[Radrook]

Well... yeah. What's being proposed is an entity that somehow exists outside of any independent confirmation, without presenting any viable ways to demonstrate it. I think that's silly. I don't know how you could make the case that it was reasonable to yourself, let alone anyone else.

Most people consider it silly that you consider it not having been clearly demonstrated in nature yet.
I also consider it silly that you choose to believe in something that hasn't been demonstrated ion nature at all yet.
So I guess the perception of silliness is mutual.

I love how you immediately jump from a professor who teaches logic to an atheist professor.

I assumed you meant an atheist professor because you have irrational expectations of the kind that only an atheist professor is likely to fulfill. Non atheists professor would calmly weigh the proposition instead of assuming that I mean some entity that will spy on them while they are naked.

 

[Radrook]

="FrumiousBandersnatch, post: 69472949, member: 241055"]Where did I declare it impossible? You must have misread my post - I explicitly allowed the (unlikely) possibility of fantasy universes!
Are you sure you're replying to the right post? Where did I admit that?
Physicists such as whom? I guess a physicist might say something like that when talking to people who wouldn't understand the correct terminology, but that doesn't make it right; it seems careless - they're mostly quite keen to get it right. Are you sure they weren't talking about 'higher dimensional spaces' ? Can you post up a link to one of these? I'm curious.
I have no idea - have you asked them?

I don't have reading comprehension problems as you are assuming.

BTW
Do you personally ask them in order to be totally convinced of everything they write or say on TV and the Internet?

Lol! All these ideas are derived from our understanding of the mathematical consistencies of our own universe and tweaking the various constants - they weren't just invented from nothing.

LOL! I never claimed that those specific ideas I mentioned have absolutely no mathematical foundation and that they are moronically pulling those concepts out of thin air. In order to make such an idiotic claim I would have to be as ignorant of the scientific method as you are fervently imagining me to be.

Kind of. The holographic principle is directly derived from theories about our universe (e.g. quantum gravity) - it applies to event horizons (including black holes and the cosmological horizon). It's a mathematical equivalence: the information content of a 3D volume can be encoded on its 2D surface. I'm curious to know which physicists really wonder who's projecting the hologram! You seem to have encountered some rather, er... 'unorthodox' physicists
No, I'm mortal and limited too - but I can spot the Dunning-Kruger effect when I see it
ROFL!! where did I say that? - post a link or quote; I say it's pure fiction (yes, a lie). I pity any deity dumb enough to spy on me naked!

Totally unnecessary, irrelevant, explanations based on assumptions of my total ignorance concerning the references I provide.

Will straw man never cease?

Unorthodox? Not at all. These are your common-variety , fervently anti religious, physicists whom you usually hold in very high esteem. The reason you are prefer to assume they aren't and tag them as being unorthodox is because you feel that they are providing me with hypotheticals where a peeping Tom supernatural being might possibly exist.

BTW
Your assumption that I am a poor performer unaware of my own deficiencies doesn't harmonize with my excellent academical record,. So your ad hominem falls flat on its face. Your imagined unawareness of a poor performance that doesn't exist based on your assumption that I am ignorant about the irrelevancies you trotted out exists only in your mind. I strongly suggest that you base your accusations on provable fact instead of wishful thinking concerning a person you don't know.[/quote]

 

[Radrook]

Where did anyone say that it was impossible? Yet another case of you misrepresenting what others say.

What is being asked for is for you to present the model that makes it possible. As usual, you can't back up your claims.

String Theory has been mentioned in relation to those idea. I provided video and links. If those aren't suffice then you need to personally contact your atheist scientists and personally inquire.

One of those dimensions could contain pink unicorns with magical powers. Does that mean it is logical to conclude that there is a universe with magical pink unicorns? Is it up to you to disprove that there is a universe with magical pink unicorns?

Show me where I concluded something instead of qualifying it with "perhaps" "possibly" "it is thought" and other expressions of that kind. That is a strawman accusation.

What humors us is the belief that there is an all powerful deity who creates an entire universe that just happens to be hung up on what humans do in their bedrooms. Why would anyone think that a possibility indicates a reality?

The problem, as usual, is that I never made such a definitive claims which is mindlessly humoring you.
I am merely taking the declarations of your atheist physicists to their logical conclusion and repeating some of the possibilities that they themselves-not I have enthusiastically proposed. Why you folks are so shocked by their commonly- known ideas seems rather quaint.

Then how can you say that there is a God?

I claim to believe in an ID which some refer to as God. Some describe him one way and others another. But an ID need neither be supernatural nor God nor a god. An ID, for strictly discussions sake, can simply be a creator. You choose to define the ID as a peeping Tom supernatural entity? That is your problem not mine.

BTW
Ignoring the links and video showing your scientists proposing what I have just said they are proposing doesn't constitute a rebuttal. It's called the Mr Magoo strategy.

 

[Radrook]

Yes it is. It is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of what I said.

Also, life coming from life does not explain where the first life came from.

That is the Mr Magoo excuse. Ever notice how he is depicted of walking around with his eyes almost closed and only opens them on convenient occasions?

Yet another post where you don't present a shred of evidence.

I don't provide evidence fro claims I never made.

It appears that you aren't referring to anything a physicist has said.

Nope!
The specific things that physicists said to which I am referring have been clearly stated.
The problem is that you draw inferences which I did not suggest and then demand that I defend them.

You have yet to present a shred of evidence for any of your claims.

True, I have not provide evidence which supports your interpretations.
Besides, even if I did you would immediately pull out the inability to see card.

 

[Radrook]

RIGHT!!!

Show us one post where you presented a shred of evidence.

Just one post? Isn't that rather skimpy? I can show you hundreds of posts on this forum about which you would claim that I posted absolutely not a shred of evidence.

My irony meter just exploded. This is exactly what you did to me with respect to abiogenesis.

The irony meter suddenly, consistently, and mysteriously malfunctions in reference to inane ideas whenever the ideas are atheistic ones? Say! That's some nice calibration!

 

[Radrook]

Hm... something like "divine creation"? Something that doesn't occur in nature and cannot be "forced to happen" in church?

You can repeat "life coming only from previous life" as often as you want: you should be aware what that principle encompasses... and what it doesn't.

Well, since I never claimed that we can observe a creator directly creating in nature that is unfortunately a straw-man argument. What i did say, and which you totally ignore, is that the only pattern we are able to observe in nature is life coming from previous life. Any other idea has absolutely no basis in observation and therefore lacks observational support
which should make far less viable than the life is derived only from life conclusion. The fact that it is avoided like the Bubonic plague seems to or might indicate a bias which might be traceable in some instances to the psychological phenomenon referred to as theophobia.

Life doesn't arise from life in church?

Sorry but life coming from life can certainly be made to happen in church. The problem is that allowing congress in church in order to provide a demonstration is rather inappropriate. Mendel used animals in his initial genetic research and was told to stop because it appeared unseemly to his religious supervisors so he switched to vegetation. But rest assured that despite the religious ambience in which he was working life was certainly coming via life. The good thing about it was that he needed no forcing of the type attempted in abiogenesis to have it happen.

Aware of what the principle encompasses? The principles involved in reaching a conclusion based on that observation? Oh! You must mean the inductive leap based on observation of pattern. Yes, we are aware that in order to make the inductive leap an observable pattern must exist. Otherwise an inductive leap would be impossible. That's basic to the scientific method and if we unceremoniously discard it when we deem it convenient-then we can be accused of being unscientific ad we certainly don't want that-right?

BTW

I have also said that the manner in which such life is organized meets the requirements for logically concluding the activity a creative mind. To which atheists always respond with:

"We can't see!"