My objection is that you ridicule the view that the universe has no beginning yet you are happy to suppose that some deity has no beginning.
My definition of universe was given to make clear that any reasoning about the matter created by the Big Bang must also apply to any entity causing the Big Bang. I would have just used an alternate word for "everything that ever exists, including deities" if I knew of any appropriate word other than "universe".
I said the universe (referring to all time, space and energy produced from the big bang) had no beginning because modern science leads us to believe that is the case. Yet, if the universe began to exist it must have a cause. Since time began with the big bang, that means the cause of the universe must itself be timeless. Only things that begin to exist need a cause, and since this cause of the big bang is itself timeless, it has no beginning - and therefore no need of a cause. If modern science turned around and said that the big bang was a false view, and that the universe stretches out infinitely into the past, then we would no longer have need for a "first cause". The universe itself would be that necessarily infinite existing thing.
So I do not just suppose that "some deity has no beginning" - there are very good reasons for thinking this is so. Certain reasoning as applied to the universe created by the big bang does not apply to its cause. As I said earlier, we believe time and space began with the big bang, so the cause of the big bang would itself be timeless and spaceless.
But then by your logic the cause of the universe exists, so it must itself have a cause. If you decide your God exists and is the ultimate cause, you then have to go back to something that caused Him.
Please note that the first premise is:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
As time itself began with the big bang, this means that the cause of the big bang/creation of the universe was itself timeless. A timeless cause needs no cause. Only things that begin to exist need a cause.
If there is a creator, it proves nothing. We know nothing about this creator... is he benevolent, malevonent, or apathetic? You are operating under the impression that any creator would have to be good... or even interested...
I never said that a Creator would have to be good or interested. Those are questions that can be explored once we establish if a Creator exists at all. I believe that the Creator is good, but that has no relevance to the argument. Also, you haven't given any reason to believe that we couldn't know if it is benevolent, malevolent, or apathetic. Sure, these are questions that would want answering, but what makes you so sure we couldn't? For example, if the Creator intervened directly, that would answer the question of whether it is interested in what it made. It might then reveal other facts. If there is a Creator, there may be messages within the Creation from it. But there is no reason to believe that there being a Creator explains nothing.
Your website (if it's yours) does not accurately respond to the argument. I did say that given that we don't understand how the universe began, it must be God. I also would not make that claim. I made a very different one - that you either believe the universe did begin to exist, or it did not. And if you believe it began to exist, you believe that it either had a cause or did not have a cause. These are the only options, according to the law of excluded middle. If, then, the universe both began to exist and has a cause, then we can draw some conclusions about that cause. I did not continue to explore that though, as it was not relevant to the thought I was responding to.
I define the universe as everything that ever exists. That's not just the current set of matter but also time itself and the rules that govern its physical evolution.
Sometimes people talk about alternate or parralel universes. We sometimes use the word "universe" to refer to a subset of all things that exist. My use of universe to refer to those things created by the big bang has ample precedent in conversation. Your objection is one of semantics.
1.) You beg the question of what caused the cause.
I don't beg this question. Only those things which have a beginning need a cause. A timeless entity has no beginning, and therefore no need for a cause.
2.) Why is spontaneous existence from nothingness more absurd than a timeless deity?
Please forgive me for not writing up a reply twice. Check this comment, to see if it answers your question
If something else caused the universe to come into being (you say created, which underscores your views), why must that something be a deity?
I did not give reasons to believe it must be a deity in my original post, and you are right. There is only so much argument a person can give in a post on slashdot. I've given the beginnings of reasons for believing it is an intelligent cause here. Though I don't flesh it out much here either.
Why do you have to explain everything without knowing anything? Is it that hard to say to yourself, "I don't know and I'm comfortable with not knowing for the time being"?
I don't understand what you are asking here. There are plenty of things I don't know, and am comfortable with not knowing. What is your point?
There's been a good response to your comment. I'll add a few thoughts:
Now A and B do not lead to C, no matter how you reason. If you want to have a drop of credibility, you'll have to support your claims. However, you can not, thus your logic is flawed.
You shouldn't declare victory before the battle is fought. I merely offered reasons for believing that the temporal universe we live in was born from a timeless cause. That does not mean that there are no reasons for believing that this timeless cause is intelligent. First, responding to your arguments:
What created the 'entity' you speak of? What came before it?
Given that we are talking about a timeless entity giving birth to a temporal universe, it is meaningless to ask what created it and what came 'before'. It is timeless, and therefore needs no cause. Only those things which have a beginning need a cause. This is not to say that the cause of the universe has no Creator - just that there is no need to look for one.
Why did it create the universe?
This question is beyond the scope or relevance of the argument at hand.
If you want to play the science game, you should be answering those questions. Science allows questions to be left open, but tries to answer as many as possible by using facts.
