5 ms·

The idea that the universe was created by an intelligent being is not a scientific theory and cannot be disproven by science. It is not in competition with sci

The idea that the universe was created by an intelligent being is not a scientific theory and cannot be disproven by science. It is not in competition with scientific theories of evolution or even, for example, big bang theories, because neither of them can explain why the universe exists, where it came from, etc. If you believe in the big bang, then what caused it, where did the matter come from, etc? You cannot disprove philosophy with science, and the fools are those who think they can.

flukus 10y ago
Sure, there are limits to out knowledge, atheists are a lot happier to say they don't know than most religious folk I've come across. But what your describing is very different to most creationist, you've pushed the god of gaps back to a level where it's largely irrelevant. Most creationist are the 6000 year old earth kind, which has been disproven by several major branches of science.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  > Sure, there are limits to out knowledge, atheists are a lot happier to say they don't know than most religious folk I've come across. So, if a person says, "I don't know, but I still believe," is that not an example of faith? How, then, can you claim that atheism and/or, shall we say, "sciencism", are more rational belief systems than Creationism, Christianity, etc, given that they both ultimately rely on faith? The atheist says, "Creationists are fools because they have no proof of their creator," while the creationist says, "Atheists are fools because they have no proof of what created." What's the difference? Who has more faith: the one who sees something that exists and believes that something created it, or the one who sees something that exists and believes it was not created? Is either one not faith-based? Does either one not have missing links in its assumed chain? > But what your describing is very different to most creationist, you've pushed the god of gaps back to a level where it's largely irrelevant. How is it not relevant whether an intelligent being created the universe? If the universe was created by an intelligent being, what does it matter how it was done, through natural processes set in motion or by blinking into existence in an advanced state? If the universe was created by an intelligent being, wouldn't that be much more important than how? > Most creationist are the 6000 year old earth kind, which has been disproven by several major branches of science. To be strictly fair, this is not true, because it does not engage with that kind of creationism's assumptions. If one believes that an intelligent being created the universe from nothing, including all the physical laws from subatomic to intergalactic, why would it be beyond that being's ability to create the Earth in a state advanced far beyond its actual age? Besides, in matters like this, what is time, anyway? Einstein showed that it's relative--and if an intelligent being created the rules that Einstein discovered, could not that being bend its own rules? In other words, you unfairly ascribe to the "6000 year old earth kind" an inconsistency which it does not actually bear; you do not engage with it on its own terms. If you do not accept its assumptions, that's fine--your disagreement then lies with them, not with a false inconsistency. Ultimately, the most important question is of who or what created the universe, not how or when it was created. The former makes a difference in how we should lead our lives, while the latter is merely interesting.
  - flukus 10y ago
    >, if a person says, "I don't know, but I still believe," is that not an example of faith? How, then, can you claim that atheism and/or, shall we say, "sciencism", are more rational belief systems than Creationism, Christianity, etc, given that they both ultimately rely on faith? Quite simply, science gets results, religion doesn't. What do you think if last Thursday is? Because the rest of your arguments apply equally to that and neither have real world consequences.
    - travis-d-ray 10y ago
      Playing the devil's advocate, what results does the theory of evolution give us other than confidence to observe that a species genes mutate sometimes giving rise to a new species? Does evolution have any predictive power?
      - flukus 10y ago
        It predicted the existence of DNA, or something very much like it. It predicted that the DNA copying process would contain errors, something not confirmed until long after Darwins death. It predicted the existence of many animals, extinct and extent, origin of species itself list some examples. It also predicted a single origin for all/most life, which presented a lot of problems for the theory before we understood things like continental drift. Aside from that, it gave us one of the first hints that simple rules can create complex behaviors, which is important to a lot of sciences.
mr_overalls 10y ago
You cannot disprove the existence of a ghostly teapot, either, but that doesn't make it a good idea. The philosophical burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim for an idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
- alphapapa 10y ago
  Presumption of non-existence is just as much a presumption as presumption of existence. One man looks at the universe and thinks, "Someone must have created this, for nothing can exist without having been created." Another man looks at the universe and thinks, "I cannot see who created this, therefore no one did." Who has the better case? Who has more evidence? Of course, it's a matter of interpretation. But the same can be said for your assertion about the philosophical burden of proof and claim for an idea. One man claims, "I cannot see who created, therefore there is no creator. If you think someone created it, the burden of proof is upon you." Another man says, "It exists, therefore someone created it. If you think no one created it, the burden of proof is upon you to explain how something can exist without having been created." Whichever side you take requires making assumptions that lay the burden of proof on the other side. And if one were going to choose a side, I fail to see how the no-creator side is a stronger default position: the fact of the universe's existence is evidence that it was created. To disprove this would require demonstrating how something can exist without having been created.
  - flukus 10y ago
    > the fact of the universe's existence is evidence that it was created. To disprove this would require demonstrating how something can exist without having been created. The existence of a creator also requires that something can exist without having been created. The burden of proof for this is higher because there are 2 claims.

