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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by earl012
The universe has a time line, so there must have been a beginning. Science tends to ignore the time-line idea. It is the same old question. How do you make something from nothing? Since science has no answer for the question, it tends to ignore it. The most logical answer is God, a spiritual being created the universe. Once you acknowledge God and the spiritual word, you have the explanation.
No god needed in any of this.
There have been a number of proposals of what was there before the big bang. Anyone of them may prove to be correct. Our science is not there yet, but getting there. Remember Higgs Boson?
The energy was always there (you know, like a god)
The energy escaped from a different universe (proposition that there may be innumerable universes)
The energy came about as a never ending cycle of expansion and collapse (again, it was always there)
Different scientific discoveries point in different directions, and may point in directions not outlined above. The key point is, each new discovery builds on the old, validating it. Many new discoveries (like Higgs Boson) were predicted decades before they could be proven.
Admitting a possibility is not much - we want you to give us the evidence and basically you have made erroneous and fallacious claims and statements which have been pointed out to you and then you ask questions like the above as if that matters to points being made - they don't. And I have dealt with your claims on two different threads where you bowed out and now you are just repeating the same old errors.
STOP IT!
I didn't bow out. I debated for several pages. If you don't like what I'm saying, stop responding.
Admitting ID is a possibility is huge! It gives credence to my argument. I've given you evidence- causation. Based on all we see, it's logical.
There have been a number of proposals of what was there before the big bang. Anyone of them may prove to be correct. Our science is not there yet, but getting there. Remember Higgs Boson?
The energy was always there (you know, like a god)
The energy escaped from a different universe (proposition that there may be innumerable universes)
The energy came about as a never ending cycle of expansion and collapse (again, it was always there)
Different scientific discoveries point in different directions, and may point in directions not outlined above. The key point is, each new discovery builds on the old, validating it. Many new discoveries (like Higgs Boson) were predicted decades before they could be proven.
No 'goddunit' needed for any of this.
ID is as good an explanation as any of those, especially your first example.
ID is as good an explanation as any of those, especially your first example.
No, it's really not. (At least the second and third options. The first option IS a reach.)
That's like saying, "I don't know where this piece of string came from, therefore anything is possible, so here are three possibilities: 1. It could have been brought in unknowingly on my son's clothes. That's something I've observed before and it follows physical laws. 2. It could have come up off the carpet and been floating around. That's something I've observed before and it follows physical laws. 3. A giant talking Bic pen walked in and left it here. But since we can't know, hence anything is technically possible, I choose number three."
I hate to put it that way, that sounds super-abrasive, but really, no supernatural and never yet substantiated beliefs (and we HAVE observed the basics of the behavior of energy and matter) AREN'T as plausible as theories based on things and processes we actually can see and the physical world. That DOES NOT mean you have to be wrong. Just because ID is way less plausible if you're to be logical about it (again, based on the way the world works in an observable, recordable way), it is true that we don't "know" the answer to this question. Therefore, technically, yes, any explanation is possible.
But to say "therefore, it must have been supernatural...that's just as believable" just...isn't believable.
No, it's really not. (At least the second and third options. The first option IS a reach.)
That's like saying, "I don't know where this piece of string came from, therefore anything is possible, so here are three possibilities: 1. It could have been brought in unknowingly on my son's clothes. That's something I've observed before and it follows physical laws. 2. It could have come up off the carpet and been floating around. That's something I've observed before and it follows physical laws. 3. A giant talking Bic pen walked in and left it here. But since we can't know, hence anything is technically possible, I choose number three."
I hate to put it that way, that sounds super-abrasive, but really, no supernatural and never yet substantiated beliefs (and we HAVE observed the basics of the behavior of energy and matter) AREN'T as plausible as theories based on things and processes we actually can see and the physical world. That DOES NOT mean you have to be wrong. Just because ID is way less plausible if you're to be logical about it (again, based on the way the world works in an observable, recordable way), it is true that we don't "know" the answer to this question. Therefore, technically, yes, any explanation is possible.
But to say "therefore, it must have been supernatural...that's just as believable" just...isn't believable.
Still, noting that everything has a cause, well, except for the universe, is not logical.
Still, noting that everything has a cause, well, except for the universe, is not logical.
I don't know that anybody said everything has a cause except the universe...?
Not sure, but I don't think I saw that? It was one theory, one possibility, stated above but it's for sure I haven't seen anybody say, "...and that's the truth, in Planck's name we pray."
Rather, the idea is that it's possible that not everything has a cause, hence, it's possible that the universe didn't have a cause.
As far as we've so far observed, everything seems to have a cause. We don't know everything yet (obviously). So technically, anything is possible. Yes, including supernatural origins. But some things are more, or less, likely than others, given logic and given what we've so far observed. Therefore, saying it is just as likely that something that is "eternal" intelligent purposefully designed the universe just doesn't make logical sense.
I don't know that anybody said everything has a cause except the universe...?
Not sure, but I don't think I saw that? It was one theory, one possibility, stated above but it's for sure I haven't seen anybody say, "...and that's the truth, in Planck's name we pray."
Rather, the idea is that it's possible that not everything has a cause, hence, it's possible that the universe didn't have a cause.
