Evolution or Creation?

Of what faith are you?

  • Creationism

    Votes: 95 14.9%
  • A power of some sort (reincarnation/superstitions/fortune telling/etc.)

    Votes: 29 4.5%
  • Agnosticism (evolution implied)

    Votes: 130 20.4%
  • Atheism (evolution implied)

    Votes: 239 37.5%
  • Agnostic or atheist and does NOT believe in evoltion

    Votes: 15 2.4%
  • Theistic evolution (a god guided evolution)

    Votes: 90 14.1%
  • I'm really not sure at this point...

    Votes: 40 6.3%

  • Total voters
    638

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the universe we see now is merely one big black hole within a bigger black hole which is within an even bigger black hole which is within another black hole which is bigger than itself which is within
 
Again, the proof is our existence. Now refute that by explaining how it's logical that we should appear from nothingness.
You confuse me with someone else. I claimed no such thing. I take no stand in the matter, other than that it's pure speculation to say ANYTHING about absolutes based on your (or anyone's) unconfirmed senses. I make no claims, I have nothing to prove. You on the otherhand have a whole load. Good luck proving your points.

Funny. What do I not understand?
That there is an infinite amount of valid possibilities the universe came to be and you just happen to choose creation because it suits you best.

It's a hypocritical approach to scoff belief in a creator, yet blindly embrace an existence derrived from starting from nothingness.
Again you mix me with someone else. But here I agree with you. You're all ****ing looney thinking you can actually know something for sure. Absolutely wacko.
Very mature. Now do you want to cite some fundamentals and evidence yourself, or just name call.
As previously stated I make no claims, thus I need to prove nothing on the material level (I did make a claim that you're all nutters, but that's what I am trying to point out here).

ealabor said:
Occam's Razor applied, the simplest explanation is that we are subject to creation. Creation is a working template in our universe, and it is illogical to throw away that template and suggest that the universe itself was created from nothingness, for we are here now.
It is illogical to assume something so loosely. It is logical not to assume. It is even less logical to believe without a doubt.

Anyways, who told you can trust your senses? That's right, nobody.

Do deities exist? Your guess is as good as mine, but leave it at the guess. Build models for the world you perceive and share them with me so I can see if they work well enough for mine, but don't tell me "It IS so". Because then I'll have to start questioning your sanity.
 
Disregarding the fact that spontaneous creation is only one of the theories about the creation of the universe:

Case 1: The Universe spontaneously came into existance.
Case 2: There just happened to be a highly complex being in existance who then created everything.

Which one is simpler?

ealabor said:
Deductive logic suggests that in fact it is the right answer.
Um, no. Deductive logic says that we should probably have something to work from before we start making **** up.
 
Nash said:
Just a quick question: If there is indeed a creator, what did that creator make the universe out of?

Well, according to the BB theory it resulted from an expansion from a primordial hot and dense finite point. there was some gas involved.

Who knows, maybe he struck a match when he was lighting up a doobie.

It's not my buisiness to comment on what his favorite shirt is, or if he would even have one, or if he supports gay marriage or not. Thats all left for the clowns who buy into the organized belief.

I just stay with the working template which is logical. As far as the process of the creation of the universe, the BB theory is as good as any. However it had to be initiated, as processed by logic
 
Ursca said:
Um, no. Deductive logic says that we should probably have something to work from before we start making **** up.

and creation is that template. Stars, gas, dust which in turn create planets, and that dust primordial life, and that life up to man. Thats a well documented and accepted template.

Now that we come from nothingness? good luck applying logic to that template.

 
ealabor said:
jekelof said:
Nope. The fact that we don't know how everything started doesn't prove that some omnipotent being created everything.

Deductive logic suggests that in fact it is the right answer.

Occam's Razor applied, the simplest explanation is that we are subject to creation. Creation is a working template in our universe, and it is illogical to throw away that template and suggest that the universe itself was created from nothingness, for we are here now.

If there were a case to present which proves that matter can come from nothingness, then there is grounds for debate concerning our universe's inception without creation. I have yet to hear of another universe appearing within our universe. Theres always a concept of multiverse, yet staying with the logic of Occam's Razor, such a universe would not exist out of a known template which is our universe. That would then contain matter exploding from finite point as suggested from the BB theory, and such an explosion wouldn't go unnoticed in the universe, yet they arent happening.

