Probability and Creation

[GrimKingGrim]

So why did he get so many creatures so wrong?

Exactly. It always mystifies me how people just deny evolution when this thing is roaming around.

An egg laying, poisonous, duck billed mammal.

If they don't understand evolution that by no way means it isn't true. Just means they have more reading to do.

 

[Givemeareason]

Here is a big reason why I am not an atheist. It doesn't make sense to me in my own mind. To go from the big bang to current time over some 14 billion years, means a lot of events had to take place and work out in our favor to bring us here, even if they were all natural processes. The kind of odds that would have to play out for that to happen is so astronomical that I feel we are not made to know if we have an immortal soul, or if Jesus did come back from the dead. We just do not have religious knowledge. Just think about those odds, it is something like winning a crazy bet, like where the odds are one out of a number with one billion zeroes. It can happen, but it is really unlikely.

So what do you think?

It seems to me that randomness may just be one more law by which this universe functions.

 

[Givemeareason]

Exactly. It always mystifies me how people just deny evolution when this thing is roaming around.

An egg laying, poisonous, duck billed mammal.

If they don't understand evolution that by no way means it isn't true. Just means they have more reading to do.

Looks rather purposeful to me.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Looks rather purposeful to me.

Yes it was clearly made to play tricks on YECs

 

[Givemeareason]

Yes it was clearly made to play tricks on YECs

Yes. It looks like it was an act of free will to me. This morning seems like a fresh new perspective on life. I also just realized how to address the problem with my bent straw sticking out of my cup. This has been bothering me for days. This morning I realized that if my bent straw were turned around it would work just fine. And so it has. It is so much easier floating downstream than trying to fight my way upstream. Good morning.

 

[Givemeareason]

So why did he get so many creatures so wrong?

The evidence of evolution has an explanation for extinction. The bible doesn't, because it's the writing of men from very recent times. Compared to the billions of years there's been life on the Earth. Timeline: The evolution of life. All from evidence and continually growing.

The Human Tree, is very recent. And very hit and miss. Did a superior being come to Earth and instil us with a larger brain, or did the clever one's reproduce and over 500,000 develop a bigger brain. Like we breed animals to make them stronger, dogs to make them friendlier, hostile, good runners, good sniffers. Etc.

Evidence of how evolution works is all around us, and easier to accept.

Maybe God has taken a more objective position now and has stepped back waiting to see what happens. I have observed that it is sometimes necessary to get things wrong before I can get things right.

 

[quatona]

Here is a big reason why I am not an atheist. It doesn't make sense to me in my own mind. To go from the big bang to current time over some 14 billion years, means a lot of events had to take place and work out in our favor to bring us here, even if they were all natural processes. The kind of odds that would have to play out for that to happen is so astronomical that I feel we are not made to know if we have an immortal soul, or if Jesus did come back from the dead. We just do not have religious knowledge. Just think about those odds, it is something like winning a crazy bet, like where the odds are one out of a number with one billion zeroes. It can happen, but it is really unlikely.

So what do you think?

I think the assumption that the result was intended (which is at the core of your circular argument) isn´t warranted.

 

[Colter]

The universe is mind made and mind managed.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

The universe is mind made and mind managed.

*snap* nope

 

[Davian]

The universe is mind made and mind managed.

creationism

• Davian
• Jan 26, 2015

 

[nonbeliever314]

In the beginning there was nothing.

That isn't known for sure, so basing your argument around that completely invalidates your entire argument.

 

[quatona]

In the beginning there was nothing. Because there was nothing, there was no energy to generate heat, leaving us with absolute zero. We know scientifically that with absolute zero nothing happens, so since the universe could not rise from nothingness there is still nothing and we don't exist. We know that matter or energy cannot be created only changed in formed, so beginning with that nothingness nothing could arise to disturb it's perpetual existence of non-existence. In a billion, trillion years nothing would change; nothing would shift; nothing would arise from nothingness. We know that there had to be nothingness because we understand the physical properties of the universe mean that everything is in a constant state of deterioration; meaning that from its original state the universe itself is winding down. The stars are burning out. There may be some re-birth from the dying out of stars but in the end the universe will dissolve into a more or less uniform field of useless energy. These are the laws that we understand and know to be true. So how did we get here?

There are many theories of origination, all of which can be disproved by a 7th grade science book. Each gets more ridiculous than the last. The only scientifically viable theory is that external energy interjected itself into the void which sparked the creation of the universe. We call that the Creator. Others call it anything but. However, without the interjection of external energy a field of zero energy remains unchanged in perpetuity. We are, in fact, here, so some force outside of our universe instigated the creation of our universe. Scientists know this, they are just reluctant to admit that we had an outside Creator. they will proclaim that the fact they don't know all the answers doesn't mean they don't know any answers, but the fact remains that in the absence of a Creator there is no explanation for the origination of matter. The autocreation of everything from nothing is a logical absurdity.

Just because you are so concerned with absurdities: Gotta love how you start from the premise "In the beginning there was nothing" and end up with the conclusion "In the beginning there was a Creator."

 

[Eudaimonist]

Here is a big reason why I am not an atheist. It doesn't make sense to me in my own mind.

