Levels of EvC belief

[Speedwell]

You keep saying so, but why don't I? That is not actually ever shown. This thread was asking for responders to say where on the designated spectrum of belief their belief would be, this I responded to. I do not have to refer to physics, though I do not deny physics working as it does, to use logic, and you have absolutely nothing to show that something, let alone everything, can come from absolutely nothing. And if there was not absolutely nothing before, which I can say is the logical understanding, there was always something. That does not involve magic. But what does something coming from nothing involve?

An unanswerable question. Really, it's a straw man, since science does not claim that "something" came from "nothing." What science says is "we don't know where it came from."

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep saying so, but why don't I? That is not actually ever shown. This thread was asking for responders to say where on the designated spectrum of belief their belief would be, this I responded to. I do not have to refer to physics, though I do not deny physics working as it does, to use logic, and you have absolutely nothing to show that something, let alone everything, can come from absolutely nothing. And if there was not absolutely nothing before, which I can say is the logical understanding, there was always something. That does not involve magic. But what does something coming from nothing involve?



Same answer, I gave my response to the topic and was accused of belief in magic. I did not claim evidence from science of the belief, but just expressed what I believed then so far. It is my interpretation, without disregarding evidence, just as all others have their interpretations, and you do too. No one is just looking at evidences without a view they have and interpretation.

Though I don't claim scientific evidence for what I said then I believe, I can look at the same evidences considered in science, I see other bases that any responders are not considering for what I understand.

Okay if one wants to discuss a scientific concept then one takes on a responsibility of trying to at least learn the basics of science. And one needs to avoid strawman arguments. I don't think anyone has claimed that the universe can come from "absolutely nothing". In fact if one studies physics "absolutely nothing" appears to be an impossible state. Of course that is a more complex topic, at least mathematically. And when one is discussing evolution that is a moving of the goalposts. If one persists it amounts to an admission that one cannot argue against evolution. I like to try to concentrate on one topic at a time.

But for just a little bit I will go off topic. "Something from nothing" does occur. At least on a quantum level where it occurs constantly. Virtual particles are constantly appearing and disappearing. And though at first thought to be just mathematical constructs testing for them shows them to actually exist. What matters is the amount of energy, that is a constant. When it comes to our universe the total energy of the universe has been measured and as closely as can be determined the total energy of the universe is zero. In physics there is both positive and negative energy. If the two balance then your "universe from nothing" does not violate any laws of physics. But that gets into physics at a level that I do not come close to fully understanding and I have to rely on those that put their ideas through the process of peer review and publication, and then further testing and confirmation by other physicists.

Now as to evidence and evolution if you understood the concept you would see that there only is evidence for evolution. Science uses scientific evidence. The concept puts a burden of proof upon the presenter, and once it matches the definition it puts a burden of proof upon those that oppose it. It is not good enough to say "I don't believe it". Once scientific evidence is presented it buts the burden of proof upon the person trying to refute it. Creationists tend to fail at that, very badly.

If you want to break down any idea to basics I will gladly discuss them with you.

 

[Strathos]

If the first lifeform was created directly by God then evolution would still apply.

 

[FredVB]

"Something that we just don't know" is just pushing the question away. It is unanswerable if we still say no Creator is needed. Without the eternal unlimited being that necessary existence is, there would be nothing that could be explained from science that caused the universe to be. Nothing. But that isn't the case, because it can't be. What exists has explanation. There is necessary existence that is its own explanation necessarily existing, that with necessarily being is unlimited and eternal, with no interruptions, and any other existence is caused to be. And the universe had a beginning, it has limits, starting from very small, and is not what can rightly be called eternal, it was caused to be. A multiverse to explain it is not at all proven by any evidence, and is an object of faith being a poor substitute for the Creator that is necessary being directly causing the universe, a multiverse should it exist would still need explanation for it being.

