"There is No Creator"

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So how do you determine that natural process is purposeless? That the apple exists at all is the result of a whole complex of interrelated processes that when followed, were designed to produce specific results. And in this instance, that specific result was the apple.

I understand that you see evidence of an intelligent designer. I don't. I know of no reason that apples could not exist undesigned and uncreated.

So how have you determined that in spite of processes that are designed to produces specific results, that these results were not deliberate, or intentional? Why is the pull of gravity on the apple presumed not to be an intentional result of an elaborate design process, yet the human's desire to pick up and throw the apple is presumed to be the result of an unnaturally deliberate intent? By what logical mechanism do you make this determination?

We're not going to get very far if you keep assuming that things are designed. I cannot determine that the apple was not intelligently designed, and that option is on my list of candidate hypotheses for the origin of apples, but is the second of two choices, and a distant second at that for logical reasons. If an intelligent designer can exist uncreated and undesigned, then perforce, an apple can. There is no need at this time to inject what appears to be unnecessary complexity into before it is determined that it is necessary.

Well, if you can't "see" natural design, I am very curious what is it that you think scientists have been observing and studying all these years?

The forms and forces of natural phenomena. Incidentally, what I said that I didn't see was evidence of intelligence after you wrote, "Existence expresses more intelligence than we humans possess."

Refusing to acknowledge the obvious is not a "question". It is a bias.

Sorry. I don't see what you do.

Millions of people (mostly atheists) maintain a blinding bias against natural design, for sure, but it's not because they "question" the observation of natural design, it's because they refuse to acknowledge it for what it is.

That's the way I would describe the faith based thinker, but in the reverse. He sees a god because he believes there is one even before he looks.

I do it the other way around. I don't have any reason to believe that there is a god because I see no evidence of one. I don't rule the possibility out, but I also don't rule out the possibility of a race of gods. In both cases, it is merely logically possible, which is not reason enough to take an idea seriously.

An idea becomes interesting when it accounts for observed phenomena not adequately explained by simpler hypotheses. Show me irreducible complexity in a biological system, and suddenly, I need an intelligent designer, but not before.

But I would ask them the same question that I ask you: what is it that they imagine scientists are observing and investigating if not the endless intricacies of natural design?

Exactly that, although I doubt that many scientists use the word design. That's an engineering word, or a word from art which, as I suggested earlier, subliminally suggests a designer.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Biblical creationism asserted as a reality is a lie. ]It is a deliberate lie being told and bought into by people who want to assert their religious texts and the mythology within it as an absolute and unquestionable authority on truth, that they can then use to dominate and subjugate everyone else.It should be rejected and exposed for exactly the fraud that it is.

That's harsher language than I would use. I'd say that it is incorrect to call creationists liars. I reserve the word lie for an act in which the speaker or writer knows he is incorrect and intends to deceive. Whoever wrote Genesis was probably not lying in this sense, and most creationists are not aware that they are wrong. That's what faith does to a mind. It generates a faith based confirmation bias that affects how things are seen thereafter. It's an interesting topic, one I learned about from an Old Earth Creationist and geologist named Glenn Morton, who had earlier been a Young Earth Creationist. You might find this enlightening:

"Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon, Morton''s demon < Creation Science, Morton's Demon >, on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

[snip]

"The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it

[snip]

"But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen."
​

I find Morton sincere and credible. If he says that he was blind to this process, as counterintuitive as that claim may seem, I believe him. This process, as you may know, also goes by the name "antiprocessing"

But as we do so, we should remember that natural design, and the intelligence that it embodies, is our reality.

Not mine. I see no evidence of intelligence in the universe apart from on earth (ignoring our artifacts launched away from earth).

 

[InChrist]

Please discuss.

During the time that Osho, originally known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and the "Rolls-Royce Guru" came to eastern Oregon to set up his community Rajneeshpuram I was living in a nearby town. Whether or not he molested children I am not sure, but it would not surprise me. I also had friends who were involved and lived in the commune, have heard first hand stories and read accounts of the bizarre occult activity and behaviors which took place that I would consider extreme emotional, pychological, and spiritual abuse. He was an ego manic who desired constant devotion and held a supernatural control over his followers. He and members of his group were embroiled in battles over land use regulations and criminal activity even going so far as ..."infecting the salad bars of several restaurants in The Dalles (the county seat of Wasco County) with salmonella, infecting 751 people (including several Wasco County public officials), and resulting in the hospitalization of 45 people. Known as the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, the incident is regarded as the largest biological warfare attack in the history of the United States."
excerpt: Rajneeshpuram - Wikipedia

I would not consider his views valid concerning whether or not there is a Creator, first because he is coming from a spirituality based in mysticism and the occult which leaves no doubt in my mind that he was demonically possessed and secondly he came across as if he was God, so he certainly has no mindset to acknowledge a Creator God to which he is accountable.

25 years after Rajneeshee commune collapsed, truth spills out -- Part 1 of 5
25 years after Rajneeshee commune collapsed, truth spills out -- Part 1 of 5

 

[idav]

Please discuss.

Just from the beginning I agree with the logic however he describes a creation "unto itself" which is where I would throw in the label God for the universe. I agree that throwing in an outside agency creates a "vicious circle" in logic. The universe we know of that. existence that is all knowing, timeless and virtually omnipotent.

 

[JustWondering]

HOW do you know "that the creator [is] more complex than humans"? You don't.

I'm referring mainly to the Abrahamic god, which I would imagine would be an entity of MUCH greater complexity compared to humans if it actually exists, which I highly doubt.

 

[Thief]

I'm referring mainly to the Abrahamic god, which I would imagine would be an entity of MUCH greater complexity compared to humans if it actually exists, which I highly doubt.

and therefore Man is top of the line life form?