Flaw in Creationism

[Phasmid]

I fail to see how your objection that energy changes form leads to the conclusion that the universe had to have a beginning.

I fail to see that objection as well... where did I say that?

Just as something always happened before the moment you are thinking of, any stage of the universe in which energy has a certain form would have to have been preceded by a previous stage in which energy had a previous form. But the energy is still constant.

Fair enough... but what about the fact that all the matter in the universe was once much closer together, perhaps at a single point?

If not a Big Bang, then what?

 

[Autodidact]

This is a useless argument since a creating entity is outside the realm of scientific methods of detection. Science is limited to the material world and cannot function in a higher plain of reality.

There is evidence for creation which can be researched easily on the internet but since evolutionism doesn't generally accept the possibility of a creator god it is automatically rejected for more "scientific" explanations.

Really? Please share it with us. What is this evidence?

Also, what is evolutionism? And why doesn't it allow for the possibility of a creator god?

Do you not consider evolution to be scientific? Why did you put "scientific" in quotes?

 

[emiliano]

The function of sciences is to explain nature, how it work and theorise for the generation in which a scientist live and using the tool available at the time, creationism is based for Christian at least on the account of Genesis the first book of the Bible, this account is more than anything poetic and allegorical, so there is no need to present it as a scientific treatise that proves the existence of God, it is an explanation of what could be observed by bronze age people, imagine Moses writing in the scientific language of today’s scientist? evolution is an explanation of the same issue for the modern man, with all the tools and language of modern times.
Do atheist think that evolution theory proves that there is no God?

Creationism maintains that the universe is so complex and so orderly that there had to have been an everbeing creator. The theory assumes that the creator, being the creator, had to have always existed.

I thought that it was about the intelligent part of the ID doctrine? That complexity and order= an infinite intelligent entity, the greatest that our mind can conceive, the first cause of everything, there can be nothing before the first cause that we call God, even if the bang theory can be accepted as the starting point of the creation of the universe. What was before the bang? I think that there is no flaws in this doctrine.

 

[fantome profane]

Do atheist think that evolution theory proves that there is no God?

No - Speaking for myself of course. I have argued many times on this board that the theory of evolution has nothing at all to do with whether or not “God” exists. It is quite possible and reasonable for someone who believes in “God” to also accept the theory of evolution.

And I am not the only one on this board who has argued this.

 

[McBell]

Do atheist think that evolution theory proves that there is no God?

Nope.
It is theists who believe that, not atheists.

And to be even more specific it is Creationists who believe it the loudest.

 

[Autodidact]

Do atheist think that evolution theory proves that there is no God?

I don't know, I don't.

I'm sure that evolution is correct, and I'm pretty sure there is no God, but I don't think there is no God because evolution is correct.

 

[Cacafire]

That complexity and order= an infinite intelligent entity

This is exactly the same as saying that there is so much complexity in the world that there had to be an intelligent creator. As I said in my first post.

The idea that he has always existed as used by theists when people ask, "what created god?". Creationism doesn't by itself maintain that god has always existed, the assumption that god has always existed is usually tacked on in order to avoid the previous question.

I have pointed out the two flaws in creationism in the OP. Please refer to them.

Phasmid, I understand what you mean by saying that the universe had to have been at a single point or at least have occupied a much smaller space at some point in the past. I agree. But my argument is not meant to explain how the universe got that way or what happened before that. It simply shows that since energy can not be destroyed, the universe has always existed. The universe may change form, and indeed it has, from a tiny speck to gargantuan void. There most likely was a form to the universe before the big bang, so to speak. Though we don't know yet what that form was, we do know that energy can not be destroyed. capice?

emiliano, this thread is not about whether atheists think evolution proves there is no god. It is discussing the original two flaws of Creationism as given in the OP. Divergence from those means, will not be tolerated.

this goes for you too, fantomia, mestemia, and Autodidact.

