Creation

[Charlatan]

I was thinking about creation, and I thought what created God in the
creationists argument. They say He always was, and always will
always be, but we have to start somewhere. I ask first, is creation
God, or is God seperate from creation? If God is creation, then the
only thing that was created was stars and planets, but even then they
were created through heat, heat coming from something, so is God heat?
If God is heat, then there should be no bible, as heat only created
the planets, and the rest occurred naturally, from the forming of the
ozone to the beginning of life, that was all 'created' by the planet
being the right distance from the sun, so creation created the planets
and then just sat there waiting. That means that God created planets,
and gasses, but did not actively try to create them.

If God is seperate from creation, something I am sure you will all
agree, then how did He create? He must have learned somehow that by
doing this, that happens, and so forth. If one is sepearate from
creative forces, or the creation of the planets, being through heat
and an explosion, then how did He do it? What created God? You say He
always was and will be, but if He is not the heat in the universe,
being creation and a side lined force in the evolution of man, then
what is He? He surely cannot take form if a force such as heat, so
must be seperate to creation, using it as he sees fit, but then what
did He do? He created planets and then talked to people, saying that
He had made them, which in a very obscure way He did, being the
conductor of heat in the beginning, but then, how did He know how to
conduct heat? He must have had experience with it, or just made the
universe and fluked the creation of man, as wisdom is something that is
learned through experience - you can't know something until you 'do' it
unless it is not wisdom but something else. What do you call wisdom
that is not learned? You call it instinct, and instinct is for a
purpose, and instinct is there to help you survive, so that means that
God needs to survive by making planets? Clearly not credible.

So what do you get that supercedes wisdom? If you know something
without learning it, what is it? Conscious requires us to learn
things that we do not know, because there is no way we could know them,
so taking the know out of it means that there must have been some
learning to the ordeal, and a lot of fooling around to get it right.
This means that God has gone through an 'evolution' of some sort,
learning things, and that it woudl be difficult for something to talk
to people unless He learned the dialect too. In fact early man could
not speak at all, but used body language to convey their messages,
and did not have ten generations of children and then go through a
flood wiping out the whole world. The first man could not speak nor
make a bow to hunt with, as suggested in Genesis, these things he too
learned.

So God needs to be creation for a creationist to have any ground to
stand on, and that means God is heat and played no part in creating man
specifically, and the bible should be regarded as tales and bloodlines
and nothing more. If God was seperate from creation, then He evolved
and still did not play a part in the creation of man specifically. All
the things in the universe are in balance, so there is no way that
an evolving God could have created them to work out so well, so, maybe
God did not create the universe, but writes it into scripture so that
people will think He did?

Unless God does not make sense, then why try to understand?

[Zhavric]

God doesn't make sense. He's the tremendous cop out left over from a time when we didn't know any better. Unfortunately, even though we know better now, we have millions of people brainwashing each new generation to believe in god. To ignore the fact that you're absolutely right: the designer does require a designer or some sort of explanation beyond the ultra-lame "always existed".

[Winter wind]

God doesn't make sense. He's the tremendous cop out left over from a time when we didn't know any better. Unfortunately, even though we know better now, we have millions of people brainwashing each new generation to believe in god. To ignore the fact that you're absolutely right: the designer does require a designer or some sort of explanation beyond the ultra-lame "always existed".

Conservation of energy says that energy always existed. Is that ultra-lame too?

[Morality Games]

Not necessarily, only that, due to the observed nature of energy, it can be neither created or destroyed upon coming into existence. That existence could be infinite, but it could be finite too.

[Winter wind]

Not necessarily, only that, due to the observed nature of energy, it can be neither created or destroyed upon coming into existence. That existence could be infinite, but it could be finite too.

Wait, when did energy "come into existence". Isn't that the same as creating?

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Winter wind Wait, when did energy "come into existence". Isn't that the same as creating?

Remember science is empirical. It only considers what is tangible to it. It studies energy and notes that nothing done to it makes or unmakes it, the powers of nature can only change its form. Thus it devises the law of the conservation of energy. How energy came about is a question for theoretical, not practical, physics, and there is no matter of fact in that field, only theory. If it turns out energy was created, and simply cannot be destroyed upon being made, then the vocabulary of the law will have to be revised. However, that isn't necessary right now, and may never be.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Winter wind Conservation of energy says that energy always existed.

Yes, it does. This disproves your god claim which requires god to be able to create energy from nothing. You, sir, need to start arguing more honestly.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Zhavric Yes, it does. This disproves your god claim which requires god to be able to create energy from nothing. You, sir, need to start arguing more honestly.

So energy just always existed in your opinion?
You sure?
Can you prove it, or is it just another hypothesis?

My argument is that God made the rules, ergo he can break them. It's religion, not science.

