Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[Blake]

To me, that's like asking how much farther down the evolutionary scale are the creatures from Spore compared to us. It doesn't make sense to compare them.

If you just mean how intellectually advanced do I think he is compared to us, I don't think he has to be all that much ahead of us. It's more that he would have a higher capacity than humans, like in "The Last Question." Like we can make a universal simulation on a computer right now, but we don't have the knowledge to make the programming delicate enough nor machines powerful enough to run it. I don't think such knowledge and technology is unknowable, however.

Sure, "intellectually advanced" if it helps.

[Blake]

You can argue that the word, 'before' doesn't really make sense if god is outside this universe. Time is a property of this universe, so it's possible than things outside of it don't even have a concept of time.



Oh good, we've gotten here. You're right that this is the question people have to ask in order to have a real debate on the matter. I'm gonna go ahead and say, "dunno", so we're all clear that I am not trying to assert something here. I'm just going to say a couple of things about it.

Why are you going with a watch maker belief instead of "dunno"?

Since time is a function of this universe, something outside of this universe isn't necessarily bound by our concept of time. Therefore, it's possible that something outside this universe could have "always" existed. I do consider that the path of least resistance. The idea that god has to have a beginning and ending is an unnecessary attribution. We assign it because we know only of things that begin and eventually end. We'll get back to that when we actually get to the real question later on.

Irrational assumption. No reason to go with that fantasy.

Beyond that, I'll say that I actually don't have the burden of answering that question, even if god did necessarily have a beginning. It's like asking a scientist to tell you what started the Big Bang before you can accept it. Any answer is unnecessary to the issue at hand. If the universe (existence as we know it) was created, then whatever created the creator is irrelevant to us.

is the question you're waiting for "purpose?"

[Chinook]

Why are you going with a watch maker belief instead of "dunno"?



Irrational assumption. No reason to go with that fantasy.



is the question you're waiting for "purpose?"

That's about as close to the question as we've gotten.

It's unfounded, but not irrational. It's also parsimonious to not apply unnecessary qualities to god.

Nope. The question is why would I assert god exists at all. Very short answer is the fact that I believe it is the most reasonable belief. Essentially, I believe it's the null.

[spurraider21]

Sure, "intellectually advanced" if it helps.

it doesn't "help"... its a different question altogether

[xmas1997]

Abraxas.

I will check it out, thanks.

[spurraider21]

You can argue that the word, 'before' doesn't really make sense if god is outside this universe. Time is a property of this universe, so it's possible than things outside of it don't even have a concept of time.

the only thing time really means is change. without time, you can't have change... and if there is no change, then there is no way to determine or "prove" that time exists.

the creation of a universe is change from the previous state of not having a universe

[DMC]

the only thing time really means is change. without time, you can't have change... and if there is no change, then there is no way to determine or "prove" that time exists.

the creation of a universe is change from the previous state of not having a universe

Without change, there's no one there who would give a to know.

[Chinook]

the only thing time really means is change. without time, you can't have change... and if there is no change, then there is no way to determine or "prove" that time exists.

the creation of a universe is change from the previous state of not having a universe

Is that an agreement that time as we know it is dependent on the existence of the universe?

[DMC]

The programmers location means nothing to the simulation. It can't measure something like that because it is outside itself. That's the point. You think I am arguing that god is/was in the universe and then left. I am more of the mind that god was never here in that sense, just like a programmer is never in his own simulation.

Which is equal to saying God never existed, and doesn't exist now. That makes you a non-theist, especially consider that "in that way" is a nebulous concept, a gap, that you're finding convenient.

I think it's clear you don't understand what the word logical really means. You keep tying it to empiricism. (I don't observe god; therefore it's logical to withhold the belief that god exists.) But logic has nothing to do with empiricism. It is a much more powerful form of knowledge than science is.

Show your formal logic that leads to God, or is that more anecdotes?

You demonstrated that by making your false equivalency between religionists and theists. Doing so is illogical, no matter what you've observed, since the words don't mean the same thing. Unless two things are exactly equal, then making decisions on them leads to four outcomes. That is a mathematically demonstrable principle. Your arguments aren't.