 

[Dunemeister]

Creationism maintains that the universe is so complex and so orderly that there had to have been an everbeing creator. The theory assumes that the creator, being the creator, had to have always existed.

That being the case, there is no scientific reason why the omniexistence of this creator can not be applied to the universe itself, except by the argument that the creator is composed of completely different reality than the universe. Unfortunately, then in what sense can we say that the creator "exists"? Furthermore, the god in this other reality would have to "exist" in that other reality. Since the universe is claimed by almost all creationists to "exist", then there is still no scientific reason why the universe can not be given the attribute of existing forever in "this" reality.

Granted that there is a creator, and ignoring the above flaws, creationists maintain that it was the Christian God that created the universe, and not Zeus or Shibalba. Given that christianity is a religion, the "theory" of creationism is endorsing a relgion. This is incompatible with the rules of science, which remain silent on religious questions.

It is inconcievable that creationism be regarded as a scientific theory based on the above two flaws.

If you wish to rebuttal this, then you're argument must address ALL of the following:

1)Why god has always existed but that the universe had to be created.

2)Why creationism as a "scientific theory" endorses religion when it is clear that scientific theories as a class are unable to do this.

Failure to address any one of these flaws will render the rebuttal moot, on account that the flaw unadressed maintains the validity of the above. If both flaws are addressed, then they must successful dispatch both flaws according to logical consistency and empirical success.

-Cacafire

I'm no friend of young-earth creationism, but I do believe the universe was created. And just as there's a scientific edge to this debate, so there's a theological one. And I'm going to address the latter.

The biblical account of creation says that "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." Notice that this describes the initial conditions upon which God fashioned the universe:

1. There was an (eternally pre-existing) "earth" that was "a formless void", i.e., it was empty chaos
2. Darkness "covered the face of the deep"
3. A wind from God was sweeping over the face of the waters

There is a growing theological consensus about some of the key words and expressions. Firstly, the picture is clearly that God took pre-existing stuff and fashioned it into the universe: "In the beginning when God created..." Therefore, creation ex nihilo is not taught in this text.

Second, taking its cue from other ancient religious ideas, Genesis conceives of the original condition as a swirling, amorphic chaos. This is a poetic way to describe evil. Thus the creation story does not express creation ex nihilo as St. Augustine understood it. Rather, it expresses the idea that YHWH, the God of the Hebrews, is omnipotent. He imposed order on the primeval chaos/evil; he filled the primeval emptiness with light and life.

So from a theological point of view, as a Christian (or indeed, a Jew), it makes no sense to get into debates about whether the universe is as old as, older than, or younger than God. The biblical text seems to suggest that the raw material out of which God fashioned the universe was "always there." Yet it also seems to affirm that there was a beginning -- a time when God began to impose his loving will on the chaos.

So to my mind, your first premise

1)Why god has always existed but that the universe had to be created.

is a red herring. It's possible for "stuff" and "God" to be co-eternal, yet God created the universe. If you think it's not possible, the onus is on you to provide some reasons why.

Your second premise

Why creationism as a "scientific theory" endorses religion when it is clear that scientific theories as a class are unable to do this.

is questionable too. Why can't scientific theories "endorse" a religion in the sense of "provide evidence of its truth"? We might debate whether current science actually provides evidence for this or that religion, but that's not the issue. The issue is more general. What is it about science that makes it not possible for science to say anything positive or negative about religion? Or vice versa? I really don't understand why some people think that science must be cordoned off from other realms of knowledge as though it's something sacred and untouchable. Perhaps you can shed some light for me on that.

For to my way of thinking, science proceeds on certain assumptions, some of which are not scientific. For instance, most scientists assume that the world is at least theoretically understandable. That's not a scientific belief, it's a presupposition that makes scientific knowledge possible. For another instance, most scientists assume that their peers' work is more or less trustworthy. (In actual practice, a dizzyingly small proportion of scientific work is rigorously tested by other scientists. Demands on time and budgets makes truly rigorous testing nearly impossible.) But this isn't a scientific belief, it's a belief that permits the scientific community to get on with its work.

