Content
Thread
Forum
Date
My opening assertion was that "creationism" isn't even a Christian ideal...I'm on board with all of you and really don't know what the fuss is about.
Absolutely and objectively define "sufficiently advanced". Science will never be able to provide absolute truth. Hume's problem of induction, human ego, the fact that the test to derive one truth may destroy the existence of another unknown, etc. Science has many limits.

Quote by Arby911
You implied authority, quit being a douche.

Your asking cosmology to prove something it doesn't address seems to me to bear directly on the current issue?

Plenty of people who would consider themselves to be cosmologists have approached the subject. Would you feel better had I said scientist?

Also, my exact words were that you don't need to assume who I am. Because I will be now what I was in the past...and that statement implies just as much that I am a fool.
I was being a little facetious...

My point remains. It's hardly popular.
Quote by ali.guitarkid7

Hey asshole. Don't backtrack. What you meant is obvious. You also refrain from addressing the populist appeal here in order to condescend your way into being right, which I'm starting to think is all you can muster cuz you have all the intellectual authenticity of a pink-crystal-wielding new ageist loon.


Oh, you're right. As the only christian in here since sometime in 2011...I'm clearly making an appeal to popularity. I'll take you more seriously from now on.

Quote by EndTheRapture51
more mumbo jumbo belief + feelings stuff with no grounding in reason then

It depends on which scientific/cosmological theories you believe. There is evidence of such.

Quote by Arby911

Your childish appeal to your own authority and pedantic condescension aside, you were not that specific with your earlier claim. Had you been I would have still responded similarly, since proof for the origin of physical law isn't a necessary aspect of physical cosmology.

I claim no authority. Just that I will be what I have always been. Right or wrong...

And that's fine, but it has no bearing on the current debate...so...
Quote by ali.guitarkid7

Hey asshole. Don't backtrack. What you meant is obvious. You also refrain from addressing the populist appeal here in order to condescend your way into being right, which I'm starting to think is all you can muster cuz you have all the intellectual authenticity of a pink-crystal-wielding new ageist loon.


Oh, you're right. As the only christian in here since sometime in 2011...I'm clearly making an appeal to popularity. I'll take you more seriously from now on.

Quote by EndTheRapture51
more mumbo jumbo belief + feelings stuff with no grounding in reason then

It depends on which scientific/cosmological theories you believe. There is evidence of such.
Quote by ali.guitarkid7

Hey asshole. Don't backtrack. What you meant is obvious. You also refrain from addressing the populist appeal here in order to condescend your way into being right, which I'm starting to think is all you can muster cuz you have all the intellectual authenticity of a pink-crystal-wielding new ageist loon.


Oh, you're right. As the only christian in here since sometime in 2011...I'm clearly making an appeal to popularity. I'll take you more seriously from now on.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
in which case we have no free will and we get to the whole omnipotence/tience vs benevolent debate unless god also built in stuff like chaos theory to allow us free will but then what's even the point in him and why do we as humans have special signifcance to him? unless he just goes and looks at other species from time to time like we're just fucking shit up but god is busy watching a war between the lizard lesbians in another galaxy or just viewing a dope supernova whilst getting stoned

I feel quantum mechanics and the belief that our universe contains every possible history of itself (multidimensionalism) is sufficient to absolve us from divine preordination.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
if god just caused the big bang and then did nothing after that then what's the point in him

There wouldn't be, but who asserts that?
Quote by Banjocal
I never actually denied the truth of your assertion, I merely observed a lack of argument for your propositions.

Fair enough. I was taking the liberty of assuming a few presuppositions in order to make some theological claims about evolution. So, you're now asking me to defend my claim that God created physical law...to which I admitted there is no proof. Other than to make conclusions based on the bible's existence and veracity and tie in with the same anthropic arguments scientists champion.

My only defense was to point out that if I were to burden you with the same question...where did the natural laws come from...you would have no great answer either. So where's the debate?

Quote by Arby911
No, that's very much what you said. What you're saying now is a change in stance. Physical cosmology (and thus "cosmologists" as commonly used) isn't the study of where the laws came from, nor is the question material to science. We merely need to know what they are. Genesis or abiogenesis, Big Bang or "let there be light", it really doesn't matter as long as we figure out how it works.

Don't be one of those creationists that needs to misrepresent the position of science to score points, I'm pretty sure G_D doesn't countenance dishonesty.


