Debate:Who created God?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

If there exist a God/superior being who created this being. When I ask this question I get " God created himself". How is this logical?-Ros

Why is it necessary for God to have been created? God could always have existed. jdstarrett

I'm sure Philip will get involved here—and believe you me, he is far more qualified to answer this question—but I'm going to take a stab at it. The problem that most can't get past is the notion that God "is, was, and ever shall be," the alpha and omega, so on and so forth. God supersedes time; he in fact created time according to the Judeo-Christian theology. There was no past before God/YHWH. Nothing needed to come before him, because he is the source of all things, including time itself. It gets complicated there because it's hard to imagine a universe without time; though technically, there wasn't a universe at all until he created it (once again, according to Judeo-Christian theology or at least my best knowledge of it). I'm going to let Philip chime in here and correct any mistakes I've made, and maybe give you a bit more concise explanation as I'm sure he—or one of the many others here—have come across this question far more often than I have. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 12:00, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
That violates the second law of thermodynamics.RaymondZ 11:40, 28 December 2012 (EST)

Typical Darwin lover know-it-all question. Ok smart guy, tell me where space ends and I will tell you who created God.-- 50 star flag.png jp 12:12, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Okay, Jeffrey W. Lauttamus invited me here to comment, so here I am. God is an uncreated being, so it is nothing more than a nonsense question to ask who created an uncreated being.
That likely then raises the question about how He could be uncreated, to which there are at least two replies:
  • As Jeffrey explained, God exists outside of time. He created time; He is not subject to it. A beginning implies a point in time, but as God is outside of it, that He had a beginning doesn't follow.
  • Something (or someone) must be eternal. If it's not God, it might be this universe. But science now has good reason to think that the universe is not eternal, which begs the question of who or what created the universe. (And the universe, by the way, is known as the space/time continuum; time itself began with the universe.) Ultimately, as you go back, the only option left is something or someone that is eternal. And as the laws of physics don't allow for something physical to be eternal, then that something/someone must be non-physical, or spiritual.
Philip J. Rayment 12:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)


Ok... That makes since. We cannot bound God to logic because he created it. Thanks for clearing that up.-Ros

Huh? Philip J. Rayment 09:45, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

This is an interesting subject. One of the most common argument's for God's existence is some form of the 'watchmaker' analogy - I.E. that the existence of the universe implies that it was created & therefore the existence of a creator (God). Does the existence of God also imply that He was created? And if not, why not? Sideways 10:04, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

The watchmaker analogy is referring to something that was obviously designed because of it's complexity of multiple interacting parts that would not occur naturally. God is not a complexity of multiple interacting parts, so the same argument does not apply to him. Philip J. Rayment 10:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
There are many examples of complex interacting ecosystems occurring naturally. But of course the watchmaker analogy would suggest that these are in fact created. That is the problem with the waychmaker argument - it suggest that what seems to occur naturally actually doesn't occur naturally. It cannot be disproved, but it only proves itself if it assumes itself to be true. Sideways 10:21, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
No, it's not a circular argument at all. It is arguing from what we observe (that complex things such as watches and other machinery do not occur without a designer) to what we don't observe (the origin of living things). That sort of deduction is perfectly valid, even if not absolute proof. And we are talking about the origin of living things, so I dispute that they do "seem" to occur naturally. Being unobserved, they don't "seem" anything. Philip J. Rayment 10:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
See my problem is that I don't understand why something or someone "must be" eternal. Why could the universe have not 'just happened'? Sure it might be unlikely but maybe it isn't. I just don't see the need for God in a logical argument about the existence of anything. Bolly 10:47, 29 September 2008 (AEST)
See my problem is that I don't understand how something could have 'just happened' out of absolutely nothing. If you want to fantasize that absolutely nothing can become something for no reason, then I can't stop you, but that is the realm of fantasy and blind faith, whereas I prefer to stick to reason and observation (we observe that everything that happens has a cause). That something must be eternal is a deduction from that. The logic for God is that this physical universe must have had a beginning, all events have a cause, the cause of all of physical reality must be something non-physical (i.e. supernatural), therefore there must be a God. Philip J. Rayment 01:21, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Haha oh how I have missed debating against you. OK. Well I don't quite see it as that. I don't think that something can come from absolutely nothing either. But I cannot postulate a God to solve that problem because God himself is complex. Certainly we cannot see or examine him to prove how complex he is physically. But an omniscient, omnipotent being that created the entire universe and life itself? That cannot be anything BUT complex. And something that complex has to have a starting point because only something simple, incredibly simple can come about by chance. Something like a singularity. Note that I'm not saying that the Big Band did come around by chance, only that it is far more likely then God coming about by chance. I admit that this is not as scientific or provable as I would like it to be, it does involve some blind faith, however I think that you're position involves more blind faith then mine.
I do take issue with your assertion that "the cause of all of physical reality must be something non-physical (i.e. supernatural)". Why do you say that? I cannot see how you reached that conclusion. Bolly 22:49, 29 September 2008 (AEST)
God is not complex: He is not composed of parts. See an earlier post of mine.
If the cause of all physical reality was something physical, then something physical must have existed before something physical existed. This is an impossibility, so the only option left is that the cause of all physical reality must be something non-physical.
Philip J. Rayment 10:17, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually thats the only option the bible leaves open, just because its the only possiblitiy you believe in doesn't mean its the truth. Logiclly there is no 'truth' nothing can ever really proven to be 'right' only that it cannot be proven wrong. Its why everything is considered a 'theory' including my claim i just made. You simply leave out the fact that you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the universe can be of something that can rationally be explained without help of a greater being. Your saying that we cannot examine the thing that started the universe, and yet somehow you were able to magically understand that it created the universe. Before you can claim something you need to prove it. Just because some people are ignorant and dont understand the thinkings of logic and reason doesn't mean everyone will, your claim only pulls us further into the question of what created the non-physical then? What is the non-physical? If it doesn't consist of atoms than what does it consist of? how did this nothingness create something? User:ChillinBM

