Creationism Logical or Illogical?

[Tormod]

While we're on the anthropic principle: Why would the creator need to go to such waste and create the entire universe if all he needed was a planet, a star, and a pretty view at night?

 

No, that is not a joke. Seriously, what is the rational explanation for the universe if mankind is the pinnacle of creation? We cannot fathom even travelling across our own galaxy. Yet there are perhaps hundreds of billions of galaxies. What for?

[questor]

Tormod, if i read you correctly, you are rehasing some statements i made previously:

''Scientific evidence tells me that the notion of god is very young, perhaps countable in millennia. However, the universe existed billions of years before human beings came about. Religion is something we created, and god is a part of that creation. Thus what has been designed is religion, and it was designed by us.''

perhaps we have something in common!

also you said:

'' So the most reasonable assumption to take is NOT that god either exists of does not exist, but that our universe is one of countless universes, in a countless infinity. That view is *more* likely than the view that our universe is the only one, even if we only have one sample.''

i guess this an assumption of yours based upon a reason to believe it?

since we have zero provable evidence for this, could it be considered just an opinion?

perhaps like the opinions i offered for the existence of a creator?

[Eclogite]

This has been dealt with before in this thread and the logical conclusion was that existence does not necessitate creation, neither intended nor accidental.

The validity of logical conclusions depends upon the validity of the premises. We are working from different premises.

 

 

Thought for the day: asynchronous self catalysing emergent theism

[Tormod]

i guess this an assumption of yours based upon a reason to believe it?

 

It is not my assumption. It is only a way to describe a logical alternative to the need for a creator.

 

since we have zero provable evidence for this, could it be considered just an opinion?

 

Opinion and faith is not the same thing.

 

perhaps like the opinions i offered for the existence of a creator?

 

You are free to hold your opinions. They are however based on flawed logic, and that was pointed out already on page 1. Since I was one of the first posters in this thread I am not among those you can claim to have ignored it.

[Tormod]

The validity of logical conclusions depends upon the validity of the premises. We are working from different premises.

 

Exactly. And my point is that there is a premise which takes away the need to view atheism as any kind of belief. Non-belief is not a faith. Unsure-belief is.

 

It's pretty basic, really. If you don't vote in the polls, you have to accept that whoever gets in power, gets there without your help or opposition. It does not mean, however, that you grant them the right to think for you.

 

Thus I do not grant those who believe the right to tell me that I also believe, simply because they are unable to see that non-belief is not a belief. I didn't vote in the religion poll and I have no interest in the outcome of it.

[Eclogite]

Thus I do not grant those who believe the right to tell me that I also believe, simply because they are unable to see that non-belief is not a belief.

a) You are unable to stop me telling you you are mistaken (regardless of whether you are or not), so the granting of this right is irrelevant. It does not lie in your power to disburse it. That I have been able to tell you that you too have a belief is proof that you do not have that power.

And I think I shall leave it there, as it is becoming increasingly silly.

[Tormod]

a) You are unable to stop me telling you you are mistaken (regardless of whether you are or not), so the granting of this right is irrelevant. It does not lie in your power to disburse it. That I have been able to tell you that you too have a belief is proof that you do not have that power.

And I think I shall leave it there, as it is becoming increasingly silly.

 

Your post basically shows that it is true. Why is it silly? :)

 

I don't need to grant or revoke any rights at all. The wording was chosen because I am trying to show that your claim that agnosticism is the only scientifically valid opinion is biased to the extreme. The upside is that you have to be aware of it. :shrug:

[ughaibu]

Biochemist: As far as I can see, you have given no reasons to believe in either a creator or creation. What you gave (post 179) are free standing reasons, they could equally be used as reasons for alcoholism, divorce or infanticide. Unless proposed reasons directly indicate, generate or necessarilly depend on creation, the concept of creation needs to be independently imagined and introduced. One can believe anything, with or without reasons, the discussion of belief is no explanation or reason for any specific belief.

[Biochemist]

..That was my point. Fair and square.

Got it. I understand the point.

Excellent point. Now take it further.

