Prove God Exists - Act Three

[Zarn]

you people have to face the facts

It's why The Bible isn't the Law of God for certain Christians.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Consider the statement "I believe because I have faith." Let's examine this reasoning more closely. If faith is defined as belief without evidence, then the statement can be rewritten as, "I believe because I believe without evidence," which essentially means, "I believe because I believe." This is purely circular reasoning. The same circular logic is used by Christians when answering why questions with faith. Faith, therefore, is not an answer of any kind to questions concerning the reasons for religious belief.

I am not a christian, but I will respond. Ok you have figured out that logic and reason are separate and independent from christian faith. You have 600 posts here that back you up.

You cannot use logic to understand faith. For example, say you are eating an apple and I am eating a mango. You want me to describe my mango's flavor in terms of what an apple tastes like and when I say it tastes like mango, you claim I'm wrong because I didn't use apple flavors in my description. You will never know what my mango tastes like unless you take a bite. But if you take a bite, then you are admitting that there are fruits other than apples. Many atheists have a hard time accepting that there are any fruits beyond logic an reason.

Suppose for a minute that faith did somehow justify a belief in God. If it can be used as reasoning for the belief in one god, then why not another? If having faith in the Christian god somehow makes the belief in him valid, then wouldn't it also validate a belief in Zeus, Odin, or Thor? If Christians are supported in their beliefs, then so are members of every other religion with a belief in a deity.

Once you accept that faith is valid, then yes it will support any number of conflicting religions. So what? Humans are creative and like variety in their religious choices. Human descriptions of god may have nothing to do with what any god may or may not actually "look" like.

 

[Lord Draegon]

Creationism and Uniformitarianism
Uniformitarianism is a principle that states that the laws physics and mathematics apply universally, and that they do not change over time. We are able to predict the movement of continents, the separation of gases, and the expansion of stars because we assume that their rates do not change. We can only accurately predict the expansion of a star if we assume that the laws of gravity will not spontaneously disappear from existence. If such a thing happened, the star would simply diffuse and spread out into the empty void of space.

The evidence for uniformitarianism comes from the law of logic known as Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest explanation is usually the best one. There's no way to know for sure whether or not the laws of physics will change spontaneously and abruptly in the future, so whether we believe they will, or we believe they won't, either way, we're assuming. The question is, which assumption is simpler? Which one makes more sense? No such spontaneous change in the laws of nature has ever been detected, and no mechanism driving such a change has been conceived in the history of science. Assuming that the laws of physics do change abruptly requires that there be a mechanism to cause such a change, a mechanism that would be very complex indeed, for it would supersede the laws of physics, and may require an entirely new set of laws and theories to describe it. Obviously, the simpler and more reasonable assumption is to believe that the laws of physics will not change.

Granted uniformitarianism, not only can we predict the future, we can also extrapolate current rates into the past. If we see that, for example, the light of a star has been travelling for one hundred years, and we know that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, we can determine the distance of the source of the light from our planet (about 5.86 x 10^14 miles). If, however, the laws of physics were to change abruptly, such an extrapolation would be impossible. The speed of light may have been faster in the past, so the distance of the source of the light may be further away than expected.

Such extrapolations are central to proving the age of the earth. Scientists use such methods to determine the age of rocks and fossils, but because the dates that are determined conflict with the dates that the Bible gives us, creationists disagree and argue against the results. Many times, creationists argue that the dates scientists arrive at for the ages of fossils are erroneous because they can only be determined if we assume fixed rates (like assuming the speed of light, the decay of radioactive particles, and so on). This is indeed true, but as I've just explained, it is more than reasonable to make such an assumption.

The problem is, creationists counter such arguments with arguments of their own that are subject to the same argument! For example, it's been argued that the amount of helium present in the earth's atmosphere does not coincide with an old earth -- that it predicts a much younger earth of only several thousand years. The creationists, in this case, have hung themselves without knowing it. In order to extrapolate the amount of helium present in today's atmosphere into determining the age of the earth, a fixed rate must be assumed! The creationists must assume uniformitarianism, which is a forbidden taboo. I should note, however, that the argument doesn't hold any water, as it completely neglects the loss of helium to space due to the heating of the atmosphere. In any case, uniformitarianism is required to make any sense of anything, even for the creationists. If the creationists reject evolutionist age of the earth arguments because they assume fixed rates, then they must also reject their own arguments for the same reason.

another victory for me

 

[Birdjaguar]

Lastly why must it be created can the universe not "just be"?

Well, science seems to be in agreement that our universe had some sort of beginning, or a coming into being. They are working on the "from what" question.

 

[Lord Draegon]

Climate on the Ark
One question that immediately comes to mind concerning the impossibility of the survival of two of each "kind" on an enormous ark for nearly a year is that of climate. Most species on the planet are sensitive to temperature and humidity levels to an extent, and, given a few preparations, could be given the conditions necessary for survival onboard a boat. There are, however, thousands of exceptions to this general rule. Many species are extremely sensitive to temperature, and require that heat levels be within a specific range. Due to the variety among species, those ranges are distributed over many scales, from below freezing to above one hundred degrees F. It's obvious that there exists no single universal climatic condition in which all animals can survive, meaning that Noah, in his holy duty to save the planet's biodiversity from a global flood, would have to have strict control over the conditions on the ark.

Considering the fact that Noah had little, if any, technology available to him, as well as exceedingly limited resources (which consisted mainly of wood from trees), it would appear to be impossible to control the temperature of different sections of the ark at the level necessary to allow the animals onboard to survive. This is, however, not my point. Books have been written attacking this statement, attempting to explain how it could be done without the use of miracles. In my opinion, they've all failed, but again, this is irrelevant.

Even if, by some incredible feat, Noah was able to create the climatic conditions necessary to sustain all life onboard the ark, the animals would lose that engineered security the moment they left the boat. According to the Bible, the ark landed on top of, or within the vicinty of (as some interpret it), Mt. Ararat. Most Biblical literalists agree that the continents were, at the time, united as one, and that the animals spread out to different parts of it before the enormous landmass broke apart. In order to do this, however, the animals had to leave the ark, and become subjected to the harsh climate of the outside world. There is, as was established earlier, no universal climate that can sustain all life, meaning that, regardless of the conditions of the environment outside the ark, many species would die upon exiting it.

As much time as Noah may have spent perfecting the climate on the ark, all animals were subjected to the same harsh world soon afterwards. As much control as Noah may have had over the ark, he could not control the outside world. An enormous number of species would have been destroyed then and there. The story of a global flood and an ark, once again, faces a seemingly unsolvable problem.

What Did the Carnivores Eat?

Here's a good question for the creationists: what did the carnivores eat on the ark? It was essential that every animal survived on the ark because there were only two of each species. If one died, then the entire species would go extinct because there would only be one male and no female or one female and no male. If that's the case, then we must ask ourselves what the carnivores ate. Carnivores need meat. They need fresh meat, to be specific. Noah couldn't have brought along meats because they would have rotted during the year long period on the ark. Let's also keep in mind that the state of the art preservation technology of the time was salting the meat, which didn't do a whole lot. Even in the refrigerator, leftover meat only lasts a week or so before it goes bad, and it becomes next to useless during a year long stay in the freezer. Any meat that Noah brought along with him to feed the carnivores with would have rotted away within a few weeks. So what exactly were the carnivores eating? Other animals? If Noah fed some of the other animals to the larger carnivores, he would have wiped out entire species in the process! What were they living on?

ooh common

 

[Zarn]

another victory for me

Victory? I have yet to see you make one good case against my beliefs.

Creationism and the Bible both are just common attributes of a typical Christian, but they are not the soul of Christianity. Until you think like a religous person, you cannot debate one.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes The Universe has always existed. or the Big Bang happened or something.

You seem to have lengthy opinions about what you don't believe, do you have one about this? I'd like to see your logic lay out a proof for one of them.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

What Did the Carnivores Eat?

Here's a good question for the creationists: what did the carnivores eat on the ark? It was essential that every animal survived on the ark because there were only two of each species. If one died, then the entire species would go extinct because there would only be one male and no female or one female and no male. If that's the case, then we must ask ourselves what the carnivores ate. Carnivores need meat. They need fresh meat, to be specific. Noah couldn't have brought along meats because they would have rotted during the year long period on the ark. Let's also keep in mind that the state of the art preservation technology of the time was salting the meat, which didn't do a whole lot. Even in the refrigerator, leftover meat only lasts a week or so before it goes bad, and it becomes next to useless during a year long stay in the freezer. Any meat that Noah brought along with him to feed the carnivores with would have rotted away within a few weeks. So what exactly were the carnivores eating? Other animals? If Noah fed some of the other animals to the larger carnivores, he would have wiped out entire species in the process! What were they living on?

I would like to see a creationist even try to explain this one.

 

[Zarn]

I would like to see a creationist even try to explain this one.

What does creationism have to do with Noah's ark?

I think I know why atheists are so sceptic. They join everything together in a everything is true or false assumption.

It's possible that an ark owned by a man named Noah existed, but I doubt that he carried every species aboard.

 

[Lord Draegon]

uh how bout i provide more proof
[[/QUOTE]Creation un-science
I am constantly picking apart Biblical creationism by refuting the specific details that the "theory" claims to be true, but it is not often that I look at all of these arguments as a whole. Fundamentalists hold their creationist views as a valid scientific theory. Here, I will examine what makes a scientific theory valid, and decide whether or not creationism fits that criteria. Some of the main features of a good scientific theory include falsifiability, the ability to predict the outcome of events, the ability to explain what we see today in simplistic terms, and unique concepts. Let's see if creationism fits the standards.

Falsifiability:

Creationism does not have this important attribute. I've argued with a fairly large number of creationists, and every once in a while, one of them is fairly smart. They know how science operates -- they know about atoms and cells -- they know about biology and genetics -- they know about physics, ecology, etc., but they're still creationists. I've noticed a certain pattern with these types of people. They think that they can justify their beliefs in creation by explaining how things came to be the way they are in a scientific manner, but these justifications are merely examples of illogical reasoning. For example, I once told a person that for enough rain to fall to reach the tops of mountains to flood the entire earth in forty days, it would have to rain so hard that it would crush Noah's ark. He explained to me that back when the flood happened, mountains were lower. I asked how low exactly, and he said the highest mountains were about ten thousand feet. I still think that the rain would still be like a firehose to cover the entire earth up to ten thousand feet, but I went along with it anyway. The real problem was how the mountains got to be so high in a mere four thousand years, seeing as almost all mountains move incredibly slowly -- certainly not fast enough to rise from 10,000 feet to 29,000 feet (Mt. Everest) in 4,000 years. When I proposed this problem, the person told me that mountains can rise that fast, given extreme amounts of volcanic activity. That may be true, but why was there so much volcanic activity all of a sudden? He told me that God made this activity arise spontaneously. Obviously, there's no way that I can disprove that. And that's exactly what the problem is -- I can't disprove it. Every single piece of evidence that goes against creation can be accounted for with the divine intervention of God. But, for all we know, the entire universe, along with us in it, was created five minutes ago, and God simply put all of our fake memories into our brains. Can you disprove that? No. But is it logical? Is it practical? Is it even remotely probable? Of course not. The fact that we can see distant galaxies means that the light from those galaxies has been travelling for much longer than 6,000 years, which means that the universe itself must be much older than 6,000 years. Of course, creationists can simply say that God made the light speed up temporarily, violating the laws of physics, then slowed it down to its current rate. Can I disprove that? No. Is it logical? Is it practical? Of course not.

