Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It does not make any difference to me what you consider Cause A to be.
Cause A -> Effect A, in every single observable science.
(no cause) -/-> Effect A
It doesn't work. The only way you can have an effect without a cause, is if you have a God. As you have ruled that out, humans must be caused by something.
Therefore, human beings, and in fact, all of creation are the physical proof of creation. And this is exactly what I mean. This is blind idiot syndrome again, people pointing out something blatantly obvious, and refusing to see it because it doesn't suit your worldview. Your filters need changing.
Setting aside for now that causality that you are accustom to does not have to be the universal rule ( in fact this understanding of causality breaks down demonstrably on quantum level), let me ask you this
You always say "there's no proof". People have given proof. You've filtered it out.
There is your proof.
We are the proof of creation. Without a creation event occurring, we could not exist. Period. Forget monkeys. We would still be part of the darkness of space.
That is not necessarily true, as the Norse put it in their Creation Mythology/Genesis account, Existence is NOT necessarily Creation, everything could have been frozen and then "started" not "created."
Or even outside of that everything could have always Existed Godlessly/(consciousness independent) and never needed to start (in the same way that the Conscious God or the Conscious Void were proposed to have always Existed as the "OLD EVERYTHING").
Setting aside for now that causality that you are accustom to does not have to be the universal rule ( in fact this understanding of causality breaks down demonstrably on quantum level), let me ask you this
How do you get from
" There was a Cause A"
to
"Cause A is Creator/ God"
Who says that I made that leap?
I said that we don't play fast and loose with scientific laws.
It isn't the scientific theory of cause and effect. It's the law.
The most certain and universal of all scientific principles is that of causality, or the law of cause and effect. The implications of this principle have been fought vigorously in the theological and philosophical disciplines, but there is no question of its universal acceptance in the world of experimental science, as well as in ordinary experience.
No question. And yet people dismiss it when it is inconvenient.
I did not say Cause A = God.
Quote:
The only way you can have an effect without a cause, is if you have a God.
To clarify, I didn't mean only a God can make something without a cause. I meant that any effect that exists in violation of cause and effect (that is, a causeless existence), is naturally an existence with the ability to defy fixed laws of existence. This is the precise definition of what makes a God.
That is, if humans are not created by anything, by definition humans = God.
LuminousTruth, there are two problems with what you just said.
You are revising scientific knowledge set just to debate. Science puts existence at an origin point, known as the Big Bang.
Things don't "exist Godlessly". They are created, which leads to the above issue about an origin necessarily being something that works without cause (God, as per my definition). Or they are eternal, which is essentially indistinguishable from themselves being God.
No question. And yet people dismiss it when it is inconvenient.
I'm sorry if it disappoints you and your friends from Institute for Creation Research, but cause and effect is not the law. You need to check your source and update yourself on a subject.
There is plenty of research done that strongly points out, that causal order might not be a mandatory property of nature.
So "untouchable" cause and effect is not being dismissed when it is inconvenient.
It's falls under pressure of experimental results. Scientific method, you know.
So it is you, who are either ignorant on a subject, or willing to dismiss experimental results when they are inconvenient.
That is not necessarily true, as the Norse put it in their Creation Mythology/Genesis account, Existence is NOT necessarily Creation, everything could have been frozen and then "started" not "created."
Or even outside of that everything could have always Existed Godlessly/(consciousness independent) and never needed to start (in the same way that the Conscious God or the Conscious Void were proposed to have always Existed as the "OLD EVERYTHING").
...
LuminousTruth, there are two problems with what you just said.
You are revising scientific knowledge set just to debate. Science puts existence at an origin point, known as the Big Bang.
Things don't "exist Godlessly". They are created, which leads to the above issue about an origin necessarily being something that works without cause (God, as per my definition). Or they are eternal, which is essentially indistinguishable from themselves being God.
My point, I believe, still stands. Next.
Very perceptive is some directions, but you are dealing with a very ancient highly unresolved philosophical controversy. I don't think you have settled it.
Again, I think my original rebuttals stand.
1. the Institute for Creationism research is not scientific (pro-whatever true discovery) but has a Creationism agenda (Creationist ideas are believed on initially and then sought to be defended).
2. The whole of "Existence" is not really in the realm of study of science since it is much bigger than a mere humans' academic field could ever fully study/explore. What is given an origin point is our current "space-time" fabric that we ourselves inhabit, given the math done on the physical observations.
Still, it is assumed that our accessible universe is composed within/of our space-time fabric, so the current iteration of our universe (accessible by normal space-time travel) would have come from a single origin point ~14 Billion years ago. What sort of existence a "Singularity" would be is a paradox, but other possible existences such as a universe before ours or multiple universes coexisting in parallel states at different "relative" times cannot be discounted.
Science merely puts our currently expanding universe at an origin point of initiation of the current expansion, it DOES NOT put the whole of possible existence (nor even our "space-time bubble" universe) at an ultimate origin point. Only the current expansion can be traced to a likely origin point, and the math says that gravity and time would be destroyed in such a singularity.
3. I think things do/could exist regardless of the existence of supernatural deities. If something can work without cause, then many things could, no reason they wouldn't. I wouldn't see an Eternal Space-Time alien as God (needing veneration and necessarily having to be the only and sole thing existing to create everything else) just for being Eternal.
No question. And yet people dismiss it when it is inconvenient.
I did not say Cause A = God.
To clarify, I didn't mean only a God can make something without a cause. I meant that any effect that exists in violation of cause and effect (that is, a causeless existence), is naturally an existence with the ability to defy fixed laws of existence. This is the precise definition of what makes a God.
That is, if humans are not created by anything, by definition humans = God.
LuminousTruth, there are two problems with what you just said.
You are revising scientific knowledge set just to debate. Science puts existence at an origin point, known as the Big Bang.
Things don't "exist Godlessly". They are created, which leads to the above issue about an origin necessarily being something that works without cause (God, as per my definition). Or they are eternal, which is essentially indistinguishable from themselves being God.
My point, I believe, still stands. Next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
You always say "there's no proof". People have given proof. You've filtered it out.
There is your proof.
We are the proof of creation. Without a creation event occurring, we could not exist. Period. Forget monkeys. We would still be part of the darkness of space.
I don't have a problem with your second point. However, it doesn't address the process of creation.
On your first point, you say that that proof has been provided? I'm asking for credible proof or evidence. But creationists are saying we were formed from a mound of clay in a day. I'm asking for proof of that and proof that God played a role in the 'creation'.
I'm not sure what monkeys have to do with it other than that they may have been created. I know that some people claim to have evolved from monkeys - they might have but I most certainly did not!
... I know that some people claim to have evolved from monkeys - they might have but I most certainly did not!
I evolved from a human sperm and human ovum fusing together.
The human species is a species of ape and apes probably evolved from creatures that probably resembled monkeys more than apes, such as the primate Victoriapithecus, an ancient Old World monkey.
I evolved from a human sperm and human ovum fusing together.
The human species is a species of ape and apes probably evolved from creatures that probably resembled monkeys more than apes, such as the primate Victoriapithecus, an ancient Old World monkey.
True and true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
