Creationism Logical or Illogical?

[Pyrotex]

...Ask a million people, or one hundred million people, from diverse backgrounds, cultures, religious beliefs, if an entity created the world what do you call this entity? The majority will declare that this entity is called 'God'. Do you have some evidence that this is not the case?....

In linguistics, whatever the language, we have nouns. Nouns are linguistic symbols that we use to represent or "point to" features of our Reality that we wish to distinguish from the background. There is a moving collection of atoms with certain organizational properties that we define as a "cat". The 'cat' jumps over the wall. We have no noun for half-a-cat, because we rarely have a need to distinguish that from the background of not-half-a-cat.

 

Nouns come in various flavors, but can generally be divided into three categories for our purpose. Objectified nouns, experiential nouns, and unique nouns.

 

Objectified nouns are those for which at least one (preferably many) actual, concrete object (or repeatable event) be observed to exist. Three 'cats' live with me and my wife. Three 'revolutions' have occured in Venezuala.

 

Experiential nouns are those which distinguish non-material objects which are "real" in our mental, experiential space. Like 'love', 'hate', 'anxiety'. We cannot observe these objects in the ordinary sense, but we can experience them; since all (most) humans experience them, we have come to realize that they are common to our existance as sentient beings. We can distinguish love from not-love well enough to suit our purposes.

 

An important property of objectified and experiential nouns is that we can derive the attributes of an specific noun by examining the pointed-to objectifications that the noun references. I can derive the attributes of 'cat' by examining several actual cats and determining what they have in common. I can derive the attributes of 'love' by examining several actual experiences of love and determining what they have in common. Or reading some of Orby's love poems. :D

 

And then there are unique nouns. These are nouns for which we have NO instantiations or objectifications. We cannot point to an example to which the noun points. And therefore, we cannot derive any attributes for a unique noun by examining several of its representations. There are even unique nouns for which we have only ONE representation, but cannot distinguish that representation from not-representation. 'Universe' is such a unique noun. The 'Universe' is everything, but we cannot use the noun to distinguish the universe from not-universe. Neither can we look at the one and only universe and derive attributes which 'universes' (in general) have. There are no counter-examples.

 

What is a 'god'? What is a 'creator'? [in this context, the word 'creator' means ONLY and specifically a 'universe creator'.]

 

Both of these words are unique nouns. We cannot observe or experience actual, material or eventful instantiations of either word. Therefore we cannot derive any attributes for either word. We cannot distinguish 'god' from 'not-god' any more than we can distinguish 'universe' from 'not-universe'. Same for the word 'creator' as used here.

 

We CAN make up stories about unique nouns and often do. For example, ghost stories. We CAN believe things about unique nouns and often do. For example, 'heaven'. But we CANNOT analytically, demonstrably, derive their attributes, or even prove that they HAVE any attributes. There are no instantiations to point to and say, "hey, I mean 'creator' like that one there!"

 

Therefore, to argue whether or not a 'creator' has the same attributes as a 'god' is a pointless waste of breath. There ain't no cheese down that tunnel.

[questor]

since the last two posts by Pyrotex and Eclogite are arguments about God

and semantics, i can see no relevance in a discussion about the origin of the universe, which is the topic of the thread.

[Eclogite]

Since you have chosen what I consider flawed definitions of God and Creator, and since you wish to discuss the origin of the Universe without discussing God, whilst still discussing a Creator, then I think the meaning we attach to those words is decidedly relevant to the thread, and therefore on topic.

 

However, it is your thread. If you do not wish to resolve this evident contradiction, that is your right. I accept as possible your conjecture that the Universe was created by Intelligent Design. There is no substantive evidence for this, but it is possible. The Intelligent Designer could be called The Intelligent Designer, or The Creator, or God. I have no preference which you choose on account of their equivalence.

[Pyrotex]

since the last two posts by Pyrotex and Eclogite are arguments about God and semantics, i can see no relevance in a discussion about the origin of the universe, which is the topic of the thread.

Fine. You have it within your power to clear this up immediately. Define "god" and "creator" and give sufficient attributes of each so that they can be distinguished from each other. To properly assert their attributes, you will have to give several examples of each.

 

If you cannot distinguish a "god" from a "creator" then your point (if any) is entirely moot -- as is the thread.

[FRIPRO]

Fine. You have it within your power to clear this up immediately. Define "god" and "creator" and give sufficient attributes of each so that they can be distinguished from each other. To properly assert their attributes, you will have to give several examples of each.

 

If you cannot distinguish a "god" from a "creator" then your point (if any) is entirely moot -- as is the thread.

 

 

I have put forth the Idea of (UIDE), that implies that neither God or the Creator are one and the same. There was no creation! "The Universe alway was and always will be". The Universe itself is the intelligent designer and and we all evolved by its direction .(UIDE, . But few men (women)are willing to break from religion, and their education on their creation, to look at an alternatives. In fact none of the three above have the evidence that is over powering to change little men's minds! One must have vision!

[InfiniteNow]

So blind people are foresaken? Ohhh.... poor blind people. :)

[Eclogite]

Bump...

 

.......thud

 

......thump

 

 

Where is Hellen Keller when you need her?

[InfiniteNow]

Poor thing... phone rang and she answered a hot iron instead. :cry:

[FRIPRO]

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.

 

 

No! The advance technological civilization does or did exist, but the Universe evolved it (UIDE)

 

Yes the "Universe is now, and always existed -- and will exist forever" FRIPRO

 

No! One can not create anything from nothing -- this includes the Universe! One can not destroy the Universe because the trash from its distruction will still remain!

 

I admire your open fertile mind keep up the good writings ---FRIPRO

[Pyrotex]

...One can not destroy the Universe because the trash from its distruction will still remain!...

Okay, I have a theory. No, it's not a "theory"--it is THE TRUTH!!!! And any mortal who cannot understand and embrace this pinnacle of truthosity must be mentally challenged. It is this:

 

There was no creator because the Universe has not been created yet!

 

Yes, I said "yet"!! The Universe has been destroyed by the destructor! And our puny human minds run backwards in time. So the actual "origin" of the Universe (its total destruction), as performed by the destructor, appears to us to be somewhere in our future! AN ILLUSION!!!

 

This destructor is not the embodiment of "Intelligent Design", but of Dumb Luck! I call this the DL theory (fact!) for obvious reasons. Yes, the great destructor is as stupid as a slab of sandstone, and only stumbled into destroying the Universe as an action of blind, idiotic luck. And now the Universe is running backwards (as viewed by us) from that momentous moment.

 

Let us all get down on our knees and give a thankful Razzzzzberry to the great destructor.

:confused: :( :shrug: :hihi: :(

 

So, questor, what evidence can you provide that this FACT is wrong?

[FRIPRO]

Illogical, without a doubt :confused:

 

 

 

I agree, you can not create anythig out of nothing, that is why the Big Bang (BB) is so absurd. Refer to UIDE string topic. FRIPRO

[ughaibu]

Pyrotex: "Over Three Hundred Proofs of God’s Existence"

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

[questor]

so instead of discussing whether or not there are many observable phenomena that point to the intelligent creation of the universe and few against, we are spiraling downward into the silly and the stupid arguments about God or semantics. this thread has been a disaster for a very simple reason.. there is no one here who seems to be able to discuss the subject

as it is posed. too bad, it could have been an enlightening discussion.

[FRIPRO]

so instead of discussing whether or not there are many observable phenomena that point to the intelligent creation of the universe and few against, we are spiraling downward into the silly and the stupid arguments about God or semantics. this thread has been a disaster for a very simple reason.. there is no one here who seems to be able to discuss the subject

as it is posed. too bad, it could have been an enlightening discussion.

 

Back to: Creationism Logical or Illogical?

 

I am not interest in using God or semantics (the study of word meanings) either. There is no doubt that Creationism is in the forefront of Human discussions and beliefs. I myself believe it is Illogical. But our religious friends will sware by it.

 

Because I have argued that we are in deep need of a different understanding of the Universe, and how we got here, and whether the Universe always was and always will be -- or if it was Created.

 

The only problem I have is, who or what created the Universe out of nothing? What set it off when there was no Universe? This question is self evident -- any sane person (having a healthy sound mind and showing good judgement) would understand this point. So I repeat my contention: Creationism is Illogical. FRIPRO

[TheBigDog]

The only problem I have is, who or what created the Universe out of nothing? What set it off when there was no Universe? This question is self evident -- any sane person (having a healthy sound mind and showing good judgement) would understand this point. So I repeat my contention: Creationism is Illogical. FRIPRO

I am by many accounts a sane person. Please provide you definition of "creation" and "Creator". It seems that we always assume that they are somehow synonymous. Could something other than intelligence be a creator? Could a creator of life and earth not be THE Creator?

 

Perhaps the most puzzling question is... why is it so damn important to know the truth? The truth may elude us for millions of more years. It may never be know. How does that effect the price of tea in China? Why are we so damn hung up on the necessity of these answers? The would be nice to know, but are they imperative to human existence in the next 5000 years?

 

Bill

[ughaibu]

TheBigDog: My view exactly. Holding a belief about mooted events from billions of years ago is as meaningless as holding a belief about which flowers are grown in window boxes by the inhabitants of a mooted planet in a solar system billions of light years away. Sure, it can be fun to think about and presumably describing such models helps physicists to play with maths, but there's no tendency or reason to really believe one's prefered scenario, as far as I can see.

 

Questor: Your question has been answered in detail several times by several people. You have yet to show any connection between your "reasons" and any implied act of creation involving intelligence.

[MagnetMan]

 

The only problem I have is, who or what created the Universe out of nothing? What set it off when there was no Universe? This question is self evident -- any sane person (having a healthy sound mind and showing good judgement) would understand this point. So I repeat my contention: Creationism is Illogical. FRIPRO

 

Perhaps a more correct contention would be that creationsism is beyond logic. That is why Faith is required. Blessed is he who has not seen, yet believith.