Tim Thompson, a regular here, took on some creationist claims about Venus and its mountains in the March 2003 feedback of The Talk.Origins Archive. I am sure people here will find it useful.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/f...mar03.html#r39
Established Member
Tim Thompson, a regular here, took on some creationist claims about Venus and its mountains in the March 2003 feedback of The Talk.Origins Archive. I am sure people here will find it useful.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/f...mar03.html#r39
Member
It's an interesting response, and well written, but there is one thing that troubles me, the article he quoted said, "Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (a beginning suggests a Creator)". And I've always thought that an infinite (Maybe even Steady State) universe implied a Creator more than our current big-bang model. I've always thought that infinity lay in the realm of Philosophy and Religion, not Science. In addition I thought that our big bang theory allowed for a universe before this one (That had collapsed and started the whole thing over again), does the WMAP data that says the universe has flat geometry exclude this possiblity?
Established Member
Huh? :-?Originally Posted by nexus
Established Member
My thoughts exactly, coming from an engineering direction, infinity all to often rears it's head in the theory of many processes.Huh? :-?
Established Member
Without wishing to speak for Nexus, I'm perfectly happy for Science to stick to the observable universe. Anything out in the possible infinity beyond that is kind of speculation by definition, and the above two do a great job in that area. Its a bit like suggesting that Big Bang is correct, but that before the Universe came into being Spacetime was filled to the gills with giant penguins (to be frivolous). Since its unprovable either way, its an interesting argument that has no right answer.Huh? :-?
Established Member
In a open Universe with its eventual demise into heat death time will still reportedly going on for "infinity". Agree or not this is still in the realm of science.I've always thought that infinity lay in the realm of Philosophy and Religion, not Science.
How does either one imply an invisible man "created" it?And I've always thought that an infinite (Maybe even Steady State) universe implied a Creator more than our current big-bang model.
Order of Kilopi
If we say the universe began with a big bang then it could be asked "Well what was before the Big Bang?" It could be responded that there was another Big Bang universe. Theoretically that discussion could go on forever. For each Big Bang universe it could be asked what was before it. Its hard to see how science could ever give an ultimate answer to that question, so in that sense I can see what nexus is saying. Whether that requires a creator is a different matter, but I can see how philosophy and religion at least become appropriate places to discuss the matter.Huh? :-?
Established Member
This topic is mind bogglingIf we say the universe began with a big bang then it could be asked "Well what was before the Big Bang?" It could be responded that there was another Big Bang universe. Theoretically that discussion could go on forever. For each Big Bang universe it could be asked what was before it. Its hard to see how science could ever give an ultimate answer to that question, so in that sense I can see what nexus is saying. Whether that requires a creator is a different matter, but I can see how philosophy and religion at least become appropriate places to discuss the matter.Huh? :-?
Who created the creator that created the creator who created the creator this goes on for infinity. There is no logical way to explain who created the universe. What kind of explanation is there in religion for this? this doesn't have to turn into a religious debate which would probably make the BA angry so if anyone has links about his subject that would be great.
[edited for re-wording]
Established Member
You want to discuss religion without it turning into a religious debate? :roll:This topic is mind boggling
Who created the creator that created the creator who created the creator this goes on for infinity. There is no logical why to explain who created the universe. What kind of explanation is there in religion for this? this doesn't have to turn into a religious debate which would probably make the BA angry so if anyone has links about his subject that would be great.
Yes I'm very interested in these web sites that have proof pertaining to said conversation.
Established Member
I dont want to debate it on this board but maybe if someone knows of some websites that pertain to this subject I can dicuss it elsewhere. I just dont want to make the BA angry
you know what he is like when he gets angry
:P
Established Member
Well, there's always the Great Debates forum on the Straight Dope Message Board (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...p?s=&forumid=7). Religious debates come up there all the time.
Be warned, though, that the Straight Dope Message Board gets a huge volume of posts every day, and because of this, their servers can be slow sometimes.
Banned
You asked for some websites. Well this gives one angle on the subject
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/fea...cm15_ross.html
Established Member
I see so theres absolutely no evidence what so ever but a book writen by farmers 1000s of years ago.Yet man chooses to reject God and, as a result, his mind is darkened. The evidence presented in this book, although certainly clear to any Christian, does not, however, amount to a rigorous proof. Unless man is moved by the Holy Spirit, he who wants to reject God will continue to find non-Christian alternatives. Thus, although the evidence for design surely exists, it will properly be seen as such only when viewed through the eyes of God's written Word.
O.K. prinz I'm in :wink:
Established Member
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm
I ask that you please avoid all the advertising for trinkets and stuff that will fill your screen. Please note that St. Tom could not have known about the annoyance of internet advertising.
The argument is not religious argument, requiring a belief in any specific god. Instead, it is simply a logical argument. (I don't mean you will necessary see the logic, just that it takes the form of a logical argument.)
DJ
Order of Kilopi
Getting away from the religion vs science stuff, there is another issue intertwined here. Why shouldn't science address issues it does not yet have answers to?
We may be at a place in our understanding of cosmology that does not yet allow us to study the first fraction of a second and the time before the big bang. We don't have a method yet of looking at the internal structure of a black hole. There is only early speculation about the possibility of multiple universes. But that doesn't mean those things are only for philosophers and theists.
One has to think about problems and the 'not yet known' before one can find scientific means to test those things. That doesn't push the unknown out of the scientific realm.
Member
<<Indeed, a beginning might suggest a creator (though it certainly does not require a creator)>>
The what?
Order of Kilopi
I can't see any reason why it even suggests a creator.
Established Member
It doesn't. Some people would argue that it "allows" a creator, but that isn't even necessary. An omnipotent creator can create the universe in any form he desires. For all we know, the world really could be 4000 years old and science is just God's elaborate hoax...I can't see any reason why it even suggests a creator.
Established Member
This is just complete insanity, can any creationist just give one just one piece of evidence for a creator. The god lovers used to be 100% shure of there knowledge in reality. You can see over the centurys it slowing winding down, now they try to hold to there faith with comments like "suggests a creator". I guess i should not say "insanity" the proper term would be conditioning from infacy, witch I concede to be normal.
P.S. I.ve seen many a links from these people with quotes about having to believe or your going to hell with the rest of the wicked so I realy dont care if any are offended.
Established Member
Hey Beav,
As for your PS, I wouldn't worry. You're probably already in hell.
I'm not a creationist who believes in the 4000 year old earths, I do believe the universe is many billions of light years old, and I believe in evolution. But regardless of a big bang, a steady state, an oscillating whatever -- you choose your potion -- I do believe in something called god.
How big god is, how wide, how vast, how smart, how tall, grey hair, or no beard at all -- it's not important except at the personal, philosophical level. It changes nothing about the universe, except to give it context.
Thus the reason for my request to you in your own words [without questioning anyone's mental pecularities]: can any scientist just give one just one piece of evidence for no creation.
DJ
Order of Kilopi
DJ wrote: I'm not a creationist who believes in the 4000 year old earths, I do believe the universe is many billions of light years old, and I believe in evolution. But regardless of a big bang, a steady state, an oscillating whatever -- you choose your potion -- I do believe in something called god.
DJ, unless I'm misinterpreting and you're not a creationist, maybe you can help me. Do you think that the creator or God set up the universe with a set of rules that it is now following without intervention, or do you think that God frequently intervenes and directs the course of events in the universe throughout the history of the universe?
I've asked this question of creationists so many times that I think at this point I've lost track of why I wanted to know the first time I ever asked it. You'd be the first one to actually answer it ... perhaps not a feather for your cap, but at least you'd make my day.
Established Member
So how does the quoted statement imply that DJ is a creationist? What is your definition of a creationist? If it means nothing more than that God is the source of the universe, then just about everyone who is not an atheist is a creationist, myself included.DJ wrote: I'm not a creationist who believes in the 4000 year old earths, I do believe the universe is many billions of light years old, and I believe in evolution. But regardless of a big bang, a steady state, an oscillating whatever -- you choose your potion -- I do believe in something called god.
DJ, unless I'm misinterpreting and you're not a creationist, maybe you can help me. Do you think that the creator or God set up the universe with a set of rules that it is now following without intervention, or do you think that God frequently intervenes and directs the course of events in the universe throughout the history of the universe?
I've asked this question of creationists so many times that I think at this point I've lost track of why I wanted to know the first time I ever asked it. You'd be the first one to actually answer it ... perhaps not a feather for your cap, but at least you'd make my day.
As for your question, I'll give you my answer. I believe that the truth is somewhere between the two extremes you list. I do not believe in the clockmaker view of the universe, where God has set the universe up and lets it run on its own (a completely transcendent God), but neither do I believe that the universe has to have God constantly tweaking everything to have it run right (a completely immanent God). God's contact with the world is subtle but present, particularly in contact with humans (and any other sentient beings that may be out there). This contact can come through many pathways, the most direct of which is prayer. I believe that (almost) everyone benefits from this contact, whether they believe in God or not. I could go into more detail, but I don't know if this is the correct forum for this, unless you have more specific questions.
Order of Kilopi
There is evidence but we are getting away from astronomy here. The evidence is clear if you study all religions and get the bigger picture.
Trouble is, no matter what the evidence, if one believes in a god they are not likely to believe the evidence.
Established Member
Now, don't leave such a cliffhanger! What evidence is that?There is evidence but we are getting away from astronomy here. The evidence is clear if you study all religions and get the bigger picture.
Trouble is, no matter what the evidence, if one believes in a god they are not likely to believe the evidence.
Order of Kilopi
Private response sent to Zathras. Anyone else want to get the same reply just ask. I don't want to debate religion on the BABB lest I get a bad reputation.Now, don't leave such a cliffhanger! What evidence is that?There is evidence but we are getting away from astronomy here. The evidence is clear if you study all religions and get the bigger picture.
Trouble is, no matter what the evidence, if one believes in a god they are not likely to believe the evidence.
Established Member
To Dj I will always be happy to respond to comments I make I do take that as a responsibility.
First of all I did (sort of i quess) retract the mental state conclusion, and place It in "conditioning from infacy". Which I believe anybody from a different faith or there lack of, would come to this conclusion. I do not think it to be coincidental that most jews have jewish perants and moslims have moslims perants and so forth. I know some people find new faiths but i shure most people are what they were raised to be. If you care to argue this point please just send it private I admit this particular topic should not realy be here.Thus the reason for my request to you in your own words [without questioning anyone's mental pecularities]: can any scientist just give one just one piece of evidence for no creation.
But to the actual query this just is not scientific or fair. you can not just make a claim and everbody has to prove it wrong. That lays solely in the hands of religion not science. The unfiar part is if I just make up some wierd scenario with no proof and ask everybody else to prove it wrong then I'm just silly. But other people feel a type of imunity by saying " Its my religion" and everybody backs off and says "oh o.k. thats no problem I'm open". Well I don't, if I believe things people say make no sense then I ask them just like anybody toward me.
P.S. The "because I said so thing" did not work as a child and still does not.
Order of Kilopi
The statement implies that DJ is a creationist because he said "I am not a creationist who ..." as opposed to "I am not a creationist." You seem upset by the question and I'm not sure why because it is a genuine question I've been asking people claiming to be creationists because ultimately I'm trying to understand why some people cannot accept science and have their faith since I'm a person that believes that you can have faith in God and at the same time accept the findings of science. For me the question of intervention is a key question where I feel I can gain some insight into that.Zathras wrote: So how does the quoted statement imply that DJ is a creationist? What is your definition of a creationist? If it means nothing more than that God is the source of the universe, then just about everyone who is not an atheist is a creationist, myself included.
As I've said, no creationist has ever answered the question. You're the first. There are different "levels" of creationist. You have people who interpret the Bible literally. There is little to be gained in discussing science with them because they pretty much have to circumvent all the findings of science. Then you have people that believe in an old universe, but may believe in intervention - for example with the origin of life on a planet or the appearance of humans. Those are the people who my question is for. I guess my definition of a creationist (not a biblical literal creationist) would be a person that believes that a creator is actively guiding the operation of the universe (either continuously or intermittently) throughout its history.
