Evidence for/against YEC

[Deleted member 619]

Siince something cannot come from nothing...

Show some nothing, so we can test your premise. I assume you have evidence in support of this claim? I have some very serious men in Stockholm who'd like a word with you if you do. They'd like to guve you a shitload of money and a nice, shiny medal with the face of the man who invented dynamite on it in relief. You'd like a nice, shiny medal, wouldn't you? I know idiots like shiny things...

Look, this fuckwittery might have passed for reasonable thought when Aristotlfe was alive, but fails to meet the standards of today, because by today's standard, Aristotle was an ignorant twonk. Hard as it is for any of us to believe, he was even more ignorant than you are (I know, right?!)

All science points to the fact that something cannot come from nothing.

Just not any science you can name.

 

[tuxbox]

 

[Visaki]

No quoting from Quran doesn't work

Surah 6:115 and Surah 3:3 claim that Allah revealed the bible and protects it. Since Quran contradicts the bible Allah cannot be God almighty.

Surah 4:24 allow adultery and rape. Coupled with sunan Abu Dawood 2:2150 which confirms what is written and God of the bible says in exodus 20 to not commit adultery... There is a contradiction.

Or according to Quran Jesus did not die... Bible records Jesus did die.. Another contradiction.

Muslims don't understand those arguments either.. So don't worry your in the company of 1.5 billion Muslims.

Again quoting from bible, which is a collection of truths, or quoting a contradicting Quran are different matters... So you go ahead quote the Quran.. But the end is inevitable, like evolution, the Quran contradicts itself. Thus false.

Altough I can't claim to have studied muslim theology in any depth I'd guess that they explain the Quran/Bible contradictions in exactly the same way as christian apologists explain contradictions within the Bible. Or maybe they just claim that christians have corrupted the Bible. So yes, quoting from the Quran does actually work exactly as well as quoting from the Bible, you just have to have different apologists to explain why it does.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Bernhard, if you're going to use the argument that "this book contradicts that book", perhaps based on the fact that one book pre-dates the other, then you have a problem.

The bible pre-dates the Qur'an - but the bible comprises the Tanakh (OT) and the NT. So, if the NT contradicts the Tanakh, doesn't that mean that the Tanakh takes precedence?

Further, since the oldest recorded religious texts are the Hindu scriptures, if the Tanakh contradicts those, then by that argument the Tanakh is false.

In fact, let's just look at the OT where Yahweh is claimed to be God.

Firstly, the term Elohim ("holy ones" or "lords"), despite being translated as "God" in English, implies a plurality of gods - which is what the peoples of the Middle East had.

El - along with his wife, Asherah - ruled a host of gods ... including one called Yahweh. In fact, Yahweh - as with the host - was El's son.

Since the earliest original texts contradict the bible, this up-ends your claim that the bible is the only one that counts.

The Hindu scriptures, which record the words of their gods - as already mentioned - pre-date both the bible and its earliest extant texts: this means that even the earliest texts of the bible are wrong - if you're arguing that preceding texts take precedence when contradictions occur.

As I keep telling you, books don't prove gods exist - all they prove is that people exist, because that's who print, bind and publish them and the peoples' stories and ideas contained therein.

And, as I've noted previously, philosophical arguments can't prove gods because they are only arguments for concepts of gods.

You have no objective evidence for gods of any description - books don't count.

Secondly, you're confusing how the term "nothing" is used in the scientific context with the term "absolutely nothing" - these are not the same thing.

In the scientific context, "nothing" refers to the minimum state necessary for anything.

"Absolutely nothing", in contrast, means that there is literally nothing at all - if this were so, then something will, in fact, arise: to understand why, I refer you to Ex Nihilo Onus Merdae Fit - if you don't understand it, I'll explain it to you.

In either case, there is something rather than nothing.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

Altough I can't claim to have studied muslim theology in any depth I'd guess that they explain the Quran/Bible contradictions in exactly the same way as christian apologists explain contradictions within the Bible. Or maybe they just claim that christians have corrupted the Bible. So yes, quoting from the Quran does actually work exactly as well as quoting from the Bible, you just have to have different apologists to explain why it does.

My understanding, scant as it is, isthat they largely accept that christianity is largely right, but that Islam is the last word. They accept jemebus, for example, although they see him not as divine but as a prophet, albeit one that was superseded by the paedophile. The congruence between the one branch of fuckwittery and the other is closer than either group of adherents likes to admit, and certainly closer than any differences, which mostly reside in the fact that christianity has had longer in the mainstream, while Islam languished. Islam is actually older,stemming from the death of Abraham as a schism in mainstream Judaism, but remained obscure until well after the inception of christianity.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Well drag an glas... I accept your proposal.. Please explain the Richard carrier blog.