It is interesting that you invoke science, because your questions had nothing to do with science at all. They were questions that philosophers answer, not scientists. Science is not the only method by which we can learn the truth about our universe, but it is certainly a good one. There are some questions which science can never answer, and yet we can gain satisfactory and true answers by other means. Science deals with things that can be observed, tested, and repeated. Many truths are inaccessible to those means.
I'll get back now to your claim that I can offer no reasons to believe that this cause of the universe is intelligent. The cause of the universe is timeless. A timeless, unintelligent force cannot give rise to a temporal effect. Imagine an eternal rock. It has no mind, no intentions, and no desires. It cannot give birth to a temporal effect because it cannot do anything. What it does from eternity it will always do into eternity. There must be an intelligent cause of the universe that is able to act and intend to do things. An unintelligent timeless "thing" will not give birth to a temporal effect. This is only one of a few reasons, and I've presented it poorly - but such is the nature of slashdot, only a small space to present thoughts.
The problem with creationism is that the basic premise is "we don't understand it, so it must have been done by a deity." That statement is not scientific at all, since there's no real way to prove or disprove it.
It is not true that the Creationists make their claims because of a lack of understanding. Creationists, and more generally those of the ID viewpoint, say that there are evidences that lead us to conclude, positively, that an intelligence created a particular item. We see a watch, and we can immediately and positively claim that it was designed by an intelligent being. Those of ID follow the same reasoning we do to conclude the watch is designed, and apply it to the biological world.
So it is not a lack of understanding that causes someone to say that the world is created. I can understand the intricacies of a watch, and that will only further increase my belief that an intelligent being created it. Someone who adhered to the ID view would see the same thing about biological life - understanding how it works will only serve to further convince that it was designed, and not the product of undirected forces.
Scientists (the intellectually honest ones, at least), on the other hand, will say that we don't know yet, but we'll keep trying to find an answer.
It is wrong to put Creationists on one side and Scientists on the other. The two groups are not logically separate. It is true that someone cannot be both a human and a platypus. It is true, however, that someone can be both a Creationist and a Scientist.
You also miss one major possibility. You say that the universe cannot be infinitely old. You're assuming, though, that infinitely old means linearly infinitely old.
There are other arguments I did not present that show the impossibility of the universe being infinitely old. All I said earlier though was that current scientific evidence leads us to conclude that the universe did have a beginning. For the possibility you provide, there is not much evidence presented here for it, or a description of how the model would work. It seems to me that if time was circular so that it wrapped around, then we would be able to find ourselves arriving at the point where humans first supposedly evolved. Could we then interfere with evolution at that point? Where would the big bang fit in such a model? Anyway, I would need to see the model presented in full to then evaluate the possibility of it. However, I suspect that the model of that form would still not be infinite in the way required.
IANA cosmologigst but if spacetime is continually being created (stretched) as demonstrated by observing an expanding universe is it not possible that atomic particles "spontneously" arise in a similar manner to the "extra" spacetime?
The simplest answer to this is that any particles arising spontaneously by this method still are caused - whether the cause be the laws of the universe, or birth from existing matter. To say that the universe came from nothing is to say that it came into existence from no space, no time, no laws of physics, not even from a vacuum. The phenomena you described sounds very much like it has a cause.
Also there is a very good reason why faith in god must be blind.
This view is based on a false understanding of what faith means. This is a common misunderstanding, even a great number of Christians hold a false view through ignorance. Biblical faith means, simply, trust. You may have a friend who has demonstrated himself as a skillful and capable racing car driver. One day you are injured, and need him to drive you to a hospital quickly to save your life. You put your faith in him to do that - not because you lack proof, but precisely because you have had proof to demonstrate his skills. You put your faith in him on the basis of your evidence of his skill. It is foolish to say "I have faith in God because I cannot have proof". Rather, I have faith in God because I have seen Him prove Himself trustworthy. I put my trust in him based on evidence.
By Occams Razor, clearly your second option is preferrable over the third. I see no reason to postulate that there be a creator or creating entity unless there is evidence that requires an act of creation to explain. The fact that the universe exists is not in and of itself sufficient evidence, any more so than the existence of lightning is evidence for an entity that hurls lightning bolts from the heavens.
Tell me of something that began to exist that you believe came from nothing, and was caused from nothing. Do you see lightning in the sky and conclude that nothing caused it? If we use your applicatin of Occam's Razor, we would say then that the simplest explanation is that nothing causes lightning, as opposed to the current scientific explanation. If you hear an explosion, and are asked what caused it, do you say "nothing"? Unless you are willing to apply Occam's Razor consistently, then I don't see any reason why the universe having a beginning should be an exception to our experience that all things that begin to exist have a cause.
Further, given that time did not exist prior to the big bang, option three is defective by default: cause and effect (eg. 'something else caused the universe to be created') has no meaning if you take the concept of time out of the picture.
