Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

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

Like I said in the OP:

'... as a Christian, my view of the origin of life (based on honest consideration and study of the evidence available) is that Yahweh / Jehovah God is the source of life. Hence, the statement "Life comes from pre-existing life" is an undeniable fact of life. It's a view I hold that is supported by an unassailable truth and testable evidence within the bounds of rational thought.

Whilst the Atheist point of view:

"Out of nothing, something" - is irrational, an untestable, unfalsifiable view, a (to be blunt but not meant to offend) delusional point of view as there's no evidence to support it whether scientifically or mathematically. An unworkable model. A philosophical assertion.

You can test this two views to your heart's content and you'll come with the same conclusion that I did.

this is the definition of what some call a "false dichotomy". narrowing it down to two "either/ or" answers prematurely when dozens of other options are still being explored, precisely for the purpose of funneling us into your prepared (and comparatively poorly founded) conclusion.

FYI, scientists are currently in the process of attempting to verify or falsify the nature of our universes beginnings. They are employing science to the best and most honest of their abilities, unlike you. I would much rather be patient and certain than quick and faithful.

It's only a false dichotomy if there are other options but there's no more options but the two:

The Universe / Life was a creation by an intelligent being - God or "nothing" created it.

"We don't know" is not a option for the simple fact that you either have to believe what you don't know or not. Which leads to God or Nothing.

But if you have other options let me know. I've already considered many of them.

originally posted by: edmc^2

Krazysh0t Lol! I didn't move the goalposts. There's no goalpost to move, but your understanding of what I said is faulty - it's too literal. Lol.

If you want to be scientific, you HAVE to be literal. That's how it works. So I take the things

When I said, 'you can't have faith', it doesn't mean literally you can't. There's no one stopping you. You can believe or have faith on anything. That's you're prerogative. What I said if you read it again is that, you can't have faith on something without evidence unless or it becomes BLIND FAITH. Hence, it's DANGEROUS BLIND FAITH.

Here let me quote what I said and bold the CONDITIONAL words.

But that is religion. Plain and simple.

Again, my examples:

You can't have faith in a doctor's words without evidence that he is able to do what he claims. Otherwise, you're putting your life in danger.

True, but everyone has things they believe with flimsy evidence or no evidence backing them. Again religion.

a reply to: edmc^2

You don't even need research paper because you yourself can do it. That is, create 'life from pre-existing life."

You distinctly said in a prior post that your logic was scientifically repeatable. Please post one research paper that validates your statement.

a reply to: edmc^2

It's only a false dichotomy if there are other options but there's no more options but the two: The Universe / Life was a creation by an intelligent being - God or "nothing" created it.

"We don't know" is not a option for the simple fact that you either have to believe what you don't know or not. Which leads to God or Nothing.

But if you have other options let me know. I've already considered many of them.

This is your opinion. It's not science.

a reply to: edmc^2

"We don't know" is not a option for the simple fact that you either have to believe what you don't know or not. Which leads to God or Nothing.

remember that "false dichotomy" thing? you're doing it again.

a reply to: edmc^2

This is not to knock down scientists, but they are just imperfect men and women prone to biases of their own. They are affected by pride as well as selfishness and political ambitions and convictions.

So you see it's not all black and white.

As for Steven Hawking's writings, who peer-reviews them?

Scientist of the same view? i.e atheist?

Of course.

take for instance how you insist on posting these threads anonymously while at these "selfish" scientists put their names on papers in magazines all the time. they put themselves out there for both the critical acclaim and the criticism. blood, sweat, tears, countless sleepless nights and gallons of coffee scraping together a reputation for themselves and their work. essentially, they are respected and deferred to because they have EARNED the right to say "i know what im talking about." when is the last time you stood face to face with a scientific board and defended your research successfully? when is the last time you even submitted a thesis for consideration? all you do is prattle on anonymous message boards on the internet.

if you really want to impress people, stop hiding behind your computer monitor. prove your point like a genuine scholar and not just a spambot waiting to be deleted. but since we all know that will never happen, this thread will only breath its last when we stop dignifying your pseudo-science garbage with responses. seriously, we are only perpetuating this nonsense by feeding the troll - that means you. 27 pages worth of goose chase, hoping to wear us down enough that we will just give up.

well, i do. i give up. deuces.

originally posted by: edmc^2
No need to prove it - the evidence is right there.

Even the law of Gravity (Fg=G*m1m2/r2) has a mind behind it.

If you can't see it then I can't help you.

LMAO! Why do you keep reverting back to your original arguments rather than addressing my counterpoints? That's so typical.

Hey guess what? Santa Clause is the only logical possibility. How do I know? The evidence is everywhere!! I won't give you any evidence, but we'll just claim it's everywhere and call it a day.