Quote by: Morality Games Remember science is empirical. It only considers what is tangible to it. It studies energy and notes that nothing done to it makes or unmakes it, the powers of nature can only change its form. Thus it devises the law of the conservation of energy. How energy came about is a question for theoretical, not practical, physics, and there is no matter of fact in that field, only theory.

Religion isn't science.

But in scientific terms, it comes up with it's own answer to the theory science lacks.

If it turns out energy was created, and simply cannot be destroyed upon being made, then the vocabulary of the law will have to be revised. However, that isn't necessary right now, and may never be.

But energy can not be made or destroyed according to physics.

A new law saying that energy can not be destroyed once created?
You know as well as I do, that makes no sense.

Your hypothesis is as week as mine, "it just always existed".

[gallo]

Quote by: Winter wind Conservation of energy says that energy always existed. Is that ultra-lame too?

Actually, conservation of energy doesn't say that. The Law of Conservation of Energy, most strictly stated as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, states that in any isolated system the total amount of energy remains constant. Over time physicists have fount that the law applies to all levels and kinds of energy, including work, mechanical energy, heat, and anything that can be converted into heat. As Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli have shown, it even applied to the subatomic world as well as galaxies. Probably it applies to the cosmos too. But no one knows if that is actually true. We can't observe the boundaries of the universe so we can't be sure if it is an isolated, closed, or even an open system. And we have no way of observing the source of any outside energy. In short (too late for that I guess), the law of conservation of energy applies to the observable universe. If we can't observe it, we can't know.

As you must be aware, it isn't the business of science to delve into unsupported spiritualism and to postulate what happened in a time before time. That is the realm of religion.

Quote by: Winter wind Wait, when did energy "come into existence". Isn't that the same as creating?

As far as science is concerned, energy came into existance at the time of the big bang, i.e., the initial expansion of space/time from a singularity, or the collision of super dimensional membranes (brane theory). If spiritualists want to postulate that their god did it, OK. There aren't any observations the support or debunk that anyway. With no evidence one way or the other, if someone wants to postulate a magic being they can do so. But claiming that they know TRUTH would be ridiculous.

[gallo]

Quote by: Winter wind So energy just always existed in your opinion? You sure?

I'm not sure about Zhavric, but I wouldn't make any claim about the eternal existance of energy or anything else. In short, we don't know and we don't have the tools to find out right now. I can't speak to the future.

Can you prove it, or is it just another hypothesis?

Neither. It is unknown. Any opinion express is actually just speculation on what might have been by extending the physics of our universe into areas where absolutely no data is available. But why invent magical, supernatural causes for natural events?

My argument is that God made the rules, ergo he can break them. It's religion, not science.

Exactly. And that's why so many scientists don't give a rats tootie about religion. Any time religion encounters a problem, it just falls back on magic. "Goddidit!" doesn't answer anything.

Religion isn't science.

For sure.

But in scientific terms, it comes up with it's own answer to the theory science lacks.

To what end? Just because there are questions that science currently lacks the tools and knowledge to answer is no reason to postulate magic. And religion doesn't really come up with any answers. It just substitutes mystery by inventing a magical being that answers everything and nothing. One effect of the attempts to inject religion into science is to discourage scientific investigation. It has been so since the first efforts of science to free itself from religion. Just ask Galileo.

But energy can not be made or destroyed according to physics.

Actually, according to physics, the total energy of an isolated system remains constant.

A new law saying that energy can not be destroyed once created? You know as well as I do, that makes no sense.

Maybe not now. But I can't see into the future. I can't tell if the tools to examine the big bang and its precursors will ever be developed. Physics doesn't say anything about the creation of energy. Physics only states that the source of all energy, as far as we can tell, is in the big bang.

Your hypothesis is as week as mine, "it just always existed".

Actually, his hypothesis isn't as week [sic] as yours. He hasn't tried to postulate invisible, magical beings in an effort to shut off investigation and fill in what we don't know. You have. Ever hear of Occam's Razor? "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." Why not just look for natural causes for natural events. Why answer problems with, "God can change the rules if He wants"?

[Morality Games]

My argument is that God made the rules, ergo he can break them. It's religion, not science.

Deus ex machina.

Religion isn't science. But in scientific terms, it comes up with it's own answer to the theory science lacks.

Which is extremely inappropriate. That is a task for theoretical, rationalistic sciences.

But energy can not be made or destroyed according to physics. A new law saying that energy can not be destroyed once created? You know as well as I do, that makes no sense. Your hypothesis is as week as mine, "it just always existed".

Scientists have observed through many experiments they can neither create or destroy energy, no matter what they do, and they have never seen an instance where energy is created or destroyed. Therefore, they articulated through language the idea that energy can be neither created or destroyed. Scientists are not obligated to stick by that idea. If they find evidence that energy can be created or destroyed, then they will revise their assessments and move on.

