Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,140 members, 7,780,069 topics. Date: Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 09:13 AM

Darwin's Day - Religion (10) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Darwin's Day (37733 Views)

Charles Darwin To Receive Apology From D Church Of England 4 Rejecting Evolution / Charles Darwin's 10 Mistakes / Does Anyone Not Know About The Giant Hawk Moth: Darwin's Prediction (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) ... (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 11:17am On Apr 11, 2012
Deep Sight: Where is Jayriginal? I cannot wait for April. Come back here and untie the knots you left hanging all over the place.

Back. There were no knots anywhere. You simply refuse to see the obvious.


Alright. As you are going away, let me also summarize my points.


1. On the burden of proof, I believe it rests with you because -

(x) You did make a statement, which is what I am reacting to. You stated that the CA was "junk". I need you to substantiate that, because it is a very bold statement.

(y) Assuming but not conceding that (x) above fails, I contend that the burden of proof still rests with you because causality is in line with common observation. We observe causative chains in all that we see and all that happens around us. Thus anyone who will ask a question in doubt of causality will have the burden of proof on him - as causality is indeed the default position that we know of in material phenomena around us.

X
This is very misleading. The burden of proof cannot rest with me. YOU are the one who advanced the CA as the most convincing argument for the existence of god. The burden is therefore on you. You might write pages fro here to Jupiter and the burden will not shift until you effectively discharge it which you have failed to do.
X fails.


Y.
I have only asked you for proof. How does questioning something shift the burden of proof to the questioner? That is absurd if you think about it.
Asking for proof or expressions of doubt do not in anyway shift the burden of proof from the one who asserts (you). Indeed, if I agreed with you, there would be no burden to discharge and we wouldnt have this argument.


2. On Contradictions - I believe you contradict yourself as follows -

(x) You say you accept the law of cause and effect for material phenomena

(y) BUT you then say that we cannot assume that it applies to particular material phenomenon
Dont put words in my mouth.
Your position is that as far as we can see and observe, things that "begin to exist" were caused. I have no problem with that statement as long as it contains that very important proviso "as far as we can see . . .".
There is no contradiction there.


3. On Assumptions

(x) You accept that in our knowledge and observation, material phenomena are caused

(y) You yet say that it is possible that this may be disproved tomorrow

(z) This indicates that you accept that the argument from causality remains true as we know for TODAY

(zz) You ASSUME that it may become false tomorrow, without having presented any evidence therefore

(x) comes with the proviso as far as we know.
(y) is indeed possible until we know otherwise
(z) You are putting words in my mouth again. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to see it or observe it, did it really fall ?
Is something true because you dont know that it isnt true ?
All your emphasis on "as far as we know" and "for today" highlights the weakness of your argument. Cant you see that ?
Lets suppose you become convinced tomorrow of things beginning to exist without being caused, would you stop believing in god ? I dont think so.



4. On the Argument from Ignorance which you allege

(x) You accept that causality operates in material phenomena

(y) You state that that is what we know so far

(z) You yet conclude that this is an argument from ignorance

(zz) You thus imply that making statements based on our observatory knowledge is arguing from ignorance: e.g: If I say, "As far as we know, water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen" - since I have said "as far as we know" - your position would mean that this too, is a statement from ignorance. Whereas it is simply the current proven knowledge which we accept until proven otherwise.

Nice try but I will not allow it.

Comparing water to the Universe is just bad. Even if I allow it, it still will not work. Picture if you will, a scientist observing water for the first time. Someone asks him "what is the water composed of ?". The reply comes back immediately "well as far as I know, it is composed of hydrogen and oxygen".
All the scientist is saying is "as far as I can tell". That is not conclusive.
However when he goes from that to arguing that everything that is liquid must have water in it, then he is arguing from ignorance and cannot expect to be taken seriously.
The problem is amplified immensely when you compare water and the Universe. Anytime the phrase "as far as I know" or its equivalent is used, it points out to the inconclusive nature of the statement/evidence/proof etc


5. On The Law of cause and effect and the cosmological argument

(x) You say you accept the law of cause and effect

(y) You yet state that we cannot know the 1st principle of the Cosmological Argument to be true - notwithstanding that it is simply a reference to the law of cause and effect - which you say you accept!


Putting words in my mouth yet again. I believe I agreed with you "as far as we know". Our difference stems from what we conclude based on our "common current knowledge". Whereas you are willing to go out and stake everything on this, I am not so hasty. For one our common knowledge is just that; common knowledge! What you know about the Universe is minimal compared to dedicated researchers. What they know is insignificant compared to what is out there.
You therefore cannot conclude that on a vast subject like the Universe that what you see in your everyday life applies universally. Even if you are convinced that it does, that is your own personal conviction. A good argument it does not make.


6. On the Part-Whole Fallacy which you allege -

(x) You accept the law of cause and effect for material things

(y) You accept the universe to be material

(z) You then reject the law of cause and effect for the universe!


This really has to stop. You make sweeping statements and you try to turn my position into something else. Let me clarify for you.
You cannot apply the limited scope of your common observations to the universe and take them as an absolute.
Simple. Do not distort my position again.


7. On the inherent absurdity of your position: A beginning connotes that the element referred to did not exist in that form prior. As such it is illogical and unscientific to suppose a re-organization of the form of an element which occurs spontaenously, purposelessly, and with no cause or triggering factor whatsoever. As it happens, the initial expansion called the big bang was at least such a re-organization of the pre existing singularity. As such, it must have required cause.
So every time something changes form, it has begun to exist ?
Am I missing something ?
If you accept the big b@ng model then at the point of the singularity, would you say there was no Universe ?

Also referring to the expansion of the Universe (which suggests to you that we are in an open system) does it mean the Universe is also changing form with each expansion (thus beginning to exist constantly ?)

Again, on to the expansion of the Universe, you may be familiar with the theory that given the apparent density of the Universe, gravity will eventually slow down, then stop the expansion and finally reverse and start a retraction. This collapse of the Universe will eventually bring us to the singularity again. Suppose this is true, would the Universe have stopped existing at the point of singularity ?



Deep Sight:
I want to assure you that there was no insult or denigration there: if you read the context you will see that by "unlawyerly" I was not referring to any ethics but simply to the general fact that it behoves a lawyer to argue his points and discharge his burden of proof. That's sincerely all I meant there bro.


Trust me, I got your meaning the first time and I still feel it is inappropriate considering the fact that you wish to shirk your responsiblity to prove your claims.
Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 12:11pm On Apr 11, 2012
Let me restate in very simple terms.
Your argument

Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause
The Universe BEGAN to exist
The Universe has a cause.

That sounds very nice and logical. Just because it sounds so, doesnt make it so.
I ask, how do you know the truth of the first and second premise. You reply, "as far as we know" and as shown by common sense, logic and observation.
Unfortunately, common sense, logic and observation have been set aside by new scientific discoveries throughout the advance of mankind.
It is therefore unwise to take finite knowledge and apply it universally. All you have is a strong conviction but I maintain that you do know KNOW this.

Some reading for you.

Einstein's original equations in general relativity predicted that the universe should be expanding. Interestingly, however, Einstein later inserted into his equations an arbitrary "cosmological constant" to negate the necessity of cosmic expansion. Einstein later described his cosmological constant as "the biggest blunder of my life." It is incredible to contemplate that, in addition to his other extraordinary contributions to science, Einstein could have provided theoretical evidence for the Big Bang before any experimental or observational evidence suggested its occurrence. Unfortunately, Einstein was influenced by the popular belief of his time that the universe was more or less static. Einstein, like those of us of lesser ability, could hardly display more intellectual independence than his time permitted.

David Mills, Atheist Universe, (Berkley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006)


The so-called "Law of Cause-Effect," often employed by creationist writers and speakers, is a philosophical and theological plaything, rather than an established law of the physical sciences. Likewise, the "Law of Cause-Effect" provides no explanation to any scientific problem or question. Suppose, for example, that my car fails to run properly, and I have it towed to a garage for repair. I ask the service technician why my car will not operate. If the service technician replied, "It's just the law of cause-effect again," I would certainly feel that he was giving me the run-around, and that his "explanation" was totally empty. A realistic scientific explanation might be that my spark plugs are disconnected; that the gasoline therefore cannot be ignited; that the engine therefore cannot rotate the drive shaft; that the rear axle, attached to the drive shaft, cannot be rotated; and that the wheels, connected to the axle, have no current means of forward propulsion. A genuine scientific explanation, then, incorporates specific mechanistic relationships and interactions. Any argument, thus, that appeals blindly to the "Law of Cause-Effect," without filling in the blanks, is likewise an argument totally empty of scientific content.



Psychological Roadblocks

That the universe's building blocks always existed is, for most of us, a difficult and mind-boggling idea to accept. In our day-to-day affairs, all material objects certainly seem to have a beginning and ending to their existence. The new car we purchased today did not exist before the auto manufacturer designed and built the car last autumn. The vegetables we eat today did not exist a few short months ago, before the planting season. A human being appears to be created inside the mother's womb. The embryo begins as a single cell, yet, at birth, the child's body consists of billions of cells, all of which seem to have come into existence for a carefully designed purpose.

