Scientists Deem Creation to Be the Most Rational Explanation of Universe

[Woody]

Internationalist said: we know that the male gene is going to disappear in a couple hundred thousand years.

Woody: Then humanity will go extinct. Look around you. Do you see any animal species that fit this assumption? Some species are supposedly 100s of millions of years old. Flies still do it the old fashioned way.

 

[Sarkus]

As I said before, I did not prove that God exists, I only proved that an outside force created the universe, given the data we currently have accessible.

Er... yes, you said that "There are four laws involved in the proof that a creator God exists:" and then "I can proove God exists by logic. The argument boils down to this:"

A question Woody:
Do you think your God interacts with our Universe from outside? - and in doing so defy the laws of thermodynamics and entropy that your logical proof relies on?

If you do, then you can no longer hold the assumptions of your proof as valid - as you believe in something that can defy them.

If you do not, then what "God" do you believe in? Do you worship merely the idea that the Universe was caused?
Do you anthropomorphise this "cause" in any way - and if so, why?

 

[Woody]

Sarkus said: Do you think your God interacts with our Universe from outside? - and in doing so defy the laws of thermodynamics and entropy that your logical proof relies on?

Woody: If the outside force created the laws of energy then the force can not be slave to those laws. This would violate the law of cause and effect: The cause must be equal to or greater than the effect. I covered this territory in earlier discussion on this thread. If God is subject to the energy laws this also viloates the law of exclusive middles because it makes God both master and slave with respect to his creation. He can only be one, not both according to the law of exclusive middles.

So your argument violates both the laws of logic which are superior to the laws of physics. Both of the laws of energy are subsets within the all inclusive laws of logic, as explained in the original argument.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus said: Do you think your God interacts with our Universe from outside? - and in doing so defy the laws of thermodynamics and entropy that your logical proof relies on?

Woody: If the outside force created the laws of energy then the force can not be slave to those laws. This would violate the law of cause and effect: The cause must be equal to or greater than the effect. I covered this territory in earlier discussion on this thread. If God is subject to the energy laws this also viloates the law of exclusive middles because it makes God both master and slave with respect to his creation. He can only be one, not both according to the law of exclusive middles.

So your argument violates both the laws of logic which are superior to the laws of physics. Both of the laws of energy are subsets within the all inclusive laws of logic, as explained in the original argument.

Okay...
[1] All observations within our Universe hold to the laws of entropy and thermodynamics.
- if they don't then you can not use them as part of your proof, as they are obviously incomplete/inaccurate/wrong.

[2] If "God" interacts with our Universe then he is either observed or not observed.
- if he is observed then he MUST obey the laws of our Universe - as agreed in [1]
- if he is not observed then he sits outside our Universe and does not interacts.


So - either your creator God can not interact with our Universe (and all you've done is give logical proof that the Universe was "caused") - or you can not use the Laws of Thermodynamics and Entropy in your proof.

Which is it?

 

[Silas]

Woody: You believe that logos ends when you die because you believe science is the only reality. But we theists also believe the mind is a reality as well. How do you explain volition? I am not talking about animal instincts here. How do you explain human emotions that are not Darwinian -- for example the appreciation of a beautiful butterfly.

Actually I personally have never denied the ultimate mystery of consciousness, and the denial or contravention of all known scientific laws represented by your very well picked word: volition. (Sapience implies intelligence to the level of humanity, "Free Will" has irrelevant religious connotations. "Volition" perfectly encompasses the actions of all animal life which do not comply with either the clockwork universe or the probability functions of quantum mechanics.)

However, that does nothing to dent my belief that ultimately the mind and personality originate from the brain, and that when the brain dies they die. At any rate, you failed to answer my question: what do you think is the after death outcome for us atheists?

And the argument continues:

Michael Behe

I already demolished Behe, there wasn't really any point in bringing him up again. I have not consented to buy his book and fill his wallet further, but the user comments page at amazon.com does provide a fair grounding in his arguments and the hole in them. Principal among which was his argument that the 40 organelles (or whatever it is) necessary to a cell are "irreducibly complex", but cells have been found with only 33 of whatever it is Behe thought they needed 40 of. This returns again to my point that it doesn't matter which arbitrary point people like Behe pick to stand and say "There is no further science possible in this direction, therefore it must be God", history has always shown them to be incorrect. All you have to do is wait!

From wikipedia's page on the Center for Science and Culture which Behe is a prominent member of:

The CSC lobbies for wider acceptance of intelligent design (ID) as an explanation for the origins of life and the universe, and is opposed to the theory of evolution. However, the wider scientific community considers ID to be pseudoscientific and akin to creationism.​

If they are opposed to the theory of evolution then they are opposed to ulta-verified scientific fact. "Evolution" was obvious even in the 19th Century. All Darwin was provide a mechanism. Since Darwin our knowledge of how life actually develops and the means by which one species evolves into another has been confirmed by successively the (new since Darwin) sciences of Mendelian Genetics, Mathematical Genetics (R.A. Fisher), the structure of D.N.A. (Watson and Crick) and most recently in molecular biology advances which have involved the sequencing of genomes including the Human genome. These issues are not high faluting philosophical areas in which scientists are desperate to "disprove the Bible", they are essential modern science and developing technology which is directly connected to the economic well being of (more than any other country) the United States. And many parts of the United States want to outlaw the teaching of Evolutionary theory - without which the United States is going to lose its capability in the most advanced medical sciences - an irony since as I already said there is no country in the world more obsessed with achieving living immortality or at least as much of it as they can afford than the United States.

