Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problem with creationism and god
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 76 of 109 (586284)
10-12-2010 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by ringo
10-12-2010 10:30 AM


I am not arguing for or against creationism, only that God wouldn't necessarily need to be created by a "more complex" being. I am not even arguing for the existance of God, since it is something we could go round and round about and never reach a concensus. I am merely addressing the OP which says that if a supernatural being created the universe then he would need an even more "complex" being to create him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 10-12-2010 10:30 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 10-12-2010 11:11 AM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2010 11:27 AM herebedragons has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 77 of 109 (586287)
10-12-2010 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by herebedragons
10-12-2010 10:53 AM


herebedragons writes:
I am not arguing for or against creationism, only that God wouldn't necessarily need to be created by a "more complex" being.
It doesn't really matter whether the creator's creator is more or less complex. The point is that even if there was a creator, there would be no way of showing that it was "the" creator.
Postulating a creator outside of and not detectable by physical means makes it impossible to identify that creator as "the" creator. That creator could have a more complex creator or a less complex creator or no creator. We have no way of knowing.
Immaterialism is nothing but a shot in the foot for creationists.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by herebedragons, posted 10-12-2010 10:53 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 78 of 109 (586288)
10-12-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by herebedragons
10-12-2010 10:27 AM


Would it not assume that God is under the same physical laws that we in the material world are?
But that's the problem, or one of the problems.
The creationists make up some rules for how the world works. Then they deduce God. Then they don't stick with the rules that they made up and go on to deduce a meta-God.
I certainly can't speak for all creationists and IDers, this is just my personal take on this issue. I don't think that just because, say a living cell, needs to be designed (and for the purpose of this thread I am not arguing that it does), it would not necessarily imply that the designer need to be designed. So would something actually be "supernatural" if it required a designer? The assumption is that this "supernatural" being is merely a physical being that is more "complex" than anything we are currently aware of, and if that is the case, then yes there would be a problem with needing a meta-meta-god and so on ad infinitum. I am simply suggesting that this would not be the case if God exsists outside of our material world.
"With one bound, Jack was free!"
Y'see, this is the problem. Creationist make up a rule so that they can invoke the existence of God. Try applying that rule to God, and somehow it doesn't apply to him. Because ... er ... well it just doesn't. 'Cos he's immaterial ... so ... so ... er ... well, so!
But when they invoke God, they've already gotten into a discussion of a non-material entity. If the rule they made up doesn't apply to such things, then their argument collapses.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by herebedragons, posted 10-12-2010 10:27 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 109 (586289)
10-12-2010 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by herebedragons
10-12-2010 10:53 AM


I am not arguing for or against creationism, only that God wouldn't necessarily need to be created by a "more complex" being.
Well, sure. I agree with you.
But this particular creationist argument implies that he would need to be created by a more complex being. That's the problem with it. The OP isn't an argument against God nor an argument for a meta-God. It's just pointing out that one particular argument for God is incoherent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by herebedragons, posted 10-12-2010 10:53 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by herebedragons, posted 10-13-2010 12:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 80 of 109 (586469)
10-13-2010 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Dr Adequate
10-12-2010 11:27 AM


But this particular creationist argument implies that he would need to be created by a more complex being. That's the problem with it. The OP isn't an argument against God nor an argument for a meta-God. It's just pointing out that one particular argument for God is incoherent.
Aaahhh... I think I understand what you are getting at here. Even with the possibility of God being immaterial the problem of seeing something as so "complex" that it requires a designer remains abiguous and is not applied consistantly. Ok. Let's go the other way with it (which is probably more absurd). "This automobile is so complex that I know it has a designer!" but ... is this pencil so simple that it does not need a designer? After all it is only a piece of wood with a piece of graphite through the middle of it. I am taking Organic Chemistry right now, and that is definately complex ... must need a designer! So ... anything organic needs a designer. What about inorganic? Crystal formations are actually quite complicated arrangements of molecules ... designed. Is there anything in nature that is so "simple" that a designer is not required? Hardly. So everything needs to be designed and when when something is an answer for everything ... it is really an answer to nothing.
So I see where you are coming from. This doesn't eliminate the possibility of a designer, but invoking complexity or "looks designed" is hardly criteria for appealing to a designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2010 11:27 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 10-14-2010 5:02 AM herebedragons has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 81 of 109 (586594)
10-14-2010 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by herebedragons
10-13-2010 12:48 PM


