Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 61 of 176 (477203)
07-31-2008 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by ICANT
07-30-2008 11:10 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Why would the universe itself be exempt from causality?
Why should it not be exempt? This is your seconf fallacy of composition this thread. Causality is a property of the internal constituents of the Universe. The Universe is not a constituent of the Universe. The set R of the Real numbers does not have the properties of the numbers contained within R.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 11:10 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 10:09 PM cavediver has replied

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


Message 62 of 176 (477204)
07-31-2008 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by ICANT
07-31-2008 12:44 AM


Re: Try honesty
ICANTreadEnglish writes:
But "I don't know" does not begin to answer the question of the OP.
But I didn't give you the answer "I don't know" to that question, did I. The honest answer to that is that you don't know of any evidence for creation, but you believe in the creation of this universe by the ICANT God because of your faith.
Gods have to be believed in through faith, because there isn't any evidence for any of them. Complete lack of evidence does not automatically mean non-existence, so who knows, you might be lucky, but I'd guess that the probability of you being right is about the same as winning your state lottery ten times in a row, because of all the other possible causes of the universe, if it was caused!
Good luck, anyway, because nice guys usually have nice Gods.
Edited by bluegenes, : correction

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

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


Message 63 of 176 (477211)
07-31-2008 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by cavediver
07-31-2008 4:36 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
cavediver writes:
We have tried to explain this to you for god knows how long now, and you still don't get it...
Sure I get it.
You don't know.
There is some speculation but nobody knows.
I still say that is the best evidence for creation. 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 60 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 4:36 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Rahvin, posted 07-31-2008 12:13 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 65 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 2:11 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 64 of 176 (477242)
07-31-2008 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
07-31-2008 7:30 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Sure I get it.
You don't know.
There is some speculation but nobody knows.
I still say that is the best evidence for creation. It makes just as much sense.
In exactly what way does
"I don't know, I don't have enough data"
make just as much sense as
"An invisible man in the sky magically poofed everything into existence?"
You're violating parsimony, ICANT, by inventing an entity for which there is no external evidence to fill in an unknown based not on data, but on your own subjective feelings.
I don't think you know how not to violate parsimony.
I mean seriosuly, if we can just make up whatever we want to fill in unknowns they way you're doing it, I may as well say "Mr. T is actually an immortal deity, and He created the Universe" or "a miniature giant space hamster did it." If we aren't basing our beliefs on evidence, we're basing them on our imaginations.
So you believe through faith that your imaginary friend created the Universe, and you believe the best evidence for this is that scientists don't know all the answers?
That's the stupidest position you've ever held.
It's like a child who says "I don't know where babies come from. I believe this is the best evidence for storks delivering children to new parents." Or "I don't know where my christmas presents come from. I believe this is the best evidence for Santa Claus."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 7:30 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 9:58 PM Rahvin has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 65 of 176 (477247)
07-31-2008 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
07-31-2008 7:30 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
ICANT writes:
There either had to be some thing or there would still be no thing.
CD writes:
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...
ICANT writes:
Sure I get it.
You don't know.
WTF? Is this a reading comprehension problem or deliberate mis-quoting? ICANT, believe me, you get nothing, and your idiotic reply above demonstrates this more than my words could ever convey.
I repeat:
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 63 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 7:30 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 10:57 PM cavediver has replied

  
jamison
Junior Member (Idle past 5717 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 07-30-2008


Message 66 of 176 (477281)
07-31-2008 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Brian
07-30-2008 10:33 AM


Identity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Brian, posted 07-30-2008 10:33 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Brian, posted 08-01-2008 12:43 PM jamison has replied

