I would say you are wrong in this, want to show your working?
B–b-b-b-b-but it’s all a MYSTERY!!! Don’t you see? Haven’t you got eyes? A mystery!! So Q.E.D.
Yes, of course it is - but his audience (believers) don’t think so. Creationism isn’t really a public debate, it’s mostly preaching to the already-converted.
I expect he’s got dozens of more complex and circuitous arguments than that up his sleeve - and as you dismiss one, he’ll pull out another.
Just as a nitpick, that particular example would result in much the same conclusion, as Islam and Christianity share Abrahamic/Mosaic roots.
If you try to be professional and logical in a public debate with a creationist, you’re putting yourself at a disadvantage - because they typically won’t exercise similar restraint, logic and intellectual honesty. You almost can’t win - because it’s actually a stage show, not a debate.
In other contexts, you might prevail with logic - in my experience (as an ex-YEC), you need to agree the terms and scope of the debate in advance, and then doggedly remain on topic.
There are a few logical arguments that are used to prop up creation science, and the average guy on the street may not be familiar with the flaws in such arguments.
For example, since experiments are done in the present, the assertion is made that something like the big bang theory is not real, experimental science but “origins science”. And they imply that “origins science” is a complete crapshoot.
Of course, in reality, a hypothesis about the past can be used to make testable predictions. e.g. The BBT predicts the existence and frequency of the CMB, abundances of light elements etc.
And there are only two or three other arguments concerning how we know what we know, before the whole creation science jenga comes tumbling down.
To be fair, that assumes a constant amount of water and a stable geology. There was a time in Earth’s distant past when much more of it was covered with oceans, but that was before the continents composed primarily of granite existed.
As for Biblical literalism, Kent Hovind and others spend a lot of time on this, coming up with (immensely stupid) narratives that would allow the Earth to be covered, yet we still find the world as it is today.
I think the “you can’t get something from nothing, therefore something must be eternal” is the grounds for the most convincing argument in favour of a Creator. I hear from multiple sources how quantum physics has “proven” you can get something from nothing, but until someone can at least explain the basis of that particular concept to a layman like me, I’m throwing in with the “causation only” crowd.
Yes, many creationists believe this(that is their right) but belief is not fact.No one can pove anything about God just believe what someone before them taught or wrote about.I would still like to hear who created the place for God In which God could exist. Place must come before being, If the being is nowhere, then it doesn’t exist!
Phantom particles are an example. It’s a pair of particles with equal, but opposite energies, so that (in net terms) their combined energy is still zero. The trick is this: electrons can’t pop into existence by itself, but electrons can pop into existence if an equal number of positrons pop in with it. These particle pairs apparently (almost always) mutually annihilate nearly instantly, but they are still a measurable phenomenon. Personally, I know I’m out of my depth on this, but this is not controversial among particle physicists (a fairly conservative lot on the whole). If Krauss is right and all of the positive energy is perfectly balanced by all of the negative energy, then everything can exist literally out of nothing because it is still (in net terms) nothing. You can watch Krauss give a lecture about it.
In any case, it seems that time may itself a phenomenon within our universe, so you can’t actually have something before the universe. If you need something to be eternal, the universe may be all you get.
I wouldn’t respons at all.
This is one of these arguments that you can never win. If people want to believe they will. Not a wind mill I’d tilt at.
Thanks for the attempted explanation there, dorsk188, but you appear to be saying that the total net energy of the universe could be zero (or nothing), which is different from saying that something can begin to exist, uncaused.
There’s nothing wrong with you discussing the subject; I was just saying you don’t need each one to be a separate thread. So I’ve merged the “Denial of Evolution” thread into this one.
My understanding of Big Bang Theory is that there was no time before a certain stage of the universe’s development. If that’s the case, then asking what happened before the universe might be like asking where is the edge of the Earth. There is no edge of the Earth (because it’s a sphere) and there may have never been a time when the universe (in some form) didn’t exist.
The real point is that common sense ideas like causes and beginnings may not be useful when talking about the fundamentally different context of the early universe. Just like our intuitions are useless when thinking about the behavior of electrons (which seem to interact with each other everywhere at once).
As Haldane said, “The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose.”
From what I understand, Haldane was queerer than anything. 
Well “something from nothing” is arguably the biggest unsolved question of all. Why anything?
But just positing something eternal doesn’t really solve “something from nothing”. It’s getting rid of the start point but not the question.
We can still ask why this and not that e.g. why an eternal god and not just an eternal universe?
Or if eternal things necessarily exist, why aren’t people being trampled right now by the “eternal giant leprechaun of new york”?
I’m sorry I neglected to make this clear in other post, but phantom particles do begin to exist out of nothing and uncaused. According to our understanding of quantum mechanics, there is never such a thing as empty space. This is known as quantum foam, as was mentioned earlier. It’s strange and counterintuitive, but I leave this sort of pondering to the professionals, as I’m not hugely affected by the details of how the universe works as long as it does.
Certainly. And if that’s true, and if something did cause the universe to exist, then said entity must exist in a timeless state.
This is true in the sense that anything is theoretically possible, but this is just speculation, and is not based on evidence.
The universe exists inside the bounds of time, so an “eternal universe” is problematic in a way that an eternal but timeless entity is not.
I’m curious as to what you are suggesting.
It seems to me that you actually accept the proposition that something can come from nothing - after all, what did God use? Nothing, right?
So the problem is not actually something coming from nothing - it’s something being uncaused. QP, via quantum fluctuations, show that particles can pop into and out of existence in a vacuum uncaused. Philosophically I think this makes sense, seeing as the entire notion of causation that human beings are aware of is one where agents act upon pre-existing material/energy within time and space. That’s what we mean when we say ‘x caused y’.
So when you come to causation from nothing, it doesn’t seem to make sense to say that an agent was responsible. There was nothing for the agent to act upon, no time for the agent to do it, and no space for the agent to do it in. It’s an effort in paradoxes.
Also, this entire conversation is predicated on a presentism metaphysics of time - which begs the question.
Actually it’s not a problem if you assume the block universe (b theory) view of time. In that scenario, the universe is not created, is eternal, and makes sense of relativity.
A ‘timeless’ entity existing outside of time doesn’t make any sense. It presupposes time, in order to create time.
Well I don’t assume anything by default; I rely on evidence and reasoning to draw conclusions.
I don’t see how.