Now perhaps a scientist might assume that God exists (say, perhaps, out of faith in the Genesis narrative I've just explicated). Why SHOULDN'T that faith inform the scientist concerning his practice or provide a rubric according to which theories can stand or fall? Conversely, as a theologian, why SHOULDN'T scientific theories bear upon my interpretations of texts?

 

[Cacafire]

I'm no friend of young-earth creationism, but I do believe the universe was created. And just as there's a scientific edge to this debate, so there's a theological one. And I'm going to address the latter.

The biblical account of creation says that "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." Notice that this describes the initial conditions upon which God fashioned the universe:

1. There was an (eternally pre-existing) "earth" that was "a formless void", i.e., it was empty chaos
2. Darkness "covered the face of the deep"
3. A wind from God was sweeping over the face of the waters

Can you please provide some documentation of experiments that lead to these observations? Thank you.

There is a growing theological consensus about some of the key words and expressions. Firstly, the picture is clearly that God took pre-existing stuff and fashioned it into the universe: "In the beginning when God created..." Therefore, creation ex nihilo is not taught in this text.

Second, taking its cue from other ancient religious ideas, Genesis conceives of the original condition as a swirling, amorphic chaos. This is a poetic way to describe evil. Thus the creation story does not express creation ex nihilo as St. Augustine understood it. Rather, it expresses the idea that YHWH, the God of the Hebrews, is omnipotent. He imposed order on the primeval chaos/evil; he filled the primeval emptiness with light and life.

Inflationary cosmology addresses how the universe was formed from the big bang onward. As far as the observations go, no god was needed. Also as far as observations go, the early universe, if it was pre-existent as you say, would have to have been at very high entropy. Some might think that proof of a whirling ball of chaos, but in actuality, a universe where gravity is a constant law would be at high entropy when it is condensed into a mottled ball. According to observations, the universe was not primeval chaos. That has been verified by experiment. The early universe was a condensed ball. It was not a formless void. It was not swirling chaos, it was a condensed rock solid glowing hot ball.

So from a theological point of view, as a Christian (or indeed, a Jew), it makes no sense to get into debates about whether the universe is as old as, older than, or younger than God. The biblical text seems to suggest that the raw material out of which God fashioned the universe was "always there." Yet it also seems to affirm that there was a beginning -- a time when God began to impose his loving will on the chaos.

The bible text views the universe as a bunch of swirling fathomless ocean, I believe. That is not the case. Inflationary cosmology contradicts it.

So to my mind, your first premise

is a red herring. It's possible for "stuff" and "God" to be co-eternal, yet God created the universe. If you think it's not possible, the onus is on you to provide some reasons why.

It has allready been shown that the universe has always existed. (energy can not be created nor destroyed) And inflationary cosmology has shown that from the big bang onwards, no hand of god was needed to form the universe. And once science finds a unified grand theory, we will know how the big bang was formed as well. Somehow I doubt the biblical account will fit.

Your second premise

is questionable too. Why can't scientific theories "endorse" a religion in the sense of "provide evidence of its truth"? We might debate whether current science actually provides evidence for this or that religion, but that's not the issue. The issue is more general. What is it about science that makes it not possible for science to say anything positive or negative about religion? Or vice versa? I really don't understand why some people think that science must be cordoned off from other realms of knowledge as though it's something sacred and untouchable. Perhaps you can shed some light for me on that.

I do not believe that science can not say anything on matters of religion. I was bending over backwards to concede a point. Since most religionists believe that science can not "prove" religion, I had to take that into account in the argument.

It would be much safer for religious people to say that science can not say anything on religion. Because if science can... well, science has all ready blown a vast amount of religious tenets out of the water. From galileo to newton to locke. To give science jursdiction over religion is to destroy religion. Because then we would no longer need religion. We would be able to solve everything by science. And this is something no religionist wants.

