Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 9:11 AM
28 online now:
caffeine, JonF, Stile, Tangle (4 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,896 Year: 8,932/19,786 Month: 1,354/2,119 Week: 114/576 Day: 15/99 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   The problem with creationism and god
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 3017 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 61 of 109 (585801)
10-09-2010 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Omnivorous
10-08-2010 4:38 PM


Re: *Welcome*
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Omnivorous, posted 10-08-2010 4:38 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Omnivorous, posted 10-09-2010 8:19 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Nij, posted 10-09-2010 8:26 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 64 by bluescat48, posted 10-09-2010 11:33 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-09-2010 11:43 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1131 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 62 of 109 (585805)
10-09-2010 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by BarackZero
10-09-2010 8:12 PM


Re: *Welcome*
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by BarackZero, posted 10-09-2010 8:12 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
Nij
Member (Idle past 3053 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 63 of 109 (585806)
10-09-2010 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by BarackZero
10-09-2010 8:12 PM


Re: *Welcome*
  • Perhaps if you weren't such a righteous dick and attempted some reasonable argument instead of "regurgitating" the same statements over and over again despite multiple replies dismantling those claims...
  • Perhaps if you would answer the questions proposed to you instead of avoiding them...
  • Perhaps if you provided supporting evidence instead of red herrings and attacked the actual ideas instead of strawmen...
  • Perhaps if you didn't immediately begin by using an ad hominem attack or by assuming somebody to be of a particular group simply on the basis of the position they hold regarding only one issue...

    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 61 by BarackZero, posted 10-09-2010 8:12 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

      
  • bluescat48
    Member (Idle past 2353 days)
    Posts: 2347
    From: United States
    Joined: 10-06-2007


    Message 64 of 109 (585834)
    10-09-2010 11:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 61 by BarackZero
    10-09-2010 8:12 PM


    Re: *Welcome*
    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


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 61 by BarackZero, posted 10-09-2010 8:12 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 67 by Huntard, posted 10-10-2010 3:39 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

        
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16095
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    (4)
    Message 65 of 109 (585841)
    10-09-2010 11:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 61 by BarackZero
    10-09-2010 8:12 PM


    Re: *Welcome*
    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 61 by BarackZero, posted 10-09-2010 8:12 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 66 by anglagard, posted 10-10-2010 12:00 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

      
    anglagard
    Member
    Posts: 2189
    From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
    Joined: 03-18-2006


    Message 66 of 109 (585842)
    10-10-2010 12:00 AM
    Reply to: Message 65 by Dr Adequate
    10-09-2010 11:43 PM


    Re: *Welcome*
    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


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-09-2010 11:43 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

        
    Huntard
    Member (Idle past 458 days)
    Posts: 2870
    From: Limburg, The Netherlands
    Joined: 09-02-2008


    Message 67 of 109 (585854)
    10-10-2010 3:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 64 by bluescat48
    10-09-2010 11:33 PM


    Re: *Welcome*
    bluescat48 writes:

    I doubt that Buzsaw or ICANT would agree that they are leftists.


    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.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 64 by bluescat48, posted 10-09-2010 11:33 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

        
    herebedragons
    Member
    Posts: 1508
    From: Michigan
    Joined: 11-22-2009
    Member Rating: 10.0


    Message 68 of 109 (585968)
    10-10-2010 6:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Blzebub
    10-17-2009 3:57 PM


    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!


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Blzebub, posted 10-17-2009 3:57 PM Blzebub has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 69 by ringo, posted 10-10-2010 6:49 PM herebedragons has responded
     Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2010 7:02 PM herebedragons has responded

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 16621
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 69 of 109 (585983)
    10-10-2010 6:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 68 by herebedragons
    10-10-2010 6:30 PM


    herebedragons writes:

    So, we study the physical world with science and we study God with philosophy and theology.


    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.


    "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 68 by herebedragons, posted 10-10-2010 6:30 PM herebedragons has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 71 by herebedragons, posted 10-12-2010 9:46 AM ringo has responded

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16095
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 70 of 109 (585994)
    10-10-2010 7:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 68 by herebedragons
    10-10-2010 6:30 PM


    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 68 by herebedragons, posted 10-10-2010 6:30 PM herebedragons has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 73 by herebedragons, posted 10-12-2010 10:27 AM Dr Adequate has responded

      
    herebedragons
    Member
    Posts: 1508
    From: Michigan
    Joined: 11-22-2009
    Member Rating: 10.0


    Message 71 of 109 (586267)
    10-12-2010 9:46 AM
    Reply to: Message 69 by ringo
    10-10-2010 6:49 PM


    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 69 by ringo, posted 10-10-2010 6:49 PM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 72 by frako, posted 10-12-2010 10:14 AM herebedragons has responded
     Message 74 by ringo, posted 10-12-2010 10:30 AM herebedragons has responded

      
    frako
    Member
    Posts: 2813
    From: slovenija
    Joined: 09-04-2010


    Message 72 of 109 (586271)
    10-12-2010 10:14 AM
    Reply to: Message 71 by herebedragons
    10-12-2010 9:46 AM


    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


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 71 by herebedragons, posted 10-12-2010 9:46 AM herebedragons has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 75 by herebedragons, posted 10-12-2010 10:44 AM frako has not yet responded

        
    herebedragons
    Member
    Posts: 1508
    From: Michigan
    Joined: 11-22-2009
    Member Rating: 10.0


    Message 73 of 109 (586274)
    10-12-2010 10:27 AM
    Reply to: Message 70 by Dr Adequate
    10-10-2010 7:02 PM


    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!


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2010 7:02 PM Dr Adequate has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2010 11:20 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 16621
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 74 of 109 (586275)
    10-12-2010 10:30 AM
    Reply to: Message 71 by herebedragons
    10-12-2010 9:46 AM


    herebedragons writes:

    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


    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.


    "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 71 by herebedragons, posted 10-12-2010 9:46 AM herebedragons has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 76 by herebedragons, posted 10-12-2010 10:53 AM ringo has responded

      
    herebedragons
    Member
    Posts: 1508
    From: Michigan
    Joined: 11-22-2009
    Member Rating: 10.0


    Message 75 of 109 (586280)
    10-12-2010 10:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 72 by frako
    10-12-2010 10:14 AM


    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!


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 72 by frako, posted 10-12-2010 10:14 AM frako has not yet responded

      
    Prev1234
    5
    678Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019