Disproving the Bible

[FatAndFaithless]

Yes, we've heard this before. About a billion times. And it's about as convincing as waving your arms at nature and saying "goddidit".

But, taking your points in order:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
A bald assertion. Additionally, 'cause' is a very ill-defined word. Causes can have intent (such as me throwing a ball to you, I caused the ball to move through my conscious action) and causes can be mindless (such as erosion of a hillside causing a rock to roll down the side of the hill). You really need to define your terms very well when talking about this stuff, since similar words can have huge differences in their significance.

The causal princple in and of itself has been criticized by many, Hume for example, who suggests that the causal principle is something that we've empirically deduced, but cannot be applied writ large to things that we haven't or can't experience. Others raise objections based on quantum physics. On the quantum level, the connection between cause and effect, if not entirely broken, is to some extent loosened. For example, it appears that electrons can pass out of existence at one point and come back into existence elsewhere. One can neither trace their intermediate existence nor determine what causes them to come into existence at one point rather than another. Neither can one precisely determine or predict where they will reappear; their subsequent location is only statistically probable given what we know about their antecedent states.

Your first premise is, again, a bald assertion.

2. The universe began to exist.
Here's a quick rundown of the universe as we know it and how we believe it most probably "began". Since the universe is expanding as the galaxies recede from each other, if we reverse the direction of our view and look back in time, the farther we look, the smaller the universe becomes. If we push backwards far enough, we find that the universe reaches a state of compression where the density and gravitational force are infinite. This unique singularity constitutes the beginning of the universe—of matter, energy, space, time, and all physical laws. It is not that the universe arose out of some prior state, for there was no prior state of the universe as we now udnerstand it. THis also does not mean that there was a theologian's favorite "nothingness", since that's yet another ill-defined term (many theologians would call nothingness "non-existence", which means that we could not measure it, have no example of it to observe, and in no way can make statements about its nature or past). Since time too comes to be, one cannot ask what happened before the initial event. Neither should one think that the universe expanded from some initial ‘point’ into space. Since the Big Bang initiates the very laws of physics, one cannot expect any physical explanation of this singularity; physical laws used to explain the expansion of the universe no longer hold at any time before time = 0.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This is supposedly your conclusion, but your two premises are so flawed that this conclusion doesn't even have to be addressed because it's built on such crap.

However, I like typing, so here goes.

If we were to concede your first two points, then yes, the universe would have to have some sort of 'cause'. However, you have yet to define what cause means, whether this cause would be intentional (such as me throwing a ball) or simply an outcome of circumstance (a rock rolling down a hill naturally). There is absolutely no logical pathway from 'the universe has a cause' to 'God did it'. You're avoiding the huge problems of proving a god is possible, proving a god exists, proving that he has the ability to create a universe, and proving that our universe in particular was in fact created by him.

The premises are flawed, the conclusion is based on flawed premises AND the tacking on of a God to the end of it without and justification is flawed further.

(Credit to Stanford University, paraphrased some stuff from their philosophy library)

For the purposes of this argument, I see no distinction between your two possibilities of a cause. If it is a person, then we would conclude that it is God, if it another event, then we can just move back one step until we find out what caused the first event.

Everything has a cause is an empirically deduced conclusion. I am not aware of anything that would suggest otherwise, so I think it is much more plausible than not.

Quantum theory does not theorize matter from nothing (defined as not anything).

Are you arguing that time did not exist so we can't discuss what was before the universe? I don't see how this affect the question of cause of event 1 following t=0.

If premise 1 and 2 are true, a cause that never began to exist is needed. God is a plausible candidate.

A few quick points.

1) I never claimed quantum theory had anything to do with something emerging out of nothing. It's simply a demonstration that our current understanding of the causal relationship isn't exactly watertight.

EDIT: Also, you failed to define nothing. Saying that nothing is "no-thing" is a statement devoid of substance. Is "nothing" space without energy? non-existence? non-material entities such as ideas or concepts? Define your damn terms.

2) The law of causality is an emprically deduced rule, which means that we constructed it based on our experiences in our current reality. This does not necessarily apply to the beginning of the universe because...

3) Yes, time and space as we understand it now did not exist prior to the Big Bang to put it simply. Our concept of eternity is so nebulous and misleading because our concept of time does not apply back further than the event that started time as we know it.

And to your last statement, that's a fucking big IF you're throwing in there. Additionally, Faries that created the universe are just as probable as your God.

[Mudhammam]

Again, I don't have to disprove evolution.

True, and you wouldn't be able to even if you tried because it's as sure as any scientific fact.

I am merely pointing out that it is full of holes

No. You're trying but not succeeding.

I, however, do not have to believe it by faith.

Agreed.

Problems with the cosmological argument:
Premise 1: unjustified assertion. May or may not be true.
Premise 2: unjustified assertion. May or may not be true.
Conclusion: unjustified assertion. May or may not be true.

Great argument. You said that's one of the best theists got?
........

