Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

The creation of the universe did not end with the initial explosion into the current system of dimensions and the interactions of matter and energy. It is an ongoing process and violent and significant changes are occurring microsecond by microsecond as we progress through time. There is no supernatural supervision now apparent and it seems very unlikely there ever was, Humanity plays pretty much no part in this process and the concept that this theater was put into existence for humanity is an extraordinary bit of monstrous hubris that can only be regarded as comic.

The argument from design is called the teleological argument (although its word meaning doesn't refer to design but "purpose"). A work of engineering, at the very least, suggests an engineer. The aqueducts are after all merely stone and with the proper time and weather could have formed by themselves.... but the suggestion in their construction of the designs of an engineer in coordination with their references in history suggests that the aqueducts at least may have been designed and constructed rather than form on their own.

Existence is not a predicate in the modern versions of the cosmological, transcendental, conceptualist and ontological arguments.



I assume you are talking about the ontological argument as formulated by Plantinga. It is a logical proof only if you accept that there are great making properties (GMP). Traditional ontological arguments (after Hume, but before Plantinga) require one to accept the possibility of God. Both GMPs and the logical possibility of God make the arguments persuasive (certainly more persuasive than their negation), but someone can deny the existence of a GMP and escape the argument. The main issue I have with the ontological argument, is that it is not a simple argument to understand (though when properly understood is actually quite powerful but not a proof); one has to usually discuss all sorts of (actually really bad) objections to it.

Like: doesn't it work equally well for a God that does not exist?
NO! In modal logic there is no such thing, as necessary nonexistance that exists in a possible world, it is a logical contradiction.

Like: doesn't it work for a maximally great Pizza?
NO! There are logically possible worlds without Pizza.

Etc.

But what about Pizza on Earth, good will toward men?

jest kidding!

Seriously, I agree with AngelRho that some people misuse science in an attempt to disprove God. What science has done is show that there is much evidence and reason to believe that the earth is ancient and life evolves, and that there is no such evidence yet found to support a young earth creationist viewpoint (which is falsified by the evidence we have found). If such evidence supporting a YEC viewpoint were to be found, it would have be awfully persuasive to overturn the literally tons of evidence of many different types that support an ancient earth and evolution, and it would somehow have to account (without contradiction) for all the evidence we have already found that evolution explains so well.



Agreed, except my own opinion is that besides the Bible being distorted folk tales and unreliable histories, spiritual teachings can have value and these can also be found in the Bible (but not exclusively in the Bible). I am also impressed that AngelRho is humble and honest enough to admit that he is not expert enough in the fields of science to judge whether or not evolution is true, but he at least accepts the possibility that it might be true, and even if it is, it does not compromise his faith. THAT is a respectable position coming from a creationist! AngelRho was criticized earlier in this thread for allegedly softening his position on evolution the past few months, and says he is now familiar with the misquotations and distortions of evidence presented by some creationist sources (some of my major complaints with such sources). Again, IF AngelRho has done some research and has an open enough mind and heart to search for truth even if it conflicts with what he already believes, that is to be congratulated (in my opinion) rather than criticized.

Finally, AngelRho seems to understand my position on this subject fairly well, and he does not misrepresent my position much (except note my caveat to the following quotation). I do not agree with all that AngelRho believes so passionately, and sometimes it seems his arguments consist mainly of tossing word salad, but still I respect him.



Evolution has been observed and tested in the field and in the lab. The formation of new species has been observed. The fossil record and other evidence (such as genetic, geographical, morphological and more) show this has happened in the past and still happens. I accept that there may be a Creator of the Universe, and that it might even be the God of the Christian Bible. When you say "evolution does not by necessity rule out special creation" and add "even HE [Guitarist] will admit this," you might be misrepresenting me if by special creation you mean species being created separately and not evolving from common ancestors. The only way that could be is if God is a trickster to plant tons of false evidence to mislead us or test our faith. I have said that might be the case, but I also said that if it is the case, then we have to wonder why God would make it LOOK so much like evolution did happen if it really didn't, especially if eternal damnation is the punishment for an honest search for truth.

