Is there a creation theory?

[MaxP]

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 if one theory solves a some problems with current universe understanding, while making 10 more assumptions out of a thousand than a theory that cannot solve those problems, the theory with more assumptions is ideal.

Intelligence requires thought
The act of thinking is not instantaneous

Does it indeed?
Is it?

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

If a Being existing outside of time knows all, His will is instantaneous and unchanging. Whats the necessity of thought when you have all knowledge? Only action. God existing out of time, all his actions are simultaneous. The creation and destruction would happen at the same moment, the moment in which God exists. Kind of a freeze frame.

"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.

Thought is unnecessary when all is known. You just act. And it is not a reaction, but simply an action. Multiple(trillions, google) actions taking place in a freeze frame moment, a moment that will never change. But it's not chaos because the action have a course, a design. Time is simply a progression. If the actions or things outside of time never progress, then there is no time. I dont have to prove that thought is instant, I simply have to postulate that the thoughts outside of time never change or develop. Same with actions. I do not have to say they are instant, but that they simply all occur at the same "time," unprogressing, unchanging.

//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.

Here, in a more formal argument, is what I was saying:
Progression is impossible outside of time.
If reactions happen outside of time, they either take place unchanged for infinity or they do not take place at all.
Therefore, assuming our universe was created by a reaction, our universe either has to have been in place for infinity or not at all.
Since we can see it does indeed exist, the universe, if caused by a reaction outside of time, has existed forever, because its origin is timeless.

 

[Baggins]

Well, struggle with definition is the fact of life. If you do science, you will live with it for the rest of your life. The more you know, the more often you will revisit definitions. And the more you will see that people are arguing because the difference on the very basic definitions.

.

This shows, once more, that you are a charlatan who knows nothing about science or how it works.

Words in science have very strict definitions that rarely if ever change.

Science is not a sematic argument, and if it becomes one it is because one person - you - doesn't know what he is talking about.

But you'd know all of this if you knew the first thing about science and weren't just a wannabe.

You think a pretence of scientific understanding will bring you respect, but all you do is undermine yourself and your arguments through your obvious ignorance of science and that invites ridicule not respect.

 

[dad]

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?

Creation is the account passed down that theories of the godless try to overthrow. It is not a theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Words in science have very strict definitions...

Like "planet"?

... that rarely if ever change.

Until voted on?

 

[ragarth]

But if one theory solves a some problems with current universe understanding, while making 10 more assumptions out of a thousand than a theory that cannot solve those problems, the theory with more assumptions is ideal.

And you're saying that creationism solves scientific problems? It's a red herring, it 'solves' problems because you can attribute any state to it. If I drop a bottle and it floats then that's just as attributable to 'god did it' as would be if it fell to the ground. There's no discretion between potential outcomes through creationism. This is why I equate creationism to the variable 'n'. It's a place holder, it has no intrinsic value except to say 'we don't know the value'. When you start treating n as a valid answer, then you are stopping short of the real answer.[/quote]

Does it indeed? yes
Is it? yes

If a Being existing outside of time knows all, His will is instantaneous and unchanging. Whats the necessity of thought when you have all knowledge? Only action. God existing out of time, all his actions are simultaneous. The creation and destruction would happen at the same moment, the moment in which God exists. Kind of a freeze frame.


Thought is unnecessary when all is known. You just act. And it is not a reaction, but simply an action. Multiple(trillions, google) actions taking place in a freeze frame moment, a moment that will never change. But it's not chaos because the action have a course, a design. Time is simply a progression. If the actions or things outside of time never progress, then there is no time.

You failed to show any lack of connection between thought and intelligence, you only asked 'is it?' and 'does it indeed?' which are not arguments against my premise. Therefore I can only conclude that 'god' to you is synonymous with 'non-intelligent force' because that is what you have just described to me. Something acting without intelligence, acting only in response to stimuli.

I dont have to prove that thought is instant, I simply have to postulate that the thoughts outside of time never change or develop. Same with actions. I do not have to say they are instant, but that they simply all occur at the same "time," unprogressing, unchanging.

Since we can see it does indeed exist, the universe, if caused by a reaction outside of time, has existed forever, because its origin is timeless.

