Creation vs evolution

[JustWondering]

As above, the theory Lemaitre had dedicated himself to, was subject to a lot of hostility for the overt theistic implications atheists saw in it- being a priest complicated this

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[47]

Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms" (see Kalam cosmological argument).[21]

So it was atheists explicitly making the connection between a beginning and a creator. Preferring the opposite argument- no beginning= no creation = no creator.

Lemaitre had to do everything he could to disassociate the theory with any theistic implications, even telling the Pope to quit gloating.


creation v beginning is a largely semantic question though. If you create a work of art, you are using pre-existing materials

The big bang does not prove the existence of ANY supernatural entity let alone one specific religions god. The big bang model simply tries to describe the early moments of the universe as we know it today, period. The big bang theory is a SCIENTIFIC theory that has nothing to do with religion.

Furthermore, the concept of gods seems to originate with humans. I have yet to see evidence for the existence of any god. I see plenty of evidence for humans inventing gods. Before you get started with a nonsensical "then how does anything exist without a creator?" argument, I'll stop you now and ask you what created the creator, and so on and so forth?

 

[`mud]

"... if someone stands naked before God, What does that mean ?"

"I am not one to take the bible and beat people over their heads with it."

"...didn't even realize how close they were to the flood of Noah's,
until the flood was right upon them."

One day, the Earth will attempt to destroy itself,
by nuclear or natural or `god` given ?
We've already had a `flood`, everyone but a half dozen survived.
How far past was that ?? How many babies a year, for how long ?
Population now is how many billions, 7 or 8 billion, I don't know !

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The big bang does not prove the existence of ANY supernatural entity let alone one specific religions god. The big bang model simply tries to describe the early moments of the universe as we know it today, period. The big bang theory is a SCIENTIFIC theory that has nothing to do with religion.

E X A C T L Y!

But you would have had to have argued that with many atheists at the time, they were the ones who explicitly mocked and rejected it for implications THEY saw as not compliant with atheism

So too with creationism/evolution - if steady state or Darwinism being wrong, could be interpreted as supporting evidence for God, I have no bias against this- are you conceding that you do?

Furthermore, the concept of gods seems to originate with humans. I have yet to see evidence for the existence of any god. I see plenty of evidence for humans inventing gods. Before you get started with a nonsensical "then how does anything exist without a creator?" argument, I'll stop you now and ask you what created the creator, and so on and so forth?

this is for another thread maybe but...


I will ask you the same- what spontaneous/naturalistic mechanism created the spontaneous/naturalistic mechanism?? same apparent paradox 'where did THAT come from' applies to any explanation right? So it's a wash, and also a moot point- because here we are, obviously there IS a solution to this paradox one way or another.

What's not even though is the capacity for creative intelligence v chance to create the world that you see around you. creation without creativity is an entirely separate paradox unique to atheist beliefs

 

[JustWondering]

E X A C T L Y!

But you would have had to have argued that with many atheists at the time, they were the ones who explicitly mocked and rejected it for implications THEY saw as not compliant with atheism

So too with creationism/evolution - if steady state or Darwinism being wrong, could be interpreted as supporting evidence for God, I have no bias against this- are you conceding that you do?

Some people are more concerned with winning an argument than being honest. Sounds like past atheists may have gotten emotionally caught up in their own pre-established concepts. The big bang makes sense and has solid evidence to back it up, it doesn't prove the existence of any kind of creator however.

I will ask you the same- what spontaneous/naturalistic mechanism created the spontaneous/naturalistic mechanism?? same apparent paradox 'where did THAT come from' applies to any explanation right? So it's a wash, and also a moot point- because here we are, obviously there IS a solution to this paradox one way or another.

Well, I'd be honest and say I don't know, pretty simple. Others make claims they can't possibly back up.

What's not even though is the capacity for creative intelligence v chance to create the world that you see around you. creation without creativity is an entirely separate paradox unique to atheist beliefs

You couldn't help yourself could you? So what creative intelligence created the creative intelligence? The "complex things need a creator to exist" argument also implies a creator (which is also a complex thing) should need a creator itself. Talk about paradoxes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Some people are more concerned with winning an argument than being honest. Sounds like past atheists may have gotten emotionally caught up in their own pre-established concepts. The big bang makes sense and has solid evidence to back it up, it doesn't prove the existence of any kind of creator however.

Hoyle refused to accept the Big Bang till his dying day - (in the 80's I think) he was the one who coined the term as a pejorative, calling it 'religious pseudoscience' .

