Basic Creationism Is Supported By Science

[Job 33:6]

No. I accept that at present, in the absence (currently) of any meaningful evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is that there is no reason.

That's fine.

No, inevitability isn't just blind luck. It isn't just blind luck that causes light to travel in a straight line through spacetime. It's the very nature of light itself that causes it to travel in a straight line...it's INEVITABLE. And it's not unreasonable to think that the physical constants are just as inevitable as the invariability of light, and lacking any evidence to the contrary there's no reason to invoke some mystical designer to explain them.

I posted another link for this before, but it's just a massive assumption that these values are invariable.

There's a glitch at the edge of the universe that could remake physics | New Scientist

New Tests Suggest a Fundamental Constant of Physics Isn't The Same Across The Universe

You guys are so insistent on these conclusions, but these are conclusions that really just aren't known.

It's all just a gross assumption.

 

[Job 33:6]

But this places you in a bit of a conundrum. Because it means that you don't have free will.

If reality was designed specifically to have YOU in it then your parents HAD to meet. They had no choice in the matter. And all the events that caused them to meet had to happen as well. As with everyone else. So you end up with every event that has ever happened being designed and decided from the beginning, not by you or me, but by God. Every sin ever committed was designed and decided by God.

So which is it? Do people have free will? In which case your existence is simply a matter of dumb luck. Or is free will just an illusion because everything, from the physical constants to your existence, was designed by God?

I never said that I absolutely had to be here. A universe with purpose and meaning, and reason for intelligent life that includes me, does not need to be a universe specifically for me.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's fine.



I posted another link for this before, but it's just a massive assumption that these values are invariable.

There's a glitch at the edge of the universe that could remake physics | New Scientist

New Tests Suggest a Fundamental Constant of Physics Isn't The Same Across The Universe

You guys are so insistent on these conclusions, but these are conclusions that really just aren't known.

It's all just a gross assumption.

You still haven't addressed my claim that the sole justification for your belief is an Argument from Incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

 

[Job 33:6]

You still haven't addressed my claim that the sole justification for your belief is an Argument from Incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

Well obviously I believe, as all Christians do, for a whole slew of reasons.

Personally, I'd say that scripture contains a lot of truth. There are a lot of moral lessons and teachings by Jesus that have impacted my life in positive ways. There are many sensible lessons within scripture that speak into who we are and how we ought to live. So this plays a role in my belief in a greater reason for the universe.

And while you call it incredulity, I think it's sensible. There are many things through time that we develop expectations of, that aren't initially known through scientific evidence, that are later discovered to be true. Maybe we could say this about the vast majority of discoveries.

If I walked into a casino and some person was there who won mass quantities of cash, especially in games in which there are microscopic odds of winning, I think it's fair to be skeptical of the legitimacy of such a win purely by luck.

I've heard it a few times now that perhaps it wasn't luck at all and that maybe the machine existed in a way (for no apparent reason) in which the person had no choice but to win. But this just appears to rest on gross assumptions.

So, I think it's understandable that if someone feels that they haven't observed evidence for meaning behind the universe, that they then further dont believe in one. Though, personally I think it's bold and premature to conclude that there certainly is no reason or meaning, which seems to not be the case with most here (so far as I can tell) and that's fine as well.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well obviously I believe, as all Christians do, for a whole slew of reasons.

Personally, I'd say that scripture contains a lot of truth. There are a lot of moral lessons and teachings by Jesus that have impacted my life in positive ways. There are many sensible lessons within scripture that speak into who we are and how we ought to live. So this plays a role in my belief in a greater reason for the universe.

And while you call it incredulity, I think it's sensible. There are many things through time that we develop expectations of, that aren't initially known through scientific evidence, that are later discovered to be true. Maybe we could say this about the vast majority of discoveries.

If I walked into a casino and some person was there who won mass quantities of cash, especially in games in which there are microscopic odds of winning, I think it's fair to be skeptical of the legitimacy of such a win purely by luck.

