Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

IronLion wrote:

Quote:

You're right, of course, about physical laws and the incredible implications of slightly modifying theories. Martin Reese wrote a book on this topic called "Just Six Numbers." However, the idea that this imlplies a divine creator sounds like a glorified God-of-the-gaps anti-parsimony argument to me.

Divine is a free term - because nobody's been able to firmly define it so far Exclamation

- and we could say physical laws of this Universe are divine.
As for me, nothing is more divine, and I can't see what could be more divine either.

What is God-of-the-gaps anti-parsimony argument Shocked

0 Replies

Iron Lion - not all mythology is bad or leads to trouble. It is when you feel you must impose your personal beliefs on others that there is conflict. That is true of all things, including science and politics. (Note, I'm not talking about civilized debate. Talking and exchanging ideas is good. )

0 Replies

Relative wrote:

IronLion wrote:

Quote:
You're right, of course, about physical laws and the incredible implications of slightly modifying theories. Martin Reese wrote a book on this topic called "Just Six Numbers." However, the idea that this imlplies a divine creator sounds like a glorified God-of-the-gaps anti-parsimony argument to me.

Divine is a free term - because nobody's been able to firmly define it so far - and we could say physical laws of this Universe are divine.
As for me, nothing is more divine, and I can't see what could be more divine either.

Very well, to rephrase: the state of the universe allows for the possibility of a creator (God), but it does not require one.

Quote:

What is God-of-the-gaps anti-parsimony argument

In short, God-of-the-gaps is the idea that we do not know or cannot explain something, therefore, it must be God. I think the stupidity of this argument is self evident. Anti-parsimony is a whole 'nother can of worms, and if you aren't familiar with the terminology, it would be counter-productive to launch into a discussion of what I meant.

0 Replies

If you lived in a Matrix world the last thing you required would be the Matrix.

The Occam's razor is good, but not good enough sometimes. You must go several levels above to see it clearly - like the Godelian argument seeing the unknowable inside a formal system.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Iron Lion - not all mythology is bad or leads to trouble. It is when you feel you must impose your personal beliefs on others that there is conflict. That is true of all things, including science and politics. (Note, I'm not talking about civilized debate. Talking and exchanging ideas is good. )

I think religious faith is detrimental to society and everybody in it. An argument could be made that religious influence on society throughout the ages has been so overwhelmingly pernicious that it can be blamed as a pathology of the wrongs it leads to. Faith fuelled wars, the stifling of intellectualism, and the hijacking of politics, are some examples that come to mind.

Further, I would submit that blind faith in the sense that Micah and lolli are using it, is a patently retarded way of thinking, and yet it informs so much of how people act that it disturbs me. The problem is that peoples faith does affect my life. George Bush's faith, for example, demonstrably affects my life and the lives (not too mention deaths) of millions of others. Unless you want to pass a law against religious people running for office, reproducing, and voting, then religion will continue to affect my life detrimentally.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
Iron Lion - not all mythology is bad or leads to trouble. It is when you feel you must impose your personal beliefs on others that there is conflict. That is true of all things, including science and politics. (Note, I'm not talking about civilized debate. Talking and exchanging ideas is good. )

I think religious faith is detrimental to society and everybody in it. An argument could be made that religious influence on society throughout the ages has been so overwhelmingly pernicious that it can be blamed as a pathology of the wrongs it leads to. Faith fuelled wars, the stifling of intellectualism, and the hijacking of politics, are some examples that come to mind.

Further, I would submit that blind faith in the sense that Micah and lolli are using it, is a patently retarded way of thinking, and yet it informs so much of how people act that it disturbs me. The problem is that peoples faith does affect my life. George Bush's faith, for example, demonstrably affects my life and the lives (not too mention deaths) of millions of others.

Sure it has, but those things would have happened anyway. religion is just an extension of human belief, a tool that can be used for good or evil. Look at the dark ages. Look at the renaissance. Look at movements for art, for tolerance, for charity. Religion is, essentially, human. It comes from humans and is passed along to other humans. What they create and what they do with the information is akin to what they would do with other information strains. Heck, look at communism - they have forced atheism, and don't allow other kinds of belief. It is equal to the tyrrany in forcing everyone to be Catholic.