Then we're back to square one with me saying, where did this creator come from? Nothing?

As someone who believes in science I can admit that I don't have all the answers. I don't know where we come from or how everything started, but I find the idea that a higher "being" created everything laughable. 
 
If God was the initiation to the Big Bang then you imply he must be beyond space and time.

If he is not within space and time he becomes impossible to describe in any meaningful way. In essence he doesn't exist, like all the other invisible gnomes and flying spaghetti monsters. Unless you can meaningfully describe anything about God in a physical sense then he doesn't really exist. And if you can describe God in any physical sense they he must exist within space and time, and then therefore requires a cause, just like the big bang. You're just at step one again.
 
ealabor said:
Ursca said:
Um, no. Deductive logic says that we should probably have something to work from before we start making **** up.

and creation is that template. Stars, gas, dust which in turn create planets, and that dust primordial life, and that life up to man. Thats a well documented and accepted template.

Now that we come from nothingness? good luck applying logic to that template.
As Ilex says, I don't make any claims concerning the beginning of the universe. If anything, I favour the idea that it is infinite and eternal. But I can't say for certain exactly how it works.
 
I found the answer. Lock this thread already.

Family20Guy20-20Gods20Big20Bang.gif
 
13 Spider Bloody Chain said:
From my dealings with my devout Christian family, some Christians would respond with, "God always was and will be", and claim that he is "outside of time".
Which fails. Whether sparking up the big bang, or simply saying "let there be rock" we have causation (act of creation) and effect (the universe is created), ergo some timeline must be in effect which by the arguments own logic, requires God also have a beginning point. And that's before we ask why God can be outside of time and eternal and thus not require causation, and yet the big bang singularity which we *know* is outside of what we define as time necessitates causation!

ealabor said:
Between spacefoam theory and theory of gravity, safe money's on gravity. Gravity being much more tangible. I've not observed a gravity particle, yet I know there is a basis for the concept in that I can toss something in the air and uh.. well, we know what happens then.
And like I said, the quantum spacefoam theory merely describes cause and effect. You've already used the process in your own example, if you're going to reject the theory on the basis it's intangible, then you're going to have problems proving gravity.
I will imagine that too will fall to our persistance. Surely you know now of the many concepts in bypassing the barrier
Bypassing is not breaking the barrier, it's bypassing it. You don't move faster than light by not actually moving at all.
Precisely. I never argued that we came from nothing. My stance as stated in nearly every post is that it is illogical to have come from nothing.
And yet it's perfectly logical for God to have come from nothing?
Again, the universe in which time and space are fundamental has to have been created by a being to which time and space do not apply.
Why?
Therefore time does not apply to the Creator, and a eternal, or really a static existence is an achievable concept
In which case, 1. Why does this apply to God, and not the singularity responsible for the big bang, and 2. Explain how God creates the universe without having a cause and effect mechanism.
Occam's Razor applied, the simplest explanation is that we are subject to creation.
That's the worst application of Occam's Razor since Sweeney Todd. Adding in a creator shifts the same problems you have with a naturally arising universe to a naturally arising creator, with the added complications that you now have to explain the nature, motivation and method of this creator on top of where it came from.
I just stay with the working template which is logical. As far as the process of the creation of the universe, the BB theory is as good as any. However it had to be initiated, as processed by logic
Ignoring your rather unique model of the big bang theory there, would you care to explain why creation had to be initiated?


 
You know what would be a great idea? If some people would pipe down a little bit so that we can actually see what's being argued without brief interludes of inanity. Cloud Breaker, Calathar and brunoxyz, I'm looking at you.  :razz:

</Backseat Moderator>
 
jekelof said:
Then we're back to square one with me saying, where did this creator come from? Nothing?

Nope, as previously stated, the universe in which we exist where time and space are fundamental, had to have been created by a being to which time and space do not apply. Therefore since time does not apply to God, it then becomes reason that his existence is eternal or static  :wink:

Calathar said:
This is for Eleabor

I don't operate on faith. That mean's the concept is subject is succeptable to disproof.

Yoshiboy said:
If God was the initiation to the Big Bang then you imply he must be beyond space and time.

Yep

Yoshiboy said:
If he is not within space and time he becomes impossible to describe in any meaningful way.

No, as previously stated time and space no longer apply to the creator.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom