Is there a creation theory?

[MaxP]

It's claimants say yes, but creationism's reliance upon omnipotence and omniscience make it untestable and therefore unscientific since an omnipotent and omniscient entity could hide itself perfectly from us, thereby rendering the results of any test useless.

If we can see no evidence or reason for a God, then either He does not exist or His existence is irrelevant because He does not want to be known.

Further, it's my opinion that if we assume an intelligence can exist outside time then we can assume non-intelligence can exist outside time. Since intelligence existing outside time represents an extra assumption ontop of the idea of just existing outside time (in opposition to non-intelligence existing outside time), the idea of intelligence existing outside time fails Occam's razor in this comparison. Less complexity/fewer assumptions = more likely between two ideas, everything else being equal.

Not at all. If we assume nothing exists out of time, two things are then assumed to be true:
1) Time is infinite
2) Time applies to everything.
Both of which are larger, more untestable theories than positing something sentient does indeed exist out of time. You can't really use Occam's razor in metaphysics, it's far too multi-layered. By its nature metaphysical theories are extremely complicated. They have to take everything into account, literally.

 

[ragarth]

If we can see no evidence or reason for a God, then either He does not exist or His existence is irrelevant because He does not want to be known.


Not at all. If we assume nothing exists out of time, two things are then assumed to be true:
1) Time is infinite
2) Time applies to everything.
Both of which are larger, more untestable theories than positing something sentient does indeed exist out of time. You can't really use Occam's razor in metaphysics, it's far too multi-layered. By its nature metaphysical theories are extremely complicated. They have to take everything into account, literally.

Philosophical Foundations of Occam's Razor

In the interpretations section, we make use of a distinction between epistemological and metaphysical interpretations of Occam's Razor. This is a reference to two of the main traditional areas of philosophical inquiry. Epistemological questions concern knowledge, how it is arrived at and justified, whereas metaphysics (as we use the term) refers to questions about reality and its fundamental properties. Clearly these are both broad areas of inquiry with substantial crossover: it is hard to make any claims about what we know without making claims about reality, and conversely we cannot say what we know about reality without making claims about how we know it.

Epistemological interpretations of Occam's Razor see it as telling us how we can conclude what to believe. Thus, what we refer to as Occam's Razor proper states that we should believe the simplest model which explains the observations. This is not a claim about reality, but about what we should believe; namely, as little as possible (but, as Einstein said, no less). Metaphysical interpretations see Occam's Razor as a general observation about reality: classification problems in the real world tend to have simple solutions. We might or might not be able to imagine worlds in which this property did not hold, but what interests the metaphysicist is that in our world it does.

http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~soss/cs644/projects/jacob/interpretations.html

The second principle (4) states that simpler classifiers are more likely to be correct. So, all else being equal, we favor a simpler classifier over a more complicated one. We even prefer simpler classifier B over classifier C despite a small decrease in agreement with the training set. This is essentially a metaphysical claim, positing a general (probabilistic) property about the world, and we will refer to it as the Rule of Simplicity to distinguish it from Ockham's more epistemological principle.

To me, Occam's Razor has always been a claim made in metaphysics. It's application goes beyond just the sciences to several aspects of knowledge and has (theoretically) general application to any situation wherein two competing ideas cannot be distinguished on the basis of anything else other than complexity.

Now, you assumed that I was attempting to prove that nothing exists outside of time, which is not at all what I was proving. I was showing that the existence of intelligence outside of time is less likely than the existence of non-intelligence outside of time. IE, naturalistic non-intelligent forces such as clashing 'branes, quantum fluctuations, or expanding n-space bubbles. Let's inverse your presumptions and look at this:

God: Stuff exists outside the boundaries of space, Time is infinite or not infinite, Time applies to everything interacting with us in some sense (even to those that it doesn't, to interact with our reality our perception of time places constraints upon those actions they take based on scale whether it be 1:n representing our entire existence being an instantaneous moment for them, but a stream of moments for us. Ergo by our perception, time applies to anything interacting with us.), Intelligence exists outside our reality

Natural forces: Stuff exists outside the boundaries of space, Time if infinite or not infinite, Time applice to everything interacting with us in some sense (see above)

As you can see, in this shortlist of assumptions (based upon your previous statement) They are nearly identical except for additional assumption: God requires intelligence. Ergo, God is less likely to be the answer than some form of n-spatial phenomena.

