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?

[1213]

...
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....

People or physical world doesn't create anything. People and nature only form things, or procreate. Creating something means that person produces something from nothing.

...
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?

Actually it is very clever system to have urine washing procreation system, because it is disinfectant and important thing for the procreation. Also, I think you could not imagine any better solution for those systems.

...
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?

There is no unintentional creation. I can agree that humans have no reason to invent God. If we agree on this, then it means God is not human invention?

[TRANSPONDER]

...
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....

People or physical world doesn't create anything. People and nature only form things, or procreate. Creating something means that person produces something from nothing.

...
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?

Actually it is very clever system to have urine washing procreation system, because it is disinfectant and important thing for the procreation. Also, I think you could not imagine any better solution for those systems.

...
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?

There is no unintentional creation. I can agree that humans have no reason to invent God. If we agree on this, then it means God is not human invention?

This has been done enough but it is so much the selling -territory that we have to do it again. ..Unintentional, that is, not planned by an intelligent entity {where straight line of almond trees would look Planned {1} is known and proven; it is called evolution and the selection of the most efficient survival method wins out means that it may look planned, but there is no reson now to suppose that it is.

Skipping the inevitable science denial, AND dismissal of Abiogenesis which just as a plausible hypothesis means that Goddunnit is not necessary let alone a default hypothesis, we are getting to cosmic origins surely. And that is being dealt with elsewhere.

I need only pick up the swingeingly crafty misuse of "this means there exists no reason to invent or assert a god in charge of 'creation'," which was impudently quotemined to mean something quite different ". humans have no reason to invent God. If we agree on this, then it means God is not human invention" If that was a quip it could be forgiven, but if that was attempting to argue a real point, it is a disgrace.

To be clear, saying there is no reason to propose a god to account for creation {in the sense of Life, the universe and everything} is not the same as saying that humans would never make up a god as a myth, so the idea of a god must mean it is real. No, humans evidently DO have reasons to propose a variety of humanlike invisible beings to explain the unexplainable.

Please tell us for your own credibility that you were just having a bit of fun with us.

{1} though of course the spreading shroom -circle phenomenon {now understood as a natural phenomenon} was seen as 'Fairy rings' in the past, though whether a serious belief is hard to guess these days.

[Miles]

...
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....

People or physical world doesn't create anything. People and nature only form things, or procreate. Creating something means that person produces something from nothing.

OMG! Here,



Look up the word. Please.

...
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?

Actually it is very clever system to have urine washing procreation system, because it is disinfectant and important thing for the procreation. Also, I think you could not imagine any better solution for those systems.

So what? The urethra doesn't dump into the prostate but merely passes through it. Urine never comes into contact with seminal fluid.


........................

...
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?

There is no unintentional creation.

And this comes down to the difference between theists and atheists. "No unintentional creation" requires a creator: the theist claim. Whereas the atheist's position is "Prove it," and so far no theist has been able to do so, which is why atheists consider the theist claim of a sky daddy and intentional creation to be silly.

I can agree that humans have no reason to invent God. If we agree on this, then it means God is not human invention?

But humans do have a reason to invent god. The fiction lets them sleep at night, having convinced themselves that after they die they'll be well taken care of.

.

[POI]

...
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....

People or physical world doesn't create anything. People and nature only form things, or procreate. Creating something means that person produces something from nothing.

OMG! Here,



Look up the word. Please.

...
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?

Actually it is very clever system to have urine washing procreation system, because it is disinfectant and important thing for the procreation. Also, I think you could not imagine any better solution for those systems.

So what? The urethra doesn't dump into the prostate but merely passes through it. Urine never comes into contact with seminal fluid.


........................

...
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?

There is no unintentional creation.

And this comes down to the difference between theists and atheists. "No unintentional creation" requires a creator: the theist claim. Whereas the atheist's position is "Prove it," and so far no theist has been able to do so, which is why atheists consider the theist claim of a sky daddy and intentional creation to be silly.

I can agree that humans have no reason to invent God. If we agree on this, then it means God is not human invention?

But humans do have a reason to invent god. The fiction lets them sleep at night, having convinced themselves that after they die they'll be well taken care of.

.

