Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[Chinook]

frankly it's the only question I want answered.

"what's the logic in believing in the supernatural?"

It's not like I've dodged it. I've been pretty open with the fact that your question is nonsensical. As far justifications go, that's pretty much been discussed throughout this thread.

[spurraider21]

Weren't you saying math wasn't necessarily an absolute truth either?

yes... thats why he said you couldn't teach anything BESIDES math

[xmas1997]

I haw no clue how you got that inference

Are you saying you don't?

[spurraider21]

My problem with evolution is that it is taught as an absolute truth. Which is far from the truth. The only reason it is taught as truth is because the other alternative would be God/Creator/ID. Now before someone says well refute evolution people should know that plenty of scientist do and have. Yet the theory is simply expanded or twisted to fit around it. Any scientists that disagrees is quickly mocked/made fun of/labeled an idiot.

to refute it is to prove that it is wrong and false. please, do tell. how has evolution been proven to be wrong and false?

[spurraider21]

Are you saying you don't?

i have been adamant that i am not a man of faith

[Chinook]

Weren't you saying math wasn't necessarily an absolute truth either?

I was saying that it's incomplete. Like it can't explain everything. People can also misinterpret it. But what's true in math is undeniably true. That's because it's just different ways of saying "X equals X," which isn't so much taught as it is realized to be self-evident.

[Blake]

It's not like I've dodged it. I've been pretty open with the fact that your question is nonsensical. As far justifications go, that's pretty much been discussed throughout this thread.

you have no empirical evidence to lead you to believe there's a watch maker, yet you do.

Why even bother holding that belief?

[DMC]

The appropriate term is convention. The idea that assertions need to have support to be believed is a convention that we all agree upon, just like parsimony is a convention. Don't assign them power they don't have.

So you choose to address my terminology instead of the point I was making?

I didn't? Well, I don't think I could. I think it's possible for someone to be able to if they lack the experience. A belief in the Earth does not have the power Descartes' Cogito has. That said, you most likely aren't compelled to believe a good deal of what you believe, which was kind of my point with the neighbor thing. You can believe that after one meeting with him, even though that's clearly an insufficient sample to be considered strong evidence. We usually call those types of beliefs assumptions, and they are necessary for any form of reasoning.

Name something you think I believe that I am not compelled to believe. Unless you have a different definition for "believe" than I do, then you're wrong. I consider "believe" to accept that a premise or statement is true. Obviously the more extraordinary the statement the harder to accept it as true.

For a counter question, where do you think the line is between being able to chose to believe something and being compelled to do so?

When a person is presented with evidence for or against a proposition, that person cannot simply go either way on the belief scale based on choice. They might deny their belief, but if you see the murder happen, and the murderer who happens to be your spouse tells you "it wasn't me", can you simply choose to believe it wasn't them? If you can, you are delusional. Sanity and rationality is the line between being able to believe whatever you like and being forced to believe based on evidence presented.

First off, yeah, god is certainly something people propose for the beginning of the universe. None of these theories has any mathematical support (since there's clearly no empirical support to be found).

There's never been a scientific theory put forth that suggests god started the universe. Since you only follow the causal chains supported by science, then that leaves god out of it. People can propose any number of things, but those proposals are not theories and have nothing to do with science if they include the supernatural.

What I am saying is that the Big Bang may not have actually been the first event. That's only the first event we know of. While I believe in the causal chain as you do, I don't think that insulates your argument. We know things happened after the Bang, but we don't know for sure that nothing happened before. We have no reason to believe nothing happened before, either. There may have been an atomic bit of matter that appeared before it started to expand. The gap of time between that and the explosion may have been really long.

You're now using the infinite regression concept again. It doesn't matter what the 1st event was. There either was or or there was not one. Your position thus far has been that there was a 1st event and that an uncaused cause is what initiated it, and that could only happen by a prime mover and you call it god. You cannot just back up another step and overcome the paradox here. If there was not a beginning of time, then there's no need for a god. If there was a beginning of time, there's no time for a god, at least not the one you propose.

