26
   

Scientific explanations for creation

 
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 21 Nov, 2013 06:39 pm
@neologist,
Remove God and insert Easter Bunny, It means the same.

Your entire worldview prevents you from thinking, as it defaults to fairytales.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Nov, 2013 07:17 pm
@farmerman,
Are you so fearful of the God concept that you failed to recognize that I was offering not proof, but definition? Fear not! It does not follow from my statement that God exists.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Nov, 2013 07:28 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
I can't even begin to comprehend what sort of cockamamie concept of god/Santa must have been drilled into your mind while you were growing up; but I grieve for you.

Just the standard Christian concept. But for the sake of this discussion the only attribute I need to assign to any concept of "God" is that it's a Supernatural entity. And that is really the concept that you need to address.

Is your personal concept of "God" one in which God is Supernatural?

neologist wrote:
If you are unable to understand that natural law would be a necessary prerogative of a creator, I can't answer further except to point out I said necessary, not sufficient. That's the sum of my argument in this thread.

Your choice of words is irrelevant to addressing the point. And once again you are wandering farther and farther away from the original point of the thread, and more importantly away from your own challenge to the specific statement I made.

I really wish you would stay on track and simply explain what you meant when you said:
neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
If science can explain it then it won't be "God" anymore. . .
I would take issue with that.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Nov, 2013 07:34 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Your entire worldview prevents you from thinking, as it defaults to fairytales.

Yes, I couldn't have said it better. And that's the root of the damage that Religion has done and continues to do to humanity.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Nov, 2013 07:56 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Is your personal concept of "God" one in which God is Supernatural?
No.
I believe all 'miracles' could be explained scientifically, that we may be currently unable to do so notwithstanding.

And, I am not trying to advance the OP. I'm simply trying to create a tight standard for the definition of the word 'God". Also, I realize I cannot prove the converse with epistemological certainty.

So, I take issue with your assertion
rosborne979 wrote:
If science can explain it then it won't be "God" anymore. . .
Because that should not be the case.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Nov, 2013 08:01 pm
In my unhumble opinion, anything you call god, no matter how abstract, falls in the category of anthropomorphism. Ascribing motive in nature still points to the old white haired gentleman maniac. Or Easter bunnies.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Nov, 2013 08:05 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Is your personal concept of "God" one in which God is Supernatural?
No.
I believe all 'miracles' could be explained scientifically, that we may be currently unable to do so notwithstanding.

Ah ha. Well, that's interesting. I think you're the first religious person I've ever encountered who's concept of "God" wasn't Supernatural.

So let me see if I understand this... your concept of God is some type of naturally occurring intelligent entity which is subject to and limited by the natural laws of the Universe?

If that is not accurate, please provide a more accurate description in your own words. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Nov, 2013 08:20 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Is your personal concept of "God" one in which God is Supernatural?
No.

So, I take issue with your assertion
rosborne979 wrote:
If science can explain it then it won't be "God" anymore. . .
Because that should not be the case.

Given your particular view of God as a non-supernatural entity, then you would be correct; my statement would not follow.

But I'm not entirely sure I believe you when you say that your concept is a non-supernatural one. I think you may be playing with the standard definition of "Supernatural" in order to squeeze your concept into a philosophical crack whereby the creator of the Universe must be synonymous with the rules of its creation even while allowing it to break its own rules if it so desires. I hope that's not the game you are playing, because that's just a bastardization of the meaning of Supernatural.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  0  
Reply Thu 21 Nov, 2013 11:27 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

If you are unable to understand that natural law would be a necessary prerogative of a creator, I can't answer further except to point out I said necessary, not sufficient. That's the sum of my argument in this thread.

What would a sufficient prerogative of a creator be?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Nov, 2013 11:27 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

If you are unable to understand that natural law would be a necessary prerogative of a creator, I can't answer further except to point out I said necessary, not sufficient. That's the sum of my argument in this thread.

What would a sufficient prerogative of a creator be?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2013 11:41 am
@InfraBlue,
Well, what is natural law? Are there nuances we have yet to discover?
I believe it is necessary for a Creator to accomplish creative acts by means of this 'natural' law. No poof!
However, I understand that no matter how sophisticated our understanding of natural law and natural phenomena, it will never be sufficient to prove the existence of a creator.

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2013 11:46 am
@neologist,
Quote:
I believe it is necessary for a Creator to accomplish creative acts


Belief , without evidence, is the basis of modern religion

Rejection, without evidence, is the basis of modern science.

