Thread: Creationists, i'm confused.

Originally Posted by Neruo

LOL.

You are acting like science was 'invented' as a counter for creationism. As if Newton and Galileo found out what they did, to disprove anyone. The real proper search by answers is done by proper scientists. And most, actually, are smart enough to know the creationists false information will just blow over. Just like when the Christians couldn't accept the earth rotated the sun, just when the Christians couldn't even accept the world was round, just like when the Christians couldn't accept a lot of facts found by a honest search for answers.

To say creationism and science are on the same level, means you have to go to school, read more books and learn think a bit more.

You know, both of those evidences you give for Christian ignorance were only temporary beliefs held by small sects (although the Catholic church was pretty big and influential in those times - and very, very corrupt and self-serving). You making that argument is like me saying "Non-Christians believe in spaceships that hide behind comets." Obviously the whole isn't represented by one small group.

And so the Battle Continues. Yup I've been reading. Keep it up you guys

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Yup I've been reading.

Cool. Do you think you might have a shot at answering?

Originally Posted by Neruo

LOL.

You are acting like science was 'invented' as a counter for creationism. As if Newton and Galileo found out what they did, to disprove anyone. The real proper search by answers is done by proper scientists. And most, actually, are smart enough to know the creationists false information will just blow over. Just like when the Christians couldn't accept the earth rotated the sun, just when the Christians couldn't even accept the world was round, just like when the Christians couldn't accept a lot of facts found by a honest search for answers.

To say creationism and science are on the same level, means you have to go to school, read more books and learn think a bit more.

This is completely off topic and you don't even understand what I am trying to say, nor the context that post was in. So maybe you need to read some more before jumping the gun on that one. Thanks.

In my opinion, the idea of a creator becomes much more plausible if you remove the idea that it is necessary and all encompassing. The fact that a creator isn't needed doesn't necessarily negate its possibility.

Originally Posted by Howie

I had bookmarked this for a day that I was sure to be addressed.
Every one looks to Einstien, relativly speaking.

Albert Einstein Quotes on Philosophy of Religion, Theology, God

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
(Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.)
A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
(Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930)
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
(Albert Einstein, Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)
One strength of the Communist system ... is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.
(Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years, 1950)
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-e.htm
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God. (Albert Einstein,The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. (Albert Einstein)
The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. (Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946)
The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action. (Albert Einstein)
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. (Albert Einstein, The Human Side)
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. (Albert Einstein)
What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. (Albert Einstein)
The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. (Albert Einstein)

Cheers to howie for the use of his quote a bit ago =D

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

How can the matter just suddenly appear and what are the chances of everything in the earth and universe forming so perfectly exact to contain life? If the sun was just the most slightest bit away from the earth we would freeze to death, if it was the slightest bit closer, we would burn to death. There are many other examples that show how carefully put in place our planet is.

This is incorrect, grossly incorrect. The Earth's orbit is an elipse, not a perfect circle. Our orbit around the Sun varies by several million kilometres throughout each year.

And I would hardly call our universe friendly to life. 99.99999999% of our universe is empty space a few degrees above Absolute Zero. Incredibly hostile to life. Of the very few planets in our own solar system, ours is the only one so far with confirmed life. Mars, Venus, Europa and Titan are really the only candidates otherwise. On top of that, we exist on the surface of this giant ball of rock. All that matter on the inside is extremely hot, dense and under enormous pressure. Life exists on a very thin knife edge in this Universe. We live in a place which is a minority in the grand scheme of things.

Are you familliar with the anthropic principle? Without too much fluff, it basically means "no matter how improbable it is that life could have sprung into existence, it must have happened at least once, or we wouldn't be here to wonder about it". You throw enough big numbers at the anthropic principle such as the age of the Universe (13.7 billion years), the number of galaxies in the Universe (100 billion at least in the observable Universe), the number of stars per galaxy (roughly 500 billion for our own), the number of planets per galaxy (there are over 200 known planets outside the 8 in our own system), they start to add up. And you only need it to happen once. And we may have been that one time. It's my belief that life is abundant in the Universe, but the distances between each island of life may be so large that we never run into another lifeform (at least not for many millenia).

I'm so glad Howie got there before me, but it bears repeating:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- Albert Einstein

I hate seeing Einsteins name dragged through the mud over his mis-use of the word 'God' in place of a reverence for the laws of the Universe. I'd put it on par with how people say Darwin had a deathbed conversion and renounced evolution.

In response to the origional topic of whether or not God needs a creator, logic tells me no he does not.

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

In response to the origional topic of whether or not God needs a creator, logic tells me no he does not.

I can apply the same reasoning to why the universe doesn't need a creator.

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

In response to the origional topic of whether or not God needs a creator, logic tells me no he does not.

So why not skip a step and believe the Universe needs no creator? My logic dictates exactly the same thing, I just take one less step to arrive at the same conclusion.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

So why not skip a step and believe the Universe needs no creator? My logic dictates exactly the same thing, I just take one less step to arrive at the same conclusion.

Originally Posted by Omicron

I can apply the same reasoning to why the universe doesn't need a creator.

