Creationism Logical or Illogical?

[questor]

i know that by now most of you are burned out on this subject, since no scientific proof of creation exists. since there is no scientific proof, i would argue that there is much stronger evidence for than against creation, and i think logic supports this view while it is illogical to think otherwise. those that need a break from this subject can abstain while i give my side of the argument.
this has nothing to do with any religion, and does not presuppose a diety. i hope we can have this discussion without the mention of God.
Reasons for creation;
1. the actual existence of the universe points to a creator. something had to initiate the BB or whatever process formed the universe.
2. order. the universe ehibits order in that there are forces that induce balance and homeostasis ( human and mechanical) throughout the universe.
if not for order, chaos would ensue.
3. planning. the universe exhibits an overall plan which prevents it from flying apart. everything seems to work in predictable fashion. examples: GR and Quantum
there are natural laws ( many of which we have discovered) that ensure a
stable and predictable outcome for most events.
4. intelligence exists and we are aware of it. how could intelligence exist
unless there was a primal source for it?
5. existence of physical and natural law and math. further evidence of intelligent planning.
6. existence of energy and matter and the relationship between the two
shows intelligent planning.

i'm sure some would say these are random ocurrences, but random occurences all seem to fit within the overall system of order. would anyone have some good evidence that refutes this logic?

[Tormod]

Yes, we are burned out on this subject. Your questions bring *nothing* new into the discussion, nothing that you cannot take up in the already existing threads on the subject.

[orbsycli]

Illogical, without a doubt

[Erasmus00]

Why keep dredging up this stuff? You've recieved responses to very similar queries in other threads. That, and your queries aren't "more logical" at all. I

1. the actual existence of the universe points to a creator. something had to initiate the BB or whatever process formed the universe.

Lots of things happen without "causes." See vacuum fluctuation.

2,3,4 and 5 are pretty much the same thing. I point out that the only thing required for "natural laws" and science is that events be describeable and at least statistically repeatable. I point out that neither of these things necessarily require intelligent input.

4. intelligence exists and we are aware of it. how could intelligence exist unless there was a primal source for it?

You seem to be implying that intelligence can only come from intelligence. I believe this is logically flawed. While we don't have any concrete theory of intelligence, I point out that your brain is made up of entirely unintelligent matter. So intelligence seems to be an emergent phenomenon in no way requiring input intelligence.

6. existence of energy and matter and the relationship between the two shows intelligent planning.

The "existance of energy" is really just a way of saying things are symmetric in time. No need for any intelligent planning, lots of unplanned things show symmetry.
-Will

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by orbsycli

Illogical, without a doubt

Although I consider the 6 claims in post #1 to be unsubstantiated by ordinary evidence or logic, and insufficiently defined to be considered as formal postulates, I don’t think we can any more conclude that a model of reality including a creator – intelligent/conscious or otherwise – is untrue or illogical than we can conclude that a model of reality without one is untrue or illogical.

The problems with pursuing the question asked by this thread are several, including:

• The use of the term “creationism” to mean “a model of reality containing a creator, instant of creation, or first cause” is a “transfer” fallacy. “Creationism” has a widely understood common meaning not in good agreement with the one implied in post #1 – I believe few self-identifying creationists would consent to a discussion of creationism “without the mention of God”, while few opponents of creationism would be willing to use the term as the name of a formal physical theory
• There is a paucity of scientific tools available to assist us. This is not to say there is not an uncomplicated answer to the question, only that it is unlikely any member of this forum, or human being on Earth, has the ability to approach it in a manner supportable by experiment. As a Science site, we should be wary of discarding the Scientific method.
• There is an extensive literature related to this question in the academic discipline of Theology, not well known to non-specialists. Although Hypography is meant to bring Science of all kinds to non-specialists, I believe we’d be overly ambitious to take on the mission of bringing Theology to people without specialized Theology backgrounds. Theology is not easy reading, and should not, IMHO, be undertaken lightly.

I don’t mean to give the impression that questions of this kind are beyond our ability to meaningfully and productively discuss. Rather, I think this question could be discussed better if broken down more specific questions such as:

• Could the universe have been created by an advanced technological civilization?
• Has the universe always existed?
• Could the universe have been created by causality-violating events to occur in the far future?

I believe all these have been discussed in some depth already, but could always be revisited.

[questor]

i put on this thread to initiate some logical permutations as to the possibilities of a creator based on observation of natural phenomenae. i am not aware this particular effort has been undertaken on this site, so the first post to me is a chastisement about the subject matter even though i haven't seen it discussed in this manner.
i also set my parameters to eliminate the discussion of God or Theology, since i am only interested in what is true, and Theology is not a subject of my questions. i am not interested in discussing God or religion, but some here can't discuss creation without their minds defaulting to religion.
some didn't like my qestions and took the liberty of rewriting them so as to skirt the issue, or perhaps posit questions of their own.
my premise is simple: there is enough observable evidence in the universe to indicate it was created by an intelligent creator rather than as a result of random occurrences. i posted my reasons for thinking so, and would welcome anyone demonstrating the errors in my thoughts.

[ughaibu]

Erasmus00 demonstrated the errors in your thoughts.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

You seem to be implying that intelligence can only come from intelligence.

This is the key point, questor. If intelligence comes from intelligence, then where does it all start? Where does the designer come from?

Creationism does not answer anything. It just poses the same questions as science and pretends that the questions answer themselves simply by existing. Thus, a pattern in a rock must be put there by design, because there is no other logical reason (which means "the reasons given by science are implausible to me").

[questor]

Erasmus, i am looking for logic, and i think you are one who has it.
however, i do not see it in your reply. you state your beliefs, but offer no examples except ''vacuum fluctuation'', whatever that is. does this vacuum fluctuation prove to you that there is no intelligence in the creation of the universe? you say there are ''lots of unplanned things show symmetry''.
what would these things be, and how does their existence logically disprove intelligent creation?
i'm not trying to be argumentive, but my observances indicate intelligent planning in the creation of the universe, if yours indicate otherwise, i'll be happy to hear them.

[questor]

Tormod, you said:''Thus, a pattern in a rock must be put there by design, because there is no other logical reason (which means "the reasons given by science are implausible to me").''
you know your statement is not logical because any observer can see that wind and rain and other occurrences can create patterns in rocks. the question is, how were the rocks themselves and the elements they came from
created? do you have information that this process did not involve planning or intelligence? was it just a random occurrence?
you ask where the intelligence originated. if i knew this, i would know the answers to all questions. i have stated my reasons for believing in an intelligent creator. i can not prove it, but the preponderance of observable
evidence points in that direction. the whole idea of the universe is improbable, but it is more improbable to see what is here and conclude no intelligence is involved.