It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Creationism is wrong and Evolution is right

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by tommytrouble
You can still walk along a line that stretches to and from infinity.

Yes, and however far you walked, you would always be infinitely far away from the end of the line.


The universe began somewhere. Sometime, the universe as we know it came into existance. This means that it was not, and then it was. What I'm getting at is that a neccessary and independent being, free of our constraints, created the universe. Something can't come from absolute nothingness.

Sounds pretty cut and dried until we recall that time, like space, only came into existence with the Big Bang. There was no time before the universe began. There was no "before". The universe has always existed, but "always", like infinity, doesn't mean quite what most people think it does.

Anyway, if something cannot come from nothing, then where did the "necessary and independent being, free of our constraints" come from? Who (asked for the umpteenth time on ATS, ho-hum) created God?




posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Anyway, if something cannot come from nothing, then where did the "necessary and independent being, free of our constraints" come from? Who (asked for the umpteenth time on ATS, ho-hum) created God?


In response to that, here's what I have to say, most of it is repetative.

By saying he is necessary and independent means just that. He relies on nothing in our sense of reality.

By saying 'create,' you are now attempting to limit a creator to time, as we are constrained. Why would he be bound by the same constraints we are? In fact, if you'll go with me, he created the constraint of time. Asking why would lead to another debate, but you should see where I'm going with this. You're asking a silly question, because it doesn't apply. It's like looking at a green ball and asking, "Well, where is the red in the green ball?" Well, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't apply. It's green.

The idea is to end the infinately impossible time transversal. You're applying constraints that people in our universe deal with to an infinate and perfect being that is necessary and independent from anything we can comprehend.

Ryan

[edit on 4/27/2006 by FghtinIrshNvrDie]



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie
By saying 'create,' (as in who created God) you are now attempting to limit a creator to time, as we are constrained. Why would he be bound by the same constraints we are? You're asking a silly question, because it doesn't apply.

I see. You're suggesting that there has to be a 'before' for the universe, but none for the 'necessary and independent being, free of constraints' that you say preceded it. Now why should this be? What justifies such presumptuous discrimination between entities? You've defined the 'being free of constraints' in such a way as to eliminate the application of a vital question: how does time relate to God? In doing so you have murdered God by strangulation, by choking his omnipotence. That's the trouble with attempts to prove deity through philosophy: they always end up killing the One they love. Aquinas's 'proofs' of the existence of God are as good an example as any. But none of this means the question doesn't apply; it just doesn't apply to your particular conception (if you'll excuse the pun) of divinity.

Nice avatar, incidentally. Wonder if you can get one with Mercury branding? Thought not.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Astyanax


Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by tommytrouble
You can still walk along a line that stretches to and from infinity.

Yes, and however far you walked, you would always be infinitely far away from the end of the line.

I do believe that the Scientific community's consensus is that the Universe has no center and everything visible is flying away from everything else. Kinda like walking on the infinite line, you would have no "perceived" center.

Ryan,

Ummm, since "Red and "Green" are on different regions of the Elctromagnetic Spectrum. How could we "see" the red in the green ball, if it is green? Is this a trick question?????? LOL.

Zip has some "external Images" on his post of the Klein Bottle. If that was what you wanted to see.

TommyTrouble



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
The way I've approached time for the Creator is with the "Eternal Now" approach. My reasoning is this:

1. We are constrained by time.
2. We are in the universe.
3. Any creator of the universe would not be dependent upon something he created.

Therefore, constraining a Creator to a constraint that he put in place isn't necessary. If He created time, then it would have no bearing on him. He would exist outside of time, which I percieve as his 'Eternal Now'. Time, in it's whole, is percieved as one incident to Him.

Hope it makes sense to ya's. I don't have a Ph.D. like my professor does. He's pretty dang good at composing his arguments.

Ryan



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Ummm, since "Red and "Green" are on different regions of the Elctromagnetic Spectrum. How could we "see" the red in the green ball, if it is green? Is this a trick question?????? LOL.


Sorry, didn't see your response. You accidentally typed in the quotation box, not a new response.

Yes, it's a silly question. That's my point. The question I was asked was a loaded question that had no bearing on my point, so I threw out a silly question to make it clear how goofy the question actually was.

Ryan



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie
Any creator of the universe would not be dependent upon something he created.

Why should this follow? Please clarify.


Therefore, constraining a Creator to a constraint that he put in place isn't necessary. If He created time, then it would have no bearing on him. He would exist outside of time, which I percieve as his 'Eternal Now'.

Why should a creator not be constrained by self-imposed limits? I hear Flaubert used to have his manservant hide his clothes so that he wouldn't be tempted to leave his desk and go out carousing with friends. The limits may even have been imposed inadvertantly; what could we humans -- poor pathetic limited creatures that we are -- possibly know concerning such matters?

Why should the creator of the universe, if that fantastical being exists, be omnipotent and omniscient?

Eagerly awaiting your response...



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Here is a little more background into why the Creator would not be constrained by things in the universe. The nature of this Creator is not part of the dicussion, and is only up to philosophic speculation, so I'll leave it out, but terms such as 'infinate' and 'perfect' are used.

If the Creator is infinate and perfect, and he creates a universe, he is not dependent upon the universe. He is, was, and is the universe, but does not depend upon it. God made an overall, 'good' universe. People ask why he didn't create a perfect universe for us. Well, he is perfect and infinate. He cannot create another that is perfect and infinate. That would mean he created another God.

Sorry... I've digressed. To the second paragraph:
He isn't constrained by time for this simple reason. He isn't imposing limits on himself. When he created the universe, he didn't suddenly jump into the universe. He is outside of the universe. It is something of his, not something he has to be inside of.

Questions? Feel free to make me clarify. I have a hard time keeping my thoughts in the right order for people.

Ryan

Clearly, if he created the universe in which we live, there is no reason for him to be anything other than omnicient and omnipotent.

As far as being the all knowing being, I use the term 'eternal now' to describe how God percieves the universe. He isn't constrained by time. He views the universe as one moment of all. There's not a sequencial feel to it. It happens, at once. It's difficult to put words to this, as our entire lives are viewed as sequencial actions.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   


If the Creator is infinate and perfect, and he creates a universe, he is not dependent upon the universe. He is, was, and is the universe, but does not depend upon it. God made an overall, 'good' universe. People ask why he didn't create a perfect universe for us. Well, he is perfect and infinate. He cannot create another that is perfect and infinate. That would mean he created another God.


Exactley why is he not dependent upon the universe? Why even create a universe to begin with? What drives and motivations are required for such a form of creation? What needs and wants are required for creating our particular universe with our particular life on our particular planet out of an infinite possible other configurations available to this creator?

If the creator is unable to create something perfect and infinite then he is not all powerfull. This would negate the general conception of the christian god as being this creator. So now that you have dispelled that "all powerfull" mumbo jumbo, we must now invent a new god that is limited in powers of creation. I don't know of any pre-existing god's that are limited in such a way, if I'm not mistaken, all are all powerfull.



He isn't constrained by time for this simple reason. He isn't imposing limits on himself. When he created the universe, he didn't suddenly jump into the universe. He is outside of the universe. It is something of his, not something he has to be inside of.


Where is it written or how have you come to have known that this creator isn't imposing limits on himself? Have you met with him personally? Have you asked him directly? Are you old school pals and know intimate details of his life? How do you know when he created the universe he didn't "jump into it"? How do you know he stayed outside? Perhaps he created the universe because he had to? Without knowing the direct reason, you can't say it's not something he doesn't have to be inside of. Perhaps it was a test put forth by other "gods".



Clearly, if he created the universe in which we live, there is no reason for him to be anything other than omnicient and omnipotent.


From reading a few science articles here and there we to will one day be able to create universe's and possibly enter them. One day. Does this mean when that day comes forth that we to will be omnicient and omnipotent and infinite and perfect and all powerfull and all that jazz?




