Creationism under fire ... from creationists.

[Guy Threepwood]

No. Not the way we think of creative or intelligence (as referring to human standards).


The whole, the world, everything, is all a force that drives forward to new territories and experiences. I think of it more as a field of energy that applies to time. Not going to explain that further.

Anyway, the "lotto tumbler" theory isn't the alternative. Based on your earlier strong categorical statements, using absolute qualifiers when you know it rubs people the wrong way even if you know they're exaggerated, I feel that you probably consider the answer to reality and existence can only be solved in the same strict bipolar categorical way. I think the world is rather more complex than this black-vs-white thinking.

I see problems with both sides, or both answers, and its not solved by choosing a "side" that "must" be true regardless of their problems. Perhaps it behoves you to consider something in the middle.

It's very similar to the old "debate" if a person's character and personality traits come from nurture or nature. The answer we know today is... both... and more. So to contrast "lotto number" vs " intelligent designer" is to put the whole thing in a false perspective and not giving it the benefit of resolving itself in a more advanced (and perhaps mature?) way.

Also when it comes to this "lotto tumbler" concept that you're referring to, it can produce natural arches (contradicting Behe's views), like the Delicate Arch in Utah. It's produced by nature, and similar exist around the globe. Formed by sandstone and stress. In other words, this world can produce beautiful things from just "lotto tumbling."

I respect that you acknowledge your beliefs, certain positive assertions that you are willing to stand behind, and I am interested in those. I was raised and remained a staunch atheist for several decades so I don't dismiss the idea out of hand, and I have no problem with the belief itself. We all want to know the truth, and it doesn't help to consider anybody intellectually inferior for their beliefs- this only betrays that we can never change our minds no matter the evidence, or we become what we accuse others of. I think Hoyle found himself in this situation?

We don't have empirical evidence for any explanation, all we have is logical deduction, perhaps a little outcome prediction, and things like probability to ponder.

In the largest perspective we are aware of- the universe originated with a tiny seed, literally a self extracting archive of information. We know that altering the parameters in the most infinitesimal way would have created an infinite variety of dark lifeless duds. But ours was composed in such a way as to create a finely balanced fabric of space/time, giant fusion reactors which created more complex materials, composed in turn as to give rise to life and habitats for it (including beautiful geological formations) -and ultimately- a consciousness that the universe uses to literally investigate and ponder itself with..

so my question was- how do you think this seed came to be composed in such a way? That's not meant to be rhetorical, I'm curious to know what you think.

 

[Ouroboros]

so my question was- how do you think this seed came to be composed in such a way? That's not meant to be rhetorical, I'm curious to know what you think.

I don't know how it came to be composed in such a way. It's a mystery we can't fully know yet. I do believe that it's all part of the same nature (or super-nature) and reality that always was and always will be. I also believe that time and experience is somewhat an illusion. There never really was a true beginning. Everything has always existed in some form. It's only the form the changes.

There's a recent suggestion (that seems to fit the mathematics) that our universe was created by a 4-dimensional collapsed star. Who knows? It sounds interesting.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't know how it came to be composed in such a way. It's a mystery we can't fully know yet. I do believe that it's all part of the same nature (or super-nature) and reality that always was and always will be. I also believe that time and experience is somewhat an illusion. There never really was a true beginning. Everything has always existed in some form. It's only the form the changes.

There's a recent suggestion (that seems to fit the mathematics) that our universe was created by a 4-dimensional collapsed star. Who knows? It sounds interesting.

That's possible yes, and it was also the rationale that was explicitly followed by static, eternal, steady state, big crunch models: exclude a creation event and you make God redundant. no creation = no creator.. and I'd concede that implication if any were ever proven. But all we can actually observe is that there was, a very specific creation event, anything else is speculation, multiverses, M theory, string theory, quantum fluctuations are all interesting.. and it's not difficult to make a theory 'fit the math' when you are free to make it do so.. all those others did

but collapsed star, quantum fluctuation, random universe, all have to stumble upon the highly specific code that runs a functional life sustaining universe ike ours by chance. That's not impossible, just as it's not impossible for a random animal to type war and peace accidentally, but it would not have to be such a mind boggling miracle if the animal was intelligent enough to know what it was doing, it could be relatively easy, mundane, routine even, that's the unique power of explanation that only creative intelligence possesses.

