How I understand Creationism in a logical way

[Roguebeeker]

There seem to be two dominant views on the origins of a planet that supports human life.

The first is an atheist view, it is widely taught in schools, even religious folks will accept many or some of the points of this view. This is the view that our world is one incredible coincidence. If you have a 1 in 1,000+ (hundreds of zeros) chance of a planet that can support humans and a 1 in 1,000+ (hundreds of zeros) chance of life, let alone sentient life developing then there is still a chance and it happened. We are proof. Anything else is not worth worrying about.

The second is the deist view (any or most religions, the story changes a bit but the theme is the same), a deity or multiple deities designed and crafted this world that we live in. Maybe in 6 days.

So how would a deist/religious person defend creationism? A atheist may protest and question how this god came about to create such a grand thing. Did the god come from an accident?

"Imagine that you live inside of a video game, lets say Minecraft. You are the character and know nothing else outside the game. One day you meet another character that tells you that he studied the bricks in Minecraft up close and found that really everything is made up of ones and zeros. He tells you that the origin of the world is, he suspects, the result of many ones and zeros lining up over time after an explosion of some sort to create the world you both live in. After all, the evidence of evolution and geology can be viewed anywhere."

"You may point out that too much in the world is too orderly and too perfect. Sure, it may be all ones and zeros in the code but someone probably wrote that code. An all powerful code writer."

"The other character points out that there could be no code writer because then he too would be made of ones and zeroes. Could an all powerful code a block so heavy that he himself could not lift it? Has anyone in Minecraft ever seen said code writer? Why did the code writer allow death by creepers and other misfortunes?"

Such is my understanding of deity. Deity would need to be made of a greater stuff than us. Adam, after all was made of nothing but dust. Isn't that what we all are? dust and space? Could the world be programmed in six days? Why not? A programmer like god could create our world a million times over at the press of a button, could see the future and the past, could be all powerful in this realm.

Just a thought that I felt like sharing. Thanks for reading.

[TER]

Human logic is not enough to understand the creation of the universe. The human mind is simply too small.

What is needed is faith.

[Muwahid]

You're correct.

I am not a creationist in the traditional sense. Evolution is a biological fact for reasons that may be beyond the scope of this thread, but in essence when we say God is the all-mighty creator of everything we must take that literally.

The natural laws which govern this universe are what scientists study. A scientist cannot also study the origin of the natural forces themselves, they must simply accept they exist as an eternal constant which made this universe possible.

Therefore, God created these natural forces, while he himself is not subjugated to them. Therefore he created everything, while at the same time it appears to us that natural law governs everything (but natural law is just one of his creations!).

Unfort. theists and atheists are guilty of enforcing a false dichotomy, suggesting that science and religion compete. They do not. God created natural laws, and science studies those natural laws. No need to be more complicated than that.

[Superfluous Man]

Are deists really that dominant? What about all the theists who aren't deists, like members of those little tiny sects of Christianity and Islam?

[Superfluous Man]

The natural laws which govern this universe are what scientists study. A scientist cannot also study the origin of the natural forces themselves, they must simply accept they exist as an eternal constant which made this universe possible.

An eternal constant? Why?

And then you say that God created them. Aren't those two things mutually contradictory?

[TER]

You're correct.

I am not a creationist in the traditional sense. Evolution is a biological fact for reasons that may be beyond the scope of this thread, but in essence when we say God is the all-mighty creator of everything we must take that literally.

The natural laws which govern this universe are what scientists study. A scientist cannot also study the origin of the natural forces themselves, they must simply accept they exist as an eternal constant which made this universe possible.

Therefore, God created these natural forces, while he himself is not subjugated to them. Therefore he created everything, while at the same time it appears to us that natural law governs everything (but natural law is just one of his creations!).

Unfort. theists and atheists are guilty of enforcing a false dichotomy, suggesting that science and religion compete. They do not. God created natural laws, and science studies those natural laws. No need to be more complicated than that.

Excellent post!

[TER]

An eternal constant? Why?

And then you say that God created them. Aren't those two things mutually contradictory?

I'm not sure he is using the word 'eternal' as in Αγέννητος or 'unbeggoten' but rather in the sense that these are consistent physical laws within creation

[pcosmar]

I'm not sure he is using the word 'eternal' as in Αγέννητος or 'unbeggoten' but rather in the sense that these are consistent physical laws within creation

Nothing in creation is eternally constant.

I like to think of it as dimensional. Eternity is constant. Creation is temporary. This physical universe that we see and study has no permanence.

Spiritual Law is Constant.. Physical Laws are as temporary as this dimensional plane.

