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?

[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.

You know we live like the world is flat and there is a dome over it. The Bible is deeply true regardless of whether and how or if it actually happened. Just like a story can impart wisdom and truth.

I think the issue that you guys don't recognise is that we see an object and atheism or more correctly scepticism looks behind it. A human being becomes a bunch of elements that aren't worth more than 10 bucks (including inflation).

I don't think the science is settled by a long shot. Let's give it a few hundred years at least.

Yes, we do live as though the world was flat. If we do airline travel, we know we are going around a globe, But that's about the only time we realise it. But this is to reduce the Bible to the level of any other story or history book, real or false or a mix. There is no reason to put it anywhere but on the shelf with all the other books of myth. It talks about the condition of man, but we just understand it better now than the writers of the Bible, even if they hadn't ascribed it all to a god. Yes, science isn't settled by a long shot - nobody (but Theists misrepresenting it, yet again) says that it is, but the fact is that the more science has found out the more the gaps for god have shrunk. If you think that a 'longer shot' is going to validate a god (name your own) I think you are fooling yourself. And you may think that without the idea that a god made us as the pinnacle of creation,we don't value humans. Theists make that mistake all the time, just as they think life has no meaning unless a god imposes one. This is all a misconception that Theists can never understand until they deconvert.

[Wootah]

Yes, we do live as though the world was flat. If we do airline travel, we know we are going around a globe, But that's about the only time we realise it. But this is to reduce the Bible to the level of any other story or history book, real or false or a mix. There is no reason to put it anywhere but on the shelf with all the other books of myth. It talks about the condition of man, but we just understand it better now than the writers of the Bible, even if they hadn't ascribed it all to a god. Yes, science isn't settled by a long shot - nobody (but Theists misrepresenting it, yet again) says that it is, but the fact is that the more science has found out the more the gaps for god have shrunk. If you think that a 'longer shot' is going to validate a god (name your own) I think you are fooling yourself. And you may think that without the idea that a god made us as the pinnacle of creation,we don't value humans. Theists make that mistake all the time, just as they think life has no meaning unless a god imposes one. This is all a misconception that Theists can never understand until they deconvert.

Go on prove life has meaning?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39778

[TRANSPONDER]

That question is addressed on the specific thread. But to consider the OP I might comment on this idea of intentional vs unintentional 'design'. There is order and even design in nature, but it doesn't have to be Intelligent design and there is even evidence that it is not deliberately designed but came out of an evolutionary trial and error process. The 'whirlwind is a junkyard' canard completely misses (or misrepresents) the theory. I may mention also in the early day, there was an odd objection to evolution: "There wasn't time". I was totally bemused by his as the theory of evolution has plenty of time. But what is really funny is the recent revisions of Flood hypothesis where the frankly untenable numbers of species to be on the Ark were drastically reduced with the 'Baryma' apologetic - ancestral 'kinds' from which the other species would evolve (1) all in about a thousand years, "There wasn't enough time" having apparently gone out of fashion as an apologetic.

(1) Hamm's Ark has a really nice model of a Pakicetus. That means that he is arguing that the ancestor of all the whales was on the ark and thus you don't need to have all the species of sea mammals on the Ark.

[POI]

Okay, let's dig a little deeper. Let's look at Mount Everest. Would you agree or disagree that Mt. Everest is ~60 million years old?

-- If agreed, this would mean when God "created" the earth, ~4.6 billion years ago, there was no hint of this mountain?
-- If disagreed, how old do you think the earth is? Or, why has the whole of 'earth science' got it so dang 'wrong about the ages'? And how do you know? And why aren't you informing them of their error, by giving them the correct data?

From a scientific/evolutionary point of view, I believe so.
From a scientific/creationist point of view, I somewhat suspect the world underwent violent transformations during the flood.

I do also believe in a created beginning with a universe and our world with trees, mountains, oceans, rivers.