Yes, blind faith is disturbing. Bush's faith is probably much more political than actual, but that's for another discussion. However, blind faith is only problematic when it is forced on others (ex: the crusades, the catholic-protestant wars, g-d as justification for slavery.)
Micah and Lolli have taken a good step by entering into a public forum and testing out their beliefs on others. It would be better if they were more tolerant, but Iv'e seen improvement in tolerance so far - if only a little.

0 Replies

Relative wrote:

If you lived in a Matrix world the last thing you required would be the Matrix.

So the Matrix is possible, not probable, and not a certainty.

The fact that something is possible is not evidence of its truthfulness.

Quote:

The Occam's razor is good, but not good enough sometimes. You must go several levels above to see it clearly - like the Godelian argument seeing the unknowable inside a formal system.

Hmmmmm....don't know what you mean by going above in a Godelian way. Also, it seems to me that limiting the amount of unsubstantiated assumptions is a universal rule with no exceptions. To reject this is to reject the foundations of epistemology.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

I think religious faith is detrimental to society and everybody in it. An argument could be made that religious influence on society throughout the ages has been so overwhelmingly pernicious that it can be blamed as a pathology of the wrongs it leads to. Faith fuelled wars, the stifling of intellectualism, and the hijacking of politics, are some examples that come to mind.

I think you are wrong on this matter. You are looking strictly at the negative perceptions of religious belief and even then only at what pop culture has deemed negative. You are right that an argument could be made that religious influence on society throughout the ages has been so overwhelmingly pernicious that it can be blamed as a pathology of the wrongs it leads to. But it would be a very weak argument that would have little evidence to support it. Too much good has come from religion for it to have been "overwhelmingly pernicious".

Quote:

Further, I would submit that blind faith in the sense that Micah and lolli are using it, is a patently retarded way of thinking, and yet it informs so much of how people act that it disturbs me. The problem is that peoples faith does affect my life. George Bush's faith, for example, demonstrably affects my life and the lives (not too mention deaths) of millions of others. Unless you want to pass a law against religious people running for office, reproducing, and voting, then religion will continue to affect my life detrimentally.

Part of being a member of a society is interacting with other members of that society. That means that you will have to put up with them even as they must put up with you. George Bush affects your life regardless of his beliefs because he is president. I bet Micheal Moore's beliefs also affects your life. You're just going to have to deal with it. But in doing so does not mean you have to be disrespectful of others beliefs.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

lolli wrote:
If there is a God, He didn't just, bang, start the world and then disappear and leave it to its own devices. Although it does seem to feel like anymore these days.

Why not? Why couldn't g-d have been an external creator who is not interested in the personal lives of humans, but rather in the earth as a whole?

We couldn't survive without the sun - so g-d must have also created the sun. The sun is somthing that we consider separate from g-d (although possibly created by g-d.) We don't picture him re-lighting it everyday. Why couldn't we exist the same way the sun exists? set in motion and then left alone?

Lolli - would you mind answering my previous question (above) when you get time?

0 Replies

Portal Star,
Exotic name. I'm sorry if you view my words as intolerant. I have tolerated your words for a long time.

Relative,
You are very relative. Good thing! Yes!
Being relative can be confusing.

IronLionZion,
I was sorry to see that with the vocabulary i.q. that you have shown in your past posts, that you only used the word "stupid" to describe Micah and I. C'mon, use a bigger word!

0 Replies

People are asking where life began (honestly i dont know why you people dont look it up).

Anyways here is the jist of how it worked. It is a little more complex than ill explain

THe basic building block for animals is cells, and of cells it is amino acids. Earth's early atmosphere was very volatile containing high amounts of CO2, methane and ammonia. Up until now it was unknown has to how the first amino acids wereformed. But this was all figured out in a lab. When you take the earths old volatile atmosphere and charge it with intense electricity (as in lightning) and throw in some other variables, traces of amino acids form. These amino acids attract and form cells (similar to the way gases form stars) So from this reaction in early Earth the first cells formed. These cells (such as algae) photosynthesized the CO2 into oxygen allowing for animal cells to evolve.

This is basically how it happened. So once again I have disproven Creationism, although most of you will deny it.

0 Replies

Portal Star,
I believe that God could've chosen to create the universe and then leave humans to their own interests. But then why did He send Jesus, or leave the Bible? If you could experience His peace you would know that He isn't an impersonal god.

0 Replies

El Diablo,
Hello! I'm a newbie too! We're already in a hot debate about evolution and creationism. If evolution is so cut and dried, why are we not still evolving? Does this mean that I will never get to be the ape I've always desired to be? Unless, I already am!

