Creation vs. Evolution

[FoolKiller]

Let me put it this way.

You (not necessarily you, but someone): "God created the universe".
Me: "Who created God?"
You: "God exists outside of time, he has always been"
Me: "That doesn't answer my question. Why does God exist?"
You: "God exists because in some alternate dimension, outside of time, energy exists and can become sentient"
Me: "Where does the energy come from?"
You: "It comes from a manifold in the membrane of that particular dimension".
Me: "Where did the membrane, manifold, and dimension come from"
You: "It comes from something called Marklar, which is clearly the result of any infinite dimensional space"
Me: "Where did the infinite dimensional space come from"
You: "I can derive an infinite dimensional space from nothing at all."

Do you not see that you are placing time constraints on your argument?

 

[Famine]

Do you not see that you are placing time constraints on your argument?

Me: But where does the time come from?

 

[Danoff]

Do you not see that you are placing time constraints on your argument?

There's no time constraint there. Only a source. A source does not imply time. For example, the presence of the Sun creates a gravitational pull independently of time. It simply creates one. Now, perhaps that gravity signature propagates through time, but I know of nothing that says that it takes time to actually generate the gravity wave.

You keep coming back and trying to place time constraints on my argument - I'm not sure why. But I assure you that it's not necessary. Edit: Afterall, as Famine points out, I'm talking about the creation of time as well.

If Hawking radiation particles naturally arise from space-time, I don't care how long it takes from them to appear, or whether it takes any time at all, or whether it happens back in time. All I care about is the cause - which in this case would be the existence of space-time.

 

[FoolKiller]

There's no time constraint there. Only a source. A source does not imply time.

But if something exists separate from time then it always was because there was no previous, before, or source. There is no beginning to something without time. It just is.

The moment you ask for a source you apply a time constraint because it implies a before. If there is no before how can there be a source?

 

[Sage]

But then you can’t have an after either, and we know that that is not true, since we exist in that after.

 

[Duke]

If God were limited by our own understanding, I could follow your logic. This, however, is not the case.

With all due respect, I find this suspiciously convenient. But we both know our stances on that topic and so no need to retread old material.

 

[FoolKiller]

But then you can’t have an after either, and we know that that is not true, since we exist in that after.

But as the assumption would be that God created time and exists outside of time our after is not his after, because he does not have an after.

 

[Danoff]

But if something exists separate from time then it always was because there was no previous, before, or source. There is no beginning to something without time. It just is.

I'm with you so far...

The moment you ask for a source you apply a time constraint because it implies a before. If there is no before how can there be a source?

If something exists truly independent of time then it was never created. But that does not mean it isn't caused. If god exists independent of time that does not invalidate the question of why god exists as opposed to not existing.

Whatever the reason is that he exists is the "cause" or "source".

 

[FoolKiller]

If something exists truly independent of time then it was never created. But that does not mean it isn't caused. If god exists independent of time that does not invalidate the question of why god exists as opposed to not existing.

Whatever the reason is that he exists is the "cause" or "source".

Why does there have to be a reason for his existence, or a cause, or a source?


And are you seriously trying to explain something causing God's existence without implying time? Or am I reading you wrong?

 

[Famine]

Why does there have to be a reason for his existence, or a cause, or a source?

"Why anything?"

Because.

 

[FoolKiller]

I had a feeling I was coming around in a circle.

 

[Danoff]

Why does there have to be a reason for his existence, or a cause, or a source?

Unless you're a 4 year old, "because" is not an answer. I find it troubling that someone as intelligent as yourself might be satisfied with that. You're simply not interested in the question of why God exists... you don't care at all... it's just sufficient for you that God somehow exists... why do you need any explanation for why we're here then? When I ask why human beings are here, why don't you just say "because" and be done with it?

And are you seriously trying to explain something causing God's existence without implying time? Or am I reading you wrong?

