Questions for creationists

[Jack_www]

I would just like to ask those of you who believe that life came about on its own and evolved, cant you conceed that the idea that someone, or at the very least something created life is a possible why for life to come about, that it does have at least some merit?

[Jack_www]

sorry about the double post, didnt mean to do that.

[Jack_www]

Also just one thing I wanted to say. The Universe had a begining, I dont think anyone would argue that point. But something must have existed before the Universe began which has no beigining, the matter that makes up the Universe had to have come form somewere. Something had to have existed before the universe was born. This something that existed before the Universe could be God or not. I would like to think that there is enough eviedence arround us in the Universe to come to a statisfing conculsion. Weather or not the Universe and life in it was created or just happened on its own.

One thing I think we should all do is try and look at the scienticfic evidence and fact. Putting aside our own preconved ideas and try to form a conculsion based on facts.

Right now I am taking a English class at my collage, it is one of my general edication requirements. It is a thinking and writting critically class. In the text book that we are using it has some good questions to ask your self to do self-analysis of our own world views. Now by posting this I dont want to imply that anyone in here is closed minded I dont want to offend anyone, I just thought that just considering these questions would be good for both sides to look at.

"Do you automatically dismiss positions oppesed to your own view?

Do you take your own beliefs for granted without recongnizing the need for support?

Do you deny that your beliefs could change?

Do you accept public information without question?

Do you recongnize that some assumptions based on your world view need to be critically evaluated?"
- Writing Logically, Thinking Critically, thrid edition, pg 8
Shelia Cooper and Rosemary Patton,
published by Longman, New York
the copyright is 2001

[Guynemer]

Per usual, a debate on evolution has evolved into a debate on the origins of the universe...

Jack--you posit that there must have been something before the universe. Nope. The Big Bang was the beginning of space... and time. No time before the BB. Nothing before it, because there was no "before" it. Capiche?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I would just like to ask those of you who believe that life came about on its own and evolved, cant you conceed that the idea that someone, or at the very least something created life is a possible why for life to come about, that it does have at least some merit?

Possible yes. Its also possible there is a giant invisible orbiting aardvark that controlls life on Earth. Neither is testable. Neither explains things by existing any better than if they didn't exist. You still wouldn't know if it existed and you wouldn't know why. You can convince yourself that you do know god or the aardvark exists but some people think they know that the Bavarian Illuminati are real too.

If you need to believe in magic invisible beings to get through the day then yes that belief has merit for you. Some people need to think life has some higher purpose. They have to avoid thinking about what gods higher purpose might be but there it is anyway. I know there are people that can't imagine acting in a moral way without thinking they have their own personal invisible aardvark on their shoulder watching and judgeing. I don't. It might be easier but I would have to shut down large sections of my mind to go that route.

If the giant invisible aardvark seem ludicrous to you what do you think an all powerful all knowing god seems to me when I know the world is not designed by anything remotely perfect. When I know the source is ridiculously wrong on many things. Those are not mere belief either because I can prove them by looking at the real world.

After all you may say its too complex for an accident. I say it looks darned random to me. If the world was perfect cities wouldn't be destroyed by earthquakes and volcanos. If humans were perfectly designed we wouldn't kill each other. If we are perfectly designed for some hidden purpose I don't think the designer has a purpose that is in my interests.

Trying to cover it all up by saying we can't understand god is just hiding from the reality that the alledged god could have allowed us to understand if its all powerfull. That is just the God Works In Mysterious ways ploy to stop people from thinking.

So yes its possible. I don't see any merit in an belief based on faith alone. You might find it for you. You could try depending on yourself and the real visible people around you instead. You might find you can do it.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Guynemer

Jack--you posit that there must have been something before the universe. Nope. The Big Bang was the beginning of space... and time. No time before the BB. Nothing before it, because there was no "before" it. Capiche?

THe matter that made up the universe had to have came form somewere. If there was nothing before the big bang, then how the hell did it happen?

