Creator "needed" as explanation

[Jerry Smith]

This is to all, but I would like to quote Lanakila from another thread to get the topic started:

The BB sugests that their need not be a creator. Creationists are totally opposed to any theory that says there isn't a creator. Does that make sense?

Now any non-creationist who sees this will, I think, immediately see the misunderstanding. The Big Bang theory says nothing at all about a Creator. Yet you might hear a person say "With theory (x) no creator is required." Here's the thing:

Theory (x) does not say that no Creator is required. It merely does not require that a Creator be used as an explanation for what the processes or events that the theory treats. This is a world of difference.

With the atomic model - no creator is needed. (A creator may exist, and it may have been that the Creator is responsible for the existence of atoms, but one does not have to call upon that creator as an explanation for the structure of matter)

I think if this element were cleared up, many or most creationists would no longer view evolution, or any other theory, as a negative or ungodly idea.

There would be some who to coopt science as an apologetic tool - who reach for gaps in the theory or in the explanations it provides, and wish to hold them up as "evidence" for God. I think those who do this are unwise - their evidence for God shrinks, and whether they mean for it to or not, their Idea of God (as perceived by others if not by themselves) shrinks with it.

Still, by and large, most creationists who are average Joes, and don't work for the ICR don't care about coopting science for apologetics - and they don't have a legitimate fear of science that says there "God is not required".. They will instead be content to complete the sentence: ".. to explain this event or process."

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Time and time again I have seen creationists state that "the theory of evolution says there is no God" - or something to that effect. This inflammatory rhetoric is nonproductive at best and downright dishonest at worst. I have even challenged creationists to show me a textbook, paper or even website (with the view that evolution is real) that dismisses God. Why should evoution, or any other scientific theory for that matter, be expected to either include or exclude God?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Ah but LC, many do "dismiss" God - as a scientific explanation. And they may do so with airy terms "thus, the creator is superfluous", or some such.... They are writing for an audience that would understand that "superfluous" meant "superfluous to this explanation of this phenomenon", and subsequently misunderstood by others less familiar with the loose jargon of the scientific/academic community... (sometimes under encouragement from people who know better, but have some interest in keeping folks hostile to certain elements of science)...

 

[ashibaka]

Note also Creationists are presented with a problem when wondering why most scientists are evolutionists. Sometimes, the logic goes like this:

- Scientists are excluding God from biology so that they can bring atheism into the mainstream. They want to bring atheism into the mainstream because this is part of Satan's ultimate plan.

Or:

- The majority of evolutionary biologists are deluded by Darwin's original theory. Darwin introduced this theory because he was an atheist and needed an explanation that did not require God.

Not bothering to pick at either of these silly hypotheses, I'd like to suggest a more likely explanation: scientists applied the same sort of critical thinking to the subject as they always do, and evolution is the current best explanation. It's sad that this is translated into "God is not needed in evolution"; it's like saying, "God is not needed in physics".

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Ashibaka, your last statements are quite though provoking, but perhaps not in the way you indended.

I hope you don't mind if I take a statement you made out of context for a minute to do a thought experiment.

One could say "God is not needed in physics" (in fact I have seen some say as much). The deist response would of course be along the lines that the fundamental forces, particles and spacetime itself would not exist without God. This usually results in an interesting, but pointless debate where both sides remain unmoved by each others arguements. One side saying that God is not needed, and the other saying that without God, nothing is possible..

If you change physics to mathematics, you find that perhaps there is something that exists that does not require a creator of some sort. Certainly, it could be argued, that without God there would be nobody to DO the math - let alone there even exist anything to measure or count. Nevertheless, since numbers are an abstraction they do not really exist anyways. Therefore, it is possible to have mathematics (from algebra to non-linear multi variant calculus) even in the absence of any God or creator.

That is not enough to turn me into an atheist, but you certainly have given me something to chew on.

 

[seebs]

I'm not convinced that mathematics, as we have uncovered it, couldn't be different elsewhere; I just have no frame of reference for evaluating a world with different math, or different logic. I can vaguely discuss what the universe might be like with different cosmological constants, but my frame of reference requires me to be able to use some basic tools. It is interesting to imagine alternatives, but essentially impractical.

That said, I have no problem at all with the conclusion that logic is part of the inherent structure of everything. It doesn't change things much for me.

 

[ashibaka]

Are there any Creationists willing to talk about this? I find it rather disconcerting how only evolutionists are posting to this topic; I'd assume that at least my ignorance of the "correct" explanation for evolution's popularity should provoke a rebuttal. Yoohoo!

BTW, Late_Cretaceous, as long as you aren't misrepresenting me you can take my statements out of context any day of the week. Makes it look like I'm wiser than I really am. ^^;

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

If there was a beginning, which the majority of scientists believe was at the moment of the Big Bang, then that implies a Beginner.

 

[ashibaka]

Umm... we're talking about Creationism, not the First Cause argument... that is to say,

- A response to Jerry Smith's initial post-- I am not worthy to attempt a summary
- And: Why do the vast majority of scientists support evolution if it's so obviously incorrect?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by ashibaka
Why do the vast majority of scientists support evolution if it's so obviously incorrect?

