Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: peppycat
I believe in God the creator, but when I try to think about this deeply, I wonder where God Came from. If life comes from pre-existing life then did God come from somewhere or has God always existed. I am just so baffled by this mystery that a part of me thinks everything has always existed in a circle.
Thank you for the thoughtful OP and in Christ I will meditate on this mystery, but maybe you have an idea about where God came from. Was God the first conscious? Does that mean God came from nothing? I like to think God has always been and always will be, but since we are a part of God in that we are his creation, we have always been and always will be weather our conscious goes on into eternity or not.
You've given me much to contemplate.

Thanks PeppyCat for the thoughtful words.

Since God is UNCREATED, therefore He has no beginning and has no end. He always existed. Otherwise the alternative is, he was created, which regresses to an un-ending question of who created the creator of God.

There's no other answer - but that he is what He is, Uncreated.

To help you contemplate - think of the concept of infinity. We have it mathematics and sciences. So when we say an infinite number, it means as it says, no beginning and no end.

If life must beget life then God must have been created by something as well. I will refer to your OP, "Life comes from pre-existing life". By that standard, either God is dead/not considered life, or God was spawned from a pre-existing life as well.

originally posted by: edmc^2
So again I ask, why is my evidence for creation by God not facts?

Because it is not verifiable. It is based on a guess. Anything based on a guess is not considered a fact.

Life can only come from pre-existing life?

Dude, I already debunked this and you still haven't responded to my points about this. You cannot prove that statement so all of your following conclusions are invalid. If you can't prove it you can't use it as a premise to your argument. Why do you keep ignoring this and repeating the same claim over and over and over? The origin of life is not equal to a species giving birth. Stop the logical fallacies already. God conflicts with your statement above, if you postulate that as the explanation. If life can only come from existing life, then god had to have come from something else alive. Don't you see the issue yet?

That Law requires a law giver?

Jesus Christ, man. Look up "scientific law". They are observations of measurements that stay true, not the same as a law of society. Every point you make invokes a logic fallacy. Here is equivocation.. again.

and that Intelligence require a mind?

The same semantic games you always play. Stop equivocating the possibility of a creator to the human mind. They are not the same thing. Your points are intentionally vague, purposely trying to trick people with word meanings rather than logical facts.

Surely you have something new this time? You create a new thread for the same topic over and over again. Why not just add on to the old one? Oh, I know, because everybody debunked you and you can't preach when even you know it's blatantly wrong.

a reply to: Murgatroid

What about the real evidence, like the hundred thousand plus research papers? They are all faked too? Sorry man, you never actually address the real evidence, only hoaxes, which are not considered part of the science anyway.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Murgatroid

What about the real evidence, like the hundred thousand plus research papers? They are all faked too? Sorry man, you never actually address the real evidence, only hoaxes, which are not considered part of the science anyway.

dont waste your energy on copypasta dude. futility is his game and you will never beat him at it.

If the alternative is believing that a magic bearded man created me, I think ill stick with science thank you

a reply to: DaveNorris

That's an awfully simplistic approach.

I think the answer probably lies somewhere in between.

But you stick with "science"

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
a reply to: DaveNorris

That's an awfully simplistic approach.

I think the answer probably lies somewhere in between.

But you stick with "science"

would it not be more accurate to say you want the answer to lie somewhere between?

a reply to: MrConspiracy

Sometimes simplicity is the best approach.
For instance, to put it simply, all the big religions are based on stories. Very old stories granted.

Now imagine that In a few thousand years our decendants uncover a copy of harry Potter. They may see his magic as miracles and thus the church of harry Potter is born.
This may seem ridiculous today, but thats probably what they thought back when they first started writing down stories about jesus

The study proves that simple organic molecules can be created in nature without living organisms being present and that at least part of this process could have happened in hydrothermal vents.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... organisms-develop.html#ixzz3nkD5kAFV

Surprised no one linked this.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: Barcs

Barcs, c'mon... edmc^2 has been making the same thread or two over and over again since I've been on ATS. I actually start to miss his "creationism is logical" and "the Bible is scientifically accurate" nonsense if I have to go more than a year without seeing a new thread of his.

The reason why I keep making similar threads is your refusal to answer direct questions. So here's your chance to shut me up:

So again I ask, why is my evidence for creation by God not facts?

Why is it false to say/believe/posit/expound that God was the source of life when both scientific findings and logic confirm that:

Life can only come from pre-existing life?
That Law requires a law giver?
and that Intelligence require a mind?