As far as we've so far observed, everything seems to have a cause. We don't know everything yet (obviously). So technically, anything is possible. Yes, including supernatural origins. But some things are more, or less, likely than others, given logic and given what we've so far observed. Therefore, saying it is just as likely that something that is "eternal" intelligent purposefully designed the universe just doesn't make logical sense.
Why not? We have observed as much. The creator (of anything) is always greater than the created, no?
Why not? We have observed as much. The creator (of anything) is always greater than the created, no?
Is it? "Greater" in what way?
If my husband and I have a child, and my husband's IQ is 143 and my IQ is 139, and together we create a child who has an IQ of 151, isn't the child greater than either of his creators?
If a brilliant individual creates a computer program that can automatically do long division, and the machine he created can do that long division automatically and flawlessly, but the creator needs a few minutes and may occasionally make an error, didn't he just create something that is, in that aspect, greater than he is?
But again. "Greater" how? That hearkens to "intelligence," the image of a sculptor creating the universe out of clay. If it's not "directed" in an intelligent way such as that illustration, "greater" can absolutely come from lesser. Witness evolution. Of course, "better" or "greater" can be a murky area, but let's compare two very far-apart steps in a particular evolution: single-cell organism to orangutan. Which is greater? But which came first?
And on the heels of that, the term "creator" is sticky. Technically, a single-celled organism didn't "create" an orangutan (nor even, for that matter, the next generation of itself with, say, better survival skills). Life does not need a "creator" with a specific "creation" in mind in order to become, to loosely put it, "greater." That we have observed, or at least can confirm with physical data (since we can't technically observe macroevolution in the course of one lifetime...or I don't think we can).
If my husband and I have a child, and my husband's IQ is 143 and my IQ is 139, and together we create a child who has an IQ of 151, isn't the child greater than either of his creators?
If a brilliant individual creates a computer program that can automatically do long division, and the machine he created can do that long division automatically and flawlessly, but the creator needs a few minutes and may occasionally make an error, didn't he just create something that is, in that aspect, greater than he is?
But again. "Greater" how? That hearkens to "intelligence," the image of a sculptor creating the universe out of clay. If it's not "directed" in an intelligent way such as that illustration, "greater" can absolutely come from lesser. Witness evolution. Of course, "better" or "greater" can be a murky area, but let's compare two very far-apart steps in a particular evolution: single-cell organism to orangutan. Which is greater? But which came first?
And on the heels of that, the term "creator" is sticky. Technically, a single-celled organism didn't "create" an orangutan (nor even, for that matter, the next generation of itself with, say, better survival skills). Life does not need a "creator" with a specific "creation" in mind in order to become, to loosely put it, "greater." That we have observed, or at least can confirm with physical data (since we can't technically observe macroevolution in the course of one lifetime...or I don't think we can).
None of those things can create themselves. When you and your husband create a baby, you are "greater" (physically larger, of greater intelligence, existing on a higher plane, etc).
Nonsense! What I proposed (based on truth-creator is greater than created) is certainly plausible.
Why is it plausible? You keep saying this, assertion w/o evidence and we can all do that. Difference is that science has full understanding of much of your bible author's ignorance.
Simply put, your Jesus apparently claimed the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds and yet we now know that not to be true. Surely the so called meat version of god would know that the smallest seed was not the mustard seed. While we are on the topic of seed, the male contribution was thought all the years up till the 18th century to be THE thing that initiated offspring and hence the derogatory view of women. Then along comes a scientist and discovers the ovum and over time we see her contribution to be actually 100% and men about 1:300M; your intelligent designer failed to make mention of this in any of the holy writs emanating from the ME.
In some of your silly analogies, you use innate objects and that stems from your indoctrination and probably Calvinistic outlook on life, ergo potter-clay analogy taken from your bible.
Not sure if you get out much but I have posted many pics of natural beauty formed by nature here in Africa and no god or gods were involved at all, just something that formed over millions/billions of years.
Where am I going with this? Well you keep claiming ID is logical by observance of nature. Here is some factoids which are proven by scientific observation. Cango caves are >1.5M years old and are still active, in a semi desert location. The Victoria falls gorges (9 of them) are over 100k years old. Nature formed this. There are many more natural observations we see and can measure.
Look up to the stars, we have the Hubble telescope that sees galaxies in areas previously thought to be dead empty space. With instruments like this, they are able to observe an expanding universe, granted a lot of this is theoretical as in a single lifetime it would be impossible to actually make an observation and then plot it and take another say two decades later and extrapolate that. Yet since Galileo observed a heliocentric solar system, cosmology has moved in leaps and bounds.
You beliefs in ID suggest that this all transpired some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago depending on which version of apologetics you subscribe to.
Then we move onto genetics and the discovery of DNA, suddenly the religionists hijack this to suggest THIS is how gawd intended to "create" giving us the non scientific concept of theistic evolution but then these twits posing as scientists cannot explain ID when this happens.
This is also "observance of nature at work", your mantra, that psalm that suggests that gawd knits together the foetus in the womb.... did your ID gawd fall asleep with these examples?
So realistically, observance of nature (ALL OF IT) suggests chance and randomness rather than anything intelligent behind the scenes.
Perhaps your stance is merely deism wrapped up in a christian candy wrapper?
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.
(At least the second and third options. The first option IS a reach.)