Sorry, but you have gotten owned in this thread. Laws are measurements. Yes, it takes somebody with a brain to take those measurements. That doesn't mean that the phenomena described was created. You aren't making any sense at all and the difference is, you CAN see it, but you purposely and dishonestly ignore it. If you don't understand basic logic I can't help you.

To the contrary Phantom, my understanding on science is based on logic and rational thinking. They are testable and repeatable supported by solid evidence.

Bahahaha. Sorry, not trying to be mean here, but seriously. How can you say something so blatantly wrong? You have defied logic at every single turn in your argument. There no logic or repeatable evidence for god. NONE. There is only your semantic argument that relies on logical fallacies and assumptions. It's really not that hard to make a valid argument for something. You are just too lazy to think outside of your box, so you draw loose connections and claim assumptions are facts.

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. If you can't explain your position without fallacies, it is by definition an illogical argument, which makes your thread title a lie.

I don't care if you wish to claim these things as your opinion, but you are presenting your opinion as if it is fact and it's clearly not.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

picky.

If you want to be scientific, you HAVE to be literal. That's how it works. So I take the things

Krazysh0t, when someone says, 'you can't have faith on something without evidence unless you want to endanger yourself' it doesn't mean I can literally stop you. That's all what it means. If this simple statement gives problems how about the more complicated ones?

For example, if I say 'accurate knowledge is the DOOR to true science'. Don't take it literally otherwise you will never find the literal DOOR because the DOOR in this case, is metaphorical.

To quote Albert Einstein:

We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.

'...you can't have faith on something without evidence unless or it becomes BLIND FAITH. Hence, it's DANGEROUS BLIND FAITH.'

But that is religion. Plain and simple.

Sorry Krazy, but I now understand why you can't figure out FAITH. You see it ONLY as a religious word. That's where you're wrong. In fact, I can talk about FAITH on anything, on any subject without even mentioning God, without any religious connotations. I can even use it when talking about atheism - which is the title of my next thread. You need to expand your understanding of the word (FIDES) faith because it's a powerful word.

a reply to: Barcs

Even the law of Gravity (Fg=G*m1m2/r2) has a mind behind it.

Laws are measurements. Yes, it takes somebody with a brain to take those measurements. That doesn't mean that the phenomena described was created. You aren't making any sense at all and the difference is, you CAN see it, but you purposely and dishonestly ignore it. If you don't understand basic logic I can't help you.

"it takes somebody with a brain to take those measurements."

Exactly my point! The law of Gravity (Fg=G*m1m2/r2) has a mind behind it.

Now, I know you're being absurd, but it revealed something to me.

You say:

Santa Clause is the only logical possibility. How do I know? The evidence is everywhere!! I won't give you any evidence, but we'll just claim it's everywhere and call it a day.

You can make fun of me all you want, but it only reveals the shallowness and weakness of your argument. It reveals that you and your three fellow atheists that starred you are hiding behind a silly infantile argument.

Santa Clause is the only logical possibility.

If this is the extent of the atheist argument to counter my stance that ' The law of Gravity (Fg=G*m1m2/r2) has a mind behind it. Then I feel sorry for you and your atheist friends. You lack the logical intellect to see and understand the obvious.

Not many people will take you seriously when you say that "Santa Clause is the only logical possibility" (except your atheist friends of course) because Santa Clause is a fairy tale. But many will believe if you say 'The law of Gravity (Fg=G*m1m2/r2) has a mind behind it. And the mind is an intelligent being.

Santa Clause is the only logical possibility. How do I know? The evidence is everywhere!! I won't give you any evidence, but we'll just claim it's everywhere and call it a day.

in fact let's sub this favorite atheist line - The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only logical possibility. How do I know? The evidence is everywhere!! I won't give you any evidence, but we'll just claim it's everywhere and call it a day.

Really, is this the extent of the atheist argument? A silly childish argument?

Jesus Christ is the son of God who came to earth to reveal his Father, and you say:

Santa Clause is the only logical possibility. How do I know? The evidence is everywhere!! I won't give you any evidence, but we'll just claim it's everywhere and call it a day.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only logical possibility. How do I know? The evidence is everywhere!! I won't give you any evidence, but we'll just claim it's everywhere and call it a day.

Seriously? If so congratulation, you've proven yourself incapable of a serious analytical thinking.

And BTW - Nope - I never got pawned! You just revealed the weakness of your stance.

'The law of Gravity (Fg=G*m1m2/r2) has a mind behind it and it's Santa Clause / The Flying Spaghetti Monster.'

Let me know if you still want to go further because I haven't even started yet.

