Creation vs. Evolution

[dave3712]

defining God is required before caliming he exists...

defining God is required before caliming he exists...

But do atheists really assert this to you, that gods don't exist?

....do you claim to know that God exists or are you somewhat of an agnostic theist and thus prepared to some extent to be wrong? .

An agnostic says he doesn't KNOW, an Atheist is sure no god exists.

Both FAIL to have define the term, so we can be sure they have not really examined the subject of God(s).


Einstein and Spinoza defined the god to which they were referring by identifying "him" as the force behind the ever unfolding next frame of Reality which is almighty over the Living, and requires every species to adapt to its Natural Laws or become extinct.

That God is real to sane people.

 

[Hedshaker]

And there you have your answer Al.

When dealing with true believers there can be no compromise. They know the absolute truth an anyone who disagrees with them must be insane.

Shudder! So very glad I don't subscribe to it!!

 

[gcthomas]

An agnostic says he doesn't KNOW, an Atheist is sure no god exists.

Both FAIL to have define the term.

Agnostics claim not to have sure knowledge, while atheists don't think there are gods.

I am an agnostic atheist, as, i believe, is Al. The terms are generally well defined by atheists, so you got that wrong as well. :up:

 

[Hedshaker]

Agnostics claim not to have sure knowledge, while atheists don't think there are gods.

I am an agnostic atheist, as, i believe, is Al. The terms are generally well defined by atheists, so you got that wrong as well. :up:

Al is indeed an agnostic atheist, and has said so many times, as am I, though I'm uncomfortable with being labelled by someone else's belief system. How could anyone possibly "KNOW" there are no gods, any more than they could know there are no fairies or big foot or alien abductor? They can't know. No one can, but they are free to disbelieve.

But to true believers disbelief some how equates to knowing. Maybe it's a mechanism designed to prevent cognitive dissonance, dunno. But It's very sad.

 

[alwight]

An agnostic says he doesn't KNOW, an Atheist is sure no god exists.


Both FAIL to have define the term, so we can be sure they have not really examined the subject of God(s).


Einstein and Spinoza defined the god to which they were referring by identifying "him" as the force behind the ever unfolding next frame of Reality which is almighty over the Living, and requires every species to adapt to its Natural Laws or become extinct.

That God is real to sane people.

I am an atheist simply because I don't believe in any gods, not because I know that there are none, which I don't. Theism is about belief in god(s), I don't believe, making me atheistic but also agnostic.

Knowledge of gods existing or not is not excluded by holding a theistic or atheistic belief unless perhaps it is also an absolute belief.
Many theists seem to have a problem with theism not being an absolute or gnostic notion of knowledge for some reason.

If some are claiming to have an absolute "gnostic" knowledge of God as some people will often do imo then I would expect that that knowledge would be unusually detailed and to have a remarkably good parity too between those claiming to "know".
So do you have an absolute "gnostic" belief in God and if so how can you justify it?
Is it not possible to simply believe that God probably exists without an absolute certainty or knowledge (agnostic theist)?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Ben,

Great Post 736!! And Post 739!! You are on a ROLL! Thanks for your words and wisdom. I just had to give you some good rep. pts. for that.

God Watch Over You

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Dave3712,

Thanks for Post. #742. Very excellent! I gave you some good rep pts. too!! Wonderful.

God's Spirit Overshadow You

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear hedshaker and Alwight,

You don't seem to know the nature of my animal here. I HAVE been VISITED by God and that's why I believe in Him so strongly. Before He visited me, I believed in Him, but now I know for a fact, so it's hard when someone tells me He doesn't. For me, I am thankful for the experiences I've gone through. I've also initially had 3 angels visit me within the space of 3 weeks. The 2nd angel said, "Babylon is fallen" and the 3rd angel said, "Do not follow after the beast and his image, nor receive his mark (power) in your right hand or forehead (mind). And the 1st angel that visited me left me in GREAT AWE and I was sorely amazed. I've already written what the 1st angel said to me a number of times on this site, but if you want to know, the 1st angel declared loudly and commandingly, "Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour (time) of His judgement has come upon all of the earth, and worship Him Who made the earth and the heaven, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." So you must be able to understand why I believe the way I do. That is only touching the iceberg of all that I've experienced since then. I've had two visions and a number of visits by the Holy Spirit.. I know it sounds highly improbable, but it all has happened to me, so what am I suppose to do?? Disbelieve it?? Kick sand in God' Face? No way!!

I Serve The One Who Loved Me Before I Even Knew Him

 

[alwight]

Dear hedshaker and Alwight,

You don't seem to know the nature of my animal here. I HAVE been VISITED by God and that's why I believe in Him so strongly.

I believe that you believe that.

Before He visited me, I believed in Him, but now I know for a fact, so it's hard when someone tells me He doesn't. For me, I am thankful for the experiences I've gone through. I've also initially had 3 angels visit me within the space of 3 weeks. The 2nd angel said, "Babylon is fallen" and the 3rd angel said, "Do not follow after the beast and his image, nor receive his mark (power) in your right hand or forehead (mind). And the 1st angel that visited me left me in GREAT AWE and I was sorely amazed. I've already written what the 1st angel said to me a number of times on this site, but if you want to know, the 1st angel declared loudly and commandingly, "Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour (time) of His judgement has come upon all of the earth, and worship Him Who made the earth and the heaven, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." So you must be able to understand why I believe the way I do. That is only touching the iceberg of all that I've experienced since then. I've had two visions and a number of visits by the Holy Spirit.. I know it sounds highly improbable, but it all has happened to me, so what am I suppose to do?? Disbelieve it?? Kick sand in God' Face? No way!!

I however don't believe that any actual "angels" ever visited you Michael, only to repeat stock Biblical "coded" words such as "Babylon is fallen" and "Do not follow after the beast and his image, nor receive his mark (power) in your right hand or forehead (mind).". Why would you not have a more specific and up to date talk on what this all referred to in the context of the modern world?:think:

I Serve The One Who Loved Me Before I Even Knew Him

One angel might do it for me but you get three. Your God apparently loves you more than me Michael.:noid:

 

[Ben Masada]

Matter makes up only a small fraction of the universe, so the behaviour of matter specifically does not impact on discussions about the universe as a whole, which is more to do with the relations between matter, light and the fundamental forces.

That's the argument?! "It's obvious." Sheesh, I had hoped you would come up with something a little more thoughtful than that.

Lamaitre is quite properly known by scientists as the father of the big bang theory, so imputing the honesty of physicists for ignoring his contribution leaves you smelling of dishonesty in this discussion. Lamaitre himself insisted that the big bang theory left no room for knowing God and that it allowed materialists to deny the necessity of a God.

No assertion was made by myself or others in this thread to that effect. Could you please limit yourself to criticising things that have actually been said?

Merely an assertion without either clear logic or evidence to support it.

And I note that you still seem happy to insist both that the universe needed an existential cause while the creator did not. Where is the logic now?

Is there anything more logical than Logic itself? I think you don't have a clear idea of what Logic is. Some kind of anti-Jewish or anti-Theism is clouding your mind.

 

[Ben Masada]

Firstly why specifically would claiming that God does not exist be any more fallacious than claiming the opposite?
Special pleading perhaps negates any fallacy on your side somehow?

But do atheists really assert this to you, that gods don't exist? I doubt it.
Who here has ever claimed that kind of knowledge, not me btw.
I at least am not sure that no gods exist, I simply don't claim to know.
Even specific gods or God of religions could, I suppose, perhaps exist, though I personally doubt that very much, but along with most other atheists in my experience I am also agnostic and don't claim to know and tend to lean decidedly towards disbelieve rather than belief, but where does anyone's claimed absolute certainty either way come from? Search me. :idunno:

Let's put generalising about all atheists to one side for a moment, do you claim to know that God exists or are you somewhat of an agnostic theist and thus prepared to some extent to be wrong? Just as I am prepared to be wrong on my side of the fence? However theists in my experience don't usually want to admit to having any such doubts.

If Logic is wrong, so I am wrong. If my testimony about the existence of God seems fallacious to you, there is just one way to make me change my mind: Your proof that the universe could have caused itself into existence. Try it and you will see that I am a man of my word. I'll give up Theism for Atheism in a fraction of time. It means we are back to square one because I am sure you can't.

