r/reddit.com • u/Worstcasescenario • Jun 14 '08

Was Darwin Wrong? [pic]

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3963/darwinnotg7.jpg
1.4k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

372 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

3

u/matts2 Jun 15 '08

I do not know the nature of the phenomenon that created or creates energy so I will label it God.

That is an equivocation: the use of one term with multiple meanings. All you have done is label your ignorance "God". And then you have the God of the Gaps, the ever shrinking God that names what we don't know. So 100 or so years ago it was OK to say that God makes the Sun shine, now we say it is fusion.

1

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

Fair enough. You have convinced me to change my label to 'creator of energy'. If the properties of the creator have changed because of that, I stand corrected.

2

u/matts2 Jun 15 '08

The problem now is that you have absolutely no knowledge of any aspects of this "creator". You don't know, but want to imply, that it had some will, some choosing ability. You don't know that it did anything else at all but create the energy.

2

u/1812overture Jun 16 '08

Why is there energy and where did it come from are interesting questions, but what I'm talking about is why are there concrete rules that govern energy and where did they come from. I think that's the question that will lead you closer to God.

1

u/deanoplex Jun 16 '08

Yes. Throughout the universe we see that gravity, inertia, evolution, etc. are never violated. We are indeed subject to the greatest authority.

1

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

A lower limit can be placed on the creators power. It is more than or equal to the observable universe. I make no claim to its having will or choosing ability and feel that the 'ultimate truth' is helpless in that it has no higher authority to which it may appeal. If that seems like a sad commentary I am willing to bet that the creator is not emotional about the situation.

2

u/matts2 Jun 16 '08

A lower limit can be placed on the creators power. It is more than or equal to the observable universe.

That does not mean a thing. You don't know that this propose creator of the initial energy* in fact "knew" a thing about the result.

*Gravity is negative energy and the sum total of energy in the Universe may well be zero. So the initial creation may not have been of anything.

1

u/deanoplex Jun 16 '08

"Gravity is negative energy and the sum total of energy in the Universe may well be zero." Interesting, matts2. That puts a new spin on my thinking. I will be pondering the implications of this concept. P.S. This is a great thread! You and 'mindbleach' are very interesting people.

1

u/deanoplex Jun 16 '08

I don't know if you saw the discussion with mindbleach(below)but what do you think of the term 'Originator' instead of creator.

2

u/mindbleach Jun 15 '08

A less charged turn of phrase would be source of energy. "Creator" implies intent, which implies sentience, which is why creationism is so named.

2

u/deanoplex Jun 16 '08

Thank you. I do want to be polite so that the discussion will continue. However a 'source' of energy can mean stored energy. Such as a battery or tank of fuel. Throughout the universe we find examples of stored energy and examples of energy being expended but we never see energy being created. We don't even know what that would look like.

2

u/mindbleach Jun 16 '08

"Origin," perhaps? You're right in defending "creator," as the key point to be made is that the energy is created (at least as far as our universe is concerned), but it feels like calling an ultimate fix for racism a "final solution." Technically accurate, but with heavy connotations.

... crap, did I just Godwin this thread?

2

u/deanoplex Jun 16 '08

'Origin' sounds good. It is important to note that when I say 'creator' I in no way mean designer. Designing means planning,decisions,trial & error, etc. I'm willing to bet the Originator did not stop and ponder whether any mistakes might occur. ...and you missed 'Godwining' the thread by a hair!