It is no wonder, therefore, that our "common sense" tells us that the universe itself must have had a beginning, and so must have been created by God. Our "common sense" is formulated by our observations of locally occurring events, and virtually everything we observe on Earth does indeed seem, at one point, to come into existence and, later, to disappear forever into nothingness. Yet, when considering the existence of the universe, let us recall two relevant facts: 1) Our observation of locally occurring events does not necessarily establish within our minds a "common- sense" judgment that can be applied to the universe as a whole; 2) A careful observation of locally occurring events will show that terrestrial objects do not truly emerge ex nihilo as "common sense" tells us. Science, by its very definition, disregards "common-sense" notions and relies solely upon experimental data to construct scientific law. It is wholly irrelevant whether we feel comfortable with the results of our experiments. These experimental results, if repeatable and independently verifiable, must be accepted, regardless of our cherished "common-sense" theories to the contrary.

Suppose, for example, that a man is standing in the middle of a vast plain. Six feet above the ground, at eye level, he points a handgun in a perfectly horizontal attitude across the plain—not angled up, not angled down, but perfectly horizontal in aim. In his other hand, likewise at eye level, the man holds a fifteen-pound bowling ball. Suppose now that, at the same precise instant, the man both fires a bullet horizontally across the plain and drops the bowling ball straight down to the ground. According to your common-sense judgment, which object will touch ground first: the bullet or the bowling ball? Do you predict that the bowling ball touches ground before the bullet does? Most people are surprised to learn what Galileo discovered centuries ago: that all objects accelerate to earth at the same rate, regardless of their differing weights or their simultaneous propulsion toward the horizontal. In other words, if there are no external intervening factors, the bullet and the bowling ball will touch ground at the same instant. Whether our "common sense" feels comfortable with this conclusion is of no concern to science. The experimental results must be accepted.

Likewise, a science-minded attitude requires us to accept the cosmological implications of the mass-energy conservation law whether or not we feel comfortable with those conclusions. Very often, our "common sense" will lead us astray if it is utilized to formulate scientific law. Many pre-Renaissance scholars thought it was common sense that the Earth was flat and motionless. If Einstein's special and general theories of relativity had been tested by common sense, Einstein would have been committed to a psychiatric hospital. Where, may I ask, is the common sense in Einstein's time dilation or in his proposition that empty space can be bent? Ideas based only upon "common sense" are of little use to science.

You may disregard any references to ex nihilo creation as that is not yet important.

The point has been made that the using your limited observation as backing for the cosmological argument is an exercise in futility.
Unless you know for sure, you cannot propose the CA authoritatively. You can only do so tentatively like this

IF whatever begins to exist has a cause
IF the Universe began to exist
the Universe has a cause.

The word "whatever" in your argument renders the whole argument problematic because you clearly have no proof other than your limited observation.,
That is the point that kills your CA.
Advance it when you have proof better than "common sense".
There is no need to go into long discussions if you can see this point.
If you cant, too bad !
Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 12:13pm On Apr 11, 2012
OLAADEGBU:

Today is their day let them celebrate it.
Better once a year than forever.
It just so happened that it happened to be your Palm Sunday as well.
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 12:56pm On Apr 11, 2012
OLAADEGBU:

There are only 3 possibilities as to what caused the universe to come into existence and if you know of any other possible option why don't you say it?

There are a multitude of possibilities - the universe could've existed as a ball of energy which needed something to initiate its expansion. The universe could've come into existence as a result of the destruction of a previous universe.


If an atheist or agnostic is saying this I will understand that they are just brushing it off so as to avoid the question but from someone who claims to be a Christian?

Thank God your warped views don't determine who a Christian is. cheesy Can you answer the question - did anything exist before the universe? Answers on a postcard (no silly links or cartoons)


The Bible has all the answers for sincere seekers.

Provide the answer to the following from the bible - when was Lucifer cast down to the earth - before or after the creation? Also answer - how long did Lucifer serve in heaven before being cast down - answer in years please.


Based on all known scientific understanding and logic we know from nothing, nothing comes.

Good you said 'all known' - meaning there are things unknown. If by your admission there are things unknown, how can you attempt to claim to know all the possibilities of how the universe came to be?


And if you are referring to the Creator God, He is no thing, He is not bound by the universe and He is not part of the chain of effects within time. God does not require a cause since He always existed and is beyond nature and time, He is not part of this physical universe.

Did I say he was bound by time? If he is not part of the physical universe, are you limiting his power by claiming only your three possibilities exist? What if God told you he had created a precursor of the universe before bringing it forth? After all, the angels were created before the earth was created - what do you know of happenings before the beginning?
Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 1:26pm On Apr 11, 2012
debosky:

Good you said 'all known' - meaning there are things unknown. If by your admission there are things unknown, how can you attempt to claim to know all the possibilities of how the universe came to be?

Thank you. Sincerely, this is a simple matter to comprehend.
Re: Darwin's Day by DeepSight(m): 3:03pm On Apr 11, 2012
@ Jayriginal.

Welcome. I could scarcely wait. Hope your endeavours were productive.

Now let me ask you just one question -

Does it not stand to reason that any person questioning a default position/ suggesting anything contrary to a default or commonly observed position - should be the person required to adduce reasons for such questions - notwithstanding that the default position may or may not be wrong?

Agree?

Edit: As in: if we were to say, "As far as we know, water consists of hydrogen and oxygen" - if any person will state to us: "That is only as far as you know. The earth was once thought to be flat, and so what you know about water today may be proven wrong tomorrow" - THEN -

1. The mere fact that previous knowledge has been proven wrong in the past cannot by itself alone debunk current knowledge and -

2. The person alleging that we cannot be sure about the composition of water - or as you say - the person stating that we are making assumptions on the composition of water - will have to show reasons why he advances such a question.

Do you agree with this?

Who has the burden to prove the composition of water? He who states that which is currently commonly observed - that it consists of hydrogen and oxygen - or he who declares such to be an assumption or statement from ignorance which may be proven wrong tomorrow?

I have seen what you wrote, but I think we need to get past these basic principles before I properly respond, if any need there be, after this.
Re: Darwin's Day by Kay17: 9:11pm On Apr 11, 2012
@deepsight
The vaguely defined subject God is not a commonly/universally accepted idea as the originating factor of everything.

On the other hand, its a fallacy populii
Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 12:51am On Apr 12, 2012
Deep Sight: @ Jayriginal.

Welcome. I could scarcely wait. Hope your endeavours were productive.


Thank you.


Now let me ask you just one question -

Does it not stand to reason that any person questioning a default position/ suggesting anything contrary to a default or commonly observed position - should be the person required to adduce reasons for such questions - notwithstanding that the default position may or may not be wrong?

Agree?

Questioning, no! Suggesting, possibly.
Anyone can make a claim and present evidence. I am not forced to believe it. I can only weigh the evidence. If upon looking at the quality of the evidence I see that it does not support the claim, then I have no reason to believe it and there is no onus on me to adduce reasons for not believing other than the insufficiency of the evidence.



Edit: As in: if we were to say, "As far as we know, water consists of hydrogen and oxygen" - if any person will state to us: "That is only as far as you know. The earth was once thought to be flat, and so what you know about water today may be proven wrong tomorrow" - THEN -

1. The mere fact that previous knowledge has been proven wrong in the past cannot by itself alone debunk current knowledge and -

2. The person alleging that we cannot be sure about the composition of water - or as you say - the person stating that we are making assumptions on the composition of water - will have to show reasons why he advances such a question.

Do you agree with this?

No I dont. I do agree though with the bolded. I never said that the fact that "truths" have been proven false is enough to debunk current knowledge. Rather I am saying that you should be cautious of making such wide claims based on current knowledge especially as current knowledge has only uncovered a fraction of the secrets of the Universe.


Who has the burden to prove the composition of water? He who states that which is currently commonly observed - that it consists of hydrogen and oxygen - or he who declares such to be an assumption or statement from ignorance which may be proven wrong tomorrow?

Again water is water. The Universe is the Universe. You cannot compare the two. Water is a far less complicated subject to study than the Universe.
Also, you have removed an element from your earlier reference to water ( ie as far as we know water is Hydrogen and Oxygen).


If you state your claim and back it up with evidence and the evidence matches your claim, then you have no problem. Other than that, two things are possible.
One possibility is for your audience to suspend belief in your claim due to insufficient evidence.
Another is to provide a counter claim.

In this argument, you have insufficient basis for your first two premises. I cannot accept that, nor should anyone else on the basis of what we currently know.

More reading for you.


