Dawkins vs creationist

[OTHstrong]

As an undergrad, you should have taken a course called "Intro to Logic" or somesuch. They're usually offered by the Philosophy Department. But since you obviously didn't, let's take a look at this together, shall we:

The question your undergrad friend asked was incorrect; creationism is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are outside the realm of science and logic, and purely a matter of faith. No amount of science and logic can refute creationism simply because creationism doesn't adhere to or rely on logic: it relies on faith and dismisses logic outright. Frankly any Professor worth his salt would have made that point eloquently, and I assume that the Professor in question did, even though you obviously didn't like the reply.

This simple answer was the reason some creationists thought long and hard and came up with the brilliant idea of taking creationism and dressing it up in a pink tutu that says "I LOVE SCIENCE!" in sparkly letters, calling it Intelligent Design and claiming that it should be given just as much consideration as any other scientific theory.

Under the Intelligent Design "theory" they argue that complex natural life forms can only be created by something they term a designing intelligence.

Of course, the pink tutu changes nothing and doesn't a scientific theory make.

If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by the original premise of intelligent design, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. And so intelligent design becomes an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it? Why by positing a supernatural creating intelligence.

But the moment that proponents of intelligent design choose that option they instantly take their pet theory outside the realm of science -- which deals with the natural and not the supernatual -- and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories.

See, you paid all that money to get edumacated at University and you could have come to getbig and get help growing your mind as well as your muscles  

You have an infinite regress with or without intelligent design you DUMBASS, no matter what going to the beginning of time has no logic cause one can always say what was before this, no logic in either case, man your dumb if you think there is a rational explanation for the beginning of space, time and matter

[avxo]

You have an infinite regress with or without intelligent design you DUMBASS, no matter what going to the beginning of time has no logic cause one can always say what was before this, no logic in either case, man your dumb if you think there is a rational explanation for the beginning of space, time and matter

Causality and time are properties of the Universe. The question "what was before this" only makes sense in the context of an environment where causal relationships exist.

 

[Necrosis]

Causality and time are properties of the Universe. The question "what was before this" only makes sense in the context of an environment where causal relationships exist.

 

they don't understand this concept, it's almost as if they have learned ignorance, a feat in itself.

You have an infinite regress with or without intelligent design you DUMBASS, no matter what going to the beginning of time has no logic cause one can always say what was before this, no logic in either case, man your dumb if you think there is a rational explanation for the beginning of space, time and matter

umm no you don't, logically a infinite regress cannot exist, this question has troubled philosophers since man could think. Aquinas stated that something must exist for which it's essence is to exist. That is, if anything exists, which it clearly does it must be eternal and by that i mean causeless. However, i don't put much value into logic when dealing with questions one cannot even begin to tease apart. The singularity dictates that logic breaks down, or we just are smart enough to understand, or we don't have the tools, or we cannot know etc.. there are multiple options here, stating we cannot know is absurd, as absurd as you stating there has to be an infinite regress. I suppose there could be if the regress was eternal but i don't think half the people commenting here even understand the terms they are using. You are dumb if you think you can make absolute statements about something which you yourself stated is devoid of logic, the irony is hilarious.

[OTHstrong]

Causality and time are properties of the Universe. The question "what was before this" only makes sense in the context of an environment where causal relationships exist.

 

Who gives a shit about your stupid terminology, the bottom line is there is NO rational explanation for the beginning of the Universe period.

they don't understand this concept, it's almost as if they have learned ignorance, a feat in itself.

umm no you don't, logically a infinite regress cannot exist, this question has troubled philosophers since man could think. Aquinas stated that something must exist for which it's essence is to exist. That is, if anything exists, which it clearly does it must be eternal and by that i mean causeless. However, i don't put much value into logic when dealing with questions one cannot even begin to tease apart. The singularity dictates that logic breaks down, or we just are smart enough to understand, or we don't have the tools, or we cannot know etc.. there are multiple options here, stating we cannot know is absurd, as absurd as you stating there has to be an infinite regress. I suppose there could be if the regress was eternal but i don't think half the people commenting here even understand the terms they are using. You are dumb if you think you can make absolute statements about something which you yourself stated is devoid of logic, the irony is hilarious.

You are making to much of my post, simply put, the origins of the universe are not logical or rational at all, you said it yourself  you can't put logic into something you can't understand, so we both agree then, what's the problem?

Causality and time are properties of the Universe. The question "what was before this" only makes sense in the context of an environment where causal relationships exist.

 So your argument is identical in either case cause the intelligent design say the same thing, Causality and time are properties of the Universe, The designer is not in the realm of space time and matter so to say it is an infinite regress doesn't make sense any more then "before this" both views are in the same position, think about it.

