Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proof against ID and Creationism
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 300 (245017)
09-19-2005 7:56 PM


As I understand the concepts of IDs and Creationist, they say that life (to include all of the universe, atoms, quarks, etc) is too WONDERFUL and complex to have evolved by itself. Just to provide an easy reference, call this the wonderful theory.
One method of testing a theory it to see how it holds up when applied to others subjects. Let’s apply this wonderful theory to god with the assumption that the theory is valid. God is indeed too wonderful and complex to have evolved by itself or his-self if you prefer.
Lets make the obvious explicit. According to the wonderful theory, god had to have been helped along by his own god. Well where did that god come from? The answer is that when the wonderful theory is applied to god, it shows that god cannot exist. So something is wrong here?
I see two possibilities:
1. The wonderful theory is right. This means that god cannot exist because it is not possible for there to be creator of god. That creator would have the same restriction, as would his creator, ad nauseum.
2. The wonderful theory is wrong. The basic premise of ID and creationism is wrong. To say that our wonderfulness and complexity imply a god is patently false.
So which is it? Are there more possibilities that I have omitted?
This message has been edited by Admin, 01-28-2006 11:46 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 09-20-2005 8:25 PM bkelly has not replied
 Message 3 by AdminJar, posted 09-20-2005 8:59 PM bkelly has replied
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 09-21-2005 1:23 AM bkelly has replied
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-22-2005 1:31 AM bkelly has replied
 Message 23 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-24-2005 11:22 PM bkelly has replied
 Message 55 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-27-2005 4:58 PM bkelly has not replied
 Message 72 by david12, posted 09-28-2005 2:01 AM bkelly has replied
 Message 92 by Jeremy, posted 10-12-2005 11:41 AM bkelly has replied
 Message 120 by Christian7, posted 12-01-2005 5:33 PM bkelly has replied
 Message 158 by Jon, posted 01-26-2006 1:18 AM bkelly has not replied
 Message 167 by wiggems, posted 01-27-2006 3:59 AM bkelly has not replied
 Message 253 by inkorrekt, posted 02-23-2006 7:51 PM bkelly has not replied
 Message 263 by JRTjr, posted 04-07-2006 9:58 AM bkelly has not replied
 Message 277 by gregor, posted 04-18-2006 3:35 AM bkelly has not replied
 Message 283 by The Tiger, posted 06-07-2006 4:57 PM bkelly has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 300 (245346)
09-20-2005 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
09-19-2005 7:56 PM


Not totally ignored
I did read this over the other day. Maybe others have too.
It just doesn't, in my opinion, seem worth promoting for discussion and I don't see how to fix it by tweaking it.
This will bump it for others to look it over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 09-19-2005 7:56 PM bkelly has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 300 (245354)
09-20-2005 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
09-19-2005 7:56 PM


tentatively rejected
I've been trying to figure a way that this might be turned into a thread, but can't find any.
The problem is that the definition of God is that God is the creator and so there can be no creator of the creator.
I'll leave this open and see if others can see a way to fix it.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 09-19-2005 7:56 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by bkelly, posted 09-20-2005 9:40 PM AdminJar has replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 300 (245367)
09-20-2005 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by AdminJar
09-20-2005 8:59 PM


Re: tentatively rejected
quote:
The problem is that the definition of God is that God is the creator and so there can be no creator of the creator.
And how did god come to exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AdminJar, posted 09-20-2005 8:59 PM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AdminJar, posted 09-20-2005 9:47 PM bkelly has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 300 (245369)
09-20-2005 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by bkelly
09-20-2005 9:40 PM


Re: tentatively rejected
This is not a place to debate. I am simply trying to help you get something that can be promoted. As such I can only suggest issues that will likely come up.
I simply don't see anyway that the OP as it stands is promotable. Other Admins may feel differently.
Try to revise the OP as a series of questions, for example:
Do ID and Creationists say that life (to include all of the universe, atoms, quarks, etc) is too WONDERFUL and complex to have evolved by itself?

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by bkelly, posted 09-20-2005 9:40 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by bkelly, posted 09-20-2005 10:11 PM AdminJar has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 300 (245378)
09-20-2005 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AdminJar
09-20-2005 9:47 PM


