0
quade

Bush proves he's not the brightest -- again.

Recommended Posts

Part two:
Present processes are those of maintenance or providence. Not only is nothing being created but also nothing is being destroyed. He is "upholding all things by the Word of his power." By the same omnipotent Word who created all things, "the heaven and the earth which are now, are kept in store" (II Peter 3:7).
But we have already noted another very significant characteristic of all such present processes. It is true that nothing is being destroyed, but it is also strangely true that everything tends to become less useful. This is the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy increase, which states that the natural tendency is toward increasing disorder and randomization. Energy tends to become less available for useful work, and the process can only be maintained by a continual influx of fresh energy from outside the system itself. Everything tends to grow old, to wear out, or to run down. There is a universal tendency toward decay and death. And who cannot help but sense that this state of affairs, universal and inexorable though it seems to be, is somehow undesirable and abnormal in a universe created by a Holy and Omnipotent Creator?
But this is all explained and long anticipated in Scripture, which attributes it to the entrance of sin into the world. At the end of the creation and making of all things, the Bible says that "God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31; italics added). There was no disorder, no lack of harmony, no decay and, above all, no death in the world as originally made by God. For the Bible believing scientist, this can only mean that any evidence he finds in the present order of things, or in the records of the past, that indicates disorder and struggle, suffering, decay, and death, must necessarily be understood as entering the world after (not before or during) the six days of creation.
Specifically the Bible tells us that this happened as a result of the sin of the first man, Adam, who had been designated by God as master of the earth and everything in it. When he sinned, God pronounced a curse on both Adam and his dominion. "Cursed is the earth for thy sake" (Genesis 3:17). And from that day on, as the Scripture says: "The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (Romans 8:22). The whole world, both the heavens and the earth, and all that in them is, are "waxing old, as a garment" (Hebrews 1:11).
James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The most significant implication of this fact, for modern philosophers, is that it is therefore quite impossible to determine anything about certain creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wishes to know anything at all about creation time of creation, the duration of creation, the order of creation, the methods of creation, or anything else his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there, and there is nothing in present physical processes which can tell us about it. Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the SCIENCE of creation!

This last paragraph contains so many logical fallicies, that I can hardly decipher it.
That said, this one sticks out in my mind the most, "God was there when it happened." Really? How do you know?
Your entire argument rests on this as fact. However, since the statement is questionalble to begin with, how can we assume your conclusion isn't also questionable?
quade
http://futurecam.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm willing to accept that the argument you're making CAN be made logically on a philosophical plane, although I am also convinced that it would be unwise to actually implement it in the real world. Communism works in theory too. Then you implement it and everything goes to shit.
But trying to infer that the writers of the Bible understood the first and second laws of thermodynamics (which are pretty broad and intuitive, by the way), based on a few lines in Genesis, is more than a stretch. It reads like the conspiracy-theory stuff people put on the Web, where coincidence becomes causation wherever possible. Nothing personal, that's just my opinion.
Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That said, this one sticks out in my mind the most, "God was there when it happened." Really? How do you know? Your entire argument rests on this as fact.

Quade, you do realize that the scientific argument for creation rests on the fact that the world was created from nothing by mere chance don't you? Both arguments are really hard to swallow if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James,
I understand the laws of thermodynamics. Where we disagree is on their relationship to the Bible. I don't see conservation of energy and entropy as decisively proving that grasping the creative process is beyond our ability. Nor do I see it as proof that things were created by a higher power.
I can build order, create beauty, initiate life and control energy on a small scale. My wife and I are creating life by making a child. When I charge up a battery, it is negatively entropic on a tiny scale. I have focused energy and made order. Of course, on the macro scale, the energy came from somewhere else and, if the universe really is a closed system, entropy was increased elsewhere to the same degree I diminished it where I am.
Going back to what I said in my last post to you, I don't agree about God doing anything. I'll rephrase your final two sentences to the point where you can probably accept them, and I have no objection to them:
If you had said, "Therefore, I am completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell me, and I believe this information is in His written Word. This is my textbook on the SCIENCE of creation!", I would have no problem with that. It wouldn't have anything to do with me.
Your belief, your God, your view of creation. Not mine, and certainly not universal. But fine for you, as long as you don't insist that they be my beliefs too.
Justin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Who even said there had to be a beginning? Just because our frail human minds can't handle the concept of infinity.

99% of scientists since the mid 1960s when the Big Bang Theory came out. Is it easier to believe that it has always been here with no beginning and no end? Doesn't make it any easier for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is starting to remind me of that scene in Animal House when they're all smoking weed with Donald Sutherland. "This means that our whole universe could just be one tiny speck on the finger of a giant, and each tiny speck on MY finger could be.... a whole universe! Wow!"
Well, it's a fun debate, anyway. Just remember that your mind is like a parachute - opening it will only slow you down.
Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Forgive my use of plurality, didn't mean to suggest that it involved you so much as those others out there who believe the Bible.

No problem. As long as it works for you. :)I'll go on believing in evolution, refuting the existance of God, denying the authority of religion, and thinking that I'll just rot and fertilize some grass when I die. That is what works for me. :D
Justin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I do not find a single shred of what could be described as "proof" of the existance anywhere in your post.

