The Unknown Argument - The Fundamental Issue with a Great Creator

How did all this come to be?  What would an almighty world creator be doing caring about such an insignificant part of his universe as Earth?
How did all this come to be? What would an almighty world creator be doing caring about such an insignificant part of his universe as Earth? | Source

Essentially, we have two terrible theories for how we were created.

  1. In one, we were not created by any God, we spurred out of nothing (or as part of an infinite loop). We don't know how our existence out of nothing came into being.
  2. In the other, we were created by God(s), explaining how we came to be. However, no explanation of how the God(s) were created are known. No explanation of how they created matter out of nothing is known either.

The argument therefore is, because in both cases we essentially do not know how something came to being, a logical person would choose to believe that the less complicated theory, which is based on something that has less questions to it, is the more likely theory.

  1. With the first, less complicated theory, we do not know how matter came into being.
  2. With the second theory, we do not know how A) an entity capable of creating matter came into being AS WELL AS B) how this being created matter out of nothing, in other words - the exact same question as in the first theory plus a much bigger one.

Why then, would anyone choose the latter over the former?

I personally would see it as acceptable to say "both are not strong arguments" or "the first argument is stronger because it has less questions to it" but at no point is it rational to state that "the second theory has more answerless questions to it and so it has to be better than the first argument."

This is not at all considering of course, complexities such as how an entity with a personality that cares for what we on Earth (a minuscule part of the galaxy) do with our lives. That would open up even more questions because explaining how a being came to be with the power to create the universe is one thing, but explaining how and why he has a personality that specifically disagrees with homosexuality or abortion is another. Why would such an almighty being even care?


It looks like we are all alone on our beautiful planet. Would you want it any other way?
It looks like we are all alone on our beautiful planet. Would you want it any other way? | Source

To Sum Up

We either have "mass was created out of nothing" which is illogical or "a being was created out of nothing [illogical] and somehow had the ability [illogical] to create mass out of nothing [illogical]" (and then have the ability to watch over you [illogical], judge you [illogical] and punish you [illogical] in a personal God).

Why then would you personally argue that there is a creator, or any more evidence for there being one than there not being one?

Do you understand this argument?

See results without voting

Do you agree with it?

See results without voting

More by this Author


Comments 59 comments

Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

("And yes, I create new definitions or even new words when the old doesn't work. That's called progress. Science does it all the time. Our culture does it, too. The language evolves. Some people resist this, because they want to hold onto the old ways. And that's okay, but then they have a hard time understanding new things.)

This is very messed up Lone77Star. You don't just change definitions of words by yourself. You need a consensus. It's not progress, it's lunacy. No one resists language evolution but everyone is given awareness of new definitions of words via those things called dictionaries, the standard that we refer to.

How can you call changing definitions of words to your own benefit "progress"? I think what It would actually be is "chaos" because any time you make an argument, I'll just change the definitions of all of your words so that you sound like a megalomaniac or murderer.

For example: I've just decided to argue that you are a murderer!

I have also just now decided to change the definitions of your following words:

Some- All

People- Organisms

Resist- Must

This- Die

To me you just said "all people must die", that's ATROCIOUS Lone77star!! How could you do such a thing!?!?!

Stupid you say? Childish it was?

Well it was no different from you saying: I have just decided to argue that God is omniscient.

I have also just decided to change the definition of the following words:

Omniscient- Partially knowing, knowing only the present and the past, and some of the future.

Lunacy. Not progress. Lunacy.

Evolution of language happens in many ways, but not by one man deciding that the definition of words need to be changed to protect God's credibility.

No, God was described as being omniscient, using the dictionary definition of omniscient. It is not acceptable to say "yeah but now the word means something else" because the word when used to describe God had an original meaning, that must be adhered to for all intents and purposes of argument.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

"So, 165 of the 255 stable nuclides are "theoretically" unstable. If the half-life is several sextillion years, then we would never, never, never be able to use it to date anything."

Neither did I ever say that?

Philanthropy2012:

And yes as Steve is hinting at, all atoms seem to have a radioactive lifetime (we date things using half-lives) so eventually all atoms break down into their sub particles and re-form into new atoms, usually starting from hydrogen (alpha particles).