 

[BCP1928]

"Something that we just don't know" is just pushing the question away. It is unanswerable if we still say no Creator is needed. Without the eternal unlimited being that necessary existence is, there would be nothing that could be explained from science that caused the universe to be. Nothing. But that isn't the case, because it can't be. What exists has explanation. There is necessary existence that is its own explanation necessarily existing, that with necessarily being is unlimited and eternal, with no interruptions, and any other existence is caused to be. And the universe had a beginning, it has limits, starting from very small, and is not what can rightly be called eternal, it was caused to be. A multiverse to explain it is not at all proven by any evidence, and is an object of faith being a poor substitute for the Creator that is necessary being directly causing the universe, a multiverse should it exist would still need explanation for it being.

Then it's simple. Don't say "no creator is needed" and your problem is solved.

 

[FredVB]

Then it's simple. Don't say "no creator is needed" and your problem is solved.

It is easy for me. I acknowledge there is the Creator, God is the one creating everything to start with. Yet there are those who argue online against that, though there is great evidence with logic for acknowledging the Creator, but insufficient basis to say there was anything else other than the Creator creating everything to start with. They can't, consistently, and settling with saying they do not know is just avoiding the one conclusion that is logical that any could come to.

 

[BCP1928]

It is easy for me. I acknowledge there is the Creator, God is the one creating everything to start with. Yet there are those who argue online against that, though there is great evidence with logic for acknowledging the Creator, but insufficient basis to say there was anything else other than the Creator creating everything to start with. They can't, consistently, and settling with saying they do not know is just avoiding the one conclusion that is logical that any could come to.

In that case, for scientists to say "don't know" is the only correct position for them to take, qua science. Acknowledging a creator makes no difference to the science whatever. Science is an equal opportunity endeavor for theists as well as atheists.

 

[SelfSim]

It is easy for me. I acknowledge there is the Creator, God is the one creating everything to start with. Yet there are those who argue online against that, though there is great evidence with logic for acknowledging the Creator, but insufficient basis to say there was anything else other than the Creator creating everything to start with. They can't, consistently, and settling with saying they do not know is just avoiding the one conclusion that is logical that any could come to.

Logical deduction, (invented by human minds), is never used in science to establish if some statement is true or not, it is only ever used to establish if that statement is consistent with the postulates of some other theory. The way the postulates of that theory are established as true in science, is via testing by observation, not by logical deduction. That's why scientific inferences are always contextual and provisional, whereas logical deduction is never either. If a new physical system cannot be described, the context of the original postulates typically fall under scrutiny.

Logic doesn't establish scientific evidence and conclusions are inferences .. not deductions.

Your above logic is circular. Any truths you derive from it, trace back to the original unevidenced assertion of: 'there is the Creator'.

 

[FredVB]

Logical deduction, (invented by human minds), is never used in science to establish if some statement is true or not, it is only ever used to establish if that statement is consistent with the postulates of some other theory. The way the postulates of that theory are established as true in science, is via testing by observation, not by logical deduction. That's why scientific inferences are always contextual and provisional, whereas logical deduction is never either. If a new physical system cannot be described, the context of the original postulates typically fall under scrutiny.

Logic doesn't establish scientific evidence and conclusions are inferences .. not deductions.

Your above logic is circular. Any truths you derive from it, trace back to the original unevidenced assertion of: 'there is the Creator'.

Certainly, as science fields are arranged everything should be recognized from direct observation, and God is excluded as a subject, which is reasonable. So there will not be explanation for the universe, from science. But scientists are human individuals, apart from their scientific fields they can and do think things and speak of things outside of their professions, for themselves they could still realize the Creator, the necessary being that exists eternally and without any limit, is the only explanation for the universe. There isn't another one, certainly not from science, logic still shows this, and we might expect there is communication that one set of which or another, with claim of being from God, really could be, and seeing what one with most certainty for being it would be what has the most abundant evidence for it.