ASSUMPTION
In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.
In logic, more specifically in the context of natural deduction systems, an assumption is a proposition that may be used to prove further propositions, in the expectation that the assumption will be discharged in due course by proving it via a separate argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary" ), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
BASIC ARGUMENT
Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not “wait” upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone. And the true thrust of science and rational analysis is to separate preconceived notion(s) of what reality is, and to be open at all times to the observation of nature as it behaves, so as truly to discover reality. This fallacy can be very convincing and is considered by some[2] to be a special case of a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail to consider alternatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I hope its now obvious to you what has been clear from the beginning. Like I said before, god cannot be proven by logic. You must necessarily run into problems when you attempt it. As an outro, I'd like to quote one of my favourite passages from Douglas Adams

The Babel fish is small, yellow, leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the NON-existence of God.
The argument goes like this:
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 12:43pm On Apr 12, 2012
jayriginal:
Better once a year than forever.
It just so happened that it happened to be your Palm Sunday as well.

The more reason why they had to celebrate it because Palm Sunday celebrations made the national atheist day relevant.
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 1:07pm On Apr 12, 2012
debosky:

There are a multitude of possibilities - the universe could've existed as a ball of energy which needed something to initiate its expansion. The universe could've come into existence as a result of the destruction of a previous universe.

And that brings us to the original question: Where did the ball of energy come from before it needed that something to initiate its expansion? Your answers still fall between the first two possibilities. That the universe created itself or that it has always existed, which violates the law of non contradiction and good science.

debosky:
Thank God your warped views don't determine who a Christian is. cheesy Can you answer the question - did anything exist before the universe? Answers on a postcard (no silly links or cartoons)

Since you are alergic to links and cartoons you will find the answer in this puzzle: GODISNOTHING and GODISNOWHERE.

debosky:
Provide the answer to the following from the bible - when was Lucifer cast down to the earth - before or after the creation? Also answer - how long did Lucifer serve in heaven before being cast down - answer in years please.

Answering thhis will be diverting us away from the topic at hand. You may open another thread for this and I will be happy to direct you to where the answers are in the Bible.

debosky:
Good you said 'all known' - meaning there are things unknown. If by your admission there are things unknown, how can you attempt to claim to know all the possibilities of how the universe came to be?

To the "atheists" and agnostics the supernatural remains unknown to them, it is my intention to start with the known and then take them into the unknown. The onus is on you to tell us any other possibility of how the universe came into existence if you insist that there are more than three.

debosky:
Did I say he was bound by time? If he is not part of the physical universe, are you limiting his power by claiming only your three possibilities exist? What if God told you he had created a precursor of the universe before bringing it forth? After all, the angels were created before the earth was created - what do you know of happenings before the beginning?

You shot yourself in the foot again. The third possibility I mentioned was that the universe was created, and you are now putting that forward as a possibility, as to how He created it is another ball game. Make up your mind and tell us any other possibility apart from the three I mentioned.
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 1:10pm On Apr 12, 2012
jayriginal:

Thank you. Sincerely, this is a simple matter to comprehend.

If you claim to be an atheist then the spiritual realm is unknown to you. Stick with the known physical realm for now as this will give you a clue as to what the spiritual realm is like.
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 1:13pm On Apr 12, 2012
Kay 17: Taking the universe as everything that exists, it can't be created. So that's the source of our disagreement.

Does that mean that the universe has always existed?
Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 2:39pm On Apr 12, 2012
OLAADEGBU:

If you claim to be an atheist then the spiritual realm is unknown to you. Stick with the known physical realm for now as this will give you a clue as to what the spiritual realm is like.

Keep deluding yourself.
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 7:45pm On Apr 12, 2012
OLAADEGBU:

And that brings us to the original question: Where did the ball of energy come from before it needed that something to initiate its expansion? Your answers still fall between the first two possibilities. That the universe created itself or that it has always existed, which violates the law of non contradiction and good science.

If we believe God set up the laws of science, it is not impossible to comprehend a predecessor to the universe that didn't obey the laws of 'good science'. You cannot even define what you mean by 'always' existed - a reference to a length of time. When did time begin? If the universe's predecessor existed before time began, does that mean it had 'always' existed?


Since you are alergic to links and cartoons you will find the answer in this puzzle: GODISNOTHING and GODISNOWHERE.

You've exhibited your usual foolishness of avoidance again - do you need to ask an unrelated question to answer a question? If you cannot answer the questions I posed with a biblical reference please say so.


To the "atheists" and agnostics the supernatural remains unknown to them, it is my intention to start with the known and then take them into the unknown. The onus is on you to tell us any other possibility of how the universe came into existence if you insist that there are more than three./quote]

In case you are dyslexic or unable to read - I've put forward two other possibilities above.

[quote]
You shot yourself in the foot again. The third possibility I mentioned was that the universe was created, and you are now putting that forward as a possibility, as to how He created it is another ball game. Make up your mind and tell us any other possibility apart from the three I mentioned.

I have given you two above - the universe could've come from a different universe - that in itself it doesn't mean it created itself or always existed.

It all depends on the level of detail you want to go to - Using your favoured 'layman' interpretation, a child that was born yesterday and never existed before then. Someone else can claim the child always existed in the form of proteins and other biological elements that were combined to form the child. Will the factual nature of the latter lead you to conclude the child is as old as the universe because the constituent elements are as old as the universe?
Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 8:36pm On Apr 12, 2012
Deep Sight, yet more reading.


COSMIC EVIDENCE

From a modern scientific perspective, what are the empirical and theoretical implications of the hypothesis of a supernatural creation? We need to seek evidence that the universe (1) had an origin and (2) that origin cannot have happened naturally. One sign of a supernatural creation would be a direct empirical confirmation that a miracle was necessary in order to bring the universe into existence. That is, cosmological data should either show evidence for one or more violations of well-established laws of nature or the models developed to describe those data should require some causal ingredient that cannot be understood— and be probably not understandable—in purely material or natural terms.

Let us proceed to look for evidence of a miraculous creation in our observations of the cosmos.

CREATING MATTER

Until early in the twentieth century, there were strong indications that one or more miracles were required to create the universe. The universe currently contains a large amount of matter that is characterized by the physical quantity we define as mass. Prior to the twentieth century, it was believed that matter could neither be created nor destroyed, just changed from one type to another. So the very existence of matter seemed to be a miracle, a violation of the assumed law of conservation of mass that occurred just once—at the creation.

However, in his special theory of relativity published in 1905, Albert Einstein showed that matter can be created out of energy and can disappear into energy. What all science writers call "Einstein's famous equation," E = mc2, relates the mass m of a body to an equivalent rest energy, E, where c is a universal constant, the speed of light in a vacuum. That is, a body at rest still contains energy.

When a body is moving, it carries an additional energy of motion called kinetic energy. In chemical and nuclear interactions, kinetic energy can be converted into rest energy, which is equivalent to generating mass.3 Also, the reverse happens; mass or rest energy can be converted into kinetic energy. In that way, chemical and nuclear interactions can generate kinetic energy, which then can be used to run engines or blow things up.

So, the existence of mass in the universe violates no law of nature. Mass can come from energy. But, then, where does the energy come from? The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, requires that energy come from somewhere. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang.

However, neither observations nor theory indicates this to have been the case. The first law allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the total for a closed system remains fixed. Remarkably, the total energy of the universe appears to be zero. As famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking said in his 1988 best seller, A Brief History of Time, "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.4 Specifically, within small measurement errors, the mean energy density of the universe is exactly what it should be for a universe that appeared from an initial state of zero energy, within a small quantum uncertainty.5

A close balance between positive and negative energy is predicted by the modern extension of the big bang theory called the inflationary big bang, according to which the universe underwent a period of rapid, exponential inflation during a tiny fraction of its first second.6 The inflationary theory has recently undergone a number of stringent observational tests that would have been sufficient to prove it false. So far, it has successfully passed all these tests.

In short, the existence of matter and energy in the universe did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation. In fact, the data strongly supports the hypothesis that no such miracle occurred. If we regard such a miracle as predicted by the creator hypothesis, then that prediction is not confirmed.

This example also serves to once more refute the assertion that science has nothing to say about God. Suppose our measurement of the mass density of the universe had not turned out to be exactly the value required for a universe to have begun from a state of zero energy. Then we would have had a legitimate, scientific reason to conclude that a miracle, namely, a violation of energy conservation, was needed to bring the universe into being. While this might not conclusively prove the existence of a creator to everyone's satisfaction, it would certainly be a strong mark in his favor.

CREATING ORDER

Another prediction of the creator hypothesis also fails to be confirmed by the data. If the universe were created, then it should have possessed some degree of order at the creation—the design that was inserted at that point by the Grand Designer. This expectation of order is usually expressed in terms of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the total entropy or disorder of a closed system must remain constant or increase with time. It would seem to follow that if the universe today is a closed system, it could not always have been so. At some point in the past, order must have been imparted from the outside.

Prior to 1929, this was a strong argument for a miraculous creation. However, in that year astronomer Edwin Hubble reported that the galaxies are moving away from one another at speeds approximately proportional to their distance, indicating that the universe is expanding. This provided the earliest evidence for the big bang. For our purposes, an expanding universe could have started in total chaos and still formed localized order consistent with the second law.

