Well we're splitting hairs here
He didn't disprove the existence of a "god", but the maths shows that "he" wasn't involved in creating the universe. Which is why I said "creator", rather than "god".
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:58, 1 reply)

I'm not sure I'm getting you here.
So - "because of maths, right, there's no creator"?

Seems a bit cultish to me.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:01, closed)

It's called Occam's Razor
On the one hand there is a theory put about by religionists that the universe was created by an all-powerful and all-knowing (yet invisible and insubstantial) being which frankly raises more questions than it answers (Who made God? Where does he live? Why is there no evidence of his existence?) and a set of equations that explicitly show that the universe could come into being without someone to "light the blue touchpaper" then the one that follows the "laws" of nature and doesn't presuppose an inexplicable deity is the one I'm going find infinitely more credible. Nothing cultish about that in the slightest.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:10, closed)

As I said above - scientific theory suffers from infinite regression just as a creator theory does.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:18, closed)

Except that science is testable, while religiobollocks is not
Like, for example, the discovery of cosmic background radiation proved that the Big Bang happened.

I also think it's absolutely hilarious that someone defending the creator theory can dismiss the scientific theory as "cultish". Do they have a different definition of "cultish" on your planet?
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:25, closed)

I think you're confusing religion with the concept that there may be a creator.
The way that I was taught to approach science was to do so with an open mind, as opposed to accepting answers before they'd been disproved. Which, as we keep coming back to, isn't the case with the creator theory.

Such zealous and myopic devotion to any particular school of thought is often referred to as "cultish".

It's the men in white coats vs the men in black dresses.

I have never heard a band of scientists produce good music, aside from Dr Brian Cox, obviously.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:41, closed)

A creator theory *is* a religious concept
and one which requires either a huge amount of supporting evidence (of which there is none) or a huge amount of blind faith. The scientific theory doesn't. There's having an open mind and there's deliberately distorting the argument to incorporate your world view.

I don't have a "zealous and myopic devotion to any particular school of thought", I've just looked at the evidence provided by both sides and plumped for the one that doesn't have to bend the facts to support a bronze-age myth. To imply - as you do - that science is really a massive con perpetrated on the world by the men in white coats, well that really is myopic and zealous.

I have no idea what the hell music has to do with it, but even in that you're wrong: "Things Can Only Get Better" is a musical abomination that really should have been strangled at birth.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 13:20, closed)

Exactly wrong.
A creator theory is NOT a religious concept. The religiousness of it comes from the surrounding ritual and mythology.

A creator theory is just that - a theory.

I have not implied anything - merely pointed out that science - just as creator-theorists do - requires the belief that the followed school of thought is correct.

What music has to do with it was - and for this I apologise - my being flippant - "soul" in music such as James Brown, gospel, dirty rock n' roll, reggae, gospel and country, as opposed to approaching it as just the realisation of a sonic mathematical complex.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 13:50, closed)

First line of wikipedia: Creationism (my bolding)
"Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being."

It seems that you're out of touch with popular opinion on this one.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:01, closed)

No.
That's CreationISM.

Simply accepting that there is a theory that there is a creator - or, indeed - actually believing there is a creator - is not creationism the religion. It's simply accepting that there is a theory that there is a creator - or, indeed - actually believing there is a creator.

It's proper noun verses noun territory.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:21, closed)

The theory of creation, or the theory that there is a creator *is* creationism.
There's no difference; the invocation of a supernatural creator places it clearly within the bounds of religion. Sorry, but you're arguing on the side of the nutjobs here, no matter how much you try to distance yourself from them.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:37, closed)

I'm not arguing anything.
As I have said, repeatedly.

You seem desperate to label me as a god-botherer and to damn me for it - good luck with that - you would be wrong to.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 15:24, closed)

Just pointing out there is no non-religious theory of creation
and that you certainly seem to be on the side of the men in black dresses
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 15:45, closed)

Yes there is.
That of "I think that a creator created the universe, but I'm not going to celebrate, mythologise, or ritualise such".

I don't seem to be on anyone's side, and I don't know why you would perceive such. Just because I don't like ice cream doesn't mean I like chocolate.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 16:07, closed)

Yet said creator would have to be a supernatural entity
Or at least outside the bounds of nature as we know it. Whether you worship a god or not, believing in one places you firmly back in the religious camp. Besides, it was you who posted the "men in white coats/men in black dresses" stuff, and from what you've posted, you're definitely not on the side of the scientists.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 16:14, closed)

You still appear to be confusing theism
with religion.

The two are quite different, I assure you. It is possible to be a theist without being religious, and, indeed, one can be a creationist without being a Creationist.

I am neither, have never expressed allegiance to either, and I don't know why on earth you think I am more inclined to one or the other.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 16:18, closed)

Religion and theism are pretty close
"Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine."

"Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists. In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe."

You might be thinking of "deism".
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 21:59, closed)

not necessarily

( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 17:39, closed)

Yes, necessarily.
In order to create the universe, a creator would have to exist outside said universe, violating the "natural" laws of this universe, hence supernatural.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 22:02, closed)

What about
Dr Dre or even at a push Doctor and the Medics?
(andythepieman Is surfing the waves of indifference on, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:13, closed)

Doctor Feelgood

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 15:02, closed)

isn't Occam's Razor
the theory that the most obvious answer is usually the right one?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:22, closed)

Not quite
It's more like the simplest answer is usually the right one

Closer in meaning to the Sherlock Holmes quote: "Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:27, closed)

simplest answer is usually the right one
Like "god made it."
(waxdart hello., Tue 18 Jan 2011, 17:18, closed)

Sadly, God is a fictional character which raises all sorts of complications.
The simplest answer is that the universe happened.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 22:04, closed)

Generally...
It's the answer requiring the fewest assumptions is the correct one.
The belief that an intelligent force existing outside the universe with the complexity required to create said universe in whatever manner requires more assumptions/leaps of faith than the belief that it occurred naturally.
(The Bloody Awful Warsaw Concerto, Wed 19 Jan 2011, 20:28, closed)