Creationism takes less faith

Originally posted by Monsieur Neary

Originally posted by TLomon
This is what bugs me with all of these threads. Everyone feels it is religion vs. science. I see no contradiction. Science explains the how. Religion the why. Why is there a debate at all?

Because too many religionists think they can explain the 'how' and the 'why'.

I concur with science and religion combined. My point is that the universe having a Creator is the more logical position, which you obviously agree with. I believe it is the Christian God for many reasons, but that is a different conversation.

Originally posted by ReturnoftheSonofNothing
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Completely wrong.

Else you similarly have faith that no pixes exist at the bottom of my garden.

Well I could easily look at the bottom of said garden and find no pixies. The original singularity at the start of the Big Bang is not something that can be tested it is outside the realm of space time....you cannot just go check outside the realm of space time as you could go experiment on said garden...you can hypothesize and theorize all day, but you will never be able to actually study and reproduce the original singularity in an experimental setting, nor would anyone even be able to ever actually know what they were trying to reproduce.

And I would like to ask a question, Is Science always rational?

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
My point is that the universe having a Creator is the more logical position, which you obviously agree with.

??? I agreed with no such thing. I was merely stating that too many religious people want to claim the "how" and the "why" and leave nothing for science to explain, thus contributing to the reason for the debate that the poster I was responding to was wondering about. "Why" is a question that nobody can answer.

reply to post by Monsieur Neary


Science has its limits. For example the words you are reading now have a semiotic dimension, they carry meaning, please explain to me through terms of physics and chemistry the semiotics of the first sentence. I'll save you the trouble you cannot do this, because you cannot account for semiotics without the input of intelligence.

Now, let me take it a step further. Explain the semiotic dimension of the genetic code of DNA. Once again you cannot do this without the input of intelligence,

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Why would you assume the Monsieur Neary wouldn't know that the terms of physics and chemistry couldn't be used to explain the semiotics of your first sentence?

His/her post was all about the limits of science.

It was meant as a general reply to all not just him, my bad shouldn't have clicked his name.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

I think that all involved realize that science has its limits. If not, then they should.

reply to post by daskakik


Reductionist do not know this. I posted that for any reductionist out there haha.

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
Well I could easily look at the bottom of said garden and find no pixies.

You can't because you would need to know where I lived first, and you don't have that piece of info. So the claim, as it stands, is untestable by you.

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
Well I could easily look at the bottom of said garden and find no pixies.

You can't because you would need to know where I lived first, and you don't have that piece of info. So the claim, as it stands, is untestable by you.

You aren't grasping the concept of the argument I presented. YOUR GARDEN ISN"T OUTSIDE THE REALM OF SPACE TIME, THE ORIGINAL SINGULARITY IS. Please if you are going to present an argument with logic at least be honest when it doesn't fit the situation. Now if you said Pixies created the universe and are the original singularity, no i could not disprove it, but there is also no evidence backing up that claim and that would be BLIND faith which is very dangerous.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


An extraordinary claim is an extraordinary claim. Whether you are talking about the origin of the universe or the origin of a mars bar.

I've got this mars bar here. It actually came from Mars. The planet. Do you believe me?

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Lol unless your gonna bring an actual intellectual argument to the table we can just drop it. Again you are speaking of something inside the realm of space time and is not anywhere near the equivalent of the original singularity of the Big Bang theory....that of which cannot be explained. The semiotics of the genetic cannot be explained by Science, unless they assume there was intelligent life that played a part in creating it. This is logic. It is unarguable. For their to be semiotics there has to be intelligent life. You wouldn't see your name scratched in the sand, and assume it got there by chance now would you?

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


The argument seems to be wooshing over your head.

It's the same deal. It's an extraordinary claim. You don't believe it.

Does it take a huge amount of faith on your part to disbelieve the claim?

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


My claim is no more extraordinary than saying it wasn't God. That is what you do not grasp. If you claim it wasn't God that is an "extraordinary claim" as well, and IMO far more extraordinary. Agnostics are the only ones not required to back up their claim because they do not take a position on the argument...

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


No. The claim that "It was God" is an unsupported, extraordinary claim. We atheists regard it in the same way as you regard my mars bar.

