Creationist model

All "objectivity" means in science is that anybody can do the same experiment and get the same result. That consensus is as close to "reality" as science tries to get.So, if you actually had a "creation model", it could be tested by Christians and atheists and Muslims and Jews and Hindus and they'd all get the same answer. The same answer doesn't have to be The Right Answer™ as long as it's useful and everybody agrees on it.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

There really isn't that much difference between order and chaos.But the "direction" thing is your main problem here. I presume you mean to suggest that direction requires a director.That's where the whole "real reality" thing becomes a problem for you. It's fine to say that "reality is real", but unless you can show something in a practical, empirical way, it's just mental masturbation.If you're claiming a director/creator as part of your model, you have to show empirical evidence that such a thing exists. Your "logical conclusion" that there must be some such thing at the base of "reality" isn't useful. You need to demonstrate it.Edited by Ringo, : Added missing double quote.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

On the contrary, from a scientific viewpoint, monotheism is pretty unlikely. As you said yourself, "In fact ONE does not exist in the universe." There isn't ONE of anything else, so why would we expect to find only one god?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

Any and all science requires empirical evidence, repeatable observations, an objective consensus. Until such evidence can be produced for any god, science has no interest in theism. If there was evidence for one such entity, there would be no way of "proving" the negative proposition that there are no others. The same source as the first ONE.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

Science doesn't "produce" universes. It only studies the existing universe. Science doesn't need a "causitive factor".You do.You can't have a creation model without a creator and you have no objective empirical evidence for a creator.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This thread isn't about conventional science. It's about a creationist model. Calling conventional science "anti-scientific" does nothing to bolster your model - if you even had one.The fact is, conventional science describes the existing universe quite well - and quite usefully - without needing to understand the origin.But creationism can't do that. Creationism postulates a creator which pre-existed the creation. Based on your own postulate, you do need to go farther back in "time" than conventional science does. You do need evidence that your postulate has merit.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

Because you haven't given us the chapter and verse. Don't say anything else in response. Just give us the chapter and verse. Your humble and/or honest opinion is worthless. There is no Genesis creation model on the table. You haven't even shown an inkling of a clue that you have any vague notion of what a model is.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

None of that is in Genesis.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

The point of this thread is not to hallucinate scientific findings in Genesis. It's to provide a creationist model. How do those things work in a creationist model? How are any of them relatable to a creator empirically? How do creationists explain those things differently from conventional science?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

So you're arguing that God can't exist.But how does that support a creationist model?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

That doesn't solve the coming-from-nothing problem. If God can exist contrary to the coming-from-nothing "law", then why couldn't a singularity? Or a tangerine?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

That doesn't solve your problem. You claim that nothing can come from nothing and then you claim that one thing must always have been. Why couldn't more than one thing always have been?If you're going to postulate a "law" and then special-plead an exception to the law, how do you prevent other exceptions?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

That's my point. How can you determine what "it" was? Why does "it" have to be God? Why couldn't "it" be something else?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

You have shown no evidence for any of that. And you've shown no connection between any of that and "creation". This isn't the "Act of Faith" forum. You need to provide evidence that any of your fairy tale actually happened.Edited by Ringo, : Speling.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

There's no evidence of that staring anybody in the face. If there was evidence, you'd be able to present some. And I'm still asking: How do you know that the "it" has anything to do with "creation". A creation model can't just postulate an "it" and claim all things came from "it". You need to show the connection.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs