Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do Creationists have faith in a second rate creator?
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 61 of 82 (536949)
11-25-2009 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by purpledawn
11-25-2009 12:59 PM


Re: The Creator
Chimpanzee writes:
Therefore, if they think objectively, they should be able to see that there is no justifiable reason to think that, if there is a creator, it is likely to be anything like the one they currently believe in.
pd writes:
Why is it unlikely that a creator would be anything like the one they currently believe in? Objectively speaking of course.
Exactly. Give us some objective reasons for your conclusion.
(Of course, I will respond to your earlier post too, but this will help me.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2009 12:59 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 62 of 82 (536968)
11-26-2009 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by purpledawn
11-25-2009 12:59 PM


Re: The Creator
quote:
Therefore, if they think objectively, they should be able to see that there is no justifiable reason to think that, if there is a creator, it is likely to be anything like the one they currently believe in.
Why is it unlikely that a creator would be anything like the one they currently believe in? Objectively speaking of course.
If you haven't grasped that you haven't grasped the whole point I'm making.
I don't know how many gods of antiquity there are. For the sake of argument, let's say that there are 100 that are competing for the role of creator. Without any empirical evidence to support any of them, on that level there is no better than a 1 in 100 chance of any of them being a real creator. That is a well-known old argument - at least all but one of them must be made up. They could ALL be made up, of course.
I'm taking that argument further - infinitely further. There is no logical rule that says you must limit your consideration of who is a real creator to the gods of antiquity. There could be an infinite number of other creators proposed. Many more may well be proposed in the future. Some of these might be only slightly different to some of the gods of antiquity; some might be totally different concepts altogether. There's an infinite number of possibilities. Without any empirical evidence to support any of them as being real, on that level they all rank as being equally unlikely to exist. On that level, they all now have a 1 in infinity chance of existing. And however many you think of, it's still possible that none of them exist.
So you can then ask the question, if we don't have any empirical evidence for any of them, is there anything about any of their characters that means you could say, "if there is a creator, logically or morally it would have to be as this one is described"?
So that is my challenge. Is there anything about any of the gods of antiquity, or any other creator that has not been previously proposed, that you could say it would have to be the real creator because of this or that logical or moral reason?
I have already expressed why I think the Judeo-Christian God has flaws in his description that means there is no reason why he should stand out from the crowd on a logical or moral level.
So, the ball is in your court to suggest any logical, moral or even empirical reason for considering that God or any other specific creator is the real one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2009 12:59 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2009 5:43 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 63 of 82 (536970)
11-26-2009 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
11-26-2009 5:34 AM


Re: The Creator
quote:
I don't know how many gods of antiquity there are. For the sake of argument, let's say that there are 100 that are competing for the role of creator. Without any empirical evidence to support any of them, on that level there is no better than a 1 in 100 chance of any of them being a real creator. That is a well-known old argument - at least all but one of them must be made up. They could ALL be made up, of course.
Please provide a link or article concerning this "well known old argument".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 5:34 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 6:17 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 65 by RickJB, posted 11-26-2009 6:23 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 64 of 82 (536972)
11-26-2009 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by purpledawn
11-26-2009 5:43 AM


Re: The Creator
Please provide a link or article concerning this "well known old argument".
While I understand that we should be able to support our statements with evidence, I do think you are being unnecessarily pedantic. I only have a limited amount of time to spend on these discussions, and I think I have given more than a reasonable amount of time so far.
In the context of this discussion, it doesn't actually matter whether or not it is a "well known old argument" or if I am the first person ever to make it. The argument is the same. So what is the point of me proving whether or not it is an old argument?
Having said that, I will take the time to find an article or link that contains this old argument, but only if you confirm back to me that you genuinely have never heard that argument before, and if you can explain why you need to see a link to someone else making the same point as I have. Please bear in mind that it may take me some time to find such a link, as I don't keep references to hand for all the old arguments I have ever heard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2009 5:43 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2009 6:25 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4991 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 65 of 82 (536974)
11-26-2009 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by purpledawn
11-26-2009 5:43 AM


Re: The Creator
purpledawn writes:
Please provide a link or article concerning this "well known old argument".
Why not just address the argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2009 5:43 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 66 of 82 (536975)
11-26-2009 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
11-26-2009 6:17 AM


Fiction
I'm not the one in this thread making things up, using hearsay without verification or refusing to provide support for statements made. You are.
If you don't have time to do the research and provide support, then don't expect others to provide support or evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 6:17 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 6:41 AM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 68 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 7:41 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 67 of 82 (536977)
11-26-2009 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by purpledawn
11-26-2009 6:25 AM


Re: Fiction
I'm not the one in this thread making things up, using hearsay without verification or refusing to provide support for statements made. You are.
If you don't have time to do the research and provide support, then don't expect others to provide support or evidence.
May I remind you that I am not the one proposing the existence of a creator. I started this thread by asking why others believe in a particular creator. I asked the first question, asking them to provide the evidence or logic to support THEIR proposition.
I ask you again (for the last time):
Have you genuinely never heard the argument that at least all but one of the previously proposed creators must be made up? And even if that's the case, why do you need me to point you to someone else making that point?
I do not have to justify every single word or sentence I put forward unless it is critical to the argument. We could never get anywhere in a debate if it was necessary to qualify every single word or sentence. And we're not getting anywhere in this debate because of your pedantic attitude. Please note that when you made the point that people believe in God for cultural reasons, I didn't ask you to support that with evidence. It's not necessary.
Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2009 6:25 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 68 of 82 (536986)
11-26-2009 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by purpledawn
11-26-2009 6:25 AM


