Atheists: Alternatives to Creation?

[Henry]

I have a shoe. Three options.

1) The shoe, with all its detail and multiple materials, has always existed in its current form.

2) The shoe, though time and nature moulded and formed; was cut and crafted; joined and organized into the current form.

3) Something took individual parts, adhesive, plastic, leather, metal, thread, and created the shoe.

How did you come to a conclusion, PS? Through observation and knowledge. Because you know something about shoes, through wearing them and studying them (to a certain extent) and have at least a general knowledge of a shoe's nature.

Through this knowledge you conclude that the shoe was created through process #3. That's a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

Now imagine someone coming up to you and saying that in fact, God made that shoe out of nothing. God willed it and poof! it happened. He doesn't need to explain how this occurred because God does not have to follow the rules of logic and nature when creating something. The shoe is His will.

You'd think he's off his rocker.

Science is not the end, portis. Scientists simply observe and record in order to learn more about the world. The Earth, the Sun, the Planets ... the universe, they are FAR more complex than a shoe. Our observation and knowledge of these things is far lesser than that of a shoe, so scientists can't give definitive answers to the questions posed in this thread. They can make a Best Guess. But that is not based on faith. It is based on observation, just as your Best Guess that the shoe was made in a factory is based on your observations. Unless you actually saw the shoe being made you can't prove to the shoe-creationist God didn't make it, and he'll claim you're basing your conclusions on faith.

But you know about shoes. You know it didn't spring forth from the heavens, even if you didn't actually see it being made in the factory. Your belief doesn't require a leap of faith. It simply requires knowledge, experience and observation.

[AlexRS]

Indeed.

So then we are left with this.

Do you or do you not believe this statement: "that something can not come from nothing?"

1) If you do NOT believe this then you are defying all science and logic as we understand it. I am willing to entertain this thought.

2) If you do believe this then you must come to the conclusion that this "something" was created. "What or who" did then becomes the question. The question is not "IF" it was created.

Something and Nothing are connected. There cannot be Something without Nothing, just like there cannot be Nothing without Something. Something is ultuimately Nothing, just like Nothing is ultimately Something.

In other words, Something and Nothing are dialectic forces that create each other.

[portisizzle]

Now imagine someone coming up to you and saying that in fact, God made that shoe out of nothing. God willed it and poof! it happened. He doesn't need to explain how this occurred because God does not have to follow the rules of logic and nature when creating something. The shoe is His will.

I was making an analogy in order to illustrate my point.

Should someone come to me and say that God willed the shoe into existence I would say they were a fool. As you suggest.

The shoe, however, is not the universe. Yet to hear some refute the Theory of Creation, they would do so using reasoning that is not logical. Logic says the shoe was created by man. Logic also says (to me) that something can not come from nothing. So how then does logic apply when using option 1 or 2 from my example when explaining the universe?(1. It has always existed 2. Chaos begat organization and form.)

Immediately Creation is taken off the table as an option not because Creation is a legitimate conclusion but because the conclusion is contrary to someone's beliefs.

You say that Science is not the end. I agree wholeheartedly.

Does Science agree with us on this point?

[portisizzle]

Something and Nothing are connected. There cannot be Something without Nothing, just like there cannot be Nothing without Something. Something is ultuimately Nothing, just like Nothing is ultimately Something.

In other words, Something and Nothing are dialectic forces that create each other.

So then you are saying the nothing must be created before something can fill its place?

I agree.

And that something must have been able to create nothing?

I agree.

This is my big beef with ANYTHING being explained by "infinity". I went to great depths in multiple threads to explain why infinity is a "man-made concept" designed to "take leaps of faith" so that science and math can continue.

Infinity, described in all its forms, function, logic, and philosophy, are nothing but an explaination where none can logically exist. (Logic as we know it)

In the process I am ridiculed by intellectuals who remind me as a school child about "limits" and how while I do not understand infinity, scientist most assuredly do.

Yet, when it comes time to explain to me the universe, when logic so clearly points to creation, "infinity" is given as the prime and reasonable answer. But how does infinity grasp the beginnings? By saying their is no beginning.

If their is no beginning, then how is their a NOW, a THEN, a DOWN THE ROAD? How does time work in infinity? How does logic explain "infinity"?

It does not. It can not.

[AlexRS]

So then you are saying the nothing must be created before something can fill its place?

I agree.

