Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…176177179181182…232

Comments

  • #5342
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    pajo1981 wrote:

    Here is a complex image. It was generated entirely by a computer algorithm. The algorithm parameters were chosen at random. If those parameters are changed even slightly, the image will look completely different. The image was created systemically. No being had any part in its design.

    The parameters that describe the universe are not fixed. The universe may well collapse on itself and come back based on different parameters. It may do this for eternity. Some parameter may result in life, some may not. Right now we have measured some of those parameters and concluded, if they were slightly different things would not be as they are now. That is all.

    Also, as has been mentioned, if the universe was designed, what does that even mean? I you think about it it is an utterly absurd notion. Where does the designer come from? What are they exactly? If the universe needs to be 'designed', who designed the designer?
    Fractals are amazingly beautiful and infinitely variable ... but they are merely complex ... and not functional or specified, like living systems are.
    Functionality and specificity are the hallmarks of intelligent design ... complexity is often found with spontaneous i.e. non-intelligently directed designs e.g. fractals.


  • #5343
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Absolam wrote: »
    Agreed. That we are able to create complex things does not imply that all complex things are created.

    Can we stick to the issue of the creation of the Universe?

    Science claims that the Universe is 14 billion years old.
    By dating the Universe as 14 billion years old, Science is admitting that the Universe was created at a given point.

    For something to be created there has to be a catalyst for that creation.

    At one point, the argument was made that the process of creation was random and a product of chance.
    The precision of the Universe contradicts the argument that the process of creation was random and a product of chance.


  • #5344
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    hinault wrote: »
    Can we stick to the issue of the creation of the Universe?
    <..>The precision of the Universe contradicts the argument that the process of creation was random and a product of chance.
    I don't think you've provided any evidence for the assertion though? It's been shown that something precise can be generated randomly, and indeed the very nature of randomness means than a random generation can result in order, otherwise it's not truly random at all. The fact that the universe appears to conform to the 'rules' we have divined by observing it does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that it was deliberately created, only the conclusion that our theories about what we've seen so far fit with what we've seen so far.


  • #5345
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,866 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    hinault wrote: »
    Can we stick to the issue of the creation of the Universe?

    Science claims that the Universe is 14 billion years old.
    By dating the Universe as 14 billion years old, Science is admitting that the Universe was created at a given point.

    For something to be created there has to be a catalyst for that creation.

    At one point, the argument was made that the process of creation was random and a product of chance.
    The precision of the Universe contradicts the argument that the process of creation was random and a product of chance.

    At what point was the argument made that the process of random chance?

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • #5346
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    hinault wrote: »
    Can we stick to the issue of the creation of the Universe?

    Science claims that the Universe is 14 billion years old.
    By dating the Universe as 14 billion years old, Science is admitting that the Universe was created at a given point.
    that's reasonable, if something has an age then it follows it began/came into existence at some point.
    For something to be created there has to be a catalyst for that creation.
    That catalyst need not be a deity though.
    At one point, the argument was made that the process of creation was random and a product of chance.
    The precision of the Universe contradicts the argument that the process of creation was random and a product of chance.

    You need to back that up. Can you for example prove that the Earth was deliberately placed in its current orbit by some unknown agent rather just a result of various events in the universe?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #5347
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    hinault wrote: »
    The precision of the Universe contradicts the argument that the process of creation was random and a product of chance.

    With a sample size of 1 universe you cannot say anything about how precise it is as you have nothing to compare it to. All that can be said is that it is how it is, and if things were slightly different then things would be different. That doesn't imply anything at all about precision which is again you using specific words that imply an outside influence in order to back up your claim of an outside influence.


  • #5348
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Delirium makes the fundamental points in the discussion. We can dance all over the place in regards of stuff none of us can possibly know, but in the end every line of discussion will always lead to a deity not being required. It doesn't mean that a deity wasn't involved, but even then you run into the problem of what sort of deity. IT really get you no closer to proving the logic behind God.

