Two potential creation scenarios

[agnosticatheist]

Let's assume for the sake of this debate that the following premises are true:

A: The Christian God exists

B: The Christian God created the universe

Now, let's consider two possible creation scenarios.

Scenario 1: God created each species in a separate creation event.

Scenario 1 questions for debate:

1. Why would God create each species in separate creation events and yet make it appear that each species emerged from earlier lifeforms? Wouldn't that make God dishonest?

2. The Bible says that God is trustworthy; can he still be trusted if he made it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't?

3. Why would God make it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't, knowing full well that this will cause many to doubt God's existence?

Scenario 2: God created the conditions in which carbon-based lifeforms could emerge and evolve on Earth, and eventually lead to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, which God would give a soul to (and perhaps make some other minor changes to), which would result in the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or Modern Humans.

Scenario B Question for debate:

1. Why would God go to all that trouble when he could simply create each species in separate creation events?

Here's a broader set of questions that apply to both scenarios:

Why would God create lifeforms other than humans? Clearly humans are important because they "house" the human soul. But what about Wolves? Crocodiles? Crows? Gorillas?

What is the role of non-human lifeforms in God's "plan"?

Do they have souls too? Consciousness/awareness is a state that people claim is possible due to the soul.

Well, the more we observe and study the non-human natural world, the more it seems that consciousness/awareness exists on a spectrum, from human-level awareness (or perhaps higher...), down to complete non-consciousness/non-awareness (e.g. bacteria). There isn't some absolute line where life is divided between conscious and non-conscious, except for maybe at the "lower lifeform levels", but definitely not at the "higher lifeform levels". Dogs are conscious, they just aren't conscious to the same degree that humans are.

So, why create lifeforms besides humans and have consciousness exist on a spectrum?

Why would God do this knowing full well that it would cause people to question his existence?

It just seems to be such an interesting coincidence that God created lifeform consciousness on a spectrum.

[Bust Nak]

Allow me to be explicit, as well.

We're talking about diametrically opposed things.

No, we are not. We are talking about the same thing, yet you reject one and accept the other. Hence my charge of inconsistency.

In the first instance -- beetles -- you have an organism that was initially designed with the genetic diversity to speciate into numerous and diverse forms, in response to environmental pressure.

This principle has been exhaustively proven by both natural, and artificial selection. It involves the selecting out of the information for existing traits; not the introduction of new information (and please -- may I be spared the tired, hackneyed complaint that the term "information" is "anthropocentric"? Semantical games will not alter the latent reality that DNA is an information code).

... Are we together to far?

Sure, but you are still not answering my charge: You accept that an organism (beetle or dogs) that was initially designed with the genetic diversity to speciate into numerous and diverse forms, in response to environmental pressure. Yet reject that an organism (microbe or turnips) could have been initially designed with the genetic diversity to speciate into numerous and diverse forms, in response to environmental pressure. Why?

But you will never cultivate the emergence of wings on a canine species. That information does not exist in its genome. You cannot get blood from a turnip, as the saying goes.

That assumes dogs are not initially designed with the genetic diversity that include wings.

But that is exactly what m2m requires.

And that assumes microbe are not initially designed with the genetic diversity that include man.

From the initial "turnip" of a randomly assembled living cell (which could never occur;

And that assumes turnips are not initially designed with the genetic diversity that include blood.

What is the reasons for rejecting that dogs could grow wings, other than these assumptions?

Now, if you want to claim I have no idea what YOU, specifically, believe -- you will get no argument from me.

How about if I claim that you have no idea what materialists in general believe? Would I get arguments from you?

Can you explain why the world exists?

Sure, with science. I suppose you would follow up with questions along the lines of if I can explain why the laws of nature are the way they are?

Can you provide any explanation for why you are of any more intrinsic value or worth than the bovine I consumed for lunch yesterday?

Loaded question cannot be answered. The premise that we are of any more intrinsic value or worth than the bovine you consumed for lunch yesterday, is false.

Can you provide scientific evidence for any claim you make in that regard?

Only to the subset of what the claims that are scientific.

according to you, you can be a materialist, and believe in God?

Sure.

Is God made of matter

The kind of God that materialists can believe in while remaining a materialist, of course.

[FarWanderer]

Do you know what you believe?

Do you have a coherent, explanatory belief system as to what your purpose is in this life?

Can you explain why the world exists? Can you provide any explanation for why you are of any more intrinsic value or worth than the bovine I consumed for lunch yesterday? Can you provide scientific evidence for any claim you make in that regard?

I would like to hear you provide answers to these questions yourself. The way you're talking, we're sure to be blown away.

I will courteously allow you to go first.

It would appear to me then, that you aren't really as confident as you would like us all to think.

Sure. I'll answer.

Do you know what you believe?

Of course. Who doesn't. I am quite aware of my beliefs' logical implications as well.

Do you have a coherent, explanatory belief system as to what your purpose is in this life?

My belief system holds subjective interests to be in no way inferior or "less true" than objective facts. My purpose is expressed entirely through my intrinsically subjective nature. My purpose in (this?) life is to grow, learn, and experience many things. To a lesser degree my purpose extends in application beyond just myself, to those around me, or even to humanity or life in general.

Can you explain why the world exists?

I don't think there even is an explaination. I haven't any reason to expect that the world not exist, so it's not such a confounding question to me.

