Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: edmc^2

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

Such as "Alpha n Omega", "that which is not created",blah, blah blah just substitute the word "god" and put universe. I am also saying it makes more sense to believe the universe is the source, since you can see, touch,feel & observe the universe but your theory (god, creator) is subject to belief and imagination and cannot be examined or proven.

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

Problem with your statement is, the universe had a beginning. Hence, you're being irrational.

You can't say X = Y when Y is the product of X.

X must by necessity exist first (the prime) for Y to exist.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: edmc^2

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

Such as "Alpha n Omega", "that which is not created",blah, blah blah just substitute the word "god" and put universe. I am also saying it makes more sense to believe the universe is the source, since you can see, touch,feel & observe the universe but your theory (god, creator) is subject to belief and imagination and cannot be examined or proven.

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

Problem with your statement is, the universe had a beginning. Hence, you're being irrational.

You can't say X = Y when Y is the product of X.

X must by necessity exist first (the prime) for Y to exist.

no..the problem is the universe is real and god is a figment of your imagination....kudos for trying to apply a scientific formula to prove a belief.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: edmc^2

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

Such as "Alpha n Omega", "that which is not created",blah, blah blah just substitute the word "god" and put universe. I am also saying it makes more sense to believe the universe is the source, since you can see, touch,feel & observe the universe but your theory (god, creator) is subject to belief and imagination and cannot be examined or proven.

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

Problem with your statement is, the universe had a beginning. Hence, you're being irrational.

You can't say X = Y when Y is the product of X.

X must by necessity exist first (the prime) for Y to exist.

Again your words to refute your own argument...for if X (being God) is the creator of Y (existence/universe). Then to create existence one has to NOT exists. Because you cannot exists and create existence...so in conclusion...

GOD DOES NOT EXISTS...your formula is true. EXISTENCE WAS NOT CREATED...EXISTENCE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED... That is the only logical explanation...!!

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: namelesss

What gives consciousness the ability to imagine?

Imagination/thoughts are features of Reality/Consciousness.
Inherent!
Not anything "gives" that ability'
It is our natural state to 'perceive' that which is before us, whether a tree or a dream.
We perceive thoughts/imagination, which is ego, where all 'identity' exists!

What is desire?

Desire is the fruit of 'judgment'. That which is, isn't good enough for us (the imaginary/egoic construct of who and what we imagine ourselves to be, our 'identity', the imaginary definitional line drawn around that isolated bit that you call yourself!

What is aging? What is growth?

The appearances of various Perspectives of the same One Reality!
In a certain 'order' there is an appearance of 'aging', of 'change'...

Why does everything appear plural, if it isn't? What gives the ego its ability to distinguish itself apart? What is the ego?

Because one way of perceiving is through 'thought'.
It is only when we 'think about', that there has to be something to think about.
The nature of 'thought' is to fragment the One that it can be perceived/experienced/known.
You can open your eyes as an infant and see the bird in the sky.
As an infant, there is no such distinction as a bird and a sky, there is simple what he sees, in it's entirety, what WE think to be bird AND sky AND trees AND clouds, everything defined and named and definitely not anything else.
There is much in existence/Reality that can only be perceived through the eyes of the ego/thought; purple Twinkie pooping bat-winged unicorns, for one! *__-
But to actually BELIEVE that all these 'fragments of necessity' are actually independent, autonomous critters in a Universe full of other autonomous critters is insanity, schizophrenia!
Schizophrenia is the fragmenting of that which is One!
The 'fragments' are in 'appearance' only!
Never believe what you think or feel ('feelings are thoughts')!

What gives the ego its ability to distinguish itself apart? What is the ego?

Experiencing Reality sans 'thought', allows one to perceive what ego is and does.

All that you keep saying is, "no, ego!", and I don't think you even know what that means.

I know very well what an ego is (personal experience! *__- )!
All I am saying is not to 'believe' it.
This is Hell! Insanity! Misery!
And it blinds you to our original state of unconditional Love/Enlightenment!
We are what we Love!
If you Love a rock, you are the rock!
If you Love the Universe, We become Universal, limitless, One Omni- 'Self!'!
Believing the illusions of the imagination (to be all of Reality) blinds us to that unconditional Love, thus the 'sin' warning label!

Does that clear anything up? *__-

originally posted by: edmc^2... the universe had a beginning. Hence, you're being irrational.