 

1) Can we foresee a future where people *will* think it natural to travel to the stars?

Thinking it is natural, and seeing it as a need are significantly different

 

2) Has any of the current religions been a majority religion for more than, say, three thousand years? What about the 140,000 years or so prior to that?

Intrinsic in any creator thesis is that it took time to generate creation. There would have to be a span of time between the initiation of creation and the arrival of Man.

I do think ritual - and the sense of belonging to a greater whole - is a natural thing in people, as in many (perhaps all) animals. That it is manifest as a faith in a creator does not make the religion in itself more reasonable...Indicative of what, apart from the ritual thing I stated above?

I think the search for purpose is a far mroe significant drive that a desire for ritual. People don't regress to a dependence on ritual in a time of cirsis. They reevaluate the meaning of the cirsis event. or the meaning of their role in it. Ritual is really unrelated.

[Biochemist]

While we're on the anthropic principle: Why would the creator need to go to such waste and create the entire universe if all he needed was a planet, a star, and a pretty view at night?

I think this is a good question. You pretty much have to believe that creation was essentially effortless for the Creator, therefore the magnitude of the creation had to exemplify His greatness.

 

But the "yes, but isn't this overkill?" position has some merit.

[Biochemist]

Biochemist: As far as I can see, you have given no reasons to believe in either a creator or creation. What you gave (post 179) are free standing reasons...

Actually, I was truncating a classis philosophical argument for theism (or Christianity, depending how far you take it).

 

It has been covered redundantly in multiple threads, so I won't restart it here. But the argument generally it that in that absense of a creator, we are all just the resultants of previous events. In this context there is no definition or right and wrong, and there is no real perception fo value, only an illusion of value (or love, or truth, or beauty) that somehow advantages us in the evolutionary biology sense.

 

The best (somewhat brief) argument that I know of is in Francis Schaeffer's He is there and He is not silent.

[HydrogenBond]

There is sort of paradox occurring in science. God is very difficult to conclusively prove and is therefore not considered possible. On the other hand, go to a physics forum or to the physics topics in this forum and there unproven other dimensions of space/time, there are unproven multiple universe, tiny strings that have yet to be seen, the creation of the universe from something or nothing, life coing from meteors which still has the problem of the original beginning. The list goes on and on, yet this is called science and even though it is based on faith.

 

It the world of physics, anything is possible because it is impossible to disprove and one or two data points is considered sufficient to make it a reality. I am not sure where the distinction begins between faith in God and faith in theoretical science.

[questor]

i believe the reason for disbelievers is quite simple: they have a problem believing church dogma or religious dogma in general. since the Bible and other religious tomes were written recently and have been through many translations and possible permutations, no one can believe each word or story

is truth. INMYOP, one must get beyond man's perceptions of a personal or anthropomorphic diety and consider the universe and it's ''supernatural'' phenomenae. if at some time, all phenomenae can be explained as having ordinary origins, this opinion will have to change. a discussion of evidence for or against intelligent creation is the subject of this thread. since most minds automatically default to a discussion of God, i haven't had much input on

subject.

[Pyrotex]

Whoever said Believing is easy, no matter how exalted their credentials, never got down on their knees and tried it. One gets kicked from pillar to post for claiming Belief in the unseen, even hung on a cross and left to bleed to death. Belief can be many things, but one thing is for sure - it aint ain't easy.

Au contraire, mon amie!!!

I and my friends have believed a number of things over the years that got us pilloried and posted. Sometimes the social pressure and pain was immense. But it did NOT stop us from believing! In fact, the belief continued as though nothing was going on. The belief itself remained unquestioned and pristine. Now, we often wondered why so many people were "picking on us" and why we were unpopular is certain circles, but the believing remained easy. Believing is easy.

 

I had a friend who dumped me because I demonstrated that his belief in astrology was bogus. He lost several friends. Keeping his belief was easier, but not painless. Look at the people who believe in crop circles. Even after the hoaxers confessed and demonstrated HOW the did it, there were and are "believers". Believing is easy.

 

I have two wonderful friends who belong to a church where miraculous healing is supposed to happen all the time. They're seeing doctors now, for their diabetes and arthritis. But they still "believe", in fact, they tell me that they cannot "not believe" any more. Believing is easy. Believing doesn't care if you are the object of social ridicule or logical boguzification.

[Saitia]

Having carefully skimmed through all the posts in this thread after stealing myself with a caffeine infusion, without taking my eyes off anyone I extend a careful bow to all of you for not drawing weapons and resorting to verbal violence. So many interesting points made; yet so many good minds apparently unconvinced of anything new.

 

In attempting to cautiously wedge my bare (read vulnerable) foot in the door of this conversation, allow me to revisit a thought or two that has risen to the top of this smoldering morass of metaphysical mojo-- at least to my view.

 

Questor's original post was a literal minefield of presumptuous provisos, e.g., assuming there is "no scientific proof," arguing there is "much stronger evidence for than against creation," hoping we could "have this discussion without the mention of God," etc. That said, Q made some reasonable statements imo to support the notion that the universe and our world show evidence of being created by an all powerful, intelligent Creator. It seems somewhat unimaginative to look at the material creation (not to mention human evolution) and not realize thousands of facts are incompatible with the laws of accidental chance-- facts which should be demonstrative of the presence of intelligent purpose in the material creation.

 

But Big Dog's questions: ". . .why is it so damn important to know the truth?. . . Why are we so damn hung up on the necessity of these answers?" are as intriguing as any others raised, and seem to strike closer to the personal heart of the matter. Why DO we care so much? Even in this thread it got pretty warm in the kitchen. It may simply be too glib to say we "hunger for truth" because it still doesn't explain why we need the truth; but it's much more than curiosity that drives our need to know.

 

Certainly Tormod raised some fascinating questions with his declaration "I am me, and only I can be me." How do you know, exactly? Given eternity, how can you be certain another personality exactly like you won't manifest? Why is personality unique? Is it unique throughout all time and space?

 

Or Eclogite's recent resignation to agnosticism because evidence does not exist, yet he/she's unwilling to look past logic to faith for evidence; when he's already used faith to validate the findings of his mind in the first place.

 

It seems to me a great deal of energy has been expended in this thread (and others I'm reading) due to a failure to see there are specific "methods" that must be used with the respective domains of science, religion, and philosophy. The "scientific method" is simply an intellectual yardstick we use to measure the observable phenomena of material creation. But being material and wholly intellectual, it is useless in the evaluation of spiritual realities and religious experiences.

 

As I see it, the glaring inconsistency of the materialist scientist is this: If this were merely a material universe and man thus only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe. But even this thread shows we're more aware than machines, and that requires us to incorporate the possibilities metaphysics brings to the table.

 

--Saitia

[Pyrotex]

...I extend a careful bow to all of you for not drawing weapons and resorting to verbal violence. So many interesting points made; yet so many good minds...

Questor's original post was a literal minefield of presumptuous provisos...

If this were merely a material universe and man thus only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine...

Thank you, Satia.

So, how exactly do you KNOW that a man in a material universe would be unable to recognize himself as such a machine???

Perhaps you have observed several universes that WERE material ...and... several other universes that WEREN'T, and compared their differences? :hihi:

 

By the way, welcome to the brawl.

[TheBigDog]

Thank you, Satia.

So, how exactly do you KNOW that a man in a material universe would be unable to recognize himself as such a machine???

Perhaps you have observed several universes that WERE material ...and... several other universes that WEREN'T, and compared their differences? :hihi:

 

By the way, welcome to the brawl.

I take some liberties when it comes to self identity. I have decided that I have free will. If science were to prove otherwise I would reject that science. Irrational? Yes. But otherwise I am both unconcious and inconsequential. I reject the possiblity that I am a passenger of fate and predefined destiny. I reject the possibility that my choices don't matter - or worse, that I am not even choosing. Free will in the face of physics means that physics as we know them today are not the be all end all of what is possible in the universe. And that lets me know that I am unique, the creation of mom and dad. :evil:

 

Bill