 

[gcthomas]

Is there anything more logical than Logic itself? I think you don't have a clear idea of what Logic is. Some kind of anti-Jewish or anti-Theism is clouding your mind.

Your logic seems to consist of saying that since the things with which you are familiar have a beginning, then things which are unfamiliar must also have beginnings. And since I don't know what caused it then you know for sure it was a God.

Did I miss something? You have set up a premise and stated a conclusion, whilst leaving out the logic part. Doesn't seem like it is watertight enough to convince a high school debating society, let alone grown-ups.

And you have skipped the obvious follow up question again, so I'll repeat it. If the universe must have a creator because it now exists, then if God exists, what created God?

 

[dave3712]

...axiom of Cause and Effect...

...axiom of Cause and Effect...

Your logic seems to consist of saying that since the things with which you are familiar have a beginning, then things which are unfamiliar must also have beginnings. And since I don't know what caused it then you know for sure it was a God.

Did I miss something? You have set up a premise and stated a conclusion, whilst leaving out the logic part. Doesn't seem like it is watertight enough to convince a high school debating society, let alone grown-ups.

And you have skipped the obvious follow up question again, so I'll repeat it. If the universe must have a creator because it now exists, then if God exists, what created God?

Masada is merely using the logic/mathematical discipline of Science to justify a First Cause.

That First Cause is a required Axiom for using Science to explain things, since we have no way of obtaining evidence to explain the very first cause of the Big Bang.
Masada rationally equates this First Cause with the idea of a Creator, which logically follows.

Seems to be a reasonable and justifiable rationale.

 

[alwight]

If Logic is wrong, so I am wrong.

I don't think that your presumed "logic" actually stands up too well when there are probably unknowns involved.
Why anything at all, including any god, should exist is for me the ultimate unknown. If you want to call that unknown "God" or "Yahweh" then that's up to you but I don't think that in itself it would add a satisfactory explanation or knowledge.

If my testimony about the existence of God seems fallacious to you, there is just one way to make me change my mind: Your proof that the universe could have caused itself into existence. Try it and you will see that I am a man of my word. I'll give up Theism for Atheism in a fraction of time. It means we are back to square one because I am sure you can't.

For your "God" to mean anything then simply being a "logically" supposed "uncaused-cause" would just be a convenient way to escape an otherwise infinite regression (of turtles all the way down).
Darwinian evolution occurs regardless of how life began while the universe goes on expanding however it was originally caused.
What actually is there that requires a godly input?

 

[gcthomas]

Masada is merely using the logic/mathematical discipline of Science to justify a First Cause.

That First Cause is a required Axiom for using Science to explain things, since we have no way of obtaining evidence to explain the very first cause of the Big Bang.
Masada rationally equates this First Cause with the idea of a Creator, which logically follows.

Seems to be a reasonable and justifiable rationale.

Neither he nor you are using 'the discipline of science'. There is no firm reason to invoke a First Cause, and there is no required axiom of science to support you in this.

Linking an hypothesised first cause to a creator god may rational, but it is not science and it is unsupported by either theory or evidence.

The amateur logic used in his argument is laughably incomplete: Descartes did a much better job of it and his conclusions and reasoning are roundly rejected from scientific discourse.

Since Masada is unwilling to test his shallow philosophical logic, perhaps you could help him out? Since everything needs a cause, as he says, would you elaborate on God's cause in his schema?

 

[Hedshaker]

I just had little search and found this site. Interesting stuff.

What existed before the big bang?

There's a lot more to it than religious beliefs. The idea that once there was nothing (in which case the term "once" has no meaning,) and then up popped a creator, or always existed, which is essentially the same thing since existence hadn't yet began in this scenario, and poofed the universe, is absurd.

If we ever get to learn more about the universes origin and the Big Bang event I suspect it will be way, way stranger than anyone's cherished beliefs.

 

[freelight]

evolution and the illusion of time.......

evolution and the illusion of time.......

Your question does not make any sense but I am going to try to answer it. It happens that the universe is composed of matter and it has been proven as a fact of everyday life that matter has a beginning and an end. Therefore it is only obvious that the universe had a beginning. Besides, the majority of scientists especially astrophysicists are unanimous at adopting the BB as the closest-to-the-truth step ever achieved for the beginning of the universe albeit their missing to quote the great theist George Lemaitre as the author of the theory. There is no logical argument to assert that the universe was not caused.

