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]

I also do not think God is a blind watchmaker I do think God intervenes. I call these miracles.

In regards to the topic of 'creation", please name for me one 'god miracle', and prove it.

How do you know I am committing that error?

I'm asking you an honest question. If you admit we all commit type 1 errors often, and we likely have billions who invoke differing imaginary god communications, how likely is it that you fit under that category? 10%, 25%, 50%, other? Meaning, when you look all around you, do you see 'god's handy work' or 'intervention'?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]


Interesting post. Before I begin responding, there is this interesting study.

The atheists did not think the God statements were as unpleasant as the religious participants did in their verbal reports. However, the skin conductance level showed that asking God to do awful things was equally stressful to atheists as it was to religious people and that atheists were more affected by God statements than by wish or offensive statements.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 013.771991

Are atheists pretending to be atheists? No. I doubt that. I think they really doubt God's existence, but they do not seem to think God is a delusion.

As far as what creation means, I agree with Aquinas. No surprise there. Creation = causing to exist from no thing. Make = causing to exist from things. Thus, we only make things. God is the only creator.

1. Can you Christians distinguish the difference between both intentional and unintentional "creation" -- (in every case)?

Yes, based on how I define create. To create is to cause to exist from no thing.

But if you were to ask can we tell the difference between nature causing something to be a certain way versus man, then the answer would be, no not always. Other times we can, such as if I find a watch. I can determine based on how it functions and what the intended function is that it was made by a mind.

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?

Your question doesn't work for me because you are not understanding what Paul said. He is speaking about pagan believers not atheists.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

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?

That is not what science says, so this question is faulty, IMO. Thermodynamics is about a closed or isolated system. In such a system energy cannot be made or destroyed. All the energy of an isolsated system remains the same. It has not been proven the universe is a closed or isolated system. For example, if U-theory is true, then gravitons move from universe to universe.

[POI]

Creation = causing to exist from no thing. Make = causing to exist from things. Thus, we only make things. God is the only creator.

Great. It would appear you are using the 'something from nothing' position. What the heck is a 'nothing'?

Then, all you need to do is demonstrate the existence any god at all. Further, it was indeed that god who 'created' it. And further still, what the heck did god dwell within before he created such an area, space, or other to swell within?

(U) Your question doesn't work for me because you are not understanding what Paul said. He is speaking about pagan believers not atheists.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (THEREFORE) --> 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

(ME) Nah, I say it is you who is misread. Please look at the edit above. But I do not want to quibble over the author's obvious gaslighting attempt. Let's instead quibble over if something can actually be 'created'.

(U) That is not what science says, so this question is faulty, IMO. Thermodynamics is about a closed or isolated system. In such a system energy cannot be made or destroyed. All the energy of an isolsated system remains the same. It has not been proven the universe is a closed or isolated system. For example, if U-theory is true, then gravitons move from universe to universe.

(ME) Hmm? google.com

"A closed system is one which can only exchange energy. The entire universe is an isolated system because it has no surrounding. Hence it is a closed system."

OR

"The authors reanalyzed a major cosmological data set and concluded that the data favors a closed universe with 99% certainty?"

If the above is true, then there exists no need for a universe creating god, right?

[Wootah]

I also do not think God is a blind watchmaker I do think God intervenes. I call these miracles.

In regards to the topic of 'creation", please name for me one 'god miracle', and prove it.

How do you know I am committing that error?

I'm asking you an honest question. If you admit we all commit type 1 errors often, and we likely have billions who invoke differing imaginary god communications, how likely is it that you fit under that category? 10%, 25%, 50%, other? Meaning, when you look all around you, do you see 'god's handy work' or 'intervention'?

I live by faith not by sight. I don't have proof. I might point to the fine-tuning argument if required. When I look around I see God everywhere. So I rate God at 90%.

[POI]

I live by faith not by sight.

You can just as easily apply faith to an untruth, verses a truth. Faith is no more or less reliable than rolling some dice or shaking the "magic 8 ball" and hoping it gives you the answer you desire. So why in the heck would you rely upon 'faith' at all?

I don't have proof.

Then why believe it?

[TRANSPONDER]

I live by faith not by sight.

You can just as easily apply faith to an untruth, verses a truth. Faith is no more or less reliable than rolling some dice or shaking the "magic 8 ball" and hoping it gives you the answer you desire. So why in the heck would you rely upon 'faith' at all?

I don't have proof.

Then why believe it?

