Creationist model

On the contrary, from a scientific viewpoint, monotheism is pretty unlikely. As you said yourself, "In fact ONE does not exist in the universe." There isn't ONE of anything else, so why would we expect to find only one god?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

That's part of it. A scientific model must also be capable of producing testable predictions so that the accuracy of the model can be verified. Right, the Singularity. But why does the Singularity require a deity? If you postulate that all things require a cause in order to invoke a deity as the cause of the Big Bang, you must then assume that the deity also must have had a cause, which must also have had a cause, and so on.If you assert that a deity can be an uncaused First Cause, there is no reason to invoke the deity in the first place, as the Singularity could simply have existed without any cause at all.So monotheism is a logical impossibility without special pleading. Either your deity is simply the last of a series of deities creating each other back into infinity, or no deity is required in the model at all. This paragraph is nonsense. Where, precisely, does the bible make any "provisions" that could be interpreted as leading tot he internal combustion engine?You're taking my metaphor of automotive repair a little too far, IaJ - I was simply trying to explain what a model is. Any other metaphorical stories you may have mistakenly taken literally, or as more relevant than they are?I'm not asking for the bible itself to have a model, IaJ. We know it doesn't have one - we've all read it. This thread is about a Creatonist model - feel free to extrapolate beyond the actual scripture to build a compelte model. Just be sure to back it up with evidence.

Lets take a look: Nothing is covered by a seed factor when you fail to define what a 'seed factor' is. You failed to notice all the transmissions of irrelevant, error filled, and incomplete data. Only if you ignore the evidence to the contrary. But thats not true either.Amusing, but hardly scientific. Your 'dust' has underlying particles, how does this support your point? Please explain. What does starlight have to do with light? Are you saying that something else produced light before there where stars? Stars can be explained. What mystery are you attempting to apply to them? No it doesn't. It is reflected sunlight, and it produces tides not seasons. Final implies finished, there are other species and what makes you think this is the end of anything? Each species is seperate, thats what species means. Where? Is this a universal statement? You have any science to back that up? I won't ask. As opposed to before the required elements. Your awareness of what science actually is appears to be lacking.

quote:

---

On the contrary, from a scientific viewpoint, monotheism is pretty unlikely.

---

Before prefixing on the contrary, please give me a HOW any science can differ from this fact?

quote:

---

As you said yourself, "In fact ONE does not exist in the universe." There isn't ONE of anything else, so why would we expect to find only one god?

---

One is transcendent of the universe, is what I meant. It cannot be limited to within the universe, because the division of a technical and actual ONE would violate itself, ceasing it to have been ONE: where would the other counterparts come from? Thus genesis posits that all things were originally ushered via a duality. Its causation factor is ONE. This duality is seen in V1 and continues for all the pivotal entities in ch. 1: heaven/earth; light/darkness; water/land; male/female.It is one reason the BBT has a problem, and must retreat to IT JUST HAPPENED W/O A CAUSE.

Any and all science requires empirical evidence, repeatable observations, an objective consensus. Until such evidence can be produced for any god, science has no interest in theism. If there was evidence for one such entity, there would be no way of "proving" the negative proposition that there are no others. The same source as the first ONE.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

quote:

---

That's part of it. A scientific model must also be capable of producing testable predictions so that the accuracy of the model can be verified.

---

Agreed it must be testable, but the latter clause is inclusive of the former constant, and applies for everything. Accountability of a premise depends on the subject's status. Genesis is vindicated as of today: what's the alternative?

quote:

---

Right, the Singularity. But why does the Singularity require a deity?

---

The diety factor is to signify that even scientifically, it is vindicated. One can use any term, diety, force, whatever one likes. The point is, 'IT JUST HAPPENED' is perhaps the most unscientific premise ever contemplated, and is actually not science at all. It is better to say, WE DON'T KNOW.

quote:

---

If you postulate that all things require a cause in order to invoke a deity as the cause of the Big Bang, you must then assume that the deity also must have had a cause, which must also have had a cause, and so on.