The reason for this is that the maximum entropy of a sphere of a certain radius (we are thinking of the universe as a sphere) is that of a black hole of that radius. The expanding universe is not a black hole and so has less than maximum entropy. Thus, while becoming more disorderly on the whole as time goes by, our expanding universe is not maximally disordered. But, once it was. Suppose we extrapolate the expansion back 13.7 billion years to the earliest definable moment, the Planck time, 6.4 x 10-44 second when the universe was confined to the smallest possible region of space that can be operationally defined, a Planck sphere that has a radius equal to the Planck length, 1.6 x 10-35 meter. As expected from the second law, the universe at that time had lower entropy than it has now. However, that entropy was also as high as it possibly could have been for an object that small, because a sphere of Planck dimensions is equivalent to a black hole.
This requires further elaboration. I seem to be saying that the entropy of the universe was maximal when the universe began, yet it has been increasing ever since. Indeed, that's exactly what I am saying. When the universe began, its entropy was as high as it could be for an object of that size because the universe was equivalent to a black hole from which no information can be extracted. Currently, the entropy is higher but not maximal, that is, not as high as it could be for an object of the universe's current size. The universe is no longer a black hole.

I also need to respond here to an objection that has been raised by physicists who have heard me make this statement. They point out, correctly, that we currently do not have a theory of quantum gravity that we can apply to describe physics earlier than the Planck time. I have adopted Einstein's operational definition of time as what you read on a clock. In order to measure a time interval smaller than the Planck time, you would need to make that measurement in a region smaller than the Planck length, which equals the Planck time multiplied by the speed of light. According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, such a region would be a black hole, from which no information can escape.

This implies that no time interval can be defined that is smaller than the Planck time.8 Consider the present time. Clearly we do not have any qualms about applying established physics "now" and for short times earlier or later, as long as we do not try to do so for time intervals shorter than the Planck time. Basically, by definition time is counted off as an integral number of units where one unit equals the Planck time. We can get away with treating time as a continuous variable in our mathematical physics, such as we do when we use calculus, because the units are so small compared to anything we measure in practice. We essentially extrapolate our equations through the Planck intervals within which time is unmeasurable and thus indefinable. If we can do this "now," we can do it at the end of the earliest Planck interval where we must begin our description of the beginning of the big bang. At that time, our extrapolation from later times tells us that the entropy was maximal. In that case, the disorder was complete and no structure could have been present. Thus, the universe began with no structure. It has structure today consistent with the fact that its entropy is no longer maximal.

In short, according to our best current cosmological understanding, our universe began with no structure or organization, designed or otherwise. It was a state of chaos. We are thus forced to conclude that the complex order we now observe could not have been the result of any initial design built into the universe at the so-called creation. The universe preserves no record of what went on before the big bang. The Creator, if he existed, left no imprint. Thus he might as well have been nonexistent.

Once again we have a result that might have turned out otherwise and provided strong scientific evidence for a creator. If the universe were not expanding but a firmament, as described in the Bible, then the second law would have required that the entropy of the universe was lower than its maximum allowed value in the past. Thus, if the universe had a beginning, it would have begun in a state of high order necessarily imposed from the outside. Even if the universe extended into the infinite past, it would be increasingly orderly in that direction, and the source of that order would defy natural description.

Continued below
Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 8:36pm On Apr 12, 2012
^^ Continued here . . .


BEGINNING AND CAUSE

The empirical fact of the big bang has led some theists to argue that this, in itself, demonstrates the existence of a creator. In 1951 Pope Pius XII told the Pontifical Academy, "Creation took place in time, therefore there is a Creator, therefore God exists."9 The astronomer/priest Georges-Henri Lemaître, who first proposed the idea of a big bang, wisely advised the pope not make this statement "infallible."

Christian apologist William Lane Craig has made a number of sophisticated arguments that he claims show that the universe must have had a beginning and that beginning implies a personal creator.10 One such argument is based on general relativity, the modern theory of gravity that was published by Einstein in 1916 and that has, since then, passed many stringent empirical tests.11

In 1970 cosmologist Stephen Hawking and mathematician Roger Penrose, using a theorem derived earlier by Penrose, "proved" that a singularity exists at the beginning of the big bang.12 Extrapolating general relativity back to zero time, the universe gets smaller and smaller while the density of the universe and the gravitational field increases. As the size of the universe goes to zero, the density and gravitational field, at least according to the mathematics of general relativity, become infinite. At that point, Craig claims, time must stop and, therefore, no prior time can exist.

However, Hawking has repudiated his own earlier proof. In his best seller A Brief History of Time, he avers, "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe."13 This revised conclusion, concurred with by Penrose, follows from quantum mechanics, the theory of atomic processes that was developed in the years following the introduction of Einstein's theories of relativity. Quantum mechanics, which also is now confirmed to great precision, tells us that general relativity, at least as currently formulated, must break down at times less than the Planck time and at distances smaller than the Planck length, mentioned earlier.

It follows that general relativity cannot be used to imply that a singularity occurred prior to the Planck time and that Craig's use of the singularity theorem for a beginning of time is invalid. Craig and other theists also make another, related argument that the universe had to have had a beginning at some point, because if it were infinitely old, it would have taken an infinite time to reach the present. However, as philosopher Keith Parsons has pointed out, "To say the universe is infinitely old is to say that it had no beginning—not a beginning that was infinitely long ago."14

Infinity is an abstract mathematical concept that was precisely formulated in the work of mathematician Georg Cantor in the late nineteenth century. However, the symbol for infinity, " ," is used in physics simply as a shorthand for "a very big number." Physics is counting. In physics, time is simply the count of ticks on a clock.
You can count backward as well as forward. Counting forward you can get a very big but never mathematically infinite positive number and time "never ends." Counting backward you can get a very big but never mathematically infinite negative number and time "never begins." Just as we never reach positive infinity, we never reach negative infinity Even if the universe does not have a mathematically infinite number of events in the future, it still need not have an end. Similarly, even if the universe does not have a mathematically infinite number of events in the past, it still need not have a beginning. We can always have one event follow another, and we can always have one event precede another.

Craig claims that if it can be shown that the universe had a beginning, this is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a personal creator. He casts this in terms of the kalâm cosmological argument, which is drawn from Islamic theology.15 The argument is posed as a syllogism:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

[/b]The kalâm argument has been severely challenged by philosophers on logical grounds,16 which need not be repeated here since we are focusing on the science.

[b]In his writings, Craig takes the first premise to be self-evident, with no justification other than common, everyday experience.
That's the type of experience that tells us the world is flat. In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus.

Craig has retorted that quantum events are still "caused," just caused in a non predetermined manner—what he calls "probabilistic causality." In effect, Craig is thereby admitting that the "cause" in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous—something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause, he destroys his own case for a predetermined creation.

We have a highly successful theory of probabilistic causes— quantum mechanics. It does not predict when a given event will occur and, indeed, assumes that individual events are not predetermined. The one exception occurs in the interpretation of quantum mechanics given by David Bohm.17 This assumes the existence of yet-undetected subquantum forces. While this interpretation has some supporters, it is not generally accepted because it requires superluminal connections that violate the principles of special relativity.18 More important, no evidence for subquantum forces has been found.

Instead of predicting individual events, quantum mechanics is used to predict the statistical distribution of outcomes of ensembles of similar events. This it can do with high precision. For example, a quantum calculation will tell you how many nuclei in a large sample will have decayed after a given time. Or you can predict the intensity of light from a group of excited atoms, which is a measure of the total number of photons emitted. But neither quantum mechanics nor any other existing theory—including Bohm's—can say anything about the behavior of an individual nucleus or atom. The photons emitted in atomic transitions come into existence spontaneously, as do the particles emitted in nuclear radiation. By so appearing, without predetermination, they contradict the first premise.

In the case of radioactivity, the decays are observed to follow an exponential decay "law." However, this statistical law is exactly what you expect if the probability for decay in a given small time interval is the same for all time intervals of the same duration. In other words, the decay curve itself is evidence for each individual event occurring unpredictably and, by inference, without being predetermined.
Quantum mechanics and classical (Newtonian) mechanics are not as separate and distinct from one another as is generally thought. Indeed, quantum mechanics changes smoothly into classical mechanics when the parameters of the system, such as masses, distances, and speeds, approach the classical regime.19

When that happens, quantum probabilities collapse to either zero or 100 percent, which then gives us certainty at that level. However, we have many examples where the probabilities are not zero or 100 percent. The quantum probability calculations agree precisely with the observations made on ensembles of similar events.
Note that even if the kalâm conclusion were sound and the universe had a cause, why could that cause itself not be natural?
As it is, the kalâm argument fails both empirically and theoretically without ever having to bring up the second premise about the universe having a beginning.