 

[McBell]

But all we can actually observe is that there was, a very specific creation event,

Bold empty claim.
Care to substantiate it?

anything else is speculation, multiverses, M theory, string theory, quantum fluctuations are all interesting.. and it's not difficult to make a theory 'fit the math' when you are free to make it do so.. all those others did but collapsed star, quantum fluctuation, random universe, all have to stumble upon the highly specific code that runs a functional life sustaining universe ike ours by chance. That's not impossible, just as it's not impossible for a random animal to type war and peace accidentally, but it would not have to be such a mind boggling miracle if the animal was intelligent enough to know what it was doing, it could be relatively easy, mundane, routine even, that's the unique power of explanation that only creative intelligence possesses.

Interesting that you would remove your "creation" claim from your list and present it as having to be.
Do you plan on substantiating the claim or are you content with your dishonest presenting belief as fact?

 

[Ouroboros]

That's possible yes, and it was also the rationale that was explicitly followed by static, eternal, steady state, big crunch models: exclude a creation event and you make God redundant. no creation = no creator.. and I'd concede that implication if any were ever proven. But all we can actually observe is that there was, a very specific creation event, anything else is speculation, multiverses, M theory, string theory, quantum fluctuations are all interesting.. and it's not difficult to make a theory 'fit the math' when you are free to make it do so.. all those others did

Well, I have an issue with the concept of any theory made to fit the math since that's pretty much what currently all we have regarding Big Bang as well. There are issues with the current Big Bang model. It doesn't fit perfectly and has been modified with gum, tape, and rubberbands for a while. So if the Big Bang model (or theory) is all that you trust in but not any of the other models based on math, then you're begin very selective and not very critical. Put it this way, I don't take Big Bang as a 100% proven fact. It's not completely conclusive. Most points to that this is the best fitting model, currently, so don't throw a party yet.

but collapsed star, quantum fluctuation, random universe, all have to stumble upon the highly specific code that runs a functional life sustaining universe ike ours by chance. That's not impossible, just as it's not impossible for a random animal to type war and peace accidentally, but it would not have to be such a mind boggling miracle if the animal was intelligent enough to know what it was doing, it could be relatively easy, mundane, routine even, that's the unique power of explanation that only creative intelligence possesses.

Whatever makes you happy.

If I would suggest any reading for you, look up what people like Spinoza, Eckhart, and Spong. They all have a much wider, deeper, and all-encompassing view of God and God's nature.

Put it this way, God's nature is Nature.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, I have an issue with the concept of any theory made to fit the math since that's pretty much what currently all we have regarding Big Bang as well. There are issues with the current Big Bang model. It doesn't fit perfectly and has been modified with gum, tape, and rubberbands for a while. So if the Big Bang model (or theory) is all that you trust in but not any of the other models based on math, then you're begin very selective and not very critical. Put it this way, I don't take Big Bang as a 100% proven fact. It's not completely conclusive. Most points to that this is the best fitting model, currently, so don't throw a party yet.


Whatever makes you happy.

If I would suggest any reading for you, look up what people like Spinoza, Eckhart, and Spong. They all have a much wider, deeper, and all-encompassing view of God and God's nature.

Put it this way, God's nature is Nature.

OK, so that's interesting, you don't believe in the big bang, you still side with the static/eternal models yes? I've no problem with that, I agree we should never accept anything on consensus. I think the whole point of science is NOT having to take anyone's word for it-

So I don't take the BB as 100%, I do see a universe in various stages of development, that appears to be ageing, the speed of light giving us the ability to look back in time. I believe as Galileo said, Nature is the executor of Gods laws..
otherwise the laws of nature must be accountable for by.. those very same laws, that's one paradox creative intelligence can solve

But c'mon- make me happy? does your belief make you happy? isn't it more interesting to debate on the assumption we are equally capable of critical thought? If you assume somebody believes differently because they are simply intellectually inferior.. again that only makes it difficult to change your mind

was Lemaitre smarter/happier than Hoyle? Does it matter?

