Basic Creationism Is Supported By Science

[Phred]

"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.

Nobody asked.

 

[Phred]

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

The need for an external purpose is PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

There's more than one kind of multiverse. The problem for most people is partly a matter of familiarity - they're not so crazy once you understand how they came about. They're predictions of currently accepted theories, given some simple assumptions.

Not so long ago, there wasn't thought to be anything beyond our Milky Way galaxy - then what had been thought to be stars and clusters on its outskirts were discovered to be whole other galaxies unimaginably far away. They called these 'island universes'... Now we're all used to the idea, and it doesn't seem so unbelievable as it once did. The problem for multiverses is that we don't know if they can be observed in any way, so they remain possibilities, but they're consistent with and derived from our best physical theories.

 

[Phred]

There's more than one kind of multiverse. The problem for most people is partly a matter of familiarity - they're not so crazy once you understand how they came about. They're predictions of currently accepted theories, given some simple assumptions.

Not so long ago, there wasn't thought to be anything beyond our Milky Way galaxy - then what had been thought to be stars and clusters on its outskirts were discovered to be whole other galaxies unimaginably far away. They called these 'island universes'... Now we're all used to the idea, and it doesn't seem so unbelievable as it once did. The problem for multiverses is that we don't know if they can be observed in any way.

Don't you love the folks who call things like this crazy while clinging to the idea of an omnipotent all-knowing being who can't be observed in any way? Angels and demons and global floods that leave no trace. That's not crazy at all. But a multiverse ... that's crazy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Don't you love the folks who call things like this crazy while clinging to the idea of an omnipotent all-knowing being who can't be observed in any way? Angels and demons and global floods that leave no trace. That's not crazy at all. But a multiverse ... that's crazy.

Yeah - I was going to make that comparison, but decided to leave it implicit

 

[Phred]

Yeah - I was going to make that comparison, but decided to leave it implicit

I'm nothing if not plicit.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm nothing if not plicit.

Com?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Com?

Dup.

 

[Job 33:6]

Nobody asked.

Ok, if you just want to speak to yourself and aren't looking for feedback on your ideas, then I have no reason to acknowledge your posts to me, duly noted. Shame on me for daring to ask if an atheist has read the book of Romans on the topic of how Christians should live and treat others.

 

[Job 33:6]

There's more than one kind of multiverse. The problem for most people is partly a matter of familiarity - they're not so crazy once you understand how they came about. They're predictions of currently accepted theories, given some simple assumptions.

Not so long ago, there wasn't thought to be anything beyond our Milky Way galaxy - then what had been thought to be stars and clusters on its outskirts were discovered to be whole other galaxies unimaginably far away. They called these 'island universes'... Now we're all used to the idea, and it doesn't seem so unbelievable as it once did. The problem for multiverses is that we don't know if they can be observed in any way, so they remain possibilities, but they're consistent with and derived from our best physical theories.

Are there any predictions made by multiverse theory that can be described in lay terms?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are there any predictions made by multiverse theory that can be described in lay terms?

I'm not sure what you're after here - multiverses are predictions of current theories. A multiverse is a [potentially infinite] collection of universes, causally isolated volumes whose properties may vary (depending on the multiverse type).

The most commonly described multiverse types are inflationary multiverses where a rapidly expanding background 'false vacuum' state intermittently undergoes a state transition in some regions to a 'true vacuum' producing 'pockets' of more slowly expanding spacetime, which are (become) the individual universes. Meanwhile, the false vacuum continues its expansion and continues budding off new universes, potentially eternally.

An altogether different multiverse increasing in popularity among physicists is the 'Many Worlds' of quantum mechanics, which is a little harder to explain.

Then there is the cosmological multiverse already described - which need not necessarily have varying 'constants' to have rather mind-boggling implications...

As already mentioned, there are currently no means of directly testing these ideas, and their separate universes are causally isolated. They rest on the theories that predict them and the additional assumptions that are made (e.g. the false vacuum state is real, or the QM formalism is a complete description of quantum mechanics, or the universe is spatially infinite, respectively).

None of these multiverses excludes any other - they could, potentially, all coexist - which would be interesting...

 

[partinobodycular]

Just out of curiosity, do you feel as though evidence for multiverse theory is on par with evidence for the theory of evolution?

So far as I know there's no direct "evidence" for a multiverse, only predictions based upon theoretical models, as outlined above by @FrumiousBandersnatch. (That boy is wicked smart) So I'm in the same boat that you're in, trying to use my limited knowledge to come to a reasonable conclusion, and here's what I've got:

People once thought that the earth was special...it's not

Then they thought that the solar system was special...it's not

Then that the galaxy was special...it's not

Now I could choose to cling to the belief that surely the universe must be special...but it's probably not, it's more than likely just a simple insignificant universe among a billion other universes. And its cause is probably just as mundane.

Does this mean that there's no God, and no meaning, and no purpose? Of course not. It just means that I have to stop looking for these things "out there", and start looking for them in here...❤ There's a lot of really amazing stuff in "here". And truth be told if there isn't any evidence for God, or meaning, or purpose in "here", then what the heck makes me think that I can find them out there.

Find meaning, and purpose, and faith, and hope, and compassion, and forgiveness in yourself. Surely that's what evidence for God looks like.

In other words...be a Christian.

 

[Ophiolite]

None of these multiverses excludes any other - they could, potentially, all coexist - which would be interesting...

I should like to nominate this for Largest Understatement of the Year on Christian Forums award. If there isn't such an award, there should be.

 

[Bradskii]

Seconded.

 

[loveofourlord]

problems with the anthropic principle as a argument for god are numerous.

1. Just because we can imagine something being different does not mean it actually an. I can imagine PI being 3.15~ does not mean it ever can, as it's a property of a circle that it must be that way.;

2. Some things like the relationship between weak and strong nuclear forces have been shown in simulations to actually have a wide range of paramaters that work, and are not stuck to the ones they are now. A equal proportional change in both can create a stable universe.

3. Something of my own thoughts, we don't know how the creation and formation of the parameters are linked it's possible that changing one changes them all to work together.

4. No idea how many tries are possible, it's the issue arguments against abiogenesis, there are potentially near infinite number of tries to get something right, if something like the multiverse works then there is no issue.

 

[tas8831]

delete

 

[tas8831]

I am sure I'm not the first to ask - show your work?

What is an "astronomical degree", and who determined this? Show you calculations and make sure to define all variables and to justify the values you chose for them.


Cart before the horse?

And he never did...

 

[tas8831]

Not that you will even look at this thread anymore, and if you do, not that you will ever reply in any meaningful way...

Creationism 101

1. The universe as observed by science is statistically improbable to an astronomical degree.

Evidence please.

2. This inherent improbability suggests God is the best explanation for statistical improbability observed in the world.
...

Unwarranted dichotomy. But you forgot

Creationism 101

3. Never try to support anything you claim re: creation or evolution, because you will almost certainly be wrong and will then have to suffer the brain-crushing realization that if you are wrong about silly claim X, you might also be wrong about Faith claim Y, and you are wrong about that.. .well... you could be wrong about... the BIG THINGS!

 

[pitabread]

Not that you will even look at this thread anymore, and if you do, not that you will ever reply in any meaningful way...
Evidence please.

Unwarranted dichotomy. But you forgot

Creationism 101

3. Never try to support anything you claim re: creation or evolution, because you will almost certainly be wrong and will then have to suffer the brain-crushing realization that if you are wrong about silly claim X, you might also be wrong about Faith claim Y, and you are wrong about that.. .well... you could be wrong about... the BIG THINGS!

I'd let it go at this point. As you say, he's a hit-and-run poster who won't be back to discuss any of this.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not that you will even look at this thread anymore, and if you do, not that you will ever reply in any meaningful way...

Creationism 101

1. The universe as observed by science is statistically improbable to an astronomical degree.

Evidence please.

2. This inherent improbability suggests God is the best explanation for statistical improbability observed in the world.
...

Unwarranted dichotomy.

Quite... and statistics on a sample of one

BTW, did anyone 'calculate' the statistical probability of a timeless, invisible, supernatural entity with superpowers and a deep personal affection for a bunch of destructive primates infesting a pale blue dot near the edge of one nondescript galaxy out of 200 billion?

Seems pretty unlikely to me...