There is another obvious reason for a Creator.
It is a very simple one!
For obvious reasons, people can learn from nature that everything comes from its like kind, just like the bible says about “seed in itself".
But Jacko, the idea that everything comes from its own kind (with variations on the genetic level) is the whole point of the Theory of Evolution! Your Bible teaches the opposite, that everything was wished into being all at once.
Science can bicker all they want about there not being a Creator, but scripture blatantly and outright informs us otherwise, that there is only ONE Creator and that this Creator created everything in existence.
So how can we counteract that?
We don't "counteract" it at all. We simply accept it as the opinion of a pre-scientific culture who did the best they could for their time, but got it wrong.
From that website: "A Common Flood Story. Not just the Hebrews (Gen. 6–8), but Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Greeks all report a flood in primordial times. A Sumerian king list from c. 2100 BC divides itself into two categories: those kings who ruled before a great flood and those who ruled after it. "
But, in the OT, everyone is wiped out, except Noah and his family. This evidence says kingdoms that existed before the flood were then repopulated. There is no mention of this in the Bible. In fact the lineages and histories of kingdoms is quite different. It is a rather abrupt transition from Gen 10 to Abraham and his travels to Egypt. The Bible says the languages were created at the Tower or Babel, after the flood, so how can we have historical records of Sumeria before the flood?
Anyone can make a list of things that are real and select only the facts that support their argument. You are diligent enough to look these things up and discuss them, now you need to check your own work. Look up these steles and civilizations in sources that aren't talking about God. See how they fit into the big picture of history, not just one narrow view of it.
You're correct. If someone is going to accept an old book written by a conglomeration of people as indisputable fact rather than the evidence of the world around them and the conclusions that logic brings us to there may be little we can do. On the other hand I do not believe there is a believer out there who doesn't have at least s small uncomfortable seed of doubt. The key if you are so inclined is to foster more doubt and encourage that seed to grow by helping that person see the logical flaws in their beliefs.
Yes, BUT, you miss the whole point Mac. The bible was written some 3,000 years ago and is STILL valid today!
What it tells us is exactly what we observe in nature today - seed in itself.
HOWEVER, the good book attributes this "knowledge" to a Creator that is behind everything in existence.
The bible cannot be falsified!
The Bible actually tells us virtually nothing about how the world works that couldn't be observed by any common man at the time. That's not to say that people won't try to twist some prescient meaning from a vague phrase but from the standpoint of a scientist or even a naturalist the book has no insights what so ever which is remarkable considering it is supposed to be a book from the being that created everything.
There is another obvious reason for a Creator.
It is a very simple one!
For obvious reasons, people can learn from nature that everything comes from its like kind, just like the bible says about “seed in itself".
Science can bicker all they want about there not being a Creator, but scripture blatantly and outright informs us otherwise, that there is only ONE Creator and that this Creator created everything in existence.
So how can we counteract that?
Simple, WE CAN’T!
Of course we can. You have shown no evidence that scripture is anything more than the ravings, wishes and fantasies of primitive men who didn't know something as basic as that the sun didn't revolve around the earth. You have accepted myths about scripture as if they were true with nothing to support them and then you challenge us to counteract what they claim! Science and common sense itself counteracts everything scripture claims.
Lois
Lois, there is a vast collection of archeological evidence that is to date being verified and validated by the Bible equating to proof.
http://www.equip.org/articles/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/
Archeological proof about what? That people lived in a certain place in biblical times and built cities, the remnants of which are still present? We have no dispute with what archeology can uncover. Archeology says absolutely nothing about religious claims. All it does is show that the places noted in the bible existed. (In fact, modern geological, geographical and archeological research shows that the bible actually had a lot of the geography all wrong.) modern science says nothing about whether what the bible claims is true. It shows that people existed in a certain place, but not that they were anything other than ordinary humans with ordinary human's concerns. You could prove that everything about the geology, architecture and history in the bible is true and that the people believed in and practiced certain religions, but never come up with any evidence that even one supernatural claim is true.
Lois
You're correct. If someone is going to accept an old book written by a conglomeration of people as indisputable fact rather than the evidence of the world around them and the conclusions that logic brings us to there may be little we can do. On the other hand I do not believe there is a believer out there who doesn't have at least s small uncomfortable seed of doubt. The key if you are so inclined is to foster more doubt and encourage that seed to grow by helping that person see the logical flaws in their beliefs.
