Are You A Quantum Creationist?

Important, how? Are you writing a book? What are you doing with these "reactions"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This thread suggests a possibly provable thesis that a "quantum creation" is a respectable belief and that simultaneously "quantum creationism" and "quantum creationists" are anathema to religiously devoted atheists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry, but that's non-science gibberish. It suggests a meaningless thesis: science doesn't deal in "beliefs" and doesn't weigh ideas based on "respectability". So the thesis that "quantum creationism" is respectable is not provable. It's not scientific.

That sounds self-contradictory: you seem to believe that "quantum creationists" are atheists, so why would atheists be anathema to it? I'm not sure that's really here nor there, though, since you have yet to establish that there is such a thing as "quantum creationism" anyway.

Let's just cut to the chase, shall we: you believe that "quantum creationism" is a pseudo-religious belief that atheist scientists subscribe to, but won't admit to, right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can hardly wait to see your point for darkening sciforums doorstep once again. Probably some semantic bullshit resulting from misinterpretation on your part.

 

He doesn't have much respect for science. It's amazing that he believes such drivel. It doesn't matter what type of Adventist he is atheists are the enemy.

 

You don't know the 1/2 of it. LOL. None of this is new.

 

I could have defined a quantum creationist as a believer in "quantum creation," which is a phrase used by Prof. Alexander Vilenkin and Prof. Stephen Hawking. Please explain why the linguistic link between "quantum creation" and a "quantum creationist" is a difficult or insurmountable transition for you to grasp.

 

Are you asking that I transcribe Prof. Alexander Vilenkin's 3 minute video for you titled "A Universe From Nothing" because you don't have 3 minutes to watch it yourself?

 

If I invented the definition of a "quantum creationist," then what element of originality and creativity did I actually add to already existing sources? Sir Roger Penrose claims that the initial state of the universe was astonishing and "highly ordered" with a measure of something like 1 part in 10^123.

 

Again, are you asking that I transcribe Prof. Alexander Vilenkin's 3 minute video for you? And have you never heard of the concept: "A Universe From Nothing"? Furthermore, why should the meaning of any elementary term used by me be different than the meaning conveyed by my sources?

 

It's obvious already that confessing to be a quantum creationist will immediately set you apart from the moderators of this forum and from the herd mentality they supervise, which demands unquestioning conformity to the groupthink, movement, and noises of unthinking animals.

 

The issue which you well know is the term creationist is a term that is used by the anti-science crazy Christian fundies to describe how God magically created the universe in 6 days. A person of reason and science naturally is put off by the term creationist.

It is like asking someone who takes probiotics if the would describe themselves as a Shit Eater.

The scientific consensus is that the big bang occurred. This could be called creation if you like. I don't think of the big bang as creation though, I imagine it is more of a change from a teeny tiny universe into a really big universe.

 

If ordinary low-life city dwellers can confess to consuming recycled/purified shit and piss, then hard-core atheistic physicists should be able to set aside their religious bigotry and honestly confess to being either quantum creationists or nonbelievers in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem.

 

I'm not a quantum creationist. I am, however, a big bang creationist.

 

The record is you're a trolling crank visiting this forum with your intellectually dishonest troll.

 

I'm neither a quantum creationist nor a BB creationist, nor a YEC (nor a Ptolemist, nor an Ancient Greek Aristotelian). If there is a cult I have joined inadvertently, I either don't perceive it as such or else I am too engrossed in its precepts to find my way back out of it.

I believe there is a difference between how this place works and the "spirit" of it all, for want of a better term. I don't think I ever actively looked for the source of the latter, or for anything else that would color my view of the things my senses or instruments can perceive. Curiosity is necessary and sufficient to the purposes of survival. Any other pretensions relating to moral certitude or a search for absolute truth where none actually exists is just window dressing.

I don't care what circumstances brought this all about in the first place as a historical artifact or as a tenet of a religious or moral belief system. The Orthodox and/or OCD afflicted individuals who stress such beliefs to justify inflicting immoral acts on others who are not so affixed are the best examples of why such inspiration is a very bad idea we could all do much better without.

I don't believe whatever it is that is the spirit of this place other than the planetary ecosystem of which I am but a small part really cares whether I care or not either.

 

Gee I wasn't expecting such a juvenile outburst from you. lOL. Apparently you have a problem with and are attempting to denigrate brilliant inflation cosmologists with your 'thumper' bullshit.

 

Important? To whom?

Since the term has no accepted meaning, having been newly invented by you for purely rhetorical purposes, nobody is in any position to answer your question.

If, however, you would care to offer us a suitably precise definition of what you mean by the term, then maybe one might try to answer.

 

If reality is reality and therefore no more or less than itself, then it could have provided itself (miraculously) with all of the necessary conditions for its existence.