What do people think of Creationism?

[tesseract]

That is based on the supposition that there was a first cause - why does there have to be one?

How can there not be a first cause? The physical universe can not come from nothing. The bible answers how things came to be, but I believe it's a hiccup that science will never conclusively resolve.

 

[Long Live HFC]

The physical universe can not come from nothing.

wrong.

 

[Contra Mundum]

How can there not be a first cause? The physical universe can not come from nothing. The bible answers how things came to be, but I believe it's a hiccup that science will never conclusively resolve.

its arrogant to presume that causation goes all the way back. Here is an excerpt from a course I gave on the Thomistic arguments for God


"The First Cause argument might be used as follows:

1. Everything that happens has a cause. (Axiom)
2. At one point, something came from nothing, the Universe came into existence. (Axiom)
3. This must have had a cause. (From 1 and 2)
4. Since no matter existed at that moment, the cause must have been God.

First, we should look at the two axioms. The second axiom, that the Universe once came into being, is the least doubtful. It is almost certain that our Universe did come into existence some 10 to 12 thousand million years ago. It can, however, be said that time did not exist before the Big Bang, and that it is therefore impossible to speak of anything happening before the Big Bang. Therefore, it is not entirely correct to say that something ever came from nothing, because there was no time when there was nothing.

The first axiom is very doubtful indeed. Quantummechanics works with events in nature that are, or at least seem to be, completely random. Particle/anti-particle pairs can come into existence and annihilate again without any apparent cause. Many quantum-processes seem to happen without cause. Saying that everything must have a cause is a very bold thing to do, and would require some major scientific theories. Until and unless these theories are presented, I call the first axiom a falsehood.

This alone should be enough to invalidate the First Cause Argument, but there is more. The first axiom suffers more attacks. Hume showed that humans cannot perceive 'cause' and 'effect', but construct these notions from past experiences. It is impossible to prove that A was the cause of B. We can only see that B happened after A, anything else is just something we think up. This casts doubt upon the notion of 'cause'.

Even if we agree that everything we see has a cause (which for quantum reasons I won't) how can we infer from that that everything has a cause? This is mere speculation, it is not knowledge we can ever have.

And just suppose that every thing has a cause, then the argument is still invalid, for the Universe is not a thing, it is the set of all things. And a set cannot be a member of itself, so a conclusion about things in the Universe is not necessarily valid for the Universe itself.

So, since not everything seems to have a cause, and the Universe is not a thing at all, the First Cause argument fails. But suppose that it doesn't, that everything does have a cause. Then, I'm afraid, we have to say that God had a cause too, and that that cause had a cause too, ad infinitum. If someone protests that God did not have a cause, we see that this person denies the first axiom, and the entire argument falls. The First Cause argument simply fails."

 

[tesseract]

\
You overestimate the power of the Devil and you underestimate the love God showed for the His creation by incarnating in Jesus. She can't hate the world that much if her Son is one of us!

No, I don't estimate anything. My view is biblical, as already shown. If your view differs from the bible, then it isn't a Christian view.

This "Incarnating" you speak of also isn't a scriptural teaching.

Who's this she you speak of?

 

[tesseract]

wrong.

Solid argument.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Solid argument.

Because your wrong comment dripping in unscientific ignorance deserved more? It’s not my fault you seem to be unaware of recent scientific discoveries.

 

[Contra Mundum]

No, I don't estimate anything. My view is biblical, as already shown. If your view differs from the bible, then it isn't a Christian view.

This "Incarnating" you speak of also isn't a scriptural teaching.

Who's this she you speak of?

SHE is GOD - if the Being is omniscient and omnipresent surely She can be both genders or does the Bible say He is an old bloke with a Beard

-If Christ is not God incarnate WTF is He. Also you have a monopoly on interpretations of the Bible do you - bit rich for someone who clings so ardently to the Protestant tradition

 

[Contra Mundum]

SHE is GOD - if the Being is omniscient and omnipresent surely She can be both genders or does the Bible say He is an old bloke with a Beard

-If Christ is not God incarnate WTF is He. Also you have a monopoly on interpretations of the Bible do you - bit rich for someone who clings so ardently to the Protestant tradition

If He is not God incarnate how do you account and interpret these two passages in the first Chapter of John:

"In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God..and

The Word was made flesh, he lived among us and we say His Glory"

Who is that second bit in Verse 14 talking about - Warney?