[TER]

Nothing in creation is eternally constant.

I like to think of it as dimensional. Eternity is constant. Creation is temporary. This physical universe that we see and study has no permanence.

Spiritual Law is Constant.. Physical Laws are as temporary as this dimensional plane.

Things created or in creation can indeed remain eternal or eternally constant, but only by the will of God.

I agree with your point that all created things by nature are temporal and what has a beginning also has an end, but, as stated above, created things can indeed be eternal by the grace and will of God.

[pcosmar]

Things created or in creation can indeed remain eternal or eternally constant, but only by the will of God.

I agree with your point that all created things by nature are temporal and what has a beginning also has an end, but, as stated above, created things can indeed be eternal by the grace and will of God.

Love remains.. But it also preexisted.

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

This world has been wholly corrupted. It is not eternal.

all the physical rules governing it will be replaced. they will be irrelevant to eternity.

[TER]

Love remains.. But it also preexisted.

"God is love". 1 John 4:8

This world has been wholly corrupted. It is not eternal.

all the physical rules governing it will be replaced. they will be irrelevant to eternity.

To say to that "all the physical rules governing it will be replaced" and they "will be irrelevant to eternity" is something neither you nor I can say with certainty, considering these things have yet to happen and quite above our abilities of human comprehension. A new earth and new heaven does not necessarily mean "all the physical rules governing it will be replaced", so it is is an error to make such a presumption on such mysteries, especially given the fact that we will be resurrected and reunited with physical bodies.

[pcosmar]

"God is love". 1 John 4:8

I'm not sure how you think your above statement contradicts what I wrote in my post your are quoting.



Again, not sure this in any way contradicts what I am saying above. Also, to say to that "all the physical rules governing it will be replaced" and they "will be irrelevant to eternity" is something neither you nor I can say with certainty, considering these things have yet to happen. A new earth and new heaven does not necessarily mean "all the physical rules governing it will be replaced", so it is is an error to make such a presumption on such mysteries, especially given the fact that we will be resurrected and reunited with physical bodies.

Not trying to be contradictory..

only repeating what is told in scripture,, from my perspective.

I do not see the temporary as permanent.

considering these things have yet to happen.

Again,, perspective.

I believe they have already happened,,are happening. NOW. in Eternity where the constraints of time do not exist.

What is yet to come in our time,, is already finished..

[TER]

Not trying to be contradictory..

I realized that after a second reading and edited my post!

only repeating what is told in scripture,, from my perspective.

I do not see the temporary as permanent.

Again,, perspective.

I believe they have already happened,,are happening. NOW. in Eternity where the constraints of time do not exist.

What is yet to come in our time,, is already finished..

Fair enough. I see your point and agree with it. Earlier I was just trying to explain that although created things are temporal by nature that they have a beginning, God in His power can give such created things (be it physical laws or human bodies) the divine uncreated attributes of eternity and immutability.

[pcosmar]

I realized that after a second reading and edited my post!



Fair enough. I see your point and agree with it. Earlier I was just trying to explain that although created things are temporal by nature that they have a beginning, God in His power can give such created things (be it physical laws or human bodies) the divine uncreated attributes of eternity and immutability.

With God all things are possible.
and what forms we may eventually take is open to boundless speculation.

This Flesh has many limitations,, and has been corrupted..
It was and is suitable for this planet. Made from the same elements and subject to governing rules.

This planet will be gone, and there will be no need for frail cases.
Whatever form we hold.. it will be suitable to stand in the Presence of God.

HB posted this,, and I like



I have a hard time seeing it from any other perspective.

[TER]

It is both humbling and liberating!

[pcosmar]

It is both humbling and liberating!

More of both as you go.

It's exciting.

[pcosmar]

There seem to be two dominant views on the origins of a planet that supports human life.

Yes there are.
Intelligent design
Random chaos

I find it hard to believe that such complexity and order could come from random chaos.
and I see no logical way to try to explain it.. seems an idiotic argument.

[otherone]

If you have a 1 in 1,000+ (hundreds of zeros) chance of a planet that can support humans and a 1 in 1,000+ (hundreds of zeros) chance of life, let alone sentient life developing then there is still a chance and it happened.

Odds are useful in prediction, useless after the fact.

[Muwahid]

An eternal constant? Why?

And then you say that God created them. Aren't those two things mutually contradictory?

I didn't mean natural law is both an eternal constant or created, it's one or the other. But from a scientists perspective studying natural laws, they just accept those natural laws as constant which govern the universe because there is no worldly way of explaining them (without necessitating a supernatural force--something beyond the scope of science entirely).

