So...how were things "created"?

[Scotracer]

Since there's a certain sector of religious faith that believes everything was "created" rather than forming over billions of years due to natural processes, I feel the need to pose a question:

How were these things created?

Science is used to increase the sum of knowledge of mankind. Simply stating something was created doesn't really help, does it? So, please tell me and everyone else just how these things were created.

[youranilldonkey]

Thanks for a prompt answer Grumpy.

I am aware of singularity, time/matter/energy. but prior to it all we know nothing; so with the absence of scientific knowledge it is just as possible that some "God" created it all on a whim, or it suddenly without known cause appeared.

Do you understand? I am not taking sides here but I will come to Alan's defense. If you can't prove what prompted the creation of time, why should he have to prove it was his God? Neither argument can win.

[Alan Clarke]

Even if it were shown that a superior intelligence/power were required, how on earth would we ever show what that thing was like or which god it was?

The obvious "smoke screen" here is to create a huge population of "gods" and make it appear that finding the right one is impossible.

NEW DELHI, August 4, 2008 — A stampede during a religious festival at a north Indian temple had left 148 dead by Monday, including more than 40 children. The pilgrims were trampled to death on a hillside Sunday morning after rumors of a landslide sparked panic. Navratri is a time of worshipping of diverse goddesses. The nine-day festival is celebrated in a unique manner. A different form of the Mother Goddess is worshipped on each different day. On the first three days, the Goddess Durga (Goddess of Valour) is venerated. The next three days are spent in the worship of the Goddess Lakshmi (Goddess of Wealth) and the last three days are a celebration of the Goddess Saraswati (Goddess of Learning and Arts) … the three goddesses are worshipped as the feminine equivalent of the Hindu Holy Trinity …

Now, let’s hear what a native Indian thinks about this unfortunate incident:

Pinak Kemkar - “It is sorry state of affairs that inspite of similar incidents in different states the administrators are not learning from past. we ultimately leave it as a wish of god and forget.�

Why didn’t Mr. Kemkar say, “…we ultimately leave it as a wish of Durga�? or “Lakshmi�, or “Saraswati�, or “her�, or “them�? In other words, when people speak their own mind without the “religious garb�, the deity automatically gets narrowed down to one. Even though I have little knowledge of this individual, I know exactly what he means. The apostle Paul traveled to Athens where the Greeks worshiped multiple of gods:

Acts 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

The scenario is the same. Even though people profess to worship multiple gods, many do it with little conviction and keep a door open for a possibility of the one true “UNKNOWN GOD�, as did the Greeks.

Secondly, if there are supposed “multiple gods�, you should ask yourself is, "Who created these "gods"? Once you find the answer to that then you can rule those "gods" out. Wouldn't it be logical that God existed before man started doing his "creative" thinking? Supply me with the “god� of your choice and we’ll compare it to the one I know. He is termed “UNKNOWN GOD� in Athens and “god� by Mr. Kemkar. Mr. Kemkar may know little about him, but he does seem to understand that “god� knows more than himself as evidenced by his willingness to “leave it� with God.

Oh and Alan, what created the creator?

Hebrews 7:3 "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

[JoeyKnothead]

Oh and Alan, what created the creator?

Hebrews 7:3 "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

Yet Alan Clarke seems to indicate the universe itself must have a "creator".

Why is there this insistence the universe must have a "creator", but God is exempt?

[Ooberman]

i THOUGHT SCIENCE ANSWERED "HOW'S" AND RELIGION ANSWERED "WHY'S"?

not that I believe it.

How were things created?

I don't know.


That's the leading answer.

4000 year old claims otherwise....

[Alan Clarke]

Yet Alan Clarke seems to indicate the universe itself must have a "creator". Why is there this insistence the universe must have a "creator", but God is exempt?

Your question is not unreasonable considering that new religions pop up frequently where people invent their own gods. In this sense, “god� is not exempt because he was created just last week by cult leader Ali Babba Koresh. But if this be the case, wouldn’t Ali Babba be greater than his god? Ali Babba is not only "older" than his god, but his god is a lesser subset of Ali Babba. The question then arises, "Who created Ali Babba if his 'created god' has been discounted?" The only alternative is the Universe created Ali Babba. But is this reasonable? Let’s make some comparisons between Ali Babba and the Universe using observable evidences:

Man
finite
appears “designed�
living
intelligence exceeds anything known
information is quantitatively and qualitatively greater than any other known thing

Universe
infinite
appears “designed�
not living
no intelligence
no information


Consider the following logical constructs:
A finite person who is very smart can do a lot.
A finite person who is very stupid can do little.
A finite rock that is infinitely stupid can do nothing.
An infinite Universe that is infinitely stupid can do nothing.

Would you agree that something which is infinitely stupid cannot make something that is very smart? If neither the Universe, Ali Babba nor god made Ali Babba, would you agree that a mistake has been made since no other options are left? What was the mistake? You falsely assumed that a “created� god could make Ali Babba. If you try a different created god you will get the same result. The only way the logic is going to work is for Ali Babba to have been created by a God who has no beginning or ending. A man-made statue, icon, or mental construct will never suffice for being the creator.