As far as being the all knowing being, I use the term 'eternal now' to describe how God percieves the universe. He isn't constrained by time. He views the universe as one moment of all. There's not a sequencial feel to it. It happens, at once. It's difficult to put words to this, as our entire lives are viewed as sequencial actions.


How do you know he isn't constrained by time? How do you know he doesn't experience time at the same level we do? Say he is outside the universe, an area that we are currently unable to percieve, who's to say that time as we know it doesn't exist in the same manner outside the universe? We can't say for sure without testing it. How do you know how this creator percievs time and events? We were supposedly created in his image, exact likeness, if we use the concepts of a few religous beliefs. Would we then not experience time the same as him?

The idiotic thing about religion, afterlife, spirit, god, heaven and hell. It's ALL philosophical. None of it has any shred of evidence to back it up. No proof. Nothing. Most believe just in case it's true and usually believe what religion their parents were or which one sounds best to fit their own views. Hey if your wrong, you lose nothing. If your right, you did good. And if you did bad in your life, you can always repent rather then owning up to you own faults.

In some ways, I can understand why people hold these beliefs. In other viewpoints, I see them as cowards. Liars. Cheats. Hypocrits. And some of the worst people you could ever come in contact with. Most have twisted views. I'd say 99.999% of them out there.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Good post, I'll have to respond to that one with a book of responses here really soon... They're all questions that have been asked, and effectively answered. Be back soon.

Ryan



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

What needs and wants are required for creating our particular universe with our particular life on our particular planet out of an infinite possible other configurations available to this creator?


This is left for religion to discuss. I'm not sure what your stance officially is as a person, so I'll reply this way. That's a religious question. Until one concludes that theism is the best choice, these aren't fair questions. They're just questions that open up belief systems for atheists to attack with science. Totally different discussion...


Where is it written or how have you come to have known that this creator isn't imposing limits on himself?


This is the idea, okay? I'm not pulling the 'infinate and perfect' being idea out of my butt, so I'm sorry if it seems that way.

As I have established, it is impossible to have an infinate time, period. If someone argues otherwise, I have always seen at least one large problem with their argument. This is a truth.

Therefore, since time is not infinate, the universe had to be created. Something came from absolute nothingness: The sheer lack of everything.

Since something had to be here before the universe to make something from nothing, we have a problem, right? No, there had to be an infinate and perfect being. That which was not created. If he was created, it would again pose the same problem as the origin of the universe. I hope you understand my attempt to set up the domino effect. Every time you pass creation to another being, the same problem arises again. It is absurd to do this infinately. There had to be one that is independent and infinate: He who was not created.

If a creator of this magnitude put himself into the constraints of a universe, we would no longer have an independent being. He would be submerged into the universe as a dependent being. He would be dealing with constraints he put in place. There would be no independent being, bringing the SAME problem back on us again. He is outside of our known universe.


From reading a few science articles here and there we to will one day be able to create universe's and possibly enter them. One day. Does this mean when that day comes forth that we to will be omnicient and omnipotent and infinite and perfect and all powerfull and all that jazz?


No. We won't. To tell you the truth, I'd have a hard time taking that article seriously. Sounds simply like a faith system in the scientific community.


The idiotic thing about religion, afterlife, spirit, god, heaven and hell. It's ALL philosophical. None of it has any shred of evidence to back it up. No proof. Nothing.


I couldn't agree less. Philosophy isn't hogwash. Thinking so shows your close mindedness. It's a different mode of proof, different from that of your laboratory, that is so fashionable these days. Just because it's gone out of style doesn't mean it doesn't hold water. Technically, I don't think science has 'proved' anything, ever.


Most believe just in case it's true and usually believe what religion their parents were or which one sounds best to fit their own views.


Who brought up religion? You. I was dealing with philosophy, then you decided to take a personal blow to abrasive religious people. Fundamentalist Christians that speak too loudly don't change the validity of my arguments, since they deal with absolutely no theology.

