Because creation generally entails a creator (tho it does not have to).
And how is that in and of itself meaningless? Because you don’t like the conclusion? I’m just curious of the reasoning behind it.
wasnt my assertion lol
If there was a god, there would be no state.
Free will is what created the state.
Give me a break.
Outside of taking religious text literally, can someone believe in evolution who believes in a god or some other entity? It seems one can believe about anything, so let’s say they believe a god or gods created the universe, but they created it from the ground up, and evolution was in part of the creation process to actually create the world as it is now.
You can’t actually deny evolution as a part of nature, so if a theist takes evolution into account of a god creating the universe, how would you combat their argument? (I’ve had the sad, sad privilege of hearing my dad’s wife’s argument against evolution on the grounds of, “A bee just can’t come and decide one day that it want’s to be a frog, it doesn’t work like that.” I decided to keep quite for that one.)
Also, when one refers to “god” I guess it’s safe to assume it’s the Judeo-Christian “God” as the all knowing entity.
Yeah, it’s called theistic evolution. There are plenty of resources out there on it. I haven’t ruled it out of the picture, but I am interested in what intelligent design has to offer. They have done some interesting peer reviewed work. Not that I know much about science though, which is why I stick to politics and philosophy.
And as for that comment about free will and the state, your comment of ‘give me a break’ is hardly a response.
If you had any meaningful objections I would’ve responded to them.
You have to distinguish between an explanatory God (replacing evolution) and a creationary God (preceding/igniting the big bang).
The former is absurd, the latter is unknowable.
Why does everybody assume that nothing existed before the big bang? Perhaps there never was a “before anything existed”? Has anybody here observed the destruction of matter without the equivalent energy being created or vice versa?
Theistic evolution proposes a superfluous appendage: a supernatural orchestrator that meddles with a process that is wholly explicable by physical mechanisms.
The theory of natural selection abdicates gods of one of their most primary functions: creating and developing lifeforms. We are matter in motion, sophisticated patterns that emerge and disappear in a cosmic blink.
Furthermore, our “design” is notoriously riddled with inefficiencies; read Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design, for instance.
It seems to me that you’re arguing here for the eternality of the universe.
What makes you so sure that the universe falls outside of the causality, the most fundamental principle of science?
“I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that
something could arise without a cause” – David Hume
Besides, if matter was eternal what would you do with the first and second laws of thermodynamics?
Neoclassical, you’re begging the question when you state that the process of evolution is wholly explicable by physical mechanisms and that it can’t be supernatural.
Besides, so-called inefficiences don’t negate existing efficiencies.
Inefficiences, poorly-designed anatomical structures, and other evolutionary hiccups do exclude an omniscient planner that lovingly crafted the world and carefully sprinkled stars in the sky.
Ockham’s razor cuts your speculation out with one swipe. Your metaphysics are explanatorily unhelpful, lead to no predictive success, and fail to find footing on solid evidence. Once again, the posit of any god is superfluous.
I always found it outrageous how theists introduce thermodynamic laws into discussion but always obviously misunderstand them. If nothing else, the destined entropic heat-death of the universe lends itself to a malevolent conception of God.
We went up into space and God wasn’t there. Ergo, he doesn’t exist.
I’m glad you posess omnipotence, because without it those sorts of bold claims are entirely non-sequitor.
Besides, I’m surprised at your appeal to Ockham’s razor. It seems that Ockham’s is on my side, since the entity I posit is not a complex being but a simple one.
And besides, we’re not discussing the problem of evil, we were discussing the eternality of the universe.
I don’t think you correctly understand Occam’s Razor. It is not just the “simplest” explanation (that will always be “God did it.” It doesn’t get any simpler). Occam’s Razor says the explanation with the least amount of assumptions is probably the correct one.
Occam’s Razor specifically prohibits the use of God as an explanation unless you can verify God as an actor.
5.47321: Occam’s maxim is, of course, not an arbitrary rule, nor one that is
justified by its success in practice: its point is that unnecessary units in a sign-
language mean nothing. Signs that serve one purpose are logically equivalent,
and signs that serve none are logically meaningless.
- Ludwig Wittgenstein: Tractatus Logico - Philosophicus
I’m not even sure what you mean by verification here.
I’m positing God as the cause because he fits the criteria for what is necessary for creatio ex nihilo.
The cause must be beginningless and uncaused to avoid an infinite regression of causes, timeless, immaterial, atemporal, and non-spatial. Also incredibly powerful.
This is why I have no qualms – the Big Bang is about as confirmed as something can be in science.