Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[RD2191]

It hasn't, and never will be. Therefore it takes faith to believe in. No human will ever be able to observe an animal turning into a completely different animal. Since, you know, evolution takes millions of years and what not.

[Chinook]

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 thing 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.

I don't think it matters. I believe anyone who assigns omnipotence and omniscience to god has to believe he knows the outcome and as such has no need to intervene. But even being conservative and not assigning that attribute to god, I don't think it makes a difference.

[Blake]

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.

The "something" was a magic pile of pasta

[DMC]

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

But you don't believe in a god's existence "in this universe" (as if there are other known universes). You might be theist in the universe where this god exists, but that's not this one. So in this universe, where you and I exist, you do not believe a god exists. That makes you atheist.

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.

Why does that something have to be a god? Theism is the belief in a god. Why are you arbitrarily calling a prime mover "god"? You keep saying the terms are meaningless but the term "theism" somehow appears to have meaning to you. Religion appears to have meaning to you.

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.

You said you only believe what science has discovered to be true (paraphrasing). Science doesn't delve into god discussion. Science is much more concerned with the physics of existence than the cause of existence. You presuppose a cause because, I think, you've presupposed a causer. You seem to be finding a place to put your god belief where it doesn't embarrass you. Why isn't it more parsimonious to not form a belief prior to being compelled to do so by supporting evidence?

Were you ever Catholic?

[Chinook]

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.

My assertion that it's the null essentially comes from the fact that I feel that it's parsimonious to believe the universe was set into motion rather than beginning spontaneously. To argue that something came from nothing (which is where the argument HAS to go eventually) is to supposed that something happened in a way we've never observed before. To me, that's a much bigger leap of faith.

[Blake]

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

but it's what was there before the universe began.

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.

You asked.

If you want to concur that it's illogical to believe in a watch maker then that's it for me, I'm done discussing your belief system.

[RD2191]

Blake done because he is getting his ass handed to him.

[DMC]

I don't think it matters. I believe anyone who assigns omnipotence and omniscience to god has to believe he knows the outcome and as such has no need to intervene. But even being conservative and not assigning that attribute to god, I don't think it makes a difference.

It does matter in this discussion. On a cosmological scale, nothing we say matters, however for this discussion it's important to understand why you seem to arbitrarily draw the line at defining the god you believe set things in motion. Things are in motion, and infinite regress is a real to deal with so there has to be a start, and the Big Bang is as far as we've gone back so far. So the mind has to decide that either the Big Bang was uncaused or it was caused. Since we don't know of any uncaused causes, it appears parsimonious to assume it was caused. That implies a causer, and any causer that can exist and act outside of the 1st act is, for all intents and purposes, equal to any god concept that holds any meaning. That's all fine and good, however it only leads to more problems than it solves. How is a prime mover able to escape our need for a cause, if not in reality at least in our explanation? Why can't we allow known things to escape that cause requirement? For example, why can't matter and energy have always existed (always being a time based measurement, meaning you cannot say "before that" with any sensible meaning)? Why is accepting that harder than accepting that a god exists in another realm that had a reason to start a universe? Why would a god start a universe? Why would a god exist without the universe? When did the god's home area come into existence? Is there time between the events of this god? Is this god omnipresent (can't escape that one if he's not confined by time). Is he omnipotent? (can't escape that one if he can create worlds without being affected by them). Is he omniscient? Does he know what loss feels like?

Basically, an unknowable thing is unknowable. How do you know of it?

[Chinook]

But you don't believe in a god's existence "in this universe" (as if there are other known universes). You might be theist in the universe where this god exists, but that's not this one. So in this universe, where you and I exist, you do not believe a god exists. That makes you atheist.

No, it doesn't. That's a poor extension. That's mainly because you have your logic messed up. If I believe god exists in another universe, then I am a theist. It's not like he has to be here for me to believe it. I can't (won't) write the formal logic symbols to express the disconnect, but that is something that I could do even with my limited understanding in the discipline.

Why does that something have to be a god? Theism is the belief in a god. Why are you arbitrarily calling a prime mover "god"? You keep saying the terms are meaningless but the term "theism" somehow appears to have meaning to you. Religion appears to have meaning to you.

I said your attributions to my beliefs are meaningless. I am a theist by syllogism. The only quality that is necessary to attribute to god is being he who set into motion what we know as existence. Everything else is just banter between folks who don't know.

You said you only believe what science has discovered to be true (paraphrasing). Science doesn't delve into god discussion. Science is much more concerned with the physics of existence than the cause of existence. You presuppose a cause because, I think, you've presupposed a causer. You seem to be finding a place to put your god belief where it doesn't embarrass you. Why isn't it more parsimonious to not form a belief prior to being compelled to do so by supporting evidence?

I did not say I only believe what science discovered to be true. I said that the only causal chain I believe in is the only that scientists are trying to create. However, there is a lot of (much stronger) knowledge that does not come from science. This is why I said folks don't really get what science is. It is the weakest form of what we call knowledge. That is because it is a series of beliefs that we hold due to them conforming best with the series of conventions we decided were the best. It has nothing on the basic principles of reason when it comes to power. "Two plus two equals four" is a more powerful assertion than anything science can ever come up with. If you don't understand that, then you do not really get what science is all about.

You have to form a null in order to test anything. You can't just withhold belief altogether. That's not how science works.

Were you ever Catholic?

Lol, no. Actually, my folks are slightly prejudiced toward Catholicism.

[pgardn]

I don't think it matters. I believe anyone who assigns omnipotence and omniscience to god has to believe he knows the outcome and as such has no need to intervene. But even being conservative and not assigning that attribute to god, I don't think it makes a difference.

Interesting.

It does make a difference to me however, as some (not you necessarily), believe we were created in God's image. When I define image, it means we have certain attributes like the creator. So this makes a huge difference to me.

[Chinook]

but it's what was there before the universe began.


You asked.

If you want to concur that it's illogical to believe in a watch maker then that's it for me, I'm done discussing your belief system.

You never had to discuss my belief system. I didn't engaged you. But what I am saying is that people are misusing the word 'logical' to make it an element of empiricist thought. It's not the same thing at all. I don't mind misuses of diction for the most part, but it's sort of important in such a nuanced discussion.

[DMC]

My assertion that it's the null essentially comes from the fact that I feel that it's parsimonious to believe the universe was set into motion rather than beginning spontaneously. To argue that something came from nothing (which is where the argument HAS to go eventually) is to supposed that something happened in a way we've never observed before. To me, that's a much bigger leap of faith.

It's not faith to allow that it's possible. You've never observed a god that came from nothing. You seem ok with the concept.

[spurraider21]

My assertion that it's the null essentially comes from the fact that I feel that it's parsimonious to believe the universe was set into motion rather than beginning spontaneously. To argue that something came from nothing (which is where the argument HAS to go eventually) is to supposed that something happened in a way we've never observed before. To me, that's a much bigger leap of faith.

As if we HAVE observed an omnipresent creator outside the boundaries of our universe?

one of the most fascinating aspects of scientific history (to me) is the predictive nature of it. Darwin predicting that some unknown species with certain characteristics MUST exist, which it did. Mendeleev predicting that there were elements with very specific characteristics that we simply hadn't discovered yet, leaving those spots on the periodic table empty, knowing we'd one day find them (iodine and tellerium). The prediction that the unobserved planet Neptune MUST exist based on the orbit of Uranus. The prediction that black holes, previously completely in observable simply must exist...

Einsteins theory of relativity, in relation to the Big Bang, predicted the existence of gravitational waves, which were unheard of and had never been identified... And they were only first observed earlier in 2014. The Big Bang theory was unworkable if these waves didn't exist. Of course it's not definitive proof, but the predictive powers are just incredible. There is evidence that points to a Big Bang from which the universe has expanded. Anything beyond that is an unknown. Assuming the existence of an en y can't be a null

[Chinook]

Interesting.

It does make a difference to me however, as some (not you necessarily), believe we were created in God's image. When I define image, it means we have certain attributes like the creator. So this makes a huge difference to me.

By, "I don't think it matters," I mean that it being true is not a necessary condition. When we run simulations, we don't necessarily know the outcomes we will get. Sometimes we do, but sometimes we don't. I don't believe humans were created in god's image. That doesn't mean I am dismissing that possibility, but I don't think it's necessary to think that.

[pgardn]

No, it doesn't. That's a poor extension. That's mainly because you have your logic messed up. If I believe god exists in another universe, then I am a theist. It's not like he has to be here for me to believe it. I can't (won't) write the formal logic symbols to express the disconnect, but that is something that I could do even with my limited understanding in the discipline.



I said your attributions to my beliefs are meaningless. I am a theist by syllogism. The only quality that is necessary to attribute to god is being he who set into motion what we know as existence. Everything else is just banter between folks who don't know.



I did not say I only believe what science discovered to be true. I said that the only causal chain I believe in is the only that scientists are trying to create. However, there is a lot of (much stronger) knowledge that does not come from science. This is why I said folks don't really get what science is. It is the weakest form of what we call knowledge. That is because it is a series of beliefs that we hold due to them conforming best with the series of conventions we decided were the best. It has nothing on the basic principles of reason when it comes to power. "Two plus two equals four" is a more powerful assertion than anything science can ever come up with. If you don't understand that, then you do not really get what science is all about.

You have to form a null in order to test anything. You can't just withhold belief altogether. That's not how science works.



Lol, no. Actually, my folks are slightly prejudiced toward Catholicism.

Science is much more and less in some cases than you describe.
Humans have decided that predicting the future is a very powerful tool.
What human activity performs this better than science?

Oops, I now see I overwrote Spurraider, apologies.

[Chinook]

It's not faith to allow that it's possible. You've never observed a god that came from nothing. You seem ok with the concept.

It's not an allowance. It's an inevitability.

[DMC]

You never had to discuss my belief system. I didn't engaged you. But what I am saying is that people are misusing the word 'logical' to make it an element of empiricist thought. It's not the same thing at all. I don't mind misuses of diction for the most part, but it's sort of important in such a nuanced discussion.

Instead of "logical", consider "rational" since deism is supposed to be based on that. Do you consider it rational that belief is caused, not chosen? If so, what caused your belief in a non-personal god?

[phyzik]

I doubt "believers" will even watch it, but there it is.

He doesn't make up, it is all straight out of the bible.... But somehow people who "want" to believe will completely ignore it or wont even watch it at all.

[Chinook]

As if we HAVE observed an omnipresent creator outside the boundaries of our universe?

one of the most fascinating aspects of scientific history (to me) is the predictive nature of it. Darwin predicting that some unknown species with certain characteristics MUST exist, which it did. Mendeleev predicting that there were elements with very specific characteristics that we simply hadn't discovered yet, leaving those spots on the periodic table empty, knowing we'd one day find them (iodine and tellerium). The prediction that the in observed planet Neptune MUST exist based on the orbit of Uranus. The prediction that black holes, previously completely in observable simply must exist...

Einsteins theory of relativity, in relation to the Big Bang, predicted the existence of gravitational waves, which were unheard of and had never been identified... And they were only first observed earlier in 2014. The Big Bang theory was unworkable if these waves didn't exist. Of course it's not definitive proof, but the predictive powers are just incredible.

Science isn't predictive. Don't confuse math with science. They are two completely different en ies. Science depends on math to prop it up, like a child looking to a parent for approval. The examples you listed are examples of math telling empiricism that it could shove off.

That's that whole point I'm making about science. It is actually an extremely weak form of knowledge. In reality, we only consider it knowledge because we need some way of expanding our intellect besides doing proofs over and over. If math predicts something has to exist, it doesn't matter that it's never been observed. It's out there somewhere. So anyone who argues they only believe in measurable, falsifiable things is being disingenuous.

[DMC]

It's not an allowance. It's an inevitability.

If that were the case, anyone who's not deist is in denial or ignorant or just slow.

It's not inevitable that a god must exist. You are using a double standard in implying otherwise. I don't see how this is any different than saying you believe in a personal god who wants you to love his resurrected son Jesus Christ. They are both unfalsifiable, and both are supposedly the inevitable truths.

What's most likely is that all gods do not truly exist. That means we have to decide which ones do or that any do. That leads us to examining the evidence for any of them. What evidence cons utes proof of the existence of a god? If you think the universe is that proof, what other created universe are you using as an example?

[RD2191]

I doubt "believers" will even watch it, but there it is.

[pgardn]

By, "I don't think it matters," I mean that it being true is not a necessary condition. When we run simulations, we don't necessarily know the outcomes we will get. Sometimes we do, but sometimes we don't. I don't believe humans were created in god's image. That doesn't mean I am dismissing that possibility, but I don't think it's necessary to think that.

By matter you mean it has no effect on the phenomena of a series of events?

[DMC]

Science isn't predictive. Don't confuse math with science. They are two completely different en ies. Science depends on math to prop it up, like a child looking to a parent for approval. The examples you listed are examples of math telling empiricism that it could shove off.

That's that whole point I'm making about science. It is actually an extremely weak form of knowledge. In reality, we only consider it knowledge because we need some way of expanding our intellect besides doing proofs over and over. If math predicts something has to exist, it doesn't matter that it's never been observed. It's out there somewhere. So anyone who argues they only believe in measurable, falsifiable things is being disingenuous.

There's a large discrepancy when you equivocate "things" with "gods".

[Chinook]

Instead of "logical", consider "rational" since deism is supposed to be based on that. Do you consider it rational that belief is caused, not chosen? If so, what caused your belief in a non-personal god?

Honestly, I want to make sure I understand what you're asking before I answer. What do you mean by belief being caused or chosen? And what do you mean by non-personal god?

[phyzik]

case in point... Laughs but didn't even watch even though everything the speaker states is right out of the bible.

Is your faith so fragile that you cant even bear the questioning of it?