Yes, BUT, you miss the whole point Mac. The bible was written some 3,000 years ago and is STILL valid today.
What it tells us is exactly what we observe in nature today - seed in itself.
HOWEVER, the good book attributes this "knowledge" to a Creator that is behind everything in existence.
The bible cannot be falsified!
How do you know it's valid?
It doesn't tell me anything about what I observe in nature. How does seed come into it?
Of course the claims in the bible can be and have been falsified millions of times. They cannot be proven to be true in any way. If you think they can be, we are all ears.
Lois
Romans 1:20 - For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
Sorry do not mean to be preaching, just trying to answer your question.
http://www.goddidcreations.com/bibleverses.php
You can't prove anything in the bible is true by citing hiblical passages. It seems ridiculous that you should need to be told that, but that's what religious belief does to people. It often interferes with their ability to understand the rules of evidence and logic.
Lois
You're correct. If someone is going to accept an old book written by a conglomeration of people as indisputable fact rather than the evidence of the world around them and the conclusions that logic brings us to there may be little we can do. On the other hand I do not believe there is a believer out there who doesn't have at least s small uncomfortable seed of doubt. The key if you are so inclined is to foster more doubt and encourage that seed to grow by helping that person see the logical flaws in their beliefs.
Yes, BUT, you miss the whole point Mac. The bible was written some 3,000 years ago and is STILL valid today!
What it tells us is exactly what we observe in nature today - seed in itself.
HOWEVER, the good book attributes this "knowledge" to a Creator that is behind everything in existence.
The bible cannot be falsified!
And that is the problem, no? Tell me, if there was no belief in God, would the universe and everything in it still exist? Or are you claiming that the universe exists because YOU believe in the Bible?
The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific — and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsify
By claiming that the bible cannot be falsified, you have just relegated it to the realm of pseudoscience. Thanks for clearing that up.
The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific — and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsify
By claiming that the bible cannot be falsified, you have just relegated it to the realm of pseudoscience. Thanks for clearing that up.
Wow, thanks for copying that one, otherwise I would have missed it. I've run into this a couple times lately, people who can repeat a decent definition of falsifiable, but then apply it to the Bible and claim the Bible can't be said to be false. Not sure how to untangle that one. The best I can do is to say non-falsifiable is pure speculation, or to be a little less nice, it's meaningless.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have mine.
Here is a good book that talks about how the atomic particles are fine tuned, and geared towards a designer. The name of the book is called: Chance Or Dance: An Evaluation of Design by Jimmy H. Davis, Harry L. Po.
Its starts on page 72, but keep reading till about page 76. A good read!
Jacko the whole idea of a" finely tuned universe" universe is one we are all familiar with here and one that has been discredited.
There are a number of things wrong with this argument but the main issue is that you are looking at an uncommon occurrence after the event and then asking what the odds are. To give an example, lets say you flip a coin a thousand times and get a given result. What ever the final pattern, the odds of getting that pattern is 1/2^1000th which is a pretty tiny number. The thing is that the odds are exactly the same for every possible outcome. The odds of getting a given outcome are only remote if you were trying to get that outcome from the start.
You think that the odds are impossibly high for the universe to have happened this way because this particular set of values and constants led to us. Anything different would have led to something else but the odds of getting any other universe are as remote as our own. There is absolutely nothing special about this universe except that it led to us, but that’s only special to us. To the universe it means nothing.
Jacko the whole idea of a" finely tuned universe" universe is one we are all familiar with here and one that has been discredited.
There are a number of things wrong with this argument but the main issue is that you are looking at an uncommon occurrence after the event and then asking what the odds are. To give an example, lets say you flip a coin a thousand times and get a given result. What ever the final pattern, the odds of getting that pattern is 1/2^1000th which is a pretty tiny number. The thing is that the odds are exactly the same for every possible outcome. The odds of getting a given outcome are only remote if you were trying to get that outcome from the start.
You think that the odds are impossibly high for the universe to have happened this way because this particular set of values and constants led to us. Anything different would have led to something else but the odds of getting any other universe are as remote as our own. There is absolutely nothing special about this universe except that it led to us, but that's only special to us. To the universe it means nothing.
Are you certain about this? Because last time I checked, we have yet to find life elsewhere in the universe.