Eh? You don't need to assume what kind of creationist I am. I'll play it out for you here, as I have in the past. I have more posts in UG's religious debate threads than most of you have total across all it's boards...and I haven't been active here since sometime in the mid 2000's.

I'm not changing my stance. You just don't know how to read. My initial comment about the burden of proof resting also on the cosmologist was solely concerning proof for the origin of physical law.

Quote by ali.guitarkid7
Had to be like this didn't ya

When I said "these concepts and positions are ages old" I was talking about the totality of this debate. I said nothing about the age of my religion or the bible...I think you should sit courtside a while and let the adults play first.
Quote by Banjocal
If that helps you sleep at night, chum.

I'm just saying that to analyze my assertion in a vacuum is ridiculous. You're making assertions of truth just by virtue of the fact that you're denying my assertions of a different truth.

Quote by ali.guitarkid7
The claim that Gaia birthed all the gods is older. Does the veracity of a claim lie in its age?

Appealing to populism while condescending others' supposed fallacious reasoning = not the way to move forward.

Burn this thread.

When did I imply any of this was my position? I'd appreciate if you didn't claim I were making fallacies that I'm not.
Quote by Banjocal
If that helps you sleep at night, chum.

I'm just saying that to analyze my assertion in a vacuum is ridiculous. You're making assertions of truth just by virtue of the fact that you're denying my assertions of a different truth.
Quote by Banjocal
Well, just for my own amusement (please; it's been a long day), would you mind pointing out who, out of the two of us, has made a truth claim about God's (if we assume that word is meaningful) role in the creation of the universe ITT?

Hah, wow. You create more fallacies in an attempt to pigeonhole an argument than Slacker. This argument...these concepts and positions...are ages old. My claim right here and now doesn't stand alone.
Quote by Arby911
Is it your honest belief that there's no evidence in support of physical cosmology?

That's not what I said...there's no proof for where the natural laws came from.
Quote by Banjocal
I think you'll find it tends to rest on the one making truth claims

And cosmologists don't? Don't be silly.

Quote by Trowzaa
God is the biggest cop-out though.

Something we don't understand yet? Uhhhhhhhh God did it

That's never been my philosophy. Don't generalize.
The burden of proof is a cop-out because it rests just as much on the cosmologist...who also will never have any.
Yes, God guided the natural processes. In an indirect way He was responsible for the creation as an overseer or by prompting certain natural events take place at certain times, but even there His command is that "the land produce living creatures".

Quote by gonzaw
Did god create evolution? Or did god evolve creation?
Hmmmmmmm

God created natural law, which was necessary and responsible for abiogenesis and evolution...not only eveolution of life but of the cosmos also.
Quote by TheChaz
I said some stupid shit in this thread years ago. But this is also the thread where Craigo convinced me to research to back up my beliefs, and when I couldn't find any evidence that creationism is true, I re-examined my religion and stopped believing in god. So this thread kind of changed my life. Thanks UG/Craigo!


I'm confused...the bible is pretty clear that God didn't do much creating. Genesis states that there was a natural abiogenesis and leaves the door wide open for subsequent evolution when it says, "and the Earth brought forth life". After creating the matter and energy that we know as The Big Bang, God does absolutely no creating until humanity.
Quote by Dreadnought
Is Slacker dead?


I'm not.
Quote by SlackerBabbath
But surely that could also be an argument for the earth already existing at the beginning of Genesis 1? Because it refers to water already existing?

Much like light...you don't think it's feasible for water to have existed prior to the Earth?

If something is 'over' the water, then we have to assume it is gathered upon something like a planet because if it's something that's just floating around in space, there is no up or down so there can be no 'over' or 'under'.

It's purely a linguistic convention. It's akin to referring to God's existence "before" time, when obviously the concept makes no logical sense.


Light has to come from somewhere, if it was present before God created any visible luminaries, it surely must have come from God himself.

You fail at cosmology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_epoch

Your point being?
So Jeremiah said that the the earlier Jews were wrong to worship other Gods along with Yahweh, doesn't change the fact that they did, doesn't change the fact that historicaly, it looks like monotheistic Judaism was developed from an earlier polytheistic version of religion.

Or it looks like they simply abandoned their true, monotheistic religion for the worship of multiple foreign idols. On several different occasions. As is plainly stated all over the Old Testament.