Essentially, I'm calling BS on you making logical extensions based on theoretical reasoning. The Big Bang is not necessarily defined as the beginning of the universe. It's just known as such. Because there's no necessary equivalency between the two concepts, your extensions lack power. Since there "could" have been matter before the Bang, there "could" be time.

So it's known as such but not defined as such? How does that work exactly?

Again, it doesn't matter if the BB was or was not the beginning. It only matters if there was a beginning, at least for your argument, which by the way relies heavily on the BB being the 1st event. Without need for a prime mover, there's no need for a god.

Measured. I've consistently conceded that time may only be measurable as a negative, just as space is. But just as a object occupies space, it occupies time. Nothing can simply be a negative.

It doesn't matter whether time is a negative. It exists as a concept and it's measurable between events only. You're using special pleading to suggest new rules for time and space and the initial event. There's no reason to go there. The paradox of time without time is very problematic for your approach. You either needed a god to start the universe or you did not.

No, it's not. It's a logical concept. "Matter is extended," is one of the a priori truths.

Yes I know about that, but what does it have to do with you concluding that a supernatural god created the universe?

[DMC]

It's not like I've dodged it. I've been pretty open with the fact that your question is nonsensical. As far justifications go, that's pretty much been discussed throughout this thread.

The question should be then not how do you justify it, but why does the prime mover need to be considered god, and why just one?

It seems like a huge leap, a melding of religion and science to conclude that, since you cannot figure it out, it must be god.

[Chinook]

you have no empirical evidence to lead you to believe there's a watch maker, yet you do.

Why even bother holding that belief?

Because it best fits what I see.

People like to think that the early humans who invented religion were somehow irrational. They weren't. They applied trends of their beliefs into making a world-view. The same is true for folks who thought the sun rotated about the flat Earth. Ptolemy was just as rational as Copernicus. People have to believe things initially in order to test them. You don't just believe things for which you have sufficient evidence; you prioritize evidence when deciding which belief makes sense.

I believe in the watch-maker theory because it fits in best with the causal chain. I have yet to see a more compelling theory. If I did, I'd be inclined to believe in it. That's what reasonable people do.

[DMC]

Because it best fits what I see.

People like to think that the early humans who invented religion were somehow irrational. They weren't. They applied trends of their beliefs into making a world-view. The same is true for folks who thought the sun rotated about the flat Earth. Ptolemy was just as rational as Copernicus. People have to believe things initially in order to test them. You don't just believe things for which you have sufficient evidence; you prioritize evidence when deciding which belief makes sense.

I believe in the watch-maker theory because it fits in best with the causal chain. I have yet to see a more compelling theory. If I did, I'd be inclined to believe in it. That's what reasonable people do.

How can you know it best fits? That would suppose that a god exists, then you look at all the possibilities including the already existing god and say "it must have been that one".

There's simply not enough time in our lives to dismiss every other more rational explanation where we are left with god as the only answer.

Also, there's a difference between allowing that a proposition might be true and forming a belief that it is. Also, the god answer isn't a theory. It's just a WAG that's unfalsifiable under any conditions. If you cannot live with "I don't know", then you probably were forced to put something in that spot. I don't think that makes you theist.

[Chinook]

The question should be then not how do you justify it, but why does the prime mover need to be considered god, and why just one?

It seems like a huge leap, a melding of religion and science to conclude that, since you cannot figure it out, it must be god.

To believe god created existence, the only thing one must necessarily attribute to god is that he created existence. That's why god must be consider the prime-mover. Obviously, people can believe in a god or gods who didn't create the universe, but that's irrelevant to this topic.

So besides being the PM, nothing else is can be attributed to god by logical extension. Not number, or level of intellect, or goodness, or power. All of those questions are irrelevant.

[DMC]

To believe god created existence, the only thing one must necessarily attribute to god is that he created existence. That's why god must be consider the prime-mover. Obviously, people can believe in a god or gods who didn't create the universe, but that's irrelevant to this topic.

