Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: edmc^2

There's no definition for it hence atheism is truly an unknowable "thing"

You're half right. There is a definition for atheism. Atheism is disbelief (or the lack of belief) in the existence of gods. Theism also has a definition, theism is the belief that a god or gods exist. With all that said you are right that atheism is unknowable, because it's not a knowledge claim, it's a stance on belief. Theists believe. Atheists do no. The other side of that coin is agnostic vs. gnostic where Agnostics admit they don't know while gnostics claim knowlegde one way or the other.

it becomes a belief system.

Explain to me how DISBELIEF is itself a BELIEF SYSTEM.

Either way these stances, atheism and theism, address only the specific issue of belief in god(s). Theism is not a belief system - it is a label that fits all of those who hold a belief in a god or gods. Atheism is not a belief system - it is a label that fits those who do not believe in gods. THAT'S IT.

Now you could decide to put certain labels under the theist and atheist banner, labels which DO constitute belief systems. For example may theists are Christians or Muslims and many atheists are secular humanists. By themselves atheism and theism are not belief systems and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

There's no truth to it either since you can't say God does or doesn't exist.

Well actually you can say that God doesn't exist and still be an atheist, in that instance you would just be what's called a Gnostic Atheist or Strong Atheist. Gnostic atheists would be those who claim that they KNOW gods do not exist. Strong atheists would be those who simply BELIEVE that no gods exist.

But you are at least partially right when you say this:

Once you say God doesn't exist, then you're putting yourself in a situation where you have to accept it's the truth. Hence a belief system.

It doesn't turn atheism into a belief system, what it does is it give that person claiming that God definitely does or definitely doesn't exist the burden of proof in that scenario. Ordinarily atheism would be what's called the default position, which is to withhold acceptance of a claim until sufficient evidence exists to justify accepting it. When someone goes beyond that to make a knowledge based claim then the burden of proof shifts to them. For example if I were to say, "Yahweh DOES NOT exist" that is a knowledge claim, at that point we're not dealing with me being an atheist we're dealing with me being a Gnostic-atheist in regards to that specific God.

And that's how nuanced and weird this discussion can get, because I can be a gnostic-atheist in regards to Zeus, Yahweh and Thor but be utterly agnostic toward the vague deistic watch-maker God.

In all cases it isn't atheism that would become a belief, atheism is always going to be a form of disbelief, or the absence of a belief. Rather it is things additional to atheism that may be seen as beliefs. There is a difference between, "I do not believe in gods" and "I believe that gods do not exist". One is a disbelief position open to change (Weak atheism) and the other is a positive belief that gods do not exist (strong atheism).

So in reality, atheism is a conundrum.

The problem with the atheist and theist labels is they are so damned narrow in their focus, they focus solely on the question of belief in gods. This is why even many atheists scoff at the idea of an "atheist movement" or "atheist community" because atheism is just this one stance and happens to label us by what we don't believe rather than what we DO actually believe about the world. The issue is that if you ask a hundred atheists what they DO believe outside of their disbelief they will likely give very different answers. I've talked to atheists who believe in ghosts, I've met atheists who are against abortion and gay marriage, I've known atheists who believe in reincarnation.

There is no dogma or belief system to atheism.

But even with this wickedness and evil, it's not a justification to reject God.

I'm afraid we've already dragged this thread a bit off-topic as is but... My own rejection has only partly to do with Inquisitions and holy wars and more to do with what the Bible actually says and how it was put together. It isn't just the history of the religions, it's the religious texts themselves. The Bible depicts a horrible warlike God who brings down plagues, threatens on numerous occasions to blot his own chosen people off the map, slaughters children, condones slavery and engages in all manner of evil behavior that would leave any human historical figure vilified as one of the worst tyrants in history. Not only does the religion spawned from the Jewish and Christian scriptures have none of the hallmarks of being inspired by a benevolent divine force but the scriptures themselves show every evidence, every hallmark, of being utterly manmade without a shred of interference from anything supernatural or divine.

