Creationists

[LOki]

False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

In whose rulebook??? A logical claim that the Creator exists outside of space, time, matter and energy, and that It predates the Big Bang, does not necessitate that the Creator follow any of the rules in this universe.

I've been asking YOU for a logically valid claim of such a Creator ... you have failed to produce.

However, in you defense, I will say that there can be no rational dispute that an imaginary Creator that "exists outside of space, time, matter and energy,..." is CERTAINLY not obligated by any kind of necessity to "follow any of the rules in this universe."

How can something that is infinite in both directions on our understanding of the timelien REQUIRE a beginning?

I have no idea what you posted here.

If the Creator has no beginning, please explain logically why It would be subject to such a hierarchy?

There's no logically valid argument such a Creator would be subject to such a hierarchy--AND HERE'S THE BONUS YOU GET FOR INVITING ME--If you remove the special-pleading fallacy from the Creationist's cosmological argument, such a Creator would still not be subject to such a hierarchy ... because the existence of such a Creator would not be possible according to this improved Creationist's cosmological argument.

Hollie, you can't just make statements like that and not back them up.

It's not quite fair of you to say this to Hollie, considering how generous she was in ignoring the obvious logical fallacy your entire argument is fatally premised on.

Please present a logical argument as the basis of this claim.

If you ignore the logical fallacy your entire argument is fatally premised on, then an infinite regression of Creators who Created Creators is necessarily concluded--establishing the "hierarchy of creators" that Hollie asserted.

And yes, OF COURSE, an infinite regression of anything is rationally repugnant because they don't explain ANYTHING. But avoiding an infinite regression by asserting (without the support of valid logic and verifiable evidence) a Creator "outside of space, time, matter and energy," who is not subject to "any of the rules in this universe" is just as rationally repugnant for the same reason--it doesn't explain ANYTHING.

This Creator/Designer/God of yours is a null concept.

Loki, I have no hope that Hollie will ever make such an argument so feel free to jump in her if you have some material.

Since I (sort of) agreed with you, I guess it's your lucky day!

 

[LOki]

No one created the creator. Who created the evolver ? God gave man freewill and thaty is why many scumbags are here but their time grows shorter.

False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?

How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?

He's not that sophisticated. Someone else made it up for him ... he just believes.

 

[LOki]

What I really find so hard to believe is they can actually believe an undirected and a nonintelligent process would think to develop a place where life could thrive.

Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe "... a nonintelligent process would think."

That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.

Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe that a non-intelligent process that thinks "would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence."

That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.

Non-Sequitur.

Evolutionists don't really hate that they "can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature."

Creationists hate that they can't produce ANY logically valid verifiable evidence for this "Creator" they posit--let alone "proof." "[Creationists] can't explain this ... it's inexplicable!"

... while denying this precision in nature.

Naw. We just don't accept your "Texas Sharpshooting" as any kind of valid argument for the "precision in nature" you keep peddling.

If you don't hate, why are you here???

The meaning (or more likely, the validity) of the premise of your question is unclear; hence I'm not clear about the question that is being asked.

 

[Hollie]

There's no logically valid argument such a Creator would be subject to such a hierarchy--AND HERE'S THE BONUS YOU GET FOR INVITING ME--If you remove the special-pleading fallacy from the Creationist's cosmological argument, such a Creator would still not be subject to such a hierarchy ... because the existence of such a Creator would not be possible according to this improved Creationist's cosmological argument.

It's not quite fair of you to say this to Hollie, considering how generous she was in ignoring the obvious logical fallacy your entire argument is fatally premised on.

Well, thank you for that. I found the argument proposed by the resident god-did-it’ist to be so carelessly amateur, I really had no intention of bothering with a reply.

Despite the willingness of the fundies to use existence as a blanket "evidence" as to their theistic beliefs, we should realize that one can interpret existence as not having a supernatural cause, and be within the realms of likelihood.

IMHO, the two primary fundies posting in this thread typify what is often at the core of the religious impulse for many fundies: search for meaning which they otherwise aren’t finding in their lives and an abiding sense of fear – fear of the unknown. They are driven by the despair of their own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for themselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We can all find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things.

If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through reason contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful. We place our trust and our hope in things which give us a sense of hope for a better future. Our ultimate source of meaning or object of hope requires no reason to accept claims of partisan religious dogma as a path to knowledge. I have no issue defending the infallibility of reason as opposed to the fervor of a creationist / ID / Yec’er defending a literal rendering of the bible. I’ve simply recognized the fundamentalism of the believers in supernaturalism to be illusory and irrational. Irrationality is the great sin which threatens to devour us. Simply fulminating against knowledge and reason, as is so often the case with fundies, accomplishes nothing, and is itself irrational.

To follow up on the comment in connection with the creationist cosmological argument, I also see appeals to the creaqtionist teleological argument. The fundie looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since the fundie cannot accept that immense time spans and nature can account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

The first error the fundie makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the Designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the classic teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the Designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.