The more that you have to fill in the holes in a theory with divine intervention, the less practical and the less realistic it becomes. Even if some day, creationists manage to explain every single fault in their literal interpretations of the bible, it won't make any difference, because the scientific theories that we hold to be true today explain everything just as well without any outside help from God. Even if both the old earth theory and the young earth "theory" hold out and pass the tests, the old earth theory will still remain as the one held by the scientific community because it explains everything we see through natural processes. The young earth theory, on the other hand, requires so much maculate deception on God's part that it should just be thrown out the window. If you think that God simply made everything give the false appearance of old age, then by your logic, everything and anything can and will happen. The entire world could be fake -- this entire universe may be one big dream, and you could wake up any minute now into the real world, which might not be real either, in fact, everything in it is probably fake, and only looks like it exists, and you only think that you exist, but you really don't, it's just God making it look like you are. See how ridiculous all of this is? However, no one on the planet can disprove that this isn't the case.

As you can see, creation is non falsifiable. Every single contradiction between the evidence and the bible could simply be explained by saying "God just made it look that way". In fact, all religions are like that. For those of you who are members of eastern religions, don't worry. It's just Vishnu making it look like Yahweh is making it look that way. Because creation is non falsifiable, it shouldn't be considered a theory at all, because theories must be testable, and if they must be testable, then they must be falsifiable.

The Ability to Predict:

Another important attribute of a good scientific theory is it's ability to predict the outcome of events. The major underlying principle in uniformitarianism is the idea that the laws of nature that apply today have always applied. For example, no one knew about the laws of gravity in 3,000 BCE, so we can't be absolutely sure that they applied back then. No one wrote down Newton's equations for the impact of gravity on moving objects, yet there is no reason to believe that these equations did not apply back then. If we don't think that the laws of physics that we see in effect today were in effect five thousand years ago, then it is possible for anything to happen. In a world where we have no idea what the laws of nature are, baseball hats can expand to the size of a football field and take over the world. There is nothing stopping that from happening, and it is impossible to prove that such a thing never happened -- after all, the laws that stop those sorts of things from occuring today were not necessarily in effect at the time, right? That is true, but it is so incredibly illogical that no one ever thinks that way. It is because of the view that the same laws that apply today have always applied that we can predict the outcome of future events.

Just about everyone in the world knows that when you take two magents and try to force both positive (or both negative) ends together, you feel a resistance. Because we are aware of the laws of nature, and because is it very logical to assume that these laws will not change, we can accurately predict events like this. All good scientific theories have the ability to predict the outcome of events. For example, suppose that no one knows about the laws of gravity. You see someone holding a bowling ball over the edge of the top of a building. The person lets go of the bowling ball, and it falls toward the ground and smacks into the sidewalk. You say to yourself, "Interesting. I'm willing to bet that if you hold something in the air and let go of it, that something will fall to the ground". This is a hypothesis -- a theory in the making. It is a good (albeit primitive) theory because it can predict the outcome of future events. It predicts that if you hold something in the air and let go of it, then it will fall to the ground. This theory is useful. Creationism, on the other hand, does not have such a property. It attempts to explain every record of the past that we see today through God driven floods and magic -- things that we simply never see this day in age. Now, as I argued above, I can't disprove that, just like I can't disprove that the universe was created five minutes ago with all of our memories intact, and everything already in it's place. However, there is another reason why this "theory" isn't a good one: it doesn't predict anything. Here's a riddle: what do magical dragons and sea monsters have to do with modern day occurences? The answer is absolutely nothing. God doesn't seem to come around much anymore, and nothing magical has taken place for as long as I can remember. What does creationism predict? Suppose, for a moment, that everything we know about science was forgotten by everyone in the world, and all we had for information was the Bible (actually, this is what it was like several hundred years ago, when maps were riddled with warnings of sea dragons). Now, suppose that we all read the Bible. We read about horrible floods and miracles, about ghosts and goblins, and about an invisible man in the sky. So, what have we gained from reading it? What do all of these tales of magic predict today? Nothing. They don't predict anything, and the reason why is because today, magic doesn't exist. We can't prove that it didn't exist when the Bible was written, but regardless, myths have no modern implications, and are of no help to us.

