Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion

I would not in fact argue that science shows us that the universe as a whole has no creator^*; merely that it has given us no particular reason to believe in one either. If we were able to look at a whole range of universes, some with creators and some without, and knew which was which, then we might be able to come to some conclusion as to which class our own universe fell into. But we aren't and we can't.We're like people who have lived all their lives in a large cardboard box trying to speculate about what's outside the box. The limitations of our experience would tend to guide our speculations towards thoughts of more people and more cardboard --- but who would infer the stars or the ocean? * Science has, of course, exploded the idea of a creator who produced species by divine fiat --- hence this website.

Just had another thought.Logic itself proves the existence of God. We all use logic and understand certain logical principles to be true because they make sense to us, yet we are not able to prove that logic itself is a valid basis for proof. We just instinctively know that it is, but we cannot explain why. We cannot prove the validity of logic, yet if we deny it, we deny basis for proving anything. If we accept logic as valid, we must accept that it is valid because of a higher source over it, governing it. How did we first develop ideas of what logic was? Where does logic come from? If it merely evolved, is it an accurate basis for proof of anything? Logic comes from God. By denying God, logic is also denied. If one denies God they must demonstrate how logic is valid.

Maybe you just don't know why, yet. I think maybe you think "logic comes from God" because you don't know any famous logicians or the history of the field. Is everything you don't know the origin of, from God? Logic is valid because logic is the application of truth-preserving transformations to a series of axioms assumed to be true.

Apart from anything else, logic is not an instinct. It needs to be taught --- people untutored in logic will overwhelmingly fail at the simplest test of their logical abilities (over 90%, for example, will fail at the infamous "four card test").If this level of natural inability was conferred on us by God, then I don't think he did a very good job. How did we first develop our ideas of the internal combustion engine or the decimal system?We have brains. There seems to be no reason to ascribe our ideas to a supernatural cause when a natural cause is so evidently at hand. Well, we can, in fact, demonstrate that it works, just as we can demonstrate that an umbrella keeps the rain off. We have no need to ascribe umbrellas to divine wisdom, and you give no good reason for ascribing logic to that source.

Of course not, but that is a natural result of any system: it cannot be used to prove itself. Coincidentally, when the system in question is logic, attempting to prove it with any other system makes our proof, by definition, illogical. Unfortunately, though, your 'argument from definitions' does not support the existence of the Creator. You're going to have to prove this; what I know of infants and the newly born, while not much, tells me that at a minimum they've nary a lick of reasoning in their noggins. I'd say there's nothing 'instinctive' about logic. Why? Who is to say logic is even a real thing that exists external to the human intelligence? What goes up must come down. I addressed this once in Message 91. Why is it not sensible to think our reasoning comes mostly from our interaction with, and observation of, the world around us? And if this is sensible, why invoke the Creator when a naturalistic explanation will do just fine? This is only true if we decide to discount the possibility of any naturalistic alternative, such as the one I've mentioned several times now. Is there any reason we should discount a naturalistic explanation?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Dr. Adequate,Let me restate my point: if you ridicule goldrush for spiritual dogmatism, can you not be ridiculed for naturalistic and uniformitarian dogmatism? Or do you concede - as you seemed to in all of Message 117 - that belief in a spiritual and intelligent source (with regard to a tree) is not dogmatic? Your quibbling over whether or not the Creator "is perfectly intelligent", or whether or not "there was one creator of life and the universe", or other such specific issues, is mere diversion of the issue at hand, the issue being whether or not, to put in your own words from Message 105, "the tree was produced unintelligently by natural causes". This is the issue highlighted by you in Message 105. You referred to clearly highlighting thereby the dichotomy that lies between you and me: I believe God created the tree, you believe nature created (or "produced") it (ultimately). What is the logos? This dogma you speak of is uniformitarian dogma. But to expand the meaning of "uniformitarian" to all experiences which do not deviate from rationally understood principles is to (putting it in your own words) "broaden the scope of the word until it becomes vacuous". Uniformitarian philosophy says "the present is the key to the past". You have accused me of relying "on this supposed 'dogma' for all practical purposes", except, "when it interferes with your faith". When I do not "live in fear that next time I put my shoes on they'll bite my feet off", I do not rely on uniformitarian philosophy (which says the present is the key to the past).Talking about an issue as silly as your shoes biting your feet off though, I cannot say for sure that they won't. There is absolutely no way for me or you to know for sure. It's possible, but is it probable? It's absolutely possible that a meteor will fall on you right where you are sitting (or standing), and that you will die as a result: does this mean that you should be living in fear of it?Once again, you have diverted the issue at hand by redefining "uniformitarian". Never in reliance upon the basic principles (which do not include shoes biting off feet) of this universe have I found assurance in believing that "the present is the key to the past". Uniformitarianism is completely inapplicable in this regard anyway: do you rely on the present being the key to the past in your everyday life? You would only rely on such a philosophy to explain past events anyway, so why rely on it for future events (such as your shoes biting your feet off)?What you have done is expanded the meaning of the word 'uniformitarian' 'till it has become vacuous, in order that you might accuse me of doing the same to the word 'dogma'. You've taken one word (yes, one) - uniformitarian - and blown up its meaning so that you could accuse me of doing the same to you. You've chopped off your right leg in order to chop mine off. But it ain't gonna work cause you already fell on the floor, yo'. Correct. But what was the point of what I said? Was it not that all trees have a common source? Or did I claim that trees grow by a means other than natural reproduction? I am not saying that one tree out of a billion was created via a miracle, and that the other 999,999,999 were created "unintelligently by natural causes". My default position is that all things are created by God (logos), while your default position is that all trees have been produced unintelligently by natural causes (your own idolized logos). No tree exists in this world that was not created by God. You object and say, "no they weren't, because I went out there and watched the seeds germinate, so I know where they came from". But do you know where the seed came from?..."The tree it fell off of, duh"...where did that tree come from?...Sabe?Once again, you have diverted the issue at hand, this time by setting up a straw man. The issue is this: did God create the tree, or did nature create (or "produce") the tree?"Hereafter seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and Summer and Winter, and day and night shall not cease, so long as the earth remaineth." (Gen. 8:22) I know that one as faithful as Jehovah God holds in His hand their maintenance, and that being a righteous God as He is, He will not rescind His promise, but will maintain it as long as the earth remains. Did He not create them? Is it not in His power to establish or rescind them? To rescind them for sake of man's wickedness would be righteous, (as God did in the flood). But why then do I not live in fear? My assurance lies in (once again) Jesus Christ, for the promise of God through Him is that "all things work together for good, to them that love God". But to Him who is not in Jesus Christ: he should live in constant fear knowing that God would be righteous to pour out His wrath upon him. So to you I say: live in fear. I have a much stronger foundation for my faith, one that is stronger than human experience, and human reasoning, which is weak as one can readily see.As to your ramblings about Pharaoh, and the resurrection of the dead, and of Satan tempting Jesus: they are mere diversions. The issue is not [i]was the status quo violated?", but "was the status quo violated outside of the will of God?". Indeed, it was not, for it was by the will of God alone that all those things happened.

---

In conclusion: let me present the primary issue that we are running circles around: did an intelligent and spiritual source produce the tree, or did an unintelligent and natural source produce the tree?To inflate my use of the word dogma is to divert.To focus on seeds and vegetative cloning is to divert.To accuse me of holding dearly to uniformitarian dogma is to divert.

