Creationism Logical or Illogical?

[questor]

i know that by now most of you are burned out on this subject, since no scientific proof of creation exists. since there is no scientific proof, i would argue that there is much stronger evidence for than against creation, and i think logic supports this view while it is illogical to think otherwise. those that need a break from this subject can abstain while i give my side of the argument.

this has nothing to do with any religion, and does not presuppose a diety. i hope we can have this discussion without the mention of God.

Reasons for creation;

1. the actual existence of the universe points to a creator. something had to initiate the BB or whatever process formed the universe.

2. order. the universe ehibits order in that there are forces that induce balance and homeostasis ( human and mechanical) throughout the universe.

if not for order, chaos would ensue.

3. planning. the universe exhibits an overall plan which prevents it from flying apart. everything seems to work in predictable fashion. examples: GR and Quantum

there are natural laws ( many of which we have discovered) that ensure a

stable and predictable outcome for most events.

4. intelligence exists and we are aware of it. how could intelligence exist

unless there was a primal source for it?

5. existence of physical and natural law and math. further evidence of intelligent planning.

6. existence of energy and matter and the relationship between the two

shows intelligent planning.

 

i'm sure some would say these are random ocurrences, but random occurences all seem to fit within the overall system of order. would anyone have some good evidence that refutes this logic?

[Tormod]

Yes, we are burned out on this subject. Your questions bring *nothing* new into the discussion, nothing that you cannot take up in the already existing threads on the subject.

[Queso]

Illogical, without a doubt :surprise:

[Erasmus00]

Why keep dredging up this stuff? You've recieved responses to very similar queries in other threads. That, and your queries aren't "more logical" at all. I

 

1. the actual existence of the universe points to a creator. something had to initiate the BB or whatever process formed the universe.

 

Lots of things happen without "causes." See vacuum fluctuation.

 

2,3,4 and 5 are pretty much the same thing. I point out that the only thing required for "natural laws" and science is that events be describeable and at least statistically repeatable. I point out that neither of these things necessarily require intelligent input.

 

4. intelligence exists and we are aware of it. how could intelligence exist unless there was a primal source for it?

 

You seem to be implying that intelligence can only come from intelligence. I believe this is logically flawed. While we don't have any concrete theory of intelligence, I point out that your brain is made up of entirely unintelligent matter. So intelligence seems to be an emergent phenomenon in no way requiring input intelligence.

 

6. existence of energy and matter and the relationship between the two shows intelligent planning.

 

The "existance of energy" is really just a way of saying things are symmetric in time. No need for any intelligent planning, lots of unplanned things show symmetry.

-Will

[CraigD]

Illogical, without a doubt :surprise:

Although I consider the 6 claims in post #1 to be unsubstantiated by ordinary evidence or logic, and insufficiently defined to be considered as formal postulates, I don’t think we can any more conclude that a model of reality including a creator – intelligent/conscious or otherwise – is untrue or illogical than we can conclude that a model of reality without one is untrue or illogical.

 

The problems with pursuing the question asked by this thread are several, including:

• The use of the term “creationism” to mean “a model of reality containing a creator, instant of creation, or first cause” is a “transfer” fallacy. “Creationism” has a widely understood common meaning not in good agreement with the one implied in post #1 – I believe few self-identifying creationists would consent to a discussion of creationism “without the mention of God”, while few opponents of creationism would be willing to use the term as the name of a formal physical theory
  
• There is a paucity of scientific tools available to assist us. This is not to say there is not an uncomplicated answer to the question, only that it is unlikely any member of this forum, or human being on Earth, has the ability to approach it in a manner supportable by experiment. As a Science site, we should be wary of discarding the Scientific method.
  
• There is an extensive literature related to this question in the academic discipline of Theology, not well known to non-specialists. Although Hypography is meant to bring Science of all kinds to non-specialists, I believe we’d be overly ambitious to take on the mission of bringing Theology to people without specialized Theology backgrounds. Theology is not easy reading, and should not, IMHO, be undertaken lightly.
  

I don’t mean to give the impression that questions of this kind are beyond our ability to meaningfully and productively discuss. Rather, I think this question could be discussed better if broken down more specific questions such as:

• Could the universe have been created by an advanced technological civilization?
  