Given that. You have a straw man. A very devilish straw man, though. Either argue that science can not account for religion, and thereofre creationism is not a scientific theory, and thus, is unfit to be taught in our schools, or say that science "can" say something on religious matters, and then abandon all your churches and mosques for a laboratory. Do you understand?

For to my way of thinking, science proceeds on certain assumptions, some of which are not scientific.

You are quite right in thinking that. Hume provides some fascinating philosophical skepticism at to the validity of science. In fact, his arguments prove a vast majority of scientific principles to be irrational. Still, it is rational to hold onto what is useful, and that is why most scientists have ignored hume's doubts. At least we got this sweet computer out of the deal.

For instance, most scientists assume that the world is at least theoretically understandable.

Understanding is a recognition of the function of parts of a system. So long as objects interact with objects outside of their fundamental systems, it is possible to understand. *Note* however, that "understanding" is completely derived from sociolinguistics and evolutionary neurology. To "understand" a thing is completely rooted in one's identity as a sentient being, and without sentience, the term "meaning" would be completely irrelevant. Still, it beats praying to god.

That's not a scientific belief, it's a presupposition that makes scientific knowledge possible. For another instance, most scientists assume that their peers' work is more or less trustworthy. (In actual practice, a dizzyingly small proportion of scientific work is rigorously tested by other scientists. Demands on time and budgets makes truly rigorous testing nearly impossible.) But this isn't a scientific belief, it's a belief that permits the scientific community to get on with its work.

That is incorrect. Any revolutionary experiment result has to be confirmed many times before it will be accepted by the scientific community. If what you say had any truth in it, we would not have quantum mechanics, but would be working on Einstein's later theories. We're not.

Now perhaps a scientist might assume that God exists (say, perhaps, out of faith in the Genesis narrative I've just explicated). Why SHOULDN'T that faith inform the scientist concerning his practice or provide a rubric according to which theories can stand or fall?

If the genesis narrative conforms to empirical testing, no reason at all. unfortunately, the genesis narrative doesn't. The universe was not a whirling mess of matter at the beginning. Also, the genesis narrative purports to tell us that matter is the major material and the most important. Mater makes up less that 3% of the material in the known universe. Genesis was wrong. If there is a god, we are not his creatures. Creatures made out of Dark Energy are.

Of course, the argument stands for everything. Any inspiration or holy book, if it makes a claim that can be tested, must be thrown aside if the claim is not observed empirically. The bible get's no special treatment. It made a claim as to the beginning of the world. Empirical evidence proved the bible's claim wrong.

Conversely, as a theologian, why SHOULDN'T scientific theories bear upon my interpretations of texts?

Yes. Please. Maybe then you can get out of the St. Thoma Aquinas age. Terribly limiting, that lot. don't you think?

 

[supersport]

Granted that there is a creator, and ignoring the above flaws, creationists maintain that it was the Christian God that created the universe, and not Zeus or Shibalba.

ridiculous statement. Creationists believe that The God of the Universe who has the power and ability to create the universe is the One who created it. Zeus does not have that power or ability, thus could not have done so.

 

[McBell]

Zeus does not have that power or ability, thus could not have done so.

And you know this how?

 

[Father Heathen]

Holy crap! Are you the supersport of FSTDT.com fame (see sig)? You're legendary!

 

[Dunemeister]

Inflationary cosmology addresses how the universe was formed from the big bang onward. As far as the observations go, no god was needed.

This involves the assumption that the processes that existed from the beginning would have inevitably created a universe relevantly similar to ours. You see, this is where philosophical assumptions play in our scientific theorizing.

Also as far as observations go, the early universe, if it was pre-existent as you say, would have to have been at very high entropy. Some might think that proof of a whirling ball of chaos, but in actuality, a universe where gravity is a constant law would be at high entropy when it is condensed into a mottled ball. According to observations, the universe was not primeval chaos. That has been verified by experiment. The early universe was a condensed ball. It was not a formless void. It was not swirling chaos, it was a condensed rock solid glowing hot ball.

