The Creation vs Evolution debate thread...

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by karamazovnew

Agnostic Creationists such as myself believe that the original universe was created in its original form by a deity of some form, but that the identity of said deity is unknown or impossible to prove. The Creation and the Afterlife are not so tightly linked as atheists might like to think. They only draw power from our inability to ponder the meaning of Nothing, the one before life and the one after it.

Recent physics theories have pushed this question even further. In an age of such wonderful advances, the search for the start of existence (creation of Mass in the universe), the meaning of life and the long death of all existence are all a single entity. There is a slight possibility that scientists will prove that this Universe is merely a burning match in another greater Mega Universe. They might very well reach the end of possible research, a recursive theory that explains everything and nothing at the same time.

At that time, passionate atheists will have a hard time to explain how their view can be viewed as scientific Truth and not as a simple Belief, like all others. Any final belief is wrong, and the bad part about atheism is that it's an end to all questions, not a start. I was one myself until I started asking new questions and found even less philosophical support that the one Christianity gave me. In the end, the best philosophy is this : "Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing."

The Gettier problem applies to all "Final Solution" religions and beliefs.
Christianity (Bible):
- God exists
- S believes that God exists
- if God exists, S (because the Bible says he exists) would believe that God exists
- if God doesn't exist, S (because the Bible doesn't say he exists OR because the Bible says that God doesn't exist) wouldn't believe that God exists.

Since the last condition is not true, it means that Christians have no knowledge of the existence of god, purely based on the Bible.

Atheists (science):
- God doesn't exist
- S believes that God doesn't exist
- if God doesn't exist, S (because there is scientific proof that he doesn't exist) would believe that God doesn't exist
- if God does exist, S (because there is scientific proof that he exists) would believe that God exists.

Since there is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist, an atheist cannot yet claim knowledge of this fact.

Agnostics (proof):
- God is unknown or unknowable.
- S believe that God is unknowable.
- If God is unknowable, S (because there is no proof of God) would believe that god is unknowable.
- If God is knowable, S (because there is proof of God) wouldn't believe that God is unknowable.

Which is true. Since agnostics do not try to put a face on God and take as only proof of his existence the existence of the Universe itself, they are not wrong.

Agnostics:
- God created the Universe (or, the Universe was created, or the Universe exists)
- S believes that God created the Universe
- If God did create the Universe, S (because the Universe exists) would believe that God created the Universe
- If God didn't create the Universe, S (because the Universe doesn't exist, therefore S doesn't exist) wouldn't believe that God created the Universe.

This is almost a form of "I exist therefore I think, I think therefore I exist."

Man.. my head hurts

I've no idea what that has to do with what I posted but it's interesting at least. I'll respond to the bit that applies to me:

Atheists (science):
- God doesn't exist
- S believes that God doesn't exist
- if God doesn't exist, S (because there is scientific proof that he doesn't exist) would believe that God doesn't exist
- if God does exist, S (because there is scientific proof that he exists) would believe that God exists.

What would constitute "scientific proof" of God's existence? If a big bearded face appeared in the sky, visible to everyone, and said "I am God. I created the universe" would that be proof? No, not of God. It would be proof that there is a big face in the sky.

One will tend to run into big problems when making statements involving the "scientific proof" of something that isn't even "scientifically" defined.

I could say I am an atheist not so much because there is no scientific proof of (the Christian) God, but because the (Christian) definition of God makes no sense to me. Asking me to believe in him is like asking me to believe in a purple Tuesday.

[Letum]

What would constitute "scientific proof" of God's existence? If a big bearded face appeared in the sky, visible to everyone, and said "I am God. I created the universe" would that be proof? No, not of God. It would be proof that there is a big face in the sky.

What would constitute "scientific proof" of onelifecrisis' existence?
If a person appeared at a subsim meet, visible to everyone, and said "I
am onelifecrisis. I created SH3 mods" would that be proof? No, not of
onelifecrisis. It would be proof that there is a person at the subsim meet.

Extraordinary theories like gods may require extraordinary evidence, but
big faces in the sky should be close to extraordinary enough.

