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]

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

OUCH! i didn't realise how much a backhanded slap in the face could hurt.

[POI]

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

Yea, so your definition of "creation" means ex nihilio. Not ex materia.

This thread is not about proving God exist, so I am under no obligation.

This thread is to get 'creationists' to demonstrate their position. And in your case, the 'creator' in question is 'God'.

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?

Are you trying to argue space is expanding into "God's transcendent space" or something?

Further, unless you wish to argue god is such transcendent space, then you have to try and rationalize what 'arena/realm' God dwelled within, before he necessarily had to create it. So good luck

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.

Nice "deepity". How in the heck would you know how God functions, if you cannot even merely demonstrate his existence?

He won the Nobel Prize for physics in 2020.

Oh, for physics. But not for demonstrating 'creationism' or 'god'. Got it. Thnx.

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

Kool stuff.. So math ='s god?

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...

You provided the Verses in question, I countered those exact Verses . And now you state "nuh uh". Great. If you wish to now move the goal posts, be my guest. Otherwise, let's move on to more important matters here

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.

Agreed. But these folks are not just pulling assumptions out of their keesters. They instead examine what information they have available. Maybe if/when more is available, then the consensus may change?.?.?.? By until then, don't assume YOU are right "I don't know" is the best answer. Not, god "musta" did it.

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.

Aristotle was a philosopher, and not a scientist. That would be like telling me the best lawyer on the planet thinks you have a brain tumor. Seek the right specialist, for starters. As I stated prior, philosophy (entire), has made no forward steps in proving god. And yet, science, without even trying, has vastly reduced the gaps for a god(s). So though science cannot prove/disprove god, it sure has reduced god's chances --- especially over the passed couple of centuries.

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.

I have to ask, have you ever even researched the objections of "Aquinas"? I feel I would just be rinsing/repeating here....

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #112]

I see the problem now. You think that science can somehow demonstrate the metaphysical like Platonic forms, but it cannot. It is not that science is just not developed enough. It is that science limits itself based on its methology. It cannot in principle ever affirm or deny the metaphysical.

So we cannot demonstrate God or platonic forms or mathematical realism, etc by the scientific method.

It would be like trying to find buried plastic with a metal detector.

So once you give me a plausible method to demonstrate God, I will be happy to do so.

I have to ask, have you ever even researched the objections of "Aquinas"? I feel I would just be rinsing/repeating here....

Yes, most people don't understand Aquinas, which is evident when they mistake his first way for a first cause argument. For a good critique, I recommend Joe Schmid. Once I saw a good critique and the possible alternative... well, Aquinas wins hands down for me.

[Wootah]

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

OUCH! i didn't realise how much a backhanded slap in the face could hurt.

Remember what the Lord says,

'To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.'

What I mean is that the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable faith. At the core rejecting Jesus is emotionally rooted more deeply in hating the fact we cannot save ourselves.

[POI]

[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.

So why use faith at all? And what evidence demonstrates "creation"?

[POI]

I see the problem now. You think that science can somehow demonstrate the metaphysical like Platonic forms, but it cannot.

No, that's not what I said at all. This is what I said:

"So though science cannot prove/disprove god, it sure has reduced god's chances --- especially over the passed couple of centuries."

Meaning, the more we discover scientifically, the more we find that God's hand was likely not there. Think about all the gods we have all now dismissed. The gaps for god get smaller and smaller, as we discover more and more. The problem remains. You wish to invoke philosophy. And yet, philosophy has been around almost as long as your religion, and has given nothing towards proving god. I have expressed this more than once, you seem to gloss right over this finding. I wonder why?

Further, philosophy needs other endeavors, like science, for validation. On the contrary, when things go awry, I do not see someone saying, "hey, let's seek out our local philosopher to figure this out." Hardly anyone, if any, is keeping philosophers on their payroll to solve their daily problems

THE PROBLEM is that you are clearly exercising fallacious reasoning to endorse your god.

So we cannot demonstrate God or platonic forms or mathematical realism, etc by the scientific method.

It would be like trying to find buried plastic with a metal detector.

If you have evidence for "creation", present it.... If not, I guess it boils down to (faith/hope)?

So once you give me a plausible method to demonstrate God, I will be happy to do so.

Sounds like you do not think he can be demonstrated. So why believe some god is there "creating" stuff?

Yes, most people don't understand Aquinas, which is evident when they mistake his first way for a first cause argument. For a good critique, I recommend Joe Schmid. Once I saw a good critique and the possible alternative... well, Aquinas wins hands down for me.

Aces

[JoeyKnothead]

...
So we cannot demonstrate God or platonic forms or mathematical realism, etc by the scientific method.
...

That's the exact same problem I run into trying convince folks the Tooth Fairy's real, but she's ugly.

[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.

So why use faith at all? And what evidence demonstrates "creation"?

What do you mean why use faith? I am not certain but I act on I what I know - is faith.

Creation in terms of Romans 1:20 testifies to God's invisible attributes: eternal power and divinity.

https://biblehub.com/text/romans/1-20.htm

For me I look at the world and it screams out to me 'I was created and the creator is God'. In the same way my phone does or a car or a sword screams out for a creator.

[POI]

What do you mean why use faith? I am not certain but I act on I what I know - is faith.

Okay, your definition of faith is not really faith at all then. You are convinced by the evidence, you apprehend a conclusion, you infer a conclusion. I gotcha now... Meaning, you do not really rely upon faith at all, unless you redefine/stretch the term immensely.

Creation in terms of Romans 1:20 testifies to God's invisible attributes: eternal power and divinity.

https://biblehub.com/text/romans/1-20.htm

For me I look at the world and it screams out to me 'I was created and the creator is God'. In the same way my phone does or a car or a sword screams out for a creator.

So we are right back to the very beginning of my original post, where I quoted the exact same verse. What are the odds?

I think we've already been over this... But I will dive in again....

So the mountains, Half Dome, etc, were created by god?

[Tcg]

So once you give me a plausible method to demonstrate God, I will be happy to do so.

One has to wonder if you aren't sure how to do so, why would you be convinced of that which you aren't sure how to demonstrate. Let's bypass Aquinas and see your reasoning. After all, he doesn't post here or anywhere else for that matter.


Tcg