Progression is impossible outside of time.
If reactions happen outside of time, they either take place unchanged for infinity or they do not take place at all.
Therefore, assuming our universe was created by a reaction, our universe either has to have been in place for infinity or not at all.

I have several routes I can take in this discussion from here. I can keep with the theme of this discussion and continue to make the claim that if non-intelligent forces take time, then so does intelligence. Alternatively I can show that if intelligence doesn't take time then non-intelligent forces don't. I'll have to consider which one will be the more enjoyable discussion since I leave for work in just a few minutes and don't have time to think about this right now. :-(

Anyone have a vote on which argument they'd like to see? Also, this is getting off-topic from the OP of the thread, does anyone want me and maxp to take this discussion elsewhere?

update: I just realized this discussion *IS* going way off topic. MaxP, I'll be gone for a while after this. You can either respond to what I have here and claim that as the last word, in which case I won't finish my argument, or you can wait for me to get back from work and post the rest of my argument against you, in which case your response to that will be the last word in this discussion about the capacity for god to exist outside time. Your response to my first paragraph will be answered to, however, since it is on topic for this thread.

 

[Hespera]

av sez

Originally Posted by Baggins

Words in science have very strict definitions...
​

Like "planet"? Originally Posted by Baggins

... that rarely if ever change.


Hespera sez:



​

This bit of snark that you endlessly repeat is getting really tiresome. The only meaning in it is something about you, which makes it even more tiresome.

Try tho for a moment to try to grasp the difficulty of even having found object you like to mention. you think you would ever have found it? How exactly do you propose that anyone would find out anything about it other than that it is a distant speck of light?

its a bird its a plane its superman. Do you correctly figure out what everything is the instant you see it? if not we shall have to accuse you of incompetence and constantly changing definitions, then voting on what you should call what you see.

Say did you ever hear that the church has voted on what to put in the bible and what to take out? Not long ago St Christopher got voted out. Pluto at least exists.

make medals of a man who never existed and ask him to protect you. If a person wanted something to mock and laugh at the church provides endless source material. Good taste (and the ever vigilant censors) of course prevent this

The point of mentioning pluto is to snark not to get at any understanding. What does that say about the person who keeps doing it?

 

[AV1611VET]

What does that say about the person who keeps doing it?

It says nothing about the person who keeps doint it.

Don't tell me out of one side of your keyboard that science has very strict definitions that "rarely, if ever, change", and out of the other side of your keyboard that you never had a definition for planet until this Pluto fiasco came to light.

When it comes to science, scientists are the ultimate goalpost shifters, as well as the ultimate users of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

• Air has no mass? That wasn't really "science" --- was it?
• Phlogiston? That wasn't really "science" --- was it?
• Alchemy? That wasn't really "science" --- was it?
• Flat earth? No "true scientist" taught that --- did he?
• Geocentrism? No "true scientist" taught that --- did he?
• Thalidomide? Corporation's fault.
• Challenger? Administration's fault.
• Vioxx? Government's fault.

On the other hand:

• Crusades? Christians' fault.
• Salem Witch Trials? Christians' fault.
• Flat earth? Christians taught it.
• Geocentrism? Christians taught it.

And always keep in mind:

• We don't ask for tithes --- we "fleece our congregations".
• We don't go doorknocking --- we "impose our beliefs on citizens in their homes".
• We don't have creation museums --- we have "institutes of disingenuous propaganda".
• We engage in hospital visitation only to instill in the patients a false sense of security.
• Our God is also the god of Islam, or the gods of the Hindus, or [whomever].
• Our Documentation has been written by ignorant, Bronze Age goatherders --- then modified, mishandled, and mistranslated until It says the exact opposite of what It does say (in some places).

Will this ever end?

 

[Nathan Poe]

It says nothing about the person who keeps doint it.

Don't tell me out of one side of your keyboard that science has very strict definitions that "rarely, if ever, change", and out of the other side of your keyboard that you never had a definition for planet until this Pluto fiasco came to light.

When it comes to science, scientists are the ultimate goalpost shifters, as well as the ultimate users of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

• Air has no mass? That wasn't really "science" --- was it?
• Phlogiston? That wasn't really "science" --- was it?
• Alchemy? That wasn't really "science" --- was it?
• Flat earth? No "true scientist" taught that --- did he?
• Geocentrism? No "true scientist" taught that --- did he?
• Thalidomide? Corporation's fault.
• Challenger? Administration's fault.
• Vioxx? Government's fault.

On the other hand:

• Crusades? Christians' fault.
• Salem Witch Trials? Christians' fault.
• Flat earth? Christians taught it.
• Geocentrism? Christians taught it.

And always keep in mind:

• We don't ask for tithes --- we "fleece our congregations".
• We don't go doorknocking --- we "impose our beliefs on citizens in their homes".
• We don't have creation museums --- we have "institutes of disingenuous propaganda".
• We engage in hospital visitation only to instill in the patients a false sense of security.
• Our God is also the god of Islam, or the gods of the Hindus, or [whomever].
• Our Documentation has been written by ignorant, Bronze Age goatherders --- then modified, mishandled, and mistranslated until It says the exact opposite of what It does say (in some places).

Will this ever end?

When you start taking responsibility, own up to and correct your mistakes at least a fraction of what scientists have throughout history, then maybe it will end.

Not likely, however.

 

[MaxP]

And you're saying that creationism solves scientific problems? It's a red herring, it 'solves' problems because you can attribute any state to it. If I drop a bottle and it floats then that's just as attributable to 'god did it' as would be if it fell to the ground. There's no discretion between potential outcomes through creationism. This is why I equate creationism to the variable 'n'. It's a place holder, it has no intrinsic value except to say 'we don't know the value'. When you start treating n as a valid answer, then you are stopping short of the real answer.

Note that I'm not arguing for a 10,000 year old creationist model, simply for a God. And the theory of God is not so much to do with the mundane(God made the bottle float, God made the world 10,000 years ago) but with metaphysical answers.

Does it indeed? yes
Is it? yes

You failed to show any lack of connection between thought and intelligence, you only asked 'is it?' and 'does it indeed?' which are not arguments against my premise. Therefore I can only conclude that 'god' to you is synonymous with 'non-intelligent force' because that is what you have just described to me. Something acting without intelligence, acting only in response to stimuli.

You missed my point. When you have all supposed knowledge, you have no need to think to develop plans or ideas; you simply know. Based on the fact you simply know, you simply act, not in response(because God would be prior to all possible stimuli), but act in the sense you do what is best with your knowledge(everything).

I have several routes I can take in this discussion from here. I can keep with the theme of this discussion and continue to make the claim that if non-intelligent forces take time, then so does intelligence. Alternatively I can show that if intelligence doesn't take time then non-intelligent forces don't. I'll have to consider which one will be the more enjoyable discussion since I leave for work in just a few minutes and don't have time to think about this right now. :-(

Anyone have a vote on which argument they'd like to see? Also, this is getting off-topic from the OP of the thread, does anyone want me and maxp to take this discussion elsewhere?

update: I just realized this discussion *IS* going way off topic. MaxP, I'll be gone for a while after this. You can either respond to what I have here and claim that as the last word, in which case I won't finish my argument, or you can wait for me to get back from work and post the rest of my argument against you, in which case your response to that will be the last word in this discussion about the capacity for god to exist outside time. Your response to my first paragraph will be answered to, however, since it is on topic for this thread.

My basic premise is simply that God requires no progression since He knows and does all simultaneously, and thus He needs no time. But if natural forces cause the universe while outside of time, the universe is infinite because its beginning is infinite(being outside of time).



And this is way off topic, but it has something to do with creation...

 

[ragarth]

Note that I'm not arguing for a 10,000 year old creationist model, simply for a God. And the theory of God is not so much to do with the mundane(God made the bottle float, God made the world 10,000 years ago) but with metaphysical answers.

So you agree then that creationism is not a valid scientific theory because it fails to make predictions, and is incapable of distinguishing between outcomes? Because that's what I'm arguing in this part of our discussion, that ID/Creationism is an invalid scientific argument, and it now seems to me that in this part of our discussion we've been arguing apples and oranges. Otherwise we get into my weak spot, those fuzzy aspects of philosophy that don't have a basis in the natural world.