I might not have put it as bluntly as Chillin did, but he's certainly made a clear point. For me, the claim that God is not complex seems to be supportless other then by continuous assertion that it is the case. All I have seen is "God is not complex. Why? Because we can't understand him." and maybe I have missed an important point.
You're argument there is one of infinite regress and there is a problem with that. Just because you seem to have an infinite regress does not mean that you need invoke something supernatural as a terminator. For example, it was long wondered what would happen if you cut iron into the smallest possible pieces, and then cut it in half again. Surely, by logic, you could continue to halve the pieces infinately. In fact, the once you reach a single atom of iron, the regress has a natural terminator, if you cut the atom in half, whatever is left is no longer iron, it is some other element. I do not know what natural terminator solves the cause and effect regress however I feel justified in not assuming a supernatural terminator for this regress. Bolly 8:34, 1 October 2008 (AEST)
No, ChillnBM, it is not the Bible that leaves only that option, but logic. But perhaps I was remiss in not explaining myself properly. I was working on the basis that there is the natural (or physical) and the supernatural (or non-physical). That is, physical and non-physical are, between them, all-encompassing. There can be nothing that is neither physical nor non-physical. So having eliminated one, you are left with the other.
If "logically there is no truth", then that statement itself is not true. So logically, there must be "truth". What you are getting confused with is scientific proof. In that you are correct; science can only disprove, it can't prove. But that's different to truth, which must exist. See also sections 1 and 2 of my essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia.
I can't prove scientifically that God exists, but I can prove it logically by eliminating the alternatives. Science has eliminated an eternal universe, which means that the universe had a beginning, but has not explained (and cannot explain) what caused the universe to begin. Logically, the beginning of the universe (all of physical reality) must have a non-physical (i.e. supernatural) cause.
We know that the physical must have had a beginning, but we don't know that the supernatural must have had a beginning, so there is no necessity to explain how the supernatural began. Furthermore, science also shows that time is an integral part of the universe, so without the universe, i.e. in the realm of that deduced supernatural, time does not exist. Which means that talking about a beginning for the supernatural is a bit of nonsense anyway.
Deducing that something supernatural must have created the universe is not at all contradictory to saying that science can't study the supernatural, so there's no "magic" involved.
"Before you can claim something you need to prove it.": And yet you didn't bother to prove that claim before you made it. Or prove it afterwards either. Furthermore, you yourself said that things can't be proved.
I don't have to explain every point of something in order to claim the basic point. That is, I can legitimately claim that there must be a supernatural creator without having to explain what He is made of or how He created. And by the way, your final question was a loaded one, referring to the supernatural as "nothingness". Being non-physical doesn't mean that it is "nothingness". In fact, it is you who has this problem. If you discount God (the supernatural), then you are left with the Big Bang, which is nothing exploding and becoming everything. So I ask you, "how did this nothingness create something?".
Bolly, the quote that I linked to was not just "continuous assertion", and neither was it "because we can't understand him". Admittedly that quote didn't go into much detail, but it indicated that there's been plenty of study of this matter (and study implies something more than "continuous assertion" or "because we can't understand him") and it also briefly explained some of the rationale.
Your "satisfaction" in not assuming a supernatural terminator seems mere wishful thinking, given that you've found a different infinite regress case that didn't need one. That's not a solid argument at all.
Philip J. Rayment 23:25, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
I do not find that rationale convincing at all, and I still feel that it has little substance. From what I can understand, you outline the reasons why people like me think that God must be complex and they seem to me to be fairly convincing. In return you seem to say "how do you know that he cannot be complex?". Which is true, i don't 'know' that, however it is no real argument, simply a statement.
