Challenge: Make Your Case for Creationism

[Thana]

So, a baseless assumption, then. And yet, to you, it's better to accept it as true than to withhold assumption. Why?

Did I not just say I was being facetious about that?

And these beliefs are not baseless and are not assumptions, but it was nice of you to assume that without basis so that I could point it out

 

[rusra02]

Totally haven't seen this argument before.

Doesn't make the argument any less compelling, IMO. (Hebrews 3:4)

 

[rusra02]

I find the fine-tuning of the laws governing the universe compelling evidence for an intelligent Designer. As astronomer George Greenstein stated: "as we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency- or, rather, Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Did I not just say I was being facetious about that?

I thought you said you were being facetious about saying "I'm sure it makes you feel better about your own beliefs or lack thereof." Are you now saying that Creationism ISN'T "better than nothing"?

And these beliefs are not baseless and are not assumptions,

So what is the basis and what did you draw the conclusion from?

but it was nice of you to assume that without basis so that I could point it out

I didn't assume it - you said that "It's just something that you either accept or you don't for whatever subjective reasons you have." That's no different to saying "It's an entirely baseless assumption". If I'm wrong, please point me towards the basis.

 

[Thana]

I thought you said you were being facetious about saying "I'm sure it makes you feel better about your own beliefs or lack thereof." Are you now saying that Creationism ISN'T "better than nothing"?


So what is the basis and what did you draw the conclusion from?


I didn't assume it - you said that "It's just something that you either accept or you don't for whatever subjective reasons you have." That's no different to saying "It's an entirely baseless assumption". If I'm wrong, please point me towards the basis.

So you define subjective reasoning as baseless assumptions?
I mean.. what am I supposed to say to that?

And I don't think you understand what facetious means.

 

[Ouroboros]

i have never seen a book that did not have an author, or a painting that did not have an artist, or a machine that did not have an inventor, so it is hard to believe something a million times more complex did not have a creator

And I've never seen an author, artist, or inventor who wasn't born of a biological mother.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you define subjective reasoning as baseless assumptions?

If all you have as justification for a position is "subjective reasons", then your position is a baseless assumption.

I mean.. what am I supposed to say to that?

Well, thus far you haven't said much, since you appear to be dodging all of my questions.

And I don't think you understand what facetious means.

Don't patronize me.

 

[leibowde84]

The Bible says it.
I believe it.
That settles it.
Tom

Lol.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

i have never seen a book that did not have an author, or a painting that did not have an artist, or a machine that did not have an inventor, so it is hard to believe something a million times more complex did not have a creator

These analogies fail. We have seen people writing and painting and building machines. There exists no naturalistic processes by which paintings, poems or machines can appear from nature. This is like saying "I don't believe in cars because I've never met an automotive engineer; thus cars don't exist".

1. the first decisions in the universe, as well as the decision to create the universe
2. decisions in the inanimate universe, such as galaxies.
3. decisions that made organisms the way they are
4. decisons by organisms, animals etc.
5. decisions by people

The formation of the universe, the advent of life and the diversity of the species is not guided by "decisions" or "chance". They are guided by physics and chemistry.

Making statements is not making a case; it is making statements.

In the DNA world of an organism there exists a full 3D representation of the adult organism. This DNA-organism, guides the development of the physical organism to adulthood.

Strange. We've peered into the world of DNA and don't see this. We see chemistry; not 3d representations of the biological organism in question, let alone 3d representations of the moon or anything else in our DNA.

My case for Creationism - Because the alternative sucks

I empathize that taking in evolution can be a lot to take in, especially for those that have been convinced of other alternatives. But to dismiss rational and provable assertions, such as ToE, and accept unprovable assertions, such as "God created the heavens and the earth" just because we don't like the provable assertion ... that is folly,

Imo, Creationism is better than nothing.

So, without creationism, you assert that we have "nothing?" This is utterly untrue.

 

[viole]

I find the fine-tuning of the laws governing the universe compelling evidence for an intelligent Designer. As astronomer George Greenstein stated: "as we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency- or, rather, Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?"

Nope. That would mess up with our free will

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Creationism is the fundamental conceptual scheme for all science and religion. There are 2 categories creator, and creation. What is in the creator category is a matter of opinion, what is in the creation category is a matter of fact. Creationism is thereby the only philosophy which validates both fact and opinion.

While I do understand your claim about creationism, you also make the claim that "creationism is the only philosophy which validates both fact and opinion". Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge your explanation of why creationism validates both fact and opinion, but you haven't provided any support for your claim that it is necessarily the ONLY philosophy that can do this. Can you provide your reasoning for why you think it would be impossible for any other philosophy to "validate both fact and opinion"? I mean, even Plato/Socrates get into this notion that subjective experience can be real, but, simultaneously, erroneous. So, I find it hard to believe that creationism is NECESSARILY the ONLY philosophy that can achieve this.

