quick way to prove creation

[Rasta]

If we call the big bang the "beginning of time", then we suppose that absolutely nothing happened before - we suppose without knowing. However, my every observation of time has led me to believe that it is continuous thing with no discrete beginning or end.

Another problem is the definition of time. In layman's terms, we tend to think of time as a linear process. This is not how time is concieved in general relativity. Time can't exist without space, space can't exist without matter. The Big Bang is the accepted model for the genisis of our universe. Though all we can do is describe phenomena going up to the singularity.

 

[MewtwoX]

No, SecretOfFatima is right on that one. The question of whether or not there has been an infinite past has nothing to do with Zeno's Paradox.

She is talking about travelling an infinite distance (in time), not a finite distance as in Zeno's Paradox.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The problem though is that the very concept of infinity implies a boundless proportion.

The argument begs the question the moment it creates a bound (IE. This moment) and a hypothetical endpoint (IE. Infinite amount of time after this point). If time is infinite one cannot use any reference points that are the beginning and end of an infinity or they are not dealing with an infinity.


EDIT: Another important thing to note here is that the Big Bang theory is not an explanation of the origin of the universe, but an explanation of the universe as we currently know it.

 

[peaceful soul]

Quickest way to disprove creation: The first rule of thermodynamics (matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed)

That does not disprove creation. Whoever created the system would have power over its existence, therefore determining its rules of operation and its characteristics.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

This proof doesn't work... Just because something existed before the universe doesn't mean it's G-d.

Atheism is not, in fact, 0 X 0 = 1, it's much more complicated.
Atheism is actually (0+x) big bang = 1

 

[Eudaimonist]

The problem though is that the very concept of infinity implies a boundless proportion.

There are different types of infinities, however. They aren't all equivalent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheism is not, in fact, 0 X 0 = 1, it's much more complicated.
Atheism is actually (0+x) big bang = 1

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Aibrean]

That does not disprove creation. Whoever created the system would have power over its existence, therefore determining its rules of operation and its characteristics.

And a little deeper thinking. If God is Omni-All, that means he doesn't have to be a part of our universe corporeally.

 

[Apodictic]

Anyone here ever seen the movie The Thirteenth Floor? Older movie, but it is interesting! If you haven't I'd recommend it.

The movie is about a group of people who created a virtual world and had the ability to go in and out of the world, effectively taking the place of one of their simulated people. I don't want to spoil the ending, so if you want to find out more then either watch it or read a spoiler online!

But how would you, if you were one of those creators, explain to your virtual world how they are related to your world? What are you going to say to them, "You guys are not real, you are just simulations". As if they will comprehend and accept this.

Our understanding is limited to our preception of reality, God's is not. But even so, it would do us no good if God said true things about our existence that make no sense to us...

 

[MewtwoX]

There are different types of infinities, however. They aren't all equivalent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

True, but in this case we are dealing with infinity in a matematical sense representing temporality. An "infinite amount of time" if you will...

I think the bounding problem still applies here to her argument.

 

[morningstar2651]

This proof doesn't work... Just because something existed before the universe doesn't mean it's G-d.

Atheism is not, in fact, 0 X 0 = 1, it's much more complicated.
Atheism is actually (0+x) big bang = 1

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

One way to deny creation is to say that the universe is ethernal, always existed.
If you can prove that time had a beginning, you can prove that the universe was created.

So here it is:

If there was an infinite amount of time before now, would we ever arrive at this moment?
No, we never would had arrive at this moment.

So time MUST have began [sic] sometime.

*groans*

Don't tell me you've been buying into those crappy YouTube videos put up by VenomFangX, now have you?

Look, I'll try to explain it to you reeeeally slow:
If time (and space, which are one and the same) have a beginning, then there is no "before", just as there is no "elsewhere". Every "elsewhere" or "before" that you might be able to imagine would be a part of our space and time by default. So, time has a beginning. TIME did not exist before this beginning. (Are you still with me?) Therefore, the whole concept of "before time" is an oxymoron.

In the last 100 years scientists have discovered that the universe is expanding and began at a single point.
This is know as the big bang theory.

