Jump to content


Photo

Who Created The Creator


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
19 replies to this topic

#1 colm

colm

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ireland

Posted 17 November 2005 - 09:40 AM

This isn't really like the "Who created God" question because if we assume God is the all-powerful being that the Bible is on about then He doesn't need a creator.. This question is more directed at the generic "Intelligent Design" idea, which, it seems, doesn't require God, and my question is this:

According to the statement of Intelligent Design, any Universe that could possibly support life - such as ours - is far to complex and intricate to be natural - there must be a super-intelligent being which designed every part of it to make it fit together. Even the forces that hold the atoms together would have to be fine-tuned or atoms would either fly apart of be too stuck together to be useful.

But, if that's the case, then surely the universe that the Designer lives (or lived) in must be just as complex - if not more so (to support super-intelligent life) - so how could it be a natural phenomenon?

To put it another way, if life is impossible without preceding life, how did the first life come about?

#2 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 17 November 2005 - 10:12 AM

This isn't really like the "Who created God" question because if we assume God is the all-powerful being that the Bible is on about then He doesn't need a creator.. This question is more directed at the generic "Intelligent Design" idea, which, it seems, doesn't require God, and my question is this:

According to the statement of Intelligent Design, any Universe that could possibly support life - such as ours - is far to complex and intricate to be natural - there must be a super-intelligent being which designed every part of it to make it fit together. Even the forces that hold the atoms together would have to be fine-tuned or atoms would either fly apart of be too stuck together to be useful.

But, if that's the case, then surely the universe that the Designer lives (or lived) in must be just as complex - if not more so (to support super-intelligent life) - so how could it be a natural phenomenon?

To put it another way, if life is impossible without preceding life, how did the first life come about?

View Post

I believe that there are things that are eternal. Matter is eternal (first law of thermodynamics.) I also believe that God is eternal. He literally has no beginning. I know this sounds irrational, but there are lots of things in the universe that are infinite and eternal. For example, space. As inconceivable as it is to contemplate a never ending universe, yet it's more inconceivable to imagine how it could end. If space is infinite, then could not matter also be infinite?
It is clear that such beliefs are beyond any scope of science to validate. However, remember that the proposition that ID is operative does not depend on any particular belief in a personal God... only that some form of intelligence was involved.
There's a fundamental difference between this and a belief in evolution. Evolutionists assert that this world came about through naturalistic causes that are within the realm of science to understand. They insist that there is no supreme being, no intelligent design. Thus, they need to explain how it happened. Proponents of ID also believe in natural laws, but affirm that these laws are beyond the scope of science to understand. Thus, they are not obliged to explain how a creator operated or how He came to be.

#3 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 November 2005 - 02:05 PM

To put it another way, if life is impossible without preceding life, how did the first life come about?


If your asking about biological life, then you are certainly headed in the right direction. What is known about life, says that this would not happen on its own.

I still think this is essentially the question of, "what was the uncaused-1st-cause?". IMO, Evolutionists/materialists essentially believe that matter was its own cause.

Christians, believe that God was the uncaused-1st-cause.

Observational science is the study of cause-and-effect relationships in real time. This is why science can only speculate about the past, and never actually demonstrate it.

The only way to know for sure what happened in the past is if somone who was there to witness the past, can tell us what happened.

One way to look at your problem is this:

All information requires a sender, but that sender had to have someone to give him the information, and the next, so on and so forth.

So we end up with an infinite regression of sources, which is the same as a single infinite source.

The bible calls that source Yahway, which literally means, "the self-existing one". We call him God, and his son the Lord Jesus Christ.

Terry

#4 colm

colm

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ireland

Posted 18 November 2005 - 06:40 AM

Thus, they are not obliged to explain how a creator operated or how He came to be.


I am not really asking for an explanation of how the creator came to be.... though I might have made it sound that way.

What I really want to know is how ID proponents can resolve this contradiction. That is, that while the universe is too complicated to be a natural phenomenon (this is the key cause for the belief in ID), the creator of the universe - which must be just as complicated (or Him/Herself live in a universe just as complicated) is not.

I see that the theory of a natural universe is termed as a "flukist" theory by the ID promoting website that brought me to this forum - and by others, because they think the probability of one forming is so low.

But the idea that a realm which lies "outside the laws of science" exists, let alone that it can spawn an intelligence amidst the chaos of not having scientific laws, and that that intelligence can stay together for long enough to create a universe (without the attractive force of atoms), is far more incredible - and less probable.

If a universe as complicated as ours cannot be formed without outside help, how can one even accept the possibility of that outside help being formed? Especially since no evidence of this outside help has ever been found?

#5 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 November 2005 - 02:04 PM

What I really want to know is how ID proponents can resolve this contradiction. That is, that while the universe is too complicated to be a natural phenomenon (this is the key cause for the belief in ID), the creator of the universe - which must be just as complicated (or Him/Herself live in a universe just as complicated) is not.


You cannot resolve everything. No one is saying that God is not more complicated or sophisticated than nature. The different is that God is not bound by the laws of nature as we know them

When people make the claim that the universe is too complicated to have evolved into what we see, the laws of nature are implicit in that statement. They do not apply do God since he is outside of creation, and operates in a difference dimension that nature does.

But the idea that a realm which lies "outside the laws of science" exists, let alone that it can spawn an intelligence amidst the chaos of not having scientific laws, and that that intelligence can stay together for long enough to create a universe (without the attractive force of atoms), is far more incredible - and less probable.


You can only state the probabilty based on a known set of circumstances. You do not know what it is like outside of this universe since you are confined to it.

As previously stated, there was an uncased-1st-cause, that's a fact. Now, which do you prefer, one that agrees with the laws of physics, or one that contradicts the laws of physics?

If a universe as complicated as ours cannot be formed without outside help, how can one even accept the possibility of that outside help being formed? Especially since no evidence of this outside help has ever been found?


Creation is evidence of the outside help. That's why the Bible starts off with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", and why it also says:

ROM 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
ROM 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

You do not see the evidence because you choose not to see it, not because it is not there.

Terry

#6 colm

colm

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ireland

Posted 19 November 2005 - 09:44 PM

Well I was really refering to this Intelligent Design theory which proponents believe does not require "God" as such (at least not the one mentioned in the Bible). i.e. the notion which is entirely based on the thought that the universe is too complicated to have been created on its own.

When people make the claim that the universe is too complicated to have evolved into what we see, the laws of nature are implicit in that statement.  They do not apply do God since he is outside of creation, and operates in a difference dimension that nature does.
You can only state the probabilty based on a known set of circumstances.  You do not know what it is like outside of this universe since you are confined to it.


So what you are saying is that there is a much simpler "Solution" to a universe capable of supporting intelligence, and in this one, God (or the hypothetical creator) exists? Because if His universe is in anyway as complex as ours (which I think it must be), then His one is as impossible to have been created naturally as our one is. And if His one has no rules at all, then He could not possibly exist.

And if there can be an uncaused first cause, then why can't it be our universe?

As previously stated, there was an uncased-1st-cause, that's a fact.  Now, which do you prefer, one that agrees with the laws of physics, or one that contradicts the laws of physics?


One that agrees, of course.

Creation is evidence of the outside help.  That's why the Bible starts off with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", and why it also says:


First of all I no more consider the Bible "evidence" of Creation any more than I consider The Origin Of The Species evidence of Evolution. Both are just books, either fact or fiction.

You do not see the evidence because you choose not to see it, not because it is not there.


Well where is it and I'll take a look? :o

Colm

#7 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 November 2005 - 09:59 PM

This isn't really like the "Who created God" question because if we assume God is the all-powerful being that the Bible is on about then He doesn't need a creator.. This question is more directed at the generic "Intelligent Design" idea, which, it seems, doesn't require God, and my question is this:

According to the statement of Intelligent Design, any Universe that could possibly support life - such as ours - is far to complex and intricate to be natural - there must be a super-intelligent being which designed every part of it to make it fit together. Even the forces that hold the atoms together would have to be fine-tuned or atoms would either fly apart of be too stuck together to be useful.

But, if that's the case, then surely the universe that the Designer lives (or lived) in must be just as complex - if not more so (to support super-intelligent life) - so how could it be a natural phenomenon?