That would be an interesting version of Creationism - "God created Nothing" :laugh:

It is an interesting argument though. If both Nothing and Something ultimately must have a beginning, then this argument can be swung back and forth between Something and Nothing like a pendulum (chicken and egg, anybody?). Where does it stop? In the middle, right at the point where Something becomes Nothing and vice versa. Ultimate Creation and Ultimate Destruction. Ultimate Life and Ultimate Death... If there is a God then I would think that's where he resides.

Edit: in this sense the "man-made concept of infinity" that you do not like actually describes the swinging of the pendulum and humans assuming that the swinging is infinite.

It is also interesting that by pushing the "but what made the chicken" argument you assume the very concept of man-made infinity you dislike.

[Henry]

The shoe, however, is not the universe. Yet to hear some refute the Theory of Creation, they would do so using reasoning that is not logical. Logic says the shoe was created by man. Logic also says (to me) that something can not come from nothing. So how then does logic apply when using option 1 or 2 from my example when explaining the universe?(1. It has always existed 2. Chaos begat organization and form.)

I think it's safe to say that we don't know enough about the nature of time and the universe to make a definitive conclusion yet. All we can do is guess based on what we know now.

Immediately Creation is taken off the table as an option not because Creation is a legitimate conclusion but because the conclusion is contrary to someone's beliefs.

Creation is taken off the table because a) it's not a guess it's not even consistant with what we DO know about science and nature.

You say that Science is not the end. I agree wholeheartedly.

Does Science agree with us on this point?

I think it does. I think Creationists confuse science's rejection of Creation as a viable theory for a claim that science gives us all the answers. It doesn't. It simply tells us what we know and what is possible based on that knowledge.

[portisizzle]

I think it's safe to say that we don't know enough about the nature of time and the universe to make a definitive conclusion yet. All we can do is guess based on what we know now.

Fair enough.

Creation is taken off the table because a) it's not a guess it's not even consistant with what we DO know about science and nature.

Are you saying it is not a guess because we know creation to be false? Give me one example of where science and nature do not jive with creation if you would.

It simply tells us what we know and what is possible based on that knowledge.

And that knowledge clearly rejects creationism? How so if science is still guessing?

[dfitzo53]

Creation is taken off the table because a) it's not a guess it's not even consistant with what we DO know about science and nature.

I think it might be more accurate to say that while creation is a guess, it's left off the table in scientific discourse for two reasons. It doesn't jive very well with the past 400 years of scientific discovery, but more importantly it's not, at the present time, a testable guess.

[portisizzle]

It doesn't jive very well with the past 400 years of scientific discovery, but more importantly it's not, at the present time, a testable guess.

Two testable guesses....

Something can not come from nothing.

Their are 10 , no, 12 dimensions to our universe.

Think we can test both without a big deal?

[dfitzo53]

Two testable guesses....

Something can not come from nothing.

Their are 10 , no, 12 dimensions to our universe.

Think we can test both without a big deal?

Portisizzle, "Something can not come from nothing" is not testable. You can watch "nothing" all day long. You could watch it for years. That wouldn't prove that something can't come from nothing, it would only prove that it hasn't.

[portisizzle]

That would be an interesting version of Creationism - "God created Nothing" :laugh:

It is an interesting argument though. If both Nothing and Something ultimately must have a beginning, then this argument can be swung back and forth between Something and Nothing like a pendulum (chicken and egg, anybody?). Where does it stop? In the middle, right at the point where Something becomes Nothing and vice versa. Ultimate Creation and Ultimate Destruction. Ultimate Life and Ultimate Death... If there is a God then I would think that's where he resides.

Edit: in this sense the "man-made concept of infinity" that you do not like actually describes the swinging of the pendulum and humans assuming that the swinging is infinite.

It is also interesting that by pushing the "but what made the chicken" argument you assume the very concept of man-made infinity you dislike.

Ok, I like what you have said here.

However, I am not the one who believes in infinity. I am simply willing to go backwards in time far enough as logic will take you before you come to the conclusion that infinity is not a real conclusion.

The real conclusion is in fact that their was a beginning. And it was created. For the sake of this argument it matters not to me who or what created. Simply that the universe was created.

My logic behind this is something can not come from nothing. Infinity is not the basis of my logic.

You are using infinity to come to some conclusion, I think. I will leave it to you to decide what comes first and how infinity gets you there.

[portisizzle]

Portisizzle, "Something can not come from nothing" is not testable. You can watch "nothing" all day long. You could watch it for years. That wouldn't prove that something can't come from nothing, it would only prove that it hasn't.

