You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Question of creation
- Thread starter FyreStar
- Start date
quote (some day I'll figure how to do it right)
"If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great architect, then I consent to be called a fool."
-- Voltaire
This is a loaded quote. You see, a watch does NOT prove the existence of a watch maker, it is simply common knowledge that watchs are made by watchmakers. Further, this is an OBSERVED process. I don't think any human has observed the making of a universe. I think Voltaire was right to consent to being called a fool.
plain_insane, regarding entropy versus improvement of the species, there are two reasons why these are different topics. One, the role of a living organism is generally to fight entropy (by one difinition). Two, it can also be a question of timescale. The universe is extremely old relative to the amount of time life has been on earth. The proposed entropic death of the universe is also way down the road, making life on Earth seem like less than a blink of an eye. Therefore, I think that there is no point of comparison.
------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain
"If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great architect, then I consent to be called a fool."
-- Voltaire
This is a loaded quote. You see, a watch does NOT prove the existence of a watch maker, it is simply common knowledge that watchs are made by watchmakers. Further, this is an OBSERVED process. I don't think any human has observed the making of a universe. I think Voltaire was right to consent to being called a fool.
plain_insane, regarding entropy versus improvement of the species, there are two reasons why these are different topics. One, the role of a living organism is generally to fight entropy (by one difinition). Two, it can also be a question of timescale. The universe is extremely old relative to the amount of time life has been on earth. The proposed entropic death of the universe is also way down the road, making life on Earth seem like less than a blink of an eye. Therefore, I think that there is no point of comparison.
------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain
plain_insane
Registered Member
Pookums,
Great response! I am glad to hear how you feel, but I think you missed the heart of what I said.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not just concern the entropic death of the universe. It also explains why mechanical parts of a machine wear out. The timescale can be small or large. So if things wear down or wear out, how does that imply, not improvements, but literally creation of life.
Also if the role of a living organism is to fight entropy, life had to have had a way to be created without the effects of entropy in the first place or else entropy would never allow non-living things to become living. It would wear out the non-living parts before living organisms which fight entropy could be formed.
Plain_insane
Great response! I am glad to hear how you feel, but I think you missed the heart of what I said.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not just concern the entropic death of the universe. It also explains why mechanical parts of a machine wear out. The timescale can be small or large. So if things wear down or wear out, how does that imply, not improvements, but literally creation of life.
Also if the role of a living organism is to fight entropy, life had to have had a way to be created without the effects of entropy in the first place or else entropy would never allow non-living things to become living. It would wear out the non-living parts before living organisms which fight entropy could be formed.
Plain_insane
Pookums,
Considering the uniqueness and the age of the universe, common sense tells you that its creation could not possibly be "observed" by modern man.
There are many watches in existence today. Although there are some who have observed a watch being made, there are others who have not. Take someone who has never observed a watch being made, they see a watch, and they believe it was made by a watchmaker because others have told them that that is how watches come into being.
As far as "creation" is concerned, it is not a repeatedly observable process because it is not a "common" event. Therein lies the problem for some of us common people who need to "see" in order to believe. Yet, God has given us the knowledge that we need to understand how the universe came to be. The majority of people on this earth understand, through the Word of God and through observation of God's great works in their everyday lives, that God created the universe... Therefore, it could be considered common knowledge that the world was created by God.
[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 13, 1999).]
Considering the uniqueness and the age of the universe, common sense tells you that its creation could not possibly be "observed" by modern man.
There are many watches in existence today. Although there are some who have observed a watch being made, there are others who have not. Take someone who has never observed a watch being made, they see a watch, and they believe it was made by a watchmaker because others have told them that that is how watches come into being.
As far as "creation" is concerned, it is not a repeatedly observable process because it is not a "common" event. Therein lies the problem for some of us common people who need to "see" in order to believe. Yet, God has given us the knowledge that we need to understand how the universe came to be. The majority of people on this earth understand, through the Word of God and through observation of God's great works in their everyday lives, that God created the universe... Therefore, it could be considered common knowledge that the world was created by God.