Thanks for the answer!!Zathras wrote: As for your question, I'll give you my answer. I believe that the truth is somewhere between the two extremes you list. I do not believe in the clockmaker view of the universe, where God has set the universe up and lets it run on its own (a completely transcendent God), but neither do I believe that the universe has to have God constantly tweaking everything to have it run right (a completely immanent God).
This fits with my philosophy too. With regard to concious beings in the universe I can see a creator taking that subtle approach.zathras wrote: God's contact with the world is subtle but present, particularly in contact with humans (and any other sentient beings that may be out there). This contact can come through many pathways, the most direct of which is prayer. I believe that (almost) everyone benefits from this contact, whether they believe in God or not. I could go into more detail, but I don't know if this is the correct forum for this, unless you have more specific questions.
The key area I'm trying to explore here is what people think about intervention in the physical operation/processes of the universe. Take the formation of the Moon as an example. The current theory is the ~ Mars size planetesimal impact theory. Now some suggest that the Moon is an important factor in maintaining a stable climate on Earth because it stabilizes the axial tilt. There are more possible perspectives, but lets take a look at it from these two perspectives:
The creationist (not literalist) might say that the collision that produced the Moon was not a chance event , but was an act of the creator that wanted to make sure a climate suitable for life would be possible on our planet. So God set up that collision specifically.
The clockmaker view is that the universe was created with the rules it has and as a result of those rules events like the Moon's formation are bound to occur - thus by chance aiding the development of planets that will be capable of supporting life (again assuming that the Moon is in fact a part of the Earth's habitability as some have suggested).
While I cannot and have no interest in ruling out the creationist view, from the scientific point of view I prefer the clockmaker view on this.
The reason I have been asking creationists my original question, is that I'm genuinely interested in understanding why they find the intervention view preferable to the clockmaker view. Or perhaps a better way of stating it is why they sometimes insist on the intervention as opposed to the clockmaker.
I do not now and never have asked this question with disrespect for the creationist position. There is room in this world (universe) for both points of view. Its as much a matter of philosophy as of science for me. What I have personally found annoying is when I've tried to engage creationists on this question and they just completely ignore it.
Order of Kilopi
I'm going to extend upon my last post on the assumption that someone might be curious as to why I find the clockmaker view preferable to the intervention view. The reason is simple - science is about trying to find natural explanations for what we observe. Any time we use intervention of a creator as an explanation for something we leave the realm of testable hypotheses and enter the realm of religious faith.
However, there is a point of convergence where religious answers become as viable as scientific answers to a question. Two examples that I say fall on this convergence involve the appearance of the universe and the existence of the human soul. I'm sure some will debate this and I'm open to your ideas, but for me these are two questions that science cannot answer.
With regard to the origin of the universe what I mean is that whatever theory you accept (inflationary Big Bang, steady state or whatever else) cannot truly explain where the current universe first came from. If you say that the universe came from a fluctuation an a false vacuum then I'll ask where that fluctuation came from. If you say "The fluctation just was." then that is no different than saying "God just is".
What I've been curious about is why some people who understand and generally accept science, will extend God as an explanation into areas where science seems capable of offering answers (eg. evolution, origin of life on planets). Is it a simple matter that these creationists (again not biblical literalists) are not satisfied with the answers science has to this point provided?
Established Member
I was not at all upset by your question. Metaphysically speaking, this question is the ultimate structural question of existence, and it's one that should always be asked. With respect to the religion/science interface it certainly does set the boundaries of what is possible. Being trained both in science and theology I am interested in approaching this question from both sides. I do not know why certain Christians have problems with this boundary. As I have said in other threads, the very concept of a "literal" interpretation to Genesis is very modern-neither Augustine nor Aquinas would have argued that it contains a literal description of Creation.
With respect to the universe as a whole, I (on the whole) do agree with you. With respect to my theology, the universe is a pale imitation of eternity. If you have read Plato's Republic, the analogy of the Cave is particularly close to how I consider the relationship between God and the world.As I've said, no creationist has ever answered the question. You're the first. There are different "levels" of creationist. You have people who interpret the Bible literally. There is little to be gained in discussing science with them because they pretty much have to circumvent all the findings of science. Then you have people that believe in an old universe, but may believe in intervention - for example with the origin of life on a planet or the appearance of humans. Those are the people who my question is for. I guess my definition of a creationist (not a biblical literal creationist) would be a person that believes that a creator is actively guiding the operation of the universe (either continuously or intermittently) throughout its history.
