There are much more than two theories, and creationism is not a theory it is a religious belief. Nor does evolution "say" it happened by a series of accidents.
Why are we here?
Sort:
Dec 24, 2020
0
#3
"Isn't it obvious that somebody had to have done this?" - not to me.
And if you accept the premise that the Universe was 'created' with purpose, you're left with the question of why & how the creator came into existence.
The whole "who created the Creator?" response has always struck me as a red herring and non-response/nonsensical. If X created Y, then the question who created X, even if left unanswered, would not change the fact that X still created Y. But besides that, pretty much everyone understands "God," however defined, as a noncontingent being, and a non-contingent by definition can never not exist, and is an uncreated, uncaused ("prime/first mover") cause as a matter of course. Now someone may complain that this is convenient, but those who do so, still end up postulating their own non-contingent, uncaused cause (such as a "universe" or "multiverse" that has always existed). Whether one adopts metaphysical naturalism or supernaturalism, an infinite regress of endless causes doesn't make sense. Ultimately, it would seem we have to ground reality in some initial, uncaused non-contingency, whether that be the "universe/multiverse" or God.
Dec 25, 2020
0
#5
"you're left with the question of why & how the creator came into existence"
I didn't include "or by whose hand the creator came into existence" on purpose, because that would imply an infinite series of causes & effects - who created the creator's creator and so on....
Invoking the concept of a creator doesn't answer questions in my mind, it only multiplies them. I see no reason whatsoever to accept that a so-called non-contingent creator exists.
It's religious smoke & mirrors to me.
stephen_33 wrote:
"you're left with the question of why & how the creator came into existence"
I didn't include "or by whose hand the creator came into existence" on purpose, because that would imply an infinite series of causes & effects - who created the creator's creator and so on....
Invoking the concept of a creator doesn't answer questions in my mind, it only multiplies them. I see no reason whatsoever to accept that a so-called non-contingent creator exists.
It's religious smoke & mirrors to me.
It's certainly within your right to disagree, but the "argument" itself of "who created God?" is still a bit of a strawman, since theists don't posit a contingent, created God, but posit a non-contingent, uncreated one.
Dec 25, 2020
0
#7
Gabriel1326 wrote:
Lets ask a serious question. We have two theories that attempt to explain our origins. Creation says an intelligent designer created and designed the earth to support life. Evolution says it happened by a series of accidents. Be honest. Which one makes sense? Isn't it obvious that somebody had to have done this?
You are comparing apples and oranges; creation is a singular event, while evolution is an ongoing process. Both could be true one does not automatically mean the other is false, but when you get into the weeds and start talking about each in detail, then the comparisons to what could be true and not become clearer. We must examine our notions about the past with what we know is true today unless we want to deny the same rules today could be applied to the distant past.
Dec 25, 2020
0
#8
tbwp10 wrote:
It's certainly within your right to disagree, but the "argument" itself of "who created God?" is still a bit of a strawman, since theists don't posit a contingent, created God, but posit a non-contingent, uncreated one.
That always seems a rather arbitrary explanation, insisting on a cause for the material Cosmos that itself requires no cause. But then much the same can be said of the material, that it came into existence from some precursor state that itself requires no cause.
stephen_33 wrote:
tbwp10 wrote:
It's certainly within your right to disagree, but the "argument" itself of "who created God?" is still a bit of a strawman, since theists don't posit a contingent, created God, but posit a non-contingent, uncreated one.
That always seems a rather arbitrary explanation, insisting on a cause for the material Cosmos that itself requires no cause. But then much the same can be said of the material, that it came into existence from some precursor state that itself requires no cause.
Correct. That was my point. If not God, then something else. If we can't have an endless, infinite number of causes in the past, then at some point we must reach an initial uncaused cause: a non-contingent (i.e., some X that must exist necessarily; that can't *not* exist).
God has existed forever and is eternal. That is impossible for us to grasp because we are His creation. Just as it is impossible for a dog to understand why a man would read a newspaper, it is impossible for us as created beings to comprehend the infinite God.
Naturalism is just not enough to explain life. The laws of science could not have made themselves up. A creator had to do this.
Gabriel1326 wrote:
Naturalism is just not enough to explain life. The laws of science could not have made themselves up. A creator had to do this.
