Am I a creationist or ID believer?

[Zero]

I agree that it makes no sense for a God to have created the world, but that only makes the event more uncertain, if anything. It still seems that it will forever be beyond our comprehension, and beyond any notions of natural that we may have... still a supernatural event.

[Ghost Rider]

I agree that it makes no sense for a God to have created the world, but that only makes the event more uncertain, if anything. It still seems that it will forever be beyond our comprehension, and beyond any notions of natural that we may have... still a supernatural event.

Okay because your stupid idiotic notions aren't grasping it.

It's not about God it's this simple.

How does something that interacts with space time interact with it before it comes into existence?

[Noble Ire]

I agree that it makes no sense for a God to have created the world, but that only makes the event more uncertain, if anything. It still seems that it will forever be beyond our comprehension, and beyond any notions of natural that we may have... still a supernatural event.

Since when does "beyond our comprehension" equate to "supernatural"? Several thousand years ago, the nature of gravity was beyond human understanding, but its hardly supernatural, as we know today.

[Zero]

I suppose I'm going by someone else's definition of supernatural. I was once told that the definition of supernatural was that which would forever be beyond our understanding. You yourself said that the nature of the beginning of the universe will never be truly knowable.

As for Ghost Rider.. I don't believe in God. I'm not saying that I do. I'm simply asserting that we don't know how the universe began, and never will.

[Zero]

I may ask... if my notion of supernatural doesn't fit yours, how would you define it?

[18-Till-I-Die]

What methods could the universe have begun on that we know of? Do you actually have any reason or explanation for the beginning of the universe that somehow involves this beginning being governed by the same laws that it essentially must have created?

Undoubtedly, the precise circumstance of the beginning of the universe is unknown, other than at some point, nothing existed. This has always been one of the things that I never got about a god-created universe, if God created something from nothing, what created god (cliched, isnt it)? Now, you can give me the bullshit awnser that God is not bound by such rules of science and logic, but such a creator's very existance is simply impossible nonetheless. Even if a God-like being that could create a whole universe did exist, he could not conjour himself up out of the nothing that invariably preceeded him, simply because he did not exist at that point.

I hope that this made at least some sense.

Wel...of course this is just my personal point of view, but it might give you an idea of hwo i feel about it.

I dont think, really, there was 'nothing' out there before the big bang. I figure, and of course i cant prove it nor will i try, that there must have been something like time if nothing else, and that 'started' everything. God was created as a part of the big bang, like a baby in a womb, and at the same time his 'growth' caused the eventual development of what we can understand as space and time.

And again i know this is not a scientific standpoint, i make no attempt to pass it off as one. This is just my personal feeling on the question of 'what created God'.

[wolveraptor]

It doesn't fit everything. We know that the universe runs (as far as it can be said to run) primarily off of fusion reactions in stars, and there's still an abundance of the lighter elements, which means that the universe's beginning not something that's infinitely far back. These fusion reactions haven't been happening forever; if they had, we'd have run out of light elements long ago, and since faced the heat death.

If it hasn't always been there, then the universe did start at some point, and I don't see any way that we can quantify how or why. This event, by its nature, puts it outside of all conventional laws of the universe.

It has so always been there, since the use of the word always implies "throughout all time". Since the creation of the universe was the creation of time, it has always been there. There is no outside reference of time for which you can say, "according to this timeline, the universe started exactly then."

Furthermore, being outside the laws of the universe != supernatural, so none of this is an arguement for deism anyways. Clear cut defiance of natural laws is what is the realm of the supernatural. For example, if one were able to let go of an apple, and have it rise instead of fall, one would be committing a supernatural act.

[Rye]

There is actually one semi-logical reason for the universe having supernatural influences,

No there is not. Supernatural is an incoherent term, it is meaningless. Everything that exists has a natural, inherent state that it exists under. For an example, let's take magic, if it actually existed, it could be measured from its influences, it would be discovered, tested and added into the natural order of things. Thus, I conclude, supernatural is meaningless, there is merely the undiscovered, and there's no reason to assume any of that is magic or theistic.

although it's extremely exhagerated by the opposition. We know that the universe isn't infinitely old, because if it were, then we would have reached the heat death of the universe already. It appears that the universe is around 14 billiion years old. We also know that we haven't ever seen a spontaneous event the likes of which began this universe ever in human history. Never has a substantial portion of mass been observed to spontaneously start existing.