So the big bang theory and logic used earlier both support that the universe has a beginning, which was its creation by GOD.

Yes to the first part, no to the second. That's a pretty big jump that you make there. How do you even get from "the universe has a beginning" to "creation by God"?

 

[peaceful soul]

And a little deeper thinking. If God is Omni-All, that means he doesn't have to be a part of our universe corporeally.

Agreed! God doesn't have to be, but He can. He can interact within creation both by being corporeal and not being corporeal, or even both simultaneously and not be affected at all. If God becomes corporeal, His existence would still be outside of the creation since that is where His existence is to begin with.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by Eudaimonist

What do you mean? Everything exists as something, and that means having specific characteristics. Its existence as a particular entity is responsible for its nature.

I am asking you what is responsible for what you are seeing and experiencing. What is responsible for those characteristics? If its existence is responsible for its nature, then what determines its existence? Is there a first cause or a non first cause? Is something "is" just because it is? What is responsible for that nature? Those are the kinds of questions that I am asking. Where do these things come from?

At some point, one simply has to say: that's the way it is. I'm not saying that physics and cosmology are unproductive at providing an understanding of change in the universe. However, at some point one simply has to say, for example, that "a photon is a photon". It behaves as a photon does because that is what it is -- a photon.

I am interested in knowing why it is that way. The photon has no real meaning if it can't be somehow conceptualized, which means that it has to be identified by some characteristics and tendencies. The proton came from somewhere. Where did it come from? All you would be doing is describing it rather than explaining its origin.

You might be able to discuss the photon's history, if it has one, and how it interacts with other entities, but an infinite series of explanations for how something acts as it does wouldn't make any sense and is unneeded. Even theists don't explain God's existence and nature by reference to a meta-God who creates or sustains the existence of that God.

It is necessary if we want to know the origin of the entire thing. Saying that it is just because it is does not explain the origin of that which "is". We don't need to explain God's existence since He is the originator and stands outside of time, space, matter, etc. We only need to know that He created it. For Christians, everything starts with God. We can therefore, know that God created the atom, for example, and put the laws into motion that govern things because He has that creative power. Who created God? No one. That is the sticking point of creation. He is the beginning and the end and yet is not confined to anything, at least materially speaking. God's creative power needs not to be defined in order to understand it, but the existence of this world apart from God does since the explanations are needed to describe the origin, which hasn't presently been done. Describing how things work that have already been created is not a very good starting point in terms of denouncing the existence of God.

Of course they do! You just get old, for instance, and not due to outside causes, but due to what you might call internal causes, or a self-cause (the cause being your own biological nature).

We just don't get old. There is something that causes this change. If this was a self cause, I should be able to control that since I as an entity, should be able to control the internal cause? Does that make sense? If we look at the scientific approach to systems. There is always a system outside of another system. Systems are somewhat arbitrary and can be comprised of what we would call sub systems, or we can look at the system as existing within a larger system. At some point, we have to wonder where is the system that each subsequent system is a part of. What are the boundaries of that ultimate system? Is there a first cause or a beginning system from which all other systems are enclosed within? Again, this goes beyond just trying to explain what is already in existence.

Perhaps, but a mechanism does not need an external cause to make it operational.

I would argue that it couldn't exist without an external cause associated with it. In physics, if I recall correctly, there are always forces (components) at work internal and external to a system. The internal balances the external and vice versa to maintain equilibrium. Where is the external components of the largest system? Assume that the largest system is the universe, what external components affect it? What would cause the Big Bang, for example, to happen? Whatever that is would be and external component and would be outside of that system to keep equilibrium with what happens within the Big Bang. If matter is moving and explosions are happening, the what component externally to that are at work? Do you see what point I am driving at?

The entity's nature. That which it exists as.



What causes the Earth to hold together in a sphere? Gravity. What causes its gravity? The Earth itself -- its nature as an object possessing the characteristic of mass.

Now we have to explain the mass and and gravity and how their natures are shaped to sustain Earth. Each independent aspect of this universe needs to be accounted for. It would not be very convincing to say that gravity is just because it is. Do you get where I am coming from? I would be more interested in knowing how the gravity operates and why it does. Just explaining it is not telling me where it came from or what is responsible for it behaving as it does. You can explain how a car engine works, but I want to know who created the engine. What is behind the engine existing as it does? This is the argument that creationist have with non creative approaches to explaining this world.

