"Then, last month, a judge ruled the stickers unconstitutional."

They'll stay in the kids' books until the end of the school year, in a new ruling.

There is zippo evidence for Creationism, but the Courts should are out of bounds to stop its teaching or even its implication in the public schools.

That is why we have Legislatures.

Bart:

There's Creation.

Bart -- explain how the universe came into being. Anyone who claims to be rational but fails to address that point is doing a whole lot more claiming than thinking.

And just saying, I don't know, is not good enough; the only possible explanation for us not be a piece of -273 Kelvin debris is creation by a supernatural being.

As Orrin says, "There's Creation."

'We're here because we're here' isn't much of argument. Given a choice between the idea of natural selection and the fairy stories in Genesis, I'll take the idea of natural selection as being a closer representation of what actually happened.

Now if you want to discuss notions like the 'uncaused first cause' or the 'Great Watchmaker' I'm prepared to listen. But if you're going to assail me with the fabulist nonsense in the Bible, I have no interest.

Bart:

To each his own nonsense. Middle/Upper middle class white males logically enjoy the fable that suggests they got where they are because their biologically superior to everything else in the Universe.

It is a fantastic argument, Bart. If the physical science that people use to ignore the spirit says that we can no longer exist, then that very science is incomplete, at best. The fact that we are here is proof of something greater than we can physically perceive.

I have no answer other than the Bible because it has satisfied my own personal standard, which is much more philosophical than scientific.

However, I would, respectfully, like to hear how others have answered that question for themselves.

Randall:

The question of how the universe came into being has nothing to do with the Creationism vs Evolution debate.

Randall:

"the only possible explanation for us not be a piece of -273 Kelvin debris is creation by a supernatural being."

Ok, so now you explain explain how the supernatural being came into being. And just saying, I don't know, is not good enough.

Randall, "I don't know" is the ONLY defensible answer to the question "how did the universe come into being?"

By saying anything else, you're doing a whole lot more claiming than thinking.

Brit -- yes it does. We are limited by time and space, and it only stands to reason that our creator is not; without time there is no beginning necessary, neither an end.

Let's take the only example of infinity we have: how time stands still at the speed of light. This demonstrates that "timelessness" is, indeed, possible. Of course, "timelessness" is not the same as "eternal"; energy must be created. Moses stated in Genesis 1:4 that light existed before the sun and the stars. Regardless of your position on the Bible and its adherents, you have to admit that Moses knew the truth long before there was anything approaching science. It is no fluke to state an impossibility as fact and then have it proven true. In other words, the confidence of Moses is testimony to his source of truth.

Besides, it is the believer in the transcendency of physical science, Brit, who must prove how it can explain why we are still here and not floating debris. Until that time, creation must be assumed.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." (Proverbs 9:10)

In other words, truth is not found in a petri dish.

Randall:

Not only that, but Einstein's E=MC2 assumes the Biblical account of Creation is true. Until He says let there be Light you've got nothing.

Brit:

Of course it's good enough. Whatever Created the Universe was outside the Universe and is fundamentally unknowable. Cosmology makes no attempt to depict a creator either.

Brit:

The question of how the universe came into being has nothing to do with the Creationism vs Evolution debate.

I don't think you'll find too many atheists disagreeing with that synopsis.

So you concede that the Universe and Darwinism serve His purposes and are directed by Him? What's left of Darwin at that point?

Randall:

No it doesn't, because Evolution is compatible with an non-interfering Initial Creator.

Who might even exist. I don't know or claim to know. And nor does 'physical science', be it 'transcendent' or not (whatever that's supposed to mean).

We just disagree on the "a Creator must be assumed" bit.

I don't assume a Creator. I don't rule one out either. I don't rule out that all the universe is an illusion being fed to me by mad scientists. I don't rule out many Creators, all competing for Best Universe In Show, and this one is an entry. I don't rule out that there is no Creator, and that the universe came from nothing for no reason.

Give me a reason why I should prefer your Biblical Creator to any of these other options, and I'll be interested.

(Quoting from the Old Testament doesn't move me one way or the other, since I don't regard it as a reliable source. I regard it as a very unreliable souce which says lots of conflicting things and some obviously wrong things.)

Orrin:

How silly. E=mc2 assumes, among other things, that there is light. Nothing about Who put it there.

Brit:

Find the scientific theory where light comes first.

OJ:

"I don't think you'll find too many atheists disagreeing with that synopsis.

So you concede that the Universe and Darwinism serve His purposes and are directed by Him? What's left of Darwin at that point?"

Grow up, Orrin. That's a Michael Moore trick: missing out the crucial part of my statement in your quote.