To be honest though, it's my opinion that if it can't find a basis in rationalism or empiricism then it's value to my life is between zero and nill. Ethics, Morality, nature, life, politics, etc. All my opinions on these subjects have a basis in logic and empiricism for me.

You missed my point. When you have all supposed knowledge, you have no need to think to develop plans or ideas; you simply know. Based on the fact you simply know, you simply act, not in response(because God would be prior to all possible stimuli), but act in the sense you do what is best with your knowledge(everything).


My basic premise is simply that God requires no progression since He knows and does all simultaneously, and thus He needs no time. But if natural forces cause the universe while outside of time, the universe is infinite because its beginning is infinite(being outside of time).



And this is way off topic, but it has something to do with creation...

 

[MaxP]

So you agree then that creationism is not a valid scientific theory because it fails to make predictions, and is incapable of distinguishing between outcomes? Because that's what I'm arguing in this part of our discussion, that ID/Creationism is an invalid scientific argument, and it now seems to me that in this part of our discussion we've been arguing apples and oranges. Otherwise we get into my weak spot, those fuzzy aspects of philosophy that don't have a basis in the natural world.

I agree that creationism isn't a very good theory, but intelligent design and creationism are two different things. Intelligent design simply implies that there is some kind of order, logic, and design to the universe.

To be honest though, it's my opinion that if it can't find a basis in rationalism or empiricism then it's value to my life is between zero and nill. Ethics, Morality, nature, life, politics, etc. All my opinions on these subjects have a basis in logic and empiricism for me.

Logic generally comes before empiricist experience. Or logic can be used to try to determine what cannot be determined through empiricism.

 

[ragarth]

I agree that creationism isn't a very good theory, but intelligent design and creationism are two different things. Intelligent design simply implies that there is some kind of order, logic, and design to the universe.

It's generally agreed at this point given the Dover trial results that ID is creationism in disguise. The wedge document plus cintelligent design proponentsists kinda gives the pony away.

Logic generally comes before empiricist experience. Or logic can be used to try to determine what cannot be determined through empiricism.

Empiricism alone is wasteful, logic must be applied to the findings to draw conclusions. I'm not arguing against the validity of logic, but rather that conclusions drawn without a basis in empiricism are superfluous to me- in my life, they serve no purpose. In any case, this conversation is getting out of my league. I'm not good with philosophy beyond natural philosophy. My problems with studying the highly theoretical philosophies appear to stem from my problems with accepting religion- I'm just too scientifically minded.

 

[BananaSlug]

I think this is where you're confusing yourself.

If you say so.

Energy is not matter; rather, matter is energy.

Wrong. Einstein's equation E=mc2 demonstrates that energy (E) is equivalent with matter (mass m). It suggests that the concept of mass is indeed, less basic than what can be believed from everyday experiences with massive bodies. In fact, energy can be transformed into massive particles, and mass can be transformed into energy. THEY ARE ONE IN THE SAME!!!! Energy in all its different appearances is a key concept in physics.

Energy can exist apart from matter.

How so? Please tell me what groundbreaking research you have done to show that. Energy is matter and matter is energy.

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

Wrong.
This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all. 1 John 1:5 RSV

For with You is the fountain of life; In Your light we see light. Psalm 36:9

And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever. Revelation 22:5

Obviously God is light, and light is energy. So energy did exist prior to creation. And if energy existed so did matter because the two are interchangable. Again I have proven you are a potential atheist.
Mwuahahahahaha!

 

[MaxP]

It's generally agreed at this point given the Dover trial results that ID is creationism in disguise. The wedge document plus cintelligent design proponentsists kinda gives the pony away.

I don't agree with creationism as it opposes evolution and the like, I personally believe evolution is the accurate theory, but ID does not equal creationism. ID and evolution are not at all incompatible. Creationism and evolution are. If you don't want to teach it in schools, I couldn't care less, but it's an important distinction to make.

Empiricism alone is wasteful, logic must be applied to the findings to draw conclusions. I'm not arguing against the validity of logic, but rather that conclusions drawn without a basis in empiricism are superfluous to me- in my life, they serve no purpose. In any case, this conversation is getting out of my league. I'm not good with philosophy beyond natural philosophy. My problems with studying the highly theoretical philosophies appear to stem from my problems with accepting religion- I'm just too scientifically minded.