???

Life can only come from pre-existing life?:
Where did the pre-existing life came from. For life to have a beginning there has to be appoint when there was no beginning, therefore life came from no life or before the beginning. Therefore the premise is wrong; the origin of life has to predate life so life would have to come from non-life.

That Law requires a law giver?:
Legislative laws, such as "Do not murder" or "No littering" are prescriptive: they are established to demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behavior. If a person breaks such a law, he or she has committed a crime, and may be subject to punishment.
Natural laws, on the other hand, are descriptive: they are human concepts that describe how some aspect of the universe behaves. For instance, Newton's law of motion F = ma describes how solid objects behave when acted upon by a force. If a person or object breaks a physical law, then it is the law that is in error, since it obviously does not adequately describe what it seeks to describe. However, there are natural laws that are at odds with one another and are still taken to be true because there is a clear and consistent pattern. For example, entities governed by the laws of quantum mechanics do not follow the same thermodynamic laws that govern the macro universe.
Bertrand Russell:
"We now find that a great many things we thought were Natural Laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depth of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature."
This is peripherally related to the Transcendental argument for god, in that it heavily confuses a conceptual abstraction with concrete reality.
False premise p2: The law giver
The laws in question are descriptive abstractions of what the universe does, not prescriptive legislations about what the universe can do. As such they do not require a law giver, but as long as a law giver is being asserted, it opens up the question of where god got his laws. This opens up a paradox somewhat similar to the euthyphro dilemma.

Intelligence require a mind?
Intelligence has also been observed in non-human animals and in plants. Artificial intelligence is intelligence in machines. (i.e., software). Would you consider non-human animals and plants to have a mind?

Im still trying to understand how nothing became everything, when you can't destroy or create matter, since it can only be change.

It like 1+1 making 3. It tearing my brain like a page from the bible.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
a reply to: DaveNorris

That's an awfully simplistic approach.

I think the answer probably lies somewhere in between.

But you stick with "science"

would it not be more accurate to say you want the answer to lie somewhere between?

Would it be more accurate to assume you don't?

a reply to: DaveNorris

Right?! I've often thought that. When I look at ancient wall carvings etc... we do all sorts and make up things for fun too! You're right about that.

It doesn't answer the fact that this universe is far from simple so a simplistic approach won't get anywhere.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Titen-S, sorry, took a while. I had to take care of something.

Thanks for the vid. Interesting debate and I enjoyed the back n forth. 2 hrs is too long, though.

Anyway, commenting on this bit where you said:

Sorry but I know from experience this isn't true. I've spoken to atheists who think human beings were bio-engineered by aliens so not ALL atheists accept evolution.

Yes, I'm aware of this. It's somewhat similar to Exogenesis where they believe that life was "seeded" from outer space. In any case, whether its 'Exogenesis' or alien bioengineering, the question of Origins still remain. Where did the aliens come from or where did the "seed" originally come from? Who or what created them? Which takes us back to square one and shows the limitations of science and philosophy.

Also not all atheists claim that God doesn't exist. For me it depends on what God we're talking about. If we're talking about some highly speculative or ill-defined God, or a deistic God, than I can't say whether I believe that God doesn't exist BUT I can say that I disbelieve in that God. That's all atheism is, disbelief and a disbelief is NOT a belief. With that said you can find some atheists who hold to a Strong Atheist or Gnostic-Atheist position where they claim to KNOW there are no gods or believe there are no gods. When it comes to the idea of gods in general I am an agnostic-atheist, I don't know whether or not there is a God, I am unconvinced and thus do not believe.

When it comes to specific God concepts, like Zeus, or Yahweh, I am much more certain that these gods do not exist.

OK. For clarity's sake, the God I'm referring to as I stated in the OP is the God of the Bible -whose personal name is YHVH / Yahweh / Yehowah/ Jehovah. A personal God who as Gen 1:1 says, "created the heavens and the earth". He is the UNCREATED God. Any gods other than YHVH / Jehovah are created gods. You can use Yahweh if you want to.So I hope this settles it.

Continuing you said:

"That's exactly what a false dichotomy is, you've pretty much just defined it. There are not only two options. You can't set up the issue as Christian God vs. Atheist Science as if those are the only two and then claim that by disqualifying the atheist side you thus prove the Christian side more sound. That's simply not how logic works."