That's a good reason. I wouldn't expect anyone to accept something if it didn't make sense to them. I can respect that.

To go from the big bang to current time over some 14 billion years, means a lot of events had to take place and work out in our favor to bring us here, even if they were all natural processes.

Yes.

The kind of odds that would have to play out for that to happen is so astronomical

I don't see why those odds should be "astronomical", especially when you consider that you have an entire universe for something to happen, something literally astronomically big and old.

that I feel we are not made to know if we have an immortal soul, or if Jesus did come back from the dead. We just do not have religious knowledge.

I'm not sure what your point is here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

In the beginning there was nothing. Because there was nothing, there was no energy to generate heat, leaving us with absolute zero.

Science says nothing about "nothing". You have left science.

We know scientifically that with absolute zero nothing happens

Source?

so since the universe could not rise from nothingness there is still nothing and we don't exist.

Science does say that particles can appear out of apparent nothingness. That might not be a "philosophical nothing", but it is something to be mindful of.

We know that there had to be nothingness because we understand the physical properties of the universe mean that everything is in a constant state of deterioration; meaning that from its original state the universe itself is winding down.

That does not actually follow. All you may be able to claim is that the past is finite, not that "nothing" existed at one time.

The only scientifically viable theory is that external energy interjected itself into the void which sparked the creation of the universe. We call that the Creator.

We could call the force of gravity the "Creator", but that wouldn't make it a deity. Natural forces make for poor deities. To call them deities is only to engage in word games or poetry.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[paulm50]

"but the fact remains that in the absence of a Creator there is no explanation for the origination of matter. The autocreation of everything from nothing is a logical absurdity."

A good point. But what does it have to do with what men in 1,000 BC were writing in a book?

To prove the Bible is right about Creation is impossible. It's so wrong, any attempt would be comical.

You're now arguing that billions of years ago, the Universe was created and because it's not known yet. It has to be a creator. So what created the creator?

 

[KWCrazy]

Just because you are so concerned with absurdities: Gotta love how you start from the premise "In the beginning there was nothing" and end up with the conclusion "In the beginning there was a Creator."

The Creator is apart from the physical world.

That isn't known for sure, so basing your argument around that completely invalidates your entire argument.

We know that matter is not eternal because it is a constant stated of decay (increasing entropy); and yes, the universe is a closed system. We know that if the universe is not eternal that it will have an end. If it has an end, it had to have a beginning. Before the beginning it could not exist. Therefore, before the beginning of anything there was nothing.

 

[quatona]

The Creator is apart from the physical world.

Which, as I said, renders the premise "In the beginning there was nothing." inaccurate.
Now, if we try to develop a consistent theology from your new premise, we´d have to keep in mind that the Creator is and is kept apart from the physical world. "Closed system" and all that. Good luck with that.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Therefore, before the beginning of anything there was nothing.

That does not follow. It is not clear that time can exist without something that is changing.

"Before" there was anything, there would likely have been no time, which would mean that "before the beginning of anything" is a nonsensical concept. We can imagine a "before" in our minds, but it would not have any physical reality. If there is no "before", there is no "nothing" about which we can speak.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KWCrazy]

Science says nothing about "nothing". You have left science.

See earlier post. All non-eternal things have a beginning and an end. Before the beginning of anything in our physical world, there was nothing.

Source?

Third Law of Thermodynamics. The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system at absolute zero is a well-defined constant. This is because a system at zero temperature exists in its ground state, so that its entropy is determined only by the degeneracy of the ground state.

Science does say that particles can appear out of apparent nothingness. That might not be a "philosophical nothing", but it is something to be mindful of.

Intelligent people know better.
Subatomic particles too small for a constant gravitational attraction bond and unbond at the quantum level, making them alternatively detectable and undetectable. That doesn't mean they pop in and out of existence. They are always there, just undetectable.

That does not actually follow. All you may be able to claim is that the past is finite, not that "nothing" existed at one time.

Is matter/energy eternal? If it is, the the 2nd LoT is wrong. Could it be created according to natural law? If so, then the First LoT is wrong. Could nothingness split into positive and negative matter? If so then the 3rd LoT is wrong. If matter/energy is not eternal than it had a point of origination, before which it didn't exist. If that state ever existed it always existed, so nothing that is could ever be. That is the enigma of origination; it could not happen and yet it had to happen. There is no known natural force that could account for origination.

There is, however, a supernatural force. We call Him God.

We could call the force of gravity the "Creator", but that wouldn't make it a deity.

Gravity cannot account for the spontaneous auto-origination of matter. If it could, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There exists no force in nature which can originate energy/matter; hence we have the 1st LoT.

 

[KWCrazy]

Which, as I said, renders the premise "In the beginning there was nothing." inaccurate.
Now, if we try to develop a consistent theology from your new premise, we´d have to keep in mind that the Creator is and is kept apart from the physical world. "Closed system" and all that. Good luck with that.

We aren't discussing the supernatural here, we're discussing the physical universe. Nobody claims that God shares the same physical qualities. By definition God is eternal where nothing in the physical word is eternal. All things physical have a beginning and an end, and are thus transient.