Chris and Sieben's Creationist Thread

Miscellaneous General
1

Others are welcome. But let Chris and I talk in peace for a little while.

I can’t prove that it will ever be complete. But the burden of proof is on you to show we should make up stuff when we don’t have scientific answers.

Theists believe that god exists and can be shown to. Atheists believe that god could exist but can be shown not to. Agnosts believe it is possible for god to exist but don’t know. Ignosts believe the proposition “god exists” is seriously torturing language and ontology… its nonsensical.

I don’t believe this. You’re basically saying the universe was either “created” by god or “created” out of nothing. I take issue with the word “created”. Creation is about causality. Before and After. But by premise both of those scenarios have no Before, so either the premise is wrong or the Creation Explanation is wrong.

See above. Please don’t assume anything more about my beliefs. I’m not a 13 year old atheist who listens to marilyn manson.

Conspiracy Nuts
2

I replied in the other thread before I read your edit.

I suppose you and I are in at least somewhat of agreement. I have no problem tolerating people who believe that God may exist or He may not or even that it is possible to prove so one way or another.

Where I get offended (like with liberte’s post), is when people say NO THERE IS NO GOD! IF YOU BELIEVE IN ONE YOU ARE CRAZY! That is what started this off. I don’t see how someone can look at the scientific evidence and conclusively state that there is no God.

As science has advanced we have learned that the universe is immensely more complex than was once thought and that the probability of both the formation of the universe and evolution of man on earth by a series of random events are significantly higher than once thought. This combined with faith is what leads me believe in God. I am tolerant of people who lean the other way, but I don’t like being told I’m crazy by people who base their world view on science they learned in middle school.

3

Atheists don’t believe god could exist. I certainly don’t believe God could exist. To me it is not the ‘scientific evidence’, so much, as the square-circle-ness of it. Certain things can never exist by their not being logically valid.

On the other hand, I don’t believe people are crazy for believing in God. Only that it is easier to believe in God than not. Since most people in the world believe it and you can appeal to prejudices more easily. It’s the same for believing in government. There are certain things people believe simply because it gives them more social capital and also perhaps less self-doubt in their environment. But that is not the same as the truth.

4

This sounds more like intelligent design than creationism.

But what, praytell are these “gaps?”

<~~ Deist/Buddhist (I give reverence to the “all” yet I dont see questions on God as particularly important to people’s lives), just to get that out of the way

5

>But what, praytell are these "gaps

Well the obvious one is that something had to precede the big bang. Science is not in a position to explain what it was.

But there are many others. I don’t know if “gaps” is the right word, but rather extreme improbabilities one after another after another.

I stated one in the other thread. The fact that if the total mass of the universe was greater by about the mass of one grain of sand the universe would have collapsed in on itself following the big bang, but if the mass was less by about the mass of one grain of sand nuclear fusion would not be possible. So the fact that the universe exist falls within a window of about one grain of sand. What is the probability of that?

In 1985 Carl Sagan says:

“Now, what happened before that [Big-Bang]? There are two views. One is ‘Don’t ask that question,’ which is very close to saying that God did it. And the other is that we live in an oscillating universe in which there is an infinite number of expansions and contractions. The former of these views happens, by chance, to be close to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view, the latter, close to the standard Hindu views. And so, if you like, you can think of the varying contentions of these two major religious views being fought out in the field of contemporary satellite astronomy. Because that’s where the answer to this question will very likely be decided. This is an experimental question. And it is very likely that in our lifetime we will have the answer to it. And I stress that this is very different from the usual theological approach, where there is never an experiment that can be performed to test out any contentious issue. Here there is one. So we don’t have to make judgments now. All we have to do is maintain some tolerance for ambiguity until the data are in, which may happen in a decade or less.”

Now he was right. Science did prove one of those two theories to be incorrect when scientist discovered dark energy and proved that the universe is in a never-ending state of expansion. He was only off by a couple years.

Obviously, just cause sagan was wrong doesn’t mean theist are right, but the point is that there are things that have not been explained by science but do fit rather well into a creationist/intelligent design theory. I can dig up more if you like.

6

Even if big bang is completely wrong, there is no possible way a God created the universe. If ‘existence = something which was created at some time’, then there is no possible chance that God can fit into the realm of existence.

Also, Wittgenstein says at the end of the Tractatus something similar. Heaven doesn’t answer the question of the afterlife, but creates questions about heaven.

7

Heaven doesn’t answer the question of the afterlife, but creates questions about heaven.