[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 13, 1999).]
Truestory,
Your logic is not sound in that you are comparing something that is easily empirically provable with something that is based on concept and theory. If someone has not observed a watch being made, this problem is relatively easy to remedy. If someone accepts as a fact that a watch is made by a watchmaker because they were told, at least this is an observed event.
On the other side of the coin, we have the universe. As I said (and you agree) that any process of creation of this universe is not an observed event by humans. Therefore, all ideas on how/whether it was created are based on conjecture. Therefore, 'common' man is free to make up their own mind on how/whether it was formed. The idea that a god has given us the knowledge is based on the assumption that there is a god to give such information. 'Deus in machina' is a difficult pill for me to swallow.
quote:
"Therefore, it could be considered common knowledge that the world was created by God."
Gee, I guess I'm uncommon. A belief, without data-no matter HOW MANY people believe it, does not make it true, but makes it a belief. Voltaire put the cart before the horse, as you seem to do also.
Plain_insane,
Thanks for the reply. Your question is sound, but may well also be answered with the time-frame question. Entropy is a prolonged event, while life is extremely short in a relative sense.
I'm not a pro at this, but let me give it a shot. First, one of the accepted goals of a life-form is to perpetuate self. Lets say that in the primordial soup, molecules were formed and dissolved based random events; the 2nd law would say that these events would tend to remain random and chaotic. Let's say that random events lead to formation of a molecule (e.g. amino acids) that is able to withstand the environment and actually perpetuate itself. This molecule would do so and rapidly and become a dominant force. Further, improvements upon this new stable molecule might also increase the survival of these new forms. If this seems as if it is an unreasonable assumption, there are modern examples of such a thing (prions).
Granted, hypotheses such as the above are also strongly based on conjecture. My only point is that the 'benevolent creator' idea is not the only idea out there and the other hypotheses are not only reasonable, but often have scientific precidence, where the creationist idea does not and cannot.
------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain
Your logic is not sound in that you are comparing something that is easily empirically provable with something that is based on concept and theory. If someone has not observed a watch being made, this problem is relatively easy to remedy. If someone accepts as a fact that a watch is made by a watchmaker because they were told, at least this is an observed event.
On the other side of the coin, we have the universe. As I said (and you agree) that any process of creation of this universe is not an observed event by humans. Therefore, all ideas on how/whether it was created are based on conjecture. Therefore, 'common' man is free to make up their own mind on how/whether it was formed. The idea that a god has given us the knowledge is based on the assumption that there is a god to give such information. 'Deus in machina' is a difficult pill for me to swallow.
quote:
"Therefore, it could be considered common knowledge that the world was created by God."
Gee, I guess I'm uncommon. A belief, without data-no matter HOW MANY people believe it, does not make it true, but makes it a belief. Voltaire put the cart before the horse, as you seem to do also.
Plain_insane,
Thanks for the reply. Your question is sound, but may well also be answered with the time-frame question. Entropy is a prolonged event, while life is extremely short in a relative sense.
I'm not a pro at this, but let me give it a shot. First, one of the accepted goals of a life-form is to perpetuate self. Lets say that in the primordial soup, molecules were formed and dissolved based random events; the 2nd law would say that these events would tend to remain random and chaotic. Let's say that random events lead to formation of a molecule (e.g. amino acids) that is able to withstand the environment and actually perpetuate itself. This molecule would do so and rapidly and become a dominant force. Further, improvements upon this new stable molecule might also increase the survival of these new forms. If this seems as if it is an unreasonable assumption, there are modern examples of such a thing (prions).
Granted, hypotheses such as the above are also strongly based on conjecture. My only point is that the 'benevolent creator' idea is not the only idea out there and the other hypotheses are not only reasonable, but often have scientific precidence, where the creationist idea does not and cannot.
------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain
Pookums,
If you are firm in your belief of empiricism and you totally deny the existence of non-empirical knowledge, then yes, I can see how you would not understand.
