Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: edmc^2

It has some point, but can;t explain it all.

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

It has some point, but can;t explain it all.

bUT IS DOES.

I've looked at the alternative. It doesn't come even close.

Creation makes sense hence the only logical explanation.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Why is Creation the only logical explanation for the origin of life and the universe?

News flash, it isn't... nor is it a logical explanation at all.

Simply put it makes sense, moreover, the evidence is all around us.

Not at all.

It's hard to miss them. Unless of course you choose to completely ignore them.

Or there exists no evidence whatever for creation and you are just attributing otherwise random occurrences to a creator.

Or somehow think that there's nothing supernatural about them.

There is nothing "supernatural" about them.

That the God of the Christians is really a figment of the imagination - of the "evolved brain".

To be honest, it probably is.

And that the evidence for an intelligent creator is explainable through science, in a purely materialistic terms.

Well, there is no evidence for a creator whatever... so it's not possible for science to verify whether or not the evidence for an intelligent creator is explainable through science.

Matter of fact, that is how, I believe, many if not all atheists look at the evidence, in a purely materialistic, naturalistic way. 'Nature did it and science explains it!'

If there exist a perfectly rational explanation for something with lots of evidence to reinforce said explanation then why would there be any reason whatever to believe otherwise? If science somehow were to suggest otherwise then textbooks would be rewritten and scientists would update their views accordingly.

Hence, there's no need for a personal creator.

That's true.

And those who are in denial are simply ignorant of the facts and unscientific.

Well, they likely are.

Of course, they are profoundly mistaken as the evidence will show.

Oh, boy! I can't wait to see the evidence that you provide!

Sure, for the atheist. But not to those who can't accept a shallow, incomplete and unsatisfactory explanation.

And what is your definition of "shallow, incomplete, and unsatisfactory" explanations?

The fact is, there are many things science and nature can't explain.
There are things in the world, in the universe that are beyond the grasps of science. Things that are supernatural in nature and origin.

I can come up with a few things that science currently does not have an explanation for: how dark matter is created (moreover, what IS it, exactly?), how human consciousness works, and more recently the dimming of the star KIC 8462852... but I don't understand as to what you are implying with this statement. I am assuming it is something along the lines of "well, science can't explain it, creation does!" which is an informal logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. I could very well be incorrect in that assumption, but it does seem as if that is what you're alluding to.

Even simple questions like "why is there life? why are we here? what's the meaning of life?" science and nature can't answer these satisfactorily.

Science can absolutely answer the first two of those questions satisfactorily, the final one being left for philosophy.

It is so limited when it comes to deeper things.

Said things aren't considered scientific--they are intangible concepts left for philosophy to discuss.

So, what to do then if you're an atheist? Where can you find the answers? Since the Bible is considered a myth and a joke to some, where do atheists go then? There's no choice but to turn to something they had discarded.

Well, I can't speak for all atheists, but personally I would just say "I don't know. If evidence becomes available for an explanation of a particular thing, I will adjust my views for that particular thing." not "Oh, science can't explain something so I will resort to believing it was "created".

Something they considered unscientific, even dead!

Nope, I would simply just accept that I can't explain it (possibly science can't either) and not pass judgment on said thing until more evidence became available.

They turn to philosophy and metaphysics in the hopes of making sense why life and the universe exist.

Some do.

Unfortunately, rather than provide a clear answer, they create more questions. And in so doing they reduced themselves into playing the role of a philosopher rather than a scientist.

In some circumstances, possibly... but asking a question does not inherently lead to more questions. Seems like a slipper slope fallacy.

A sad consequence of choosing to ignore the evidence. We've seen this so many times, I've seen it.

I'm waiting for your evidence. All I've seen is conjecture.

a reply to: logicsoda

I'm waiting for your evidence. All I've seen is conjecture.

This is kinda interesting if not funny. Isn't it true evolution theory is all about conjecture?

With no foundation to based on, evolution theory attempts to explain something obvious into a fantastic story.