Ryan



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDieThat's a religious question. Until one concludes that theism is the best choice, these aren't fair questions. They're just questions that open up belief systems for atheists to attack with science. Totally different discussion...

Didn't you join the thread to explain "why science is a long stretch towards explaining creationism" (I think you meant creation)?

Both philosophy and science have been inquiring into creation since they came into existence. In several thousand years, philosophers haven't been able to reach anything remotely like the more-or-less consensual arrangement scientists have achieved in a few hundred. I think this speaks well for science. I have nothing whatever against philosophy, which I regard as fascinating; indeed, I like to regard science, in an old-fashioned way, as a branch of philosophy.

But in the end, philosophers are not obliged to cleave to common experience in the way scientists are. They share with artists and poets the right to distort reality through interpretation in all manner of ways. Despite the apparent paradoxes of physics and cosmology, scientists are not granted this power. They are constrained to report what they see and what their instruments record.

You may regard that as a drawback when it comes to constructing an interpretative or speculative apparatus with regard to creation; others, myself included, regard it as a strength.

But I do wish you would think hard about your assertion that God "must" be certain things (infinite, perfect, eternal and what have you). It's an unexamined assumption that introduces a fatal flaw into your arguments. Have you not heard of the Manichaean heresy, which I believe your hero Augustine was "guilty of" before he went all mainstream? The Manichees believed the world was created by a demiurge, a kind of subordinate (and disobedient) being, far from divine, but with creative powers. That being, in turn, was not so much created by God as accidentally emanated from Him. Kind of complicated, but is shows that the idea of an imperfect, non-infinite creator has been around for rather a long time. If you attribute all these Aristotelian, Aquinan perfections to the creator, you have to explain why it's so.

By the way, am I right in assuming (Aquinus, Augustine, fighting Irish never die) that you are a Roman Catholic?

You would be wrong to assume I was an atheist.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Kind of complicated, but is shows that the idea of an imperfect, non-infinite creator has been around for rather a long time. If you attribute all these Aristotelian, Aquinan perfections to the creator, you have to explain why it's so.


Well, I thought I covered my tracks here already. I may be confusing myself with another thread, so apologies.

The creator has to be infinate and perfect for a few simple reasons. I think we can all agree that there is existance. Since there is something, rather than nothing, we can assume that it was created at some point.

By adding another 'layer' into the God cake, the argument merely is delaying the idea that a Creator created everything. By putting off the answer, the argument sidesteps the question, and moves on. This is clever, but by no means answers the question.

The reason the necessary being has to be perfect and infinate is a simple reason. If he was the first that was not created, (which is necessary in the argument) then he has to embody everything. If he is without something, he is no longer independent and necessary. If something came into existance that filled his void, he would no longer be that which was all.

It's a lot longer book than that because it's part of an entire philisophical system, not just a little corner you can cut and paste into a paragraph. These things bleed together.

Yup, Roman Catholic here... But I'm hesitant to say so because some members may have serious problems handling the fact that I'm Catholic.

Ryan



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie
2. Which leads me to my next point. The universe began somewhere. Sometime, the universe as we know it came into existance. This means that it was not, and then it was. What I'm getting at is that a neccessary and independent being, free of our constraints, created the universe. Something can't come from absolute nothingness. After all, for you science buffs, look at the second law of thermodynamics.


Hi Ryan,

The universe did come from something, a singularity, where this energy came from is an open question. When we actually know what energy is, then we may be able to approach this problem.

But if you posit a creator that exists for infinity then positing a source of energy that has existed for infinity is just as valid. Maybe the cyclic model of the universe is correct, and the universe has been expanding and contracting for eternity. Maybe time and space is infinite, maybe it isn't - both situations can be accounted for in cosmology.

If you claim your hypothesis is truth, then you are badly mistaken. We just don't know and neither do you.

The major form of the second law of thermodynamics states...


the entropy of any totally isolated system not at thermal equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value


Can you outline how this relates to your hypothesis?