If you'd like to know more about my deconversion you can always PM me about the subject.

So you can't lump all religious organization into one as "soaked in blood and ignorance and steeped in mythology."

I apologize if that is what you thought my intention was. I wasn't attempting to lump ALL religions together, rather I was talking primarily about the Abrahamic faiths. You have set up this debate as being Biblical creation vs. Atheism but those aren't the only two options. Even if I were to reject wholesale the models of modern Cosmology it doesn't make the God of the Bible seem even remotely plausible or promising as an explanation.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

There is a difference between saying "this is a concrete fact" and "there is a reliable basis by which this possibility is considerable". Creationism falls under neither of these while evolution falls under at least one.

And once again, if it can't be proven false, it cannot be proven true. Which makes it worthless as a hypothesis.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Occam's Razor says the simplest answer is often correct.

No it doesn't. It says the answer WITH THE LEAST ASSUMPTIONS is usually correct. It has nothing to do with simple. Yeah it's easy to believe in god, that doesn't make it right.

To test this analogy, supposed you come across a word written in a sand saying DENY.

What would be the simplest explanation as to how the word got there?

Deny is an English word, created by humans. Of course that would indicate that it was written by somebody that understands English because that premise is correct and we know that humans can write words. Unfortunately there is no god logo or trademark or signature ANYWHERE that can be verified. You just keep making guesses and assumptions about it. Your premise is a complete guess, so your analogy is dead wrong.

And again, if there is no evidence for something, the logical default is non existence. You need to brush up on your logic.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
Occam's Razor says the simplest answer is often correct.

No it doesn't. It says the answer WITH THE LEAST ASSUMPTIONS is usually correct. It has nothing to do with simple. Yeah it's easy to believe in god, that doesn't make it right.

To test this analogy, supposed you come across a word written in a sand saying DENY.

What would be the simplest explanation as to how the word got there?

Deny is an English word, created by humans. Of course that would indicate that it was written by somebody that understands English because that premise is correct and we know that humans can write words. Unfortunately there is no god logo or trademark or signature ANYWHERE that can be verified. You just keep making guesses and assumptions about it. Your premise is a complete guess, so your analogy is dead wrong.

And again, if there is no evidence for something, the logical default is non existence. You need to brush up on your logic.

Here u go Barcs:

Occam's Razor says the simplest answer is often correct.

No it doesn't. It says the answer WITH THE LEAST ASSUMPTIONS is usually correct. It has nothing to do with simple. Yeah it's easy to believe in god, that doesn't make it right.

Definition of OCCAM'S RAZOR

: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

www.merriam-webster.com...'s%20razor

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .

"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

. . .or in the only form that takes its own advice. . .
"Keep things simple!"

www.math.ucr.edu...

Occam’s razor, also spelled Ockham’s razor, also called law of economy or law of parsimony,
William of Ockham [Credit: Moscarlop]principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.”

www.britannica.com...

Barcs, I gather you always like to antagonize people. Not sure why.

a reply to: edmc^2

No.

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae, which means 'law of parsimony') is a problem-solving principle devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian.

The principle can be interpreted as

Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

en.wikipedia.org...

Simple answer for gravity: "magic fairies make stuff go down".

By your gross misunderstanding of Occam's Razor, this would be the correct explanation because it's the simplest.

ANd to no one's surprise, you're utterly wrong. As usual.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Barcs, I gather you always like to antagonize people. Not sure why.

Antagonize? You are the one that made a thread based on assumptions that attacks science and education. I'm telling you that your assumptions are assumptions. I get that this bothers you, but you are using an intellectually dishonest premise to assume your pre-determined conclusion.

