Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:23:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
471 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
>
> Tom Stangl wrote:
> >
> > Who created the creator?
>
>
> Here we come to what is seemingly an impossible thing to answer:
> HOWEVER:
> If you are already in a position where you say you believe the Bible the
> answer is simple - the Bible clearly states that God always was, is, and
> always will be
OK. So in the system you accept as a true, revealed system, your god exists
forever and created the universe, but himself doesn't need a creator.
In the one I accept as likely based on the evidence and observations so far
(note the difference, my son...), the universe itself exists forever and
doesn't need a creator.
If you fault my system for not explaining the origin of the universe, why
then, I fault yours for not explaining the origin of your god. No better no
worse, explanation wise. A draw.
But my system is one layer (of regression) simpler. And therefore more
likely to be true by one metric of system evaluation. Mind you, not that the
other one is ruled out on this basis, just that by the Occam's Razor metric,
it is somewhat less likely since it's a more complex explanation of the same
observation.
No big revelation, that. It's elementary creation theory refutation. Been
around for years.
Let's stick to the creationist refutation of speciation and macroevolution,
it at least has the potential for not being quite as plowed ground.
Me, though, I'll be waiting for this macroevolution refutation to be
published in Nature, win a Nobel prize of some sort, make it into some
refereed journal, something like that, before I'll give it much credence,
since it doesn't fit the observations. I won't be holding my breath, though.
Literal creationism is a terrible predictor of anything observable.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Thank you for eventually saying this. The topic at hand could be argued in a number of ways but it reaches a very philosophical(sp?) level. (...) Okay Larry....I must say I'm starting to see Jon's frustration. PLEASE tell us even ONE (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Here we come to what is seemingly an impossible thing to answer: HOWEVER: If you are already in a position where you say you believe the Bible the answer is simple - the Bible clearly states that God always was, is, and always will be (sorry, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
