Is Creationism really irrational? Options

[elk4586]

I havent studdied the Big Bang theory in depth nor have I delved into any real "begining of the universe" theory so if I'm just ignorant please point out where to go to understand it more. Now, looking at the idea as simply as possible or at least as simply as I am, I don't necessarily find Creationism that irrational - based mostly on the fact that all alternatives I know of seem just as, if not more, irrational.

As I understand it, the leading scientific theory on the creation of the universe is "the Big Bang" theory and that, essentially, it says that all of the universe was created by a massive explosion about.....well, a really really long time ago. Okay, now what I don't get: what fueled the explosion? If it was gasses coliding or something like that - as my HS science teachers always tried to explain to me - where did the gasses come from? Basically, I don't understand how the creation of EVERYTHING (my deffinition of "the Universe") could be fueled by or started by something. Anything. Nothing should have been there....hell, there shouldn't even be a "there" to come from. Anyway, taking that into thought is it entirly irrational to believe that the universe was created?

Not trying to pick a fight or anything at all, just this is a question that has always bugged me. Basically:

"Is the idea of the universe as some entity's "creation" totaly irrational and why?"

[the tortured one]

There are a number of theories regarding the big bang. One is that the universe consists of Dimensions beyond our own, which are inconcievable to us, and the universe started when two membranes of the dimensions collided. This is extremely abstract because we are trying to apply an extradimensional environment in a 3 dimensional environment. This is called the Ekpyrotic universe theory. There is also the oscillatory universe theory, which holds that the early universe's hot, dense state matches on to a contracting universe similar to ours. This yields a universe with an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches. The cyclic extension of the ekpyrotic model is a modern version of such a scenario. According to some quantum loop gravity theorists, the Big Bang was merely the beginning of a period of expansion that followed a period of contraction. In this view, one could talk of a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang, or more simply, a Big Bounce. The main idea behind the quantum theory of a Big Bounce is that, as density approaches infinity, so the behavior of the quantum foam changes.

However, these are all scientific theories, based on scientific calculations, and there is no arbitrary evidence to suggest an infinite Judeo-Christian God. It would be more logically accurate to say "We simply do not know" or "we do not possess the means of finding out" rather than go with the one that is the safest (that being, God is supernatural and therefore beyond our boundaries to detect)

[Felipe]

First, when I say "universe," I mean the sum of all existents.

Second, know that the law of identity says that a thing can't have one nature one moment and a different nature another moment. With respect to non-living entities, this means that a thing can't be at some point, and then not be at another.

Then, the universe, the sum of all existents, existents which have a specific nature which (with respect to non-living entities) can't be at one point and not be at another point, can't be "created."

Also, the question "What or who created the universe?" contradicts the concept "universe"--there is no existent outside the sum of existents referred to in "universe." In other words, the above question is equivalent to asking "What existent created the sum of all existents?" So, either it contradicts itself by referring to an existent outside the sum of all existents, or by referring to a particular existent within this sum that has the ability to create itself and all other existents--but how can something that didn't exist create itself?

Fix firmly the principle that existents have a specific nature, and this nature never changes.

As for judging those who believe in creationism as irrational, considering creationism is wrong, the judgment must be contextual. That is, you have to know first why the person believes this, what level of explicitness with which they believe in it, how much thought they've given to this issue, etc. For example, I wouldn't label young people who believe in creationism "irrational" out of hand.

[y_feldblum]

Yes. Do you have sense-perceptual evidence - do any facts of reality of which you are aware lead you to conclude - that in fact there is some entity outside of and apart from all the entities that exist which created all the entities that exist?

[MisterSwig]

I havent studdied the Big Bang theory in depth nor have I delved into any real "begining of the universe" theory so if I'm just ignorant please point out where to go to understand it more. Now, looking at the idea as simply as possible or at least as simply as I am, I don't necessarily find Creationism that irrational - based mostly on the fact that all alternatives I know of seem just as, if not more, irrational.

Have you already dismissed the alternative idea that there was no "beginning" to the universe?

You rightly point out that Big Bang theory doesn't account for the existence of the material creating the universe. But do you realize that Creationism also cannot account for the existence of the material creating the universe?

Where did God come from?

A rational alternative is that there was no "beginning" to the universe. There was never a time where something was created from nothing. That is impossible. It is a fairy tale.

There was always a universe of some kind. There has always been stuff. And from this stuff, whatever it was, the universe as we know it took shape.

[nimble]

Also, there is no point of "time" in which the universe didn't exist. Time is a property of the universe, and without the universe time has no meaning. So the universe has always existed in relation to time.

[Lemuel]

"Is the idea of the universe as some entity's "creation" totaly irrational and why?"

If you have access to Piekoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, read in Ch.1 under "Existence as Possessing Primacy over Consciousness", pp.17-23 (Meridian).

[RosszValaki]

If you have access to Piekoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, read in Ch.1 under "Existence as Possessing Primacy over Consciousness", pp.17-23 (Meridian).

"Existence is prier to Consciousness" Is what really showed me that Creationism could never be logical.

If you have a Universe that is created by consciousness then at some point you have that single prime consciousness with nothing existing to be conscious of. That just doesn't compute. LOL

[BurgessLau]

"Is the idea of the universe as some entity's "creation" totaly irrational and why?"

What do you mean by "irrational"? How would you distinguish it from "mistaken," "illogical," "incorrect," or similar ideas?

"Irrational" is a crucial part of your question and it deserves a definition.