 

[Woody]

Silas said: At any rate, you failed to answer my question: what do you think is the after death outcome for us atheists?

Woody: I believe the bible. I didn't say I liked everything about it. So you should know the rest.

I don't fully understand why people are eternally tormented in hell. I do know this: there is no hope for them. The Jehovah's witnesses say all non-believers are annihilated in hell, that is to say they don't exist anymore. I'm not a JW. I know this about the God I have fellowship with: He has much more patience than I do, and he will take a lot of abuse when He doesn't have to. He loves everyone, even those that are in hell, but he has no good solution for them because they won't allow it, and they will never change. I felt like I deserved Hell for the things I did or did not do, but Jesus took away the guilt.

 

[spidergoat]

Internationalist said: we know that the male gene is going to disappear in a couple hundred thousand years.

Woody: Then humanity will go extinct. Look around you. Do you see any animal species that fit this assumption? Some species are supposedly 100s of millions of years old. Flies still do it the old fashioned way.

There are ancient animals that reproduce without sex. There are animals with more than two sexes. Sex allows for rapid change and adaptation, but that's not always good for the species.

 

[wesmorris]

Need I re-post my last response woody?

 

[Yorda]

There are ancient animals that reproduce without sex. There are animals with more than two sexes. Sex allows for rapid change and adaptation, but that's not always good for the species.

How do those animals reproduce without "sex"?
I would say that sex is merely magnetism, so even molecules replicate that way.

Animals with more than 2 sexes?
How do you mean?
Is there a neutral sex?
For what use?

I'm just interrested...

 

[Woody]

everneo said: yeah, it is so thick.

Woody: I posted the same thread over on the cosmology forum. They said there is no point arguing an odvious conclusion. They agree the universe came from something external. But they don't think the external force is God.

Nerd Overlord said: Need I re-post my last response woody?

Woody: Maybe you should discuss this with your atheist brethren on the cosmology forum. You can talk about your emotions with other atheists like yourself, and they can sympathize with your need. I understand the conclusion is a little tough on you, but they'll help you get over it, and fear not -- you can continue in your atheistic beliefs just like them.

 

[spidergoat]

Yorda,
They divide. And yes, there are animals with more than 2 sexes. Some ants have 4, some mushrooms as many as 28,000. I heard about it on a nature show, but I can't say I know much about it. Here's a link.

 

[Yorda]

And yes, there are animals with more than 2 sexes. Some ants have 4, some mushrooms as many as 28,000.

But mushrooms don't have sexes, they're just plants. I don't believe in the existence of sexes at all. I think they're created by the "mind". You can find male and female trees and mountains too if you begin thinking about it, but if you do not think, they don't exist. Up and down could be considered as male and female, but without gravity they don't exist, and without mind, gravity doesn't exist. From human perspective, sexes among humans seem very clear, don't they.. but a small child would see Nothing. We start to see the difference because we begin thinking about it, and we begin to think about it because we get conscious of "our" body.

 

[Silas]

There are ancient animals that reproduce without sex. There are animals with more than two sexes. Sex allows for rapid change and adaptation, but that's not always good for the species.

Please, please, let's not fall into the trap of contradicting everything Woody says just because he's a religionist. The concept that the "male gene will disappear in a couple of hundred thousand years" is patently nonsensical. Not everything revolves around humanity. The division of the sexes is hundreds of millions of years old and on that basis I can see no reason why the whole male gene across billions of animal and plant species will become extinct in an evolutionary almost invisible period of time.

I really don't care what spurious "scientific data" is available to make this point, I would bet my house that Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould would agree that it is utter crap.

Apologies for all the bold, I am out of my skull on Jack Daniels tonight. But my point remains valid despite that.

 

[wesmorris]

"Woody: Maybe you should discuss this with your atheist brethren on the cosmology forum. You can talk about your emotions with other atheists like yourself, and they can sympathize with your need. I understand the conclusion is a little tough on you, but they'll help you get over it, and fear not -- you can continue in your atheistic beliefs just like them."

So since I trump your BS, you resort to immature condescension? How very immature and condescending. I thought you wanted a rational discussion, a change of pace from the usual theist dogmatic thought-puke. I see you have little to offer but more of the same.

Kiss my ass.

 

[Woody]

wesmorris:

My point is that this argument left the field of logic quite early in the discussion. I have no desire to repost my logical proof. I accept your position that nobody has all the information, and hence there is a risk the proof could be wrong.