I was going to hit 'respond', but found your reply quite adequate, to say the least

[1213]

...
But humans do have a reason to invent god. The fiction lets them sleep at night, having convinced themselves that after they die they'll be well taken care of.

Funny thing about that is that many atheists claim that a god just makes more anxiety and life is better and easier without any god. That is why, sorry, I don't believe people would invent a god to sleep well.

[POI]

...
But humans do have a reason to invent god. The fiction lets them sleep at night, having convinced themselves that after they die they'll be well taken care of.

Funny thing about that is that many atheists claim that a god just makes more anxiety and life is better and easier without any god. That is why, sorry, I don't believe people would invent a god to sleep well.

Seems this is already going off topic, but I feel I would like to respond here anyways....

Atheists point out that the god of the bible is in contradiction with logic and/or reality. If this god wants relationships. and is loving, this god would just do it. Such an asserted god creates a 'headache' to even fathom, imagine, ponder, or think about; as such a god does not make any sense at all. Luckily, we have Christian apologists here to set us straight

So yea, I agree with 'Miles' here. Many 'create' the god they want to imagine; so they may feel ultimate justice will someday prevail, in spite of the unjust world they feel they live in now. This helps them sleep better at night.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #7]

Not to worry. These discussions often drift off topic, inevitably because if one argument fails they will shift ground 'Ok...well what about this, then?' and to be fair, the atheist side do it as well...I was rather surprised to see how topic - drift is allowed to go on here; on my Former Board, they would jump on you as soon as you filed a post that didn't have the topic Keyword in it. but are incredibly strict on Rude Words.

As to your post, of course, right. The progression whether discussion or self - deconversion begins with preaching, (making faithclaims) debating, (using stock arguments, either based on what they hear from the pulpit or have lifted from apologetics websites) and finally faithbased denial, if not abuse, hellthreats or the 'Flounce'.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #7]

Not to worry. These discussions often drift off topic, inevitably because if one argument fails they will shift ground 'Ok...well what about this, then?' and to be fair, the atheist side do it as well...I was rather surprised to see how topic - drift is allowed to go on here; on my Former Board, they would jump on you as soon as you filed a post that didn't have the topic Keyword in it. but are incredibly strict on Rude Words.

As to your post, of course, right. The progression whether discussion or self - deconversion begins with preaching, (making faithclaims) debating, (using stock arguments, either based on what they hear from the pulpit or have lifted from apologetics websites) and finally faithbased denial, if not abuse, hellthreats or the 'Flounce'.

Yes. I spent 4+ years on another large debate forum, ran by Christians. And yes, it was completely different. Though I did enjoy going into the hornet's nest of believers, and challenging them on their own turf, ultimately, they shut the apologetics portion down. I guess they got tired of "moderating/deleting" so much

Further, due to the lack in response from the Christian side, I'd gather they have little/no response to the OP.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #7]

Not to worry. These discussions often drift off topic, inevitably because if one argument fails they will shift ground 'Ok...well what about this, then?' and to be fair, the atheist side do it as well...I was rather surprised to see how topic - drift is allowed to go on here; on my Former Board, they would jump on you as soon as you filed a post that didn't have the topic Keyword in it. but are incredibly strict on Rude Words.

As to your post, of course, right. The progression whether discussion or self - deconversion begins with preaching, (making faithclaims) debating, (using stock arguments, either based on what they hear from the pulpit or have lifted from apologetics websites) and finally faithbased denial, if not abuse, hellthreats or the 'Flounce'.

Yes. I spent 4+ years on another large debate forum, ran by Christians. And yes, it was completely different. Though I did enjoy going into the hornet's nest of believers, and challenging them on their own turf, ultimately, they shut the apologetics portion down. I guess they got tired of "moderating/deleting" so much

Cior year...I won't get onto to Christian apologetics methods borrowing from the latest in Commercial practice (deleting comments), but I spent time in a theist forum owned and run by an evangelist (whom I heard closed it down and went to witness in S America where he was arrested for molesting small boys) and he banned me a couple of times for not being Christian and the Theists there in fact protested and got me reinstated both times - and I never forgot that these are good people, even if the debate methods would often disgrace a Communist dictatorship information medium. I may have mentioned (and everyone xcuse the memory lane moment) one of my particular opponents showed up on my last board, deconverted.