As we understand more about evolution and how many steps are involved, we keep pushing out the universe's age. In fairness, evolution is distinctly falsifiable if the universe's age is less than the age required for things to evolve. Of course, there can be rapid evolution as well. It's a win/win.

As for me personally, I made some wrong choices and did not realise how important studying and excelling at science would be. That ship has sailed (off the edge of the world so to speak). I guess the world is such a clown world these days that gives me confidence that something is wrong in the sciences.

There are people who argue this stuff that seems credentialed - I don't know.

Okay, you are kind of all over the place.

Do you believe Mount Everest was formed how earth science states, or not? If not, what evidence suggests otherwise? If you state it is from a 'flood', how can you prove this?

[POI]

Yeah, I think you aren't used to being on a civil debating website or taking that seriously.

Then you would be wrong, again...

[William]

"20 For since the creation of the world YHVHs invisible qualities—YHVHs eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

My opinion is that here, Paul makes the mistake of projecting his own thoughts as thoughts everyone should have, and therein makes the mistake of judging others on account of his own thoughts. It is a common enough human practice which we are best to learn to avoid doing.

3. If 'science' is correct, and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead only repurposed;

Shaped.

All things [matter/particles] that we know about are made of the one thing that we don't yet know about - [unless that one thing is the Higgs Boson] - and I suggest that whatever that one thing is, it is fundamental to all other things which are shaped, but even so - is not in itself the fundamental, any more than spacetime is fundamental.

If matter cannot be destroyed or created, then it is eternal - which is one of the words Paul uses to describe YHVH - the other being "power" or "energy" to use the scientific word ...and there appears to be no concrete answer to the question of entropy but some answers [predictions] have it that the energy will dissipate and therefore no longer excite the particles into shapes.

Science has it that Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred and transformed. This is the same attribute attached to matter, yet these are presented as different as matter is shaped by energy so, without energy particles would remain inert.

This allows me to wonder if what the scientists are saying is that energy is what is being transferred and matter is what is being transformed, because it seems more logical to see it in that way.

Of the two, matter would equal "That which is a Quantum Particle" while energy is what is doing the shaping - That which is shaping Quantum Particles, into forms.

In this, YHVH would equal {be} the "Energy" part of the process and it is in the shaping that one can observe mindfulness which - in theistic terms - equals deliberate purpose.

This means there exists no reason to invent or assert a god in charge of 'creation', right?

Perhaps. But it also means there is no reason to invent or assert NO creator in charge of creation, right?

Any assertions are opinions all said and done.

The better approach is to investigate the notion of us existing within a creation and seeing what the science has so far revealed in regard to that.

Since spacetime is doomed according to the math re quantum physics - it is established already that spacetime is not the fundamental reality but an aspect of something else...but until that established fact is acknowledged by the greater population, ignorance of the fact will remain, and thus outdated concepts still in circulation and vigorously argued for have the center stage...or as Nobel prize winner, physicist Max Planck, remarked;

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”

and re old notions vigorously defended in the face of new evidence;

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

All in all, science was/is never about disproving a creator - even that there has been an epoch where science has attempted to be repurposed by materialistic humans to that end...it has failed in that regard and YHVH remains alive and the idea that we exist within a creation seems to have much actual scientific backing...

[POI]

"20 For since the creation of the world YHVHs invisible qualities—YHVHs eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

My opinion is that here, Paul makes the mistake of projecting his own thoughts as thoughts everyone should have, and therein makes the mistake of judging others on account of his own thoughts. It is a common enough human practice which we are best to learn to avoid doing.

3. If 'science' is correct, and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead only repurposed;

Shaped.

All things [matter/particles] that we know about are made of the one thing that we don't yet know about - [unless that one thing is the Higgs Boson] - and I suggest that whatever that one thing is, it is fundamental to all other things which are shaped, but even so - is not in itself the fundamental, any more than spacetime is fundamental.