Modern scientific theories can predict what happens when plates collide. They tell us that mountains can form. What does creationism tell us about how mountains form? Well, according to the creationists, the mountains that we see today were formed by God, who simply made them raise for the hell of it after a worldwide flood that he sent upon the earth. Obviously, that's not what happens today. We don't see mountains just raising up thousands of feet at dramatic rates. We see them rising very, very slowly as plates collide. Because of the fact that we don't see that happening, creationism is absolutely useless in the area of predicting things. According to creationism, everything we see today is a result of God's magic, but God doesn't perform his magic anymore, so we won't actually see it happening. So what does creationism say about current processes? Nothing. It doesn't say a thing about the outcome of future events. It is incapable of prediction because it claims that everything we see -- the formation of the earth, the mountains, the rivers, the oceans, and the existence of life -- are due to magic. Unpredictable magic. Special magic that only occured once, and won't occur again. Creationism predicts nothing. It is useless as a theory.[/QUOTE]

 

[Lord Draegon]

second part

Explaining Current Status With Rational Simplicity:

Creationism attempts to explain the current state of affairs of the planet earth. All of our scientific theories attempt to do the same thing. As I said before, creationism can't be falsified, so we may as well assume that all of the problems that it brings up don't exist. Let's temporarily treat creationism as valid. Let's consider it an actual rival with uniformitarianism. That only leaves one question: which explains what we see today in more logical terms? I must admit: sometimes, what is logical and illogical is subjective and opinionistic, but given all of the facts, I think that most people would agree that creationism is less logical than uniformitarianism. Of course, all of the Christians would say something like, "but it's faith that let's us believe nonetheless", but the point still remains. Creationism requires God to fix up it's holes all over the place, while our scientific theories explain everything in natural, simple terms.

There is a rule of logic called Occam's Razor. It states that the simpler theory is usually the correct one. For example, suppose that you go to the supermarket to buy food. You park your car in the parking lot, enter the store, buy your food, and exit. You notice that your car is in the same place that you left it. As a result, do you assume a) The car exploded, but God projected a hologram image around it so that no one would notice, then replaced the car with an identical one, all in the blink of an eye, or b) nothing happened to the car, and it hasn't moved from it's spot. Any rational person would choose the second option in this case, but in the case of creationism, some people choose the first option. Rather than thinking that the normal processes that we observe today are what caused the earth to look the way it does, they think that God created the earth and fooled around with it constantly to give it the appearance of the old aged earth. You can't prove either option to be right, just like you can't disprove that God wasn't fiddling with your car when you were in the supermarket, but you can be sure which one is the simpler, more logical choice. When two theories both validly explain the current state of affairs (and creationism doesn't, we're just temporarily assuming that it does for now), and neither is favored any more by the evidence than the other (and uniformitarianism is), then you should always choose the simpler choice. Creationism is not the simpler choice. It requires all sorts of work on God's part to fit the evidence -- work that is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. Uniformitarianism, on the other hand, does not. Even if, by some miracle (no pun intended), creationism is treated as an equal with it, uniformitarianism still wins out due to its simplicity.

Unique Concepts:

If there are multiple scientific theories that all explain one phenomenon, then each of those theories is less valid than they would be if there was only one theory. For example, until recent years, there were five "string theories". String theory suggests that the universe is not made out of point particles, but vibrating strings. String theory solves all kinds of contradictions between general relativity and quantum mechanics and problems concerning the world around us, and more evidence is supporting it every day. Unfortunately, not long ago, there were five different string theories, that were, although similar, slightly different. All five theories solved the same problems facing modern physics, and as far as anyone could tell, one theory wasn't any better than any other. This was obviously a problem. If there are many theories that explain the same things in equally valid ways, then which one is correct? If one theory is only one out of hundreds, then that one theory is not special at all, and it's very unlikely that the theory is correct.

