Origins Thread

[jpc]

An intelligent designer would not create something which has 99.99999% useless, empty space. It's simply poor design not becoming of the most genius designer of all. The creator wanted to create life, so it created this realm we call earth for us to live in. No need for a gazillion other planets, black holes, big bang, bendy spacetime and other violations of the creator's own laws of physics it established on earth. That's redundant overkill in design terms. All that superfluous junk is unnecessary when all required is the earth with the sun, stars and planets above. That is the universe.

How do you know it's empty space?
That's just a perspective!

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

All that superfluous junk is unnecessary when all required is the earth with the sun, stars and planets above.

There has been (and still is) an awful lot of superfluous junk here on earth.

 

[Hermit]

How do you know it's empty space?
That's just a perspective!

That's not what I say, I don't believe in the space paradigm, but in that paradigm it is mostly empty space compared to matter. According to AI, ordinary matter makes up less than 5%. So a universe that is said to be 95% empty would be have a lot of redundancy from a design point of view. Empty space is useful and required in design, but 95% is poor design.

Think about it like this: God wanted to create humans and a place for them to live. So he created an earth measuring in the thousands of miles in size, but placed it in an empty space that measures nearly 100 billion light years. Imagine you wanted to design something, a video game, an engine, a piece of furniture, anything - would you create that much empty space?

The documentary trailer posits that the complexity of the (space paradigm) universe is a proof of the existence of God. I would suggest to them that the complexity of earth by itself is sufficient to make that argument. These Christians are trying to make their argument science-y, but they have fallen into a trap of shilling for the space universe concept which actually removes the requirement for God, and which is the basis for the evolution theory which they reject.

They are confused, using as arguments ideas that contradict the very first verses of the Bible. In Genesis there is no mention of God fine-tuning a space universe. He created the earth and the heavens (above earth); He created light; He created a firmament to divide the waters above and below...and on the seventh day he was finished ("Thus the heavens and the earth were finished"), with no mention of any space universe. There is no above and below in the space paradigm.

There has been (and still is) an awful lot of superfluous junk here on earth.

Such as?

 

[Hermit]

Eh, no it doesn't and no it's not

Wow, great rebuttal.

In the space universe paradigm, the universe and all the planets and life are said to have formed following a big bang, not from God. In the space universe paradigm, God did not create man or anything else directly. The big bang theory involve all sorts of crazy ideas about time-warping infinite-loop multiverses, but not God - the big bang theory is nothing but an attempt to explain the creation of the universe without a God.

The space paradigm is the basis for evolution because the earth is said to have formed by random collisions of rocks in space, then organic life evolved from non-organic material, then evolved into more complex forms until humans.

 

[Diarmuid]

the big bang theory is nothing but an attempt to explain the creation of the universe without a God

Indeed, The God explanation seems a lot simpler.


The Non God boys sometimes say that before the big bang, there was another big bang and another all the way back. But what was before that?

 

[Fishalt]

Indeed, The God explanation seems a lot simpler.


The Non God boys sometimes say that before the big bang, there was another big bang and another all the way back. But what was before that?

Non-God Boy here. Personally, I don't really subscribe to nor offer any explanations on the origins of the universe. We don't really know enough. The God explanation is indeed simpler, but it also doesn't offer any mechanistic explanation for this, and doesn't make any sense. Evolution is a different deal. Tiger and Hermit still don't really get it.

I'm not a militant atheist like Jambo, however. I was raised Catholic and believe Catholicism is a net benefit to the world. I'll take Catholics over Muslims every day of the week.

 

[Diarmuid]

Personally, I don't really subscribe to nor offer any explanations on the origins of the universe. We don't really know enough.

Is it possible that we humans are not intelligent enough to understand the origins of the universe?

 

[Tiger]

Non-God Boy here. Personally, I don't really subscribe to nor offer any explanations on the origins of the universe. We don't really know enough. The God explanation is indeed simpler, but it also doesn't offer any mechanistic explanation for this, and doesn't make any sense. Evolution is a different deal. Tiger and Hermit still don't really get it.

I'm not a militant atheist like Jambo, however. I was raised Catholic and believe Catholicism is a net benefit to the world. I'll take Catholics over Muslims every day of the week.

We do know enough.

We don’t need total knowledge to draw rational conclusions, and in fact we already know quite a lot. We know the universe had a beginning, we know it is governed by precise and mathematically describable laws, and we know that those laws and constants sit in an extraordinarily narrow life-permitting range.

We also know that information; especially the kind found in biology, is not produced by unguided physical processes but is always traced back to intelligence. That is more than enough to make a reasonable inference about the type of cause involved. Absolute ignorance isn’t the starting point here; it’s a denial of what we already know.

