My case against Creationism and Infinite regression

[LadyForCamus]

Absolutely. I'm completely against filling the gaps of knowledge with something as ambiguous as "God".
I also think I managed to show that even by theistic standards creationism is not possible.

They will just say that God is special and doesn't have to play by the laws of thermodynamics. He's exempt in all circumstances where a limitation of his abilities is implied. Special pleading is the
Theist's best "get out of jail free" card!

[LadyForCamus]

Why?  The universe is simply a changed form of what it was 'before' the Big Bang'.

So, you don't think that the beginning of space-time and all physical reality (including physical laws) could be characterized as a new system? Please also explain how the laws of physics stop working at Planck time (before you get back to the singularity) and how the First Law of Thermodynamics mysteriously is exempt and will continue on not just to the singularity, but through to the other side. 

In addition, please tell us what came 'before' the Big Bang that avoids the absurdity of a past infinite chain.

*buzzer* You are making the God claim. Burden of proof is on you, friend.

[Red_Wind]

I've had theists tell me I'm being unreasonable and irrational for 'demanding' physical evidence of a non-physical cause, ie their pet god. They miss the point I just laid out; that it's not the cause for which we require evidence, but the alleged effects, which we can then investigate and determine if they actually support the non-physical cause the theists posit.

I have never told you that.

I myself have always been a doubting Thomas. I am a visual person I have to see things and how they work. Because of this I myself did not come to God till later in life.

Jesus Himself says to Thomas "Blessed are those who can believe without seeing." Many take that to mean We ALL must have blind faith. but what the people who created that extra-biblical doctrine missed, was the fact that Jesus physically appeared to Thomas to say that. Meaning He did not say 'shame on you for not having so much blind faith you could fake yourself out into belief..' Rather He gave what thomas exactly what he needed to establish and maintain his belief. He did the same with Paul. In turn He has offered the same thing to all of the rest of us on an individual level. All we need do is take Him up on his offer.

That's rather contradicting.

It's rather hard to understand how theists think, even after being a christian for most of my youth.

[LadyForCamus]

I lurv infinite regressions . . .

Omg, that's wild. You have the best gif's!

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Science will always be a better method for knowledge in any field than just postulating some entity we have no empirical evidence for.

Again you guys don't seem to understand that 'empirical evidence' can be manuplited to say anything the man funding the 'science' wants it to say.

In the 1940s 9 doctors out of 10 said smoking is healthy.
In the 1930s German Scientists discovered that the Aryans were pinicale of human evolution/The master race.
In the 1960s dumping toxic waste in the ocean was said to have no negitive effect.
In the 1970s Their was going to be a minnie Ice age by 2000 (global cooling)
In the 1980 Their was a hole in the Ozone that would never close (till we taxed comsumers enough and it did)
Then in the late 1990s Global warming started.
Then by 2010 the phrase was changed to global climate change so whether it gets warmer or colder "science" and continue to claim the sky is falling and tax consumers till we have nothing left to tax.

Your god "science" is a whore that follows who or whatever has the most money, and will say anything for 'more funding.'

So if be 'better method of knowledge' you mean a conduit for propaganda and social control, then yes I agree.

Ohh!! So when they say theists don't believe in global warming what they actually mean is that theist don't believe in funding to eradicate global warming!

On a side note, I do agree with you that science can and has been used to manipulate evidence or misrepresent evidence for personal gains or other immoral uses. But what you have to realize is that not all fields and studies related to science is not all lies.

[Cyberman]

But then other scientists examine that evidence, replicate the published experiments and try to recreate the results. If the evidence is faulty, the peer-reviewed results will discover it. At some point, someone else will probably find another, valid, explanation and that will gain more traction in the literature. The original flawed data will be marginalised and eventually forgotten. It doesn't matter what the first scientist's motives were; the science will correct itself.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

But then other scientists examine that evidence, replicate the published experiments and try to recreate the results. If the evidence is faulty, the peer-reviewed results will discover it. At some point, someone else will probably find another, valid, explanation and that will gain more traction in the literature. The original flawed data will be marginalised and eventually forgotten. It doesn't matter what the first scientist's motives were; the science will correct itself.

To provide an example, statistics can be used to show to mean what they don't mean. It is mostly done very subtly that people don't really realize it. I wish I could provide an instance but I can't remember the exact last time I encountered one of these intentional misinterpretion, I'll be sure to post it next time I see one.

[Cyberman]

So its not the science that's manipulable, it's data presenting the science to the public by sources of varying propriety and equally varying motives.

[Spinchance]

Does "God" have any effect, however miniscule, on the Universe whatsoever (answering prayers or petitions, manipulating causality to cause miracles etc)?

If "yes", then that effect ought to be at least detectable, if not measurable. Otherwise how can you possibly even suspect it happens at all?

If "no", then this god can safely be ignored as irrelevant to the Universe altogether.

Would you assume the method of God answering a prayer/petition to be the same each and every time? 

God does not answer prayers, God is Omniscient: he needs no prayer, because He already knows what you want. 

The purpose of prayer is asking God to do what he would do anyway. 
So whether you pray or not, things will happen just as they would if you didn't pray. 

But if you believe that you can change God's mind, then you believe He is imperfect. 
If you believe that God can be influenced, than the God you believe is an Idol created by your mind and you are an idol-worshiper.

Prayer is the only industry in which failure is entirely the fault of the end user.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

So its not the science that's manipulable, it's data presenting the science to the public by sources of varying propriety and equally varying motives.

Absolutely. Science is not manipulated in any way, although I have seen on numerous occasions the way science is represented is manipulated. Meaning, what the data gathered through scientific methods can be misrepresented which isn't really a false representation but not necessarily a true representation either.