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?

[JehovahsWitness]

.. . 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.

[TRANSPONDER]

.. . 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.

Ok. That is really what the apologetic or answer has to be "It's all the same God". And when we ask "Well, which one?" then the claim is made that the god of the Bible is the True one and I suppose the others are there with understanding that nature has to be the work of a big invisible human 'Written on their hearts' but, for some reason, Biblegod failed to write a correct view of Himself into their heads.

I think I am obliged to observe that an explanation that I at least find much more credible and better fits the science, is that humans imagine a huge invisible version of themselves doing everything that they can't explain, all of which have been debunked, since now can, pretty much, and we may leave the science - denial to the creationists of various creeds.

[DaveD49]

Starting with your last point: "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?"

Wrong. For that matter you have pointed to one of the oldest proofs of God's existence; it was brought up by both Plato and Aristotle. It is a truism that EVERYTHING physical needs a CAUSE for its existence. The sun came into existence, the Earth came into existence, everyTHING else came into existence. The universe needs a CAUSE for its existence. You cannot rely on saying that it has always existed; science has already disproven that. Just the fact of the existence of elements which have a half-life, such as uranium proves that. If the universe has always existed these elements would have already degraded into lead long, long ago. Nor can you rely on the expansion and contraction of the universe producing new Big Bangs, etc.; science has already disproven that. If that were the case then at best the expansion of the universe would have to be slowing down. However it is NOT; science has proven that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up! Nor can you rely on all the other vastly huge or subatomic things that supposedly exist or existed prior to the universe: membranes producing an endless number of universes, subatomic particles creating everything from nothing. They are relying of SOMETHING existing while dismissing the need to show the cause for them to exist.

How dies this suggest a proof of God's existence? The absolute necessity for a FIRST cause! What can we logically assume about this "First Cause"? Right off the bat we must assume that it is something NON-PHYSICAL and relies on nothing else for its own existence. We MUST be talking about a vastly intelligent BEING. For things to exist He had to decide that they must exist. This shows purpose. The complexity and order of the universe not only shows intelligence by the power to act. Even the "simplest" life forms are incredibly designed. Are you aware that even a bacteria moves because of flagellum whose "motor" consists of 42 separate parts that the bacteria must grow and assemble in a particular order? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum ... ram-en.svg ). How can anyone even look at this and say that it was not designed?
Because we are talking about before the universe existed we are speaking about something outside of our timeline. It MUST be timeless. Past, present, future are all the same to Him.

I could go on and on but I think you should be able to get the picture.

I'll get back to you on the other points.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Tcg in post #56]

Ha honestly it was testimony written 15 years ago for my baptism.

Thanks for reading it.

* i am am born again Christian.
^ technically that is also a tautology

* non Christian household
^ parents did not follow any religion

* atheist
^ if you had asked me back then i would have said 'there is no god, it is all cope and i love science.'

[Wootah]

You were an atheist before being born into a non-Christian household. How does that work?

Yea, that one left me scratching my head too.

I'm thinking he was born into a non-Christian household and grew up as an atheist. later he became a born-again Christian. Based on his testimony, I'm guessing he went through some sort of crisis and a friend talked him into Jesus. Open to being corrected by Wootah.

Yeah fair summary.

[TRANSPONDER]

Starting with your last point: "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?"

Wrong. For that matter you have pointed to one of the oldest proofs of God's existence; it was brought up by both Plato and Aristotle. It is a truism that EVERYTHING physical needs a CAUSE for its existence. The sun came into existence, the Earth came into existence, everyTHING else came into existence. The universe needs a CAUSE for its existence. You cannot rely on saying that it has always existed; science has already disproven that. Just the fact of the existence of elements which have a half-life, such as uranium proves that. If the universe has always existed these elements would have already degraded into lead long, long ago. Nor can you rely on the expansion and contraction of the universe producing new Big Bangs, etc.; science has already disproven that. If that were the case then at best the expansion of the universe would have to be slowing down. However it is NOT; science has proven that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up! Nor can you rely on all the other vastly huge or subatomic things that supposedly exist or existed prior to the universe: membranes producing an endless number of universes, subatomic particles creating everything from nothing. They are relying of SOMETHING existing while dismissing the need to show the cause for them to exist.

How dies this suggest a proof of God's existence? The absolute necessity for a FIRST cause! What can we logically assume about this "First Cause"? Right off the bat we must assume that it is something NON-PHYSICAL and relies on nothing else for its own existence. We MUST be talking about a vastly intelligent BEING. For things to exist He had to decide that they must exist. This shows purpose. The complexity and order of the universe not only shows intelligence by the power to act. Even the "simplest" life forms are incredibly designed. Are you aware that even a bacteria moves because of flagellum whose "motor" consists of 42 separate parts that the bacteria must grow and assemble in a particular order? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum ... ram-en.svg ). How can anyone even look at this and say that it was not designed?
Because we are talking about before the universe existed we are speaking about something outside of our timeline. It MUST be timeless. Past, present, future are all the same to Him.