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


Message 67 of 176 (477287)
07-31-2008 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rahvin
07-31-2008 12:13 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
"An invisible man in the sky magically poofed everything into existence?"
Where in this thread have I mentioned anything about an invisible man in the sky doing anything?
OR
What I believe?
If you would like to discuss my statement I made in Message 32:
That is fine if not we are done.
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 64 by Rahvin, posted 07-31-2008 12:13 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Rahvin, posted 07-31-2008 11:00 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 68 of 176 (477289)
07-31-2008 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by cavediver
07-31-2008 4:46 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
cavediver writes:
This is your seconf fallacy of composition this thread. Causality is a property of the internal constituents of the Universe.
If it is a fact that causality is a property of the internal workings of our universe, wouldn't that rule out brane theory and string theory?
Isn't those theories supposed to supply every thing needed for the expansion of our universe to expand to where it is 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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 4:46 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2008 2:33 AM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 69 of 176 (477290)
07-31-2008 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by cavediver
07-31-2008 2:11 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
cavediver writes:
I repeat:
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...
According to Son Goku the universe was about the size of a pea 13.7 billion years ago. Here
To quote P.J.E. Peebles' Principles of Physical Cosmology page 6:
This is roughly 13.7 billion years ago. However it does not start at the beginning of the universe.
There is no experimentally confirmed model of how the universe began.
Peebles mentions a beginning.
Hawking mentions the evidence indicates a beginning. Here
If the universe had a beginning in our past then that would require a creation and a creation would require a creator of some sort.
Science has no theory as to the origin of the universe.
Science says the universe had a beginning.
A beginning requires a creation ex nihilo.
That requires a creator.
These things are the best evidence for a creation with a creator.
If the universe had no beginning all these go by the wayside.
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 65 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 2:11 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2008 2:30 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 70 of 176 (477291)
07-31-2008 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by ICANT
07-31-2008 9:58 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Where in this thread have I mentioned anything about an invisible man in the sky doing anything?
OR
What I believe?
When you speak of a Creator, you are speaking about the judeo-Christian deity. Even if you were trying to be more general, you are still invoking a magical entity that poofs the universe into existence.
You have said that a Creator makes "just as much sense" as the scientific responses, but a Creator violates parsimony and invokes magic to fill in an unknown or make "common sense" out of something that is not at all understandable in normal terms.
Causality as we understand it ceases to have meaning when universal origins are concerns because causality requires time to be relevant. It's like asking for something's location without any spacial dimensions or directions! I wouldn't even attempt to comprehend that without a physics degree - it's not something that's going to make sense to a layman, becuase it's completely different from anything a human being can experience.
Your claim that "it makes just as much sense" violates parsimony, ICANT. You're invoking an additional entity without any evidence for the entity's existence. If the best evidence for a Creator is that science hasn't explained the existence of the Universe to your liking, then a Creator has no evidence whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 9:58 PM ICANT has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 71 of 176 (477304)
08-01-2008 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by ICANT
07-31-2008 10:57 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
If the universe had a beginning in our past then that would require a creation and a creation would require a creator of some sort.
Please support this bare assertion with evidence.
These things are the best evidence for a creation with a creator.
Then your best evidence is rather poor...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 10:57 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 9:20 AM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 72 of 176 (477305)
08-01-2008 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
07-31-2008 10:09 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
If it is a fact that causality is a property of the internal workings of our universe, wouldn't that rule out brane theory and string theory?
Of course not
Isn't those theories supposed to supply every thing needed for the expansion of our universe to expand to where it is today?
How does the expansion of the Universe "to where it is today" have anything to do with a lack of causality???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2008 10:09 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 73 of 176 (477336)
08-01-2008 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by cavediver
08-01-2008 2:30 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
cavediver writes:
If the universe had a beginning in our past then that would require a creation and a creation would require a creator of some sort.
Please support this bare assertion with evidence.
If the universe had a beginning?
be·gin·ning
noun
1. The act or process of bringing or being brought into being; a start.
2. The time when something begins or is begun: the beginning of the war.
3. The place where something begins or is begun: at the beginning of the road.
4. A source; an origin: What was the beginning of the dispute?
5. The first part: The front matter is at the beginning of the book.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
beginning = origin
Hawking said "the evidence indicate the universe has not always existed but had a beginning"...
Peebles mentions the beginning of the universe.
A beginning of the universe, a start, an origin would require a creation.
cre·a·tion
1.
a. The act of creating.
b. The fact or state of having been created.
2. The act of investing with a new office or title.
3.
a. The world and all things in it.
b. All creatures or a class of creatures.
4. Creation The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.
5. An original product of human invention or artistic imagination: the latest creation in the field of computer design.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
creation
Noun
1. a creating or being created
2. something brought into existence or created
Creation
Noun
Christianity
1. God's act of bringing the universe into being
2. the universe as thus brought into being by God
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006
creation = something created, brought into existence.
Universe had a beginning = origin.
Creation = point something brought into existence.
You informed me that no thing not even 'outside help' could exist in an 'absence of any thing'. In Message 49
So 'IF' the universe had a beginning as per Hawking and Peebles, It had to be brought into existence from some thing that was in existence by some method.
Brian stated in the OP: "So, creationists, what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why?"
The universe having a beginning is the best evidence for creation because if it was not brought into existence we would not be having such fun discussing it.
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 71 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2008 2:30 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2008 9:31 AM ICANT has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 74 of 176 (477337)
08-01-2008 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by ICANT
08-01-2008 9:20 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
So 'IF' the universe had a beginning as per Hawking and Peebles, It had to be brought into existence from some thing that was in existence by some method.
How the hell does this follow from anything of what you wrote above it???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 9:20 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 10:54 AM cavediver has replied

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


Message 75 of 176 (477343)
08-01-2008 10:23 AM


No evidence so far.
To summarise, there's no real evidence for creationism been given at all. Some pseudo philosophical ramblings and a couple of jokes about fossils, and that's it. All those decades of "creation science" for nothing?

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2008 3:09 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024