Attention "Creationists"

[POI]

In the never-ending/perpetual 'god debate', Christians will often quote the following from Romans 1:20 (i.e.):

"20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Meaning, we atheists know 'god' exists because of the observed 'creation' all around us. We instead choose to suppress such obvious 'observation', for this or that reason. Well, I'm here to challenge this assertion from the Bible.

Many Christians need to really think about what 'creation' actually means? Meaning, I can 'create' stuff. Running water can 'create' stuff. Erosion can 'create' stuff. Pressure and time can 'create' stuff. Etc....

If I 'create' something, in reality, I'm instead repurposing or rearranging material. But it is still intentional. A 'mind' purposed it's reconfiguration.

If nature 'creates' something, like the Grand Canyon, Mount Everest, Yosemite, it was likely not reconfigured from a 'mind'. It's not intentional.

For debate:

1. Can you Christians distinguish the difference between both intentional and unintentional "creation" -- (in every case)?

Example 1: A straight row of almond trees was designed by a 'mindful' tree farmer. A random array of almond trees, in the middle of an uninhabited area, was likely not placed there 'mindfully' or intentionally.

Example 2: 99.9999% of the 'universe', in which we know about, is unihabitable for humans -- god's favorite 'creation'.

Example 3: The majority of the earth itself is also unihabitable for humans -- god's favorite 'creation'.

Example 4: An intentional mind 'created' humans, where an airway and a food pathway share the same plumbing, where a sewage system and sex organs share the same pathway, and also where a urine pathway routes directly through the prostate?

2. If you can distinguish the difference between intentional and unintentional "creation", is the author of Romans 1:20 still correct? If yes, why yes?

3. If 'science' is correct, and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead only repurposed; this means there exists no reason to invent or assert a god in charge of 'creation', right?

[TRANSPONDER]

Meaning, we atheists know 'god' exists because of the observed 'creation' all around us. We instead choose to suppress such obvious 'observation', for this or that reason.

You are pretty much jacking my sentiments...as I've (on more than one occasion) accused atheists/unbelievers of suppressing the obvious evidence in and within the universe to remain in their state of unbelief, all while feeding this justification by coming on religious debate forums and arguing against the existence of God when deep down inside, they "know" what's up.

Well, I'm here to challenge this assertion from the Bible.

Yeah, good luck with that...at least while I am here.

Many Christians need to really think about what 'creation' actually means? Meaning, I can 'create' stuff. Running water can 'create' stuff. Erosion can 'create' stuff. Pressure and time can 'create' stuff. Etc....

If I 'create' something, in reality, I'm instead repurposing or rearranging material. But it is still intentional.

Nahh..not so fast.

Christian theists make it clear that God created ex nihilo, which means out of nothing.

There was no preexisting material to be arranged.

God did the creating, and God did the arranging.

He created the house and furniture out of nothing, and designed the house and arranged the furniture nice and neatly inside the house, making the house nice and comfortable for its tenants.

A 'mind' purposed it's reconfiguration.

If nature 'creates' something, like the Grand Canyon, Mount Everest, Yosemite, it was likely not reconfigured from a 'mind'. It's not intentional.

Here you are talking about nature, the Grand Canyon, Mount Everest, etc...

When the entire universe began to exist...

For debate:

1. Can you Christians distinguish the difference between both intentional and unintentional "creation" -- (in every case)?

Yeah...easy.

Every winter in Michigan, nature creates snow which covers my yard (unintentional). However, when my children go outside and create/build a snowman with this snow, that is (intentional).

Too easy.

Next..

Example 1: A straight row of almond trees was designed by a 'mindful' tree farmer. A random array of almond trees, in the middle of an uninhabited area, was likely not placed there 'mindfully' or intentionally.

Example 2: 99.9999% of the 'universe', in which we know about, is unihabitable for humans -- god's favorite 'creation'.

Example 3: The majority of the earth itself is also unihabitable for humans -- god's favorite 'creation'.

