ForumsAU.com - Forums in Australia for all people & subjects
ForumsAU.com - Forums in Australia for all people & subjects
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Creationism versus Darwinism
 How did we come to be?
 How did it all begin? - Fadi challenges Davo
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
Author  Topic Next Topic  

kevtherev
Forum Admin

Australia
352 Posts

Posted - 27 Jul 2009 :  11:28:11  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Fadi
Rank = Lance Corporal

Australia
74 Posts
Posted - 25 Jul 2009 : 22:52:01
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, let me break the ice here since all have gone into some kind of hibernation or have given up their right to speak. Before I answer any of the points raised by you Davo; I’m asking you for some clarification on your stand as an atheist as to the last point you’ve touched on. By that I’d like you to tell me what you as an atheist believe was the cause of all that exists. I fully understand your last answer re the design issue. What I’m after now is for your understanding of what happened way back then. In other words, according to you, how did it all begin? There are many points I’d like to raise/answer here but again, I will reserve my answer until I hear yours. Thank you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
If it is not truthful and not helpful, don’t say it. If it is truthful and not helpful, don’t say it. If it is not truthful and helpful, don’t say it. If it is truthful and helpful, wait for the right time.

Pride is concerned with who is right.
Humility is concerned with what is right.

kevtherev
Forum Admin

Australia
352 Posts

Posted - 27 Jul 2009 :  11:28:51  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
davo
Rank = Lance Corporal

69 Posts
Posted - 27 Jul 2009 : 10:49:36
---------------------------------------------------------------

Yep sorry real life has got in the way.

With regards what happened 'way back when', I am not a quantum scientist, but there are a number of theories, which cover such things as singularities and bubble universes, fractal universes etc etc .. but the simple answer is we don't know yet. However our understanding of such things are expanding massively every day. Gaps in our knowledge, the domain of gods, is shrinking along with it.

BUT, to say that the universe had to have a creator, that the universe is so complex as it needs a creator that is more complex, by definition, leaves that leap needing the same requirements. My answer is that the universe does not need a creator anymore than a god does, and that there is plenty of evidence for the universe, but none for a god, other than that written by man.

When we look at things like evolution (related to not HOW life started, which is abiogenesis, but how life gets more complex), and the expanding universe (the terminology of 'the big bang' is a wording given a theory on expansion, by an opponent of the theory and it stuck, the theory is not regarding a 'bang' but about the sudden expansion of time and space), we see more complex things come from simpler things, via very clear process. This is not 'random'.

My question to you, would be, if god does not need a creator, why does the universe?



--------------------------------------------------------------
Godless Heathen
Go to Top of Page

kevtherev
Forum Admin

Australia
352 Posts

Posted - 27 Jul 2009 :  11:29:33  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Yes I too - have been busy actually the busiest 2 weeks since the economy collapsed - I suppose that is a good sign - for recovery.

This is a very interesting topic, if we are to assess this question as per the facts, and of course rationally theorise, whilst being open to the truth that may, be beyond our current belief system, then we should break down this huge nagging question into bite size pieces and truly study to find the truth through factual evidence.

Would you agree with this Davo and Fadi?

I propose using a methodolgy similar to the 8 rules of interpretation as in the article here --> http://www.forumsau.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=340 these rules so I am told were put together by university scholars for the purpose of finding truth - they are fair and not to religous, i hope for you Davo.

I propose we start a new topic called "how did we come to be" or you 2 could maybe word it better - this way we can break it down in threads of thought and then we can test them individually.

I will start by copying these last 3 posts to the topic here --> http://www.forumsau.com/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=51

Thanks from Kev - Forum and Site Admin - Want to know what I am up to these days? See the latest website I am working on - http://www.VintageAntiqueRetro.com - A free Classifieds site for Vintage Antique Retro Collectables :)
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 27 Jul 2009 :  12:41:48  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Not a problem Kevin, however I think the topic is rather skewed, if there is to be debate, I am not sure what exactly is the definition of the boundaries of that debate.

There is the assertion on one hand, that religious texts are the word of a god, in this case, with regard Fadi, the Qur'an. This leads to the usage of your 8 rules of interpretation, which I have no problem with, but the basis for the discussion seems to be on the premise that these religious texts are fact. Where I disagree and state that it is faith that they are fact.