0 Replies

God didnt leave the Bible. Hundreds of different people wrote it. People we dont know. THey oculdve have lied and you wouldn't know.

0 Replies

Evolution takes time. It took nearly 400 MILLION years for vertabrates to evolve from invertabrates.

0 Replies

lolli wrote:

Portal Star,
I believe that God could've chosen to create the universe and then leave humans to their own interests. But then why did He send Jesus, or leave the Bible? If you could experience His peace you would know that He isn't an impersonal god.

What if Jesus was a man? I think he had some very good ideas about how to conduct oneself in the world. What if g-d is not someone who cares about the personal lives of humans?

I look at religion in a historical sense - people will always have religion in one form or another. People usually start with a sun g-d because they acknowledge this is the basis of life. There are a lot of sun g-ds throughout primitive societies. This made the solstice a very important event in all cultures. (Notice how biblical event/holiday lines up ofentimes with world event.) As far as I'm concerned, Jesus (the son g-d) is a more advanced societies version of the sun g-d.

If Jesus was g-d, what about the thousands of years man was on this earth before the new testament or old testament existed? There was reilgion before that - pegans, pharos, cults of inanna, mayan g-ds, etc. nearly every culture has/had a prevailing religion, all different. Why would g-d not manifest himself to us until so many years after our creation? Why would every culture have a g-d or g-ds tied into events of the earth, but otherwise being drastically different? They also all seem to be passed down by either oral or written tradition until the old religion becomes obtuse and a new one forms.
It is because we use g-ds and mythology as a way to understand the universe and regulate social culture. I have nothing against religion, but I think it is funny how whatever religion that is currently popular is -absolutely sure- that theirs is right and -every single religion- before theirs and currently existing that is not theirs is nothing like theirs, incorrect, and completetly different. You and I are not so radically different from other humans of the past, or present.

It is completetly likely that there was a creator of the universe. It is probable that this creator did not look like a man and is not interested in our personal lives.

0 Replies

lolli wrote:

IronLionZion,
I was sorry to see that with the vocabulary i.q. that you have shown in your past posts, that you only used the word "stupid" to describe Micah and I. C'mon, use a bigger word!

I use the word that best fits. Helpfull hint: That is generally how the English language works. However, if pressed for clarification, I would note that you are myopic, hypocritical, close-minded, irrational, etc. I hope you stick around though, as I find you mildly amusing. You're the intellectual equivalent of a Poodle chasing his own stumpy tail.

0 Replies

^lol

0 Replies

lolli wrote:

Frank,
Frankly, I'm intrigued by your reaction to my statement.

Good. That is one of the reasons I post on this forum -- to intrigue people.

Quote:

I've seen some other posts about how I shouldn't judge and criticize anyone else for their beliefs, so I was of the opinion that everyone on this forum was of an open-mind!

You never heard that from me. Criticize all you want. That is one of the purposes for the creation of this forum.

Quote:

But I do know in who I believe.

I could not care less about what you "believe." If you want to believe you can train an elephant to walk a tightrope stretched across the Grand Canyon, go for it.

I was discussing what you insisted you KNEW!

Quote:

I know that I, and many others have found the truth.

No, as a matter of fact, you don't KNOW that.

At least, every indication is that you do not KNOW that.

You think it, you suppose it, you guess it, you "believe" it -- but to characterize it as something you KNOW is inappropriate.

If you would like to discuss this -- I'll be happy to do so.

Quote:

I can imagine how you feel! To have someone tell you that. It would be like, well, someone who was an atheist telling me they'd found the truth.

Aha -- something upon which we agree completely.

It would be exactly like an atheist telling me he/she KNOWS that there are no gods.

In other words, it is bullshit.

Well intentioned, I am sure, but bullshit nonetheless.

I have these same arguments with atheists here in A2K all the time.

Quote:

I've considered those angles, and come to this conclusion . . . I choose Jesus as my Lord.

Fine. I have absolutely no problem with that at all.

But if you are going to tell me that you KNOW Jesus is God -- or that you KNOW a God exists (or that you KNOW there are no gods) -- you are going to get a lot of discussion in response from me.

Quote:

I hope that you will recover from your laughing fits. Don't you think my clown is funny?

I didn't say "laughing fits" -- I merely said "...a laugh."

Yes, I enjoyed the laugh -- and my life is still wonderful.