Creationists: Here's your chance

[Autodidact]

Everything that had a beginning had a cause. This is the law of causality and it is the fundamental principle of science.Without this law science would be impossible. Francis Bacon wrote:"True knowledge is knowledge by causes". To deny the law of causality is to deny rationality. David Hume wrote,"I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause". Therefore, if all things are caused then behind every cause is a causer.

Before the big bang there was no time, or natural laws. There was nothing, yet the law of causality demands that this nothing caused the big bang. The problem is nothing can cause nothing. Therefore, something or someone caused the big bang. So who or what caused it?

First you would need to establish that the universe had a beginning. This is far from established.

Oh, and we now know that some things do arise without a cause, oddly enough.

 

[Autodidact]

Here is tangible evidence, the world, the universe, life is all complex, vitally complex, extremely complex. One vital part taken away will cause the whole thing to collapse. Emphasis on the word VITAL.

All that complexity implies design, thus a designer, chance cannot design or cause complex stuff to come to be because first, chance is not goal oriented, second chance does not even exist, people just use it as a gap for their lack of knowledge about something.

There is your evidence that God exists. There is more, but this is the one I will state for now. I have another thread I am debating on with someone, but our points are all over the place with all the evidence there is to deal with. So, I don’t want to make another BIG one on here like there, so I will state just one evidence, this is it. Complexity is design.

Tell me how complexity is NOT design.

One word. Snowflake.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

He is not magically immune, he is immune simply because it would be magical if there was a infinite regression of causes, THAT would be magical if it was true. So there has to be a first cause, and him being it is most plausible, therefore that is why he is immune to being designed or created in himself. How am I coping out?

Because you continue to ignore the fact that, if 'all complexity requires a designer' and 'god is complex' then god would require a designer as well.

Besides, the only way god terminates your infinite regression is because you declare, by fiat, that he does. In reality, god isn't terminating the regression, you are.

 

[Gunfingers]

No, God creating it is the most plausible. If you want to go down the phisophical road, God is the most plausible, if you want to go down the science road (WITHOUT philosophy) STILL God is the most plausible.

You know that "plausible"doesn't really mean anything, right? There's no scientific basis for plausibility, no test or observation. It is purely your opinion, which no one here cares about at all. I could just as easily say it's most plausible that the universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn using smurf power, and you'd be just sa right to laugh at my silly opinions.

There is, however, evidence for a singularity expanding to become the universe as we know it. There is evidence for a third generation star rich in heavy elements collecting orbital bodies. There is evidence that nebulae around this star coalesced into planets. There is evidence that on one of those planets amino acids were able to develop early life, and no shortage of evidence that that early life was able to become modern life.

More to the point, this thread isn't to discuss whether or not there is/was a creator god. I could care less either way. It's whether that creator god pulled the world out of his bum 6000 years ago exactly as we see it now, or whether he used the natural processes that have been repeatedly shown to have happened.

If you are saying that it is implausible that the natural processes known to have created the world as we know it did so without the invisible guiding hand of some deity then...whatever. I don't agree but i don't care.

If, however, you are insisting on biblical (torah-ical, quranical, bagavad gita-ical, whatever) literalism, then we're gonna need something other than "plausibility".

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

6. Since the Big Bang was the beginning of natural laws such as cause/effect, and the beginning of time and space themselves, then any discussion about what happened before the Big Bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless.

This is an absolute contradiction and is SIMILAR or is a variation of number 2 or 3. As I told you there is no number 6 that is completely UNIQUE from all 5 views I just mentioned.

Here is the contradiction in case you don’t see it. You said the law of cause and effect happened BY and AFTER the big bang, but then the big bang was caused by NOTHING. This is what I hear you saying. But the problem ONCE AGAIN with that view is this, from nothing, nothing comes. So you’re saying cause and effect was not before the big bang, so “nothing” caused the big bang then? Is that the view you hold to?

Also by you saying any discussion of what happened before the big bang is meaningless is a science STOPPER.



Also if you say the big bang caused itself that is like saying the universe made itself. That is a contradiction.

So what exactly are you trying to say, what exactly is your view?

Audodidact

First you would need to establish that the universe had a beginning. This is far from established.

So you defy up to date conventional science that says the universe does have a beginning?

Oh, and we now know that some things do arise without a cause, oddly enough.

Wow, I would love to hear one of these examples, tell me one?

One word. Snowflake.

How is a snow flake not designed?

The_evelyonian

Because you continue to ignore the fact that, if 'all complexity requires a designer' and 'god is complex' then god would require a designer as well.

No, I am not saying ALL complexity requires a designer, I am saying all complexity ACCEPT GOD requires a designer.

Besides, the only way god terminates your infinite regression is because you declare, by fiat, that he does. In reality, god isn't terminating the regression, you are.