The problem with philosophical and theological "proofs" is that they are usually artifacts of semantics that are useless outside of philoso-babble circle jerks. Yes, language has flaws. Yes, words break if you push them. Yes, some things in science seem 'illogical'. But so what? Unless you're conceited enough to believe that the brains of apes are powerful enough to conceive the entire universe thoroughly enough to prove things just by thinking about them, philosophical/theological arguments don't hold water.

That's why science delivers the goods it makes awesome discoveries like vaccination, black holes and relativity while philosophy and theology merely amuse philosophers and theologians. Any proof that can't be tested is tantamount to no proof at all.

You just asked us to 'prove the existence of logic' without using logic. You did not say prove the existence of logic without using any through process. Doing anything conscious involves thought process. Therefore your new demand is non sense (can you prove the earth exist without any thought process?).

The same nonsense again... where were you when I completely destroyed the ontological argument? http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3526931 ... t=#3526931

BINGO! The trophy goes to 01001011...except 91 already showed my hand for me.

Proving the existence of logic without using logic: Using something to prove itself is circular reasoning--sort of like saying "The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true." Never mind that, as far as I'm aware, that's not actually IN the Bible, you can't merely just "take someone's word" for something; otherwise, how do you know it's the truth? So I'm not saying circular reasoning is ALWAYS acceptable. I'm saying in the case of logic, what choice do you really have?

"You did not say prove the existence of logic without using any [thought] process." Logic requires thought process, though. And thus the whole point. Any kind of thought process is based on some kind of basic formal logic, regardless of how that formal logic is defined. It need not be "classic" logic, and as you know, that process is relative from person to person and from experience to experience. It doesn't matter HOW you define it, it still IS. Logic doesn't exist once you take away all consciousness. No thought process, no logic. And without logic, you cannot ascertain that there even IS such a thing as "thought process" or "awareness." So for our purpose here, "thought process"="logic" in that logic IS a kind of thought process (I'm sure there are others and that not all thought processes are logic). I guess hypothetically you could say you could arrive at logic through illogical thought processes, but is the choice of a particular path to determining whether logic exists a choice made from logic? Again, circular reasoning and no good.

The solution I came up with is this: No solution=no problem. We do know, for instance, that logic is just really being consistent. It's OK to make that assumption without proof.

Where you and I will most likely disagree is whether that works for the existence of God. I mentioned the ontological argument as a quick example of a logical proof (a priori, "God is that above which nothing greater can be conceived"). For the ontological argument to even work, one must assume from the get-go that God is even possible. "Classic" proofs and evidentiary claims fail because while they do show God to exist, they can't show God to exist without first assuming that there is even a God at all to prove! Refutations of the argument depend not merely on pointing out logical flaws of the arguments, but rather on the truth of the claims themselves. They are logically sound, but are they true? All you have to do is assume that God does NOT exist and they all fall apart.

But...assuming what you want to prove is, what?

So if you're allowed to make unprovable assumptions, then it's safe to assume that God DOES exist. Much more makes sense, whether you're a Christian or not, by starting with that basic presupposition. Even assuming God won't destroy all of science--after all, up until Galileo and for a long time afterward, the Jesuits were champions of scientific thought even before it had a name, and they didn't see any conflict with assuming a Creator. Many highly respected scientists of the present day are Christian or some other deity-dependent faith and it doesn't get in the way of their work. If nothing else, presupposing God to exist is more open minded and thorough in one's own personal mental discipline.

The real question, then, is not WHETHER God exists but rather WHO God is. Yahweh makes more sense than the God of other faiths.

How do scientists draw conclusions about their observations?

I don't believe the ontological argument is the strongest position, but you haven't really "destroyed" it. I tend to favor cosmological (first cause) and teleological myself. But I think in this thread I've effectively exposed the underlying problems of the arguments and counterarguments.

