creationism in the us of a (page 8)

stevenyc

Can you explain to me had God came into exitance from nothing? Because I can't get my head aroung this.

steve

Your question is the same basically as mine, where did everything (matter, stars, galaxies, etc.) come from, either it always was or it came from somplace, but then, how did it get there, and so on. To me the same dilemma people have with an eternal God, I have a problem with an eternal universe.

FairMind

Stevenyc, I guess it's the question of what came first the chicken or the egg. My own logic tells me there is a creator but I can't prove that in a difinitive way. I suppose that is why those who believe in a God do so on faith. It isn't blind faith though because we see His handywork all about us. To me the very fact that we have senses like color vision, taste, smell and so forth prove that God intended for us to get pleasure from living. When you look at this world and see the terrible things that exist, it doesn't disprove the existance of God or his goodness, but it does prove that something is very wrong.

Terry

There's an exceedingly bad example of how a seemingly intentional pattern could form and be copied without there being any true intent.
Dave

"Patterns" are in the eye of the beholder.

Ever lie back and gaze up at clouds? How many patterns can you find? Alligators, seahorses, Ricky Martin's profile can all be seen with the eye of imagination and a suggestive shape.

There is a fellow named Prager who wrote a kind of creationist philosophy book who used a fallacious argument that is for the purpose of skewering evolutionists.

Here it is:

You are at a ski resort and one night there is an avalanche so that the next morning there is an enormous jumble of snow, rocks, branches and debris scattered at the foot of the mountain. You go out and start walking through the mess by way of inspection and you come upon a large bank of snow with stones arranged in it that spell out the words, "Hello there".

Would you assume this happened by chance or would you conclude reasonably that an intelligent thinking person put the stones in place?

This is Dennis Prager's effort at trapping the non-believer into a logical conundrum.

But, the game is rigged. For one thing, this scenario is completely fabricated and fictitious. It could just as easily have said, "Suppose pigs had wings, would you assume they could fly?" and be just as internally logical without having any bearing whatsoever on reality.

The cartoon minds of believers are always tirelessly grinding out such pap by way of "Proof".

T.

tetrapod.sapien

yes, that is a classic example version of the argument from design. it's like the JWs saying that every house has a designer, therefore nature must have too. also a non sequitur.

but with regards DNA, this shows that they are completely ignorant as to the computational "nature" of DNA. this is why you will find me going on and on about how DNA is closer to a computer program executing algorithms (genomes have both addressing systems as well as content), than it is to a blue print design (for the purposes of illustration).

DNA may not be "code" in the true sense that we define it, but for all intents and purposes, it is codified. it's binary (G,T,C and A), it stores information, and it "executes" in embryonic development with mutations.

TS

stevenyc

fairmind:

Thank you once again for you frank and honest reply to my question.

One thing I don't understand regarding faithist (I don't mean that detrimentally, its just I don't know any other word that seams it fit) is in statements like this "It isn't blind faith though because we see His handy-work all about us."

In the way that you may say its not blind faith, the same could be said of those who see the universe as the omnipresent one. Who had no creator, in the same way you say God had no creator. Can you see the similarity?

:::To me the very fact that we have senses like color vision, taste, smell and so forth prove that God intended for us to get pleasure from living.

This applies to all organisms. We could say that a bat with its superb sonic abilities was so that God allowed it to appreciate the beauty of sound, and the sense of smell for dogs is Gods humor for them to distinguish who farted. Alternatively, it could have be the omnipresent universe evolving those animals to either eat, or escape being eating.

:::When you look at this world and see the terrible things that exist, it doesn't disprove the existence of God or his goodness, but it does prove that something is very wrong."

Once again if you take a safari, you'll see the same. Was it Gods idea to allow animals to torment each other in the most brutal ways? Adam's sin transferred to impalas?

:::that the universe could not have just come about, and create every thing we see.