Helpful information for making logical constructs:
The universe is full of matter and energy but it has no inherent "intelligence". I base my statement from what has been observed thus far. No NASA mission, SETI system, or space mission from another country to my knowledge have ever said they located “intelligence� outside Earth’s system. Also, we observe that matter in itself contains no intelligence as illustrated by a rock. We know that we ourselves possess intelligence from what our rational minds tell us. We appear to have a “design� but I’ll use the word lightly in a figurative sense because I know you may not agree with the idea of a “designer�. Contained within our design is DNA code which is “information�. It is the blueprint for building our bodies.

The Law of Causality
No material thing can create itself. Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The effect is never quantitatively greater and/or qualitatively superior to the cause.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

[Alan Clarke]

At first glance, which seems to be more logical?
1. NOTHING Creator
2. SPIRIT Creator

I'd go with 3. We don't know

Good choice. You just scrapped Alan Guth's entire cosmologic expansion theory of "something from nothing" that many on your side were banking on.

Alan Clarke has been repeatedly told that evolution only kicks in once life has formed. An inability to incorporate new information is indicative of an indoctrinated mind.

In case you weren't aware, you're on the wrong thread for pleading immunity by virtue of biological evolution. This thread is called, "So...how were things "created"?", not "How did things evolve?"

It comes from the fact that when energy is expended it becomes less useful. It is irretrievable. If the Universe was infinitely old, there shouldn't be any useful energy left.

I've yet to see scientists declaring the universe to be infinitely old. Current estimates are around 13-14 billion years. As usual, all you have are strawmen that couldn't scare a crow off an ear of corn.

Can you see any difference between the two statements?

1) If the Universe was infinitely old...
2) The Universe is infinitely old...

McCulloch asked me how entropy fit in with the Bible and I answered properly using #1 in order to show an extreme case scenario, but with a general trend which is DOWNWARD for useful energy. No where did I say I believed the universe was infinite in age. Neither for my model or yours. I think the Universe is the same age as the Earth: about 6000 years

Many Christians, and other faithful folks accept the ToE because it so accurately explains the evidence.

"Many" is a word that advertisers like to use which means absolutely NOTHING. I personaly, don't know any Christians who incorporate evolution theory. The big problem is that the two are like oil and water. Atheists simply love evolution theory. Theologically, evolution theory necessitates putting death before Adam's sin which is ridiculous:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

[Scotracer]

The law of causality is a peculiar one to bring up as it doesn't require a cause, as in a conscious one, but a causing effect. It's evident that life can modify and adhere to new surroundings, it's evident that stars can form without a "creator". There are natural processes that form these things. The cause factor? Evolution and Gravity.

Also, we're back on the 2nd law of Thermo again. Before it spirals into another non sequiter debate, I'd like to point out that us not knowing whether or not the universe is an closed/isolated system means we cannot ascribe either with any great accuracy. There really is no default position here so talking in terms of thermodynamic absolutes doesn't help anyone. There are far too many unknowns with reality with regards to the beginning of "it" all and as such, is an unknown by definition. To shoe-horn in some clearly mythological religion as a solution makes no sense:

You are taking an unknown, filling it with another unknown and claiming it solved. That's totally illogical. Also, just stating, because a book says so, that god doesn't require a cause is not a scientific statement.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 2 Post 15:

Yet Alan Clarke seems to indicate the universe itself must have a "creator". Why is there this insistence the universe must have a "creator", but God is exempt?

The question then arises, "Who created Ali Babba if his 'created god' has been discounted?" The only alternative is the Universe created Ali Babba. But is this reasonable?

Given that man has invented every god - except your preferred god - I consider it more reasonable to think man created all gods.

Let's make some comparisons between Ali Babba and the Universe using observable evidences:

Man
1. finite
2. appears "designed"
3. living
4. intelligence exceeds anything known
5. information is quantitatively and qualitatively greater than any other known thing

I agree with 1, 3, & 4

What you mean by 2 and 5 I need more clarification.

Universe
1. infinite
2. appears "designed"
3. not living
4. no intelligence
5. no information

I agree with #1. Disagree with #2.

As I understand the universe, it contains 3-5 in various aspects.

Consider the following logical constructs:
1. A finite person who is very smart can do a lot.
2. A finite person who is very stupid can do little.
3. A finite rock that is infinitely stupid can do nothing.
4. An infinite Universe that is infinitely stupid can do nothing.

Helpful information for making logical constructs:
The universe is full of matter and energy but it has no inherent "intelligence". I base my statement from what has been observed thus far. No NASA mission, SETI system, or space mission from another country to my knowledge have ever said they located "intelligence" outside Earth's system.

Really helpful information for making logical constructs:
The Earth is part of the universe.

Also, we observe that matter in itself contains no intelligence as illustrated by a rock. We know that we ourselves possess intelligence from what our rational minds tell us.

Fair 'nuff.

We appear to have a "design" but I'll use the word lightly in a figurative sense because I know you may not agree with the idea of a "designer". Contained within our design is DNA code which is "information". It is the blueprint for building our bodies.

Considering DNA as a "blueprint" is done as a useful term, and few scientists make the link to a god.

The Law of Causality
No material thing can create itself. Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The effect is never quantitatively greater and/or qualitatively superior to the cause.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

And we're right back where we started. You propose the Biblical God with absolutely no evidence.

Why is God immune to causality?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 2 Post 16:

Good choice. You just scrapped Alan Guth's entire cosmologic expansion theory of "something from nothing" that many on your side were banking on.

The singularity has never been considered as "nothing" except by folks who seek strawmen.

In case you weren't aware, you're on the wrong thread for pleading immunity by virtue of biological evolution. This thread is called, "So...how were things "created"?", not "How did things evolve?"

My point was "evolutionists", by definition consider the issue of what caused life to be outside the core of the ToE.

Any cause of life scenarios are speculative.

Can you see any difference between the two statements?

1) If the Universe was infinitely old...
2) The Universe is infinitely old...

Yes. You're preferred method of creating strawmen is apparent in "If".

McCulloch asked me how entropy fit in with the Bible and I answered properly using #1 in order to show an extreme case scenario, but with a general trend which is DOWNWARD for useful energy. No where did I say I believed the universe was infinite in age. Neither for my model or yours. I think the Universe is the same age as the Earth: about 6000 years

"If" can be used to create any scenario we want to support any claims. This is why I objected.

I wonder, why don't you debate the YEC in this thread? Just curious, not debating there says nothing to little about your debating here.

Many Christians, and other faithful folks accept the ToE because it so accurately explains the evidence.

"Many" is a word that advertisers like to use which means absolutely NOTHING.

1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number <worked for many years>
2 : being one of a large but indefinite number <many a man> <many another student>

— as many : the same in number <saw three plays in as many days>

I'm using definition 1.

I personaly, don't know any Christians who incorporate evolution theory.

You don't get out much.

Look up posts by micatala, he'll school ya.

The big problem is that the two are like oil and water.

To some. To others the seeming or real contradiction is solved in such fashion as "God kick started it, and there ya go". Apologies for oversimplification.

Atheists simply love evolution theory.

I would hope anyone would love an accurate theory. I hope all would abhor an inaccurate theory, which then would not really be a theory at all, eh.

Theologically, evolution theory necessitates putting death before Adam's sin which is ridiculous:

Notice this is the Science & Christianity subforum. They serve Theology elsewhere.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

I challenge you to offer verifiable evidence for what claims are contained in that passage.

Elsewise you may feel more comfortable using it in the aformentioned TD&D

[Alan Clarke]

...it's evident that stars can form without a "creator"... natural processes that form these things... The cause factor? Evolution and Gravity...

Can't you buy a T-shirt somewhere that depicts more than just a monkified Che Guevara? With "Gravity" you could show him being pulled apart like a comet coming too close to Jupiter.

...us not knowing whether or not the universe is an closed/isolated system means we cannot...

There are far too many unknowns with reality...

To shoe-horn in some clearly mythological religion as a solution makes no sense:

You are taking an unknown, filling it with another unknown...

It looks to me like you've pretty well narrowed your choices. Since nothing can be "known", purchase the T-shirt and make that a religion but don't call it so.

I've already been privately notified by otseng that I need to stop inflaming people, but because of my limitations, I don't know any other way to get it across. Oliver has some wonderful traits to be admired, so I think I need to read more of his posts and figure out his technique. For now, I'm stuck with myself. Try to "visualize" the options you have created for yourself. Do you think you can become a compelling revolutionary if your revolution is based on "nothing can be known"? One of the greatest thinkers of all time (Grumpy of all people turned me on to him.) was just like you. He admired other philosophical revolutionaries who were extremely compelling:

"I have read in Plato and Cicero sayings that are wise and very beautiful; but I have never read in either of them: Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden."

Think about it. We know for a fact that those Hindu's who were trampled to death on more than one occasion (research it yourself) while trying to reach their multiple goddesses, were ultimately alluding to the idea that "god" didn't stop it from happening to them. I put "god" in the lower case because they didn't know who this "god" was. The same thing happens to the Muslims continually: Click here. One such link is entitled, "Saudis blame God's will as 300 pilgrims crushed to death at Haj ..." The only difference in this case is that the Muslims "blame God's will" wheras the Hindus surrender to "god's will". Trying to switch between upper and lower case "god" is almost driving me mad, but can't you see that there is a difference perceived even by those who don't know God? The million-dollar question that deserves an answer is, WHO IS THIS GOD? He has to be more than the greatest philosopher. He has to be more than all matter & energy combined because we know that matter & energy have no "rationale". He has to have existed before man, otherwise he is nothing but a creation "of man". If he created man then wouldn't some of his attributes be reflected in man? Show me something man-made that has no attribute of "man". By the same token, if God made us, then something special should exist within us that is a reflection of God. Here it is: rationale & love

1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

You will never find rationale or love in matter & energy. Does love exist in "gravity"? In a world created by "natural processes", love will never evolve.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.