• Has the universe always existed?
  
• Could the universe have been created by causality-violating events to occur in the far future?
  

I believe all these have been discussed in some depth already, but could always be revisited.

[questor]

i put on this thread to initiate some logical permutations as to the possibilities of a creator based on observation of natural phenomenae. i am not aware this particular effort has been undertaken on this site, so the first post to me is a chastisement about the subject matter even though i haven't seen it discussed in this manner.

i also set my parameters to eliminate the discussion of God or Theology, since i am only interested in what is true, and Theology is not a subject of my questions. i am not interested in discussing God or religion, but some here can't discuss creation without their minds defaulting to religion.

some didn't like my qestions and took the liberty of rewriting them so as to skirt the issue, or perhaps posit questions of their own.

my premise is simple: there is enough observable evidence in the universe to indicate it was created by an intelligent creator rather than as a result of random occurrences. i posted my reasons for thinking so, and would welcome anyone demonstrating the errors in my thoughts.

[ughaibu]

Erasmus00 demonstrated the errors in your thoughts.

[Tormod]

You seem to be implying that intelligence can only come from intelligence.

 

This is the key point, questor. If intelligence comes from intelligence, then where does it all start? Where does the designer come from?

 

Creationism does not answer anything. It just poses the same questions as science and pretends that the questions answer themselves simply by existing. Thus, a pattern in a rock must be put there by design, because there is no other logical reason (which means "the reasons given by science are implausible to me").

[questor]

Erasmus, i am looking for logic, and i think you are one who has it.

however, i do not see it in your reply. you state your beliefs, but offer no examples except ''vacuum fluctuation'', whatever that is. does this vacuum fluctuation prove to you that there is no intelligence in the creation of the universe? you say there are ''lots of unplanned things show symmetry''.

what would these things be, and how does their existence logically disprove intelligent creation?

i'm not trying to be argumentive, but my observances indicate intelligent planning in the creation of the universe, if yours indicate otherwise, i'll be happy to hear them.

[questor]

Tormod, you said:''Thus, a pattern in a rock must be put there by design, because there is no other logical reason (which means "the reasons given by science are implausible to me").''

you know your statement is not logical because any observer can see that wind and rain and other occurrences can create patterns in rocks. the question is, how were the rocks themselves and the elements they came from

created? do you have information that this process did not involve planning or intelligence? was it just a random occurrence?

you ask where the intelligence originated. if i knew this, i would know the answers to all questions. i have stated my reasons for believing in an intelligent creator. i can not prove it, but the preponderance of observable

evidence points in that direction. the whole idea of the universe is improbable, but it is more improbable to see what is here and conclude no intelligence is involved.

[InfiniteNow]

i can not prove it, but the preponderance of observable

evidence points in that direction. the whole idea of the universe is improbable, but it is more improbable to see what is here and conclude no intelligence is involved.

 

This is similar to a Spurious Relationship

In statistics, a spurious relationship (or, sometimes, spurious correlation) is a mathematical relationship in which two occurrences have no logical connection, yet it may be implied that they do, due to a certain third, unseen factor (referred to as a "confounding factor" or "lurking variable"). The spurious relationship gives an impression of a worthy link between two groups that is invalid when objectively examined.

 

[Erasmus00]

Erasmus, i am looking for logic, and i think you are one who has it. however, i do not see it in your reply.

 

My reply was meant to be a jumping off point for you to learn. I tried to point you in the right direction, and show you the holes in your logic. You don't seem to want to hear them, as you didn't even take the time to investigate what was said.

 

you state your beliefs, but offer no examples except ''vacuum fluctuation'', whatever that is. does this vacuum fluctuation prove to you that there is no intelligence in the creation of the universe?

 

I refuted your points one at a time. You said that you couldn't have an effect without a cause, I pointed to vacuum fluctuations. Google the term. Learn a bit. I'm not trying to "prove" there is no intelligence. I'm showing you that your logic is flawed.

 

you say there are ''lots of unplanned things show symmetry''.

what would these things be, and how does their existence logically disprove intelligent creation?

 

They don't disprove anything except your point. You claim conservation laws are a sign of intelligent design. They are not, they are only a sign of symmetry. Symmetry is not the same thing as design. Again, your logic is flawed.

-Will

[questor]

Erasmus, if my logic is flawed, what is the true logical picture of the beginning of the universe? in googling vacuum fluctuations, i ran into a lot of unproved supposition.

eg.: ''...the idea of a First Cause sounds somewhat fishy in light of the modern theory of quantum mechanics. According to the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, individual subatomic particles can behave in unpredictable ways and there are numerous random, uncaused events. (Morris, 1997, 19)''

i don't see how unproved theories belie the possibility of a planned creation.

[CraigD]

i don't see how unproved theories [quantum uncertainty] belie the possibility of a planned creation.

Please accept my critical analysis of this sentence.

• Taken in parts:
  • “… unproven theories …” - As much as nearly any theory of Physics can be, Uncertainty is well proven. Vacuum fluctuations are not purely theory or thought experiments – they are experimentally demonstrated by such phenomena as the Casimir effect. Counterintuitive as it seems, a consequence of quantum Physics is that “something springs from nothing” very often, though only miniscule amounts compared to the total mass-energy of the universe.
    
  • ”… planned creation …” – the modification of “creation” with the adjective “planned” is a kind of logical fallacy. First, (setting aside quantum theory) postulate that all phenomena must have causes. Taking “create” and “cause” to be synonyms in the present context (a person can be said to “create” a object or phenomena, or the First Cause can be said to have created all phenomena), it does not logically follow that all creation must be planned. Ordinary phenomena, while caused, may not be planned - I may cause a glass of water to spill, but neither I nor anyone have planned it. Although the First Cause seems much too important not to have been, there is no logical requirement that it was planned, and a strong argument that it could not have been, as follows: if “planning” is an instance of the class “phenomena”, and by definition no phenomena can precede the First Cause, then “planning” cannot have preceded the first cause, implying that the First Cause cannot have been planned.
    

  [*]Taken in its entirety:

  • ”I [questor] don’t see how unproved theories belie the possibility of a planned creation” is neither a tautology nor a contradiction, but asserts the fact that questor does not see how (“see how” in this context can mean logically comprehend, intuitively accept, etc.) something. The truth value of the statement cannot be determined other than by measuring a subjective quality of questor. If questor does not in fact comprehend, accept, etc. the thing in question, the statement is true. If he does, then the statement is false (a lie). Neither truth value of the statement implies or is implied by the statement “unproved theories belie the possibility of a planned creation.”
    

[questor]

Craig, i like your use of the words ''intuitively accept''. that is what this thread is all about. i cannot accept the statement that there was no intelligent creative process in the birth of the universe when there are so many observations and phenomenae pointing to intelligent planning. i think most people accept the BB as an occurrence, whether or not they think the universe was created by this event. theories come and go, and we obviously don't have the Final Explanation. when we do, then i will accept whatever the facts are. until then, logic points me to intelligence and planning. the posts so far on this thread have only critisized my thinking, none have offered a more logical sequence of events or a more logical theory .

[Erasmus00]

i cannot accept the statement that there was no intelligent creative process in the birth of the universe when there are so many observations and phenomenae pointing to intelligent planning.

 

As I've tried to point out, most of the things you claim point to intelligent planning don't. Pointing to symmetry is NOT the same as pointing to intelligence.

 

the posts so far on this thread have only critisized my thinking, none have offered a more logical sequence of events or a more logical theory .

 

I don't claim that you can "logically" deduce anything about the question of deign. I hold that both positions (created or not created) cannot follow from logic, only from faith one way or the other. Your "logical" theory is without logic.

-Will

[questor]

i don't understand your reference to faith. a person usually believes in something according to how that something fits his mental perceptions and

life's experiences and knowledge. to me, faith occurs when someone has a strong belief with no evidence that his supposition is correct, and usually involves religion.

maybe i could have obtained more information with a simple poll, if people would participate. the posit:

i reject the idea of intelligent creation because.....

or

i believe there must have been intelligent creation because.....

 

i hope there will be those interested enough to post their views.