Sure, false dichotomy, if put in your way. "Christian God vs. Atheist Science". But it's not what I'm referring to. In fact, there's no such thing as "Atheist Science". It's a misnomer since there are atheists scientist and theists scientists in science.

But just to clarify, it's Atheism VS Christian Theism (sounds redundant). It's the view Atheism holds against the view Christians holds.

Continuing, you next said:

See here's the thing, it is the position of Hawking and Krauss that the Universe can arise from nothing. What they mean when they say nothing is not actually NOTHING in the abstract sense. Now I don't particularly like the whole Universe from Nothing model which is why I pointed out that you are attacking two scientists as if they are the only representatives of atheism or science out there. Their view is not representative of all atheists.

But the thing is many atheists hold the view like theirs. It's advertised and promoted everywhere, so, it's only logical to use them as examples. I could have used YOU, but since you're not widely known as Hawking and Krauss and have no books to which I can refer to, it's not practical. I could have used others too, but my OP will become three or more pages long. I didn't want that to happen, so Hawking and Krauss were it. Maybe in another thread I can use others but it will be redundant. So here we are. Take it or leave it.

You next said...

We know that our Universe began its present expansion about 14 billion years ago but that's as far back as we've been able to look. In my personal opinion the Cosmos or reality if you will was NEVER at a state of NOTHING. When I talk about nothing here I mean the abstract concept humans have of the absence of anything and everything, I mean ABSOLUTE NOTHING (which is NOT the kind of Nothing Krauss is talking about). I don't think absolute nothing was ever the state of affairs or ever could be, it's simply impossible for there to have ever been a state of nothing, it's a concept and nothing more.

Now you and me probably agree that there never was absolute nothingness, because you believe there was a God there, I assume, in the void and I believe that the Cosmos, reality, always existed in some form. Nothing is impossible, there has only ever been something.

So no I do not hold that life came from nothing. I hold that life arise naturally from chemical processes which, as I said, is all that life is made of. Every lifeform on Earth is just interacting organic components, there need not be any ghost in the machine to make it work.

Agree. Unfortunately, (in my opinion) both Hawking and Krauss' had done a disservice to science when they tried to play the role of a philosopher. Rather than clarify the matter they inadvertently muddied the discussion by not strictly adhering to scientific terms in explaining what they are trying to convey. So to the reading public, when they hear "nothing" it simply means to quote you:

the absence of anything and everything, I mean ABSOLUTE NOTHING (which is NOT the kind of Nothing Krauss is talking about).

But what's done is done. I suggest, they write another book explaining clearly what they meant.

I understand that most believers hold to a creatio ex nihilo, God willing things into existence from absolute nothing. But you cannot demand that atheists ALSO must believe in a creatio ex nihilo. You know, I am sure, that when Krauss and Hawking talk about nothing they do not mean ex nihilo.

Not at all, I'm not demanding that "atheists ALSO must believe in a creatio ex nihilo". In fact, I don't believe in "creatio ex nihilo". I don't recommend it since it's a philosophical idea and not even in line with the facts. Unfortunately, this is where people make mistake. They assume that God created the Universe "ex nihilo" - from nothing. If they will only listen to what the Bible is saying, then they will have a clearer understanding of the subject matter.

In fact, this might be an unbelievable revelation to you but the Bible, to a certain degree agrees with science.

If we logically think about it, we know the relationship between matter and energy. It was expressed by Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2 (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared). The formula unlocked the unbelievable energy contained inside a little mass (or matter) the size of a tennis ball. By way of the atom bomb, we can see it's awesome but destructive power.

On the other hand, Einstein’s theory, tells us that energy can also be turned into matter. By colliding subatomic particles at high speeds, we can create new, heavier particles. It's been done many times over.

(info - home.web.cern.ch...)

So with this knowledge we can now understand that the forming of the material universe may thus have involved what cosmologist Carl Sagan called ...

“the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have been privileged to glimpse.”

(Cosmos, 1980, p. 21)

Thanks to Einstein's formula E =mc2, we now know where matter come from - Energy.

But it left us with one nagging question. Where did energy come from?
It can't be eternal since it needs a source. So where is it coming from?

Here lies the rub. Atheist don't have any satisfactory answer. Hawking and Krauss tried, but failed miserably. And I think you tried too but unsure.

So to a Christian, where can we find a satisfactory answer that is both logical AND scientific.