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Asking me to believe in him is like asking me to believe in a purple Tuesday.

I disagree.
There are plenty of descriptions of gods that are coherent.

[IanC]

I just realised something, we can't use the logic of science in disproving a God.
Because using the logic of science, we shouldn't be here to begin with. Science tells us that nothing can come from nothing (I can't magically make a pencil appear in front of me now), therefore how can the Big Bang have started?
Even a single molecule or whatever is smaller than that, needs to have come from something. So it was impossible for the Big Bang to have started, it's impossible that we're even here now.
My simply point is that not everything can be explained by science.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by IanC

I just realised something, we can't use the logic of science in disproving a God.
Because using the logic of science, we shouldn't be here to begin with. Science tells us that nothing can come from nothing (I can't magically make a pencil appear in front of me now), therefore how can the Big Bang have started?
Even a single molecule or whatever is smaller than that, needs to have come from something. So it was impossible for the Big Bang to have started, it's impossible that we're even here now.
My simply point is that not everything can be explained by science.

No one is claiming that the big bang came from nothing, if you think that then clearly you do not understand it. The big bang theory explains the expansion of space-time from a singularity, nothing less and nothing more. What was before that, we do not know and maybe we will never know. Scientists as a whole are a group that are not afraid to say "We simply do not know." instead of claiming absolute certainty, unlike religious folk.
Just because science can not explain something does not mean it has a supernatural cause, it simply means we do not know yet.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Letum

I disagree.
There are plenty of descriptions of gods that are coherent.

I dunno, personally I have always thought that human descriptions of deities are far too simplistic. IMHO if such an entity or entities exist, they would have to be far beyond our ability to even conceive of them in any accurate manner.

Lets face it, most human created deities through out our existence have been super versions of ourselves, and our books tend to depict them as being contrary entities that are both kind and loving, and vicious and vengeful in nature. Probably in an attempt to reflect the reality of life on this planet.

I also find the idea of there being a single true religion an absurd concept to be honest. There have been countless belief systems proposed by humanity since its existence. All have had equally devout followers who believe utterly in the truth of their faith, willing to kill and die for their beliefs, and many of them have claimed their god(s) to be the only true gods.

This is why I could never believe in either Christianity or Islam, as their claims are just as unsubstantiated and for me as difficult to believe in as any other religion. Religion is a human creation, and as such is as flawed as anything else we create. This doesn't mean a creator(s) does not exist though, or that spiritual belief is worthless.


Lastly Iceman... I hadn't really wanted to comment on your post as I don't much care for deriding the spiritual beliefs of others, but you left yourself wide open to it by your own criticism. Do you really fail to see the vanity in your own claim? How you are committing the exact same fallacies you accuse others of. Also last I checked one of the key missions of Christianity is the conversion of non believers, ie. selling their version of god.

[IanC]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

No one is claiming that the big bang came from nothing, if you think that then clearly you do not understand it. The big bang theory explains the expansion of space-time from a singularity, nothing less and nothing more. What was before that, we do not know and maybe we will never know. Scientists as a whole are a group that are not afraid to say "We simply do not know." instead of claiming absolute certainty, unlike religious folk.
Just because science can not explain something does not mean it has a supernatural cause, it simply means we do not know yet.

Ok fine, but what was that singularity? Whatever your answer is, it couldn't have come from nothing. Science says everything must have a beginning, and that nothing can come from nothing.
And please be clear about my position. I think both the religious and the atheists are, politely put, naive. Like I posted before, the only common sense answer is that we simply don't know.

[IanC]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Just because science can not explain something does not mean it has a supernatural cause, it simply means we do not know yet.

And please go back and read my post again. I never said said it meant supernatural causes. I said it means that not everything can be explained by science.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Well, I guess it helps us know more about you.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by IanC

Science says everything must have a beginning, and that nothing can come from nothing.

What has given you that idea?

Take a root around http://origins.asu.edu/ .
You will have a hard time finding a cosmologist that agrees with you.

[karamazovnew]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

I've no idea what that has to do with what I posted but it's interesting at least.

What would constitute "scientific proof" of God's existence? If a big bearded face appeared in the sky, visible to everyone, and said "I am God. I created the universe" would that be proof? No, not of God. It would be proof that there is a big face in the sky.

One will tend to run into big problems when making statements involving the "scientific proof" of something that isn't even "scientifically" defined.

I could say I am an atheist not so much because there is no scientific proof of (the Christian) God, but because the (Christian) definition of God makes no sense to me. Asking me to believe in him is like asking me to believe in a purple Tuesday.

Sorry, I usually start saying something but end up with the Chinese Wall. What I meant was that Evolution doesn't contradict Creation and viceversa. By scientific proof I mean any complete theory that can explain Creation.

For example, for centuries it was thought that the world was flat (except for a few crazy greeks). Stars were charted and believed to be gods flying over the flat and infinite earth. Then came the idea that the world was round. Stelar navigation became possible and it's laws were mostly drawn back then. Continents were discovered using a single compas and burning candles. It took more time for people to accept that the world, although round, was moving around the sun. But did this have anything to do with navigation? No. A simple round earth was enough to change history, even though the image was incomplete.

It only took one simple experiment made by Eratosthenes to calculate the radius of the earth with 2 sticks and an hourglass. Yet with all our science we have not ONE proof of God, one single smart experiment to explain Creation. As with the stars themselves, we still see gods flying around on the sky. Believe me, when that proof arrives, you'll notice it . And as with the above example, it doesn't even need to be a complete one .

But that doesn't mean that I share the Christian belief about a bearded God. I'm more of a Tolstoi/Dostoievsky believer, a searcher.

[IanC]

Originally Posted by Letum

What has given you that idea?

Take a root around http://origins.asu.edu/ .
You will have a hard time finding a cosmologist that agrees with you.

If you can give me a more specific link, it would be much appreciated. That looks like a big website. And scientists believe things can magically pop into existence all by itself?

[Letum]

Unfortunately my PC lacks audio ATM, but there should be something of
interest on the topic here:http://thesciencenetwork.org/tags/Big+Bang

It's not the only place with some popular modern cosmology, but it's as good a start as any.

scientists believe things can magically pop into existence all by itself?

In short: yes.
There are theories popular amongst physicists at the moment that predict
an abundance of things poping into existence everywhere, constantly for
very small periods of time.

but you don't need a physicist to tell you that if there was ever a state in
which nothing existed, it was not a stable state. The universe is evidence
of that.

[IanC]

Originally Posted by Letum

Unfortunately my PC lacks audio ATM, but there should be something of
interest on the topic here:http://thesciencenetwork.org/tags/Big+Bang

It's not the only place with some popular modern cosmology, but it's as good a start as any.

In short: yes.
There are theories popular amongst physicists at the moment that predict
an abundance of things poping into existence everywhere, constantly for
very small periods of time.

but you don't need a physicist to tell you that if there was ever a state in
which nothing existed, it was not a stable state. The universe is evidence
of that.

Maybe things can appear out of nowhere, on earth, or even in space. But these places are not 'empty'. Even space has radiation etc... I'm talking about the absolute beginning. Where nothing can feed itself on anything for creation, so to speak. It's all very interesting and way over my head anyways.

[Skybird]

Regarding an "absolute point of beginning", in our low-dimensional thinking this causes always problems. where you define a point of start, you must answer the question: if nothing was before, why did something start then, and where? Where is the ending line? If nothing was before the universe, inside which environment could the universe suddenly take place, then? Why should it even do? An expanding universe, they say- so there is something that is outside the universe? A metaverse? Universes in universes, arranged in metaverses, that form clusters of metaverses organised in even higher hierarchial structures, ad infinitum?

We do not know. and we are trapped inside the patterns and categories of our thinking.Only the language of mathematics allows us to step beyond out limitations - but we cannot be sure that what mathetics show us, can be taken for real, we do not know if what we imagine the abstract statement to be in "reality" really matches "reality" - if we even can imagine a mathematical abstraction at all (and often we cannot).