Nothing contains the universe. It is neither closed nor open, but a totality.

I'm assuming here that by "universe" you mean all of physical existence. The universe would contain all locations, and so there couldn't be anything outside of the universe to contain the universe since there would be no locations outside of the universe.

Yes, I am speaking about all of the physical existence. I am considering this to be the system that I spoke about earlier. Since physics looks at each system and considers that equilibrium is achieved by both internal causes that balance external ones, where are the external causes to balance the internal ones since you say that the universe contains all locations? My proposition is that this can only be possible with a non physical entity that I refer to as God, the designer and therefore, the first cause.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. I'm not interested in perhaps. Perhaps won't advance the discussion. We can only work with what we know, or else we can't say anything at all.

I agree, but that doesn't tell me the first cause. That is what I am interested in. It is apparent from human observation that non living matter does not create living matter. Objects don't move without there being something acting upon them. Even if a Big Bang happened, what caused it, given that you say that the universe includes all physical things? What would cause those physical things to explode, rearrange, change form, etc.? Again, explaining what is already here doesn't tell me where it came from or what affects it and where the chain of effects begins that causes the change.

I'm speaking from a current understanding of physics, and solving certain philosophical problems with that. When and if physics changes in such a fundamental way we can re-evaluate the strengths of our respective positions.

I am in agreement with you in principal and think that I understand your position.

Questions are welcome. I appreciate questions.

The basis for my reasoning evidently includes a different model of causality than what you are using. My model is not Newtonian.


eudaimonia,

Mark

OK. I am not using a Newtonian model exclusively. I hope that we can agree that things just don't happen. There are underlying components that causes them to happen, whether we can see them or not or whether we can understand them or not. If this universe is the largest system, then what causes it to change since science views systems as having external and internal counter balances. If not the case, then we need to explain how the laws of physics still hold although there seems to be no forces acting to keep the system (universe) in balance. All of the energy within the system (universe) would need to be counter balanced by something larger than it. Doesn't that make sense according to scientific thinking? If I have misunderstood you, please correct me. Furthermore, if you disagree with my premise of first cause, you are welcome to address that as well. This is an interesting view that you have. I want to make sure that I understand it completely. Well, maybe not completely, but well enough to follow your thinking.

I will look forward to your responses.

 

[peaceful soul]

This proof doesn't work... Just because something existed before the universe doesn't mean it's G-d.

Whatever it is, it must be more intelligent than we are. It must have some creative power which implies a higher intelligence than what already exists. We do not see things just appear in the world. They have a cause that brings them into being. We don't see pots and pans suddenly appearing in our kitchens, and we don't see eggs appearing without their being a chicken laying them. Creativity is the reason for these things. Those eggs are not some random process that can come from a chicken one day and a goat another. The cycle and the biological system by which the chicken lays the egg was created for that chicken. It is not be some accident or random chance. Atheism can not explain why a non living entity is said to create a living entity. We can see by using our common sense that only life can beget life. Only creative things can create. There is some intelligence behind creativity. Would you agree with those conclusions (in blue)?

Atheism is not, in fact, 0 X 0 = 1, it's much more complicated.
Atheism is actually (0+x) big bang = 1

Where does the 0 come from and what is the x?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am asking you what is responsible for what you are seeing and experiencing. What is responsible for those characteristics? If its existence is responsible for its nature, then what determines its existence? Is there a first cause or a non first cause? Is something "is" just because it is? What is responsible for that nature? Those are the kinds of questions that I am asking. Where do these things come from?

Everything you see now comes from a changing existence. We may speak of where things "come from" in terms of this change (e.g., by identifying causes or regularities of change), though an infinite series of explanations is impossible, so at some point we won't be able to explain things any further.

For instance, it might be impossible to explain the existence of spacetime any further than to say it has some initial form.

And perhaps in yet another sense spacetime just "is" in whatever form it currently is, and this can't be analysed or explained any further. It may be a fruitless question to ask: "Why does spacetime exist? Never mind what came before -- what explains its existence now? Why not something very different from spacetime? Why not nothing at all?"

