|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: A proof against ID and Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Aye, there's the rub...the rub that exposes the ID agenda. The ambiguity is deliberate and dissembling. If it isn't ambiguous then it quickly becomes religion but the problem is that the ambiguity is causing the self-refutation.
We can narrow the ID implications further. Not all gods are described as eternal: only the God of the Book can put a stopper in the infinite regression of designers; a god could be a Younger God, a Lesser God, an elevated mortal, all subject to queries about their designers. Yes, the OP was pretty general about god when refering to him but specifically mentioned creationists. And then asked if it ommitted a possibility. An eternal god is this possibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
My conclusion was that if a complex entity has always existed then it can exist without being designed (and still not falsify ID's initial premise). And, again, there's nothing in ID that suggests that the designer is eternal, or that an eternal designer can even exist; so this doesn't really do anything for me as an answer to the challenge in the OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But the OP is about the Wonderful Theory and its application to god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But the OP is about the Wonderful Theory and its application to god. But it doesn't ascribe to that god any more properties than ID implies; that is, the intelligence to design. If you think that god has additional properties than that, then I'd like to know how you're getting those out of ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
As this thread continues, I see evidence that we are arguing points where neither of us, (well at least me) are certain of the other person's position. My interpertation of some of your posts leads me to contradictory conclusions.
Lets go back to message 16 of this thread that you posted:
quote: This says you believe in god. But you give no reason, no justification.
quote: But you state that your belief is not logical. Let me see if I understand: You believe in god, you know it is illogical, you believe because someone told you to, and you seem to think this is good. This is a life defining philosophy, but with no substantiation. There must be something I am missing. From message 17 I ask:
How can people base a major life controlling decision on unsupportable beliefs? And in 19 you respond:
Faith. It can even allow someone to blow themself up. I like how System of a Down describes it as 'the most potent element of human existance'. Like, it can give you a lot of strength and taking an unsupported belief is pretty easy compared to other things. Here is where I draw some conclusions. You have justified your belief with the concept of faith, and in the context of the conversation, this means faith in a religious context; to believe in something without any evidence to do so. This implies that you believe that religious faith is a good thing. From this point I claimed that religious faith is not good, and is indeed quite bad. I listed several instances of people behaving very badly because of heir religious faith. But they were (and are) convinced that:1. Their behavior is in the best interest of god 2. That god wants them to commit these acts 3. Therefore there really isn’t any choice in the matter 4. Therefore they are obligated to behave in this manner (torture, killing, ect) By virtue of religious faith, there are many Muslims, and not just extremists, that believe all infidels should be killed. (Read the Koran, it is quite clear.) Read Exodus and you will find that Christians should kill all those that are not Christian. It is very explicit and clear. In message 47 you state:
anyway, I didn't even say faith was good. I do think that it can be good, and i think it can't all be good.
Well, yes you did say religious faith is good, implicitly, but clearly. You supported your belief in god by faith. This means that you think faith in god is good.I have shown a tiny fraction of the evidence that faith in god and faith in god's word (in the form of the bible, the Koran, etc) leads people to truly evil actions. How is this within the limit of this thread? Creationism and ID are thinly disguised efforts to bring religion into government, for example, public school. (BTW: In my not so humble opinion, both sides of the ID debate know damn well that ID is a religious position, but the IDist continue to pretend that if they deny that position enough times the public will begin to separate ID and religion.) Creationism and ID require, nay, demand a god pulling the strings. I have proposed that their Wonderful Theory is easily falsifiable. (And I am far from alone in this position) Their argument, in some cases, boils down to having faith in god. And now I have presented a very tiny faction of history that shows faith in god is evil. So, do you support ID or not? If so, why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
jar writes: Come on. That's a really stupid question. Would it make you feel better if the nuke was exploded by a Godless atheist? Not in the slightest. (to both questions) Regarding the first question, allow me to sumarize and paraphrase the relevant theme: Do you believe in god?Yes. Why? Because I was taught that I should. Can you support that position? No. But I believe anyway. Why? Religious Faith. Is that logical? No, but I believe anyway. (Please note: The above is how I interpret the meaning of previous posts. I do not imply that others said these particular words and my interpertation is subject to error.)