So I see where you are coming from. This doesn't eliminate the possibility of a designer, but invoking complexity or "looks designed" is hardly criteria for appealing to a designer.
Actually, I think his point is more this:
This argument fails -
A) Life is too complex to have arisen without aid.
B) Complexity implies there is a designer.
The reason this argument fails is simple.
A "Designer" would have to be complex. As such, a designer likewise be too complex to have arisen without aid. Therefore the designer must have had a complex designer who himself was designed by yet another designer.... etc etc etc
If, at any point, you say "Oh, well, this one designer doesn't need to have been designed" then you are admitting that complexity doesn't require design.
At that point, arbitrarily stopping it at 1 "Designer" or 100,000,000 "Designers" is the same - since there is no, and can be no, evidence for the existence.
So, if you are accepting that complexity does not require a designer, the only logical place to start is from what we can actually observe - ie no magic invisible designer at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by herebedragons, posted 10-13-2010 12:48 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by herebedragons, posted 10-18-2010 10:27 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
SignGuy
Junior Member (Idle past 4912 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 10-14-2010


Message 82 of 109 (586606)
10-14-2010 8:56 AM


Just because an argument can be reasoned incorrect, doesnt debunk that persons point of view entirely. It could just be a bad argument, backed up by nothing.
We have spent 6 pages blasting a bad argument. I am Christian, and beleive that the argument "complex like requires God" is more an emotional description of his faith than a statement meant to defend his faith....its an easy target.
However, if the word complex is subjective than let me get specific. Im going change from "intelligent" to "efficient" design, in an attempt to make an argument without the assumption that a God created what we see.
Even if u dont beleive in God, u can admit that humans are efficiently designed, however that "design" came into existence.
Have we ever found a skeleton of some species that showed such an un-efficient design that it was doomed to go extinct immediately? For instance, other than a sudden birth defect, have we found an evoltionary path leading to, say, a land animal with its eyes and head pearing straight the the sky not being able to see where its going?
Or when brains were developed, were we just lucky that they were put in a safe place and not the last place pheices travels to before exiting the body? Or put on the bottom of our feet to be stepped on?
How about oxygen? Doesnt the need for, the existence of, and ability to consume oxygen all need to be in place simutaneosly? With a need for, and ability to, but no existence of oxygen we would perish. If there is, and have the ability to consume, but no need for oxygen....would we evolve "backwards" to get rid of that ability? And of course, we would die if oxygen existed, we needed it and we couldnt consume it.
In closing i thank evolution for never puting a mouth on any living creature in a place where that creature could not place food there on there own (ie the center of my back).

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Larni, posted 10-14-2010 9:15 AM SignGuy has not replied
 Message 85 by Panda, posted 10-14-2010 9:56 AM SignGuy has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 83 of 109 (586612)
10-14-2010 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 8:56 AM


Have we ever found a skeleton of some species that showed such an un-efficient design that it was doomed to go extinct immediately? For instance, other than a sudden birth defect, have we found an evoltionary path leading to, say, a land animal with its eyes and head pearing straight the the sky not being able to see where its going?
A very good reason that this has not been found is because it would not be what we would expect if evolution were true.
Or when brains were developed, were we just lucky that they were put in a safe place and not the last place pheices travels to before exiting the body? Or put on the bottom of our feet to be stepped on?
Brains as simply a nexus point for neural tissue. As organisms evolved a complex nervous system over billions of years this was localised in the head (once cephalisation of a species occurs). But this is not always the case: octopuses have mini brains in there tenticles to control them.
How about oxygen? Doesnt the need for, the existence of, and ability to consume oxygen all need to be in place simutaneosly?
Go back far enough in time and oxygen was deadly to life on earth. We would die with no oxygen because we have evolved to be able to use it during respiration. When there was no free oxygen on Earth it was not needed, rendering your point moot.
In closing i thank evolution for never puting a mouth on any living creature in a place where that creature could not place food there on there own (ie the center of my back).
Evolution would never do this: what makes you think it ever would?
Edited by Larni, : stupid formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 8:56 AM SignGuy has not replied