 

[BCP1928]

Certainly, as science fields are arranged everything should be recognized from direct observation, and God is excluded as a subject, which is reasonable. So there will not be explanation for the universe, from science. But scientists are human individuals, apart from their scientific fields they can and do think things and speak of things outside of their professions, for themselves they could still realize the Creator, the necessary being that exists eternally and without any limit, is the only explanation for the universe. There isn't another one, certainly not from science, logic still shows this, and we might expect there is communication that one set of which or another, with claim of being from God, really could be, and seeing what one with most certainty for being it would be what has the most abundant evidence for it.

And the private religious beliefs (if any) are important to science exactly why? Are you are talking about the Kalam argument? I think it's nonsense, and I believe in God anyway.

 

[FredVB]

And the private religious beliefs (if any) are important to science exactly why? Are you are talking about the Kalam argument? I think it's nonsense, and I believe in God anyway.

Belief in God is based on something, because the Creator that is essential and necessary being that causes other existence to be is there. We can have logic to conclude this, anything more to conclude about God involves faith. Science is not equipped with approaches available to science to figure out what caused the universe to be, anything said about that is a matter of guessing or with use of logic, which is outside of actual science. But the logic that others including individual scientists can use can have recognition of God from that, but without faith such will not know what to do with knowledge that there is God and would not know anything about God, even not recognizing whether God is good or not. I can still see how I can say God is good, but that leaves blame for things on us.

The point is there is no answer to the universe coming to be, from science. But there really is the Creator that caused it.

 

[BCP1928]

Belief in God is based on something, because the Creator that is essential and necessary being that causes other existence to be is there. We can have logic to conclude this, anything more to conclude about God involves faith. Science is not equipped with approaches available to science to figure out what caused the universe to be, anything said about that is a matter of guessing or with use of logic, which is outside of actual science. But the logic that others including individual scientists can use can have recognition of God from that, but without faith such will not know what to do with knowledge that there is God and would not know anything about God, even not recognizing whether God is good or not. I can still see how I can say God is good, but that leaves blame for things on us.

The point is there is no answer to the universe coming to be, from science.

Quite right. And science does not pretend to answer that question.

But there really is the Creator that caused it.

Which, as you point out, we can know nothing about except through faith.

 

[FredVB]

Quite right. And science does not pretend to answer that question.

Which, as you point out, we can know nothing about except through faith.

Science doesn't, I am yet saying God is there and we can know this. It will not be from science, we do not need it for that as is cannot be used to give answer to what cause the universe originated from. It has nothing for disproving God either. We can use logic that any of us can use, while still some can block that from them, with using lame argument against it. But knowing what God being there means for us is indeed a matter of what faith we have.

Something among those can have more basis.

 

[BCP1928]

Science doesn't, I am yet saying God is there and we can know this. It will not be from science, we do not need it for that as is cannot be used to give answer to what cause the universe originated from. It has nothing for disproving God either. We can use logic that any of us can use, while still some can block that from them, with using lame argument against it. But knowing what God being there means for us is indeed a matter of what faith we have.

Something among those can have more basis.

And so what? It has nothing to do with scientific explanations of cosmology or the origin and proliferation of life. The science is the same whether you believe in God or not.

 

[FredVB]

And so what? It has nothing to do with scientific explanations of cosmology or the origin and proliferation of life. The science is the same whether you believe in God or not.

And so...

This explains my belief in regard to evolution/creation which is what this thread is questioning. My belief cannot dismiss the Creator of all that there was in the creation, the universe is all included. So that involves what was in this world. Scientific discoveries are showing things and those are meaningful things, but what are they? My belief, that is being asked for, is that what the Creator was doing is shown. So we can respond to trust the Creator that is involved, which I see as God.

 

[BCP1928]

And so...

This explains my belief in regard to evolution/creation which is what this thread is questioning. My belief cannot dismiss the Creator of all that there was in the creation, the universe is all included. So that involves what was in this world. Scientific discoveries are showing things and those are meaningful things, but what are they? My belief, that is being asked for, is that what the Creator was doing is shown. So we can respond to trust the Creator that is involved, which I see as God.