The statement read:

"So God, if He exists, is at worst a vindictive so-and-so, and at best a no more than averagely-competent engineer.

I don't think you'll find too many atheists disagreeing with that synopsis."

These debates are all good fun, so why start being a prize plonker?

Brit:

Because you're conceding so much ground that we may as well take it all. Your epiphany is near.

[Are you allowed to start name-calling as you accuse someone else of wrecking the fun?]

Since you devote so much time to these debates, I guessed that you like the fun. Deliberate misquotation is just low.

[Which name did you object to, prize plonker or Michael Moore?]

Brit:

I don't object--just find you amusing.

The feeling is mutual. What larks.

Brit, those who demand physical proof of creation must also furnish proof that said physical proof is transcendent. It is ridiculous to demand scientific proof of something that currently exists when, according to the laws of physical science, we cannot exist (because, without a creator, we must have been here forever and all energy would have dissipated by now).

I only argue this point because once a creator and something beyond creation becomes acceptable, then all things are possible. That is the meaning of Proverbs 9:10.

Transcendent

1 a : exceeding usual limits : SURPASSING b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience c in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
2 : being beyond comprehension
3 : transcending the universe or material existence ó compare IMMANENT 2
4 : universally applicable or significant

Deliberate misquotation is just low.

Brit, I don't think Orrin agrees with you; he appears to be quite fond of the technique.

Randall: As for this earlier meme about just saying "I don't know" is not good enough, congratulations on your own goal. How much do you know about the Lord God Creator, about how He created life etc? How many questions about God are met with the refrains 'it's a mystery', 'we weren't meant to know' etc. also known as 'we don't know'?

So saying God created life, created light, man etc. answers a single question here or there with a simple 'it's magic'. Great. Dig a little deeper and it all falls apart, just like Orrin's inability to defend the First Cause argument the other day - just dig a little deeper and it turns into '"that's what I was told and I'm sticking to it".

Where did God come from? Don't tell me you don't know, because apparently you've just chosen to put that outside the bounds of discourse. I've heard some pretty fantastic stories about creators creating creators etc. from the very same people who just about in the same breath insisted that eternity all the way back was simply impossible, hence necessitating the existence of the first (latest) creator in that celestial square dance.

All that sticking God in the picture has achieved is shifting the goalposts a little. It essentially still says 'there are things we don't know'. It just goes for some easier answers, that's all.

Randall,

For the mere fact that something exists to be full and complete proof that it was created, you would have to prove that everything that exists was created.

creeper:

We have, just not by reason.

I noticed that: "that's what I was told and I'm sticking to it".

Creeper -- are you deliberately misunderstanding what I said, or was I unclear?

Let me start with this rhetorical question: has the physical universe always existed? (obviously not, we would have dissipated by now)

So, the only explanation is that the physical universe was created. (regardless of by whom)

Then we come to the question of who is the creator. I am fully satisfied that he has revealed himself to us, though obviously you are not. That is fine, for "even him whom he hath chosen will he cause to come near unto him." (Numbers 16:5)

As Brit said, this has nothing to do with evolution; but the original article was ridiculing the creator with the intent of demonstrating that there is no creator. I am only showing how there must be a creator and the very idea of a child of his creation ridiculing him is nonsense.

Why pretend that the First Cause argument is a reasonable argument? It just boils down to 'I believe'.

Maybe because you haven't shown why it isn't?

Randall,

1. I was not deliberately misunderstanding what you said.

2. Why do you consider the question 'has the physical universe always existed' a rhetorical one? Why is the foregone conclusion that it has not always existed?

3. Why do you think that a universe that had (hypothetically) always existed would have resulted in all of us being dissipated by now?

Randall, re. the First Cause argument, Orrin had a go at defending it and first got himself tangled up in a circular argument, then was unable to explain why the universe had to have a beginning.

See here: http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/020861.html

Can you demonstrate perpetual motion? You should patent it (though even patents eventually run out).

Of course the universe would have dissipated over an infinite period of time. How could it not have?

creeper:

Your belief that there was no First Cause is just a matter of faith as well. It just happens to be ugly and lead to evil.

Randall:

It's not deliberate, they're so deeply faith-filled that they can't grasp your arguments.

Okay creeper, here is your point, if I read you correctly in that earlier thread you pointed to:

*** If something called God can be bigger than the universe, than the universe is simply bigger than we thought it was to begin with. And if God himself requires a creator that created him, the logic falls apart completely - because then you're just talking about a cycle of creators, one after the other, creating the next one... all the way back ad infinitum. ***

The point that Thomas Aquinas was making is obvious enough: that nothing moves on its own. You seem to stumble on the fact that we are already moving, and therefore assume it to be indisputable that we have always been moving.

