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?

[William]

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.

I think that religion itself based in the genuine, in that The Ghost is acknowledged - dressing The Ghost through the use of imagery is an attempt to make The Ghost be seen.
The variations have more to do with the costumes re geographics, than the subject matter.

[Wootah]

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.

I made a great atheist for 30 years as well. Inshallah.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

I made a great atheist for 30 years as well. Inshallah.

But as is so often the case, you seem to have forgotten all the atheist arguments - unless you were one of those who didn't know them and allowed yourself to be spoonfed the misrepresentations of the Creationists. But take heart; many a bamboozled believer has become a great atheist again through listening to the arguments with an open mind. That's all we ask - not even your adopting a Faith posture and asking Darwinism to come into your heart.

[JoeyKnothead]

...That's all we ask - not even your adopting a Faith posture and asking Darwinism to come into your heart.

That's the bit right there that confuses me.

If I accept God, I get a place in his heart.

If I don't, I'm condemned to various unfortuitous outcomes.

If God wants in my heart, how 'bout taking care of the homeless and hungry?

[TRANSPONDER]

...That's all we ask - not even your adopting a Faith posture and asking Darwinism to come into your heart.

That's the bit right there that confuses me.

If I accept God, I get a place in his heart.

If I don't, I'm condemned to various unfortuitous outcomes.

If God wants in my heart, how 'bout taking care of the homeless and hungry?

He's too busy ensuring that His Deserving Chosen have Learjets and billion -dollar mansions. The birds of the field do not beg, nor do the lilies in the clouds weave baskets, and they do all right, so why should we worry about the needy?

[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.

I made a great atheist for 30 years as well. Inshallah.

Why did you adopt a lifestyle of living by faith and why would you do such a thing? It's like being proud of being a smoker, but at least a smoker feels shame when they light up.

[JoeyKnothead]

... It's like being proud of being a smoker, but at least a smoker feels shame when they light up.

That all depends on what it is, I'm alighting up

[TRANSPONDER]

... It's like being proud of being a smoker, but at least a smoker feels shame when they light up.

That all depends on what it is, I'm alighting up

Enlightening up?

[JoeyKnothead]

... It's like being proud of being a smoker, but at least a smoker feels shame when they light up.

That all depends on what it is, I'm alighting up

Enlightening up?

I've shown the pretty thing some of your stuff, like this brilliance here, and now I think she's sweet on ya.

Stay the heck away!

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

You are pretty much jacking my sentiments...as I've (on more than one occasion) accused atheists/unbelievers of suppressing the obvious evidence in and within the universe to remain in their state of unbelief, all while feeding this justification by coming on religious debate forums and arguing against the existence of God when deep down inside, they "know" what's up.

Well, I'm here to challenge this assertion from the Bible.

Yeah, good luck with that...at least while I am here.

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.

Nahh..not so fast.

Christian theists make it clear that God created ex nihilo, which means out of nothing.

There was no preexisting material to be arranged.

God did the creating, and God did the arranging.

He created the house and furniture out of nothing, and designed the house and arranged the furniture nice and neatly inside the house, making the house nice and comfortable for its tenants.

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.

Here you are talking about nature, the Grand Canyon, Mount Everest, etc...

When the entire universe began to exist...

For debate:

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

Yeah...easy.

Every winter in Michigan, nature creates snow which covers my yard (unintentional). However, when my children go outside and create/build a snowman with this snow, that is (intentional).

Too easy.

Next..

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?

Looks to me like I already did....and the author of Romans 1:20 is correct.

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?

This whole "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" is the first law of thermodynamics (FLOT) and is often used by atheists to negate the creation/intelligent design theory.

But the FLOT only comes into effect AFTER the universe began to exist...and you cannot use science to prove that nature (space, time, energy, matter) was always here.

That, followed by the fact that we have evidence in...

1. Science (second law of thermodynamics).
2. Math and philosophy (arguments against infinite regress)
3. Philosophy (intelligent design arguments, ontological arguments)

All of those arguments in totality proves otherwise....and they are all independent, which means that even if you refute one, the others still stand on their own merit.

So either way, lose/lose situation.