₦airaland Forum

A summary of my theistic stance:

1. We exist in a universe
2. We are locked into the universe we exist in and we know nothing of the operations outside our universe
3. By 2. above, No one inside my universe can explain the operations outside my universe
4. By 3. above, I believe that there are many things that even though are impossible within our universe may not be impossible outside our universe
5. Our universe could have been created.
6. If our universe was created then it would have been created by a being outside our universe
7. If a being outside our universe created our universe then it would be impossible to decipher that being as that would require knowledge of the operations outside our universe which (by 3. above) we do not have.
8. By 1-7, I conclude that it is impossible for us to decipher God (the being outside our universe that created our universe).
9. If it is impossible for us to decipher God (If He exists) then we can conclude that it is impossible to say categorically that God does not exist.
10. Therefore God can exist.

Going by the above, it is plausible to assume that there are multiple universes with different laws in operation.

Science itself is locked into this universe therefore it is possible that there exists an explanation that is not apparent to anyone in our universe for the existence of God.

Establishing the above statement would relieve us of the burden of proving the existence of God (as we need a thorough knowledge of the laws operating outside our universe).

As a theist, I do not believe God materialized into the universe out of no where. That would be statistically improbable as atheistic scientists point out.

What I believe is that God was outside our universe when He created it and since we are locked into our universe, it is impossible to explain how God (who existed prior to our universe and outside of it) came into being.

All our laws, and statistical tools work only in our universe therefore they may not be accurate if we are trying to explain a phenomena outside our universe.
The above statement is corroborated by Richard Dawkins.

There are 6 constants in our universe (search for Ree's six universal constants). If any of these constants were different then life as we know it could not have existed because the laws of the universe as we know it today would not be operational.

The major reason Atheists (at least the informed ones) believe what they believe is that it is statistically easier for a simple substance like matter and energy to materialize out of nowhere than it is for a more complex substance to materialize out of nowhere.

Atheists (at least the scientists among them) do not claim that they know for certain that evolution ocurred (unlike thehomer who has refused to agree that science makes assumptions)

Atheistic scientists including Richard Dawkins agree that we are all making assumptions.
I respect the position of atheistic scientists because they do not understand why thiests would make the more statistically improbable choice and go as far as to say God materialized out of nowhere but humans who are of a lesser rank or complexity than God had to be created.

with that said let me attempt to answer Richard Dawkins.

@thehomer.

I do not think you get the point of my argument at all

For science or anyone at that to make a categorical statement there needs to be proof.

If the scientific method does not do proofs (according to you) then the best it can say is that the possibility of something is either high or low based on evidences.

This is the position atheistic scientists take when they say "there almost certainly is no God"

I do not think I've come across anyone questioning the fact that believing evolution requires making assumptions. I do not know why you keep saying the opposite and I'm really tired of explaining.

Also on complexity and order, I am tired of explaining.
If you are a scientist or you believe in evolution you should have a basic idea of order because the bedrock of evolution is that species evolved from the lowest order to the highest order which is the human being.

If you still do not understand what is meant by the term order or rank then I do not think we should be having this discussion as it would be almost impossible to reconcile our points.

thehomer:
Well where was he? Who created the universe he was in before he created this one?
And he's in it at the same time?

I believe we are locked into our universe so we wouldn't know anything about the operations outside our universe.

I have said time and time again that I know I am assuming and that you are also assuming
I have also said that we should trace the logical conclusions of our assumptions.

thehomer:
Well that's a classic appeal to ignorance which is a fallacy.

Please explain how my appeal to ignorance is a fallacy.

You'lll notice that I don't just say something is a fallacy or is fallacious without giving a reason. Give reasons

thehomer:
I'm simply responding to previous posts of yours.

Well like I have pointed out, a lot of scientific theories and reasoning have this "may" yet you accept them. What better reason do you have for not accepting the theory of evolution? Other than asking for more evidence when there's so much already before you that you're still unable to account for?

Please post an evidence for evolution not based on similarity.

thehomer:
I did not assume anything. I'm simply pointing out alternatives which may or may not be correct. We simply do not have enough information to go in any of those directions.