Example 4: An intentional mind 'created' humans, where an airway and a food pathway share the same plumbing, where a sewage system and sex organs share the same pathway, and also where a urine pathway routes directly through the prostate?

2. If you can distinguish the difference between intentional and unintentional "creation", is the author of Romans 1:20 still correct? If yes, why yes?

Looks to me like I already did....and the author of Romans 1:20 is correct.

3. If 'science' is correct, and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead only repurposed; this means there exists no reason to invent or assert a god in charge of 'creation', right?

This whole "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" is the first law of thermodynamics (FLOT) and is often used by atheists to negate the creation/intelligent design theory.

But the FLOT only comes into effect AFTER the universe began to exist...and you cannot use science to prove that nature (space, time, energy, matter) was always here.

That, followed by the fact that we have evidence in...

1. Science (second law of thermodynamics).
2. Math and philosophy (arguments against infinite regress)
3. Philosophy (intelligent design arguments, ontological arguments)

All of those arguments in totality proves otherwise....and they are all independent, which means that even if you refute one, the others still stand on their own merit.

So either way, lose/lose situation.

This is all wrong. "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed" is never an atheist (materialist) argument. It is always used by theists to debunk 'something from nothing'.

That said, you argue First cause (based on action/reaction, Thermo 2) debunk of infinite regression, which iis irrelevant as neither Something from nothing nor goddunnit entertain 'infinite regression', and appeal to ID and Ontological arguments, all of which fail, evidentially and logically.

There IS a gap for god with cosmic origins - the best one that theists have. But you are not going to make much headway using it as badly as this. Back to the drawing board. In fact a new desk...actually a whole new drawing office might be a good idea.

... It's like being proud of being a smoker, but at least a smoker feels shame when they light up.

That all depends on what it is, I'm alighting up

Enlightening up?

I've shown the pretty thing some of your stuff, like this brilliance here, and now I think she's sweet on ya.

Stay the heck away!

Ya needn't - all worry. I bin there, dun that and got the marks to carry to the grave to prove it. But even 30 years ago, you wouldha hadda watch out. I was still devastating to wimmin.

[We_Are_VENOM]

This is all wrong. "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed" is never an atheist (materialist) argument. It is always used by theists to debunk 'something from nothing'.

TRANSPONDER, sir..

Why would theists use the FLOT to debunk something from nothing....when we (theists) believe that God created something from nothing..

????

*Sigh*.

That said, you argue First cause (based on action/reaction, Thermo 2) debunk of infinite regression, which iis irrelevant as neither Something from nothing nor goddunnit entertain 'infinite regression', and appeal to ID and Ontological arguments, all of which fail, evidentially and logically.

Funny, I've never really seen you engage with me as it pertains to any of those arguments.

You should have brought all of this energy to those threads.

There IS a gap for god with cosmic origins - the best one that theists have. But you are not going to make much headway using it as badly as this. Back to the drawing board. In fact a new desk...actually a whole new drawing office might be a good idea.

I was gonna tell you to do the same thing, as it relates to the whole Gospel/Resurrection deal.

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #162]

Why would theists use the FLOT to debunk something from nothing....when we (theists) believe that God created something from nothing...

This is not a uniform belief of Theism. Rather it is a belief that some theists hold.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is all wrong. "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed" is never an atheist (materialist) argument. It is always used by theists to debunk 'something from nothing'.

TRANSPONDER, sir..

Why would theists use the FLOT to debunk something from nothing....when we (theists) believe that God created something from nothing..

????

*Sigh*.

That said, you argue First cause (based on action/reaction, Thermo 2) debunk of infinite regression, which iis irrelevant as neither Something from nothing nor goddunnit entertain 'infinite regression', and appeal to ID and Ontological arguments, all of which fail, evidentially and logically.

Funny, I've never really seen you engage with me as it pertains to any of those arguments.

You should have brought all of this energy to those threads.

There IS a gap for god with cosmic origins - the best one that theists have. But you are not going to make much headway using it as badly as this. Back to the drawing board. In fact a new desk...actually a whole new drawing office might be a good idea.