I could go on and on but I think you should be able to get the picture.

I'll get back to you on the other points.

I could have bet we would get 'Well, who made everything, then?' as intended proof of a god.

Ok. I won't do the materialist counter -argument, but I'll do what I have long wanted to do. Ok Lets say fsoa that I accepted there has to be a First cause behind the universe or, more specifically, the cosmic stuff that the universe was made from. so what? How does that help your case for God?

[Wootah]

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.

If you read my OP carefully, you will see I already expressed this... 'True creation' would mean 'poofing' something into existence, from non-existence. All other word associations speak about 'reconstituting', 'repurposing', etc...

1 - even if I fail in every case I am fallible. But in general, the evidence is overwhelming.

I do not see how this is possible. If you are able to discern the difference between intentional causation (vs) unintentional causation, even only in many cases, then you will swiftly realize the earth is filled with unintentional 'creation' (i.e.) :

Intentional = A farmer's tree orchard
Unintentional = A rain forest

Intentional = a reservoir with a damn on one end
Unintentional = Natural Dam lake

etc etc etc

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.

There exists an infinite number of examples of unintentional causes. And this is exactly what the Bible is speaking about. So the answer is actually a big fat NO, as it relates to Romans 1:20.

3 - seems a long bow to me. No I don't see that conclusion.

Wait a minute.... Science admits matter can neither be created nor destroyed, right? Is it not possible that matter always was? If not, why not?

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 tried this many times, for decades. I realized I'm likely speaking to myself. But thanks for the suggestion. But just so you are aware, there exists countless others, who feel like they are speaking to differing god(s) than you. Are they all mistaken?

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

The human tendency to invoke intentional agency, where there may not actually be any, is a part of our evolutionary survival -- as a species. Thus, I do not necessarily blame you for your a priori assumption.

Not sure what point you wanted me to address sorry?

Yes the universe has an almost infinite number of cause and effect moments. Those are not creative moments. When you see a beauty, for you it is illusion.

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

The human tendency to invoke intentional agency, where there may not actually be any, is a part of our evolutionary survival -- as a species. Thus, I do not necessarily blame you for your a priori assumption.

Yeah I honestly find my views more theist and evolutionarily correct as well. Best of both worlds.

[POI]

Not sure what point you wanted me to address sorry?

Point #1: What you see around you, for which you view as beauty, was likely not 'created' with intention. (i.e) Grand Canyon, Half Dome, Mt. Everest, the clouds, the sun, the other stars, hot springs, etc etc etc etc............ And yet, these are likely some of the surroundings, for which you feel 'God' created. In a prior response, you seemed to acknowledge that both intentional and unintentional 'creation' exists. 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....

Point #2: Romans 1:20 is WRONG, unless you can demonstrate the challenge in point #1. So, can you?

Point #3: Science acknowledges that matter can neither be truly created nor destroyed. Since this is likely the case, (ex materia) always was. Hence, there exists NO NEED to invent a creator god, right?

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

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

Yeah I honestly find my views more theist and evolutionarily correct as well. Best of both worlds.

Not sure you followed me here....? 'Human nature' is to invoke intentional agency, when there is none. This is a type I error, or a false positive. There is usually no harm in perpetually being wrong here, as it is not usually a life threatening mistake. You simply apply an intentional agency, where there is actually none. Where this 'god' is concerned, you will do so for the rest of your life. It is unfalsifible and does not invoke danger, if you are wrong. You simply die someday of natural causes or other, while continuing to invoking this harmless mistake.

[brunumb]

The universe needs a CAUSE for its existence. You cannot rely on saying that it has always existed; science has already disproven that. Just the fact of the existence of elements which have a half-life, such as uranium proves that. If the universe has always existed these elements would have already degraded into lead long, long ago.

That is not correct. The early universe was predominantly hydrogen. Other elements were formed in the cores of stars through nuclear fusion over billions of years. Elements heavier than iron are produced when older stars explode in massive supernovae. New stars are constantly forming from hydrogen and the debris from dead stars. Our Sun and Earth are formed from such debris, so the uranium on our planet is not as old as the universe at all.

[brunumb]

Nor can you rely on the expansion and contraction of the universe producing new Big Bangs, etc.; science has already disproven that. If that were the case then at best the expansion of the universe would have to be slowing down. However it is NOT; science has proven that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up!

Saying that the expansion of the universe would have to be slowing down implies that you know the mechanism and driving force for the expansion. Let's start with you explaining why the universe is expanding and why the rate is increasing. At best we can only say that the universe may not be involved in this expansion/contraction cycle, but we can't simply dismiss it outright.