And you're not making any comment on the points I made about the religious texts? About the fact that Yahweh is the son of El, as are the other gods El's children? Thus can not be God?

Not to mention the fact that Jesus, being a Jew, in referring to his "father" is referring to Yahweh - not the Christian God?

*****​

Very well, I'll explain Carrier's post, although you give no indication of having read it.

In a nutshell, Carrier points out that, if there's absolutely nothing then there's nothing to prevent anything from happening.

The reason is that, without the laws of logic - including the law of non-contradiction - anything can happen: things can exist and not exist at the same time.

Anything can come into existence - universes, etc.

More importantly, the multi-verse is more probable than no universe.

No universe is one possible outcome. One universe is another equally possible outcome. However, there are a infinite number of possible single universes.

This means that it is virtually certain that a single universe is more likely than no universe at all.

Further, there is a possibility of two universes - in this case, there are infinity times (infinity minus 1) possible combinations of two universe. For all intents and purposes, infinity squared possibilities of two universes.

This sequence of possible combinations of universes continues up to the possibility of a infinite combination of universes - whose probability is effectively infinity to the power of infinity.

As a result, it is virtually certain that the multi-verse is the case as it's infinity to the power of infinity times more likely than a single universe, which is, in turn, infinitely more likely than no universe at all.

And all of this without any god(s).

And, finally, instead of universes, this equally applies to gods - polytheism (literally, many gods) is infinity to the power of infinity more likely than monotheism (literally, one god), which is infinitely more likely than no god at all.

Understand?

This is the logical outcome of "absolutely nothing" being the starting point.

In the case of nothing - in the scientific context of a minimum state - as Hawking, Steinhardt and Turok, Rees, Stenger, and Krauss all contend, "a universe from nothing" is consistent with physics.

Either way, there will be something rather than nothing - without the need for god(s).

Does this make sense to you, Bernhard?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Greetings,

Well drag an glas... I accept your proposal.. Please explain the Richard carrier blog.

And you're not making any comment on the points I made about the religious texts? About the fact that Yahweh is the son of El, as are the other gods El's children? Thus can not be God?

Not to mention the fact that Jesus, being a Jew, in referring to his "father" is referring to Yahweh - not the Christian God?

He has a tendency to ignore information that contradicts him. I pointed out all the papers of mine he ignored and he never even defended himself, switching to "You're denying whales with legs"

Like that had nothing to do with what I called you out on.

Then he started lying about what I said. Pretty pathetic

 

[Dustnite]

Like that had nothing to do with what I called you out on.

Then he started lying about what I said. Pretty pathetic

Creationists cannot honestly defend their beliefs, however I don't think Bernie honestly believes anything he is saying. He improperly uses bad arguments by getting them backwards or disproving himself, then resorts to personal attacks in order to get attention. Anything I have posted toward Bernie has been backed up by his own statements on these boards and he's proven to be a liar time and again.

What's more likely is he's just trying to get his jollies off. Remember, he said he was "very busy" on other debate forums and now seems to be checking this daily to troll more. The only inevitable conclusion to all this is he will debase himself to a series of grunts and clicks to defend himself and it will be pretty funny to see it.

 

[Deleted member 619]

It is really telling when I see people making comments on a subject they do not understand. To then make equivalences because of lack of understanding is the most ignorant position to hold.

Luke 4:23

Liar.

Edit: It occurs to me that I've only ever come across one creationist as dishonest as you, and he recently showed up here. You're not a sock of Jireh, are you?

Actually, scratch that, yiu can at least usually master the subject/verb agreement, something he's never managed.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Creationists cannot honestly defend their beliefs, however I don't think Bernie honestly believes anything he is saying. He improperly uses bad arguments by getting them backwards or disproving himself, then resorts to personal attacks in order to get attention. Anything I have posted toward Bernie has been backed up by his own statements on these boards and he's proven to be a liar time and again.

What's more likely is he's just trying to get his jollies off. Remember, he said he was "very busy" on other debate forums and now seems to be checking this daily to troll more. The only inevitable conclusion to all this is he will debase himself to a series of grunts and clicks to defend himself and it will be pretty funny to see it.

Certainly possible, but doublethink is pretty powerful. Someone (possibly you?) quoted a bit of Orwell previously, but this description is quite apt:

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies[.]

 

[Dustnite]

Ya I posted a quote from 1984. He's either the worst case of doublethink I've ever seen or he's outright dishonest in his own beliefs and he's just getting his jollies...

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Super cute

So you claim " nothing stops nothing"

Therefore from nothing anything can come.

Is that acceptable? Or do you wish to rewrite in Richards words?

