Basic Creationism Is Supported By Science

[Frank Robert]

Creationism 101

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

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

...

Argument from incredulity is not science it is a fallacy.

 

[Frank Robert]

You understand that astrophysicists of decades past have done the math, decades ago?

So you say. It is easy to say that there is math for and if there is such math then it should be nearly as easy to produce from a reputable scientific it journal like Astronomy & Astrophysics.

 

[Frank Robert]

What has become clear is that, across a huge range of these constants, they had to have pretty much exactly the values they had in order for life to be possible. The physicist Lee Smolin has calculated that the odds of life-compatible numbers coming up by chance is 1 in 10^229.

The fine tuned argument is deficient. The flip side is that we are unarguably fine-tuned to the universe we find ourselves in.

 

[pitabread]

Let's say someone enters a casino and play slots. Their 1st pull of the night hits a 10^229 odds winner.

Statistically would chances be good, the pull was random. Or would it be more likely they had somehow rigged the game in their favor. I believe the 2nd explanation is the more honest one. If this question were posed without the religious context, most would likely agree the 2nd explanation is more probable.

If we're assuming an equal distribution of outcomes there is no reason to assume the second scenario. Any probabilistic outcome is just as likely as any other outcome. So there is no reason that a person couldn't win a jackpot on their very first try.

Unless you have additional information with which to assume the second scenario, probability alone isn't a good enough basis.

And in fact this sort of thing actually happens in real life. For example: Ottawa-area woman wins $48 million on her first lotto ticket

Do we have reason to assume the above woman rigged the lottery in her favor?

 

[Bradskii]

...we are unarguably fine-tuned to the universe we find ourselves in.

I should have been that succinct. A great way of putting it.

 

[Bradskii]

And in fact this sort of thing actually happens in real life. For example: Ottawa-area woman wins $48 million on her first lotto ticket

Do we have reason to assume the above woman rigged the lottery in her favor?

My local pub had a raffle running during the last rugby world cup. It had been going on for a few weeks. You got one ticket when you bought a specific beer. The prize was a 4 seater couch for the winner and three friends right in front of the monster tv they had in the bar for the final. With free beer for the duration of the telecast. The night it was drawn I bought one of these beers for my wife as she wanted something different. I didn't even put my ticket in the drum, which had many hundreds of tickets in there - I left it on the bar after putting my name on it. Must have been the last one given out. It was drawn ten minutes later and the barman must have put mine in for me.

Myself, my son, son-in-law and a mate went through quite a few beers up until the final whistle.

 

[partinobodycular]

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

The thing is, if you're going to use probability as your guide, then creationism loses every single time, and it's not even close. Creationism is far less likely than mere chance.

Let's consider the odds that reality would look the way it does based upon each of the two possible scenarios...natural physical processes driven by chance, or creation by intelligent design.

On the one hand, if reality is simply the result of natural processes then it looks exactly the way that we would expect it to look. It consists of people looking at the world around them and wondering where it all came from, and perhaps marveling at the odds of it all (Just like the proverbial puddle). Coincidentally it looked exactly the same way ten thousand years ago, with people looking at the world around them and wondering where it came from, and it'll still look this way ten thousand years in the future. So no matter where you look, across all of human existence, it'll always be a world of people wondering where in the heck it all came from. So today, right now, is the overwhelming norm. There's nothing particularly unusual about the way the world looks right here and right now.

But, if creationism is true, then the fact that the world looks the way it does is very, very improbable. So improbable in fact, that it makes mere chance look almost inevitable by comparison.

Why? Because according to theists reality is only going to look this way for an infinitesimally short period of time. For all the rest of eternity (And that's an extremely long time) reality is going to look completely different. So what are the odds that we should find ourselves in this one infinitesimally small period of time...the time between creation and eternity. The odds are so small that they're incalculable. A few years versus all of eternity. And yet, this is where we find ourselves.

So which is more probable, a naturally existing reality in which we will always find ourselves in a world like this one, or a created reality in which this world is the overwhelming exception? According to advocates of intelligent design, for all the rest of ETERNITY reality will look completely different.

Now probability clearly falls on the side of natural processes, because it's always versus almost never.

 

[Phred]

Creationism 101

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

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

...

trying to prove that something is unlikely to happen while surrounded by it just shows that you're not entirely grasping the point. The odds of the universe existing are 100%. Trying to prove your god exists well... best of luck with that. The god of the Bible isn't possible as a contradiction cannot exist.

My best advice to you? Play your game from a pew not a lab.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Creationism 101

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

According to what metric? We have one universe that we are aware of, this one. The probability of this universe existing is 1. This universe exists.

To properly measure the probability of our universe existing in any meaningful way would require knowledge that extends beyond our observable universe, something science isn't equipped for by the very nature of science itself.

As such, such probabilistic arguments seem to rely on metaphysical assumptions more than any actual science.

2.

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

...

Assuming your first premise, which stands naked without an corroborating support, the most that could be said is that there is a First Cause.

According to Plato the cosmos came into existence by the work of the Demiurge, Greek for "public craftsman", which came to mean in later religious and philosophical traditions (Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism) to basically just mean "world-maker". The Demiurge was an intermediary "being" of some kind, not "God" in the Jewish or Christian sense; as in Plato's cosmological model the supreme One exists well beyond the observable world of matter, and the material universe is in fact a lesser existence than the higher existence of the world of forms which this material world is but a meager imitation (see Plato's Allegory of the Cave)

I bring this up for a simple reason: The acceptance of a First Cause does not get us from "Something caused the universe to happen" to "God".

And indeed, to think such is bad theology. See what St. Paul writes in Romans chapter 1,

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." - Romans 1:20-23

When men sought to find the divine through the splendor of the world, it did not lead them to God. God is not found in this way. God remains, at best, a distant philosophical notion.

This is why the Evangelical Reformer Martin Luther wrote the following,

"That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25). This is apparent in the example of those who were »theologians« and still were called »fools« by the Apostle in Rom. 1:22. Furthermore, the invisible things of God are virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth. The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise." - Martin Luther, Heidelberg Disputation, Thesis 19

This is why man can never know God in His Hiddenness (Deus Absconditus) but can only be known in His Revelation (Deus Revelatus), that is, Jesus Christ.

If you are looking for science to provide evidence of the good Creator God who loves us and sends His Son into the world in order to save the world, you're not going to find it there. That is not the point of science, and theologically speaking, it's looking in the completely wrong direction.

What science does do, however, is bring us knowledge (scientia) of the natural world, through rigorous study and observation.

The Christian response to science should be, therefore, the enjoyment of God's good creation explored through the natural sciences; rather than the opposition of science.

And that is why I, as a Christian, accept the science of evolution. Because I believe in the good Creator God, whose creation is truthful (and not false, like the Platonists and Gnostics taught ages ago). Science denialism is merely another form of Gnosticism attempting to rear its ugly head in the churches. Not because I find God in evolution, but because as a believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ I believe in the God whom our Lord Jesus proclaimed, the God who made all things and who so loves the world that He sent Jesus into the world; and if with the light of the Gospel shining I look at the "invisible things of God" through the lens of the "visible things of God", namely Jesus Christ.

And therefore knowledge of the natural world does not spook me, or cause me fear or existential dread--but rather fills me with hope, fills me with joy.

God cares about this planet filled with hairless apes, because all that exists exists by His hand--He made it, and He is going to make it new. I'm not just a hairless ape, I'm a hairless ape that is made in the image and likeness of God, and by the redemption that is in Jesus, as a new creation, I get to share in God's life and participate and partner with Him in His unfolding good in the world by loving my fellow hairless apes, and indeed, the rest of creation.

I realize that this board is not for theology; but it is impossible for me to separate theology from these things. Because theology is, for the Christian, the starting point of engaging with everything else--science, philosophy, politics, etc. The fruits of bad theology are myriad, but then the fruits of good theology should also be manifest: hospitals and universal healthcare, promotion of just laws, an honest inquiry into the natural world and an honest acceptance of the reality of that natural world, loving our neighbor as ourselves.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tas8831]

Creationism 101

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

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.

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

...

Cart before the horse?

 

[tas8831]

You understand that astrophysicists of decades past have done the math, decades ago?

Then it should be easy for you to present and explain it.

 

[tas8831]

Then you should have no problem posting it.

Ha! I should probably read through a thread before replying to earlier posts....

 

[tas8831]

Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse

• By Philip Goff on January 10, 2021

...

What is it with these philosophers...

Goff:

Philip Goff is a philosopher and consciousness researcher at Durham University in the UK, and author of Galileo's Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness. His research focuses on how to integrate consciousness into our scientific worldview.​

Huh...
You'd think a philosopher might be able to "reason" that he's making the same mistake as the anthropic principle addicts.

 

[tas8831]

As the puddle was escaping the hole, and was being reduced to unrecoverable heat; he came to the realization that the hole, to which he was conforming, was as fleeting as his physical existence, thus confirming his creation.

The red part is a non-sequitur. And your proof is, shall we say, imaginative at best.

 

[tas8831]

1. You couldn't support these assertions last time you brought them up either.

2. Your chain of logic is completely incoherent.

Why is God likely in any way, let alone more likely?

Yeah, weird that they always posit their preferred deity as the default in their false dichotomy.

 

[lsume]

Creationism 101

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

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

...

I would have to see that the observed universe is improbable beyond a casual statement. Since to my knowledge, no one knows how God created the universe. The echo of what many believe to be the Big Bang of creation may in fact be the echo of some other major happening.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I would have to see that the observed universe is improbable beyond a casual statement. Since to my knowledge, no one knows how God created the universe. The echo of what many believe to be the Big Bang of creation may in fact be the echo of some other major happening.

Nice buns (avatar) And that pretty much says it. No one knows, so pretending you do is not really constructive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The OP made an assertion. The burden of proof rested on him to back his claim with evidence. He did that.

If someone were to challenge that evidence in an attempt to refute the claim; then the burden of proof would rest on them to provide evidence to support their counterclaim. Does anything in the links you posted refute the initial claim?

If so; please quote the portion which does, and provide us with a page number.

Do all logical arguments rely on the same foundation of logic to come to a logical conclusion?

Actually he did not. He used an unsupported claim. That is not backing up one's claim with evidence.

What he stated was an argument from ignorance. That is a logical fallacy so he proved nothing. The good news is that he did not disprove God either. So there is at least that.

 

[HARK!]

Actually he did not. He used an unsupported claim. That is not backing up one's claim with evidence.

You're mistaken.

See: Post #8

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're mistaken.

See: Post #8

How so? I did not see any links to reliable sources. I only saw an unsupported claim. And yes, the argument that he made as an argument from ignorance.

I could quote his post and show you how I am correct in all of my claims. Do you think that you can support yours?

In fact here is the OP:

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

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

His argument fails because the premise is unsupported. It appears to be unsupportable. I know some scientists have made informal claims of that sort, but those are not evidence.

His conclusion is improper as well. He is using a false dichotomy. And as he stated it it is an argument from ignorance. It amounts to we cannot explain how the universe formed and it is very improbable (for this part I am merely giving him the benefit of the doubt. I am not agreeing with him). His conclusion is 'therefore God". That is a classic argument from ignorance. We don't know, therefore God.

He has no way to support that at all. He has not even shown that a God is possible. A God may be possible, but we do not even know that. That does not mean that a God is possible.