Yes.... what's so hard to fathom about that? I'm also trying to claim that we need an explanation for what causes space and time to exist... so... yea... I'm saying that it has to happen independent of time. If it requires time to occur - then I have to ask where the time came from. At some point you get back to nothing - not even time.

 

[dylansan]

I may be way off here but what if I said there had to be something to cause nothing?
What if I said in the beginning there was everything?

 

[FoolKiller]

Unless you're a 4 year old, "because" is not an answer. I find it troubling that someone as intelligent as yourself might be satisfied with that. You're simply not interested in the question of why God exists... you don't care at all... it's just sufficient for you that God somehow exists... why do you need any explanation for why we're here then? When I ask why human beings are here, why don't you just say "because" and be done with it?

I believe you have misinterpreted me here.

I am not saying, "Does it matter?" I am saying, is it not possible that there is not an answer and the fact that the idea of that is so mindblowingly out there that you refuse to accept it as a possibility?

The fact is: it is impossible to know the answer to that now. Anything I say is purely speculation and you would call me on it.

Yes.... what's so hard to fathom about that?

If you are to assume God exists, then why is it so hard to fathom that there is no cause?

It is like you take one step outside of your logic bubble for the sake of an argument but then refuse to go further. Quite frankly, it looks like you decided to assume God's existence just to make an argument to prove God is nothing.

I'm also trying to claim that we need an explanation for what causes space and time to exist... so... yea... I'm saying that it has to happen independent of time. If it requires time to occur - then I have to ask where the time came from. At some point you get back to nothing - not even time.

So, could we assume that there really is no such thing as time and it is purely a made up measure of relativity created by humans?

 

[dylansan]

If there was nothing to begin with, what could possibly cause something to appear? I just don't think you can restrict the universe to what we have been able to observe. From our perspective, there may be cause and effect for everything, but haw do we know there has to be a cause for the Universe?

Oh, and you guys should check out this if you haven't already.

 

[Danoff]

I may be way off here but what if I said there had to be something to cause nothing?
What if I said in the beginning there was everything?

Where did everything come from? Nothing is the absence of cause. By it's very definition, nothing is the most basic state that the universe could start from. Perhaps I need more elaboration from you here.

I believe you have misinterpreted me here.

Apologies.

I am not saying, "Does it matter?" I am saying, is it not possible that there is not an answer and the fact that the idea of that is so mindblowingly out there that you refuse to accept it as a possibility?

I'm going to assume you didn't mean to put that "not" in there. No, I don't wish to entertain the possibility that there is no answer. If that were the case, then logic would cease to exist. It is possible that logic does not exist, but that concept denies all rational thought and assumes that human beings cannot know or learn about their nature. One simply can't function under that premise.

The fact is: it is impossible to know the answer to that now. Anything I say is purely speculation and you would call me on it.

Quite. But we can understand the form that the answer must take.

If you are to assume God exists, then why is it so hard to fathom that there is no cause?

Because it nullifies all rational thought. Here's my interpretation of this conversation:

Me: If we exist in a rational universe, I can use logic to deduce that we are the natural conclusion of nothing existing at all.

You: What if we don't live in a rational universe.

If we don't live in a rational universe, then existence is pointless.

It is like you take one step outside of your logic bubble for the sake of an argument but then refuse to go further. Quite frankly, it looks like you decided to assume God's existence just to make an argument to prove God is nothing.

I'm not trying to prove that God is nothing. I'm trying to prove that if there is a God, he is the logical outcome of nothing. That's not the same thing as him being nothing. If God is the natural outcome of nothing, and we are the natural outcome of God - I could use your line of reasoning to say that we are nothing... but that wouldn't be accurate.

So, could we assume that there really is no such thing as time and it is purely a made up measure of relativity created by humans?

We give the label "time" to an observable physical phenomenon. We know it exists because we can observe and measure it.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm going to assume you didn't mean to put that "not" in there.

Oops, been distracted today.

No, I don't wish to entertain the possibility that there is no answer. If that were the case, then logic would cease to exist.