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

"We don't know" is not a option for the simple fact that you either have to believe what you don't know or not. Which leads to God or Nothing.

remember that "false dichotomy" thing? you're doing it again.

a reply to: edmc^2

This is not to knock down scientists, but they are just imperfect men and women prone to biases of their own. They are affected by pride as well as selfishness and political ambitions and convictions.

So you see it's not all black and white.

As for Steven Hawking's writings, who peer-reviews them?

Scientist of the same view? i.e atheist?

Of course.

take for instance how you insist on posting these threads anonymously while at these "selfish" scientists put their names on papers in magazines all the time. they put themselves out there for both the critical acclaim and the criticism. blood, sweat, tears, countless sleepless nights and gallons of coffee scraping together a reputation for themselves and their work. essentially, they are respected and deferred to because they have EARNED the right to say "i know what im talking about." when is the last time you stood face to face with a scientific board and defended your research successfully? when is the last time you even submitted a thesis for consideration? all you do is prattle on anonymous message boards on the internet.

if you really want to impress people, stop hiding behind your computer monitor. prove your point like a genuine scholar and not just a spambot waiting to be deleted. but since we all know that will never happen, this thread will only breath its last when we stop dignifying your pseudo-science garbage with responses. seriously, we are only perpetuating this nonsense by feeding the troll - that means you. 27 pages worth of goose chase, hoping to wear us down enough that we will just give up.

well, i do. i give up. deuces.

My point in revealing the "Fraud in Science" is that not EVERYTHING is believable. You need to be critical of what you read. Just because a brilliant scientist said it doesn't mean it's true.

thanks for participating.

a reply to: Barcs

Continuing...

You have defied logic at every single turn in your argument. There no logic or repeatable evidence for god. NONE. There is only your semantic argument that relies on logical fallacies and assumptions. It's really not that hard to make a valid argument for something. You are just too lazy to think outside of your box, so you draw loose connections and claim assumptions are facts.

To the contrary...I did not "defied logic at every single turn in your argument", I demonstrated and used logic to understand how the Universe came to be.

Two possible answers to simple a question:

Which One Explains Logically the Origin of the Universe?

Biblical Creation - Christian View?

Or

Naturalism - The Atheistic View?

Meh say:

Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

Question: Why?

Because it's the ONLY logical conclusion one can arrive at. Based on the evidence it's the only view that makes sense.

Question: What evidence?

Life can only come from pre-existing life.

-- Only a pre-existing life can and will produce life. Full Stop!

The intelligibility of the Universe reveals a mind behind it.

-- Fine Tuning of the Universe just to consider as one of the evidence of the intelligibility of the universe as it relates to:

1. Earth’s location in the Milky Way galaxy and the solar system, as well as the planet’s orbit, tilt, rotational speed, and moon.
2. A magnetic field and atmosphere that serve as a dual shield
3. An abundance of water.
4. Natural cycles that replenish and cleanse the biosphere

Is more than enough to see and understand that a mind is behind its existence.

And as evidence show, a precise system requires very precise knowledge of the mechanics and laws involved to construct such a system or for the system to function with properly with optimum accuracy.

It can't be done without a mind. An accidental and unguided process will not produce such a system.

Yet atheist like you can't accept this without ridicule.

I don't mean to sound rude, but this thread is completely pointless. You're never going to prove who came first, the chicken or the egg; which is basically what you're arguing about. Also its blatantly obvious there is no changing your opinion on the matter, so why even discuss it?

originally posted by: Badams
I don't mean to sound rude, but this thread is completely pointless. You're never going to prove who came first, the chicken or the egg; which is basically what you're arguing about. Also its blatantly obvious there is no changing your opinion on the matter, so why even discuss it?

It's pointless from the atheist point of view because it put things into proper perspective.

Let's take your position. Please explain what was there before the Big Bang?

As to what came first - Chicken or the Egg?

According to scientific findings, the chicken came first because there things in the chicken where you can't find in the egg. But all things in the egg can be found in the chicken.

As to the Universe - the dynamic source of raw material must exist first for the universe to exist.

Your turn if you wish to expand your logic.

a reply to: edmc^2

You immediately assume I'm an Atheist, and know my opinion when I have clearly not said anything of it; interesting. Due to the idea that "time and space" as we know and comprehend it, was created from the big bang, I'm not entirely sure that we can ever know what caused it. Well not until such a time that we're far more technologically superior than we are now. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, including yourself. I'm merely commenting on the pointlessness of this thread, if all your doing is attacking those who offer you a different explanation than your own beliefs.

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

You immediately assume I'm an Atheist, and know my opinion when I have clearly not said anything of it; interesting. Due to the idea that "time and space" as we know and comprehend it, was created from the big bang, I'm not entirely sure that we can ever know what caused it. Well not until such a time that we're far more technologically superior than we are now. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, including yourself. I'm merely commenting on the pointlessness of this thread, if all your doing is attacking those who offer you a different explanation than your own beliefs.

You said this...

there is no changing your opinion on the matter

If I'm a Biblical Christian Theist, what is it that I need to change my mind on as to who created the universe?

Nothing created it?

We don't know?

Or this:

“. . .In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

“. . .Suspending the earth upon nothing. . .” (Job 26:7)

These was said thousands of years ago and we just confirmed them until recently.

So if this is timeline you want to be on - it'll take a thousand more years to confirm what the Bible already know.

a reply to: edmc^2

Well, around approximately 4 to 5 thousand years ago, according to most biblical scholars is when the "old testament" was set. So we can put a number to your broad statement. But the earth simply wasn't "created" and boom, there was a fully fledged and functioning earth. It formed almost 4.5 billion years ago as molten rock and metal that eventually cooled to form the shape of what we know today as the earth. It then took millions of years for life to evolve on this earth and finally spit humans out of the mix. Pro tip, don't read the bible literally as historical fact, take it subjectively. I'm more then happy to consider the idea of a "omnipotent power" but don't claim the earth was suddenly called into existence, because hard, testable and quantifiable science will shoot you down with beautiful fact.

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

Well, around approximately 4 to 5 thousand years ago, according to most biblical scholars is when the "old testament" was set. So we can put a number to your broad statement. But the earth simply wasn't "created" and boom, there was a fully fledged and functioning earth. It formed almost 4.5 billion years ago as molten rock and metal that eventually cooled to form the shape of what we know today as the earth. It then took millions of years for life to evolve on this earth and finally spit humans out of the mix. Pro tip, don't read the bible literally as historical fact, take it subjectively. I'm more then happy to consider the idea of a "omnipotent power" but don't claim the earth was suddenly called into existence, because hard, testable and quantifiable science will shoot you down with beautiful fact.

The point is - the "heavens" universe and earth had a beginning and the earth is floating "suspended" in space and were confirmed recently - in the 20th century of our common era. The Biblical "beginning" of the earth doesn't conflict with the scientific age of the earth.

Now, if the Bible is 100 % accurate on these scientific facts, what other scientific facts can we discover from it?

Genetics?

Turning water into wine?

a reply to: edmc^2

As I just stated the biblical and scientific ages of the earth could not be farther apart 5000yrs vs. approximately 4'500'000'000
years; slight difference there. Also the earth is not "suspended" in space at all. Its orbiting the sun, which is orbiting the milky ways galactic central black hole. Gravity (or the curving of space-time) is what dictates how the earth moves. Also I would hardly say a single nondescript sentence in a 2000 year old book "are what scientists are finding out now" - by any stretch of the imagination.

a reply to: Badams

But the earth simply wasn't "created" and boom, there was a fully fledged and functioning earth. It formed almost 4.5 billion years ago as molten rock and metal that eventually cooled to form the shape of what we know today as the earth.

Interestingly enough what you said the Biblical narrative agree!

Notice:

[Gen 1:1-2 NLT] 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."

In other words, Gen 1:1,2 says when the earth was created and existed it was "formless and empty". A molten rock. Then came time to prep it and make ready for human habitation.

So right there, there's no conflict. It also doesn't conflict with a 4.5 billion year old earth.

a reply to: edmc^2

There was no water on earth for around 3 billion years after the spherical shape that is the earth, was formed. Furthermore, it has only been capable of sustaining any form of life as we know it, for about 300 million years due to atmospheric composition. Before this it was due to not having a atmosphere cable of holding carbon based life. This leaves a discrepancy of roughly 4'200'000'000 years from the biblical account.

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

As I just stated the biblical and scientific ages of the earth could not be farther apart 5000yrs vs. approximately 4'500'000'000
years; slight difference there. Also the earth is not "suspended" in space at all. Its orbiting the sun, which is orbiting the milky ways galactic central black hole. Gravity (or the curving of space-time) is what dictates how the earth moves. Also I would hardly say a single nondescript sentence in a 2000 year old book "are what scientists are finding out now" - by any stretch of the imagination.

Like it said - Gen 1:1 - allows the universe and the earth to be billions of years old.

As to the earth "suspended" on nothing - it's a poetic term. When it was written, the writer wasn't using scientific terminology to describe it. Science wasn't even invented yet like we know it today. But the fact that we now know there was nothing solid holding the earth in place in space but an invisible force WE CALL gravity makes you think what knowledge the writer possessed when he wrote it.

How could he possibly know that it was "suspended" "hanging" "floating" in space if he didn't have a way to get to outer space?