Re: tentatively rejected
I read the first reply in the context that the reviewer did not agree with my position and did not care to promote it. I understand your position on not debating here. As you can determine, I am not fond of the creationist point of view. I find their fundamental tennant to be self contradictory and that that contradition should be brought out and discussed.
I have been carrying this converstation on with someone close to me (I don't want to publicly engage him until he is willing so "he" will do for now.) and on his end, he ignores my position saying there are some things that just cannot be known. That is a major part of the problem. The fact that he will not even address the question of the origin of god is an indicator that his creationist beliefs have a problem. We can no longer allow people to blithely ignore positions they cannot support.
I wish to prosecute this positon. I don't know how else to post this but will think about it and am open to suggestions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AdminJar, posted 09-20-2005 9:47 PM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AdminNosy, posted 09-21-2005 12:56 AM bkelly has not replied
 Message 25 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-24-2005 11:44 PM bkelly has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 7 of 300 (245386)
09-21-2005 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by bkelly
09-20-2005 10:11 PM


postion on the OP
I happen to, in a way, agree with the OP.
I am generally more inclined to promote positions I disagree with.
The problem is I don't think it will generate any useful discussion. Others have indicated that I'm wrong and shouldn't pre-judge this.
So, sigh, I'll promote it; expecting a mess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by bkelly, posted 09-20-2005 10:11 PM bkelly has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 8 of 300 (245389)
09-21-2005 12:57 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 9 of 300 (245391)
09-21-2005 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
09-19-2005 7:56 PM


I tend to agree with you that this is a problem for some of the arguments the creationists present. However they will probably respond with a hand-wavy philosophical argument that is alleged to prove the existence of a creator. The argument is usually known as the ontological argument for the existence of God (or something similar).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 09-19-2005 7:56 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by bkelly, posted 09-21-2005 8:51 PM nwr has replied
 Message 221 by inkorrekt, posted 02-05-2006 7:10 PM nwr has replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 300 (245583)
09-21-2005 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by nwr
09-21-2005 1:23 AM


I thought I had been doing some reading
from Crashfrog in another thread:
quote:
I'm not sure what response is possible, but I think ID's proponents deserve a chance to respond to what must be the most obvious and commonly-heard refutation of their complexity arguments.
After reading the posts from Crash and nwr, I looked up ontological arguments. I have known of ontological arguments, but not by that name.
This has given me two surprises, I am not nearly as well read as I had hoped, and my argument has been aired much more than I had suspected.
I am reading "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. The book carries many powerful arguments, but after reading a critical review, the author seems to have a hidden agenda. None the less, it is well worth reading.
Now I supose we will discover if my thoughts were really worth posting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 09-21-2005 1:23 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 09-21-2005 11:04 PM bkelly has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 11 of 300 (245619)
09-21-2005 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by bkelly
09-21-2005 8:51 PM


Re: I thought I had been doing some reading
You are right, that variations of your argument are quite common. It's a good argument, but it has been often seen before so might not provoke much discussion.
I looked at reviews of the Sam Harris book. Harris is a student of philosophy/neuroscience. Apparently the book is based on his research into the psychology/neurology of religious belief. He has a web site at Sam Harris | Home of the Making Sense Podcast

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by bkelly, posted 09-21-2005 8:51 PM bkelly has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 300 (245638)
09-22-2005 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
09-19-2005 7:56 PM


I think the deal is that god has always existed and was not created, unlike life, itself.(i mean always existed, not created)
Therefore to say that life is so wonderful that it must have been created so god must have been created too is a false analogy becease god was not created and has always existed, unlike life.
This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 09-22-2005 12:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 09-19-2005 7:56 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by bkelly, posted 09-23-2005 4:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 273 by gregor, posted 04-15-2006 7:22 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 13 of 300 (245639)
09-22-2005 1:35 AM


Sadly the answer is quite easy
Though your post is elegent, you are WAY overestimating creationists / IDrs.
The response to your question falls into two simple variations of the same response.
1) The Blank Stare.
2) The Frown.
Both of which are followed by - "Nah uh! My book is right about everything, even the stuff it's wrong about!"
I refuse to accept facts or theoriest that disprove this book in any way. I don't want these theories taught to anyone else either.
And thus the cycle continues.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-22-2005 1:40 AM Nuggin has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 300 (245640)
09-22-2005 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Nuggin
09-22-2005 1:35 AM


Re: Sadly the answer is quite easy
which variation does my response fall into?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Nuggin, posted 09-22-2005 1:35 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Nuggin, posted 09-23-2005 10:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 300 (245982)
09-23-2005 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by New Cat's Eye
09-22-2005 1:31 AM


The Blank Stare
quote:
I think the deal is that god has always existed and was not created, unlike life, itself.(i mean always existed, not created)
Other than you just want it that way, why do you think god has always existed?
If you hold that god could have always existed, they why is it not possible for the universe (in some form or another) to have always existed?
I you examine all the documents that are claimed to be the literal word of god, all the behaviors in his name, and all the complete lack of notice from him, there is only one answer that makes any logical sense. There is no god.
Now if god were to make himself known and say something to mankind, I might have a change of opinion. As the second coming has been imminent for some two thousand years, that's not likely.
Your answer kind of falls into the blank stare group. Blank as in the response has no significant content.
Can you present a supportable position?
This message has been edited by bkelly, 09-23-2005 04:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-22-2005 1:31 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-23-2005 4:34 PM bkelly has replied
 Message 88 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 9:48 PM bkelly 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