Religion and concept

[shaman_]

There aren't any problems with the ID explanation, no more than the natural explanation.

Yes there are. By proposing a creator you only create new questions about how the creator got there.
Have you heard this story?

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

It is a problematic, short sighted answer. The idea of a universe forming naturally does not have these problems.

In order to emphasize possibilities; we know that the only two forces that cause change are nature, and intelligence. Therefore, that's the possibilities of our universe.

So when a cheetah kills a gazelle, is that intelligence or nature?

Magic? I never used the word.

No you are cherry picking one word out. I said magic/advanced. In your bid to distance yourself from myth don't ignore that an entity powerful enough to create a universe would be magical to us. Clarke's second law.- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

It's a question that, this time, a creator actually fits....because we're talking about creation/beginning.

Norsefire it appeared to fit every other time as well! The only difference is we have worked the other problems out but we haven't worked this one out yet. So the placeholder god can still sit comfortably in the gap.

However, that's observable and always able to be known; universes, well, not so much.

Don't know what you mean by that. We weren't here to observe the origins of the earth but have been able to theorize the way it most likely happened. We may work it out the origin of the universe or not but an intelligent creator shouldn't even be taken seriously until there is a good reason to do so. .

 

[Norsefire]

Yes there are. By proposing a creator you only create new questions about how the creator got there.
Have you heard this story?

And this is also exactly the case for nature! I find neither any more rational or logical than the other.

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

And the point of this story is....?

It is a problematic, short sighted answer. The idea of a universe forming naturally does not have these problems.

It has every one of these problems.

So when a cheetah kills a gazelle, is that intelligence or nature?

"Intelligence"; although cheetahs are most certainly not very intelligent, anything with intent (which a cheetah does have) would fall under intelligence.

And those are valid observations; do you know of any other "forces" of causation than nature and intelligence?

No you are cherry picking one word out. I said magic/advanced. In your bid to distance yourself from myth don't ignore that an entity powerful enough to create a universe would be magical to us. Clarke's second law.- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Well sure, to us. But what is the point? If a human being came to the present from a billion years in the future, no doubt he would be god-like to us.

Norsefire it appeared to fit every other time as well! The only difference is we have worked the other problems out but we haven't worked this one out yet. So the placeholder god can still sit comfortably in the gap.

You are misunderstanding; in every other one of those times, it not only fit but wasn't an irrational idea. However, that being said, just because it's rational doesn't make it true, and of course, it's already been disproven.

However, as for the causation of the universe, it hasn't been disproven, it's still on the table, it's a very real possibility, and it shouldn't be ignored.

Don't know what you mean by that. We weren't here to observe the origins of the earth but have been able to theorize the way it most likely happened. We may work it out the origin of the universe or not but an intelligent creator shouldn't even be taken seriously until there is a good reason to do so. .

If it is a serious possibility, why not take it serioiusly? What is the default, not to take it seriously?

 

[shaman_]

And this is also exactly the case for nature!

No. Intelligent creation causes the problem of asking how the intelligent creator was created. The natural beginning does not.

And the point of this story is....?

It illustrates infinite regression, which what you get when you propose a creator.

It has every one of these problems.

By definition the natural beginning happened without intervention, so no it doesn't.

"Intelligence"; although cheetahs are most certainly not very intelligent, anything with intent (which a cheetah does have) would fall under intelligence.

And those are valid observations; do you know of any other "forces" of causation than nature and intelligence?

Yes I know you have divided everything up into two possibilities. That intelligent life formed on earth has little bearing on the beginning of everything.

Well sure, to us. But what is the point? If a human being came to the present from a billion years in the future, no doubt he would be god-like to us.

My point is that you jump up and say "I'm not talking about magic" sometimes and don't see that the point being made is still valid.

You are misunderstanding; in every other one of those times, it not only fit but wasn't an irrational idea. However, that being said, just because it's rational doesn't make it true, and of course, it's already been disproven.

