What are my abiogenesis claims? Please quote my posts with post number.
You have some serious avoidance mechanisms. I said a professor of logic, not an atheist professor.
Funny how you refuse to present any evidence.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Exactly why I dismiss your abiogenesois claim without providing evidence because it is asserted without evidence.
An atheist professor? No thanks.
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?
What are my abiogenesis claims? Please quote my posts with post number.
You have some serious avoidance mechanisms. I said a professor of logic, not an atheist professor.
Funny how yo keep demanding that I parrot everything I say because you just cannot seem to fathom its meaning.Funny how you refuse to present any evidence.
You said you find it more feasible.
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.
Yet another post where you failed to present one iota of evidence.Funny how yo keep demanding that I parrot everything I say because you just cannot seem to fathom its meaning.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
This happens often when theists are asked to present evidence for their claims.
https://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/life-in-other-dimensions-possible-says-hawking/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/
Not limitless but open to considering reasonable ideas. But then what seems reasonable to one may be silly to another.
An atheist professor? No thanks.
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.
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.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.
Please cite the scientific papers you are referring to.
Yet another post where you failed to present one iota of evidence.
Wrong!
It also happens when the theist is accused of making claims he never made and asked to defend issues he never brought up.
You favor abiogenesis over life coming from life concept. That isn't a misrepresentation.
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.
I'm not referring to any specific scientific paper.
Evidence for your misrepresentation?
The truth is that your declarations that a place where a creator resides is impossible is based on wishful thinking.
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.
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?
The statements physicists make contain admissions that they just don't know what exactly lies far beyond the areas which they cannot detect.
Hm... something like "divine creation"? Something that doesn't occur in nature and cannot be "forced to happen" in church?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.
Where did I declare it impossible? You must have misread my post - I explicitly allowed the (unlikely) possibility of fantasy universes!The truth is that your declarations that a place where a creator resides is impossible is based on wishful thinking.
Are you sure you're replying to the right post? Where did I admit that?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.
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.Then you need to tell that to the physicists who propose the ideas involving possible lifeforms in different dimensions.
I have no idea - have you asked them?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?
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.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.
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' physicistsSome have reached the conclusion that our universe displays holographic qualities and wondered about what or who might be projecting the holograph.
No, I'm mortal and limited too - but I can spot the Dunning-Kruger effect when I see itThey humbly admit their own mortal human limits. You on the other hand seem to hold a different view.
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!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.
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.
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.I love how you immediately jump from a professor who teaches logic to an atheist professor.
="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?
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.
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!
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.
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?
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?
Then how can you say that there is a God?
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.
I don't provide evidence fro claims I never made.Yet another post where you don't present a shred of evidence.
It appears that you aren't referring to anything a physicist has said.
You have yet to present a shred of evidence for any of your claims.
RIGHT!!!
Show us one post where you presented a shred of evidence.
My irony meter just exploded. This is exactly what you did to me with respect to abiogenesis.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?