quote: Yes, quite true. But in the context of this thread, so what? That is irrelevant. The point is the evil people do in the name of religious faith. The core question: Is religious faith good or bad? The answer: Religious faith is evil. It is the greatest cause of harm this world has ever known. Maybe some day I will regret that position. But in the meantime can you refute the logic? I again refer to the book "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But in the meantime can you refute the logic? Only by pointing out that there is no logic or reason to the question. I'm sorry but it is a really, really stupid question and frankly not worth comment. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
TheLiteralist writes: I appreciate your honesty in your answer. So, instead of the "ah-ha" attitude I began with (which I should probably apologize for)...let me ask why should abiogenesis be treated as anything other than the interesting speculations of scientists. Put THAT deep in the appendices. No appology necessary at all. You position is quite understandable. I am a bit opinionated and am becomming more forceful and agressive lately. (Not all bad, but certainly not all good.) I wish to think about and respond to your question, but am wore out from a long day and the emotions I now have on the religious topic. I need to calm down. Thanks for your thoughts. BTW: To all, I submitted a feedback asking why my signature does not show up. Having received no reply, will someone help me here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2328 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
We have no formal feedback setup. If you post the problem it generally can get handled faster. Email is an option that can take longer.
As to your signature problem. You need to check or not check the "Show Signature" box below the textbox in the reply window for each post. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
quote: So you don't like the question, but you don't have an answer and you really cannot say why.That, and I hate to use the cliche but it fits so well, is the wrong answer. If you cannot do better than that, you really should not have posted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6410 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Do you believe in god?
I'm not sure why you have a problem with that. It is consistent and honest. I can respect someone with those beliefs.Yes. Why? Because I was taught that I should. Can you support that position? No. But I believe anyway. Why? Religious Faith. Is that logical? No, but I believe anyway. If everyone thought and believed exactly as I do, then this would be a pretty boring world. Cheers for diversity.
The core question: Is religious faith good or bad?
I'm inclined to think you are jumping to conclusions. The answer: Religious faith is evil. It is the greatest cause of harm this world has ever known. My conclusion would be:
Evil people are evil. Evil people who are religious will use their religion as a force for evil.
But it still remains a fact that there are some very decent people who are religious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
david12 Inactive Member |
My interest in the case of evolution vs creation has been sparked by the
upcoming trial. Ive taken the argument of creation, and I had a few questions i wondered if you could answer. Before I start I wanted to make one thing clear. I am arguing for creation, not for any religion in particular. I just want to put to test the creation by God, or the evolving of everything we see today. Also, I am not taking the position that the world was created in 7 actual days. 1. Where is the "actual" fossil evidence of creatures in-between species? Microevolution is accepted among both creation and evolution. I am notasking for differences on lets say, a horse, that has a different number of toes. A horse with one toe and a horse with two are both horses. Where is the evidence that there can be any evolution from one species to another? 2. If we are talking science, which most evolution based men do, how do youjustify evolution when the Law of Entropy and the Law of the conservation of matter have been scientifically proven? The law of entropy states "The second law of thermodynamics states that inany isolated system, the degree of disorder can only increase. Our universe is an isolated system, so the degree of disorder is always increasing. How is this possible?"(http://me.essortment.com/entropylawssc_recn.htm) If this is true, which science says it is, how can a random assortment of "stuff" or "soup" turn into an ordered society like ours today? Furthermore, the law of the conservation of matter states "The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less"shortened link If this is true, how would a chemical reaction occur between some elements to produce cells, who somehow multiplied? 3. How did the first components that "created the first cells" get there? Lets just say that it was scientifically sound to say that certain gases andother materials when present together can react(I am not very educated on the effects of such a thing). How did those gases, and those materials get there? By combinations of other gases and things? Well then how did they get there? 4. The evolution of the eye. Every component in the eye needs to be present and alligned for it to work.If they eye is evolving(a fishes eye is different than ours) then how come everything isnt blind? 5. (this is just a point if you want to contradict it you may) Everythingin the world has a creator. Look around. The computer im looking at was put together in a factory somewhere, and the pieces to make it were formed by a creator as well. Is it not feasable to conclude that the earth and its inhabitants have a creator too? 6. How do you explain the emotions, passions, love of human beings? You may say because it is an evolving tool that helps us be the fittest.There is a sense of justice amongst human beings. One such emotion, that I do not see has a "natural selection" value is love. I am not here to say "you know what, I am right, and you are wrong." All Iwant is answers. One thing I would like you to think about though, is this. When you get off the computer, look into your wife's eyes. Look at your mother. Pick up your child. Can you look into their eyes and tell me that they were just some mistake? That the people that you hold dear to you are just random assortments of chance and stuff and it is just from apes to man that they are who they are? Can you think of a loved one who you has passed away and say "Well, they are dead. And because They were just some random combination of stuff, I will never see them again because they are gone forever?" This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-28-2005 09:18 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2518 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Welcome to the boards.
