Belief in evolution by country - % of population

[jem]

Only problem with STU's mind is that

There may be no need for a first cause when you are outside of our universe.

Time did not begin until after the big bang. Therefore prior to that moment we have no concept of what before or after would be.

First cause is something humans need because we experience time.

First cause is something our universe probably needs because it experiences time.

First cause is not something a Creator would necessarily need.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

yeah , sure you do. You write things that are accurate in your dreams - Jem.

Shouting liar at everyone doesn't prove a thing, other than you are obviously frantic and desperate in your childish responses.


...."I said they pointed out evidence of design."

Yes, and you are always trying to make them say things they don't say, but you haven't succeeded.

"They counter the evidence by stating we have almost infinite other universes or regions of space. (regions we can not observe - and must be posited on faith)."

There is no evidence for (intelligent) design to counter.
Just because you’re making pseudo-evidence up in your head for reasons that you want there to be a (intelligent) designer, doesn't mean there is evidence of any.

Infinite other universes or regions of space do not prove nor disprove (intelligent) design any more than would prove or disprove (intelligent) water.

One theoretical physicist you misrepresent in your references says - in his personal opinion - those conditions would NOT make it difficult to counter intelligent design loonies.
The other Nobel Prize physicist has no problem saying he holds no truck with (intelligent) design anyway.

Twist your words? Don't make me laugh.
You have your "top scientists" stating NO to intelligent design and your "top nobel prize winner" saying NO to (intelligent) design and (intelligent) designers, so you think you can twist that to mean the "best minds in science" are saying (intelligent) design is possible.

And you call me a liar!
Go prostrate yourself in front of some graven image or whatever it is you do for forgiveness - ye hypocrite. Look out.. the devil's watching you .

you completely misrepresent the arguments of the scientists.

I hope that makes you happy.

For those interested in the truth you can see the previous quotes in threads we have made here on et.

You will see how STU argues with quotes such as this:


If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.


This was written by one of the founders of string theory.

"Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics."

STU will make up all sorts of shit rather than respond this point. Which I supported with numerous other quotes.

Why is Susskind saying this if it is not true? are there fine tunings.

Would scientists be hardpressed to explain them if there are not trillions of other universes.

 

[Mike805]

Quote from jem:

Only problem with STU's mind is that

There may be no need for a first cause when you are outside of our universe.

Time did not begin until after the big bang. Therefore prior to that moment we have no concept of what before or after would be.

First cause is something humans need because we experience time.

First cause is something our universe probably needs because it experiences time.

First cause is not something a Creator would necessarily need.

Wait - did you just make an argument for atheisim?

First cause = a human creation.

Time = a human creation.

A creator = a human creation.

Whoa, now I'm confused, if you're admitting that the above concepts are human creations then you're on the right path... I thought you were arguing against admitting that humans created god and that humans created the idea of "intelligent design"... concepts created a few thousand years ago I might add...

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from stu:

If that is so, then here is a 'couldn't be' to also consider.

Your contention is; Nothing can exist without a beginning

A first cause has no beginning.
Therefore a first cause cannot exist.

Then God as a first cause.... is no "could be" or "had to be".

Surely, It's a couldn't be.

Brilliant!

 

[Index piker]

Quote from stu:

If that is so, then here is a 'couldn't be' to also consider.

Your contention is; Nothing can exist without a beginning

A first cause has no beginning.
Therefore a first cause cannot exist.

Then the universe as a first cause.... is no "could be" or "had to be".

Surely, It's a couldn't be.

There, fixed that for you.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from jem:

Only problem with STU's mind is that

There may be no need for a first cause when you are outside of our universe.

Time did not begin until after the big bang. Therefore prior to that moment we have no concept of what before or after would be.

First cause is something humans need because we experience time.

First cause is something our universe probably needs because it experiences time.

First cause is not something a Creator would necessarily need.

Only problem with jem's mind is that

Being "outside of our universe" implies a separate universe, complete with its own space and timeline. A Creator could not create unless there was a BEFORE the creation, i.e., unless there was a TIME before the creation outside of the creation. We don't know how our universe came into being, just that it is here and it has an evident evolution from shortly after its origin until now. Assuming a creator tells us nothing because we still don't know where the creator came from. Assuming the creator has "always existed" is just word salad nonsense that theists say to try to hide the fact that they have no more idea about the creator than those who don't assume creation of the universe.

 

[bigarrow]

Talking with these Jesus believers is like listening to a 4 year old talking about Santa.
There is absolutly no evidence that would sway their belief, facts and evidence don't matter.
This is the question believers need to ask themselves. "What evidence do I need to have to denounce Jesus?" If your answer is, there is no evidence then you need admit that to yourself. And stop these stupid discussions, because nothing matters except that you believe, that is the only arguement you have.

 

[stu]

Quote from Index piker:

There, fixed that for you.

Fine and thank you for your help. According to your fix , that's definitely a 'couldn't be' then , as far as first cause goes. Either by the Universe or by a Creator.

I think you may have helped the theist understand why they could step away from that superficial first cause Creator idea .


So now what about first cause(s) rather than just a first cause. Many Creators ?
Theists won't like that unless they perhaps start to revert back to Norse Gods.
From what they say, with no Creator God (or Gods) , what you would get, is no universe. Just more nothing.

However there are no such adverse implications for science.
There is such a thing as nothing - which produces Quantum Fluctuations. That fits with first cause(s) speculation .

In quantum mechanics when there is nothing you can get a universe as the result.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

For those interested in the truth....
This was <s>written</s> stated in a live recording by one of the founders of string theory.

• " I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence. "
  
  "It was random mutation, a bunch of carbon oxygen and other stuff for that mutation to work on, and a little bit of everything evolved. Some things did better than others. Those things are more populous than the things that didn't do well and so it was basically randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design. "

There, I fixed that........ for you JEM

Quote from jem:

"Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics."

STU will make up all sorts of shit rather than respond this point. Which I supported with numerous other quotes.

Why is Susskind saying this if it is not true? are there fine tunings.

Would scientists be hardpressed to explain them if there are not trillions of other universes.

"Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics."

Ok then, I'll let theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind himself "make up all sorts of shit rather than respond this point".......

• 
  "The views that I have expressed are far from rigorous scientific facts. The observational evidence for a cosmological constant, for inflation, and the mathematical evidence for a string theory landscape could all evaporate." Susskind.

In addition, according to your "top scientists" Nobel Prize winner physicist Steven Weinberg , the answer is NO to "fine tunings" and NO "Designer"

A false, illogical, unintelligent, totally crap argument for an intelligent design Creator like yours, is going to be no substitute for any of the more bizarre flights of fancy ID normally produces.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from stu:

If that is so, then here is a 'couldn't be' to also consider.

Your contention is; Nothing can exist without a beginning

A first cause has no beginning.
Therefore a first cause cannot exist.

Then God as a first cause.... is no "could be" or "had to be".

Surely, It's a couldn't be.

Surely, you can't be that sure of yourself. Couldn't be is a consideration, but we haven't found anything to be certain as yet.
Mysteries should not be explained away with supernatural explanations, nor should theories be taken at face value just because they're proclaimed by someone with a PHD. There are those of us which are truely interested in finding facts, wherever they may lead, and then there are those which are so in love with their own ideas that the truth is the last thing they want to look for. Both camps are full of the later. Which are you?