Plus you are wrong about Occam's razor. Simple means less assumptions when referencing science, nice try with the quote mines. The more you assume, the more faulty a viewpoint is. Since your viewpoint requires assumptions based on assumptions, you have nothing to stand on, logically. You still can't prove the premise of your inference, which makes the entire thing invalid.

a reply to: edmc^2

Setting aside Occam's Razor for a moment let's look at the explanation using the four criteria set up by Christian apologist Michael Licona when he attempts to prove the Resurrection of Jesus. Those four criteria are

Explanatory Scope and Explanatory Power - the explanation encompasses as many known facts as possible and is consistent with those facts. The explanation is sufficient to cause whatever the phenomenon is.

Not Ad Hoc and Plausibility - the explanation does not come with unnecessary additional assumptions and is plausible given the facts.

Now any magical or supernatural explanation is going to have, very easily, explanatory scope and explanatory power, because a supernatural cause, such as God, can be defined and re-defined endlessly until it fits the facts. This is exactly the sort of thing we've seen of the Christian/Jewish God throughout the centuries, even Jesus himself was not agreed upon until an orthodox dogma developed centuries after Christ supposedly lived. When you see a magic trick performed it might be complicated and hard to figure out how they did it, but you know what's easy and intellectually lazy and SIMPLE, just assuming it was REAL MAGIC.

So when you say that God creating the Universe is quite SIMPLE and thus fits Occam's Razor all you are really saying is that it has the greatest explanatory scope and explanatory power without stretching the imagination or becoming overly complex like physics often does. God can and has been constantly redefined by apologists to get it to loosely fit the scientific facts but the fact is that science has outgrown all but the most nebulous and deistic editions of God.

The problem, as others have pointed out to you, is that there are certain extra assumptions that must be made, and rules broken, in order to assume that your God is a plausible explanation. Simplicity by itself is not enough and, at any rate, while the explanation "God did it" might be SIMPLE the God it proposes assuredly would not be. For one thing it isn't even coherent to say that something can exist outside time and space. If you can establish that this exists outside time and space than you have to assume that this transcendent thing beyond the Universe is capable of creating a Universe - why would we assume that? And on top of all that it's alive, it is a living mind potentially with a body of some kind but not a PHYSICAL body, a non-physical one. Which means you have to establish dualism, that there is a non-material substance this God can be made of.

The simplest form of God is the deistic First Cause, but there we can reduce God to "something sufficient to cause the Universe to begin" and I think you will agree that such a thing doesn't HAVE to be ALIVE, OR SUPERNATURAL or even remotely related to Yahweh.

Occam's Razor, to me, would suggest that the Universe always existed in some form or another, for that is the simplest explanation - and yes, there are models of the Universe that are eternal and consistent (although not necessarily right). But then I don't know where the Universe came from, no one does, maybe it is eternal, or maybe not, or maybe we're in a simulated universe in a simulated universe in a simulated universe where the actual universe far outside our own is utterly incomprehensible compared to the simulation designed for us. WHO KNOWS. There could be a thousand gods or no gods at all and the Universe is more than big enough to hold all manner of weirdness.

I can hold a rock in one hand, I don’t know where it came from, but it’s difficult to imagine a time when each of its elements did not exist.
In the other hand, I can imagine I’m holding God. I don’t know if He’s really there, because He looks just like nothing. It’s difficult to imagine that He is really there, and that He has always existed, and He has always been intelligent, and that He even created the rock in my other hand!
What I do know that the rock exists now. Its very existence testifies to the fact that it can exist and does exist, and has possibly always existed. I don’t know if God exists right now, or has ever existed, or if such a being is even feasible or necessary. It’s easier to believe in the eternal nature of the thing I can observe, than the thing which I cannot.

originally posted by: toktaylor
I can hold a rock in one hand, I don’t know where it came from, but it’s difficult to imagine a time when each of its elements did not exist.
In the other hand, I can imagine I’m holding God. I don’t know if He’s really there, because He looks just like nothing. It’s difficult to imagine that He is really there, and that He has always existed, and He has always been intelligent, and that He even created the rock in my other hand!
What I do know that the rock exists now. Its very existence testifies to the fact that it can exist and does exist, and has possibly always existed. I don’t know if God exists right now, or has ever existed, or if such a being is even feasible or necessary. It’s easier to believe in the eternal nature of the thing I can observe, than the thing which I cannot.

