Are You A Quantum Creationist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
That is a better analogy than mine. City dwellers would not refer to themselves 'piss drinking shit eaters' (well I wouldn't if I lived in the city), it sounds rather disturbing when using those terms. That is why I would not refer to myself as a big bang creationist, it sounds disturbing. I would say instead that I feel that the big bang theory is the best theory describing the beginning of the universe as we know it.
 
Spellbound said:
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.
Click to expand...
You should keep your preoccupation with reality in your own threads and not try to hijack other threads, even if this is a goofy trolling thread...
 
exchemist said:
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.
Click to expand...
As I've already explained, 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. So please explain why the linguistic link between "quantum creation" and a "quantum creationist" is a difficult or insurmountable transition for you to grasp.
 
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...

No, because you are trying to redefine - or more correctly perhaps to obscure - the accepted meaning of the term "creationist".

The first line of the Wiki definition of "creationism" is as follows: "Creationism is the belief that the Universe and Life originate "from specific acts of divine creation."

Now tell us where, in the video you posted, the speaker said he believed in specific acts of divine creation?
 
Eugene Shubert said:
As I've already explained, 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. So please explain why the linguistic link between "quantum creation" and a "quantum creationist" is a difficult or insurmountable transition for you to grasp.
Click to expand...

Read my next post….
 
There is no rational argument against defining "a quantum creationist" to mean "a believer in quantum creation" since "quantum creation" and "quantum creationist" are obviously grammatically linked. The beauty of liberated mathematicians is that we have no inhibitions about creating our own definitions, if it leads to logical structures and valid arguments. But a rational argument is not a good enough reason to stop all the poo-flinging chimpanzees.
 
Last edited:
Eugene Shubert said:
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.
Click to expand...
Creation and Creationism isn't the same thing. So we probably will only grasp that you're conflating them
to mean the same thing. You're doing this so you can denigrate inflation cosmology by asking 'what's the difference between ....... and what you believe God did'. In the process you get to troll all these atheistic scientists.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
But a rational argument is not a good enough reason to stop all the poo-flinging chimpanzees.
Click to expand...
scientific knowledge is just too advance to be translated into your own primitive conceptual framework. it's analogous to if i were to try to translate quantum mechanics into the grunts and screeches of a chimpanzee.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
There is no rational argument against defining "a quantum creationist" to mean "a believer in quantum creation" since "quantum creation" and "quantum creationist" are obviously grammatically linked. The beauty of liberated mathematicians is that we have no inhibitions about creating our own definitions, if it leads to logical structures and valid arguments. But a rational argument is not a good enough reason to stop all the poo-flinging chimpanzees.
Click to expand...
Good point. By the way would you describe yourself as a follower of Gods Bastard Child?
 
Has anyone else noticed a positive correlation between the stupidity of a thread and the number of posts?
 
Eugene Shubert said:
Mathematicians don't always limit themselves to the simplest axioms imaginable.
Click to expand...
lets be honest here at this moment, you are completely clueless to anything of what a mathematician does or is or mathematics in general , correct ?
 
Eugene Shubert said:
I describe myself as a believer of axioms like The Fundamental Beliefs of Millerite Adventists, Circa 2015.
Click to expand...
Do you have the integrity to admit that you are a follower of "Gods Bastard Child?" After all, you have demanded other people admit what they believe using your preferred language.

Or do you refuse to do what you demand others do? There's a word for that . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top