Scientists Deem Creation to Be the Most Rational Explanation of Universe

Avatar said: I don't think that "many creationists" is good enough authority for such a claim "no more".

Woody: How so? I have a biology book from a christian school that discusses the realities of speciation. It's standard biology curriculum. I did not attend that school but I was curious about the christian perspective. The name of the book was Genes, Genesis, and Evolution.

Here is a link:

Genes, Genesis, and Evolution
 
woody,

By the way I don't want to turn this thread into a discourse on evolution. That subject has pretty well been beat to death in my opinion.
Click to expand...

But clearly not to the point where you understand it otherwise you would not have posted such an idiotic opposing topic. A discussion of evolution is the appropriate opposing argument to the claims in your topic. You cannot expect to propose an idea and then insist that no appropriate opposition argument be raised.

Evolution is fact; it has occurred and is occurring. There is nothing around you that is not a product of an evolutionary process. And please do not confuse the evident fact of evolution with theories of evolution; evolutionary theories are attempts to describe how the facts of evolution have occurred. To any rational individual the fact of evolution cannot be denied, it is a fundamental cornerstone of biological science.

The ID concept is based on the idea that anything complex must have been created by intelligence. But man is the only example of intelligence that we know and his intelligence alone has never caused anything to be created, it has always been in the dominant framework of an evolutionary process.

ID has no evidential basis – it is purely a worthless religious fantasy.
 
Evolution only addresses speciation. The study of the origin of the first species is called abiogenesis. There are several experiments going on now to create the first totally artifical life form from scratch. If their attempts are sucessful, would that prove the possibility of life arising on it's own from the chemical soup of early earth?
 
Woody,

I guess we have to start dismantling this horrendous piece of garbage that you posted.

If an entity cannot account for its own being (i.e., it is not sufficient to have caused itself), then it is said to be “contingent” because it is dependent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence.
Click to expand...

OK.

The Universe is a contingent entity, since it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence.
Click to expand...

This is an invalid premise since the statement is not based on fact. All I need do is show any hypothesis that offers an alternative, which you cannot disprove, to invalidate your statement, and in turn invalidate the remainder of your post.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html

Here we can see a credible explanation as to why the universe is not contingent on an external creator. This is not to say that it is true but enough to demonstrate that you cannot show it is otherwise and hence sufficient to invalidate your baseless assertions.

We can now safely discard the rest of your attempt at logic since your first premise has failed.

Have fun.
 
Chris said:

The Universe is a contingent entity, since it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence.
Click to expand...

Woody: So how does the universe explain it's own existence?

In quantum mechanics it has been recorded that an effect can precede its cause.
Click to expand...

WoodY: Quantum mechanics is based on self-fulfilling assumptions. It basically says things are the way they are because they had to be that way and could not be any other way. It's like atheistic predestination. I am more comfortable calling it fatalism or determinism:

Determinism according to Wikepedia

Fatalism according to Wikepedia

Quantum Mechanics according to Wikepedia

As you can see from the Wikepedia references, there is no mention whatsoever concerning LaPlace, the so-called father of quantum mechanics philosophy, which has nothing to do with the quantum mechanics theory I studied in college physics. I do not want to get into a semantical argument about a philosophy that is much better known as "determinism." Is this what you mean by QM?
 
This whole discussion (and a thousand others) exist only because people are so hellbent on confusing the ethical with the rational.

If I say "Women are equal to men", then what sort of a statement is this? An ethical one.

Yet people, "scientists", would go and "disprove" this.

The same way they go and "disprove" the Bible, when there is nothing to disprove.
You can't disprove an ethical principle.
 
Last edited:
Woody said:
but science is only a subset of reality, though a very good subset. If you can only believe in what you can demonstrate in a lab then you can not believe in evolution for example.
Click to expand...
how and why ever not.
 
Chris said:

In quantum mechanics it has been recorded that an effect can precede its cause.
Click to expand...

Can you show an example where the effect precedes the cause? I'm an engineer and I have never seen this happen.

I read some of your link, and the article quickly left the world of physics, delving into the world of metaphysics.

