Originally posted by Da PittmanI understand your basic argument, and believe it or not, I'm not suggesting you're altogether wrong.
This is my point; it is complex because we do not fully understand it down to the very basic levels. This is like us trying to figure out trigonometry without understanding basic math. We are only in the infant stage of understanding of human biology and the leaps we have made in just the past 50 years. It took us until the 19th century to find and figure out how to use the atom, now the technology to use it is common place and everyone and their grandmother uses it.
But try to understand my point. For a scientist to say, "We don't know yet, but someday we'll figure it out," may prove to be a true statement, but it is not a scientific statement. Rather, it is a statement of faith...in science...in human intellect. It is a metaphysical argument. Once we cross the threshold into metaphysics, then first cause issues come into play. Science doesn't (necessarily) have to concern itself with causation; metaphysical philosophy does. The first rule of metaphysics states, "Everything which begins to exist has a cause."
Originally posted by Tim Rout😆 I hope that was a joke
Drake is only relevant if one accepts the existence of aliens. Show me life indigenous to another planet and we'll talk. 🙂As to the relative complexity of snow flakes, two considerations:
1. The relative complexity of snow flakes is incomparable to biological mechanisms.
2. We have only your word that God didn't create snow flakes. 🙂
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Drake is only relevant if one accepts the existence of aliens. Show me life indigenous to another planet and we'll talk. 🙂As to the relative complexity of snow flakes, two considerations:
1. The relative complexity of snow flakes is incomparable to biological mechanisms.
2. We have only your word that God didn't create snow flakes. 🙂
And we only have your word that a god created life.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonNow we're getting somewhere!
And we only have your word that a god created life.
Unsupported assertions are meaningless, whether such assertions support or oppose the existence (or creative activities) of God. As I have shared previously, I believe the weight of evidential probability leans favorably toward both God's existence and authorship.
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Now we're getting somewhere!Unsupported assertions are meaningless, whether such assertions support or oppose the existence (or creative activities) of God. As I have shared previously, I believe the weight of evidential probability leans favorably toward both God's existence and authorship.
Are those assertions so meaningless that we choose only choose to address them?
You can claim god all you want, when rebuked by many who profess pomp to be a suitable reward for pageantry.
Originally posted by AngryManateeIf one asserts that God is not responsible for the inception of the universe (or life), then one assumes the burden of proof. Prove to me that life could begin all on its lonesome, and you'll have a substantive basis for your objection to divine creation. Indeed, given that intelligent design has at least some evidential weight behind it, and spontaneous generation has none, logic demands that we take ID seriously.
It's just your standard "______ has yet to ________ how __________ can be acomplished without the assistance of an intelligence."🙄
Originally posted by Tim Rout
If one asserts that God is not responsible for the inception of the universe (or life), then one assumes the burden of proof. Prove to me that life could begin all on its lonesome, and you'll have a substantive basis for your objection to divine creation. Indeed, given that intelligent design has at least some evidential weight behind it, and spontaneous generation has none, logic demands that we take ID seriously.
There is no actual witnessing of life being created, but such occurences such as the self-assembly of protobionts and RNA fragments in multiple early earth scenarios helps to support the theory. Of course, initial creation has nothing to do with evolution.
Not to mention, ID has no logic behind it. It is merely a god-of-gaps arguement. It just gives you an concrete answer to something without any proof, which is quite the opposite of logic.
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Now we're getting somewhere!Unsupported assertions are meaningless, whether such assertions support or oppose the existence (or creative activities) of God. As I have shared previously, I believe the weight of evidential probability leans favorably toward both God's existence and authorship.
However, I do not believe that universe was created. I believe it has been in existence for eternity. In the past the universe was very small, but no one knows what it was like before that. Energy cannot be created. If you want to talk about unsupported assertions, the god of the bible is one of the largest unsupported assertions.
Originally posted by Tim RoutActually the burden of proof would be on the one that supports the ID theory because they are giving their theory of the possible creation of life. There is no supporting evidence of this theory and their never will be, the very theory is based on lack of evidence and assumptions based on current level of knowledge and technology. The last time I checked I don’t see any ID science out there trying to prove that ID is correct, only trying to prove the ones that say there could be another way. The only way that your concept would be acceptable if it is the generally accepted concept, if we were talking in a church then you would be correct because I would be trying to convince ID believers and the reverse would be true as well.