I was gonna tell you to do the same thing, as it relates to the whole Gospel/Resurrection deal.

It wouldn't surprise me, it's what you do when your efforts at apologetics are rebutted, in any thread.

[We_Are_VENOM]

It wouldn't surprise me, it's what you do when your efforts at apologetics are rebutted, in any thread.

The truth cannot be rebutted.

[JoeyKnothead]

It wouldn't surprise me, it's what you do when your efforts at apologetics are rebutted, in any thread.

The truth cannot be rebutted.

The truth can't be rebutted, that's for sure. Your arguments though, easily.

You rely quite heavily on mere assertions, with 'logic' leaps fancy enough to shame a ballerina.

[POI]

You are pretty much jacking my sentiments...

(POI) It's not your sentiments. It's some bronze-aged dude, who wrote Romans 1, way back when.

(VM) Yeah, good luck with that...at least while I am here.

(POI) Okey-dokey, smokey

(VM) Nahh..not so fast.

Christian theists make it clear that God created ex nihilo, which means out of nothing.

There was no preexisting material to be arranged.

God did the creating, and God did the arranging.

He created the house and furniture out of nothing, and designed the house and arranged the furniture nice and neatly inside the house, making the house nice and comfortable for its tenants.

(POI) Prove it...

(VM) When the entire universe began to exist...

Prove it...

(VM) Yeah...easy.

Every winter in Michigan, nature creates snow which covers my yard (unintentional). However, when my children go outside and create/build a snowman with this snow, that is (intentional).

Too easy.

(POI) Great. You seem to understand, (so far)....

(VM) But the FLOT only comes into effect AFTER the universe began to exist...and you cannot use science to prove that nature (space, time, energy, matter) was always here.

(POI) We do not know whether or not the 'universe' had a true beginning? Hence, thus far, your conclusion can be based upon a false premise. How about, we do not know yet? Just like we do not know yet, many things. To instead push 'god' in there, is quite hasty. Especially when considering all the things, for which we use to not yet know, and pushed god in there, in haste

(VM)
1. Science (second law of thermodynamics).
2. Math and philosophy (arguments against infinite regress)
3. Philosophy (intelligent design arguments, ontological arguments)

All of those arguments in totality proves otherwise....and they are all independent, which means that even if you refute one, the others still stand on their own merit.

So either way, lose/lose situation.

(POI) I'm willing to bet that if all were refuted, to your satisfaction, you would still believe

[We_Are_VENOM]

You are pretty much jacking my sentiments...

(POI) It's not your sentiments. It's some bronze-aged dude, who wrote Romans 1, way back when.

(VM) Yeah, good luck with that...at least while I am here.

(POI) Okey-dokey, smokey

(VM) Nahh..not so fast.

Christian theists make it clear that God created ex nihilo, which means out of nothing.

There was no preexisting material to be arranged.

God did the creating, and God did the arranging.

He created the house and furniture out of nothing, and designed the house and arranged the furniture nice and neatly inside the house, making the house nice and comfortable for its tenants.

(POI) Prove it...

(VM) When the entire universe began to exist...

Prove it...

(VM) Yeah...easy.

Every winter in Michigan, nature creates snow which covers my yard (unintentional). However, when my children go outside and create/build a snowman with this snow, that is (intentional).

Too easy.

(POI) Great. You seem to understand, (so far)....

(VM) But the FLOT only comes into effect AFTER the universe began to exist...and you cannot use science to prove that nature (space, time, energy, matter) was always here.

(POI) We do not know whether or not the 'universe' had a true beginning? Hence, thus far, your conclusion can be based upon a false premise. How about, we do not know yet? Just like we do not know yet, many things. To instead push 'god' in there, is quite hasty. Especially when considering all the things, for which we use to not yet know, and pushed god in there, in haste

(VM)
1. Science (second law of thermodynamics).
2. Math and philosophy (arguments against infinite regress)
3. Philosophy (intelligent design arguments, ontological arguments)

All of those arguments in totality proves otherwise....and they are all independent, which means that even if you refute one, the others still stand on their own merit.