As has been pointed out by other philosophers, a cause can be simultaneous with an effect. It does not have to precede it. Therefore it is perfectly rational to believe that a timeless cause can give birth to a temporal effect. For example, a ball resting on a cushion is simultaneous with its effect of causing a depression in the cushion - it does not precede it.
I'm not following your reasoning. Why do you believe that there being a Creator explains nothing? There being a creator changes many things about the way we live life - the value of other humans, the nature of morality, their being an objective and external purpose to life. Describing the Creator is certainly outside the purview of science, but it it not outside the ability of humans to describe at least partially by other means.
Besides, the question of who designed the designer is going to lead us nowhere. If we allow ourselves that question, then we will ask, "who designed the designer of the designer?" and so on. There are perfectly rational reasons for believing that the Creator is itself uncreated. All things that begin to exist have a cause. However, those things which did not begin to exist need no cause. The Creator, as many understand him, is a timeless entity and therefore uncreated. Since time does not exist outside the universe, and indeed began with the big bang, it is meaningless to ask what was "before" the big bang - and indeed to ask who created that which had no beginning. Some philosophers believe that, for example, numbers have a timeless existence. It is meaningless to ask when numbers began to exist.
I think that the person you are replying to is referring to the big bang. If you look far back enough into the history of the universe, you get to a point where everything began to exist. At the singularity of the big bang, we find that both time and space began. There is no "before" the big bang, as time did not exist. This is a central part of the cosmological argument for God's existence:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
What came before the big bang? That question is meaningless, as time did not exist. So you have a few options, only one of them feasible. The first is that the universe is infinitely old and had no beginning. Once a view of atheists, this is no longer scientifically plausible. The second answer is that the universe came into existence from nothing - absolutely nothing. The third, and most reasonable, is that something else caused the universe to be created. This cause must itself be timeless, and spaceless, as time and space began to exist with the big bang.
So the atheist must either claim the absurdity that the universe came from nothing, or he(/she) must acknowledge that there was something that created it. And that *something* is inaccessible from scientific analysis. It is not, however, too far from the reach of philosophy and logic. We can draw reasonable conclusions about this entity.
You demonstrate an extremely common occurance of the fallacy of equivocation. Evolution is commonly defined as "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time." You are correct - that is observed, and is testable by repeatable experiments. It is a scientific fact upheld by numerous points of evidence.
However, creationists believe this too. Evolution and natural selection forms a central and key part of the creationist model of origins also. What is disputed is the absurd claim by Darwinists that all living things on earth today share a single common ancestor - a simple single celled organism from around 3 billion years ago.
Darwinism is filled with just-so stories about how a particular trait evolved. Darwinists cannot observe how a peacocks feathers evolved. They take guesses, and make stories about how it may have evolved, and how it may have given a selective advantage. Given the opposite trait, however, and Darwinism will again give a story to explain it. Darwinism contains many elements that are unobservable, untestable, and not possible to falsify. Darwinists are guilty of at least as much as they accuse Creationists.
Creationism is part science, part philosophy. So is Darwinism. It's just that Creationists don't hide the philosophical parts of their worldview, whereas Darwinists believe (falsely) that their view is entirely scientific. If "creationist pseudoscience" is a statement of fact, then so is "darwinist pseudoscience". The two are alike.
In fact I have personally run such experiments and personally witnessed the proof of this creative power.
Could you please share the results from your experiments please? What new useful ordered information did mutations produce? I don't doubt that this can happen.
Evolution no more addresses the origin of life than the theory of chemistry addresses the origin of elements.
You are right and wrong (assuming you refer to abiogenesis). Darwinism does not address abiogenesis, and *cannot*, and in that you are right. To think that this is outside of scientific pursuits, and therefore unimportant, is wrong. Consider the following argument:
1. Life cannot naturally arise from non-life
2. Life is here
3. Therefore, life must have arisen from non-natural causes
Such a conclusion leads us to an Intelligent Designer. And if there was an Intelligent Designer, then this has ramifications for many fields of human knowledge. Sure, it doesn't disqualify Darwinism, but it does have implications.
The fossil record lays out a strict family tree structure filled with intermediate forms at intermediate times, linking old forms to modern forms changing step by step with only one or a few "micro" changes at each step
I really don't think the fossile record is all that clear. The only example that I've seen that comes close to what you've said is the reptile->mammal sequence.
Generally the sticking point for creationists is the idea that a species can diverge, or become two distinct species.
Even this is not disputed by Creationists. I think the problem here is that there are a number of Creationists around who don't know anything about the Creation model or Darwinism. So they do much to misrepresent both sides.
Groups such as Answers in Genesis acknowledge speciation - and in fact draw notice to how quickly speciation can occur.
As for the natural history as accepted by scientists, it's tenuous and ever-changing. It's based on a very incomplete fossil record that may have significant gaps; it's a best guess and should not be considered absolute in any way.
The main difference is a question of direction. The Darwinist sees all life as having originated from a single celled organism, and over time mutations have produced the genetic material necessary to explain life as we see it today. Creationists on the other hand see mutations as a source of diversity, but an insufficient source to explain the full range of diversity we see. So processes like natural selection and adaptation will produce a more specialised/adapted species, but at the cost of a loss of diversity in the genetic pool of that population. So Darwinists see an "upward" progression beginning with very little diversity, while Creationists see a "downward" process, beginning with great diversity and over time there being a loss of information.
Darwin was attempting to describe how the full diversity of life we see today originated. He described a process whereby it would be possible for an ocean creature to have descendents that are land dwellers only. This idea Creationists reject. Humans were created distinct and separately from other animals, and share no ancestor other than the hand of their Creator.
So in some ways, there'd very little difference between the Creationist and the Darwinist - they both agree about the facts of natural selection, speciation, etc. But they disagree about the creative power of mutations, and about the beginnings and direction life took. These disagreements, in my opinion, are more philosophical in nature than scientific.
Explain the basics of evolution. Point out that it describes a system of nature, and not just an order of progression. The theory of evolution is not the idea that man evolved from monkeys. The idea comes from the theory, but is not an integral part of it. Evolution at its most basic level is simply stated as "life changes".
There is nothing in your post that a Creationist would disagree with. Define evolution as a "change in allele frequencies in a population over time" and you will find Creationists nod in agreement. Tell the creationist that natural selection plays a strong role in determining who survives, and thus the frequency of various alleles - again, you will have agreement. Commit the fallacy of equivocation, by changing the definition of evolution from above to 'all living things share a common ancestor' - and there you will get disagreement.
Creationists don't deny evolution when properly defined. They reject the Darwinist beliefs that all things share a common ancestor. When you define evolution in more than one way; demonstrate one definition as being true, then throw in another idea which goes by the same name (evolution), you are guilty of equivocation.
Many people are surprised that Creationists believe in evolution when defined as a "change in allele frequencies in a population over time". I've seen even greater surprise when I tell them that Creationists believe that natural selection takes place. This is *not* the area that they dispute. You would do well to define your own theory properly (not equivocate), and to understand that which you want to criticise.
This isn't an argument. All you've done is claim I'm a liar - without presenting reasons for your belief, there's nothing to debate. It's just your opinion, which in isolation is worthless.
that's because your very weak and dishonest mind cannot seperate "process of evolution" from "history of evolution"
Do you slander everyone you disagree with? Or are creationists reserved a special "privilege"?
On the contrary, creationists are very good at separating the definitions of evolution, as pointed out before. It's the Darwinists who fail to see the line between fact and fiction, and commit the fallacy of equivocation.
A) You're wrong, miller-urey were right, their initial findings were based off one model of earths early atmosphere
I was partially wrong, but that doesn't mean your original claim was correct. You are correct to say that there is new evidence that Miller-Urey did accurately simulate early earth conditions, but this is new research that I had not been aware of. It also wasn't mentioned in the link you provided that I can see.
However, my main point stands solid. You claimed these experiments show life coming from non-life, which is blatantly false. This is why I asked if you'd read the article you linked to. You claimed:
there are a lot of chemical reactions where "life can arise from non-life" given the proper conditions
(emphasis mine)
The article stated:
they demonstrated that a more complex molecule -- a few simpler amino-acids -- could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals
Amino acids are a far cry from life. So my original challenge stands. Name one experiment that shows life coming from non-life.
B) The lack of belief in religion has nothing to do with the validity of abiogenesis
Care to explain this? There's little meat in your claim. If there were no possible natural explanation for abiogenesis, then you tell me what that would mean.
C) You just misrepresented the beliefs of the anti-evolution creationists to attempt to further your argument, sorry I don't deal with liars
I did not deliberately misrepresent. Something is only considered lying when it is done deliberately. I was merely "misinformed" about the new research (article dated Sept 2005). By your standards you lied about life coming from non-life. Was that deliberate, or were you misinformed too?
That doesn't make me a bigot. I'm intolerant of people who treat me badly, as I specified. I don't care what you think, until you try tell me what to think or do myself, or obviously threaten my freedom or wellbeing. Like you - not all religious people
Right. So then, you think you have a right to be intolerant of all Creationists? Because, by definition, all Creationists tell you what to believe? And you, convinced you're right, don't *ever* try to convince someone else that they're wrong?
You can make the usual religious mistake of declaring you accept the Big Bang theory, but get it wrong. The Big Bang theory doesn't say "it just happened" like a miracle; you got it wrong because you don't understand the science. So I don't merely assume your rejection of the actual Big Bang: I can see that you do. Stop crowing about some kind of mistake that is all yours, from your pit of ignorance.
What on earth are you talking about? Do you usually just make claims without explaining them? The Big Bang theory makes no claim about its cause. Did you know that? Or do you have an alternate source of information, some pseudo-scientific model that gives a cause to the Big Bang? (such as the oscillating universe?) How exactly is it obvious to you that I don't understand the Big Bang? You might need to start explaining yourself instead of just slinging insults. You look a bit stupid saying I don't believe the Big Bang occurred, when I've told you plain as day I do. Maybe I'm lying about being a theist too!
You're a strange person, crying out "fool!" when all along you are the one who made the mistake. You still think that I reject the Big Bang? What argument are you making? That because you think I misunderstand it, that I must not accept the Big Bang? You'll need to start making sense if you hope to convince people you're rational.
Logic? Cut the crap. Your argument tries to say that because some people don't accept their childhood training until adulthood, that it didn't have an effect. That because some people become theists without childhood training (like who?) that theism is valid - without accounting for the other reasons why they become theists, like peer pressure or alcoholism. You want to use logic to justify your brand of faith, tell me the logical reason people choose faith. Don't bother - that's a contradiction, though I'm sure you love it anyway.
That was not my argument, but it shouldn't surprise me that you can miss the subtleties. You made the ignorant argument that theism is wrong because it is taught to children at a young age when they don't question. I was merely rebuking that argument by pointing out that some people become theists when they are adults, therefore your argument that theism is wrong just because they come to that knowledge in childhood is false. I was not claiming that theism is true for those reasons, I was merely saying that your stupid argument is invalid.
Imagine a murder scene. You see the murderer John holding a gun over the body and you call him guilty. Later on you find out that the person had been murdered hours before, with a knife. But, it was still the same person. So your belief that John was the murderer was true, but it was originally believed for the wrong reasons. That is the point of my argument - you can't just say religion is false because some people come to believe it in a way which you think is inadequate.
Do you have children? Will you raise them to choose between atheism and theism? Or will you impart to them your enormous wisdom on the lies of religion? Should I call your children fools if they grow up to be like their parent, raving mad at creationists and a die-hard atheist? Or do you think they, unlike theists, are allowed to be taught from a young age what their parent believes?
This is known as equivocation - in an argument, using two different meanings of a word. An example:
1. Everything made of gold is heavy
2. Sonya's heart is made of gold
C. Therefore, Sonya's heart is heavy
Obviously not a valid argument, and it uses equivocation to change the meaning of words mid-argument. This is used in arguments regarding Darwinism and the word 'evolution'. One minute evolution might mean 'a change in allele frequencies in a population over time', the next minute it means 'all living things share a common ancestor'.
Perhaps I misunderstood then when you said, 'stick your fake "respect for learning" up your blind, stupid ass.' But it does seem to fit the definition of 'bigot' as I quoted. If you're not intolerent of creationists, then I'd love to know what intolerence is. Woe to anyone on slashdot who disagrees with Darwinism...
As for missing your points, you're the one missing the points of testing. Maybe you accept the Big Bang on faith, but that's only because you can't understand the science. Your limited intellect doesn't reduce science to the primitive weakness of religion.
This is fresh. You make the mistake, and then try to make it sound like I'm the one making the mistake. You are the one who claimed I rejected the big bang. That was your mistake and your assumption. Now you're assuming that I accept the big bang on faith. You're assuming I don't understand the science for it. Did you read my innermost thoughts? Perhaps you've heard me say that to someone else? Maybe you hold an irrational belief that those who reject Darwinism can't understand science. No, I accept the big bang because of the tests and studies that point towards its occurance. So I have no idea what you're saying here. You must be confusing me with someone else.
Can't wait to see what embarrassing assumption you make next.
Any answer for why it's not blind faith to believe something comes from nothing?
"Freedom and knowledge" my ass - "Christian theism" is based on training children before they're old enough to question adult authority. Just like the rest of the world's religions. You've apparently fooled yourself easily enough. Find your own values somewhere they don't try to insult my intelligence.
And what of those adults who become theists? This is just a plain stupid argument. A lot of people probably do become theists because they were raised to be. That doesn't mean that:
a. theism is wrong
b. the sole reason anyone ever becomes a theist is because of upbringing
Ever studied logic?
I'm glad you were able to understand my argument so astutely.
Endless parade of people responding to this thread whose inability to understand science, and how theories like the Big Bang are not only not "blind belief", but testable in in the real present. Tests that yield results we use to do other things with the rest of the real world.
Perhaps it escaped your notice that I did not deny the big bang. In fact, I'll put it clearly: I believe the big bang occurred.
The atheist believes that the big bang was uncaused, and came from nothing.
*BANG!*
Atheist's Friend turns around startled, seeing a mess in the kitchen: what caused that?!?
Atheist: Nothing did!
Atheist's Friend: Nothing?
Atheist: Yes, nothing, my dear friend. It just happened!
No miracle that the theist claims is more absurd than the atheist's miracle.
Give me the atheistic agenda, freedom and knowledge and stick your fake "respect for learning" up your blind, stupid ass.
The hatred and bigotry you show for us theists is nothing less than remarkable. The "respect for learning" was me quoting back your own words to you. You may have missed that, too.
Freedom and knowledge are the cornerstones of Christian theism. Find your own values.
Slashdot Mirror
So I do not just suppose that "some deity has no beginning" - there are very good reasons for thinking this is so. Certain reasoning as applied to the universe created by the big bang does not apply to its cause. As I said earlier, we believe time and space began with the big bang, so the cause of the big bang would itself be timeless and spaceless.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
As time itself began with the big bang, this means that the cause of the big bang/creation of the universe was itself timeless. A timeless cause needs no cause. Only things that begin to exist need a cause.
Your website (if it's yours) does not accurately respond to the argument. I did say that given that we don't understand how the universe began, it must be God. I also would not make that claim. I made a very different one - that you either believe the universe did begin to exist, or it did not. And if you believe it began to exist, you believe that it either had a cause or did not have a cause. These are the only options, according to the law of excluded middle. If, then, the universe both began to exist and has a cause, then we can draw some conclusions about that cause. I did not continue to explore that though, as it was not relevant to the thought I was responding to.
I'll get back now to your claim that I can offer no reasons to believe that this cause of the universe is intelligent. The cause of the universe is timeless. A timeless, unintelligent force cannot give rise to a temporal effect. Imagine an eternal rock. It has no mind, no intentions, and no desires. It cannot give birth to a temporal effect because it cannot do anything. What it does from eternity it will always do into eternity. There must be an intelligent cause of the universe that is able to act and intend to do things. An unintelligent timeless "thing" will not give birth to a temporal effect. This is only one of a few reasons, and I've presented it poorly - but such is the nature of slashdot, only a small space to present thoughts.
So it is not a lack of understanding that causes someone to say that the world is created. I can understand the intricacies of a watch, and that will only further increase my belief that an intelligent being created it. Someone who adhered to the ID view would see the same thing about biological life - understanding how it works will only serve to further convince that it was designed, and not the product of undirected forces.
It is wrong to put Creationists on one side and Scientists on the other. The two groups are not logically separate. It is true that someone cannot be both a human and a platypus. It is true, however, that someone can be both a Creationist and a Scientist. There are other arguments I did not present that show the impossibility of the universe being infinitely old. All I said earlier though was that current scientific evidence leads us to conclude that the universe did have a beginning. For the possibility you provide, there is not much evidence presented here for it, or a description of how the model would work. It seems to me that if time was circular so that it wrapped around, then we would be able to find ourselves arriving at the point where humans first supposedly evolved. Could we then interfere with evolution at that point? Where would the big bang fit in such a model? Anyway, I would need to see the model presented in full to then evaluate the possibility of it. However, I suspect that the model of that form would still not be infinite in the way required.As has been pointed out by other philosophers, a cause can be simultaneous with an effect. It does not have to precede it. Therefore it is perfectly rational to believe that a timeless cause can give birth to a temporal effect. For example, a ball resting on a cushion is simultaneous with its effect of causing a depression in the cushion - it does not precede it.
I'm not following your reasoning. Why do you believe that there being a Creator explains nothing? There being a creator changes many things about the way we live life - the value of other humans, the nature of morality, their being an objective and external purpose to life. Describing the Creator is certainly outside the purview of science, but it it not outside the ability of humans to describe at least partially by other means.
Besides, the question of who designed the designer is going to lead us nowhere. If we allow ourselves that question, then we will ask, "who designed the designer of the designer?" and so on. There are perfectly rational reasons for believing that the Creator is itself uncreated. All things that begin to exist have a cause. However, those things which did not begin to exist need no cause. The Creator, as many understand him, is a timeless entity and therefore uncreated. Since time does not exist outside the universe, and indeed began with the big bang, it is meaningless to ask what was "before" the big bang - and indeed to ask who created that which had no beginning. Some philosophers believe that, for example, numbers have a timeless existence. It is meaningless to ask when numbers began to exist.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
What came before the big bang? That question is meaningless, as time did not exist. So you have a few options, only one of them feasible. The first is that the universe is infinitely old and had no beginning. Once a view of atheists, this is no longer scientifically plausible. The second answer is that the universe came into existence from nothing - absolutely nothing. The third, and most reasonable, is that something else caused the universe to be created. This cause must itself be timeless, and spaceless, as time and space began to exist with the big bang.
So the atheist must either claim the absurdity that the universe came from nothing, or he(/she) must acknowledge that there was something that created it. And that *something* is inaccessible from scientific analysis. It is not, however, too far from the reach of philosophy and logic. We can draw reasonable conclusions about this entity.