 

[tesseract]

its arrogant to presume that causation goes all the way back. Here is an excerpt from a course I gave on the Thomistic arguments for God


"The First Cause argument might be used as follows:

1. Everything that happens has a cause. (Axiom)
2. At one point, something came from nothing, the Universe came into existence. (Axiom)
3. This must have had a cause. (From 1 and 2)
4. Since no matter existed at that moment, the cause must have been God.

First, we should look at the two axioms. The second axiom, that the Universe once came into being, is the least doubtful. It is almost certain that our Universe did come into existence some 10 to 12 thousand million years ago. It can, however, be said that time did not exist before the Big Bang, and that it is therefore impossible to speak of anything happening before the Big Bang. Therefore, it is not entirely correct to say that something ever came from nothing, because there was no time when there was nothing.

The first axiom is very doubtful indeed. Quantummechanics works with events in nature that are, or at least seem to be, completely random. Particle/anti-particle pairs can come into existence and annihilate again without any apparent cause. Many quantum-processes seem to happen without cause. Saying that everything must have a cause is a very bold thing to do, and would require some major scientific theories. Until and unless these theories are presented, I call the first axiom a falsehood.

This alone should be enough to invalidate the First Cause Argument, but there is more. The first axiom suffers more attacks. Hume showed that humans cannot perceive 'cause' and 'effect', but construct these notions from past experiences. It is impossible to prove that A was the cause of B. We can only see that B happened after A, anything else is just something we think up. This casts doubt upon the notion of 'cause'.

Even if we agree that everything we see has a cause (which for quantum reasons I won't) how can we infer from that that everything has a cause? This is mere speculation, it is not knowledge we can ever have.

And just suppose that every thing has a cause, then the argument is still invalid, for the Universe is not a thing, it is the set of all things. And a set cannot be a member of itself, so a conclusion about things in the Universe is not necessarily valid for the Universe itself.

So, since not everything seems to have a cause, and the Universe is not a thing at all, the First Cause argument fails. But suppose that it doesn't, that everything does have a cause. Then, I'm afraid, we have to say that God had a cause too, and that that cause had a cause too, ad infinitum. If someone protests that God did not have a cause, we see that this person denies the first axiom, and the entire argument falls. The First Cause argument simply fails."

"Might be used as follows". That's framing the argument to draw a desired conclusion.

Indeed it is arrogant to presume. "Big bang" is a presumption. A currently accepted view based on current scientific knowledge, but hardly fact. Btw, the "big bang" is unscriptural.

"Particle/anti-particle pairs can come into existence and annihilate again without any apparent cause." Because the cause "isn't apparent" you conclude that they must appear from nothing. That's presumption.

 

[tesseract]

SHE is GOD - if the Being is omniscient and omnipresent surely She can be both genders or does the Bible say He is an old bloke with a Beard

-If Christ is not God incarnate WTF is He. Also you have a monopoly on interpretations of the Bible do you - bit rich for someone who clings so ardently to the Protestant tradition

"She is God" is unscriptural. Technically speaking, a spirit being has no gender, but the bible says God is the Father. A father is not referred to as "she".

Jesus is the son of God, not God himself. The bible speaks of God and Jesus as being two separate and individual beings. And no, I don't have a monopoly on biblical interpretation.

 

[Contra Mundum]

"Might be used as follows". That's framing the argument to draw a desired conclusion.

Indeed it is arrogant to presume. "Big bang" is a presumption. A currently accepted view based on current scientific knowledge, but hardly fact. Btw, the "big bang" is unscriptural.

"Particle/anti-particle pairs can come into existence and annihilate again without any apparent cause." Because the cause "isn't apparent" you conclude that they must appear from nothing. That's presumption.