Creationism is the same way because it has the power of God. As I've discussed, because creationists can use God in any way they want without any justification, creationism becomes unfalsifiable. This power to make incredibly wild interpretations of scripture and to manipulate God to support their theory is shared by all religions that believe in an all powerful god (or gods). Any kind of contradictions in Hindu scripture can be resolved by making unreasonable (yet unfalsifiable) interpretations, and any sort of scientific problem with Hindu beliefs can, again, be resolved by using God to explain everything away just like the Christians do. The list of religions that have this advantage is endless. In fact, theoretically, I can create an infinite number of religions on my own, which, although very different, still "explain" the current status of the world, just like Christianity claims to. It is because of this endless list that creationism becomes just another crazy rambling of pseudoscientists among the ocean of religious dogma.

So what does it mean, exactly, that creationism cannot be classified as scientific theory? It means that creationism is unrealistic and illogical. It means that creation "science" is an oxymoron -- a self contradictory term, like a wise idiot. Not only is it unscientific, it's unsupported. What I've told many creationists is that their objective should not be to show that creation is compatible with the evidence that the earth holds, but that it is supported by the evidence that the earth holds. Being compatible isn't enough. Even if creationists were to account for all of the ridiculous problems with creationism (which they haven't even begin to come close to, and probably never will), that only means that the evidence is compatible. What I would like to know is what advantage does creationism have over evolution? What makes it better than evolution? What is the positive evidence for creation, rather than the "evidence" against evolution? If the world was created six thousand years ago, at the same time as the rest of the universe, and if there was a world wide flood four thousand years ago, there should be evidence supporting it, yet there is not. What could that possibly suggest? Could that possibly mean that creation is completely and utterly ridiculous? Could it mean that the Jewish creation myth is just like any other creation myth, like the story of the cosmic egg -- a primitive attempt to explain the universe's existence? I think so.

 

[cgannon64]

Lord Draegon:

THE BIBLE IS NOT LITERAL. ONLY IDIOTS BELEIVE IT IS LITERAL. ALL YOU ARE PROVING IS THAT THE BIBLE IS SYMBOLIC - WHICH ANY INTELLIGENT PERSON ALREADY BELEIVES.

 

[Lord Draegon]

I Understand That, But Some Of My Evidence Is Damaging. And Besides Some People Do Take The Bible Literly

 

[cgannon64]

Well, no one on this forum takes it literally, so please stop arguing with people who don't exist.

As for the only good question in there - The God-Rock thing - its the surface of a good debate: Can God do the logically impossible. But that's arguing about the nature of God, not his existance.

 

[Lord Draegon]

:shakehead UH YOU ARE EXASPARATING

 

[Lord Draegon]

And read all of my evidence

 

[Perfection]

So when religionists use illogical arguements, it's faith and so okay, but when we use illogical arguements it's not okay, I'm sensing a double standard here.

 

[Lord Draegon]

now you confusd me

 

[Lord Draegon]

Oh you people are exasperating, GOOD NIGHT!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Any kind of contradictions in Hindu scripture can be resolved by making unreasonable (yet unfalsifiable) interpretations, and any sort of scientific problem with Hindu beliefs can, again, be resolved by using God to explain everything away just like the Christians do.

Actually, the Hindus solve all the problems very simply. Occam would be proud. They declare that only the oversoul is Real, permanent, unchanging; Everything else is maya or illusion: temporary, not real and changing. There are no contradictions within the uniformity and eternity of the undifferentiated oversoul. Hindu gods are all part of maya and not real.

The list of religions that have this advantage is endless. In fact, theoretically, I can create an infinite number of religions on my own, which, although very different, still "explain" the current status of the world, just like Christianity claims to. It is because of this endless list that creationism becomes just another crazy rambling of pseudoscientists among the ocean of religious dogma.

To create a religion, you would need followers. Your "religions" would most likely involve silly substitutions for current cosmology and dogma.