Of course he didn't speak for all atheists- but two problems here: it's difficult to recognize and separate one's belief from science, when a person refuses to even acknowledge that belief as such. And 2, once you have mocked a theory and people who believe in it, it's very difficult to change your mind, no matter the evidence

Well, I'd be honest and say I don't know, pretty simple. Others make claims they can't possibly back up.

as above, we all believe in something, as long as we acknowledge that belief, faith as such- we can get along and look at each other's points of view. declaring 'undeniable truth' is where the problems usually begin is it not?

You couldn't help yourself could you? So what creative intelligence created the creative intelligence? The "complex things need a creator to exist" argument also implies a creator (which is also a complex thing) should need a creator itself. Talk about paradoxes.

again, the 1st cause paradox applies all round, and it's clearly solvable, because we are here.

But if we, for some reason, remove creative intelligence from the mix of possibility- we create another distinct paradox- an infinite regression of automated cause and effect with no true creative capacity. Creative intelligence is the only phenomena we know of that can break this chain-

 

[JustWondering]

But if we, for some reason, remove creative intelligence from the mix of possibility- we create another distinct paradox- an infinite regression of automated cause and effect with no true creative capacity. Creative intelligence is the only phenomena we know of that can break this chain-

It's the matter of making assumptions that separates our beliefs. I try not to make assumptions about things I don't know. Could there have been some intelligence or group of intelligences that caused the big bang and arranged circumstances so life would develop in this universe? Who KNOWS? I don't and I don't make claims about it. Humanity will likely never KNOW the answers to some of the biggest questions. I've made peace with that reality. You seem hung up on the idea that since there is complexity to the universe an intelligence must have been involved to set it up. That is an assumption. For if complex creator gods can simply exist than it stands to reason (by the very same logic) that complex universes can simply exist.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's the matter of making assumptions that separates our beliefs. I try not to make assumptions about things I don't know. Could there have been some intelligence or group of intelligences that caused the big bang and arranged circumstances so life would develop in this universe? Who KNOWS? I don't and I don't make claims about it. Humanity will likely never KNOW the answers to some of the biggest questions. I've made peace with that reality. You seem hung up on the idea that since there is complexity to the universe an intelligence must have been involved to set it up. That is an assumption. For if complex creator gods can simply exist than it stands to reason (by the very same logic) that complex universes can simply exist.

I acknowledge my faith as such certainly, but we are not entirely without any basis for logical deduction..

if you see HELP written on a deserted island beach with rocks, do you assume the random action of the waves did it?

why not?

 

[JustWondering]

I acknowledge my faith as such certainly, but we are not entirely without any basis for logical deduction..

if you see HELP written on a deserted island beach with rocks, do you assume the random action of the waves did it?

why not?

The reasonable explanation would be that a person put them there.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The reasonable explanation would be that a person put them there.

even though the island is deserted, no direct evidence of anyone every being there?

but with the waves, you are granted 100% a naturalistic mechanism fully capable of producing the same result by chance?

why assume ID?

 

[JustWondering]

even though the island is deserted, no direct evidence of anyone every being there?

but with the waves, you are granted 100% a naturalistic mechanism fully capable of producing the same result by chance?

why assume ID?

Because I know humans who use the English language exist and would likely try such a thing in hopes of being rescued. The chances of rocks naturally ending up in a formation that spells help isn't impossible, but from what I KNOW, someone using rocks to spell help is much more likely.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Because I know humans who use the English language exist and would likely try such a thing in hopes of being rescued. The chances of rocks naturally ending up in a formation that spells help isn't impossible, but from what I KNOW, someone using rocks to spell help is much more likely.

So the analogy is unrealistic because- even though there is no direct empirical evidence of ID around, the mere possibility is allowed? it should be removed altogether to be fair?

Yet you are not only granted the possibility, but the certainty of a viable natural cause, something we have no such evidence for in reality
so the analogy is actually heavily biased towards a naturalistic explanation, but you choose ID because of the superior power of explanation.


Ask yourself; how certain would you have to be, that no person could ever have placed the rocks, before you were forced to assume the waves did it?

can you be this utterly certain there is no God?

 

[JustWondering]

So the analogy is unrealistic because- even though there is no direct empirical evidence of ID around, the mere possibility is allowed? it should be removed altogether to be fair?

You seem to be fishing for a certain response. Like I said, I know other humans exist that use English and the likely explanation would be that someone placed those rocks there to attract attention. So, perhaps you should use another analogy in the future like, the mars rover finds a formation of rocks on mars that spells help.

Yet you are not only granted the possibility, but the certainty of a viable natural cause, something we have no such evidence for in reality so the analogy is actually heavily biased towards a naturalistic explanation, but you choose ID because of the superior power of explanation.

On earth, the likelihood of a rock formation spelling out a word is much more likely to be the work of humans than random natural phenomenon.

