Flaw in Creationism

[UnTheist]

...Unless we live in that universe where the law "everything must have a beginning" doesn't apply.

[Krosswire]

Originally Posted by Cacafire

Creationism maintains that the universe is so complex and so orderly that there had to have been an everbeing creator. The theory assumes that the creator, being the creator, had to have always existed.

That being the case, there is no scientific reason why the omniexistence of this creator can not be applied to the universe itself, except by the argument that the creator is composed of completely different reality than the universe. Unfortunately, then in what sense can we say that the creator "exists"? Furthermore, the god in this other reality would have to "exist" in that other reality. Since the universe is claimed by almost all creationists to "exist", then there is still no scientific reason why the universe can not be given the attribute of existing forever in "this" reality.

Granted that there is a creator, and ignoring the above flaws, creationists maintain that it was the Christian God that created the universe, and not Zeus or Shibalba. Given that christianity is a religion, the "theory" of creationism is endorsing a relgion. This is incompatible with the rules of science, which remain silent on religious questions.

It is inconcievable that creationism be regarded as a scientific theory based on the above two flaws.

If you wish to rebuttal this, then you're argument must address ALL of the following:

1)Why god has always existed but that the universe had to be created.

2)Why creationism as a "scientific theory" endorses religion when it is clear that scientific theories as a class are unable to do this.

Failure to address any one of these flaws will render the rebuttal moot, on account that the flaw unadressed maintains the validity of the above. If both flaws are addressed, then they must successful dispatch both flaws according to logical consistency and empirical success.

-Cacafire

Again these are two reasonable questions
1) "god does not exist that is correct to say for if he had or is in existence he was created- HE IS- without the boundaries of time it is said It is he who is no need of eternity
2) no inanimate matter or object can be made animate that is alive by a pprocess of evolution, therefore we animate objects are expression of a reality which makes us alive this reality is somewhat as Yeats say it a Great Memory moving against and through it ownself

[Yarin]

How do we know of these laws in the first place? Through observations and true science. If you're going to say that the most basic laws are questionable, then while we're at it we could just as easily question all the laws that you use to prove the idea of evolution in the first place!

[UnTheist]

Where does science state that the universe must have a cause?

[UnTheist]

Obviously since Yarin is either unable or unwilling to answer my question (I'm confident it's the former), would anybody else care to?

[darkendless]

Originally Posted by UnTheist

Obviously since Yarin is either unable or unwilling to answer my question (I'm confident it's the former), would anybody else care to?

Sure you're exactly right, theism only states the universe must have a purpose otherwise their whole view of things makes a little less sense.

[stacey bo bacey]

I love when people use passages from holy books as "evidence."

[x.anti-everything.x]

Originally Posted by Cacafire

Thank you methylatedghosts. I was under the impression that nobody ever read those things.

Yes, it could be both. But keep in mind that if the universe always existed, it doesn't matter whether god always existed or not. God would not have created the universe.

Also, to phasmid, the universe is always changing into different forms all the time. To follow your argument, to say that a different form of energy is a different instant of existence would be to say that the universe is being destroyed and created every instant, since all the energy in the universe is doing the same, and matter is simply a different form of energy, yes? But if this was true, then the universe would have to be constantly being destroyed and created for every instant that passes. This is certainly plausible. It's worth looking into, scientifically. But keep in mind that this destruction and creation apparently has been happing for some billions of years, without the help of any god, so there's no reason to say that a god needed to do it at the beginning. furthermore, one could just as easily assume that this constant destruction and creation of the universe is regulated by a physical law, and thus had always been happing, making in effect the same argument as before: The universe would have had no official beginning.

Thoughts?

Here's a thought. Going by Phasmid's theory, If the universe at one point was close together why not the theory that there was only one planet/sun that exploded which therein created 2 or more and so one until the universe had expanded so far beyond our little reach? Makes sense to me anyway.

[Arch-Angel]

im sorry but i didn't read through all other posts, im merely answering the first questions posted on the topic.

Originally Posted by Cacafire

1)Why god has always existed but that the universe had to be created.

to have a beginning is to be limited, i dont serve the limited god but God Almighty. the eternal (not having a beginning) is a purely supernatural attribute, nothing we have ever encountered in all creation holds to this. you could say that since there is no energy disapating and no new energy made then this would be eternal, but nothing would ever support this claim since you would have the same problem of not being there to witness this.

Originally Posted by Cacafire

2)Why creationism as a "scientific theory" endorses religion when it is clear that scientific theories as a class are unable to do this.

why do you expect science to answer all things? i dont care if you say my words are nullified because i refuse to play a game within a small box. science only deals with the created order and not matters of the supernatural. if you wanted to scientifically deduce everything you could suppose that you are nothing more than meat wrapped around bones that decays over time. that is all science will produce, science cannot tell you about the core of your being.

take love for example. can science explain why i love my wife one way, my cat another, my children another, my parents yet another and my siblings and friends in a totally different manner? what chemical in my brain holds the wife love? do you see my point?
conscienceness is another example. what area of the brain functions on the constant thought process that is your mind? you can find the brain but will never locate the mind.

science is great for understanding and mastering our world, but do not presuppose that all things must abide by it.

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Arch-Angel

... science only deals with the created order and not matters of the supernatural.

And there you have it. The reason that creationism is not science, as stated by a creationist.