Saying “we don’t know enough” only works if we pretend that design inferences require complete mechanisms, which they never have. We don’t know how minds generate thoughts, but we still know minds exist.

Likewise, we don’t need a step-by-step account of divine action to recognise that blind processes lack the creative power to produce fine-tuned laws and specified information. So the honest position isn’t that we know nothing; it’s that we know enough to say chance and necessity don’t suffice, and that points beyond them.

 

[Fishalt]

We do know enough.

We don’t need total knowledge to draw rational conclusions, and in fact we already know quite a lot. We know the universe had a beginning, we know it is governed by precise and mathematically describable laws, and we know that those laws and constants sit in an extraordinarily narrow life-permitting range.

We also know that information; especially the kind found in biology, is not produced by unguided physical processes but is always traced back to intelligence. That is more than enough to make a reasonable inference about the type of cause involved. Absolute ignorance isn’t the starting point here; it’s a denial of what we already know.

Saying “we don’t know enough” only works if we pretend that design inferences require complete mechanisms, which they never have. We don’t know how minds generate thoughts, but we still know minds exist.

Likewise, we don’t need a step-by-step account of divine action to recognise that blind processes lack the creative power to produce fine-tuned laws and specified information. So the honest position isn’t that we know nothing; it’s that we know enough to say chance and necessity don’t suffice, and that points beyond them.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, Tiger. If God's what you need to get you through the tragedy of existence, and it works for you, stick with it. I won't try and dissuade you.

 

[Fishalt]

Is it possible that we humans are not intelligent enough to understand the origins of the universe?

I think it's likely.

 

[Tiger]

Whatever helps you sleep at night, Tiger. If God's what you need to get you through the tragedy of existence, and it works for you, stick with it. I won't try and dissuade you.

Childish, snide and vacuous. Same old Fishalt. Never change.

 

[Wolf]

Eh, no it doesn't and no it's not

Other than that, yes, you're more or less correct, the IDiots have chosen the "science-y" route for their creationism

Alright Jimmy, how was your Christmas?

 

[Fishalt]

Childish, snide and vacuous. Same old Fishalt. Never change.

You were saying?

Not very Christian of you, Tiger. Whatever else you might be, you're a very ugly, petty and vindictive soul.

 

[Tiger]

You were saying?

Not very Christian of you, Tiger. Whatever else you might be, you're a very ugly, petty and vindictive soul.

View attachment 8580

But you weren’t replying to that post.

That’s an ancient post from the middle of a debate where you were and James were trying to use abuse and a lack of wit to disguise your lack of knowledge. Bringing it up know is complete faggotory. It’s your schtick.

You regularly disparage James, however you are both very alike. Particularly when it comes to feeling butt hurt from something said months and years previous. He’s forever digging up comments from yonks ago. You both suffer badly from Tiger derangement syndrome.

Kindly refrain from further spamming this thread. There’s a good girl.

 

[Fishalt]

But you weren’t replying to that post.

That’s an ancient post from the middle of a debate where you were and James were trying to use abuse and a lack of wit to disguise your lack of knowledge. Bringing it up know is complete faggotory. It’s your schtick.

You regularly disparage James, however you are both very alike. Particularly when it comes to feeling butt hurt from something said months and years previous. He’s forever digging up comments from yonks ago. You both suffer badly from Tiger derangement syndrome.

Kindly refrain from further spamming this thread. There’s a good girl.

lol Righto, Tiger.

But every time you wave your rolling pin at me, or someone else on the basis of my of their moral character, I'm going to whip that one out. Not even the very good teachings of Jesus Christ can redeem the fundamental and unalterable shittyness of your character.

 

[Tiger]

lol Righto, Tiger.

But every time you wave your rolling pin at me, or someone else on the basis of my of their moral character, I'm going to whip that one out. Not even the very good teachings of Jesus Christ can redeem the fundamental and unalterable shittyness of your character.

View attachment 8581

Dreary me.

Nobody gives a toss, ya backward gaybo.

Stop spamming.

 

[Diarmuid]

we know enough to say chance and necessity don’t suffice, and that points beyond them

I disagree slightly with some of your statements, but agree with your conclusion. If the Universe is just coincidence, it is quite remarkable.

 

[Hermit]

The God explanation is indeed simpler, but it also doesn't offer any mechanistic explanation for this, and doesn't make any sense.

It does not need to offer a mechanistic explanation. The big bang theory has attempted to provide an explanation for how the universe formed, but does not provide an explanation for how the big bang occurred or what preceded it. There is actually a mechanistic explanation for God's creation offered on the first page of the Bible in Genesis. Not saying it's true, but it's there.

