Creationism Logical or Illogical?

[Eclogite]

Pyro, thanks for at least taking the time to read post #1, something that others can't/won't do.

That is quite offensive.

 

From My first post:.......the debate here is centred, quite rightly, on the observations you made in the opening post. You made a series of statements that puported to demonstrate the creationism was logical. It has been shown that, based on your arguments alone, it is not.

 

From My Second Post:What several people have said is that your arguments were illogical, thus the question posed at the outset has been addressed, unless you can come up with alternative arguments.

 

From My Fifth PostYou see I have read and re-read your first and later posts and ..........

 

From My Seventh PostThey are saying, and I concur, that your opinion, as presented, is based on an illogical premise, and therefore has no value.

 

Do you wish an opportunity to retract it?

[Pyrotex]

What came first, the Universe or a Creator?

If I pick the right answer, do I win something?!?! :eek_big:

[Erasmus00]

Ugh, i knew you would use Erasmus' reply, since it was the ONLY pertinent reply. but it was only a reply and answered nothing. no discussion of my points, only a rejection of my observations. he obviously has no observable reasons for not believing in intelligent creation.

 

And as I have pointed out several times, you have "no observable reasons" for believing in intelligent creation. Why you keep asserting you do is beyond me.

-Will

[questor]

Erasmus, your reply to me was merely a critique of my opinion without offering any scientific information to the contrary. until i see some scientific facts to

the contrary, i will continue to hold my opinion. my position cannot be proved

scientifically, neither can yours. you have reached your position by some thought, but are not able to present scientific data to prove anything to me.

opinions are reached by some type of observation and contemplation. i have expressed a few reasons for my view, you have expressed none for yours.

[questor]

Eclo, read the above post. what kind of thought process do you possess that

you would think i would retract an opinion without any proof to the contrary?

if i weigh evidence that i see that supports intelligent creation against evidence which would point to random happening, the idea of ID wins the race. you will not change a mind unless you can come up with valid reasons to support your position. no one here can prove this issue by science, so we are left to opinions and evidence.

[Eclogite]

Eclo, read the above post. what kind of thought process do you possess that

you would think i would retract an opinion without any proof to the contrary?

Clearly a warped and distorted thought process that expects people to value evidence over opinion, and facts over prejudice. How foolish I am.

 

if i weigh evidence that i see that supports intelligent creation against evidence which would point to random happening

:eek_big: What evidence? You have presented no evidence to support your opinion. None.

[questor]

Eclo, since you discount my opening post and all posts following, i see no reason for our continued discourse. you show no understanding of this thread or my posts, so why don't we cease further communication? you can have the last word.

[InfiniteNow]

If I pick the right answer, do I win something?!?! :eek_big:

:)

 

I'm guessing some sort of certificate in circular logic... :hihi:

 

What created the creator?

and what created that?

and what created that... ad infinitum.

 

 

Sooner or later, you just give up and realize that the only correct answer is "I really don't know."

[Pyrotex]

Clearly a warped and distorted thought process...

Eclogite,

perhaps I can clear up this mystery. Perhaps not, we shall see.

I have posted to USENET sites for many years, places like alt.religion.recovery and alt.philosophy and alt.darwin. There were others. There were many kinds of posters. There were the curious. There were those seeking information or who had valid questions. There were those, like me, who were advocates and question answerers.

 

And then there were "trolls". That was our name for them; "our" referring to the subset of posters who were regulars and took our posting seriously.

 

Trolls post for only one reason, to annoy people who are smarter, better educated or more knowledgeable than they are. Trolls are sometimes juveniles who glory in how easy it is to upset grown-ups. But they can be grown-ups who take a twisted and demonic satisfaction in getting other people to waste their time.

 

One gets pretty good after a while at detecting "troll bait". These are posts that appear to assert something that is at once contrary to current knowledge, impossible to disprove, and often depending on a subtle twisting of semantics or logic. Trolls are never convinced. They never respond to posts in a straight-on fashion. They never admit when they are caught in a logical fallacy. They never actively defend their position or go out on a limb to try to actually convince anybody.

 

They say things that entice adults who know better, to continue beating a dead horse long after the horse has decomposed, become embedded in volcanic ash, buried under miles of sandstone, and turned into a fossil. Things like, "I'll let you have the last word", or "there's obviously no one here capable of discussing my topic". Even after you KNOW your efforts are wasted, statements like that can keep you coming back and coming back and getting hot under the collar, because you know you are being manipulated and intellectually abused.

 

Trolls are the "bottom feeders" of the Internet.