First of all i think you guys are missing the point of the thread. If i read sandforms post correctly he is looking for what created the creator, not if the universe needs a creator or not.

With that in mind take a gander at what i wrote in another thread:


-No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)

-This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)

-The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)

-To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)

There are 2 general takes on these verses.

1. Ok so God existed before time but that still doesn't prove he created anything.

Let's say God does exist outside of time.

Like UM said we live in a world of cause and effect and it is the only way existence can function. But think about it, if there was no time there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist would have no need for a cause and were always there.

Therefore if God is outside of time he had no need for being created.


2. Dimensional

Things that exist in 1 dimension of time are restricted to time and cause and affect. Add a second dimension of time and we got a plane of time which has no begging and no and are not restricted to single direction. things that exist in 2 or more dimensions of time can anywhere and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has know start.

Both interpretations leads to the conclusion that God did not need to be created.

Nothing with memory can exist outside time.

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

First of all i think you guys are missing the point of the thread. If i read sandforms post correctly he is looking for what created the creator, not if the universe needs a creator or not.

With that in mind take a gander at what i wrote in another thread:


-No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)

-This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)

-The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)

-To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)

There are 2 general takes on these verses.

1. Ok so God existed before time but that still doesn't prove he created anything.

Let's say God does exist outside of time.

Like UM said we live in a world of cause and effect and it is the only way existence can function. But think about it, if there was no time there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist would have no need for a cause and were always there.

Therefore if God is outside of time he had no need for being created.


2. Dimensional

Things that exist in 1 dimension of time are restricted to time and cause and affect. Add a second dimension of time and we got a plane of time which has no begging and no and are not restricted to single direction. things that exist in 2 or more dimensions of time can anywhere and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has know start.

Both interpretations leads to the conclusion that God did not need to be created.

Oh well if we are starting with the assumption God exists, I have no doubt that he created himself/doesn't require creation etc. The problem I tend to find is in the preceeding part, of whether he exists at all.

I don't think he required creation. However I think I'm going to jump in this if it's okay with UM.

Originally Posted by Omicron

Oh well if we are starting with the assumption God exists, I have no doubt that he created himself/doesn't require creation etc. The problem I tend to find is in the preceeding part, of whether he exists at all.

Right, but whether or not God exists is a debate for a diffrent thread.

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

Right, but whether or not God exists is a debate for a diffrent thread.

Yes. Yes it is.

I find it terribly convenient that "God exists outside of time" is always given as an answer, when in fact it answers nothing at all. No human being can comprehend exactly what that statement means because we have absolutely no frame of reference for it. It's like me saying "I can smell the color green". Its absurd. Explaining what one, two or three dimensions of time might be like is one thing, but positing what zero dimensions of time might be like lies outside the framework of what we're capable of comprehending.

The fallacy here is that you define the parameters of the debate by making up your own rules (the first cause of the Universe would have to exist outside of time), then you posit an answer that fits EXACTLY those rules (my God exists outside of space and time), and call the game over. It is circular logic. There is no evidence, no empirical data, it's all glorified guess work with a few scripture quotes written by 2nd century monks sprinkled in for flavour.

Here's a theory to bake your noodle. Suppose there was no beginning, and there will be no end. Lee Smolin once hypothesised that a sort of "cosmological natural selection" takes place in the multi-verse. He supposed that when a black hole is formed in our Universe, it was the formation of a Big Bang in a 'daughter universe'. That daughter universe's intrinsic properties (the Planck length, the speed of light, the strength of the Strong nuclear force etc) could be free to vary just as mutation in biological species can vary a genome. Those universes that had the ability to create black holes would 'reproduce' and create more universes, and so the cycle continues. It need never have a beginning, and it need never have an end. No need for a creator, and no predisposition for life to be suited to exist in each Universe.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

I find it terribly convenient that "God exists outside of time" is always given as an answer, when in fact it answers nothing at all. No human being can comprehend exactly what that statement means because we have absolutely no frame of reference for it. It's like me saying "I can smell the color green". Its absurd. Explaining what one, two or three dimensions of time might be like is one thing, but positing what zero dimensions of time might be like lies outside the framework of what we're capable of comprehending.

The fallacy here is that you define the parameters of the debate by making up your own rules (the first cause of the Universe would have to exist outside of time), then you posit an answer that fits EXACTLY those rules (my God exists outside of space and time), and call the game over. It is circular logic. There is no evidence, no empirical data, it's all glorified guess work with a few scripture quotes written by 2nd century monks sprinkled in for flavour.

just because you find something "terribly convenient" does not mean it's wrong. The fact of the matter is that the description put fourth in the bible about God and how he created the universe (through interpratation) syncs in harmoniously with science. The fascinating thing is that the book was written a couple millenia ago and still has yet to be defeated by modern science.