Many scientist who uphold the Big Bang theory do postulate that something existed before the beginning of the Universe, something that has no beining. Allthought they dont all agree on what that was that existed then.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Ethelred
You can convince yourself that you do know god or the aardvark exists but some people think they know that the Bavarian Illuminati are real too.

They have been alerted to your location. I advise disappearing.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Possible yes. Its also possible there is a giant invisible orbiting aardvark that controlls life on Earth. Neither is testable. Neither explains things by existing any better than if they didn't exist. You still wouldn't know if it existed and you wouldn't know why. You can convince yourself that you do know god or the aardvark exists but some people think they know that the Bavarian Illuminati are real too.

If you need to believe in magic invisible beings to get through the day then yes that belief has merit for you. Some people need to think life has some higher purpose. They have to avoid thinking about what gods higher purpose might be but there it is anyway. I know there are people that can't imagine acting in a moral way without thinking they have their own personal invisible aardvark on their shoulder watching and judgeing. I don't. It might be easier but I would have to shut down large sections of my mind to go that route.

If the giant invisible aardvark seem ludicrous to you what do you think an all powerful all knowing god seems to me when I know the world is not designed by anything remotely perfect. When I know the source is ridiculously wrong on many things. Those are not mere belief either because I can prove them by looking at the real world.

After all you may say its too complex for an accident. I say it looks darned random to me. If the world was perfect cities wouldn't be destroyed by earthquakes and volcanos. If humans were perfectly designed we wouldn't kill each other. If we are perfectly designed for some hidden purpose I don't think the designer has a purpose that is in my interests.

Trying to cover it all up by saying we can't understand god is just hiding from the reality that the alledged god could have allowed us to understand if its all powerfull. That is just the God Works In Mysterious ways ploy to stop people from thinking.

So yes its possible. I don't see any merit in an belief based on faith alone. You might find it for you. You could try depending on yourself and the real visible people around you instead. You might find you can do it.

I am pretty darn sure that we can prove weather or not God exist, by indirect means. There are main things that we have proven to exist in the universe by indirtect means, one thing that comes to my mind is black wholes, we cannot see them directly but we have porven their existence.

You bring out a good point about the world around us and they mainy things people do to each other. I know for many this is one of the biggest reasons why they dont believe in God. I do not think that God is missterous and that we cant understand Him. The Bible tells us that he wants people to get to know him, to get close to him as you would a friend. I'll post more to what you said here latter, since I dont have the time right now.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Also just one thing I wanted to say. The Universe had a begining, I dont think anyone would argue that point. But something must have existed before the Universe began which has no beigining, the matter that makes up the Universe had to have come form somewere.

heh I have an answer, well a sorta answer. Its possible and it doesn't depend on faith. Its only possible though. There is no way to prove it at present and possibly not ever. However at least part of it is true. Maybe all of it but it can't be tested. More at bottom of post.

Something had to have existed before the universe was born.

No. If something had to exist before the universe than you have merely extended the question. Something must also have existed before the something you are thinking of.

This something that existed before the Universe could be God or not. I would like to think that there is enough eviedence arround us in the Universe to come to a statisfing conculsion. Weather or not the Universe and life in it was created or just happened on its own.

What you would like to think and what is real are often two different things. I would like an after life. I see no way to believe in one that doesn't look exactly like wishfull thinking.

Wish in one hand and do something else in the other and see which happens first - Roger Zelazny in The Lord Of Light a science fiction novel so don't go thinking its religion.

One thing I think we should all do is try and look at the scienticfic evidence and fact. Putting aside our own preconved ideas and try to form a conculsion based on facts.

I am glad you think the same way as I. Makes me feel more comfortable in the world.

Right now I am taking a English class at my collage, it is one of my general edication requirements. It is a thinking and writting critically class. In the text book that we are using it has some good questions to ask your self to do self-analysis of our own world views. Now by posting this I dont want to imply that anyone in here is closed minded I dont want to offend anyone, I just thought that just considering these questions would be good for both sides to look at.

Fair enough.

