Are You A Quantum Creationist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eugene Shubert said:
This thread suggests a possibly provable thesis that a "quantum creation" is a respectable belief....
Click to expand...
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.
..."quantum creationism" and "quantum creationists" are anathema to religiously devoted atheists.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Eugene Shubert said:
No. I am a former Seventh-day Adventist and now a Confessing Millerite Adventist. What does that have to do with my question: Are You A Quantum Creationist?
Click to expand...
I can hardly wait to see your point for darkening sciforums doorstep once again. Probably some semantic bullshit resulting from misinterpretation on your part.
 
Russ_Watters said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Eugene Shubert:

Eugene Shubert said:
A quantum creationist is a believer in quantum creationism.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of any scientific theory referred to as "quantum creationism".

I assume, therefore, that this is a term you invented (or swiped from a non-scientific source of some kind).

Quantum creationism is any happenstance or intentional creation event where a highly ordered physical reality spontaneously materializes out of nothingness.
Click to expand...
Just so we know what we're talking about, please clarify a few matters for me.

1. Please give one example of the kind of "happenstance" that would fall under your definition.
2. Please give one example of an "intentional creation event" that would fall under your definition.
3. What do you mean by "highly ordered"?
4. What do you mean by "a physical reality"?
5. What do you mean by "spontaneously materializes"?
6. What do you mean by "nothingness"?

I'm trying to work out whether I might be a quantum creationist.

What would follow if it turns out that I am a quantum creationist? Would that be a bad thing or a good thing? And why?
 
James R said:
I'm not aware of any scientific theory referred to as "quantum creationism".

I assume, therefore, that this is a term you invented (or swiped from a non-scientific source of some kind).
Click to expand...
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.
 
James R said:
Just so we know what we're talking about, please clarify a few matters for me.

1. Please give one example of the kind of "happenstance" that would fall under your definition.
Click to expand...
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?
 
James R said:
3. What do you mean by "highly ordered"?
Click to expand...
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.

 
James R said:
4. What do you mean by "a physical reality"?
5. What do you mean by "spontaneously materializes"?
6. What do you mean by "nothingness"?
Click to expand...
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?
 
James R said:
I'm trying to work out whether I might be a quantum creationist.

What would follow if it turns out that I am a quantum creationist?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
origin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 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.
 
Last edited:
Eugene Shubert said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
It is important that honest reactions to the reasonable question of this thread Are You A Quantum Creationist? be recorded.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top