However, as for the causation of the universe, it hasn't been disproven, it's still on the table, it's a very real possibility, and it shouldn't be ignored.

You still aren't appreciating the point I am making. The only reason it can be considered a possibility is because the answer is unknown. Logically, God can be considered a possibility for anything that is unknown but at some point you need to recognize what a poor, placeholder failure of an answer god is. You are following the same thinking that has been wrong so many times. You can reply that it is possible as we don't know and you would be technically correct. But step back for a second and see how wrong this line of thinking has been in the past. God of the gaps...

If it is a serious possibility, why not take it serioiusly? What is the default, not to take it seriously?

It is a possibility, just as it is possible that there is frozen cheese at the center of Pluto (we don't know either way right?). There is however, nothing to suggest it is a serious possibility.

 

[Norsefire]

No. Intelligent creation causes the problem of asking how the intelligent creator was created. The natural beginning does not.

So nature just pops out of no where? Yea....real logical

It illustrates infinite regression, which what you get when you propose a creator.

See above

By definition the natural beginning happened without intervention, so no it doesn't.

See above; also, yes it does. I can question where nature comes from, and bingo, it's equally ridiculous.

Yes I know you have divided everything up into two possibilities. That intelligent life formed on earth has little bearing on the beginning of everything.

What do you mean? Anyway, based on observations about the forces of causation, I can conclude that the universe either was created or began naturally (without intent); or, there's the possibility it always was.

My point is that you jump up and say "I'm not talking about magic" sometimes and don't see that the point being made is still valid.

And what is the point being made?

You still aren't appreciating the point I am making. The only reason it can be considered a possibility is because the answer is unknown. Logically, God can be considered a possibility for anything that is unknown but at some point you need to recognize what a poor, placeholder failure of an answer god is. You are following the same thinking that has been wrong so many times. You can reply that it is possible as we don't know and you would be technically correct. But step back for a second and see how wrong this line of thinking has been in the past. God of the gaps...

I understand entirely what you are saying, but the circumstance is different this time. Not only is the answer unknown, but it's unknowable. And because we are talking about origins, intelligence comes in very strong as an answer.

It is a possibility, just as it is possible that there is frozen cheese at the center of Pluto (we don't know either way right?). There is however, nothing to suggest it is a serious possibility.

Again with the ridiculous atheist failure to understand conceptual thinking; please show me your logic that makes you come to the conclusion that there is frozen cheese at the center of pluto. That's right, there isn't any. Is the string theory as possible as frozen cheese? No.

ID has observation and logic to support it. Please don't make the stupid atheist mistake of failing to understand concept.

 

[spidergoat]

There is no logic to creationism (ID). It fails to explain how a God came to be, it avoids the question entirely. At least scientists attempt to understand and explain how the big bang came to be. In any case, it doesn't seem to be an intelligent event, since it seemed to be a state of total chaos.

 

[Norsefire]

There is no logic to creationism (ID). It fails to explain how a God came to be, it avoids the question entirely. At least scientists attempt to understand and explain how the big bang came to be. In any case, it doesn't seem to be an intelligent event, since it seemed to be a state of total chaos.

Creationism is not ID. And the big bang popping up out of nowhere....yea that's very logical! You are demonstrating atheist narrow mindedness and inability to differentiate between content and concept.

 

[greenberg]

There is no logic to creationism (ID). It fails to explain how a God came to be, it avoids the question entirely.

That is because God is defined as the first cause. It is impossible to logically further explain the first cause.

Every explanation rests on some apriori accepted axioms. In creationism, one of those axioms is the existence of God.

 

[shaman_]

So nature just pops out of no where? Yea....real logical

Some time ago it seemed illogical that the earth could form by itself. You would have been one of those mocking anyone who suggested it.

As pointed out by Sarkus in a separate thread, argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.

See above; also, yes it does. I can question where nature comes from, and bingo, it's equally ridiculous.

Only to a closed mind.

Nature required no one to create it. It formed without intervention. Thats what the natural beginning is.