---

No, this would violate the ONE factor. My point, and what Monotheism says, is that the ONE is independent and transcendent of what comes after it, which means the ONE has no precedent ['INFINITE']. What first appears a theological statement, is actually a fully scientific constant when contemplated, and remains the only definition of infinity, while answering your question: "I AM THE LORD - I HAVE NOT CHANGED; THERE IS NO OTHER".Thus the determination of Infinity is 'CHANGE' - anything subject to change is not infinite, by virtue of whatever changes it is transcendent of it; the 'NO OTHER' clarifies that ONE here refers to an actual ONE, not an academic premise.

quote:

---

If you assert that a deity can be an uncaused First Cause, there is no reason to invoke the deity in the first place, as the Singularity could simply have existed without any cause at all.

---

I agree. The diety factor may not be included in every discussion, and in no way negates or dents science. Equally, science, math & history have no input in original causation factors: they are post-ONE; IOW, post universe/creation. But the problems start when anyone takes seriously and actually, the BB as an actual beginning unto itself. Better to say, WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED, which frees us to scientifically debate the B - Z, without making any input of the elusive A.

quote:

---

So monotheism is a logical impossibility without special pleading. Either your deity is simply the last of a series of deities creating each other back into infinity, or no deity is required in the model at all.

---

'Last' cannot apply - this would negate the ONE factor. Note that it does not say FIRST - which infers a precedent; instead it says only LORD IS ONE, as opposed Lord is first. Note also, that in genesis creation chapter, there is no 'FIRST' day, but there is SECOND DAY, THIRD DAY, etc. Because FIRST day inferes a precedent. This is no typo: genesis, amazingly, uses DAY ONE, followed by SECOND DAY; THIRD DAY!

quote:

---

This paragraph is nonsense. Where, precisely, does the bible make any "provisions" that could be interpreted as leading tot he internal combustion engine?

---

There is no mention of scuds, mobiles and PCs either. equally, we do not have a BEAM ME UP SCOTTIE yet. Knowledge is accumulative, but based on the criteria of its primary constants.

quote:

---

You're taking my metaphor of automotive repair a little too far, IaJ - I was simply trying to explain what a model is. Any other metaphorical stories you may have mistakenly taken literally, or as more relevant than they are?

---

Disagree. Your version of model requires steam engine workings, which negates itself as knowledge progression occurs, same as flat erth is negated. Better to have a model based on criteria, specially when relating to original structurism. Here, obviously, engines are derivitives of the criteria.

quote:

---

I'm not asking for the bible itself to have a model, IaJ. We know it doesn't have one - we've all read it.

---

My point is, it does have one, and this is not limited to your description of what a model constitutes. Genesis Ch.1. should be seen as the first scientific model of the universe emergence, comprehensively listing all factors which constitute a model. The only next step is if that model is a scientifically vindicated one, not whether it is a model.

quote:

---

This thread is about a Creatonist model - feel free to extrapolate beyond the actual scripture to build a compelte model. Just be sure to back it up with evidence.

---

Yes, that's a fine check list. I do see logic in that all things were created at the one instance [signified by the ceasing of creation at the end of this chapter]. What is being said is, the created entities were in their potential form, and became manifest in its appropriate time, namely the disorder became orderly [V2] - a later developed scientific theory along the same lines [i seem to frget the name f this equation right now!].Its like baking a cake: first one has to secure all the required incredients - as opposed to pausing half way and considering if the cake maker can now create some ingredients like cane plantations for sugar, which requires the cake maker to already know what sugar and sweet means, seeing it never existed before. This postualtion refers to nothing can occur unless it has been included in the point preceding the ceasing of this process.If the above logic is accepted, I think the next criteria has to be how existing entities, as per V.1. [namely 'everything in the universe'], evolved, which refers to their interaction only. The latter ushers in science and explanations of such occurences, applicable only after the factors and entities are already existing in some form. IOW, 'causative' only applies to the caused here, not to original cause, and not to definitions of interactions between the caused. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Any and all science requires empirical evidence, repeatable observations, an objective consensus.