What exactly defines a 'day' for God? To us it is the amount of time it takes for the earth to complete one rotation on its axis, but essentially it is a fixed measurement of time that doesn't vary.

And in addition to cosmology you also fail at special relativity. Time, as a physical entity, is relative...and that's true before we even introduce our inherently limited measurement of it.

Also, we've discussed many times that the word used is yom or yowm, which, in the Hebrew, means "a period of time" and not a static reference such as a 24 hour day.


Quote by FrenchyFungus
Genesis 1 makes it quite clear that the author was talking about literal days. At the end of each section it says "there was evening and there was morning - the nth day"

Even if you want to take a metaphorical view of "day", the order of creation in Genesis 1 is all messed up.

What kind of meaning does that have? It's an awfully odd way to measure the passage of time, no? Especially in context, when you consider that the Sun didn't even exist until the fourth iteration of this. It's backwards anyway. Shouldn't it be, "there was morning and there was evening"? The whole thing screams of a dynamic time scale.
Quote by instagata0
You're getting confused about your own argument. You think that god exists outside of time, remember?

Absolutely. Which is why I stated that the future would be observed to have already happened. From outside of it, God views time in its entirety and not merely as a cross section of a line.


Actually, I've changed my mind. We don't even need to say that god exists in any form of our concept of time. The main point I'm trying to make is that irrespective of the perspective from which god views our time, he should know how I turn out. Not just the infinite ways in which I could turn out. He should know how I do turn out.

Why? I'm toying with two different ideas here, but why do you feel that God does - not could or should be able to, but does know?


Quote by CG Man16
I've got a question. Why do you believe that an omniscient god does exist, or any god at all?

I've answered this many times here, though not for you in particular. I believe because I can perceive a difference in my life when it's lived according to my own will and desires and when I'm living in a relationship with God. I can not deny God's existence because when I am close to Him, I feel and observe a difference in me.

It's purely emotional and non-empirical, though it does have an element of testable repeatability.
Quote by instagata0
This argument makes no sense, and it is not aided by what I suspect is a poor understanding of Dr Hawking's work.

God, if he is all knowing, should know which timeline I, in my present form, will experience. I would consider it a property of an entity which is all-knowing if he knew what the outcomes of every possible action would be, but if he does not know which action I WILL take in any given situation, then he is not all-knowing.

It's really that simple.

Well, if you really want to get in to the semantics of it, even the future would be viewed as the past from God's perspective. So, by definition, God doesn't know our future.

Or you could accept that there are varying degrees of omniscience, and that God purposely limits His in order to preserve free will.
I believe in evolution.

I refute that it denies the existence of a creator.
Quote by instagata0
I think it's the other way around - you're assuming a lesser definition of the term. A truly all-knowing god would know all outcomes which could have been, along with the one which will come to be.

From His perspective, they would all come to be...

Hawking states, and physicists agree, that the universe contains every possible timeline. It's just that we can only experience one. Why that is or what mechanism causes it to be is unknown to us, but that's the way that it is.
Quote by instagata0


This is stupid.

If I flip a coin, I know that it will land on either heads or tails. I know that because they are the only two possible 'futures' which can occur.

What you are proposing is that god is aware of all of the variables in the universe, and that's it. God knows that my life could end up on either heads or tails. That's not an all-knowing god.

Sure it is. Why assume a grander definition for the the term all-knowing than its obvious meaning?
Quote by WhiskeyFace
He knows my infinite futures but doesn't know which one I will take. Technically, I know that as well.

Conceptually, perhaps. You can conceptualize the fact that you have a near infinite number of futures, but you can't actually know them all.
Quote by WhiskeyFace
^ That just seems to me like a fancy way of saying he knows shit. It's like when a fortune teller tells your future, but says it wont be the same if you do it again because your future is always changing. So it's just completely pointless, they might as well know literally nothing.

Except that God would know each and every one of your possible futures...so it's not really like knowing nothing. At all.

Quote by matt154
Hang on so you're saying god doesn't know something? That kinda blows a steaming hole in the all-knowing argument.

It does but it doesn't. He knows everything, just not which everything we will chose to experience.

Quote by CG Man16

Also, slacker posted something a week or so ago that said that the original Hebrew version of the bible never stated god created the universe, and that he only prepared it. He explained how genesis could be treated as an allegory for someone who taught people how to farm during the agricultural revolution. Someone find that post.