    If you use the constant GC argument, then you are effectively saying that even if a deity created the universe he plays no active part or role in it since then and God, as it is espoused by religion, does not exist.

    If you argue that God is an active in the universe, then the constant precise universe argument is meaningless as accepting that God can intervene at any time means that the GC is not necessary at all.

    If you start from a position of already thinking you know the answer, then you will always try to bend any discussion to suit that outcome.. It's like starting an investigation with the person already convicted. You will see the evidence in light of getting to your final outcome.


  • #5349
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Absolam wrote: »
    I don't think you've provided any evidence for the assertion though? It's been shown that something precise can be generated randomly, and indeed the very nature of randomness means than a random generation can result in order, otherwise it's not truly random at all. The fact that the universe appears to conform to the 'rules' we have divined by observing it does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that it was deliberately created, only the conclusion that our theories about what we've seen so far fit with what we've seen so far.

    Atheistic view is that the creation of the Universe was not as a result of God.

    Atheistic views cannot substantiate what was the catalyst for the creation of the Universe. The fact that many atheists cite the Big Bang, a theory put forward first by a Roman Catholic priest, escapes those who advocate this theory.

    The Universe conforms to a given set of rules, laws.
    How those laws came to be is one question.
    Why the objects in the Universe behave in conformance to those laws is another question.


  • #5350
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    hinault wrote: »
    Atheistic view is that the creation of the Universe was not as a result of God.

    Atheistic views cannot substantiate what was the catalyst for the creation of the Universe. The fact that many atheists cite the Big Bang, a theory put forward first by a Roman Catholic priest, escapes those who advocate this theory.

    The Universe conforms to a given set of rules, laws.
    How those laws came to be is one question.
    Why the objects in the Universe behave in conformance to those laws is another question.
    ... and of course, where there are laws ... there logically has to be a law creator/maker.:)


  • #5351
    pajo1981
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,159 ✭✭✭pajo1981


    J C wrote: »
    ... and of course, where there are laws ... there logically has to be a law creator/maker.:)

    If there has to be a creator, then how are they created? By the same logic there has to be another creator to create the creator, and so on... Not very convincing.


  • Advertisement
  • #5352
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    pajo1981 wrote: »
    If there has to be a creator, then how are they created? By the same logic there has to be another creator to create the creator, and so on... Not very convincing.
    There logically has to be an ultimate cause for everything ... and that ultimate cause cannot logically have a cause itself.
    A transcendent omnipotent God is the only thing that 'fits the bill' as the ultimate cause of everything.


  • #5353
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    hinault wrote: »
    Atheistic view is that the creation of the Universe was not as a result of God.
    Or Zeus, Odin etc. etc.
    Atheistic views cannot substantiate what was the catalyst for the creation of the Universe. The fact that many atheists cite the Big Bang, a theory put forward first by a Roman Catholic priest, escapes those who advocate this theory.
    and? what's your point? That is one is an atheist they should dismiss the Big Bang because a religious person put forward the idea?
    The Universe conforms to a given set of rules, laws.
    How those laws came to be is one question.
    Why the objects in the Universe behave in conformance to those laws is another question.
    That's why scientists spend their time trying to better understand the mechanisms by which the universe operates.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5354
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    There logically has to be an ultimate cause for everything ... and that ultimate cause cannot logically have a cause itself.
    A transcendent omnipotent God is the only thing that 'fits the bill' as the ultimate cause of everything.
    why does there have to be an 'ultimate cause' and why is God it?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5355
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    why does there have to be an 'ultimate cause' and why is God it?
    ... its impossible to logically conceive of a stop in causation at any point before an Ultimate Cause.
    An Ultimate Cause must logically be transcendent and omnipotent to be an Ultimate Cause of everthing we observe to exist.

    Such an Ultimate Cause bears a striking resemblance to the God of the Bible ... but it could be something else, of course.


  • #5356
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    hinault wrote: »
    Atheistic view is that the creation of the Universe was not as a result of God.
    I think a more accurate rendition would be that an atheist will point out that there is no evidence to support the proposition that the Universe is a result of God, which does not prohibit the consideration of any evidence that will be put forward.
    hinault wrote: »
    Atheistic views cannot substantiate what was the catalyst for the creation of the Universe. The fact that many atheists cite the Big Bang, a theory put forward first by a Roman Catholic priest, escapes those who advocate this theory. The Universe conforms to a given set of rules, laws.
    I'd go further; atheists don't offer any assertion that there should be a catalyst at all. Some scientists, who may or may not be atheists, might, but it's not an atheistic view, it's a scientific one.
    hinault wrote: »
    How those laws came to be is one question. Why the objects in the Universe behave in conformance to those laws is another question.
    Well, they could well be related. As I said, the fact that the universe appears to conform to the 'rules' we have divined by observing it does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that it was deliberately created, only the conclusion that our theories about what we've seen so far fit with what we've seen so far. I've no doubt that those rules will be altered or replaced as we encounter new observations.


  • #5357
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... its impossible to logically conceive of a stop in causation at any point before an Ultimate Cause.
    An Ultimate Cause must logically be transcendent and omnipotent to be an Ultimate Cause of everthing we observe to exist.
    only because you're backwards from the conclusion 'God did it'.

    It's entirely possible to conceive of inumerable possibilties as the the creation of this universe. All you need is some imagination.

    And just conceiving of a possible explanation doesn't mean it is the right answer if you can't find evidence to align with the proposal, e.g. young Earth creationism.
    Such an Ultimate Cause bears a striking resemblance to the God of the Bible ... but it could be something else, of course.
    Only insomuch that it fits with your desired explanation for the creation of the universe.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5358
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    only because you're backwards from the conclusion 'God did it'.

    It's entirely possible to conceive of inumerable possibilties as the the creation of this universe. All you need is some imagination.
    ... but it also must logically 'stand up' ... and the Ultimate Cause is the only logical stop in the causation chain, that I'm aware of.
    Delirium wrote: »
    And just conceiving of a possible explanation doesn't mean it is the right answer if you can't find evidence to align with the proposal, e.g. young Earth creationism.
    ... but we have the evidence, in the case of a recent creation and worldwide Flood ... and the logic supporting an Ultimate Cause of Divine proportions.

    Delirium wrote: »
    Only insomuch that it fits with your desired explanation for the creation of the universe.
    Only insomuch that it is evidentially and logically supported.


  • #5359
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... but it also must logically 'stand up' ... and the Ultimate Cause is the only logical stop in the causation chain, that I'm aware of.
    And again this is because you're working backwards from 'God did it'. Which isn't logical if attempting to find the truth as to what created/caused the universe to begin.
    ... but we have the evidence, in the case of a recent creation and worldwide Flood ... and the logic supporting an Ultimate Cause of Divine proportions.
    Have you informed the scientific community as they don't agree with your claim?

    Only insomuch that it is evidentially and logically supported.

    See above.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5360
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    J C wrote: »
    ... but we have the evidence, in the case of a recent creation and worldwide Flood ... and the logic supporting an Ultimate Cause of Divine proportions.

    Woah now, I am all for people arguing about things that are, currently at least, unprovable, but where did you get this from?

    What evidence do you have about recent creation?

    Every bit of scientific evidence we have, everything we know of the universe, points in the direction of a universe that is 13.8bn years old. That earth was created bns of years ago and that humans are part of the same grouping that all living things have come from.

    What evidence do you have of a worldwide flood. I mean think about it. Where did all the water go? How did Noah and his family of 8 build an Arc large enough ans structurally sound enough to survive? We would struggle to do it today using modern materials and machines never mind wood.

    And what happened to the Arc? Surely something as important as the birthplace of all humanity and the starting point of all living things would not simply be abandoned? It would be treated as the very earthly form of God himself, and a place to be revered. But no, apparently, they all simply got off and moved away. Surely even God would made it maintained in order to offer continue evidence of his power and ability to offer salvation?