---

Eaxctly! I was waiting for that. Now please tell us how science can produce a universe w/o using any tools and elements - because in a pre-universe scenario, these have not been created yet. Here, your own criteria proves my point: repitition and empirical observation is only possible when entities exist. IOW, we can repeat and test only that which has already been created from nothing - else you end up with no beginning and no causative factor - namely a cyclical contraption. Thus I say one must put their preamble up first: are they talking about a finite universe?This is why genesis employs the once only technical term of 'create' [something from nothing], then reverts to 'formed'[something from something else] for the rest of the five books of the OT. This is no typo but 100% correct, because the first chapter concludes with creation being ceased [rested]. By its own postulations, genesis is correct w/o contradictions.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Science doesn't "produce" universes. It only studies the existing universe. Science doesn't need a "causitive factor".You do.You can't have a creation model without a creator and you have no objective empirical evidence for a creator.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

Now that you have said it, instead of it being told to you, are you showing that you finally understand what Big Bang is actually about? Big Bang is all about the B-Z, I am glad to see that you have evolved.

Science, maths, history, geography and all such faculties are post-universe. So it the BB. A creation model is of coz seen in genesis - the first of its kind. Here there is a process, pattern and listing of products, constituting a matrix of the primal factors, which is all a model should do.A model which shows the inner workings of each product is secondary, and relevent to each generation's accumulative and changing positions. Why is this simple premise even debated - I dont mean to stymie this thread.

quote:

---

Science doesn't "produce" universes. It only studies the existing universe.

---

Correct, there was no playing semantics here: science is an explanation of how already existing phenomena work. My input in a creation model was modeled from the genesis text: that the BB point, posited as a beginning, MUST also be the centre; the expansion of the BB point MUST be where the universe as at now. Why no alternative? Because there was nothing else besides the BB point, and nowhere else for it to go - based n a finite universe.

quote:

---

Science doesn't need a "causitive factor".

​

You do.

---

No, its not right. Science cannot give a centre because it is post-uni, which is different from does not need one. Further, science cannot negate a cause: the uni is FINITE! The retreat to IT JUST HAPPENED is unscientific, but has been taken on board by anti-creationists as a real science: its not. It is akin to the term, NATURE - which is an intelligent placebo for the inexplicable - but that is not based on any reality. I doubt every one who mentions NATURE as a cause, sufficiently differentiates this placebo from reality, and have gone on to incur what they accuse creationists with: Nature has become their unvisible diety. So they fall back on genesis - by default!

All true. Again, I would agree. Because people keep making statements about Big Bang that are incorrect. An understanding of the theory would not produce comments such as these: The theory, as you say, is about the b-z. I think now that much of the misunderstandings you once held about Big Bang have been overcome and such simple premises will no longer be debated. *sigh* I spoke too soon.Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

The great misnomer continues. And I want you to accept that an eggplant is an eggplant.A deep concept, I know. Try not be get confused. No, you have tried to withdraw because, after promising everyone a scientific model, you have proven unable to do anything of the sort and uninformed about what a scientific model even is.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

On the contrary: a car that exists only in thought can easily be driven. All you need is a driver who exists in the same thought.Try it. Imagine a yellow Mini Cooper.Now imagine yourself climbing into the driver's seat. Fasten your seat belt. Now start the car. Get it into gear, moving forward, then give it some gas. Take it around the track for a lap or two.Easy, yes? There IS a car here, right now.The car you are talking about.This car is real because it exists as an idea. This reality is nothing to sneeze at, either. It is only because of this reality that you are able to talk about the car at all.Thank you for providing an excellent example of an 'in between' state whose possibility you deny. But, if we may speak more precisely, it is not a matter of an 'in between' state so much as a matter of categories. At issue is not whether the car is real, but what kind of reality it has._______Edited by Archer Opterix, : No reason given.Edited by Archer Opterix, : going the extra mile for good prose.Edited by Archer Opterix, : living EvC life in the fast lane.

your thoughts exist within energy. without energy and existence of your body, no thought can be possible.you can deceive yourselves, but i will not be decieved.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides