Why it's easier to be a creationist than an atheist

[osgart]

When you are dealing with theoretical astrophysics, next to nothing is intuitive.

Why do you find the philosophical arguments for more convincing than those against?

Sounds like a very easy way to outsmart ones self, when no intuition applies to anything.

Intuition with self reasoning cant be totally wrong.

 

[Jumi]

Well, yes-- but if you've studied history of religions, you'll note a pattern begins to show, over time.

The more rigid a religion is, the less able to adapt it is, and eventually, it fades away.

I think the various folks who are against science are more adept at spreading non-religion than anyone else. They just won't see it though, blaming education and all sorts of social liberal ideas. Same goes on in some extreme left circles too, with same kind of expected reactionaries springing up to oppose them.

Contrariwise, religions that show some flexibility, evolve (however slowly) and seem to just manage to survive over time.

My country's state church has female priests, free charging your phone and all sorts of activities welcoming LGBT and things that were unimaginable in my youth. They've managed to save the sinking ship somewhat and couldn't possible do more, they're a bit unlucky that the US conservative type Christians are a liability to them because they have broadcasts here too now.

My take is this: Religions must evolve, or they are either replaced by others, or they die out.

I think this even works for parties and movements. The old chinese wisdom said man at his birth is supple and weak, at his death, firm and strong.

How many Druids do we know, anyway..... (wait... isn't there a Respected Druid on this very forum? Kudos to that person, for refusing to follow the trends. <no sarcasm intended here> If ever we meet in meatspace, I'll cheerfully buy him a beer or other drink of choice)

She might have something interesting to say in this thread, being a biologist, but I suspect she will stay away.

 

[exchemist]

In the Beginning Was the Beginning

Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning

This article i thought provided an overview of the current scientific stance on the beginning of the universe. Of course it may have changed since the time of the article.

Im in doubt of either side of it. But am compelled to think an intelligent yet primitive savage force exists.

The cosmological argument is very very reasonable as to the existence of an uncaused first cause.

Something from quantum nothing probably means that we dont have the tools of reasoning to adequately address the issue.

Yes I certainly think science cannot as yet address this issue with any conviction. People make speculative mathematical models, but at present none of them are even close to making any testable predictions, which is what one would need to consider them scientific theories. In effect, the concepts of mathematical physics are being enlisted in a metaphysical exercise! But I suppose it would be rash to rule out the possibility that testable predictions may one day emerge.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

When you are dealing with theoretical astrophysics, next to nothing is intuitive.

Why do you find the philosophical arguments for more convincing than those against?

For anyone thinking astrophysics is non-intuitive? (and I agree, btw)

Take a look at a layman's explanation of Quantum Mechanics. *whew*

In the world of QM? There isn't even any cause and effect....

 

[Audie]

Sounds like a very easy way to outsmart ones self, when no intuition applies to anything.

Intuition with self reasoning cant be totally wrong.

Not terribly smart so so completely distort what I said, out of all recognition. That is so bad it isnt even a strawman.

I said nothing remotely like that.

And, intuition can and very often is wrong wrong wrong.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I think the various folks who are against science are more adept at spreading non-religion than anyone else. They just won't see it though, blaming education and all sorts of social liberal ideas. Same goes on in some extreme left circles too, with same kind of expected reactionaries springing up to oppose them.


My country's state church has female priests, free charging your phone and all sorts of activities welcoming LGBT and things that were unimaginable in my youth. They've managed to save the sinking ship somewhat and couldn't possible do more, they're a bit unlucky that the US conservative type Christians are a liability to them because they have broadcasts here too now.


I think this even works for parties and movements. The old chinese wisdom said man at his birth is supple and weak, at his death, firm and strong.


She might have something interesting to say in this thread, being a biologist, but I suspect she will stay away.

Re: Spreading non-religion.

There is a saying: It is easier to accept a simple and comfortable lie, than a complex and difficult truth.

One of the more difficult aspects of recognizing the scope of the Observable Universe, is it's magnitude-- and how insignificant the Solar System is within it (nevermind the minute infestation we call "life" on an even less relevant bit of flotsam 3 places out from the Sun...)

Humans are a lot of things-- but one thing seemly universal among them is the sense of Self, or what is characterized as Ego.

Studying the Cosmos can have a humbling effect on one's Ego.

"What do you mean, I'm not Cosmically Significant?"

 

[exchemist]

For anyone thinking astrophysics is non-intuitive? (and I agree, btw)

Take a look at a layman's explanation of Quantum Mechanics. *whew*

In the world of QM? There isn't even any cause and effect....

Audie I'm not sure it is quite true that there is no cause and effect in QM. Though if you can refer me to a source that explains this assertion, I'd be interested to read it.

What QM does seem to knock for six is the Newtonian mechanistic idea of determinism, due to the principle of indeterminacy and so on. I'd have said the big (and to me strangely comforting) insight from QM is that there are fundamental limits to how much we can know about something.

 

[osgart]

Not terribly smart so so completely distort what I said, out of all recognition. That is so bad it isnt even a strawman.

I said nothing remotely like that.

And, intuition can and very often is wrong wrong wrong.

I am only speaking for myself, not you.

Intuition to me is the starting point of all inquiry. While it can often be wrong, eventually some of it, when tested, will be right if you consider every possibility within your grasp, when applying reason to experience. Applying reason to experience makes for greater intuitions.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Audie I'm not sure it is quite true that there is no cause and effect in QM. Though if you can refer me to a source that explains this assertion, I'd be interested to read it.

What QM does seem to knock for six is the Newtonian mechanistic idea of determinism, due to the principle of indeterminacy and so on. I'd have said the big (and to me strangely comforting) insight from QM is that there are fundamental limits to how much we can know about something.

Cause-and-effect necessarily requires a smooth transition from the pasts, through now, into tomorrow.

But if you attempt to impose such timely restriction at the QM level? You get the weird and seemingly impossible contradiction of the cause coming well into the future of the supposed effect.

Which, naturally, makes little or no sense.

Since, as I understand QM, everything is based on probabilities. And really, that it's cause-and-effect as we see things, so I think I'm safe in simplifying things to say, "There is no Cause And Effect at the QM level of reality".

 

[Valjean]

Creationism, at least the usual variety of it, denies evolution having happened. Usually when theists believe God had to do with evolution they call it theistic evolution. Of course there's the in-between of intelligent design...

Didn't the term "Intelligent Design" take off after it was substituted for "creationism" in a new edition of the Creationist book Of Pandas and People? As a direct substitution it was a perfect synonym, not an offshoot or in-between term.

intelligent design - Wiktionary

 

[Jesster]

Didn't the term "Intelligent Design" take off after it was substituted for "creationism" in a new edition of the Creationist book Of Pandas and People? As a direct substitution it was a perfect synonym, not an offshoot or in-between term.

intelligent design - Wiktionary

Correct

 

[osgart]

Cause-and-effect necessarily requires a smooth transition from the pasts, through now, into tomorrow.

But if you attempt to impose such timely restriction at the QM level? You get the weird and seemingly impossible contradiction of the cause coming well into the future of the supposed effect.

Which, naturally, makes little or no sense.

Since, as I understand QM, everything is based on probabilities. And really, that it's cause-and-effect as we see things, so I think I'm safe in simplifying things to say, "There is no Cause And Effect at the QM level of reality".

So the future cause causes the past effect. My intuition on that is that there is a time force that runs contrary to normal time. Normal time going from past, present, future. The contrary time effect runs from future, to present, to past.

I suppose if time is linear, then perhaps an outside of time is possible. And if we could predict the future force upon the present, and the past, then perhaps we could alter our own time scale.

Maybe we exist in a bubble of time. That if you were to step outside of the bubble you could view the whole timescale of living history.

If there is an omnipresent force in nature then it exists at all points of all times. Thats my intuition on the spooky action at a distance in quantum entanglement.

 

[Valjean]

That is your opinion.
I have a different opinion.

But all opinions aren't equal. They vary in supporting evidence and logical reasoning. Some are more valid than others.

to believe that all of these scientific mechanisms were in place, to create all the resources and creatures and sun, without the help of a creator, seems completely unreasonable to me.... I'm sorry I'm this way... but at this time am unable to see it any differently

A thing is either reasonable or not. Add "to me" and you've left the realm of reason for that of emotion. The fact that you're 'unable' to follow the supporting reasoning or evidence does not diminish the evidence.

I believe there is evidence for theistic evolution

creationists like me don't believe something came from nothing... we believe an intelligent spirit was working with scientific mechanisms to bring it about... do you believe the material World always existed?

So where did the intelligent spirit come from?
Why don't you believe something came from No-thing?
If the scientific mechanisms were sufficient to create the universe, what's the need to posit a God?

If Not, it had to be put together

But your lack of unawareness of how it was put together, unwillingness to consider (or, as you claim, incapability of understanding) the evidence-supported explanations of cosmology and physics, is not evidence of magical spirits. Nor would this spiritual magic explain the phenomenon in question.

The ancients' lack of understanding of Earth's rotation did not justify, and was not evidence for, the belief that a God rode a golden chariot across the sky each day.

 

[exchemist]

Cause-and-effect necessarily requires a smooth transition from the pasts, through now, into tomorrow.

But if you attempt to impose such timely restriction at the QM level? You get the weird and seemingly impossible contradiction of the cause coming well into the future of the supposed effect.

Which, naturally, makes little or no sense.

