Creationism Logical or Illogical?

[questor]

Pyro, my question is quite clearly stated and doesn't need alternative

tweaking. i am asking those who disbelieve in a planned creation to state evidence that leads to that belief. i have stated my reasons for my opinion. your posts are headed for the low road, so if you don't understand the question or don't want to participate, you have a choice. i'm not going to participate in a pissing contest.

[questor]

Ugh, i see no reason to engage in nit-picking around the subject. if you would like to state your reasons for your opinion on this subject, go for it. if you want to talk about other subjects, i'm not interested. you can read my reasons in the first post.

[ughaibu]

What opinion have I not stated my reasons for?

[Eclogite]

Questor,

I have found this thread interesting for one reason above all others: at least one 'side' in the discussion, perhaps all sides, are arguing past each other. Their arguments are not connecting. This is leading to frustration and perhaps even anger.

 

Could you humour me in understanding the cause of this disconnect by giving your definition of creation. You see I have read and re-read your first and later posts and it appears that your definition of creation is different from what most of us would tend to expect. I should like to clarify this.

[questor]

Ugh, is this an opinion or a lack of opinion?

''Why do you think that I "believe the universe was born without a

plan, design, or intelligence"? I haven't said so.''

if it is an opinion, would you give your reasons pro or con? if it is not an opinion, let me know when you have one. why are we beating around the bush on this? do you not understand what i am after?

[ughaibu]

Of course it wasn't an opinion, it was a question and a question that you haven't answered.

[questor]

Eclogite, thanks for the civil question.

my definition of create: to make a product. this indicates an effort which may include design, planning, and aforethought. creation does not occur without a creator, or some force that changes one thing into another.

one can imagine 3 possibilities when contemplating the universe:

1. it was always here

2. it was created

3. it just happened to occur

with easily observed physical phenomena, i see evidence of a created universe, rather than a random happening. i see no evidence of random creation. therefore i asked for those who believe conversely to offer evidence

or reasons fo their belief. this seems simple and straightforward to me.

do you understand what i'm asking?

[questor]

Ugh, i'm tired of the merry-go-round. aren't you? since you and i aren't on the same page and can't get on the same page, why don't we just dispense with the back and forth? maybe we can talk about something later. right now i'm interested in talking about this thread. P.S. ( i don't need to know what you believe).

[ughaibu]

Questor: As far as I'm aware I've answered all the questions that you've asked me.

[Eclogite]

my definition of create: to make a product...........creation does not occur without a creator, or some force that changes one thing into another.

I was mistaken: your definition of creation is more or less the conventional one.

One can imagine 3 possibilities when contemplating the universe:

1. it was always here

2. it was created

3. it just happened to occur

Agreed. I think everyone posting in this thread would agree with these three options.

with easily observed physical phenomena, i see evidence of a created universe, rather than a random happening. i see no evidence of random creation. therefore i asked for those who believe conversely to offer evidence or reasons for their belief. this seems simple and straightforward to me. do you understand what i'm asking?

There are two separate points here:

 

1. Science does not concern itself with things it is currently unable to investigate. That is pretty much the case for the origin of the Universe. Science only investigates events subsequent to the origin. Therefore those of a scientific bent, when wearing their lab coats, will have no inclination, or method, to cite evidence for either 2 or 3. They may note that option 3 is simpler than 2, which gives it some attraction, but that is all.

2. This has been pointed out before: your interpretation of the evidence is that it points towards a creator. Many people would say the reverse is true. Either way, these remain interpretations and not valid scientific conjecture.

[questor]

Since this thread appears in the theology section, i see nothing out of line in its discussion. scientists are human beings also, and i would imagine they have at least as much curiosity as anyone else. their vocation may be concerned with provable facts, but i'm sure their minds are allowed to wonder about those isuues that so far are unproved. i have never said i have proof, i have merely asked others why they hold an opposite opinion to mine. so far i have had no one give me an answer. does that mean that no one has an answer?

[questor]

Ugh, since you have answered all questions to your satisfaction, our conversation is over. i have nothing more to ask of you.

[ughaibu]

Questor: It's quite possible that none of the readers of this thread hold a belief concerning this matter. It's also possible that those who do hold a belief, recognise that belief as illogical and dont try to logically justify it. So, it's thirdly quite possible that you won't receive any answers.

[questor]

you left out one:

they really can't think of any rational observations that would indicate a non-created, random, universe.

[Eclogite]

i have never said i have proof, i have merely asked others why they hold an opposite opinion to mine.

I am not sure anyone is saying they hold an opposite opinion. They are saying, and I concur, that your opinion, as presented, is based on an illogical premise, and therefore has no value.

[questor]

Eclogite, how many people do you speak for? please phrase my illogical premise. i am unaware i made one, unless you have proof it is illogical.

[Pyrotex]

Pyro, my question is quite clearly stated and doesn't need alternative tweaking. i am asking those who disbelieve in a planned creation to state evidence that leads to that belief. i have stated my reasons for my opinion. your posts are headed for the low road, so if you don't understand the question or don't want to participate, you have a choice. i'm not going to participate in a pissing contest.

My understanding is complete.

That should be obvious in my last post.

Of course you won't "participate" in a contest. You won't even participate in a rational dialogue. You evade. You dance about. You accuse people of not understanding your point. You do the Texas Two Step every time someone comes close to pinning you down.

So, c'mon questor, what's the real payoff for you in this never-ending goose chase? Is it an adrenalin rush? Does it give you a chuckle to see intelligent people wasting their efforts playing ring-around-the-rosy with you?

I didn't "tweak" anything, questor, and you know that.

I'm not pissing, and you know that, too.

Go play your little game.

Enjoy yourself. :rain: