A Case For Creation

[lazur]

yet here i am not imagining something way out of all experience to fill the gaps.

You can't fill the gaps. That's part of the issue and what makes it all so mysterious.

If there is no 'creator', then it all came from nothing. How can that be? What's your theory on that?

 

[Maxwell Smart]

I don't really believe that their are truly athiest in the world (that have atleast a miniscule amount of intelligence anyway), for the simple reasone that nothing that exists can bring itself into existance. This is why I give more credence to deist over an "athiest" for being a little more critical in their thinking.

Notice how I don't call everybody dumb who is a Monotheist, yet you have no problem insinuating Atheists are unintelligent. Yeah, that works out perfectly. I guess my uncle(who is an Atheist and also was Valedictorian of his High school and has a 150 IQ) is a figment of my imagination?


While we are into stereotyping people, why don't you go **** your sister you Tennessee hick?

 

[Danalys]

you presume there was ever a time where there was absolutely nothing. or that the sum total now isn't nothing.

 

[Maxwell Smart]

He basically posted a long winded version of an Argument from Incredulity. "Gee, I just don't get how "A" coulda happened and I can't understand anyone's explanation of "A", therefore it must be from (insert Deity here).

Thats like me walking into a room to find a table with a bowl of punch on it, and saying because I don't see how the table got in here and cannot understand how the bowl of punch was made or got onto the table, then Rumplestiltskin must have done it!

 

[Man-Thing]

Notice how I don't call everybody dumb who is a Monotheist, yet you have no problem insinuating Atheists are unintelligent. Yeah, that works out perfectly. I guess my uncle(who is an Atheist and also was Valedictorian of his High school and has a 150 IQ) is a figment of my imagination?


While we are into stereotyping people, why don't you go **** your sister you Tennessee hick?

wasn't meaning to insult you, sorry. The point I was trying to make is that I don't think people become athiest by reason, but do so to reject the idea of God.

Hey I've been wrong many times, and yes I am sterotyping, but I just can't see how a prophessing athiest can have peace in their mind between their conscience and their intelligence.

And I know for a fact that many athiest probably even yourself are highly more intelligent than I.

 

[Maxwell Smart]

you presume there was ever a time where there was absolutely nothing. or that the sum total now isn't nothing.

You know, its funny. He keeps saying that this "Why" is something beyond our comprehension. But doesn't he stop to think that the fact our universe is infinite and timeless is beyond our normal Human comprehension? There isn't anybody who TRUELY grasps these concepts, but we know of them.

Perhaps that "Thing beyond comprehension" he alludes to is infact the infiniteness of the Universe. The fact that is goes on forever, and the fact that it has no beginning nor end chronologically. Remember, time is a concept in our minds.

 

[celldog]

Thats like me walking into a room to find a table with a bowl of punch on it, and saying because I don't see how the table got in here and cannot understand how the bowl of punch was made or got onto the table, then Rumplestiltskin must have done it!

That's actually a great argument for intelligent design. Logic dictates that something or someone caused that to be set up.

 

[bored]

Every theory or fact can be smashed with one simple question: Why?

No matter how much you may lean on science as an explanation for all of your beliefs (or to refute the beliefs of others), the question of WHY it works the way it works will always overshadow any available explanation.

WHY does gravity exist? Since it does exist, WHY does it work the way it works? Why doesn't it work in reverse? For example, why isn't gravity greater with smaller objects instead of larger? Or why does it exist at all?

Can you really make any conclusions OTHER than "well, the larger the object, the greater the force of gravity it produces because of how much more mass it contains"? That all crumbles under the question of WHY. We CREATED that explanation based on the way it appears to work to us. If it worked differently, there'd be a different scientific explanation, no? The real question is - WHY does mass create gravity?

Why does heat burn and why does cold freeze? Why not the reverse? Why is something slippery as opposed to sticky? What if the colder something got, the softer it became and what if the hotter something got, the harder it became? Doesn't make sense, right? But if things worked that way in reality, it certainly would make sense, wouldn't it?

Aren't we merely subjects to a reality as it exists in the here and now? Well who decides how our reality works? Why does it work a certain way and not another way?

Do you know that scientists and doctors STILL to this day do not understand why something actually lives? Sure, they can explain all of the biological functions of a body, but they do not understand, nor can it be explained, WHY those biological functions actually make sense and work. Do you realize that if we were to ever fully understand WHY life works, we'd be able to revive the dead? Think about it.

Yet, we're going to sit here with all of our boldness and ignorance and question the beliefs of others when we ourselves haven't a clue? How can anyone sit here and pretend to know anything when the most BASIC questions of WHY cannot be answered, despite all of our knowledge and technology.

Why does a bird fly? Because it has wings? Why does it have wings? Because it evolved that way? Why did it, and not other animals, evolve to have wings? Why did some animals evolve to grow gills and breathe water? Why are humans, and not apes or dolphins, the most intelligent beings on the planet, yet the ones less able to live in harmony with the rest of its inhabitants, or with each other?