[Necrosis]

Who gives a shit about your stupid terminology, the bottom line is there is NO rational explanation for the beginning of the Universe period.
You are making to much of my post, simply put, the origins of the universe are not logical or rational at all, you said it yourself  you can't put logic into something you can't understand, so we both agree then, what's the problem?

Causality and time are properties of the Universe. The question "what was before this" only makes sense in the context of an environment where causal relationships exist.

 So your argument is identical in either case cause the intelligent design say the same thing, Causality and time are properties of the Universe, The designer is not in the realm of space time and matter so to say it is an infinite regress doesn't make sense any more then "before this" both views are in the same position, think about it.

We don't agree, you are stating we can never know, i'm saying me may be able to but our tools which enhance logic  aren't there yet. You have reference and sense dependency, references are required for understanding things, you are working on sense dependence.

infinite refers to amount, so an endless amount of causes. Eternal things are causeless, i suggest the universe is causeless and that matter/energy is unmutable, it fits with science and thermodynamics. You are stating that everything needs a cause to exist except things that have no cause (ie eternal) to that i would agree. But the idea of an eternal god makes no sense, because creation is a temporal thing, how can something act in eternity, there is no time. You guys don't even have a basic grasp of the premises and basic theological arguments. They are all stupid, full of fallacies and idiocy.

I suggest we dont know, may not know, may know ie I don't make conclusions on something one cannot make conclusions on as you do.

"Who gives a shit about your stupid terminology, the bottom line is there is NO rational explanation for the beginning of the Universe period.
You are making to much of my post, simply put, the origins of the universe are not logical or rational at all, you said it yourself  you can't put logic into something you can't understand, so we both agree then, what's the problem?

I'm saying you cannot say one way or the other, hence i don't form a conclusion, thats logical, forming an opinion based on faith is irrational. quantum mechanics was irrational, it's now rational, math is the language that opened that door and it is infinitely more useful then any intellect sitting in introspective thoughts. We can only see a small fraction of the visible wavelengths, logic would have said that infared doesn't exist, not until we had a reference to see infared.

also, witness life, it evolves and it gets more complex, simple things create complex things. What you are suggesting is that before the simplest atom existed there existed a hyper complex super being who created all, it's completely backwards and defies reality.

[deceiver]

Who gives a shit about your stupid terminology, the bottom line is there is NO rational explanation for the beginning of the Universe period.
You are making to much of my post, simply put, the origins of the universe are not logical or rational at all, you said it yourself  you can't put logic into something you can't understand, so we both agree then, what's the problem?

Causality and time are properties of the Universe. The question "what was before this" only makes sense in the context of an environment where causal relationships exist.

 So your argument is identical in either case cause the intelligent design say the same thing, Causality and time are properties of the Universe, The designer is not in the realm of space time and matter so to say it is an infinite regress doesn't make sense any more then "before this" both views are in the same position, think about it.

Where did you study astrophysics?

[OTHstrong]

Where did you study astrophysics?

It doesn't take a rocket science to know this retard

[avxo]

Who gives a shit about your stupid terminology, the bottom line is there is NO rational explanation for the beginning of the Universe period.

Good grief, another uneducated idiot with the IQ of rocks emerges. Yeah... who cares that concepts like "before" and "after" and "caused" don't apply? Who cares that time is a property of the Universe and so it's meaningless outside of the Universe. Let's go ahead and use the words and the concepts anyway and then we'll get somewhere.

The bottom is that you assert that there is no rational explanation for the beginning of the Universe. You cannot prove that is the case, and without a proof it's worth about as much as your other musings: that is, not much at all.

So your argument is identical in either case cause the intelligent design say the same thing, Causality and time are properties of the Universe, The designer is not in the realm of space time and matter so to say it is an infinite regress doesn't make sense any more then "before this" both views are in the same position, think about it.

No. I categorically reject the assertion at the core of the "theory" of Intelligent Design: that a designer is required. But let's examine Intelligent Design a bit, shall we?

Intelligent Design claims that complex natural life forms can only be created by something it terms a designing intelligence. If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by our original premise, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. We're left with an infinite regress.

We can posit a supernatural creating intelligence, but in doing so we instantly take Intelligent Design outside the realm of science. But perhaps not all is lost! Maybe we can try to argue that intelligence can arise solely out of natural processes, so the designer can be natural. Alas, that clearly contradicts the original premise of Intelligent Design, so that's out the door too.

The "theory" of Intelligent Design is a joke that explains nothing.

It doesn't take a rocket science to know this retard

Astrophysicists aren't rocket scientists.

[deceiver]

It doesn't take a rocket science to know this retard

Well actually it does. You have I bet no formal education but speak so openly about things you don't have slightest clue about, moreover you call other educated people "dumbasses". To sum up, you should really lay off the pipe because clearly you are delusional.