Highly theoretical dissertations and logic coming before empiricism is also common in science. Quantum physics?
Just pointing out even the scientifically minded like highly theoretical.

 

[MoonLancer]

but intelligent design and creationism are two different things.

No, they are not. ID only cuts out the words god and Jesus from the debate. The books used a few years ago to teach id were just creationism books with creation and creationism and god and Jesus etc... copied out and replaced with id key words.

The content of the books diden't change. In fact their was a copy and paste error in the book pandas and people that showed just this and was shown to be a creationist book in the dover trial and was one of the piaces of evidnece used to show that ID is just a extention of creationiusm, hence having no place in science classes.

ID has been abanded in place of teach the controvercy.

 

[MoonLancer]

Wrong.
This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all. 1 John 1:5 RSV

For with You is the fountain of life; In Your light we see light. Psalm 36:9

And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever. Revelation 22:5

Obviously God is light, and light is energy. So energy did exist prior to creation. And if energy existed so did matter because the two are interchangable. Again I have proven you are a potential atheist.
Mwuahahahahaha!

I must admit, that's pretty brilliant.

 

[AV1611VET]

Intelligent Design can take a hike.

I believe in a literal six-day creation --- and I don't need all the excess baggage Intelligent Design allows for.

 

[MaxP]

No, they are not. ID only cuts out the words god and Jesus from the debate. The books used a few years ago to teach id were just creationism books with creation and creationism and god and Jesus etc... copied out and replaced with id key words.

The content of the books diden't change. In fact their was a copy and paste error in the book pandas and people that showed just this and was shown to be a creationist book in the dover trial and was one of the piaces of evidnece used to show that ID is just a extention of creationiusm, hence having no place in science classes.

ID has been abanded in place of teach the controvercy.

Again, ID may be used as a vehicle for creationism by creationists, but it is not creationism. ID does not cut out evolution, or any scientific theory, since Intelligent Design only implies design.

 

[sbvera13]

I don't agree with creationism as it opposes evolution and the like, I personally believe evolution is the accurate theory, but ID does not equal creationism.

Emphasis added.

It's been proven in a court of law that it does. See Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board.

1st, literature references to ID begin occuring in 1987, immediately after the Edwards vs. Aguillard trial ruled that creation science was religion, and thus innapropriate material for public schooling. This suggests that ID is an attempt to dodge that ruling. In the case of the Dover trial, the textbook "Pandas and People" is the literature in question.

2nd, references to ID are replaced word for word with creationsimm with little or no editing of any other text.

3rd, an intermediate draft between 1987 and 2005 featured the words "cdesign proponentsists" in it. This is a hybrid between "creationists" and "design proponents." This proves that someone went back through the draft and literally did a word search for "creationist" and popped "design proponent" in it's place.

 

[ragarth]

I don't agree with creationism as it opposes evolution and the like, I personally believe evolution is the accurate theory, but ID does not equal creationism. ID and evolution are not at all incompatible. Creationism and evolution are. If you don't want to teach it in schools, I couldn't care less, but it's an important distinction to make.

If treated properly, ID could have merit. I've made this same argument many times before, but it's not treated in such a way. It's not treated by it's proponents as a scientific theory should be, but rather as a vehicle for the injection of god into the classroom. The people espousing it have no interest in real science, only in a political and social objective.

Highly theoretical dissertations and logic coming before empiricism is also common in science. Quantum physics?
Just pointing out even the scientifically minded like highly theoretical.

Highly theoretical physics still have a basis in empiricism. Quantum physics exists to explain phenomena in the real world we observe, specifically the quantal nature of energy (Quanta, representing packets, thereby eliminating the infinite energy issue that we faced with calculating the energy within a stove before quantum mechanics was developed). Quantum physics makes predictions that we can test, thereby providing scientific validation of the theory.

There are differences between highly theoretical science and highly theoretical philosophy. In science, the highly theoretical must maintain that capacity to at some point be proven within the framework of the scientific method. This means that even though we may not be able to test a hypothesis' predictions now, we must atleast hypothetically be able to test them in the future. This is not a prerequisite in philosophy as a whole.