When it comes any sort of end of explanations, questions such as "What is responsible for its nature?" and "Where do these things come from?" cannot be answered. There is no answer, because you've reached the end (or starting point) of all answers.

I am interested in knowing why it is that way.

Of course you are. And to the extent that we can answer such questions, it is worth seeking those answers.

The photon has no real meaning if it can't be somehow conceptualized, which means that it has to be identified by some characteristics and tendencies.

True.

The proton came from somewhere.

False. At least, it is not correct to demand this a priori.

It is necessary if we want to know the origin of the entire thing. Saying that it is just because it is does not explain the origin of that which "is". We don't need to explain God's existence since He is the originator and stands outside of time, space, matter, etc.

I don't believe that "time" is something that one can "stand outside of". Time simply is our way of conceptualizing, or experiencing, change.

You seem to be asking for an origin of an origin. (I hope not!) I'm saying that the origin -- by which I mean that which is at the beginning of all change -- is something physical such as spacetime.

We just don't get old. There is something that causes this change.

Sure, one might talk about the biology of the aging process. We change in certain ways, and we may refer to elements of this pattern of change by conceptualizing them as "causes" of that change. One may talk about how human DNA changes subtly though cellular use over the years, for instance.

Ultimately, however, it appears that change happens because it is in the nature of entities to change. The causes that you are asking for are themselves changing, not changeless. And, so, the deeper "cause" (or self-cause) may simply be to note that physical reality is not static -- it changes in virtue of its very existence as physical reality, not because it was "set in motion" by anything else.

If this was a self cause, I should be able to control that since I as an entity, should be able to control the internal cause?

Maybe I should use the term "itself-cause", but that sounds clunky to me. By "self", I mean the entity itself. Not a "self" in the sense of personhood.

So, while some self-causes are volitional, most are not open to volition. Volition is not the only capacity for change.

If we look at the scientific approach to systems. There is always a system outside of another system.

Not if that system is "the universe".

Systems are somewhat arbitrary and can be comprised of what we would call sub systems, or we can look at the system as existing within a larger system.

Sure, but there will be a lower limit to identifiable sub systems. And you won't be able to explain anything any further below that level other than to say "that's just how it is".

Where is the external components of the largest system? Assume that the largest system is the universe, what external components affect it?

I don't see why I should think that this question has an answer.

What would cause the Big Bang, for example, to happen?

Whatever physically existed at t=0, assuming no time prior to the start of the Big Bang. To make a useful, though somewhat strained, analogy, the universe aged just as you age. There is no external power making this happen -- it's internal to the entity that aged.

If matter is moving and explosions are happening, the what component externally to that are at work? Do you see what point I am driving at?

Actually, the Big Bang has little to do with "matter moving" and "explosions happening". It is about the rapid inflation of spacetime. It is "space" that is moving. Do you see now why it makes little sense to ask what set the universe "in motion", as if there was someone to light the fuse of an explosion?

Now we have to explain the mass and and gravity and how their natures are shaped to sustain Earth. Each independent aspect of this universe needs to be accounted for. It would not be very convincing to say that gravity is just because it is. Do you get where I am coming from?

Yes, I do. However, I will note again that, as unsatisfying as it may be, at some point you will have to run out of explanations, or else you will have an impossibly infinite series of them. For instance, perhaps mass and gravity can be explained, but whatever is responsible for them might not be explainable.

I agree, but that doesn't tell me the first cause. That is what I am interested in. It is apparent from human observation that non living matter does not create living matter.

This is not at all apparent.

Objects don't move without there being something acting upon them.

See quantum physics. Change happens all the time without something obviously "acting upon" the entity that changes.

Even if a Big Bang happened, what caused it, given that you say that the universe includes all physical things? What would cause those physical things to explode, rearrange, change form, etc.?

Whatever physical things that existed caused the change. Do you want specific theories? Quantum loop gravity speculates that the structure of spacetime cannot increase beyond a certain density, and this causes an inflation of that spacetime. I suppose you could think of it like a spring expanding.

science views systems as having external and internal counter balances.