I put forward the scientific method, I have stated that there is no evidence as to how things 'started' nor evidence that there was in fact a 'starting point', and are open to the process of knowledge that brings about that finding. So in effect, I have no platform upon which to state HOW things started, but I can dispute the leap to justifying that they MUST have been started by a god, as there is no evidence for this at all, other than faith in religious texts.

If we are to have a discussion on this, we have already seen the distinction between the cases, and please correct me if I am wrong :

Fadi : The universe was created, according to his faith in religious text.

Davo : We do not have any evidence of 'creation', nor any evidence for a god. One cannot claim that the universe must be created as it is so complex, then turn around and state that an even more complex thing, a god, does not need a creator in the same breath. The claim there must be a god, is a leap of faith alone, not based on evidence, nor logic.

On that topic, I would also like to throw in logical processes to the discussion as logic is the basis for rational thinking and 'reason'. The most common logical fallacies can be found here :

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies

Of course there are many others, and if subject to using one, please feel free to define the logically fallacious process. The above site is one provided by believers, if there is another source for logical fallacies as an option, feel free to post it.

Godless Heathen
Go to Top of Page

kevtherev
Forum Admin

Australia
352 Posts

Posted - 27 Jul 2009 :  13:08:57  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Ok Davo - I can see you and Fadi are much more learned than I am, and I aggree at least in part, that - No one on earth Knows for sure "how the universe was created" - it comes down to theories as there is no decisive answer that we know of - I guess thats why there is so much debate and slanging etc. on this subject.

For someone who is taught to believe by faith(whatever religion) it is even harder to come to an answer, or rational theory - other than what we have been taught.

I was an evolutionist for many years till I was 35 then I became a Born Again Christian 11 years ago, I can testify to the facts of my own experience and believe that the Bible is God's inspired word written by his chosen men of the time and that the Bible teaches us that God spoke the world into being, However niave this might sound, I believe because of the miracles of Salvation, forgiveness, blessing, healing and freedom that I have recieved, and because of the wisdom of the word of God, and the law of reaping and sowing that has played out in my life for good and for bad. so I give weight to that which I do not fully understand, because to God a small miracle and a big miracle (ie a small answered prayer V creation of the universe) are both just as possible and viable.

I accept that this quest will go beyond my religous attitudes and delve deeply into science as we know it, but truth remains constant - and thus, I believe that those that seek the truth will find it, if they continue in their quest.

So lets put our best theories to test and actually study the subject, by research and use of scholars, science, history, well structured theory, facts and Biblically.

we have for a start
1/ a Muslim
2/ a Christian
3/ a Heathen(Athiest)

There may be more similar or diverse people out there that would care to join us on this subject.

I propose we make bite size questions and put each one in its own topic(thread) and we keep bouncing back the information in thoses threads. This should help us as when we search for one thing sometimes we find other answers, and get waylaid this way we can preserve our initial topics and thoughts and just continue on.

Thanks from Kev - Forum and Site Admin - Want to know what I am up to these days? See the latest website I am working on - http://www.VintageAntiqueRetro.com - A free Classifieds site for Vintage Antique Retro Collectables :)
Go to Top of Page

kevtherev
Forum Admin

Australia
352 Posts

Posted - 27 Jul 2009 :  13:17:56  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Davo,

In answer to the Rules, It is are Very open here in this topic. So anything goes bar basic forum rules like No personal attacks, swearing and off topic (altough this is avery broad subject).

I moved this away from the Christian Forum so as there can be many involved - but I would expect religious views and facts, from all religions as well as many other sources and facts in here.

I think if people can be individual and open and courtieous things will go very well. I also think it is good to cite sources but realize its not always possible.

Its also probably good to subscribe to this forum - so we get notified when someone posts, It will keep the ball rolling.

Thanks from Kev - Forum and Site Admin - Want to know what I am up to these days? See the latest website I am working on - http://www.VintageAntiqueRetro.com - A free Classifieds site for Vintage Antique Retro Collectables :)
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 27 Jul 2009 :  14:00:11  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by kevtherev

Ok Davo - I can see you and Fadi are much more learned than I am,


I don't think so, possibly, but I just tend to think a lot more on specifics, I would with all due respect, put forward that faith in many ways restricts ones open mindedness, and looks to put everything in the conceptual view that 'god did it'.