Might I quote one of my references:

Ralph Estling of Great Britain wrote a stinging rebuke of the idea that the Universe created itself out of nothing. Estling suggested:

The problem emerges in science when scientists leave the realm of science and enter that of philosophy and metaphysics, too often grandiose names for mere personal opinion, untrammeled by empirical evidence or logical analysis, and wearing the mask of deep wisdom. And so they conjure us an entire Cosmos, or myriads of cosmoses, suddenly, inexplicably, causelessly leaping into being out of—out of Nothing Whatsoever, for no reason at all, and thereafter expanding faster than light into more Nothing Whatsoever.... They then intone equations and other ritual mathematical formulae and look upon it and pronounce it good. I do not think that what these cosmologists, these quantum theorists, these universe-makers, are doing is science. I can’t help feeling that universes are notoriously disinclined to spring into being, ready-made, out of nothing (1994, 18[4]:430).

Woody: A stinging rebuttal to the QM junk science department. They are just grasping at straws to justify their atheism. Desperate men indeed!
 
Last edited:
woody said:
I was curious about the christian perspective. based on self-fulfilling assumptions. It basically says things are the way they are because they had to be that way and could not be any other way
Click to expand...
I totally agree woody.
 
Woody,

They are just grasping at straws to justify their atheism. Desperate men indeed!
Click to expand...

And the invention of a fantasy supernatural realm populated by invisible gods and demons with powers beyond imagination, is somehow more credible?
 
woody,

Can you show an example where the effect precedes the cause? I'm an engineer and I have never seen this happen.
Click to expand...

OK you've convinced me - absolutely everything must have a cause.

So with this important principle established can you explain what caused God?
 
Cris said: So with this important principle established can you explain what caused God?

Woody: God is Logos. He exists outside of space and time. He created both. He is purely cause, and not an effect.
 
outside of space and time, but not outside our universe
and if indeed outside
then doesn't cause exist in that place
you have to prove that too (good luck)

edit: time is merely a vector
 
woody:“ So how does the universe explain it's own existence? ”

Chris: Why is that relevant?

Woody: Because of the logical law of cause and effect. If the universe can not be it's own cause, then it is an effect. If it is eternal then it is its own cause.

If you proove the universe is eternal, you win the argument -- there is no God, and Genesis Chapter 1 is a lie.
 
Last edited:
avatar said: outside of space and time, but not outside our universe
and if indeed outsidethen doesn't cause exist in that place
you have to prove that too (good luck) edit: time is merely a vector

Woody: God is not ruled by his own creation, this violates the law of excluded middles, because he would be both master and slave at the same time with the same attribute. He can only be one, not both.

If he is slave then it violates the law of cause and effect because the effect would be greater than the cause. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that he is the cause, to satisfy both laws of logic.

Hence to be the cause he must be eternal, otherwise we do not exist.
 
If I say "Women are equal to men", then what sort of a statement is this? An ethical one.

Not really, because biologically women are equal and in some senses superior to men, we know that the male gene is going to disappear in a couple hundred thousand years, biologically it can be effectively argued then that women are superior to men. What you are talking about here is based on gender which is subjective nonsense, innately women and men are essentially the same in many respects we are taught to be different through gender roles. An ethical statement would be that "women are morally superior to men".

The same way they go and "disprove" the Bible, when there is nothing to disprove. You can't disprove an ethical principle.

Of course one can disprove and ethical principle it happens all the time, an ethic cannot be contradictory as the Bible is, thus the bible is a bunch of nonsense as a result, if an ethical principle cannot be universalized, and cannot be coherent it is not a ethical principle so much as it is garbage.
 
LOL ; well.. ok, suit yourself; I won't argue with you because I've given up arguing with theists for quite some years now.
I'm off to enjoy life.
ciao

p.s. how is it to live with so much artificial constructs in order to pretend to know ones existance? :D
 
Woody: God is Logos. He exists outside of space and time. He created both. He is purely cause, and not an effect.

Your God as you believe him to be is not logos because he is not logical, because Logos doesn't protend to be a happy, forgiving god it cannot be your god. The idea of effects preceding its cause is the only explanation for God and for the universe of course, the idea that something exists independantly of anything else is pure nonsense, look its very simple God exists to the extent we believe in him. Look at Zeus he was a god. Basically God as Avatar suggested before is contigent on us believing in him.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top