The logic applied to "rove" creation just stops at the creator, who has to not be affected by the laws of causation.
I'd say the law of causation stops at our universe. Who is to say what exists outside of this universe.
And even so, something must be infinite if the law applies.
But yes, you can't prove god, but you also can't PROVE what happened 2 billion years ago. You cannot prove that the monitor you are looking at is really there. What was the term for this? That you can only know your mind exists?
Even if science can explain the creation of our universe, it does not mean there is no creator. Its simply a big mystery.
And even so, something must be infinite if the law applies.
I'm not sure what this means. The law of causation (if there is such a thing) doesn't imply this.
Even if science can explain the creation of our universe, it does not mean there is no creator. Its simply a big mystery.
Absolutely true, but either we accept science or we become nihilists. Both are fine with me, although nihilism certainly achieves your goal of having creation and evolution be equal in proof - in that there is no "universal" proof of either. But your approach earlier seemed to indicate that you wanted creationism to be just as strong or stronger than science, in which case you must reject nihilism and... well, here we are again!
You cannot prove that the monitor you are looking at is really there.
No, we can't irrefutably prove anything outside the realms of our own individual minds. But if you're saying that everything we know as fact is wrong because we're 99.9999% sure it's right rather then 100% then you can't have a logical debate. When you say that the .0001% has many possibilities you are correct, when you say that every one of those possibilities is equally likely however you're not. If you think that then you have to doubt every piece of knowledge that we've ever discovered and while that's okay to do, I'll let you experiment with whether we need to eat food to survive since I trust scientific knowledge enough to believe what it shows all the evidence points to.
There is no comparison between the two. One is established science, the other speculative philosophy.
Evolution is a scientific theory backed by a chain of factual evidence. The theory has itself evolved continuously since it was first postulated as new evidence has been compiled and added to it.
Creationism is a theological philosophy based upon nothing other than the desire to believe that it is true. At it's root is a closed system of belief that claims to already have all the necessary knowledge of human existence. It has no factual basis.
In all honesty, I don't believe there should even be a debate about this. It just seems so self evident as to which is real and which is science f'ing fiction. Excuse my language.
Without the relgious aspect, there is no creationism. I mean the main tenant of creationism is that there is a "Creator" read God and the belief of a God is a relgion, therefore Creationsim can not exist without religion.
Those saying Creationism isn't relgious don't really know what Creationism is.
@Danstanta, just because you're a certain religion, doesn't mean you HAVE to follow all of the beliefs. I'm Christian, and I believe that homosexuality and bisexuality is equal to heterosexuality. I believe in creationism AND evolution. There are no restrictions on your beliefs....
What is your view then, it's rather hard to believe in a philosophy stating that there was an omnipotent being who created the universe and everything in it when you don't believe in that omnipotent being, which is in itself almost the definition of a religion.