I am not saying god DIDN'T do it, but I find that the concept of a god, as put forward by the major religions, and the logical reasoning behind the concept of an omni-'max' being is so very unlikely, based on no evidence other than fables, as to be so highly unlikely as to be, as with any other reasoned thought, not worth considering as fact. It is no more a possibility, than multiple gods such as Thor, Odin or any other gods, of which there are literally thousands.

quote:
Originally posted by kevtherev
and I aggree at least in part, that - No one on earth Knows for sure "how the universe was created" - it comes down to theories as there is no decisive answer that we know of - I guess thats why there is so much debate and slanging etc. on this subject.


Yes indeed, and this is why we have things such as the scientific process. It is open to being corrected, and theories are rigouressly subjected to peer review, if they are found to be wrong, the theory is dropped. This does not happen with religion/faith, just by the format that they are, they are a leap of faith.

quote:
Originally posted by kevtherev
For someone who is taught to believe by faith(whatever religion) it is even harder to come to an answer, or rational theory - other than what we have been taught.


I totally agree and see your point of view on this, a world view that is supportive, either given from when you were young, or presented as an answer when you are in dire need of answers, can be a hard thing to let go, even faced with overwhelming evidence, or lack of evidence.

quote:
Originally posted by kevtherev
I was an evolutionist for many years till I was 35 then I became a Born Again Christian 11 years ago,



'Evolutionist'? is that like someone that believes the Theory Of Gravity is a 'Gravitationist'? ;)

quote:
Originally posted by kevtherev
I can testify to the facts of my own experience and believe that the Bible is God's inspired word written by his chosen men of the time and that the Bible teaches us that God spoke the world into being, However niave this might sound, I believe because of the miracles of Salvation, forgiveness, blessing, healing and freedom that I have recieved, and because of the wisdom of the word of God, and the law of reaping and sowing that has played out in my life for good and for bad. so I give weight to that which I do not fully understand, because to God a small miracle and a big miracle (ie a small answered prayer V creation of the universe) are both just as possible and viable.


Understandable, if you look at it this way, the same reasons you do not believe in the existence of other gods, is why I do not believe in the existence of the god you put forward. I would argue we are very similar, I just happen to believe in one less god than you.

quote:
Originally posted by kevtherev
I accept that this quest will go beyond my religous attitudes and delve deeply into science as we know it, but truth remains constant - and thus, I believe that those that seek the truth will find it, if they continue in their quest.


I am not out to destroy or shake anyones faith, nor recognise that I can. I do however have nagging questions that for me at least, require quite solid reasoning and evidence to come to a conclusion, and I put forward that many times in the way of questions. These questions are ones I ask myself as well.

If anything, I hope that people reading will come to at least recognise a point of view, I am not after changing theirs.

quote:
Originally posted by kevtherev
So lets put our best theories to test and actually study the subject, by research and use of scholars, science, history, well structured theory, facts and Biblically.



I would use the term scripturally ;) or add Qur'anically ;)

quote:
Originally posted by kevtherev
I propose we make bite size questions and put each one in its own topic(thread) and we keep bouncing back the information in thoses threads. This should help us as when we search for one thing sometimes we find other answers, and get waylaid this way we can preserve our initial topics and thoughts and just continue on.



Great idea, thanks for your efforts Kevin!

Godless Heathen
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 28 Jul 2009 :  16:26:34  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
With regard the title of the threads, I don't understand 'Darwinism' as a terminology, and consider it a totally incorrect way to put forward what is really a more generic discussion on various points, than one facet of the Theory of Evolution (being Darwin's contribution, 'natural selection') which has since been expanded upon in the Theory of Evolution.

Just wanted to make it clear, as currently the way things are put forward, is totally a specific opinion from one side of the discussion.