Sure, “chance", it’s all nice in theory, but it still evades the FACTS.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have mine.
Here is a good book that talks about how the atomic particles are fine tuned, and geared towards a designer. The name of the book is called: Chance Or Dance: An Evaluation of Design by Jimmy H. Davis, Harry L. Po.
Its starts on page 72, but keep reading till about page 76. A good read!
http://books.google.com/books?id=Z2vw-GSfHPgC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&ots=tZCQVYnC-1&focus=viewport&dq=sub+atomic+particles+and+chance?&output=html_text
Of course particles and elements are fine tuned. They could not exist otherwise. But that is no evidence of conscious engineering, it is proof of evolution, the process of trial and error in a laboratory with unlimited potential (the universe).
Do you know how gold (that sacred precious metal) is made? One might say gold is fashioned in hell (supernova)
Like all elements with atomic numbers larger than iron, gold is thought to have been formed from a supernova nucleosynthesis process,[citation needed] although a newer theory suggests they are made by the collision of neutron stars instead.
and
In a supernova in the depths of space, long, long ago...
According to Tyson, author of Death by Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandries, all gold on Earth started out in the center of a star; he says stars are "in the business of cosmic alchemy."
Jacko the whole idea of a" finely tuned universe" universe is one we are all familiar with here and one that has been discredited.
There are a number of things wrong with this argument but the main issue is that you are looking at an uncommon occurrence after the event and then asking what the odds are. To give an example, lets say you flip a coin a thousand times and get a given result. What ever the final pattern, the odds of getting that pattern is 1/2^1000th which is a pretty tiny number. The thing is that the odds are exactly the same for every possible outcome. The odds of getting a given outcome are only remote if you were trying to get that outcome from the start.
You think that the odds are impossibly high for the universe to have happened this way because this particular set of values and constants led to us. Anything different would have led to something else but the odds of getting any other universe are as remote as our own. There is absolutely nothing special about this universe except that it led to us, but that's only special to us. To the universe it means nothing.
Are you certain about this? Because last time I checked, we have yet to find life elsewhere in the universe.
Sure, “chance", it’s all nice in theory, but it still evades the FACTS.
There doesn't need to be life somewhere else in the universe to validate my point. My whole point is that a universe with no life and some other set of constants is just as unlikely as the particular universe and set of constant that we have. You only think this universe is special because it has life and life is special to you. A universe that lead to no life, or no stars or no atoms at all would be just as special as our own in terms of the remote odds of each of those universes existing.
Here is another way to look at it. Lets say you had a plot of land with a wide variety of random conditions throughout the plot. Some areas are very dry and others are very moist. Some are acidic and some are basic. Some get lots of sun and some are always in shade. Some areas have abundant nutrients and others have none. These areas overlap in random ways so that there are multiple patches each with a different combination of conditions. Now spread grass seed evenly over the entire lot and watch what happens. You will get many areas of no growth where the perfect combination of conditions does not exist but in one or two areas you will have just the right amount of moisture, sunlight, pH, and nutrients so that your seeds flourish. Now if you were a sentient blade of grass you would look at that spot and say this must have been intelligently designed this way otherwise what are the odds that all the conditions I need for life just happened to exist here. But looking at this from the initial set of conditions it was entirely random. The grass just grew where the random conditions where right for them to grow.
The same is true for us. There may have been an infinite number of universes over the infinite expanse of time. This universe wasn't ideally designed for life. Life arose because the conditions were right.
Random chance is the only thing that makes sense. What facts does it evade? How does a belief in a being no one has every seen make more sense?
If you want to talk about “conscious" engineering we can go there.
The author to the book “In search of the holy language" makes this strong point. In so many words, she articulates about the science of “Quantum Mechanics" and the double slit experiment which has been scientifically tested time and time again to get the same results. In this experiment it revolves around an “observer" that changes the path of the particles when they are being observed. Particles are waves, and they become solid matter which consists all around us and creates the environment.
But now a bigger question arises………….. If we are observing things and thus creating our environment here on earth, then who is observing us from afar (universe)?
That would make that observer our conscious Creator?
If you want to talk about “conscious" engineering we can go there.
The author to the book “In search of the holy language" makes this strong point. In so many words, she articulates about the science of “Quantum Mechanics" and the double slit experiment which has been scientifically tested time and time again to get the same results. In this experiment it revolves around an “observer" that changes the path of the particles when they are being observed. Particles are waves, and they become solid matter which consists all around us and creates the environment.
