Creationism Logical or Illogical?

[Pyrotex]

Perhaps a more correct contention would be that creationism is beyond logic. That is why Faith is required. Blessed is he who has not seen, yet believeth.

This is certainly an alternate contention. Whether it is correct or not, is still a matter of faith.

 

What evidence do you have that there is anything "beyond" logic? What do you mean by "beyond logic"?

 

Why do you connect "Faith" which is as you have said, believing in the unseen, with being in any way associated with logic? Or being in any way "better" (my quotes) than logic?

 

Socrates, Emanuel Kant and other philosophers have consistently down through the ages pointed out that it is possible to "believe" in anything, no matter how absurd or contrary to fact. Believing is easy. It requires no facts, no evidence, no logic. Oh, many beliefs do have facts, evidence and logic to support them, but a "belief" in general, does not require them. Which is to say, the believers do not require them.

 

Historically, many beliefs (faiths) have faded away upon the rise of evidence that contradicted them. But it is interesting to observe that the believers didn't as a rule change their minds, but rather, died off while still believing. It was their successors who grew up without those beliefs.

 

If faith is "believing in the unseen", why should one be blessed for doing it? Isn't this just like self-deception? If there is no evidence for blue tooth fairies but I insist on "having faith" in blue tooth fairies, how am I blessed?

 

Is one blessed only for having faith in some things unseen but not others? If so, then who chooses and how do they choose without facts or evidence? Or is one blessed for having faith in anything, even if it is contradicted by evidence? If one is blessed for believing in something non-rational, that is, without any facts or evidence to support the belief, then why is it wrong to lie?

[InfiniteNow]

Perhaps the most puzzling question is... why is it so damn important to know the truth? The truth may elude us for millions of more years.

Finding truth is like grasping a handful of sand. The tighter you squeeze, the more quickly you lose it.

 

 

EDIT: I am trying to make this post more to the point.

 

My thought is basically that truth is elusive. To stick with the metaphor, some of the grains if squeezed hard enough will form a stone which is harder to let slip through. However, sand/water or otherwise, it's dynamic and ever changing and no matter how strongly we believe it to be so it will rarely remain consistent indefinitely.

[MagnetMan]

Socrates, Emanuel Kant and other philosophers have consistently down through the ages pointed out that it is possible to "believe" in anything, no matter how absurd or contrary to fact. Believing is easy. It requires no facts, no evidence, no logic. Oh, many beliefs do have facts, evidence and logic to support them, but a "belief" in general, does not require them. Which is to say, the believers do not require them.

[/b]?

 

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.

[questor]

Ugh, you said:

''Questor: Your question has been answered in detail several times by several people. You have yet to show any connection between your "reasons" and any implied act of creation involving intelligence''.

time to put up or shut up. please copy and paste one or two of the several answers to my qestion.

1. i don't think you understand or can repeat my question.

2. if someone answered the question, why are we still discussing it?

[Pyrotex]

...this thread has been a disaster for a very simple reason.. there is no one here who seems to be able to discuss the subject

as it is posed. too bad, it could have been an enlightening discussion.

questor -- wrong, wrong, wrong.

No rationale discussion of the subject, as posed by you, is possible. The reasons for the impossibility have to do with the logic and the semantics that you so contemptuously disregard.

In addition, you only had to once, ONCE, spell out a clear piece of evidence FOR your contention that the universe is created. You would have done so, IF you had been ABLE to do so. You are NOT able to do so.

And then... oooohhh... and then, you smite yourself on the breast, and lament that no one here has your intelligence, your integrity, your enlightened ability to discuss the "creator".

Bah!! You're bluffing without even a measly pair in your hand. You got nothing.

[questor]

Pyro, since you are a master debator, why not re-read my post #1 that started this thread and refute the points i made?

[ughaibu]

Questor: Post 4, by Erasmus00, a complete answer to your question. The rest of this thread has been a series of attempts by you to ignore post 4 and other subsequent answers that you've received. Why did you start this thread if you are going to ignore any response?

[Pyrotex]

Pyrotex: "Over Three Hundred Proofs of God’s Existence"

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

WOW!! Thank you, dude!!! Totally awesome. Gosh, with over 300 proofs, how can I resist? I guess I believe in God, now. ;) :hihi: :eek_big:

[questor]

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. i would suggest you take some

reading comprehension courses to help you understand what you read.

[questor]

P.S., why don't you and the master debator discuss your views on a thread dedicated to the subject of God? that is is not the subject of this thread.

READING COMPREHENSION?

[ughaibu]

Questor: Nobody needs reasons to not believe in creation because there are no reasons to believe in it! Give a reason that doesn't depend on an existing belief. So far you have given no reasons, this is the point that has been continually made and that you have continually ignored. All that you have said in this thread amounts to "I, Questor, believe in creation by some unspecified intelligent designer". Thanks for the confession, but it's over, the music's fading and the spotlight drifts away, unless you are going to interact with other posters, I suggest you change your make-up and get ready for your next scene.

[Pyrotex]

...Reasons for creation;

1. the actual existence of the universe points to a creator. something had to initiate the BB or whatever process formed the universe.

No. Assumes that everything has to be "created". False.

2. order. the universe ehibits order in that there are forces that induce balance and homeostasis ( human and mechanical) throughout the universe. if not for order, chaos would ensue.

Order is not a "fluid" or substance poured onto the universe. Reflects a profound misunderstanding of what order and chaos are.

3. planning. the universe exhibits an overall plan which prevents it from flying apart. everything seems to work in predictable fashion. ...

Totally bogus. What "plan"? Where? The Universe IS flying apart. And very LITTLE of it works predictably. Bogus squared.

there are natural laws...that ensure a stable and predictable outcome for most events.

Same as #3. We would not BE here in a so-called universe without natural laws. We ARE here. So of course there will be some order (law). So what?

4. intelligence exists and we are aware of it. how could intelligence exist unless there was a primal source for it?

The same way that stars and trees exist. Does there have to be a primal star and a primal tree?

5. existence of physical and natural law and math. further evidence of intelligent planning.

Hello...! Same as #3. Still bogus. Still a variation on "Things exist, therefore they were created."

6. existence of energy and matter and the relationship between the two shows intelligent planning.

Profound inability to understand science, ontology. Profound inability to distinguish between logic and twisted semantics.

i'm sure some would say these are random ocurrences, but random occurences all seem to fit within the overall system of order. would anyone have some good evidence that refutes this logic?

More bogus, tortured semantics. There are many processes in the universe that are random. But existence itself is neither random nor non-random, in the same very real sense that existence is neither green nor non-green.

 

I thought you said you had some "evidence" for the universe being artificially made or assembled or constructed. These so-called arguments are self-refuting. Several of them have been proven bogus for over a century. This is why so many of the posts had to do with semantics. Your so-called evidence is primarily a thin and pathetic twisting of semantics in order to create the illusion of an argument.

 

Your inability to comprehend physics, the universe, order -- or your inability to clearly state an argument without semantic warping and circular references, is not proof or evidence for or against anything. But it does go a long way to explaining why so many people lose patience with you so quickly.

[Pyrotex]

...no discussion of my points, only a rejection of my observations....

What precisely have you observed, questor? Not believe in, not assumed, not pretended, not heard about from somewhere, not read in a book, not listened to in a sermon, not figured out by you, not concluded or inferred...

 

What precisely have you observed, questor? Do yourself a favor and look the word up before you answer.

[InfiniteNow]

What came first, the Universe or a Creator?

[CraigD]

If there is no evidence for blue tooth fairies but I insist on "having faith" in blue tooth fairies, how am I blessed?

If, hypothetically, you are the vassal of a lord who will do unpleasant things to you unless you profess belief in blue tooth fairies, then you’re blessed with not having those unpleasant things done to you. You don’t have to really believe, just profess to, but if you really wish to play it safe, really believing is the way to go.

 

I don’t think, however, that this is what most people mean by Blessed.

[FRIPRO]

I am by many accounts a sane person. Please provide you definition of "creation" and "Creator". It seems that we always assume that they are somehow synonymous. Could something other than intelligence be a creator? Could a creator of life and earth not be THE Creator?

 

Perhaps the most puzzling question is... why is it so damn important to know the truth? The truth may elude us for millions of more years. It may never be know. How does that effect the price of tea in China? Why are we so damn hung up on the necessity of these answers? The would be nice to know, but are they imperative to human existence in the next 5000 years?

 

Bill

 

Hi Bill

Gee! I really do not know where to start, you have a lot of good questions. You see I am all wrapped up in evolution! Therefor creation (did not happen) as far as the Universe is concern. However the Earth and it species including man could have been created by a higher order of Intelligent beings. These beings being some where else in the Eternal Universe.(This does fit your question)

 

I have said before if the Uniiverse alway was it did not get created nor can you call it creation as it did not happen (if you accept the Uniiverse alway was

 

On your statement: "why is it so damn important to know the truth?" You have made me think about that! Let us see -- I am searching for an answer.

 

Oh I know (and I guess the religious people (God fearing ) may not agree!

 

If the Universe always was-- and did not need a creator then there is no need for a God and therefore no hereafter for man! For example:What if there is no place for our conscience (ID) man’s soul (if we have one) to reside in the hereafter, when we leave this Earth for good?

 

Have our ancestor's programmed man into thinking they do have a place prepared for them in a heaven or hell? If the terrorists for example in Iraq; believed in the promise of “70 virgins in heaven” would they still blow themselves up? If they knew in advance, that they might just be “human like programmed Robots? Would they still be eager to give up their life -- for political-religious ideas, put forth by religious political extremists?

 

Are they mere programmed human robots, given a task by their superiors who promise them “high heaven” that may not exist? *

 

These extremists are but a little speck of life, on this planet called Earth, among the billions of abodes in the Universe. Who are they to take such actions? They, who are equated to less than the ants in size, compared to the Universe; however, Earth in comparison being even less than one grain (relative size) of sand on Earths beaches.

 

If the terrorists knew and understood this fact; when compared to an infinite, all-powerful,eternal, all seeing, Universe (god, allah, yahweh. buda; whomever, you wish to call the Universe). Would these terrorists still carry out their programmed tasks?

 

The truth needs to be known to stop the real war between Islam and Christianity! We need it now not in the future!

 

Thanks again for your coments and questions. They were worth my time, (and others) to answer them in the best way I could. FRIPRO

[questor]

Pyro, thanks for at least taking the time to read post #1, something that others can't/won't do. your answer to my question is obviously that everything just exists as it is and there is no evidence in observable phenomenae that would point to the existence or non existence of a creator.

you consider my observations bogus and of no philosophical significance.

you have made this determination by virtue of your advanced knowledge of physics, cosmology, theology, chemistry, etc. i understand your opinion and i can live with it. i enjoyed our discourse.