  
SignGuy
Junior Member (Idle past 4912 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 10-14-2010


Message 84 of 109 (586619)
10-14-2010 9:51 AM


Thank you for teaching me that oxygen was deadly as one point. But at some point, when oxygen became safe, the need and ability to obsorb would have to become existent at the same exact moment. And dont get me wrong, i dont neccessarily mean lungs being there.
My closing statement was a toungue in cheek expression to sum up my entire point for the post i made. That if evolution is true, is has done an excellejt job of being efficient as what becomes of the creatures that roam the planet, even the smallest probpems have been solved through what evoltion has produced. If i itch, i can stratch thanks to nails. If there is more than normal dust in the air, i can close my eyes.
I do beleive in the statement that started the whole topic, that life must be created in order to be complex. But i wont use that phrase in a room, as an argument, that is filled with smart people who beleive otherwise. I will elaborate and explain what i beleive in a more clear way....even if a tad sarcastic like my closing statement.
I suggest trying to pick apart the message, not the words. Neither side gets anywhere in promoting their beleifs if we spend so much time picking off the 20 layers of the word "complex" and saying gotcha! Its the equivilent of bein in a fist fight, plucking a hair and declaring victory.

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Larni, posted 10-14-2010 10:13 AM SignGuy has not replied
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2010 11:39 AM SignGuy has not replied
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 10-14-2010 12:04 PM SignGuy has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 85 of 109 (586623)
10-14-2010 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 8:56 AM


SignGuy writes:
However, if the word complex is subjective than let me get specific. Im going change from "intelligent" to "efficient" design, in an attempt to make an argument without the assumption that a God created what we see.
So, you are changing from one poorly defined word to another.
Please define how you are measuring efficiency and be specific.
(e.g. Do you mean energy efficiency? Are you measuring the energy input/output ratio of organisms? Or something else?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 8:56 AM SignGuy has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 86 of 109 (586629)
10-14-2010 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 9:51 AM


the need and ability to obsorb would have to become existent at the same exact moment
Not so.
The ability to utilise O2 would have been a gradual process. As the level of free O2 rose (over millions of years) the amount of organisms evolving to utilise 02 would increase.
Please be aware that evolution takes many, many generations to make significant alteration in structure and function: there are no hopeful monsters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 9:51 AM SignGuy has not replied

  
SignGuy
Junior Member (Idle past 4912 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 10-14-2010


Message 87 of 109 (586630)
10-14-2010 10:13 AM


Perhaps im new to proper debate. I was refering to visible body structures and the bone layout that could be reasonably envisioned thereof. Example, a you see a giraffe, it has long neck, therefore many similar bones probably compose that long neck.
But as i said, you can get technical all day on what im saying, but you can promote your beleifs better if you approach my message and not my words. That said i dont mind clarifying, and i hope you wouldjt mind if u used poor words either.
Also, i mentioned brains as most people know them, a ball of grey mass in my head. U avoided my message and attacked my words, wouldnt it be common sense that majority of people view a brain like i just did? Or do u want to prove a point to the few people who understand your valid reply, or promote what u beleive in a way that more than intellectual people understand why u described brains the way u did. More people will understand a common sense, plainly stated argument, than a bashing of semantics or technicalities. Isnt that why were posting.....to convince people of what we beleive?