There are other possible theroies to creation and some physicists question the BB theory, in certain particulars, context, etc.

Therefore the Creator simply becomes obvious. Someone or Something had to cause the universe to exist.

If we presuppose an uncaused eternal Creator out of which creation arose,...we still have some interesting juxtaposes to consider, since space-time would have a definite beginning as some point in eternity, from which creation rolls on endlessly perhaps, or undergoes continual cycles of expansion/contraction; birth, death, rebirth.

Genesis speaks of this creation being 'a' beginning,...which could allow for there to be multiple creations strewn thru-out eternity before this local universe creation began. If a creative intelligence or Deity initiated material creation, we could call that 'God' or any number of creator-gods that emenate from a hierarchal procession from that original ONE. - either way,....there is energy, light, consciousness, elements, matter...which make up creation. All of it comes from an infinite source, no matter that point in time it makes an appearance or comes into 'form'.

As shared earlier here,...All that exists is 'creation' and its 'evolution'. This is all that there is, as existence itself and its observable phenomena proves. Anything prior to or beyond this 'creation' would be of an invisible substance or aether outside of ordinary sensual perception. It could be the 'womb' or 'mother' of all material creation.


In-joy!



paulie

 

[freelight]

The nucleus of creation......

The nucleus of creation......

And you have skipped the obvious follow up question again, so I'll repeat it. If the universe must have a creator because it now exists, then if God exists, what created God?

See this post-commentary here, which also contains a link to another thread on the subject

No one need create 'God' or 'gods', although these may arise in consciousness as various 'conceptions' by sundry definitions. Existence is. This is all. - our denominations of space-time or perceptions of dimension are relative to point of view. In infinity, all points dissolve into their source and any points arising are potentially endless.

Obviously what is not created but eternally exists is supposed to be the SOURCE of all creation, that formless substance of Spirit or Infinite Intelligence being the Father-Mother of all formal existence, that quiscient divine center from which all material worlds have emerged and evolve around, like a divine nucleus In this context, 'God' is the First Source and Center of all cosmic creation.

We could explore other analogies.......

But this will suffice for now,


Namaste,


pj

 

[dave3712]

dave3712:
Masada is merely using the logic/mathematical discipline of Science to justify a First Cause.
Seems to be a reasonable and justifiable rationale.


gcthomas:
Neither he nor you are using 'the discipline of science'. There is no firm reason to invoke a First Cause, and there is no required axiom of science to support you in this.

Yes we are.
The science of the Copenhagen Interpretation supports what I have said.

 

[noguru]

Yes there is science to support this First Cause idea.


The Copenhagen Interpretation that founds the science of Quantum Mechanics states that nothing exists materially until the Wave carrying the information about that matter is collapsed by direct observation by and observer.

This science explains the Double Slit Experiment which you may have read about.

But, when we apply this idea to the moment of the Big Bang, it requires that some observer was present, outside of the Universe that was about to form.
The initial Waves of Elemental Particles were collapsed by that observer or "creator," de facto the Cosmos is here.

That interpretation has nothing to do with evidence of a first cause. The concepts which started debate had to do with quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment. The Copenhagen Interpretation. Neils Bohr's view can be summed up by the following:

The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics. It holds that quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy quanta, entities that fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves. The act of measurement causes the set of probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible values. This feature of the mathematics is known as wavefunction collapse. The essential concepts of the interpretation were devised by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and others in the years 1924–27.

Einstein's view which caused him to state the following;

God does not play dice with the universe.

totally dismantles your claim that this is evidence of an initial cause. Einstein simply realized that there is no wavecollapse function. The mere fact of human observation of quantum events is simply a snap shot of dynamic factors in quantum mechanics. These phenomena are constantly changing and an instant of human observation is just those phenomena in a static state because it is a snap shot and not a moving picture. Even if human observation caused a "wavecollapse" function this does nothing to support intitial cause. Because if the initial is an observer, as you must be claiming form your statement, then it would certainly not also take a human observer to create a "wavecollapse" function.