Energy could have somehow "popped into existence" at some point in the distant past, and may be irremovable now that it is here (hence, it can be neither created or destroyed now that it is here, but it wasn't always in existence). I don't know. But it cannot be observed, and is therefore non-empirical, and is therefore non-practical science. Hence, it is regulated to theoretical physics.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Winter wind So energy just always existed...

Winter, we've talked about this. You absolutely cannot change the context of an argument and expect to deliver a cogent debate. What I believe isn't at issue here. Remember that we don't need a sound hypothesis to discard one that's false. I don't need to know how Jimmy Hoffa disapeared to know it wasn't George Washington who was responsible. Likewise, I don't need to know how the universe was created to know the god hypothesis contradicts proven scientific facts.

My argument is that God made the rules, ergo he can break them.

This is A) a claim that you're going to need to support with evidence, B) something that most apologists would disagree with you on when it comes to what's logically possible and C) a tremendous cop out. It's that third part that really sinks your argument. Remember that "god exists" is a scientific claim and it's completely unacceptable in science to state "this one instance doesn't have any rules that apply to it" and NOT back it up with evidence.

Religion isn't science. But in scientific terms, it comes up with it's own answer to the theory science lacks.

Nope. You're wrong. Religious claims of this nature ("God exists and created the universe") are scientific claims.

[Theists] are apt to quote the late Stephen Jay Gould's 'NOMA' — 'non-overlapping magisteria'. Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse:

To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.

This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis — by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared.

To see the disingenuous hypocrisy of religious people who embrace NOMA, imagine that forensic archeologists, by some unlikely set of circumstances, discovered DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were sincere, they should dismiss the archeologists' DNA out of hand: "Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no bearing on theological questions. Wrong magisterium." Does anyone seriously imagine that they would say anything remotely like that? You can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the skies.

Either Jesus had a father or he didn't. The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it. The same is true of any miracle — and the deliberate and intentional creation of the universe would have to have been the mother and father of all miracles. Either it happened or it didn't. It is a fact, one way or the other, and in our state of uncertainty we can put a probability on it — an estimate that may change as more information comes in.

[Winter wind]

I've certainly got the hornet's nest on me.

Quote by: gallo As you must be aware, it isn't the business of science to delve into unsupported spiritualism and to postulate what happened in a time before time. That is the realm of religion

I never said Christianity was science.

As far as science is concerned, energy came into existance at the time of the big bang, i.e., the initial expansion of space/time from a singularity, or the collision of super dimensional membranes (brane theory)

Ah, yes the brane theory. Yet that is also just a theory (I still don't get how universes move in a medium and collide with each other).

But claiming that they know TRUTH would be ridiculous.

Actually, his hypothesis isn't as week [sic] as yours. He hasn't tried to postulate invisible, magical beings in an effort to shut off investigation and fill in what we don't know. You have. Ever hear of Occam's Razor? "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." Why not just look for natural causes for natural events. Why answer problems with, "God can change the rules if He wants"?

See, because his answer makes zero logical sense. The Big Bang didn't just happen. Energy was not always in existence. The natural state of everything is zero. The most stable state is non-existence. Logically, nothing should exist, yet things do. Why? Why should any law of science or anything else exist. It would make the most sense that nothing existed. So why does it? My theory is that something disturbed the nothingness. And anything that can accomplish that is beyond our comprehension.



It is ridiculous isn't it? I don't blame you for calling it that.

I'm not sure about Zhavric, but I wouldn't make any claim about the eternal existance of energy or anything else. In short, we don't know and we don't have the tools to find out right now. I can't speak to the future.

Haha, logical enough.

But why invent magical, supernatural causes for natural events?

Again, it's my own faith experience that drives me to "invent" said supernatural being. But since the experience doesn't count as fact...

Quote by: Morality Games Deus ex machina.

It is a religion after all. (what did you expect)

Which is extremely inappropriate. That is a task for theoretical, rationalistic sciences.

So where did all this energy come from according to scientific theory? I'm curious to know your stance.

I don't know. But it cannot be observed, and is therefore non-empirical, and is therefore non-practical science. Hence, it is regulated to theoretical physics.

You act like I ignore facts. I don't. You agree science has not reached an answer to why the conservation of energy was broken.
I'm not acting against facts, I'm acting in the absence of facts.

I'm willing to change as soon as the facts are in, but they aren't.

[Winter wind]

. You absolutely cannot change the context of an argument and expect to deliver a cogent debate. What I believe isn't at issue here.

Only what I believe is?
Science dictates that matter can not be made or destroyed, therefore is everlasting. Yet you say my argument is mega lame because it says the cause of the universe is everlasting. I'm saying, your explanation is not much different then mine.