You raise a lot of questions which have been raised elsewhere on the boards several times (and will be raised again several more). You may be able to find the answers to all your questions by simply looking a little deeper. However, I for one know how daunting that task is. The boards are pretty expansive and it's often hard to find what you're looking for. I'll try to point you in the right directions.
I am arguing for creation, not for any religion in particular. I just want to put to test the creation by God, or the evolving of everything we see today. Also, I am not taking the position that the world was created in 7 actual days. We call this possition - Old Earth Creationist
1. Where is the "actual" fossil evidence of creatures in-between species? Here's the most recent thread about Macro/MicroEvC Forum: When micro = macro ... how do you justify evolution when the Law of Entropy and the Law of the conservation of matter have been scientifically proven? These laws deal with closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. Sunlight beams down on earth 24/7/365. That energy into the system. There can be no entropy in a system which experiences constant input of energy. Likewise, conservation of matter.
3. How did the first components that "created the first cells" get there? This topic is abiogenisis - life from not life. It's an interesting topic, but it's not really important to Theory of Evolution. Evolution takes over once life exists. How life got there, not important to the Theory.
4. The evolution of the eye. This is the Irreducably Complex argument. "How can something have evolved if the pieces need to work together?" The problem is that this argument doesn't fit the eye. Flatworms have eyes which are simply light sensitive cells, no lens, no pupil, no orb, etc. Many many creatures have eyes less suitable than our own, many many have eyes better than our own. The eye as an organ varies greatly. Not all the components are needed for an eye to work. The eye is not irreducably complex.
Is it not feasable to conclude that the earth and its inhabitants have a creator too? Your computer has a creator, but that doesn't mean that the rock in your garden has one. You may believe that the rock was created by God, but it can not be deduced from looking at the creations of man.
One such emotion, that I do not see has a "natural selection" value is love. There is one goal of Evolution which is more important than any other - Produce Offspring. Everything else is secondary. "Love" as a human emotion is very much a part of natural selection.
Can you look into their eyes and tell me that they were just some mistake? That the people that you hold dear to you are just random assortments of chance and stuff and it is just from apes to man that they are who they are? There's no reason to see evolution as a mistake. It's not logically inconsistant to believe in God and ToE or even that God set up the rules that govern ToE. You could further draw from that that God set up the rules that govern ToE with the supreme knowledge that it would all eventually lead to you, your wife, your child, etc. God's existance isn't really a "scientific" question. Science can't answer it, therefore science doesn't try. What science can do is look at the data and describe the rules. And, what the data describes is Evolution through natural selection. Hope that helps you get the wheels turning, and welcome aboard. (by use "Peek Mode" to see how people do quote boxes)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I see evidence that we are arguing points where neither of us, (well at least me) are certain of the other person's position. My interpertation of some of your posts leads me to contradictory conclusions. You have misunderstood me and misquoted me and added false implications.You definately are not certain of my position and I have been straighforward and honest and have not contradicted myself. This says you believe in god. But you give no reason, no justification. I do believe in god but not because I was told to or because I was taught that way. My reasons are too long to type right now and it is off topic anyways.
But you state that your belief is not logical. Of course the belief in god is illogical. Can you think of a logical reason to believe in god?
Let me see if I understand: You believe in god, you know it is illogical, you believe because someone told you to, and you seem to think this is good. You don't understand. I don't believe because someone told me and I never said anything about what is good.
This implies that you believe that religious faith is a good thing.
I've said that faith can be good but it can't all be good.
Well, yes you did say religious faith is good, implicitly, but clearly. I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I never typed "religious faith is good". You seem to think I implied it but that was not my intention.
From this point I claimed that religious faith is not good, and is indeed quite bad. You supported your belief in god by faith. This means that you think faith in god is good. Sure, faith in god can be good.
And now I have presented a very tiny faction of history that shows faith in god is evil. You've shown that faith can be evil. This doesn't show that all faith is evil. Pointing out where evil is commited in faith is very easy to do.
So, do you support ID or not? I think the philosophy is just ok, not my cup of tea, but it is ok. They are certainly putting in a lot of effort. I know it isn't scientific and I don't think it should be taught as science. Baically, its just another religion, except they purposfully keep the designer ambiguous so it doesn't look like a religion.
Creationism and ID are thinly disguised efforts to bring religion into government, for example, public school. This is the ID Movement part and I do NOT support this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6410 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Of course the belief in god is illogical. Can you think of a logical reason to believe in god?
I think you would do better to say that it is alogical (outside of logic), instead of illogical (contrary to logic).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024