Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 32 of 176 (477132)
07-30-2008 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by bluegenes
07-30-2008 7:05 AM


Re: Ape philosophy?
bluegenes writes:
LucyTheRatherConfusedApe writes:
No: Existence requires a Creator doesn't mean that a Creator requires
existence; it means that you can't have existence without a Creator.
It means that a creator requires a creator in order to exist, and so the infinite regression, which itself (the regression) requires a creator etc.
Why does it mean a creator requires a creator?
bluegenes you keep asking, who created God?
The definition of God is I AM. That is everything that exists.
Now I have a question I have been trying to get an answer too for well over a year now. Maybe you can supply one for me.
Who/What created/formed the speck/smear/point or whatever you want to call it that expanded into our present universe?
I have answers "it just is", "there was no before", "it did not come from nothing", "We don't know", and even a question "Why can't it just be?"
That is the best answers Science can put forth for the existence of our universe.
Therefore the scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 7:05 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2008 1:50 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 34 by Blue Jay, posted 07-30-2008 1:58 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 35 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 2:17 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 37 of 176 (477144)
07-30-2008 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by cavediver
07-30-2008 1:50 PM


Re: Ape philosophy?
cavediver writes:
So whenever science has yet to understand something, this is evidence for a creator?
So when we did not understand what kept a positively charged nucleus together, this was evidence for a creator? When we did not understand how the Sun and the Earth could come to be, this was evidence for a creator? When we did not understand what made thunder and lightning, this was evidence for a creator? When we did not understand in any way how life could possibly come into existence from non-life, that was evidence for a creator?
I did not say anything about science not knowing how something worked was evidence for a creator.
I did say not knowing where anything and everything came from is the best evidence for a creator.
Unless it just poofed out of thin air. Ops there was no air there was no nothing, not anything at all.
It really sounds like something had to be created by some means and whatever that means was that would be the creator.
I will quote Hawking where he said Here
quote:
All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.
If it had a beginning it had to be created.
That is the best evidence for a creator.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2008 1:50 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2008 3:05 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 39 by rueh, posted 07-30-2008 3:11 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 40 by Coyote, posted 07-30-2008 3:15 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 41 of 176 (477150)
07-30-2008 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Blue Jay
07-30-2008 1:58 PM


Re: Ape philosophy?
bluejay writes:
Why do you keep assuming that somebody or something has to have created or formed it?
I do not assume it had to be created or formed.
Science says the universe did not always exist. It had a beginning 13.7 billion years ago. Hawking said 15 billion years.
If it did not exist it had to be created.
If one of your colorful creatures created it then he/she/it would be the creator.
bluejay writes:
you've now turned it into a question that you expect Bluegenes to answer.
bluegenes gave the correct answer as I expected him to do.
quote:
I don't know, and so far as I know, no-one knows.
bluejay writes:
If you wanted to be honest, you'd also say it's the best you can put forth, too. But, instead, you chose to just accept one of the many unproven and untested explanations because you felt good about it. And, instead of answering what evidence you think best supports your idea, you turn it around and demand what evidence supports your opponent's idea.
I am saying the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of the universe is the best evidence of a creator.
The universe had to come from somewhere, or something.
Unless you got a better idea.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Blue Jay, posted 07-30-2008 1:58 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 42 of 176 (477154)
07-30-2008 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by cavediver
07-30-2008 3:05 PM


Re: Ape philosophy?
cavediver writes:
ICANT writes:
If it had a beginning it had to be created.
1) This is an assertion. Please demonstrate its validity.
You right it is an assertion. So let me see if I can shed a little light on the subject.
I have a truck and a van sitting in my driveway. Both of those vehicles had a beginning. They did not self create. They did not come into existence by an explosion in a junk yard.
They were manufactured in a plant by people and robots.
I live in a house that was created by human beings taking materials and assembling them into a house.
I get from those things that something that did not exist at one time that they had to be created.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
cavediver writes:
2) And if it doesn't have a 'beginning'?
That is a whole different story that begins to get to where I believe.
You see I believe the Universe has always been here just not in the form that we see it 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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2008 3:05 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 07-30-2008 3:47 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2008 3:48 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 45 of 176 (477160)
07-30-2008 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by rueh
07-30-2008 3:11 PM