Lone77Star:

"you'll see that this suggests that fission breaks down into sub-atomic particles and reforms into other elements." Yes, atoms break down and the sub particles re form to form usually Hydrogen atoms, although sometimes Helium and lithium instantly which then go on to make other atoms... What is your problem with this concept?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang)

"Heavier elements like helium and the "metals" that are heavier all form from nuclear fusion within a star, not from fission as you suggest." When did I ever suggest such a thing?

I said that atoms undergo nuclear fission. Then the components of those atoms are left. These components will eventually reform into new atoms. I never said nuclear fusion, the breaking down of an atom, causes new atoms to be formed, as you accuse me of doing.

My point was that all atoms eventually (as far as science can guess) break down, so no atoms are eternal. Which was in reply to LewsEthics' question about eternal matter and dating it.

I do not appreciate your using strawman fallacy in such a blatant way.

("And now you're adding to the error by suggesting that all elements have a half-life. No! Some are "theoretically" unstable, but this hasn't been proven. Plus, there are some that are not even "theoretically" unstable.")

Don't be so sure of yourself. Don't believe him Ropy!

No, all atoms may be capable of decay in theory. We have just created gradients of when to say "we know these are unstable" when to say "we know these are theoretically unstable" and "these are probably stable, though only in the sense that it would take such a long time for them to decay that it serves no purpose calling them stable"

Check this link out for more information, taking note of the exceptions and their implications :)

http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/m604a/...


lone77star profile image

lone77star 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

@Philanthropy2012, it's been fun and challenging. Thanks!

And yes, I create new definitions or even new words when the old doesn't work. That's called progress. Science does it all the time. Our culture does it, too. The language evolves. Some people resist this, because they want to hold onto the old ways. And that's okay, but then they have a hard time understanding new things.


lone77star profile image

lone77star 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

@Philanthropy2012, infrared spectroscopy is not the same thing as "red shift" and cosmic expansion.

Infrared spectroscopy is used in the study of absorption and emission spectra. "Red shift" is a distortion of all wavelengths of a stellar or galactic source because of cosmic expansion. Two completely different ducks.

Red shift doesn't become significant until you're long past our galaxy and the most distant planets subject to infrared spectroscopy are within our tiny neighborhood of the Milky Way galaxy.

You're misinterpreting the scientific data.

And on isotopes, you're wrong, again. Here's a quote:

"Only 90 nuclides from the first 40 elements are energetically stable to any kind of decay.... An additional 165 are theoretically unstable to known types of decay, but no evidence of decay has ever been observed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_isotope

So, 165 of the 255 stable nuclides are "theoretically" unstable. If the half-life is several sextillion years, then we would never, never, never be able to use it to date anything.

And if you re-read what you originally wrote, ("...all atoms break down into their sub particles and re-form into new atoms,..."), you'll see that this suggests that fission breaks down into sub-atomic particles and reforms into other elements. Everything I've read on the subject in the last 50+ years disagrees with this assessment.

Yes, new matter (hydrogen only) can be formed from sub-atomic particles, but not new isotopes from fission as you described. Like I said, nature doesn't field strip a decaying atom into its component parts and then re-assemble them into the two smaller isotopes.

Heavier elements like helium and the "metals" that are heavier all form from nuclear fusion within a star, not from fission as you suggest.

@Ropy, are you really reading what I wrote, or simply skimming? Carbon-14 was merely an example.

I hope you understand the correction, now.

You blew it on saying that cosmic "red shift" studies applied to planets. I've studied this stuff for half a century and you got it wrong. Okay?

Perhaps I'll write an article on this for my astronomy website.

And you got it wrong again with the nature of nuclear decay. It don't happen that way. And now you're adding to the error by suggesting that all elements have a half-life. No! Some are "theoretically" unstable, but this hasn't been proven. Plus, there are some that are not even "theoretically" unstable. Got it?


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

Hey AntonOfTheNorth, thanks for stopping by, Steve has dropped this subject and hasn't replied so I can only imagine he's given up due to a lack of interest.

It was very clear what we were arguing about:

Steve"I contend that there are 0 scientific theories of the creation of the universe. I've asked for one and have yet to be given one"

Then I posted that Cosmology is the science of the origins of the universe and said that a science is a science because it uses scientific evidence and scientific theories.

"Cosmology is

1. The science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics."

and then he didn't reply :(

He also said that the big bang theory wasn't a theory for the creation of the universe several times. I guess that definition was check-mate for him.

Nevermind! I found Lone77Star to debate with :D


    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working