Because all scientists are stupid liars, you ninny!

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by s0uljah
If there was a beginning, which the majority of scientists believe was at the moment of the Big Bang, then that implies a Beginner.

1) What scientists believe, and what has been shown scientifically are too distinct (but largely overlapping) areas. I think in this case the "beginning" is not something that has been shown scientifically, and is merely something that most scientists believe.

2) Philosophy is a separate discipline from science. It is possible to argue philosophically that a beginning (were it shown by science) must require a Beginner (or at least a novice )- but that is a philosophical "proof", not a scientific inference.

But that is ok. That's why we have philosophy, and theology. Just plain old nature gets boring after a while.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


1) What scientists believe, and what has been shown scientifically are too distinct (but largely overlapping) areas. I think in this case the "beginning" is not something that has been shown scientifically, and is merely something that most scientists believe.

2) Philosophy is a separate discipline from science. It is possible to argue philosophically that a beginning (were it shown by science) must require a Beginner (or at least a novice )- but that is a philosophical "proof", not a scientific inference.

But that is ok. That's why we have philosophy, and theology. Just plain old nature gets boring after a while.

I agree Jerry.  You are a good non-believer to talk to on these subjects.  Quite a contrast to the usual hostility I have encountered here.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by ashibaka
Umm... we're talking about Creationism, not the First Cause argument... that is to say,

How can you have a creation without a first cause?  Helllooooo?

 

[Jerry Smith]

You are a good non-believer

Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


Isn't that an oxymoron?

Absolutely not.  Personally, I expect to see some non-believers in Heaven...after all, only God can judge hearts. Of course, they won't be non-believer for long.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Well, that's an unusual perspective. Thanks for the vote of confidence.

 

[ashibaka]

Originally posted by s0uljah
How can you have a creation without a first cause?  Helllooooo?

My original reply was the longhand way of saying, "you're not answering the questions". Would you like to? They're right in that post

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Lanakila (on another thread but quoted by Jerry Smith at the beginning of this thread):
The BB sugests that their need not be a creator. Creationists are totally opposed to any theory that says there isn't a creator. Does that make sense?

But the Big Bang theory does not say that "there isn't a creator." It says there was a definite beginning to our universe, all matter and even time itself as we know it.....but it does not say what--or Who--caused the Big Bang. Thus, the BBT and Genesis 1:1 are consistent with each other--except that Genesis gives more details about who caused the BB to occur (and the rest of the Bible gives more details as to why), and the BBT gives more details about how scientists believe the creation progressed. But that only stands to reason: Science is more concerned with when and how, while religion is more concerned with who and why.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by s0uljah
If there was a beginning, which the majority of scientists believe was at the moment of the Big Bang, then that implies a Beginner.

In his book The Science of God, Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder writes:
It may come as a surprise that belief in a beginning does not require belief in a Beginner. The laws of nature allow the creation of the universe without the need for a creator. "Quantum uncertainty," an aspect of the physics known as quantum mechanics, allows the small but finite possibility of something coming into being from nothing via what is known as a quantum fluctuation. Since quantum mechanics has a sixty-year track record for predicting and explaining observed phenomena, this theory of a quantum fluctuation/big bang beginning too may be correct.

As Dr. Schroeder notes, however, there are a number of basic problems with that concept. Some of the problems listed by Dr. Schroeder include the following summarized points of the more detailed description provided in the book:

1. Prior to the existence of the universe there was no nature and therefore there were no laws of quantum mechanics by which to engender the needed quantum fluctuation.

2. The theory presupposes a cause and effect--with the effects being separated from causes by time. But before the universe, time did not exist.

3. A quantum fluctuation in what? Not in empty space, not in time, and not in matter--since those did not exist prior to the universe.

4. A quantum vacuum fluctuation can only produce a universe that is closed (i.e., a supermassive universe). But such a universe would most likely have collapsed shortly after its big bang, and the data does not establish that our universe is closed in this sense.

Dr. Schroeder concludes this discussion by noting that "with each step forward in the unfolding mystery of the cosmos, a subtle yet pervading ingenuity, a contingency kept shining through, a contingency that joins all aspects of existence into a coherent unity. While this coherence does not prove the existence of a Designer, it does call out for interpretation"--which is what Dr. Schroeder does throughout the remainder of his book.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

"If there was a beginning, which the majority of scientists believe was at the moment of the Big Bang, then that implies a Beginner."

We had this discussion a few weeks ago. Time is part of the fabric of the universe (spacetime). Since time and space had their begining with the Big Bang (according to the theory) - there was no "before". The void (vacuum or false vacuum) from which the universe sprang is without dimention (no time nor space). SInce causation requires time, in a realm where there is no time, causation is not possible. Again, it is the limitations of the human mind to comprehend anything but a (maximum of )3 spacial dimentional + 1 temporal dimentional universe that constrains our understanding. At the sub-atomic scale there are many more dimentions, but we just can't picture it in our minds' eye.