Indeed. Explaining the unexplainable with something unexplained is simply adding complexity for complexity’s sake. Occam’s razor comes to mind. Which is why my view on God, which is what I believe to be the rationalist answer, is:

“I can’t prove there is or isn’t a God, but our experience with science makes it very unlikely there’s a nature-explanatory God, and no human concept of a supernatural creationary God explains how God itself came to existence, so I have to conclude the God question is just another philosophical question that does not have a conclusive answer hence does not deserve my time and certainly won’t influence my political ideology or personal ethic.”

In everyday life I like to summarize this view by saying I’m an atheist :wink:

Edit: Later in this thread I learned the correct for this view is “ignost”.

8

Well the obvious one is that something had to precede the big bang

I will agree that this is one thing about the Big Bang that never rubbed me the right way. It had to bang in something, even if it was nothing, which is something. But it is never scientific to say “god did it.” Science doesn’t deal with God (and dont let anyone tell you otherwise) it deals with how (and if you want, how god did it).

Consider in M-theory (string theory) they posit that our universe is just a 3dimensional expansion off the multiverse. String theory is far from expected, but it just goes to show, dont be so quick to say “god did it.”

he fact that if the total mass of the universe was greater by about the mass of one grain of sand the universe would have collapsed in on itself following the big bang, but if the mass was less by about the mass of one grain of sand nuclear fusion would not be possible. So the fact that the universe exist falls within a window of about one grain of sand

This is a false way of looking at it, as any good scientist will tell you. It is not that the universe wouldnt exist, it is that it wouldnt exist as we know. Suppose the universe was a grain of sand lighter, but the strong nuclear force was .00000005 stronger, and gravity .000005 weaker. It still would allow for a universe just like ourse. People like to say “if x then not y” but it is not so. It is “if x, then not y as we know it.”

Science did prove one of those two theories to be incorrect when scientist discovered dark energy and proved that the universe is in a never-ending state of expansion. He was only off by a couple years.

That is not negative proof. Perhaps knew universes are created with white holes, or dark matter builds up so much over time it causes the universe to collapse, or the universe is just 2 fields oscillating against each other and the pressure creates ripples in space time creating matter.

Obviously, just cause sagan was wrong doesn’t mean theist are right,

Wait.. hindus arent theists now? Somebody tell Krishna…

I can dig up more if you like.

Please do.

9

>Consider in M-theory (string theory) they posit that our universe is just a 3dimensional expansion off the multiverse. String theory is far from expected, but it just goes to show, dont be so quick to say “god did it.”

The problem I have with the multi-verse theory is, like God, your not going to be able to prove it scientifically. You would have to jump outside our known universe to prove there is a multi-verse. Using Occam’s Razor, is it simpler to say that a multi-verse has been in existence for infinity. One in which millions of new parallel universes are spawned every second. One in which in parallel universes there are other people just like us living the exact same life but maybe just a little different? Or is it simpler to say that God created all of it? It seems to me that people have replaced God with the “multi-verse” and have just as much dedicated faith in its existence as people who believe in God.

University of Arizona physicist Paul Davies puts it this way, “Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not….If instead, the other universes are relegated to ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible.”

If people want to believe in the multi-verse that is fine, but believing in it is very much a religion in and of itself. It will never been proven and requires blind faith to believe in its existence. At that point I have to ask, why not just believe in God?

10

I am not an agnost. I am an ignost. “God” is a nonsense word.

Do you believe in Forp? Forp is defined as janamious starfoodle. Forpists believe in it. Aforpists don’t. Agforpists are undecided and Igforpists find the whole thing utterly insane.

In order for something to be capable of even being true or false the proposition has to be comprehensible. We know what conditions would lead “I wrote my name on Saturn” or “2+2=5” to be true or false. “God exists” is at best asthetic.

11

@all

Our intuitions arose because they were useful on earth. Useful does not mean objective truth. Earth does not mean transcendental metaphysical plane. If by some insane miracle a human being ever does understand all the mechanics of the universe, it is likely to be so wierd that it won’t be recordable or transmittable through language.

12

You’re right Sieben, thanks for sharing your view on ignosticism. I totally agree with it but I didn’t know the word or distinction existed.

13

Well, Sieben. I think ‘ignostic’ is mixing Greek and Latin morphemes inappropriately.

I think agnostic means ‘no knowledge’. Which I think is nonsensical in that then you can never know, and thus say, if you’re agnostic or not.