I'm not quite certain where you are getting this idea. This may be what often exists, but I don't know of any scientist who would insist that this must be true of all that exists (i.e., the universe).

If not the case, then we need to explain how the laws of physics still hold although there seems to be no forces acting to keep the system (universe) in balance.

The universe is in balance? What sort of balance?

All of the energy within the system (universe) would need to be counter balanced by something larger than it. Doesn't that make sense according to scientific thinking?

Not that I'm aware of. I need some context here.

If I have misunderstood you, please correct me.

I'll certainly try!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Legion.As.One]

The universe is chaos itself. There is no balance. Chaos is the very beginning. When quarks and gluons formed sub-atomic particles, that was chaos. When anti-sub-atomic particles eliminated sub-atomic particles, that was chaos.

-And by the way, it's gravity that causes most things to happen.
-Also, we as humans get old, we as matter never die.
-Oh yeah, and a proton came from 3 quarks bonded by gluons,
Where we come from and where we are going are all the same.

How can a physical entity or even a "spiritual entity" exist outside the beginning of the universe? There was no where for it to exist.

The universe itself is my Goddess, She is not a being (maybe on some dimension of thought, somewhere- I wouldn't know). She is neither spiritual nor physical. She is.
She is chaos. I worship being, I worship chaos, I worship one and I worship all.

(Keep in mind I personify the universe as a Her to make it easier for me, and because it is a woman who gives birth to new life)

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Whatever it is, it must be more intelligent than we are.
why?

It must have some creative power which implies a higher intelligence than what already exists.
why?

We do not see things just appear in the world. They have a cause that brings them into being.
Natural things have natural causes. Rain is caused by nature, snow is caused by nature. fire is caused by nature.
a toaster is made by man (a product of nature)


We don't see pots and pans suddenly appearing in our kitchens,
yep, we can goto the manufacture to see it formed.

and we don't see eggs appearing without their being a chicken laying them.
Yep but they are formed naturally with no intellegence from the chicken.

Creativity is the reason for these things.
why? how creative was the chicken in making its eggs?

Those eggs are not some random process that can come from a chicken one day and a goat another.
Correct, they have occured due to a process of random mutation and non random selection. (in general)

The cycle and the biological system by which the chicken lays the egg was created for that chicken.
evidence?

It is not be some accident or random chance.
correct. but its also not intentional.

Atheism can not explain why a non living entity is said to create a living entity.
Nor can it explain blue. Nor can it explain why peopel eat at hardeese. IM not sure of your point here or releveance


We can see by using our common sense that only life can beget life.
A modern life form can beget mordern life forms and I dont see how one could naturally pop out of nothing. Of course science makes no such claim.
Evolutoin requires a long long process.

Only creative things can create.
Absolutely wrong.
Nature "creates" all the time. And there is no reason to believe life on earth did not comeabout naturally. There is plenty of evidence to counter any modern ID concept.

There is some intelligence behind creativity. Would you agree with those conclusions ?
Nope.

 

[dawiyd]

One way to deny creation is to say that the universe is ethernal, always existed.
If you can prove that time had a beginning, you can prove that the universe was created.

You know science does say time has a beginning, and it’s at the star of the universe. So time has existed as long as the universe has.

...science has known this for a while.

So here it is:

If there was an infinite amount of time before now, would we ever arrive at this moment?
No, we never would had arrive at this moment.

So time MUST have began sometime.

In the last 100 years scientists have discovered that the universe is expanding and began at a single point.
This is know as the big bang theory.

So the big bang theory and logic used earlier both support that the universe has a beginning, which was its creation by GOD.

No it doesn’t at all, and that is the biggest leap ever, even for me to except. We know "our" time began at the big bang.

A question you may ask is this: since time had a beginning, doesn't that mean that GOD didn't exist forever either?
No, it doesn't. Prior to the creation, God existed beyond matter and beyond time.

He was just there. All of his time prior to creation can be compressed into a single moment, because nothing happened.

Please come back when you actually understand the concepts you are talking about. The act of being requires time, one cannot exist outside of time, as the act of being needs a temporal reference point to exist in. Furthermore the applying creation to the big bang is quite a faulty concept, seeing how creation relies on causation and causation is a function of time, how can you apply a function of time before time exists?