Eternity is like an endless circle. Inside the circle is endless cycles of cause, effects. Now if the view is true that energy is eternal, that is was not created, and energy has no mind or intent, then energy would have no focus or purpose or goal to BREAK the cycle or circle of eternity in order to STOP the infinite regression which would cause all causes and effects to take forever to happen, or would cause no motion to go on. But if God is there and he is eternal, then he can BREAK the circle of eternity and create a FIRST cause, or a BEGINNING to the universe.

If you don’t believe God did it, how could mindless energy do it with no knowledge that it even had to be done?

One of those 4 views that I mentioned has to be right, there is no 5th accept the “I don’t know position”.

You know that "plausible"doesn't really mean anything, right? There's no scientific basis for plausibility, no test or observation. It is purely your opinion, which no one here cares about at all. I could just as easily say it's most plausible that the universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn using smurf power, and you'd be just sa right to laugh at my silly opinions.

No, it’s not just my opinion it IS the most plausible. God in the sense I am using the word is different by definition then a pink unicorn that uses smerf power. I went through this kind of argument before with someone else on here, but It looks like I am going to have to do it again.

Pink unicorn is no different than polytheism, for it would be a finite God. The God I speak off is not finite, which makes more sense.

There is, however, evidence for a singularity expanding to become the universe as we know it. There is evidence for a third generation star rich in heavy elements collecting orbital bodies. There is evidence that nebulae around this star coalesced into planets. There is evidence that on one of those planets amino acids were able to develop early life, and no shortage of evidence that that early life was able to become modern life.

Look, I already looked at all this evidence, it’s interpretation of data based on a worldview philosophy. That’s all it is.

More to the point, this thread isn't to discuss whether or not there is/was a creator god. I could care less either way. It's whether that creator god pulled the world out of his bum 6000 years ago exactly as we see it now, or whether he used the natural processes that have been repeatedly shown to have happened.

Actually, from what I read in the opening thread, it did not sound like he said YOUNG earth creationists. He said only creationists, that can mean anything to old or young earth creationists. It was not specified, the only way to find out is ask what the opening poster meant when he said it. But apparently either way, he doesn’t mind talking about the things I was talking about.

If you are saying that it is implausible that the natural processes known to have created the world as we know it did so without the invisible guiding hand of some deity then...whatever. I don't agree but i don't care.

Right I believe God created the world.

If, however, you are insisting on biblical (torah-ical, quranical, bagavad gita-ical, whatever) literalism, then we're gonna need something other than "plausibility".

When we are talking about cosmic or life origins science uses DATA and hypotheses and theories and philosophical worldviews. NO ONE is exempt from using these when they preach there worldviews on a subject.

In other words here is what my point is. If you’re telling me I cannot use theory, philosophical argument to explain data, then that means YOU ALSO cannot use it.

That is what plausibility goes by, is explanations OF the data. What explanation SOUNDS the better.

Fair enough?

 

[Danmac]

First you would need to establish that the universe had a beginning. This is far from established.

I suppose you have your own version of the cosmological constant. You know your view goes against the scientific position of the day.

Oh, and we now know that some things do arise without a cause, oddly enough.

For example......

 

[tumbleweed41]

Tumbleweed41




This is an absolute contradiction and is SIMILAR or is a variation of number 2 or 3. As I told you there is no number 6 that is completely UNIQUE from all 5 views I just mentioned.
Here is the contradiction in case you don’t see it. You said the law of cause and effect happened BY and AFTER the big bang, but then the big bang was caused by NOTHING. This is what I hear you saying. But the problem ONCE AGAIN with that view is this, from nothing, nothing comes. So you’re saying cause and effect was not before the big bang, so “nothing” caused the big bang then? Is that the view you hold to?
Also by you saying any discussion of what happened before the big bang is meaningless is a science STOPPER.
Also if you say the big bang caused itself that is like saying the universe made itself. That is a contradiction.
So what exactly are you trying to say, what exactly is your view?

No, I am saying that cause/effect laws did not exist before the Big Bang, nor do they exist outside the singularity, nor are they necessary at the quantum level.

Thus taking out your necessity for a cause.

You seem to think that means "Nothing was the cause". What it really means is, no cause was/is necessary.

 

[aymen amir]

Everything that had a beginning had a cause. This is tlaw science would be impossible. Francis Bacon wrote:"True knowledge is knowledge by causes". To deny the law of causality is to deny rationality. David
?

"A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God." Francis Bacon.

 

[Danmac]

No, I am saying that cause/effect laws did not exist before the Big Bang, nor do they exist outside the singularity, nor are they necessary at the quantum level.

Thus taking out your necessity for a cause.

You seem to think that means "Nothing was the cause". What it really means is, no cause was/is necessary.

Please explain.....

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The_evelyonian



No, I am not saying ALL complexity requires a designer, I am saying all complexity ACCEPT GOD requires a designer.

Like I said, declaration by fiat.