This terminology is trying to make a 'belief system' based on a scientist that came up with one concept, that has not been refuted, and indeed thousands of other scientists have added too since Darwins initial findings, with 2 other major facets of the Theory ignored. Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis were created as explanations of the fact of evolution. These are now discredited explanations, the concepts within evolution have come and gone, darwins initial findings have been massively expanded upon, and the only real discussion over any of the facets, or disagreement, is in extremely minor areas of how certain facets of the fact work.

The theory of evolution does NOT cover the 'big bang' or any cosmology, or cover the origins of life, which is abiogenesis.

It is about how evolution or occurs, or the explanation of the observable fact of evolution that occurs over time in species.

Let us just look at if darwins contribution to the theory of evolution was tomorrow proven false, that natural selection and darwins ideas are proven wrong. This does not give ANY more credence to the belief of intelligent design nor does it at all give any foundation for the existence of god.

The whole discussions of religion focussing on evolution, and this so-called 'debate' (where really it is a one sided debate, and there is no controversy) is totally that the increase in knowledge is seen by those in religious circles, as confronting to their beliefs. In the meantime, the evidence is compounding and compounding.

Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution, and on that note, leave you with some quotes of the evolutionary biologist that stated that in a 1973 paper :

quote:
I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way.

– Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (1973)



quote:
Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

– Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (1973)


Godless Heathen

Edited by - davo on 28 Jul 2009 18:06:38
Go to Top of Page

Fadi
Lieutenant Commander

Australia
84 Posts

Posted - 03 Aug 2009 :  00:37:10  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
“If god does not need a creator, why does the universe?"

After reading, watching debates, and debating with an atheist whose arguments were based on Mr. Richard Dawkins’s book: The God Delusion, I’ve come to a conclusion that whatever is offered today as evidence for God to the Atheist, can itself be refuted by some “new scientific fact”. In other words, the rules do not only shift, but also change, making it near impossible for a theist to formulate an argument let alone convince the atheist of anything. So I decided that it would be really futile to debate someone whose blue print is forever changing according to his pick and choosing of the “established scientific facts”. Therefore, I’ve concluded that the Atheist will always have some vantage point to a certain degree over the theist whose reliance is based on "fitra":predesposition/inbuilt instinct, faith, reason and finally, established scientific facts.

I’m told by atheist yes, that’s the beauty of science! I understand and as a Muslim I fully support established scientific facts. But it seems this past week, whatever I thought of to have been an established scientific fact, was somehow refuted by another “fact”!

Now I like to state my case clearly here: I’ve never had the intention of debating anyone, but was merely asking for Davo’s thoughts on how it all began from his point of view. In turn he said that “we don’t know yet,” and went on to say, “However our understandings of such things are expanding massively every day. Gaps in our knowledge, the domain of gods, is shrinking along with it.”

What is shrinking Davo? Have you not heard of the well-known atheist philosopher Anthony Flew? Anthony Flew had been among the most influential of atheist thinkers for the past half century. You can read about what he had said back on December 12, 2004 here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article402187.ece “I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature;” And here: http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/ . The breaking of the genetic code in DNA made this man realise the impossibility of DNA evolving on its own or initiating randomly in nature. Whatever barrier had stopped him from believing in God as a first cause was immediately destroyed by the weight of that discovery. I’m not expecting you to follow suite Davo, neither would I want you to base your decision on one of the giants of atheism; it may have all been subjective and we all find our path in our won special and unique way. However I’ve included Mr. Flew here as an objection to your saying: “Gaps in our knowledge, the domain of gods, is shrinking…”

Davo, for someone who attributes irrationality to the believers, I’m finding the questions posed by atheist such as yourself and Dawkins to be irrational indeed. You’ve asked me that: “if god does not need a creator, why does the universe?” I mean seriously, have you pondered over the logicality of this question before asking it? Are you not presupposing and proposing that God is part of the universe or were you hoping that I’d miss the faulty premise of it? You might as well have asked the question in this fashion: if the uncreated does not need a creator, then why does the created? It doesn’t look right does it? But that’s exactly what you’re asking me!