To put it another way, if life is impossible without preceding life, how did the first life come about?

View Post


The Stanley Miller experiment tried to explain this. But they did not include all the problems, plus where Stanely actually cheated to get his results.

It's about halfway down the page on this link: Stanley miller
If your not familiar with this, notice as you look it up on search engines that the problems are never included on any science page. Which makes a person who does not know think that life is as easy as baking a cake. Which is why it was done this way, just like a lot of science is.

#8 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 November 2005 - 04:15 AM

And if there can be an uncaused first cause, then why can't it be our universe?
One that agrees, of course.


The 1st law of thermodynamics says that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. The concept that matter/energy created itself is a contradition to that law, and a logical absurdity.

The logical solution is that someone that is above that law created matter and energy and the laws that come with them.

Everything that has a beginning has a cause. We also know from the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics that the universe had a beginning, and as a result a cause.

So, from a scientific standpoint, it makes more sense to posit a God who is infinte and without cause, as the uncaused-1st-cause, instead of the universe which cannot be since we know it had a beginning.

First of all I no more consider the Bible "evidence" of Creation any more than I consider The Origin Of The Species evidence of Evolution. Both are just books, either fact or fiction.


Both are books, that's true, but one was authored by the uncaused-1st cause, and the other authored by a person who hated the uncaused-1st cause.

You know, absolute truth exists, moral laws exist, and the laws of physics exists. These things leads us to the point, where we must consider if a God exists or not. After all, what law does not require a law giver? And if he does exist, then does he have anything to say?

I believe that God has something to say, and I believe that the Bible is the place where a person who has positive volition toward God will end up. Where are you headed?

Well where is it and I'll take a look? :o


Take a good look in the mirror, and ask yourself: Is "I think thefore I am", or "random muations and natural selection" really enough to explain what your looking at, and whats' going on inside your head? Are you really just a self-aware overstuffed microbe?????

Terry

#9 colm

colm

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ireland

Posted 22 November 2005 - 05:41 AM

The 1st law of thermodynamics says that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.  The concept that matter/energy created itself is a contradition to that law, and a logical absurdity.

The logical solution is that someone that is above that law created matter and energy and the laws that come with them.


I don't understand how you are arriving at that "logical solution"... It's more of a "hypothetical alternative". There is any number of hypotheses for how the energy for the Big Bang could have got there... One is that that was the beginning of time, another is that it was caused by matter-antimatter interaction, or maybe it was always there (if God can be infinite, then why can't plain simple energy be?)... They are just three examples off the top of my head, I'm sure people who have studied the thing may be able to come up with more.

(By the way, to say that God "put" the energy there for the Big Bang, would still be anti-biblical and anti-creationist, as it would still allow for the gradual development of the universe over billions of years, and finally the creation of Earth and the evolution of life on it.)

Both are books, that's true, but one was authored by the uncaused-1st cause

That fact is only true, if you first assume it's true.

After all, what law does not require a law giver?


A law of physics perhaps?

Take a good look in the mirror, and ask yourself: Is "I think thefore I am", or "random muations and natural selection" really enough to explain what your looking at, and whats' going on inside your head?  Are you really just a self-aware overstuffed microbe?????


It's not a microscope mirror so I can't tell.

However, we are still left with the paradox of a superintelligent being living in a reality where life cannot be created without a pre-existing superintelligent being. Any theories of uncaused first effects can be applied to our universe just as they can be applied to any God's.

#10 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 November 2005 - 10:51 PM

That fact is only true, if you first assume it's true.


That fact is only true, if its true. Assumptions have no bearing on reality.

A law of physics perhaps?


Perhaps not.....

It's not a microscope mirror so I can't tell.


You don't need a micrscope, you need to think about it.

However, we are still left with the paradox of a superintelligent being living in a reality where life cannot be created without a pre-existing superintelligent being. Any theories of uncaused first effects can be applied to our universe just as they can be applied to any God's.


That's only true if you posit a finite God that needs a cause. As stated before, there was an uncaused 1st cause, and an infinite God makes more sense than anything else, at least to me as the solution to that problem.

In the Bible, that's what the name of God, i.e. Yahwey, means, "I am that I am", "the self existing one".