So do you have enough information to go in the direction you are going?

If you do not have enough information then you are making assumptions in taking that direction. That is what I mean by assumption.

thehomer:
No we have not digressed. You keep using "order" in a particular sense that I do not yet understand and I think placing those objects in the "order" you mean would go a long way.

by saying a creator should always be of an order or rank higher than his/her creation what I mean that in the order of their complexity from highest to lowest (1 = highest) we would rank them as

1. Creator
2. Creation

thehomer:
I don't know how life originated.

If you don't know how life originated then how are you better than someone that assumes that God created life?

I hope you now agree that I am not credulous in my assumption that God exists?

thehomer:
On the first, I think that statement is clear enough.

On the second, I already pointed out that analogies made using human artifacts are bad analogies.
All are complex? Even prions and stars? How do you decide an object is complex?

Yes the statements are clear. I am asking for the point the statements are trying to make.

For simplicity, A unicellular object is not complex while a multicellular object (containing at least one million different types of cells) is complex.

thehomer:
I'll need to know the characteristics of your God to be able to demonstrate this.

God is the creator of the universe.

To prove that God cannot logically exist based on this characteristic you have to show categorically how the universe came into existence (including how the first matter and energy you said were there came into existence.

Please answer the questions on evolution first before tackling this one.

thehomer:
I hope you understand that similarities are the basis of understanding in whatever field one is involved in. Consider one of the reasons why visible light and radio waves are both classified as being part of the electromagnetic spectrum is because of the similarities in their speed. Also, consider that one of the reasons why neon and argon are considered noble gases is because of their similarities in reactivity.

Pointing out that evolution uses similarities as a basis of understanding does not make it invalid. In fact, it shows how much more likely it is to be correct.

Thank God.
At least you now accept that similarity only proves the LIKELYHOOD not the certainty of evolution.
Therefore, to prove evolution you have to get a different evidence not based on similarity of species.

I would like to see some other evidences not based on similarity of species.

thehomer:
If we can assume that matter and energy have always existed, then why introduce a God?

What makes you think that God exists outside of the universe? The last I heard, he was hanging out on earth in multiple forms. What even makes you think that an entity being inside and outside the universe is coherent?

I assumed God exists because I don't understand how matter and energy created or evolved into life.

I think God exists outside of the universe because if He created the universe then He must have been existing somewhere before He created the universe.

thehomer:
Are you saying that because science uses cautious terms unlike the absolute terms you're familiar with in your belief in God therefore, science must be wrong? I hope you know that by extension, the continental plates may have once been together at some point in time, the earth may be spinning on its axis, the earth may be going round the sun, dinosaurs may have once walked the earth. The moon may have been struck by meteors, I could go on.

Your shift to playing with words rather than actually countering the evidence is simply a tactic I call "burying one's head in the sand". Please present something better than trying to include cautious terms.
Also, I'd like to see your evidence for your creator and how this creator acts and explains diversity.

Please cool off a bit. This is not a fight.
I did not say science is wrong.
I only said the evidence posted there is not sufficient for evolution as it still contains a MAY that can be explained by another phenomena.

@mazaje
You have said that Christianity is not the right way.

Please for the benefit of everyone please post what you think is the explanation of how the universe came into being, how life was first formed and finally how human beings came into existence.

Of course for your theory to be considered correct it must explain every phenomena we observe today.

I accept a certain level of credulity in accepting that God exists because I have not been able to explain many observable phenomena outside of the existence of God.

For you to prove that I am really credulous you must explain all the phenomena that I will post.

BaboonYansh:
The issue of love only comes in  in atonement and forgiveness NOT bending the perfect laws so it can be convenient for you to obey. Its inconsistent. It should be you disobey the perfect laws and the law giver is merciful and loving enough to forgive. The perfect law should still stay.

But in a situation where the laws are Imperfect and wrong, it isn't consistent with a Perfect God,

That God allows something does not mean it is His Law

Jesus said that even though God allowed divorce for the jews, it was not His perfect will (note that proceedings for divorce were in the code as the proceedings for war were)
If divorce was not God's perfect will then maybe war is not God's perfect will.

