|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Best evidence for Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
No, I have direct evidence that freedom is real, in the creationist sense, in my own experience. There's also some experimental scientific evidence that establishes it viz the hyperion of Mercury, and a harmonic oscillator or something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
bluegenes writes: LucyTheRatherConfusedApe writes:
No: Existence requires a Creator doesn't mean that a Creator requiresexistence; it means that you can't have existence without a Creator. It means that a creator requires a creator in order to exist, and so the infinite regression, which itself (the regression) requires a creator etc. Why does it mean a creator requires a creator? bluegenes you keep asking, who created God? The definition of God is I AM. That is everything that exists. Now I have a question I have been trying to get an answer too for well over a year now. Maybe you can supply one for me. Who/What created/formed the speck/smear/point or whatever you want to call it that expanded into our present universe? I have answers "it just is", "there was no before", "it did not come from nothing", "We don't know", and even a question "Why can't it just be?" That is the best answers Science can put forth for the existence of our universe. Therefore the scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Therefore the scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator. So whenever science has yet to understand something, this is evidence for a creator? So when we did not understand what kept a positively charged nucleus together, this was evidence for a creator? When we did not understand how the Sun and the Earth could come to be, this was evidence for a creator? When we did not understand what made thunder and lightning, this was evidence for a creator? When we did not understand in any way how life could possibly come into existence from non-life, that was evidence for a creator? Hmmm, the track receord isn't that good, is it? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes: The definition of God is I AM. No, that's his name, not his definition.
ICANT writes: That is everything that exists. Does this mean that you and I are literally part of God? I disagree with you. Still, if God is everything that exists, that means He exists, and existence has been asserted by Lucy to be evidence of having been created. Therefore, you are still stuck with: God exists"exists" = "created" thus, God was created. ICANT writes: Who/What created/formed the speck/smear/point or whatever you want to call it that expanded into our present universe? The Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed it into existence when the Flying Spaghetti Monster (drunk as usual, and highly susceptible to the prank suggestions from the Invisible Pink Unicorn on His shoulder) doused His Noodly Self with pepper before the Pre-Cosmic Cocktail Party last Wednesday night. Why do you keep assuming that somebody or something has to have created or formed it? It's exactly the same as what Jamison and LucyTheApe have already said (that the creation is self-evident), except that you've now turned it into a question that you expect Bluegenes to answer.
ICANT writes: That is the best answers Science can put forth for the existence of our universe. If you wanted to be honest, you'd also say it's the best you can put forth, too. But, instead, you chose to just accept one of the many unproven and untested explanations because you felt good about it. And, instead of answering what evidence you think best supports your idea, you turn it around and demand what evidence supports your opponent's idea. Edited by Bluejay, : dBcodes problem Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Lucy writes: Existence requires a Creator doesn't mean that a Creator requiresexistence; it means that you can't have existence without a Creator. ICANT writes: Why does it mean a creator requires a creator? In careful English: The statement "existence requires a creator" means that a creator cannot exist without a creator, because his existence would require a creator.
ICANTspeakEnglish writes: bluegenes you keep asking, who created God? No, I do not. What I do is, when any of your fellow theists come out with statements like "existence requires a creator" is point out that their statements have inbuilt contradictions. Of course existence cannot require a creator, otherwise the creator couldn't exist to create, so nothing could exist. If you now understand this, please help me in pointing out to the rest of the God squad how nonsensical that kind of statement is. In fact, the opposite must be true. Existence does not require a creator (whether there is one or not).
The definition of God is I AM. That is everything that exists. There are many definitions of the word God. If your preferred one is "everything" that's fine, but there's already a word for that, which is "everything".
ICANT writes: Now I have a question I have been trying to get an answer too for well over a year now. Maybe you can supply one for me. Who/What created/formed the speck/smear/point or whatever you want to call it that expanded into our present universe? I don't know, and so far as I know, no-one knows.
That is the best answers Science can put forth for the existence of our universe. Therefore the scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator. "Everything" created the universe, you mean? Or has your God changed character from being "everything" to being a being who created this universe in the space of a few short sentences? That's just a version of "God of the Gaps", the God who is traditionally stuck in the gaps of human knowledge, and counts more as a joke these days, certainly not evidence. Personally, I think that the thing we need to learn to do when we don't know something is to do the honest thing, and to say we don't know. One thing's for sure, though. If we start to think of things that could have created the universe, we would be able to come up with a virtually infinite number of ideas. The chances of any individual one of them being true would therefore be infinitesimally small. So think of the ICANT god of the gaps in that context.
