Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists

Re: If god did create the universe, then it would have to be physically possible for a sentient being to create universes, planets, living creatures, basically anything.

Physically possible? I think a far better explanation is that it was a supernatural event. Please go HERE. Conservative 17:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Jack,

Your challenge echoes that of Kent Hovind, and is flawed for the same reasons. By the same logic, I could challenge you to prove that you're not a clever construct being controlled by hyper-intelligent slug aliens from a distant galaxy, and claim that if you can't prove it, the notion that you're a sentient being has no merit.

You're asking finite beings to explain the infinite. By definition, we cannot. If God exists, then we cannot explain Him or the mechanisms by which He works His wonders. If God does not exist, then we obviously cannot explain Him or the mechanisms by which He works His wonders.

Your challenge meets the same result regardless of whether God exists or does not exist; thus, it is not a useful challenge. --Benp 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

My challenge is nothing like Hovind's.

Hovind's was invalid because it required one to prove things outside the scope of evolution, not just evolution. Hovind's challenge therefore wasn't to prove evolution, it was to disprove creationism, which is by nature unfalsifiable.

physical or supernatural, creationism requires the actions of god to be POSSIBLE in some way. Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary Evidence, as they say. I could claim that there exists a being that defies all laws known to man, but it would be just that: a claim. Until I proved it could be done.

In other words, in something can't be DISproven, you must PROVE it. --JackSmith 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Given that the universe exists, it is entirely logical and rational to say that it is possible for a universe to be created. Given that the universe demonstrates observed properties which fall outside the scope of human explanation, it is entirely logical and rational to say that the universe was created by methods beyond human understanding. Given that sentient beings are observably capable of creation on a limited scale, it is reasonable to assume that they are capable of creation on a larger scale than has yet been observed.

Which aspect of "The universe could have been created by a sentient being" do you consider to be impossible? --Benp 18:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

What kind of challenge is that? The challenger doesn't even understand the nature of God.

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." Mark 10:27

Now Jesus was talking about salvation, especially in the context of one who clings to "the good life" here on Earth. But it goes double and triple and tenfold and a thousandfold for an event as all-encompassing as creation.

Here's the real challenge: if God did not create everything, then explain to me how it was physically possible for things to "just happen," and in a way that does not multiply guesses. It doesn't even have to be an odds-on favorite; odds less than nineteen to one against would be fine. The trouble is that the odds against things "just happening" are nothing short of astronomical, and somethings simply could not have "just happened" in any amount of time, and other things couldn't have happened because they did not have that much time.--TerryH^Talk 09:47, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Response: If god DID create everything, how did HE come to be? that's even LESS likely than this world developing on its own. And he couldn't have always been there. Time cannot extend infinitely backwards, because if it did, then an eternity would have passed by now, which defies the rule of "eternity". --JackSmith 10:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

P.S: did you just link the word Astronomical to the astronomy article? They mean completely different things. --JackSmith 10:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Rebuttal: God needed no cause for Himself. He is the First Cause, and the Last.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:8

God made time. So, according to His nature, He is outside of time.

And—funny that you should talk about time being incapable of flowing infinitely backwards. That's a relatively new concept, did you know that? Sir Charles Lyell, the inventor of uniformitarianism, held as one of his central precepts that the Earth has always been around, and forever. That premise became untenable when the radiometrists couldn't come up with any number higher than 4.6 billion years for the "ages" of the oldest rocks.

And I did not link to astronomy by accident. I meant to do that. Because modern astronomy is providing observations that, properly understood, are tearing uniformitarianism, and all the deep time baggage that goes with it, to tatters. Think about it—virtually every successful space mission, by NASA, or the ESA, or the old Soviet space agency, has turned up observations that create serious problems for the whole deep time concept, the nebula hypothesis, the Big Bang, and everything else. Check out the articles on the planets and on many of the moons, and you'll see.--TerryH^Talk 11:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay, God did not make time, otherwise the Bible line: "First there was nothing" would make absolutely no sense. First? Without time, chronological order would be renered meaningless. How could anything happen without time? If this concept you're arguing is self evident to you, I have no hope for you. This is precisely my point: This concept cannot be accepted as a given, it's too absurd to find obvious. Furthermore, all "refutations" on this page assume I'm already wrong, thus circular logic. And if God exists, he's not all powerful. Can he make a rock that he himself cannot lift? --JackSmith 11:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I think you will find that "In the beginning" pretty much would equate to the start of time as we can know it. Also, the ability of humans to make nonsensical statements, and then place God in them, does not define God. "Can God make a color that is bluer than blue?" "Can God make 2+2 =4 and make 2+2 =5?" Learn together 18:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

First, you get points for originality. I've not seen this particular challenge made before, that I can recall.

However, your challenge, or at least the "punchline", is logically invalid. That is, it is not valid to conclude that because something cannot be explained, it isn't true.

Further, you haven't explained why the onus is on creationists to show how this is possible rather than on you to show that it's not possible, or that a naturalistic alternative is possible or even more reasonable. The way I see it, it is more reasonable to accept that a being who is supposed to be capable of creating everything did so, than to suppose that everything came into being from nothing for no reason. The former is consistent with what we do know that for things to come into existence, there needs to be a cause, whereas the idea that everything began from nothing for no reason is inconsistent with this.

Philip J. Rayment 09:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't know if this will be helpful or not JackSmith, but I think what is needed to correctly understand how God could do this, is this...