I've heard it a few times now that perhaps it wasn't luck at all and that maybe the machine existed in a way (for no apparent reason) in which the person had no choice but to win. But this just appears to rest on gross assumptions.

So, I think it's understandable that if someone feels that they haven't observed evidence for meaning behind the universe, that they then further dont believe in one. Though, personally I think it's bold and premature to conclude that there certainly is no reason or meaning, which seems to not be the case with most here (so far as I can tell) and that's fine as well.

Thank you for your detailed reply. We shall just have to continue with differing world views.

 

[partinobodycular]

I never said that I absolutely had to be here.

And yet the question still remains, is your existence simply a matter of dumb luck? Or is reality so finely tuned that your existence was inevitable?

If your existence was inevitable then there's no such thing as free will, because every event that would ever happen was determined by God at the moment of creation.

On the other hand, if your existence wasn't inevitable, then neither was Abraham's, nor Moses', nor anyone else's from Adam and Eve's offspring on down. It was all just a matter of dumb luck.

You need to make a choice...so which one is it? Inevitability, or dumb luck?

 

[Job 33:6]

And yet the question still remains, is your existence simply a matter of dumb luck? Or is reality so finely tuned that your existence was inevitable?

If your existence was inevitable then there's no such thing as free will, because every event that would ever happen was determined by God at the moment of creation.

On the other hand, if your existence wasn't inevitable, then neither was Abraham's, nor Moses', nor anyone else's from Adam and Eve's offspring on down. It was all just a matter of dumb luck.

You need to make a choice...so which one is it? Inevitability, or dumb luck?

I don't think that any of the above named figures existences were inevitable. This isn't the same as saying that it is dumb luck that they came to be, in a world where the mechanisms were put in place for them to come as a product of those mechanisms.

 

[partinobodycular]

I don't think that any of the above named figures existences were inevitable. This isn't the same as saying that it is dumb luck that they came to be, in a world where the mechanisms were put in place for them to come as a product of those mechanisms.

So you're opting for a third choice, might I ask what that third choice is?

 

[Job 33:6]

So you're opting for a third choice, might I ask what that third choice is?

The third option is that mechanisms were put in place which favor the evolution of life, which brought these people into being.

This isn't random chance, but rather it's a result of a designed mechanism used to bring about a planned product.

It's like with convergent evolution. Evolution by some may be considered to be random, but it really isn't. The outcomes come as a product of the mechanism. Planned, yet not written with precision.

 

[Phred]

Personally, I'd say that scripture contains a lot of truth. There are a lot of moral lessons and teachings by Jesus that have impacted my life in positive ways. There are many sensible lessons within scripture that speak into who we are and how we ought to live. So this plays a role in my belief in a greater reason for the universe.

You could pick up any book and say the same thing. But not every book also teaches you the correct way to beat slaves. Or that the value of Pi is 3. (It's not) Scripture also contains a lot of untruth. Which you overlook. It's called "cherrypicking." This is an example.

Look, if being a Christian makes you a better person then great. Be a Christian. From over here though I don't see many people being better from being Christian. I see greed, hypocrisy, deviance and more lies than I can shake a stick at. The parade on a Sunday morning of those choosing their "Sunday best" rather than using that money to help others is directly antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. So this commentary about how scripture holds this deep truth and because of this we should just trust it and ignore all the things we've found...

No.

And while you call it incredulity, I think it's sensible. There are many things through time that we develop expectations of, that aren't initially known through scientific evidence, that are later discovered to be true. Maybe we could say this about the vast majority of discoveries.

Name one.

If I walked into a casino and some person was there who won mass quantities of cash, especially in games in which there are microscopic odds of winning, I think it's fair to be skeptical of the legitimacy of such a win purely by luck.

I've heard it a few times now that perhaps it wasn't luck at all and that maybe the machine existed in a way (for no apparent reason) in which the person had no choice but to win. But this just appears to rest on gross assumptions.