There are two logically consistent ways of explaining existence as an absolute concept:

1 - The universe itself (i.e., it natural laws) always existed and thus facilitated out existence. The reason why an atheist must believe this is because otherwise they will believe in a paradox (something created itself from nothing, meaning it had to both exist and not exist simultaneously). We cannot explain existence with infinite causality either (a is here because of b, b is here because of c, going on infinitely), infinite regression is a paradox because by definition there would be no cause because you could never get to the beginning of that chain of events.

2 - An eternal constant exists outside of natural law, and facilitated its existence. (A God?)

So I believe either is a logically consistent worldview. But neither is "more logical" than the other so this eliminates the supposed logical high-ground atheists sometimes believe they have. For the rest of theism we can use inductive logic and reasoning to suggest supernaturalism must exist because x, y, z. So for example when the followers of Jesus saw someone they knew to be dead, rise from the dead--it was more logical for them to believe a supernatural force existed to cause this than a natural one, therefore they believed.

Inductive logic isn't black/white like deductive (a = b, b = c, therefore a = c) but rather it just suggests the most probably answer is the most logical one. So as theists we're saying it's more logical to assume supernaturalism than no supernaturalism.

Just to emphasize my original point: You cannot have a logically consistent world-view of existence without believing in some "eternal constant" (something that exists with no explanation and isn't temporal in nature). Any explanation which doesn't necessitate a constant to facilitate existence is inherently illogical for the reasons I already outlined.

[Superfluous Man]

But from a scientists perspective studying natural laws, they just accept those natural laws as constant which govern the universe because there is no worldly way of explaining them (without necessitating a supernatural force--something beyond the scope of science entirely).

But that doesn't require those scientists to have an opinion on whether or not those laws are created or eternal. In fact, the question of which of those is true is entirely outside the purview of the physical sciences.

Also, scientists don't study laws. They study phenomena, and use inductive reasoning to posit laws that describe those phenomena. The laws themselves aren't available to study.

In fact, at no point can science ever reach a point where any human being, apart from special divine revelation, will be able to say that they know any natural laws. The laws that scientists posit are only ever-improving approximations of what the actual laws may be, and the scientific method provides no way to finish that project and reach a point where those posited laws will be beyond improvement.

For example, Newton's laws have come to be seen as special cases of more general laws. It's just that the cases where Newton's laws don't apply are outside of normal human experience. So for normal people, Newton's laws almost always continue to work as approximations that are good enough in practice.

But human experience (not just normal human experience, but all empirical observations made by anyone, including the best scientists using the best tools) will never touch any more than a tiny fraction of all that exists.

Two hundred years ago, the entire concept of frozen water would have been outside the scope of the natural laws that would have been accessible to anyone who lived in Fiji and used the scientific method to understand the world.

Similarly, people today with their access to the very limited amount of empirical data might believe that a virgin human female giving birth to a male offspring was a violation of an inviolable natural law. But they would be wrong, since such a thing has already happened at least once. It's just that human experience is too limited for us to posit whatever laws might be able to account for both or normal experience of human reproduction and that case that falls outside the patterns of that experience.

People might also think that a bodily resurrection of long-dead human beings was impossible. But there will come a time when our experience will be so much more expansive than it now is, that we will see that as a common occurrence, so common in fact that by that time the number of human bodily resurrections that will have taken place will be exactly as high as the number of human bodily deaths.

Our exposure to reality is much to small for us to be able to assume infinite uniformitarianism of the patterns of physical phenomena we know. Uniformitarianism works for us in normal human practice (i.e. if I flip a light switch, the same thing will take place that took place all the other thousands of times I've flipped light switches). But the further out we go from our own time and place in creation, whether that be backward in time, forward in time, outward in space, or other, the less reliable our uniformitarian assumptions are.

[Muwahid]

But that doesn't require those scientists to have an opinion on whether or not those laws are created or eternal. In fact, the question of which of those is true is entirely outside the purview of the physical sciences.

Also, scientists don't study laws. They study phenomena, and use inductive reasoning to posit laws that describe those phenomena. The laws themselves aren't available to study.

In fact, at no point can science ever reach a point where any human being, apart from special divine revelation, will be able to say that they know any natural laws. The laws that scientists posit are only ever-improving approximations of what the actual laws may be, and the scientific method provides no way to finish that project and reach a point where those posited laws will be beyond improvement.

For example, Newton's laws have come to be seen as special cases of more general laws. It's just that the cases where Newton's laws don't apply are outside of normal human experience. So for normal people, Newton's laws almost always continue to work as approximations that are good enough in practice.

