Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problem with creationism and god
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 69 of 109 (585983)
10-10-2010 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by herebedragons
10-10-2010 6:30 PM


herebedragons writes:
So, we study the physical world with science and we study God with philosophy and theology.
We don't "study" God. We can only speculate about God. For the most part, one speculation is as good as another, which is why creationism and ID have no validity.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by herebedragons, posted 10-10-2010 6:30 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by herebedragons, posted 10-12-2010 9:46 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 74 of 109 (586275)
10-12-2010 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by herebedragons
10-12-2010 9:46 AM


herebedragons writes:
Actually the problem is not that they "speculate" about God, but that they try to use science to prove their speculation which is not something science is intended to do, since as I proposed, God is outside of and not detectable by physical means
If God is outside of and not detectable by physical means, then presumably that is because He chooses to be so. If He deliberately "hides" from us, for whatever reason, He's the one who's nullifying creationism.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by herebedragons, posted 10-12-2010 9:46 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by herebedragons, posted 10-12-2010 10:53 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 77 of 109 (586287)
10-12-2010 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by herebedragons
10-12-2010 10:53 AM


herebedragons writes:
I am not arguing for or against creationism, only that God wouldn't necessarily need to be created by a "more complex" being.
It doesn't really matter whether the creator's creator is more or less complex. The point is that even if there was a creator, there would be no way of showing that it was "the" creator.
Postulating a creator outside of and not detectable by physical means makes it impossible to identify that creator as "the" creator. That creator could have a more complex creator or a less complex creator or no creator. We have no way of knowing.
Immaterialism is nothing but a shot in the foot for creationists.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by herebedragons, posted 10-12-2010 10:53 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 91 of 109 (586687)
10-14-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 9:51 AM


SignGuy writes:
If i itch, i can stratch thanks to nails. If there is more than normal dust in the air, i can close my eyes.
If the "design" is so efficient, why did we invent sunglasses? Why do we have clothes, shoes, tools? Clearly, it's pretty easy to improve on the "design".
For evolution to work, we don't need those luxury items. We only need to be able to survive long enough to reproduce.
But you'd think that an intelligent designer or creator would have enough sense to anticipate the problems we might encounter and design us a nice modular expansion interface.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 9:51 AM SignGuy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 12:09 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 93 of 109 (586706)
10-14-2010 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 12:09 PM


SignGuy writes:
Certainly we can "improve" it. But we are the only creature that wears them, and for the rest of living things to not need them is efficient.
It isn't that other living things don't need them (sunglasses, etc.); it's just that we humans are the only ones who have evolved the capacity to design them.
The point is that if we can improve on the design, it doesn't say much for the ability of the original designer.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 12:09 PM SignGuy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 2:56 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 95 of 109 (586738)
10-14-2010 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by SignGuy
10-14-2010 2:56 PM


SignGuy writes:
what we lack in natural equipment can be made up by human technology. God gave us the ability to create things like no other creature can.
That's another strike against the idea of a designer/creator. Why would such a good feature (intelligence) be used on only one model?

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by SignGuy, posted 10-14-2010 2:56 PM SignGuy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by SignGuy, posted 10-15-2010 9:30 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 98 of 109 (586884)
10-15-2010 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by SignGuy
10-15-2010 9:30 AM


SignGuy writes:
humans were made in God's image we are special, unique, and some beleive have souls as which animals may not.....animals are just animals for lack of better words
Even worse. Why would a designer give better features - e. g. better eyesight - to the "lesser" designs than he gave to us? And how do weaker eyesight, poorer sense of smell, etc. reflect on "his own image"?

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by SignGuy, posted 10-15-2010 9:30 AM SignGuy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by SignGuy, posted 10-15-2010 11:52 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 101 of 109 (586897)
10-15-2010 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by SignGuy
10-15-2010 11:52 AM


SignGuy writes:
Do animals have the level intimacy one has when they kiss as when two people attracted to one another do?
I just watched a documentary on elephants last night. Apparently, their capacity for intimacy rivals or even surpasses our own.
SignGuy writes:
You would rather give up your ability to create art, music, and poetry in exchange for a fur coat?
Why do I have to give up one for the other? You might as well ask if I'd rather have a car with a stereo or one with wheels. Why couldn't a good designer provide both?

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by SignGuy, posted 10-15-2010 11:52 AM SignGuy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024