Creationism Logical or Illogical?

[ughaibu]

Things are getting rather silly. Questor, in post 66, denied that he was relying on a default-solution status assumed by him to be applicable to creation, yet in his very next post used the phrase "disbelieve in a planned creation". As a concept existing only in the mind, creation has to be actively constructed, a person can believe in creation or a person can not believe in creation, but a person can not disbelieve in creation. The use of "disbelieve" implies that creation is a definite perceptable phenomenon independent of the observer, this use exemplifies the attributing of a self evident nature to creation, that characterises the default strategy.

[CraigD]

The cosmological and ontological arguments for the existence of God

 

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.

I, too, have a sense of disconnection between the debaters in this thread, with some measure of dismay, making me reluctant to participate. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to respond to the following:

… if a first cause exists and created the universe, it would have to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent in order to do the job. by that measure, it would also be intelligent and conscious. …

By definition, all that is required of a prime cause is that it: 1) be caused by nothing; 2) cause something.

 

Questor’s assertion appears to me to confuse the cosmological argument with the ontological argument. The ontological argument asks the reader to consider an entity “than which nothing greater can be imagined", then reasons that such an entity must have attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and, most importantly, existence, as once can easily imagine that an entity with these attributes is greater than one without them.

 

The cosmological and ontological arguments are distinct and separate arguments. The acceptance of one neither implies nor prohibits the acceptance of the other. Both arguments are logical, and well respected. Both depend on systematic and factual assumptions that have not been compellingly formally or scientifically proven.

[questor]

Craig, i think this statement agrees with the post i made earlier:

''The ontological argument asks the reader to consider an entity “than which nothing greater can be imagined", then reasons that such an entity must have attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and, most importantly, existence, as once can easily imagine that an entity with these attributes is greater than one without them.''

i agree with this.

i think it is somewhat odd that people who have chosen to join in this post have avoided the simply stated question i have asked by obfuscation, personal criticism, insults and total lack of staying with the thread. it is almost as if they have not read or understood the words i have put on the screen. if they have no answer or prefer not to answer, it's ok by me. i would like to wrap this thread up because so far i have had no evidence that my question has been understood or considered. if someone would like to reply in a sensible dialogue, here is the question one last time.

 

'' 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 for their belief.''

 

if your high school teacher asked this question, how would you reply?

[Erasmus00]

if someone would like to reply in a sensible dialogue, here is the question one last time.

 

'' 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 for their belief.''

 

if your high school teacher asked this question, how would you reply?

 

My reply would be: I see no evidence at all of a created universe. This doesn't mean that the universe wasn't created, but that I try to keep away from assuming a creator.

-Will

[questor]

AT LAST! SOMEONE POSTED AN ANSWER! if you see no evidence of a creator, how do you account for life, consciousness, order, spin, orbiting, symmetry, physical laws, gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.?

[Eclogite]

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.

I speak only for myself, but I believe I reflect the position of Pyrotex and ughaibu. They have both, on multiple occasions, pointed out your logical flaws. The fact that you choose to ignore these points, or fail to understand them, is your problem, not theirs (or mine).

 

AT LAST! SOMEONE POSTED AN ANSWER! if you see no evidence of a creator, how do you account for life, consciousness, order, spin, orbiting, symmetry, physical laws, gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.?

Do I smell an agenda, or do I smell an agenda?

 

Eclogite checks olofactory mechanism: all diagnostics reveal optimum operating conditions. Yep, it is an agenda. I can hardly wait for episode two.:rolleyes:

[Erasmus00]

AT LAST! SOMEONE POSTED AN ANSWER! if you see no evidence of a creator, how do you account for life, consciousness, order, spin, orbiting, symmetry, physical laws, gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.?

 

As I've pointed out several times throughout this thread, I fail to see why you think these things require a creator.

-Will

[MagnetMan]

The point is... you are both looking at the same evidence. It's your interpretation, your personal interpretation which points it into any directions.

 

Which is exactly what Questor has been saying all along. He is has been arging that the preponderence of personal opinions are in favor of ID. Mankind has been around as a self-aware observer for some 100,000 generations. In all that time, beginning with Stone Age animism, we have agreed 100% that ID is the cause of all things. It is only in the last 100 generations or so that the idea of atheism has gradually surfaced - and only a minority have been persueded to lean that way. Tens of thousands of mystics from every culture, including all our saints have attested to contact with an Intelligent Creator. One can call them self-deluded. But that would only be a minority opinion.

 

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence Carl Sagan.

[questor]

Excellent Eclogite! you have discovered my agenda! would you mind telling me what it is?

[questor]

Erasmus, if these things were not created, how did they come to be? does order come from disorder? does gravity appear from chaos? is spin and orbiting a random quality? did matter and energy come from nothing? it is difficult to believe that all these phenomenae just happened to occur. i

am not talking metaphysics or religious philosophy. these forces are of ultimate scientific interest and i can't see where physical laws and natural forces could be random in nature.

[InfiniteNow]

Which is exactly what Questor has been saying all along. He is has been arging that the preponderence of personal opinions are in favor of ID.

Support your statement. This currently appears as unfounded gibberish, or, at best, a personal belief based on erroneous information. Got some data that's verifiable and repeatable to back this up?

 

Mankind has been around as a self-aware observer for some 100,000 generations. In all that time, beginning with Stone Age animism, we have agreed 100% that ID is the cause of all things.

Whew... thanks for the laugh. I was having a tough day, and it's amazing what a good belly laugh can do for you.

 

Oh... you were serious? :xx: Uhhmmm...hmmm... okay. Same as above. Data?

 

 

Tens of thousands of mystics from every culture, including all our saints have attested to contact with an Intelligent Creator. One can call them self-deluded.

Okay, roger wilko... they are self-deluded. However, they are also mass deluded... but I'm just sayin'... :xx:

 

But that would only be a minority opinion.

Data? Do you want to borrow my Intro to Statistics book for a few weeks and see if you can catch up to the rest of humanity?

[Eclogite]

Excellent Eclogite! you have discovered my agenda! would you mind telling me what it is?

Not really. I wouldn't wish to cramp your style. Just tease it out slowly and you could have a record breaking thread.

[MagnetMan]

Support your statement. This currently appears as unfounded gibberish, or, at best, a personal belief based on erroneous information. Got some data that's verifiable and repeatable to back this up?

 

Who decides if my personal belief is based on erroneous information. You and your statistic book?

 

Animism is defined as a belief that the Univese has soul. This instinctive belief lasted throughout the Stone Age - some 99,000 generations ( if we take 25 years as a generation span, and accept 2.5 million years as a reasonable start date for the first man to become aware of the self as a separate entitity. Sorry no data for this last. But check out the stone tools from that era and maybe you can use common sense to extrapolute your own start-up date.) Oh! Thats right! Hopw silly of me. You have forgotten how to rely on common sense.

 

Shamanism is defined as a form of mediumship between gifted clair-sentients who speak to dead ancestors and relate their concerns to the living. That belief in ID has been around for some 600 generations. (the oldest deposts of seeds so far found date back some 15,000 years. But am adding a few thousand years to the start of the Bronze Age just in case we find something older. I got that data ditrectly from the mouths of Shamans from all around the world who are all still practicing that family business.)

 

Orthodox Scripture has been around since 4000 B.C. and up until Aristotle arrived everybody who was anybody believed that what was written in them was the direct Word of God.

 

Of course all that is recorded as gibberish in your wonderous Satistics book. I wonder who compiled that piece of work?

 

My turn for a belly laught :cool:

 

Okay, roger wilko... they are self-deluded. However, they are also mass deluded... but I'm just sayin'... :eek2:

 

I am surprised that you have the audacity to so openly trash Christian doctrine and the sacred testimony of our saints in such a brash manner. After all, our culture is defined by personal opinions that support that Belief - and culture is what keeps us from being crude with each other.

 

Data? Do you want to borrow my Intro to Statistics book for a few weeks and see if you can catch up to the rest of humanity?

 

I dont think so buddy. Me thinks tis you who needs the lesson in humanity. I appreciate a good battle, and you are entitled to your own opinion on ID, but I prefer the epee, not a crude club. Unfortunately I had to take mine out of storage for this confrontation. But how about a little more finess?

[InfiniteNow]

You might just be surprised how audacious I can be...

 

The statistics reference was directed primarily at your statements framed in terms of the absolute. I believe it was you who said something about 100% agreeing with ID and how it's the cause of all things...

 

 

Cheers. :cool:

[InfiniteNow]

Do you also realize how many times that precious little Christian book has been transcribed, transformed, and potentially most important, translated... One little monk with a pen could think "this is what they meant" and change just one little word. One previous transcriber could pencil in a doodle whilst day dreaming and the next person using that copy to make the next might think it relevant to the text and meaning...

 

 

Just be careful with the 100% stuff, and our dialogue will remain beneficial.

 

 

Cheers.

[MagnetMan]

Do you also realize how many times that precious little Christian book has been transcribed, transformed, and potentially most important, translated... One little monk with a pen could think "this is what they meant" and change just one little word. One previous transcriber could pencil in a doodle whilst day dreaming and the next person using that copy to make the next might think it relevant to the text and meaning...

 

 

Just be careful with the 100% stuff, and our dialogue will remain beneficial.

 

 

Cheers.

 

Okay. I'll compromise. How about we meet at 99.9%?:)

I appreciate your kinder response.

Kwaheri Bwana

[InfiniteNow]

Okay. I'll compromise. How about we meet at 99.9%?:hihi:

I appreciate your kinder response.

Kwaheri Bwana

Hmmm... You must be one good businessman... I usually expect a bit more middle ground in a compromise... :hihi:

 

 

I don't agree that the number of people feeling ID is the root of all things to be that high of a percentage.

 

 

Anyway, my tone will vary. Don't take it personally. I usually slow myself down and articulate myself diplomatically, but other times I shoot from the hip. Cheers. :)