Whether it's absolutely nothing or nothing, in the scientific context, there'll be something.

And many is infinitely more likely than one.

PS I'm off to bed - it's 2.30am here. Goodnight.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

As far as cutting-edge physics can currently ascertain, genuine 'nothing' is prohibited by Heisenberg's Uncertainy Principle (happy to expand on this for any honest enquirer), which would tend to render the existence of something a brute fact, with no magic required.

Cosmological arguments are only surpassed in asininity by ontological arguments. And Bernhard.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Because nothing will stop something from existing.

According to Richard carrier. You agree with this?

Do you agree that "absolute nothing" includes no laws of nature? If there are rules -- such as conservation of energy -- that's clearly something.

 

[tuxbox]

As far as cutting-edge physics can currently ascertain, genuine 'nothing' is prohibited by Heisenberg's Uncertainy Principle (happy to expand on this for any honest enquirer), which would tend to render the existence of something a brute fact, with no magic required.

Cosmological arguments are only surpassed in asininity by ontological arguments. And Bernhard.

Please do. I would like to know and I'm pretty sure some of the lurkers would like to know as well.

 

[tuxbox]

Because nothing will stop something from existing.

According to Richard carrier. You agree with this?

Do you agree that "absolute nothing" includes no laws of nature? If there are rules -- such as conservation of energy -- that's clearly something.

Not if the rules were created before the Big Bang? (Yes, that is suppose to be a question mark)

 

[SpecialFrog]

Do you agree that "absolute nothing" includes no laws of nature? If there are rules -- such as conservation of energy -- that's clearly something.

Not if the rules were created before the Big Bang? (Yes, that is suppose to be a question mark)

Not quite following you.

People like Craig who want to advance lame cosmological arguments complain that the "nothing" referred to be Hawking, Krauss, etc. isn't real nothing because it contains laws of quantum mechanics and empty space.

The conventional objection to this is that there is no reason to think any kind of "absolute nothing" existed (or even could exist, as Hackenslash notes).

However, Carrier's argument (I believe) is that if absolute nothing did exist it would have to lack laws of nature as well since those are "something". In such a scenario, how can anyone logically assert what could or could not happen from that point? If there is no law of conservation of energy, why can't energy just spontaneously come into existence?

So there is no flavour of "nothing" in which the cosmological argument is sound.

 

[tuxbox]

Not quite following you.

I do not believe in absolute nothing (it makes zero sense), but I do believe that the laws of nature were put into motion prior to the Big Bang. I clearly misread what you were getting at.

People like Craig who want to advance lame cosmological arguments complain that the "nothing" referred to be Hawking, Krauss, etc. isn't real nothing because it contains laws of quantum mechanics and empty space.

Understood.

The conventional objection to this is that there is no reason to think any kind of "absolute nothing" existed (or even could exist, as Hackenslash notes).

Agreed

However, Carrier's argument (I believe) is that if absolute nothing did exist it would have to lack laws of nature as well since those are "something". In such a scenario, how can anyone logically assert what could or could not happen from that point? If there is no law of conservation of energy, why can't energy just spontaneously come into existence?

Energy spontaneously coming into existence does not make any sense either.

So there is no flavour of "nothing" in which the cosmological argument is sound.

Understood. Most arguments for the existence of a god are unsound, are they not? Logically speaking.

 

[tuxbox]

Just an FYI... Again you will not want to understand

But the plurality of "Elohim" is implied in the word " trinity"

Focus. Christians accept a plurality existing as one. ... Trinity.

It's not about wanting to understand, it is about the fact the "Trinity" makes zero sense!

 

[SpecialFrog]

I do not believe in absolute nothing (it makes zero sense), but I do believe that the laws of nature were put into motion prior to the Big Bang.

Fair enough. I would concur to the extent that I suspect that the laws of nature existed at the point the Big Bang happened, though I'm not convinced they were "put into motion" at some point.

However, Carrier's argument (I believe) is that if absolute nothing did exist it would have to lack laws of nature as well since those are "something". In such a scenario, how can anyone logically assert what could or could not happen from that point? If there is no law of conservation of energy, why can't energy just spontaneously come into existence?

Energy spontaneously coming into existence does not make any sense either.

Do you agree that in a universe where the laws of conservation of energy didn't apply then energy could logically be created or destroyed? Similarly, in a universe without a law of noncontradiction, two contradictory things could be true.

These things don't "make sense" in that the are completely at odds with our notions about how reality works. However, if you are postulating a scenario where our reality doesn't exist at all, all bets are off.

Understood. Most arguments for the existence of a god are unsound, are they not? Logically speaking.

Well, I would say that I am not aware of any sound, logical arguments for the existence of any gods. It is possible that one exists.