1 x 0 = 0

[HOF44]

Ok, I like what you have said here.

However, I am not the one who believes in infinity.

How long has God existed?

[portisizzle]

How long has God existed?

How do you know God created the universe?

[HOF44]

How do you know God created the universe?

I don't think he did, but how long do you think he has existed?

[Thiebear]

Borghild Goddess of the evening mist or moon, she slays the sun each evening.

Nott Goddess of night who mans the night-charion in it's track through the sky.

Sol Goddess of the sun, who guides the sun-chariot through the sky.

Apollo Roman God of Sun, Music, poetry, Prophecy, and Healing

Mithras Roman God of Suna and Light

Zeus Ruler of all Gods. God of the light and the Sky

Helious God of the Sun

Selene Goddess of the Moon

Calalus Celtic God of the Sky and War

Maeve Celtic Goddess of Earth, Fertility and war

Bel Irish Celtic God of Fire and Sun

Cerridwen Goddess of the Moon

Don Welsh Goddess of the Heavens, Air, Sea and Moon.

Ama-No-Minaka-Nushi 'Divine Lord of the Middle Heavens' and god of the Pole Star

Ame-No-Wakahiko God sent to rule the earth. Killed by the sky god Takami-Musubi.

Fudo God of fire and wisdom, god of Astrology.

Haniyasu-hiko God of the earth.

Haniyasu-hime Goddess of the earth

Dazbog (Slavic) Sun God

Rod (Slavic): Initial Original god - progenitor of deities...

Found it.. Rod is the original god that all things come from..

http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/godsslavic.htm

You did say God created the Universe right? People used to make fun of Rod also...

[portisizzle]

I don't think he did, but how long do you think he has existed?

I do not know "when". I do not know "who".

I was going to say more but does this answer your question?

[portisizzle]

Borghild Goddess of the evening mist or moon, she slays the sun each evening.

Nott Goddess of night who mans the night-charion in it's track through the sky.

Sol Goddess of the sun, who guides the sun-chariot through the sky.

Apollo Roman God of Sun, Music, poetry, Prophecy, and Healing

Mithras Roman God of Suna and Light

Zeus Ruler of all Gods. God of the light and the Sky

Helious God of the Sun

Selene Goddess of the Moon

Calalus Celtic God of the Sky and War

Maeve Celtic Goddess of Earth, Fertility and war

Bel Irish Celtic God of Fire and Sun

Cerridwen Goddess of the Moon

Don Welsh Goddess of the Heavens, Air, Sea and Moon.

Ama-No-Minaka-Nushi 'Divine Lord of the Middle Heavens' and god of the Pole Star

Ame-No-Wakahiko God sent to rule the earth. Killed by the sky god Takami-Musubi.

Fudo God of fire and wisdom, god of Astrology.

Haniyasu-hiko God of the earth.

Haniyasu-hime Goddess of the earth

Dazbog (Slavic) Sun God

Rod (Slavic): Initial Original god - progenitor of deities...

Found it.. Rod is the original god that all things come from..

http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/godsslavic.htm

You did say God created the Universe right? People used to make fun of Rod also...

Is this supposed to be humorous? If so I missed the punchline.....

[Henry]

Are you saying it is not a guess because we know creation to be false? Give me one example of where science and nature do not jive with creation if you would.

I'm saying it's not a guess because Theists tell us it happened. They aren't guessing. They KNOW, and have KNOWN for thousands of years.

Now that science has progressed to the point where our observations are not consistant with this belief, some have attempted to fit Creationism into the framework of scientific theory. You just can't do that. You formulate conclusions based on observable data. You don't find data to fit a pre-concieved conclusion. That's not science.

That doesn't mean religion is bunk, mind you. But it isn't science, and shouldn't be thought of as such.

And that knowledge clearly rejects creationism? How so if science is still guessing?

Let's keep in mind that you and I are talking about very very dumbed down scientific concepts here. The Big Bang, Something from Nothing ... that stuff is a extreme oversimplification of true scientific theories. To question science based on these ideas is akin to questioning Christianity by calling the bible a book written by some guy a long time ago.

I'm not a scientist. But I do know some basic things, such as that science has established the Earth has been around more than 6000 years. A guess, yes, but a very educated one based on the Scientific Method. This would not jive with strict Creationism.