Since, as I understand QM, everything is based on probabilities. And really, that it's cause-and-effect as we see things, so I think I'm safe in simplifying things to say, "There is no Cause And Effect at the QM level of reality".

Oh sorry I'm going nuts, mixing you up with Audie.

Yes that's true, there are probabilities governing what happens but, all the same, QM interactions are caused and have effects. An atom absorbs a photon and as a result is promoted to an excited state, is it not? No photon no excitation. Though I suppose the process is governed by a transition probability, so you cannot say whether a given individual photon will or will not get absorbed.

But explain a bit more about the cause coming into the future of the supposed effect. I don't understand that.

 

[Spiderman]

You opened the thread purporting to present evidence for an intelligent creator but that evidence fell apart under scrutiny.

Your inability to believe is irrelevant to the facts. If you’re acknowledging that you’re incapable of believing otherwise because it’s “too difficult” for you, you’re in no position to assert what is or isn’t true. That’d be like a blind man telling you what colour your car really is.

You are not in a position to assert what is or isn't true either

The Title of this thread was "It's easier to be a creationist than an atheist", and I pointed out why it is so difficult for me to believe that the material earth, plants, people, and resources could exist by scientific mechanisms that had no assistance from a higher intelligent creative power.

I made it clear in the OP, that I found it completely unreasonable, illogical, irrational, and impossible...that doesn't mean it is...but I find it that way, and I wasn't speaking for everybody...saying it is easier to be a creationist, is not saying that we know better necessarily...it's personal experience and my ability to reason.

 

[Spiderman]

First, the Big Bang didn't create these. The carbon in diamonds was mostly produced in the cores of stars. Gold and Silver were mostly produced in the late stages of supernovas or hypernovas, where nuclear reactions happen.



No, these birds came much, much later. The BB happened about 13.7 billion years ago. Birds first appeared about 140 million years ago.



Once again, the Earth didn't form until about 9 billion years after the BB. Gravity is why most large things in the universe are round.



You have it backwards. The *earth* is in the right place.



Again, all of these are much, much later. The Earth didn't form until around 4.5 billion years ago--the universe is about 13.7 billion years old.

Oil is a product of decay of living things. It formed *after* living things developed.




The Earth formed about the same time as the sun and the rest of our solar system. They all formed from a large cloud of gas and dust, which collapsed because of gravity. We see the same process happening today in certain nebula. Look up the EGGs of the Orion Nebula.



The Earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. The sun is much, much, much larger than the earth.

The Big Bang has been good to us!



yep. Sometimes you have to think in order to find truth.

The big bang gave us all of those things in the OP, in the same way that Jesus Christ gave us a Pope.

 

[Spiderman]

Can't or won't there is a rather larger difference here.

I've studied too many things like this:
Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia

There are a lot of ways the creator has left evidence for people that has converted many skeptics and atheists.

Many people just continue to ignore it

 

[Spiderman]

Reasoning about the origin of the Universe is an exercise in creativity. We simply don't have the means or grounds to understand how being came into existence. It is, however, reasonable to believe, IMO, that the Universe arose out of a potential for it to do so...but beyond that we can know nothing at this time.

As our science improves, however, we may come to understand something of the configuration of this Universe which would lead us to contemplate alternate configurations and maybe even a background potential out of which these multiple configurations might arise. Who knows?

Otherwise, we have metaphors we can use to try and relate to the notion of a creator. Metaphors are great but it should always be noted that they are only ever partially correct. For instance, God as a parent. We can get much benefit from this metaphor as we reach out to God as a parent in our lives who is trying to raise us up in this creation. However, would you also accept that God might have co/pro-created this Universe with a Goddess? And that this God and Goddess might have been compelled for "super-natural biological" reasons to want to "give birth" to a new creation? For me this idea is becoming more and more appealing and I long to hear the stories of how Mr and Mrs (or were they same sex? or were there three of them?) Creator got together and decided (to the extent they had any control over the matter, though they certainly were to be held responsible by their peers) to have a baby Universe together. I wonder if they leave it with its grandparents from time to time so that they can have a vacation?

Metaphors are tools that the human mind has used to create language (the Word) itself and it gives us "handles" of meaning to grasp when we "reach out" into the mystery that "surrounds" our existence.

Yes, there may have been a goddess involved

 

[Spiderman]

So...what's wrong with getting all excited about the Big Bang, and the processes of evolution, and thinking "so THAT'S how God Did IT!"

Nothing at all...I'm not against the big bang theory or evolution

 

[Spiderman]

The old timers who thought up the gods didnt know any of that, so,
it isnt true now either.

Not at all.

I'm not arguing that the Bible is true or Ancient Christians had it right.
They may have had the truth about a creator existing, but often misunderstood what the creator was telling them, or started symbolic stories that we weren't supposed to take literally to make a point, and started traditions that were human rather than inspired by God