As you know, theories about the initial conditions change with the seasons. So to confidently pronounce that the universe was this or was that without any qualifiers at all shows an incredible amount of gumption. Every cosmologist I've ever read has added several layers of qualification -- featuring all sorts of conditional statements -- to his guesses about what the early conditions were. And yes, they're all guesses.

Besides, how do we know that the law of gravity was the same at the initial stage as it is now? Perhaps the gravitational constant has changed. How would we know any differently? We haven't "seen" or "observed" the original conditions, we've only speculated based on the theories and mathematics available to us. So we have some educated guesses, but we all know that such educated guesses will turn out to be wrong if (when?) the assumptions upon which they're based turn out to be wrong.

Last point on this issue: the biblical account does not provide a journalistic narrative. It affirms the very general point that God, through his omnipotent power, imposed light, order, and life on the original stuff, whatever it was.

The bible text views the universe as a bunch of swirling fathomless ocean, I believe. That is not the case. Inflationary cosmology contradicts it.

Well, so much for inflationary cosmology. On the other hand, as I've said, the Genesis account is theological, not journalistic. So if science "contradicts" it, so what?

It has allready been shown that the universe has always existed. (energy can not be created nor destroyed)

Ah, there go those pesky philosophical assumptions again. Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any earthly forces. But if there were a god, certainly that god could create or destroy energy.

And inflationary cosmology has shown that from the big bang onwards, no hand of god was needed to form the universe. And once science finds a unified grand theory, we will know how the big bang was formed as well. Somehow I doubt the biblical account will fit.

You make it sound as though science has once for all and finally pronounced on these things. This betrays a complete lack of sensitivity to how scientists actually express their views on this subject. They tend to be much more tentative than you. They're richly aware of how assumption-dependent their theories are and how easily those assumptions can be overturned by later discoveries or theorizing. Certainly they're not so sure about whether a grand unified theory is even possible, let alone something that'll eventually be discovered. Nor are they sure that, once discovered, a GUT will be incompatible with the biblical account of creation.

I do not believe that science can not say anything on matters of religion. I was bending over backwards to concede a point. Since most religionists believe that science can not "prove" religion, I had to take that into account in the argument.

I'm still not sure of what you mean. Are you saying that (a) science can speak to religious matters and (b) theology can speak to scientific matters or only (a)?

It would be much safer for religious people to say that science can not say anything on religion. Because if science can... well, science has all ready blown a vast amount of religious tenets out of the water. From galileo to newton to locke.

This is really overstated. Science has certainly reduced the church's authority over the work of scientists, but I'm really not sure how much science has displaced religious knowledge. Contrary to your confident proclamations, science has not disproven the existence of the Christian God. Nor has it disproven any of the central claims of Christianity. It has certainly caused Christians to reformulate their arguments, but that's about all.

To give science jursdiction over religion is to destroy religion. Because then we would no longer need religion. We would be able to solve everything by science. And this is something no religionist wants.

Science cannot solve the problems "religionists" are concerned about. For instance "religionists" (whatever those are) are not concerned with such things as how old the earth is. They are concerned with how best to relate to creation, each other, and God. These are questions to which science cannot speak inasmuch as science concerns itself with the various bumpings and copulations of subatomic particles.

Given that. You have a straw man. A very devilish straw man, though. Either argue that science can not account for religion, and thereofre creationism is not a scientific theory, and thus, is unfit to be taught in our schools, or say that science "can" say something on religious matters, and then abandon all your churches and mosques for a laboratory. Do you understand?

I understand and disagree.

That is incorrect. Any revolutionary experiment result has to be confirmed many times before it will be accepted by the scientific community. If what you say had any truth in it, we would not have quantum mechanics, but would be working on Einstein's later theories. We're not.

Your post betrays a deep need for a study of the philosophy, history and sociology of science. Suffice to say that the reality and the propaganda don't exactly match.

