The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[shunyadragon]

Respectfully, I disagree, no faith at all is required to see obvious problems of infinite regression and the necessity for string action or a multiverse to make matter and energy despite laws of conversation. Secular authorities on cosmology agree that the laws were suspended and that there was nothing then everything!

The concept of infinite regression is an ancient invalid argument based on an ancient view of 'actual infinities,' and ignored the distinct possibility that the past existence of our physical existence is 'potentially infinite.' Actual infinities are completed sets of infinities, and there is no reason to believe there existence is remotely related to whether our physical existence is 'potentially infinite' or not.

You fallacious generalization of the current view of physics and cosmology concerning the concepts of the multiverse, and the nature of the Quantum World bears no resemblance to the actual science of cosmology, physics and Quantum Mechanics. You are misrepresenting the scientific view of the nature of the Laws of Nature, and the ultimate laws that would govern Quantum Mechanics.

Therefore, I often meet agnostics who appeal to some kind of force or divinity, "I don't believe in God, but something must have made everything."

Misrepresentation of the agnostic world view. big time. I doubt seriously that you can cite any agnostics that hold this view.

You can appeal to faith, and I pray your faith and mine grows, but logic indicates the universe is personal, designed, orderly, resistant to entropy, self-sustaining/self-generating and much more, as well as defying all our physics knowledge in its rapid expansion and so on.

This is an antiquated fallacious view of logic, which you repeatedly appeal to, and does not represent a sound logical argument based on the evidence.

Logic indicates nothing of the sort unless you appeal to 'begging the question,' and 'appeals to ignorance,' and the misrepresentation of science.

 

[Polymath257]

Respectfully, I disagree, no faith at all is required to see obvious problems of infinite regression and the necessity for string action or a multiverse to make matter and energy despite laws of conversation. Secular authorities on cosmology agree that the laws were suspended and that there was nothing then everything!

No. The laws were NOT suspended. But the laws *we know about* clearly did not apply. We have still to find that ones that *did* apply. That means, in particular, finding a quantum theory of gravity. And, while we have proposals for such a theory, none of the proposals so far has been tested because the energies required are above our technology at present.

Next, what *precisely* do you see as the 'obvious' problems with an infinite regression? The most of the proposed quantum theories of gravity have time going infinitely far into the past and some form of matter/energy existing whenever there is time. I'd also point out that *some* version of a multiverse (and there are many different such) seems to follow naturally from quantum gravity, although the jury is out on this still.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How? The majority of those people don't believe the Bible is the direct word of God, and throughout the majority of human civilization the most widely accepted beliefs were belief systems (such as Greco-Roman and Egyptian) that are now almost universally dismissed.

It doesn't matter if every human being on the planet proclaims God to be absolutely factual. It lends not a single shred of credibility to the claim in lieu of actual facts, argumentation and good evidence. If you can understand why the popularity of the Egyptian Gods throughout Egypt was erroneous, you should understand this perfectly well.

I never said the Bible is universally accepted. I said the recognition of God as Creator--exactly what Romans 1 speaks of--certainly is. The Bible is both accurate to the time and prescient for today.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is an argument from popularity, which is a logical fallacy.

It's not an ad populum, it's showing the Bible used the present tense for the universality of believing in a Creator God. An argument from prescience since most people, the most highly educated people as well, agree, and concur God is self-evident.

The argument isn't an ad populum, "Most people believe in Creation, so Creation must be true!" it's "The Bible says most people will believe Creation is evident, always, and they still do, showing the Bible's accuracy and prescience."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why wouldn't you offer your best argument or demonstration of your claim? Did you start with your worst one?

Um, I find it a time waster to offer "proof" of something so self-evident, only a minority fringe whine about it?! Five-year-olds look through telescopes and never say, "Gosh, nobody sure made everything from nothing ex nihilo!"

Neither do I visit insane asylum to prove to "Napoleon Bonapartes" they are not truly Emperors of France.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The concept of infinite regression is an ancient invalid argument based on an ancient view of 'actual infinities,' and ignored the distinct possibility that the past existence of our physical existence is 'potentially infinite.' Actual infinities are completed sets of infinities, and there is no reason to believe there existence is remotely related to whether our physical existence is 'potentially infinite' or not.

You fallacious generalization of the current view of physics and cosmology concerning the concepts of the multiverse, and the nature of the Quantum World bears no resemblance to the actual science of cosmology, physics and Quantum Mechanics. You are misrepresenting the scientific view of the nature of the Laws of Nature, and the ultimate laws that would govern Quantum Mechanics.



Misrepresentation of the agnostic world view. big time. I doubt seriously that you can cite any agnostics that hold this view.



This is an antiquated fallacious view of logic, which you repeatedly appeal to, and does not represent a sound logical argument based on the evidence.

Logic indicates nothing of the sort unless you appeal to 'begging the question,' and 'appeals to ignorance,' and the misrepresentation of science.

I'll put this in lay terms so lurkers can also understand.

Time is based on light, and there was an ancient expansion of light into primordial darkness, beginning our linear time. Genesis 1.