To answer 91: I actually had Anselm in mind when I wrote that. Normally, I take a little bit more time so I can at least say I know what I'm talking about, but I felt the question could be answered quickly in that the "Evidence, please" only required that I show that there were proofs, not that I actually demonstrate them. I could have studied up on Plantinga and gone from there and done a better job, but I didn't see that as being necessary for the moment.

Not to denigrate philosophy or science, but I've had plenty of time to ponder the existence of God and various ideas surrounding it. I've come to what I believe to be the right conclusion and see no reason at all to change that--there is no further need to challenge those basic beliefs. Thus I'm more a theologian than a philosopher, though I recognize the inherent value of philosophy in exploring what I believe and coming to the conclusions I've drawn. But that also means others who spend more time in philosophy will tend to display much more talent for it than I will. I may get a few things right here and there, but I generally just try to stick with what I know!

...in your opinion. There are billions of people who disagree with you.

One possible reason you have that opinion is because you were raised in a Christian culture, so the standards by which you judge whether or not Yahweh is the "best" God are Christian ones. Alan Watts discussed the subject of how to tell which religion is the best or most true and pointed out there is no impartial judge, because all of us were raised in a culture that worships one or another of them. He compared this to a situation where if you were in a court of law and the judge and the advocate were the same person. I daresay if you were raised in India you would probably think Hinduism "made more sense" instead of Christianity.

The real question is: "Does the God of the Bible exist?"

If the answer is "Yes", then please provide valid material evidence for His existence.

It is not evidence to:

- Change the question to one that is easier to answer.

- Engage in a philosophical debate over the meaning of existence, faith, or proof.

- Declare "The Bible says that God exists" without providing evidence that the Bible always tells the truth.

- Issue the counter-challenge to "Prove that God does not exist".

- Attack the person asking for valid material evidence that God exists.

- Claim that "Science does not know everything".

- Point to the large number of people who believe that God exists.

- Present one's own faith as evidence.

- Declare that "The evidence you seek is all around you, if you were only wise enough to see it".

- Ask if this post was plagiarized from another source. (RETCON)

- Claim that "God is nobody's slave or parlor magician". (RETCON)

It is evidence to:

- Produce God, who will perform a genuine miracle.

- Perform a genuine miracle in His name.

And by "Miracle", I mean an act that defies every known principle of how the universe operates, such as instantaneously creating a living person from a pile of dirt, instantaneous regeneration of a lost limb or eye via a mere touch or word, instantaneous transmutation of one substance into another, instantaneously raising a dead person from a pile of bones, or any such act of a similar nature.

Failing this simple empirical test, the claim for the existence of God remains unfounded.

Last edited by Fnord on 18 Jun 2011, 9:42 am, edited 2 times in total.

Did you plagiarize this from talkorigins? It looks similar to an article they had on how to deal with creationists. It's certainly not verbatim, but it looks like it's been derived from there. Either way though, do you seriously think that God Almighty, the Creator and King over everything exists, would be anybody's slave or parlor magician? Demanding evidence in the form of a miracle, what insanity, there is nothing that could ever happen that the human mind can't come up with an explanation for and you're asking for something which nobody can explain away.... Also, discounting as evidence the evidence of engineering all around us, you've got your bases covered haven't you?

No, I did not plagiarize this, but several others have asked permission to quote this and similar posts for their websites, which permission I have freely given.

Your "Not a parlour magician" excuse is not evidence. I am going to retcon this into my previous post.

Unfortunately, as Arthur Clarke noted, advanced technology well beyond current understanding, appears as magic. Whether the being confounding current knowledge performing a trick is God or merely a jokester from an advanced galactic civilization is indeterminable. I can see no way that God could prove His existence. We are beyond burning bushes or sticks into snakes.

Hence, there is nothing beyond the human mind's capability to explain anything away as something more preferable.