This lengthy diatribe does not contradict any of my statements.

People might also think that a bodily resurrection of long-dead human beings was impossible. But there will come a time when our experience will be so much more expansive than it now is, that we will see that as a common occurrence, so common in fact that by that time the number of human bodily resurrections that will have taken place will be exactly as high as the number of human bodily deaths.

So take what I said in context. We know to the best of our abilities that 2,000 years ago mankind did not have the resources necessary to revive someone from the dead, and we still don't have that ability because of the rapid degeneration of neurons in an oxygen deficient environment.

And on top of this, the person performs more seemingly impossible tasks, and so on and so forth. At a point it will become more logical to assume supernaturalism than naturalism to explain it.

In terms of philosophical and rational thought, contrary to what people today seem to believe, the "natural" explanation is not always the most plausible one.

[Superfluous Man]

At a point it will become more logical to assume supernaturalism than naturalism to explain it.

I disagree. It will merely become logical to assume that the explanation is beyond what we yet understand.

Personally, I find the distinction between "supernatural" and "natural" unhelpful and ultimately unworkable. We can never say that some phenomenon violates a natural law because our knowledge of natural laws will never reach a point of being beyond refinement, including refinements that could potentially account for that phenomenon. Furthermore, given that that phenomenon actually happened, it would be incumbent on us in following the scientific method to include it within the data which we seek to explain with the laws we posit. Science can't just set aside some data and say it doesn't count because it's supernatural.

[jllundqu]

The only honest answer to any question about our origins is, "I DO NOT KNOW."

Anyone who claims to know the answers is wrong. The bible is a hilariously entertaining fiction, but then again so is the idea that the universe and life itself sprang into existence by mere chance!

I don't claim to know the answer. I am a deist agnostic, which means there may very well be a God, but that god does not interfere/intervene in human affairs, and there is not enough evidence to support such a conclusion.

[pcosmar]

The only honest answer to any question about our origins is, "I DO NOT KNOW."

Anyone who claims to know the answers is wrong.

I disagree.

and the answer is as easy or as difficult as asking the question.

Understanding it is another thing.

[Mr Tansill]

There seem to be two dominant views on the origins of a planet that supports human life.

The first is an atheist view, it is widely taught in schools, even religious folks will accept many or some of the points of this view. This is the view that our world is one incredible coincidence. If you have a 1 in 1,000+ (hundreds of zeros) chance of a planet that can support humans and a 1 in 1,000+ (hundreds of zeros) chance of life, let alone sentient life developing then there is still a chance and it happened. We are proof. Anything else is not worth worrying about.

The second is the deist view (any or most religions, the story changes a bit but the theme is the same), a deity or multiple deities designed and crafted this world that we live in. Maybe in 6 days.

The third, and scientific/non-religious answer (yes, atheism is closer to a religion than not), is that our world is the outcome of the operation of natural laws. The protest that theists make when they suggest that the probability is so fantastically small as to preclude it, is to completely mis-understand probability and large numbers - improbable things happen all the time; in fact, any non-zero probability, given enough time, WILL occur...consider that closely. The other implication made is that the universe is completely random - which, of course, anyone who has studied science at all, knows that it is anything but that. Natural law and regularity pervade every single aspect of the universe, and that has been, and will continue to be the case for as long as time has meaning.

The more appropriate way to phrase the question is to recognize that given we exist, what is the probability that at some point we would question our origin?

[pcosmar]

The third, and scientific/non-religious answer (yes, atheism is closer to a religion than not), is that our world is the outcome of the operation of natural laws.

where did this world come from? where did these natural laws originate?

and scientifically,, or mathematically,, entropy does does not tend to create complexity..

[Mr Tansill]

where did this world come from? where did these natural laws originate?

and scientifically,, or mathematically,, entropy does does not tend to create complexity..

The universe just is; assuming it has a beginning requires imposing the human concept that everything have a beginning. There is a breakdown between our world of words, and the actual, bonified, natural world - our words are and always will be mere description, so the protest that all things must have a beginning feels logically nice, but actually imposes no constraints on the universe itself.

All things tend toward greater entropy as a whole, yet systems which are not closed (such as the Earth), will experience an increase in complexity, because they are undergoing a net energy increase.

I say again: The more appropriate way to phrase the question is to recognize that given we exist, what is the probability that at some point we would question our origin?

[pcosmar]

The universe just is; assuming it has a beginning requires imposing the human concept that everything have a beginning. There is a breakdown between our world of words, and the actual, bonified, natural world - our words are and always will be mere description, so the protest that all things must have a beginning feels logically nice, but actually imposes no constraints on the universe itself.