//another link: Beginning Metaphysics, By Heimir Geirsson, Michael Losonsky Do a search on google for metaphysics "occam's razor" there's some cool stuff there.

 

[juvenissun]

Hi everyone, I'm obviously new here, so I thought I would just take some time to say hi: Hi

We all know there is a theory of evolution, whether we all understand it or not, but if by some miracle evolution was proven false, does creation have its own theory to take evolution's place if the need arise?

Evolution becomes a "theory" because there is a need to string things together by interpretations. Without the interpretations, evolution simply collapses as a pan of sand. So evolution is a theory, not an answer. It looks backward and can not look forward.

Creation gives the ultimate answer (yes, God did it). It answers the origin of things beyond the fact of existence (this gives more). It has a system to explain when create, why create, how create, what happened after creation, and what will the created things become.

As you can see, Creationism is far broader, and far more complicate. The "God did it" fact is only the first sentence in chapter 1.

 

[AV1611VET]

You think science should wait to see if angels are made of what element again?

250 --- q.v. please: 5.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

250 --- q.v. please: 5.

In this case, angels would be highly radioactive and would decay after mere milliseconds. Beats having no angels at all, I guess.

 

[Hespera]

Evolution becomes a "theory" because there is a need to string things together by interpretations. Without the interpretations, evolution simply collapses as a pan of sand. So evolution is a theory, not an answer. It looks backward and can not look forward.

Creation gives the ultimate answer (yes, God did it). It answers the origin of things beyond the fact of existence (this gives more). It has a system to explain when create, why create, how create, what happened after creation, and what will the created things become.

As you can see, Creationism is far broader, and far more complicate. The "God did it" fact is only the first sentence in chapter 1.

Problem with your creation theory, for those who dont have their head up their ideology, is that the facts dont fit the theory.

Your bit about "interpretations" sounds grand but its meaningless. If you didnt look at the dark marks on the pages of your book and interpret them, you wouldnt have anything there, would you?

All of the evidence all of the data to be found in earth history shows the same thing. Great age, and a sequence of organisms changing from simpler to more complex over time.

Zero evidence for 'creation" other than your interpretation of dark marks on some pages.

 

[ragarth]

Evolution becomes a "theory" because there is a need to string things together by interpretations. Without the interpretations, evolution simply collapses as a pan of sand. So evolution is a theory, not an answer. It looks backward and can not look forward.

We take data, we find a hypothesis to explain said data, we use hypothesis to make predictions, we test predictions. If enough predictions prove true then we upgrade the hypothesis to a theory. Let's break down your argument:

A Evolution relies on data, data must be interpreted, if we do not interpret data then evolution cannot be proven.

B Evolution is a theory, Evolution is not an answer, Evolution looks backwards but not forwards, therefore a theory is not an answer and does not look forwards.

The A statement is true in so far as it's true in all things. If we refuse to interpret the data for any premise then that premise cannot be proven. This has no meaning in this discussion since it fails to set evolution apart from any other premise.

The statement B makes no sense, a theory is an answer, since it attempts explain natural phenomena, and an explanation is a valid answer. Further, a scientific theory MUST make predictions, therefore it must 'look forwards' as you put it. We can hence conclude that statement B is absolutely unsound.

Creation gives the ultimate answer (yes, God did it). It answers the origin of things beyond the fact of existence (this gives more). It has a system to explain when create, why create, how create, what happened after creation, and what will the created things become.

As you can see, Creationism is far broader, and far more complicate. The "God did it" fact is only the first sentence in chapter 1.

The ultimate answer is 'n' because it answers everything. 1+1 = n; 3x^2+2x+5 = n; Where does the planet reside? coordinates (n,n). So I can take any question and answer it with an arbitrary variable. This makes 'n' the ultimate answer, it can answer the origin of things 'What is the coordinate for the origin?' '(n,n)' 'when did the universe begin?' 'n' 'How did the universe begin?' 'n+/-n=n' So there is a method by which I can answer any question using the undefined variable 'n'. Does this mean it I can extract any value, any meaning, or prove that 'n' is the actual answer? No. While it is an answer, it's void of any value. Goddidit is equal to n, it answers all questions, makes no predictions, cannot be falsified, and provides no new insight into the question asked.

1+1 = n, but 1+1=2 as well. 2 gives valuable insight, n is just a variable, a place holder. If we accept n without looking beyond it and call n the end of our exploration into 1+1 then we have learned nothing. We only learn something about 1+1 when we arrive at 2. Creationism is n, it's value is undefined, and if taken as a valid answer it serves only to block us from arriving at the real answers, the 2's.