In reality what you are suggesting to me is that God is bound in space time and not outside it. I can substitute the word infinite for God if you like and say that there is no similarity between the finite and the infinite and that to set out to prove that one is comparable with the other is nothing but absurdity of the highest order. Put another way; to say the Infinite is comparable with the finite is to impose equality between the number zero and one. So it’s NOT the theist who is filing his ignorance by using the God of the gaps argument but rather, it’s the Atheist who is imposing limits on the possibilities that there is something beyond the realm in which we exist. Just because I can not comprehend something does not negate its existence. I can not comprehend the complexities of the space shuttle or the universe, yet both are real.

If I ask you to imagine a four dimensional universe, you will fail miserably, (I would too). But does that mean the possibility of it existing is beyond reason? No. Just as we are able to recognise the existence of a distinct one, two, and three dimensional universes, we can extend the concept to understand that such a thing as a four dimensional universe could exist. Again, this is not merely using God of the gaps argument to fill in our ignorance of something but instead, it’s to illustrate that just as we can recognise the existence of three distinct dimensions, and can visualise one and two dimensional universes, we can extend the concept to understand that such a thing as a four dimensional universe could very well exist.

My argument to you would be that:

1.Every effect had a cause
2.Anything finite and limited had an effect
3.The universe is finite and limited

Established science (fingers crossed), says that it all began with the big bang. Like I’ve said already, that science is established until you find another science that destroys it. Dr. Paul Davis wrote in an article titled: what happened before the big bang?

“On a human time scale, the big bang was very much a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. But look very, very closely at that first tiny fraction of a second and you find that there was no precise and sudden beginning at all. So here we have a theory of the origin of the universe that seems to say two contradictory things: First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics.

Well, I didn't promise to provide the answers to life, the universe, and everything, but I have at least given a plausible answer to the question I started out with: What happened before the big bang?
The answer is: Nothing”.

Now I’ve heard the atheist’s objection to the cause and effect argument by asking what every child asks: who caused the first cause? Well, infinite regression as I understand it makes it impossible to have infinite causers if we were to exist. To give an example:

Let us say I’m broke and I ask Davo for a dollar and he answers by saying he’s also broke but will ask Kev if he had one; Kev gives the same answer Davo gave but adds that he will ask Mr. Kevin Kelly if he had one; Mr.Kevin Kelly gives the same answer Kev gave and adds that he will ask… and on it goes. If this process was repeated ad infinitum, would Fadi ever get that dollar? The answer is no, because an infinite amount of absolutely broke people, will produce not even one cent let alone one dollar and therefore Fadi will forever be broke.

Likewise, an infinite number of finite and limited things leading up to this point will produce absolutely nothing. Because the finite and the limited are dependent on a cause for them to be effected. The fact that we exist is proof that there was no infinite chain of dependent things.

Therefore, logic would dictate only one possibility left for us to be able to exist, and that is something that is NOT-FINTE and NOT-LIMITED which created the existence of the finite and the limited. That something that created the finite and the limited is the ORIGINATOR of all.


Fadi.

If it is not truthful and not helpful, don’t say it. If it is truthful and not helpful, don’t say it. If it is not truthful and helpful, don’t say it. If it is truthful and helpful, wait for the right time.

Pride is concerned with who is right.
Humility is concerned with what is right.
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 03 Aug 2009 :  12:19:28  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
quote:
So I decided that it would be really futile to debate someone whose blue print is forever changing according to his pick and choosing of the “established scientific facts”.


Sorry Fadi, I think this is a bit of a cop-out. You are also attributing the whole collective consensus on science to one persons book, and making the assumption that atheism is a position, rather than a conclusion based on lack of evidence.

I am not picking and choosing established scientific facts, I am pointing out that the position that creationists take, has no evidence. The evidence put forward, is usually just trying to point out either there is not agreement on certain points amongst scientists, or that things like the order of the fossil records is not agreed upon.

Please show me evidence for an earth under 10,000 years old.


quote:

Therefore, I’ve concluded that the Atheist will always have some vantage point to a certain degree over the theist whose reliance is based on "fitra":predesposition/inbuilt instinct, faith, reason and finally, established scientific facts.


Show me the established scientific facts for a young earth, and the established scientific facts that evolution does not occur, or the established scientific facts against common ancestry.

It's one thing to claim all this, and groups to claim they are offering a _scientific_ alternative. But my argument is ONLY, that it is not a scientific alternative, it is one based solely on faith alone.