If one asserts that God is not responsible for the inception of the universe (or life), then one assumes the burden of proof. Prove to me that life could begin all on its lonesome, and you'll have a substantive basis for your objection to divine creation. Indeed, given that intelligent design has at least some evidential weight behind it, and spontaneous generation has none, logic demands that we take ID seriously.
Even most scientist would agree that they do not know and have an assumption based on viewed and tested data how life “may” have began and they are actively testing their theory but most do not claim that this IS how life started but most likely.
Originally posted by Tim Rout
If one asserts that God is not responsible for the inception of the universe (or life), then one assumes the burden of proof. Prove to me that life could begin all on its lonesome, and you'll have a substantive basis for your objection to divine creation. Indeed, given that intelligent design has at least some evidential weight behind it, and spontaneous generation has none, logic demands that we take ID seriously.
No, again, you're answering a question no one asked.
Originally posted by Tim Rout
If one asserts that God is not responsible for the inception of the universe (or life), then one assumes the burden of proof. Prove to me that life could begin all on its lonesome, and you'll have a substantive basis for your objection to divine creation. Indeed, given that intelligent design has at least some evidential weight behind it, and spontaneous generation has none, logic demands that we take ID seriously.
"asserts that God is not responsible" You must first prove that this god exists before you can make any claims about that god.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Carl Sagan
To say that a god created the universes is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. Until you can provide extraordinary proof, you cannot assert your claim as anything but imaginary.
Originally posted by Templares
On your previous post, your EXPLICITLY asking what caused that large star in the Heavens, the sun. I gave you the correct answer; the gravitational collapse of a gas cloud. In the creation of the sun, the gas cloud comes first before the sun. This is the proper sequence of events and is NOT a proper example of the idiomatic expression "putting a cart before a horse". Basically your trying to ungainly shift your question from the cause of the sun after i answered it and hopefully not appear get OWNED-again. Next time dont ask grade school level questions like star formation. The previous questions you pose deals with the sun which is why i limited my answers to that.
Not so fast Tempy, you gave me an answer, not necessarily the correct one. You see, you believe by faith(because you did not conduct the empirical tests and other research to arrive at your conclusion that the sun is the product of a gravitational collapse of a gas cloud) that you have the right answer concerning the sun's origin.
Also, I use plenty of metahpors because that is just the way that I convey my thoughts at times if I deem it apropos.
Anyway, let's just cut to the chase. The gas cloud could be traced back to the Big Bang. What you really want to ask me, for the nth time - i lost count, is what caused the Big Bang (or the quantum fluctuations that caused it)? And everytime, the answer stays the same: it is UNCAUSED. It goes like this. By definition, a cause comes BEFORE an event like the Big Bang and is therefore subject to time. Time however is part of spacetime which began to exists only after the Big Bang, which means there is NO TIME BEFORE the Big Bang. This in turn means that your so called "law of cause and effect" BREAKSDOWN/DOES NOT APPLY to the Big Bang . The Big Bang does not need a CAUSE for it to exist. So unless you could prove that time exists before the Big Bang, you would have just to accept the fact that the Big Bang is exempt from the chain of causality. There is actually empical evidence for the Big Bang hence it more likely to be the thing/event that is exempt from the chain of causality, unlike your unknown, supernatural god.
Nothing is uncaused--not even you, your thoughts, your reflexes, your emotions, or your current mind-set. Just because the space-time continuum did not exist prior to the purported big bang, that does not preclude or negate the fact that the big bang required a stimulus for it to occur. Now, let us get down to brass tacks (oops, I used another expression, please don't hold it against me this time). This is what I have been trying to impress upon your mind Templares: it makes perfect sense that in order for the big bang to occcur in the absence of space, matter, and time, the Cause of such a cataclysmic, phenomenal event must of necessity transcend, and not be subject to the laws of cause and effect. An all-powerful Creator is the only possible solution to this paradox for a number of good reasons. First, He is powerful enough to produce the big bang. Second, He is the only reputed to occupy a dimension outside of this current one we find ourselves in. Third, He is the only One wise enough to figure out how to create something from nothing. Who or what else could produce a blast of the magnitude required to introduce space-time and matter from nothing? No other explanation computes or makes sense. Nowhere in this universe do we see an example of an uncaused effect, so why should we even consider a theory that asserts that an effect (i.e. the big bang) did not have a cause? I have said in times past that only material things are subject to cause and effect in this universe, but a Spirit such as God is not bound by the constraints of this material world; hence, He is qualified to be the First Cause, and Orginator of this material reality. No one and nothing else possesses all of the requisite attributes to produce a big bang from nullity.
