|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Best evidence for Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jamison Junior Member (Idle past 5717 days) Posts: 11 Joined: |
Identity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
"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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
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·ningnoun 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·tion1. 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. creationNoun 1. a creating or being created 2. something brought into existence or created CreationNoun 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024