God Bless, "Gaps in knowledge" bless you too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
What I was thinking is that in relation to common sense, you have to base common sense on what you know, or what is known.
For example, I haven't accidently cut off a finger, but common sense tells me that if I did accidently cut off my finger there would be lots of blood and it would be painful, because I have had cuts before that have bled and they have been sore. But as far as creation goes, does common sense really tell us that everything HAS to have been created? How do we know that we are not applying common sense to a concept that our common sense has no knowledge of on which to base our common sense driven conclusion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
cavediver writes: So whenever science has yet to understand something, this is evidence for a creator? So when we did not understand what kept a positively charged nucleus together, this was evidence for a creator? When we did not understand how the Sun and the Earth could come to be, this was evidence for a creator? When we did not understand what made thunder and lightning, this was evidence for a creator? When we did not understand in any way how life could possibly come into existence from non-life, that was evidence for a creator? I did not say anything about science not knowing how something worked was evidence for a creator. I did say not knowing where anything and everything came from is the best evidence for a creator. Unless it just poofed out of thin air. Ops there was no air there was no nothing, not anything at all. It really sounds like something had to be created by some means and whatever that means was that would be the creator. I will quote Hawking where he said Here quote: If it had a beginning it had to be created. That is the best evidence for a creator. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
If it had a beginning it had to be created. 1) This is an assertion. Please demonstrate its validity. 2) And if it doesn't have a 'beginning'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3692 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
quote:Not necessarily, is a possibility that there is a multiverse. If so than our universe may have existed in an alternate state before expansion. That would mean that in regards to this universe it did not require a creator. Though I will be honest and admit that this leads to a infinite regression of who/what than created this multiverse? For that I have no answer, but I can honestly say that neither do you. For if it was God who created the multi/universe than who created that God and so on and so on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
If it had a beginning it had to be created. That is the best evidence for a creator. And I have also seen it claimed that that which had no beginning was the creator. So we have evidence for a creator from:
I just love creation "science!" Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
bluejay writes: Why do you keep assuming that somebody or something has to have created or formed it? I do not assume it had to be created or formed. Science says the universe did not always exist. It had a beginning 13.7 billion years ago. Hawking said 15 billion years. If it did not exist it had to be created. If one of your colorful creatures created it then he/she/it would be the creator.
bluejay writes: you've now turned it into a question that you expect Bluegenes to answer. bluegenes gave the correct answer as I expected him to do.
quote: bluejay writes: If you wanted to be honest, you'd also say it's the best you can put forth, too. But, instead, you chose to just accept one of the many unproven and untested explanations because you felt good about it. And, instead of answering what evidence you think best supports your idea, you turn it around and demand what evidence supports your opponent's idea. I am saying the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of the universe is the best evidence of a creator. The universe had to come from somewhere, or something. Unless you got a better idea. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
cavediver writes: ICANT writes:
1) This is an assertion. Please demonstrate its validity. If it had a beginning it had to be created. You right it is an assertion. So let me see if I can shed a little light on the subject. I have a truck and a van sitting in my driveway. Both of those vehicles had a beginning. They did not self create. They did not come into existence by an explosion in a junk yard. They were manufactured in a plant by people and robots. I live in a house that was created by human beings taking materials and assembling them into a house. I get from those things that something that did not exist at one time that they had to be created. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
cavediver writes: 2) And if it doesn't have a 'beginning'? That is a whole different story that begins to get to where I believe. You see I believe the Universe has always been here just not in the form that we see it today. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
You see I believe the Universe has always been here just not in the form that we see it today. But you won't let us poor materialists do the same? There may have been "something different" pre-Big Bang, as mentioned under "multiverse" upthread. No, we don't know what it looked like. So? You don't know what your universe looked like in its "prior form." And do you have any of the evidence for creation Brian asked for in the OP? "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. So you have observed a property of a few elements of a potentially infinite set, and then you try to claim that therefore the set itself has this property? Not so much wrong as making no sense whatsoever...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
rueh writes: Not necessarily, is a possibility that there is a multiverse. You did read what I said did you not. I said: "IF it had a beginning it had to be created." I do not believe it had a beginning I believe it was formed from things that had always existed. As far as multiverses, why would anybody want to limit God as to what He can do. He could have billions on universes with billions of earths with people on all of them. Or He could have one that would be His choice. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024