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?

[POI]

If I arrange 100 dominoes that is intentional creation. If I push them over that is causation.

The falling dominoes can still look beautiful and the end result might spell i love you.

You did not address point number 1. Please name for me ONE 'thing' for which you feel you can prove; which came from not only a god, but your god? Otherwise, the default is that 'nature' likely (created/caused) it....

Done?

Point #2 has not been addressed. Again, Romans 1:20 is WRONG, unless you can demonstrate the challenge in point #1. So, can you?

(YOU) Only if you live as if causality is an illusion. I just don't think we can.

(ME) Again, if ex materia always was, then there would logically be no 'cause'. Agreed?

(YOU) Do the laws of physics imply that or does it hold after the universe existed?

(ME) Again, ex materia has no 'beginning'. Therefore, your question is irrelevant.

(YOU) I follow you. Best of both worlds. I think we all commit type 1 errors, some admit to it and I think looking for agency/meaning is a better survival strategy.

(ME) So you admit invoking an invisible agency, who loves you, maybe be your perpetual type 1 error? Just like the billions of others, who also invoke differing invisible 'god' agencies?

[Wootah]

[Replying to POI in post #81]

Lets clarify what we think romans 1:20 means

Romans 1:20 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.

My understanding. Since creation I can look at the universe and see God's invisible nature.

I feel like you are saying I can see what bits God created and what bits were caused naturally?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #81]

Lets clarify what we think romans 1:20 means

Romans 1:20 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.

My understanding. Since creation I can look at the universe and see God's invisible nature.

I feel like you are saying I can see what bits God created and what bits were caused naturally?

1. Please name for me ONE 'thing' for which you feel you can prove; which came from not only a god, but your god? Otherwise, the default is that 'nature' likely (created/caused) it....

2. How likely is it, that you are committing a type 1 error? (i.e.) an imaginary god...

[JoeyKnothead]

Why not literally try the experiment? You have one life. Go out and live one day with a belief in God and that He loves you and that life has a purpose and compare that day to the rest of your life. If you prefer it, try again for another day. Do the experiment.

I'd just as well walk around believing if I can just find the end of that rainbow, I'll have me a pot full o' gold.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #81]

Lets clarify what we think romans 1:20 means

Romans 1:20 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.

My understanding. Since creation I can look at the universe and see God's invisible nature.

I feel like you are saying I can see what bits God created and what bits were caused naturally?

1. Please name for me ONE 'thing' for which you feel you can prove; which came from not only a god, but your god? Otherwise, the default is that 'nature' likely (created/caused) it....

2. How likely is it, that you are committing a type 1 error? (i.e.) an imaginary god...

I wrote and cancelled a post being pretty strict about Wootah's attempt to force a Partial ID position on you, but you saw through it, anyway. These manipulative (rather than apologetics) tricks are so damn' dirty, and pretty clumsy, too.

Why not literally try the experiment? You have one life. Go out and live one day with a belief in God and that He loves you and that life has a purpose and compare that day to the rest of your life. If you prefer it, try again for another day. Do the experiment.

I'd just as well walk around believing if I can just find the end of that rainbow, I'll have me a pot full o' gold.

Yeah, that was another manipulative trick, not polemic but a not unfamiliar ploy to get someone to brainwash themselves.

I think that's the end aim; I'm sorry to be repetitive in my Theories, but Faith is at the bottom of their position; they see it as a win if they can keep it, it's ok to fiddle so long as they win the point (1) and the Aim is to get the mark or victim to give up reason and doubt and just open their heart to Jesus; the whole aim from love bombing to a slew of printed lies is to get the Mark to Buy In to Faith and then it's done; Faith takes over and evidence and reason is merely the opinions of scoffers.

Of course this isn't going to work; they fail to understand our mindset, but they still think that tossing scripture at us will gain a point, or appeals to self -brainwash. e.g 'really read the Bible with an open mind'. I swear to you brethren and sistren, this is Theistgook that translates as "Read the Bible with unquestioning acceptance". I swear that's what they are after - the faith - brainwash.

