Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by Eugene Shubert, Jan 8, 2018.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,202
    No, I am suggesting it is neither a religion nor a theory.

    It is merely a belief.

    And that's OK. Nothing wrong with beliefs.
     
    Yazata likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    Eugene:

    Your definition of quantum creationism doesn't say anything about God. Where does God come into it?

    Is it that you believe that God caused the universe to spontaneously materialise out of nothing? What about God himself, then? Did he also spontaneously materialise out of nothing?

    What does "maximally infinite" mean? Infinite is infinite, isn't it? What does it mean to maximise infinity?
    What are "divine attributes"? Which ones are you thinking about? The ones in the list in the following sentence?

    Your definition of God doesn't seem to me to be any different from how the average Christian might define God.

    Knowing what somebody else is thinking doesn't imply that you automatically think the same thing, as far as I can tell.

    I'm not so sure. How much do you know about split-brain studies?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    It is well known and easy to prove that infinities come in different sizes. For brevity, I refer you to the mathematical discipline called set theory.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Most of my thoughts on this topic are limited to subscribers of The Seventh-day Millerite / Adventist / Shubertian Forum. It would take too much work for me to summarize it all here.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    I'm familiar with all that. I just don't see how it applies to God's "divine attributes".

    So would it be fair to say that the only purpose of this thread is to advertise your personal belief in "quantum creationism"?

    Is there anything else you want to discuss regarding quantum creationism?
     
  9. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Everyone even mildly informed believes in quantum creationism. But is it science or is it religion? I haven't seen that challenge debated anywhere. I most certainly haven't seen it answered yet in this thread.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2018
  10. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    You have every right to be angered for being exposed in having an undeniably religious belief.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    Eugene:

    I don't. Not as you've defined it.

    As I said, I'll need you to show (1) there was an initial "nothingness", and (2) that there was a "spontaneous materialisation". Then I might be a believer. Having said that, though, it seems that you have tacked on various ideas about a version of the Christian God, for reasons that aren't clear to me at this point and which are likely to be very problematic.

    As you've defined it, it is clearly religion. Your God isn't scientific, as defined. If that God is required for your quantum creationism, then your quantum creationism is religious.

    See above. I do not believe in your quantum creationism, as defined.
     
  12. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Why just one God?
     
  13. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Then all I need to do is show my hand and declare victory. High ranking cosmologists already teach that a highly ordered physical reality can spontaneously materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence. That's the view of all mainstream physicists. You can hear Sir Roger Penrose express that very orthodox belief at exactly 5:00 to 7:05 minutes into the following Hard Talk interview with Stephen Sackur.

     
  14. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,149
    But they don't have absolute faith in that conclusion. They just think it's possible. So it's not a religion, and it's not creationism since there is no creator. And it's ironic that you seem to be attempting to insult science by calling it a religion when you are one of the most religiously motivated people here.
     
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,336
    Yes it is a hypothesis, essentially from applying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to the universe as a whole.

    Of course this tells us nothing about local order in the universe, for example in the growth of a living organism.
     
  16. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Absolute faith isn't required to be a quantum creationist. Furthermore, there's no point in trying to move the goalposts since the game is already over.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2018
  17. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,149
    Restating a common big bang hypothesis as a religion didn't win you anything except my contempt.
     
  18. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    You didn't refute my argument with either fact or reason. Furthermore, your sad song and dance is no rebuttal. I demonstrated that there is more science in my theology than there is science in the outrageously empty pre-big-bang physics that I cited.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,162
    It is understandable that you are resorting to personal attacks after your theology has collapsed. Indeed, it is a common outcome for creationists in this forum. Good luck with dealing with your anger.
     
  20. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    You are projecting. Your slaphappily unscientific religious dogma has been exposed.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  21. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    LOL Big-bang denialists are so funny.
     
  22. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    No. Big-bang denialists are a sorry lot. An even sorrier lot are the pretenders that pretend that their voluminous fantasies about a pre-big-bang state is science.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,162
    You don't even know what my "religious dogma" is. (Of course, lack of understanding has never kept you from posting in the past, so par for the course.)
     

Share This Page