The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[Audie]

Honestly, I think Creationists are justified to do that. I believe all Christians should do that, if they were logically coherent. I probably would if I were a Christian, again. For there are very few things that are more detrimental than evolution for the belief of a bible style god.

Actually, evolution by natural selection and belief in a God like the Abrahamic one, are logically mutually contradictory. So, it is untenable to hold them both true.

True, they do not prove creationism , but gettng rid of one huge defeater of their belief system is surely worthy to try, first.

Ciao

- viole

Justified in self deception, intellectual dishonesty,
willful ignorance?

I dont think so.

Of course it is worth a try to falsify ToE.

That is an entirely different thing than readin'
AIG for pratts, or just going "god says /man says".

It calls on one to do a great deal of work, with
vanishingly small chance of success.

 

[Audie]

I'm not interested in answering what he is asking. I thought his question was irrelevant.

Speaking of irrelevant!

You made a false claim, and you say you are not interested in his question.

Ridiculous.

 

[Audie]

This is not a demonstration of your assertion. All you've done is double down and re-assert your assertion and in doing so, you've managed to completely avoid responding to my post. Oh, and you've made a logical fallacy as well (appeal to popularity). Also, not a demonstration of the truth of a claim.


So I'm forced just to repeat myself.


That's not an argument, it's an assertion.

Why should anyone take seriously what Romans 1 has to say about it?

If "the act of creation" is so evident, why are we still waiting for someone to demonstrate that some creator (in this case, the exact creator you believe in and worship) created it that way after all this time? Why has nobody ever been able to actually show that, and instead have to resort to quoting some old book as an authority on the subject? Shouldn't that be really, really easy?

Come now, you know he cannot possibly do it.
He can flee, or dissemble. Answer? Cant do it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Come now, you know he cannot possibly do it.
He can flee, or dissemble. Answer? Cant do it.

But it's just so obvious!

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yes, and that is a survival strength. At least for a while.

By demoting to “metaphor” what is obviously false, can give you some oxygen. Until the next one, and the next one, and the next one. Gasping for air all the time and trying to survive despite all odds and by using reinterpretation acrobatics. And ad hoc solutions, like God tinkering with biology, vulcanoes, climate, asteroids, etc.

Not dissimilar from the attempts to salvage geocentrism by complicating orbits, or by salvaging the lominous ether by introducing ad hoc changes in the equatiions.

Same mantra: save a belief by complicating things. You can always do that. Even when the solution is just crystal clear, amazingly simple and just plain and simply obvious.

Ciao

- viole

There is one easy strategy that fixes it all: Don't assume that the Bible is meant to be a book of science.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Because most people agree (Creation is self-evident!), showing the book yet again trumps the minority of skeptics.

So your best argument is just to say "It's self evident"? That doesn't seem like a very convincing argument.

 

[Audie]

So your best argument is just to say "It's self evident"? That doesn't seem like a very convincing argument.

It is most convincing for some, those who
dont get it that the easiest person to
fool / convince is yourself.

Tossing in something about how there is
something wrong with those who dont see
it so makes it even more convincing.

 

[viole]

There is one easy strategy that fixes it all: Don't assume that the Bible is meant to be a book of science.

I don’t. God does not need science, since He is supposed to perfectly tell us how the Universe works, being its author. We need science because we must, because it provides the best results in general.

But He does not seem to have more clue than bronze age people.

So, what prevented Him from writing:

Guys. Don’t be fooled by the sun moving around. It is the earth that is moving around. And don’t forget, I have nothing to do with you looking like a hairless gorilla, this is just the course of events that I decided to not control. So, do not shoot on me. I know you would have preferred to have wings and such.

Imagine how many discussion he would have saved us.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Justified in self deception, intellectual dishonesty,
willful ignorance?

I dont think so.

Of course it is worth a try to falsify ToE.

That is an entirely different thing than readin'
AIG for pratts, or just going "god says /man says".

It calls on one to do a great deal of work, with
vanishingly small chance of success.

I really do not see how both claims must be believed true, without cognitive dissonances. You need to make compromises, for instance by allowing God tinkering just a bit, every now and then. But that is creationism, too.

Anyway, I also believe that when it comes to garden variety Gods (e.g. the Abrahamic God) it is impossible to assume methodological naturalism (a rule of science) without undercutting essential tenets of the metaphysical belief. Evolution is peanuts. Think of the naturalistic assumption of consciousness as a mechanism of our brain, for instance.