What I am trying to add to the equation is that physical motion, energy, etc, is demonstrably finite; it dissipates, and, over an infinite period of time, we would be nothing more than -273 Kelvin floating debris.

You also seem to stumble on the idea of who created the creator? But that is beside the point because we currently exist.

In other words, it is your argument that is circular, because you are relying on the physical to be infinite, which it is not.

Now, indeed, how we address who this creator is belief; but the fact that there is a creator is not in doubt.

My argument re. First Cause was not a matter of faith, but rested very clearly on the logical contradiction between positing that everything required a cause and almost immediately thereafter coming up with a speculative entity that requires no cause whatsoever.

When I pointed out this contradiction to you, your response was to make up even more creators, ie. repeating the trick instead of addressing the issue.

While I may have however you define faith at the moment ('everything'), no faith is required to point out such a logical contradiction.

Randall,

you make some very interesting points, and I appreciate that, sincerely. I'd also like to find the time to read your novel one of these days... it's on my reading list, FWIW.

Now, a couple of points:

1. When I asked Orrin on the other thread what made him think the universe had a beginning etc. it was not entirely a rhetorical question. I was actually trying to get to the bottom of his reasoning because it is so closely linked to the First Cause argument. The logical contradiction of the First Cause argument seems glaring to me, and I have yet to see it addressed sufficiently.

2. I find the entropy argument that you've made somewhat intriguing. What state would the universe be in if it were 10-12 billion years old? Could it conceivably, given states of energy etc., resemble the universe we perceive around us?

The mystery of the big bang theory and, if it is true, what came before it, is there for us to ponder. We can say 'I don't know', or we can say 'there's a mysterious entity to which all the rules we posited simply happen not to apply'. In practical terms, the only difference I can see is that the second one is more stifling to curiosity.

3. Although once one believes in God, the issues may seem one and the same, the origin of life and the evolution of life are two separate questions, and AFAIK the modern theory of evolution only strives to explain the second part. (I don't mean to insult your intelligence with this, but others on this blog do get them confused with alarming consistency.)

4. My notion of who created the creator came about in response to Orrin positing that everything has a cause. Either the creator has a creator, or not everything has a cause. I don't understand how you pointing out that 'we currently exist' impacts this conundrum.

creeper:

The First Cause has a cause too.

"The First Cause has a cause too."

A perfect distillation of the utter nonsense that is the First Cause argument.

Or perhaps you want to retitle it the Second Cause argument...?

creeper:

I've always been amused at how terrified rationalists are by infinity, because it rebukes their ignorance.

"cause" is a physical notion resulting in an "effect". Philosophically, therefore, cause and effect are effectively one and the same, operating on the same plane.

If cause is to be extrapolated backwards, endlessly, then "infinity" must be considered. Since "infinity" is a physically impossible concept (because all energy is set in motion and eventually dissipates), then our very existence is proof that we had a beginning.

I actually approach this all from a positive direction because I abhor the destructiveness of atheism: as Francis Bacon says, "They that deny a God destroy man's nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts by his body; and if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature."

So, yes, for me believing in a creator is a natural thing and I have spent my life admiring the evidence of his handiwork rather than seeking flaws (as did the author article who started this thread). For someone like me, evolution is an attempt to obscure creation without providing proof. It is like destroying evidence of a crime and then claiming that proves that no crime was committed.

And, given the choice of two beliefs: one which destroys man's nobility and one which recognizes the blessed difference between man and the rest of creation, I emphatically choose the latter.

Regarding my book, I recently posted the fifth draft, so if you are going to read The Friend, make sure you have the latest version. Feel free to print it up. My website will always have the latest posted.

"I've always been amused at how terrified rationalists are by infinity, because it rebukes their ignorance."

If you meant me by that, infinity doesn't scare me. Why should it?

Your thinking about eternity (I'll use that term because in this context we're talking about time) with regards to energy is certainly interesting, and is also what has engendered various flavors of 'big bang' theories. The origin of the universe and how, if it had a beginning, it came into being remains a mystery.

While I appreciate your reasoning in this regard, I do have to observe that from this reasoning it is still a speculative leap to posit a creator of life on earth, or of man. What you call 'God' in the context of the beginning of the universe may well just be some mysterious force of order that is completely beyond our understanding. It is speculative to suggest that all mankind, our planet, our solar system, would even show up on the 'radar screen' of such an entity, that such an entity is consciously aware of our existence... that it even has a consciousness of any kind.