Re: MultiVerse
rueh writes:
Not necessarily, is a possibility that there is a multiverse.
You did read what I said did you not.
I said: "IF it had a beginning it had to be created."
I do not believe it had a beginning I believe it was formed from things that had always existed.
As far as multiverses, why would anybody want to limit God as to what He can do.
He could have billions on universes with billions of earths with people on all of them. Or He could have one that would be His choice.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by rueh, posted 07-30-2008 3:11 PM rueh has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 47 of 176 (477162)
07-30-2008 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
07-30-2008 3:48 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
cavediver writes:
So you have observed a property of a few elements of a potentially infinite set, and then you try to claim that therefore the set itself has this property? Not so much wrong as making no sense whatsoever...
Then by all means be so kind as to let me in on the secret.
What has come into existence from an absence of anything (absolutely nothing) without outside help.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2008 3:48 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2008 4:43 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 48 of 176 (477164)
07-30-2008 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Coragyps
07-30-2008 3:47 PM


Re: Ape philosophy?
Coragyps writes:
But you won't let us poor materialists do the same? There may have been "something different" pre-Big Bang, as mentioned under "multiverse" upthread. No, we don't know what it looked like. So? You don't know what your universe looked like in its "prior form."
Coragyps I have no problem with string theory, brane theory, multiverse theory or any other theory you can come up with. You are welcome to them.
If you want to believe it by faith fine, just don't claim it as Science.
I argued for the better part of a thread that anything prior to T=10-43 had to be believed by faith.
If you have something that is smaller than a pea and is a trillion degrees I don't see any way of tracing anything past that event. Therefore anything prior would have to be believed by faith.
Coragyps writes:
And do you have any of the evidence for creation Brian asked for in the OP?
Brian ask:
quote:
So, creationists, what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why?
In case you missed it I stated in Message 32
quote:
Who/What created/formed the speck/smear/point or whatever you want to call it that expanded into our present universe?
I have answers "it just is", "there was no before", "it did not come from nothing", "We don't know", and even a question "Why can't it just be?"
That is the best answers Science can put forth for the existence of our universe.
Therefore the scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator.
I did not state the answer as to why which is.
It makes just as much sense as what we have been force fed by the establishment.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 07-30-2008 3:47 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 51 of 176 (477169)
07-30-2008 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by cavediver
07-30-2008 4:43 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
cavediver writes:
And how on Earth can an 'outside help' exist in an 'absence of anything'?
Glory, Hallelujah I do believe you are beginning to get the picture.
There either had to be some thing or there would still be no thing.
If there was no thing prior to the beginning 13.7 billion years ago give or take a few billion there would still be no thing today.
The question then becomes what was that some thing.
Any answer must begin with I believe which is faith.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2008 4:43 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Rahvin, posted 07-30-2008 6:46 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 53 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 6:56 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 60 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 4:36 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 54 of 176 (477187)
07-30-2008 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Rahvin
07-30-2008 6:46 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
Rahvin writes:
Except that, since your belief is admittedly based on no evidence
You are the only one here talking about my faith, I am not.
I was answering cavedivers statement he made in Message 49 where he said:
And how on Earth can an 'outside help' exist in an 'absence of anything'?
I get from what cavediver said that no thing exists in an absence of any thing.
Rahvin writes:
I shudder at the idea of approaching cosmology even as an aside like this with you, but your concept of the Universe is extremely limited because you assume causality for everything.
You then state:
Rahvin writes:
We know that within our Universe events happen as a causal sequence; that is, a butterfly flaps its wings in Africa and startles an elephant which subsequently begins a stampede that destroys a village.
As I understand it for every effect there is a cause in our universe.
Correct me if my understanding is not correct.
Why would the universe itself be exempt from causality?
Rahvin writes:
If you ask the question "why does the Universe exist," the answer is "we don't know." We may not be able to know;
I did not ask that question and I don't believe I ever have. Science does not have that answer and never will. That answer will come from philosophy
or religion.
Rahvin writes:
The question here is "was the Universe created?"
The question Brian asked in the OP was:
"So, creationists, what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why?"
My answer was: "Therefore the scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator."
You can read the entire questions and answers in Message 32.
Rahvin writes:
The problem is taking an intelligent Creator as an axiom, as many have done.
I have not mentioned intelligent Creator.
Rahvin writes:
At the end of the day, no one here has provided any evidence for Creationism whatsoever.
The OP did not ask me for evidence for Creationism.
The OP ask me, "what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why".
I gave the answer above and will add the "why", here.
It makes just as much sense as what science says.
Before you have an aneurysm we are talking about creation here and that is prior to T=10-43.
Rahvin writes:
"Well, the Universe is here, so it must have been created. Duh."
If that's the best argument, it's no wonder Creationism is on the decline.
I can't believe you said this after saying:
Rahvin writes:
All we know is that the Universe exists,
AND THIS
Rahvin writes:
If you ask the question "why does the Universe exist," the answer is "we don't know." We may not be able to know; all of our knowledge right now is confined to this Universe
So you know the universe exists, but you don't know why or how it came to be.
It just is.
Like I said: the scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator because 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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Rahvin, posted 07-30-2008 6:46 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 4:46 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 55 of 176 (477192)
07-30-2008 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by bluegenes
07-30-2008 6:56 PM