So either way, lose/lose situation.

(POI) I'm willing to bet that if all were refuted, to your satisfaction, you would still believe

Hmmm. Not much refutation here. A lot of circus, hocus pocus quotes taken completely out of context due to your inability to be able to adequately defend your position in light of rational scrutiny.

When the pressure came, you folded...and this kind of response is the result.

So in closing, here is a tip; Do not judge God based on your own unsubstantiated moral compass.

Unless you are able to substantiate your own moral compass, do not judge God based upon it.

Now, see ya in traffic.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #167]

(VM): Christian theists make it clear that God created ex nihilo, which means out of nothing.

There was no preexisting material to be arranged.

This has been shown to be a false belief and Christians who still believe in it, need to examine the evidence.

Logically, something which is recognized as material, cannot be created from something which doesn't exist.

The evidence shows that material is not the fundamental property of what we call "reality" [the existence of the physical universe]

Quantum Particles are still regarded as 'material' and something unknown occurs which organizes the QPs into objects.

If a creator is the "something which organizes" then what is being organized exists prior to being organized into what we think of as solid matter.

From our perspective, the process might appear to be that "something came from nothing" but that is simply a false impression.

On the surface, there doesn't appear to be any overt reason why Christians argue for a Creator magically manifesting stuff from nothing. I have asked Christians who believe this world view, to explain why they feel they have to believe in it, and have never yet received any explanation for the belief.

[TRANSPONDER]

You are pretty much jacking my sentiments...

(POI) It's not your sentiments. It's some bronze-aged dude, who wrote Romans 1, way back when.

(VM) Yeah, good luck with that...at least while I am here.

(POI) Okey-dokey, smokey

(VM) Nahh..not so fast.

Christian theists make it clear that God created ex nihilo, which means out of nothing.

There was no preexisting material to be arranged.

God did the creating, and God did the arranging.

He created the house and furniture out of nothing, and designed the house and arranged the furniture nice and neatly inside the house, making the house nice and comfortable for its tenants.

(POI) Prove it...

(VM) When the entire universe began to exist...

Prove it...

(VM) Yeah...easy.

Every winter in Michigan, nature creates snow which covers my yard (unintentional). However, when my children go outside and create/build a snowman with this snow, that is (intentional).

Too easy.

(POI) Great. You seem to understand, (so far)....

(VM) But the FLOT only comes into effect AFTER the universe began to exist...and you cannot use science to prove that nature (space, time, energy, matter) was always here.

(POI) We do not know whether or not the 'universe' had a true beginning? Hence, thus far, your conclusion can be based upon a false premise. How about, we do not know yet? Just like we do not know yet, many things. To instead push 'god' in there, is quite hasty. Especially when considering all the things, for which we use to not yet know, and pushed god in there, in haste

(VM)
1. Science (second law of thermodynamics).
2. Math and philosophy (arguments against infinite regress)
3. Philosophy (intelligent design arguments, ontological arguments)

All of those arguments in totality proves otherwise....and they are all independent, which means that even if you refute one, the others still stand on their own merit.

So either way, lose/lose situation.

(POI) I'm willing to bet that if all were refuted, to your satisfaction, you would still believe

Hmmm. Not much refutation here. A lot of circus, hocus pocus quotes taken completely out of context due to your inability to be able to adequately defend your position in light of rational scrutiny.

When the pressure came, you folded...and this kind of response is the result.

So in closing, here is a tip; Do not judge God based on your own unsubstantiated moral compass.

Unless you are able to substantiate your own moral compass, do not judge God based upon it.

Now, see ya in traffic.

par for the ours, you refer to First cause which, though it does Not validate the god -claim (only that nobody has a validated explanation) is the only thing you have. -The rest is just irrelevance and backchat and 'see ya' as an effort to get the last word. You won't. Because we know that, aside from First cause (which proves nothing) and some ID stuff, which is debatable, you really have nothing to call on.