Problems with both Creationism and Evolution

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
The reason is that there is EVIDENCE that the universe had a beginning. Check the link I provided.

​

God, BY DEFINITION, had no beginning, thus requires no cause.

---

This is nothing but wordplay.I define the universe as having always existed. Does this definition change anything? I think not. The Tao is defined as having always existed, has it?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Again, the PROBLEM is that there is good evidence that the universe had a beggining. If you want to blindly believe that the universe has always existed on faith- that's fine with me.

---

Keep it in context. You argued that 'God, by DEFINITION....'
so I argued by DEFINITION as well, and see what fit you had?

quote:

---

If the God of the Bible was described as having a beginning, then there would be a problem.

---

The PROBLEM is that there is no good evidence of the God of the Bible. If you want to blindly believe that god has always existed on faith- that's fine with me.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Sorry if it seems like I'm having a fit, but what you're saying doesn't make much sense to me.

---

I object to you using an argument for your cause on one hand then changing the terms and using the SAME ARGUMENT against another claim. What don't you understand?A 'by definition' argument is nothing but 'cause I said so' ie. meaningless.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

god was supposed to have created life and just about everything else, but who created god? If god always existed then why could life and the universe not have already existed?

---

​

Because for an eternally existing universe means that there are an infinite number of steps before you get to a certain step-no matter what step you take into the past there is always one before that. So, by inference, you can never get down to a point in which, say, the big bang happened, as it would require an infinite number of steps previously to be completed-which requires infinite time and so is impossible.

---

1) Same argument could hold for God.2) This is essentially Xeno's paradox, and it has been solved. It isn't actually paradoxical, it just plays one on TV.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Its actually the kalam cosmological argument.

---

And it rests on the same wierd properties of infinity as Xeno's paradoxes.

quote:

---

Which isn't really about what we are talking about.

---

So yeah, it is what we are talking about.But since you have given a more detailed formulation...

quote:

---

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence.

---

Quantum theory suggest that this is not the case.Strike one.

quote:

---

2. The universe began to exist.

​

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an
actual infinite.

​

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.

---

This is a conclusion based upon an incorrect formulation of a reductio ad absurdam argument. It is fallacious.Strike two.

quote:

---

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of
the formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition.

---

Same as before. Incorrect reductio ad absurdam.Strike three.

quote:

---

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence.

---

Wait a minute. Wasn't this premise one?Strike three, again.The whole thing revolves around the wierd mathematical properties of infinity, and the incorrect inference that "if it doesn't make sense then it is fallacious"

quote:

---

God exists out of time; he made time.

---

Prior to the big bang, if such can be at all, is effectively outside of time. Causality as we know it doesn't apply.

quote:

---

He was there before the beginning of time, and thus there is no infinite temporal regress argument you can level against God.

---

How can God exist before time when there was no "before" before time existed?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 08-21-2002]

You are going to have to back up some of your physics. For example...

quote:

---

Quantum Mechanics -- places limits on the observability of space-time continuity.

---

This isn't an accurate portrayal of quantum theory. It isn't about observability. Quantum theory is the idea the energy comes in chunks-- quanta, hence the name. The universe is bumpy in QM. This doesn't mesh with general relativity, which implies a smooth universe. Me thinks it is you who has your physics confused.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

1. Something DID cause the universe to expand.

---

Not necessarily. Causality breaks down at a singularity. Cause and effect no longer apply. None of our physics and mathematics work at a singularity, so it is very hard to tell what must have happened.

quote:

---

2. Nothing natural could have because there was no time to act within. and everything was within the singularity, which had no time. Stasis. Unchangable.

---

Same problem as above really. No one quite knows what happens at a singularity. Also note that 'no time' is not the same as 'time stopped' just as 'no water in the river' is not the same as 'the water in the river stopped flowing.'

quote:

---

3. God is supernatural, He exists outside of any physical reality, he needs no "Time" to work in. Only such a being could have effected the state of the singularity. Whether he is personal or not, that is for other discussions.