I believe God was constrained in His dealings with humans because humans were incapable of adhering to His laws.
God did not bend His perfect Laws to accommodate humans, He simply created a way for them to atone for breaking the laws. One would notice that irrespective of whether anyone transgressed (broke a law) or not the High priest was supposed to offer up a special sacrifice once a year for everyone. Since this special sacrifice did not absolve a transgressor from atoning for is transgressions separately, I would imagine that this sacrifice is the atonement for using a justice code that was not God's perfect law.

You just seem to be shooting your self in the foot and going around in a meaningless circle. . . .You aforementioned that morality does not evolve, which is a very FALSE statement. . . . .Right and wrong differs from culture to culture and from society to society. . . .Right and wrong also evolves. . . .What might be right today might be wrong tomorrow and what might be wrong today might be right tomorrow. . . .Morality is NOT intrinsic it has to be learned through experimentation and by experience. . . .Let me give u and example, long ago some tribes in Nigeria used to kill their twin babies and they saw nothing wrong with that, they never saw anything wrong with that action, they had to be thought to stop it. . . . If morality were intrinsic  as you erroneously claim then why do parents spend a lot of time, effort and resources teaching their children the difference between right and wrong? I would expect all children to know  the difference between right and wrong automatically if morality were intrinsic

I'm sorry, we are clearly talking about different things.
In your twin babies illustration, the current practice (code of justice) was to kill twin babies but the mother of the twin babies knew that she didn't want her babies to die that would be the sense of morality I'm talking about.

Our sense of morality dictates that killing a human being is bad unless possibly in self defense (situation of war).
Even during a war rookie soliders still feel a sense of guilt after their first kill and they keep thinking "should I have killed that person?", "did the person I killed pose an immediate threat to me?", "could I have done without killing the person I just killed?"

I'm sorry, Maybe I'm the one that introduced the different meaning.

Children have a sense of morality similar to the way a primary one student knows the basics of science 1+1 = 2. That is not enough for survival and were the child to be left to himself the myraid of influences to make wrong choices (regardless of whether the child knows they are wrong or not) would most certainly overwhelm the child.

The reason I said I don't think we are referring to the same evolution is that Evolution as I know it is heavily based on the similarity of species and you effectively said similarity is not a part of the theory of evolution.

By posting the wikipedia link, I'm sure you now accept that similarity is the most important part of the theory of evolution.

The article you posted is titled evidence of common descent.

1. The fundamental point in this article is that because we are similar then we have common descent.
     The correct way to put it is that if we are similar we MAY have had common descent.
     If there is still a MAY then we cannot use it as a categorical point. We will therefore need other points other than similarity to verify evolution.
  This addresses points 1,2 and 4

2. The heading titled evidence from paleontology should be Possibility of evidence from paleontology. That section only explained how paleontology would go about giving evidence for evolution if there was evidence.
I posted a link where leading paleontologists in a british museum concluded that paleontology has not given any conclusive evidence for evolution as the gaps are too wide.
This addresses point 3

For the benefit of everyone this is the link again. http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/problems-with-the-fossil-record.htm

thehomer:
Maybe it had always existed, maybe it came up by quantum fluctuations, maybe it had to come up as a function of this universe out of many others, maybe Rar set it up and went to sleep, maybe Rar and his brothers and sisters set it up and were destroyed in the process the fact is that we simply do not know and this is no reason for you to plug this gap in knowledge with whatever tickles your fancy.

Please can you explain what you mean by assumptions here or are you simply equivocating again?

No what I'm saying is that we do not know you are assuming a creator. If you're assuming a creator, then at least give us good reasons why.

Your assumptions really have no logical conclusions because according to you, your God can do whatever he likes.

By using the word MAYBE it is clear you are also making assumptions.
By assumption I mean presupposition - to believe that a particular thing is trye before there is any proof of it.

thehomer:
This is not clear. How do you go about ordering a star, a galaxy, a stone, a human, a giraffe, a whale, a mushroom, a virion, a protein, a polypeptide, a prion, Clostridium tetani, an angel, a demon, a fairy, a tomato, a black hole?