It's not wishful thinking to posit a natural terminator when there are situations in which a former infite regress is shown to have a natural terminator. I agree that it is not a perfect analogy, and certainly not 'proof'. But I would argue that it is a lot more simple and more likely considering that the evidence for any form of supernatural activity, being or event seems to be very limited. So while we 'know' that natural things can exist, we cannot have the same certainty about anything supernatural. I apologise if my argument is not concise but I think you can understand where I am coming from. Bolly 22:06, 1 October 2008 (AEST)
Is the evidence for the supernatural really that limited? Or is it just that you choose to not believe it? Or haven't looked for it? What sort of evidence would you expect? Even apart from the origin of the universe, there is the matter of the origin of life, and the incredible design and information evident in it. We know from observation that design requires a designer, and information requires an intelligence. We have no viable naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. I would consider that to be evidence for the supernatural. Then there is historical documentary evidence, i.e. the Bible. It records various supernatural events. True, one cannot scientifically test those claims, but one can look at the source of those claims and conclude that the source is a very reliable one. So again, that becomes evidence (albeit not scientific proof) of supernatural activity. So I reject your claim that there is very limited evidence. Philip J. Rayment 09:58, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
I think it is. No, because although you might laugh at this claim, I have an open mind. If the evidence is there I am more then willing to look at it, examine it, and then accept it if it's satisfactory. Ah, the design = designer argument. You are correct that 'design' requires a designer, however it can be easy to mistake complexity for design. I don't think they're the same thing. I think evolution more the adequately explains the complexity of life. Leaving that aside, you are correct that the beginning of the universe and the origin of life are two events that we have almost no knowledge of, or evidence based theory for. However lack of a naturalistic explanation does not automatically mean that it must have been supernatural. And the bible. While I don't wish to start this argument again because it stalemates so easily and neither of us achieves anything, I do not accept the bible as anything more then a collection of anecdotes with some small historical accuracy, that only comes from an event that is recorded several generations after its occurence. That's not to say that the bible is worthless, only that you cannot use it on its own to support supernaturalism. For example, some conspiracy theorist whos name sounded dutch but I cannot remember it, claimed that the story of Sodom was actually about an alien civilisation nuking the city. Ridiculous? Almost certainly, but his "theory" almost perfectly explained the origin of that bible story. I'm definately not saying that he was correct, just that the bible can prove a lot of things if you want it to. Bolly 9:52, 2 October 2008 (AEST)
Almost everybody thinks that they have an open mind, so thinking it is not much in the way of evidence.
Is it truly easy to mistake complexity for design? What complexity do you know of that wasn't designed? Of course, if you mention life, you are begging the question, and evolution can't explain it.
The origins of the universe and of life are not simply things for which there is a "lack of a naturalistic explanation", but for which the naturalistic explanation is against. For example, experiments, such as Stanley and Miller’s(?), show that life could not occur naturally. I'm not saying that such experiments rule out all possible explanations; rather, I'm saying that the experiments not only did not support naturalistic origins of life, but also provided reasons against a naturalistic explanation. To provide an example of that example, life requires optically-pure amino acids, whereas their experiment produced a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids. That is, their experiments produced a problem for naturalistic explanations to explain. In summary, the available evidence is not simply missing, but opposed to a naturalistic explanations.
The Bible has far more than just "small historical accuracy", and most of it is eye-witness accounts, not "recorded several generations after its occurence".
Are you thinking of Von Daniken? Without knowing his "explanation", I can't comment much, but most explanations I’ve seen of biblical events simply ignore large parts of what the Bible actually says. A good example is the claim that the flooding of the Black Sea is the origin of the Bible's flood account.[1]
Philip J. Rayment 23:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) You are right of course, but I still like to think so!