A powerful, complex entity creating everything only creates the problem of how the creator got there. Was it naturally (which you won't accept) or did another creator create them, and who created that entity, and that one ... turtles all the way down?

What do you mean? Anyway, based on observations about the forces of causation, I can conclude that the universe either was created or began naturally (without intent); or, there's the possibility it always was.

I am just rewording the argument. Intelligent life exists on earth and we create things so the beginning of everything may have been created by intelligence. It's a problematic theory with no evidence to support it.

And what is the point being made?

I understand entirely what you are saying, but the circumstance is different this time.

Different question, same circumstance. We don't know so how something happened so a god must have done it.

Not only is the answer unknown, but it's unknowable. And because we are talking about origins, intelligence comes in very strong as an answer..

So you repeatedly assert but your reasong to get to that point is flawed.

As to whether it is unknowable, it is certainly possible that we will have a very likely explanation one day.

Again with the ridiculous atheist failure to understand conceptual thinking; please show me your logic that makes you come to the conclusion that there is frozen cheese at the center of pluto.

From a previous post of mine - The materials in the universe can be broken down into two categories - (1) cheese and (2) non-cheese. We don’t know what material is at the centre of Pluto. It could be silicate and ice or it could be frozen cheese. As we have no evidence either way they must be equally likely. 50/50

I'm just following you logic. Cheese at the centre of pluto actually has as much evidence for it as god creating the universe. Your own words - "it hasn't been disproven, it's still on the table, it's a very real possibility, and it shouldn't be ignored."

That's right, there isn't any. Is the string theory as possible as frozen cheese? No. ID has observation and logic to support it.

ID is supported only superstition.

Please don't make the stupid atheist mistake of failing to understand concept.

If find the example rediculous then you step back and assess what you are saying as it follows the same logic. After dozens of posts you still refuse to see how you are applying the god of the gaps argument so I suspect you will resist seeing this as well.

 

[Norsefire]

Some time ago it seemed illogical that the earth could form by itself. You would have been one of those mocking anyone who suggested it.

As pointed out by Sarkus in a separate thread, argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.

Something from nothing is always illogical, whether God or nature.

Only to a closed mind.

Nature required no one to create it. It formed without intervention. Thats what the natural beginning is.

A powerful, complex entity creating everything only creates the problem of how the creator got there. Was it naturally (which you won't accept) or did another creator create them, and who created that entity, and that one ... turtles all the way down?

See above.

I am just rewording the argument. Intelligent life exists on earth and we create things so the beginning of everything may have been created by intelligence. It's a problematic theory with no evidence to support it.

Not at all. Again, use my "if Humans created a universe" argument. Also, as I said, the only possibilities are that it was created or formed without intervention.

Different question, same circumstance. We don't know so how something happened so a god must have done it.

That is a rather stubborn stance to take; to suggest a higher intelligence behind anything is never ridiculous. It wasn't even in the time of the Roman pagan gods. It's just that, just because it isn't ridiculous, doesn't mean it is true.

And an intelligence creating the universe isn't ridiculous, it's just unknown; applying the "god of the gaps" argument is dismissing the possibility off hand without any sort of thought.

As to whether it is unknowable, it is certainly possible that we will have a very likely explanation one day.

And what would that be? That space and time popped out of no where?

From a previous post of mine - The materials in the universe can be broken down into two categories - (1) cheese and (2) non-cheese. We don’t know what material is at the centre of Pluto. It could be silicate and ice or it could be frozen cheese. As we have no evidence either way they must be equally likely. 50/50

In this case, you're specifically attempting to ridicule the idea of a creator.

Also, you forgot to mention one detail, that is important to your story. How prevalent is cheese and non cheese? If most of existence can be determined to be made of cheese, it makes the idea of the center of pluto being made of cheese a real possibility. But cheese doesn't exist anywhere but on Earth, and we have to make it. Intent and non intent can exist anywhere in any situation.

