First off: thanks for not flaming/condescending. Respectful argument ftw! : )
Second: apologies to Attila464 for participating in the hijacking of this thread. Topic is too juicy to pass up ...
First of all, creationism isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis. It is utterly untestable and therefore not science.
Creationism can be tested just as rigorously as the big bang theory - that is, not very well at all. From a scientfic standpoint, all we can do is say: if there were a creator, what would the universe be like? If the universe were generated by nature (of whatever kind; a plausible one was presented Mumblefratz), what would it be like? Then we examine the world around us and compare against what we expected; modify, and so on. Of course, the nature of asking a question like "where does reality come from" really is challenging to science because science cannot observe outside known reality. We can only guess - and we've already seen A LOT of guesses on this thread.
So, what would we expect from a created universe? Most logically, we would find one that indicates design on every level, like an intricate machine. We would look for meaning; indications of things beyond the natural.
What about a natural universe? We would expect it to obey natural laws (which I'll go into in a second).
Some may say the unintelligent universe-spawner could have been outside the laws of this universe's reality, to which I say: if you think that belief is more plausible than belief in a creator (who is also outside the laws of the universe's reality), you have very little ground to stand on. You might be able say they're equally plausible, but even that's a real stretch - you're saying an inanimate unintelligent entity spawned something completely unlike itself. Hm ...
Actually I don't think the big bang is really a theory, as far as I know it's as close to proven as one can get if on the off chance it is still technically a "theory".
Really? Honestly, after years of research in this topic, including speaking before audiences of hundreds on it, I haven't come across any proof yet. I must have missed something ... maybe you can show me?
The problem with pointing to a creator as the source of all our origins only defers the question by the moments hesitation that it takes to ask "then who or what created the creator?". It's a never ending loop. All religions that I know answer this question by stating that the creator existed forever with no beginning. But this flies in the face of every experience that I know of.
Basically the idea is that the most complex and intelligent thing that has ever existed, or will ever exist, has existed forever in a total vacuum until at some point in time he chose to create all that we know. That's not how things work.
That's an excellent point - it does fly in the face of your (our) experience. But does that disprove it? Creationism contends that the universe came from a being outside of itself. So we certainly can't apply the rules of nature to the creator!
Never ending loop? What about the big bang/oscillating universe you're talking about? Where did it come from?
I certainly find the idea that an inanimate framework for life has existed forever far easier to fathom over the idea that a supreme being existed without origin before creating everything out of nothing.
Why? They're both completely absurd and unscientific. Consider the First Law of Thermodynamics (which, unlike the current debate, has been almost totally accepted by the scientific community ... but if you want to contest it go for it). "Energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but it can neither be created nor destroyed."
Energy/matter are constants in nature. The amount of energy/matter cannot increase or decrease. So it flies in the face of science to say that anything - creator or multiverse - existed forever.
I'm not necessarily trying to tell you creationism has it all figured out from a scientific standpoint: I'm just cautioning very strongly against the notion that science has proven the big bang/evolution theory.
Things start out simple and gradually over time complexity increases.
I couldn't agree more! I just want to correct one word to make it easier to understand: things start out simple and gradually over time DISORDER increases. Or, to quote the Second Law of Thermodynamics:"The entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
This is why, if you leave a shed alone in the wilderness for a year, you wouldn't expect to come back to find it having spawned a second floor. Instead, you'd expect it to be in disrepair. This is why smoke rises out of a pot, and why the universe is expanding. Nature spreads itself out, gets more complicated, and more disorderly.
This scientific law is absolutely contradicted by a big bang/evolution mindset, which contends that order actually increased over time! In other words, Mumblefratz, you are putting your faith in the idea that everything we know about reality was put on hold when it was generated, and entropy actually reversed.
Even if you place all faith in man’s ability to understand the “laws of nature” who is to say that *if* an all powerful god exists that he couldn’t suddenly decided to invalidate maxwell’s equations, or the force of gravity or any other such “proven law”.
It depends on the God. Muslims, for instance, believe that Allah can change his fundamental nature, and the nature of everything else. As you've probably guessed, I'm a Christian. I think the Muslim view of God is illogical, especially looking at the intricate order and consistency of the universe.
Christians hold that God cannot change his fundamental nature and more than a triangle can become a square. There are things inherent to God being who he is that are inalterable - for instance, everything he does is good by virtue of the fact that he did it. While God does have power over creation and could technically reverse gravity if he chose, he has provided a fairly detailed description of how the world will end (Revelation
) and has also promised that the basic order of things will not change. (Genesis 8:22
In my case it would take the invalidation of a “proven law of nature” to irrefutably “prove” to me that god exists, but I cannot rule out the possibility that it could happen.
I do not have faith as strong as you (and many others on this thread) do. For me , it would take irrefutable invalidation of at least 2 proven laws of nature for me to stop believing in a creator. : )
The bottom line is that you still are placing “faith” in science anytime you cannot prove *everything* that science claims is true and since I doubt there is a single person on this planet that can prove *everything* known then everyone has to have some element of faith. The physicist has faith that the geologists know what they’re talking about and so on.
I couldn't agree more. Fundamentally, science cannot exist in a vacuum. It must draw meaning from faith. We all must put our faith in something. The question is: what?