Your 'belief' that the Universe had a 'beginning', and assertion thereof, is not a soundly logically reasoned argument, you present it as dogma (as are beliefs), and it is false!
Hence your ad-hom attack of the poster's rationality is in error.

You can't say X = Y when Y is the product of X.
X must by necessity exist first (the prime) for Y to exist.

Let 'X' be 2^ (two squared)
Let 'Y' be 4!
'Y' is the product of 'X'!
X = Y
They are equal, mutually arising.
None 'first'.
All is 'mutually arising'!
Here! Now!

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

You seem to want to take it literally in many aspects. This idea that there's a big gap of Adam growing and maturing is something that is read into the text afterward similar to the later belief that the serpent was actually Satan which is not even implied in the text anywhere. I'm well aware there's a lot of wild interpretations of Genesis, including one that holds Adam had a first wife named Lillith since the Genesis creation is actually two different accounts smashed together.

I want to gauge how literally you take the story because you've completely dodged my issue about God bringing the animals before Adam to look for a helper by saying it took many years for Adam to name all the animals.

You seem to want to take it literally in many aspects. This idea that there's a big gap of Adam growing and maturing is something that is read into the text afterward similar to the later belief that the serpent was actually Satan which is not even implied in the text anywhere. I'm well aware there's a lot of wild interpretations of Genesis, including one that holds Adam had a first wife named Lillith since the Genesis creation is actually two different accounts smashed together.

Of course, there are several ways you can interpret the Bible but if it's not based on sound logic then you're off to the deep end.

Hence, my understanding is based on human experience and what's logical (not maily literal). In the case of Adam, although created with a full grown perfect body and perfect mind, his intellect / mind still needed to mature. So time was required to gain experience. And the task given to him was perfect. He can exercise his new perfect brain to study, analyze and observe nature. So logically with a perfect mind, naming animals was an easy task. It could not have taken a long time to complete his work. But that wasn't the only thing what he was doing. With a perfect curious mind and body like his and a new home to explore, there was so much activity to do. So research he did and observation he did. And upon observing the animal world, he noticed something was missing, there wasn't one like him. So it was at this point, according to Hebrew scholars, that Adam was ready for the next stage of his life. To become a husband and father. Hence, it was at this mature age (according to scholars) of 30-40 years that Adam became a husband to Eve.

As for Lilith, I can't comment since it's not in the Bible.

As for life span, based on what was written, and based on Biblical chronology, the Bible says people back then lived a longer life. Adam died at the age of 930 and Methuselah died at the age of 969. As why they lived longer, well one thing is obvious they were a lot closer to perfection. Others say the radiation level in the past was a lot lower than we have today. If it's true, I don't know. And like I said, with a female companion that can live for a longer period time, having more babies would not be a problem. Plus back then, brothers and sisters, relatives have children from each other. So population growth wasn't a problem either. They didn't have the genetic defects we have today. It was only after Noah that the age of man went down to around 120 years, then went further downhill from there. Hence, close relatives today can't have healthy children because of the more pronounced genetic defects in the parents.

We've also never observed any kind of barrier that would prevent evolution outside of the Biblical "KIND" category, there's no reason to think such a barrier exists to day or ever existed in the past.

The "kind" I was referring to is between the different kinds of "species". Meaning a dog can't interbreed with a goat because of the genetic boundary. But a dog can breed within its kind because it's the same kind of (dog family) species.

btw - as much as I'd like to, I try to avoid using the word "species" because it means different things and the boundary is not clear.

We've also never observed any kind of barrier that would prevent evolution outside of the Biblical "KIND" category, there's no reason to think such a barrier exists to day or ever existed in the past.

As for is evolution, unless it's pure assumption and pure speculation, nature is not able to violate the genetic boundary. Even mutation is not able to create a new "kind" of species. A mutated fly will remain a fly. A mutated plant will remain a plant. The evidence for evolution will remain in the speculative interpretation of the observer - depending on his view.

The fact that you believe the fantasy elements frightens me, such a the long lifespans, these are human beings, not elves from rivendale. All of this yet you critisize Hawking and Krauss for not being clear enough on what they mean by "nothing".

Again, it's not fantasy. It's based on sound logic and known scientific evidence.

