Creation vs evolution

[ArtieE]

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?

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

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?

Can you pick a number?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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?

Can you pick a number?

#2, how about you?

 

[ArtieE]

#2, how about you?

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?

You picked number 2.

What would be the least improbable explanation for the existence of the intelligent agent who designed and created the intelligent agent?

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

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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?

You picked number 2.

What would be the least improbable explanation for the existence of the intelligent agent who designed and created the intelligent agent?

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

#2..

 

[ArtieE]

#2..

Ah. Infinite regression then.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ah. Infinite regression then.

No
That is what you face with naturalistic causes. Because each requires another underlying layer of naturalistic cause to determine what that will be

creative intelligence is the only phenomena we know of that can break this chain, which can genuinely create novel information on it's own, rather than being bound by an infinite regression of pre-determined cause and effect-

you see the distinction?

 

[ArtieE]

No
That is what you face with naturalistic causes. Because each requires another underlying layer of naturalistic cause to determine what that will be

creative intelligence is the only phenomena we know of that can break this chain, which can genuinely create novel information on it's own, rather than being bound by an infinite regression of pre-determined cause and effect-

you see the distinction?

No. The chain starts at the big bang. Follow the chain backwards and the first link is at the big bang.

0 -> Big bang (quantum fluctuation) -> Spacetime Continuum -> Cosmic Inflation -> Natural causes -> Humans evolve big brains and write the word HELP on a beach.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No. The chain starts at the big bang. Follow the chain backwards and the first link is at the big bang.

0 -> Big bang (quantum fluctuation) -> Spacetime Continuum -> Cosmic Inflation -> Natural causes -> Humans evolve big brains and write the word HELP on a beach.

0? created the Big Bang and all the excruciatingly finely tuned information required for all the events that followed? that's a very interesting sort of 0, where did that come from?

 

[syo]

For those who believe in the theory of evolution.

I strongly believe in evolution, and I think the story of Adam and Eve describes evolution in a way. Adam and Eve had a certain nature before eating the fruit, and an altered nature after eating the fruit. Adam and Eve are humans with altered natures; thus evolution.

 

[ArtieE]

0? created the Big Bang and all the excruciatingly finely tuned information required for all the events that followed? that's a very interesting sort of 0, where did that come from?

Nowhere. +energy in the form of matter -energy in the form of gravity still adds up to zero.
A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
And since this universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing there is no reason to believe that it is the only one so no fine tuning is required.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nowhere. +energy in the form of matter -energy in the form of gravity still adds up to zero.
A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
And since this universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing there is no reason to believe that it is the only one so no fine tuning is required.

Okay, so it's a play on the word nothing. We can also encode information using a positive and negative value, which can add up to nothing mathematically

but obviously you still have something, extremely finely tuned information describing how to construct space/time matter/energy physics/chemistry and ultimately life

not the sort of thing you're likely to achieve throwing random values around..

 

[ArtieE]

Okay, so it's a play on the word nothing. We can also encode information using a positive and negative value, which can add up to nothing mathematically

but obviously you still have something, extremely finely tuned information describing how to construct space/time matter/energy physics/chemistry and ultimately life

not the sort of thing you're likely to achieve throwing random values around..

Since we have mathematical proof that our universe could spontaneously have formed from nothing there's absolutely no reason to assume that ours would be the only one. And given the number of possible universes no wonder one could be like ours.

 

[JustWondering]

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

If that is the ASSUMPTION you want to make, go for it. You can pretend to KNOW things you don't until the cows come home. Those of us not wrapped up in your flawed way of reasoning readily recognize the ASSUMPTIONS you are making.

 

[`mud]

And the entire Cosmos is dissolving into "WHAT" !
Where's the `container`, made of what ?
And the void, all around us, containing nothingness !
And yet, the Cosmos is still expanding.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that is the ASSUMPTION you want to make, go for it. You can pretend to KNOW things you don't until the cows come home. Those of us not wrapped up in your flawed way of reasoning readily recognize the ASSUMPTIONS you are making.

What are these supposed flaws? What is wrong with concepts that are testable? I have found that concepts that are testable and have been tested with positive results are much more reliable on concepts that have no reliable evidence in support of them.

 

[JustWondering]

What are these supposed flaws? What is wrong with concepts that are testable? I have found that concepts that are testable and have been tested with positive results are much more reliable on concepts that have no reliable evidence in support of them.

How do you test that a god created everything? I don't believe anyone suggested a test for that in prior posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you test that a god created everything? I don't believe anyone suggested a test for that in prior posts.

This is not an answer to a request to explain the supposed flaws in the reasoning that you do not like. Nor does it deal with any assumptions.

There is no way to test whether a god created everything. I agree. So what?

 

[JustWondering]

This is not an answer to a request to explain the supposed flaws in the reasoning that you do not like. Nor does it deal with any flaws.

There is no way to test whether a god created everything. I agree. So what?

Ah, why did you talk about testing then? The flaw is making assumptions about something for which no verifiable evidence or data exists. If I don't know something then the most appropriate and honest answer/response is to say I don't know. If I have a reasoned guess I will say it is a reasoned guess and I could be wrong. Making claims about something you have no evidence or solid arguments to support requires flawed reasoning in my opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, why did you talk about testing then? The flaw is making assumptions about something for which no verifiable evidence or data exists. If I don't know something then the most appropriate and honest answer/response is to say I don't know. If I have a reasoned guess I will say it is a reasoned guess and I could be wrong. Making claims about something you have no evidence or solid arguments to support requires flawed reasoning in my opinion.

Sorry, my mistake. I see that you were responding to someone that claimed ID was the most probable explanation. I made the error of thinking you were constructing a strawman of what atheists believe or do not believe. I should have backtracked a little better.

ETA: LOL, I just got a like from someone on my previous post that probably did not backtrack properly either. At least I am not the only guilty party here.

 

[JustWondering]

Since we have mathematical proof that our universe could spontaneously have formed from nothing there's absolutely no reason to assume that ours would be the only one. And given the number of possible universes no wonder one could be like ours.

Every time I point out how the creationists argument that a god can just exist but universes need a creator is illogical they have no rational response. They typically just keep insisting that the universe needs a creator like a broken record without actually considering my LOGICAL counter argument to their claim. There is no reasoning with a person like that.