I'm just following you logic. Cheese at the centre of pluto actually has as much evidence for it as god creating the universe. Your own words - "it hasn't been disproven, it's still on the table, it's a very real possibility, and it shouldn't be ignored."

Again, see above. Also, certain scientific theories have no real evidence, can we compare them to cheese in the center of pluto? Is string theory as equally probable as cheese at the center of pluto?

ID is supported only superstition.

Not at all. Even in a world without religion, ID is a logical suggestion. For instance, imagine that religion doesn't exist and never had. Now imagine that a scientist suggests that our universe might have been created. Would you find it ridiculous? Not at all; the problem is evidence, and unfortunately, there is no evidence for ANYTHING in regards to the origins of the universe.

 

[shaman_]

Something from nothing is always illogical, whether God or nature.

Unless the universe has always existed then that must have happened at some point. While it may seem illogical to you at this stage, you need to accept that it may have happened.

Is it illogical that a rock is made up mostly of space? Quantum fluctuations may seem illogical.
Lots of “illogical” things happen when you go beyond the molecular level.

Not at all. Again, use my "if Humans created a universe" argument. Also, as I said, the only possibilities are that it was created or formed without intervention.

It is problematic because it only creates another question – who created the universe that the creator resides in. It doesn’t have evidence to support it at this stage so my comment is correct.

That is a rather stubborn stance to take; to suggest a higher intelligence behind anything is never ridiculous. It wasn't even in the time of the Roman pagan gods. It's just that, just because it isn't ridiculous, doesn't mean it is true.

And an intelligence creating the universe isn't ridiculous, it's just unknown; applying the "god of the gaps" argument is dismissing the possibility off hand without any sort of thought.

I am not dismissing it out of hand though. I am pointing out to suggest a god created our universe with no supporting evidence is just following the same superstitious thinking that humans have been using for thousands of years. You are using the same reasoning even if you try to strip the god of the mythical background.

It takes a little faith, or poor reasoning, to keep suggesting a wrong answer.
Luckily people stopped completely relying on the lazy “gods” answer and we started to actually learn something about the universe we are in.There are some who continue to use it though and can be comfortable in the fact that they may still be right until a real answer is found.

And what would that be? That space and time popped out of no where?

Just dismissing it because you can’t comprehend it is a mistake and a logical fallacy. As we have established, you think it is illogical for the universe to have always existed. You also think it is illogical for the universe to have had a beginning which rules out ID and a natural beginning. So where do you go from there Norsefire?

In this case, you're specifically attempting to ridicule the idea of a creator.

Also, you forgot to mention one detail, that is important to your story. How prevalent is cheese and non cheese? If most of existence can be determined to be made of cheese, it makes the idea of the center of pluto being made of cheese a real possibility. But cheese doesn't exist anywhere but on Earth, and we have to make it. Intent and non intent can exist anywhere in any situation.

Intelligence has only been found on earth, as has cheese. The analogy fits. You seem to get thrown by the cheese example. What if I said that it is 50/50 that the centre of Pluto was entirely diamond?

As I have explained before the analogy is not childish ridicule, it is an example of what can be determined following your logic.

Again, see above. Also, certain scientific theories have no real evidence, can we compare them to cheese in the center of pluto? Is string theory as equally probable as cheese at the center of pluto?

I would not put probabilities on the unknown the way you do.

Not at all. Even in a world without religion, ID is a logical suggestion. For instance, imagine that religion doesn't exist and never had. Now imagine that a scientist suggests that our universe might have been created. Would you find it ridiculous? Not at all; the problem is evidence, and unfortunately, there is no evidence for ANYTHING in regards to the origins of the universe.

Believing in a higher power without evidence IS religion.

The ‘logic’ behind ID is “we don’t know, looks pretty complicated, so a god must have done it”. Does that really sound like watertight logic has been applied? Yes I know it’s only a suggestion. Is it okay to entertain ideas that follow poor logic because they are only suggestions?