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by ranmaonehalf

Whatever it is, it must be more intelligent than we are.
why?

That is the natural progression of how we see things created in modern times as well as in the past in human history. Since the history of man, have we seen any less intellegent life creating more complex life? No, what we see is that the life created is not more complex that the life it came from. Have we seen computers made by themselves or by a non creative being? Have we seen rocks create cars? No. Whenever we see something, we naturally ask who or what created this. Even the smallest organism has a high level of complexity that can't be explained by evolution alone. Humans can create things less complex than themselves but not more complex. Humans can't create other humans. Even as complex as some computers are, then don't exceed the complexity of humans that created them. They can't replace humans in function since they lack spirit, mind, conscience, intelligence, creativity, etc. Whatever they do is designed into them by their creator. Furthermore, they have to be created in such a way so that they can carry out the intended functions in an atmosphere friendly to their composition and the functionality.

It must have some creative power which implies a higher intelligence than what already exists.
why?

Already explained above.Creativity implies directly an intelligence to coordinate, implement, produce, and utilize the surrounding environment to insure compatibility and functionality. There are other things I could add to that. It is not just making something, but all conditions must be satisfactorily for the creation to survive, exist, and function, which means that the probability of random chance is lessened.

We do not see things just appear in the world. They have a cause that brings them into being.
Natural things have natural causes. Rain is caused by nature, snow is caused by nature. fire is caused by nature.
a toaster is made by man (a product of nature)

Rain, snow, and fire being caused by nature is an oversimplification. Where does nature get its instructions from? Even a natural fire has a cause and effect. Even rain has a cause and effect; likewise snow. They just don't happen. The have causes. Nature has causes too. It just doesn't happen. That is absurd to anyone living today that uses their senses to explore their surroundings.

We don't see pots and pans suddenly appearing in our kitchens,
yep, we can goto the manufacture to see it formed.

That is really cute. The point is that they have a creator. There is an origin to them, just as there is an origin of nature and its elements such as snow, rain and natural fires. Surely if I asked you how that fire started, you wouldn't reply with it just happened and that there was no cause behind it. Even if there were no human intervention, there still is a cause such as a lightening strike or an unusual heatwave or wind that caused some chemicals to ignite.

and we don't see eggs appearing without their being a chicken laying them.
Yep but they are formed naturally with no intellegence from the chicken.

Another cute one. The intelligence is designed into the reproductive tract of the chicken.The chicken was designed with all of its functions in place just like when you eat a Big Mac at McDonalds, the food goes down your digestive tract. We don't create digestive tracts in order for us to eat.

Creativity is the reason for these things.
why? how creative was the chicken in making its eggs?

The intelligent designer took care of that. How do you breathe? Do you consciously tell your self to breathe, even when you are sleep? Nope, because the creator made you equipped so that you could interface with the air that he also created for you to breathe. The creator knew that if he gave you lungs too, that you would have a filter just in case someone lit a cigarette (also a creation) and you could have a chance to expel that bad air out of your system.

Those eggs are not some random process that can come from a chicken one day and a goat another.
Correct, they have occured due to a process of random mutation and non random selection. (in general)

If that were true, then we should also expect the randomness of that random process to also change so that the egg may not come out any more or in some other pattern rather than a fairly scheduled and regulated frequency as it does. It is called a cycle. Guess what, that was also accounted for by the creator.

A greater question is what causes these random mutations and processes? I don't agree with your assessment, but for the sake of argument, I just want to know. Or do you think that it just happened?

The cycle and the biological system by which the chicken lays the egg was created for that chicken.
evidence?

Because every chicken that is born normal has it. If it were random, there is a chance that a whole family of chickens wouldn't have it or would have some other system. Perhaps some of them wouldn't even lay eggs at all. There is a consistency that only makes sense unless it was intentionally designed to function that way just like computers are intentionally designed to function in a certain way. Imagine a computer randomly designed. There is something at work to ensure that the same design comes out every time. Again, it just doesn't happen.

It is not be some accident or random chance.
correct. but its also not intentional.

Of course it is! That is why we can predict the outcome with some consistency or regularity. If not, we could not determine what would happen from one second to another. We could not develop formulas to explain phenomena if there wasn't some kind of intelligent design to insure a consistent outcome. Suppose that two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen sometimes producing water and at other times producing something else while under the same conditions. There is a creator that placed these laws so that we could have a predictable and observable outcome, given all things equal.

Atheism can not explain why a non living entity is said to create a living entity.
Nor can it explain blue. Nor can it explain why peopel eat at hardeese. IM not sure of your point here or releveance

But that is a fallacious argument. Blue is a concept and eating is a social concept as you are using it. We are talking about where life came from, which is a totally different category. I think that you know my point well. Life only comes from living things--not dead things. There is no scientist that is going to probe a rock to find the origin of a cricket. They are going to look at other live things instead. They are not going to look to an elephant to see if it came from a rock. So, why would you think that this is so? Don't give me an argument that is should be obvious that rocks and elephants are quite dissimilar that this is not reasonable. I am only speaking from a general perspective of the principles I am questioning from your perspective.

We can see by using our common sense that only life can beget life.
A modern life form can beget mordern life forms and I dont see how one could naturally pop out of nothing. Of course science makes no such claim.
Evolutoin requires a long long process.

Actually evolution does make the claim, even if not explicitly stated. Taking a long process is just a cop out. Even if we take your claim at face value, there wouldn't be enough time according to scientific claims for the age of this earth for all of the things that we see today to have evolved in such a complex manner as they have, given the time it would have taken for this to progress. Evolution only attempts to explain what is here and not how it came about. Once it deals with the actual origin of everything, then perhaps, it can be taken more seriously.

Only creative things can create.
Absolutely wrong.
Nature "creates" all the time. And there is no reason to believe life on earth did not comeabout naturally. There is plenty of evidence to counter any modern ID concept.

Some things in nature may produce other things, but they are not thought out and created. Nature is not some independent thing. It consists of intricate parts that work independently in some cases and dependently in others. Even if I accepted your answer, then where did nature come from, and how do we account for the things that it does? Random?? If life came about naturally, then what caused this naturalness? Don't tell me it just happened. It would be like telling me that water just happened and disregard what science has come to understand about the formation of water. It requires hydrogen and water combining under special conditions since we know that H and O can combine in other ways that won't produce water. Not only must we have the correct elements, we must also have the correct conditions and a climate to support this combination as well. There are too many variables to have me to believe that this stuff just happened. There is definitely a purposed meaning to all of this, which requires an intelligent designer.

There is some intelligence behind creativity. Would you agree with those conclusions

?
Nope.

Creativity has intelligence, but the intelligence comes from the faculties of the creator--not from some random chance origin that made non life substance become alive and then developed complexity over a long period of time. That goes against modern science; yet, you would have us believe that it would be a natural progression.

 

[dawiyd]

originally posted by ranmaonehalf



[/COLOR]That is the natural progression of how we see things created in modern times as well as in the past in human history. Since the history of man, have we seen any less intellegent life creating more complex life? No, what we see is that the life created is not more complex that the life it came from. Have we seen computers made by themselves or by a non creative being? Have we seen rocks create cars? No. Whenever we see something, we naturally ask who or what created this. Even the smallest organism has a high level of complexity that can't be explained by evolution alone. Humans can create things less complex than themselves but not more complex. Humans can't create other humans. Even as complex as some computers are, then don't exceed the complexity of humans that created them. They can't replace humans in function since they lack spirit, mind, conscience, intelligence, creativity, etc. Whatever they do is designed into them by their creator. Furthermore, they have to be created in such a way so that they can carry out the intended functions in an atmosphere friendly to their composition and the functionality.



Already explained above.Creativity implies directly an intelligence to coordinate, implement, produce, and utilize the surrounding environment to insure compatibility and functionality. There are other things I could add to that. It is not just making something, but all conditions must be satisfactorily for the creation to survive, exist, and function, which means that the probability of random chance is lessened.