What doesn't make sense about the idea of God creating the universe? You don't have to believe in God to understand that if there were such an entity as God then it makes perfect sense.

Evolution is a different deal. Tiger and Hermit still don't really get it.

Get what? Evolution theory proposes that organic life emerged from non-organic matter without design, that it formed all by itself through natural processes (which themselves were also not designed but somehow mysteriously emerged into existence).

 

[Fishalt]

It does not need to offer a mechanistic explanation. The big bang theory has attempted to provide an explanation for how the universe formed, but does not provide an explanation for how the big bang occurred or what preceded it. There is actually a mechanistic explanation for God's creation offered on the first page of the Bible in Genesis. Not saying it's true, but it's there.

What doesn't make sense about the idea of God creating the universe? You don't have to believe in God to understand that if there were such an entity as God then it makes perfect sense.


Get what? Evolution theory proposes that organic life emerged from non-organic matter without design, that it formed all by itself through natural processes (which themselves were also not designed but somehow mysteriously emerged into existence).

It doesn't matter, Hermit. As I said originally, I have no interest in trying to dissuade anybody from their faith. I take no umbrage with nor have anything against this, up until the point that this infringes upon my liberty--so a theocratic-type situation.

However, I invite you to consider the passage sent to me via PM Tiger. I ask you this: In what way does this exemplify the teachings of Jesus Christ? I have known many Catholics in my time. Some of them have been the best people I have ever known. There is no spirit of Christ in Tiger. There's nothing spiritually redeeming about this person whatsoever. Nothing in the philosophy of Aquinas or Christ is reflected or even recognizable in his innateness. You are participating in a thread created by a definitional false prophet. Have a think about it.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Such as?

Human excrement?

 

[Tiger]

It doesn't matter, Hermit. As I said originally, I have no interest in trying to dissuade anybody from their faith. I take no umbrage with nor have anything against this, up until the point that this infringes upon my liberty--so a theocratic-type situation.

However, I invite you to consider the passage sent to me via PM Tiger. I ask you this: In what way does this exemplify the teachings of Jesus Christ? I have known many Catholics in my time. Some of them have been the best people I have ever known. There is no spirit of Christ in Tiger. There's nothing spiritually redeeming about this person whatsoever. Nothing in the philosophy of Aquinas or Christ is reflected or even recognizable in his innateness. You are participating in a thread created by a definitional false prophet. Have a think about it.



View attachment 8584

@Hermit

You’re probably wondering what all this garbled, navel gazing faggotory nonsense is about ….let me explain…

About a year ago, Fishalt suffered a publicly humiliating defeat to me in a debate such as this.

Wounded and feeling very sorry for himself, he buggered off back to his tin house in the outback to lick his wounds and recover. Now; visibly still suffering from severe PTSD about the issue, he has returned to ‘absolutely not talk about it’ every day. He will not talk about this subject matter today. He will be on here ‘not talking about it’ tomorrow and no doubt every other day for the next few weeks.

So, if you are looking for something akin to a discussion on this subject matter from him, you’re unlikely to find much success. He’s only here as part of some sort of therapy to fix his ‘Tiger derangement syndrome’. It’s possible his shrink advised him to give it a shot. Who knows?

Anyhoo, there you have it.

 

[Hermit]

It doesn't matter, Hermit. As I said originally, I have no interest in trying to dissuade anybody from their faith. I take no umbrage with nor have anything against this, up until the point that this infringes upon my liberty--so a theocratic-type situation.

However, I invite you to consider the passage sent to me via PM Tiger. I ask you this: In what way does this exemplify the teachings of Jesus Christ? I have known many Catholics in my time. Some of them have been the best people I have ever known. There is no spirit of Christ in Tiger. There's nothing spiritually redeeming about this person whatsoever. Nothing in the philosophy of Aquinas or Christ is reflected or even recognizable in his innateness. You are participating in a thread created by a definitional false prophet. Have a think about it.

I wasn't talking about faith or Tiger or your opinion of his behaviour as a Christian. If you don't want to talk about this subject then stay out of the thread. But don't pretend it's because you're not interested in trying to dissuade people from their faith.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Hermit there's an example of superfluous junk here on Earth. There's thousands if not millions of examples.

 

[Hermit]

Human excrement?

Hermit there's an example of superfluous junk here on Earth. There's thousands if not millions of examples.