In othere words, if you believe in Jesus, methological naturalism is equal to metaphysical naturalism, for what your belief in Jesus concerns.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

I don’t. God does not need science, since He is supposed to perfectly tell us how the Universe works, being its author. We need science because we must, because it provides the best results in general.

But He does not seem to have more clue than bronze age people.

So, what prevented Him from writing:

Guys. Don’t be fooled by the sun moving around. It is the earth that is moving around. And don’t forget, I have nothing to do with you looking like a hairless gorilla, this is just the course of events that I decided to not control. So, do not shoot on me. I know you would have preferred to have wings and such.

Imagine how many discussion he would have saved us.

Ciao

- viole

It is a weird book for some supernaturally clever to have written

 

[shunyadragon]

WHY do you believe God created everything? Because either you have certain reasons or it's self-evident to you, exactly what Romans 1 is "religiously asserting" in the holy scriptures.

It is a matter faith, and not relying on objective verifiable evidence, which is neutral to the theological/philosophical question. Here you are appealing to your faith and scripture.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But He does not seem to have more clue than bronze age people.

Since the Bible was written by ancient peoples, this isn't surprising.

So, what prevented Him from writing:

Guys. Don’t be fooled by the sun moving around. It is the earth that is moving around. And don’t forget, I have nothing to do with you looking like a hairless gorilla, this is just the course of events that I decided to not control. So, do not shoot on me. I know you would have preferred to have wings and such.

Imagine how many discussion he would have saved us.

Ciao

- viole

I am an atheist, so I tend to agree with the concept of God forgoing the need of imperfect messengers. However, I also don't see how a lack of scientific accuracy necessarily disproves the Bible being inspired by God. Or better put, supernatural inspiration is unfalsifiable. For the most part, if a Christian says that the Bible is not supposed to be an infallible science book I tend to agree with them.

 

[viole]

It is a weird book for some supernaturally clever to have written

Well, since His brain is probably not the result of evolutionary processes geared towards survival on this planet, it is possible that this is the reason why it looks weird to us.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

Well, since His brain is probably not the result of evolutionary processes geared towards survival on this planet, it is possible that this is the reason why it looks weird to us.

Ciao

- viole

I am thinking of the low information density among other things.

For a "god" it is not a very impressive book.

And it is full of bs

 

[Audie]

Since the Bible was written by ancient peoples, this isn't surprising.



I am an atheist, so I tend to agree with the concept of God forgoing the need of imperfect messengers. However, I also don't see how a lack of scientific accuracy necessarily disproves the Bible being inspired by God. Or better put, supernatural inspiration is unfalsifiable. For the most part, if a Christian says that the Bible is not supposed to be an infallible science book I tend to agree with them.

"lack of scientific accuracy"?????

can we give you a understatement of the week award?

 

[viole]

I am thinking of the low information density among other things.

For a "god" it is not a very impressive book.

And it is full of bs

Well, yes. The Hume style test has an obvious answer.

What is more likely: that God has an alien mind that we cannot possibly understand, or that the Bible has been written by clueless people in the bronze age?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

"lack of scientific accuracy"?????

can we give you a understatement of the week award?

Do you expect scientific accuracy from a Star Trek episode?

 

[viole]

Since the Bible was written by ancient peoples, this isn't surprising.



I am an atheist, so I tend to agree with the concept of God forgoing the need of imperfect messengers. However, I also don't see how a lack of scientific accuracy necessarily disproves the Bible being inspired by God. Or better put, supernatural inspiration is unfalsifiable. For the most part, if a Christian says that the Bible is not supposed to be an infallible science book I tend to agree with them.

What you call lack of scientific (factual) accuracy, is equivalent to the lack of mathematical accuracy that would derive from statements like “1+1=3547”.

True, that does not falsify God, but it would raise serious questions about His knowledge of what He is talking about.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What you call lack of scientific (factual) accuracy, is equivalent to the lack of mathematical accuracy that would derive from statements like “1+1=3547”.

What you are saying is that Aesop's Fables don't hold any wisdom because animals don't talk. You are saying that the scientific inaccuracies of Aesop's Fables proves them wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is a matter faith, and not relying on objective verifiable evidence, which is neutral to the theological/philosophical question. Here you are appealing to your faith and scripture.

I do not consider relying on scriptures as convincingly self-evident. Relying on scripture in this way makes your argument very circular.