‘ignostic’ ascribes to religion that which isn’t true. Namely that, besides ‘God’ itself, that everything is made up to be incomprehensible. Which doesn’t explain how people believe it or can say they believe it.

I think all theistic religions ascribe characteristics to God namely that it has creation ability and also that it is conscious (particularly those who engage in this conversation about creationism). Not that it is starfoodle. Which goes towards why people think it is true and why it has been useful. And also why it causes more anxiety to people when others attack the premises moreso than some other type of meaningless language. People are more upset with ‘there is no God’ or ‘Judaism is nonsense’ than say: ‘dung-doodle is starpoodle’. So people know what they mean and also what you mean. There is also the fact that religion is universal rather than particular. And so is opposition to religion. In that religion posits specific things while denying others; meaning there is such thing as truth and falsehood. And that truths exist for all people, instead of just them. And opposition to religion is opposition to all religions rather than simply one of them.

14

Using Occam’s Razor, is it simpler to say that a multi-verse has been in existence for infinity

Occams razor says “with the least amnt of assumptions,” not “the simplest explanation.” Which was kind of my point. M-theory right now relies on a lot assumptions. Creationism relies fully on one, “god did it.” My point was that just because one theory isnt all encompassing, doesnt mean “god did it” fills in the gaps.

If people want to believe in the multi-verse that is fine, but believing in it is very much a religion in and of itself. It will never been proven and requires blind faith to believe in its existence. At that point I have to ask, why not just believe in God?

It cant be proven? I dont like that terminology. That would be like saying God cant be proven, which he can, if he exists. It might require some science we havnt even thought of developing yet, but it can be proven. It cant be disproven, and that is the problem.

Why not believe in a flying spaghetti monster? Personally I believe the great one Achu sneezed the world into existence… bless you :smiley:

15

Creationism relies fully on one, “god did it.”

Yes, but this in turn relies on many assumptions.

16

John, I’m not going to debate you on semantics. Wikipedia says ignosticism is a distinct thing. Ipse dixit!

17

I still want to see some of this “evidence” for god. Or evidecne that a supernatural explanation fills in the gaps of scientific knowledge.

18

AJ Ayer’s position has to be wrong.

Religion has to be verifiable, because theists are verifying it. And depend on this claim to verification. If it cannot be verified even we must say that it is false, not just that the overall argument can’t be verified. But I believe it can be verified if it can exist or not.

Because ‘god exists’ and ‘X (not God) exists’ both have to mean the same thing, in the language of theists and atheists or anyone else. The primary thing being the definition not of God but of ‘exists’. So that when we say X exists we mean the same thing as when we say Y exists. For instance, apples exists and oranges exists. Has to mean the same as God exists and oranges exist.

There is also ‘antagonism between religion and science’ in so far as 1) they assume different epistemologies. 2) They conflict on issues like evolution/big bang, etc. There may be people who believe creation and evolution simultaneously, but there are also others who believe creation and evolution are separate. In which case, religion and another type of religion are antagonistic. So it must even more true that science and religion can be in conflict.

On the one hand in order to not be ‘agnostic’, a theist must have knowledge rather than belief in their position. And as in any belief or use of language (that is coherent), certain things are depending on it or implied by it.

19

>“I still want to see some of this “evidence” for god. Or evidecne that a supernatural explanation fills in the gaps of scientific knowledge.”

This was the point I was trying to make from the start. There isn’t any “evidence” anymore than there is “evidence” that God doesn’t exist. We have atheist here trying to make the point that their position is grounded in logic and reason, while your claim that “there is no God” has never been proven, nor has the position that the universe was created through a series of random events. The only “logical” position it seems to me would be for you to be an agnostic like someone say Einstein or, hey, Rothbard. I will openly admit that my position is not the “logical” one, but it is grounded in faith as well as what I believe to be circumstantial evidence for intelligent design. But to make a claim that “there is no God” without having anything to support that claim seems to require more faith then to believe there is a God.

>“There is also ‘antagonism between religion and science’ in so far as 1) they assume different epistemologies. 2) They conflict on issues like evolution/big bang, etc. There may be people who believe creation and evolution simultaneously, but there are also others who believe creation and evolution are separate.”

I am one who believes in creation and evolution simultaneously, although I’m not real convinced on the whole lightening striking a puddle of mud thing.

20

Chris, you’re right there’s no proof God doesn’t exist, but don’t you agree you don’t have to proof a negative?