Yet, you find logic in thinking everything derived from nothing and somehow a cause in that nothing spawned everything? Or am I reading you wrong?

It is possible that logic does not exist, but that concept denies all rational thought and assumes that human beings cannot know or learn about their nature. One simply can't function under that premise.

Or it is possible that because of things beyond our knowledge that whatever answer, or lack of, does not fit into your idea of logic. It could be perfectly logical and rational, but not by your current understanding.

Quite. But we can understand the form that the answer must take.

Can we? Do we have all the information to even understand that much?

Because it nullifies all rational thought. Here's my interpretation of this conversation:

Me: If we exist in a rational universe, I can use logic to deduce that we are the natural conclusion of nothing existing at all.

You: What if we don't live in a rational universe.

If we don't live in a rational universe, then existence is pointless.

I'm just questioning your idea of rational. The answer to these questions could indeed seem rational, but is your idea of rational based purely on your personal observation and ideas? Could you be lacking information that makes these possible answers seem rational?

We give the label "time" to an observable physical phenomenon. We know it exists because we can observe and measure it.

How do we measure time?

 

[Danoff]

Yet, you find logic in thinking everything derived from nothing and somehow a cause in that nothing spawned everything? Or am I reading you wrong?

I don't find logic in that explanation. I use logic to come to that conclusion. If you're asking me if I find that a logical explanation, the answer is yes. I find it to be the only possible explanation that basic logic allows.

Or it is possible that because of things beyond our knowledge that whatever answer, or lack of, does not fit into your idea of logic. It could be perfectly logical and rational, but not by your current understanding.

I'm not denying that there are without doubt aspects of this that I do not understand. Even allowing for that, I come to the conclusion that one must start with nothing to properly explain everything. It's not that there would be some sort of new understanding that could come about that would invalidate that conclusion but fit within the framework of logic - it would invalidate rational thought altogether.

Can we? Do we have all the information to even understand that much?

Yes. Because we understand what constitutes a satisfactory answer... one that leaves behind no questions. The only answer the leaves behind no questions is one that incorporates a derivation of the universe from nothing. I can hear you over there asking how I know there is an answer that leaves behind no questions - but I've already answered that. I do not wish to entertain the possibility that the universe does not make sense. It nullifies rational thought.

but is your idea of rational based purely on your personal observation and ideas?

No. Logic is based on very little actually.

Could you be lacking information that makes these possible answers seem rational?

No, I've ignored what the actual answer is because I know that I do not have the knowledge to find it. Instead I'm concentrating on the form of the answer, which is something I have some bounds for.

How do we measure time?

Usually by observing movement.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Danoff im pretty sure i understand what your saying..

If god/Universe is a direct result of having nothing, does that mean that their never was "nothing"? because its impossible to have nothing, as something has to exist?. Because as soon as you have nothing, God/universe pops up, as they are a result of nothing?. does that then mean there will never be "nothing" as god/universe is a direct result of having nothing, then you can never have nothing? Which means we didnt really have a beginning, and we wont have an end.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff im pretty sure i understand what your saying..

If god/Universe is a direct result of having nothing, does that mean that their never was "nothing"? because its impossible to have nothing, as something has to exist?. Because as soon as you have nothing, God/universe pops up, as they are a result of nothing?. does that then mean there will never be "nothing" as god/universe is a direct result of having nothing, then you can never have nothing? Which means we didnt really have a beginning, and we wont have an end.

Yup. Glad to hear that it's coming across.

 

[Danoff]

FK, let me try another angle:

Assumptions:
A implies B
A

Now. We did not assume B above. We assumed A and that A implies B. From this (and modus-whatever-it's-called) we can conclude B.

There is no time required for B to pop into existence. The existence of A, and the existence of the rule "A implies B" require B to exist. This is how I propose that time does not impact this discussion. Somehow, from nothing, we must be able to conclude everything. Some of it might require time to develop, some of it might not.

 

[El Drifto]

All I will say is:

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I find the evolution theory a bit, funny.