If matter cannot be destroyed or created, then it is eternal - which is one of the words Paul uses to describe YHVH - the other being "power" or "energy" to use the scientific word ...and there appears to be no concrete answer to the question of entropy but some answers [predictions] have it that the energy will dissipate and therefore no longer excite the particles into shapes.

Science has it that Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred and transformed. This is the same attribute attached to matter, yet these are presented as different as matter is shaped by energy so, without energy particles would remain inert.

This allows me to wonder if what the scientists are saying is that energy is what is being transferred and matter is what is being transformed, because it seems more logical to see it in that way.

Of the two, matter would equal "That which is a Quantum Particle" while energy is what is doing the shaping - That which is shaping Quantum Particles, into forms.

In this, YHVH would equal {be} the "Energy" part of the process and it is in the shaping that one can observe mindfulness which - in theistic terms - equals deliberate purpose.

From reading, up to here, seems as though the 'best' answer one could postulate, if one wants to argue for some external agency, would be a form of "pantheism"? Which, of could, would likely exclude this YWHW character.

Perhaps.

But it also means there is no reason to invent or assert NO creator in charge of creation, right?

As an 'atheist', I stand behind the answer of... "I have no idea." I have doubt this YHWH character exists; especially when such claimed god wants a relationship with his 'creation' and plays hide-and-go-seek, even when asked to reveal himself--- (but I digress).

All in all, science was/is never about disproving a creator - even that there has been an epoch where science has attempted to be repurposed by materialistic humans to that end...it has failed in that regard and YHVH remains alive and the idea that we exist within a creation seems to have much actual scientific backing...

I agree that the purpose of science is not to 'prove/disprove' creation. I would gather to say that the topic of 'god' is not even on the mind, while diving into this vast topic. However, the Bible makes a set of claims. Some of which are not supported, via later human discovery. Thus, the believer must reconcile these findings in some way; unless they instead just flat out deny 'science' in favor of faith.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #147]

From reading, up to here, seems as though the 'best' answer one could postulate, if one wants to argue for some external agency, would be a form of "pantheism"?

Panentheism

Which, of course, would likely exclude this YWHW character.

Neither Pantheism or Panentheism excludes any notions of a creators character - and the "YHVH character" - as presented by a number of biblical authors - certainly comes across as a mixture, but "I am that I am" allows for the individual to discern for their self what YHVH means to them, which explains the apparent contradictions, but not the overall Oneness...

I agree that the purpose of science is not to 'prove/disprove' creation.

I did not say that. I said

all in all, science was/is never about disproving a creator

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #147]

From reading, up to here, seems as though the 'best' answer one could postulate, if one wants to argue for some external agency, would be a form of "pantheism"?

Panentheism

Which, of course, would likely exclude this YWHW character.

Neither Pantheism or Panentheism excludes any notions of a creators character - and the "YHVH character" - as presented by a number of biblical authors - certainly comes across as a mixture, but "I am that I am" allows for the individual to discern for their self what YHVH means to them, which explains the apparent contradictions, but not the overall Oneness...

I agree that the purpose of science is not to 'prove/disprove' creation.

I did not say that. I said

all in all, science was/is never about disproving a creator

A difference that essentially makes no difference but PanEntheism, then. While the Character of God isn't the same thing as the God - character, the question of intelligence comes into it. And after that intervention, and finally of course, identification with a particular religion. Even with irreligious Theists (Deists who claim divine interference) secularists can do business. I still wonder why it is so important to those Theists who do not sign up to a particular religion (whether or not to an intervening god) have to work so hard to force the theism claim onto secularists? Can anyone explain it?

[Clownboat]

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%.

I would like to point out that this person would make a great Muslim. Due to how they choose to live that is.
They would also make a great Hindu...

Religion by geography is a thing because there is no shortage of people who live by faith and not by sight. How someone can be proud of a virtue that would literally lead them to another religions if born elsewhere on the planet is lost on me.