 

[atomweaver]

You think science should wait to see if angels are made of what element again?

Unobtainium.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unobtainium.

Mamma mia! --- --- I love it!

Where'd you learn that word!?

Unobtanium --- Element 404.

 

[Hespera]

Mamma mia! --- --- I love it!

Where'd you learn that word!?

Unobtanium --- Element 404.

One of the elements first seen on earth, at Los Alamos, was produced in the course of something called Project Panda. The people there wanted to name the element Pandamonium but alas, others had other ideas.

 

[atomweaver]

Mamma mia! --- --- I love it!

Where'd you learn that word!?

Its a (somewhat) common joke in chemistry departments/forums.

In organic chemistry, unobtanium is usually represented as a carbon atom with five covalent bonds; existing only on the homework pages of pre-med or engineering students slogging it through their two semesters of o-chem.

Its sighting is usually followed by the prof saying to the student something like "you make the molecule, and I'll apply for the Nobel Prize...", paired with plenty of red ink.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its a (somewhat) common joke in chemistry departments/forums.

Check your reps.

 

[atomweaver]

Check your reps.

Aww, thanks. You make me wish I came up with it, myself...

 

[AV1611VET]

Aww, thanks. You make me wish I came up with it, myself...

Either way --- you deserve 'em ---

 

[Cabal]

Unobtainium.

Oh dear.

*sigh* And now you've made me think of the movie Core.

I hate you.

 

[MaxP]

Philosophical Foundations of Occam's Razor
http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~soss/cs644/projects/jacob/interpretations.html
To me, Occam's Razor has always been a claim made in metaphysics. It's application goes beyond just the sciences to several aspects of knowledge and has (theoretically) general application to any situation wherein two competing ideas cannot be distinguished on the basis of anything else other than complexity.

But like I said, metaphysical theories are inherently complicated by their nature. Of course the theory that makes less assumptions is more likely, but metaphysical theories tend to at least make a lot of assumptions.

Now, you assumed that I was attempting to prove that nothing exists outside of time, which is not at all what I was proving. I was showing that the existence of intelligence outside of time is less likely than the existence of non-intelligence outside of time. IE, naturalistic non-intelligent forces such as clashing 'branes, quantum fluctuations, or expanding n-space bubbles.

But even non-intelligence outside of time is impossible, lest one should assume these items outside of time would actually create an entirely new dimension in their reactions. Also, these items outside of time, with no direction, cannot react or indeed do anything, given they would not differ, ever, without time. So you would then have to infer if these naturalistic forces caused our universe, our universe alway existed, because forces outside of time cannot progress, change, or develop. Now you assume an infinite universe.

Let's inverse your presumptions and look at this:
God: Stuff exists outside the boundaries of space, Time is infinite or not infinite, Time applies to everything interacting with us in some sense (even to those that it doesn't, to interact with our reality our perception of time places constraints upon those actions they take based on scale whether it be 1:n representing our entire existence being an instantaneous moment for them, but a stream of moments for us. Ergo by our perception, time applies to anything interacting with us.), Intelligence exists outside our reality

Natural forces: Stuff exists outside the boundaries of space, Time if infinite or not infinite, Time applice to everything interacting with us in some sense (see above)

The only difference between the two is "Intelligence exists outside our reality." Plus, as I stated earlier, saying natural forces exist outside of time as a cause would imply and infinite universe, which still leaves us right where we started.

As you can see, in this shortlist of assumptions (based upon your previous statement) They are nearly identical except for additional assumption: God requires intelligence. Ergo, God is less likely to be the answer than some form of n-spatial phenomena.

Not when you add in the assumption of an infinite universe, if the cause has no intelligence to create time, and it cannot change, so one has to assume it's always existed. Also, the whole idea of being outside of time is nonsensical without intelligence, since nothing would actually happen, unless an intelligence was there to create time and everything in that one timeless moment. The natural reaction cannot limit the universe since it has no guiding force or principle.

//another link: Beginning Metaphysics, By Heimir Geirsson, Michael Losonsky Do a search on google for metaphysics "occam's razor" there's some cool stuff there.

Thanks, I'll take a look at it.

 

[ragarth]

But like I said, metaphysical theories are inherently complicated by their nature. Of course the theory that makes less assumptions is more likely, but metaphysical theories tend to at least make a lot of assumptions.