This reminds of an anecdote about St.Augustine. Somebody asked him, "What was God doing before he created the world?" Augustine answered, "Time itself being part of God's creation, there was simply NO BEFORE!"
There was a before we just weren't a part of it--but God was.
See above for any cause and effect-related counters.
And this *cut and paste* answer of mine from a previous post shows that accidents or random chance brought forth "definite, workable, calculable laws that govern advanced organisms, and sustains their very existence".
"The force laws (gravity, electromagnetic, electroweak, and strong) as exist in the Standard Model are represented as spontaneously broken symmetries, that is, symmetries that are broken randomly and without cause or design. In a more apt example, consider what happens when a ferromagnet cools below a certain critical temperature called the Curie point. The iron undergoes a change of phase and a magnetic field suddenly appears that points in a specific, though RANDOM, direction, breaking the original symmetry in which no direction was singled out ahead of time, none predictable by any known theory.
The forces of nature are akin to the magnetic field of a ferromagnet. The "direction" they point to after symmetry breaking was not determined ahead of time. The nature of the forces themselves was not pre-specified. They just happened to freeze out the way they did.
Now theists may argue that I am simply assuming the absence of divine causation and not proving it. I am not claiming to prove that such causation does not exist. Rather I am simply demonstrating that, based on current scientific knowledge, NONE IS NECESSARY."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/stenger_intel.html
Everything in this space-time continuum is the result of a cause, including invisible, natural laws and forces. Disagree? The burden of proof is on you.
See above and have i mentioned youve made improper use of the idiomatic expression "putting a cart before a horse"?
See above and have i mentioned that the Big Bang is exempt from the chain of causality due to the fact that there is no time before time?
Paley's watchmaker analogy could be sum up in two words: Bad Analogy.
For one, it leaves the question who designed god? The baseless assumption that god is UNDESIGNED is a circular argument. It must first be shown that god - your christian god - exists BEFORE ANYTHING can be attributed to him or his "handiwork." In other words, we cannot assume that this god is NOT a product of design and then turn around and use that assumption to prove god's existence. Might as well say that the universe is UNDESIGNED and forget about baseless supernatural designers.
God (Who is a Spirit) is not bound by natural laws (remember: it is presupposed that He created them; hence, He would have had to precede them).
Second,i'll quote you a ruling from the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Ya know the court ruling that showed that Intelligent design is bullsh!t and should not be taught in school. It mainly talks about biological life but some of the arguments could be used to our debate about the design of the Universe.
"For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies." — Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 81
In the case of human artifacts and objects like watches, we know through credible and empirical means the identity and capacities of the human designer of the watch but we do not know through credible and empirical means, any of those attributes for the designer of the universe.
Not true. I have provided the Creator's identity, the mechanism whereby He created, and, incidentally, how do you know that He has never been seen? You mean you have never seen Him right?
In previous posts (perhaps in other threads) I have presented both the identity of God, and the mechanism by which God created, and I derived all of this from the Bible. God created this universe from spoken words. This is the mechanism. I have chapter and verse to support my statements but I will refrain from posting them at the moment. God spoke and things appeared. This is what the Scriptures reveal. Now, I know this might sound too simplistic for you, but it is the truth (according to the Bible) nonetheless.
As far as the identity and capacity of the Designer, the Bible is replete with descriptions and details of Who God is. Jesus said that God (His Father) is a Spirit. If anybody has the corner on Who or What God is, it has to be His Son. In other places God's understanding (i.e. mind, intellect) is described as infinite (that sure beats any intelligence quotient I have ever seen). As far as power (i.e. ability, capacity, skill, energy) that too is off the charts according to the Bible. God is so powerful that there really is no other way to express it except to call Him omnipotent (which means "possessing all power" or "all-powerful"😉. The Bible states that God is "all-mighty" because He is the Source and Mainspring of all power and energy (all of it flows from Him). There are many other passages of Scripture that reveal Who God is, but I would be here forever listing all of His character traits, so I will stop here for now.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"asserts that God is not responsible" You must first prove that this god exists before you can make any claims about that god.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Carl SaganTo say that a god created the universes is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. Until you can provide extraordinary proof, you cannot assert your claim as anything but imaginary.
Some things are right in front of our eyes and yet we still cry for proof.