 

{Tormod, I want to officially and clearly go on record that I am not specifically accusing questor of being a Troll.} :)

[FRIPRO]

:)

 

I'm guessing some sort of certificate in circular logic... :)

 

What created the creator?

and what created that?

and what created that... ad infinitum.

 

 

Sooner or later, you just give up and realize that the only correct answer is "I really don't know."

 

 

I had to jump in here. In the olden days there was a can of milk that was called "Pet Milk" The lable showed another pet milk can, and on that can another pet milk can, an so on ---even though we knew that this could not be repeted too many times we still marveled that it could go on for ever!

 

Is this not what he is writing about the creator? (My coment is there was no creator of the universe, for the Universe always was and always will be!) FRIPRO

[Erasmus00]

no one here can prove this issue by science, so we are left to opinions and evidence.

 

I feel as if my words are falling on deaf ears. There is no evidence either way. You have presented nothing that supports creation over no creation.

 

All we are left with are opinions.

-Will

[FRIPRO]

I feel as if my words are falling on deaf ears. There is no evidence either way. You have presented nothing that supports creation over no creation.

 

All we are left with are opinions.

-Will

 

Yes there is evidence in one direction. The fact we are here now means the Universe always was (An there is no need to argue about a creator there was no need for one! (because you can not create something out of nothing) FRIPRO

[Pyrotex]

I feel as if my words are falling on deaf ears...

Bingo! You have achieved enlightenment, my son!

Now go out into the world and kick some butt!

[Biochemist]

This is an intriguing thread. Not so much becasue of the content (which has been hashed out here many time before), but because of the energy in the discussion from participants that, logically, shouldn't care about the topic.

 

A couple of points:

 

1) Logic and the scientific method are not equivalent. Many things are logical, but not provable by the scientific method.

 

2) "Proof" and the scientific method are not equivalent. The Scientific method is one proof method, but there are others. In American law, we use "reasonable doubt" as a proof standard for criminal cases, and "preponderence of evidence" as the proof standard for civil cases. These are three starkly different proof standards.

 

3) It is reasonable for two opposing arguments to each have logical support positions. That is, it is reasonable to suggest that opposing views are BOTH logical. It is often true in political debate (although perhaps not often enough).

 

4) I frankly don't understand why folks who contend there is no creator get so animated in discussion with those who do. It should not matter if a position I do not agree with has a logical argument. I think it is a logical argument that raising tax rates raises federal revenue. I just don't think it is true. I do not believe that the folks in the other camp are nuts or stupid. I just think they are incorrect. And their position is both "reasonable" and "logical" in normal usage of both words.

 

I think that both positions ("there is a Creator" and "there is no creator") are logical.

[Eclogite]

Interesting hypothesis Pyrotex. Of course, it is hypothetical, having absolutely zero relationship to this thread, or any posters engaged here.

 

So, off topic, but on the subject of apparent trolls, I suggest there are two types:

1. The True Troll - they share the characteristics you have so ably summarised.

2. The Fool - unlike the jester of medieval courts this individual truly is foolish. They have a little knowledge, but no learning; minimal language skills, with nothing to say; a gullible nature, yet a closed mind.

 

I suspect, based on casual and limited observation, that the latter is the more usual. The True Troll is gifted with good intelligence and could argue a case intelligently, were he (I think most are males) so inclined, but he derives much more pleasure disrupting, frustrating and annoying.

 

Doubtless this type derives great satisfaction from his imagined negative effect on other posters. I suggest this effect is much less than imagined. I can speak here only for myself, but I find responding to such self absorbed characters, or delusional characters, is a positive experience. In some cases it prompts me to some minor library research to refine my understanding of a topic, or at least to master my arguments in as coherent a form as possible. Both cases are beneficial for me. (And since the Troll also feels satisfaction, it turns out to be a win-win scenario!)

 

Questor, of course, fits neither of these categories, for he is not a Troll. He is something else.

[ughaibu]

Biochemist: On this thread, I dont think that anyone has contended that there is no creator, all they have done is point out that Questor has provided neither evidence nor argument that would independently, ie without an established belief, indicate the existence of a creator or a process of creation by intelligent design. There is no need for a person who believes in creation to accept Questor's "reasons" as indicative of creation by design.

[Eclogite]

I think that both positions ("there is a Creator" and "there is no creator") are logical.

I agree completely. Agnosticism is the only sensible, and I might say scientific, position to take. If I was one of those in whom you sensed animation, this was based on my distaste for those taking an absolute position based on no, or contested, evidence.