You demonstrate an extremely common occurance of the fallacy of equivocation. Evolution is commonly defined as "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time." You are correct - that is observed, and is testable by repeatable experiments. It is a scientific fact upheld by numerous points of evidence.
However, creationists believe this too. Evolution and natural selection forms a central and key part of the creationist model of origins also. What is disputed is the absurd claim by Darwinists that all living things on earth today share a single common ancestor - a simple single celled organism from around 3 billion years ago.
Darwinism is filled with just-so stories about how a particular trait evolved. Darwinists cannot observe how a peacocks feathers evolved. They take guesses, and make stories about how it may have evolved, and how it may have given a selective advantage. Given the opposite trait, however, and Darwinism will again give a story to explain it. Darwinism contains many elements that are unobservable, untestable, and not possible to falsify. Darwinists are guilty of at least as much as they accuse Creationists.
Creationism is part science, part philosophy. So is Darwinism. It's just that Creationists don't hide the philosophical parts of their worldview, whereas Darwinists believe (falsely) that their view is entirely scientific. If "creationist pseudoscience" is a statement of fact, then so is "darwinist pseudoscience". The two are alike.
Could you please share the results from your experiments please? What new useful ordered information did mutations produce? I don't doubt that this can happen.
Evolution no more addresses the origin of life than the theory of chemistry addresses the origin of elements.
You are right and wrong (assuming you refer to abiogenesis). Darwinism does not address abiogenesis, and *cannot*, and in that you are right. To think that this is outside of scientific pursuits, and therefore unimportant, is wrong. Consider the following argument:
1. Life cannot naturally arise from non-life
2. Life is here
3. Therefore, life must have arisen from non-natural causes
Such a conclusion leads us to an Intelligent Designer. And if there was an Intelligent Designer, then this has ramifications for many fields of human knowledge. Sure, it doesn't disqualify Darwinism, but it does have implications.
The fossil record lays out a strict family tree structure filled with intermediate forms at intermediate times, linking old forms to modern forms changing step by step with only one or a few "micro" changes at each step
I really don't think the fossile record is all that clear. The only example that I've seen that comes close to what you've said is the reptile->mammal sequence.
Groups such as Answers in Genesis acknowledge speciation - and in fact draw notice to how quickly speciation can occur.
The main difference is a question of direction. The Darwinist sees all life as having originated from a single celled organism, and over time mutations have produced the genetic material necessary to explain life as we see it today. Creationists on the other hand see mutations as a source of diversity, but an insufficient source to explain the full range of diversity we see. So processes like natural selection and adaptation will produce a more specialised/adapted species, but at the cost of a loss of diversity in the genetic pool of that population. So Darwinists see an "upward" progression beginning with very little diversity, while Creationists see a "downward" process, beginning with great diversity and over time there being a loss of information.Darwin was attempting to describe how the full diversity of life we see today originated. He described a process whereby it would be possible for an ocean creature to have descendents that are land dwellers only. This idea Creationists reject. Humans were created distinct and separately from other animals, and share no ancestor other than the hand of their Creator.
So in some ways, there'd very little difference between the Creationist and the Darwinist - they both agree about the facts of natural selection, speciation, etc. But they disagree about the creative power of mutations, and about the beginnings and direction life took. These disagreements, in my opinion, are more philosophical in nature than scientific.
There is nothing in your post that a Creationist would disagree with. Define evolution as a "change in allele frequencies in a population over time" and you will find Creationists nod in agreement. Tell the creationist that natural selection plays a strong role in determining who survives, and thus the frequency of various alleles - again, you will have agreement. Commit the fallacy of equivocation, by changing the definition of evolution from above to 'all living things share a common ancestor' - and there you will get disagreement.
Creationists don't deny evolution when properly defined. They reject the Darwinist beliefs that all things share a common ancestor. When you define evolution in more than one way; demonstrate one definition as being true, then throw in another idea which goes by the same name (evolution), you are guilty of equivocation.
Many people are surprised that Creationists believe in evolution when defined as a "change in allele frequencies in a population over time". I've seen even greater surprise when I tell them that Creationists believe that natural selection takes place. This is *not* the area that they dispute. You would do well to define your own theory properly (not equivocate), and to understand that which you want to criticise.
Maybe we should just ban the bible, solve all our problems.
This isn't an argument. All you've done is claim I'm a liar - without presenting reasons for your belief, there's nothing to debate. It's just your opinion, which in isolation is worthless.
On the contrary, creationists are very good at separating the definitions of evolution, as pointed out before. It's the Darwinists who fail to see the line between fact and fiction, and commit the fallacy of equivocation.