Well, could I not also respond with the God could not have just come about, and create every thing we see?

steve

FairMind

Steve,

In the way that you may say its not blind faith, the same could be said of those who see the universe as the omnipresent one. Who had no creator; in the same way you say God had no creator. Can you see the similarity?

:::Of course! This would imply that the Universe is the creator, right?

To me the very fact that we have senses like color vision, taste, smell and so forth prove that God intended for us to get pleasure from living.

This applies to all organisms. We could say that a bat with its superb sonic abilities was so that God allowed it to appreciate the beauty of sound, and the sense of smell for dogs is Gods humor for them to distinguish who farted. Alternatively, it could have be the omnipresent universe evolving those animals to either eat, or escape being eating.

:::Yes, it applies to all creatures, at least those of a higher order. That is why under the Mosaic Law one was not to muzzle a bull while threshing the fields. The poor animal would have been tortured by being unable to eat any of the surrounding food.

Once again if you take a safari, you'll see the same. Was it Gods idea to allow animals to torment each other in the most brutal ways? Adam's sin transferred to impalas?

:::When you look at the way creatures are designed it is obvious that there is a food chain. I’ve asked myself this same question and have come to the conclusion that when the Bible says God’s ways are not our ways and his thoughts not our thoughts, it is telling it like it is. Assuming there is a creator, who are we to tell him what’s right and what’s wrong? Also, consider that Man, according to the Bible is different than other earthly creatures. Humans are special and different than other earthly creatures. We were intended to live forever and the animals weren’t. When the scriptures say we must become reconciled to God it means we must change to His viewpoint, not the other way around. Bluntly put, if we won’t do that then we are willing opposers of God.

Caedes

Assuming there is a creator, who are we to tell him what’s right and what’s wrong?

If that is the case why did god give you a brain capable of asking the question? More importantly why did he give you a brain capable of realising that there isn't an answer that would be satisfactory to your own sense of right or wrong?

AlmostAtheist

One thought on the "creation" of the universe is that the "stuff" of the universe has always existed in some form. Collapsing in on itself, concentrating its energy, then blowing apart in an endless series of big bangs, the current one of which we live in. Eventually it will collapse again, bang again, and a whole other (possibly entirely different) universe will result.

This isn't a "theory", it's a "thought". No evidence (that I know of) to back it up. But it is as compelling an idea as an always-existing god, in my opinion. Neither concept is anything I can truly get my head around. But I can punch holes in a "god" thought, and I can't punch any holes in a "stuff has always existed" thought. Currently, I'm going with the thought that I can punch the least holes in.

Granted, I don't think this can "save" me, but then I don't feel any need for salvation.

Hawkinglujah, anyone?

Dave

funkyderek

Big Dog:

Okay, Tetra stood in for the Funky-one. If that is the issue, then I am all for teaching evolution in the science class and mums the word on God, no problem there.

Well, that's the issue as I see it. God just does not belong in a science class, even if he's sneaked in as an anonymous Intelligent Designer.

Here's my question then, is there any place in the science class, or should it be in some other class, or should it be taught at all, that is origins of everything/cosmology. And if it is taught/discussed, does God get mentioned then?

Well, the nature of the universe and its origins definitely deserve to be discussed in a science class. I still don't see any need to mention God though, except perhaps to point to the first tiniest fraction of a second of the universe's existence as being the last place where God could be hiding. We can explain pretty much everything else, so there's no need for a god, except perhaps to start the ball rolling. And what kind of a god is that?

If you wish, you can find reasons to mention God in any class. English class: Why was Shakespeare such a great writer? Well, many people believe his gifts were bestowed upon him by God. History: Why did Germany lose World War II? Well, many people believe the Allies had God on their side. Geography: Why is the weather warmer near the equator? Well, many people believe God gave us different kinds of weather so we wouldn't get bored.

And so on.

The hypothesis that there is a god simply has no explanatory power. While children should certainly be taught something about the various gods that many people believe in, I can find no good reason to ever fill a gap in knowledge with the phrase "God did it".

creationism in the us of a

Share this