I think it is. You're correct that if I say 'life' it does beg the question but what about something like the water cycle? You know, evaporation over the sea, condensations in the clouds, precipitation over land or sea and it all starts again. Sure its not really complex but many tribes and civilisations over the years have worshipped a rain god or something like that. I already know that you're objection to evolution is that you think that mutations destroy genetic information. I fail to understand how you can think this when, while mutations will often destroy some information it instantle 'creates' new information. If GVA mutates to GHA, then the V has been destroyed and the H has been created. Massive, massive oversimplification I know but I still think it shows my point.

I agree that Stanley and Miller's (I think thats right) experiment did not support a naturalistic explanation however I think you overestimate the magnitude of the 'problems' it places in front of it. Life as we know it requires optically-pure amino acids, but that may be only because life very quickly evolved to be able to produce its own pure amino acids and thus no longer needed to rely on impure, left and right handed, amino acids. Over time we lost the ability to use these impure acids. Look I know that may sound far-fetched but it didn't take much effort to show that their experiment really simply failed to provide any evidence either way.

Von Daniken! Thats him! Thankyou, yes I love that guys writing, sure it's probably all completely wrong, but its great fun to read. No, because, if I remember correctly, his explanation actually didn't ignore anything that the bible said about the story. It explained everything I think, like why Lot's wife became a pillar of salt, and why the angel hurried them out of the city, and why that city was chosen to be nuked or something. And while I definately don't believe any of it is true, it has just as much evidence to support it as the bibles version of events does which casts some doubt onto the Bible's claim to historical accuracy. As for Noah's ark, I still think it has something to do with the end of the last ice age or something like that. I can't prove it, I know. But most civilisations have different flood myths, and you'd think they'd all have the same if a worldwide complete flooding had happened and everyone on earth was descended from Moses. By the way, minor unimportant question, If Adam and Eve had two sons, one of whom killed the other, how did Cain have children? Sorry, it's just kinda bothered me ever since I heard that story... Bolly 07:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I like to think I'm open-minded too, but I know plenty would disagree with that!
Your example of the water cycle fails because, like life, you haven't shown that it did occur naturally (without design). I could also object on another ground, but that would be tantamount to defining complexity as something that can't occur naturally, which is a valid argument, but perhaps I won't use it right now.
Your mutation example (also) fails because of a misunderstanding of what "information" is. Information is something that conveys meaning. Words are information. So if you "mutate" "my name is Philip" to "my nsme is Philip", what new information is created? None. Rather, the information has been damaged (if not destroyed) (ignoring that our brains are smart enough to figure out what must have been intended). (And by the way, I created that mutation by "chance", by closing my eyes, cursoring back a few characters, and randomly pressing a key. I possibly could have created new information if I had intelligently designed the "mutation".) It is false to say that any change constitutes new information.
Regarding Stanley and Miller's experiment, I already acknowledged that it doesn't rule out all possible explanations. But the point is that it is positive evidence opposed to the naturalistic position. Yes, perhaps it only rules out life as we know it, but then it is this life that we know that we are talking about. It's an interesting characteristic of believers in naturalism that they claim to be scientific, but when scientific evidence is presented that opposes their ideas, they resort to ad hoc speculation to explain away the evidence. So, it's inaccurate to say that the experiment failed to produce any evidence either way. It didn't absolutely prove anything (and "scientific proof' is an oxymoron anyway), but it did produce evidence against a naturalistic explanation.
Forgive me for being sceptical, but I don't give your claim that "his explanation actually didn't ignore anything that the bible said" much credibility when it is clear that your knowledge of the biblical account is somewhat lacking. See the following comments.
As for Noah's flood, you wouldn't expect all the stories to be identical, as stories that are retold and retold verbally tend to change, often inadvertently, but sometimes deliberately (parents telling children using locations, creatures, etc. that they are familiar with rather than having to explain unfamiliar concepts). But it's still the case that there is a lot of similarity; too much to explain other than with a common origin. See Great Flood for more on this. And everybody on Earth is descended from Noah, not Moses.
The Bible records that after Cain killed Abel, they had another son, named Seth. So there's three sons, not two. Further, it also says that they had "other sons and daughters", so there's a lot more (Jewish tradition is two or three dozen of each, I believe), including potential wives for Cain. (How did he have children? The same way everyone else does: The Bible says that "Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant".) Now that may well raise another question in your mind, in which case I recommend that you read this.
Philip J. Rayment 09:15, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
Don't know about open-minded, but I see you as a decent person, and what more can you do?
True. Very true. I'm making assumptions. Well in that case I ask, what do you need for me to prove, as much as is possible, that it is indeed not designed. For example I can point to a water molecule and show that its properties allow it to exist easily as a liquid and a lighter than air gas. Hydrogen bonding and so on, gravity causing it to fall and so on. Also I can talk about Mars, and how it has been discovered that it snows there, which is part of the water cycle, and thus say that if it had been designed for Earth, why does it also work on Mars? Yet I'm not sure if this will satisfy you.
Again, true. I apologise for misrepresenting your argument. You are right, however genetic information doesn't work like that either. Because genetic information creates proteins, a mutation of that gene could result in a protein with differing properties. Mostly these probably make little difference, however sometimes the difference is significant, or it is a significant difference (I didn't just repeat myself, I did reread it to check) and so it has an affect on the organism. You know that, or at least some of it and you don't believe the rest. So changing the information isn't the same as changing a letter in a sentence. It's more like changing an ingredient or an instruction in a recipe. It changes the taste, or the appearance (yeast in bread) but it is still relevant and the cake, or the bread, or the animal is different. Sometimes worse, sometimes better.
Yeh I did kinda start postulating. Alright, I admit defeat on that one, Stanley and Miller's experiment did provide some evidence against a naturalistic explanation for the creation of life. I still believe that a naturalistic explanation is the best one, but I cannot argue against you here.
Touche. Noah, not Moses. I apologise, that wasn't a mistake based on lack of knowledge or familiarity, but rather an honest slip. A stupid, honest slip. So I don't blame you. But I maintain that Von Danikin's story, myth, etc, was just as well supported by the Bible's evidence as the Christian story is. If you don't believe me, then don't, it doesn't bother me because I don't actually subscribe to Von Danikin's beliefs. But if you ever have the time to read his books, I do recomend them as they are great fun.
Yes they wouldn't be identical, but I would at least expect them all to mention an ark, and remember the name 'Moses' as their ancestor and so on. I think the differences in the stories are far to great to allow for a single event, rather they point to a rise of sea levels or something similar that occurred around the world and affected a variety of peoples.
Ok thanks, I read the link, that explains it. Well not the whole link, but it answered my questions anyway. Thanks for taking the time to explain that. Bolly 09:50, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
Further experiments similar to the Urey-Miller experiments have been performed since then. Perhaps it's best to start with those, /recent/ studies than couching an entire argument in an experiment that we know today was not without flaws. It may also be best not to take out of context what the experiment meant to prove; that the building blocks of life could be created under circumstances (then) believed to be similar to those of ancient Earth. In this regard they were right; all that comes after is beyond the scope of the study in question.Jirby 16:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