But now a bigger question arises………….. If we are observing things and thus creating our environment here on earth, then who is observing us from afar (universe)?
That would make that observer our conscious Creator?
Or as I said before, it is You who is creating your universe. Your conclusion that therefore an outside observer is necessary is flawed logic.
Yes, this is probably the most common argument that theists have. The only answer I can think of is to turn the tables on him and say, "Well, if everything had to be created, what created your creator?" At which point he will respond by saying his creator always existed. You can respond, "well if your creator always existed, how do you know the universe itself didn't always exist, in one form or another?"
But it's probably not really worth getting into. Ultimately you'll just have to accept one another and agree to disagree.
If you want to talk about “conscious" engineering we can go there.
The author to the book “In search of the holy language" makes this strong point. In so many words, she articulates about the science of “Quantum Mechanics" and the double slit experiment which has been scientifically tested time and time again to get the same results. In this experiment it revolves around an “observer" that changes the path of the particles when they are being observed. Particles are waves, and they become solid matter which consists all around us and creates the environment.
But now a bigger question arises………….. If we are observing things and thus creating our environment here on earth, then who is observing us from afar (universe)?
That would make that observer our conscious Creator?
Or as I said before, it is You who is creating your universe. Your conclusion that therefore an outside observer is necessary is flawed logic.
Tell that to the science of Quantum Mechanics then, because it dictates otherwise!
It is not merely me, just making an assessment on the obvious data.
In this experiment it revolves around an “observer" that changes the path of the particles when they are being observed.
All you've done here is shown a complete misunderstanding of the observer affect. PBS has done some good work on explaining quantum physics, you should check them out.
In this experiment it revolves around an “observer" that changes the path of the particles when they are being observed.
All you've done here is shown a complete misunderstanding of the observer affect. PBS has done some good work on explaining quantum physics, you should check them out.
Don’t just tell me I have a complete misunderstanding of the observer affect; tell me exactly what that "misunderstanding" is?
I’ve watched PBS and have read many articles on the findings of QM. So please do share?
In this experiment it revolves around an “observer" that changes the path of the particles when they are being observed.
All you've done here is shown a complete misunderstanding of the observer affect. PBS has done some good work on explaining quantum physics, you should check them out.
Don’t just tell me I have a complete misunderstanding of the observer affect; tell me exactly what that "misunderstanding" is?
I’ve watched PBS and have read many articles on the findings of QM. So please do share?
Don't just tell me what to post. This is a forum, not your personal space for demanding explanations. You have demonstrated that you are not interested in listening to the opinions of others, that you will take just about anything and relate it back to the Bible. It would be a dis-service to you for me to attempt to explain QM, something I am not an expert in, and something you don't show a desire to understand.
Tell me more about how you arrived at these conclusions of yours. Show me that you are making inquiries, not just making claims about how an experiment involving light waves/particles leads to a conclusion that there is a god-consciousness. Then I might consider doing something other than pointing out where you are wrong (in my opinion of course, because in the end, that's all we got).
In this experiment it revolves around an “observer" that changes the path of the particles when they are being observed.
All you've done here is shown a complete misunderstanding of the observer affect. PBS has done some good work on explaining quantum physics, you should check them out.
Don’t just tell me I have a complete misunderstanding of the observer affect; tell me exactly what that "misunderstanding" is?
I’ve watched PBS and have read many articles on the findings of QM. So please do share?
Don't just tell me what to post. This is a forum, not your personal space for demanding explanations. You have demonstrated that you are not interested in listening to the opinions of others, that you will take just about anything and relate it back to the Bible. It would be a dis-service to you for me to attempt to explain QM, something I am not an expert in, and something you don't show a desire to understand.
Tell me more about how you arrived at these conclusions of yours. Show me that you are making inquiries, not just making claims about how an experiment involving light waves/particles leads to a conclusion that there is a god-consciousness. Then I might consider doing something other than pointing out where you are wrong (in my opinion of course, because in the end, that's all we got).
Why do I get the sense of hostility from you? I posted something and you called it out saying it was incorrect, so I then ask you to clarify what is wrong. You claim I am incorrect and then say you are NOT an expert, and refuse to cite sources other than PBS.
In any event I will submit this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_BzTMeV4HI