|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The problem with creationism and god | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BarackZero Member (Idle past 4881 days) Posts: 57 Joined: |
Omnivorous:
Hey, welcome to EvC! Oh boy, fresh mea...point of view!/// Does that *stuff* impress the girls at your high school? BarackZero responds, possibly for the last time, to you: You're not the first leftist to feign intellectual supremacy.You just think you're clever. You began by "welcoming" me here, and quickly made the transition to insults, condescension, and pretension. You're really masterful at all of them. But then again, you're in a den full of such people. You got me. I'm really only 11. I concede.Your overwhelming brilliance in incontestable. Then again, so is Al Gore's, Barack Obama's, Bill Clinton's, and on and on. What a lovely and *diverse* group of people frequent this pond.Who wouldn't want to enter, and either regurgitate the same things you always repeat endlessly, or else be ridiculed ad nauseum, notwithstanding the "Rules" and their intentions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
BZ writes: You got me. I'm really only 11. I concede.Your overwhelming brilliance in incontestable. Then again, so is Al Gore's, Barack Obama's, Bill Clinton's, and on and on. Thank you. Dost thou prate, rogue? -Cassio Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4917 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Then others would respect you a little more. Incidentally, there is a way to do quoteboxes here. It requires only a touch of very simple coding, and makes reading posts clearer as it separates the quoted material from any reply. Click the 'Peek' button on any message with quotes to observe what that coding is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
You're not the first leftist to feign intellectual supremacy. You just think you're clever. You began by "welcoming" me here, and quickly made the transition to insults, condescension, and pretension. You're really masterful at all of them. In the first place, leftist is a relative term. Obviously to you, Omniverous would be to the left, whereas that does not make him a leftist. You evidently have an extreme "rightist" view if as you state
But then again, you're in a den full of such I doubt that Buzsaw or ICANT would agree that they are leftists. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
What a lovely and *diverse* group of people frequent this pond. Who wouldn't want to enter, and either regurgitate the same things you always repeat endlessly, or else be ridiculed ad nauseum, notwithstanding the "Rules" and their intentions. Eventually the person holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate on these forums will have to sleep. At that point you can make a run for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Dr A writes: Eventually the person holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate on these forums will have to sleep. At that point you can make a run for it. Another high five for Dr A. Are you in competition with Ringo for the most succinct? Or should I rephrase that, are you Stephen Colbert in disguise? The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
bluescat48 writes:
Nor would Coyote or me, I'd wager. Then again, looking at it from any other point but the USA's, both democrats and republicans are "right" parties.
I doubt that Buzsaw or ICANT would agree that they are leftists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Well I see Blzebub has been on vacation for a time so it may not be fair to respond to him, but I wanted to address the OP directly.
The premise is that for something to be designed it would need to be designed by a more complex being and that that being would need to be designed by a more complex being and so on in a never ending succession and thus proving that God could not exist. This premise is based on the assumption that nothing can exist that cannot be observed with our senses. This is referred to as materialism and whether that assumption is true or not, it limits possible explanations. As an example, my daughter will be looking for her shoes and she will come to me and tell me she can’t find them and that she looked everywhere! I say You haven’t looked everywhere you haven’t looked where they are at. Her assumption was that since she couldn’t find them, they must not exist - that they had dissapeared. But she just wasn’t looking in the right place. Perhaps this is the case with God.? Perhaps he exists outside of time and space and we are just not looking in the right place. You see, science can only deal with the physical, material world, so if you are looking for science to prove or disprove the existence of God, you may be looking in the wrong place. Lack of evidence for something does not prove that something doesn’t exist. How many times have you all heard that the TOE is false because of the lack of transitional fossils? The response is always we just haven’t looked in the right place yet, but we are confident that they will be found, and many have. The OP also assumes that if something did exist outside of our material world it would operate in the same way that the material world does. But why does that need to be so? Would the non-material world be bound by the same physical laws that we are ie. needing to have a beginning and an end? Not necessarily, how could we possibly know if we can't measure it by our physical standards? So, bottom line is that I don’t believe science can address the issue of whether God exists or not. It is not equipped to do so. Science deals with the study of the material world - anything that may exist outside of our material world needs to be studied by other methods. So, we study the physical world with science and we study God with philosophy and theology. The two ideas are mutually exclusive but not necessarily contradictory. Defendez-vous bien!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
herebedragons writes:
We don't "study" God. We can only speculate about God. For the most part, one speculation is as good as another, which is why creationism and ID have no validity. So, we study the physical world with science and we study God with philosophy and theology. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The premise is that for something to be designed it would need to be designed by a more complex being and that that being would need to be designed by a more complex being and so on in a never ending succession and thus proving that God could not exist. This premise is based on the assumption that nothing can exist that cannot be observed with our senses. I don't see where the argument is based on that assumption. On the contrary, it's intended as a reductio ad absurdum of creationist thought. If I require a designer, how much more does a splendiferous entity like God need a designer? For the sake of argument it assumes the supernatural and explores the consequences of that assumption.
So, bottom line is that I don’t believe science can address the issue of whether God exists or not. OK. But the point is that creationist think that they have a quasi-scientific argument which does address this issue. They hold it to be true that complex things need yet more complex causes. The problem they have is that this implies not just a god, but a meta-god, a meta-meta-god, and so on ad infinitum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
We don't "study" God. You're right, I should have enclosed study with quotation marks as well. I thought it was fairly clear that I was not saying we study God in the same way we study plants or atoms or any other part of the natural world.
one speculation is as good as another I would not say that. It is a matter of opinion what "as good as" or "better" actually is.
which is why creationism and ID have no validity Actually the problem is not that they "speculate" about God, but that they try to use science to prove their speculation which is not something science is intended to do, since as I proposed, God is outside of and not detectable by physical means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Actually the problem is not that they "speculate" about God, but that they try to use science to prove their speculation which is not something science is intended to do, since as I proposed, God is outside of and not detectable by physical means. so are leprechauns, unicorns, ghosts, monsters, the grate spagetie monster, the giant tee cup god, the pink unicorn, the grate đuđu up on the mountin, perun, thor, odin, zeus, apollo, hera, jupiter, mars, ares, vishna, shiva, ramma, morana, vesna, poseidon, pluto, hades, ra, osiris, isis, allah, baal, aon, satan, lucifer, gaia and tones uppon tones more all equaly valid compared to your god. and equaly invalid compared to logic and science
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
I don't see where the argument is based on that assumption. Would it not assume that God is under the same physical laws that we in the material world are? Why would something that is not made up of matter need to be created or designed by a more "complex" being? Complexity is a physical attribute. These are characteristics that we observe in the material world, but how can we assume that the "non-material" world works the same way or has the same rules. And btw, I realize that you are not making these assertions, I am just explaining why I felt the premise of the OP was based on materialism.
OK. But the point is that creationist think that they have a quasi-scientific argument which does address this issue. They hold it to be true that complex things need yet more complex causes. 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. Defendez-vous bien!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
herebedragons writes:
If God is outside of and not detectable by physical means, then presumably that is because He chooses to be so. If He deliberately "hides" from us, for whatever reason, He's the one who's nullifying creationism. Actually the problem is not that they "speculate" about God, but that they try to use science to prove their speculation which is not something science is intended to do, since as I proposed, God is outside of and not detectable by physical means "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
You are free to speculate about all the nonsense you wish. But I didn't know we were talking about leprechaun scientists or unicorn scientists ect ... Someone could believe in any of the above as they wish, but what does that have to do with scientific inquiry? If you believe in leprechauns would that affect how you do science? Only if you were trying to prove they existed by using science.
Defendez-vous bien!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024