Eternity is like an endless circle. Inside the circle is endless cycles of cause, effects. Now if the view is true that energy is eternal, that is was not created, and energy has no mind or intent, then energy would have no focus or purpose or goal to BREAK the cycle or circle of eternity in order to STOP the infinite regression which would cause all causes and effects to take forever to happen, or would cause no motion to go on. But if God is there and he is eternal, then he can BREAK the circle of eternity and create a FIRST cause, or a BEGINNING to the universe.

Now your dipping into philosophy. Please provide tangible scientific evidence that this 'eternity' exists.

If you don’t believe God did it, how could mindless energy do it with no knowledge that it even had to be done?

That's not my claim. I already explained. I don't know how the universe began. If you want an in-depth answer as to how the Universe 'might' have begun find a cosmologist and ask him/her.

One of those 4 views that I mentioned has to be right, there is no 5th accept the “I don’t know position”.

You say one of those four must be right. If you wish to limit yourself to those choices then go right ahead.

 

[Autodidact]

Audodidact

So you defy up to date conventional science that says the universe does have a beginning?

Up to date conventional science does not say that. It is not known, and the most current thinking is that it does not.

How is a snow flake not designed?

It's structure follows directly from the laws of physics and molecular structure. Do you think God is up in heaven cutting out each individual one?

The water molecules in an ice crystal form a hexagonal lattice, as shown at right (the two structures show different views of the same crystal). Each red ball represents an oxygen atom, while the grey sticks represent hydrogen atoms. There are two hydrogens for each oxygen, so the chemical formula is H2O. The six-fold symmetry of snow crystals ultimately derives from the six-fold symmetry of the ice crystal lattice.

from here.
More detail here.

The sensitivity of snow crystal growth to temperature and humidity allows a straightforward explanation for the combination of complexity and symmetry seen in many specimens

Do you think your God-cuts-them-out theory should be taught in universities along side the physics of crystals?

 

[tumbleweed41]

No, I am saying that cause/effect laws did not exist before the Big Bang, nor do they exist outside the singularity, nor are they necessary at the quantum level.

Thus taking out your necessity for a cause.

You seem to think that means "Nothing was the cause". What it really means is, no cause was/is necessary.

Please explain.....

All natural laws exist within our Universe. Space and time also exist within our Universe. Energy and matter exist within our Universe.
Before (and I say this knowing time did not exist, so there really was no "before") the Big Bang, the potential for all of the above existed within the Singularity.
Cause/effect, a natural law, has no bearing outside, beyond, or before the Singularity/Universe.

Now,
On the quantum level, effect does not necessitate cause. Particals of matter pop in and out of existance at the quantum level without cause. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally. A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. This is a basic part of quantum reality.

So, a couple of very viable and quantifiable options for the Big Bang are presented, both without the necessity of any cause.

 

[painted wolf]

the idea that everything needs a cause... except god is a totally hypocritical cop out.
I'm a theist and even I can't bother with such patently absurd circular logic.
substitute the flying spaghetti monster or an invisible pink unicorn for god and the absurdity becomes apparent.

Creationists will have to do better than this if they want to demonstrate anything scientifically. Not to mention that such arguments fail to meet requirement 4 of the OP.

wa:do

 

[Danmac]

the idea that everything needs a cause... except god is a totally hypocritical cop out.
I'm a theist and even I can't bother with such patently absurd circular logic.
substitute the flying spaghetti monster or an invisible pink unicorn for god and the absurdity becomes apparent.

Creationists will have to do better than this if they want to demonstrate anything scientifically. Not to mention that such arguments fail to meet requirement 4 of the OP.

wa:do

Everything that had a beginning needs a cause.

 

[Autodidact]

Everything that had a beginning needs a cause.

1. However, it is does not appear that the universe probably had a beginning.
2. Actually, we have learned that there at least some things that do begin, but do not appear to have a cause.

 

[painted wolf]

Everything that had a beginning needs a cause.

except god.... eh?

You can't see that as a total cop out can you?

wa:do

 

[Danmac]

1. However, it is does not appear that the universe probably had a beginning.

What source are you getting this from?

2. Actually, we have learned that there at least some things that do begin, but do not appear to have a cause.

Can you list one of these?

 

[Danmac]

except god.... eh?

You can't see that as a total cop out can you?

wa:do

God is outside of the space time universe. He is not limited to a three dimensional arena as we are. Science has discovered that there are many more dimensions than the ones that we are limited to on earth. How could we possibly comprehend a God that operates in an arena that has 7,8,9,10, or even more dimensions.

New Developments in Research on Multiple Dimensions: Dark Energy | Pureinsight

 

[The_Evelyonian]

God is outside of the space time universe. He is not limited to a three dimensional arena as we are.

Please provide tangible evidence that this is so. Otherwise it is simply a meaningless assertion.

 

[Danmac]

Please provide tangible evidence that this is so. Otherwise it is simply a meaningless assertion.

I listed a link on the same post. Did you read it?