Of course, we ask them to read it with an open mind, but they don't and can't. Just take abiogenesis, one of the Biggies and they reckon surefire:

"If you can't explain how life started, it must be God". Aside from 'which god?' the logic is that 'nobody knows'. But even aside from the fossil evidence for evolution from cell groups rather than as per Genesis, there is an explanation as to how life couldhypothetically begin without a god.

cue: "You can't prove it". They just don't get it We don't need to 'prove it'; just a plausible theoretical natural mechanism means that the god - claim has no more persuasive power. The burden of proof is now on the creationist to show that Goddunnit. And you don't need to take my word for it, they know it

"It is impossible for Life to start from dead matter". Haven't we all heard it? They have to argue that a god is the only Possible explanation and that is dead in the water if we even have a plausible theoretical mechanism, never mind they only have a god waving a magic wand. Aside from 'which god'.

I know they reckon they hold all the cards, but in fact they have none. 'Don't know' means 'don't believe until you do know', but They think it means 'God is still the default theory'. But it isn't, not by a long way, but Faith means they really do not get it.

(1) hey, what do a few lies matter if some souls are saved?' Sure, if the Mark is converted, that's good, but the bottom line is to keep the faith and never mind the evidence. If it can't be debunked, it can be dismissed as 'scientists' opinions'.

[Clownboat]

.. . what do you make of all the other thousands of god concepts? Do you see them as having been invented by humans, or would you argue that all/most of those gods are real too?

Most, if not all pertain to an intelligent creator, in that I believe they are all absolutely accurate: there is indeed a Creator, the universe is not here by chance. Where I disagree is as to the IDENTITY of that Creator. I believe only the bible can IDENTIFY the Creator and what he has done and will do in the furure.

I see. So you believe that only the Bible can identify a creator and you have faith that a universe cannot happen by chance. I find these odd places to start, but to each their own.

What about my question? : Do you see them (all the other god concepts) as having been invented by humans, or would you argue that all/most of those gods are real too?

[Clownboat]

...
With that said, what do you make of all the other thousands of god concepts? Do you see them as having been invented by humans, or would you argue that all/most of those gods are real too?

I think it is possible the other "gods" have existed. People have kept many things as their gods, like for example a golden calf. I think such things could have existed.

The Golden Calf from the Bible was an idol. I didn't ask if you thought idols were invented by humans, I asked if you thought all the other available gods were invented by humans. Any chance you would shed light on the actual question at hand?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #87]


Yes. Here we are. Creationism seems to be on board with the idea that, even if one can make a case for an intelligent creator (and that's debatable) which one is another matter. There are different gods now, there were different gods then. s the apologetic says bout the Bible has to be put forward as a reason why Biblegod is the right god, and even then it has to be argued that the OT is overrun by Jesus, and even then which is the right denomination.

Even First Cause leaves them with a heck of a lot of work to do before we go through the door into their church hall.

[JehovahsWitness]

Do you see them (all the other god concepts) as having been invented by humans...?

No, no matter how absurd or unsavory, they are all (or most) not idle inventions but founded on the inevitability of a first cause. The Aposle Paul comes to mind, who irritated by the Greeks plathora of gods came across one to "an unknown god" and said that this one was the God he (Paul) came to tell them about.

So we are not dealing with mere "inventions", they were humans trying to explain the facts around them: rather like believing we descended from fish; you work with what you know until you know better...

[Wootah]

Why not literally try the experiment? You have one life. Go out and live one day with a belief in God and that He loves you and that life has a purpose and compare that day to the rest of your life. If you prefer it, try again for another day. Do the experiment.

I'd just as well walk around believing if I can just find the end of that rainbow, I'll have me a pot full o' gold.

If more people literally followed rainbows they would have more joy in life and that isca pot of gold worth having.