Evolution?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Everybody thinks so, Jay, except creationists.

Rubbish.

The argument that in order to exist, the universe must have been created by a god requires that the god be created by some other god (because otherwise god, like the universe, could not exist), and that god by another, and so on. Like an infinite set of Russian dolls.

No, it does not, because god is defined as preternatural agency not subject to the constraints of nature. Your counter argument amounts to little more than ...

If nature demands a Creator, then that Creator would require a Creator. Otherwise, this (first) Creator would have to be supernatural!​

Well, duh ...

 

[fantome profane]

Rubbish.

No, it does not, because god is defined as preternatural agency not subject to the constraints of nature. Your counter argument amounts to little more than ...

If nature demands a Creator, then that Creator would require a Creator. Otherwise, this (first) Creator would have to be supernatural!
​

Well, duh ...

Defined by who? And just because someone chooses to define “God” in such a way does not make it true, or logical. I could just as easily say that by definition nature does not need a creator, or by definition the universe does not need a creator. Both of those are equally valid (or equally invalid) statements to these kind of statements about “God”. “By definition” is a very poor argument unless you have some evidence to back up that definition.

 

[Magic Man]

My I ask why you think so?

Sure, thanks for asking.

The original quote was asking where the first particle came from, implying that it had to come from somewhere, and that that somewhere had to be God.

The question you quoted asked where God came from, implying that if the first particle had to come from somewhere, so did the thing that created that particle. Basically, if the universe is thought to need a creator, then you'd have to apply the same logic to the creator, and he would therefore need a creator.

 

[Magic Man]

Rubbish.

No, it does not, because god is defined as preternatural agency not subject to the constraints of nature. Your counter argument amounts to little more than ...

If nature demands a Creator, then that Creator would require a Creator. Otherwise, this (first) Creator would have to be supernatural!
​

Well, duh ...

No, but the argument "Everything has to have a creator...except God" is inconsistent. If God doesn't need a creator, then neither does the universe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, but the argument "Everything has to have a creator...except God" is inconsistent. If God doesn't need a creator, then neither does the universe.

That is a remarkably stupid statement amounting to little more than a childish instance of circular reasoning.

 

[rojse]

It's like listening to Ben Stein mischaracterize and mock evolution as "lightning striking a mud puddle" yet find "god made man of dust" completely serious and noble.... they are essentially the same thing. You can't see one as silly but not the other.

This is a good example of what I was talking about - although we can see why the two examples have some parallels (although the characterisation of evolution is completely wrong), do you think that Ben Stein can see these same parallels?

 

[Rough_ER]

That is a remarkably stupid statement amounting to little more than a childish instance of circular reasoning.

Yet someone simply defining God as "preternatural", and stating that because of this definition requires no explanation, is using solid, mature logic?

I'm not fishing for one of your horrible little put-downs. So please, I'd like a real response because I'm actually trying to learn something here.

 

[DarkSun]

So god is a 'nothing'?
if everything has to come from 'something' ... then god can't be a 'something'.

wa:do

Surely something said to be omnipotent can create Himself. :sarcastic

 

[Valjean]

But before He created Himself He would not have existed, there would have been no "He" to create Himself.
now I'm confusing myself...:sarcastic

 

[Valjean]

Everything has to come from something, but that would be impossible because that would be a never ending cycle until you meet the beggining, so there has to be a God

So you're saying everything coming from something is an impossibility?

And you're concluding that this somehow necessitates a god?

I'm really not following what your saying, MWG. Sorry. Could you lay it out in simple premises and conclusions, por favor?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is a remarkably stupid statement amounting to little more than a childish instance of circular reasoning.

I disagree. I think it's a good way of pointing out the special pleading inherent in the "everything needs a creator but God" argument.

 

[Valjean]

Can guys help me? Im new here and would like to do a survey. I would like people to tell me their real names, what creation they believe in and why. Thanks

Hi Adamh. I see this is your first post. Let me be the first to welcome you. However, you've sort of dropped into the middle of an ongoing discussion. You should go to intro section, say hi, and tell us about yourself. :yes:

Your survey sounds fine, but deserves a seperate thread of its own. It's easy to start one. (even I can do it).

 

[Sunstone]

Everything has to come from something, but that would be impossible because that would be a never ending cycle until you meet the beggining, so there has to be a God

Shouting neither improves your spelling nor makes you right.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Shouting neither improves your spelling nor makes you right.

Touche! (And BTW, spell check works. I know. I need and use it every day.)

And even IF we adopted your "logic"(?) it fails to prove a particular god and does NOTHING to prove a garden an apple and a snake.

The very best you assertions could prove is Aristotle's first cause. Which could be as faceless and emotionless as gravity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yet someone simply defining God as "preternatural", and stating that because of this definition requires no explanation, is using solid, mature logic?

Try that again in English ...

 

[McBell]

Yet someone simply defining God as "preternatural", and stating that because of this definition requires no explanation, is using solid, mature logic?

Seems to me that you are making the assumption that because Jay disagrees with your statement that he is automatically in the opposing camp.

Jay has not yet stated which of the camps he is in.
He has merely pointed out what he believes to be a flaw in reasoning.

I'm not fishing for one of your horrible little put-downs. So please, I'd like a real response because I'm actually trying to learn something here.

Jay seems to have to go through a...what should we call it... a break in period (for my lack of a better phrase) before he can get into actually explaining things.

However, though it is often times frustrating, if you can wait out said breaking in period, he usually has a valid point.

 

[Rough_ER]

I'm not assuming he's in any camp at all. I was just hoping to learn something about the point he was making. I'm obviously in the wrong forum for that though.

 

[Rough_ER]

Why are some people here are more interested in mocking the occasional silly sentence structure than answering a question? *Sigh*

 

[darkendless]

Why are some people here are more interested in mocking the occasional silly sentence structure than answering a question? *Sigh*

They have nothing better to say. Ever tried debating with Jay?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I disagree. I think it's a good way of pointing out the special pleading inherent in the "everything needs a creator but God" argument.

But that is not the argument being made. Rather, it is argued that beginnings are caused, and that if one posits a beginning to nature and the cosmos as a whole, then this First Cause must by definition be preternatural and ineffable. I am aware of but two meaningful counter-arguments:

1. There are potential mathematically coherent theories (e.g., M-Theory) in which there is no First Cause, thereby rendering first cause arguments moot.
2. Furthermore, even if one were to accept the possibility of a first cause, there are no grounds for extrapolating from this cause the sense of agency and intentionality.

In my opinion both of these are significant arguments which acknowledge the limitations of methodological naturalism and respect the implications of both ineffability and Gödel's insight.