Forums → WEPR → If God made Everything...

Where did you hear that? Or is this just something else you just made up for evolution?

Really the idea of something being supernatural by definition makes very little sense especially if we were to use your definition of first having to be natural. It would be like saying it was natural but now it's not.

way to avoid the main question.

"is your denial of evolution based solely on your belief in God and intelligent design, or can you present us facts to back it?"

There is a difference between knowledge and befief Knowledge is when you know something to be true and you have proof to back it up while belief is something that you believe to be true but you have no evidence to back it up.

Actually I got it from the end of "The Origin of Species" by Darwin. At the end he says something along the lines of "There is grandeur in this way of thinking" and by that he is saying that humans are currently the best thing that has been created by evolution (that we have observed) and we will continue evolving until perfection.

That's only one definition of natural from the 15 given by the Merriam Webster dictionary. Here are a few others:

You got all that from just "There is grandeur in this way of thinking"?

As why I said.
"generally when we say natural we usually mean." It was the best definitions I saw in there that pertained to talking about extremes.

Then please, explain to me what else he could mean.

I don't know about you, but when I generally say 'naturally' I mean without human interaction and solely by nature. Not physical existence.

Then why did you lie?

I mean, did you tell the truth or not? If you claim that you're telling the truth, then there is no evidence, just like you say there is no evidence for God. If you're lying, then you're just lying and that's not cool.

Again, it was a joke theory. I don't believe in it either. But think about an absolutely perfect hyper-evolved being that can do anything and is immortal. God can do anything can't he? Why wouldn't he be able to survive a Big Crunch, unless your saying that God can't do anything.

u guys the math model of the big bang doesn't go to the singularity, it almost goes there only it doesn't. it stops. so infinite small is infinite large since it's the only object. that's why the math breaks down. the only place that infinity exists is in the border between two dimensions. like, how many points fit inside a square? how many squares fit inside a cube? how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? hey u guys want another way of saying it? the singularity came from another dimension outside of space/time, maybe someplace like Heaven. does anyone know how it got started, the big bang idea? it's so stupid.

Actually I got it from the end of "The Origin of Species" by Darwin. At the end he says something along the lines of "There is grandeur in this way of thinking" and by that he is saying that humans are currently the best thing that has been created by evolution (that we have observed) and we will continue evolving until perfection.

no time = no need for a cause. I've said this a million times. Also, the math model probably is incorrect because physics is not as constant as people think. Neither is math

Evolution is an adaptation to current environments. Changing conditions. Because environments and conditions are always changing into stuff they haven't been before, beings will continue to adapt forever. Therefore there is no such thing as evolutionary perfection, because there will always be new environments to adapt to, always new weaknesses to natural-selectionify away.

Survival of the fittest. Just because the most powerful of a species will survive doesn't mean that a dog's going to grow wings and fly away.

Yeah you're right, but there's not much left to say on the subject.

It it not understood, but accepted.

In accordance to Owen: some things don't need explaining.











Can't we just agree to disagree?

What would be the fun in that?

Ok, after 22 pages of semi observant reading, can I try to get this back a little to the original question?
First of all, about that paradox on page 1. That is actually part of one of the cosmological arguments FOR the existence of God.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause
2. The Universe had a beginning
3. Therefore the Universe has a cause

Let me reiterate something someone else already argued about 1. The only thing that science tells us that everything that has a beginning has a cause. God does not have a beginning, by his very definition of being a self existent necessary being. And no, that is not self-contradictory, that is only inconsistent with naturalism or materialism, but the fact that theism and naturalism or non-compatible is not really surprising. Actually, scientists argued for a long time that the Universe was a solid state and eternal, and they had no problem saying it had no beginning. So surely, we do not need to question this for God either. The problem of course is now:

2. And with Big Bang Cosmology we have all the scientific evidence pointing to the fact that the Universe had indeed a beginning. And "before" the big bang there was, in the terms of material and energy, "No Nothing."
Someone has postulated crunching and oscillating universes. The problem with these is that they are completely ad hoc solutions with absolutely no imperical evidence in their favor. They are based on the fact that this universe HAD a beginning, but in order to avoid having to take a non-material cause into consideration the ad hoc solution of crunch is made. However, we have not a shred of evidence that anything ever crunched.

So with 3. being the logical conclusion of the argument, we have to have a powerful non-material cause that caused the universe. Hm... Who might fit that description?

If you want to argue with 1. than you are doing bad science. If you want to argue with 2. than you are not following the evidence in cosmology. If you want to argue with the conclusion 3., then you fail at logic.

Of course this cause could be something other than the Christian God, but it has to be non-material non-energy, so materialism is false unless you can refute this argument.

Bon Apetit.