BBC Focus Magazine

[EzBloke]

The sad truth is, you cannot argue with feelings and creationsim is what they feel passionately about.

Ez

As for God, I defer to Epicurus;

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

[Merlo]

In my own personal view the concept that our universe was 'created' is perfectly possible, as we have no idea what could possibly have happened prior to the beginning of the universe, if it even had one. The one fundamental problem in the creationist's argument is that once they have decided that our universe was 'created', they immediately, and with no proof whatsoever (this they can't argue with easily) they jump to the conclusion that was their God that did it. This is misplaced arrogance. It is far more likely that if our universe was created, it could have been by a far more technologically advanced civilisation trying to model the growth of their own universe in a simulation, or something similar. We do not have to invent a magical being in the sky to explain creation, why can't it be another far advanced intelligence? why must it care about our individual needs? why are we so important?

And I haven't been here in a while, A-levels taken up alot of time. (which i've done well in so far )
so hello again all!

[M Paul Lloyd]

High Merlo, glad to see you put your studies ahead of posting on here, very wise in my opinion and hope your results bear this out, but great to see you on here again.

[Merlo]

Thanks, they have done A* maths nearly A* Further Maths (one module left) looking at A* Physics and A in Chemistry. :3 I should be here more often as soon as i get my account to email me when there's a new post to a topic. For some reason I haven't been able to get it to work. :s

[M Paul Lloyd]

Sounds like you have a plan there Merlot, well done.
As for the messaging of new posts, don't feel too bad as I can't get it to do that either, and sadly I haven't worked out why, but its about time I made a point of getting onto it.

[Merlo]

Sounds like you have a plan there Merlot, well done.
As for the messaging of new posts, don't feel too bad as I can't get it to do that either, and sadly I haven't worked out why, but its about time I made a point of getting onto it.

it started working when i changed my email maybe hotmail has some sort of spam filter.... I've decided to try and switch over to my gmail as hotmail has never been particularly good since i got it. (I'm with gmail now)

[M Paul Lloyd]

I'll check my settings I think.

[The Beige Avenger]

...why can't it be another far advanced intelligence? ....

then, from whenst camest this intelligence?

Turtles, all the way down.

[Merlo]

...why can't it be another far advanced intelligence? ....

then, from whenst camest this intelligence?

Turtles, all the way down.

And why shouldn't it be? we know so little about where the universe, we are in no position to ridicule the suggestions of others.

Perhaps you could suggest an alternative? instead of being merely dismissive.

my statement may seem contradictory, but in truth, Creationism's problem is that it goes against evidence we have already amassed. To suggest that a higher intelligence or power is a reasonable suggestion, to say that this power listens to our thoughts, is benevolent and even gives a damn about us is ludicrous.

[Shadowwolf]

It is far more likely that if our universe was created, it could have been by a far more technologically advanced civilisation trying to model the growth of their own universe in a simulation, or something similar.

'If' and 'could have', however without any evidence to suggest the involvement of any outside agency then as an explanation it falls flat; one could just as easily add us into the mix as the point of the simulation thereby making the outside agency specifically interested in us, perhaps even at an individual level. One could I believe just as convincingly argue that god did it whenever unsubstantiated speculation is about.

And why shouldn't it be? we know so little about where the universe, we are in no position to ridicule the suggestions of others.

Perhaps you could suggest an alternative? instead of being merely dismissive.

Actually we are in a position to ridicule other peoples suggestions, particularly if they fly in the face of objective reality and their proponents do not appear to listen. However I do not believe that the Avenger was ridiculing you, merely pointing out the issue that arises from your suggestion and its lack of explaining anything due to the obvious question that arises. If our universe was created by an outside highly advanced intelligence, then where did they and their universe come from? If you offer nothing but speculation sans evidence then it may well be dismissed and no one is obliged to make up some counter.

[Merlo]

It is far more likely that if our universe was created, it could have been by a far more technologically advanced civilisation trying to model the growth of their own universe in a simulation, or something similar.