OK then ignore the physics arguments how do you get round the cause of the first cause. If you are relying on the immutabiliity of causation its an unruly horse brother because what caused God ad infinitum - You have to let it go mate - Faith is a matter of belief not logic. This is from someone who clung to the First Cause argument into early adulthood

 

[Contra Mundum]

"She is God" is unscriptural. Technically speaking, a spirit being has no gender, but the bible says God is the Father. A father is not referred to as "she".

Jesus is the son of God, not God himself. The bible speaks of God and Jesus as being two separate and individual beings. And no, I don't have a monopoly on biblical interpretation.

If the Word is God and the word was made flesh (incarnated) amongst us why isn't Jesus God ? Your the king of hermeneutics around here

 

[Long Live HFC]

she's an intellectual peasant.

 

[Contra Mundum]

she's an intellectual peasant.

If God has no gender its ******* weird to call Her exclusively father

 

[tesseract]

If He is not God incarnate how do you account and interpret these two passages in the first Chapter of John:

"In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God..and

The Word was made flesh, he lived among us and we say His Glory"

Who is that second bit in Verse 14 talking about - Warney?

The KJV has many known translation errors. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God" is a better translation of that scripture. Such speaks for itself.

The Word was Jesus, as subsequent versus point to, given that the bible states that no man has seen God at any time.

 

[Long Live HFC]

If God has no gender its ******* weird to call Her exclusively father

sorry, I was referring to tesseract.

 

[Contra Mundum]

The KJV has many known translation errors. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God" is a better translation of that scripture. Such speaks for itself.

The Word was Jesus, as subsequent versus point to, given that the bible states that no man has seen God at any time.

Unless you can read Old Testament Greek your clarification is not persuasive.

 

[tesseract]

If God has no gender its ******* weird to call Her exclusively father

It's because it's what humans can relate to. It's also weird for a so-called Christian, in yourself, to use unscriptural terms as "she" for God, as well as hold unscriptural view points such as the "big bang".

 

[Floor Pie]

Believers admit to having a faith-based belief.

Oh, a faith-based belief? Sounds fancy!
What system do atheists have?

That evil one is Satan. The whole world includes the governmental, economic and religious systems in place. Hence my comment wrt Obama. He's part of the system being overseen and directed by Satan.

But you have a problem with the proof and evidence given by mathematicians and scientists?


And reading this last page tessa. If God is real, She would pity you. But also laugh when others made jokes about you.

 

[Contra Mundum]

sorry, I was referring to tesseract.

I know HFC - apologies for flying spaghetti monster devotees talking mumbo jumbo from their questionable book!

 

[Contra Mundum]

It's because it's what humans can relate to. It's also weird for a so-called Christian, in yourself, to use unscriptural terms as "she" for God, as well as hold unscriptural view points such as the "big bang".

Hang on - Surely if God is a creator and nurturer then it would be better to style Her as female? Anyway you don't seem to be the sort of guy that would allow that their might be some gender biases in the World in which the authors of the Bible lived so we can leave it at that

 

[tesseract]

Unless you can read Old Testament Greek your clarification is not persuasive.

One, personally, doesn't have to be a translator of ancient Greek. There are those who well know such and provide it for us.

 

[tesseract]

I know HFC - apologies for flying spaghetti monster devotees talking mumbo jumbo from their questionable book!

And some confused folks on SRP still consider you a Christian. I know, I know, it doesn't surprise me either.

 

[Wallaby]

Creationism is happening as we type. In fact it's all ready happened on Mars last year.

Wrong. Mars is slowly being populated...............by Robots. We send 'em up there, after a while, they stop communicating, and we forget about 'em.

But, you know,............they're still up there.............................

 

[Contra Mundum]

One, personally, doesn't have to be a translator of ancient Greek. There are those who well know such and provide it for us.

Hang on your preferencing one translation over another - not only that you are using one translation to make a doctrinal point. This from a book that was translated from Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin and then to English - anyway I admire your pugnacity on this thread in the face of all that athiesm