Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly

by Coded Logic 116 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  prologos

  Coded Logic, thank you for your vdeo, would have liked close captions for the mentally, and slow hearing impaired like me, but

  I am not through yet with the 'Zero sum argument'. The gravity and centrifugal force of a stable orbit object balance perfectly. but does it follow that there are really NOT two energy forms, quantities existing? The balance of the equation is zero, the cross sum of the situation is 2.

  The "void" not the void of genesis, but the primordial vaccuum did not (only) have the Kasimir Effect, but is now thought to have dark energy, that the expanding universe aquires to fuel it's accelerating expansion. so, to me,

  The Zero sum is a book-keeping expression only, The creation/beginning event involved a separation of lots of energy- see also the 'matter vs antimatter' theoryof the pre-big bang condition.

  bsw. The gorgeous galaxy in the opening picture was the screen saver in the big box store when I bought this computer. so, pointing it out to the young and bright salesman, I asked: "that is a beautiful picture, no doubt taken by an ingenious telescope, what do you think, the Universe that is even grander, was it created or did it make itself?" pause, not wanting to antagonize a customer: " it made itself".- me: "--interesting, Do you sell anything in theis store that made itself--?

  The grandiose maschines of Cern, the space ships that you show as examples of our research tools, come closer to the workings of creation than the idols, meatballs, of the religious world, that are held up in contrast.

  When the "all clear" sounds at a cern experiment, and all the tally is done, the energy used and dispersed is Zero too, and time stood still in the proton beams accelerating so close to 'c' and the re-created creation event.

  Give those zeros displayed a 180 degrees twist, like a simple Pretzel, and you have infinity, also appropriate for the nothing before the beginning.
• 

  Caedes

  Personally, I look at it this way; There are two ways of looking at this problem. The natural universe as we know it is the same for the theist, deist or atheist. If you take that universe and add any kind of supernatural creator (as the theist or desit must) then you have just made your picture of the universe almost infinitely more complex.

  natural universe

  natural universe plus incredibly powerful creator that can create universes.

  Ask yourself which of these two world views is simplest? Occam's razor does the rest.
• 

  prologos

  the simplest, simplistic picture, is it complete?
• 

  Caedes

  It's as complex as it needs to be and as simple as it can be.
• 

  Caedes

  However you want to cut it, adding a creator to the picture makes it needlessly more complex.
• 

  Apognophos

  My personal stance is that I cannot conceive of how a God could come into being on its own, and I cannot conceive of how a universe can come into existence on its own. Talking about zero-sum energy fields is not satisfying to me because the theory still posits that something very potent existed from the very beginning and something caused a disturbance in that field.

  Therefore our existence is, according to our current knowledge, inexplicable. Without enough data, we have no right at this time to say which of those two causes, God or random energy fluctuations, is more likely, nor whether there might be additional options besides those two that we haven't thought of yet.

  Occam's Razor is not useful in a situation where we lack so little knowledge. Besides that, if a god exists, then the universe's degree of complexity simply is a result of the pre-existing complexity in his mind, and therefore the sum complexity of god+universe is not greater.
• 

  Caedes

  Occam's Razor is not useful in a situation where we lack so little knowledge. Besides that, if a god exists, then the universe's degree of complexity simply is a result of the pre-existing complexity in his mind, and therefore the sum complexity of god+universe is not greater.

  Occam's razor is always useful. If you cannot understand how adding a powerful creator god adds a hugely additional level of complexity to the natural universe then I don't know I can help you. We are not talking about maths we are talking about the concept. Of course any god sufficiently powerful to create universes has to be more complex than it's creation.
• 

  rocketman

  Though I'm pretty much on board with the OP's presentation, I think it might be argued by Creationists that, in Gen 1:1, the "heavens and the earth" might be understood as 'heavens and [then] the earth", i.e; the listing of the heavens first implies that they were created first.

  Of course, one would have to admit that the text does not say "and then the earth".
• 

  Coded Logic

  --interesting, Do you sell anything in theis store that made itself--?

  - prologos

  This is a falacious arguement on two accounts. Firstly, it's a false equivication. Everything in the store was not "made" in the same sense that the universe was "made." Everything in the store is the rearangment of positive energy. The universe, however, comes from the quantum fluctuations of equal amounts of negitive and postive energy. Thier orgins are entirely different in the sense that your trying to equate them.

  Secondly, this arguement is also bad inductive reasoning. It's like saying, "all sheep have mothers - therefore the flock must have a mother." Or like saying, "all water drops are round - therefore all oceans must be round." What applies to the individual parts does not neccissarly apply to the whole. What applies to the formation of things inside the universe does not neccissarly apply to the formation of the universe itself.

  the theory still posits that something very potent existed from the very beginning and something caused a disturbance in that field.

  - Apognophos

  This is not true. The theory postits that "nothing" is inherently unstable and will seek a lower entropy. Thus, quantum fluctuations. It does not say that "something" causes it.

  we have no right at this time to say which of those two causes, God or random energy fluctuations, is more likely

  - Apognophos

  Quantum fluctuations are known to exists. Gods are NOT known to exists. Your arguement is like saying, "We can't know which two causes, General Motors or magical pixies, is more likely to have created all Corvetts."

  You cannot solve one mystery with another mystery. You cannot explain one unknown by postulating the existance of another unknown. And you certainly can't say an unknown is as likely as a known. Knowns are ALWAYS more likely.
• 

  Coded Logic

  One other note here, when Occam's Razor says the simplest explination is often the most likely - simplest doesn't mean the least amount of steps. Simplest means the answer with the least amount of assumptions. And I cannot think of a bigger assumption than an all powerful God.