 

[Shannon]

Some interesting points raised in this thread. I thik Danoff's argument is a good one, if I understand it correctly.

We all agree that God is something, right? But something can not exist prior to something else. The heavens could not exist prior to the big bang, and the big bang could not have existed prior to a whole bunch of energy having a party in the one spot, and so on. If God is something, he is not exception to this rule. Something must have existed before him, and we know the only thing that can exist prior to anything else — is nothing. But if God has always existed, then he must be the direct result of nothing, because nothing is the only thing that can feasibly exist before him.

More food for thought: If the universe, and by 'universe' I mean a big empty void before the big bang or whatever theory you believe in, has also always existed, does that mean God is the universe? He is not some all knowing, big bearded, benevolent guy in the sky wearing a nice white robe. He is the planets, stars, time, energy, mass, the particles that make up you and I, every inch of quantum matter that exists. There is no heaven: you meet God when you decompose back into the very matter and energy that makes up the universe that is invariably, God.

This also makes the Creation vs Evolution argument invalid. If God is the universe and everything that exists, they are the same damn thing.

 

[Smallhorses]

All I will say is:

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I find the evolution theory a bit, funny.

Can I just take 2 minutes to debunk the first two paragraphs of that article, and it's supposedly "clever" highlighted phrases?

The Earth has existed for 4.5 Billion years.
Bacteria appeared 4 Billion years ago.
Man has existed for something like 160,000 years. (Reference Wikipedia: Timeline Of Human Evolution)
We've had the capability to view bacteria for around 400 years. (Reference Wikipedia: Microscope)

Thus, man has had the capability to view and study bacteria for 1/10 millionth of the time it took for them to evolve. Can you seriously stand by the arguement that bacteria have never evolved into anything else purely because they've been observed not to by man over a time period that corresponds to 0.0000001% of a bacteria's existence?
Not to mention that the bacteria studied today, are not the same as the original bacteria that evolved billions of years ago, and will themselves take several billion years to evolve into intelligent life.
When man has studied bacteria for 4 Billion years and they've still not changed at all, I'll happily accept this argument. Until then....

I'm not even going to get started on the "mirror-image" RNA/DNA bit later on, I'll leave that to Touring Mars or another biochemist, but I will note the absence of a mention to a certain really important enzyme known as RNA Polymerase, which converts DNA to RNA, and after that the RNA is "decoded" to make the proteins which cause your body, or an ant's body, or a bacteria's "body" to perform certain tasks.

 

[Famine]

All I will say is:

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I find the evolution theory a bit, funny.

Oh wow. That person really, truly understands nothing at all. It's like they've read the first page of the book and the last page and not bothered with any of the rest of the story in the middle - and is then telling you what happened with absolute conviction. There's too many errors to even begin to correct them.

However, if you want to extract some points you believe are key ones, I'll give it a whirl.

 

[Duke]

All I will say is:

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I find the evolution theory a bit, funny.

I love how these people always claim that bacteria have never evolved since they been observed. Putting Smallhorses's excellent (and accurate) debunking aside, bacteria have been evolving under human observation for as long as we've been observing them! To say they have not is an outright lie.

Ever heard of MRSA? Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus? It's a new strain of staphylococcus bacteria that has evolved a resistance to wide-band antibiotics in recent years. Its environment has changed with the advent of modern medicine, and guess what? It evolved in response! The increasing number of strains that are developing a resistance to an increasing number of antibiotics has been documented for more than 50 years!

Do yourself a favor - if you don't want to accept evolution, don't. But be honest with yourself and just say "I'd rather believe in the supernatural" and do not try to paste a thin veneer of bad non-science over it.

 

[FoolKiller]

Danoff im pretty sure i understand what your saying..

If god/Universe is a direct result of having nothing, does that mean that their never was "nothing"? because its impossible to have nothing, as something has to exist?. Because as soon as you have nothing, God/universe pops up, as they are a result of nothing?. does that then mean there will never be "nothing" as god/universe is a direct result of having nothing, then you can never have nothing? Which means we didnt really have a beginning, and we wont have an end.