Human excrement is not superflous junk. The excretion system is a necessary component of life. Feces breaks down over time into the soil, and is even used as fertiliser in farming, thus contributing to the growth of our food which we eat and then shit out and the cycle continues. Feces is also very useful to Indian people who enjoy playing with it. In Haiti, they re-use shit for various purposes. Guano is used in gardening.

Everything on earth serves a purpose, nothing is superflous. My argument is about redundancy in design. If God wanted to create life, he could create earth and life and leave it at that, without the need to place that earth in a ridiculously oversized universe with black holes etc - all that would be superflous if all he wanted was to create life.

Imagine you wanted to build a garage for your car - you would build the garage not much bigger than the car itself. If you built a massive warehouse instead, that would be superfluous, just bad design when all you need is a small space.

 

[Tiger]

An intelligent designer would not create something which has 99.99999% useless, empty space. It's simply poor design not becoming of the most genius designer of all. The creator wanted to create life, so it created this realm we call earth for us to live in. No need for a gazillion other planets, black holes, big bang, bendy spacetime and other violations of the creator's own laws of physics it established on earth. That's redundant overkill in design terms. All that superfluous junk is unnecessary when all required is the earth with the sun, stars and planets above. That is the universe.

With respect Hermit; your argument assumes that God would design the universe in the way that a human would organise a shed: by only including what is immediately and visibly necessary, and nothing more. But there is no reason to think divine design should mirror human convenience or minimalism.

We design under constraints of cost, space, and efficiency; God does not. Judging cosmic design by human standards of “overkill” is simply projecting our limitations onto a creator who, by definition, is not limited in that way.

More importantly, Earth is not a standalone object that could exist by itself with a few items placed around it. Its very existence depends on deep, universe-wide conditions: stable physical laws etc....

What looks like excess or emptiness is part of the framework that makes life on Earth possible at all. The real mistake is not that the universe is large, but that we imagine God would design reality the way we would store tools, efficiently, locally, and only for immediate use. God is not lacking in imagination.

 

[Hermit]

With respect Hermit; your argument assumes that God would design the universe in the way that a human would organise a shed: by only including what is immediately and visibly necessary, and nothing more. But there is no reason to think divine design should mirror human convenience or minimalism.

We design under constraints of cost, space, and efficiency; God does not. Judging cosmic design by human standards of “overkill” is simply projecting our limitations onto a creator who, by definition, is not limited in that way.

I agree that God would not be constrained, but I still think it would be a poor design choice. If I had unlimited resources I still wouldn't build a warehouse for my car when all I need is a garage. Maybe that argument assumes that God would make the same choice as me or human standards.

God can do anything, so one can always make an argument that God could have done something for some reason unknown to us. But the way I see it is he created us, we are the stars of the show. To make us a microscopic part of a universe would contradict that.

It's an interesting point though, do our ideas of good design principles necessarily apply to what God would adhere to? I need to think about this. I'm assuming master designer = masterful design, but maybe it is not so simple.

More importantly, Earth is not a standalone object that could exist by itself with a few items placed around it. Its very existence depends on deep, universe-wide conditions: stable physical laws etc....

What looks like excess or emptiness is part of the framework that makes life on Earth possible at all.

God has the ability to create an earth with humans without the space universe. I think earth is a contained system that does not depend on anything out in space. Celestial objects may or may not be in that system, but I do not believe they are balls of rock and gas in a mostly empty vacuum. The sun has a direct physical effect on our earth system, but I am on the fence whether the moon and planets, whatever they are, have any effect on earth. All the alleged laws of the universe, black holes, spacetime etc, do not even apply on earth. Those laws are not required for earth to exist, and they are often changed whenever the "scientists" realise they are wrong, so those laws are not even stable.

God is not lacking in imagination.

True. But look at everything we can observe of his design on earth, the human form, everything...and how efficient and brilliant it all is with little or no redundancy, and then compare that design to the empty universe...I just don't think it's his style.

Thanks for a good counter argument anyway, makes a change from all the ad homs and nonsense from some others.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Everything on earth serves a purpose, nothing is superflous.

Even the insect who's sole purpose is to dig into an African child's eyes and eat them?


I'll allow a homosexual Jew to explain (from 1:30)



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

 

[Hermit]

Even the insect who's sole purpose is to dig into an African child's eyes and eat them?

I just googled this insect now, as I suspected it might be a bullshit claim, and apparently it's not even true:

But that's not what you're really asking here. You're trying to make the point, which you've made previously, that bad stuff happens therefore God does not exist. This assumes that a good God should only want to make us experience a life and reality without any suffering. But such a reality without suffering would not seem real to us and would remove our free will.

Think about God and humans like the relationship between parents and a child. Should they be helicopter parents and control every aspect of the child's life? Or should they allow the child to make its own choices and mistakes and learn from those experiences? As a child, which option would you prefer?