 

[Ouroboros]

OK, so that's interesting, you don't believe in the big bang,

This pisses me off.

And this too:

isn't it more interesting to debate on the assumption we are equally capable of critical thought? If you assume somebody believes differently because they are simply intellectually inferior..

You are completely misunderstanding everything I'm saying. There's nothing more to say. Bye.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This pisses me off.

And this too:


You are completely misunderstanding everything I'm saying. There's nothing more to say. Bye.

many atheists seem to have very thin skins here, there are plenty quick to engage in ad hominem attacks, but few willing to defend their own beliefs on their own merits, I thought perhaps you were an exception.

 

[Bunyip]

many atheists seem to have very thin skins here, there are plenty quick to engage in ad hominem attacks, but few willing to defend their own beliefs on their own merits, I thought perhaps you were an exception.

No offence, but much of the frustration appears to react to your being very obtuse. You seem to go to a great deal of trouble to misunderstand what anyone says to you. Unfortunately it is a characteristic of discusion with a creationist. If creationism responded to evidence it would simply not exist.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No offence, but much of the frustration appears to react to your being very obtuse. You seem to go to a great deal of trouble to misunderstand what anyone says to you. Unfortunately it is a characteristic of discusion with a creationist. If creationism responded to evidence it would simply not exist.

I'm not really a creationist, but that's OK, I don't expect everyone to understand everything I say. If they don't I tend to assume it's my failure to communicate, not your failure to understand. But when you are a skeptic of atheism on a site like this, you find yourself defending on many fronts at the same time from different people, who naturally jump in with each other. So it's difficult to answer multiple questions simultaneously

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not really a creationist, but that's OK, I don't expect everyone to understand everything I say. If they don't I tend to assume it's my failure to communicate, not your failure to understand. But when you are a skeptic of atheism on a site like this, you find yourself defending on many fronts at the same time from different people, who naturally jump in with each other. So it's difficult to answer multiple questions simultaneously

Being 'a skeptic of atheism' doesn't make sense - how can you be skeptical of a disbelief? What do you mean by that? As to creationism - so you do not believe in a young earth or literal genesis?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Being 'a skeptic of atheism' doesn't make sense - how can you be skeptical of a disbelief? As to creationism - so you do not believe in a young earth or literal genesis?

I believe Lemaitre was right as we discussed before I think? depends how 'literal' but credit where it's due, Genesis was clearly more accurate than Hoyle and the majority of atheist academia regarding the origins of the universe.

you can't be skeptical of a disbelief? then you can't be skeptical of my 'anaturalism', I don't make any claim, I simply reject naturalistic origins -

 

[Bunyip]

I believe Lemaitre was right as we discussed before I think? depends how 'literal' but credit where it's due, Genesis was clearly more accurate than Hoyle and the majority of atheist academia regarding the origins of the universe.

The atheist academics and the theist academics came to exactly the same conclusions Guy. There is no difference between the conclusions of athiest or theist cosmologists. Genesis is also demonstrably not accurate.

you can't be skeptical of a disbelief? then you can't be skeptical of my 'anaturalism', I don't make any claim, I simply reject naturalistic origins -

A-naturalism is tantamount to a declaration of insanity mate, I'd think a bit harder about that one if I were you.

 

[McBell]

I'm not really a creationist, but that's OK, I don't expect everyone to understand everything I say. If they don't I tend to assume it's my failure to communicate, not your failure to understand. But when you are a skeptic of atheism on a site like this, you find yourself defending on many fronts at the same time from different people, who naturally jump in with each other. So it's difficult to answer multiple questions simultaneously

Cry me a river...
You flat refuse to answer questions that make you look foolish, for example, why the 40 year wait?
You continuously "misunderstand" points that make you look foolish.
Now you are attempting to play the martyr.

I am not buying your snake oil.
You got a different tactic under your belt?
If so, you might want to switch to it sooner rather than later.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

"... when you are a skeptic of atheism ..."

What? You don't believe that atheism exists? Or is it that you don't feel that atheists have sufficiently demonstrated that atheism exists?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What? You don't believe that atheism exists? Or is it that you don't feel that atheists have sufficiently demonstrated that atheism exists?

I think he is currently reaching since he has been backed into a corner.