---

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the LORD. (I Cor. 1:21,27-31)"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria

You may ridicule me for what you like. You could begin by finding the thing that is ridiculous. You used the word "uniformitarianism" to describe my stated views. If you now think it doesn't describe them, I don't see that I'm the one to blame. But don't you see that my argument applies equally to the past as to the future? We have nothing better to go on except our experiences of how the universe actually works.You say it is "silly" to suggest that at some time in the future your shoes might bite your feet off. So it is. And so, equally in the light of experience, it is silly to suppose that at some time in the past some tree was poofed out of nothing by some sort of invisible magician. But when you follow this line of argument back ... where did that seed come from? ... where did the tree come from that the seed came from? ... and so forth, then I can make no sense of your line of argument except to suppose that you are trying to suggest that there was once a miraculously produced tree. If not, I don't see what you're getting at, and can only ask you to expound further. Fair enough, but that still gives you no grounds for confidence that tomorrow it might not be God's will that Satan should start jerking you around. An unintelligent and natural source, namely a seed.You say that to "focus on seeds" is "to divert", but really I can see no other way to answer your question except in its plain and natural English sense. If you want to elicit an answer which is not about seeds, then you should be asking me a different question from how trees are produced.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The very same dogma that you use every second of every day. Do you chain yourself to the floor every night incase gravity becomes a repulsive force in the middle of the night? If not, then you ascribe to the same uniformitarian dogma that we do. Uniformitarianism is the idea that physical laws are the same through space and time. That's it. Therefore, the things we see happening now are guided by the same laws and principles as the same events in the past. This is the assumption that you use every single second of your life. Based on what evidence and what reasoning?

Goldrush has tacitly agreed to these rules, however. Goldrush has stated many times that the conclusion of a creator is a logical conclusion reached through reason. When Goldrush fails to describe this reasoning and spouts logical fallacies we can only deduce that Goldrush has failed to meet his own criteria.

But why does that higher source have to be a creator deity? Why can't it be an unintelligent source, such as the interaction of M-Branes as described by String Theory?

If you are not using the scientific method then you need to spell out the epistemology that you are using. What are the rules of logic that you are using? Are your rules so liberal as to include flights of fancy alongside empirical evidence? Are ideas conceived from fantasy on the same level as evidenced theories? How do we differentiate between false beliefs and true beliefs within the system of logic that you are using?

Well, it appears we've run into that old familiar scenario: the creationist impasse. Repeated attempts to draw the arguments out of goldrush that he claims support his conclusion have landed on deaf ears.He seems to have run off to start another topic for spouting out the same nonsense.It's too bad, really.

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

To be fair, I think goldrush did spell out the arguments. It took on two forms:1. Argument from incredulity: Goldrush can't see how natural mechanisms can produce what he sees, so it has to be supernatural in origin by default.2. Negative Argument/Argument from Ignorance: No one can prove that creator didn't do it, therefore the beginning assumption of a creator is kept.What goldrush failed to do is produce arguments that were not logical fallacies (according to the common rules of logic that we are all used to).

Hi jay, If the tree does not start in a single cell of the root system, where does it come from?Does it take a group of cells?What causes the root to begin to grow verticle instead of horizontal if it does not begin in one single cell?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."

Hi, ICANT. Tissue differentiation. Limb buds in animals are not formed from a single cell, but from a group of cells that are induced together to begin growing into a limb.Plant stems (such as tree trunks), I believe are induced to grow in the same way. I invite you to read the Wiki article on meristems if you're interested in learning more about the physiology of plant organ development.-----However, let's not lose sight of the main point by chasing tangents: the point is that plant growth is highly flexible, and is not rigidly encoded by the DNA. DNA provides the materials and protocols for the "construction" process, but not an overall plan.In effect, DNA is the factory for hammers, levels, shingles, drywall and spackling paste, as well as the automated processes that use these materials to make a house; it is not the blueprint that organizes how all of these things combine: they are organized and combined by dint of their characteristics and behavior, not by their adherence to an overall plan that was designed beforehand.The reason we got on to this tangent is because you challenged Dr Adequate's statement that trees can reproduce autonomously, while buildings cannot, which was Dr A's response to Goldrush's question, "If buildings are built by intelligent agents, why do you think trees are any different?" (paraphrased).Edited by Bluejay, : "tress" is an incorrect variant of "trees"

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.