That's fine, believe what you will, but I am appalled at how science is being attacked, the global collective scientific method that has brought us to this point, that creates our whole biological knowledge, is being attacked by faith in a lot of ways, by surruptitious methods.

quote:

I’m told by atheist yes, that’s the beauty of science! I understand and as a Muslim I fully support established scientific facts. But it seems this past week, whatever I thought of to have been an established scientific fact, was somehow refuted by another “fact”!

Now I like to state my case clearly here: I’ve never had the intention of debating anyone, but was merely asking for Davo’s thoughts on how it all began from his point of view. In turn he said that “we don’t know yet,” and went on to say, “However our understandings of such things are expanding massively every day. Gaps in our knowledge, the domain of gods, is shrinking along with it.”


I agree, I have no problem with people having beliefs, but it really worries me when misinformation amongst folk not familiar with scienctific method is exploited by those of faith, to bolster their position. This is deceit, I can't think of another term.

If you do not think this is occuring, have a look here : http://creation.com/calendar it's happening big time.

quote:

What is shrinking Davo?



The position of fundamentalists that we live on a young earth, and that humans were created, rather than evolved. The traditional stances of the major religions on the concepts of creation, as we find more and more evidence of the contrary. It is traditionally the space of 'we don't know this yet' that religion states 'God'. What we don't know yet, is continually shrinking, and so is the leap to 'god must do it' that fills the gaps in knowledge of facts.

quote:

Have you not heard of the well-known atheist philosopher Anthony Flew?



No

quote:

Anthony Flew had been among the most influential of atheist thinkers for the past half century. You can read about what he had said back on December 12, 2004 here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article402187.ece “I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature;” And here: http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/ . The breaking of the genetic code in DNA made this man realise the impossibility of DNA evolving on its own or initiating randomly in nature. Whatever barrier had stopped him from believing in God as a first cause was immediately destroyed by the weight of that discovery. I’m not expecting you to follow suite Davo, neither would I want you to base your decision on one of the giants of atheism; it may have all been subjective and we all find our path in our won special and unique way. However I’ve included Mr. Flew here as an objection to your saying: “Gaps in our knowledge, the domain of gods, is shrinking…”



I found the following :

http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=369

This man has a long history of looking to a single author for authoritative information and never checking their claims. He retracted his comments about DNA in 2005 btw. He also ignores RNA, and is a philospher .. not a scientist.

quote:

Davo, for someone who attributes irrationality to the believers, I’m finding the questions posed by atheist such as yourself and Dawkins to be irrational indeed. You’ve asked me that: “if god does not need a creator, why does the universe?” I mean seriously, have you pondered over the logicality of this question before asking it? Are you not presupposing and proposing that God is part of the universe or were you hoping that I’d miss the faulty premise of it? You might as well have asked the question in this fashion: if the uncreated does not need a creator, then why does the created? It doesn’t look right does it? But that’s exactly what you’re asking me!


Faulty premise? I thought the question straight forward. Your premise is that there is a creator and that the universe is created. You are making the premise that a god does not need a creator, and the universe does. I ask, why does the universe need a creator? Why can't the universe have always existed? Have you looked at the concepts of a singularity? Bubble universes? etc etc?

You are making the premise that the universe had a start, that it was created. That it is so complex, therefore it needs a creator, at the same time, not applying that to your god. How convenient to just make a premise that the universe needs a creator, but a god doesn't. My point is, you are making a leap to a conclusion, an assumption, without providing any evidence. You are holding me to your base premise.

Why does the universe need to have been created? Why can't the universe have always existed? Your god has apparently, why then must the universe not have?

quote:

In reality what you are suggesting to me is that God is bound in space time and not outside it.


No I am not. I am asking why you make the claim that the universe must have been created. Why could the universe not have always existed?

quote:

I can substitute the word infinite for God if you like and say that there is no similarity between the finite and the infinite and that to set out to prove that one is comparable with the other is nothing but absurdity of the highest order. Put another way; to say the Infinite is comparable with the finite is to impose equality between the number zero and one. So it’s NOT the theist who is filing his ignorance by using the God of the gaps argument but rather, it’s the Atheist who is imposing limits on the possibilities that there is something beyond the realm in which we exist. Just because I can not comprehend something does not negate its existence. I can not comprehend the complexities of the space shuttle or the universe, yet both are real.