Sorry, but that's a very bad analogy and very poor way of looking things. And I thought you're scientific. I guess not, but I would say you're a materialist. To see is to believe.

But just because something is invisible and can't be observed doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't look things that simplistic. There are many things in nature that we can't see, yet we believe them to exist. Also, just because something can be observed doesn't necessarily mean there's no such thing as invisibility.

If you only depend on what you can see, feel, touch, smell and hear then you're very limited in your ability to understand the invisible world.

There's more to life than the physical.

Our brain/mind alone was created with the capacity to hold enormous amounts of information with the ability to create new ones every day. To limit it with just the physical is mindless.











Take for example space and time -

The disputations of the heritecs
Fittingly referd to as

The gates of hell

The end of Christianity began with the French
Revolution when the church had no say
On what happened in France.
They called it The age of enlightenment
The beginning of modern science
But during this time in France
An open agenda had begun
To remove God from the people
This was not a conspiracy
They were openly doing this
Destroying churches allowing
Only state run churches

Nostradamus called it a vulgar event
When the Catholic Church no longer had a say on what went on in france
They drowned all the bishops and killed kings
And their bloodlines

This was the rise of the atheists
Who would come to try and control the world
The start of the bankers
Doctors
Lawyers
Phycologist
Scientists
politicians


The age of enlightenment
Could it really be the age of darkness

Jesus did say
Be careful that you are not decieved

a reply to: piney

This was the rise of the atheists 

i.e. people that are not christians.........oh noes!!!....

originally posted by: piney
But during this time in France
An open agenda had begun
To remove God from the people

Seems that you mixed up removal of power from church with removal of god from the people.

Are there still Christians in France? If yes, seems that what you just said makes no sense... or should we call it - another lie...

a reply to: piney

How many atheists run the international banks? There are atheist politicians that win office? That's news to me. No presidential candidate has a chance to win an election without being outwardly religious. It's practically a requirement since most Christians seem to fear anybody that doesn't believe their worldview, regardless of their political ideas or policies. It's ridiculous.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

So when you say that God creating the Universe is quite SIMPLE and thus fits Occam's Razor all you are really saying is that it has the greatest explanatory scope and explanatory power without stretching the imagination or becoming overly complex like physics often does. God can and has been constantly redefined by apologists to get it to loosely fit the scientific facts but the fact is that science has outgrown all but the most nebulous and deistic editions of God.

The problem, as others have pointed out to you, is that there are certain extra assumptions that must be made, and rules broken, in order to assume that your God is a plausible explanation. Simplicity by itself is not enough and, at any rate, while the explanation "God did it" might be SIMPLE the God it proposes assuredly would not be. For one thing it isn't even coherent to say that something can exist outside time and space. If you can establish that this exists outside time and space than you have to assume that this transcendent thing beyond the Universe is capable of creating a Universe - why would we assume that? And on top of all that it's alive, it is a living mind potentially with a body of some kind but not a PHYSICAL body, a non-physical one. Which means you have to establish dualism, that there is a non-material substance this God can be made of.

The problem with what you said is I didn't make any CONCLUSION - as to who created the universe - based on an "easy and intellectually lazy and SIMPLE," assumption. No, but I made an INFERENCE based on logical, methodical and scientific analysis of the evidence. Now, this is just the icing on the cake so to speak. There's more powerful source of evidence that points to God as the creator of the universe. But since you don't consider it as a source of evidence, then you're not getting the whole picture and it's too bad.

In any case, even the physical evidence has more than enough power to give evidence that the universe is a creation by an intelligent creator - Yahweh/Jehovah God.