As for Creation, we have ample solid evidence that life was the result of an intelligent Creator.

Created "things" can't just pop into existence unless there's an already existing source - an Always Existing Intelligent Source.

Cold will Always flow from hot - DYNAMIC SOURCE.

Design necessitates a Designer.

a reply to: edmc^2

All you keep doing is deflecting, and not providing anu tngible evidence.

Questions to someine asking to see your evidence isnt evidence.
Claims are not evidence.

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

I'm waiting for your evidence. All I've seen is conjecture.

This is kinda interesting if not funny. Isn't it true evolution theory is all about conjecture?

With no foundation to based on, evolution theory attempts to explain something obvious into a fantastic story.

As for Creation, we have ample solid evidence that life was the result of an intelligent Creator.

Created "things" can't just pop into existence unless there's an already existing source - an Always Existing Intelligent Source.

Cold will Always flow from hot - DYNAMIC SOURCE.

Design necessitates a Designer.

So who designed God then? And who designed the entity who designed the god?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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

I'm waiting for your evidence. All I've seen is conjecture.

This is kinda interesting if not funny. Isn't it true evolution theory is all about conjecture?

With no foundation to based on, evolution theory attempts to explain something obvious into a fantastic story.

As for Creation, we have ample solid evidence that life was the result of an intelligent Creator.

Created "things" can't just pop into existence unless there's an already existing source - an Always Existing Intelligent Source.

Cold will Always flow from hot - DYNAMIC SOURCE.

Design necessitates a Designer.

So who designed God then? And who designed the entity who designed the god?

What does Always Existing mean?

If you can answer that, then you found it.

originally posted by: jjsr420
a reply to: edmc^2

All you keep doing is deflecting, and not providing anu tngible evidence.

Questions to someine asking to see your evidence isnt evidence.
Claims are not evidence.

It's not a claim. It's a fact - cold always flow from hot.

a reply to: edmc^2

No. All you have are claims. You have yet to substantiate any of them.

"Life can only come from pre-existing Life." This is a claim, unless you can substantiate it. Observation is only part 1 of the scientific method. This is something you observe, and assume to be true. You have yet to give unbiased sources that have -thoroughly- proven this to be the case. Science, as of yet, is unsure this is the case. Many experiments are still going on to determine if this is true, or not.

"Something cant come from nothing." Please, re-read what i posted above. Apply that to this aswell.

You have presented nothing except for words. Making a claim, and citing it as substantiated does not infact substantiate that claim.

a reply to: edmc^2

Can you prove this God of yours was always existing? OR do we just take his word for it?

a reply to: edmc^2

You do not understand thermodynamics very well do you? What flows from what to produce cold?

a reply to: edmc^2

Really good post and you know Darwinist are getting desperate when they start asking, who created God.

That's just a silly question.

Who said God needs to be Created?

When you ask that question, you're asking about a god that nobody believes in. If you're going to debate, you can't make up some created god when you don't even believe in God and then say who created this created god that you just made up.

So before you even ask the question who created god, you first have to ask who believes in a God that needs to be created. If you don't, then this is just a silly strawman argument that's debating a created god that nobody believes in.

in my opinion, from observation of the OP in this thread, he is not saying god is an entity, but he is not saying that god is not an entity either. Because god as he describes is like what atom is to the body, but intelligent and has the potential of open space - it can be and is anything!

So we are part of god and god is a part of us.

So saying who created god as he tries to picture it here is nonsense and misinterpretation of his words as it is not something which was created or which will ever end, but is the intrinsic nature of all beings and everything around us in life or dreams.