"Do you automatically dismiss positions oppesed to your own view?

No. I just want some evidence. Everything I know is tentative and subject to change. No matter how stubborn I stick to it when confronted by others the ideas can be changed by real evidence or reason.

Do you take your own beliefs for granted without recongnizing the need for support?

See above.

Do you deny that your beliefs could change?

See above. I have changed in the past so why not the future.

Do you accept public information without question?

Thats not an American book is it? Sure doesn't sound like a something an American would consider much. Never trust public information without good reason. Not blindly anyway.

Do you recongnize that some assumptions based on your world view need to be critically evaluated?"

I could swear I have done that on this thread.


OK the book is American. Still those really aren't questions. They are indoctrination. Not always a bad thing though. As long as you are carefull to look at it critically and that is realy what those questions are for.

----------

Now for that answer.

There is one thing I KNOW existed before the universe. It may not have had any use. I don't see how it could but still I am pretty sure it existed. Something immaterial. Something not subject to heat or energy. Something not even subject to time although it deals with it.

Mathamatics.

Physics as we know it ENDS at the Big Bang. Dr. Hawking has tried to get around this. His attempt was a way to hide the border in time with an imaginary time using imaginary numbers. That is when you run out of real numbers you still have imaginary numbers available. So far he has not managed to make the math work.

Still math is available if anything can use it. It doesn't need anything to exist. It has no purpose. It doesn't require us for existance. Its possible that life is inherent in math. If not explicitly then as a possibility. It is concievable that the universe is inevitable simply because it is possible.

Yes thats speculation. But math is real (and imaginary) and it doesn't need anything. It is the one thing that can exist before time. Anything else is likely to cause time.

I was taught that God always was always will be always remains the same. Its that last bit that doesn't work for any god that any human has ever invented. If the god always remains the same WE CANNOT EXIST. For we change and we would be part of any all powerfull all knowing god. That follows from the all knowing part.

Bet you weren't expecting anything like that Guynemer?

Its not a religion and but it does deal with before the universe. Just not very well. I stink at math.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Guynemer


They have been alerted to your location. I advise disappearing.

I am prepared. I have my tin foil hat. Proof against the Orbital Mind Controll Laser.

For instruction follow the link.

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

Fnord

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www


I am pretty darn sure that we can prove weather or not God exist, by indirect means. There are main things that we have proven to exist in the universe by indirtect means, one thing that comes to my mind is black wholes, we cannot see them directly but we have porven their existence.

I have seen similar claims. I am still waiting to see something substantial.

You bring out a good point about the world around us and they mainy things people do to each other. I know for many this is one of the biggest reasons why they dont believe in God. I do not think that God is missterous and that we cant understand Him.

Not as long you are thinking of the Biblical god. That god can be tested against reality. It fails the tests. The efforts on this thread to rewrite the Bible shows that you yourself don't really believe it.

The Bible tells us that he wants people to get to know him, to get close to him as you would a friend. I'll post more to what you said here latter, since I dont have the time right now.

It also has a flood that never happened. The creation story is just plain wrong. The Tower of Babel is absurd. There are contradictions in a book that should have none. I see no reason to believe anything in it that can't be checked by outside sources.

[Lung]

Is this thread still happening?

The last time i posted i was harrassed about letting the creationists continue their delusional ways unimpeded. The impressive persistence of Ethelred is proof about my claim that it is the proverbial "bashing your own head against a brick wall".

In any case, Ethelred's attempts to shake jack_www off his theological shackles should be rewarded, so i will enter the fray once more

However, rather than try and logically denounce each statement, i prefer the more blunt approach. Jack_www, i suggest that you have a look at history - particularly religious history and it's attitude to science. You will see that ALL scientific advances that even remotely contradict the gospel of the bible were ruthlessly denounced at every opportunity. When the threat of eternal damnation didn't work, torture and murder were used to purge the person, hence the world, of the science, at least during the spanish inquisition.

Only when the evidence becomes insurmountable do fundamentalist christians retreat to the next line of defence, which is of course just another falsehood not yet disproven. This is a strategy used by creationists to muddy the waters, by insisting that a scientific theory needs to include everything else in order for it to have merit. Ethelred is right is keeping the topic on evolution, and only here can creationists can debate the subject. Jack_www used this approach, although i assume it was unintentional.

All of the things we laugh at our ancestors for what they believed that were in fact grossly untrue were held staunchly by religions. The beliefs in flat earths, earth being the centre of the universe, god making everything just as we see it now, and countless others were held as unshakable beliefs by various religions at some stage in the past. From where i stand, it looks ridiculous that they argue something until they are blue in the face; then, when they are proven to be incorrect, they simply argue for some other stupid fact until they are once again disproven, and on it goes

I said earlier in this thread that if god exists in this universe, he must be subject to the laws of physics of our universe. Moreover, he must be observable, at least indirectly. For god to be above our laws of physics, he cannot interact with anything in it. So, either he created the universe, OR, he influences it. However, he cannot do both. It is what i call the theopic principle

Another reason why he can't do both is that nothing in our universe can remain unchanged. Entropy puts paid to everything

So, creationists - put that in your pipe and smoke it!!

[Jack_www]

I think many have missunder stood some of the things I have posted on this thread. With the questions I posted form my english text book, I just put it there for people to use to answer them to themselves. I think that many may have gotten the impression that by posting such questions that I was implying that all of you were closed mined, this was not the case. I cant know that, I cant see into your mind. Sorry if this is the case. And is seems to me Ethelred is attacking it, I may be wrong on this, if so please explain what you are trying to say. IF you are attacking it, why are you? .

Form reading your posts, it seems you are very hostile to people who believe that their is a Creator. Sorry if I have missunderstood what you are trying to say.

I dont know all there is to know about science, many things I dont know, but I am willing to learn as much as I can.
I am also willing to look at the evidence and form a conculsion based on that evidence.

[Adalbertus]

I am pretty darn sure that we can prove weather or not God exist, by indirect means.

I'm pretty darn sure we cannot. Theological reason:
God wants us to love Him (as the Gospel says). Being able to love means also being able to not love. When we have a proof of the existence of God there would be no other way than to accept Him as God (doing otherwise would be extremely stupid) which replaces love by fear. So given that God wants us to love Him, He's a good reason to make a proof impossible.

There is one thing I KNOW existed before the universe. It may not have had any use. I don't see how it could but still I am pretty sure it existed. Something immaterial. Something not subject to heat or energy. Something not even subject to time although it deals with it.
Mathamatics.

No. Mathematics is manmade, from structures we inherited by evolution. The evolutionary theory guarantees that those structures are suitable to live our daily life. It hasn't anything to do with understanding microcosmos or astronomy. For me it's a miracle that mathematics works for structures in nature that are out of the scope of daily life.

For god to be above our laws of physics, he cannot interact with anything in it.

Also no. Analogy: There are programmers who are able to change/debug a running program. The only way to detect this from "inside" the program is the occurrence of something "supernatural".

Another reason why he can't do both is that nothing in our universe can remain unchanged. Entropy puts paid to everything

You cannot apply the laws of physics to who created them.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Adalbertus

Also no. Analogy: There are programmers who are able to change/debug a running program. The only way to detect this from "inside" the program is the occurrence of something "supernatural".

Oooh....your rebuttal is at least as dubious as my statement

You cannot apply the laws of physics to who created them.

Why not? You build, say, a car, within the laws of physics. You are also subject to the same physics as the car. If you were subject to a different set of physical laws, would you be able to interact with the physical laws bound by the materials which made up the components of the car, in order to make the car?

In any case, if you gave the car sufficient intelligence and ability to interact with it's surroundings, it could ultimately be able to detect your presence. "Supernatural" is used to defind that of which is beyond nature, but is can apply to anything that can't yet be explained. Something is only supernatural until such time as it can be proven otherwise

Arthur C. Clarke was right - any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable to magic