Again, this doesn't mean that a concept like Intelligent Design is FALSE. It simple means that it's not a SCIENTIFIC concept. It's not observable, testable or provable through science. And it shouldn't be discussed as if it is.

[AlexRS]

Ok, I like what you have said here.

However, I am not the one who believes in infinity. I am simply willing to go backwards in time far enough as logic will take you before you come to the conclusion that infinity is not a real conclusion.

The real conclusion is in fact that their was a beginning. And it was created. For the sake of this argument it matters not to me who or what created. Simply that the universe was created.

My logic behind this is something can not come from nothing. Infinity is not the basis of my logic.

You are using infinity to come to some conclusion, I think. I will leave it to you to decide what comes first and how infinity gets you there.

Your argument is based on the "fact that there was a beginning."

I know this is a very Eastern way of looking at it, but nontheless:

The argument I put forth suggests that ultimately Beggining = End, Something = Nothing. Think of it as a line with two sides. One side is the Beginning and the other is End. Take that line and connect two opposite sides forming a circle. Nothing comes from Something, Something comes from Nothing - it is all one circle. The circle is purely conceptual, so the question "who created the circle" does not make sense. The real question is why we are swinging between something/nothing instead of being in the middle.

[Thiebear]

Is this supposed to be humorous? If so I missed the punchline.....

Leave :notworthy Rod :notworthy alone...

[Mooka]

I think some of you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Being a theist doesn't say you don't believe in the Big Bang or any other scientific theory, it just links those scientific theories to God's plan.

Do I believe that God created the universe? Don't know. Do I believe that an event like the Big Bang formed the universe? yes. Do I believe that God created the big bang? Don't know. If its proven that something created the universe, will I automatically assume God did? no.

Were at such a basic level right now studying particles, matter, gravity, planets, galaxies, the universe, etc. We might prove the Big Bang, but then at that point we'll be asking the same questions, what created that dense hot spot to begin with? I doubt we'll ever be able to prove that, and we'll never be able to link that with God.

We might prove that something created us/universe, but we will never prove whether God did or some scientist created our universe in a lab in a larger universe.

So how about some of you agree to dis-agree.

[portisizzle]

I'm saying it's not a guess because Theists tell us it happened. They aren't guessing. They KNOW, and have KNOWN for thousands of years.

Now that science has progressed to the point where our observations are not consistant with this belief, some have attempted to fit Creationism into the framework of scientific theory. You just can't do that. You formulate conclusions based on observable data. You don't find data to fit a pre-concieved conclusion. That's not science.

That doesn't mean religion is bunk, mind you. But it isn't science, and shouldn't be thought of as such.

Let's keep in mind that you and I are talking about very very dumbed down scientific concepts here. The Big Bang, Something from Nothing ... that stuff is a extreme oversimplification of true scientific theories. To question science based on these ideas is akin to questioning Christianity by calling the bible a book written by some guy a long time ago.

I'm not a scientist. But I do know some basic things, such as that science has established the Earth has been around more than 6000 years. A guess, yes, but a very educated one based on the Scientific Method. This would not jive with strict Creationism.

Again, this doesn't mean that a concept like Intelligent Design is FALSE. It simple means that it's not a SCIENTIFIC concept. It's not observable, testable or provable through science. And it shouldn't be discussed as if it is.

You say....

"I think it's safe to say that we don't know enough about the nature of time and the universe to make a definitive conclusion yet. All we can do is guess based on what we know now."

And then you say....

"Now that science has progressed to the point where our observations are not consistant with this belief, some have attempted to fit Creationism into the framework of scientific theory. You just can't do that. You formulate conclusions based on observable data. You don't find data to fit a pre-concieved conclusion. That's not science."

You tell me that science can only guess at this point; that we do not know enough about time and universe. Then you tell me we have progressed "to the point" where theists have been refuted by observations.

I really do not see how this is possible in a neutral and objective scientific community. The disdain for any concept that would point to a beginning simply because religion would be affirmed of their belief is a weak position to take.

The only thing that is not science here is a scientists inability to separate religion from the theory that the universe was created.

Your final statement "And it shouldn't be discussed as if it is." is indicative of the typical response that theists gets from the scientific community. "Creation is not good enough for us."

Not good, not good at all.

[portisizzle]

Leave :notworthy Rod :notworthy alone...

{ hand going over my head making a whooshing sound }

Bear, I am not getting it.

[AlexRS]

My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.

Please note that he also makes a sharp distinction between "what science can demonstrate to be non-existant" and "what science cannot find"