Jesus Christ made all, He was there, John 5.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um, I find it a time waster to offer "proof" of something so self-evident, only a minority fringe whine about it?! Five-year-olds look through telescopes and never say, "Gosh, nobody sure made everything from nothing ex nihilo!"

Neither do I visit insane asylum to prove to "Napoleon Bonapartes" they are not truly Emperors of France.

The obvious claim just does not work for a person that reasons rationally. Your problem is that you have too much invested in the word "God". And a Christian should know better than to make false claims about others. If anyone is whining it is you here. Five year olds get all kinds of things wrong. And yet you rely on them for an argument? That tells us a lot of your ability to reason.

Getting back to how you have put too much credence into the "God" concept for at least one post instead of claiming that "God did it, it is self evident", why don't you try to say "Universe Farting Pixies did it, it is self evident". If you can do that a few times how ridiculous your claims without evidence sound should be obvious even to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll put this in lay terms so lurkers can also understand.

Time is based on light, and there was an ancient expansion of light into primordial darkness, beginning our linear time. Genesis 1.

Jesus Christ made all, He was there, John 5.

All that tells the lurkers is that you can't do physics and you are willing to twist the Bible to make it support your errant beliefs.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. The laws were NOT suspended. But the laws *we know about* clearly did not apply. We have still to find that ones that *did* apply. That means, in particular, finding a quantum theory of gravity. And, while we have proposals for such a theory, none of the proposals so far has been tested because the energies required are above our technology at present.

Next, what *precisely* do you see as the 'obvious' problems with an infinite regression? The most of the proposed quantum theories of gravity have time going infinitely far into the past and some form of matter/energy existing whenever there is time. I'd also point out that *some* version of a multiverse (and there are many different such) seems to follow naturally from quantum gravity, although the jury is out on this still.

I understand. No known law exists to solve the problem, so LawDidIt--an invisible, mystical, presupposed natural law, is superior to JesusDidIt. Typical NaturalLawOnly card played for "gin".

Oh, and thanks for explaining how "quantum gravity gravitates to the multiverse rather than other theories now posed by cosmologists and physicists," ending THAT debate for good.

Checkmate, is it? ROFL.

You think JesusDidIt sounds stupid? Do you have any idea how "IDunnoAllThingsCauseI'mNotOmniscientButMustBeUnknownNaturalLaw" sounds? It sounds like "magical thinking".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I never said the Bible is universally accepted. I said the recognition of God as Creator--exactly what Romans 1 speaks of--certainly is. The Bible is both accurate to the time and prescient for today.

How does stating the prevalence of a belief that was both prevalent at the time and in the future (though less so) indicate prescience? If I said "people breathe oxygen", is that prescient just because people in the future also happen to breathe oxygen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand. No known law exists to solve the problem, so LawDidIt--an invisible, mystical, presupposed natural law, is superior to JesusDidIt. Typical NaturalLawOnly card played for "gin".

Oh, and thanks for explaining how "quantum gravity gravitates to the multiverse rather than other theories now posed by cosmologists and physicists," ending THAT debate for good.

Checkmate, is it? ROFL.

You think JesusDidIt sounds stupid? Do you have any idea how "IDunnoAllThingsCauseI'mNotOmniscientButMustBeUnknownNaturalLaw" sounds? It sounds like "magical thinking".

You have an indefensible belief, to try to defend that you are not honestly saying what others believe. You really need to pay more attention to the Ninth Commandment. If you can't debate against what those against you are saying that only tells the lurkers that you know you would lose if you did so. You assume that there is a God, oops, my bad, you assume that there were Universe Farting Pixies (remember our exercise) that began our universe. Those on the science side : We can see that the universe started this way. No assumptions about the existence or non-existence of UFP's. Though since there is no evidence for Universe Farting Pixies the whole idea seems rather silly and not too many of them believe in it.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand. No known law exists to solve the problem, so LawDidIt--an invisible, mystical, presupposed natural law, is superior to JesusDidIt. Typical NaturalLawOnly card played for "gin".

Oh, and thanks for explaining how "quantum gravity gravitates to the multiverse rather than other theories now posed by cosmologists and physicists," ending THAT debate for good.

Checkmate, is it? ROFL.

You think JesusDidIt sounds stupid? Do you have any idea how "IDunnoAllThingsCauseI'mNotOmniscientButMustBeUnknownNaturalLaw" sounds? It sounds like "magical thinking".

No, the point is that we *don't know*. But the only way to know is to collect relevant evidence, make hypotheses, test them, etc. In other words, the scientific method.

When I was younger, one of the great challenges was to figure out *any* way to unify quantum mechanics and gravity. Now, we have several proposals on how that might be done and they have some common aspects. It is not a bad idea to ask why that is. Perhaps the very requirement to unify the two *working* theories of QM and GR requires something like a multiverse. Until we get some testing, we don't know.

