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?

[brunumb]

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.

Who says that we are relying on such things. Yes, something may have always existed. That may simply be energy. We know that energy is interconvertible with other forms and we know that energy and matter are interconvertible. Do we understand how and why those changes occur? Do we know about ALL of the different forms and properties of energy and matter that exist? If we don't, then we are in no position to say that some other agency like a god of some sort is required to effect any changes that occur.

[brunumb]

The complexity and order of the universe not only shows intelligence by the power to act. Even the "simplest" life forms are incredibly designed.

Complexity is a subjective assessment. I regard the Chinese written language as complex, but a child of five can read and understand it. What about the universe appears complex to you, and why? Is the universe really all that ordered? It has a structure determined largely by the action of gravity on matter. No need for any intelligence, just as water flowing down a hill doesn't need any intelligence to tell it what particular path to take.

As for design, what criteria do you apply to distinguish between things that are supposedly designed and those that are not. If you were presented with some totally unfamiliar object, how would you establish that it was in fact designed? We have a natural tendency to use what we already know to be designed as a reference for making such decisions. Try making up your criteria and reaching your conclusion without involving any such bias.

[TRANSPONDER]

The complexity and order of the universe not only shows intelligence by the power to act. Even the "simplest" life forms are incredibly designed.

Complexity is a subjective assessment. I regard the Chinese written language as complex, but a child of five can read and understand it. What about the universe appears complex to you, and why? Is the universe really all that ordered? It has a structure determined largely by the action of gravity on matter. No need for any intelligence, just as water flowing down a hill doesn't need any intelligence to tell it what particular path to take.

As for design, what criteria do you apply to distinguish between things that are supposedly designed and those that are not. If you were presented with some totally unfamiliar object, how would you establish that it was in fact designed? We have a natural tendency to use what we already know to be designed as a reference for making such decisions. Try making up your criteria and reaching your conclusion without involving any such bias.

Yes; god - apologist, creationists and the ID crowd do often resort to complexity. It is, at best, a failure to understand that a pebble is more complex than a rocket motor - in sub atomic terms, but nobody suggests that a big invisible human made the pebble, or indeed the order and beauty of a snowflake. Not even the Complexity - apologists can fail to admit that we now know how those objects were formed naturally and a god is not needed. At worst, they try to frighten us with immensity. That is not going to work either. In short, while some ID arguments at least pose questions that science hasn't the answer to, at least, not yet, ID, complexity, order and Constants does NOT provide evidence for any sorta god, let alone any particular god of any particular religion.

[1213]

...
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.

[Wootah]

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....

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.

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

Done?

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?

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

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.

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.

[brunumb]

...
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.

You are not really talking about gods as beings, particularly highlighted by the fact that you had to write "gods". A golden calf is not a god. It is an icon or an idol used as representation of an absent god. Christians do the same with their crosses, but the cross is not the god. So, were all the other beings regarded by humans as gods real or just invented?

[TRANSPONDER]

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....

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.

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

Done?

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?

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

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.

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.

Causality is not the illusion, but intentional causality. That's the debate, whether things were done intentionally or just came about without an intention. Generally where we know the cause, there is nothing to show it was intended. The start of absolutely everything is still not known well enough to be sure. Creationists try to argue that intention is more likely, but we just don't know.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #77]

Are you saying you don't have free will?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #77]

Are you saying you don't have free will?

What has that got to do with anything? We are talking about causality vs intentional causality within 'creation' (not necessarily intelligent creation, as distinct from natural creation). Where does my 'free will' come into that debate? Other than as a bit of misdirection.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #77]

Are you saying you don't have free will?

What has that got to do with anything? We are talking about causality vs intentional causality within 'creation' (not necessarily intelligent creation, as distinct from natural creation). Where does my 'free will' come into that debate? Other than as a bit of misdirection.

When you 'clean your room'. Did you create or were you caused?