You've falsely labeled yourself a theist. You're no more theist than am I. In this same response you've stated you don't believe a god "was ever here, in that sense". I hold that position as well. To say you believe a god exists then to say that god was "never here in that sense" without defining what sense that god was "here" or where else exists other than "here", that's having your cake and eating it too.

You clearly believe in some "other" existence, else all is energy and matter (what I believe). If god the prime mover never existed "here" then you must believe he exists or existed in a some other way. What reasoning do you use to make that leap from physics to the supernatural and why do you say you believe only what science has discovered to be true? Give me an example of how reasoning can lead you to accept that a god exists.

[DMC]

Is that an agreement that time as we know it is dependent on the existence of the universe?

And vice versa.

[DMC]

That's about as close to the question as we've gotten.

It's unfounded, but not irrational. It's also parsimonious to not apply unnecessary qualities to god.

Nope. The question is why would I assert god exists at all. Very short answer is the fact that I believe it is the most reasonable belief. Essentially, I believe it's the null.

It's more parsimonious to not apply an unnecessary god.

Aren't you using a god as a placeholder for "I don't know"?

You don't know a god exists, you just put a god in a situation that you feel best solves the puzzle, yet you don't have all the pieces. Does that equate to belief in a god or just an allowance that a god might exist?

[Chinook]

And vice versa.

Sure. But that statement does no work for you.

[Chinook]

It's more parsimonious to not apply an unnecessary god.

Aren't you using a god as a placeholder for "I don't know"?

You don't know a god exists, you just put a god in a situation that you feel best solves the puzzle, yet you don't have all the pieces. Does that equate to belief in a god or just an allowance that a god might exist?

No. It's not parsimonious to argue for a break in the basic rules of causality. You have no reason to believe the universe was not set into motion. You've observed nothing that has that quality.

Of course I don't know god exists. I believe it's the conservative assumption. That's what science is all about.

[Chinook]

Which is equal to saying God never existed, and doesn't exist now. That makes you a non-theist, especially consider that "in that way" is a nebulous concept, a gap, that you're finding convenient.

Show your formal logic that leads to God, or is that more anecdotes?

You've falsely labeled yourself a theist. You're no more theist than am I. In this same response you've stated you don't believe a god "was ever here, in that sense". I hold that position as well. To say you believe a god exists then to say that god was "never here in that sense" without defining what sense that god was "here" or where else exists other than "here", that's having your cake and eating it too.

You clearly believe in some "other" existence, else all is energy and matter (what I believe). If god the prime mover never existed "here" then you must believe he exists or existed in a some other way. What reasoning do you use to make that leap from physics to the supernatural and why do you say you believe only what science has discovered to be true? Give me an example of how reasoning can lead you to accept that a god exists.

No. That's not true. It means us believing in god's existence means nothing. That's the case for everything that exists.

I said I don't believe god was (ever) here in this sense. For Clarification's sake, I mean that I don't see why god has to exists in this universe. I am theist because I believe that some en y set into motion what we consider existence. The rest of your attributions are meaningless. The word means what it means.


Asking how physics leads to god is like asking how history leads to physics. Physics is not the basis of all knowledge. But in the interest of discussion, I'll make an attempt when I get to an actual computer.

[DMC]

No. It's not parsimonious to argue for a break in the basic rules of causality. You have no reason to believe the universe was not set into motion. You've observed nothing that has that quality.

Yet you have a reason to believe that a god was not set into motion even though you've observed nothing that has that quality?

Of course I don't know god exists. I believe it's the conservative assumption. That's what science is all about.

It's not the conservative assumption. "I don't know" is the conservative assumption when you don't know. Magical presence who crosses the gap into reality then vanishes has nothing to do with science, no matter how much you want it be so.

[spurraider21]

Now this is a thought provoking discussion I'm legitimately interesting in having... though I can't pretend to be an expert on quantum physics or relativity. My understanding of "time" is quite basic. Heck, a photon never "experiences" time. Per the theory of relativity, time slows down the faster you travel, and as you approach the speed of light, time approaches a standstill. If we were photons, from the moment we launched to the moment we collided with an object, no matter how far a distance we traveled, to us it would feel instantaneous, as no time passes for something moving at the speed of light.

