Design on a Dime

You said we were going to "reason together". Why don't you do that instead of just giving an empty opinion? Are you under the impression that you're the only one reading this?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Sorry Doc, I'd respond but I was asked not to respond in this vein. You weren't, but I was. See msg 68 and 69 for details.

quote:

---

I don't see option 2 as a viable solution.

---

Ringo... You've neglected to explain how something can come from absolute nothingness. If you won't expand the argument, there is nothing more to object to than the premise itself.What exactly leads you to believe that anything could come into existence without causation when there is nothing to model this belief after?

quote:

---

If you didn't intend for me to derive meaning from it, you wouldn't have said it.

---

You addressed your reply to me. I'm the principle recipient.Must you play the devil's advocate with everything?

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

There's no more need to explain how something can come from nothing than there is to explain how something can be eternal. You've chosen one of the alternatives arbitrarily and dismissed the other without reason. What exactly leads you to believe that anything could be eternal when there is nothing to model this belief after? Doesn't matter who I'm advocating for. The principle recipient is the jury, not you.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Fair enough. Your reasoning makes sense since neither has been witnessed. However, if you are a strict naturalist, and thus you would be bound by the rules/laws.You are asking metaphysical and existential questions which have no earthly business being discussed from this view.If something is eternal, then that something has the potential to create something. If something can come from nothing, then it automatically assumes that something is eternal, does it not?What exactly leads you to believe that anything could come into existence without causation when there is nothing to model this belief after?Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Who said anything about a strict naturalistic view? That doesn't follow at all. A rock could be eternal. Huh? Coming from nothing implies a beginning. It's the opposite of eternal. What exactly leads you to believe that anything could be eternal when there is nothing to model this belief after?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The cause and effect argument is not a good one from a practical point of view.Quantum theory suggests (and there is physical evidence for) "uncaused" events.Why does one atom of an element decay when another does not is the simplified and easily observed version of this question.
Any theist advocating cause and effect as a founding principle of nature should investigate this first before extrapolating to the universe as a whole.
Quantum theory suggests that cause and effect as we know it is more a limitation of human macroscopic perception than a fundamental principle of nature.The idea of the universe as uncaused in terms of a probabilistic events is speculative but grounded in well founded quantum principles.Where the "rules" or "laws" that allow this probabilistic outcome to occur come from is the deeper and more meaningful question.I am not dismissing your misgivings but there is an extra layer of complexity that you seem unaware of before the concerns you espouse are to any practical intent relevant. (IMHO)

Within science, evolution does have a theoretical framework and a body of supporting evidence that you appear unfamiliar with, and I was referring to the likelihood that you were just as unfamiliar with evolution when you accepted it. Rejecting something you don't understand isn't much of an indictment.Those who do understand evolution cannot properly be referred to as people who "think they own the title rights to the theory." They're just people who happen to understand something you don't. I was just trying to reinforce the point about your unfamiliarity with evolution by drawing attention to your apparently equal unfamiliarity with the principles of science. That you ask such a question is just further reinforcement.Noting that one has rejected evolution in favor of creation science can only be counted in creationism's favor after one has made clear through discussion one's familiarity with evolution. As was more than evident in the recent Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report") thread where you had trouble composing even a single correct sentence, you're not familiar with evolution at all. That you abandoned something so poorly understood is not surprising.But my understanding of this thread was that it represented an opportunity for creationists/IDists to discuss the details of their understanding of how creation came about. Questions from the opening post appear to be primarily focused on what really happened as well as God's degree of direct involvement.--Percy