Ask yourself; how certain would you have to be, that no person could ever have placed the rocks, before you were forced to assume the waves did it?

There would have to be factors that made the waves a more plausible choice.

can you be this utterly certain there is no God?

Which god are you talking about? Why can't there be multiple gods?

 

[ArtieE]

It's the matter of making assumptions that separates our beliefs. I try not to make assumptions about things I don't know. Could there have been some intelligence or group of intelligences that caused the big bang and arranged circumstances so life would develop in this universe? Who KNOWS? I don't and I don't make claims about it. Humanity will likely never KNOW the answers to some of the biggest questions. I've made peace with that reality. You seem hung up on the idea that since there is complexity to the universe an intelligence must have been involved to set it up. That is an assumption. For if complex creator gods can simply exist than it stands to reason (by the very same logic) that complex universes can simply exist.

There's no need for any creator god. Quantum mechanics says that bubbles of space-time can snap into existence just like we have proved virtual particles do.
Why is there something rather than nothing?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You seem to be fishing for a certain response. Like I said, I know other humans exist that use English and the likely explanation would be that someone placed those rocks there to attract attention. So, perhaps you should use another analogy in the future like, the mars rover finds a formation of rocks on mars that spells help.



On earth, the likelihood of a rock formation spelling out a word is much more likely to be the work of humans than random natural phenomenon.



There would have to be factors that made the waves a more plausible choice.



Which god are you talking about? Why can't there be multiple gods?

You gave it, ID is the most probable explanation, unless you can utterly rule it out to a practically impossible extent, which we can't do for a creator either

so the point was about making assumptions,

In order for chance to be allowed to win out as most probable- ID has to be positively eliminated. But the same does not apply in reverse, you can keep the waves, the multiverse, any chance driven process you like, unless you can rule out an intelligent agent, it is still the least improbable explanation.

And of course 4 letters in rocks, is selling the universe a little short! the complete works of Shakespeare with illustrations, would still be

 

[ArtieE]

In order for chance to be allowed to win out as most probable- ID has to be positively eliminated. But the same does not apply in reverse, you can keep the waves, the multiverse, any chance driven process you like, unless you can rule out an intelligent agent, it is still the least improbable explanation.

And what would be the least improbable explanation for the existence of this intelligent agent?

1. It exists by chance.
2. It was designed and created.
3. It evolved.
4. Other options?

 

[`mud]

I've been reading all this stuff, sometimes I can't understand what teams are right, though !
Every time I see the 'word' Atheist or atheist, I am amazed by the different meanings !
Everything I've read is someone elses `athiest` not me, NOT ME !!
~
I don't believe in `gods`, `idols`, `heaven`, `hell`, `angles`, `satan`, or maybe `spirit`.
Maybe, heavenly thrones, heaven's trumpets, angles dancing on pins, holding swords.
I do have a part of me called `spirit`,
it holds the gnosis into witch I've saved the knowledge I've gained.
Maybe that will dissolve into the Cosmos itself,
and I will become one with the all !
I wonder what the ALL is, how large is this `god` that I'm presented with,
invisible you say ?
It doesn't weigh much,
about as much as a `thought` in the Cosmos,
in it's dawning birth.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And what would be the least improbable explanation for the existence of this intelligent agent?

1. It exists by chance.
2. It was designed and created.
3. It evolved.
4. Other options?

You tell me, which do you use to explain the existence of the person who placed the rocks to spell 'HELP'?

Nobody knows for sure, we debate it here a lot, but none of the 4 choices force us to resort to chance for the rocks spelling HELP- do they?

 

[ArtieE]

You tell me, which do you use to explain the existence of the person who placed the rocks to spell 'HELP'?

Evolution.

Nobody knows for sure, we debate it here a lot, but none of the 4 choices force us to resort to chance for the rocks spelling HELP- do they?

No. Most probably a person resulting from evolution.

And what would be the least improbable explanation for the existence of the intelligent agent?

1. It exists by chance.
2. It was designed and created.
3. It evolved.
4. Other options?

 

[`mud]

Should I suggest invisible rocks on an isolated imaginary beach !!!
I live on a beach, seen wonderful things happening in the surf.
It wasn't any `god` there, circumstance period !
Face LIFE and it's STUFF, watch out ! It'll get you !!
I can hear the trumpets in the distance in your heads wailing loudly....

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution.No. Most probably a person resulting from evolution.

And what would be the least improbable explanation for the existence of evolution?

1. It exists by chance.
2. It was designed and created.
3. It evolved.
4. Other options?[/QUOTE]

once again, same apparent paradox, with the added disadvantage of lacking creativity