Perhaps this creator Chinook speaks of is in that same mold... but it just seems like a lot of qualifiers, and thus I find it hard to call that the null.

If we agree that time = change, and we also agree that a universe existing is different than a universe not existing, then the mere existence of the universe (even at the VERY instant the universe "came to be" and no time has passed within) would imply that time has been experienced. And this assuming said creator literally created the universe in an absolute instant, and didn't ponder or plan the creation.

[pgardn]

no such thing. it existed before us.

tbh nothing is really "higher" or "lower" on an evolutionary scale. if you are successful enough to reproduce and survive, you exist. if not, you don't.

This is a very good point from a science point of view.
So the bump. Complexity as judged by humans, is not "higher" to an Evolutionary Biologist.

[Blake]

it doesn't "help"... its a different question altogether

Maybe we'll branch out on it

and maybe since we're getting into fantasy, I had this dude in mind:

http://marvel.com/universe/High_Evolutionary

[spurraider21]

I wonder where we lost robdiaz in this discussion, tbh

[RD2191]

I'm still here, and I understand most of it. At the end of the day evolution takes faith to believe in. So at least we have that in common.

[Blake]

That's about as close to the question as we've gotten.

It's unfounded, but not irrational. It's also parsimonious to not apply unnecessary qualities to god.

It's as rational as spaghetti.

Nope. The question is why would I assert god exists at all. Very short answer is the fact that I believe it is the most reasonable belief. Essentially, I believe it's the null.

I don't care why you believe in a watch maker. Believe what you want.

The question is "is it logical"

ultimate answer is "no".

[Blake]

I'm still here, and I understand most of it. At the end of the day evolution takes faith to believe in. So at least we have that in common.

Here's where someone says "evolution has been seen"

You say "no it hasn't".

I call you stupid.

You take a personal shot like Jesus commands you to

And on.

[Chinook]

Yet you have a reason to believe that a god was not set into motion even though you've observed nothing that has that quality?

Yes. If something is not under our constraints, it doesn't have to follow our rules. In some way or another, "something" has always been there, in some sense. That is the only way we don't keep going down this origin road. To not believe that is to believe in magic. It's not conservative at all.

It's not the conservative assumption. "I don't know" is the conservative assumption when you don't know. Magical presence who crosses the gap into reality then vanishes has nothing to do with science, no matter how much you want it be so.

"I don't know", is not an assumption. It's a statement of fact.

For the second part, I assume we'll get into that by the time you finish your response cycle. I'll wait until then so that we don't have a several parallel back-and-forths on the same subject.

[pgardn]

Now this is a thought provoking discussion I'm legitimately interesting in having... though I can't pretend to be an expert on quantum physics or relativity. My understanding of "time" is quite basic. Heck, a photon never "experiences" time. Per the theory of relativity, time slows down the faster you travel, and as you approach the speed of light, time approaches a standstill. If we were photons, from the moment we launched to the moment we collided with an object, no matter how far a distance we traveled, to us it would feel instantaneous, as no time passes for something moving at the speed of light.

Perhaps this creator Chinook speaks of is in that same mold... but it just seems like a lot of qualifiers, and thus I find it hard to call that the null.

If we agree that time = change, and we also agree that a universe existing is different than a universe not existing, then the mere existence of the universe (even at the VERY instant the universe "came to be" and no time has passed within) would imply that time has been experienced. And this assuming said creator literally created the universe in an absolute instant, and didn't ponder or plan the creation.

Time is a human construct that basically implies that events occur, and they are not simultaneous. If there were never any events, time has no meaning.

And for Chinook or anyone else who believes a creator set things in to motion:

After the program was running (the universe was set into motion), did God already know the outcome of all events?
Sorry if this has already been answered.

Anyone chime in if this answer has already been given by Chinook.

[Chinook]

It's as rational as spaghetti.

Spaghetti is a type of pasta. It has no rationality or irrationality.

I don't care why you believe in a watch maker. Believe what you want.

The question is "is it logical"

ultimate answer is "no".[

Do we have to go through the logical thing again? Logic has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Logic isn't derived from empiricism like you seem to think it is. It is a separate system that is significantly more powerful.