If you would like to play the logic game, heres a fun point of view. And your logic is still flawed.

1. The Creation of the universe is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of its intrinsic quality and the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existing creator we can conceive a greater being - namely one who created everything while not existing.

6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

7. God does not exist.

Just to clear some things up, Nothing can be considered to be PROVEN in the term that a theory is only true until it is proven wrong. People like to say that things such as the big bang theory and evolution aren't true because they are just a theory. When in actuality, everything is a theory. Secondly you didn't seem to have read my other point, i said it can't be proven right, but also it continues to work until it is proven WRONG. In which case, you haven't proven my theory wrong, you pointed out that i dont have evidence, but the truth is, its true until proven wrong. My claim simply says that you need evidence before you can prove another theory wrong, or to prove yours is right. My evidence, look at the whole reason for debates and the scientific process. They are meant to find information on their subject and back it up so that it is evident that what they are saying is in fact logically possible or right.

Secondly, the big bang unlike God is something that has been debated and studied by scientists who spend their lives trying to understand the origins of the universe. The 'Nothingness' inside the singularity that started the big bang, has been recorded in other places in the universe, such as black holes. Its simple, the spec where the everything was inside was so infinity dense, that in technical terms is 'nothing'.

Science cannot study the 'supernatural' because it doesn't 'exist'. You claim that you cannot study god, and yet SOMEHOW the people that wrote the bible understood him? And Adam and Eve?

With your logic there we can say that since science cannot examine my imagination, im imagining that the world is a giant pillow. Since you can't go into my imagination and specifically EXAMINE the aspects of my realm, you cannot prove that its not real, therefore the world is but one giant pillow.