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 11:37 AM SignGuy has not replied
 Message 90 by Panda, posted 10-14-2010 11:44 AM SignGuy has not replied

  
SignGuy
Junior Member (Idle past 4912 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 10-14-2010


Message 88 of 109 (586665)
10-14-2010 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 10:13 AM


I understand, in the theory of evolution you would only see significant changes in (put right word for living things here) if you looked at what has changed after long periods of time. Only then could you see the "progress".
I promise that this will be my last post on this topic, I know Im being redundant, and probably annoying.
But, even though I understand that evolution proccess take a while. And a sudden need for oxygen did occur. The problem I tried to get you guys thinking of is, what if the need for oxygen ( or any basic neccessity....food, water, sunlight) became a neccessity in the evolutionary process but the sources for these things couldn't keep up with the demand?
The start of the whole topic was "how could life be so complex, and there not be a Creator?" and people ripped it apart....well Im asking "How could evolution be such a random, un-guided, natural process and produce the elaborate, self sustaining planet than can support intelligent life."
At every turn, it seems the theory of evolution got it right, made very few mistakes, timed needs with solutions by pure coincidence, a bird ended up with hollow bones to be light for flight, just as an elephant has thick strong bones and has a long trunk so that he doesn't have to lift its body everytime it eats a blade of grass. Its amazing that we need water to drink, and its nearly everywhere, its amazing that we need food to eat and we can hunt, find, or grow exactly what we need......how can this not be on purpose?
Im 100% sure that somebody will pick-appart "elaborate", "self-sustaining", "intelligent".....yadda yadda.....while COMPLETELY missing my point of what I was trying to make. I dont mind if you beleive of something else, I beleive in God, in-fact I wouldn't mind to "kick the EvC can" down the road with somebody who I may never convince of my beleifs, because I know I wont budge.
Sorry I was a little defensive.
Have fun, poke fun at my sarcasm in my first post if you want. Make a friend of the "oppposite side" and have an intelligent, fun conversation with somebody. But address what they are trying to say, and not get caught up in the details.....which by the way, I beleive is the only way the evolution theory lives on, because they argue against Creation theories with the scientific details. You would never be able to see the beauty of a master painting if you you looked at each brush stroke one at a time.
Furthermore, which is better? To live life the way you want to, die, and then find out God really does exist....or.....live life as if there was a God, die, and find out there is no God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 10:13 AM SignGuy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 89 of 109 (586667)
10-14-2010 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 9:51 AM


Thank you for teaching me that oxygen was deadly as one point. But at some point, when oxygen became safe, the need and ability to obsorb would have to become existent at the same exact moment.
No. Common experience tells us that the ability to use something and the absolute necessity of doing so do not go hand in hand.
And we can watch examples of this in evolution. Consider the evolution of bacteria in response to the antibiotic vancomycin. We see:
(1) The wild type, which can survive very low doses of vancomycin but is killed by higher-doses.
(2) Vancomycin-resistant bacteria, which can survive high doses.
(3) Vancomycin-using bacteria, which exploit vancomycin as a food source.
(4) Vancomycin-dependent bacteria, which are so nicely metabolically adjusted to the presence of vancomycin that they'd die without it just as you'd die without oxygen.
There's no earthly reason why stages (2), (3) and (4) should happen simultaneously, and in fact they don't.
I suggest trying to pick apart the message, not the words. Neither side gets anywhere in promoting their beleifs if we spend so much time picking off the 20 layers of the word "complex" and saying gotcha!
In order for the message to be meaningful, so do the words of which it is composed.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 9:51 AM SignGuy has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 90 of 109 (586670)
10-14-2010 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 10:13 AM


It is unclear who you are responding to.
FYI: If you click the 'reply' button under the appropriate message (and not the big button at the bottom of the page) then it becomes a lot easier to follow discussions.
SignGuy writes:
But as i said, you can get technical all day on what im saying, but you can promote your beleifs better if you approach my message and not my words. That said i dont mind clarifying, and i hope you wouldjt mind if u used poor words either.
If we do not use the correct words (and agree on their meaning) then we are likely to just talk across each other.
Without precision there is error.
Without accurate words then there is just a vague, easily misunderstood message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 10:13 AM SignGuy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024