However, I do not believe "empirical" to be a condition of "common knowledge". Common empirical knowledge?
You might want to consider this, though... We have been told by God, who was the unique observer of the creation of the universe...
[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 15, 1999).]
If you are firm in your belief of empiricism and you totally deny the existence of non-empirical knowledge, then yes, I can see how you would not understand.
However, I do not believe "empirical" to be a condition of "common knowledge". Common empirical knowledge?
You might want to consider this, though... We have been told by God, who was the unique observer of the creation of the universe...
[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 15, 1999).]
ts,
I never said that I didn't understand; I said that I didn't AGREE. There is a big difference. Sure you can call me what you wish and if it makes you feel better to think that I am someone who insists on empirical evidence, fine. However, since a large number of your posts consist of actually quotes from others, I could call you a dogmatic tape recorder doing little thinking for themselves...but I won't. ; )
I never said that empiricism is neccesary for 'common knowledge', I said that a 'common belief' does not make it a fact. Giving it a thought though, I will say it now...the difference between common knowledge and a common belief IS empircism. By definition, without proof, it MUST be a belief.
Lastly, please refrain from putting words in my mouth; I resent it. It is rare that I post anything regarding my personal beleifs, I simply am stating the fact that there are alternatives that do not require a creator.
Bye the way, which god(s) do you mean? A number of them throughout the years have stated how the universe was created.
------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain
I never said that I didn't understand; I said that I didn't AGREE. There is a big difference. Sure you can call me what you wish and if it makes you feel better to think that I am someone who insists on empirical evidence, fine. However, since a large number of your posts consist of actually quotes from others, I could call you a dogmatic tape recorder doing little thinking for themselves...but I won't. ; )
I never said that empiricism is neccesary for 'common knowledge', I said that a 'common belief' does not make it a fact. Giving it a thought though, I will say it now...the difference between common knowledge and a common belief IS empircism. By definition, without proof, it MUST be a belief.
Lastly, please refrain from putting words in my mouth; I resent it. It is rare that I post anything regarding my personal beleifs, I simply am stating the fact that there are alternatives that do not require a creator.
Bye the way, which god(s) do you mean? A number of them throughout the years have stated how the universe was created.
------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain
Oooooooh, Pookums... Them there sound like fightin' words to me...???
1. If you look back at my previous posts, then you will find that I did not "call" you anything.
2. I did not say that you did not understand. I used an "IF, THEN" statement.
3. Whether or not you insist on empirical evidence has no bearing on my feelings.
4. Your attempt to ridicule me didn't work.
5. I didn't say that you said that empiricism is necessary for 'common knowledge' - I said that I believed it wasn't and indicated by a question mark (?) that I was asking what you believed because, at the time, I thought it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.
6. As you can see, I put no words into your mouth. If I had, then I would be able to somewhat understand the level of your resentment.
7. If, as you say, you were "simply stating the fact that there are alternatives that do not require a creator," then I do not think that this thread would have deteriorated to the level of "fightin' words."
8. To answer your question, I mean God, the Father. This was also verified through the testimony of the son, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. They are actually one in the same.
1. If you look back at my previous posts, then you will find that I did not "call" you anything.
2. I did not say that you did not understand. I used an "IF, THEN" statement.
3. Whether or not you insist on empirical evidence has no bearing on my feelings.
4. Your attempt to ridicule me didn't work.
5. I didn't say that you said that empiricism is necessary for 'common knowledge' - I said that I believed it wasn't and indicated by a question mark (?) that I was asking what you believed because, at the time, I thought it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.
6. As you can see, I put no words into your mouth. If I had, then I would be able to somewhat understand the level of your resentment.
7. If, as you say, you were "simply stating the fact that there are alternatives that do not require a creator," then I do not think that this thread would have deteriorated to the level of "fightin' words."
8. To answer your question, I mean God, the Father. This was also verified through the testimony of the son, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. They are actually one in the same.