Or think about it like a video game. If you've ever played as an invincible 'God' mode in a game, you'll know that it can be fun at first but it gets boring very quickly without challenges.

The quote in full from faggot Jew:

The world is very splendid but it also has in it insects whose whole life cycle is to borrow into the eyes of children and make them blind that eat outwards from the eyes. Why why did you do that to us, you could easily have made a creation in which that didn't exist. It is simply not acceptable.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Hermit please. Allow me to quote another esteemed gentleman:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”​

 

[Hermit]

Hermit please. Allow me to quote another esteemed gentleman:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.​

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.​

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?​

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”​

The existence of evil and suffering does not mean that God must be malevolent. To counter that argument, I would ask would a malevolent God allow so much good and beauty in our reality? Do you think a malevolent God would allow us to experience all the joy of love etc? Life can be shit, but generally speaking it's awesome. And as I mentioned in my previous post, God does not want to babysit us, he wants us to have a certain amount of free agency so part of that deal is that undesirable suffering will exist.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Life can be shit, but generally speaking it's awesome.

I'm afraid that's not true Sir. For many people it is unending suffering until they expire.

 

[Tiger]

I'm afraid that's not true Sir. For many people it is unending suffering until they expire.

If they’ve lived according to God’s laws, then their eternal reward for that suffering is unimaginable joy and peace for eternity.

Suffering on earth gets rid of temporal punishment for sin. You may have heard the phrase - ‘they did their purgatory on earth’. There’s truth in that saying. Suffering isn’t meaningless. Look at Christ’s suffering before he died.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

You, my friend, are away with the fairies.

 

[Diarmuid]

Thanks for a good counter argument anyway, makes a change from all the ad homs and nonsense from some others.

Great to see differences of opinion being discussed in civilised fashion. Other people, pay attention.

 

[Tiger]

You, my friend, are away with the fairies.

Your view that there can’t be a God because of the existence of suffering is beyond childish.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

I never said there can't be a God. I said if there is he's one cruel son of a bitch.

 

[Fishalt]

If they’ve lived according to God’s laws, then their eternal reward for that suffering is unimaginable joy and peace for eternity.

Suffering on earth gets rid of temporal punishment for sin. You may have heard the phrase - ‘they did their purgatory on earth’. There’s truth in that saying. Suffering isn’t meaningless. Look at Christ’s suffering before he died.

Your God's laws, that is. Do you realize that conservative estimates put the total number of deities that have been worshipped throughout history somewhere near 50,000? There are at least 10,000 different cosmologies we know of.

This is one of those things you can't get your head around. Even if you do accept the existence of a creator, there's absolutely no reason to assume you're worshipping the correct one, or doing this correctly. You're essentially almost as much as an atheist as I am in this regard. You just happen to believe in one more deity than I do. It's one thing to believe in an omnipotent creator. It's a different order of magnitude altogether to claim to know how said creator wants you to behave, what moral code to follow, and how to organize society. The reason you're a Christian is because of the time and place in which you were born.

I wonder how many different groups of people, how many cultures, have been put to the sword or the burning stake because their practised faith didn't align with that of another's.

 

[clarke-connolly]

I never said there can't be a God. I said if there is he's one cruel son of a bitch.

Maybe he is hooked on Marijuana ! ! !

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Do you realize that conservative estimates put the total number of deities that have been worshipped throughout history somewhere near 50,000?

And Tiger thinks it was right for the Taoiseach and his Cabinet not to go into the funeral of Ireland's first President.

Never mind that Hyde's was just a slightly different strand of the same religion/deity as the morons outside in the rain.

Its way beyond childish because a child would not believe in such rubbish.

 

[Tiger]

Your God's laws, that is. Do you realize that conservative estimates put the total number of deities that have been worshipped throughout history somewhere near 50,000? There are at least 10,000 different cosmologies we know of.

This is one of those things you can't get your head around. Even if you do accept the existence of a creator, there's absolutely no reason to assume you're worshipping the correct one, or doing this correctly. You're essentially almost as much as an atheist as I am in this regard. You just happen to believe in one more deity than I do. It's one thing to believe in an omnipotent creator. It's a different order of magnitude altogether to claim to know how said creator wants you to behave, what moral code to follow, and how to organize society. The reason you're a Christian is because of the time and place in which you were born.

I wonder how many different groups of people, how many cultures, have been put to the sword or the burning stake because their practised faith didn't align with that of another's.

Atheists are so lazy minded, they’re always parroting Dawkins and Ricky Gervais. They haven’t original thought between them.