1. Universe: The way Christians define this is all material things (all matter and energy, and possibly time although there is debate). Basically though, that means all things outside of (independent of) the Universe are not matter and not energy, they are not made of physical material. They are not bound by scientific laws, because they are not within the realm of nature which has those laws. Scientific laws, by the way, don't equate to logic. You could have different laws in a different realm of existence and still have the same basic logical principles. Therefore just because God is supernatural does not make him illogical.
2. Supernatural: The word "super" obviously means great, like Superman. He isn't a regular man, he is a SUPER man. Similar to that but slightly different, when we say God is supernatural, we are saying that he exists independent of and logically prior to the Universe (I hesitate to say chronologically prior because of debate on whether God exists in time or not. However, he can certainly act within the realm of time.)

--Ymmotrojam 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

You asked how it was physically possible, my response is "It's not physically possible." It is, however, supernaturally possible as per the definitions I gave. The laws of science do not permit such a natural or material being to be able to create matter or energy, but they say nothing about whether a Being that is above natural things could create things that are natural. In more plain language, God created science (in the sense of the laws, and the physical matter and energy). --Ymmotrojam 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

That's a tricky statement, because you could rightly ask, "at what time did he make it?" Now we don't fully understand God obviously, and the bible doesn't tell us everything there is to know about an infinite being, but some have posited this. That God entered time at the point he created it. Personally, JackSmith, I don't think any of us here at Conservapedia have the brains to answer your questions fully. I would recommend the following articles and lectures by Dr. William Lane Craig, because he has studied the ideas of God and time in much more depth. Here at Conservapedia (and this isn't an insult), you will be pooling our ignorance :-).

• All his articles on "Divine Eternity"
• God, Time, and Eternity is probably the specific article you want.

--Ymmotrojam 10:33, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's a little story...

Three men walk up to a wise king, each believing to have found the origin of life.

One proposes that a large dragon formed the planets from cooled magma, formed the sun with his fire breath, and left parasitic creatures on its skin to inhabit the earth and develop into modern beings.

The second man proposes that a fairy formed the world and all living things with her magic.

The third proposes that the world was created by an almighty and loving god.

They ask the King to tell them which he thinks is true.

The wise king ponders, considering each of these possibilities.

"This is very difficult..." the king said, "As I cannot find any way to disprove any of your ideas."

The first man said with joy: "If I cannot be proven wrong, I must be right!"

The king stopped him: "It means nothing of the sort, young man," he said, "for although I cannot confidently say that any of your ideas are wrong, if each theory has a lone creator, clearly they cannot ALL be true."

The third inquires: "But your majesty! If none of them can be disproven, how do we know which one is right?"

The King smiled, and said: "Simple. If only one can be right, the only way to prove any of them to be false is to show that one is true. Until then, we have no way at all to decide which one is right."

So you see the point? No matter your opinion, until you find evidence of your claims, it's no more or less valid than the hundreds of other creation stories on earth. --JackSmith 11:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

There is a fundamental flaw in your argument. The first two examples of a dragon or a fairy are not supernatural beings. God is a supernatural being. --Ymmotrojam 11:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I didn't fully explain myself. What I mean is that the laws of science demand a being that is outside of nature to create nature (as said above, matter and energy cannot create themselves). For a proper example to be constructed, it must consist of all supernatural entities. --Ymmotrojam 12:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay, fair enough, but outside of the story, where the significance of the story lies, there ARE hundreds of stories involving supernatural beings and ONLY those supernatural beings. The point is, since they're all unfalsifiable, they can't be proven false. But since none of the stories can accomodate the others, they can't all be true. So since unfalsifiability is a common trait with all creation stories, you need more. You need to PROVE it to be true. --JackSmith 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I assume that by falsifiable, you are referring to the five senses. In other words, unless one can taste, feel, smell, see, or otherwise observe with the five senses, then it cannot be true. Is that correct? If that is what you are saying, we cannot prove the concepts of truth, beauty, love, friendship, or even the concept of knowledge itself. Those concepts are not observable by the five sense, and therefore not falsifiable if I understand you correctly. And yet we recognize them to be real things. --Ymmotrojam 12:25, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow. So much obfuscation. I want a straight answer to this question: "True or false? If none of the creation stories on earth can be disproven, and at most one can be true, you need evidence to SUPPORT the the truth of yours, otherwise yours is no more or less valid than the other creation stories."

Here's some criteria that I look at for thinking through the religions. Since it's not possible for the universe to be caused by a natural being, (1) If the religion has any hope, it must be a supernatural being. That right there gets rid of a ton of "religions" where God is just an exalted man (like mormonism), or animistic religions where God is an animal or a tree, or pantheistic religions where God is one with all material things. --Ymmotrojam 12:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Furthermore, your comparison to truth and beauty etc. is a flawed analogy. These are constructs of the mind. Take for instance beauty. Even the most hideous of creatures are attracted to eachother. And it's interesting that you compare the existence of god to constructs of the human mind. :) --JackSmith 12:36, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

If there is a God who is by definition perfect, he is then perfectly beautiful. Taking that he is perfectly beautiful, and being the first cause, he is then the standard for what beauty should be. Anything that is not beautiful in his eyes does not have true beauty. So yes, there is a true and a false kind of beauty. --Ymmotrojam 12:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)