Jesus Christ also claimed to be God, when he told the Jews:

"Before Abraham was, I am".

He demonstrated it by rasing himself from the dead.

Finally, I think its worth asking again, do you really believe your just a self-aware overstuffed microbe?

Terry

#11 colm

colm

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ireland

Posted 25 November 2005 - 05:41 AM

Finally, I think its worth asking again, do you really believe your just a self-aware overstuffed microbe?


Obviously I don't believe I'm a microbe as I'm several tens of thousands of times taller than a microbe, and arguably more intelligent :)

The truth is that I am not sure what I am, all I can believe is my own eyes, ears, and judgement. To me the idea that I was created by a magician in the sky with infinite powers who no one has ever seen or heard from, and if I follow his rules - not that I have a choice - an invisible (and again never observed) entity will rise from my corpse after I die, take my sense of self-awareness, and ascend out of the universe and into a utopian place called Heaven - where no one has ever come back from to tell us about it... is far more far fetched than the other idea - that is that I am the result of a highly evolved and extremely complex chain of chemical reactions, electrical signals, reproductions, mutations and natural selection - all which *have* been observed, and around which there is a whole field of science (biology) - over millions of years.

But all this is aside from my initial question which is...
The whole idea of "Intelligent Design", i.e. that the universe was created by a higher being, relies on the assumption that there cannot be an uncaused first cause (i.e. our universe). However it also requires the possibility, probability in fact, of an uncaused first cause (the universe in which the creator lives, and the creator itself).

You don't need a micrscope, you need to think about it.


Yes but thinking about it requires me to rise above instinctual feelings such as faith,process the information available, and use common sense and logic... The information given in the Bible (the only source, I might add), goes against the available information and common sense and logic. The only thing remaining is faith. And faith by itself should never be used by a civilised being to make decisions or draw conclusions.

#12 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 25 November 2005 - 07:21 AM

quote=colm,Nov 25 2005, 05:41 AM


The truth is that I am not sure what I am, all I can believe is my own eyes, ears, and judgement. To me the idea that I was created by a magician in the sky with infinite powers who no one has ever seen or heard from,...


You have assumed that because you have never received a revelation from God that no one else has.

Yes but thinking about it requires me to rise above instinctual feelings such as faith,process the information available, and use common sense and logic...


Faith is not blind, but is based on evidence.

The information given in the Bible (the only source, I might add), goes against the available information and common sense and logic. 


Remember that the Bible was not written by one man, but many… each of which independently testified of what he knew. You actually have many witnesses, including the earth and everything on it, all of which testify of a Supreme Being.
You can be assured that the Bible is true if you read it, honestly try to live by its precepts, and sincerely seek God in prayer and ask Him to reveal it to your mind if it is true.

The only thing remaining is faith. And faith by itself should never be used by a civilised being to make decisions or draw conclusions.

Faith is the power by which worlds were created

#13 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2005 - 02:01 PM

Obviously I don't believe I'm a microbe as I'm several tens of thousands of times taller than a microbe, and arguably more intelligent :)



I didn't ask if you were a microbe, but an overstuffed self-aware microbe.... If you pay close attention to the creation vs. evolution debate, in one sene that is what this boils down to.

To me the idea that I was created by a magician in the sky with infinite powers who no one has ever seen or heard from, and if I follow his rules - not that I have a choice - an invisible (and again never observed) entity will rise from my corpse after I die, take my sense of self-awareness, and ascend out of the universe and into a utopian place called Heaven - where no one has ever come back from to tell us about it...


The God of the Bible is not a magician in the sky. His name is Jesus Christ, and he created you for a number of reasons, none of which were to make you do anything.

He came down from heaven and told us about it, so its not true that no one has ever been there to tell us about it.

is far more far fetched than the other idea - that is that I am the result of a highly evolved and extremely complex chain of chemical reactions, electrical signals, reproductions, mutations and natural selection  - all which *have* been observed, and around which there is a whole field of science (biology) - over millions of years.


This is where you are painfully wrong, none of what has been observed can account for goo-to-you evolution.