Thanks for the answer!!Zathras wrote: As for your question, I'll give you my answer. I believe that the truth is somewhere between the two extremes you list. I do not believe in the clockmaker view of the universe, where God has set the universe up and lets it run on its own (a completely transcendent God), but neither do I believe that the universe has to have God constantly tweaking everything to have it run right (a completely immanent God).
I am sorry that you have had such unfortunate conversations with these people who call themselves Christians. Your compassionate effort to understand their point of view show that you are a better person than they.
This fits with my philosophy too. With regard to concious beings in the universe I can see a creator taking that subtle approach.zathras wrote: God's contact with the world is subtle but present, particularly in contact with humans (and any other sentient beings that may be out there). This contact can come through many pathways, the most direct of which is prayer. I believe that (almost) everyone benefits from this contact, whether they believe in God or not. I could go into more detail, but I don't know if this is the correct forum for this, unless you have more specific questions.
The key area I'm trying to explore here is what people think about intervention in the physical operation/processes of the universe. Take the formation of the Moon as an example. The current theory is the ~ Mars size planetesimal impact theory. Now some suggest that the Moon is an important factor in maintaining a stable climate on Earth because it stabilizes the axial tilt. There are more possible perspectives, but lets take a look at it from these two perspectives:
The creationist (not literalist) might say that the collision that produced the Moon was not a chance event , but was an act of the creator that wanted to make sure a climate suitable for life would be possible on our planet. So God set up that collision specifically.
The clockmaker view is that the universe was created with the rules it has and as a result of those rules events like the Moon's formation are bound to occur - thus by chance aiding the development of planets that will be capable of supporting life (again assuming that the Moon is in fact a part of the Earth's habitability as some have suggested).
While I cannot and have no interest in ruling out the creationist view, from the scientific point of view I prefer the clockmaker view on this.
The reason I have been asking creationists my original question, is that I'm genuinely interested in understanding why they find the intervention view preferable to the clockmaker view. Or perhaps a better way of stating it is why they sometimes insist on the intervention as opposed to the clockmaker.
I do not now and never have asked this question with disrespect for the creationist position. There is room in this world (universe) for both points of view. Its as much a matter of philosophy as of science for me. What I have personally found annoying is when I've tried to engage creationists on this question and they just completely ignore it.
One last note: I said before that one extreme was that God fine-tuned the clock constantly. There is a viewpoint even more extreme than that-namely, that the clock itself is merely part of God. This is part of an "oversoul" theory embraced by some Eastern Religions as well as some Wiccans. I certainly do not believe that extreme. There is more separation than God and the universe than that.
To beskeptical: Thanks for the PM. I certainly will have comments on that later.
Established Member
I agree with just about everything in this post. With regard to your comments on what areas for which science and religion have equal validity, I have one additional, probably more controversial example: consciousness. Consciousness is something that scientists have not been even able to make a consensus definition on, let aloe explain. Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence of the existence of what we call consciousness, since by its very nature, the only consciousness that is one can experience is one's own consciousness. The alternative of solipsism, as well as thought expiriments with a Turing machine demonstrate that consciouness is not empirically testable in another.
This aspect of consciousness leads to an important distinction with respect to religion. Many here have stated that faith is something believed without evidence. I do not think this is true without a proper definition of "evidence." For myself, I base by belief on God on more than just gut instinct-the existence of God in fact is self-evident to me. The problem comes in trying to communicate this "evidence" to another. I find that I cannot. I thought that I would have more ability than most to communicate this to atheists, because I myself was an atheist for many years, but this has not been made possible.
The path to faith is intensely personal and cannot be made otherwise (Kierkegaard). There are many people who will mouth off various tenets of their religion, but they have not reached any faith. If you really want to learn about Christianity, do not read the polemical books that say so-and-so is true because the Bible told me so. Read the works of the mystical tradition from Origen, St. John of the Cross, Hildegaard von Bingen, Thomas Merton and many others if you really want to learn about what faith is.
Posting Permissions