Usually the fundie will reply that God(s), being the Designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates, else how can he create the laws in the first place? The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.
Imagine now a law of nature or physics -- let's use gravity as the example. Gravity simply is, and we can both see and test its properties in a myriad of ways.

We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.

Now compare that to the god model. Where lays the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?

 

[UltimateReality]

False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

In whose rulebook??? A logical claim that the Creator exists outside of space, time, matter and energy, and that It predates the Big Bang, does not necessitate that the Creator follow any of the rules in this universe.

I've been asking YOU for a logically valid claim of such a Creator ... you have failed to produce.

However, in you defense, I will say that there can be no rational dispute that an imaginary Creator that "exists outside of space, time, matter and energy,..." is CERTAINLY not obligated by any kind of necessity to "follow any of the rules in this universe."

I have no idea what you posted here.

There's no logically valid argument such a Creator would be subject to such a hierarchy--AND HERE'S THE BONUS YOU GET FOR INVITING ME--If you remove the special-pleading fallacy from the Creationist's cosmological argument, such a Creator would still not be subject to such a hierarchy ... because the existence of such a Creator would not be possible according to this improved Creationist's cosmological argument.

It's not quite fair of you to say this to Hollie, considering how generous she was in ignoring the obvious logical fallacy your entire argument is fatally premised on.

Please present a logical argument as the basis of this claim.

If you ignore the logical fallacy your entire argument is fatally premised on, then an infinite regression of Creators who Created Creators is necessarily concluded--establishing the "hierarchy of creators" that Hollie asserted.

And yes, OF COURSE, an infinite regression of anything is rationally repugnant because they don't explain ANYTHING. But avoiding an infinite regression by asserting (without the support of valid logic and verifiable evidence) a Creator "outside of space, time, matter and energy," who is not subject to "any of the rules in this universe" is just as rationally repugnant for the same reason--it doesn't explain ANYTHING.

This Creator/Designer/God of yours is a null concept.

Loki, I have no hope that Hollie will ever make such an argument so feel free to jump in her if you have some material.

Since I (sort of) agreed with you, I guess it's your lucky day!

Loki, wow! I am actually impressed you took the time to put some thought into this. There are no tricks here. I have never pretended my belief in God is a scientific principle. It is not. It is a religious belief. You will never get a logical valid claim for the Creator, as the term refers to my belief in the Judeo-Christian God, that is, until he appears in the clouds and scoops up all the believers. However, I will assert that ID Theory attempts to propose hypothesis that can be scientifically argued, without asserting their metaphysical connotations.

In light of your responses above, could I get your opinion on the multi-verse theory? Would you agree a beginning of anything necessitates a cause? Do you believe there was a cause for the Big Bang? Obviously since the cause would have been outside of "nature" as we know it, it would have been supernatural, if you insist on using that word. All that word really does for me is make me think of ghosts and halloween though, not God, or multiverses or causes for our universe.

 

[UltimateReality]

Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe "... a nonintelligent process would think."

That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.

Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe that a non-intelligent process that thinks "would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence."

That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.

Non-Sequitur.

Evolutionists don't really hate that they "can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature."

Creationists hate that they can't produce ANY logically valid verifiable evidence for this "Creator" they posit--let alone "proof." "[Creationists] can't explain this ... it's inexplicable!"

Naw. We just don't accept your "Texas Sharpshooting" as any kind of valid argument for the "precision in nature" you keep peddling.

If you don't hate, why are you here???

The meaning (or more likely, the validity) of the premise of your question is unclear; hence I'm not clear about the question that is being asked.

It was just a passing remark regarding the intense hatred atheists have for Christians. Why do they work so hard at trying to discredit our belief system? I always think if they were so confident in their atheist beliefs, they would try so hard to prove us wrong. They would just go about their business and not worry about folks practicing their freedom of religion. And they wouldn't work so hard at irradicating the religious heritage of our nation. When folks start trying to rewrite history, and twist the truth about the past, I get a little nervous. Folks just need to put their big boy panties on and not worry so much about the religious roots of the U.S. Everyone's a victim nowadays. I don't care what you say, no one is forcing their religion on you. If you lived in Iraq or Afghanistan, you might have some perspective on what forced religion is. So you have to look at "In God We Trust" on the money. Get over it. I have look look at the guys bumper sticker in front of me with the F word on it. Somehow it has been twisted that Christians are the radicals, when really, it is the Darwinist movement that is attempt to change things, and I would have to say not for the better.