Continued below . . .
Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 8:38pm On Apr 12, 2012
^^ Continued


THE ORIGIN

Nevertheless, another nail in the coffin of the kalâm argument is provided by the fact that the second premise also fails. As we saw above, the claim that the universe began with the big bang has no basis in current physical and cosmological knowledge.
The observations confirming the big bang do not rule out the possibility of a prior universe. Theoretical models have been published suggesting mechanisms by which our current universe appeared from a preexisting one, for example, by a process called quantum tunneling or so-called quantum fluctuations.20 The equations of cosmology that describe the early universe apply equally for the other side of the time axis, so we have no reason to assume that the universe began with the big bang.

In The Comprehensible Cosmos, I presented a specific scenario for the purely natural origin of the universe, worked out mathematically at a level accessible to anyone with an undergraduate mathematics or physics background.21 This was based on the no boundary model of James Hartle and Stephen Hawking.22 In that model, the universe has no beginning or end in space or time. In the scenario I presented, our universe is described as having "tunneled" through the chaos at the Planck time from a prior universe that existed for all previous time.

While he avoided technical details in A Brief History of Time, the no boundary model was the basis of Hawking's oft-quoted statement: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. What place then, for a creator?"23

Prominent physicists and cosmologists have published, in reputable scientific journals, a number of other scenarios by which the universe could have come about "from nothing" naturally24. None can be "proved" at this time to represent the exact way the universe appeared, but they serve to illustrate that any argument for the existence of God based on this gap in scientific knowledge fails, since plausible natural mechanisms can be given within the framework of existing knowledge.

As I have emphasized, the God of the gaps argument for God fails when a plausible scientific account for a gap in current knowledge can be given. I do not dispute that the exact nature of the origin of the universe remains a gap in scientific knowledge
But I deny that we are bereft of any conceivable way to account for that origin scientifically. In short, empirical data and the theories that successfully describe those data indicate that the universe did not come about by a purposeful creation. Based on our best current scientific knowledge, it follows that no creator exists who left a cosmological imprint of a purposeful creation.

WHERE DO THE LAWS OF PHYSICS COME FROM

We have seen that the origin and the operation of the universe do not require any violations of laws of physics. This probably will come as a surprise to the layperson who may have heard otherwise from the pulpit or the media. However, the scientifically savvy believer might concede this point for the sake of argument and then retort, "Okay, then where did the laws of physics come from?" The common belief is that they had to come from somewhere outside the universe. But that is not a demonstrable fact. There is no reason why the laws of physics cannot have come from within the universe itself.

Physicists invent mathematical models to describe their observations of the world. These models contain certain general principles that have been traditionally called "laws" because of the common belief that these are rules that actually govern the universe the way civil laws govern nations. However, as I showed in my previous book, The Comprehensible Cosmos, the most fundamental laws of physics are not restrictions on the behavior of matter. Rather they are restrictions on the way physicists may describe that behavior.25

In order for any principle of nature we write down to be objective and universal, it must be formulated in such a way that it does not depend on the point of view of any particular observer. The principle must be true for all point of views, from every "frame of reference." And so, for example, no objective law can depend on a special moment in time or a position in space that may be singled out by some preferred observer.

Suppose I were to formulate a law that said that all objects move naturally toward me. That would not be very objective. But this was precisely what people once thought—that Earth was the center of the universe and the natural motion of bodies was toward Earth. The Copernican revolution showed this was wrong and was the first step in the gradual realization of scientists that their laws must not depend on frame of reference.

In 1918 mathematician Emmy Noether proved that the most important physical laws of all—conservation of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum—will automatically appear in any model that does not single out a special moment in time, position in space, and direction in space.26 Later it was realized that Einstein's special theory of relativity follows if we do not single out any special direction in four-dimensional space-time. These properties of space-time are called symmetries. For example, the rotational symmetry of a sphere is a result of the sphere singling out no particular direction in space. The four space-time symmetries described above are just the natural symmetries of a universe with no matter, that is, a void. They are just what they should be if the universe appeared from an initial state in which there was no matter—from nothing.

Other laws of physics, such as conservation of electric charge and the various force laws, arise from the generalization of spacetime symmetries to the abstract spaces physicists use in their mathematic models. This generalization is called gauge invariance, which is likened to a principle I more descriptively refer to as point-of-view invariance.

The mathematical formulations of these models (which are provided in The Comprehensible Cosmos) must reflect this requirement if they are to be objective and universal. Surprisingly, when this is done, most of the familiar laws of physics appear naturally. Those that are not immediately obvious can be seen to plausibly arise by a process, mentioned in chapter 2, known as spontaneous symmetry breaking.

So where did the laws of physics come from? They came from nothing! Most are statements composed by humans that follow from the symmetries of the void out of which the universe spontaneously arose. Rather than being handed down from above, like the Ten Commandments, they look exactly as they should look if they were not handed down from anywhere. And this is why, for example, a violation of energy conservation at the beginning of the big bang would be evidence for some external creator. Even though they invented it, physicists could not simply change the "law." It would imply a miracle or, more explicitly, some external agency that acted to break the time symmetry that leads to conservation of energy. But, as we have seen, no such miracle is required by the data.

Thus we are justified in applying the conservation laws to the beginning of the big bang at the Planck time. At that time, as we saw earlier in this chapter, the universe had no structure. That meant that it had no distinguishable place, direction, or time. In such a situation, the conservation laws apply.

Now, this is certainly not a commonly understood view. Normally we think of laws of physics as part of the structure of the universe. But here I am arguing that the three great conservation laws are not part of any structure. Rather they follow from the very lack of structure at the earliest moment. No doubt this concept is difficult to grasp. My views on this particular issue are not recognized by a consensus of physicists, although I insist that the science I have used is well established and conventional. I am proposing no new physics or cosmology but merely providing an interpretation of established knowledge in those fields as it bears on the question of the origin of physical law, a question few physicists ever ponder.

I must emphasize another important point, which has been frequently misunderstood. I am not suggesting that the laws of physics can be anything we want them to be, that they are merely "cultural narratives," as has been suggested by authors associated with the movement called postmodernism.27 They are what they are because they agree with the data.

Whether or not you will buy into my account of the origin of physical law, I hope you will allow that I have at minimum provided a plausible natural scenario for a gap in scientific knowledge, that gap being a clear consensus on the origin of physical law Once again, I do not have the burden of proving this scenario. The believer who wishes to argue that God is the source of physical law has the burden of proving (1) that my account is wrong, (2) that no other natural account is possible, and (3) that God did it.


Last installment below
Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 8:40pm On Apr 12, 2012
^^ Final installment


WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING

If the laws of physics follow naturally from empty space-time, then where did that empty space-time come from? Why is there something rather than nothing? This question is often the last recourse of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of God from physics and cosmology and finds that all his other arguments fail. Philosopher Bede Rundle calls it "philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question." His simple (but booklength) answer: "There has to be something."28

Clearly many conceptual problems are associated with this question. How do we define "nothing"? What are its properties? If it has properties, doesn't that make it something? The theist claims that God is the answer. But, then, why is there God rather than nothing? Assuming we can define "nothing," why should nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something? In fact, we can give a plausible scientific reason based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology that something is more natural than nothing!

In chapter 2 we saw how nature is capable of building complex structures by processes of self-organization, how simplicity begets complexity. Consider the example of the snowflake, the beautiful six-pointed pattern of ice crystals that results from the direct freezing of water vapor in the atmosphere. Our experience tells us that a snowflake is very ephemeral, melting quickly into drops of liquid water that exhibit far less structure. But that is only because we live in a relatively high-temperature environment, where heat reduces the fragile arrangement of crystals to a simpler liquid. Energy is required to break the symmetry of a snowflake.

In an environment where the ambient temperature is well below the melting point of ice, as it is in most of the universe far from the highly localized effects of stellar heating, any water vapor would readily crystallize into complex, asymmetric structures. Snowflakes would be eternal, or at least would remain intact until cosmic rays tore them apart.

This example illustrates that many simple systems of particles are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "nothing" is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter.

The transition of nothing-to-something is a natural one, not requiring any agent. As Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that 'nothing' is unstable."29 In the non boundary scenario for the natural origin of the universe I mentioned earlier, the probability for there being something rather than nothing actually can be calculated; it is over 60 percent.30

In short, the natural state of affairs is something rather than nothing. An empty universe requires supernatural intervention— not a full one. Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God.

Victor Stenger, God, The Failed Hypothesis (New York: Prometheus Books, 2007)
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 10:25am On Apr 13, 2012
Interesting read. I still feel he's wrong though as I firmly believe in the Creator.

He does give some interesting points in how this could've come about, but as a 'good scientist' he admits there are gaps in scientific knowledge which, for now, may be filled by theories but are not necessarily sufficient proof.

My conclusion is that he says that the Universe didn't need God to 'set it into motion' as it were - I believe it did. Now the exact mechanism by which this happened is a different matter altogether.

What I do find interesting is that scientists have offered a multitude of ways the universe could have come into its present form - a simple fact I have presented to Ola that he can't comprehend. Without necessarily supporting any of those views,

@ Jay do you have a link to the article you posted?
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 10:35am On Apr 13, 2012
debosky:

If we believe God set up the laws of science, it is not impossible to comprehend a predecessor to the universe that didn't obey the laws of 'good science'. You cannot even define what you mean by 'always' existed - a reference to a length of time. When did time begin? If the universe's predecessor existed before time began, does that mean it had 'always' existed?