'If' and 'could have', however without any evidence to suggest the involvement of any outside agency then as an explanation it falls flat; one could just as easily add us into the mix as the point of the simulation thereby making the outside agency specifically interested in us, perhaps even at an individual level. One could I believe just as convincingly argue that god did it whenever unsubstantiated speculation is about.

And why shouldn't it be? we know so little about where the universe, we are in no position to ridicule the suggestions of others.

Perhaps you could suggest an alternative? instead of being merely dismissive.

Actually we are in a position to ridicule other peoples suggestions, particularly if they fly in the face of objective reality and their proponents do not appear to listen. However I do not believe that the Avenger was ridiculing you, merely pointing out the issue that arises from your suggestion and its lack of explaining anything due to the obvious question that arises. If our universe was created by an outside highly advanced intelligence, then where did they and their universe come from? If you offer nothing but speculation sans evidence then it may well be dismissed and no one is obliged to make up some counter.

Just to clarify, I do not think it is a particularly sensible suggestion, but that it is far more likely than creationism. And the higher Civilisation thing answers the question 'where did this universe come from?'. it does not answer the question of where subsequent universes came from, (which is its main flaw) however it does not attempt to answer that question either. I am not a believer in creationism nor am i remotely religous. However I was merely pointing out a stance that they could take that was far more plausible than their current position.

[Merlo]

Besides it all misses the point that i was trying to make... Creationism focuses too much on the fact that it was their god and not another, when arguing this can be exploited to great effect.

[The Beige Avenger]

Merlo, if you can't stick up for your suggestions without getting defensive, don't give them.

There was no attempt at mockery from me and I don't know how you got there to be honest.

[M Paul Lloyd]

This is one reason why discussions that have any religious context are a bad idea on a science and technology forum.

[The Beige Avenger]

this is not the science you're looking for.

[Merlo]

Merlo, if you can't stick up for your suggestions without getting defensive, don't give them.

There was no attempt at mockery from me and I don't know how you got there to be honest.

My 'suggestion' as i said was meant to be a more plausible stance for a creationist to take than their current one. I took offence because you thought it was how i actually felt, when it is not. The argument was not meant to be foolproof, but also, not something that can be dismissed out of hand either.

Again to clarify, I'm not religous.

[Shadowwolf]

Well in ambiguous discussions like this above I think that initially it is a good idea to seek clarification before becoming offended, especially if your own words may have contributed to a misunderstanding on the other parties part. There is also the possibility that you may misunderstand the intention of the other party, so unless it is pretty direct it behooves us to sound it out first*

I also think that technically the argument this refers to:

The argument was not meant to be foolproof, but also, not something that can be dismissed out of hand either.

Can be dismissed given that it is not an argument but a speculation without evidence.


* I reworded the opening as the first version seemed a tad belligerent.

[Merlo]

Can be dismissed given that it is not an argument but a speculation without evidence.

whilst it doesn't have any evidence, most theories about what happened before the big bang do not as well. So it it is perfectly valid (albeit improbable), and can be admitted as a possibility. It does not contradict any current evidence either, unlike the pure creationist idea. Which is why it's a better stance to take.

the main point i tried to make, that I managed to hide under a poorly written comment is that: Creationism is always specific about their god being the creator, and they have no genuine reason as for why this is so, and why the 'creator' was not something else altogether.

[M Paul Lloyd]

But..... what if, the big bang never actually happened?

[The Beige Avenger]

No Merlo, I did nothing of the sort.
I actually don't care if you're religious or not, I certainly wouldn't attack you for it.

Anyone can come up with an hypothesis for the origins of everything e.g. nothing exists; existance is a figment of our imagination... which also doesn't exist... zennnnnn.

Your idea of a higher intelligence is no better than creationism... it's still the 'I' in 'ID'. It's a bit like Mormonism actually.

...what if the big bang never happened indeed.... what do you propose MPL?