The whole idea of "Intelligent Design", i.e. that the universe was created by a higher being, relies on the assumption that there cannot be an uncaused first cause (i.e. our universe). However it also requires the possibility, probability in fact, of an uncaused first cause (the universe in which the creator lives, and the creator itself).


This is not an assumption, its a logical conclusion. If you study cause-and-effect relationships, which is what observational science is, there has to be an uncaused-1st-cause, theres is no way around that. This however only applies to materialistic observations, which God is not since his is a non-material being. Also being infinite, he does not require an original cause, he just is.

Yes but thinking about it requires me to rise above instinctual feelings such as faith,process the information available, and use common sense and logic...


Faith is not an instictual feeling, its a bonafide system of perception. Faith is a transitive verb, and requires an obbject to complete its meaning. Evreyone, including you learns by faith. You have not emperically tested, or rationally proved everything you believe, so to say otherwise, is not being honest with yourself.

The information given in the Bible (the only source, I might add), goes against the available information and common sense and logic.


What I've found is that on the surface, this certainly appears to be true, but when you look a layer deeper you discover that its not true.

The same is with evolution, on the surface it looks appealing, but a look a layer deeper, and you see that its not.

That's the paradox that God has set up for man.

Terry

#14 colm

colm

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ireland

Posted 28 November 2005 - 05:54 AM

I didn't ask if you were a microbe, but an overstuffed self-aware microbe.... 


What I meant was that I don't consider myself a microbe, over-stuffed and self-aware or otherwise. However, I do accept the possibility that there may once have been microbes, who reproduced (as is their way), mutated, evolved through natural selection and gradually over time became more and more complex, and over millions of years descendants of descendants became simple animals, and through competition and a need to survive their descendants of descendants became more complex and functional animals, and so on, until one particular group of descendants developed intelligence and quite useful bodies, and one of their descendants is me. So my great great great great great 1000000000000 more greats grandfather may have been a microbe, but I am a long way from him/her/it.

The God of the Bible is not a magician in the sky.  His name is Jesus Christ, and he created you for a number of reasons, none of which were to make you do anything.
He came down from heaven and told us about it, so its not true that no one has ever been there to tell us about it.


...assuming one believes the Bible - a several-teen century old document - to be true (which assumes It was true when It was written).

This is where you are painfully wrong, none of what has been observed can account for goo-to-you evolution.


Fossils of dinosaurs and other creatures? Stone-age tools? Carbon 14? All of these can account for at least the fact that the world was around and contained life a long time before Adam and Eve.

This is not an assumption, its a logical conclusion. If you study cause-and-effect relationships, which is what observational science is, there has to be an uncaused-1st-cause, theres is no way around that.  This however only applies to materialistic observations, which God is not since his is a non-material being.  Also being infinite, he does not require an original cause, he just is. 


In a bid to seem more scientific, the Intelligent Design (as opposed to Creation) proponents try to say there is no link between the "theory" of Intelligent Design and religion. This is because to say "It's true because the Bible says it's true" is not scientific. (And this, by the way, is what the Evolution vs Creation debate boils down to in one sentence)

Now if you follow the Intelligent Design train of thought, you cannot count the Bible as evidence for the hypothesis as it is a faith-based book, so you're left with *no* evidence and as well as that the contradiction that I mentioned ealier.

If you follow the Creation train of thought, you don't have to have a problem with that contradiction because you have your "God is infinite" belief, however you still are left with the fact that you treat the Bible as a source of evidence, which is unscientific, furthermore, you ignore all other sources of evidence, which is even more unscientific.

Faith is not an instictual feeling, its a bonafide system of perception.  Faith is a transitive verb, and requires an obbject to complete its meaning.  Evreyone, including you learns by faith.  You have not emperically tested, or rationally proved everything you believe, so to say otherwise, is not being honest with yourself.


True I haven't. However, when it comes to contradictory accounts of the same thing, I make a judgement based on which is more likely.

Science is testable, therefore even if I myself haven't tested it, others have, which is great because many scientists are in competition with each other and would love to prove each other wrong if they could. Science is changeable, which means that if someone discovers what we believed is wrong, it can be modified to be correct. Science uses multiple sources of evidence, hypotheses, predictions and experiments to draw conclusions.