Always existed means eternal. This was explained as the second option which you have not, could not or would not read before arriving at your own conclusion. The universe could not have been eternal as I have earlier explained with scientific evidence. When we talk of eternity that is the life time of the infinite God, He has no beginning and He has no end. He is the eternal God who created time at the beginning. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

debosky:

You've exhibited your usual foolishness of avoidance again - do you need to ask an unrelated question to answer a question? If you cannot answer the questions I posed with a biblical reference please say so.

Thanks for the honour. I will gladly be a fool for Christ anytime T. Have you quickly forgotten that you were the one who avoided answering the question as to the ultimate cause of the universe by saying you do not know? That simple puzzle was to see what spectacles you use in viewing facts. The secular worldview would read GODISNOTHING and GODISNOWHERE as GOD IS NOTHING and GOD IS NOWHERE respectively, while the Christian using the biblical spectacles would read it as GOD IS NO THING and GOD IS NOW HERE respectively. You can see that they are basically the same words but your presupposition would determine where to place the spaces so as to fit with how you see the fact. This is to tell you that your argument here has exposed your use of the secular worldview in interpreting the physical evidence we both observe. For you to say what is the thing that existed before the universe is to equate God as a thing and that is why I said that God is no thing. God is a Spirit, not a sequence of energetic reactions, and so the laws of thermodynamics which place a finite limit on the age of the universe does not apply to God.


debosky:

In case you are dyslexic or unable to read - I've put forward two other possibilities above.

If I am dyslexic how do you expect me to read the possibilities you put forward?

debosky:

I have given you two above - the universe could've come from a different universe - that in itself it doesn't mean it created itself or always existed.

And where would the different universe come from? If you are to follow that line of thought what you are implying is that the universe is infinite or eternal.

debosky:

It all depends on the level of detail you want to go to - Using your favoured 'layman' interpretation, a child that was born yesterday and never existed before then. Someone else can claim the child always existed in the form of proteins and other biological elements that were combined to form the child. Will the factual nature of the latter lead you to conclude the child is as old as the universe because the constituent elements are as old as the universe?

For you to know that the universe had a beginning and could not have always existed it would be better for you to understand the basics about the second law of thermodynamics, and this is concerned with heat, that is, the flow of thermal energy. Everything in the universe is losing its available energy to do work, that the universe is constantly converting useful energy into less usable forms and unless the universe obtains new useable energy from an outside source, it will cease to function in a finite amount of time.
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 11:03am On Apr 13, 2012
How do you see?

Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 11:10am On Apr 13, 2012
debosky:
@ Jay do you have a link to the article you posted?

Unfortunately I do not have a link. Its actually the fourth chapter from his book (Victor Stenger) God, The Failed Hypothesis (New York: Prometheus Books, 2007).
There is much more in the book. If you wish I could mail you a pdf copy of the book if you provide me an email address.

Cheers.

EDIT:

OLAADEGBU:

Have you quickly forgotten that you were the one who avoided answering the question as to the ultimate cause of the universe by saying you do not know?

Although the above was directed at Debosky, you should know that "I don't know" is a perfectly valid and honest answer. In no way does this answer avoid the question. It is better than making up stuff.
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 11:18am On Apr 13, 2012
OLAADEGBU:

Always existed means eternal. This was explained as the second option which you have not, could not or would not read before arriving at your own conclusion. The universe could not have been eternal as I have earlier explained with scientific evidence.

I don’t discount the possibility of the second option - what I have simply stated is that you do not know if the universe existed before time began - please note that does not mean eternal, it simply means it is beyond the realm of time.


Thanks for the honour. I will gladly be a fool for Christ. Have you quickly forgotten that you were the one who avoided answering the question as to the ultimate cause of the universe by saying you do not know? That simple puzzle was to see what spectacles you use in viewing facts.

You are not being a fool for Christ; you are simply employing foolish means to avoid answering a question. It is known as obfuscation - look it up. Furthermore, you back up your foolishness with LYING.

I have never disputed the ultimate cause of the universe - again you resort to LIES.

This is what I said:

The bible says God created the heaven and the earth - did anything (apart from God) exist before then? We don’t know.

All I have said here is that there could’ve been a predecessor to the universe before the Genesis account. How you twist this into avoiding the ultimate cause of the universe is yet another example of your patent mendacious nature.



For you to say what is the thing that existed before the universe is to equate God as a thing and that is why I said that God is no thing. God is a Spirit, not a sequence of energetic reactions, and so the laws of thermodynamics which place a finite limit on the age of the universe does not apply to God.

There we disagree - you have no evidence that the universe did not emanate from a ‘thing’ which was created by God. The bible did not tell you the PROCESS of creating the Universe, it simply tells you it was created. No one has equated God with a thing here. Yet again, you’ve misinterpreted my post in an attempt to fight the imaginary battles in your head.

All I have stated is that the universe could’ve had a predecessor - something you are either unable to understand or trying to avoid.


If I am dyslexic how do you expect me to read the possibilities you put forward?

Clearly you are struggling to comprehend what I’ve put forward with the unrelated claims you keep making.


And where would the different universe come from? If you are to follow that line of thought what you are implying is that the universe is infinite or eternal.

I am not implying any such thing however- I am simply saying the predecessor could’ve been created by God.


For you to know that the universe had a beginning and could not have always existed it would be better for you to understand the basics about the second law of thermodynamics, and this is concerned with heat, that is, the flow of thermal energy. Everything in the universe is losing its available energy to do work, that the universe is constantly converting useful energy into less usable forms and unless the universe obtains new useable energy from an outside source, it will cease to function in a finite amount of time.

For the umpteenth time, I have never disputed the universe having a beginning - all I said is that this ‘beginning’ could be beyond your three possibilities. Simples.

It may have existed in a different form before time began, only coming into its form as the ‘universe’ at the beginning of time - if something is beyond the realms of time it could be infinite, but that does not mean it didn’t have an origin.

From your history on nairaland, even on this very thread, you are nowhere near capable to discuss scientific theorems or ideas - you who claimed melanin reflection is why some folk have brown eyes. grin

When you stop making such egregiously false statements, you may attempt to argue scientific theorems - in the meantime you can stick to your cartoons.
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 1:47pm On Apr 13, 2012
debosky:

I don’t discount the possibility of the second option - what I have simply stated is that you do not know if the universe existed before time began - please note that does not mean eternal, it simply means it is beyond the realm of time.

That statement is an oxymoron. What existed before the creation of time had to be eternal. God is an eternal Being and God lives in eternity. The eternal, infinite Creator God created the cosmos at the beginning and this consists of time, space and matter (energy/mass). For you to say that a created universe could have existed before the creation of time is neither logical nor good science.

debosky:

You are not being a fool for Christ; you are simply employing foolish means to avoid answering a question. It is known as obfuscation - look it up. Furthermore, you back up your foolishness with LYING.

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the disputer of this world? has God not made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (1 Corinthians 1:19-21).

debosky:

I have never disputed the ultimate cause of the universe - again you resort to LIES.

How will you know the ultimate cause of the universe since you've rejected the answer from Scripture?

debosky:

This is what I said:

The bible says God created the heaven and the earth - did anything (apart from God) exist before then? We don’t know.

It was eternity before the creation of the time and eternity is the life-time of the never dying God.

debosky:

All I have said here is that there could’ve been a predecessor to the universe before the Genesis account. How you twist this into avoiding the ultimate cause of the universe is yet another example of your patent mendacious nature.

If your so called predecessor to the universe was created by God why shouldn't this fall under the third option: that the it was created?


debosky:

There we disagree - you have no evidence that the universe did not emanate from a ‘thing’ which was created by God. The bible did not tell you the PROCESS of creating the Universe, it simply tells you it was created. No one has equated God with a thing here. Yet again, you’ve misinterpreted my post in an attempt to fight the imaginary battles in your head.

The onus is on you to provide the evidence that the universe emanated from a 'thing' which was created by God. Do you see where you've been going round in your vicious cycle? My third possibility of the cause of the universe was creation and you are here talking about a universe emanating from a 'thing' created by God, do you see that you are chasing your own tail?

If you have been studying your Bible you would have come across Psalm 33:6 that says "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breadth of His mouth."

I hope you can figure that one out?

debosky:

All I have stated is that the universe could’ve had a predecessor - something you are either unable to understand or trying to avoid.

The Scripture says again in Genesis 2:1 that "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." The original Hebrew uses the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never to occur again. You can see here that the creation was "finished," once and for all. This is what the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states: that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed. It was because of this Law that Sir Fred Hoyle that you are head over heels about, got his Theory discarded. Hoyle erroneously stated that at points in the universe called "irtrons," matter (or energy) was constantly being created. But we now know that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states just the opposite and thus your theory goes up in smoke, there is no ongoing creation today. It is "finished," just as the Bible correctly states.

debosky:

Clearly you are struggling to comprehend what I’ve put forward with the unrelated claims you keep making.

