Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 46 of 176 (477161)
07-30-2008 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Brian
07-30-2008 2:21 PM


Your objection to creationism expressed elsewhere, that you should believe by faith, not scientific evidence, is dealt with in the doctrine of creatio-ex-nihilo. That things come from nothing ensures that there is no possible evidence for God, or a science of good and bad. Except there is ofcourse subjective evidence, by reasonable judgement for instance.
Yes common sense tells us that everything has to have been created, that is engrained in common knowledge, and you must philosophize very hard to escape that obvious fact, which is what you are doing with the bloody finger story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Brian, posted 07-30-2008 2:21 PM Brian has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 47 of 176 (477162)
07-30-2008 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
07-30-2008 3:48 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
cavediver writes:
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...
Then by all means be so kind as to let me in on the secret.
What has come into existence from an absence of anything (absolutely nothing) without outside help.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2008 3:48 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2008 4:43 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 48 of 176 (477164)
07-30-2008 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Coragyps
07-30-2008 3:47 PM


Re: Ape philosophy?
Coragyps writes:
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."
Coragyps I have no problem with string theory, brane theory, multiverse theory or any other theory you can come up with. You are welcome to them.
If you want to believe it by faith fine, just don't claim it as Science.
I argued for the better part of a thread that anything prior to T=10-43 had to be believed by faith.
If you have something that is smaller than a pea and is a trillion degrees I don't see any way of tracing anything past that event. Therefore anything prior would have to be believed by faith.
Coragyps writes:
And do you have any of the evidence for creation Brian asked for in the OP?
Brian ask:
quote:
So, creationists, what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why?
In case you missed it I stated in Message 32
quote:
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.
I did not state the answer as to why which is.
It makes just as much sense as what we have been force fed by the establishment.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 07-30-2008 3:47 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 49 of 176 (477166)
07-30-2008 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ICANT
07-30-2008 3:59 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
come into existence from an absence of anything
Likewise, this makes completely no sense. 'come in to existence' requires some aspect of temporalness, yet the 'absence of anything' precludes this.
without outside help.
And how on Earth can an 'outside help' exist in an 'absence of anything'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 3:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Syamsu, posted 07-30-2008 5:17 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 5:21 PM cavediver has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 50 of 176 (477167)
07-30-2008 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by cavediver
07-30-2008 4:43 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
You forget that nothing makes easy sense in math by the zero. And that is where they have calculated decisions come from, from nothing, and from nowhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2008 4:43 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 4:32 AM Syamsu has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 51 of 176 (477169)
07-30-2008 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by cavediver
07-30-2008 4:43 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
cavediver writes:
And how on Earth can an 'outside help' exist in an 'absence of anything'?
Glory, Hallelujah I do believe you are beginning to get the picture.
There either had to be some thing or there would still be no thing.
If there was no thing prior to the beginning 13.7 billion years ago give or take a few billion there would still be no thing today.
The question then becomes what was that some thing.
Any answer must begin with I believe which is faith.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2008 4:43 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Rahvin, posted 07-30-2008 6:46 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 53 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 6:56 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 60 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 4:36 AM ICANT has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 52 of 176 (477173)
07-30-2008 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
07-30-2008 5:21 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
The question then becomes what was that some thing.
Any answer must begin with I believe which is faith.
Except that, since your belief is admittedly based on no evidence (which is what faith is, by definition), it's literally the same as making up any story you like. You're litterally filling in the blanks of unknowns with whatever you feel like, in tehis case the Judea-Christian deity. It's just god-of-the-gaps. Whenever you face something where our knowledge is limited or nonexistant, you say "God!"
That puts your deity in an ever-shrinking box.
If there was no thing prior to the beginning 13.7 billion years ago give or take a few billion there would still be no thing today.
I shudder at the idea of approaching cosmology even as an aside like this with you, but your concept of the Universe is extremely limited because you assume causality for everything. While this is a valid approach within the "confines" of our Universe, causality simply doesn't make sense without the dimensional structure of the Universe. Time is a component of the Universe, and as we tried to show you hundreds of times in multiple other threads, discussion of time stops at T=0 because that is the boundary of that particular dimension. Since causality requires time in order for one causal event to precede its effects, talking about "causes" for the Universe no longer makes sense in the way you're discussing it. There is no positive number preceding 0, and so there cannot be any event in time preceding T=0 in order to cause it.
If you ask the question "why does the Universe exist," the answer is "we don't know." We may not be able to know; all of our knowledge right now is confined to this Universe because we are a part of it. There may be many Universes in some superdimensional space, or this may be the only one. There may be a time-like dimension external to our Universe that contains its own causality and allows the existence of Universes to be "caused," or there may not. We simply don't know.
All we know is that the Universe exists, and we know what its properties were like to a high degree of certainty from moments after T=0 (10^-43 of a second) all the way up until today.
We don't know whether a deity exists. We know we've never directly observed one, and if one is leaving evidence of its existence, it doesn't seem to care what we know given all of the different views on deities on Earth that have existed. Humanity hasn't been able to agree that deities exist, their properties, or how many of them ever.
And since this is in the science forums, faith-based "I beleive it was , based on nothing whatsoever other than my personal subjective feelings" really has no place.
The question here is "was the Universe created?"
This question extrapolates to several others:
1) Do all things that exist require a cause?
2) Do all causes require an intelligent entity?
We know that within our Universe events happen as a causal sequence; that is, a butterfly flaps its wings in Africa and startles an elephant which subsequently begins a stampede that destroys a village.
We also know that not all events require an intelligent or even living facilitator; earthquakes and rainstorms and supernovae all have causes, but they have nothing to do with an intelligent or living agent so far as we can tell. The picture I posted earlier of either spilled paint or an abstract work of art illustrates that random chance and the extant properties of the Universe can be a cause, and that it can be difficult to distinguish whether the effect was caused by an intelligent entity or not. This is much more the case when we have no other examples to compare with, like our Universe.
The problem is taking an intelligent Creator as an axiom, as many have done. We don't know there is an intelligent Creator, it is not self-evidence, and neither is it possible to prove the existence of such a Creator through philosophy or "common sense." You may as well say that lightning is caused by Thor, that this is self-evident because lightning exists, and that simple common sense tells you that all things require a cause. Hopefully you can see the flaws in that line of reasoning. We gave up on Thor because we figured out how lightning actually works, and found that an intelligent Thunder God was not actually necessary; with no evidence supporting his existence, we discarded him and restored parsimony.
At the end of the day, no one here has provided any evidence for Creationism whatsoever. The self-desribed best argument you could all come up with was "Well, the Universe is here, so it must have been created. Duh."
If that's the best argument, it's no wonder Creationism is on the decline.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 5:21 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 11:10 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 53 of 176 (477174)
07-30-2008 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
07-30-2008 5:21 PM