You are just making an assertion, based on faith, with no evidence here. This is my point. You are stating you understand the unknowable that is outside the universe, and not bound by anything. Therefore since we are bound by the laws of the universe, this thing is unknowable, yet you are claiming facts about the unknowable. A juxtaposition for the theist, and a convenience.

I can comprehend the tooth fairy, which is a lot different to comprehending a visible, touchable entity such as a space shuttle, and just because I can 'comprehend' the tooth fairy, does not mean it exists.

That is not ignorant. If a child sees money under their pillow in the morning, and attributes it definitively to the tooth fairy, because they do not have the information to know it was their parents, that's ignorance. If the child says 'I don't know how it got their, but there is no evidence for the tooth fairy, besides what my parents say' .. that is not ignorance, that's acceptance of the fact they do not know at the time.

quote:

If I ask you to imagine a four dimensional universe, you will fail miserably, (I would too). But does that mean the possibility of it existing is beyond reason? No. Just as we are able to recognise the existence of a distinct one, two, and three dimensional universes, we can extend the concept to understand that such a thing as a four dimensional universe could exist. Again, this is not merely using God of the gaps argument to fill in our ignorance of something but instead, it’s to illustrate that just as we can recognise the existence of three distinct dimensions, and can visualise one and two dimensional universes, we can extend the concept to understand that such a thing as a four dimensional universe could very well exist.


Actually I can comprehend a four dimensional universe, I have a conceptual understanding of ten dimensions, mathematically that is. There is plenty of information regarding understanding dimensional concepts out there. String theory is working in the space of the tenth dimension ..

quote:

My argument to you would be that:

1.Every effect had a cause


Therefore a god must? If a god is able to not have a cause, why can't the universe?

quote:

2.Anything finite and limited had an effect

3.The universe is finite and limited


You have evidence that the expansion of the universe is finite and limited?

Have you read about bubble universes? The concept of a singularity? The above statements by you are just assumptions, with no evidence. Further, you make the leap to a conclusion of a sentient being outside the universe, not bound by anything at all, claiming you know it, with no evidence whatsoever.

Your the one making extra-ordinary claims, discounting attributes you apply to your god, stating the universe cannot have any of those attributes. I am saying, why can't the universe have always existed in one form or another?

quote:

Established science (fingers crossed), says that it all began with the big bang.


No it doesn't, I already explained this. The big bang theory is not about the origins of the universe, but about it's expansion. Same as evolution is about the mechanism and not what started life (abiogenesis), the (badly termed) 'big bang' is about the evolution of the universe. Fred Hoyle, a full on opponent of the expansion theory, used the term in the 1950's when it was first announced, and it stuck.

quote:

Like I’ve said already, that science is established until you find another science that destroys it. Dr. Paul Davis wrote in an article titled: what happened before the big bang?

“On a human time scale, the big bang was very much a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. But look very, very closely at that first tiny fraction of a second and you find that there was no precise and sudden beginning at all. So here we have a theory of the origin of the universe that seems to say two contradictory things: First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics.

Well, I didn't promise to provide the answers to life, the universe, and everything, but I have at least given a plausible answer to the question I started out with: What happened before the big bang?
The answer is: Nothing”.


No it's not. I understand Paul's argument and I and many disagree. His answer is just an assumption (and a discussion over the concepts behind what he means here by nothing is probably out of the scope of being able to explain, unless you are into mathematics, if so I will attempt too). I suggest looking at Singularity Theory, Bubble Universe theory and the Ekpyrotic Universe Theory, based on string theory and quantum theory for alternative interpretations. You have no evidence that the universe did not exist, nor that it is all there is. You are making claims outside that, with no evidence, and then saying that I am ignorant for stating that. Where is your evidence that the universe is not timeless? With the concepts of bubble universes, and the multiverse, the universe would be finite, however the multiverse would not.