Hawking and Krauss however based their logic on philosophy.

a reply to: edmc^2

You started a discussion around your purportedly singularly logical conclusion that existence could only be the product of an intelligent (possibly supernatural) agency. furthermore your beliefs sympathize with the tenets of judaism which hinge on creationism as one of the tent poles of their philosophy. if that is not creationism, i don't know what is.

originally posted by: toktaylor

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: edmc^2

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

Such as "Alpha n Omega", "that which is not created",blah, blah blah just substitute the word "god" and put universe. I am also saying it makes more sense to believe the universe is the source, since you can see, touch,feel & observe the universe but your theory (god, creator) is subject to belief and imagination and cannot be examined or proven.

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

Problem with your statement is, the universe had a beginning. Hence, you're being irrational.

You can't say X = Y when Y is the product of X.

X must by necessity exist first (the prime) for Y to exist.

Again your words to refute your own argument...for if X (being God) is the creator of Y (existence/universe). Then to create existence one has to NOT exists. Because you cannot exists and create existence...so in conclusion...

GOD DOES NOT EXISTS...your formula is true. EXISTENCE WAS NOT CREATED...EXISTENCE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED... That is the only logical explanation...!!

Even simple mathematical logic, you still don't get it.

In order to get Y you need X as the starting point.

But X can't create X if X already exist, can't it? No. It's illogical.

Hence, since X exist therefore Y can exist.

In other words, since God already exist, he can't create himself. It's illogical. But God can create the universe.

Hence, the universe had a beginning while God doesn't have one.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

You started a discussion around your purportedly singularly logical conclusion that existence could only be the product of an intelligent (possibly supernatural) agency. furthermore your beliefs sympathize with the tenets of judaism which hinge on creationism as one of the tent poles of their philosophy. if that is not creationism, i don't know what is.

Stick with Biblical Creation with 13 billion-year-old universe and a 4 billion-year-old earth - you'll be ok.

originally posted by: toktaylor

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: edmc^2

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

Such as "Alpha n Omega", "that which is not created",blah, blah blah just substitute the word "god" and put universe. I am also saying it makes more sense to believe the universe is the source, since you can see, touch,feel & observe the universe but your theory (god, creator) is subject to belief and imagination and cannot be examined or proven.

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

Problem with your statement is, the universe had a beginning. Hence, you're being irrational.

You can't say X = Y when Y is the product of X.

X must by necessity exist first (the prime) for Y to exist.

no..the problem is the universe is real and god is a figment of your imagination....kudos for trying to apply a scientific formula to prove a belief.

Sorry, but that's a very limited thinking.

We have "dark matter", "dark energy", quantum entanglement, event horizon, black holes and so many unknown phenomenons and they are not figments of the imagination. So just because something is beyond your understanding doesn't mean it's a figment of imagination.

It's laziness to think that way especially if you consider yourself a science buff.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

You started a discussion around your purportedly singularly logical conclusion that existence could only be the product of an intelligent (possibly supernatural) agency. furthermore your beliefs sympathize with the tenets of judaism which hinge on creationism as one of the tent poles of their philosophy. if that is not creationism, i don't know what is.

Stick with Biblical Creation with 13 billion-year-old universe and a 4 billion-year-old earth - you'll be ok.

That is still a flawed hypothesis, and it is still up to you to test it. You know how the scientific method works. The ball is in your court.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: edmc^2... the universe had a beginning. Hence, you're being irrational.

Your 'belief' that the Universe had a 'beginning', and assertion thereof, is not a soundly logically reasoned argument, you present it as dogma (as are beliefs), and it is false!
Hence your ad-hom attack of the poster's rationality is in error.

You can't say X = Y when Y is the product of X.
X must by necessity exist first (the prime) for Y to exist.

Let 'X' be 2^ (two squared)
Let 'Y' be 4!
'Y' is the product of 'X'!
X = Y
They are equal, mutually arising.
None 'first'.
All is 'mutually arising'!
Here! Now!

So what's rational with this statement?

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

???

a reply to: edmc^2

A lot of assumptions you are once again reading into the text. Nowhere in Genesis does it say Adam was created with a perfect mind BUT also needed time to grow up as if he was a child. That may be the view of some folks but I don't see how one can glean that from text alone. Of course I've heard the claim that Adam was perfect made by Creationists before but it never really jives with the other claim they typically make (not accusing you of making) - the claim that Adam had FREE WILL. Free will, the ability to choose freely without coercion or deterministic factors, would necessarily lead to disobedience for Adam. Sin, if defined as disobedience to God, would have to be part of God's plan, a feature rather than a bug.

It could not have taken a long time to complete his work.

Now this all depends on how many "kinds" you think God created for Adam to name does it not? As far as species it is believed there are about 16 million or so species on planet Earth. Even if I graciously cut that number to about 4 million it's an absolutely absurd assertion to say that Adam had plenty of time in 30-40 years to name that many animals. Adam would have to observe the behavior and nature of about 270 species every day AND come up with a NAME for them. Even if I cut it to just 1 million since the word "kind" is super vague Adam has to observe and name 68 animals every day for his entire 40 years!

In centuries and centuries of science we haven't found all the species or named them all - and that's disregarding the EXTINCT species, which I'm not sure how you feel about. For example did Adam have to also name all the dinosaurs?

Seriously actually imagine the logistics of what you're talking about. There are organisms that live their entire lives underground, there are also organisms that don't live anywhere near the fertile crescent where it is generally believed Eden would have been.

Unless you think Adam was just naming the LOCAL flora and fauna of his region.

As for Lilith, I can't comment since it's not in the Bible.

Neither is anything about Adam being 30 or 40, that's a claim you've said comes from "Hebrew scholars". There's nothing in Genesis or the rest of the Bible about God bonding with Adam for 30 years of bro time before Eve.

You also seem to have ignored what the Bible does say, that God brought the animals before Adam and seemed bummed that Adam couldn't find a suitable helper. The story simply does not compute with the modern idea that God is all knowing and all wise, he would have surely known that Adam needed a biologically human counterpart of the opposite sex without having to trot out animals first.

They didn't have the genetic defects we have today.

Again. modern genetic studies of human beings do not agree with any of this. They certainly have never found any evidence of a genetic bottleneck where there were only two people. Most people naturally have a disinclination to sleeping with their relatives, its taboo in almost every single culture, not to mention being totally forbidden later in the Bible when the law of Moses is handed down. Believe what you will but there's no extra-biblical or scientific evidence for any of this. There is certainly no evidence that the thing keeping us from living to be 800 or 900 has anything to with radiation levels.

Also I can't imagine why people back then were closer to perfection, if anything they were closer to evil. For one thing the Fall and the subsequent Curse God put on his creation had just taken place, the idea that sin would pass from Adam to all of his children had just begun to be a thing. And of course just a hop skip and few begats later we have the entire world being so full of evil and so corrupt that God is SORRY he made humanity and wants to wipe all of us out save Noah and his family. If those early generations were closer to perfection why does the New Testament suggest that things will be in the last days as they were in the days of Noah? Sounds like they were the ones closer to corruption and evil.

But a dog can breed within its kind because it's the same kind of (dog family) species.

That's not the kind of barrier I'm talking about though. Obviously dogs and goats are chemically infertile, they can't reproduce together. I'm talking about evolution, that the natural changes populations undergo over time eventually add up so that what you have after enough generations is actually another species because it cannot reproduce with the original. We see this in the wild with what are called Ring Species, one population breaks into two lineages that head out in separate environments and thus the selection pressure makes them diverge. Eventually you can go out to a point on both prongs of the tree where the farthest populations out on the prongs are still able to reproduce if brought back together but both ends are different species from the original population they diverged from (they cannot interbreed with the originals).

Of course you are right that in some ways species is an entirely manmade distinction but then so is the Biblical Kind and species is far better defined as a term.

The evidence for evolution will remain in the speculative interpretation of the observer

This isn't the case. Believe you me I was once a big skeptic of evolution. In fact I was raised in a fundamentalist household and attended a Pentecostal church and was a Bible believing born again "spirit filled" "tongue speaking" Christian up until about age 19. I considered myself an Old Earth creationist and was very much anti-evolution. Even after I left Christianity behind it took me years to give Evolution a fair shake. I was apprehensive. I didn't want to accept it even though I'd long ago left behind any kind of organized religion. Finally I started to do the research and low and behold all the evidence is there, for anyone to see, and it's pretty damn spectacular.

Again, it's not fantasy. It's based on sound logic and known scientific evidence.

I haven't seen you present any scientific evidence, I've seen some attempts at logic and some re-interpretation of what the Bible says but no scientific evidence. You've made lots and lots of ASSERTIONS and claims but you've not proved any aspect of Creation as far as I can see. Casting doubt on Krauss and Hawking and insisting that a God is the best explanation isn't evidence.

You still have yet to explain how your argument - All life must come from life so there must be a God doesn't involve a big ol' special pleading fallacy in order to get God out of needing to have come from a previous life. And the thing is you can't just say "God is uncaused/uncreated" because you can't possibly know that for sure. Sure the Bible says God is the Alpha and Omega but just because the Bible says it doesn't make it so. You can't rule out the idea that God might have an even bigger more incomprehensible UBER GOD as his creator and saying "God is a lifeform that doesn't need a creator" is violating the whole premise of your argument.

@OP

Have you considered that your creator may not be the God of Christian theology? Have you given any thought to whether this "god" (and there may be one) created this universe as a self-fulfilling board game?

Scientists ask the question about the fine-tuning of this universe. Perhaps it was programmed?

The answer is: No one knows. Not you, not me - no one. Personally, if there is a creator, I don't want to meet it/he/her
because I think that being will be very different than what religious philosophers and theologians on this planet propose.

SD (Stupid Design) and Not so Fine Tuned universe was well covered by Dr. Tyson long time ago...



Funniest comment ever: Entertainment Complex in the middle of Sewage System - No engineer would design that at all.

Priceless

Sam Harris' Tsunami covers morality and christian god... people should watch this video just as reminder...

originally posted by: edmc^2

So what's rational with this statement????

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

I can hypothesize, as all statements are true in a way, but I did not say that; those are not my words (please link me if I have had a senior moment and forgotten), it doesn't sound like me; I don't say "cock and bull"...
Perhaps the original author would provide what you seek? *__-

a reply to: edmc^2

Can you find the post where I said that I believed in abiogenesis? It's a possibility and certainly much more logical than god, as there is SOME evidence. For god, there is none, plain and simple. This will be my last response here because this conversation has been going nowhere for 17 pages. It's a giant circle of you making claims, numerous people objecting to your logic, and then you ignoring any points made against you and repeating the original argument as if it hasn't been utterly destroyed.

If you don't want to defend and discuss YOUR topic, then what's the point of making a thread about it? So you can repeat yourself ad infinitum? Why can't you just call it faith and tell us you believe this and why you do? If your thread title said, "Why I believe god exists", I'd have no issue with that and probably would not have argued, but you choose to use buzzwords like "proof", "only logical explanation" and "fact" every time you make a thread. Your threads never contain proof, logic or facts, so they are essentially self defeating arguments based on faith.

For example:

Problem with your statement is, the universe had a beginning.

I'd ask you to prove this, but we all know you cannot and will not. In fact, you will completely ignore this objection and continue on as if nobody even mentioned it. It's just another complete guess by you asserted as fact despite having no evidence. Statements like this are why the thread is going nowhere. Your argument is 100% faith based, stop trying to trick people. I'm sure somebody will eventually buy your snake oil. It just won't be anybody that understands science, math and logic.

a reply to: edmc^2

"In other words, since God already exist, he can't create himself. It's illogical. But God can create the universe."

If he already exist then he could not have created existence. that is the illogical aspect of your argument. So is either there was no existence and he created it, meaning he would not have to exist to do so (fallacy to you reasoning).

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: edmc^2

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

Such as "Alpha n Omega", "that which is not created",blah, blah blah just substitute the word "god" and put universe. I am also saying it makes more sense to believe the universe is the source, since you can see, touch,feel & observe the universe but your theory (god, creator) is subject to belief and imagination and cannot be examined or proven.

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

Problem with your statement is, the universe had a beginning. Hence, you're being irrational.

You can't say X = Y when Y is the product of X.

X must by necessity exist first (the prime) for Y to exist.

no..the problem is the universe is real and god is a figment of your imagination....kudos for trying to apply a scientific formula to prove a belief.

Sorry, but that's a very limited thinking.

We have "dark matter", "dark energy", quantum entanglement, event horizon, black holes and so many unknown phenomenons and they are not figments of the imagination. So just because something is beyond your understanding doesn't mean it's a figment of imagination.

It's laziness to think that way especially if you consider yourself a science buff.

All you have described is proof of the existence and reality of the UNIVERSE not proof of a supernatural being.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: edmc^2

So what's rational with this statement????

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

I can hypothesize, as all statements are true in a way, but I did not say that; those are not my words (please link me if I have had a senior moment and forgotten), it doesn't sound like me; I don't say "cock and bull"...
Perhaps the original author would provide what you seek? *__-

I believe you were referencing this post in your post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If not, then I might have misunderstood you when you said:

Hence your ad-hom attack of the poster's rationality is in error.