It doesn't matter if the number of assumptions are 2 or a billion, one can still gleam inference as to the relative probability between two opposing premise based on their respective complexity. No where in Occam's razor does it state 'in a premise with less than x assumptions...'

But even non-intelligence outside of time is impossible, lest one should assume these items outside of time would actually create an entirely new dimension in their reactions. Also, these items outside of time, with no direction, cannot react or indeed do anything, given they would not differ, ever, without time. So you would then have to infer if these naturalistic forces caused our universe, our universe alway existed, because forces outside of time cannot progress, change, or develop. Now you assume an infinite universe.

Intelligence requires thought
The act of thinking is not instantaneous
Since the act of thinking is not instantaneous, it takes time
If thinking takes time, intelligence relies upon time
Therefore intelligence cannot exist without time

"But even intelligence outside of time is impossible, lest one should assume these intelligences outside of time would actually create an entirely new dimension in their thoughts. Also, these intelligences outside of time would never think, ever, without time. So you would then have to infer that if these thoughts caused our universe, our universe alway existed, because thoughts outside of time cannot progress, change, or develop. Now you assume an infinite universe."

The same argument made to conclude an infinite universe on non-intelligent forces can be made for intelligent forces. Unless you can prove that thought can take place instantaneously in such a way that it cannot be applied to forces, then your argument against one is the same as the argument against the other since both thought and reaction take time.

Since the rest of your argument relies upon reaction taking time while thought does not, it collapses without this difference being proven.

//I'd like to note that jumping from 'thoughts/reactions can't take place outside time' to 'infinite universe' is an unfounded leap of logic. But at this moment it's not necessary for me to go into that discussion because of the above simpler argument.

 

[BananaSlug]

And if He isn't made of matter?

A spirit still has to be made of something, energy, dark matter, etc. If God is able to interact with the physical world he still has matter of some form. Energy is matter.
If God exists, he is made of matter. If God always existed, matter always existed. The matter of the universe was never at zero.

 

[AV1611VET]

A spirit still has to be made of something, energy, dark matter, etc. If God is able to interact with the physical world he still has matter of some form. Energy is matter.
If God exists, he is made of matter. If God always existed, matter always existed. The matter of the universe was never at zero.

I think this is where you're confusing yourself.

Energy is not matter; rather, matter is energy.

Energy can exist apart from matter.

However, even this point is moot, as I'm pointing out that even energy didn't exist prior to the Creation.

You're espousing creatio ex materia --- I'm espousing creatiio ex nihilo.

 

[juvenissun]

We take data, we find a hypothesis to explain said data, we use hypothesis to make predictions, we test predictions. If enough predictions prove true then we upgrade the hypothesis to a theory. Let's break down your argument:

A Evolution relies on data, data must be interpreted, if we do not interpret data then evolution cannot be proven.

B Evolution is a theory, Evolution is not an answer, Evolution looks backwards but not forwards, therefore a theory is not an answer and does not look forwards.

The A statement is true in so far as it's true in all things. If we refuse to interpret the data for any premise then that premise cannot be proven. This has no meaning in this discussion since it fails to set evolution apart from any other premise.

The statement B makes no sense, a theory is an answer, since it attempts explain natural phenomena, and an explanation is a valid answer. Further, a scientific theory MUST make predictions, therefore it must 'look forwards' as you put it. We can hence conclude that statement B is absolutely unsound.



The ultimate answer is 'n' because it answers everything. 1+1 = n; 3x^2+2x+5 = n; Where does the planet reside? coordinates (n,n). So I can take any question and answer it with an arbitrary variable. This makes 'n' the ultimate answer, it can answer the origin of things 'What is the coordinate for the origin?' '(n,n)' 'when did the universe begin?' 'n' 'How did the universe begin?' 'n+/-n=n' So there is a method by which I can answer any question using the undefined variable 'n'. Does this mean it I can extract any value, any meaning, or prove that 'n' is the actual answer? No. While it is an answer, it's void of any value. Goddidit is equal to n, it answers all questions, makes no predictions, cannot be falsified, and provides no new insight into the question asked.

1+1 = n, but 1+1=2 as well. 2 gives valuable insight, n is just a variable, a place holder. If we accept n without looking beyond it and call n the end of our exploration into 1+1 then we have learned nothing. We only learn something about 1+1 when we arrive at 2. Creationism is n, it's value is undefined, and if taken as a valid answer it serves only to block us from arriving at the real answers, the 2's.

Evolution can not predict anything.