Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

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

Facts require evidence, evidence which people can look at, and come to the same conclusion each and every time. You can try and reduce things to algebra, but algebra is not science, it is mathmatics.

None of that, confirms that there is a single deity, multiple deities, or a pasta themed higher being.

So again
Logic ... You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means...

I guess I take it that you're not able to refute my mathematical/algebraic logic?

If so...

X creates Y but never X creates X. So by necessity X must exist first in order to create Y - is a fact!

Hence, if Y = the universe, the material universe, then X must be the creator of Y - the universe.

Question then is Who or what is X?


The answer is obvious, but up to you what to make of it.

a reply to: edmc^2

Where did you pull "X creates Y" from?

Who said X never creates X?

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

Logic ... You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means...

This post of yours is a prime example of confirmation bias.

It's not bias, it's just the fact Jack.

But can you refute this fact?

X creates Y but never X creates X. So by necessity X must exist first in order to create Y.

I think the disconnect in that argument for the traditional "athiest" is that they think you mean a Human Being called God was kicking it up in Heaven and then decided to make the Universe.

They fail to use their own imagination in seeing what God could or can be. Actually maybe it is just in this conversation because you are arguing for the "Christian" God instead of just a Creator that is non denominational or non related to Religion. In any case I think if they allow their mind to accept for a moment that the Creator can possibly take forms and embody concepts that are far outside the religious paradigm and closer to the Metaphysical or Spiritual they might be able to experience a shift in their perspective or start to blend things together which is in my opinion the correct path to discovery of truths they may then find evident.

So I guess my comment probably isn't really relevant to this particular discussion. Maybe it is I don't know.

a reply to: edmc^2

Take your algebra and apply actual real world examples neigbhbour. If you can not. Then it is not an analaogy which olds and Hitchen's Razor applies.

a reply to: sputniksteve

Just a hint. I am not an atheist.

a reply to: Noinden

Hi Noinden, I certainly didn't mean to imply it if I ended up quoting you on accident or something. If you thought I was singling you out I apologize.

I was just trying to possibly make an observation that the OP might not recognize being part of the discussion. I think my comment on Athiests and Creation are pretty solid but in the scheme of things trying to argue for strictly a Christian brand creator is not in my wheel house or something I would be capable of or even desire to do.

I think I was just making more of a drive-by comment more than anything. As well I also stand by my belief that most likely it is a blend. I don't think any isolated perspective is capable of producing an answer.

Not to try and get off topic and I apologize for not just going back to look but are you of the opinion similar, or in the same ballpark?

Frankly when I first replied I didn't realize it was a 50+ page long thread or I probably wouldn't have so soon.

a reply to: sputniksteve

No you did not quote me on accident. However you quoted a reply too me. If you read enough of these threads here, you will find that the creationist side will always accuse the non creationist side of being atheists. Because obviously non theistic people are the only people who agree with evolution right? I mean Darwin was a dirty goddless pervert...oh wait, he struggled for decades about the implications and his faith.

As for my opinion?

First my faith is Polytheistic pre-Christian Irish. My view point is not creationist.
Second: I'm a scientist by trade (Chemistry and Biochemistry/Genetics).

So my beliefs pay no part in this. I have however gotten into the weeds of the science. I see no hand of any gods in evolution. Nor do I see any evidence which unequivocally proves the universe is Deity created.

My beliefs state the universe coalesced from Chaos, all by its lonesome. My ancestors saw this, I see it. Life was also not divinely created.

originally posted by: edmc^2
It's based on a scientifically, mathematically and logically sound reasoning.

For example, by way mathematical illustration.

X creates Y but never X creates X. So by necessity X must exist first in order to create Y.

Brilliant! Neil deGrasse Tyson better watch his back, this guy is the next Einstein!

This is just but one of the hundreds if not thousands of facts that point to the existence of a Creator - God (Jehovah/Yahweh).

Yep. Case closed. I am officially convinced. Close thread.

a reply to: Barcs

How dare you convert from the religion of science? Heretic! Wait til the pope of science hears about this, you will be excommunicated for sure...

...

a reply to: TzarChasm

Thats SPACE pope of science, get his title right dag nam it!

originally posted by: Barcs

Brilliant! Neil deGrasse Tyson better watch his back, this guy is the next Einstein!

Yep. Case closed. I am officially convinced. Close thread.

You are the worst. Seriously. Why must you be so condescending? Chill. What's more disturbing is that your fellow cult members starred you for it.

Edmc^2 presented his thoughts on the world using sound logic. Just because you believe your ancestors were monkeys doesn't mean you should act like one.

a reply to: cooperton

Oh look. Another fallacy from someone who can't think for themselves.

I would say it's a shock, but coming from you, it isn't shocking at all.

a reply to: cooperton

Again you guys are using the word logic, and not understanding the meaning.....

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Again you guys are using the word logic, and not understanding the meaning.....

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

Oh look. Another fallacy from someone who can't think for themselves.

I would say it's a shock, but coming from you, it isn't shocking at all.

Your mockery is sickening humankind. Do you treat people like this in public? Or only when you can hide behind anonymity?

a reply to: cooperton

Are you anti-science when you use your electronic device or only when you're posting on here?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

Are you anti-science when you use your electronic device or only when you're posting on here?

There are people who can help you with your relationship issues

a reply to: cooperton

And so start the games to hide from a lost battle....

I'm no more anonymous than you neighbour, indeed people could find me quite easily if they tried.

I return to the fact, you and others are using "logic" in a non proper manner.

a reply to: cooperton

What are you on about?

Oh I forgot. The tactic of the losing is to attack the other.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Brilliant! Neil deGrasse Tyson better watch his back, this guy is the next Einstein!

Yep. Case closed. I am officially convinced. Close thread.

You are the worst. Seriously. Why must you be so condescending? Chill. What's more disturbing is that your fellow cult members starred you for it.

Edmc^2 presented his thoughts on the world using sound logic. Just because you believe your ancestors were monkeys doesn't mean you should act like one.

Homo sapiens and apes (such as african apes) share a common ancestor. If you are going to be condescending, get your facts straight.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I feel most apes would prefer we don't talk about that ancestry, it makes them look bad