Now this is a valid point. Agreed. We also have no convincing naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.
Dec 26, 2020
0
#13
tbwp10 wrote:
Gabriel1326 wrote:
Naturalism is just not enough to explain life. The laws of science could not have made themselves up. A creator had to do this.
Now this is a valid point. Agreed. We also have no convincing naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.
Why? That needs explaining. The 'laws of science' merely reflect the fact that there is underlying order in our Universe. How precisely are we to be certain that such order cannot exist without a creator?
That seems to be racing way ahead of all current knowledge on the subject.
Dec 26, 2020
0
#14
Gabriel1326 wrote:
God has existed forever and is eternal. That is impossible for us to grasp because we are His creation. Just as it is impossible for a dog to understand why a man would read a newspaper, it is impossible for us as created beings to comprehend the infinite God.
Personally I'm very skeptical about that but I always try to keep an open mind. If we should ever get to the point that we decide the Universe could only have come into existence at the behest of a conscious entity of some kind, you'll need to revise your thinking as much as any atheist I strongly believe.
Forget all the gods of human religion, the one we'll have to acknowledge will be an entirely different species.
stephen_33 wrote:
tbwp10 wrote:
Gabriel1326 wrote:
Naturalism is just not enough to explain life. The laws of science could not have made themselves up. A creator had to do this.
Now this is a valid point. Agreed. We also have no convincing naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.
Why? That needs explaining. The 'laws of science' merely reflect the fact that there is underlying order in our Universe. How precisely are we to be certain that such order cannot exist without a creator?
That seems to be racing way ahead of all current knowledge on the subject.
The order of the physical universe is a separate problem of its own. The problem touched on here goes beyond that: it is the problem of math, the mind and the physical universe. The existence of mind (consciousness) has always been problematic for the die-hard materialist. How can the physical create non-physical thought and consciousness that has no physical dimensions and how can non-physical conscious thought control the physical?
Then there is the debate about mathematics with mathematical realists (Platonists) on one side arguing that mathematical objects are non-physical abstract objects that are nevertheless truly real, while the non-realists argue that mathematical objects have no independent basis in reality and are simply the product of human thought and imagination. The former may seem like a ridiculous notion but this is actually a matter of ongoing debate with strong points on each side. For example, the famous mathematician Roger Penrose argues that fractal patterns are not mental constructs, but has its own (Platonic) existence.
So how does this relate to the physical universe? Well, Einstein got us thinking about this problem. Here's how one mathematician describes it:
"The nature of the relationship between mathematics and the physical world has been a source of debate since the era of the Pythagoreans. A school of thought, reflecting the ideas of Plato, is that mathematics has its own existence. Flowing from this proposition is the notion that mathematical forms underpin the physical universe and are out there waiting to be discovered. The opposing viewpoint is that mathematical forms are objects of our human imagination and we make them up as we go along, tailoring them to describe reality. In 1921, this view led Einstein to wonder, 'How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?' In 1959, Eugene Winger coined the phrase 'the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics' to describe this 'miracle,' conceding that it was something he could not fathom."
Thus, if mathematics (including mathematical formulations of the laws of the universe) are the product of non-physical human thought, then how do we explain the unexpected and improbable coincidence that a product of the non-physical mind should describe physical reality so well?
The typical "answer" is that it is just a happy coincidence. But that is no explanation at all.
Respectable arguments for theism have been put forth based on problems like these: the problem of order, the problem of human thought, the problem of human consciousness, the problem of "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" to describe the physical universe, and to this we can add the problem of why the physical universe should exhibit such order and inviolable regularities of nature (physical laws). And if the Platonists are right and the physical laws are not simply descriptions of reality, but non-physical realities that govern the universe, then their existence becomes difficult to explain (i.e., the physical universe functioning according to physical laws that are not themselves physical).
There are of course those who object to these arguments. But regardless of that, they are still valid points to raise.
Dec 27, 2020
0
#16
I was taking issue specifically with "The laws of science could not have made themselves up"
It seems a rather thoughtless thing to write because when has anyone suggested they did? The 'laws of science', such as they are, were formulated by people observing how natural systems work.