No requirement for faith
ICANTphilosophisetosavemyass! writes:
Any answer must begin with I believe which is faith.
Any answer except the honest one, which doesn't begin with "I believe", and doesn't require faith, does it ICANT?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 5:21 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 11:58 PM bluegenes has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 54 of 176 (477187)
07-30-2008 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Rahvin
07-30-2008 6:46 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Rahvin writes:
Except that, since your belief is admittedly based on no evidence
You are the only one here talking about my faith, I am not.
I was answering cavedivers statement he made in Message 49 where he said:
And how on Earth can an 'outside help' exist in an 'absence of anything'?
I get from what cavediver said that no thing exists in an absence of any thing.
Rahvin writes:
I shudder at the idea of approaching cosmology even as an aside like this with you, but your concept of the Universe is extremely limited because you assume causality for everything.
You then state:
Rahvin writes:
We know that within our Universe events happen as a causal sequence; that is, a butterfly flaps its wings in Africa and startles an elephant which subsequently begins a stampede that destroys a village.
As I understand it for every effect there is a cause in our universe.
Correct me if my understanding is not correct.
Why would the universe itself be exempt from causality?
Rahvin writes:
If you ask the question "why does the Universe exist," the answer is "we don't know." We may not be able to know;
I did not ask that question and I don't believe I ever have. Science does not have that answer and never will. That answer will come from philosophy
or religion.
Rahvin writes:
The question here is "was the Universe created?"
The question Brian asked in the OP was:
"So, creationists, what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why?"
My answer was: "Therefore the scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator."
You can read the entire questions and answers in Message 32.
Rahvin writes:
The problem is taking an intelligent Creator as an axiom, as many have done.
I have not mentioned intelligent Creator.
Rahvin writes:
At the end of the day, no one here has provided any evidence for Creationism whatsoever.
The OP did not ask me for evidence for Creationism.
The OP ask me, "what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why".
I gave the answer above and will add the "why", here.
It makes just as much sense as what science says.
Before you have an aneurysm we are talking about creation here and that is prior to T=10-43.
Rahvin writes:
"Well, the Universe is here, so it must have been created. Duh."
If that's the best argument, it's no wonder Creationism is on the decline.
I can't believe you said this after saying:
Rahvin writes:
All we know is that the Universe exists,
AND THIS
Rahvin writes:
If you ask the question "why does the Universe exist," the answer is "we don't know." We may not be able to know; all of our knowledge right now is confined to this Universe
So you know the universe exists, but you don't know why or how it came to be.
It just is.
Like I said: the scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator because it makes just as much sense.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Rahvin, posted 07-30-2008 6:46 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 4:46 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 55 of 176 (477192)
07-30-2008 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by bluegenes
07-30-2008 6:56 PM