In essence, your argument is of the 'god of the gaps' form, yes? You seem to be invoking 'first cause', then dodging the application of this to your creator.

Cause and effect are temporal concepts, there was no time before the big bang i.e. the energy source is outside of timespace, therefore no cause is required. If it applies to your god, then it can readily apply to the singularity.



“Since the Big Bang singularity is technically a non-event, and t=0 is not a bona fide time of its occurrence, the singularity cannot be the effect of any cause in the case of either event-causation or agent causation alike…. The singularity t=0 cannot have a cause”
(Grünbaum 1994).


Of course, Steinhardt & Turok's cyclic model (2002) and Seife's collision model (2002) need no external cause.

And maybe athiests would be laughed out of your philosophy class which is obviously biased to theism, but not so likely in europe where athiesm is a respectable position.


Edit: and you do know that William Craig's problems with actual infinities and his cosmological argument are questionable?

stripe.colorado.edu...

stripe.colorado.edu...

spot.colorado.edu...

www.seop.leeds.ac.uk...

spot.colorado.edu...

[edit on 1-5-2006 by melatonin]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I perfer to believe that god did create everything. Then, he set nature on its path and had things evolve. We are, essentialy, and experiment. Check out
www.abovetopsecret.com... to see more about the whole "humanity is an experiment" thing.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

The universe did come from something, a singularity, where this energy came from is an open question. When we actually know what energy is, then we may be able to approach this problem.


Simple question in response to that. You've sidestepped the problem again. Where did the 'singularity' come from?


But if you posit a creator that exists for infinity then positing a source of energy that has existed for infinity is just as valid. Maybe the cyclic model of the universe is correct, and the universe has been expanding and contracting for eternity. Maybe time and space is infinite, maybe it isn't - both situations can be accounted for in cosmology.


I'm sorry, I don't understand the first sentance. You're confusing a simple part of my argument. I'm referring to the universe and a Creator as seperate things. You're putting the creator to the same limitations of the universe, such as time. The philosophic model is that the Creator is outside of the universe, and not dependent on it at all. He is infinate and perfect. Restrictions such as time and space are not of his essence. Energy is what makes our universe. Why would you have to assume that a Creator would also be made of such. It's an inappropriate jump.


Can you outline how this relates to your hypothesis?

It doesn't directly support the argument. You have to apply it to the universe, and then ask the question. It simply says that every reaction had a cause. Therefore, you would have to infinately follow every movement back for eternity. It's impossible to transverse an infinity, especially in time.

A lot of people are having a hard time grasping the fact that action/reaction is a property of the phyical universe as we know it. It is dependent upon time and motion. The Creator which put these restrictions and patterns in place is outside of time. They don't apply to Him.

Any other problems or questions, feel free to ask. Until then, entertain me with potentially possible atheistic ideas that create something from nothing, and I'll waver, but it hasn't happened.

Ryan



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   


This is left for religion to discuss. I'm not sure what your stance officially is as a person, so I'll reply this way. That's a religious question. Until one concludes that theism is the best choice, these aren't fair questions. They're just questions that open up belief systems for atheists to attack with science. Totally different discussion...


Not necessarily. It need not be a *theism, and in no way is it an athiest attack. These same questions can be asked and pondered by anyone and everyone irregardless of beliefs or lack of. Say the creator isn't even a god or supernatural entity, but instead some form of alien life residing in another universe interconnected to ours. These question would be semi-valid, more philosophical, but still none-the-less valid. Creating a bridge to another universe or creating an entire universe from scratch take's time, money, resources, energy. A need or want, some form of desire. Was it to be thought of as a god? Was it artistic expression? Thousands of questions could be asked in regards to an alien built universe. Thousands of questions could be asked also for a supernatural. Or ffs, even a plain old "boring" natural causation.



This is the idea, okay? I'm not pulling the 'infinate and perfect' being idea out of my butt, so I'm sorry if it seems that way.