    Is this the same type of evidence that you were going to provide from the debunking of evolution and the proof that intelligence was required for the formation of life? That was what, a week ago now?


  • #5361
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Woah now, I am all for people arguing about things that are, currently at least, unprovable, but where did you get this from?

    What evidence do you have about recent creation?

    Every bit of scientific evidence we have, everything we know of the universe, points in the direction of a universe that is 13.8bn years old. That earth was created bns of years ago and that humans are part of the same grouping that all living things have come from.
    The billions of years were only hypothesised because of the 'deep time' required for the theory of the spontaneous evolution from pondkind to mankind to have any plausibility.

    There is plenty of evidence for a young earth ... here are 10 of the best scientific reasons
    https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    What evidence do you have of a worldwide flood.
    Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth !!!:)
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    I mean think about it.
    We have ... and my answers are in blue within your quote below.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Where did all the water go? It flowed off the land into the oceans, as land masses rose and seabeds fell relative to each other with the powerful tectonic movements that accompanied the Flood.
    How did Noah and his family of 8 build an Arc large enough ans structurally sound enough to survive? We would struggle to do it today using modern materials and machines never mind wood. A Dutch carpenter built a full scale replica of Noahs Ark with 8 helpers in 4 years
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan's_Ark

    noahs-ark.jpg
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    And what happened to the Arc? Surely something as important as the birthplace of all humanity and the starting point of all living things would not simply be abandoned? It would be treated as the very earthly form of God himself, and a place to be revered. But no, apparently, they all simply got off and moved away. Surely even God would made it maintained in order to offer continue evidence of his power and ability to offer salvation?The ark came to rest in one of the most remote and inhospitable locations on Earth on Mount Arrarat. I guess God didn't want it to be revered as some kind of pagan trophy.


  • Advertisement
  • #5362
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    Have you informed the scientific community as they don't agree with your claim?
    The Creation Science community agrees ... and many within the conventional science community disagree.

    plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.:)


  • #5363
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The Creation Science creationist community agrees ... and many within the conventional the science community disagree.

    plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.:)

    FYP

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5364
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The billions of years were only hypothesised because of the 'deep time' required for the theory of the spontaneous evolution from pondkind to mankind to have any plausibility.

    If something is spontaneous (putting aside the flawed understanding of evolution), why does it require billions of years?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5365
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    FYP
    Please don't edit/add to my post in your reply.


  • #5366
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    If something is spontaneous (putting aside the flawed understanding of evolution), why does it require billions of years?
    Emotionally, many people will believe that something that is impossible (pondkind spontaneously acquiring the vast quantity and quality of new genetic information to 'evolve' into mankind) might just be possible given vast amounts of time.

    Logically, of course, something that is impossible remains impossible, no matter how much time passes.:)


  • #5367
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Emotionally, many people will believe that something that is impossible (pondkind spontaneously acquiring the vast quantity and quality of new genetic information to 'evolve' into mankind) might just be possible given vast amounts of time.
    Somewhat funny that you're suggesting that scientists are supporting evolution out of some emotional need for it to be true. All the while you're promoting creationism because your emotional investment in your faith requires it to be true.
    Logically, of course, something that is impossible remains impossible, no matter how much time passes.:)
    Not necessarily true. Man once said to travel to the moon was impossible, yet we all know about mr. Armstrongs (+ company) visit to it.

    And again, science certainly doesn't say that evolution is impossible.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5368
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Evolution shredded




  • #5369
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    hinault wrote: »
    Evolution shredded



    any chance of giving some idea what the video contains? it is 42 minutes is long in fairness.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5370
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    Delirium wrote: »
    any chance of giving some idea what the video contains? it is 42 minutes is long in fairness.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution:_A_Theory_in_Crisis

    I doubt there will be much new arguments in it.


  • Advertisement
  • #5371
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,866 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Delirium wrote: »
    any chance of giving some idea what the video contains? it is 42 minutes is long in fairness.

    Watched 30 mins so far. Same old nonsense.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



Advertisement