Re: Fiction
I'm not the one in this thread making things up, using hearsay without verification or refusing to provide support for statements made. You are.
Just for you, I have googled my argument and straight away found this facebook page of someone I have never heard of making exactly the same point.
Update Your Browser | Facebook
I hope this satisfies you that I don't just make things up to mislead anyone, and that you will now either address my argument proplerly or leave this discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2009 6:25 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2009 7:56 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 69 of 82 (536991)
11-26-2009 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
11-26-2009 7:41 AM


Ambiguous
I don't see how the link deals with your argument presented for this thread. I feel the question keeps changing.
Good Luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 7:41 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by RickJB, posted 11-26-2009 9:03 AM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 71 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 9:11 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4991 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 70 of 82 (537008)
11-26-2009 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by purpledawn
11-26-2009 7:56 AM


Re: Ambiguous
Purpledawn,
Having watched this thread I feel that you've really not engaged with JUC in a fair way. If someone asks you what the time is do you ask them for previous examples of such a question being asked?
Arguing that JUC's initial characterisations were limited is all well and good, but you now appear to be looking for increasingly spurious reasons not to answer JUC's question. Why is that?
Why should any one god be chosen above all other possibilities? What makes one concept of God more valid, so to speak, than another?
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2009 7:56 AM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 9:14 AM RickJB has not replied
 Message 73 by Iblis, posted 11-26-2009 9:43 AM RickJB has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 71 of 82 (537011)
11-26-2009 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by purpledawn
11-26-2009 7:56 AM


Re: Ambiguous
I can now see that I was wrong to describe you as bureaucratic and pedantic. They are clearly not strong enough terms.
Further back in this discussion, you asked me to explain my motivation in raising the topic. So, I took the trouble to explain to you why I am concerned about religious belief, even though my concerns and my motivation are not directly relevant to the discussion. After I gave you my candid answer, you then had the audacity to accuse me of ranting against religion!
Then, in message 60 you asked:
Why is it unlikely that a creator would be anything like the one they currently believe in? Objectively speaking of course.
So I then took the trouble to answer your question directly and gave you a very detailed re-explanation of my whole argument.
Did you finally respond to my argument? No.
You then asked me to provide a link or article to the "well known old argument" I had mentioned.
Again, I took the trouble to do this for you, and gave you exactly the right link you asked for, even though it has no relevance to the main point.
Do you show any appreciation of that and finally get round to responding to my main argument?
Surprise, surprise, no! You are now saying you don't see how the link deals with my argument presented for this thread. And you even have the audacity to say:
I feel the question keeps changing.
!!!???!!!
You must think that I and everyone else on this formum are complete morons. It is YOU who keeps changing the questions.
Unless you respond directly to my main argument, which I have re-phrased several times just for you, then you and I are done.
(Actually, I guess there must be some morons on this site, seeing that you have somehow accumulated a rating of 4.3!!?!!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2009 7:56 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 72 of 82 (537013)
11-26-2009 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by RickJB
11-26-2009 9:03 AM


Re: Ambiguous
Hi RickJB
I appreciate your comments and support here. I think I've been dealing with a complete timewaster.
Cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by RickJB, posted 11-26-2009 9:03 AM RickJB has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 73 of 82 (537018)
11-26-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by RickJB
11-26-2009 9:03 AM


apples and orange cones
Concepts of deity which are emergent are vastly more useful than those which are fabricated, because they have recursive information depth.
Purpledawn's gods evolved; JumpedUpChimpanzee's are designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by RickJB, posted 11-26-2009 9:03 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-26-2009 9:59 AM Iblis has replied
 Message 75 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2009 10:01 AM Iblis has not replied
 Message 81 by RickJB, posted 11-26-2009 11:52 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 74 of 82 (537019)
11-26-2009 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Iblis
11-26-2009 9:43 AM


Re: apples and orange cones
Thanks for your comments, but the thread is not about how "useful" creators are, it's about the validity of any claims for them being real. It's about people actually believing in their existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Iblis, posted 11-26-2009 9:43 AM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Iblis, posted 11-26-2009 10:23 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 75 of 82 (537020)
11-26-2009 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Iblis
11-26-2009 9:43 AM


Re: apples and orange cones
Concepts of deity which are emergent are vastly more useful than those which are fabricated, because they have recursive information depth.
Purpledawn's gods evolved; JumpedUpChimpanzee's are designed.
Both are designed (though the ultimate source is under dispute whether from the supernatural entities themselves or from humans). The difference between PD and JOC's existence of such deities are in amount of time this extrasomatic information (not inherent to the genetic/biological information of the human body/mind itself) have been allowed to accumulate and compound (evolve). If JOC was clever enough he could probably invent somewhat believable supernatural entities and given enough time people would believe they really existed. Case in point, L. Ron Hubbard’s invented, yes invented, religion Scientology, only 50 some years old or Joseph Smith's Mormanism (or now more commonly known Latter Day Saints).
The real question is: can anyone provide verifiable (and falsifiable), empirical evidence that such supernatural entity(ies) exist. That is the question that demands an answer.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Iblis, posted 11-26-2009 9:43 AM Iblis 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