So I'm no longer dyslexic, it is just that I'm now struggling to comprehend what you've put forward?

debosky:

I am not implying any such thing however- I am simply saying the predecessor could’ve been created by God.

Which has been shown to be an illegitimate response and if you are saying that it was created by God that still comes under the 3 possibility.

debosky:

For the umpteenth time, I have never disputed the universe having a beginning - all I said is that this ‘beginning’ could be beyond your three possibilities. Simples.

The 3 possibilities still stands. The universe created itself, the universe has always existed or that the universe had to be created.

debosky:

It may have existed in a different form before time began, only coming into its form as the ‘universe’ at the beginning of time - if something is beyond the realms of time it could be infinite, but that does not mean it didn’t have an origin.

Again, God created time at the beginning of creation, I hope you get the 3 dimensional creation of time, space and matter (energy/mass) that was created at the beginning.

debosky:

From your history on nairaland, even on this very thread, you are nowhere near capable to discuss scientific theorems or ideas - you who claimed melanin reflection is why some folk have brown eyes. grin

The scientific theorems that you cling to have been shown to be discarded but the authority of the Bible never changes because its the solid foundation on which I stand.

debosky:

When you stop making such egregiously false statements, you may attempt to argue scientific theorems - in the meantime you can stick to your cartoons.

My friendly advise to you is that you should spend more time studying the Bible and let it be your final authority over the shifting sand of faulty man's "scientific theorems" that changes by the day.
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 2:47pm On Apr 13, 2012
OLAADEGBU:

That statement is an oxymoron. What existed before the creation of time had to be eternal.

Why must it be so? Where is your evidence? When did time begin/ get created?

God is an eternal Being and God lives in eternity. The eternal, infinite Creator God created the cosmos at the beginning and this consists of time, space and matter (energy/mass). For you to say that a created universe could have existed before the creation of time is neither logical nor good science.

God can do anything he can create things outside the realms of time if he so wishes. Are you claiming to know that the universe did NOT exist in another form before the creation of time when it was spoken into its current form?


How will you know the ultimate cause of the universe since you've rejected the answer from Scripture?

I have rejected nothing - you continue to make false claims like a descendant of the Father of all liars.


It was eternity before the creation of the time and eternity is the life-time of the never dying God.

How do you know this? Refer to my first question - when was time created?


If your so called predecessor to the universe was created by God why shouldn't this fall under the third option: that the it was created?

It can, and as I referenced a number of posts earlier, it depends on when you want to start from/ your perspective.

If I look at a bar of steel and I ask when was it created, I will be referred to when it was smelted and forged in a steel mill, not when the individual electrons and protons that make up elemental iron were created.


The onus is on you to provide the evidence that the universe emanated from a 'thing' which was created by God. Do you see where you've been going round in your vicious cycle? My third possibility of the cause of the universe was creation and you are here talking about a universe emanating from a 'thing' created by God,

I don't have to provide any evidence - I am not trying to prove that it DID emanate from a 'thing', only to put forward that there may be other possibilities.


If you have been studying your Bible you would have come across Psalm 33:6 that says "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breadth of His mouth."

Good! If the universe came from the word of the Lord, when was this word created? If it wasn't created, can we say the universe has always existed because the word has always existed with God?

You see what I mean about how far back you want to go?


The Scripture says again in Genesis 2:1 that "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." The original Hebrew uses the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never to occur again. You can see here that the creation was "finished," once and for all. This is what the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states: that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed. I It is "finished," just as the Bible correctly states.

I warned you to avoid exhibiting your rank ignorance of scientific theorems Matter CAN be created from energy and vice versa. Have you ever heard of E = MC2 ??

Again, this distraction did not even answer my point which is that the universe could've had a predecessor - can you explain how the verse above addresses whether the universe had a predecessor?


Which has been shown to be an illegitimate response and if you are saying that it was created by God that still comes under the 3 possibility.

It is not illegitimate - it all depends on the perspective of the discussion.


Again, God created time at the beginning of creation, I hope you get the 3 dimensional creation of time, space and matter (energy/mass) that was created at the beginning.

When were the angels created? At the beginning of creation or before? Were they created before or after the universe was created? Biblical references please, no links or cartoons.


The scientific theorems that you cling to have been shown to be discarded by the authority of the Bible never changes because its the solid foundation on which I stand.

I cling to nothing but the bible - I don't attempt to impute meanings into it that it was never intended for, neither do I attempt to say ridiculous things which are blatant lies like melanin reflections causes brown eyes just to defend a point.

I can differentiate between trying to understand the mechanisms of HOW (science) versus the WHY provided by the bible.
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 2:49pm On Apr 13, 2012
OLAADEGBU:

That statement is an oxymoron. What existed before the creation of time had to be eternal.

Why must it be so? Where is your evidence? When did time begin/ get created?

God is an eternal Being and God lives in eternity. The eternal, infinite Creator God created the cosmos at the beginning and this consists of time, space and matter (energy/mass). For you to say that a created universe could have existed before the creation of time is neither logical nor good science.

God can do anything he can create things outside the realms of time if he so wishes. Are you claiming to know that the universe did NOT exist in another form before the creation of time when it was spoken into its current form?


How will you know the ultimate cause of the universe since you've rejected the answer from Scripture?

I have rejected nothing - you continue to make false claims like a descendant of the Father of all liars.


It was eternity before the creation of the time and eternity is the life-time of the never dying God.

How do you know this? Refer to my first question - when was time created?


If your so called predecessor to the universe was created by God why shouldn't this fall under the third option: that the it was created?

It can, and as I referenced a number of posts earlier, it depends on when you want to start from/ your perspective.

If I look at a bar of steel and I ask when was it created, I will be referred to when it was smelted and forged in a steel mill, not when the individual electrons and protons that make up elemental iron were created.


The onus is on you to provide the evidence that the universe emanated from a 'thing' which was created by God. Do you see where you've been going round in your vicious cycle? My third possibility of the cause of the universe was creation and you are here talking about a universe emanating from a 'thing' created by God,

I don't have to provide any evidence - I am not trying to prove that it DID emanate from a 'thing', only to put forward that there may be other possibilities.


If you have been studying your Bible you would have come across Psalm 33:6 that says "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breadth of His mouth."

Good! If the universe came from the word of the Lord, when was this word created? If it wasn't created, can we say the universe has always existed because the word has always existed with God?

You see what I mean about how far back you want to go?


The Scripture says again in Genesis 2:1 that "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." The original Hebrew uses the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never to occur again. You can see here that the creation was "finished," once and for all. This is what the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states: that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed. I It is "finished," just as the Bible correctly states.

I warned you to avoid exhibiting your rank ignorance of scientific theorems Matter CAN be created from energy and vice versa. Have you ever heard of E = MC2 ??

Again, this distraction did not even answer my point which is that the universe could've had a predecessor - can you explain how the verse above addresses whether the universe had a predecessor?


Which has been shown to be an illegitimate response and if you are saying that it was created by God that still comes under the 3 possibility.

It is not illegitimate - it all depends on the perspective of the discussion.


Again, God created time at the beginning of creation, I hope you get the 3 dimensional creation of time, space and matter (energy/mass) that was created at the beginning.

When were the angels created? At the beginning of creation or before? Were they created before or after the universe was created? Biblical references please, no links or cartoons.


The scientific theorems that you cling to have been shown to be discarded by the authority of the Bible never changes because its the solid foundation on which I stand.

I cling to nothing but the bible - I don't attempt to impute meanings into it that it was never intended for, neither do I attempt to say ridiculous things which are blatant lies like melanin reflections causes brown eyes just to defend my point of view.

I don't overreach myself by saying daft things like blue eyes are as a result of sin (something that the bible doesn't tell us) or the countless number of ridiculous statements you have made over the years here.

I can differentiate between trying to understand the mechanisms of HOW (science) versus the WHY provided by the bible.

To end, I close with this verse:

Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.

It would do you good to stop claiming that 'all the answers' are provided in the bible, when the bible itself says we only know in part.
Re: Darwin's Day by DeepSight(m): 2:59pm On Apr 13, 2012
@ Jayriginal,

I am in the middle of preparing a response to you. But something just occured to me regarding one of your responses, and I'd just like to get it quickly out of the way.

Can you answer these two sets of quick questions for me?

First Set

1. You affirmed twice that you accept the law of cause and effect for material things. Confirm again please.

2. Is the universe a material thing?

Second Set

1. You stated that the qualification "As far as we know" denotes an argument from ignorance.

2. Do you agree that this qualification applies to ALL knowledge of mankind?

3. Does it not therefore follow that everything mankind knows and says simply amounts to arguments and statements from ignorance?

Thanks.
Re: Darwin's Day by DeepSight(m): 3:56pm On Apr 13, 2012
Quote from Jayriginal”
X
This is very misleading. The burden of proof cannot rest with me. YOU are the one who advanced the CA as the most convincing argument for the existence of god. The burden is therefore on you. You might write pages fro here to Jupiter and the burden will not shift until you effectively discharge it which you have failed to do.
X fails.