Also, it's not because it's easy to say "God did it" or just because it seems to be unexplainable in a scientific way. That's too simplistic and lazy. It's even comparable to the blind faith exhibited by those who say "we don't know who created the universe, but it's not God."

But like I said the evidence is all around us.

How much more "proof" does the non-believer need?

originally posted by: JuJuBee
How much more "proof" does the non-believer need?

if thats all you need, i have a bridge you might be interested in buying...

a reply to: edmc^2

No, but I made an INFERENCE based on logical, methodical and scientific analysis of the evidence.

in simple terms, your "work" is a disgrace to science. this entire thread stands testament to that fact.

In any case, even the physical evidence has more than enough power to give evidence that the universe is a creation by an intelligent creator - Yahweh/Jehovah God.

youve made your point, your powers of cognitive flexibility are indeed astounding and baffling.

Also, it's not because it's easy to say "God did it" or just because it seems to be unexplainable in a scientific way. That's too simplistic and lazy. It's even comparable to the blind faith exhibited by those who say "we don't know who created the universe, but it's not God."

you get too caught up in the ad hominem and witticisms and forget to attach all that science-y looking stuff that promises to magically make your case watertight. by the power of greyskull and whatnot.

a reply to: edmc^2

Yes, that is a widely held belief and attitude and a valid idea for an actual creationist to hold. But, science can and does explain the world without invoking supernatural creators. There is no scientific purpose to insert a God into the equation of how something works. It offers nothing to the question of "how".
Therefore, science cannot make any use of super-naturalistic explanations. Science restricts itself to naturalistic explanations because that's all that it can work with, not because it wishes to deny the existence of the supernatural.

There are gaps in our scientific knowledge, gaps that are shrinking with every new major scientific discovery. You set a trap for creationist seeking to fill these gaps with a god, or worse, outright lie about "physical evidence". This "God of the Gaps" thinking, ends up defining God as that which fills the gaps in our knowledge, in itself this thinking has several ill effects such as edifying our ignorance and motivating us to actively deny scientific research. Solving a mystery that justifies the existence of a God is seen as a direct attack on God ( by creationist logic) by forcing God to the gaps of our ignorance, we diminish any god greatly, turning god into an impotent sad excuse for a deity who must forever hide in ignorance, as his hiding places whither away in the light of knowledge. By turning God into the God of Ignorance, the believers and non-believers alike will view new knowledge as disproving God.

It should be made clear why creationist make extensive use of "God of the Gaps" reasoning to point to some gap in our knowledge, whether real or imagined, and pronounce it as evidence or proof of "Goddidit". While edmc^2 uses it more as a rhetorical device, "God of the Gaps" is an integral part of ID and a fundamental basis for much of their reasoning, by forcing God into science is a fundamental goal in their Wedge Strategy.

The wedge strategy details a simultaneous assault on state boards of education, state and federal legislatures and on the print and broadcast media.[37] The Discovery Institute is currently carrying out the strategy through its role in the intelligent design movement, where it aggressively promotes ID and its Teach the Controversy campaign to the public, education officials and public policymakers.[38] Intelligent design proponents, through the Discovery Institute, have employed a number of specific political strategies and tactics in their furtherance of their goals. These range from attempts at the state level to undermine or remove altogether the presence of evolutionary theory from the public school classroom, to having the federal government mandate the teaching of intelligent design, to 'stacking' municipal, county and state school boards with ID proponents.[39]

It's all political, a Theocracy is what they ultimately want.

a reply to: flyingfish

There is one gap science cant explain and that is what energy-form(Source) formed the energymass (the singualrity).

Time, particles, energy and matter are a Product of the expanding singularity. They did not form the singularity if they are a Product.

a reply to: spy66

There is one gap science cant explain and that is what energy-form(Source) formed the energymass (the singualrity).

Correct.
Feel free to insert your favorite cause of choice. If you must.