Since it takes an enormous amount of energy to create even a sub-particle of matter, therefore, the source would have a limitless RAW MATERIAL to create the substance that brought the universe into existence. A source that would have the POWER, the intelligence, the ability to transform Energy into Matter vice-versa. And since "quantum vacuum" (nothing) as suggested by Krauss or the Law of Gravity as suggested by Hawking are not good candidates. SO the only logical/scientific answer must be, the source of energy must then be a Living, Intelligent personality.

And the Bible agrees when it says.

Isaiah 40:26 (GNT)

Look up at the sky!
Who created the stars you see?
The one who leads them out like an army,
he knows how many there are
and calls each one by name!
His power is so great—
not one of them is ever missing!

A more accurate translation reads this way:

“Lift up your eyes to heaven and see.
Who has created these things?
It is the One who brings out their army by number;
He calls them all by name.
Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power,
Not one of them is missing." (NWT)

Thus, from the Biblical standpoint, this source of limitless energy was no other than the God of Creation as Genesis 1:1 describes him: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

God possesses intelligence and vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power to bring about the material universe.

If this in not acceptable, then we're left with the philosophical illogical unscientific hard to explain atheistic explanation of (take your pick)

1. Nothing (ex nihilo).
2. Law Of Gravity.
3. Random events
4. Natural laws.
5. Quantum vacuum.
6. Blind Chance Event.
7. Freak Accident.
8. Luck
9. Just happened and no one knows
10. Pop out from nowhere...
11. We don't know....yet...
12. We will never know.
etc...tbd

Of course, the choice is yours. So...

"what have we established?"

"That there is a celestial court? A celestial congress?"

In a spiritual sense. yes, if you believe in a higher level of existence like I do (see the book of Job).

But as far as this discussion is concerned, NO and it's not required. But for sure we've established the following ...

1. That even brilliant men can make nonsensical, illogical, incoherent statements.
2. That nonsensical statements remain nonsensical even though they are formulated and stated by brilliant men.
3. That scientist will dabble in philosophy whenever they don't have a logical explanation to deep questions.
4. That the naturalistic view of the (origin of the), universe/life is very limited and unsatisfactory as it leads to many different interpretations ending in (literally) nothing.
5. That facts (scientific or otherwise) are not adhered to when they don't conform to the naturalistic, atheistic world-view.

Hence:
When it comes to facts like 'life comes only from pre-existing life', 'law requires a lawgiver / lawmaker', intelligence requires a mind...', it is only admissible AFTER the fact (of human existence). Therefore, in my opinion, the naturalistic, atheistic view is a science stopper at the higher level. It stops at the threshold of the point of singularity.

While the Christian view stops at God who is everything and answers with satisfaction basic questions like:

Why are we here? Why is there life? What does the future hold? Why the universe exist, etc? In other words, the very key to answering these perplexing yet important questions is knowing (scientia) the ultimate Source - God, Yahweh / Yehowah / Jehovah.

In addition, it's through his son Jesus Christ we learn God's personality.

It's through the pages of the Bible we can understand the mind of God.

ciao.

originally posted by: Specimen
Im still trying to understand how nothing became everything, when you can't destroy or create matter, since it can only be change.

It like 1+1 making 3. It tearing my brain like a page from the bible.

Actually, that expression "you can't destroy or create matter" in no longer valid at sub-atomic level.

Matter can be created by colliding sub-atomic particles (energy) at very high speeds. In fact, new particles were created in the Large Hadron Collider.

LHC Creates New Form of Matter

news.discovery.com...

How matter is created:

Inside the accelerator, two high-energy particle beams travel at close to the speed of light before they are made to collide. The beams travel in opposite directions in separate beam pipes – two tubes kept at ultrahigh vacuum. They are guided around the accelerator ring by a strong magnetic field maintained by superconducting electromagnets. The electromagnets are built from coils of special electric cable that operates in a superconducting state, efficiently conducting electricity without resistance or loss of energy. This requires chilling the magnets to ‑271.3°C – a temperature colder than outer space. For this reason, much of the accelerator is connected to a distribution system of liquid helium, which cools the magnets, as well as to other supply services.

home.web.cern.ch...

a reply to: edmc^2

Which takes us back to square one and shows the limitations of science and philosophy.

As I'm sure you well know we could just as easily ask the same question about God when someone says God created life. Does that show the limitation of religious thinking? I'm not sure. It certainly shows that we need some kind of special pleading to get God out of the "needs an explanation of its existence" clause.

I agree, however, that science has limits. That limit is methodological naturalism. That isn't the same as philosophical naturalism which holds that naturalism is true rather science limits itself to being able to explore the natural world. As such science could only ever prove supernatural effects, it could never discover supernatural causes. For example if a study showed that prayer actually regrew the limbs of amputees we would have a supernatural effect but no way to tie it to a cause definitively.

It's the view Atheism holds against the view Christians holds.

Right but that's what I mean, not all atheists or all Christians hold the same views and those two views are certainly not the only views. Proving the atheist view is flawed does not prove the Christian view right or any other view right or wrong.

But what's done is done. I suggest, they write another book explaining clearly what they meant.

One of the perils of being a scientist who is also a figure that "sells" science to the public is trying to boil down advanced subjects into layman's terms. I agree they should have found another way to talk about the sort of "nothing" they think could create the Universe.

My guess is that neither of us has a full grasp of what they're talking about, all that talk of quantum fluctuations and what have you sounds like the plot to a Doctor Who episode to me but then I don't have the expertise to dig down into the maths at the heart of such claims.

In fact, this might be an unbelievable revelation to you but the Bible, to a certain degree agrees with science.

It's a claim I've heard before but it takes quite a lot of stretching to make the text fit. The Bible speaks of a dome or firmament being stretched over the Earth, the heavens have "windows" that are opened during the flood because God separates the water below from the water above, as in above the firmament.

Personally I've yet to come across anything in the Bible that indicates it was written under divine inspiration or that its authors understood basic science at all.

I do much prefer the idea of a God creating ex materia but that is where I have to invoke occams razor. If we are going to say there is a first cause, for example, all we need is a cause sufficient to bring the Universe into existence. If we have all the ingredients needed to create a Universe, which as you state need not be all that much, because of how energy and matter work, than we don't need that great of a push to get things started. Invoking an intelligent agent requires an awful lot of special pleading to make it sound plausible that a mind can exist without a physical construct of some kind and that this personal mind is ALSO entirely transcendent (beyond space and time) and uncaused.

Our language and understanding of causation may be insufficient to talk about such things as the beginning of the Universe.

I just don't see how adding an unfalsifiable explanation like God helps us at all. Unlike Krauss' and Hawking's claims a nebulous God cannot be disproved. As you are a Christian I can fully understand your desire to link the God of the Bible with the origin of the Cosmos as we now understand it I just don't see the link, there's too much going on with the Bible that points to Yahweh being completely made up, in my opinion.

a reply to: edmc^2

who is to say the shattered particles didnt reconstitute as that new matter? thats not creating, thats reorganizing.

a reply to: toktaylor

Life can only come from pre-existing life?:
Where did the pre-existing life came from. For life to have a beginning there has to be appoint when there was no beginning, therefore life came from no life or before the beginning. Therefore the premise is wrong; the origin of life has to predate life so life would have to come from non-life.

You just confirmed my contention that Life can only come from pre-existing life and that ...

For life to have a beginning there has to be appoint when there was no beginning

Hence, it ends with God who has no beginning.

But, then it went downhill from here...

therefore life came from no life or before the beginning. Therefore the premise is wrong; the origin of life has to predate life so life would have to come from non-life.

Since there's no scientific evidence of what you said, therefore your statement is illogical.

As for the rest, I don't know what to say but, you're trying hard to fight common sense and logic.

Any intelligent mind can see that:

That Law requires a law giver.
Intelligence requires a mind.

To prove these are not facts is just nonsense.

To say they are only applicable from the human point of view and below is illogical.

Anyone can understand that when we see a stop sign, it implies that a lawmaker and lawgiver was behind it and that intelligence was involved in its construction. Hence rejecting it, ignoring it, will get you in trouble.

If:

Life can only come from pre-existing life.
That Law requires a law giver.
Intelligence requires a mind.

applies to the lower level, why does it not apply at the higher level?

As to your q:

Would you consider non-human animals and plants to have a mind?

If they are able to think on their own, formulate on their own, consider the existence of the universe on their own, fathom the farthest reaches of the universe on their own WITHOUT any pre-programing of intelligible data then, No.

a reply to: edmc^2

You just confirmed my contention that Life can only come from pre-existing life and that ...

no. the lawmaker does not make the law that makes him. thats a paradox, as anyone can see. like being your own father.

...oh, wait. :/