A question for creationists

[fantome profane]

You have misunderstood me or I have misrepresented myself, You statement is the exact point I was trying to make. At this point in time I have not seen any undisputed evidence from either side ( evolution or creationism).

What books have you read on the "evolution side"?

 

[riley2112]

I think I have a good understanding of thermodynamics and would be happy to discuss it with you.


[/left]
[/color][/color] I read this three times and honestly it strikes me as just an incoherent ramble. Why are we talking about cold fusion? What is your point?

The point is the statement of if I understood the definition of the word theory or not , You seem to think that if it was a scientific theory it should be taken for fact , using the cold fusion which was theory which was also wrong. thus showing that theory and fact are two different things. A am sorry if you see this as incoherent rambling , If you would like I can type slower

 

[Tristesse]

The point is the statement of if I understood the definition of the word theory or not , You seem to think that if it was a scientific theory it should be taken for fact , using the cold fusion which was theory which was also wrong. thus showing that theory and fact are two different things. A am sorry if you see this as incoherent rambling , If you would like I can type slower

Theories and facts are two different things, a theory describes a fact. For instance, the explanation of gravity is a theory, however, the effects of gravity are a fact. likewise, the explanation of the diversity of life is a theory, but diversity of life is a fact. So, in this instance, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

 

[riley2112]

Theories and facts are two different things, a theory describes a fact. For instance, the explanation of gravity is a theory, however, the effects of gravity are a fact. likewise, the explanation of the diversity of life is a theory, but diversity of life is a fact. So, in this instance, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Just so I am not confused here, How are you defining evolution? When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution.

 

[riley2112]

The point is the statement of if I understood the definition of the word theory or not , You seem to think that if it was a scientific theory it should be taken for fact , using the cold fusion which was theory which was also wrong. thus showing that theory and fact are two different things. A am sorry if you see this as incoherent rambling , If you would like I can type slower

After reading this post , it seems slightly rude, which was not my intention, it was in fact a poor attempt at humor. I am sorry if you found it offensive.:sorry1:

 

[Tristesse]

Just so I am not confused here, How are you defining evolution? When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution.

It's the change in allele frequencies over successive generations. However, it's important to remember that while the exact mechanisms that drive evolution might be debated between scientists, the fact of evolution is not in debate.

 

[fantome profane]

If you would like I can type slower

Lol, that is really good.:biglaugh:


But yes you are right, nothing in science is absolute. Even facts in science are open to dispute. Scientific laws may be proven wrong one day. And yes a theory may be changed or proven wrong if evidence indicates it. But you should understand that in science a theory represents the highest level of understanding.

And yes, I do think that the theory of evolution is a fact. But even facts can be disputed. When I say it is a fact what I mean is that given the current state of the evidence to deny the truth of evolution is absurd.

And yes future scientists may discover evidence that changes our current understanding. But I think it is extremely unlikely that some future geologists is going to discover evidence that proves that the earth is actually flat after all. And I don’t think some future astronomer is going to discover that the Copernican model is wrong and the sun really does orbit around an earth that is fixed in place.

The genetic evidence alone for common ancestry is just absolutely overwhelming. I can’t imagine how someone could explain that evidence without the theory of evolution. I think a flat earth is more likely.

 

[riley2112]

It's the change in allele frequencies over successive generations. However, it's important to remember that while the exact mechanisms that drive evolution might be debated between scientists, the fact of evolution is not in debate.

then you and I agree on evolution as being fact.

 

[Tristesse]

then you and I agree on evolution as being fact.

Cool. So, what was the issue?

 

[riley2112]

Cool. So, what was the issue?

I have to go back and look. lol. I got so wrapped up in the definition of theory I forgot the issue. maybe you should type slower so I could keep up.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

i have to go back and look. Lol. I got so wrapped up in the definition of theory i forgot the issue. Maybe you should type slower so i could keep up.

l........o........l

 

[Tristesse]

I have to go back and look. lol. I got so wrapped up in the definition of theory I forgot the issue. maybe you should type slower so I could keep up.

No worries. When scientists use the word theory it has a different meaning then the colloquial useage of the word. Theories can be facts and in most cases they are.

 

[riley2112]

No worries. When scientists use the word theory it has a different meaning then the colloquial useage of the word. Theories can be facts and in most cases they are.

here we go again, just joking, got to go, wife and kids just got home I told them I would take them to a movie. Enjoy the day, it is nice outside, well it is where I am at. See you all later.:run:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If an eternally existing God is a reasonable possibility, why isn't eternally existing energy in a naturalistic universe also a reasonble possibility?

Even if this universe had a beginning, there is not any credible evidence that no energy existed prior to the beginning of the universe.

Since I am an agnostic, I am not necessarily promoting naturalism, or theism.

Easy. If natural energy existed prior to our universe, then that would suggest that we would have infinite causation. But based on good philosophical arguments against an actual infinity, we can conclude that infinite regression is impossible.

There are three options...

1. Our universe began to exist during a chain of infinite cause and effect relations.

2. The universe created itself.

3. An eternal uncaused cause created the universe.

We have both philosophical and mathematical arguments against #1, and #2 is impossible so it shouldnt even be considered. That only leaves #3. Those are the only three options. If we only have three options, and two of those options are ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt, then the last option wins by default. There are no good arguments against an uncaused cause.

So, it is impossible for there to be natural energy prior to our universe, because that would lead to infinite regression in to the past. But with an uncaused cause there is no infinite regression, there is only a being that freely choose to create the universe some 13.7 biliion years ago.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Easy. If natural energy existed prior to our universe, then that would suggest that we would have infinite causation. But based on good philosophical arguments against an actual infinity, we can conclude that infinite regression is impossible.

There are three options...

1. Our universe began to exist during a chain of infinite cause and effect relations.

2. The universe created itself.

3. An eternal uncaused cause created the universe.

We have both philosophical and mathematical arguments against #1,

Which are...?

and #2 is impossible so it shouldnt even be considered.

Proof?

That only leaves #3. Those are the only three options.

How do you know that these are the only three options?

If we only have three options, and two of those options are ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt, then the last option wins by default. There are no good arguments against an uncaused cause.

Except that it's an argument that requires special pleading on the part of the person making the uncaused cause argument. If the Universe cannot have existed infinitely (in some form), then why is it possible for any other uncaused entity - be it God or anything else - to exist?

So, it is impossible for there to be natural energy prior to our universe, because that would lead to infinite regression in to the past. But with an uncaused cause there is no infinite regression, there is only a being that freely choose to create the universe some 13.7 biliion years ago.

Again, special pleading. If it is impossible for there to be natural energy prior to the Universe (which is an entirely baseless claim, since we cannot say anything whatsoever with any certainty about what - if anything - existed or predated our Universe), then there is equally no reason to conclude that any kind of infinite intelligent agency existed instead. Your logic is internally inconsistant.

 

[riley2112]

Which are...?


Proof?


How do you know that these are the only three options?


Except that it's an argument that requires special pleading on the part of the person making the uncaused cause argument. If the Universe cannot have existed infinitely (in some form), then why is it possible for any other uncaused entity - be it God or anything else - to exist?


Again, special pleading. If it is impossible for there to be natural energy prior to the Universe (which is an entirely baseless claim, since we cannot say anything whatsoever with any certainty about what - if anything - existed or predated our Universe), then there is equally no reason to conclude that any kind of infinite intelligent agency existed instead. Your logic is internally inconsistant.

The argument does have its strength.
The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God's existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and simple. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes.

 

[riley2112]

One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be.
Also, by definition, God is uncaused.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The argument does have its strength.
The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God's existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and simple. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes.

Except, as I've explained, it's an argument from special pleading. On top of that, it makes suppositions about the laws of the Universe that simply cannot be made. For all we know, the laws of the Universe came into existence in the big bang, so to posit that there existed such laws beforehand (such as, objects cannot bring themselves into existence) is entirely baseless. Such laws simply stop existing past the planck time, and we can make no solid assertions whatsoever about the state of the Universe before then, so it's also an argument from incredulity.

One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be.
Also, by definition, God is uncaused.

If God is uncaused, then why can the Universe not be uncaused? Hence, it is special pleading.

Also, supposing the existence of something that breaks the known laws of the Universe in order to explain how the laws of the Universe came to exist is a self-defeating argument. All you've done is created an untestable hypothesis.

 

[riley2112]

Except, as I've explained, it's an argument from special pleading. On top of that, it makes suppositions about the laws of the Universe that simply cannot be made. For all we know, the laws of the Universe came into existence in the big bang, so to posit that there existed such laws beforehand (such as, objects cannot bring themselves into existence) is entirely baseless. Such laws simply stop existing past the planck time, and we can make no solid assertions whatsoever about the state of the Universe before then, so it's also an argument from incredulity.


If God is uncaused, then why can the Universe not be uncaused? Hence, it is special pleading.

Also, supposing the existence of something that breaks the known laws of the Universe in order to explain how the laws of the Universe came to exist is a self-defeating argument. All you've done is created an untestable hypothesis.

I see what you mean , however theist see it as God created the laws and he is out side of time and space thus outside of the laws He created. I know it can not be proven. That is where faith comes in. Hey I did not say it was a good argument.:sad4:

 

[camanintx]

#2 is impossible so it shouldnt even be considered.

Actually, a very strong case can be made that if the universe had a beginning it must have created itself.

A Cosmological Argument for a Self-Caused Universe (The Great Debate)