Re: No requirement for faith
bluegenes writes:
ICANTphilosophisetosavemyass! writes:
Any answer must begin with I believe which is faith.
Any answer except the honest one, which doesn't begin with "I believe", and doesn't require faith, does it ICANT?
I'm not sure you understood what I was talking about when I said: "Any answer must begin with I believe which is faith".
As it was concerning the question, what was that some thing? I was asking cavediver about in Message 51
Creation has reference to the beginning which is prior to
T=10-43.
No one that I know of has ever given any evidence for anything that took place at creation. Thus my statement any answer would have to begin with I believe.
Now if you got something better I am all ears and would love to hear it.
Until then I will continue to say:
The scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator because it makes just as much sense.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 6:56 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by bluegenes, posted 07-31-2008 12:20 AM ICANT has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 56 of 176 (477193)
07-31-2008 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by ICANT
07-30-2008 11:58 PM


Try honesty
From your other post:
ICANTbehonest writes:
The question then becomes what was that some thing.
Any answer must begin with I believe which is faith.
No one that I know of has ever given any evidence for anything that took place at creation. Thus my statement any answer would have to begin with I believe.
Now if you got something better I am all ears and would love to hear it.
The honest answer, one you seem incapable of, is "I don't know".
Sticking things like goddesses or elves or wizards or anything else magical in the gaps in your knowledge is dishonest. It is self-deception, and you are certainly old enough to stop telling yourself comfort lies, aren't you?
I'm sure you're probably a nice guy in many ways, but you don't have the courage to be honest with yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 11:58 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 12:44 AM bluegenes has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 57 of 176 (477194)
07-31-2008 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by bluegenes
07-31-2008 12:20 AM


Re: Try honesty
bluegenes writes:
The honest answer, one you seem incapable of, is "I don't know".
But "I don't know" does not begin to answer the question of the OP.
Which was: "So, creationists, what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why?"
Why are creationist supposed to be able to give an answer when the scientific answer is "We don't know"?
Your answer "we don't know" is the reason I say:
The scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator because it makes just as much sense.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by bluegenes, posted 07-31-2008 12:20 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by obvious Child, posted 07-31-2008 12:50 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 62 by bluegenes, posted 07-31-2008 4:53 AM ICANT has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 58 of 176 (477195)
07-31-2008 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by ICANT
07-31-2008 12:44 AM


Re: Try honesty
quote:
The scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator because it makes just as much sense.
Hardly. That is nothing more then "don't know now? Goddidit." Your reasoning is why Animism came to be.ignorance looking for answers creates its own God.
There is no evidence for creation because creationism never happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 12:44 AM ICANT has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 59 of 176 (477201)
07-31-2008 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Syamsu
07-30-2008 5:17 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
You forget that nothing makes easy sense in math by the zero
As a mathematician, it is unlikely I would forget. But it is simply untrue. We build the concept of zero by considering the empty set {}. But we still have the concept of set. Zero is not 'absence of anything' - we have no concept for this.
And that is where they have calculated decisions come from, from nothing, and from nowhere.
Gibberish

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Syamsu, posted 07-30-2008 5:17 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Syamsu, posted 08-23-2008 12:01 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 60 of 176 (477202)
07-31-2008 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
07-30-2008 5:21 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Glory, Hallelujah I do believe you are beginning to get the picture.
ICANT, I've been considering this sort of thing for nearly three decades, and for a good portion of that was paid to do so. I'm not sure I've ever been so insulted as to suggest that 'I'm beginning to get the picture' via discussion with you
There either had to be some thing or there would still be no thing.
Who said there was nothing? At any time? If the Universe 'began' 13.7 billion years ago, then the answer to 'what came before?' is not 'nothing' but, 'I'm sorry, your question makes no sense'.
We have tried to explain this to you for god knows how long now, and you still don't get it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 5:21 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 7:30 AM cavediver has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024