This is A) a claim that you're going to need to support with evidence

He parted the red sea according to the Bible. I think he can break the rules of physics according to Christianity.

B) something that most apologists would disagree with you on when it comes to what's logically possible

Again, it may be logical, but beyond us. Consider the same argument concerning where energy came from. Using our logic, we say energy always existed, thought that really can't be true. Nothing always existed except a vacuum.

C) a tremendous cop out

Sigh. I think your taking this too seriously Zhavric. Religion is not science. It never should pretend to be. Unless you have an experience of some kind, it is going to seem like a tremendous cop out. I can't help that, but it's what it is (though a tremendous cop out isn't illogical. Just dumb looking)

Nope. You're wrong. Religious claims of this nature ("God exists and created the universe") are scientific claims.

The faith part is what separates its self from science. Therefore It uses a different system of analysis. Logically, this means that the "hypothesis" would have repercussions, but the hypothesis is incomplete. It doesn't claim to know God's motives, nor does it endow absolute knowledge onto it's believers. That's why it's seperate.

[Morality Games]

See, because his answer makes zero logical sense. The Big Bang didn't just happen. Energy was not always in existence. The natural state of everything is zero. The most stable state is non-existence. Logically, nothing should exist, yet things do. Why? Why should any law of science or anything else exist. It would make the most sense that nothing existed. So why does it? My theory is that something disturbed the nothingness. And anything that can accomplish that is beyond our comprehension.

Doesn't this nothing should logically exist / the natural state of everything is zero philosophy apply to God as well? On what quality would a Supreme Being be excepted?

The laws of physics characterize nature, and if God exists, he too would have to operate under laws (have a nature) -- laws of divine nature. But then the same problem arises.

Sigh. I think your taking this too seriously Zhavric. Religion is not science. It never should pretend to be. Unless you have an experience of some kind, it is going to seem like a tremendous cop out. I can't help that, but it's what it is (though a tremendous cop out isn't illogical. Just dumb looking)

? This is unfair. Biblical texts make specific claims about the nature of reality (science, history), and people have interpreted them that way for thousands of years and continue to do so (as is natural, considering the manner in which the content is presented through the writing). Your "allegorical" mode of interpretation is unreasonable on basis of the form in which the Bible is written.

[Winter wind]

Doesn't this nothing should logically exist / the natural state of everything is zero philosophy apply to God as well? On what quality would a Supreme Being be excepted?

well, I think you said it earlier. Deus Ex Machina...

The laws of physics characterize nature, and if God exists, he too would have to operate under laws (have a nature) -- laws of divine nature. But then the same problem arises

Again, the Christian argument is that God came before laws.

[Walrus]

If we have god as the creator then as the creator he is the first cause there is no preceding cause. We as humans are finite so we tend to identify with a finite universe but the creator has to be above that which he has created and beyond the finite and therefore infinite. Only if he the creator were finite would he also need a cause, but he is not and the very first finite thing brought into existence was the universe, therefore he has no need for a cause relating to his own existence.

[gallo]

Quote by: Walrus If we have god as the creator then as the creator he is the first cause there is no preceding cause. We as humans are finite so we tend to identify with a finite universe but the creator has to be above that which he has created and beyond the finite and therefore infinite. Only if he the creator were finite would he also need a cause, but he is not and the very first finite thing brought into existence was the universe, therefore he has no need for a cause relating to his own existence.

Deism.

But why postulate a magical being when there is no need to do so. Why couldn't the cause of creation be natural rather than supernatural. If this being that you invent can be eternal, then so can energy and matter.

[Tycoon]

If we have god as the creator then as the creator he is the first cause there is no preceding cause. We as humans are finite so we tend to identify with a finite universe but the creator has to be above that which he has created and beyond the finite and therefore infinite. Only if he the creator were finite would he also need a cause, but he is not and the very first finite thing brought into existence was the universe, therefore he has no need for a cause relating to his own existence.

This is following the assumption that humans need a higher being as a creator. The result of that assumption is God. Stick true to your faulty assumptions and God needs a creator as well.

[Walrus]

Quote by: gallo Deism. But why postulate a magical being when there is no need to do so. Why couldn't the cause of creation be natural rather than supernatural. If this being that you invent can be eternal, then so can energy and matter.

Quote by: Tycoon This is following the assumption that humans need a higher being as a creator. The result of that assumption is God. Stick true to your faulty assumptions and God needs a creator as well.

I wasn’t really arguing for the existence of god, simply addressing the concept of god as the creator and what created god. If god is a myth then clearly he needs no creator beyond the imaginations of people, but if one accepts the concept of god as the creator of everything then there can be no preceding creator, and if his creation were to include that which we perceive as time, then from our perspective he would only come into existence at the moment of creation, therefore the proposal of there being any prior cause or creator becomes irrelevant.