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]

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

So how do you propose we demonstrate God?

[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.

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.

Faith is required when the evidence is insufficient. I don't believe that we have anything to save ourselves from, not even from the threats of a dead preacher if we don't believe his shtick.

[brunumb]

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

It doesn't testify to anything. It's just some opinion expressed in a book with nothing to demonstrate that is is anything more than that.

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.

Perhaps you should take off your Bible glasses and have another look. There is really no need for a creator. Take a more informed and studied look at the world without the fear of divine judgement hanging over your head.

[Wootah]

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?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith
confidence or trust in a person or thing:

Suppose you organise a catch-up with a group of friends. Now you know Dave, he will be there early and Jim will be on time and Gary will be late. We say we know but really that is just faith or lack of it. That is what I mean by it. The person God has said things. I did not trust those things. Then one day I started to say OK I will listen and see what happens. Now 15 years later I am still testing that word but my faith grows as the word keeps coming true.

[Wootah]

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

Yeah, I think so.

[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?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith
confidence or trust in a person or thing:

Suppose you organise a catch-up with a group of friends. Now you know Dave, he will be there early and Jim will be on time and Gary will be late. We say we know but really that is just faith or lack of it. That is what I mean by it. The person God has said things. I did not trust those things. Then one day I started to say OK I will listen and see what happens. Now 15 years later I am still testing that word but my faith grows as the word keeps coming true.

Yes, faith can be used any many differing contexts. But your Bible also expresses using this methodology, instead of evidence; and labels doing so a virtue (i.e.):

"11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

So yea, faith can be interchanged with blind trust, hope, confidence, etc etc.... Okay, back on topic now...

[POI]

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

Yeah, I think so.

Okay, let's start with mountains. "Earth science" states the following:

"Mountains form where two continental plates collide. Since both plates have a similar thickness and weight, neither one will sink under the other. Instead, they crumple and fold until the rocks are forced up to form a mountain range. As the plates continue to collide, mountains will get taller and taller."

So, I ask you now... Do you believe:

A) such mountains were already formed, and have not changed, and thus, "earth science" is completely wrong?
B) God is in charge of plate tectonics, which causes mountains to form or get taller?
C) something else-- (please explain)?

[AquinasForGod]

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

So how do you propose we demonstrate God?

How do you propose we demonstrate God is not?

The only way I know of is to turn to metaphysics. We start with first principles and deduce from there. For example, I start with change = a potential being actualized by something actual. Do you find any inconsistency with this first principle? Do you disagree with it? If so, what is change exactly according to you?

[AquinasForGod]

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

Everyone that is convinced is probably convinced for different reasons. I am mostly convinced because of many experienced I have had with God and the other wordly. If I am honest with myself, I am not sure I could be convinced without these experiences, but metaphysics would at least give me pause for thought, if not be enough to push me to the side of belief.

I propose we start from first principles. What is change exactly?

My view is that of Aristotle. Change is a potential being actualized by something actual.

Once we have some first principles, there will be logical consequences that can be deduced. If one of those consequences is God, then we either have to alter our first principles or accept the consequence.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

Yeah, I think so.

Okay, let's start with mountains. "Earth science" states the following:

"Mountains form where two continental plates collide. Since both plates have a similar thickness and weight, neither one will sink under the other. Instead, they crumple and fold until the rocks are forced up to form a mountain range. As the plates continue to collide, mountains will get taller and taller."

So, I ask you now... Do you believe:

A) such mountains were already formed, and have not changed, and thus, "earth science" is completely wrong?
B) God is in charge of plate tectonics, which causes mountains to form or get taller?
C) something else-- (please explain)?

Normally, these would be rhetorical questions, just to establish debating parameters. But, while our Creationist pals would presumably not claim that the earth and not the sun is the centre of the solar system or that the earth is flat with a dome over it (indeed, they vehemently deny that this is the cosmic model the Bible is based on) they deny the pretty undeniable fossil stratification evidence for evolution of lifeforms over a long time, and the geological evidence (measurable today, just as we measure rainfall or coastline change) of tectonic plate movement and not even really to maintain Genesis, let alone religious faith, because if Bible apologists can explain away 7 days by dividing the age of the universe into 7 or dismiss the sun created after the earth with the cloud cover apologetic, which is still creationism and Genesis -literalism not because it happened that way but it appeared to Moses (who wasn't there, but that never bothers the Genesis -apologists) as though that was what happened, they can surely maintain Biblefaith with accepting deep time geology, evolution and no actual Flood (1). There are even Christian evolutionists and Bible apologists who wave away Genesis as 'Metaphorical' (but still somehow True, mind you ) so in fact Christian or BibleFaith doesn't depend on Genesis - literalism, but it has become an article of faith which may differ, chapter house to chapter house, and denying science where it conflicts with Genesis (but carefully not so it would make them look silly by claiming the earth is flat and the sun was actually made after the earth) is a dogmatic shibboleth rather than an argument about anything that doctrinally matters. The argument is actually pointless, irrelevant and half gone, but it is a declaration and statement of Faith, rather than a proper evidence -based argument. Or at least, that's my Theory, and no amount of evidence will ever change my mind about that.

(1) indeed, haven't we already seen posters here who say that Biblical Global flood was actually limited and while giving rise to the legends, that scuppers the Bible -claim of why there was a Flood at all. It's hard not to conclude that propping up the Bible as credible history is even more important that maintaining the religious Dogma of it.