It's sometimes the basic atheist question "Why do you believe it?" The Faithful may point to the 'evidence', but even the rather absurd 'universe is so big and complex a huge invisible human must have made it' is not the reason why but the rationalisation afterwards, just as the creationist evidence is ferreted out of Woodmorappe or McDowell or AiG to prop the Faith up. Why do they believe it in the first place?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #103]

Great. It would appear you are using the 'something from nothing' position. What the heck is a 'nothing'?

I said no thing, not nothing as in nothingness, but not thing as in no material.

Then, all you need to do is demonstrate the existence any god at all. Further, it was indeed that god who 'created' it. And further still, what the heck did god dwell within before he created such an area, space, or other to swell within?

This thread is not about proving God exist, so I am under no obligation. That is your own journey for you to seek God if you so desire to.

As far as what did God dwell in before he created space, well, what does the whole universe dwell in now, which it is expanding into according to the standard model?

Us Classical Theist believe God is existence itself, a metaphysical being who doesn't occupy space, having no spacial dimensions. Similar to how mathematical realists, such as Roger Penrose, believe that math exists outside our minds, and that we discovered it and did not invent it. In his own words to Lex Fridman, he said, Math is much more like archeology than you might imagine.
If anyone wants to hear what Roger Penrose says for yourself here is a timestamped video - https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0?t=4926

He won the Nobel Prize for physics in 2020.

So in this case, math has mind independent existence, a metaphysical existence, much like platonic forms, all of which do not occupy space.

If you cannot see that Paul is clearly talking to Pagans, then what can I do? Read some commentaries. He says though they believe in God...

"A closed system is one which can only exchange energy. The entire universe is an isolated system because it has no surrounding. Hence it is a closed system."

Accept that this hasn't been demonstrated to be the case. It is the most common belief as of now based mostly on the standard model, which might be very wrong. Scientific consensus doesn't necessarily = truth.

If the above is true, then there exists no need for a universe creating god, right?

No. Even if the whole system were eternal, it needs the Classical Theist God. Aristotle's argument from change goes through either way. In fact, he believed the universe was eternal. He even thought the planets and stars were eternal, yet still he argued from change for the existence of the purely actual actualizer.

Aquinas's first way doesn't depend upon the universe having a beginning. It depends on change, which is evident in our world.

But I think it is easy to show why energy is not eternal. It changes, but even if we were to grant that energy is eternal, it is clear it changes, thus Aquinas's first way still applies.

[TRANSPONDER]

Debatable. The whole argument of evolution vs goddunnit depends on change. God makes it and change is not what does it. Obviously it happens, but it is not supposed to alter (evolve) that which God hath made. Evolution (chemical as well as biological and indeed social) is a mechanism for creating without a plan. Origins is still a big question, but natural/material has a hypothesis for life and consciousness and really only cosmic origins is a real gap for a god.. Now as to mathematics existing and is not a human invention, that's a nice point. It's like physics, isn't it? Man discovered the rules of physics rather than invented them. Now mathematics, like logic, indeed, I would argue, is discovered, rather than invented. Rather than saying that 1=1 = 2 because we are inventing a language, it is a formula to express what is obviously true; we have 1 stone and another tone and we have what we call 2. It is a true condition rather than a human invention.

I argue that logic is the same. It reflects the way the world works and some logical constructs work in accordance with that and others don't. I use the boulder and the bush mind - experiment: when the bush is hidden behind the boulder, we don't know, but the way the world works tells us it is still there though we can''t see it rather than it winked out of existence. That is why 'the simplest explanation' is preferred and that's why postulating a god where it isn't logically needed is not the first choice hypothesis and is in fact, irrational.

The knock - on is this basic ground as I think our chum William put it. I'd call that the physics of matter - energy which came about broadly because what works, persists and what does not work does not. Chemical evolution, in fact.

What theists postulate is that this ground is intelligent and moreover can effect change in accordance with an act of will. That is to say, a god. name your own. Why do we need to propose it? Partly because we have no other explanation and partly because of appeal to ID. Neither of these are unarguable, but they can still be argued, I have never said they can't be, but they are far from persuasive or (I would argue) even logical.

[JoeyKnothead]

How likely is it, that you are committing a type 1 error, in perpetually invoking an imaginary god?

I really think it is YHWH or atheism.

I actually rate both as likely. I hold them as ranges in poker.

I have bigger issues with atheism than with Christianity.

Ranges in poker? Sounds like you're holding a Brunson, hoping to catch a royal flush on the flop

[Wootah]

[Replying to POI in post #105]

I meant proof like 100% certainty or the scientific sense.

I have lots of proof sufficient for me and most reasonable people.