Flaw in Creationism

[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

[methylatedghosts]

First off, I just wanted to mention I liked your signature, and I don't think that to do this:

Originally Posted by Cacafire

to lose himself in the sea of life, never to return.

would really be all that bad. I think I'd enjoy it.

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.

Could It not be both? Being a part, apart of the universe?

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.

I believe the universe was "created" - not truly out of line from either a Christian or a scientific perspective. In fact, probably more in the same way a sneeze seems to create a whole lot of snot that wasn't really there before...

[Phasmid]

Originally Posted by Cacafire

there is still no scientific reason why the universe can not be given the attribute of existing forever in "this" reality.

I'm not a science expert. But there are a few reasons why the universe cannot have always existed.

We know for a fact that the universe is expanding and, is in fact, speeding up in said expansion. Implying that, at some point, everything in the universe was much closer together - perhaps even at a single point.

Further, the sun is burning up hydrogen. It has only used up about 2% of it's total energy at the moment. All stars (as far as I know) work in the same way as our sun. If the universe had always existed, you'd expect a lot less hydrogen in the universe, yet it's one of, if not the most, abundant elements to be found.

As I've stated, I'm no expert, I just thought it a relevant point to bring up.

And may I take this opportunity, to welcome you to RF.

[UnTheist]

I think he's saying that the energy that exists in the universe has always existed.

[Phasmid]

Originally Posted by UnTheist

I think he's saying that the energy that exists in the universe has always existed.

Ah, but not in it's current form...

[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?

[oldcajun]

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

This is a useless argument since a creating entity is outside the realm of scientific methods of detection. Science is limited to the material world and cannot function in a higher plain of reality.

There is evidence for creation which can be researched easily on the internet but since evolutionism doesn't generally accept the possibility of a creator god it is automatically rejected for more "scientific" explanations.

These kinds of debates can only lead to dead ends.

[Cacafire]

Originally Posted by oldcajun

This is a useless argument since a creating entity is outside the realm of scientific methods of detection. Science is limited to the material world and cannot function in a higher plain of reality.

There is evidence for creation which can be researched easily on the internet but since evolutionism doesn't generally accept the possibility of a creator god it is automatically rejected for more "scientific" explanations.

These kinds of debates can only lead to dead ends.

I was waiting for someone to make that statement. Creationists have advanced creationism as a scientific theory. If we are to take them seriously, then we must subject it to scientific analysis.

To say that creationism is above that is to say that it is a religion. Therefore, it can not be taught in U.S. Schools.

[gnomon]

Originally Posted by oldcajun

This is a useless argument since a creating entity is outside the realm of scientific methods of detection. Science is limited to the material world and cannot function in a higher plain of reality.

There is evidence for creation which can be researched easily on the internet but since evolutionism doesn't generally accept the possibility of a creator god it is automatically rejected for more "scientific" explanations.

These kinds of debates can only lead to dead ends.

If a creating entity lies outside science than how can there be any scientific evidence for it. You can't have it both ways. If there is physical evidence for the existence of creation and thus a creator than that creator lies within the realm of scientific inquiry. If the creator lies outside the realm of scientific inquiry than it is due to the lack of physical evidence on which science acts upon.

Round and round. So you see, it's not a dead end. It's a circular argument engaged by creationists trying to deny the plausibility of science on one hand while trying to use science on the other.