It is comforting to believe in such an entity, of course. I understand that, and I don't have a quibble with those who hold such beliefs. I am quite comfortable with my atheism and see it as no more destructive than any other belief, nor do I think it leads by necessity to be amoral. There is a certain morality, in my opinion, that comes out of the sum of us being human and being social beings. Godless groups have been cruel, but so have groups acting on religious beliefs.

I hope to find some time to read your novel soon.

Well, maybe I'm just lucky, having actually met God. Tricky to prove an experience like that, however. Though it was a dramatic turning point in my life.

Tricky to prove indeed, Randall. Impossible, even. It may even be possible to speculate about rational explanations for what you subjectively went through that don't involve the existence of God.

But that is neither here nor there; your beliefs are all yours. To each his own, I say. I appreciate that the event was a major turning point in your life, and if it made you a better person, all the power to you.

BTW, Orrin (of all people) has started arguing against the validity of the 2nd law of thermodynamics over here: http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/021045.html

Perhaps eternity is possible after all?

Ah, I see - this is where the "Started?" comment from the other thread belongs.

Okay, so in the grand scheme of things, you didn't just start arguing against the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but in the context of that thread, there was a point at which you introduced that line of argument and hence 'started' it. Not that it matters, this is extremely inconsequential.

So anyway, you're not a fan of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You and Randall are at odds on this one. According to him, you see, it's the 2nd law of thermodynamics that necessitates a beginning for the universe.

Obviously the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would necessitate a beginning of the Universe.

We're talking about the same 2nd law of thermodynamics that you say is not valid, right?

Yes.

Just wanted to get that straight.

"One example is their battle to stem the banning of Christmas symbols and celebrations."

Just noticed this bit. Maybe Orrin can steer me to an example of attempts to ban Christmas celebrations. In the present day.

creeper:

Where? They're routine.

Then it shouldn't be so hard to whip up an example.

about 222,000 English pages for christmas ban

http://www.google.com/custom?domains=brothersjudd.com&q=christmas+ban&sa=Search&sitesearch=&client=pub-0881894330627654&forid=1&channel=0211651658&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BLH%3A39%3BLW%3A211%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.brothersjudd.com%2Fgraphics%2Fjuddlogo.jpg%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2F%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en

"about 222,000 English pages for christmas ban"

Which means not a whole lot. I went through the first ten. Not a single Christmas celebration was banned in these examples. A few quibbles about what could or should be displayed in public places, but everyone could go home or to their place of religious worship and celebrate Christmas without any hindrance whatsoever, and with no evidence of anybody trying to impede them of this right at any instance.

First example: a clergyman calls for a Christmas ban because it has become too commercial.

Second example: based on a misunderstanding. A memo went around to ask people in a public institution to use the phrase 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry Christmas'. Some people thought it meant banning Christmas.

Third example: a public library does not want a poster for a religious celebration displayed. Makes the newsworthy mistake of allowing a muslim celebration a week earlier.

Fourth example: Nothing to do with Christmas at all, apparently - "Murphy to fight the ban imposed after his Plumpton indiscretion - Timmy Murphy [a jockey] has indicated he is set to appeal against the seven-day ban he incurred for throwing his whip at his mount Semi Precious at Plumpton on Monday."

Fifth example: Some people upset about PC in public places. Nobody was stopped from celebrating Christmas in their home or place of religious worship.

Sixth example: Official Says No "Merry Christmas" Ban Was Intended - more over-reaction to the phrase "happy holidays" being used in public places to include other faiths.

Seventh example: Pinnacle Entertainment - Albion Christmas Ban/Albion Christmas Ban Discography. Apparently the name of a band.

Eighth example: "Reverend Swan reckons the festive season is a time of 'madness' that brings 'sadness and misery', and has called for a ban on Christmas."

Ninth example: "Some time ago one of the 'Prayer Warriors' sent in a prayer request but within a long email. She was dreading Christmas and the financial costs that accrue, and the possibility of rows. For some time now I've been looking at how we have let the commercialism of Christmas dominate that most beautiful of celebrations - the birthday of our Divine Saviour. I'd really love to BAN CHRISTMAS! Sounds dramatic doesn't it?" Yep.

Tenth example: A public-interest law firm has filed suit in federal court alleging that a "Holiday Displays" policy for New York City public schools is discriminatory against the Christian religion. Were Christmas celebrations banned in New York in 2002? Nope.

I'm not going to go through all 210,000+ links, Orrin. If you have a single actual example to present, present it.

So much for science over faith, if you're going to just assume what you want...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41955

Where did all these people celebrate Christmas? Where were they on Christmas Day, Christmas Eve, the Sundays preceding Christmas?

In their homes.

In churches.

In the homes of loved ones.

Was a single attempt made to step them from that?

Schools and libraries have their purposes. The celebration of every religious holiday under the sun is not one of them, and there are more than enough appropriate places to celebrate those holidays. The church is big enough to celebrate the birth of Christ; the home is good enough to gather with loved ones and exchange presents.

Saying that religious holidays have no place in schools and libraries is a very, very far cry from banning the celebration of Christmas.

Ah, so gays should be let out of the closet and Christians put in it? thus secular tolerance.

Why, are they celebrating homosexual holidays in schools and libraries?

I always thought the church was a place of worship, not a closet.

Yes and on public broadcasting and all the rest.

Everywhere is a place of worship.

"Yes and on public broadcasting and all the rest."

Was that in reference to the 'homosexual holidays'? If so, could you name an example of such a holiday?

"Everywhere is a place of worship."

Good, then don't be so greedy as to insist on the schools and libraries. There's plenty to go around, and Christianity does not lack for places to celebrate holidays.

Greedy? Why have schools and libraries if they aren't going to do good?

Schools and libraries do plenty of good. Celebrating religious holidays happens to be not one of their functions. Christianity does not lack for places to celebrate its holidays, as you've pointed out.

Were you serious about that 'homosexual holidays' thing or did I misunderstand something?

Well done, creeper. That trashing of Orrin's google link argument was very funny.

Thanks, Brit. And Orrin still can't come up with an example of Christmas celebrations being banned. Never mind this bizarre thing about homosexual holidays being celebrated in schools and libraries. Examples of which, of course, are nowhere to be found.

There are many more here if you really feel the need to read through them all:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/101/42.0.html

What homosexual holidays?

"What homosexual holidays?"

Good question. I had assumed that your comment "Yes and on public broadcasting and all the rest." was a response to my question "Why, are they celebrating homosexual holidays in schools and libraries?"

If it was, then it is up to you to answer the question "What homosexual holidays?". If it was not, then what was "Yes and on public broadcasting and all the rest" a response to?

About that 'Christmas ban' link. I don't know if three examples necessarily qualify as 'many more', but no matter; 'more' also suggests that some came before, and there were none. Of the ones presented here, not one is an example of Christmas being banned. Nobody was stopped from or even mildly inconvenienced in their Christmas celebrations.

First example: in Denver, it was debated whether "Merry Christmas" should be replaced on some signs with "Happy Holidays". In the end, they kept "Merry Christmas"; even if they had gone with "Happy Holidays", that has nothing to do with banning Christmas.

Second example: in the Parade of Lights, a float by the Faith Bible Church was turned down. The reason given was that due to the small size of the parade, many floats were turned down, and taking in this particular one would have seemed like religious favoritism. Instead of this float being unfairly excluded, the opposite was the case. Also, there were no reports of anyone not being able to celebrate Christmas as a result. And the float will be in the parade next year.

Third example: a kid dressed as Santa Claus was not allowed to enter his school's dress-up dance. While I think this was a bit of an overreaction on the principal's part (erring on the side of caution, I guess), there are no reports that that kid wasn't able to celebrate Christmas just fine.

If you can't find an example, Orrin, don't sweat it; just stop it with the red herrings already.

creeper:

No holiday, just state endorsement and teaching of homosexuality

Maybe I don't understand what you're looking for. They're all examples of state action to ban some portion of traditional Christmas celebrations. But I don't even know why you brought it up in the first place, so if your question is have people been banned from observing Christmas altogether the answer is obviously no, We're a Christian republic and such would not be tolerated. Even the hostility of the State to the Church is being rolled back.

By 'teaching of homosexuality', do you just mean that part in sex ed where they talk about how some people are gay? I don't remember it being much more than that when I was in high school. What's wrong with it? Or have they moved on to compulsory practical exercises of the positions and techniques involved in the different sexual orientations? Gosh.

Christmas obviously will not be banned in the US (unlike far more serious attempts to do just that in other places in centuries past), you're absolutely correct there, but that is of course what "Christmas ban" means. That's why most of the stuff you find on google when you look up that phrase tend to be hysterical overreactions to some attempts to keep public spaces religiously neutral.

Which is fine since, as you pointed out, there are so many other places to worship and to celebrate Christmas.

Yes, people aren't gay.

What Christmas ban?

What Christmas ban indeed. There isn't one. Glad that's settled.

You say 'yes, people aren't gay' as if that is in agreement with something I've said. I don't recall having said anything of the sort.

Were you going to point out where homosexuality is taught in schools? Are you somehow insinuating that homosexuality originates in schools (and libraries)?

And if you want to consider the constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness a state 'endorsement' of homosexuality, knock yourself out.