---

You are just making up something to fill in a blank in knowledge. There is no support for any of this.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Therefore all we are left with is logic.

---

No. Logic breaks at a singularity as well, as it is nothing but a method for analyzing causal relationships. No causality, no logic.

quote:

---

Logically my conclusion is that an intelligence outside of time and physicality caused the expansion.

---

This may be your conclusion, but it isn't logical.

quote:

---

Prove me wrong.

---

I already did.

quote:

---

By implication of your previous statements, anything anyone comes up with (since physics and math cannot help us) is also "just making up something to fill in a blank in knowledge" so their theories are no more valid than mine.

---

Current physics and mathematics cannot help. What future discoveries will unravel remains to be seen. A lot of people are working on the problem, and there are some interesting theories though none of them are yet verifiable.

quote:

---

There is no (can't be any) support for their theories either.

---

To claim that there can be no support for a theory means that you know the future. Is this your claim?

quote:

---

My theory fits the evidence and logic of what we know.

---

A thousand things fit the evidence, because there is so little evidence. Essentially, anything that ends in '... and that is what caused the universe' fits the evidence, but that is a far cry from having a sufficiently supported position.

quote:

---

I have other reasons to believe in God

---

Do you now?

quote:

---

so that is why I propose that God is the first cause of the universe instead of some undefined made up natural cause that no one can prove or find evidence for.

---

And you choose instead an undefined un-natural cause lacking proof or even evidence? That makes little sense.

quote:

---

Basically anything you can throw at me can be thrown right back at you.

---

Oh... you can through, but you are missing.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Hmmm. according to that definition I have to concede that point to you.

---

Good. Lets make a note of that.

quote:

---

But then neither is any other conclusion, even by "science"

---

1) This is irrelevant. Bad logic is bad logic. It doesn't matter whether another position contains bad logic as well.2) It is also a fallacy-- tu quoque. Congrats! News Wire » Internet Infidels3) It is also just wrong. That there is no current solutions does not imply that there cannot be a solution. You might notice, by the way, that there are no conclusions within science on this issue. There are proposals only, as yet. It is a tough nut.

quote:

---

Ditto.

---

How so? You just conceded the point. Remember that note we made at the top?

quote:

---

Until then my reasoning is just as valid.

---

The validity of an argument depends upon its own internal structure, not upon a comparison with other arguments.Besides, just for kicks, if a friend said that 2+2=6 and you said 2+2=8, would you be proud that your argument is 'just as valid'?

quote:

---

If these theories do become verifiable, then I will most likely change my stance.

---

I hope you mean that. But here is a question for you, right now you are chasing a theory that has no evidence at all, why not chase a theory that actually has a we bit of support even if just mathematical?

quote:

---

I was just using your previous statement that everything breaks down beyond the BB, so if nothing can work (logic, math, physics, quantum theory, etc) at the point all physics end including causality.

---

No. You are misreading. I did not say that nothing can work. I said nothing works-- none of the physics and math we have function at a singularity. This does not mean that no physics or math will ever be able to handle the problem. Hawking avoids the problem altogether with his 'no boundary' idea. He essentially redefines the geometry of the universe and hence the singularity at its beginning.

quote:

---

But you told me that there can be no sufficiently supported position.

---

No. I told you that there is no sufficiently supported position. Please try to keep this straight.

quote:

---

How can there be "sufficient" if there is so little evidence?

---

There isn't a sufficiently supported position at the moment. This is not a prediction of the future. There are some very interesting ideas, some of which have scraps of evidence. One hopes there will be a breakthrough eventually.

quote:

---

No fair getting sarcastic.

---

It isn't sarcasm. This unnamed evidence was proposed as support for your tendency to ascribe creation to God.

quote:

---

But I disagree about the "evidence" part.

---

Yet that evidence still remains unnamed.

quote:

---

2. There is a possibility that there might be a GOD or some intelligence, who started it all, barring any future proof that he did not.

---

No. If God did not do it, there will never be any evidence to that effect. If you don't do something, you don't leave evidence. I'll believe God did it when I see evidence that he did, not lack of evidence that he didn't.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com