I think we unknowingly digressed from the original statement.

What I said was that If God created humans then God must be of an order or rank higher than humans.
We do not even need to look at the object of classification to establish that.

A creator should always be of an order or rank higher than his/her creation. That should be very clear.
I don't see the point of arguing over that.

thehomer:
I know this. I said it orders itself from liquids which are more disordered.

Ok so if I dissolve salt in water and add more and more salt till I achieve a certain concentration at which point salt crystals begin to form does that prove order out of disorder?

Note that I originally had salt which is of the same order as the salt crystals.

I sincerely hope we can stop going back and forth with this. Maybe I will understand it better when you define evolution and give proof for it being responsible for the arrival of human beings.

One other point I'd like you to explain is how inanimate matter transformed into the smallest living organism.

thehomer:
I think evolution gives an excellent explanation of how humans came to be on earth.

Another example of a terrible analogy.

What are the distinguishing features that when present, make you assume that the object is complex?

Did the elephant come about by mistake? Were they also designed? How about gorillas, chimpanzees, Escherichia coli, HIV, prions, Earth, The Sun, The Milky Way?

Please clarify the point of the above statements.
I think all the objects you mentioned above are complex and they did not come about by mistake. They were created.

thehomer:
It can also be invalid if this God logically cannot exist.

If this God cannot logically exist, then your presupposition again fails.

Yes. If God cannot logically exist then everything I am saying fails.

If it can be shown that God cannot logically exist then I will have to stop everything.

If you believe that God cannot logically exist, please say so and I'll stop for you to prove it. It is very fundamental to my argument.

P.S. If God cannot logically exist I really want to know, This is not a joke and I am not being sarcastic.

thehomer:
Why assume that some God started it off? It may simply be that the matter and energy present had always been present. If you introduce a God, then you simply have to explain how this God came into existence was it spontaneous or was it also created by a "higher order" entity? If you can accept that it had always been, then the matter and energy of the universe too could have always existed.

Finally we may be able to agree on one point.
Yes we can assume the matter and energy of the universe could have always existed if I can assume that God always existed relative to our universe.

Ah, I see one point on which you may be getting me wrong.
I think God exists outside of the universe because I believe we are locked into our own universe and there may be more than one universe.

thehomer:
This is a straw man because I did not present this view neither is this a part of the theory of evolution.

I don't think evolution as I know it is what you are referring to.
For the benefit of everyone, can you please explain in simple steps what evolution is and the proof that evolution ocurred.

thehomer:
I already presented you with documented evidence of it. The scientific papers contain the details.

This is not just between you and I, please post the evidences you can see in the scientific papers so everyone can benefit.

please ease of on the posts a bit so that I can answer some of the questions.

this way we won't be mixing things up.

Give me 10 minutes to answer your posts please.

I hope you do not see this thread as a contest.

I am just honestly trying to explain things and welcoming questions concerning my explanations in the process

thehomer:
Again, you have not explained what you mean by "order" so how can I use any kind of classification?

I said by order I mean rank and then I posted a definition of rank from the dictionary and yet you say I have not explained

This just proves that you are either not reading my posts or you are just purposefully ignoring them.

thehomer:
I already presented you with documented evidence of it. The scientific papers contain the details.

I'm sorry but you are simply burying your head in the sand trying to ignore evidence. There is as much evidence for evolution as there is evidence that the continental plates on earth were once together as a super continent.

No, it has more evidence supporting it. Even more evidence than you have of your creator making it this way.

No you have not established the fact that there is a creator. Could you state this proposition clearly with the evidence you have for it?

For the benefit of all who will read this thread, please (as I have said before) post a summary of the evidences supporting evolution.
Ok please just post the 3 strongest evidences that support evolution.

It is not enough to say there is more evidence supporting evolution. please post 3 of the strongest evidences.

I checked the link and I only saw evidences for adaptation not evolution.

I may be getting things mixed up so please post the evidences at the link you provided.