Well, this isn't a science thread, so there's no need to present evidence if you don't want to, but no one's going to find increasingly forceful declarations of "it's self-evident" very persuasive. Plus it's repetitive and just sounds like bluster. Yes, I think the cosmology and evolution discussion is off-topic, I'm sure Dr Adequate read my post, and I'm not in Admin mode in this thread.But I will respond to this logical fallacy, not to continue discussion on the Big Bang or evolution, but just to highlight a common fallacy so that it will hopefully arise less frequently: The Big Bang gave rise to everything in the universe, not just evolution. If you could cast doubt on evolution by casting doubt on the Big Bang, then you could just as easily cast doubt on all of science, since everything that is science came from the Big Bang. In reality, there is no siginficant connection between the Big Bang and evolution. You can find trivial connections, of course, like matter and energy came from the Big Bang, and evolution concerns itself with life which uses matter and energy, but those are the only kind of connections you'll find.--Percy

Based on your posting history, it is greatly inferred that this is your stance. If it is not, feel free to correct the perception.

quote:

---

If something is eternal, then that something has the potential to create something.

---

How can you have nothing before the singularity and also have a rock being eternal? (This conversation is getting a little silly).

quote:

---

If something can come from nothing, then it automatically assumes that something is eternal, does it not?

---

The opposite of eternal would be never existing.

quote:

---

What exactly leads you to believe that anything could come into existence without causation when there is nothing to model this belief after?

---

Answering a question with a quation is no answer at all. But I'll oblige you nonetheless.An actual infinite cannot exist. A beginingless series of events is an example of an actual infinite. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, nor any physical property, as that would constitute a beginningless series of events.Furthermore, Aristotle made the argument that asubstance is necessarily composed of different elements. The proof for this is that there are things which are different from each other and that all things are composed of elements. Since elements combine to form composite substances, and because these substances differ from each other, there must be different elements: in other words, “b or a cannot be the same as ba.”Finite things need a cause, whereas infinite things do not. Nothing is self perpetuated or uncaused. If it is caused by something else, then it is not eternal-- which a rock surely was. Science has undeniably proven this fact, so I'm not really sure what your objection is.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

nemesis_juggernaut I am curious as to how this statement makes sense. A series needs a beginning does it not?

quote:

---

A beginingless series of events

---

Yes, it does. Which is why I said beginningless. (Strong emphasis on the suffix).

No. The opposite of eternal is not "never existing". It is non-eternal. Transient. Existing for a finite period of time.

First, nobody said there was nothing "before" the singularity. Second, I didn't say anything about the singularity. You were the one who said, "Let's philosophize." Remember? Anything to do with the singularity is irrelevant to this discussion.You claimed that anything eternal has the power to create. I said that if a rock was eternal it would not have any more power to create than ordinary temporal rocks. Can you get with the program and stop jumping to conclusions? No. The opposite of eternal would be not eternal - i.e. temporal - i.e. having a beginning and/or an end. I keep answering your question with the same question because you don't seem to understand that it is the same question. As I said earlier, two of (possibly) many alternatives are:

1. There could be an uncaused "creator",
   ​
   OR
   ​
2. The "creation" could be eternal.

Those two alternatives are about equally likely, so why do you keep harping about one and ignoring the other? What?If science has proven that pile of bullshit "fact", please give us a link.And then tell us what the @#$% science has got to do with this philosophical discussion.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Most of us could say the same. In fact, we could say the same and be Christian. It is not required to believe in a 6000 year old earth, and we could certainly say that we can know only the tiniest reflection of God.I somehow thought you were atheist, but I suppose you just refuse to put God in a neat package. I think along the same lines myself, I surmise that hope and intuition, gut instinct and deep longing, are indications of something 'real' which lies in the future of man. Surely no argument to bring to court. Oops, sorry for jumping the gun in the first part of my post. I don't agree with you though that 'atheism' is the simplest explanation. A great number of people are 'lapsed believers' who no longer belong to any formal religion, but still retain faith in God of some sort. You believe God is or may be responsible for some paranormal events, which tentatively puts you beyond deism. You are waiting for conformation so to speak, before you believe in God. You are waiting to see if a God is required. Yet, you say you believe, because you want to believe. So, I say find what is in your heart. You may end up with 0 reasons to believe in God, but that really means nothing.