Y.
I have only asked you for proof. How does questioning something shift the burden of proof to the questioner? That is absurd if you think about it.
Asking for proof or expressions of doubt do not in anyway shift the burden of proof from the one who asserts (you). Indeed, if I agreed with you, there would be no burden to discharge and we wouldnt have this argument.

I am sure I did not say that it was the most convincing argument for the existence of God. I said it was one of the most convincing. Now the key point which you seem to be missing is that in discussing the issue, we perforce consider the premises on which the cosmological argument is hinged.

Those premises are in line with common observation and common logic. A person such as you, who contradicts them by referring to them as baseless assumptions, will have to show exactly why they are so: given the fact that in all that we observe, nothing moves without a triggering factor. The onus to show why this is a “baseless assumption” or “junk” as you put it, must rest squarely on you. because you are the one advancing a notion contrary to common observation and common logic

Nevertheless I will not make heavy weather of this point: wherever the burden of proof rests is not so important: readers will at all events be able to decide for themselves that which is in line with logic, based on what is put forward.

As such, you may either put forward your foot, or withhold it: it’s your choice. No matter.

All your emphasis on "as far as we know" and "for today" highlights the weakness of your argument.

This is a very disturbing thing for you to argue or state! I hope you realize that all knowledge that mankind has – and will ever have, - will always remain “as far as we know” – as such – everything that mankind will ever know – in your summation, kind sir – will simply eternally be statements of ignorance!

Clap for yasef!

I hope you can see the meaning in this: that it makes no sense to deride statements made on the basis of known observation as being arguments from ignorance.

This is especially so when the statements made are based on very simple knowledge which it is fair to say is conclusive: such as the composition of water for example. Thus, when the most simple and fundamental laws of motion are used in concluding that everything that moves requires a triggering factor, it is very strange, and even absurd, I think, to describe such as an argument or statement from ignorance. It is actually an argument or statement based on current knowledge - which knowledge has NOT YET been disproven, and which may not be disproven.

Anytime the phrase "as far as I know" or its equivalent is used, it points out to the inconclusive nature of the statement/evidence/proof etc

Accordingly, there isn’t one single bit of concluded knowledge anywhere in mankind’s history, because, as I already told you, all knowledge is only “as far as we know.”

I hope you can see how terribly tedious and untenable your “argument from ignorance” idea is, with regard to this discussion.

And yet, I say to you again, that since in ALL that we observe, we see causative chains – it behoves you to bring to the table even just one example of an uncaused material thing – and then and only then, can your declaration that we are making assumptions be taken seriously.
Re: Darwin's Day by DeepSight(m): 4:28pm On Apr 13, 2012
In the first write up that you posted for me, I have seen a lot of sad illogicalities. However given the length of the article I am not disposed to respond line by line. I will simply tell you the primary reason I must discountenance it as poor and of no use to this discussion, and then I will extract two short paragraphs relating to the Cosmological Argument.

The primary reason I discard the entire write-up is that it states that it is addressing itself against the view that the universe must have required a super-natural miraculous event to have caused it.

This is pointless for me because I do not believe in any supernatural or miraculous events.


I believe that everything is natural and follows logic, including God itself.

In his writings, Craig takes the first premise to be self-evident, with no justification other than common, everyday experience. That's the type of experience that tells us the world is flat. In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus.

This is shocking reasoning actually. It often surprises me the way people dig up very mediocre writings with very poor logic and then refer to such as some sort of authourity. Much the way people point to Richard Dawkin’s writings – which are frankly kindergarten-ish discourses.

Just look at the above. I will break it down and comment on it.

It says –

“In his writings, Craig takes the first premise to be self-evident, with no justification other than common, everyday experience. That's the type of experience that tells us the world is flat.

Just look at this, and for the sake of Helen of Troy, please bring out your honest hat. This statement infers that observations based on common, everyday experience are not to be trusted. Is this your view, Jay? Do you think for example that our common everyday observation that people need to breathe in order to survive should perhaps be derided as an argument or statement from ignorance?

This writer is inferring that relying on common everyday experience leads to conclusions such as a flat earth. Is this correct? I think verily not. In the first place, the flat earth notion was wrong not because people relied on common experience – it was wrong because they didn’t rely on the proper common experience. The proper common experience would simply have been something like looking round at the circular horizon, and several other apt common experiences that ought to have shown a flat earth notion to have been wrong. As such, the mere fact that people sometimes select wrong experiences to decide their conclusions and therefore come to wrong notions DOES NOT IN ANYWAY MEAN THAT IT IS BAD, WRONG, OR ILLOGICAL TO RELY ON COMMON EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATION IN DRAWING CONCLUSIONS

Indeed, I might ask you what is to be relied on, if not such?

Your write further states –

“In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus.”

I would invite you that we should take this up in a thread I opened some days ago specifically for such –

https://www.nairaland.com/906545/radioactive-decay-as-argument-existence

Craig has retorted that quantum events are still "caused," just caused in a non predetermined manner—what he calls "probabilistic causality." In effect, Craig is thereby admitting that the "cause" in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous—something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause, he destroys his own case for a predetermined creation.

I think this is wrong for the simple reason that it leaps over the first and most fundamental question of the creation riddle: why something instead of nothing? There must be a something in existence – of whatever nature – before things can happen “accidentally” to such a “something.” This is why I say these write-ups are kindergartenish. Do accidents happen to, within, or from a “nothing”?

I see the final installment has some thoughts on this question, but you will agree it simply attempts to wish the question away and does not in anyway answer it! Indeed the final paragraphs are the worse pieces of spin, illogic and pseudo-science I have ever seen in my life. Its not necesasry to believe in God, but its shameful for people to go to the length of such twisted spin and obvious illogic simply to murder the God they anyway claim is non-existent.
Re: Darwin's Day by DeepSight(m): 4:33pm On Apr 13, 2012
The transition of nothing-to-something is a natural one, not requiring any agent. As Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that 'nothing' is unstable."29 In the non boundary scenario for the natural origin of the universe I mentioned earlier, the probability for there being something rather than nothing actually can be calculated; it is over 60 percent.30

In short, the natural state of affairs is something rather than nothing. An empty universe requires supernatural intervention— not a full one. Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God.

This last, is the most amazing piece of illogic I have ever encountered in my life.

In the first place, the writer has ZERO understanding of the concept of "nothing." He has assigned properties to "nothingness" - such as that it is "unstable"! Wow. I didn't know that "nothingness" could have properties! He goes further to say that the probability of something versus nothing even has a calculation.

This is spin: and pathetic spin at that. Do tell me you recognize spin when you see it. I certainly hope you dont have a knee-jerk approval of every pseudo-scientific write-up that simply is anti-God's existence.

It's simply horrible, twisted and also very ignorant. If you agree with that which is written here, do let me know, and we can then see further.

Good grief.
Re: Darwin's Day by DeepSight(m): 4:45pm On Apr 13, 2012
ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary" ), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
BASIC ARGUMENT
Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not “wait” upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone. And the true thrust of science and rational analysis is to separate preconceived notion(s) of what reality is, and to be open at all times to the observation of nature as it behaves, so as truly to discover reality.

Actually, reading this definition of "Argument from ignorance" its very obvious that you are the one it applies to; for you are the one declaring that we do not know what may be disproven tomorrow. That is surely a cute argument from ignorance is it not? Note also that it refers to relying on the fact that a proposition is not disproven yet. That infers a sort of argument where a non-proven assertion is made, and then backed up with the fact that it is not disproven yet. You have to understand that it cannot refer to proven and observed phenomena. Because if it does, then there is no use in saying or writing or even thinking anything at all, as all such will be branded statements or thoughts from ignorance.

You have interpretedx this very very very wrongly, my friend.
Re: Darwin's Day by DeepSight(m): 4:51pm On Apr 13, 2012
Finally, your answers completely evaded the core contradictions I pointed out. You simply issued denials and then wrote on non-related matters. Address the contradictions squarely. One of them is -

1. You accept the law of cause and effect for material things

2. You accept that the universe is a material thing

3. You reject the first premise of the cosmological argument as a baseless assumption

4. And yet the first premise of the cosmological argument is simply a repetition of the law of cause and effect - which you say you accept!

I am mildly surprised on your reaction to the water analogy. You totally missed it. The analogy was directed at showing your mis-use of the "as far as we know" qualification.

All knowledge, my friend, will eternally remain "as far as we know".

That cannot render all knowledge "arguments or statements from ignorance."

If that were the case, my saying that "As far as we know, Jayriginal is a human being" will simply be a statement from ignorance, no?

(1) (2) (3) ... (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (Reply)

Fufeyin: I Saw The Death Of Abba Kyari, Prayed About It But It's The Will Of God / Missing Child From Winners Church Found Two Years After / American Evangelist, Morris Cerullo, Is Dead

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 285
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.