TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,322
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
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.
Yes ... I don't know of a single creationist (Jew, Christian, Muslim) that doesn't conflate God and creationism.
Not one.
So are they putting God on the same par as Humpty Dumpty in spite of their education?
Nuts! I knew that!Humpty Dumpty is a nursery rhyme not a fairy tale and who said anything about god?
So theoretically I shouldn't see anyone with an education referring to creationism as a fairy tale ... right?
No.Do you think everyone here who accepts/argues in favor of evolution is a scientist?
And in this finely tuned Universe for life to exist, Science overlooks that those laws were deliberately put into place. Rather than "oh look this attracts that" it should be marvelled at how many laws exist and are just right for life. This is the proof of a creator. Still, Science obviously feels embarrassed by this roadblock hence the invention of their new fairy tale "Multiverse". Science says "The problem with a God is that it introduces too much complexity and something which cannot be measured". I say "Multiverse introduces even MORE complexity than a Creator and still cannot be measured".
While I do believe that God created the universe, it is also the case that life could exist in quite radically different universes--the specialness of the rules in our own has been overstated. I recommend reading some science fiction novels by Greg Egan (The Clockwork Rocket, notably) as well as The Gods Themselves by Asimov for some examples of how life could arise in universes with radically different physical laws. Unfortunately, since most science fiction is simply fiction in space, there are not as many examples of such books as I would like.And in this finely tuned Universe for life to exist, Science overlooks that those laws were deliberately put into place. Rather than "oh look this attracts that" it should be marvelled at how many laws exist and are just right for life. This is the proof of a creator. Still, Science obviously feels embarrassed by this roadblock hence the invention of their new fairy tale "Multiverse". Science says "The problem with a God is that it introduces too much complexity and something which cannot be measured". I say "Multiverse introduces even MORE complexity than a Creator and still cannot be measured".
And in this finely tuned Universe for life to exist, Science overlooks that those laws were deliberately put into place. Rather than "oh look this attracts that" it should be marvelled at how many laws exist and are just right for life. This is the proof of a creator. Still, Science obviously feels embarrassed by this roadblock hence the invention of their new fairy tale "Multiverse". Science says "The problem with a God is that it introduces too much complexity and something which cannot be measured". I say "Multiverse introduces even MORE complexity than a Creator and still cannot be measured".
obviously none, but Scientists maintain that they are probably there. They haven't seen any either. So what is the point you are trying to make?
I wouldn't characterize the multiverse interpretation as the dominant one among actual physicists. More among popular science writers.obviously none, but Scientists maintain that they are probably there. They haven't seen any either. So what is the point you are trying to make?
I wouldn't characterize the multiverse interpretation as the dominant one among actual physicists. More among popular science writers.
I wouldn't characterize the multiverse interpretation as the dominant one among actual physicists. More among popular science writers.
And now comes the part where NP will claim that you're wrong, he's right, but provide no actual sources to support his assertion.
No, I wouldn't say so, really. There's not much to "drive" anyway since it isn't a theory, just an interpretation. It's like Bayesianism vs. frequentism--both give the same results.But isn't it the top experts in the field that are driving this theory?
No, I wouldn't say so, really. There's not much to "drive" anyway since it isn't a theory, just an interpretation. It's like Bayesianism vs. frequentism--both give the same results.
So when you talk about how fine-tuned the universe is, you're working with a sample set of exactly one. Just one universe. Only this one. Do you not see the problem with that?
Hm? Energy is a conserved quantity, there won't be more or less of it a hundred trillion years from now than there is today. I don't know enough about Big Bang cosmology to be able to accurately tell you "where the energy came from" but my gut suspicion would be that the energy was already there "before", or at least simultaneous to, the Big Bang (and consequently time). As far as pools go, I never said anything about pools or other universes.The thing they never explain with this theory is where the energy comes from. Our Universe will eventually run out of energy, so I assume the pool of Universes will to. It also poses the same questions we have now, where did the pool come from, where did the energy come from.
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?