Your beliefs provide you a nice warm hidey hole from thinking too much. Such a position would kill any kind of scientific research
Romeo Fabulini
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2013 12:03 pm
Quote:
Farmerman said: Belief , without evidence, is the basis of modern religion

Isn't the universe evidence of a Creator? Or did the universe just decide to create itself?
I mean, creatures like this are just too well-designed to have appeared by sheer chance-
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/maid_2_zps2d58f5b4.gif~original

The SETI program has been looking out into space for years for signs of alien life, but what if aliens have already been and gone?
Jesus said straight out "I'm not of this world" (John 8:23) so technically that makes him an alien.
And "angels" have walked the earth (and maybe still do) in human form-
"Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels unawares"- (Hebrews 13:2)

Maybe we should substitute modern words, for example "God" = 'Master Geneticist', and "angels" = "observers"
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2013 12:17 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Quote:
Isn't the universe evidence of a Creator?
Not necessarily. It might turn out that things are the way they are simply because that's the way they have to be. For instance it may prove that the idea of nothingness entails contradiction and paradox

Quote:
Or did the universe just decide to create itself?
If She has always existed in one form or another an instant of "nothingness" of zero duration between subsequent BB's neatly resolves the paradox

That doesn't mean She doesn't exist. However it might prove that the issue is not one of "cosmic truth" but of semantics. Clearly there are aspects of the Big Picture we don't presently understand though it's likely we'll dance around them for time to come. As they become clearer however it will be more apparent that to call It, Her, God, is a matter of choice

Thus She too is a natural phenom
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2013 12:44 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Quote:
Isn't the universe evidence of a Creator?
For you, perhaps. Im not that easily "bought off" with stuff written by humans without any knowledge but plenty of faith


Quote:
"I'm not of this world" (John 8:23) so technically that makes him an alien.
My wife often says that about food. "That Zuppe de Cozi was out of this world" So that means that mussels are aliens too?

As I said, youre easily impressed by tales of the desert.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2013 12:47 pm
"Scientific" explanations of "Creation" are merely the need for the religious to "Buy" some credibility by trying to cobble up some "Science"

Its been going on for a century and a half in the US and probably a ;lot longer in the rest of the world. So far, all the evidence of the "Scientific Creationists" has been pretty much debunked as either naïve prattle or outright lie.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2013 02:11 pm
Quote:
Farmerman said: Im not that easily "bought off" with stuff written by humans without any knowledge but plenty of faith

The Bible is simply a list of human close encounters with offworld beings over thousands of years. Forget the Charlton Heston-type Hollywood version of events; many of the humans were just as ordinary as you and me-
For example Jesus wasn't much to look at -"He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him" (Isaiah 53:2)

And Paul was nothing to write home about -
"For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful, but his appearance is unimpressive, and he speaks poorly" (2 Cor 10:10)

And Moses admitted to being unable to think on his feet-
"O Lord, I have never been eloquent, i'm slow of speech and tongue, send somebody else to Pharoah" (Exodus 4:10)

And Jonah refused pointblank to be a prophet and jumped on a ship to escape, bad call -
"Jonah ran away from the Lord and headed for Tarshish." (Jonah 1:3)

And young Jeremiah tried to talk his way out of the job -
"Lord i'm no good at speaking, I'm too young and people won't take me seriously" (Jer 1:6)

And Ezekiel swooned when an alien got out of a UFO and approached him-
"From what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal..and from there down he looked like fire...When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking- 'Stand up on your feet and I will speak to you'" (Ezekiel ch 1/2)

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case493.htm
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2013 02:21 pm
From the Wikipedia:

In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation is the extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density. The inflationary epoch comprises the first part of the electroweak epoch following the grand unification epoch. It lasted from 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but at a slower rate.

We don't need your magical, mumbo jumbo theories of creation, nor your imaginary companion. Natural law is sufficient.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2013 02:21 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Well, what is natural law? Are there nuances we have yet to discover?
I believe it is necessary for a Creator to accomplish creative acts by means of this 'natural' law. No poof!
However, I understand that no matter how sophisticated our understanding of natural law and natural phenomena, it will never be sufficient to prove the existence of a creator.

You didn't answer the question, though. You had posed a dichotomy between a Creator accomplishing creative acts necessarily by means of natural law and a Creator accomplishing creative acts sufficiently be means of natural law. Or was it that you misspoke?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Nov, 2013 02:48 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman, misquoting neo wrote:
Quote:
I believe it is necessary for a Creator to accomplish creative acts
Fight fairly, o fur faced farmer. For you have failed to include several words of my assertion.
Several important words, I might add.
If you go back to my response to Andy in this thread, (http://able2know.org/topic/227373-1#post-5501144) you may recall I said
Quote:
If, indeed, there is a creator, He would be the source of all that we call natural law. In the end, all things would be explained.
I think this is a tight restriction on creative arguments, especially since I also said above that natural law and phenomena
Quote:
will never be sufficient to prove the existence of a creator.
farmerman then wrote:
Belief , without evidence, is the basis of modern religion

Rejection, without evidence, is the basis of modern science.
Far too sweeping a generalization for me to accept. I am not intending to advance the OP.
farmerman wrote:
Your beliefs provide you a nice warm hidey hole from thinking too much. Such a position would kill any kind of scientific research
So the conclusion of your generalization is one must be an atheist in order to do scientific research. When did that happen?
After Newton?

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 02:12:27