All things tend toward greater entropy as a whole, yet systems which are not closed (such as the Earth), will experience an increase in complexity, because they are undergoing a net energy increase.

I say again: The more appropriate way to phrase the question is to recognize that given we exist, what is the probability that at some point we would question our origin?

@Mr Tansill
I'm sorry, but there is no scientific nor spiritual truth in that post.

Self inflating opinions aside,,
It is not a question of existence of an origin. It is a dispute of, or refusal of the origin.

Once the origin is understood, all the other questions get answered.

[helmuth_hubener]

Odds are useful in prediction, useless after the fact.

Not so.

Causality.

The question at hand is causality. What caused such-and-such to come about? In this case: the existence of life. And, we could say, the existence of various other phenomenon. We could even go deeper and ask about the existence of anything at all, of existence itself! But, the mind recoils at that and gets scared, so let's just focus on life.

Let's call life: "a muffin." If there's a warm, delicious blueberry muffin sitting in front of you, how did it get there?

How do you determine that? You do some detective work. Did your wife set it there? That's plausible. You look back and see her in the kitchen, with a tin of hot-looking muffins and one missing.

"Did you just give me this?"

"Yes, dear."

Hypothesis confirmed.

Still possible it could be wrong, actually. But, it's a pretty likely story, it holds together, and so we file it under "true."

The odds of the muffing being there, say, to some criminal forgetting it there last night as he robbed your house are low. You see nothing missing, no evidence of break-in. Well, you just haven't noticed; he was sneaky. Why is it still hot, then? Well, maybe it has some radioactive or chemical process going on inside, which has kept it warm for these hours. It's possible. But a whole lot less likely. Plus, let's say you live on a planet with no one else. In order for the criminal hypothesis to be true, not only a break-in but also an alien invasion must have taken place last night. And the only observable thing the alien did was to leave a muffin on your desk.

This second possibility you reject. Reject it strongly, as ludicrous. Why? Solely on the odds of it being able to happen.

Odds are definitely important to us in retroactively constructing stories about how situations or phenomenon (or anything) came to be. That's how we do it. That's how rationality works.


~~~


In the case of the existence of life, under our current scientific understanding, it is absolutely impossible for life to exist. That's it. It just is. Impossible. It turns out, the odds are far, far beyond astronomical. You could make every single atom in the observed universe -- and the universe is a big place; you have no idea! -- make every atom into primordial soup and it still wouldn't work. Actually, fill up all the empty(ish) space, too. No big empty gaps between planets and stars and galaxies. Just a huge, huge, 10^24th mile-diameter endless, endless sea of primordial soup. Life would never arise, not in the entire lifespan of the universe. You'd have to run the universe 10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000...th times before life would have a fair sporting chance of happening. And you can't do that anymore, sorry, because it turns out the universe is going to end in the Big Freeze, not the Big Crunch, and there's no real reason for the Big Bang to happen in the first place, so it can only happen once.

This is all according to our current scientific understanding, you understand. It says it can't happen. Science has, at the moment, no story for the origin of life which is even remotely plausible. That's just the situation. It could change, but that is where we find ourselves currently.

So the only thread we're left with to grab onto is the Anthropic Principle, which is highly unsatisfying to everyone, to say the least, and probably does not actually qualify as an explanation; rather, it is (by definition) the lack of an explanation. It's a white flag of surrender.

It's also not science, not empirical science, because it's not falsifiable.

In fact, none of this (theories of the origins of life) is empirical science because none of it is falsifiable! Nobody gets to claim the mighty Mantle of Science ("Bow down and believe me, for I am Science") on this one. Sorry. We're all just telling stories.


~~~


I personally believe in God, because of personal revelation. I think that revelation is a very rational and reasonable reason to believe in God. I think that God would want us to know He exists.

Now, He'd have to strike a balance: it would not be beneficial for us for Him to personally host His own nightly newscast. He has to leave space for doubt and questioning, otherwise there would be no space for faith. There would be a lack of real freedom, of real choice. He has to step back and give us some space, in order for this growth and personal development project we call life to be able to work as designed.

But, for those who want to know, those who seek Him.... well, He has made them certain promises. He is a rewarder of them.

[otherone]

In the case of the existence of life, under our current scientific understanding, it is absolutely impossible for life to exist. That's it. It just is. Impossible.

So Let's say Mrs. Hubener didn't put that muffin* in front of you. What are the odds that it exists? Radiation and burglars aside, did God put it there?



*edit: A better metaphor for the purpose of this discussion might be "brownie".