Sure, we can answer these questions the way we might peel away the different layers of an onion. But when it gets right to the core and there's nothing left to peel back, there is still a question of WHY. And at that core, I believe, is something far greater than we can comprehend.

Science can only explain the LAYERS - not what's underneath, pulling the strings, causing those layers to stack up.

The question of where we came from can be answered in two ways, imo. We either came from something or we came from nothing.

I have a hard time believing that we came from nothing. That we, and the rest of the universe, just sprouted out of nowhere for no reason at all. That's incomprehensible to me.

But what is comprehensible, at least to me, even if I don't fully grasp it, is that there's something we can't begin to understand at work. Who knows if we'll ever understand it. My guess is that we won't.

Know why science doesn't explain the 'why'? Because that's not what science is about. It exists to explain the 'how'. The 'why' is a whole other ballpark.

 

[Bill]

I don't really believe that their are truly athiest in the world (that have atleast a miniscule amount of intelligence anyway), for the simple reasone that nothing that exists can bring itself into existance. This is why I give more credence to deist over an "athiest" for being a little more critical in their thinking.

I don't think any atheist, and certainly no scientist, makes that argument. I don't give much credence to the critical thinking abilities of some deists because they tend to put the cart before the horse. To the deist, the conclusions are already assumed, and the evidence must now be made to fit the conclusion. In their eyes, the conclusions simply cannot be in error, so if the evidence indicates otherwise, it is either ignored or misinterpreted. I couldn't begin to call that "critical thinking" at all.

 

[bored]

That's actually a great argument for inteeligent design. Logic dictates that something or someone caused that to be set up.

I think you miss the point. His post was about how someone assumes that, since they personally don't know how it got there, then obviously it was put there by something supernatural.

 

[bored]

wasn't meaning to insult you, sorry. The point I was trying to make is that I don't think people become athiest by reason, but do so to reject the idea of God.

Hey I've been wrong many times, and yes I am sterotyping, but I just can't see how a prophessing athiest can have peace in their mind between their conscience and their intelligence.

And I know for a fact that many athiest probably even yourself are highly more intelligent than I.

To the part that I bolded: why not? I could be wrong, but it sounds like you're equating atheism with nihilism, which isn't necessarily true (though the latter can obviously come from the former).

 

[Maxwell Smart]

wasn't meaning to insult you, sorry. The point I was trying to make is that I don't think people become athiest by reason, but do so to reject the idea of God.

Hey I've been wrong many times, and yes I am sterotyping, but I just can't see how a prophessing athiest can have peace in their mind between their conscience and their intelligence.

And I know for a fact that many athiest probably even yourself are highly more intelligent than I.

Oh okay, I misinterpretated your post. I apologize as well.

But I do see what you're saying. How can something come of seemingly nothing, and how can something(the universe) has no end? It seems mind boggling to us human beings doesn't it? What gets me though, is that you see, the concept of "God" is every bit as mind boggling because you still end up with the same problems as with Atheism. Before you were asking how did something come of nothing with the universe, and you answered that question with "God". But when you use God then you have the problem of "well where did God come from?" which when you look at it is incomprehensible for the same reasons as Atheism.

But if you have to choose between the two, I'd rather say its "Nothing" than say its something that I haven't seen any evidence of. Understand?

 

[Man-Thing]

To the part that I bolded: why not? I could be wrong, but it sounds like you're equating atheism with nihilism, which isn't necessarily true (though the latter can obviously come from the former).

well, I'm glad you brought that up. It seems to me, that if the big bang is true (in that it was an accident) then that would automatically mean (actually this is a paradox because if that is true their is no meaning...at all- even this one) their is absolutely no meaning to life, but yet evolution says that through natural selection species evolve. This puts a purpose for their being life, and it also gives consciousness to natural selection thus making pantheism a reality.

 

[lazur]

I think this is all one big experiment and that life, ultimately, is nothing more than an illusion.

 

[celldog]

Nebraska Man, if you had actually read the link, was never fully accepted by the scientific community at all. Not even enough, unless you count the one who found it as "enough." And it wasn't a fraud. Fraud implies dishonesty. The man made a mistake, and scientists corrected it. And there is full agreement that the tooth was misread. Of course, you would know all of this if you had read the link.

Piltdown Man was a hoax, and while it took a while to correct, it was corrected and is no longer held to be true by anyone.

Peking Man is still up in the air, you can actually learn more about it here, if you care to learn anything at all. And it includes a refutation of Creationist arguments against it here. Again, if you care to read it.

Java Man is also being considered. Learn more about it here. And the creationist arguments against it here. Both Creationist Argument links give you a chance, with references, to see just how dishonest Creationists can be when arguing their dogma.

The beauty of this is that when science makes a mistake, it will admit to it and correct that mistake. Look up Paluxy Man, Calaveras Skull, Moab and Malachite Man and see if Creationists are able to spot their own hoaxes and correct them as such.