If I throw a pebble into the air, I can calculate to some degree of precision where it will land using calculus, provided I know how air resistance & the force of gravity affect its path. But the pebble itself doesn't perform any calculation in order to travel through the air & then fall to the ground. The mathematics we use to describe such events is simply a much more precise form of human language.
"The laws of science" are part of human culture. An ordered Cosmos doesn't require laws to function - we create laws in order to express our understanding of that order.
Might it be better to pose the question, how can anything be ordered without a creator?
Whether the laws of physics are realities in themselves or constructs of human thought (which is also a reality) is a matter of ongoing debate. If the mathematical Platonists are right then the universe runs according to the laws of physics and the laws are not simply a human description. I would see the order of the universe as a separate, but yes, still related aspect. Whether the universe is ordered according to laws, or the laws are a description of that order the laws of the physical universe still have an independent *non-physical* reality either in themselves or in the human mind that still accords with the physical universe, which is difficult to explain.
Dec 27, 2020
0
#18
"..the laws of the physical universe still have an independent *non-physical* reality either in themselves or in the human mind that still accords with the physical universe"
I'm sitting here looking at a vase on my coffee table. If I close my eyes & think about the object, can we say it has a *non-physical* reality, by virtue of all my thoughts being non-physical? Viewed that way, does your statement have very much meaning?
I understand what I mean by order in the physical Universe, at least insofar as that Universe doesn't instantly collapse on itself. And I understand how we can observe interactions between the component parts of 'the physical' and use language to describe them & the language of mathematics to make predictions about the outcomes from those interactions.
But I don't understand your assertion above.
Anyway, I see an obvious flaw in this: "an independent *non-physical* reality either in themselves or in the human mind". If it's only in the human mind, then are you saying such laws only came into being with the advent of human consciousness? That doesn't make much sense to me.
If the 'laws' of the physical universe are to have an independent *non-physical* reality in any way that we can understand, they must do so independently of any conscious mind, surely?
As I said, that question is a matter of ongoing debate. Do the physical laws of the universe have a *non-physical* reality of their own independent of the physical, material universe? Platonists would argue yes, non-Platonists would argue no, and that they're simply a product of *non-physical* human thought and imagination. Either way, there's no reason why non-physical math should be so effective at describing our physical universe.
Dec 28, 2020
0
#20
For the proper understanding of what I'm going to say, I suspect I should note the following terminology:
(1) For truth-valued statements:
A necessarily true statement is one that cannot be false.
A necessarily false statement is one that cannot be true.
A necessary statement is one that is either necessarily true or necessarily false.
A contingent statement is one that is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false.
(2) For metaphysical existents:
A necessarily existent being is one that must exist--it cannot fail to exist.
A necessarily non-existent being (or "impossible being") is one that must fail to exist--it cannot exist.
A necessary being is one that either necessarily exists or necessarily does not exist--it is either necessarily existent or necessarily non-existent.
A contingent being is one is that could possibly exist but could possibly fail to exist.
(3) Because of the possible confusion between a necessary being (one which either necessarily exists or necessarily fails to exist) and a necessarily existent being (one which necessarily exists), I will try to remember to use "non-contingent being" when I mean one that either necessarily exists or necessarily fails to exist.
(4) There are different kinds of possibility and necessity.
A logically necessarily true statement is a truth-valued statement that is tautological and whose negation would be a logical contradiction.
A logically necessarily false statement is a truth-valued statement that is a logical contradiction.
A logically possibly true statement is a truth-valued statement that is not logically contradictory and whose negation would also not be logically contradictory.
A physically necessarily true statement is one whose falsehood would violate physical law.
A physically necessarily false statement is one whose truth would violate physical law.
A physically possibly true statement is one whose truth would not violate physical law but whose falsehood also would not violate physical law.
Those who talk about God sometimes speak of "ontological necessity" and of "ontological possibility." I do not really understand what they mean. Alvin Plantinga speaks of "broadly logical possibility and necessity." I gather the idea is to talk about what the structure of metaphysical reality would allow or make necessary, but I don't really understand it, and I'll probably stick to logical possibility and necessity.
Lets ask a serious question. We have two theories that attempt to explain our origins. Creation says an intelligent designer created and designed the earth to support life. Evolution says it happened by a series of accidents. Be honest. Which one makes sense? Isn't it obvious that somebody had to have done this?