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]

[Replying to POI in post #191]

The important thing is that we now understand each other.

Good luck with your examinations.

Just to add to the above, I am not sitting in some kind of judgement against others who hold different positions. I am simply acknowledging atheistic thinking for what it is, and also acknowledging that my own position is different re whether "the brain did it" or "God did it" or "something else did it".

My interests simply do not sit with arguing the dead end re the brain did it.

Since 'the brain did it' crowd are stuck in that dead end paradigm, there is little point in investing time arguing with atheistic thinkers which can better invested in discussion with theistic thinkers, due to the subject matter ventured into [re the maze diagram] allows for a lot more ground to being explored.

So it becomes a simple matter of prioritizing re the interest my position affords me on theistic matters.

Though I can somewhat sympathize with some 'place-holder' form of loose/general/generic 'deism', I was thrown for a loop when you mentioned 'YHWH', in regards to the probability of 'theism'.?.?.?. I'll just leave it there, since you do not really want to offer your view in this thread But... Just so you know, if you want your views vetted out, with the most vigor or counter, I would suggest throwing it into the fire, with a band of non-believers. If it still stands, then you may actually have something.... Speaking to like-minded people merely reinforces your ideas. Unless you think your level of thinking is higher than ours?.?.?

It's something I have seen from the first - this Theist mindset that expects to make faithbased claims and not to be called on to validate them.