Yup. Glad to hear that it's coming across.

This right here, this is why I never, ever studied physics beyond basic understanding. The moment I think, hey this is really intriguing I find myself quickly wandering into the realm of nothing is everything and everything is nothing and we never began or ended (head explodes).

I may just be out of my league here, especially considering my specialty is telecommunications and I am up against an astrophysics specialist. But if anyone has any questions about media demographics, media research, and media PR, I am your guy.

FK, let me try another angle:

There is no time required for B to pop into existence. The existence of A, and the existence of the rule "A implies B" require B to exist. This is how I propose that time does not impact this discussion. Somehow, from nothing, we must be able to conclude everything. Some of it might require time to develop, some of it might not.

So, because A is there B must be there and there is no process, which would require time, for B to get there?

I'm really not trying to be difficult. Hopefully a new morning with a fresher, albeit sleep-deprived, mind will help.

 

[Pako]

Yea,

I purposefully used "arising" because it was nebulous. Even if he only "arises" on a blackboard, but in reality has always been - it still has to be shown that God is the result of nothing.

Let me try it another way. Somehow it must be shown that "nothing" is impossible. That if you assume "nothing" you get "god" - thereby proving that it isn't possible to ever have "nothing".

Does that help?

I am really trying to wrap my head around this but I don't see how God has to be the result of anything. To say that God is the result of anything (be it something or nothing) you are imposing a beginning on God, an origin, a birth of sorts. If God is eternal, not bound by time, if He has always been, there is no beginning for God. God is not a result, He is not a bi-product, His existence is/was not dependent on anything or lack there of, He has always been and will always be.

If I understand you, you are trying to point out the beginning of God. His origin as the result of nothing. In showing that nothing is impossible, you are showing that God is impossible.

I can follow your logic IF God was NOT eternal, but this is not the case to my understanding of God.

 

[Danoff]

I am up against an astrophysics specialist.

To be fair, that's not entirely accurate. I'm an orbital dynamics specialist. I know about lumpy gravity fields and trajectory propagation in n-body fields. Not astrophysics - which is more like worm holes and n-dimensions.

So, because A is there B must be there and there is no process, which would require time, for B to get there?

That's right. A implies B exists. I'm saying similarly, nothing may imply that something exists.

Edit:

I am really trying to wrap my head around this but I don't see how God has to be the result of anything. To say that God is the result of anything (be it something or nothing) you are imposing a beginning on God, an origin, a birth of sorts.

Not really. Logically, B is the result of the premises "A" and "A implies B". That doesn't mean B was created. B, A, and the rule, A implies B, may be eternal, have no beginnings and no end. (BTW - in this case, B is god/universe, A is nothing, and A implies B is the step I'm saying must exist).

If God is eternal, not bound by time, if He has always been, there is no beginning for God. God is not a result, He is not a bi-product, His existence is/was not dependent on anything or lack there of, He has always been and will always be.

Some of that is right, and some of that is wrong. If God is eternal, then yes he is not bound by time (by definition), he has always been without beginning. He can still be the logical or natural result of "nothing". That doesn't mean he's a bi-product. It's basically a proof saying that God must exist and for all time. If God/universe logically follows from nothing (which I think must be the case), that means God/universe has always existed - because it is not possible for nothing at all to ever exist. Basically I'm saying that "nothing" is impossible. Because if you start with nothing in your logical proof (not in reality), then you can derive the existence of god/universe.

If I understand you, you are trying to point out the beginning of God. His origin as the result of nothing. In show that nothing is impossible, you are showing that God is impossible.

Quite the opposite. I'm trying to point out the God/universe has no beginning, and that nothing is impossible because god/universe will always exist. Nothing only exists in the proof. Not in reality. Because the proof will show that nothing implies something.

 

[Pako]

You keep saying key words like 'result' and 'following' which implies some sort of time-line and a logical order in which things must happen. Maybe this is where my confusion is.