If you want to disprove the logic of this argument, then disprove the laws that were used or disprove any step along the way. It is acceptible to say there isn't enough information in your opinion to draw whatever conclusion was made. I never excluded an opinion, only the application of an opinion as a fact. I have admitted that I don't have all the information and I would really (honestly) like to see the "new formulation" of any of the laws. I allow for a revision of the laws, under the condition that observable data supports the revision. Isn't that fair enough?

 

[§outh§tar]

Southstar said:

Woody: As I said before, I did not prove that God exists, I only proved that an outside force created the universe, given the data we currently have accessible.

11) Hence there is a creator force, or "God" if you will.

You are arguing semantics against yourself; your words accuse you.

The argument is bulletproof. You must either disprove one of the four axioms or come up with a new proven axiom to disprove the argument. These are the laws of the universe and they have been tested and retested. They are not arbitrary laws.

There will always be more information in the future that could revise the current laws of the universe and supersede the argument I have presented. My argument is based on the current understanding of the laws.

You are purposefully ignoring a most simple request:

You have not yet demonstrated why a) God is a cause (of the universe), and why b) God is not an effect of something else (which we don't know of).

Neither of these are 'laws of the universe' which have been 'tested and retested'. If you do not substantiate those statements then your claim that "they are not arbitrary laws" as well will remain a falsehood.

 

[everneo]

everneo said: yeah, it is so thick.

Woody: I posted the same thread over on the cosmology forum. They said there is no point arguing an odvious conclusion. They agree the universe came from something external. But they don't think the external force is God.

The reason for their agreement may not be anything to do with your arguments. There are several string/brane theories that suggest our percievable universe is just a leakout of much larger multidimensional universe(s).

Also, there are other reasons why our universe may not be cyclic.

BTW, if no work is done (no friction, no air-resistance) a pendulum will swing for ever. Would you call that also a PMM ?

Though i am tempted to reply to your arguments, i leave that job to atheists.

 

[Sarkus]

If you want to disprove the logic of this argument, then disprove the laws that were used or disprove any step along the way. It is acceptible to say there isn't enough information in your opinion to draw whatever conclusion was made. I never excluded an opinion, only the application of an opinion as a fact. I have admitted that I don't have all the information and I would really (honestly) like to see the "new formulation" of any of the laws. I allow for a revision of the laws, under the condition that observable data supports the revision. Isn't that fair enough?

I am now reposting what you have obviously missed:

Okay...
[1] All observations within our Universe hold to the laws of entropy and thermodynamics.
- if they don't then you can not use them as part of your proof, as they are obviously incomplete/inaccurate/wrong.

[2] If "God" interacts with our Universe then he is either observed or not observed.
- if he is observed then he MUST obey the laws of our Universe - as agreed in [1]
- if he is not observed then he sits outside our Universe and does not interacts.


So - either your creator God can not interact with our Universe (and all you've done is give logical proof that the Universe was "caused") - or you can not use the Laws of Thermodynamics and Entropy in your proof.

Which is it?

I'm still waiting for an answer?

 

[Woody]

Sarkus: if he (God) is observed then he MUST obey the laws of our Universe - as agreed in [1]

Woody: You missed it on the law of cause and effect: the effect can not be greater than the cause. If God obeys the laws of the universe then he is less than his own creation.

God can not be both master and slave to the universe. This violates the law of exclusive middles: You say God must be both master of the universe (because he created it) AND He must not be master of the universe (because He is subject to the laws of his own creation). This logically impossible.

 

[VossistArts]

Of course, and those who are inclined to judge that which they feel strongly about, will do so regardless of whether or not they know. That one thinks they know is far more relevant to their behavior than one really knowing anything. Since each has their own bias and threshold of proof, beliefs are pretty eronious and will be rooted in a personal solution to circumstance.

Example: Fred grows up in a christian family. What is the path of least resistance for Fred regarding spiritual beliefs? Even if he doesn't follow that path, his circumstance is riddled with christianity. He can't escape his circumstance. As such, its role in his life is significant. It will either be part of it or struggle to overcome it.

More times than not, he'll just roll with it because it's easier and he learns to incorporate it into his perspective.

Regardless, the argument in the quoted article is a crock. It merely seeks to justify a presumption that can only be justified if presumed.

Yep I agree with Wes. A ton of assumptions.Presumptions. Whatever. Im content with I dont know. Actually Im pretty confident that the origin of all this CANT be truly known. No matter what kind of evidence we might find to build logic backwards in time, the bottom line is, no one was there (i mean its unlikely heh) to see the beginnings of all things occur. Logic, theory,philosophy, beliefs, I think even what we presently consider to be derivative proofs in many cases, just are not reality. Does any kind of thinking really qualify as truth next to first hand experience? Even first hand experience is questionable heh

Sometimes this quest for the origins of things seems like a dog that isn't a dog chasing its tail that may never have been a tail.