Many would refer to virtual particles as a possibility, but they only occur in the vacuum, IIRC.

What do you think the first mass appeared on? The "main" part of the origin of the universe is not so much the mass in it as the origin of the dimensions that that mass exists within, afaik. We aren't going to see that because it would require a seperate set of dimensions for us to observe, which is nonsensical.

Many will say that there's quite simply no reason for the universe to have an origin at all, but that seems like the most blatent evasion one could construct. It's also entirely possible that my chair has no reason for holding me up, but that isn't likely, as chairs have a tendency to hold things up, just as events have a tendency to have a cause.

It's not an evasion when you consider that time as we know it is a product of this apparent event. What causes virtual particles? The fundamental nature of vacuum energy. So what caused the big bang? The fundamental nature of the singularity, perhaps?

Existence itself cannot be caused. Causality must already exist in order for it to happen, thus you have a contradiction. Existence, then, must therefore be immune to causality, and perhaps has it's own fundamental nature that results in universes. Why does the electrostatic force hold you above your chair? There is no "why" explanation, only a "how".

Indeed, "why" as a question is not dependent on things like position and interaction, "why?" is dependent on a more personal interpretation of causality, the notion of purpose. You cannot define things to have purpose. We can design things to have purposes, we do not have the right to hoist out anthropocentric views on nature itself.

Of course, this says nothing of the nature of the spontaneous beginning of the universe, really. To me, the only reason that it must be supernatural is because it's technically the beginning of natural laws anyways, and thus, not explainable from our interpretation of the universe.

Not really. There is a hierarchy of nature, existence is the absolute top, and we work out what happens from there.

But don't think that this means I believe in any god. I simply mean that the event which sparked existance isn't something that will be repeated, and isn't likely something we'll ever have the true ability to understand or explain. How else would supernatural be defined?

Supernatural is defined as that which is above nature, seperate from it but interactive, the concept does not make much sense. At any rate, let's assume that there is another plane of existence that universes exist on, cropping up like bubbles at random. Perhaps, universe creation is just a property of that plane like gravity is here. Is that supernatural? Does it have intent? No, it just is because it is.

[Zero]

No, they wouldn't. I've thrown apples into the air many times, usually with a specific target in mind.

More on topic, if that's what it means to be supernatural, then I'm sorry.

But you still can't say that the universe is infinitely old. Even if there's no outside referrence by which to referrence it, the universe must have a definite beginning, as it quite obviously isn't infinitely old.

AHH!! I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYMORE!!!

[Rye]

Always existing doesn't mean that "always" doesn't have a set time.

[Zero]

Rye is correct.. existance itself cannot be caused, because it must already exist for it to be caused. But saying that things just... went poof, and there was a universe is just... amazingly counterintuitive, I suppose. Although that proves nothing.

And Rye is also correct that supernatural is a truly worthless term, so I concede.. but I'm more confused now then I was earlier..

[wolveraptor]

Indeed, I don't understand how something can be dated at X billion years old when it's age is the age of time itself.

[Ghost Rider]

I suppose I'm going by someone else's definition of supernatural. I was once told that the definition of supernatural was that which would forever be beyond our understanding. You yourself said that the nature of the beginning of the universe will never be truly knowable.

As for Ghost Rider.. I don't believe in God. I'm not saying that I do. I'm simply asserting that we don't know how the universe began, and never will.

No shit, really?

You already conceded after Rye essentially babystepped your way into why Supernatural is a asinine and illogical notion, so there may be hope for you yet.

But do not strawman me, fuckstick.

[Zero]

Okay because your stupid idiotic notions aren't grasping it.

It's not about God it's this simple.

How does something that interacts with space time interact with it before it comes into existence?

It seemed to me that you were trying to say that my argument still didn't support the existance of a god, which is something I agreed with... where did I strawman?

[Ghost Rider]

Okay because your stupid idiotic notions aren't grasping it.

It's not about God it's this simple.

How does something that interacts with space time interact with it before it comes into existence?

It seemed to me that you were trying to say that my argument still didn't support the existance of a god, which is something I agreed with... where did I strawman?

You seem to lack the general level of reading of a five year old, so I'll put it into small and tiny words.

I used God as symbol or better still marker to a being that is used a common supernatural source to interact with a non existance to bring about existance.

Thus to make it simpler for you

It's not about ___ it's this simple

"----?"

