well, the creationism theory claims that (and stop me if I am repeating something) god just made everything that is...

so he basicly made something out of nothing? is that possible? matter just cant be created like that, it is not possible.

Unless you believe in a cyclic universe without beginning nor end, matter always needs to come 'out of nowhere'.

Just this: why introduce a deity? It only complicates matters. It's but an ancient relic from the past, when people needed gods to explain stuff they didn't understand. Time to think again, take a fresh start. Observe.

Of course, if you're one of those 'objective reality deniers', then perception means nothing to you. But, in my opinion, there's little point in trying to apply reason to nothing.

Meh. It's all a point of view, after all. Nothing's impossible. I'm not a very zealous atheist. People can believe what they want, as long as they don't bug me/others with their ideology, whether it be based on delusions or not.

I would say I am almost certain there is no god, because there is no need for one to explain the universe. (and what explains the god, anyway?) However, I can't ever know for sure.

One hypothesis being that the deity introduces themself.

Nothing is its own parent, that is an impossibility.

Uh, no it doesn't. Floods are very common and were crucial to some ancient cultures, which is why cultures have flood stories. The entire Earth was never covered in a flood.



If you dig down far enough just about anywhere you'll probably hit water. Not to mention the whole "rain" thing.



1) Climate doesn't change how big things can grow

2) Floods don't change the climate.

What evidence do you have of a "perfect climate" before the flood?



That's like saying the "Davinci Code" can't be a work of fiction because it takes place in a real location.



lol wut? You can't possibly mean this, can you?


If so, welcome to 1963:


http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/moondust.html

I believe his question was "why introduce a deity into your mythology" rather than "why/who would introduce a deity into the universe" As far as your point goes, the idea of God in Jewish/Islamic/Christian tradition, and most other monotheistic religions, is that God is uncreated.

pff, I find it very illogical for the world to be 6 thousand years old...

Wait, Eeems, you really believe that the earth and moon are six thousand years old? I don't think I've previously found a math and science slash engineering slash programming person (ie, intellectual, logical, cerebral) who is that much of a Fundamentalist. Fascinating.

I am too lazy to make my own post so I just quote people that have the same general idea as me

I know of at least a couple people with doctorates in astronomy and astrophysics who are Y.E.C.s., based on a premise that rejects uniformitarianism (the idea that the laws of physics have held constant throughout history). In general I find their theological justifications for this position to be on shaky ground, but their argument does follow rationally from the fundamental premise of inerrant scripture--which makes it a much better place to begin a debate with intellectually serious YECs than empirical evidence which will always be interpreted in light of a particular worldview.

Sorry for necroposting and possibly re-inciting the "epic debate", but I only just noticed this post. My actual question was: why do we need a deity in the model (or 'understanding', if you prefer) of our universe.

This is my personal view on the matter: we don't need god(s) to explain how the universe works (at any rate, having god in it raises more questions than it solves). I also don't believe that there is any sort of purpose to existence. In my view, the universe is physical, and existence does not extend beyond that.

About god and quantum mechanics: I think Feynman states in the Lectures on Physics that QM cannot be governed by any sort of 'more fundamental' mechanism. Wouldn't god be included by that rule?
Gotta check that one, though, since my extension of that statement might be completely unwarranted.

I wouldn't call that a necropost.

But I have to say that it takes just as much faith to believe that the universe just happened to be (including living beings) than it does to believe that God created everything.

Just think about the human body (or any other living thing) with all of that DNA in the perfect order as well as the ability to procreate. It would be like throwing all of the letters of a large book and having them land in their perfect order. What are the chances of that happening?

So... Please don't knock anyone (I'm not saying you are) for believing that God created everything when your belief could be just as preposterous in another one's mind.