So, I think it's understandable that if someone feels that they haven't observed evidence for meaning behind the universe, that they then further dont believe in one. Though, personally I think it's bold and premature to conclude that there certainly is no reason or meaning, which seems to not be the case with most here (so far as I can tell) and that's fine as well.

And yet, you keep going back to this over and over and over. You can't manage to understand that there is no evidence for the existence of a god. Any god. None. You believe because someone told you about God. And someone told them. And you believe in the God you do because of where you were born. If you'd been born in India, different belief. China, different belief. Iraq, different belief. So tell me all about how this God is simply undeniable when people all over the world do indeed deny him? It's EASY to believe in whatever deity you wish because there is no evidence to suggest any one god is real. It's not sensible. It's not reasonable. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. And you insist that we must all ignore the things we've discovered because you believe something for which there is no evidence.

Again. No.

And then you focus on the misunderstanding of odds. Something might be a certain way and you think, "Wow, that's really unlikely to be that way. THIS right here is EVIDENCE that God exists. Because it IS that way." Isn't that what you've been trying to say all this time?

You're right about the casino. And we would look for an outside cause when someone is winning inordinate amounts when they shouldn't. But we also know exactly what the odds are. So we know exactly when someone is violating the norms. We have no real idea about universal constants or what the odds are of them being a certain way. Perhaps they can only be one way. And it's this way right here. If one is at one point all the rest have to be a certain way too. We do not know. So to say that since we're here that's evidence for the existence of God well... I know you desperately WANT that to be true. It just isn't.

 

[Job 33:6]

You could pick up any book and say the same thing. But not every book also teaches you the correct way to beat slaves. Or that the value of Pi is 3. (It's not) Scripture also contains a lot of untruth. Which you overlook. It's called "cherrypicking." This is an example.

Look, if being a Christian makes you a better person then great. Be a Christian. From over here though I don't see many people being better from being Christian. I see greed, hypocrisy, deviance and more lies than I can shake a stick at. The parade on a Sunday morning of those choosing their "Sunday best" rather than using that money to help others is directly antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. So this commentary about how scripture holds this deep truth and because of this we should just trust it and ignore all the things we've found...

No.


Name one.


And yet, you keep going back to this over and over and over. You can't manage to understand that there is no evidence for the existence of a god. Any god. None. You believe because someone told you about God. And someone told them. And you believe in the God you do because of where you were born. If you'd been born in India, different belief. China, different belief. Iraq, different belief. So tell me all about how this God is simply undeniable when people all over the world do indeed deny him? It's EASY to believe in whatever deity you wish because there is no evidence to suggest any one god is real. It's not sensible. It's not reasonable. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. And you insist that we must all ignore the things we've discovered because you believe something for which there is no evidence.

Again. No.

And then you focus on the misunderstanding of odds. Something might be a certain way and you think, "Wow, that's really unlikely to be that way. THIS right here is EVIDENCE that God exists. Because it IS that way." Isn't that what you've been trying to say all this time?

You're right about the casino. And we would look for an outside cause when someone is winning inordinate amounts when they shouldn't. But we also know exactly what the odds are. So we know exactly when someone is violating the norms. We have no real idea about universal constants or what the odds are of them being a certain way. Perhaps they can only be one way. And it's this way right here. If one is at one point all the rest have to be a certain way too. We do not know. So to say that since we're here that's evidence for the existence of God well... I know you desperately WANT that to be true. It just isn't.

This sounds like commentary from someone who has a sour attitude toward some-church perhaps some-where that maybe rubbed them wrong. Whatever awful experience has scarred you, I am sorry.

I can't otherwise be bothered to engage in rhetoric. Maybe we talk more about your "Sunday best" thoughts in the ethics forum.

 

[Phred]

This sounds like commentary from someone who has a sour attitude toward some-church perhaps some-where that maybe rubbed them wrong. Whatever awful experience has scarred you, I am sorry.

I can't otherwise be bothered to engage in rhetoric. Maybe we talk more about your "Sunday best" thoughts in the ethics forum.

If you're going to bring up things like "Personally, I'd say that scripture contains a lot of truth. There are a lot of moral lessons and teachings by Jesus that have impacted my life in positive ways. There are many sensible lessons within scripture that speak into who we are and how we ought to live. So this plays a role in my belief in a greater reason for the universe." you don't get to blow it off with trying to pretend my dissection of that comment is based upon some deep-seeded issues. No church ever rubbed me wrong. Creationists however...

 

[Job 33:6]

If you're going to bring up things like "Personally, I'd say that scripture contains a lot of truth. There are a lot of moral lessons and teachings by Jesus that have impacted my life in positive ways. There are many sensible lessons within scripture that speak into who we are and how we ought to live. So this plays a role in my belief in a greater reason for the universe." you don't get to blow it off with trying to pretend my dissection of that comment is based upon some deep-seeded issues. No church ever rubbed me wrong. Creationists however...

"Creationists however".

The emotion in your posts speaks much louder than your words.

Christians come in all shapes and sizes. Theists more broadly so.

My thought on sins of the church is that, in scripture itself, we see really extensive efforts by Paul in making efforts to break down the "Sunday best" mentality of the church.

Such as...basically what is observed all throughout Ephesians, Corinthians, Romans, Hebrews etc. Are you familiar with these writings? writings on circumcision of the heart? Have you read these books? And not just read them, but in context, read through them to understand the meaning of Paul's words?

I should also note too that the early church of Christ was never a perfect one. Many of Jesus' followers were broken people. Jesus reached out to the sinners because he knew that we were the ones who needed him most. And part of that remains to this very day. There are sinners in church and that's where they should be.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Creationists however".

The emotion in your posts speaks much louder than your words.

Christians come in all shapes and sizes. Theists more broadly so.

My thought on sins of the church is that, in scripture itself, we see really extensive efforts by Paul in making efforts to break down the "Sunday best" mentality of the church.

Such as...basically what is observed all throughout Ephesians, Corinthians, Romans, Hebrews etc. Are you familiar with these writings? writings on circumcision of the heart? Have you read these books? And not just read them, but in context, read through them to understand the meaning of Paul's words?

I should also note too that the early church of Christ was never a perfect one. Many of Jesus' followers were broken people. Jesus reached out to the sinners because he knew that we were the ones who needed him most. And part of that remains to this very day. There are sinners in church and that's where they should be.

Listens to crickets chirp*

 

[partinobodycular]

The third option is that mechanisms were put in place which favor the evolution of life, which brought these people into being.

This isn't random chance, but rather it's a result of a designed mechanism used to bring about a planned product.

It's like with convergent evolution. Evolution by some may be considered to be random, but it really isn't. The outcomes come as a product of the mechanism. Planned, yet not written with precision.

But isn't what you're describing simply the multiverse theory, perhaps one step removed?

Per the above quote, God put in place mechanisms which would, via convergent evolution, bring about the existence of intelligent beings such as ourselves. But wouldn't a mechanism that created a multitude of universes have exactly the same effect?

So why dismiss the multiverse theory when that seems to be exactly what you're describing?

It appears to me that previous responders were correct in that you're simply making an Argument from Incredulity. You seem to agree that mechanisms could be in place that would inevitably lead to our existence, you just don't seem to accept that such a mechanism could simply be the result of natural processes, with no intelligent designer required.

You're obviously an intelligent person, so why do you feel the need to invoke the existence of God?

All that I can think of is that God is the result of humanity's need for some ultimate meaning and purpose within the futility and cruelty of life. Life is hard, and hope dies last, so humanity creates God.

Simple natural mechanisms create us, and we in our yearnings create God. Not that belief in God is a bad thing, but rather that there comes a time, when we do the unthinkable, we put our hope and faith in ourselves.

 

[Job 33:6]

But isn't what you're describing simply the multiverse theory, perhaps one step removed?

Per the above quote, God put in place mechanisms which would, via convergent evolution, bring about the existence of intelligent beings such as ourselves. But wouldn't a mechanism that created a multitude of universes have exactly the same effect?

So why dismiss the multiverse theory when that seems to be exactly what you're describing?

It appears to me that previous responders were correct in that you're simply making an Argument from Incredulity. You seem to agree that mechanisms could be in place that would inevitably lead to our existence, you just don't seem to accept that such a mechanism could simply be the result of natural processes, with no intelligent designer required.

You're obviously an intelligent person, so why do you feel the need to invoke the existence of God?

All that I can think of is that God is the result of humanity's need for some ultimate meaning and purpose within the futility and cruelty of life. Life is hard, and hope dies last, so humanity creates God.

Simple natural mechanisms create us, and we in our yearnings create God. Not that belief in God is a bad thing, but rather that there comes a time, when we do the unthinkable, we put our hope and faith in ourselves.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel as though evidence for multiverse theory is on par with evidence for the theory of evolution? I like your thoughts, but I haven't thought of them in a way in which they might be equals in their supporting evidence.

 

[Job 33:6]

Just out of curiosity, do you feel as though evidence for multiverse theory is on par with evidence for the theory of evolution? I like your thoughts, but I haven't thought of them in a way in which they might be equals in their supporting evidence.

I tend to disregard multiverse theory because personally I think it just sounds kind of crazy.

It could resolve questions of why our universe is the way it is. But part of me thinks that maybe it's just an idea that someone proposed to resolve the dilemma as opposed to an idea that actually has some kind of a basis in evidence. But I am admittedly unfamiliar with the theory, though I'd be curious to learn about it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I suspect that the main function of a God belief is not to provide a reason for living but to act as a form of security - a hedge against the unknown and less controllable aspects of life, including the fears associated with death.

Yes - it strikes me how often believers, talking about randomness or chance, will instead use the term 'blind luck' in a disparaging way. I think it's a self-centred emotional tell.

Unlike 'chance' or 'random', 'luck' is typically a superstitious or magical thinking term, a subjective assessment of benefit from events, and calling it 'blind' (a superfluous addition) gives the impression of disappointment that it can no longer see how deserving one is...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There has been no justification. There has been some guess work if that's what you mean. I haven't seen a single person explain why the universes constants are as they are. But rather simply shrug their shoulders and say "welp, it just is what it is, maybe we will find purpose in the future but until then I don't believe there is in any purpose or meaning behind It all".

I don't understand this need for external purpose - what's the purpose of a mountain? a distant galaxy? a tree? a black hole? or ants?

Humans and some other animals have evolved the ability to formulate explicit goals, with intent and purpose. Partly as a result of this, we're predisposed to interpret things in terms of agency and purpose, particularly unpredictable things and things that seem to be progressing towards an end-point (a 'goal'). Hence Aristotelian teleology and Dennett's 'intentional stance'.

This predisposition is apparent from ancient myths to contemporary language and our tendency to personify or anthropomorphise the inanimate - houses, machines, mountains, the weather, countries, rivers, lakes, oceans, etc; it's a deep-rooted animistic tendency, but we generally have the knowledge and understanding to realise that it's metaphorical unless applied to things that really are goal-directed, i.e. the more sophisticated living creatures.

The universe shows no sign of being goal-directed - it's a lot of stars and their planets separated by unimaginably vast distances growing ever more distant from each other with time. We've evolved on one of trillions of planets, that happens to be suitable for life like us.

I suggest the idea that the universe has a purpose or that it was created with a purpose, is a combination of that deep animistic predisposition and a deep underlying insecurity - not least at our lack of knowledge, understanding, and control of it all, giving rise to the sense that someone must have done this, someone must be in control, otherwise it's scarily unknown, unexplained, and unpredictable

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, there is such a saying. And it is demonstrably wrong.

The saying should be "The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence." There are cases where an absence of evidence tells us that an event did not happen.

Agreed - or there should be an addendum - "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - unless evidence would be expected".