You must be pulling it out of someone else's butt then. Or from one of the many man made religous doctrines. Which is your favorite? I kinda like the egyptian and roman mythologies myself. Now those were gods!



As I have established, it is impossible to have an infinate time, period. If someone argues otherwise, I have always seen at least one large problem with their argument. This is a truth.


Well, seeing as how I don't necessarily follow with the current concept of time, I'm not sure how to approach this. As far as I can tell, everything written on the subject ... mostly appears to be nothing more then a self-imposed illusion based upon the measurements of speed and direction and series of events and gravitation/electromagnetics also seems to play a role. We would measure time differently if we evolved on say, venus or mars or jupiter. We would have a wholly different concept of time.



Therefore, since time is not infinate, the universe had to be created. Something came from absolute nothingness: The sheer lack of everything.


If time doesn't exist and is nothing more then a self-imposed illusion to rationalize a series of events/measurments, then time wouldn't even be a factor with the creation of a universe. Even if time as currently viewed is correct, this still doesn't show that the universe was created if time itself isn't infinite. We have time as it is within our universe. We can't view whats outside it, if there is anything and so we cannot say that some other form of time doesn't exist outside this universe to allow for it's natural causation. We can't say something came from nothing either for the very same reason's. You don't know what's outside our universe. I don't know what's outside. NO ONE DOES. We CANNOT observe that area. Proclaiming to know is nothing more then showing idiocy of the highest degree.



Since something had to be here before the universe to make something from nothing, we have a problem, right? No, there had to be an infinate and perfect being. That which was not created. If he was created, it would again pose the same problem as the origin of the universe. I hope you understand my attempt to set up the domino effect. Every time you pass creation to another being, the same problem arises again. It is absurd to do this infinately. There had to be one that is independent and infinate: He who was not created.


There must not be. Seeing as how we have literally no idea as to what the conditions were prior to our universe doesn't automatically lead one to conclude a god. We haven't even once observed absolute nothingness. Never, not once. We don't know what the properties of absolute nothingness are without directly observing it. We can't say such a thing couldn't create something naturally. We can't even say such a thing even exists. The seemingly empty vacuum of space isn't even nothingness itself, it's a frothing sea of energy. And it DOES create particles, from seemingly nothing.

Why would this god not have been needed to be created himself? Why would he have to be infinite and perfect? Why would he even have to exist in the first place? It's more absurd to claim a god and your particular god when there are thousands conceptualized through out human history. Perhaps religous leaders from many different beliefs weren't stupid and wrote thing's such as "he who was not created" or "always existed" so as to circumvent any questions from gullible followers. Well, if he was always just there, then who am I to question that! Problem solved. He was just always there, nothing before and nothing after.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   


Any other problems or questions, feel free to ask. Until then, entertain me with potentially possible atheistic ideas that create something from nothing, and I'll waver, but it hasn't happened.


Well, the second half of my reply didn't go through cuz of the wonderfull improvments to ats ... I'll re-post it in abit.

The main problem I see here is ... you won't waver. You have your own cozy comfortable to you belief system that no one can disprove to you, irregardless of how much evidence against it is put forth.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie

The universe did come from something, a singularity, where this energy came from is an open question. When we actually know what energy is, then we may be able to approach this problem.


Simple question in response to that. You've sidestepped the problem again. Where did the 'singularity' come from?


I didn't, I clearly stated that where the energy came from is an open question. It may have always existed. It may have popped into existence, your god may have created it. We don't know.


I'm sorry, I don't understand the first sentance. You're confusing a simple part of my argument. I'm referring to the universe and a Creator as seperate things. You're putting the creator to the same limitations of the universe, such as time. The philosophic model is that the Creator is outside of the universe, and not dependent on it at all. He is infinate and perfect. Restrictions such as time and space are not of his essence. Energy is what makes our universe. Why would you have to assume that a Creator would also be made of such. It's an inappropriate jump.