So besides being the PM, nothing else is can be attributed to god by logical extension. Not number, or level of intellect, or goodness, or power. All of those questions are irrelevant.

Why god? Why not a human who could be in another realm affecting this one? Why not any number of magical answers? Why a god?

Without the attributes you describe, how can it be considered a god? Doesn't the term "god" imply something other than prime mover?

[xmas1997]

i have been adamant that i am not a man of faith

How can you not be if you believe science, but do not do science?
You are obviously accepting someone else' word for things, because you do not possess any proof or evidence.
Science does, but you don't.

[DMC]

god

noun \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe
: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions
: a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired










Full Definition of GOD

1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship;specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3
: a person or thing of supreme value

4
: a powerful ruler

See god defined for English-language learners »

See god defined for kids »

Examples of GOD

• Does she believe in God?
• I pray to God that no one was seriously injured in the accident.
• the gods and goddesses of ancient Egypt
• a myth about the god of war
• an offering for the gods
• a professor who was regarded as a kind of god
• a guitar god like Jimi Hendrix

Which of these best defines the god you're referring to as the prime mover?

[RD2191]

Chinook has done answered your questions like 6 different times. ing atheists.

[xmas1997]

Chinook has done answered your questions like 6 different times. ing atheists.

This is what happens when people want to put limitations on curiosity and imagination solely for the sake of empiricism only. This type of closed mindedness which IMHO defeats the purpose of discovery, should have been eradicated at the end of the dark ages.

[spurraider21]

How can you not be if you believe science, but do not do science?
You are obviously accepting someone else' word for things, because you do not possess any proof or evidence.
Science does, but you don't.

what do you mean that I do not do science?

is it "having faith" to say that world war 2 occurred?

[RD2191]

This is what happens when people want to put limitations on curiosity and imagination solely for the sake of empiricism only. This type of closed mindedness which IMHO defeats the purpose of discovery, should have been eradicated at the end of the dark ages.

The problem with RG, phyzik, and DMC is that they're trying to win a debate that is impossible to win. All of us here know about the theory of evolution, some even believe in it but also believe in a God/Creator. I don't wanna speak for anyone but Chinook is simply saying that to him a Creator is the most reasonable cause for the universe/life. In my case I simply believe science has an agenda and is full of just like the theory of evolution. Who knows/ maybe tomorrow new information will be found that changes everything, then again maybe not. But as for now given what we know we believe in a Creator/God.

[Chinook]

So you choose to address my terminology instead of the point I was making?

I addressed it in my response to your next quote. I would have concatenated the quotes, but I thought it was important to clarify.

Name something you think I believe that I am not compelled to believe. Unless you have a different definition for "believe" than I do, then you're wrong. I consider "believe" to accept that a premise or statement is true. Obviously the more extraordinary the statement the harder to accept it as true.

I certainly do have a different definition. I only accept things to be true if they are. The rest, I "believe to be truth", meaning that I consider them to be the working assumptions. That difference would obviously lead to dramatically different extensions. I will go ahead and believe you as a result and withdraw what I said.

There's never been a scientific theory put forth that suggests god started the universe. Since you only follow the causal chains supported by science, then that leaves god out of it. People can propose any number of things, but those proposals are not theories and have nothing to do with science if they include the supernatural.

That's absolutely not true. Have you read any classical or early-modern philosophy? They are full of scientific theories with what they assert to be evidence. Just because you dismiss them doesn't mean that they weren't scientific.

As for the chain, it doesn't leave god out it. It hasn't ruled on god or supplanted his role in creating the universe. Therefore, I'm allowed to believe in him freely while still accepting the chain. There's no conflict.

You're now using the infinite regression concept again. It doesn't matter what the 1st event was. There either was or or there was not one. Your position thus far has been that there was a 1st event and that an uncaused cause is what initiated it, and that could only happen by a prime mover and you call it god. You cannot just back up another step and overcome the paradox here. If there was not a beginning of time, then there's no need for a god. If there was a beginning of time, there's no time for a god, at least not the one you propose.