flukus 10y ago

Sure, there are limits to out knowledge, atheists are a lot happier to say they don't know than most religious folk I've come across. But what your describing is very different to most creationist, you've pushed the god of gaps back to a level where it's largely irrelevant. Most creationist are the 6000 year old earth kind, which has been disproven by several major branches of science.

alphapapa 10y ago
> Sure, there are limits to out knowledge, atheists are a lot happier to say they don't know than most religious folk I've come across. So, if a person says, "I don't know, but I still believe," is that not an example of faith? How, then, can you claim that atheism and/or, shall we say, "sciencism", are more rational belief systems than Creationism, Christianity, etc, given that they both ultimately rely on faith? The atheist says, "Creationists are fools because they have no proof of their creator," while the creationist says, "Atheists are fools because they have no proof of what created." What's the difference? Who has more faith: the one who sees something that exists and believes that something created it, or the one who sees something that exists and believes it was not created? Is either one not faith-based? Does either one not have missing links in its assumed chain? > But what your describing is very different to most creationist, you've pushed the god of gaps back to a level where it's largely irrelevant. How is it not relevant whether an intelligent being created the universe? If the universe was created by an intelligent being, what does it matter how it was done, through natural processes set in motion or by blinking into existence in an advanced state? If the universe was created by an intelligent being, wouldn't that be much more important than how? > Most creationist are the 6000 year old earth kind, which has been disproven by several major branches of science. To be strictly fair, this is not true, because it does not engage with that kind of creationism's assumptions. If one believes that an intelligent being created the universe from nothing, including all the physical laws from subatomic to intergalactic, why would it be beyond that being's ability to create the Earth in a state advanced far beyond its actual age? Besides, in matters like this, what is time, anyway? Einstein showed that it's relative--and if an intelligent being created the rules that Einstein discovered, could not that being bend its own rules? In other words, you unfairly ascribe to the "6000 year old earth kind" an inconsistency which it does not actually bear; you do not engage with it on its own terms. If you do not accept its assumptions, that's fine--your disagreement then lies with them, not with a false inconsistency. Ultimately, the most important question is of who or what created the universe, not how or when it was created. The former makes a difference in how we should lead our lives, while the latter is merely interesting.
- flukus 10y ago
  >, if a person says, "I don't know, but I still believe," is that not an example of faith? How, then, can you claim that atheism and/or, shall we say, "sciencism", are more rational belief systems than Creationism, Christianity, etc, given that they both ultimately rely on faith? Quite simply, science gets results, religion doesn't. What do you think if last Thursday is? Because the rest of your arguments apply equally to that and neither have real world consequences.
  - travis-d-ray 10y ago
    Playing the devil's advocate, what results does the theory of evolution give us other than confidence to observe that a species genes mutate sometimes giving rise to a new species? Does evolution have any predictive power?
    - flukus 10y ago
      It predicted the existence of DNA, or something very much like it. It predicted that the DNA copying process would contain errors, something not confirmed until long after Darwins death. It predicted the existence of many animals, extinct and extent, origin of species itself list some examples. It also predicted a single origin for all/most life, which presented a lot of problems for the theory before we understood things like continental drift. Aside from that, it gave us one of the first hints that simple rules can create complex behaviors, which is important to a lot of sciences.

mr_overalls 10y ago

You cannot disprove the existence of a ghostly teapot, either, but that doesn't make it a good idea. The philosophical burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim for an idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

alphapapa 10y ago
Presumption of non-existence is just as much a presumption as presumption of existence. One man looks at the universe and thinks, "Someone must have created this, for nothing can exist without having been created." Another man looks at the universe and thinks, "I cannot see who created this, therefore no one did." Who has the better case? Who has more evidence? Of course, it's a matter of interpretation. But the same can be said for your assertion about the philosophical burden of proof and claim for an idea. One man claims, "I cannot see who created, therefore there is no creator. If you think someone created it, the burden of proof is upon you." Another man says, "It exists, therefore someone created it. If you think no one created it, the burden of proof is upon you to explain how something can exist without having been created." Whichever side you take requires making assumptions that lay the burden of proof on the other side. And if one were going to choose a side, I fail to see how the no-creator side is a stronger default position: the fact of the universe's existence is evidence that it was created. To disprove this would require demonstrating how something can exist without having been created.
- flukus 10y ago
  > the fact of the universe's existence is evidence that it was created. To disprove this would require demonstrating how something can exist without having been created. The existence of a creator also requires that something can exist without having been created. The burden of proof for this is higher because there are 2 claims.