I'm perfectly happy to interchange scientific/mathematical/philosophical terminology for related concepts


I would assume that is his attempt at a lay-speak refutation of local hidden variable theories. That certainly precludes various naive understandings of God, but I know of very few people who would claim to adhere to such a theology. A Calvinist physicist-theologian would probably be quite happy to propose something similar to the non-local hidden variable theory of the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics (as long as they could place God as the root cause and planner). An ardent believer in free will (such as myself) would be more comfortable extending the Copenhagen Interpretation to allow for physically indistinguishable, but ontologically distinct, supernatural and "subnatural/quantum" effects on the physical universe (ala C.S. Lewis). If we allow for probabilistic (nondeterministic) quantum effects, a supernatural intervention would be physically indistinguishable from a finitely probable (but still extremely unlikely) quantum effect. Like the classical (pre-quantum mechanics) understanding of free will, wherein deterministic Newtonian mechanics could still be violated by supernatural intervention, we can observe supernatural effects and be unable to trace the cause through repeated observation, since supernatural interventions are by very definition not reproducible phenomena. We are then left to judge individually whether we believe an event to be so unlikely from natural causes that we are willing to ascribe it to the supernatural.


Ranman: Since you're using a (poorly refined) teleological argument in your remark about DNA, I'm going to assume you hold to some form of Intelligent Design (and probably some form of Biblically influenced creationism), and challenge you to a higher standard for your arguments. Also, I'm going to recommend you read the Language of God by Francis Collins. By no means do I believe that evolutionary processes took place randomly or without God's guidance, but your book analogy reveals a flawed understanding of the iterative self organizing principles that drive evolution. Also please don't resort to relativism to defend the merits of your world-view.

I don't think that's an accurate analogy. I think a better analogy is that you take all the letters in a large book, throw them in lots of random orders, and print all the different books from these different letters. Then you put them in a library full of discerning librarians, who read books and throw out all the nonsensical ones. Over millions and billions of years, those librarians will very likely weed down the books to a very small set of volumes that actually make sense.

Ah... my friend... the error in your logic is that you assume I believe in teleology. Now... if I do not believe in teleology, then your point is completely moot.


Once again... you base your assumption that I believe in teleology.


I cannot prove God exists neither can I prove evolution. Hence, I must use relativism. Nice try!

Who said the DNA was in a perfect order? We are far from perfect.
Also, we can, as an alternative counterargument, invoke the weak anthropic principle, that we observe things as they are because if they were otherwise we would not be exist to observe them. An unsatisfactory argument perhaps, but a valid one.
Also, the "perfection" you profess is something very relative, I would think.

Our DNA is full of trash. Evolutionary waste. DNA that does nothing. Even then our DNA that does stuff doesn't do it particularly well. Our eyes have a nice big blind spot in them (http://www.doobybrain.com/2008/02/25/the-human-eye-has-a-blind-spot/) and our laryngeal nerve takes a huge looping path that makes no sense whatsoever. These things and tons of other biological imperfections make it seem like any intelligent designer wasn't so intelligent.

If you don't accept the teleological argument, I'm not sure why you were making it seriously (and without disclaimer that you yourself did not accept the argument you were making). Your use was the starting point of my assumptions, not the end point. By which I mean this:

Is a Teleological argument. It doesn't matter if you have an interest in the philosophical study of teleology (or accept its implications), you were making a teleological argument, and it is from that point I drew my further assumptions about your beliefs.


Unfortunately your reasoning here is incorrect good sir. It is entirely consistent with objectivism to admit the insufficiency of the evidence and reasoning to prove your own truth-claims while maintaining the existence of an independent standard of truth which we should strive to know and against which we should seek to measure all truth-claims. Yet rather than choosing to say "this is what I believe to be true, here are the reasons I believe it to be so, and the evidence for those reasons" you chose to say "All beliefs about the truth are equally ridiculous, mine included, but I'll just point at the other guy"

Anyone have any thoughts on the analogy that I came up with? I'd be happy to make it more precise if necessary.

AHAHA, epic win Kerm! SOMEONE forgot about the fact that we did actually have those billion years, although I can't imagine it would have an effect on those who think the world is 6000 years old