If the genesis narrative conforms to empirical testing, no reason at all. unfortunately, the genesis narrative doesn't. The universe was not a whirling mess of matter at the beginning. Also, the genesis narrative purports to tell us that matter is the major material and the most important. Mater makes up less that 3% of the material in the known universe. Genesis was wrong. If there is a god, we are not his creatures. Creatures made out of Dark Energy are.

You can't empirically test the beginning. It's an historical event, not a repeatable one. So all this talk about empirical testing is a red herring.

But since you love red herrings, I'll feed the one you've got a bit. Genesis says nothing about matter. "Matter" is a scientific term designed to help scientists do whatever it is they do. The point of Genesis is that God is responsible for the order, beauty, and life-supportiveness (to coin a term!) of the created (that is, non-divine) order.

Of course, the argument stands for everything. Any inspiration or holy book, if it makes a claim that can be tested, must be thrown aside if the claim is not observed empirically. The bible get's no special treatment. It made a claim as to the beginning of the world. Empirical evidence proved the bible's claim wrong.

Why should a poetic text speaking about a theological issue have to pass muster as a scientific (or even historical) theory? You're mixing categories in a bewildering fashion.

Yes. Please. Maybe then you can get out of the St. Thoma Aquinas age. Terribly limiting, that lot. don't you think?

Not at all. You should try it sometime. You'd find it incredible enlightening and fulfilling.

 

[emiliano]

The idea that he has always existed as used by theists when people ask

, "what created god?".

</I>
The answer to that is God, He is the beginning, the first cause of creation.
Going back to the OP “That being the case, there is no scientific reason why the omniexistence of this creator can not be applied to the universe itself, If the universe is the first cause of creation that is God under another name (there is no flaw) and science comes to the help to provide a more contemporary explanation.

This is getting interesting:

Inflationary cosmology addresses how the universe was formed from the big bang onward.

And what was there before the rock decided to inflate to explosion?
Was this a violent mindless random event? Thinking of the wonderful, complex and organised final result of the event I say no! And science will keep on working toward an explanation that inevitably will contain God hand in the process.

a universe where gravity is a constant law would be at high entropy when it is condensed into a mottled ball.

This would necessitate a Law and a law maker “ God” and that addresses how the universe was created in the beginning, I notice that the first verse in the first book of the Bible gives an explanation that is very suited to Moses audience at the time, this is by no mean a scientific treatise on the creation of heavens.

What empirical proof is there for the bang?

It is inconcievable that creationism be regarded as a scientific theory based on the above two flaws.

And who is saying that it is? God as the creator does not prove the evolution wrong and the Bible account is allegorical, not scientific, and certainly evolution not an enemy of Faith. Some member of the forum have brought the straw man and attack it, but the truth is that as the scientific human understanding of nature evolves, the existence of God becomes clearer and the awe that we feel growth stronger.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

ridiculous statement. Creationists believe that The God of the Universe who has the power and ability to create the universe is the One who created it. Zeus does not have that power or ability, thus could not have done so.

You are aware that there are multiple creation stories, from various religions, spreading over time, aren't you?

 

[Autodidact]

ridiculous statement. Creationists believe that The God of the Universe who has the power and ability to create the universe is the One who created it. Zeus does not have that power or ability, thus could not have done so.

SuperSport, good to see ya!So, did you decide whether you're a real YEC, or just masquerading as one to annoy other people? I'm dying to know.

 

[Autodidact]

Dunemeister: I deny that there has ever been a theological consensus about anything, including creation.

 

[Dunemeister]

Dunemeister: I deny that there has ever been a theological consensus about anything, including creation.

Okay. How is that relevant to the discussion?

 

[Autodidact]

Okay. How is that relevant to the discussion?

Not very, but you did say there was one, so to the extent you thought that was relevant, so is my point that there isn't.

 

[Willamena]

Not very, but you did say there was one, so to the extent you thought that was relevant, so is my point that there isn't.

You don't get a point for contradiction. That's not how the game works.