However, my main point stands solid. You claimed these experiments show life coming from non-life, which is blatantly false. This is why I asked if you'd read the article you linked to. You claimed:
(emphasis mine) The article stated:Amino acids are a far cry from life. So my original challenge stands. Name one experiment that shows life coming from non-life. Care to explain this? There's little meat in your claim. If there were no possible natural explanation for abiogenesis, then you tell me what that would mean. I did not deliberately misrepresent. Something is only considered lying when it is done deliberately. I was merely "misinformed" about the new research (article dated Sept 2005). By your standards you lied about life coming from non-life. Was that deliberate, or were you misinformed too?
Right. So then, you think you have a right to be intolerant of all Creationists? Because, by definition, all Creationists tell you what to believe? And you, convinced you're right, don't *ever* try to convince someone else that they're wrong?
What on earth are you talking about? Do you usually just make claims without explaining them? The Big Bang theory makes no claim about its cause. Did you know that? Or do you have an alternate source of information, some pseudo-scientific model that gives a cause to the Big Bang? (such as the oscillating universe?) How exactly is it obvious to you that I don't understand the Big Bang? You might need to start explaining yourself instead of just slinging insults. You look a bit stupid saying I don't believe the Big Bang occurred, when I've told you plain as day I do. Maybe I'm lying about being a theist too!
You're a strange person, crying out "fool!" when all along you are the one who made the mistake. You still think that I reject the Big Bang? What argument are you making? That because you think I misunderstand it, that I must not accept the Big Bang? You'll need to start making sense if you hope to convince people you're rational.
That was not my argument, but it shouldn't surprise me that you can miss the subtleties. You made the ignorant argument that theism is wrong because it is taught to children at a young age when they don't question. I was merely rebuking that argument by pointing out that some people become theists when they are adults, therefore your argument that theism is wrong just because they come to that knowledge in childhood is false. I was not claiming that theism is true for those reasons, I was merely saying that your stupid argument is invalid.Imagine a murder scene. You see the murderer John holding a gun over the body and you call him guilty. Later on you find out that the person had been murdered hours before, with a knife. But, it was still the same person. So your belief that John was the murderer was true, but it was originally believed for the wrong reasons. That is the point of my argument - you can't just say religion is false because some people come to believe it in a way which you think is inadequate.
Do you have children? Will you raise them to choose between atheism and theism? Or will you impart to them your enormous wisdom on the lies of religion? Should I call your children fools if they grow up to be like their parent, raving mad at creationists and a die-hard atheist? Or do you think they, unlike theists, are allowed to be taught from a young age what their parent believes?
1. Everything made of gold is heavy
2. Sonya's heart is made of gold
C. Therefore, Sonya's heart is heavy
Obviously not a valid argument, and it uses equivocation to change the meaning of words mid-argument. This is used in arguments regarding Darwinism and the word 'evolution'. One minute evolution might mean 'a change in allele frequencies in a population over time', the next minute it means 'all living things share a common ancestor'.
http://www.answers.com/bigot&r=67
Perhaps I misunderstood then when you said, 'stick your fake "respect for learning" up your blind, stupid ass.' But it does seem to fit the definition of 'bigot' as I quoted. If you're not intolerent of creationists, then I'd love to know what intolerence is. Woe to anyone on slashdot who disagrees with Darwinism...
This is fresh. You make the mistake, and then try to make it sound like I'm the one making the mistake. You are the one who claimed I rejected the big bang. That was your mistake and your assumption. Now you're assuming that I accept the big bang on faith. You're assuming I don't understand the science for it. Did you read my innermost thoughts? Perhaps you've heard me say that to someone else? Maybe you hold an irrational belief that those who reject Darwinism can't understand science. No, I accept the big bang because of the tests and studies that point towards its occurance. So I have no idea what you're saying here. You must be confusing me with someone else.
Can't wait to see what embarrassing assumption you make next.
Any answer for why it's not blind faith to believe something comes from nothing?
And what of those adults who become theists? This is just a plain stupid argument. A lot of people probably do become theists because they were raised to be. That doesn't mean that:
a. theism is wrong
b. the sole reason anyone ever becomes a theist is because of upbringing
Ever studied logic?
Perhaps it escaped your notice that I did not deny the big bang. In fact, I'll put it clearly: I believe the big bang occurred.
The atheist believes that the big bang was uncaused, and came from nothing.
*BANG!*
Atheist's Friend turns around startled, seeing a mess in the kitchen: what caused that?!?
Atheist: Nothing did!
Atheist's Friend: Nothing?
Atheist: Yes, nothing, my dear friend. It just happened!
No miracle that the theist claims is more absurd than the atheist's miracle.
Give me the atheistic agenda, freedom and knowledge and stick your fake "respect for learning" up your blind, stupid ass.
The hatred and bigotry you show for us theists is nothing less than remarkable. The "respect for learning" was me quoting back your own words to you. You may have missed that, too.
Freedom and knowledge are the cornerstones of Christian theism. Find your own values.