But now knowing doesn't mean 'JesusDidIt' is a reasonable explanation. In fact, because it leads to NO predictions at all (at least quantum gravity has some, even if we can't test now), it is *absolutely* useless as an explanation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Um, I find it a time waster to offer "proof" of something so self-evident, only a minority fringe whine about it?! Five-year-olds look through telescopes and never say, "Gosh, nobody sure made everything from nothing ex nihilo!"

You do realize that most people in the world do not follow your religion, right? It's not as self-evident as you seem to think.

When I was five years old, I didn't make up a God to explain what I saw through a telescope. I said, "Gee that's cool."
God beliefs are taught.

Besides that, we are grown adults here. I hope you're not comparing your intellect to that of a 5-year-old.

Neither do I visit insane asylum to prove to "Napoleon Bonapartes" they are not truly Emperors of France.

My whole entire point is that if it is so self-evident, it should be incredibly easy to demonstrate. And yet you've demonstrated that it is not easy to demonstrate at all. So your claim that it is self-evident doesn't really pan out.

To me, it's self-evident that the Christian god most likely does not exist. So do I just get to keep saying that and it just makes it so? That's what you're doing.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It's not an ad populum, it's showing the Bible used the present tense for the universality of believing in a Creator God. An argument from prescience since most people, the most highly educated people as well, agree, and concur God is self-evident.

That is an argument from popularity. That is a logical fallacy. At one time, the most highly educated people all agreed that the Sun moved about the Earth. That didn't make it true.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'll put this in lay terms so lurkers can also understand.

Time is based on light, and there was an ancient expansion of light into primordial darkness, beginning our linear time. Genesis 1.

Jesus Christ made all, He was there, John 5.

This is religious claim, OK, but not based on science.

You have not addressed the question of what the objective verifiable evidence and science is able to demonstrate and what science cannot demonstrate to support a religious agenda,

 

[shunyadragon]

It's not an ad populum, it's showing the Bible used the present tense for the universality of believing in a Creator God. An argument from prescience since most people, the most highly educated people as well, agree, and concur God is self-evident.

Is is only self-evident is one believes it so, This is 'begging the question,' unless one considers the objective verifiable evidence to demonstrate your asssertions based on belief and scripture. This line of reasoning is only meaningful for those who believe.

The argument isn't an ad populum, "Most people believe in Creation, so Creation must be true!" it's "The Bible says most people will believe Creation is evident, always, and they still do, showing the Bible's accuracy and prescience."

This is indeed an argument 'ad populum,' and lacks references to demonstrate, who most people are, those who you claim are 'highly educated.' This argument is therefore meaningless.

As far as the polls for a number of years indicate is that the higher the education level the more likely they will accept the scientific explanation for the nature of our existence and evolution.

From: Chapter 4: Evolution and Perceptions of Scientific Consensus

Views on Human Evolution, based on Education and Science Knowledge

Education and Knowledge

Three-quarters (75%) of all college graduates and fully 81% of those with a postgraduate degree believe that humans have evolved over time. By comparison, 56% of those with a high school diploma or less say evolution has occurred.

There are sizeable differences in views about evolution between those with more and less general knowledge about science. About three-quarters (76%) of those with more science knowledge say that humans have evolved, compared with 54% among those with less science knowledge.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. The laws were NOT suspended. But the laws *we know about* clearly did not apply. We have still to find that ones that *did* apply. That means, in particular, finding a quantum theory of gravity. And, while we have proposals for such a theory, none of the proposals so far has been tested because the energies required are above our technology at present.

Next, what *precisely* do you see as the 'obvious' problems with an infinite regression? The most of the proposed quantum theories of gravity have time going infinitely far into the past and some form of matter/energy existing whenever there is time. I'd also point out that *some* version of a multiverse (and there are many different such) seems to follow naturally from quantum gravity, although the jury is out on this still.

You are asking me what problem of infinite regression I see for everything that exists? How is that not a moot question. You believe in an eternal universe, one that also currently disallows its own creation!

 

[BilliardsBall]

All that tells the lurkers is that you can't do physics and you are willing to twist the Bible to make it support your errant beliefs.

All you're trying to imply to lurkers--who all know better--is that physics has solved all these issues including all being created from nothing.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You have an indefensible belief, to try to defend that you are not honestly saying what others believe. You really need to pay more attention to the Ninth Commandment. If you can't debate against what those against you are saying that only tells the lurkers that you know you would lose if you did so. You assume that there is a God, oops, my bad, you assume that there were Universe Farting Pixies (remember our exercise) that began our universe. Those on the science side : We can see that the universe started this way. No assumptions about the existence or non-existence of UFP's. Though since there is no evidence for Universe Farting Pixies the whole idea seems rather silly and not too many of them believe in it.

When you're done accusing me of lying--skeptics' old dodge when Christians provide them things they are unable to fact find against, feel free to address what I actually wrote!

 

[BilliardsBall]

How does stating the prevalence of a belief that was both prevalent at the time and in the future (though less so) indicate prescience? If I said "people breathe oxygen", is that prescient just because people in the future also happen to breathe oxygen?

It would be prescient of the ancients said we breathe oxygen centuries before we knew what oxygen is. You made a good example.