Not even a single shred? I find that perplexing because even among the atheists I talk to most at least agree that there cannot be an infinite regression in a causal line. There must be an original source. (argument 2)
Most even agree that it takes something "actual" to bring out the "potentiality" in something else as well. For example it takes an "actual" fire or heat to bring out the "potential" fire from a block of wood. Here also there cannot logically be an infinite regression. There must be something that is fully actual--in that it is perfect, infinite, and always was and never will change. (argument 1)
The third argument is also similar to the second except that it relates to an infinte regression of existence instead of efficient causes. In other words, there had to be something that always existed by it's own nature in order for the things that exist now to be here.
The fourth is disputable in that you could argue that a combination of lesser "greatnesses" could combine to make the greatest greatness. :-)
Finally, the fifth can be argued against by holding a position that states that there is no intellegent design and that it only *appears* that way and that random chance somehow formed it all.
I can give you the last two, but really, can you honestly think of any effect that did not have a cause related to it? For example, how did you get here? The how did your parents get here? Then how did their parents get here? This cannot go on ad infinitum. Even if you trace it back to chemicals coming together in some cosmic goo or whatever those things themselves must be traced back to some kind of origin.
So to say that those arguments do not have a "single shred" of proof seems to be stretching it. Now, if you meant *empirical* proof such that I must taste, touch, smell, see, or hear it... well that is more difficult to produce and open to interpretation since experience is pretty much subjective. Of course, by the same token there is no direct empirical evidence to prove that the square root of 5 is an irrational number but we know it is through reason alone.
Quote

Your text is rich in theological roundabout bafflegab -- but there is no proof.

And I'm sure you'd say the same about Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Voltaire, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, and Rousseau as well. (unless you agreed with them) Aquinas has a pedigree at least on par with most of those listed. Also, just because you may not understand what they are saying doesn't make it "bafflegab" either. At least make an effort to criticize the arguments directly (which I have done for you a little) instead of making an unfounded blanket assertion about it.
As for the age of the earth, I don't know. Using radiometric dating it appears to be 4.6 billion years old and may very well be. As for how it was formed I believe God created the heavens and the earth like the Bible says. Now, how long that took and what methods God chose to use who can say aside from what science can tell us.
Quote

Now, on to rebuttals.
Sinkster --
While St. Thomas was considered a very great thinker in his time, I do not accept his (in my opinion) fallacious arguments as proof of anything.
Please see;
Logic & Fallacies
and
Nizkor Project

Ummm, so Aquinas' arguments contain logical fallacies? Please illustrate what they are and which ones. Just posting a link to a site about logic, and a list of possible fallacies means nothing. Philosophers don't care what you think unless you can tell them why. Just posting an "opinion" as you say it is not a very good rebuttal. The objections I just raised to the last two are decent examples of a rebuttal. (although I do have counter replies =) )
Quote

"...which all call God. "
That's a pretty absolute, all inclusive statement. In my opinion, it seems that anyone that DOESN'T believe in God, or even see God in the same way, disproves the argument because the conclusion infers that everyone (ALL-->everyone, right?) sees God in the same way.

When Aquinas said "-- which all call God" he was not necessarily talking about the Christian God, or the Islamic God, or the Jewish God. That has no bearing on the arguments for the existence of *a* God which has the characteristics necessary to serve that role. Aquinas wasn't saying that everyone sees God the same way, what he was saying was that the resulting conclusion of his arguments was that there must be a divine being that has certain characteristics. What people think has no bearing at all on the validity of the arguments. Therefore, it takes more to back up the claim of God being the Christian God.
Still, if one were to analyze what it means to be a perfect and infinite being (which is what God has to be to make the argument fit), you find that the characteristics of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, benevolence, infinite, always existing, and creator of all things are non-arbitrary and necessary attributes. This alone eliminates many religions and fits the Christian God quite nicely. The rest is a story for another time as my fingers grow tired and one could write a book about such things. My suggestion is to study some of the historical facts about the life of Jesus and the Apostles as well as pray knowing that if there is a God (like the Christian one) then He will answer you. I believe that if you really seek, you will certainly find something even if it is not exactly what you might expect. However, like I said earlier, faith always plays some kind of role and I know I could not follow or believe in God without faith.
-Sinkster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Quade, you do realize that the scientific argument for creation rests on the fact that the world was created from nothing by mere chance don't you? Both arguments are really hard to swallow if you ask me.

Well, actually, if you really take a look at quantum physics, particals do in fact seem to appear and disappear out of the void.
Since these particles are the building blocks of atoms and the rest of the universe, then no, I don't really find much wrong with the current thinking when it comes to the creation of the universe by mean of "The Big Bang."
See this research being done by NASA.
quade
http://futurecam.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Ummm, so Aquinas' arguments contain logical fallacies? Please illustrate what they are and which ones. Just posting a link to a site about logic, and a list of possible fallacies means nothing. Philosophers don't care what you think unless you can tell them why. Just posting an "opinion" as you say it is not a very good rebuttal. The objections I just raised to the last two are decent examples of a rebuttal. (although I do have counter replies =) )

Fair enough. Since your St. Thomas quotes are rather long, it might take a little while for me to tear them foot from foot, but I'll give it my best shot in the wee hours tonight when I'm not working.
I must say that I am impressed with the amount of material this discussion has generated so far.
BTW, it is only in the interest of bandwidth, I've chosen to mostly use URLs instead of coping and pasting entire passages as so many others have done.
quade
http://futurecam.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is interesting how this thread has gone from a "Do we agree with what Bush is doing?" thread to a thread debating the existance of God and whether the Bible holds any scientific truths. Managed to get cloning, stem cells, and abortion in there too.
Way to go, but talk about an epic thread. Geesh! :)"Yea, I didn't think we'd actually be turning any points..." ~ Goat #4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well, actually, if you really take a look at quantum physics, particals do in fact seem to appear and disappear out of the void.

You're comparing the 'nothing' that exists in a universe that is already created with the 'nothing' that existed before anything was here. In my comprehension that is a large leap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0