And if above statement is true - if i understand him correctly - i should also say, that he has a unique way of presenting in this thread what many eastern current religions are about - nonduality, Buddha nature, the Tao, etc..., maybe check that out to get clearer understanding of what he is pointing to.

also anyone can try to meditate and get personal unique direct experience of this as this goes beyond just belief or blind faith when heart is in the right place and sincere!

well this is just my personal observation and opinion.

a reply to: neoholographic

Show proof that this God of yours was not created? Show proof that there is only one? No seriously. You make extraordinary claims ("he (there is a gender?)) existed before time") then you need extraordinary proof" otherwise Hitchen's Razor applies Cutty cutty.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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

I'm waiting for your evidence. All I've seen is conjecture.

This is kinda interesting if not funny. Isn't it true evolution theory is all about conjecture?

With no foundation to based on, evolution theory attempts to explain something obvious into a fantastic story.

As for Creation, we have ample solid evidence that life was the result of an intelligent Creator.

Created "things" can't just pop into existence unless there's an already existing source - an Always Existing Intelligent Source.

Cold will Always flow from hot - DYNAMIC SOURCE.

Design necessitates a Designer.

So who designed God then? And who designed the entity who designed the god?

What does Always Existing mean?

If you can answer that, then you found it.

'always existing' is the same thing as 'coming from nothing'. there is no source ergo nothing to give cause to it. so the universe requires a cause but this divine creator thing doesnt? gotta watch those double standards...

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

You do not understand thermodynamics very well do you? What flows from what to produce cold?

Hah! Speak for yourself.

Say - is the universe in a state of irreversible entropy or not?

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

Really good post and you know Darwinist are getting desperate when they start asking, who created God.

That's just a silly question.

Who said God needs to be Created?

When you ask that question, you're asking about a god that nobody believes in. If you're going to debate, you can't make up some created god when you don't even believe in God and then say who created this created god that you just made up.

So before you even ask the question who created god, you first have to ask who believes in a God that needs to be created. If you don't, then this is just a silly strawman argument that's debating a created god that nobody believes in.

The same logic can be applied against you.
Who said God didnt need to be created?

straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

That is what constitutes a Strawman. We arent refuting an argument that wasnt advanced. We are refuting part of an argument that was advanced with a counterclaim. That being that something can not come from nothing. Saying God did not need a creator, when everything else does, is Special Pleading.

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception

Everything needs a creator, except my God is special pleading. And saying God dkesnt, because its God, isnt justification.

Stop using logical fallacies you dont understand.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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

I'm waiting for your evidence. All I've seen is conjecture.

This is kinda interesting if not funny. Isn't it true evolution theory is all about conjecture?

With no foundation to based on, evolution theory attempts to explain something obvious into a fantastic story.

As for Creation, we have ample solid evidence that life was the result of an intelligent Creator.

Created "things" can't just pop into existence unless there's an already existing source - an Always Existing Intelligent Source.

Cold will Always flow from hot - DYNAMIC SOURCE.

Design necessitates a Designer.

So who designed God then? And who designed the entity who designed the god?

What does Always Existing mean?

If you can answer that, then you found it.

'always existing' is the same thing as 'coming from nothing'. there is no source ergo nothing to give cause to it. so the universe requires a cause but this divine creator thing doesnt? gotta watch those double standards...

Say - is Space as in outer space infinite or does it have a boundary?

Is it finite or infinite?

a reply to: edmc^2

Nobody knows.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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

I'm waiting for your evidence. All I've seen is conjecture.

This is kinda interesting if not funny. Isn't it true evolution theory is all about conjecture?

With no foundation to based on, evolution theory attempts to explain something obvious into a fantastic story.

As for Creation, we have ample solid evidence that life was the result of an intelligent Creator.

Created "things" can't just pop into existence unless there's an already existing source - an Always Existing Intelligent Source.

Cold will Always flow from hot - DYNAMIC SOURCE.

Design necessitates a Designer.

So who designed God then? And who designed the entity who designed the god?

What does Always Existing mean?

If you can answer that, then you found it.

'always existing' is the same thing as 'coming from nothing'. there is no source ergo nothing to give cause to it. so the universe requires a cause but this divine creator thing doesnt? gotta watch those double standards...

you lost me there - you mean nothing is something?