User:ChillinBM

Haha I like that logic, although its not very hard for a creationist to dismiss. I think though, despite the fact that I agree with you Chillin, you are more likely to get your point across if you put it a bit less aggressively. Christians are humans too! In all seriousness though, a debate is a lot more enjoyable if everyone is courteous despite disagreements. Bolly 22:30, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Contents

Break to assist editing

To Bolly:

How can you prove that the water cycle is not designed? You can't, because you were not there when it began, and neither do you know of anybody who was (except God, but we're ignoring him for this exercise). What you need to do is to find an example where its origin was observed, so that there is documentation of just how it came about. Now don't even think of claiming that there are no examples of complex things forming without anybody being there to observe them, because there are plenty being formed all the time, such as machines, books (the arrangement of letters is complex), and so on. Yeah, okay, they are things that humans have created, so they don't count as being undesigned—but that's the point: all the examples we know of were designed!

The difference between English (for example) words and genetic information doesn't change things. I'll explain. In English, words can be any (reasonable) length, and not all combinations of letters are used. This is unlike DNA where each "word" is three characters, and all 64 combinations are used. However, this is not the whole story. In English, it's not just the letters that have to be right, but the words, sentences, and paragraphs. Just suppose that every possible "mutation" of an English word produced another English word. That "mutated" word will still not make sense in the sentence. Similarly with DNA. A mutation will form another "word" (rather than nonsense), which will equate to a particular amino acid, but will the resulting protein make sense? Or the molecule which incorporates that protein? No. So you haven't really solved the problem.

Some changes are indeed like changing an ingredient in a recipe. The genes for recognising smells and viruses work this way I believe. But that's because the recipe for the fruit cake can accept any fruit. It can't accept rat poison being substituted for raisins, for example.

As for mentioning Moses when Noah was meant, I can understand and accept a simple mistake (and that's one that many make). (But then you made the same mistake in your reply!) However, it wasn't just that simple mistake, but also the mistake of claiming that Adam and Eve only had two sons. One simple mistake—a simple slip. Two mistakes, with one being more than just the wrong name—I question your familiarity.

I think that you expect too much in what you would expect the flood legends to include, and especially if you think that they would have the same words for them. The word "ark", from memory, basically means "box". The Greek account on the Great Flood page refers to a "chest". Is that really any different, when you allow for different languages, cultures, and etc.? And the Hawaiian account has "Nuu" in place of "Noah". That could easily be a version of the same name. And by the way, that page only has a small sampling of the similarities. Yet even so, there are some parallels that I consider remarkable. Why would independently-invented flood stories have a bird being sent out to see if the flood had subsided? That doesn't even seem to make that much sense, except in the case of Noah's Ark which may not have offered a view of the surroundings. Yet a number of stories have it. One of the birds that Noah sent out was a dove, and at least one of the other accounts specifically has a dove. And why the promise of the rainbow? It's understandable that a rainbow might be associated with a flood story, and even that the rainbow might be a reminder of the flood. But why would the rainbow be a sign that a similar flood would not happen again, per the Australian aboriginal account quoted?

To Jirby:

Do any of those more recent studies actually show anything more substantial? And in one point you are right: the experiments were done assuming certain conditions then believed to be the case on ancient Earth. Specifically, they assumed an oxygen-free atmosphere, because that was the belief, because an atmosphere containing oxygen would have destroyed the molecules being formed. But the view now is that the atmosphere had oxygen, which means that the experiment showed that they wouldn't get the right amino acids even assuming an atmosphere more favourable than would have existed.

To ChillinBM:

As Bolly says, your logic is easy to dismiss. Points 5 and 6 are pure nonsense, and even if true, point 7 doesn't follow from the previous points.

A theory is not "true" until it is proven wrong. It cannot (correctly) be proven wrong unless it is wrong, in which case it could not have also been true. And no, not everything is a theory. Some things are merely hypotheses, and some things are fact (such as my name being Philip).

Yes, some people do like to say that evolution is "just a theory", but this argument is specifically rejected by leading creationists[2] (and I hope Ajkgordon will bother to clarify his misleading claims in that regard).

God has also been debated and studied by many people, including scientists, so the Big Bang is not "unlike God" in that respect at all.

Black holes are not "nothingness"; they are something. Note in the following view from Big Bang expert (he invented one of the Big Bang versions) Alan Guth it does not say that stuff came from black holes or anything similar, but from "absolutely nothing":

The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[3]

Science cannot study the supernatural because the scientific method and its tools are only capable of studying physical stuff; not because the supernatural doesn't exist. I didn't say that you cannot study God. I said that science can't study God. But science is not the only way to learn things. We can study God because He has told us much about Himself, and because He came to Earth in human form 2000 years ago, and in other similar ways. And Adam and Eve, who had freshly-created brains without any flaws, knew Him personally.

Your last paragraph is illogical, and not the same logic I'm using. There are two flaws, if I understand you correctly. First, you seem to be arguing that because I can't examine your imagination, therefore I can't examine the world to see if your imagination is providing correct information. This is nonsense. Second, not being able to prove that something is not real doesn't mean that it is real. I'm not claiming that God is real simply because you can't prove He's not. If that's what you think, you've read your own preconceptions into what I said.

Philip J. Rayment 09:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Im sorry if i came out...hastily before, i dont mean to have anybody pissed off...well unless i dont like them of course, lol :D.

Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood, because if it cannot be examined, obviously, it doesn't have any way to reach us. In which case, it doesn't affect us.

Steps 6 and 7 are very simple.
- God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.
- If god existed while creating the universe, then he didn't make the most impossible achievement, because the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.
- God doesn't exist.
Another simple point i'd like to make. Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot. In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists. If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [4] Though i myself like to debate against such things, im not as far in the subject as most of the people on the forum.
Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.
User:ChillinBM
"Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood..": I don't claim that the supernatural can't be understood, so I don't have to prove it.
"...if it cannot be examined...": But it can be examined, if it chooses to reveal itself to us. Which God has, Christians believe.
"God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.": No, that's a non-sequitur.
"...the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.": That's still simply nonsense.
"Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot.": There is likely to be such debates (and there is in the case of the supernatural), but it's not a given that there necessarily will be such debates.
"In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists.": Huh?
"If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [5]": No, you raised it, so I will debate it with you.
"Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.": Then can I suggest that you do study the Christian view, instead of trying to refute something that you haven't studied enough to know what you are talking about?
Philip J. Rayment 22:36, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
Ahh! Noah/Moses! I do apologise again. That was just plain ridiculous. Maybe the very fact I got it wrong once means I was more likely to get it wrong again? I don't know. Well you don't have to believe me, and it has been a while since I did last read it, maybe I'm becoming forgetful.....maybe I have Moses on my brain. I wonder why?
Chillin does actually have a point though. He's using the ontological argument against itself, which, if you don't buy into that argument, is pointless.
The recipe analogy does work though, because a cake made from rat poison would not 'survive'. A fruit cake could indeed have chocolate substituted and it might still work and be tasty. The protein doesn't have to 'make sense' because it only has to perform a simple function, with complex results. Regardless of how it performs, or fails to perform, its task, it still has an affect on the organism. So any viable permutation of the DNA will have a 'meaning'. Bolly 00:14, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Arguing with me is fine, but i wont be able to show the evidence as well as the people on the forum i just submited as well because i do not study the topics as well as them. If you dont want to go there, its you choice, but it shows that you dont want to deal with who really knows more information. Just so you know, I study both, i've seen the christian view, went to church and christian school for my elementary years. Just doesn't seem logical to me, too many contradictions.

By the model of god put from the bible god should be omnipotent, and omniscience, there should be NOTHING that exists that can be more powerful than him. In which case, he cannot exists, because if he did exist, he wouldn't have the most power, because if something were to create the universe from a nonexistance, it would be more powerful than him.

By the way, I love your responses, quoting everything i say and put a simple 'nonsense' or 'doesn't make sense' next to it. Maybe thats how we should explain everything in the world.

Science is the simple step of anylizing anything. In this case, this 'anything' is supposedly nothing. I have a question for those who say that we cannot examine god. If it cannot be examed, how can it happen? Logically, if something is afflicted by god, god has to use something existing, or physical to alter what is happening in the physical world, in which case, non of it has been found nor detected in any manner.

And we seem to still miss the question, If god has been here from the beginning of time, who created time? Who created God? How come people can always say 'well what happend before the big bang?' but yet they cant face thier own problem of 'well what happend before god?'

As mentioned above, there was nothing before God, for two reasons. Firstly, God is eternal. Secondly, God invented and created the timestream. "Before" refers to something that existed in the timestream before God, but God is outside of the timestream entirely, therefore this question doesn't apply to him. David Talk 14:21, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

According to Jesus, "Before Abraham was, I AM". This satisfies origins and rationally explains the observable universal reality. There is no other concept known to humanity that rationally explains the observable reality, other than Eternal Creator(s). If there is no Eternal God, then there is no reason, no rationality and no science. What human beings call "science" historically, has long been the BEST explanation until proven otherwise. Thus, Eternal Creator(s) remains the ultimate correct postulate of science until proven otherwise, as it remains both the BEST and ONLY rational explanation known for the observable universal reality.