The reason why it matters is because your argument doesn't have the power you think it does. We don't have a remotely comprehensive theory on how things worked back then, not even the concepts of time or space. We don't even have a "best guess". We only know what happened some time after the Bang.

So it's known as such but not defined as such? How does that work exactly?

Known being in the colloquial sense. The important part was "necessarily". I mean that there's nothing about the Big Bang that means it had to have been the first event. It's not just a code word for the beginning. It was an actual event we can determine estimate with math. That gives it the power of not being speculative, but also denies it the power to logical equivalency.

Again, it doesn't matter if the BB was or was not the beginning. It only matters if there was a beginning, at least for your argument, which by the way relies heavily on the BB being the 1st event. Without need for a prime mover, there's no need for a god.

If you can reasonably argue there wasn't a first event, I'd love to see it. I'm of the assumption that the casual chain will get there eventually.

It doesn't matter whether time is a negative. It exists as a concept and it's measurable between events only. You're using special pleading to suggest new rules for time and space and the initial event. There's no reason to go there. The paradox of time without time is very problematic for your approach. You either needed a god to start the universe or you did not.

Yes I know about that, but what does it have to do with you concluding that a supernatural god created the universe?

It does matter if time is a negative. Negatives are bad for science, hence why the Kelvin scale was invented. Arguing that time is just the gaps between events is like arguing space is just the gaps between objects. You'll go Achilles paradox trying to justify it.

Anyway, the "time without time" isn't all that strong. It would be if we were trying to measure something. But just as time is relative for individuals depending on their speed or what forces get exerted upon them, it is also relative to the universe. Time as we experience it can't exist without our universe, but that doesn't mean that time as a concept can't make sense anywhere else. It should be possible for scientists to one day create their own universes, and they will know of a time before it existed. But that universe would never experience it, since it would have its own time and space.

[Chinook]

Doesn't the term "god" imply something other than prime mover?

Nope. RG and I were talking about whether PM implied other things like sentience. I don't believe it does, but that the PM was likely sentient. "Implication" in logic is a very powerful word.

[Chinook]

Which of these best defines the god you're referring to as the prime mover?

Closest to the second one.

a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people

Both those are still unnecessary extensions. If we found out the universe was planned out and created by some dude named Frank who lives in an apartment one universe over, does that somehow negate theism?

[xmas1997]

what do you mean that I do not do science?

You are not a scientist, is what I mean. I would trust the opinion of a working cosmologist or a molecular physicist over your opinion. They are the evidence gatherers, they are doing the everyday work of science. It is a matter of degrees of involvement.

is it "having faith" to say that world war 2 occurred?

It is if you were not there to know that it happened. If so, you have to take it on faith that it did.

We all take lots of things on "faith" (assuming something to be true although we have no "tangible" proof to show for it) everyday, even though we are passionate about those things we believe and disbelieve.

And we "take things for granted" as being commonly known and shared.

We all "assume" certain things and make certain judgements in order to coexist with each other, just to get along with others in a civilized, constructive, and practical way every day.

Faith (believing something is true without having proof) is just one of the vehicles we use to get through daily life.

[Chinook]

It is if you were not there to know that it happened. If so, you have to take it on faith that it did.

We all take lots of things on "faith" (assuming something to be true although we have no "tangible" proof to show for it) everyday, even though we are passionate about those things we believe and disbelieve.

And we "take things for granted" as being commonly known and shared.

We all "assume" certain things and make certain judgements in order to coexist with each other, just to get along with others in a civilized, constructive, and practical way every day.

Faith (believing something is true without having proof) is just one of the vehicles we use to get through daily life.

Truth, and it's sad that so many people have forgotten that.

[spurraider21]

but there is evidence and proof that World War 2 occurred. its not faith at that point