Can you provide any explanation for why you are of any more intrinsic value or worth than the bovine I consumed for lunch yesterday?

Because I'm me and that cow isn't.

Can you provide scientific evidence for any claim you make in that regard?

Not necessary.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 191 by FarWanderer]

Well, I'll say this in regard to your belief system, FW:

It is, in its vagueness, perfectly consistent with the religious belief that the universe somehow formed, for no particular reason; and microbes morphed into men, for the same "no particular reason".

That is the only measure of consistency or coherency it advances.

Subjectively speaking, of course.

[Bust Nak]

Can you provide any explanation for why you are of any more intrinsic value or worth than the bovine I consumed for lunch yesterday?

Because I'm me and that cow isn't.

Why does that give you any more intrinsic value? Sounds like you are answering another question and not the one being asked.

[Danmark]

Can you provide any explanation for why you are of any more intrinsic value or worth than the bovine I consumed for lunch yesterday?

Because I'm me and that cow isn't.

Why does that give you any more intrinsic value? Sounds like you are answering another question and not the one being asked.

It's the question that is the problem. Since the question asks for a value judgment, it is a meaningless question unless it is taken from a particular point of view. Is there anything that has more 'intrinsic value' than another if we don't define 'value' or where the value came from?

[FarWanderer]

Can you provide any explanation for why you are of any more intrinsic value or worth than the bovine I consumed for lunch yesterday?

Because I'm me and that cow isn't.

Why does that give you any more intrinsic value? Sounds like you are answering another question and not the one being asked.

Basically what Danmark said.

I'm saying that intrinsic value is subjective. It's the only way the term even makes sense to me, so it's the only way I am able to answer the question.

[Volbrigade]

Can you provide any explanation for why you are of any more intrinsic value or worth than the bovine I consumed for lunch yesterday?

Because I'm me and that cow isn't.

Why does that give you any more intrinsic value? Sounds like you are answering another question and not the one being asked.

Basically what Danmark said.

I'm saying that intrinsic value is subjective. It's the only way the term even makes sense to me, so it's the only way I am able to answer the question.

In other words -- I have more value than a cow because I say so. I have more value than you, because I say so.

You have more value than me, if you say so.

Whoops -- a conflict of subjective values. How are we going to solve it?

Now, suppose I propose that since you are a bag of chemicals, with no more objective value than a cow, I give you the "no country for old men" treatment, and then consume your liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

You would certainly be within your rights -- wherever they come from, certainly not from God -- to protest;

but can you show me from the standpoint of microbes becoming men for no reason ("that's not what it says!" -- puh-leeeeze... :eyeroll: ) how that would be anything other than "matter acting according to its properties"; the manifestation of DNA in a purely material world?

And provide the science to back it up?

Do you see the problem you guys have?

[FarWanderer]

Can you provide any explanation for why you are of any more intrinsic value or worth than the bovine I consumed for lunch yesterday?

Because I'm me and that cow isn't.

Why does that give you any more intrinsic value? Sounds like you are answering another question and not the one being asked.

Basically what Danmark said.

I'm saying that intrinsic value is subjective. It's the only way the term even makes sense to me, so it's the only way I am able to answer the question.

In other words -- I have more value than a cow because I say so. I have more value than you, because I say so.

You have more value than me, if you say so.

Whoops -- a conflict of subjective values. How are we going to solve it?

Now, suppose I propose that since you are a bag of chemicals, with no more objective value than a cow, I give you the "no country for old men" treatment, and then consume your liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

You would certainly be within your rights -- wherever they come from, certainly not from God -- to protest;

but can you show me from the standpoint of microbes becoming men for no reason ("that's not what it says!" -- puh-leeeeze... :eyeroll: ) how that would be anything other than "matter acting according to its properties"; the manifestation of DNA in a purely material world?

And provide the science to back it up?

Do you see the problem you guys have?

I see no problem, unless it is that you are actually threatening to kill and eat me.

In which case, I'm calling the police.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 196 by Volbrigade]

By the way, your efforts to avoid explaining your own worldview and instead shift the focus to your opposition's have not gone unnoticed. Misdirection is a cheap debate tactic, and relying on it is a strong indication of weakness in the debater's actual position.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 194 by Danmark]

[Replying to post 195 by FarWanderer]

Then point out the flaw in the question. Intrinsic implies independant from any particular point of view. Extrinsic value is what we assign subjectively.

In other words -- I have more value than a cow because I say so. I have more value than you, because I say so.

More value, yes; but not more intrinsic value.

You have more value than me, if you say so.

Whoops -- a conflict of subjective values. How are we going to solve it?

Why do you feel the need to solve anything, why do you think it is a problem to resolve it in the first place? Are you suggesting we have a duty to value what you value?

Now, suppose I propose that since you are a bag of chemicals, with no more objective value than a cow, I give you the "no country for old men" treatment, and then consume your liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

You would certainly be within your rights -- wherever they come from, certainly not from God -- to protest;

Sure, and that's all there is to it.

but can you show me from the standpoint of microbes becoming men for no reason ("that's not what it says!" -- puh-leeeeze... :eyeroll: ) how that would be anything other than "matter acting according to its properties"; the manifestation of DNA in a purely material world?

We can't because we are bag of chemicals, matter acting according to its properties, with no more objective value than a cow.

Do you see the problem you guys have?

No, but you seem to think we have a problem.