Since there is NO way certain complex things in the universe could result from natural processes don't you...?

Question

think its reasonable to conclude that there is a Creator?

Johnny - Many things cannot be accounted for. You better rethink some of the theories you accept.

Dutchess - Since matter and energy exists and are eternal(matter cannot be created or destroyed) why not an eternal Creator? Eternal energy and matter are simply manifestations of the Creator's power.
You say what Creator, evidence please. You are surrounded by his creation. Are complexities evidence? You say no. Is that the truth or what you prefer to believe? I know one thing, its LESS reasonable to conclude that extremely complex things happened without supernatural influence.

Big D - Take a hike, all you want to do is argue.

wolfechu - A snowflake would not be possible if it were not for complex and organized systems and processes which are evidence for a Creator.

Markyyy - Nope, matter can neither be created or destroyed. An eternal Creator must be responsible for eternal matter being in extremely complex forms.

Markyyy Thats easy, just call him God. All you know is at least one God must exist. Pray to the Creator we know must exist.

Imn774 - Knock it off, you already know that origin theories are full of holes and are absurd.

yousedum - I'm not afraid to.

The fact is its reasonable to conclude. More reasonable than your primordial soup theories any day of the week.

Trina - The universe and the Creator are one. What are you talking about?

simon T - You wish pal. You wish. ROTFL!

The fact is your surrounded by evidence. Why don't you wake up and stop being in denial about it? If a perfectly adequate explanation is impossible what does that tell ya?

J - People know God Is because of the Creation. They simply allowed other INADAQUATE explanations to keep them in denial.

Simon T - What you said about matter/energy ? I see, because you can't see it, it does not exist.
Nice try. Now I know all your trying to do is win an argument and you will say anything to do it.
Is that appropriate? I don't think so.

The fact is you can't offer even one adaquate explanation or theory. I think you realize that.

Simon T - Your telling me that no matter what I put before you your going to explain scientifically why and how it came to be what it is without any supernatural influence whatsoever? I tell you what, I won't make you embarrass yourself by asking you to try that.

Answer 1

Absolutely. That is the only piece missing in the whole big bang/evolution puzzle. The First Cause. Atheists will never find the answer. They will always wonder but never understand what that First Cause is, but christians already know it well to be God.

And Wolfchu,

A snowflake isn't alive. Of course you could get complexity without a creator, but what about the spark of life?

As far as examples go just look at the statistics. First between the Big Bang and the first single cell organisms emergence, about a billion billion billion things had to occur in EXACTLY the right order for life to happen. The chances of that spontaneously happening in the period of time mentioned above is so infinitesimally small as to be effectually impossible.

Think about it. If you flip a coin you have a 50% chance of getting heads. There is a 50% chance in each individual trial, BUT if you are predicting a certain sequance of results you have to multiply the chance of each additional trial by the previous trials total probability.

So, if the chance of getting one head is 50% the chance of getting 2 in a row is .5X.5=.25 or 25%, three times .5x.5x.5=.125 OR 12.5% etc. Note that the probability gets progressively smaller the more trials you add. Add the billion billion billion trials that have to result in exact results with each trial to get the final outcome (life) and the number is so small that it can barely even be expressed numerically.

Some might think that if you gave a million monkeys a million type writers over a millin years they would eventually produce the complete works of William Shakespere just by pushing random keys. I on the other hand have an easier time believing in a creator operating according to a set plan.

Answer 2

Name one thing that could not result from a natural process.


You do realize that during the Dover PA school board trial that the Intelligent Design (AKA Creationist) group were totally unable to do this. All their examples were shot down in flames.


So ante up your example, or delete this question and go away.

Edit:
Still no examples? Come on you said there were multiple examples.

Meanwhile, who says matter/energy can not be created or destroyed? Try learning some quantum physics. Matter is constantly popping into and out of existence. We do not see it above the quantum level, but the initial conditions of the universe were rather different from what they are now.

Ignoring quantum physics, an eternal universe is much more likely than an eternal deity. A eternal universe is not sentient, it is not highly organized, it does not go on to create a whole second universe because it feels like it.