Re: No requirement for faith
bluegenes writes:
ICANTphilosophisetosavemyass! writes:
Any answer must begin with I believe which is faith.
Any answer except the honest one, which doesn't begin with "I believe", and doesn't require faith, does it ICANT?
I'm not sure you understood what I was talking about when I said: "Any answer must begin with I believe which is faith".
As it was concerning the question, what was that some thing? I was asking cavediver about in Message 51
Creation has reference to the beginning which is prior to
T=10-43.
No one that I know of has ever given any evidence for anything that took place at creation. Thus my statement any answer would have to begin with I believe.
Now if you got something better I am all ears and would love to hear it.
Until then I will continue to say:
The scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator because 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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 6:56 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by bluegenes, posted 07-31-2008 12:20 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 57 of 176 (477194)
07-31-2008 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by bluegenes
07-31-2008 12:20 AM


Re: Try honesty
bluegenes writes:
The honest answer, one you seem incapable of, is "I don't know".
But "I don't know" does not begin to answer the question of the OP.
Which was: "So, creationists, what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why?"
Why are creationist supposed to be able to give an answer when the scientific answer is "We don't know"?
Your answer "we don't know" is the reason I say:
The scientific answers for the existence of the universe is the best evidence for a Creator because 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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by bluegenes, posted 07-31-2008 12:20 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by obvious Child, posted 07-31-2008 12:50 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 62 by bluegenes, posted 07-31-2008 4:53 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 63 of 176 (477211)
07-31-2008 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by cavediver
07-31-2008 4:36 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 4:36 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Rahvin, posted 07-31-2008 12:13 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 65 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 2:11 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 67 of 176 (477287)
07-31-2008 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rahvin
07-31-2008 12:13 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
"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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Rahvin, posted 07-31-2008 12:13 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Rahvin, posted 07-31-2008 11:00 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 68 of 176 (477289)
07-31-2008 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by cavediver
07-31-2008 4:46 AM


Re: no sense whatsoever
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 4:46 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2008 2:33 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 69 of 176 (477290)
07-31-2008 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by cavediver
07-31-2008 2:11 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 2:11 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2008 2:30 AM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024