That's all very well, but it doesn't change the science any. Why are you raising the issue here?

 

[FredVB]

That's all very well, but it doesn't change the science any. Why are you raising the issue here?

It has everything to do with what belief I evolution there is, which is what this topic is about, I have posted in here many times and from the start long ago I showed math is involved in the logic and so there is the Creator, necessary being always existing and without limit, and not caused, which is the cause of all other existence, the universe and all creation brought into being. I had responses critical to that to be contrary, I can defend it. That has the Creator involved in this world, where there is involvement with any evolution where it actually happens. There are not random processes then producing any evolution where it actually happens.

 

[BCP1928]

It has everything to do with what belief I evolution there is, which is what this topic is about, I have posted in here many times and from the start long ago I showed math is involved in the logic and so there is the Creator, necessary being always existing and without limit, and not caused, which is the cause of all other existence, the universe and all creation brought into being. I had responses critical to that to be contrary, I can defend it.

That is an unfalsifiable proposition. There is no need to defend it.

That has the Creator involved in this world, where there is involvement with any evolution where it actually happens. There are not random processes then producing any evolution where it actually happens.

That is the falsifiable part of your statement which people are critical of.

 

[FredVB]

That is an unfalsifiable proposition. There is no need to defend it.



That is the falsifiable part of your statement which people are critical of.

I would guess you haven't followed the discussion. I have posted in this thread pretty far back. It is not thar much about science but the logic that can be used, and that logic is what has been argued against. And if I am wrong about the Creator being the explanation the logic can be shown to be wrong, and how can it be without mathematics being fundamentally flawed? It certainly is not, and that something would not come from anything lesser means what is greater must already be present, and ultimately there is necessary being, that which is necessary cannot be limited, being necessary this being is everywhere and always existing. This being explains other existence that has beginning. This can only rightly be called the Creator, we understand that to be God. Arguing that it could be nothingness, as was being done, from which pairs of particles and their antiparticles come spontaneously, is sneaky talk to get around logic, nothingness that way would not produce all the universe, that they say is left over when particles and their antiparticles annihilate one another, nor is it really nothingness that is capable of producing particles and antiparticles, there is the medium that must be there, so there is space. Some being greater, ultimately without limit, is still the cause of everything. Only logic to show this is in error can count, for arguing contrary. And since there is design and provision that can be found, this is God who can be trusted, having that capacity for those things, and the capacity would not be limited. So yes, any evolution that happens has this one we understand to be God involved in that.

 

[BCP1928]

I would guess you haven't followed the discussion. I have posted in this thread pretty far back. It is not thar much about science but the logic that can be used, and that logic is what has been argued against. And if I am wrong about the Creator being the explanation the logic can be shown to be wrong, and how can it be without mathematics being fundamentally flawed? It certainly is not, and that something would not come from anything lesser means what is greater must already be present, and ultimately there is necessary being, that which is necessary cannot be limited, being necessary this being is everywhere and always existing. This being explains other existence that has beginning. This can only rightly be called the Creator, we understand that to be God. Arguing that it could be nothingness, as was being done, from which pairs of particles and their antiparticles come spontaneously, is sneaky talk to get around logic, nothingness that way would not produce all the universe, that they say is left over when particles and their antiparticles annihilate one another, nor is it really nothingness that is capable of producing particles and antiparticles, there is the medium that must be there, so there is space. Some being greater, ultimately without limit, is still the cause of everything. Only logic to show this is in error can count, for arguing contrary. And since there is design and provision that can be found, this is God who can be trusted, having that capacity for those things, and the capacity would not be limited. So yes, any evolution that happens has this one we understand to be God involved in that.

In that case the flaw in your argument is not a flaw of logic but the assumption of Logical Realism. But still, you have not shown how the existence of your proposed supreme being changes the science.