God didn't "create" the universe per se. I believe that God created the Big Bang singularity and permitted the universe to form au naturel. I believe that He may have set the parameters for physical law but otherwise left the universe largely undeterred.
You need to consider how time would look from above our 4th dimension or entirely beyond our 10 dimensional space-time. He views the entirety of our universe and each of its nearly infinite outcomes within the totality of our time.

God knows everything. He just doesn't know which everything will come to pass as a result of the choices of our free will.
Quote by SlackerBabbath
To be fair, we are talking about time from the perspective of the beginning of our universe here, but we have no idea what existed before it or what, if anything, exists outside of it. While God may be defined as being beyond our universe's time there's no actual reason why he has to be without beginning himself, just that he has to be older than anything he might have created.

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, and that He doesn't experience time.
Quote by FrenchyFungus
Sorry, I'm not understanding your point here. Are you saying that reason, speech will and power are the attributes which set humans apart from animals?

I'm jumping into the middle of a conversation here, but my point was merely that God didn't create us physically "in His image". The statement has nothing to do with our appearance or God as a physical form.


You mean that during the rapture he won't kill every living thing? Why did he say "as I have done" then? He saved a few people from the flood.

God doesn't kill anyone during the rapture

I Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

...a timeless entity which should have enough sense to know that he is talking to humans, and that when he puts the word "near" in a book he had written for them, it is going to be interpreted as near on their timescale.


Again, the point wasn't to establish a time frame, but rather a frame of mind in the greater context of Christianity. Consider the words of James and those of Paul:

James 4:14...What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.

Romans 13:11 And do this, understanding the present time: The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.


We are to live and behave as though the rapture is imminent because our time on Earth is unspeakably brief and we honestly do not know when it will be over for us individually or for all of humanity.

Quote by SlackerBabbath
Although Genesis 1:2 is often translated as the "Spirit of God was hovering over the waters", it's been more literaly translated as the "Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters". This may be referring to light shimmering on the water and may be a reference to God as a solar deity, after all, the next line is "and God saith, `Let light be, and light is."

Any Biblical scholar will tell you that passage has nothing to do with water. Certainly not liquid water, as it couldn't have possibly existed yet anyway. Also, butterflies flutter...are they beings of pure light?

I'm back for two posts and already we're immersed in fanciful and imaginative translations.

It's important to remember that in many ancient cultures, the sun itself was not considered as a deity but rather as the abode of the deity, and the deity was considered as the light itself, which could neatly explain why Genesis 1 has light existing before the sun or any other luminaries were created, because God was considered to be the light.

Or the fact that photons existed for several billions of years before our sun...that could possibly have something to do with it.

Since the discovery of an an 8th century BC piece of pottery with the inscription "I have blessed you by Yahweh of Samaria and His Asherah" (Asherah was a Mother Goddess and wife of the Canaanite god El) and also the discovery of similar inscriptions, also dated to the 8th century BC, found on walls at two sites, Khirbet el-Kom and Kuntillet Ajrud, both in Israel, it has been considered that early Judaism was not wholly monotheistic, and for some time considered Yahweh as, like El, having a wife. Which could neatly explain why God speaks of himself in the plural when he says, "let us create man in our image".

Have you read the Old Testament?

Jeremiah 2:2... “‘I remember the devotion of your youth, how as a bride you loved me
and followed me through the wilderness, through a land not sown...

5... “What fault did your ancestors find in me, that they strayed so far from me?
They followed worthless idols and became worthless themselves...23 “How can you say, ‘I am not defiled; I have not run after the Baals’? See how you behaved in the valley; consider what you have done. You are a swift she-camel running here and there, 24 a wild donkey accustomed to the desert, sniffing the wind in her craving—in her heat who can restrain her? Any males that pursue her need not tire themselves; at mating time they will find her. 25 Do not run until your feet are bare and your throat is dry. But you said, ‘It’s no use! I love foreign gods, and I must go after them.’

"Does not wisdom call,
And understanding lift up her voice?" (Prov. 8:1)

Proverbs, much like the Psalms, is a poetic book.

Are you suggesting that from the earth's creation to the appearence of man took just 6000 years?

Eh? It's not literal...a day is like a thousand years. I mean that the 6 days of creation took place over 13.7 billion years...
Quote by WhiskeyFace
By definition maybe, but it's silly to think it has some kind of intelligence, or that it has any connection to human beings.