Here's a theory to bake your noodle. Suppose there was no beginning, and there will be no end. Lee Smolin once hypothesised that a sort of "cosmological natural selection" takes place in the multi-verse. He supposed that when a black hole is formed in our Universe, it was the formation of a Big Bang in a 'daughter universe'. That daughter universe's intrinsic properties (the Planck length, the speed of light, the strength of the Strong nuclear force etc) could be free to vary just as mutation in biological species can vary a genome. Those universes that had the ability to create black holes would 'reproduce' and create more universes, and so the cycle continues. It need never have a beginning, and it need never have an end. No need for a creator, and no predisposition for life to be suited to exist in each Universe.

Same with hawking. In his theorys he has no need for a creator.

I am glad to see that this thread has risen again. Creationists, please read the first part of the thread so you can really get an understanding of what the big issue is. The problem is this... The intelligent design argument is that something as incredibly complex and great as the universe is so phenomenal that it had to have been designed by a conscious mind. (I think it is too complex and great to have been designed by a conscious mind.) That argument only raises a much harder question. What created that conscious mind? Creationists say things like, "He has always been," and, "He is outside of time." When they say that, they are contradicting the very point that they just argued. They are giving an example of something even greater than the universe that does not require a conscious creator. That is where the intelligent design argument really fails. I want to know why nonconscious principles cannot be eternal or outside of time or __________________________ (Fill in the blank with whatever intelligent design argument might be applied to a conscious creator.) Why does the creator of the universe have to be a consciousness, and why would the arguments for the necessity of that consciousness not apply to that very consciousness?

I tried very hard to get to the bottom of that in this thread, and Jaasum is the only people who ever attempted to answer it. I was far from agreeing with his answer, but I was so glad to see somebody even attempt to answer it that I did not keep asking for answers. Can anybody give a solid, logical argument that backs intelligent design?

Jaasum's argument: Something as great as the universe requires an intelligent designer, and so does the intelligent designer. The universe is the intelligent designer of itself, so the designer's designer is the design itself, which means that there is no inifnite heirarchy of creators. There is one creator, and that creator is the creation. So any issue of the creator's creation is answered by the creation.

That of course raises the question of what created the creator before it was there to create itself, and it of course contradicts itself. Anybody else?

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

First of all i think you guys are missing the point of the thread. If i read sandforms post correctly he is looking for what created the creator, not if the universe needs a creator or not.

The point of the thread is actually if God can exist without it being necessary for something to create him (I.E. he came from no where) Why can't the universe somehow come from no where as well?

Basically I'm saying that by creationist logic it is illogical to assume that the universe needs a creator in the first place, since the creator, something of different complexity, needs no creator.

Nowhere > god > everything
or
Nowhere > everything.

What makes the first one more logical than the second? That is the issue.

UM; all those problems vanish if you think in the context that energy has alway been therefore the universe has always been therefore there was no creation.

Originally Posted by Sandform

The point of the thread is actually if God can exist without it being necessary for something to create him (I.E. he came from no where) Why can't the universe somehow come from no where as well?

Basically I'm saying that by creationist logic it is illogical to assume that the universe needs a creator in the first place, since the creator, something of different complexity, needs no creator.

Nowhere > god > everything
or
Nowhere > everything.

What makes the first one more logical than the second? That is the issue.

I just noticed "whether" is spelt wrong in your sig, you might wanna change that.


Otherwise I entirely agree.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

UM; all those problems vanish if you think in the context that energy has alway been therefore the universe has always been therefore there was no creation.

But we're not targeted towards people who understand that there is no god, were after an explanation from creationists.

are you a creationist?

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

just because you find something "terribly convenient" does not mean it's wrong.

Because you find something comforting, does not raise its 'truth value'. Truth isn't a democracy, it exists whether or not you accept it.

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

The fact of the matter is that the description put fourth in the bible about God and how he created the universe (through interpratation) syncs in harmoniously with science. The fascinating thing is that the book was written a couple millenia ago and still has yet to be defeated by modern science.

The Bible is not harmonious with science, it's not even harmonious with itself. It's wrought with contradictions and inconsistencies. I have a book on the subject, but these two websites will have to do, even though some of them are plainly ridiculous (such as Heaven being held up by pillars is obviously meant to be a metaphor, but the author of the website treats it as literal).

List of Biblical Contradictions (1992)
Biblical Contradictions

You can argue metaphor and interpretation until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day it's a Bronze Age text written by at least a dozen different authors, then translated from Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, to English, and had almost 2000 years worth of Chinese Whispers run through its pages (to say nothing of unscrupulous interpretors changing words to suit their own political standing at the time). If the Holy Spirit divinely orchestrated the translations throughout the ages as some people suggest, you'd think the book would be a little more consistent.

I don't need modern science to 'defeat' the Bible, it does it to itself quite nicely if you're willing to look at it objectively, and not the authoritative word of God.

I'm wandering off topic here, so back to the main point at hand. You set the parameters of the Universal First Cause by putting unknowable restrictions on its properties and attributes, then posit your own God who happens to have THOSE properties himself, then declare by fiat that you've won the argument because its unprovable by science. That's not even bad science, it's bad philosophy.

And I suspect that Jassum's form of belief is more towards pantheism than Christianity. I get a very strong vibe of "God is one with everything and everything is God" when I read your posts. If you're looking for a label, that one might fit.