The difference here, is that you are making a leap to a conclusion 'god did it' based on faith alone, whereas I am not. I am working with evidence. That is my point, only, nothing more.

quote:

Likewise, an infinite number of finite and limited things leading up to this point will produce absolutely nothing. Because the finite and the limited are dependent on a cause for them to be effected. The fact that we exist is proof that there was no infinite chain of dependent things.


No your making the assertion that your god does not need to be bound by the same claims you are making of existence. You are asserting the universe had a start, that it is not part of a larger process, etc etc etc, a lot of assumptions to back your claims.
quote:

Therefore, logic would dictate only one possibility left for us to be able to exist, and that is something that is NOT-FINTE and NOT-LIMITED which created the existence of the finite and the limited. That something that created the finite and the limited is the ORIGINATOR of all.


There are a lot of theories that do not place the assertions you are making, and they are quite valid ones. I repeat, you have no evidence for the premises you are making, that is my point. They are assertions based on faith alone.

Godless Heathen

Edited by - davo on 03 Aug 2009 12:23:10
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 03 Aug 2009 :  13:14:14  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
I'll also add, the whole concept of something coming from nothing is not impossible, have a search on google for the Casimir effect.

The simple thing is we don't know what process created the universe, if indeed it was created, or whether it sprung into existence as it is part of a multiverse, or from simply nothing even. However we are getting there, scientists such as Stephen Hawkings have been pondering and working on these questions for well over 20 years, and stable theories over the fact of extistence are starting to be formed.

For me, this process is how we come to understanding. The position that 'god did it' is just an assertion, with no evidence.

Now this is fine, but what concerns me is groups that fight human knowledge and the evidence, denying what we are finding, and making assertions that go against the evidence.

In fact, the majority of mainstream religious groups accept the findings, as state they do not contradict their religious beliefs. (look at old earth creationists such as Hugh Ross http://www.reasons.org/dr-hugh-ross.html). For instance, if jesus spoke in parables, why therefore did 'god' not with explaining where mankind came from? Many christians believe in creation, but also accept evolution and the theories over an expanding universe.

Indeed I have little issue with deism, tho I may not have a belief that 'a god did it all', I choose not to make a leap of faith, based on writings of men 2000 years ago, given the evidence that I see before me.

My issue is really with 'Young earth creationists', as their position just falls flat given the evidence is against their claims. Not only that, they are misreprenting science, decietful in presenting information, and threatening the search for knowledge, the need to protect our planet, and many other facets of education and understanding of all there is. They are actively sowing misinformation in our schools and teaching limitations, and threatening the scientific process that has done so much for mankind, based on their personal faith alone.

Godless Heathen
Go to Top of Page

Fadi
Lieutenant Commander

Australia
84 Posts

Posted - 08 Aug 2009 :  21:06:08  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
quote:
Please show me evidence for an earth under 10,000 years old.
Please show me evidence that I've said anything to this effect or that Islam has anything in it which would cause you to make such an assumption. You'd need to read and understand the Qur'an properly before making such an assumption; it would save you a huge amount of time.


Fadi.



If it is not truthful and not helpful, don’t say it. If it is truthful and not helpful, don’t say it. If it is not truthful and helpful, don’t say it. If it is truthful and helpful, wait for the right time.

Pride is concerned with who is right.
Humility is concerned with what is right.
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 10 Aug 2009 :  10:59:33  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Fadi

quote:
Please show me evidence for an earth under 10,000 years old.
Please show me evidence that I've said anything to this effect or that Islam has anything in it which would cause you to make such an assumption. You'd need to read and understand the Qur'an properly before making such an assumption; it would save you a huge amount of time.


Fadi.




Please accept my apologies Fadi, my assumption, totally wrong of me, was taken from one of the headings within this new section about the age of the earth.

I was totally out of line making this assumption that you hold to those beliefs.

Islam does not hold to any position on the age of the earth, the '6 days' could hold that a day is a millenia (much like a lot of christians believe) thus totally compatible with science in this regard.

Godless Heathen
Go to Top of Page
   Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ForumsAU.com - Forums in Australia for all people & subjects © 2005 to 2013 forumsau.com Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.11 seconds.                        You must Register and Confirm your email, and then log in first before posting! Snitz Forums 2000