 

[leibowde84]

I find the fine-tuning of the laws governing the universe compelling evidence for an intelligent Designer. As astronomer George Greenstein stated: "as we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency- or, rather, Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?"

But, doesn't it bother you that this line of reasoning is identical to that used by ancient men who did not have any scientific understanding to explain things like lightning that were, at that time, a mystery to us? In other words, it seems like this is merely a God of the Gaps argument. Can you explain your rationale why using an argument from ignorance such as this is valid?

 

[Unification]

Without alluding to evolution . . . . . . .in any way.

Or, failing that, post such a case you've read elsewhere.


.

Everything was created in and of and from itself through energy and matter. Creation is still taking place and always will. You, even created this thread. Creationism.

 

[Unification]

Re. defining "creationism."

There are three, as described by Wikipedia below. In main, the creationism I refer to is the belief that the universe and variety of life originate from specific acts of divine creation, one carried out by the Abrahamic god.

1) Young Earth creationism includes a biblical literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.

2) Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event described in the Book of Genesis is to be taken figuratively. This group generally believes that the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth are as described by astronomers and geologists, but question scientific explanations for the variety of life

3) Progressive creationism holds that species have changed or evolved in a process continuously guided by God, with various ideas as to how the process operated—though it is generally taken that God directly intervened in the natural order at key moments in Earth history.
​

Take your pick.


.

There is no picking until "God" is defined. You make the assumption, and preconceived notions of everyone, far too often, that the word or term "God" applies to the very same imaginations of ego you create in your own mind for anyone using the word "God." Also, the word "creationism."

When someone says, they believe in "God" or "creationism" ..Your imaginations and assumptions in mind have already run rampant as to label, judge, and place that person in whichever religion or category you imagined in mind.

If the texts say. . "God is love." "God is light." "God is not a man" etc etc. Clearly then, if you believe in light, and in love, then you believe in "God."

 

[leibowde84]

There is no picking until "God" is defined. You make the assumption, and preconceived notions of everyone, far too often, that the word or term "God" applies to the very same imaginations of ego you create in your own mind for anyone using the word "God." Also, the word "creationism."

When someone says, they believe in "God" or "creationism" ..Your imaginations and assumptions in mind have already run rampant as to label, judge, and place that person in whichever religion or category you imagined in mind.

If the texts say. . "God is love." "God is light." "God is not a man" etc etc. Clearly then, if you believe in light, and in love, then you believe in "God."

Great point. If someone defines God in extremely vague ways like "God is love" or "God is consciousness", they are actually professing their attempt to force theism on themselves.

 

[Unification]

Great point. If someone defines God in extremely vague ways like "God is love" or "God is consciousness", they are actually professing their attempt to force theism on themselves.

Not necessarily. Love and conscious are just words. As is "God" just a word. It's no different than "Energy is light," therefore one forces energyism on themselves in vagueness. The word "God" just seems to get everyone's panties in bunches with all sorts of assumptions, imaginations, and baggage attached. "God is atheism" would be no different. Just words.

 

[leibowde84]

Not necessarily. Love and conscious are just words. As is "God" just a word. It's no different than "Energy is light," therefore one forces energyism on themselves in vagueness. The word "God" just seems to get everyone's panties in bunches with all sorts of assumptions, imaginations, and baggage attached. "God is atheism" would be no different. Just words.

I think the reasoning is that the term "God" is somewhat meaningless, as it is too vague of a concept.

 

[jojom]

There is no picking until "God" is defined. You make the assumption, and preconceived notions of everyone, far too often, that the word or term "God" applies to the very same imaginations of ego you create in your own mind for anyone using the word "God." Also, the word "creationism."

When someone says, they believe in "God" or "creationism" ..Your imaginations and assumptions in mind have already run rampant as to label, judge, and place that person in whichever religion or category you imagined in mind.

If the texts say. . "God is love." "God is light." "God is not a man" etc etc. Clearly then, if you believe in light, and in love, then you believe in "God."

As I said "The Abrahamic god." If you need more explanation then that I suggest to get in contact with a Christian or a Jew. If that isn't good enough then perhaps you should take your silliness elsewhere. Your pedantry has become childish.


.

 

[leibowde84]

As I said "The Abrahamic god." If you need more explanation then that I suggest to get in contact with a Christian or a Jew. If that isn't good enough then perhaps you should take your silliness elsewhere. Your pedantry has become childish.


.

Since when have Christians or Jew's been able to define their God. I have yet to hear anyone give an adequate definition.

 

[jojom]

Since when have Christians or Jew's been able to define their God. I have yet to hear anyone give an adequate definition.

"Explain" the god of Abraham, if it makes any difference. And actually, I have seen several folk define "god." Not that the definitions made much sense to me, but they apparently made sense to them. In any case, having an explanation of god is something Unification needs in order to make his case for creationism, or whatever. Actually, I don't believe he's serious about anything here, but wanting to play with everyone else he nitpicks. It seems it's the best he can do.

.