I myself think that this thinking in terms of beginnings and endings and Big Bangs creates more problems than answers.

Science gives answers including the big bang - that is a variation of the "there was an absolute beginning"-type of thinking. It is a linear thinking, where things move along the arrow of time from the beginning to the end. But as always, science's answer is a theory that tries to arrange thoughts and observations as best as possible in order to make them cooperating and corresponding in the best way we can currently see. It is no final answer. I personally find the idea that there was nothing and then there was all and everything unfolding by just a big BANG!, to be as unsatisfying as the imganination that a god has created it all. It causes more questions than it seems to answer.

There are things, to which the answers we simply do not know. And imagining that our fantasies can serve as an answer, does not change the fact that we still do not know.

What is so difficult in saying these simple words: We/I do not know? We are aware of a lack in knowledge, that means. And this already influences us, changes us, gives orientation to our ambitions and motivations. To admit a lacking knowledge is nothing negative at all. and in our little sphere of existence, Newton's physics still remain valid and help us to master the challenges of our veryday lives.

In the end, we do not even know for sure if all those galaxies our telescopes showing us by looking back in time, are real, or not, and the image is that of past times anyway, we do not know what the present looks like. And if all the universe our telescopes show us when looking beyond our galaxy, would already no longer exist in this very moment we are living in - we would not know.

That puts some things into relation, doesn't it.

Seen that way that cup of tea on my table, slowly becoming too cold to be enjoyable anymore, is a million times more imprtant to be adressed than all science in the world. Because it could very well be the last cup of tea i will ever have. If there is one thing I really have learned about life, than this: the next moment is completely uncertain, we do not know what life will bring us in the next year, the next day, even the next minute. the only certainty we have is, that one day it all will end for us, that one day we will die, that our stay in this existence comes to an ultimate, undisputable, non-negotiable end. whether there is something after death, or before birth, is speculation. we do not know. This absolute certainty makes this information the most certain and precious knowledge we have. And the only real knowledge we have, too.

All we can do is living on and trying to be ready for what we can foresee. And actually such a life - already is very much.

Originally Posted by my interpretation of LaoTse

1

The One Essence that could be known,
Is not the essence of the Unknowable.
The idea that could be imagined,
Is not the image of the Eternal.
Nameless is the all-One, is inner Essence.
Known by names is the all-Many, is outer form.
Resting without desires, means to reach the invisible inside.
Acting with desires, means to stay by the limited outside.
The all-One and the all-Many are of the same origin,
Different only in appearance and in name.
What they have in common is the wonder of being.
The secret of this wonder
Is the gate to true understanding.



2

One who thinks: Beauty, by that causes: Ugliness.
One who thinks: Good, by that causes: Evil.
Being and Non-Being are contingent upon each other.
Difficult and Easy are contingent upon each other.
High and Low are contingent upon each other.
Loud and Quiet are contingent upon each other.
Now and Then are contingent upon each other.

Therefore the wise man:
He let’s himself cause, without wanting to do,
And lives, without wanting to name the many things.
Innumerable forms rise from the Void,
But he lets them, and does not attach himself to them.
Creating, without wanting to possess,
Living, without clinging to life,
Causing, without dwelling on it.
Because he does not attach himself to it,
He suffers no loss.

I still have to remain officialy neutral as I don't accept Creationism or Evolutionism as being fact. However, as far as this debate goes, the evolutionists have the upper hand. Nobody on the evolutionist side has tryed to push their beliefs as hard fact. The creationist side can't make this claim.

My personal perspective is that religion is a way of uniting and controling people.

What is the difference between a religion and a cult?
The number of believers, and nothing more.
Yesterday's cult is todays religion.
Yesterday's religion is todays cult or mytholigy.

"Gee, what a co-insidence" that many stories of the bible are copies of stories from the old gods and godesses (Odin, Frigg, Freja, Tyr, osv.).

How many people have been killed "in the name of god"???

I find the theory of evolution to be equaly as absurd BUT, nobody here has tryed to claim it as irrefutable fact. There lies a huge difference.