No one

There is no God. Life came from molecules, which evolved to make life diverse as it is today. The Big Bang was created by a singularity. Time as we perceive it could have well began after the Big Bang. The belief in the Judeo Christian God is irrational because of Judges 1:19, "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron". The Judeo Christian God is less powerful than iron chariots? Belief in any benevolent omnipotent God is irrational because if God was both benevolent and omnipotent than he would stop all suffering in the world. KenJ 15:07, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

First, you need to prove there is no God; second, you need to prove that life evolved as you specified above; third, you need to prove whether or not it was God who was "less powerful" then the iron chariots, or the tribe of Judah. Karajou 15:14, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

God is eternal and cannot be created, as the Bible confirms. Since God is eternal and has always been in existence, and since he is outside of time, there can never be a time to create God. John 1 clarifies this as plenty of other verses. (Nash)

If God exists, he didn't have to necessarily be created. He could have always existed. Likewise, it's not necessary that the universe had to be created. It could have also always existed. When you get to this level (ie the period before the current incarnation of the universe), God and Universe are really the same thing, and we won't ever know (unless God is real and tells everybody about it). Time goes forward indefinitely, there's no reason it can't also go back indefinitely. SEdwin 22:50, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

According to Jesus, "Before Abraham was, I AM". This satisfies origins and rationally explains the observable universal reality. There is no other concept known to humanity that rationally explains the observable reality, other than Eternal Creator(s). If there is no Eternal God, then there is no reason, no rationality and no science. What human beings call "science" historically, has long been the BEST explanation until proven otherwise. Thus, Eternal Creator(s) remains the ultimate correct postulate of science until proven otherwise, as it remains both the BEST and ONLY rational explanation known for the observable universal reality.

User:ChillinBM

"Eternal Creator(s) remains the ultimate correct postulate of science until proven otherwise, as it remains both the BEST and ONLY rational explanation"
There are a few things wrong with that statement.
  1. Theories are supported by evidence. There is no scientific evidence for any higher beings. Creation is a hypothesis - a guess. It is not a theory.
  2. Is is not rational to defy Occam's Razor (which one does when they say Creation is a better alternative to chance and known, testable physical laws).
  3. It is not the only rational explanation. There are a handful of scientific models that are consistent with current data on how the universe began. SEdwin 21:19, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Who created God? - the alternate point of view

Man appeared on the face of the Earth, after a while he tried to understand the really important stuff like why the sun shone, and the tides came in and went out. He thought about this long and hard. Maybe there was a sun god that hauled the sun across the sky each day, he thought. Many thousands of years later, man decided that maybe God had created everything, and once a critical number of humans (more than one, as it is not infradig to believe one's own hallucinations, but when two or more share them, then maybe it's real after all) started believing in this God, he came into being. The conditions were right for this to happen. God, having now appeared realized he had to do a major retcon on everything. The first was changing man to look like God, as he had made man in his own image.Pinkfloyd 22:55, 1 March 2011 (EST)

Not bad. --Ed Poor Talk 00:38, 2 March 2011 (EST)

According to Jesus, "Before Abraham was, I AM". This satisfies origins and rationally explains the observable universal reality. There is no other concept known to humanity that rationally explains the observable reality, other than Eternal Creator(s). If there is no Eternal God, then there is no reason, no rationality and no science. What human beings call "science" historically, has long been the BEST explanation until proven otherwise. Thus, Eternal Creator(s) remains the ultimate correct postulate of science until proven otherwise, as it remains both the BEST and ONLY rational explanation known for the observable universal reality.

No One - Physics Explanation

This assumes God is subject to the laws of physics but that God controls physics and the supernatural is by definition outside such laws, therefore our understanding, if God exists, is insufficient to know all laws that exist. Physics is insufficient to explain how our universe could exist at all, because all matter decays according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and requires a beginning. Matter is temporal and not self-existent, therefore, the laws of physics cannot explain how we exist at all.

Only by positing someone outside the laws of physics and another dimension, such as a spiritual realm, can you explain how we come to exist. Numerous attempts to explain a self-existent universe apart from a Creator have failed miserably, such as the Steady State model. See Hugh Ross' "The Fingerprint of God" for a good breakdown of this. Science ultimately can't explain where the particles required for a Big Bang could have come from.

But a spiritual Creator would not be subject to physical laws that require a beginning and decay, He could be self-existent and all-powerful, much as that might boggle our puny minds. And apart from such a possibility, there is no explanation currently workable for how life could presently exist and matter occur at all. --Jzy 02:53, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Personal tools