I don't have technical knowledge about things you mention here as well (I am just young guy who studies theoretical computer science), I could ask my friend who is theoretical physicist to explain some things to you using my account, but it would require some understanding of quantum mechanics which includes a lot of math like differential geometry and so on. Are you really sure you have enough knowledge and intelligence to discuss origins of universe?

Honestly really I won't go any further and follow your steps and talk about things I just don't understand. Don't take it offensive, it's a wake up call. I respect your opinion about training and nutrition, but please, don't speak of fields where it's all in the dark for you. I can assure you I have more knowledge about advanced math than you but I am very, very far (and will remain that way, because for my work I don't need it) from understanding even technical side of those theories, not even mentioning any research. It's no shame, because theories of modern science are so complex it takes a lifetime to understand them for greatest minds. I've spent my lifetime learning computer science and only now at 4th year of my studies I have some basic understanding of very basics of my discipline. You insult people like me by speaking about those complex theories without understanding anything about them.

[OTHstrong]

Good grief, another uneducated idiot with the IQ of rocks emerges. Yeah... who cares that concepts like "before" and "after" and "caused" don't apply? Who cares that time is a property of the Universe and so it's meaningless outside of the Universe. Let's go ahead and use the words and the concepts anyway and then we'll get somewhere.


Wow you are stupid, these terms are important but what I meant is they don't apply to my point which is a simple one, the concept of a beginning is not rational, If the universe had a beginning before it started to expand what was before( I use this word for lack of a better term) I understand that you are going to say to ask "what was before" doesn't make sense, but the concept of not having a before doesn't make sense either , where did matter come from, and what is the universe expanding into, all of this is mind boggling and does not and can not have a rational explanation, these concepts have drivan men crazy throughout the centuries, an infinite regress doesn't make sense, yes I agree with you but nothing put in it's stead will.


Astrophysicists aren't rocket scientists.

lol, NO SHIT SHERLOCK

[tbombz]

Causality and time are properties of the Universe. The question "what was before this" only makes sense in the context of an environment where causal relationships exist.

 

  causality is a property of the universe ?  prove it

time is a property of the universe ? prove it

[tbombz]

You insult people like me by speaking about those complex theories without understanding anything about them.

It is scientists who insult themselves when they pretend that their discoveries have metaphysical implications.

[OTHstrong]

Well actually it does. You have I bet no formal education but speak so openly about things you don't have slightest clue about, moreover you call other educated people "dumbasses". To sum up, you should really lay off the pipe because clearly you are delusional.

I don't have technical knowledge about things you mention here as well (I am just young guy who studies theoretical computer science), I could ask my friend who is theoretical physicist to explain some things to you using my account, but it would require some understanding of quantum mechanics which includes a lot of math like differential geometry and so on. Are you really sure you have enough knowledge and intelligence to discuss origins of universe?

Honestly really I won't go any further and follow your steps and talk about things I just don't understand. Don't take it offensive, it's a wake up call. I respect your opinion about training and nutrition, but please, don't speak of fields where it's all in the dark for you. I can assure you I have more knowledge about advanced math than you but I am very, very far (and will remain that way, because for my work I don't need it) from understanding even technical side of those theories, not even mentioning any research. It's no shame, because theories of modern science are so complex it takes a lifetime to understand them for greatest minds. I've spent my lifetime learning computer science and only now at 4th year of my studies I have some basic understanding of very basics of my discipline. You insult people like me by speaking about those complex theories without understanding anything about them.

I withdraw my comment on calling you a retard, it's just my get big instincts, sorry bro, I just realized who you are and you are one of the better posters, anyway yes you are right I am not qualified to talk about theories, but the concept of a beginning can be discussed by anyone and anyone will agree that it's a concept that cannot be explained, hence it's irrational, that is all my argument, I am not arguing that intelligent design is correct, although  I believe in it, but all I am saying is both concepts cannot be explained rationally

[tbombz]

The singularity dictates that logic breaks down, or we just are smart enough to understand, or we don't have the tools, or we cannot know etc.. there are multiple options here, stating we cannot know is absurd, as absurd as you stating there has to be an infinite regress.

the fact that your so resistant to this is irksome to me. we can make discoveries. but no discovery is exempt from questioning. and thus, there will always be questions.  do you really not understand this, or are you deathly afraid of having held an incorrect viewpoint, or what ?

[lovemonkey]

Why not simply admit that we do not know how the universe began(if it ever had a beginning) and that there may or may not be a reason for the universe to exist.

We.
Simply.
Do.
Not.
Know.
.....yet



But if you admit that, then I guess that ruins the illusion of an imaginary father figure holding your hand throughout your life... Never mind.

[Necrosis]

the fact that your so resistant to this is irksome to me. we can make discoveries. but no discovery is exempt from questioning. and thus, there will always be questions.  do you really not understand this, or are you deathly afraid of having held an incorrect viewpoint, or what ?

no, the questions you are asking that start with why are useless, why questions are stupid. How is all i care about. asking why we exist is a silly question because there may be no reason.

i have a viewpoint that is not atheistic, i just don't accept terrible logic based on age old fallacies.

who cares about the metaphysical? does it even exist? no one knows so wants the fucking point.

[lovemonkey]

the fact that your so resistant to this is irksome to me. we can make discoveries. but no discovery is exempt from questioning. and thus, there will always be questions.  do you really not understand this, or are you deathly afraid of having held an incorrect viewpoint, or what ?

lmao look who's talking. It's so obvious by now that you do not argue to learn or to stimulate your mind. For you having a discussion is only a weird way of stroking your own delusional ego. Even when confronted with hard evidence you still won't admit being wrong.

"nooooo! photons have mass, science got it all wrooooong, professor is wrooooong"

[OTHstrong]

Why not simply admit that we do not know how the universe began(if it ever had a beginning) and that there may or may not be a reason for the universe to exist.

We.
Simply.
Do.
Not.
Know.
.....yet



But if you admit that, then I guess that ruins the illusion of an imaginary father figure holding your hand throughout your life... Never mind.

Actually this is a good post, the top part that is

[lovemonkey]

Actually this is a good post, the top part that is

You do realize that the logic kinda follows from the first part, right?

By believing in a creator, and a DESIGNER( ) of living things you can possibly not agree with the first part of my post.

[tbombz]

no, the questions you are asking that start with why are useless, why questions are stupid. How is all i care about. asking why we exist is a silly question because there may be no reason.

i have a viewpoint that is not atheistic, i just don't accept terrible logic based on age old fallacies.

who cares about the metaphysical? does it even exist? no one knows so wants the fucking point.

who said anything about why ?  discoveries are subject to all types of questions. HOW did the dense and hot state that existed before the big bang get to be a dense and hot state in the first place ? HOW does energy work ? HOW does ANYTHING happen ?  why and how can be switched at ease...

metaphysical simply points to ultimate origin and cause.

your right. nobody knows ! nobody can know !  whats the point ? good question ! ask yourself that question when you get to thinking that science could ever speak on the issue !

[tbombz]

lmao look who's talking. It's so obvious by now that you do not argue to learn or to stimulate your mind. For you having a discussion is only a weird way of stroking your own delusional ego. Even when confronted with hard evidence you still won't admit being wrong.

"nooooo! photons have mass, science got it all wrooooong, professor is wrooooong"

   does energy have mass? 

[lovemonkey]

  does energy have mass?  

Jesus fucking christ YOU ARE THICK. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I've answered that question in relevance to photons several times and even consulted a professor of theoretical physics on the matter so you could get it through your head(feel honored). It's impossible to take you seriously.

Here, maybe it'll stick the fourth time:

This is where you're wrong and it also seems that whoever typed that quote is also wrong/misguided. It's a common misconception to apply the E=mc^2 formula to photons and therefore think they have mass.

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-511175.html

But photons have energy. By E=mc2, doesn't this mean that they have A mass?

The equation above was derived from this expression:

E2=(pc)2+(m0c2)2


A photon can still have zero invariant mass (m0), and can still have energy. There's nothing inconsistent here. All of the photon's energy is in the term pc. Some people would say that this is the photon's "inertial mass", since it is similar to the inertia that one feels when trying to stop a moving mass. This may or may not be useful to consider. However, it certainly should not be confused with the concept of the ordinary mass that most people are familiar with.

[tbombz]

did you even read that thing you just posted ? 

DOES ENERGY HAVE MASS ??  answer the question.. yes or no.

[lovemonkey]

did you even read that thing you just posted ?  

DOES ENERGY HAVE MASS ??  answer the question.. yes or no.

The question is flawed to begin with. For most particles, mass and energy are one and the same and can be exchanged for each other. This is not the case with photons, however. The photons energy is determined only by it's wavelength as explained by the expression E=hc/λ.

[deceiver]

I withdraw my comment on calling you a retard, it's just my get big instincts, sorry bro, I just realized who you are and you are one of the better posters, anyway yes you are right I am not qualified to talk about theories, but the concept of a beginning can be discussed by anyone and anyone will agree that it's a concept that cannot be explained, hence it's irrational, that is all my argument, I am not arguing that intelligent design is correct, although  I believe in it, but all I am saying is both concepts cannot be explained rationally

Well I think you put your ideas in wrong words then. Science and religion are different realms and therefore they may coexist - so even if we know one day theory of everything and explain every part of the physical world including big bang, origin of time and so on one could still say that this is all creation of a god. That's quite obvious observation.