Face it, there is nothing in this universe more complex than your version of god. Therefore, by your own argument, god must have had a creator. But your argument says that that creator must also be incredibly complex, so needs a creator, . . . and so on producing an infinite number of creators creating each other. Yeah, that is credible. Not!


Edit II:

I wish? I wish you would put your money where you mouth is.

I guess you are just not capable of it.


Edit III

You are making less and less sense here. And you still have failed to produce one example.


>>>
Simon T - What you said about matter/energy ? I see, because you can't see it, it does not exist.
Nice try.
<<<
What? I never said that. I said that it has been shown that, at a quantum level, matter is constantly being created and destroyed. Try educating yourself:

http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/allweb/news/Philosophy_of_Science/quantum.htm

>>> Now I know all your trying to do is win an argument and you will say anything to do it.
Is that appropriate? I don't think so. <<<

No. I am telling you the truth. The fact that it is the truth and disagrees with your position means that you are wrong.

According to you you can 'win the argument' easily. All you have to do is give an example of an irreducibly complex process. Why won't you? You must know of several examples, otherwise the basis of your question is invalid.

>>>
The fact is you can't offer even one adaquate (sic) explanation or theory. I think you realize that.
<<<
Explanation or theory of what? You just produce a sweeping statement and then refuse to elaborate on it. What would you like me to refute? What am I supposed to do? Produce in depth explanations of every process in the universe, so I can cover anything that you might chose to pick.

Face it, as soon as you decided not to give an example for your claim you lost all credibility.

I no longer have to 'win the argument'. You went ahead and 'lost' it.

But I suspect that you will run away, declare victory and feel happy and secure in your ignorance.

Answer 3

Your good judgment is that this: considering that there is not any way that a pixy princess would properly be construed as being organic isn't that conclusive info of the supernatural? No, by potential of reason that, because of the fact the onmipotent emporor is supernatural, you are able to quite end that the two the two exist or the two do no longer exist. Your reasoning isn't reason to re-think of theories... because of the fact your reasoning is incorrect in so some distance as no end would properly be drawn from it.

Answer 4

Absolute thinking...did you ever stop to think that you have created a creator or bought into the concept of a creator in some vain attempt to justify your own mortality or existence? Why can't we just be energy that is here and will be here long after you are gone that is part of the natural process? Why is that so hard for you to believe or accept? The creator concept gives you move power to believe you have a purpose on this earth.

Answer 5

Do you really think you can get to God using the scientific method?

"reason", "conclusion", belong to man's observation, and man cannot observe God.

God revealed in Genesis 1:1 that He existed before He created everything you can observe. For you to conclude that God (creator) exists means you have the ability to observe the unobservable.

Answer: I guess revelation is not a natural process.

Answer 6

No. Take a close look at a snow flake and its perfect and complex symmetry. Also, you can generate landscapes, trees, shells, and whole planets with mathematics that use *random* numbers in the equation (ie fractal geometry). The best 3D "world generators" are based on fractals.

Answer 7

Why does something exist rather than nothing?

No one has ever yet satisfactorily answered that question and I doubt they ever will so until science comes up with a truly plausible explanation as to why anything exists at all then I'm inclined to think there was a Creator in it there somewhere.

And who created the Creator? Well he exists outside of time and that is not something anyone will ever properly understand.

Answer 8

Natural evolution of the universe......When there's no immediate explanation to you for something, the answer is automatically "creator"? Here for example is an explanation of how a pulsar--"one of the most exotic forms of matter in the Universe"--is formed (scientific): http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2006/mspulsar/
..... and this explains quasars, another exotic form:
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/quasars.html#q7
.....just to name a couple of the more difficult items.

Answer 9

And just what complex 'things' exactly are you referring to that could 'NO way' result from natural processes??
If you're going to make an absolutist statement like that, better back it up with some facts or stats or SOMETHING.

Just because YOU can't understand how it works, doesn't mean it was spontaneously generated by an invisible magic man.

Answer 10

Sure, there might be a creator or creators. However, I am pretty sure that it's not the incompetence god of genesis.