Rain, snow, and fire being caused by nature is an oversimplification. Where does nature get its instructions from? Even a natural fire has a cause and effect. Even rain has a cause and effect; likewise snow. They just don't happen. The have causes. Nature has causes too. It just doesn't happen. That is absurd to anyone living today that uses their senses to explore their surroundings.



That is really cute. The point is that they have a creator. There is an origin to them, just as there is an origin of nature and its elements such as snow, rain and natural fires. Surely if I asked you how that fire started, you wouldn't reply with it just happened and that there was no cause behind it. Even if there were no human intervention, there still is a cause such as a lightening strike or an unusual heatwave or wind that caused some chemicals to ignite.



Another cute one. The intelligence is designed into the reproductive tract of the chicken.The chicken was designed with all of its functions in place just like when you eat a Big Mac at McDonalds, the food goes down your digestive tract. We don't create digestive tracts in order for us to eat.



The intelligent designer took care of that. How do you breathe? Do you consciously tell your self to breathe, even when you are sleep? Nope, because the creator made you equipped so that you could interface with the air that he also created for you to breathe. The creator knew that if he gave you lungs too, that you would have a filter just in case someone lit a cigarette (also a creation) and you could have a chance to expel that bad air out of your system.



If that were true, then we should also expect the randomness of that random process to also change so that the egg may not come out any more or in some other pattern rather than a fairly scheduled and regulated frequency as it does. It is called a cycle. Guess what, that was also accounted for by the creator.

A greater question is what causes these random mutations and processes? I don't agree with your assessment, but for the sake of argument, I just want to know. Or do you think that it just happened?



Because every chicken that is born normal has it. If it were random, there is a chance that a whole family of chickens wouldn't have it or would have some other system. Perhaps some of them wouldn't even lay eggs at all. There is a consistency that only makes sense unless it was intentionally designed to function that way just like computers are intentionally designed to function in a certain way. Imagine a computer randomly designed. There is something at work to ensure that the same design comes out every time. Again, it just doesn't happen.



Of course it is! That is why we can predict the outcome with some consistency or regularity. If not, we could not determine what would happen from one second to another. We could not develop formulas to explain phenomena if there wasn't some kind of intelligent design to insure a consistent outcome. Suppose that two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen sometimes producing water and at other times producing something else while under the same conditions. There is a creator that placed these laws so that we could have a predictable and observable outcome, given all things equal.



But that is a fallacious argument. Blue is a concept and eating is a social concept as you are using it. We are talking about where life came from, which is a totally different category. I think that you know my point well. Life only comes from living things--not dead things. There is no scientist that is going to probe a rock to find the origin of a cricket. They are going to look at other live things instead. They are not going to look to an elephant to see if it came from a rock. So, why would you think that this is so? Don't give me an argument that is should be obvious that rocks and elephants are quite dissimilar that this is not reasonable. I am only speaking from a general perspective of the principles I am questioning from your perspective.



Actually evolution does make the claim, even if not explicitly stated. Taking a long process is just a cop out. Even if we take your claim at face value, there wouldn't be enough time according to scientific claims for the age of this earth for all of the things that we see today to have evolved in such a complex manner as they have, given the time it would have taken for this to progress. Evolution only attempts to explain what is here and not how it came about. Once it deals with the actual origin of everything, then perhaps, it can be taken more seriously.



Some things in nature may produce other things, but they are not thought out and created. Nature is not some independent thing. It consists of intricate parts that work independently in some cases and dependently in others. Even if I accepted your answer, then where did nature come from, and how do we account for the things that it does? Random?? If life came about naturally, then what caused this naturalness? Don't tell me it just happened. It would be like telling me that water just happened and disregard what science has come to understand about the formation of water. It requires hydrogen and water combining under special conditions since we know that H and O can combine in other ways that won't produce water. Not only must we have the correct elements, we must also have the correct conditions and a climate to support this combination as well. There are too many variables to have me to believe that this stuff just happened. There is definitely a purposed meaning to all of this, which requires an intelligent designer.



Creativity has intelligence, but the intelligence comes from the faculties of the creator--not from some random chance origin that made non life substance become alive and then developed complexity over a long period of time. That goes against modern science; yet, you would have us believe that it would be a natural progression.

Even as a theist I just found what you posted utter nonsense.