You state that this god is "infinite and perfect". If the creator can be infinite then so can the energy source (i.e. the singularity). The universe expanded from a singularity, the singularity could be eternal (i.e. always existed, maybe in some cyclic form of big-bang-big-crunch). What we do know is that there was a singularity and it could be as eternal as your god.


It doesn't directly support the argument. You have to apply it to the universe, and then ask the question. It simply says that every reaction had a cause. Therefore, you would have to infinately follow every movement back for eternity. It's impossible to transverse an infinity, especially in time.


So, you're actually referring to the 1st law - energy cannot be created nor destroyed - This applies to this universe, the laws of physics break down at the point of singularity. I'm quite sure the 1st law is a physical law. Maybe energy can be created and destroyed at t=0, quantum theories may hold the answer.


A lot of people are having a hard time grasping the fact that action/reaction is a property of the phyical universe as we know it. It is dependent upon time and motion. The Creator which put these restrictions and patterns in place is outside of time. They don't apply to Him.


And it doesn't apply to the singularity either. As I clearly stated, cause and effect are temporal concepts, the cause comes before the effect, therefore, because there is no before, you need no cause. Furthermore, quantum theories will hold the key to understanding t=0, determinism may not apply.

There are other phenomena that have no cause - radioactive decay is one, why does a particular atom decay?

Quantum mechanics shows some very illogical concepts, many of which are beyond common-sense.


Any other problems or questions, feel free to ask. Until then, entertain me with potentially possible atheistic ideas that create something from nothing, and I'll waver, but it hasn't happened.

Ryan


If quantum mechanics shows us anything, it's that determinism may well not apply. It is a probabilistic theory, cause and effect seems to breakdown. The casimir effect seems to show matter/energy appearing from nowhere. And these are not athiestic ideas, they are science. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by melatonin]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie

If you attribute all these Aristotelian, Aquinan perfections to the creator, you have to explain why it's so.

The reason why the creator has to be infinite and perfect... is a simple reason. If he was the first that was not created, (which is necessary in the argument) then he has to embody everything. If he is without something, he is no longer independent and necessary. If something came into existance that filled his void, he would no longer be that which was all.

What a Thomist you are! There has to be a creator (you argue) because there has to be a single point from which all chains of causality originate. And this first cause must embody everything, therefore it must be perfect and infinite. Because if it wasn't perfect and infinite, it wouldn't be independent and necessary (or, as Aquinus rather more pithily concluded, it couldn't be God). Quod erat demonstrandum, eh?

Well, the fact is...

If it wasn't independent and necessary, the universe could do without it.

In fact, the universe does without it very well.

Causality is an artifact of time. You admit as much when you say that the question of who created God doesn't arise because God is outside time. But the fact is, time only came into existence when the universe came into existence.

Accepted: a Universal Cause must lie outside time. And if it lies outside time then the laws of causality no longer apply to it. You said so yourself. What you failed to add was that, in such a case, it ceases to be a cause. It ceases to be an explanation for anything. It ceases, in fact, to be necessary.

Next: your first cause, even if it did exist, doesn't have to be infinite to embody everything, because the universe is not infinite. The universe contains everything that exists, but the number of existent things, though very large, may yet be regarded as finite. In fact, the universe has physical, dimensional limits.

More embarrassingly, your first cause doesn't even have to embody everything in the universe. At most, it has to embody the potentiality of everything, which is a very different condition. The human genome contains the potentialities of an Einstein or a Muhammad Ali, but human DNA cannot solve the problems of relatively, float like a butterfly or sting like a bee.

To sum up, a first cause (let alone a divine Creator) is neither necessary nor necessarily infinite.

As for 'perfection'; since when are perfection and totality simultaneous? Agreed, totality is an absolute quality, and partakes of perfection in that sense, but this is a triviality. If God embodied everything, He must be full of all the crap in the universe as well as all the good stuff. Would you call that perfection? Just in case you're tempted to, I recommend you apply yourself to the following question:

Q: Can an omnipotent being be good?

If you can come up with an answer that satisfies you, you should have little difficulty attributing divine perfection to a being full of poopoo.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join