I never said that it does. The point was to first establish that everything in the universe is finite and entities, abstract or otherwise, could exist beyond it that are not.

I was simply refuting the notion that God must have a beginning or creator because everything we witness was created. It's not a logical concept.
Considering that women on the internet, and here at UG in particular, are pretty generally idolized rather than oppressed...I suppose this thread is just a giant waste of time.

Also, from the OP I gather that this isn't a group of people who are necessarily feminists, but rather who would seek to positively alter the way the word "feminist" is viewed in modern society? That's...admirable. I guess.
Quote by WhiskeyFace
It makes no sense to assume that whatever came before the universe or what will come after does not behave by natural law. None of the current theories for everything suggest a God.

Natural law, as we understand and experience it, ceases to exist before 1 Planck time. So of course our scientific theories don't suggest the existence of a God...they don't - they can't - really make any suggestions because whatever occurred before 1 Planck time is entirely beyond the realm of scientific understanding. By definition, whatever came before or follows after is supernatural.
Quote by Zoot Allures

edit: why do i even bother, this same argument must have been said several hundred times, i remember a long time ago i got you to admit a lot of your belief is based on faith and therefore is illogical.

Sure. There is no empirical evidence of God's existence. They call the field apologetics for a reason...it's a logical defense and not a means by which to prove this or that.

And you bother because it's more entertaining and enlightening than reading dick jokes and photoshop threads.

Quote by WhiskeyFace
Why is God allowed be infinite but the universe (or multiverse) can't?


Because it's been proven or theorized that the universe isn't...and nothing within the universe is.
Quote by CG Man16
That doesn't actually mean anything.

The fact that you don't personally understand something doesn't mean that it is void of reason or meaning.
Quote by FrenchyFungus

Why couldn't "his image" be that of an ape?

God is immaterial. He's a timeless and formless being. When He says, "let us create man in our image", He's not talking about a physical representation. Biblical scholars agree saying,

"We gather from the present chapter that God is a spirit Genesis 1:2, that he thinks, speaks, wills, and acts (Genesis 1:3-4, etc.). Here, then, are the great points of conformity to God in man, namely, reason, speech, will, and power. By reason we apprehend concrete things in perception and consciousness, and cognize abstract truth, both metaphysical and moral."

Still, if he can't lie, I feel a lot better about the Rapture having read Genesis 8:21:
"Never again shall I smite every living thing."

Or can he change his mind?

I think you need to read up on the rapture again. Even the definition of the term refutes this assessment.


But wasn't the Earth made just a couple of days before Man? Man's history is longer than 6000 years, too.

Two times, in the Psalms and in Peter, the Bible states, "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

People have been saying it's imminent for 2000 years. Jesus' language in the New Testament made it pretty clear that he wasn't going to be waiting 2000 years for the 2nd coming. 1 Peter 4:7 said "it is near", and was written 2000 years ago!

The point is to establish that it could be near. We don't know the time, so you should live with the understanding that it could be at any moment. Also, see the verse quoted above and then tell me what 'near' means to a timeless entity.
Quote by instagata0

The other obvious thing is that if 'something' necessitates a creator, then god must also necessarily be created by something.

Not all things necessitate a creator, but, as far as we know, everything in our universe had a finite beginning. The same assumption makes no sense when applied to a being that by definition is beyond time - without beginning or end.
Thought this was relevant to many discussions which take place here.

Quote by dark&broken
In the context of the specific act deni mentioned, the immoral action would be the actual sex. Just being sexually attracted to people of the same sex is not an action. As such, it's not an action caused by something out of their control. It's perfectly within their control, it's just being heavily influenced by things outside their control.

At this point, I think that it's still immoral, as one still has the choice to act or not. That one is being coerced in no way removes the burden of choice, particularly since I think the ability to act contrary to one's urges/instincts/whatever you want to call them is a defining trait of humans.

This is what I was looking for. I agree, but it still can be called to question in the absence of objective morals, I believe.

I'm much more interested in discussing the moral implications of free will than what external factors shape our ability to make decisions (nature vs. nurture).
Quote by SlackerBabbath
My daughter used to find the mysterious disappearence of her teeth from under her pillow during the night to be much more easily reconciled with the belief in the existence of a tooth fairy than through the notion that there was probably a more plausable explanation.

I find the fact that you would so readily equate the rationality of a child to that of the world's greatest scientific minds to be laughable in the most derogatory sense of the word.