Gah, Too Many Questions, Not Enough Me.... Help!

[[The Looney Bin]]

The dinosaurs are returning...

So I joined this guild full of Christian teens, I got in an argument with them about creationism and I was doing pretty well until this argument was put on the table:

Haven923

The point made is that everything that exists had to have had a maker. Things aren't randomly created from nothing or explosions. I don't throw a firecracker in the air and a bouquet of flowers fall on my head. A house doesn't just randomly appear in the middle of the freeway as I drive to my Granny's. So now I ask you the genius befuddling question: Which came first? The chicken or the egg. You may be like "That is an illogical question. It's a paradox!!" But the fact still stands that one had to exist first in order for the other to be created. The only logical solution: There had to be a higher entity that created either the chicken or the egg. Also, the Theory of Conservation of Mass/Energy or whatever it's called states that energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed. There goes the "Big Bang" out the window...

I know that there is no god, and the vast majority of you people in the guild also know that, so I would greatly appreciate it for any of you to refute this argument....

I will be trying as well but some help would be great!

...and they want their oil back.

 

[Redem]

Haven923

The point made is that everything that exists had to have had a maker.

This point is always self contradictory.

They state that everything has a creator. And then state that their creator doesn't need a creator.

Their argument rests on the single assertion that everything needs a creator. To then set up an exception ruins their central point, that is is an absolute truth that a creator is necessary.

You can't have it both way, either it is an absolute rule, in which case we get into creator gods having creators into infinity. Or not everything has a creator, in which case the argument fizzles into nothing.

There is also the problem of trying to apply rules that work in this universe to a situation not in this universe, the hypothetic moment of creation of the universe.

Haven923

Things aren't randomly created from nothing or explosions. I don't throw a firecracker in the air and a bouquet of flowers fall on my head.

Explosions simply re-arrange matter. Presumably they are referring tot he big bang, which is NOT an explosion, but the expansion of space itself.

Point them to talk origins.

Haven923

A house doesn't just randomly appear in the middle of the freeway as I drive to my Granny's.

No, but why would we expect it to?

Haven923

So now I ask you the genius befuddling question: Which came first? The chicken or the egg. You may be like "That is an illogical question. It's a paradox!!" But the fact still stands that one had to exist first in order for the other to be created. The only logical solution: There had to be a higher entity that created either the chicken or the egg.

This simply displays more ignorance. It's the same argument as the first, but coated in young-earth creationist clothings. I've spoken on the failings of causality above. So for the exact idea of chickens and eggs, the egg of course. Laid by reptiles long before birds evolved.

Haven923

Also, the Theory of Conservation of Mass/Energy or whatever it's called states that energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed. There goes the "Big Bang" out the window...

Actually the conservation of mass is a law of chemistry, not of physics, which states that the mass of the results of a reaction matches the mass of the things reacting, only worded far less clumsily.
As for energy, that simply means that energy cannot be created from nothing, thus it is reasonable to assume that the energy for the universe was always there.  

[Meirelle]

I second what Redem said.

Also, the book that turns Creationism on its a** is "Atheist Universe" by David Mills. It has helped me immensely in this argument.

Quote:

If we proceed under the assumption that the Big Bang theory is at least partially descriptive of our true cosmic history, then we immediately face a perplexing question. All "bangs" and "explosions" that we observe on Earth and deep space involve the violent dispersion of physical matter. Bombs, volatile liquids or gases, volcanoes, supernovae all create explosive reactions, and all are composed of physical materials. So, if the universe, as we know it today, began with a giant bang or explosion, how did the exploding physical matter come into existence? Or, as the contemporary philosopher Mortimer Adler is fond of asking, "why is there something, rather than nothing?"

[...]

The traditional First Cause argument goes as follows: We observe in the universe a Law of Cause-Effect. Everything requires a cause to account for its existence. Each cause, in turn, is itself an effect that demands a preceding casual antecedent. If, therefore, we regress indefinitely through this chain of causation, we would ultimately arrive at a First Cause, to whom we give the name "God."

The First Cause contradicts itself. I ask you, "Okay. Then what caused God?" And "God always existed" isn't an answer, because that contradicts the entire Cause-Effect argument, making it null.

The law of the conservation of mass-energy:

Quote:

If mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, and if the universe is entirely composed of mass-energy, then the law of the conservation of mass-energy may be extrapolated to this startling conclusion: the universe, in one form or another, always existed. There was never a time when the mass-energy comprising our universe did not exist, if only in the form of an empty oscillating vacuum or an infinitely dense theoretical point called a singularity, consisting of no volume whatsoever.

At the Big Bang, the universe was incredibly dense and unimaginably hot. The elementary particles, which now constitute the chemical elements, could not exist under such extreme conditions. Immediately following the Big Bang, therefore, the rapidly expanding universe is believed to have been comprised solely of energy, with matter condensing later, after further expansion allowed for cooler temperatures. Regardless of its form, however, the universe--which is the sum of all mass-energy--could not, according to the mass-energy conservation law, come into existence ex nihilo in the way demanded by creationism. According to this well-confirmed scientific principle, our universe of mass-energy was never created, and cannot be annihilated. To believe in "scientific" creationism, therefore, is to overlook or dismiss the law of conservation of mass-energy. If creationists possess empirical evidence to contradict the law of the conservation of mass-energy, let them share such information with the general scientific community. Otherwise, the fundamental doctrine of creationism--that the universe was created by God out of literally and absolutely nothing--must be recognized as theological rather than scientific. The term "creation science" is therefore a self-contained contradiction in terms.

He does go on to give lengthy explanations to ALL the creation arguments. However, my fingers hurt from typing it all out.

I highly encourage you to get the book. It'll come in handy. biggrin  

[Theophrastus]

Another reason this claim must be quickly and mercilessly refuted is that it needlessly and falsely ascribes a purpose to existence. It's not that it would be bad if there were a purpose, but that is a dangerous idea because then it demands that someone have power over that purpose (God, the clergy through god, thus the clergy over the proletariat).

Why did The Creator (tm) make things? They want you to accept a telelolgical argument, that is, the argument from complexity, so they can say, "Since it's obvious the Creator made the universe, now we must explore why."

If you feel really bold, pretend to take the bait and play the "why" game. "Why did God create us? Why did God create the appendix? Why did God make birds with useless wings? Why did God make brain worms? Why do babies die of AIDS because of what happened to their parents?"

Obviously, it's silly to believe that there is an ultimate purpose to all existence and assuming that God is responsible for any of it leaves him responsible for every reprehensible, mortifying truth out there.