[Jenny A]

By whose definition are we apes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_as_primates

Modern humans (Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens) are the only extant members of the hominin clade, a branch of great apes characterized by erect posture and bipedal locomotion; manual dexterity and increased tool use; and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains and societies.

The footnote to that particular comment is:

Goodman M, Tagle D, Fitch D, Bailey W, Czelusniak J, Koop B, Benson P, Slightom J (1990). "Primate evolution at the DNA level and a classification of hominoids". J Mol Evol 30 (3): 260–266. doi:10.1007/BF02099995. PMID 2109087.

I see you got here first. Thanks.

[SteveII]

Again, I don't have to disprove evolution.

True, and you wouldn't be able to even if you tried because it's as sure as any scientific fact.

I am merely pointing out that it is full of holes

No. You're trying but not succeeding.

I, however, do not have to believe it by faith.

Agreed.

Problems with the cosmological argument:
Premise 1: unjustified assertion. May or may not be true.
Premise 2: unjustified assertion. May or may not be true.
Conclusion: unjustified assertion. May or may not be true.

Great argument. You said that's one of the best theists got?
........

Regarding the Cosmological Argument, how about the standard of "more plausible than not"? It seems it at least reaches that level.

[FatAndFaithless]

True, and you wouldn't be able to even if you tried because it's as sure as any scientific fact.

No. You're trying but not succeeding.

Agreed.

Problems with the cosmological argument:
Premise 1: unjustified assertion. May or may not be true.
Premise 2: unjustified assertion. May or may not be true.
Conclusion: unjustified assertion. May or may not be true.

Great argument. You said that's one of the best theists got?
........

Regarding the Cosmological Argument, how about the standard of "more plausible than not"? It seems it at least reaches that level.

No. Not even close. Two flawed premises with a flawed conclusion, with God tacked on without justification is not "plausible". You haven't even proven that it's possible.

[SteveII]

[quote='SteveII' pid='705008' dateline='1405022703']

Again, I don't have to disprove evolution.

True, and you wouldn't be able to even if you tried because it's as sure as any scientific fact.

Someone told me recently that asserting something is true does not make it true. "As sure as any scientific fact"? That's a pretty high standard--with it not being able to be successfully replicated or tested like all the other scientific facts.

Ironically, it was this forum that prompted me to spend hours looking through articles about evolution. I eventually found the one I referenced above and found it to be better written, better researched, and more thorough that anything on creation.com or irc.org etc. I would seriously like to know where the author went astray discussing over a dozen major problems with the evolutionary theory.

[Minimalist]

Again, I don't have to disprove evolution. I am merely pointing out that it is full of holes that may or may not be plugged.

Ha! I bet you think your fucking bible is TRUE, though.


Creatards love to invent supposed problems with the ToE...most of which are representative of their own stupidity and inability to comprehend. But, even if Darwin was completely wrong it would not provide one iota of evidence for creationism.

This is not an either/or question. Were evolution wrong it does not mean your god shit is true by default.

It would mean science goes back to the drawing board and you'd still be an ignorant fool championing ancient fairy tales.

[Mudhammam]

Ironically, it was this forum that prompted me to spend hours looking through articles about evolution. I eventually found the one I referenced above and found it to be better written, better researched, and more thorough that anything on creation.com or irc.org etc. I would seriously like to know where the author went astray discussing over a dozen major problems with the evolutionary theory.

You found typical creationist bullshit, so misinformed about evolution that they even claim there is a species called bacteria, talk about "transitional creatures," and argue that since some organisms survive relatively unchanged, evolution must be false.

"The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts. Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day."

Do you know how incredibly stupid that sounds to anyone who has even read ONE biology text? Perhaps they should change "useless" to "harmful" and then they'd realize that is exactly what we find.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If anyone cares to look he can see evolution in progress simply by looking at the large cats. They are in the process of becoming separate species but right now they are the same basic species although they look completely different from each other. So from their example it seems that significant physical changes can occur before the biological changes become permanent. All of the big cats are still capable of producing offspring with each other. When they no long can do that then they will become separate species in the true sense of the word. Right now they are in transition.

[ignoramus]

Providing more evidence that you do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

You have much to learn. I suggest dropping your bible and reading some actual books on science.

My apologies. Is this better? The mechanism by which we get diversification of life by means of natural selection and random mutations.

---

@Jenny

There is a large distinction between micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution can be see all around us. However, finches are still finches, moths are still moths, fruit flies are still fruit flies and dogs are still dogs. Believing in the evolutionary tree of life is a whole different thing.

Why do you assume that there is a predetermined intelligent outcome for what a eg, "dog" is meant to evolve into? Sharks haven't evolved in millions of years because they are comfortable with their surroundings. The hammerhead was caused by a mutation which just happened to be beneficial to their survival which is the only reason they are around today. Most creatures today are still here because they have evolved to a point where survival in nature is guaranteed, hence so huge reason morph physically in order to adapt.