Religion on the other hand is not testable, it relies on faith, which pretty much boils down to how you were brought up. It's not changeable because of this belief it's the word of God and therefore could not be wrong (which is why it still has "theories" from the dark ages). If something *does* change, there's a big argument and it usually divides the religion into two parts, each of whose members have such a deep resentment for each other that in many cases, they refuse to associate with each other, and in some cases to the point of violence (though I accept that often religion is used as an excuse for violence and oppression rather than being the cause of it, you'd never see scientists dividing Jerusalem or Belfast into the Newtonian Gravitists vs Einsteinian Gravitists ), and finally religion uses only one source of evidence - the Bible.... Oh and trying to pick holes in existing scientific like politicians.

The same is with evolution, on the surface it looks appealing, but a look a layer deeper, and you see that its not.


Actually I've found it to be the other way around. At first evolution seems non-sensical and that beings are magically becoming better all the time, however when you look deeper into it, and see what they are actually saying, it all makes perfect logical sense.

The reason I don't like faith is because faith is pretty much believing what everyone tells you. At first it seems like many different people are telling you the same thing so it must be true, until you realise that they all got their information from the same place - the Bible (and their parents/priests/teachers, etc.) It's a result of mental conditioning which begins usually before one is old enough to reason for oneself, so it's more like training an animal than proper logical debate and discussion. One usually believes in religion because that's all they've known. As part of their mental make up, they think, "Of course it's true, what else could it be?", even after they've learned to think for themselves.

#15 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2005 - 05:38 PM

What I meant was that I don't consider myself a microbe, over-stuffed and self-aware or otherwise. However, I do accept the possibility that there may once have been microbes, who reproduced (as is their way), mutated, evolved through natural selection and gradually over time became more and more complex, and over millions of years descendants of descendants became simple animals, and through competition and a need to survive their descendants of descendants became more complex and functional animals, and so on, until one particular group of descendants developed intelligence and quite useful bodies, and one of their descendants is me. So my great great great great great 1000000000000 more greats grandfather may have been a microbe, but I am a long way from him/her/it.



I'll take that as a yes.....

Fossils of dinosaurs and other creatures? Stone-age tools? Carbon 14? All of these can account for at least the fact that the world was around and contained life a long time before Adam and Eve.


Dinosaurs were on the ark. Of course the "scientific community" rejects that idea, but that's also why they are surprised to find t-rex bones that are not completely fossilized with heme type material in them.....

This is because to say "It's true because the Bible says it's true" is not scientific. (And this, by the way, is what the Evolution vs Creation debate boils down to in one sentence)


If the Bible says its true, its true. Scientific obervations should line up with the bible in all respects, except in the case of divine intervention. E.g. Jesus walking on the water.

True I haven't. However, when it comes to contradictory accounts of the same thing, I make a judgement based on which is more likely.

Science is testable, therefore even if I myself haven't tested it, others have, which is great because many scientists are in competition with each other and would love to prove each other wrong if they could. Science is changeable, which means that if someone discovers what we believed is wrong, it can be modified to be correct. Science uses multiple sources of evidence, hypotheses, predictions and experiments to draw conclusions.


One must be carefull when putting forth the idea that science is testable. The past cannot be tested. We can only interpret data within a framework. If you pick the wrong frarmework, you can be entirely wrong, no matter how much things "appear" to agree.

The reason I don't like faith is because faith is pretty much believing what everyone tells you. At first it seems like many different people are telling you the same thing so it must be true, until you realise that they all got their information from the same place - the Bible (and their parents/priests/teachers, etc.) It's a result of mental conditioning which begins usually before one is old enough to reason for oneself, so it's more like training an animal than proper logical debate and discussion. One usually believes in religion because that's all they've known. As part of their mental make up, they think, "Of course it's true, what else could it be?", even after they've learned to think for themselves.


That's your choice, but in the end you will face that decision, and live in eternity by it.

