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?

[JoeyKnothead]

Yep, as above. I am in no position to go back and question Neanderthals and the like about their God - beliefs if any. We do know that they were much concerned with death, ancestors, and apparently an afterlife. It appears that at first there was no One God, but various malevolent spirits that Did Stuff and had to be appeased with sacrifices. Then it Seems that with the importance of farming we got a fertility religion and a mother goddess, and with the rise of warring states and bronze swords, a supposed tribe of gods, generally resembling the people who invented them. Finally, we got people pushing (not just in the Bible) for one King - god, and all the others subservient and in the end, false.

That is my hypothesis - the desire for an afterlife came first and we gradually made, and remade as convenient, gods in our own (changing) image.

The concurror concurs.

We can see the individual in their god/s. A mean old cuss of a person has em a mean old cuss of a god. They'll harp on about how God hates him this, or God hates him you. Then we get the kinder, gentler souls who speak of a loving, caring God.

Gods're so obviously a product of humans, I kinda pity those who think they're real.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yep, as above. I am in no position to go back and question Neanderthals and the like about their God - beliefs if any. We do know that they were much concerned with death, ancestors, and apparently an afterlife. It appears that at first there was no One God, but various malevolent spirits that Did Stuff and had to be appeased with sacrifices. Then it Seems that with the importance of farming we got a fertility religion and a mother goddess, and with the rise of warring states and bronze swords, a supposed tribe of gods, generally resembling the people who invented them. Finally, we got people pushing (not just in the Bible) for one King - god, and all the others subservient and in the end, false.

That is my hypothesis - the desire for an afterlife came first and we gradually made, and remade as convenient, gods in our own (changing) image.

The concurror concurs.

We can see the individual in their god/s. A mean old cuss of a person has em a mean old cuss of a god. They'll harp on about how God hates him this, or God hates him you. Then we get the kinder, gentler souls who speak of a loving, caring God.

Gods're so obviously a product of humans, I kinda pity those who think they're real.

The concurring concurred, concurs with the concurrer. It's as well I'm not a theist as a god made in my image would be a weird sorta critter indeed.

[JoeyKnothead]

The concurring concurred, concurs with the concurrer. It's as well I'm not a theist as a god made in my image would be a weird sorta critter indeed.

Akshually, I admire your voluminous knowledge of things religious, and your ability to condense em into a form us who don't know as much can understand.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't know it well enough."
- often attributed to Albert Einstein, though forms vary

[TRANSPONDER]

The concurring concurred, concurs with the concurrer. It's as well I'm not a theist as a god made in my image would be a weird sorta critter indeed.

Akshually, I admire your voluminous knowledge of things religious, and your ability to condense em into a form us who don't know as much can understand.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't know it well enough."
- often attributed to Albert Einstein, though forms vary

That's a good quote. Yes. I have sometimes seen myself having a general overview of the whole wargame so to speak, and I can see the essentials which can often (not always) be expressed simply. I can see where some get diverted by side issues or go the wrong way either by error or deliberately, and can usually deal with it - sometimes before they do it. But thanks for the endorsement that I'm not talking rubbish but everyone was too polite to tell me, and bottomline - a really important one, in my view....if a mediocre dullard -brain like mine can handle this stuff, anybody can.

[POI]

I would have thought this topic would be an easy layup for the Christian population? Was I wrong? Many feel there must exist a 'creator'. Well, then do you Christians care to demonstrate, by first addressing the three presented debate questions?

[TRANSPONDER]

I would have thought this topic would be an easy layup for the Christian population? Was I wrong? Many feel there must exist a 'creator'. Well, then do you Christians care to demonstrate, by first addressing the three presented debate questions?

i'm rather surprised that they haven't leaped in to argue creationism, as that is where we seem to end up, and usually takes the form of arguing that materialist science can't explain this (or can't explain every detail down to the last nano -particle rand prove it in real time) and in the end deny science and logic and say they still believe and Godfaith and the whole ID case supposedly remains the default theory.

Where the atheist science side goes wrong often is to try to prove to the Believer that the natural material case is the better. They don't care. it's 'you haven't proved this to me'. On that basis, they always win. No, the argument is rather that the evolutionary case is the better and their objections, even if valid (usually they aren't) are simply problems waiting to be clarified. The bottom line is that they believe the god, Bible and ID claims and we reckon the evolutionary model is better. The difference is that evolution has the evidence and they have only the Bible.

[Wootah]

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?

Nature doesn't create - nature causes. Yes, our conversational language allows us to say, 'the wind created devastation. or 'winter created the snow season' but that is some version of Personification.

1 - even if I fail in every case I am fallible. But in general, the evidence is overwhelming.
2 - yes he is correct, you can look and see the creator's handiwork right now if you like. It is an incredible mental effort to look at the universe and come up with the view that it is meaningless and purposeless.
3 - seems a long bow to me. No I don't see that conclusion.

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.

Atheism is really hard-nosed suppression. Why buck the goads?

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

Nature doesn't create - nature causes. Yes, our conversational language allows us to say, 'the wind created devastation. or 'winter created the snow season' but that is some version of Personification.

1 - even if I fail in every case I am fallible. But in general, the evidence is overwhelming.
2 - yes he is correct, you can look and see the creator's handiwork right now if you like. It is an incredible mental effort to look at the universe and come up with the view that it is meaningless and purposeless.
3 - seems a long bow to me. No I don't see that conclusion.

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.

Atheism is really hard-nosed suppression. Why buck the goads?

I agree that nature doesn't 'create' but 'causes'. The difference is that 'create' implies planning and intent. Cause is just the result of conditions. And the evidence is that the 'causes' were not pre -planned.

I'm afraid that I see no point in your experiment other than to wish a Faith - posture on me in the hope that I'll get hooked. No thanks. How about you try one day of reading the Bible starting with genesis with an atheist mindset (including evolution and old earth and the not very hard assumption that the laws of physics don't have a meaning and purpose for us)? You might see that Genesis is total tosh and it's actually better if we create or own meanings and purpose than have them imposed either by a universe of physics or a god - such as Allah. How dye like his meaning and purpose for you?

[Wootah]

I agree that nature doesn't 'create' but 'causes'. The difference is that 'create' implies planning and intent. Cause is just the result of conditions. And the evidence is that the 'causes' were not pre -planned.

I'm afraid that I see no point in your experiment other than to wish a Faith - posture on me in the hope that I'll get hooked. No thanks. How about you try one day of reading the Bible starting with genesis with an atheist mindset (including evolution and old earth and the not very hard assumption that the laws of physics don't have a meaning and purpose for us)? You might see that Genesis is total tosh and it's actually better if we create or own meanings and purpose than have them imposed either by a universe of physics or a god - such as Allah. How dye like his meaning and purpose for you?

I am a born-again Christian from a non-Christian household and an atheist before that.

I guess you don't like science?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Wootah in post #29]

I suppose you were suckered into creationism by Creationist 'Science'? There are Creationists from Christian households that were deconverted in various ways, including I suppose realising that Genesis could not be right...What more do you have?