Is that simple enough or for some reason the very notion that I never said even used it as religious point to your general stupidity, but instead used a variety of mocking terms to your unknown supernatural agency too far above your thick skull?

[Zero]

It's not so rare for somebody to misunderstand sarcasm, especially on this medium of communication. How is it my fault that I read what you said, and made a response to THAT, instead of what you intended for me to understand?

In essence, fuck off. I already conceded. You're just being a douchebag.

[Ghost Rider]

It's not so rare for somebody to misunderstand sarcasm, especially on this medium of communication. How is it my fault that I read what you said, and made a response to THAT, instead of what you intended for me to understand?

In essence, fuck off. I already conceded. You're just being a douchebag.

Oh I get it fuckstick, because you're too fucking dense that you want to go "It must've been sarcasm!". Analogies too difficult for you?

So before we go "I conceded already!" duh, dipshit...I acknolwedged that but I am not going to take some shit for brains idiot shoving words into my mouth.

So in the end, learn to read.

[Zero]

The debate's already over. Wasn't even that big. And you ought to understand, at least, that misunderstanding isn't the same as strawmanning. The best that will be done here is useless flaming. I'm not too much of a dick to just drop things, so.. fuck it. I didn't intend to strawman you, I just found the wording awkward, and guessed at a meaning.

I suppose this means I'll be failing AP lang this year... lol...

[Darth Wong]

Rye is correct.. existance itself cannot be caused, because it must already exist for it to be caused. But saying that things just... went poof, and there was a universe is just... amazingly counterintuitive, I suppose. Although that proves nothing.

It's also not what science says, so stop throwing up this strawman.

[Surlethe]

Rye is correct.. existance itself cannot be caused, because it must already exist for it to be caused. But saying that things just... went poof, and there was a universe is just... amazingly counterintuitive, I suppose. Although that proves nothing.

And Rye is also correct that supernatural is a truly worthless term, so I concede.. but I'm more confused now then I was earlier..

You've already been involved in at least one debate touching on this very subject here, in a thread you created. I suggest you go review it and mull about it for a bit.

[Zero]

Actually, that was on if there was any logical inconsistancy in claiming that God was outside of space and time. I still don't understand just how this whole bloody mess got started.

[anybody_mcc]

Why is it illogical ?

You are probably deist and evolutionist. I don't see why is deistic view so irrational as many stated above.

Because there's no logical link between the universe and any gods being involved. It's a complete leap based on ignorance, emotion or incredulity.

You're right , i used only a part of the definition of illogical. I thought you mean there is some contradiction.

Why i am not deist , or agnostic for that matter , is that even for most philosophical questions ( not only scientific ) i use scientific method , in this case Occam's Razor.
Btw there is nice argument for being deist : If there is possibility to create artificial world ( in computer , in reality , ... ) quite easily at some point in technological evolution ,then the probability that we are in one of these created worlds is quite big since many civilizations would create them , and probably in these worlds it is possible to make new artificial worlds and so on ... )

That's more meta wanking, rather than logical. It's an unfalsifiable unexplanatory assertion, a "what if" not a logical extrapolation from what is known.[/quote]

if you are talking about that argument for being deist , there was ) at the end , so i think probably the same about it.

[Magnetic]

Rye is correct.. existance itself cannot be caused, because it must already exist for it to be caused. But saying that things just... went poof, and there was a universe is just... amazingly counterintuitive, I suppose. Although that proves nothing.

It's also not what science says, so stop throwing up this strawman.

Okay, help me out here. What made Zero132132's statement a strawman?

I could be misunderstanding or misreading what he was saying. Are people saying that the 'Big Bang' was the beginning of time itself? Perhaps in terms of a dating method, but certainly not of time itself. A reaction had to be taking place for such a monumental event as the 'Big Bang'. The catalyst for it could have taken countless number of years to get to that 'point of no return'. But even before those reactions that would have led up to the 'Big Bang' took place, time could still be measured backwards from that point in time, and backwards, etc.

[The Guid]

Yes. I believe people are suggesting that the Big Bang was the beginning of time itself - that's the impression I got off my low level Physics classes. Never got to grips with the concept myself but I never got to grips with the undeniable concept that time is variable anyway.

[mr friendly guy]

I think the reasoning is that time is a function of the universe, therefore it can only have begun at the same time (ignore the pun) as the universe did.