Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

originally posted by: edmc^2
I've already presented Why Creation the only logical explanation for the origin of life and the universe.

And it failed.

What's your alternative? All I've encountered is not logical alternative but attacks.

Nobody needs to provide an alternative to put in question your claim in the OP. That is all the topic of the thread is about.

originally posted by: AshFan

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AshFan
a reply to: edmc^2

Differently than you it would appear.

I'm all ears - what is it then so that we can apply it in the Hawking concept of Universal Origins.

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

I have seen little if any of this here. Hell, you cannot even define what "Valid" principles are in this discussion. You have one side using faith and a book to define validity, and the other using math and physics... that change after we are able to test them.

Technically you are both operating on Faith

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Based on the definition you've provided, which one makes logical sense?

1. Something will produce something.

or

2. Nothing will produce something.

or:

1a. Always Existing will produce something.

or

2. Nothing will produce something.


It's a very simple test of logic.

a reply to: edmc^2

Only the religious think that "something came from nothing" is what science thinks. It's a strawman.

1. Something will produce something.

A man will be made from dirt, and his rib will create his mate,,, then their outcast son populated the rest on the entire earth.

or

2. Nothing will produce something.

If you consider energy to be nothing I suppose

or:

1a. Always Existing will producumething.

You mean like a rock, or a sun? Well a rock can produce smaller rocks, and the sun produces radiation

It's a very simple test of logic.

No it was an exorcise in meaninglessness

originally posted by: AshFan

1. Something will produce something.

A man will be made from dirt, and his rib will create his mate,,, then their outcast son populated the rest on the entire earth.

or

2. Nothing will produce something.

If you consider energy to be nothing I suppose

or:

1a. Always Existing will producumething.

You mean like a rock, or a sun? Well a rock can produce smaller rocks, and the sun produces radiation

It's a very simple test of logic.

No it was an exorcise in meaninglessness

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

No. It's a test of your credibility to see if you will follow your own definition.

From the looks of it, you didn't adhere to the meaning of logic per your reasoning.

1. Something will produce something.

>> Logic dictates this to be true based on evidence conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Energy can be transformed into matter and matter can be transformed into energy.

The Large Hadron Collider proved this to be absolutely true.

or

2. Nothing will produce something.

Illogical and nonsense. There's no proper way to even explain it.

or:

1a. Always Existing will produce something.

An Always Existing something will produce something is logical.

The concept of INFINITY gives us an idea of an Always Existing Eternal something /someone is logical.

or

2. Nothing will produce something.

illogical and nonsense. There's no proper way or a logical concept to even explain it.

a reply to: edmc^2

Again with the strawman.

Here's a test. Show ANY peer reviewed paper that states "something came from nothing". I bet you can't.

originally posted by: edmc^2
I've already presented Why Creation the only logical explanation for the origin of life and the universe.

What's your alternative? All I've encountered is not logical alternative but attacks.

State you case - don't attack.

What's your alternative besides Creation?

Invisible magic fairies that eat old energy and poop out new energy. That is just as (IN)valid as any god hypothesis. Having an answer for something, doesn't mean it's the correct one. There are plenty of possibilities that don't involve an eternal god but you deny and ignore them all because of confirmation bias. You keep dishonestly arguing that something can't come from nothing, but when it comes to your god, he literally comes from nothing! How do you not realize this? Any argument you make pro god can also apply to the universe or energy. If god can be eternal, why can't energy be eternal? If everything requires a creator, why doesn't god require a creator? These are self defeating arguments that pander to a certain belief system rather than logically analyze reality.

a reply to: edmc^2

It's like I'm communicating with a zealot. Look back at your "answers". You did not address any of my points, because you can't... and then you claim that it is logical that someone/thing can be infinite with NO valid argument?

I sense that I may be wasting my time by engaging your rhetoric.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Again with the strawman.

Here's a test. Show ANY peer reviewed paper that states "something came from nothing". I bet you can't.

Or that there even is an infinity, because this is a measurement of time. Because time did not exist before the big bang.

Or maybe an extradimensional Johnie Appleseed poked a hole in our universe and planted all of this.

Or maybe we are all holograms in a giant computer program.

Or maybe the earth is accually a giant organic computer trying to solve the meaning of life.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Only the religious think that "something came from nothing" is what science thinks. It's a strawman.

I hope you're not referring to Dr. Krauss, et al.

a reply to: edmc^2

He's asking for scientific papers, not a scientist's opinion.

a reply to: edmc^2

Still waiting for a peer reviewed paper and not someone's opinion.

a reply to: AshFan

What "some people" don't understand is, science only concentrates on the observable and the testable. That's why science doesn't touch ghosts or god(s).

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: AshFan

What "some people" don't understand is, science only concentrates on the observable and the testable. That's why science doesn't touch ghosts or god(s).

Agreed, thus both are based on faith. However only one can be tested.

Some people just cant help trying to pray the evidence we can actually measure away.

a reply to: AshFan

And that's why there are hypotheses about how everything came to be.

That's also why my stance is "I don't know".

a reply to: TerryDon79

Maybe god is physics.

a reply to: AshFan

It's a possibility. Just as it's a possibility that god(s) is/are jellyfish or clouds or stars.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Hmmm. I've always thought my toenail clippings had the look of omniscience to them.

a reply to: AshFan

Funny you should say that.

I banged my foot on my chair the other day. Pretty damn hard, too. Had a blood blister bruise thing that I could have sworn looked like the Spaghetti Monster.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: AshFan

Funny you should say that.

I banged my foot on my chair the other day. Pretty damn hard, too. Had a blood blister bruise thing that I could have sworn looked like the Spaghetti Monster.

THE TRUE FAITH REVEALED!!!