From that whole list you "still" have not given one solid fact to lay your head on. Not one!! And you say that "WE" are the only ones that use faith?? LOL
You are puttin an awful lot of faith in theories!! It takes more faith to believe that something came form nothing than to believe in a master intelligence behind such complexity.
Notice that I'm not calling you names or dumbing down your education.



The only thing that scares me, at this point, is the appalling lack of science knowledge on your part. I'm also "scared" of your inability to do proper research. Another thing that frightens me is that you have a problem with admitting your errors. And finally, I am absolutely terrified for your progeny, who I hope will one day be far more apt to learn and grow intellectually once they leave your sphere of influence. :shudders:

Well, well, well....Mr. Wizard, check out this list of non-intellectuals....
Isaac Newton the Newtonian Revolution Anglican (rejected Trinitarianism, i.e., Athanasianism;
believed in the Arianism of the Primitive Church)
Albert Einstein Twentieth-Century Science Jewish
Neils Bohr the Atom Jewish Lutheran

Louis Pasteur the Germ Theory of Disease Catholic

Galileo Galilei the New Science Catholic
Antoine Laurent Lavoisier the Revolution in Chemistry Catholic
Johannes Kepler Motion of the Planets Lutheran
Nicolaus Copernicus the Heliocentric Universe Catholic (priest)
Michael Faraday the Classical Field Theory Sandemanian
James Clerk Maxwell the Electromagnetic Field Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist
Claude Bernard the Founding of Modern Physiology
Franz Boas Modern Anthropology Jewish

Now I could go on.....but you mean to tell me that this of the biggest brains on the planet are disqualified because they believed the Biblical account of creation?? Are you really that arrogant to say that??

 

[Maxwell Smart]

well, I'm glad you brought that up. It seems to me, that if the big bang is true (in that it was an accident) then that would automatically mean (actually this is a paradox because if that is true their is no meaning...at all- even this one) their is absolutely no meaning to life, but yet evolution says that through natural selection species evolve. This puts a purpose for their being life, and it also gives consciousness to natural selection thus making pantheism a reality.

I need to look up Pantheism.

 

[Man-Thing]

I need to look up Pantheism.

I may have typed the wrong word (I'm dumb) but the one that says that nature is diety.

 

[Maxwell Smart]

I think thats Animism.. but I'm not 100% sure either.

 

[Man-Thing]

Pantheism

and when I said nature, I meant everything as in the whole show.

 

[Danalys]

Well, well, well....Mr. Wizard, check out this list of non-intellectuals....
Isaac Newton the Newtonian Revolution Anglican (rejected Trinitarianism, i.e., Athanasianism;
believed in the Arianism of the Primitive Church)
Albert Einstein Twentieth-Century Science Jewish
Neils Bohr the Atom Jewish Lutheran

Louis Pasteur the Germ Theory of Disease Catholic

Galileo Galilei the New Science Catholic
Antoine Laurent Lavoisier the Revolution in Chemistry Catholic
Johannes Kepler Motion of the Planets Lutheran
Nicolaus Copernicus the Heliocentric Universe Catholic (priest)
Michael Faraday the Classical Field Theory Sandemanian
James Clerk Maxwell the Electromagnetic Field Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist
Claude Bernard the Founding of Modern Physiology
Franz Boas Modern Anthropology Jewish

Now I could go on.....but you mean to tell me that this of the biggest brains on the planet are disqualified because they believed the Biblical account of creation?? Are you really that arrogant to say that??

if they are pre einstien or darwin they couldn't have had the required knowledge. einstein himself didn't really believe in a god.

 

[celldog]

I think you miss the point. His post was about how someone assumes that, since they personally don't know how it got there, then obviously it was put there by something supernatural.

No ..I got your point. But you can see it from another angle. That's all. I know that's not the angle you prefer. But it is very logical to assume that order demands that there was someone to put it in order. The table is set, the punch was mixed and in the bowl. The table was there. Now on a small scale like that, the "super-natural" is nothing to even consider. But on a cosmic scale, it would take a super-natural being to create such natural order......such delicate balance.

What are the chances of my throwing a loose jigsaw puzzle in the air and it coming down to the ground with every piece in place?? How about just one piece falling in place by itself??

 

[Danalys]

we have experience of people doing those things tho. so we can presume the same is happening again. we have no experience of universes being created tho.

 

[Maxwell Smart]

Pantheism

and when I said nature, I meant everything as in the whole show.

Ah okay, God is everything and everything is God.

If I believed in a God I think that I'd lean toward Pantheism. I mean "God" does work well as a metaphor for the Universe itself. Both are supposed to be infinite concepts.

 

[celldog]

I think this is all one big experiment and that life, ultimately, is nothing more than an illusion.

An illusion?

Explain.

 

[Danalys]

Ah okay, God is everything and everything is God.

If I believed in a God I think that I'd lean toward Pantheism. I mean "God" does work well as a metaphor for the Universe itself. Both are supposed to be infinite concepts.

it's pointless to call it god tho unless it serves some extra purpose too. such as believing things are special in a way that is set up to benefit yourself or others. perhaps still clinging to the idea of an after life.