The claim that no god was required, is the exact opposite of extraordinary. It is the null hypothesis. This is basic skepticism 101.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

So in order to say the universe didn't have a Creator, you must BELIEVE(using faith) that we are here by chance and that the universe created you

Actually no I don't. You are creating a false dichotomy between a specific scientific hypothesis regarding the origin of the Universe and the idea of a creator. There are many other options that can be considered, here are just a few:

1. The Universe is eternal and recreates itself using a big bang - big crunch cycle. It has always existed and thus the idea of literal nothing is a nonsensical abstract concept similar to the idea of perfection.

2. The Universe is a simulation created by advanced intelligent beings who are not gods.

3. The Universe is Solid State and there are alternative explanations for the evidence that supports the Big Bang.

4. The Universe was created when the Doctor, a time traveler from another planet, rebooted it.

Now I'm no physicist so when Krauss talks I tend to just scratch my head. I do accept the Big Bang, we have plenty of evidence for that, for the fact that all matter and energy were condensed into a singularity and than expanded rapidly. Beyond that I am not confident or qualified enough to say anything on the subject.

I will say, in regards to the God hypothesis, versus the idea that the Universe created itself, that the latter makes far more sense and does not require faith. To invoke God you are adding an extra element to reality, the supernatural, that Krauss and his fellow scientists have not invoked.

And yes the Universe "created" us. Life is merely complex chemistry, a function of the way things work, no different than stars forming in stellar nurseries or canyons carved by a river. Is it so hard to believe that majesty, complexity and the beauty of the cosmos might exist without invoking magic? I don't know where the Universe came from but some ancient backwards deity who wanted people stoned for saying his name at the wrong time and working on Saturdays isn't the answer just as Zeus wasn't the answer to lightning before him.

In cases where there is no clear answer doubt trumps unjustified certainty every time. And if you try to tell me that I merely have faith in doubt, than you've just run out of rhetorical tricks and semantic games to make atheists seem just as deluded as you

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

I respect this answer. He has faith in the power of human perception and understanding. This is a very limited thing to have faith in when referring to the Big Bang though is it not?

Not at all. The human brain is the most complex known object. It has an awesome track record of observation, analysis and comprehension, going back over a quarter of a million years or more. Putting your money on human understanding is a far safer bet than putting it on a being who shows no sign of existing, and whose definition contradicts itself.

How do you ever expect it to explain a singularity that by the rules of logic has to be of supernatural origin. I only call it supernatural because it is something not of this natural world.

The term is erroneous and misleading. The opposite of 'natural' is not 'supernatural' but 'unnatural' or 'artificial'. Anyway, a thing does not cease to be natural just because science cannot explain it. That would be a very superstitious way of looking at things.

And my friend you ask God for proof and he makes your entire existence a statistical impossibility to show the universe was created with you in mind....is that not enough?

My existence is not a statistical impossibility. It is a statistical certainty; here I am.

My existence may be statistically unlikely, but that is something quite different. It did not require a miracle to bring me into existence.

Also, I haven't asked God for proof of anything. You religious folk seem to think the rest of us are all full of questions and doubts, struggling blindly in the darkness of unbelief. That isn't true, you know. Most of us get on as well, or better, than you do. We go through our days and nights without even thinking about God. A man with two good legs doesn't spend his time thinking about crutches.

Not at all. The human brain is the most complex known object. It has an awesome track record of observation, analysis and comprehension, going back over a quarter of a million years or more. Putting your money on human understanding is a far safer bet than putting it on a being who shows no sign of existing, and whose definition contradicts itself.

reply to post by Astyanax


Yes, but if there is not intelligent power behind the creation of the brain then it is just mindless movement of atoms, so why do you trust it to do Science?

Anyway, a thing does not cease to be natural just because science cannot explain it

su·per·nat·u·ral ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/ adjective adjective: supernatural 1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

No but when something is outside the laws of nature(the original singularity) or beyond scientific understanding (Semiotics of the Genetic Code) it is supernatural by definition.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


So let me ask you when I say I believe the universe was put in motion by God, do you think it is a valid response to ask me "If God made the universe then who made God?"