Problems with both Creationism and Evolution

Pixelator:

quote:

---

3. The Universe has a cause.

---

This begs two questions.First "cause" implies a creator - you assume your conclusion.Second, there is no reason for the universe to have a cause. providing the total energy of the universe equals 0 - and it seems to when you balance engery vs gravity - no cause is needed. Quantum fluctuation suffices.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulK:
Well you gave me AN answer on the "from eternity" point which made the argument nonsensical. And moreover it is one that is contradicted by the website you refer to (and the answer that gives is pretty confused, too).

​

However you misrepresent my argument, because as well as commenting on the "from eternity" point I also raised an important issue which you never addressed. The relationshp between the concept of beginning and a finite past. Even though I referred back to it in my last two posts you are now pretending that I did not say it. Let me put it simply - you cannot define MY strategy by the points YOU choose to address.

​

And since you chose to leave a point which calls the idea that the universe had a beginning into question, you can't turn around and claim that you have successfully defended the argumen even so far as showing that our universe had a cause.

​

Your version of the kalam argument is to set up a logical contradiction and then invoke God to get out of it, rather than looking at more plausible alternatives.

---

Paul,Sorry for not addressing your previous point. I believe you are referring to:

quote:

---

Here's one. Given that time is finite, if something existed from the very start of time can we say that it definitely did or did not have a beginning from that information alone ? If we need more information to decide then what is it, and how does it apply to our universe ?

---

If something is finite, then it must have a beginning. Finite existence means a non-infinite existence, right? If time if finite, then it began to exist. If something existed since the beginning of time, then it also is limited by the finite length of time. It also began to exist, and had a beginning. Or am I misunderstanding you?

quote:

---

Your version of the kalam argument is to set up a logical contradiction and then invoke God to get out of it, rather than looking at more plausible alternatives.

---

Actually that not MY version of the Kalam argument, that IS the Kalam argument: A logical contradiction that requires God to get out of it. God is the more plausible alternative based on the knowledge we currently have on the subject. If you don't agree, then fine. don't.

False. Hawking's "no boundary condition" model posits a universe that is finite in extent yet which has no boundary. Basically it is closed in on itself like four-dimensional sphere. Also false, or at least not necessarily true. There may be extant portions of the universe for which time values are meaningless. But the second premise of the Kalaam argument is false. The universe did not begin to exist. This particular patch of space-time which we presently observe may have begun to be observed at the big bang, but it is impossible for all that exists (the universe) to have a beginning since defining a beginning for it requires an observation of a state of absolute nothingness. Aboslute nothingness doesn't exist by definition and therefore cannot be observed.Blessings,::

I assume that your answer to my question is that if we know something existed at the beginning of time then we can say that it definitely did have a beginning (obviously we cannot say that anythign existed prior to the beginnign of time).It follows from that answer that everything has a beginning - and therefore requires a cause. Including God. The only way to escape this is to change your answer or to reject the idea of a finite past.And no, I don't agree with your version of the kalam argument because it relies on assuming a logical impossiblity - therefore making it impossible even for God to get out of it. It would be like asking me to agree with 2+2 = 5.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 08-23-2003]

quote:

---

I assume that your answer to my question is that if we know something existed at the beginning of time then we can say that it definitely did have a beginning (obviously we cannot say that anythign existed prior to the beginnign of time).
It follows from that answer that everything has a beginning - and therefore requires a cause. Including God. The only way to escape this is to change your answer or to reject the idea of a finite past.

---

I had to reread that several times, but now I think I understand what you are implying.By "something" existing at the beginning of time, you were including God. And so if I stated that if something must have a finite existance if it "began" with time, then that includes God, right?My answer did not include God in "something" by "something" I was speaking of the contents of the universe and the universe itself.God is eternal and exists eternally as non-physical spirit and intelligence, even without a universe or "time". He created them both.so yes I have to "change" my answer by excluding God because he is uncaused and eternal.

quote:

---

And no, I don't agree with your version of the kalam argument because it relies on assuming a logical impossiblity - therefore making it impossible even for God to get out of it. It would be like asking me to agree with 2+2 = 5.

---

Maybe I am again not understanding YOUR logic. How is it impossible for God to "get out of it" - what is the impossibility of my logic you are speaking of?[This message has been edited by pixelator, 08-23-2003]

I see you weren't actually answering my question.
My question was completley general - and did not allow the use of additional information that was not explicitly stated.And indeed you are still refusing to answer the question. Indeed it seems thAt your argument now reduces to assuming that the universe had a beginning and assuming that God does not.As to your last comment you are just confusing yourself. Logical possibilities represent absolute impossibilities - and many Christians insist that it is ridiculous to demand that God should be capabble of logical impossibilities on that ground. (And they have good reason to fear the theological difficulties incurred by asserting otherwise - how do you think a theodicy can work if the idea that God can do even the logically impossible ?)If you wish to explain how God can do somethign that you have asserted cannot be done then be my guest. But as soon as you admit it can be done - even by God you destroy your own argument. As if there was a worthwhile argument there in the first place. "I'll assume that the universe can;t exist and that proves God created it" - well it's a rationalisation for the conclusion and nothing more

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

No, that is not what is happening in the vacuum fluctuations.
The mass-energy *is* coming from a kind of "nothing" ( the base vacuum). The amount is constained by the uncertainty principle.This is not the usual case of mass out of energy.

to use some of darwin himselfs words, what i dont get is way many creationists can allow planets solarsystems every day life and even galaxys to be governed by laws and science but life on earth must have appeared all at once?and then the whole 7 days thing god made the world...if hes all powerful why not one day the answer i believe to be found in the new theory that each day in the word of god was actully close to 2000 years or even more...because he only set evoloution in motion as his "master if you want to put it that wayany thoughts?