Terry

#16 Guest_wepwawet_*

Guest_wepwawet_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2005 - 06:29 PM

One must be carefull when putting forth the idea that science is testable.  The past cannot be tested.  We can only interpret data within a framework.  If you pick the wrong frarmework, you can be entirely wrong, no matter how much things "appear" to agree.
Terry

View Post

A quick point Terry: The past can be tested. Each day we discover more and more evidence of the past, our theories of what happened in the past can be weighed against that evidence to see how well they match with the physical evidence. Certainly if you're trying to go back to the Cambrian Explosion this presents problems, but at least from the point of the beginnings of human history we can find lots of things that validate or invalidate what we believe of the past. We've seen plenty of folks misinterpret evidence in the past to convincingly say we're not fooling ourselves with our current theories, but we have at least discarded many demonstrably false theories along the way.

The trick is all in demonstrating them false...even the miasm theory of disease had some utility by keeping people away from conditions known to cause certain diseases even if the whole theory is absolutely wrong. So we may still gain some use from current theories until something better comes along.

#17 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2005 - 07:46 PM

A quick point Terry: The past can be tested. Each day we discover more and more evidence of the past, our theories of what happened in the past can be weighed against that evidence to see how well they match with the physical evidence.


You absolutely cannot emperically test the past. You can make tests in real time, and make assumptions about how they may apply to the past, but you cannot test the past.

I had a long discussion some years ago with an agnostic physicist, and while he belived nothing I told him about creation, he agreed with me on that point. He also agreed that it was very risky to assume that you can take measurements made today, and then assume that they realiably extrapolate to the past.

What you end up with is a forensic case, and that's fine, as long as all of the assumptions are on the table when the case is presented to the jury.

I don't want to go into an age of the earth discussion here, but a good is examaple is radiometric dating. If nuclear decay rates have always been the same, then there is potential evidence that the earth is old. If they have not always been the same, then the earth may not be that old.

These issues stand by themselves, and supporting one assumption with another assumption does not make for a scientific fact, but for a potential house of cards built on sand.....

Terry

#18 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 24 January 2006 - 07:44 PM

This isn't really like the "Who created God" question because if we assume God is the all-powerful being that the Bible is on about then He doesn't need a creator.. This question is more directed at the generic "Intelligent Design" idea, which, it seems, doesn't require God, and my question is this:

According to the statement of Intelligent Design, any Universe that could possibly support life - such as ours - is far to complex and intricate to be natural - there must be a super-intelligent being which designed every part of it to make it fit together. Even the forces that hold the atoms together would have to be fine-tuned or atoms would either fly apart of be too stuck together to be useful.

But, if that's the case, then surely the universe that the Designer lives (or lived) in must be just as complex - if not more so (to support super-intelligent life) - so how could it be a natural phenomenon?

To put it another way, if life is impossible without preceding life, how did the first life come about?

View Post



The bible shows how God is outside of time, God is not bound by time. In fact he created time.
And the Earth/universe and all of creation was all created within 6 literal days.

The forces that hold atoms together is Gods will, his design. It is all a fine-tuned just the way he tuned it all.
God sustains the universe and all life, not the other way around.

The universe does not support God, he spoke it into existance as shown in Genesis.
The bible also states that God was not created, he was just always there. The Alpha and the Omega, no beginning and no end, as I stated earlier, he is outside of what we know as time.




Louie Buren <><
The Answers Depot

Attached Files



#19 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 January 2006 - 01:50 AM

Something that is eternal would not need to be created.

#20 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 25 January 2006 - 04:01 PM

This isn't really like the "Who created God" question because if we assume God is the all-powerful being that the Bible is on about then He doesn't need a creator.. This question is more directed at the generic "Intelligent Design" idea, which, it seems, doesn't require God, and my question is this:

According to the statement of Intelligent Design, any Universe that could possibly support life - such as ours - is far to complex and intricate to be natural - there must be a super-intelligent being which designed every part of it to make it fit together. Even the forces that hold the atoms together would have to be fine-tuned or atoms would either fly apart of be too stuck together to be useful.

But, if that's the case, then surely the universe that the Designer lives (or lived) in must be just as complex - if not more so (to support super-intelligent life) - so how could it be a natural phenomenon?

To put it another way, if life is impossible without preceding life, how did the first life come about?

View Post


The problem behind assumptions such as these is that we are thinking in the limited terms we know. Not in the terms of infinity.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users