Funny thing is, I think most atheists view of Christianity is based on a Christian they knew. Most have never taken the time to study the tenants (HA!) of the religion itself. Christs main teaching was that we should die to self, that is, rid our bodies of our own desires and needs, and put others before ourselves. This is a beautiful thing in a marriage. Not so much when each partner is seeking their own way. This self denial goes so far as to do without, so that you can meet others needs. Our church raised enough money to build a dormitory for an orphanage in Kenya, and we did so in a crap economy. For you, Christ means oppression. For these precious people, Christ means hope:

Huruma Children's Home - Ngong 2012 Documentary - YouTube

We also just raised $75,000 for a leper colony in India. This money will provide food for them for over a year. How amazing is it that Jesus Christ is the reason a church in Chandler is making a difference for Lepers half way around the world!!!

The Leprosy Project on Vimeo

I am very much for charity. But charity means the person chooses to give and is a better person for it. I am not for people in facncy hats (otherwise, known as the "govment") stealing my money and giving it to other people.

 

[UltimateReality]

IMHO, the two primary fundies posting in this thread typify what is often at the core of the religious impulse for many fundies: search for meaning which they otherwise aren’t finding in their lives and an abiding sense of fear – fear of the unknown.

Hollie, you love to put folks in boxes. You think my religion is about fear?? Ha! It is the peace that I have that makes life more enjoyable. When I was on the SWAT Team, I always trusted God every time we kicked someone's door in. I knew that if my life ended that night, my life still had meaning, and I was, and am, secure in what was to come after death. This allowed me to operate nightly without fear. I guess the question is, if you are so free in your atheism, why are you so scared to reveal anything about yourself? What do you fear that keeps you in hiding?

Let me put you in the same box. I can imagine your life isn't very meaningful. I would also think you live with the daily stress that your entire existence could end at any moment, and what would have all been for? Ahh, the great cosmic accident of human life. From an evolutionary point, it is pointless. It is pain. It is tragedy. It is death. It is the cruel joke of a conscious, formed by randomness. You desperately want to believe that Christ followers are wasting their lives because they believe something goes on after it is all over. The sad reality is that you have it all backwards. It is the "peace that passes all understanding" that makes life even more enjoyable. With Christ, comes security and peace.

I will share the following story. I used to work with Bill years ago:

Following is Kimberly Hosey’s painful and tragic story of Emma Simpkins. Bill, Emma’s loving father, was gracious enough to share his story in the interest of making parents aware of a far too-common tragedy.

Emma Simpkins’ fiery hair and wide smile made her stand out in any crowd. She had a fiery personality too, but was generous with her love, telling those close to her, “I love you more than bunnies” to show just how much she loved them—because what kindergartener doesn’t love bunnies?

Those aren’t the only reasons her father, Bill Simpkins, tears up when he talks about her. In a tragic accident in 2006, Bill accidentally backed his truck over Emma in the family’s driveway. She later died.

Despite the tragic and preventable nature of the accident, Bill readily discusses it, and talks plainly about his campaign since then to help and protect children, but he really lights up when he talks about his daughter.

“She has fiery red hair,” he says, talking about the 6-year-old in the present tense even though the accident occurred more than four years ago, “and a temper to go with it. She’s my shadow. Wherever I went, Emma was with me.”

Bill isn’t sure at exactly what moment his vehicle hit Emma. He assumed Emma was inside with her mother. Bill had gone outside to move his truck so that he could take out his sons’ go-karts.

“I backed up and pulled up to the curb facing the opposite direction, and that’s when I ran over her,” he says. “I never saw her. I don’t know if she came running out, I don’t know if she was sitting on the sidewalk. I just don’t know where she came from.”

The accident remains a blur for Bill, but he remembers tiny details from the minutes preceding it, as if his mind somehow knew to hold onto those last mementos from his time with his daughter. It was during spring break. They had just returned from a family trip to Disneyland. He remembers Emma cuddled between him and his wife, Abby, on the sofa. He remembers the NASCAR race they were watching. The mint chip ice cream Emma was eating. Then it all fell apart.

“In just one second, our whole world was turned upside down,” he says. “It has never really been the same.”


The atheists view this situation from the standpoint of "If there really was a God, how could he have let this happen???" This feeling eats at their soul, and turns from sadness and tragedy, to anger, and then intense hatred.

The Christian, which Bill is, cries out in the night, "God, how could you have let me kill my little girl???" He weeps for a month straight. He has vivid dreams of his daughter when she was alive. He continually asks God for strength, because without God, without some way to make sense of this, he can only see his way clear to putting a bullet in his brain. And then, the peace begins to wash over him. He realizes that he will see Emma again. He realizes that while there was intense pain for him, Emma was swept up into God's loving arms. He doesn't know why God didn't intervene, but there is a calmness inside of him that says "God knows what He is doing. God is still in control." He goes on to form a foundation in Emma's name, and he still talks about what a great kid she was all the time. And he looks forward to the time when the vivid night time dreams of her playful spirit and echoes of her calling him daddy will again become ultimate reality, when he goes to his real home to be with God.

For me, God is the only way to make sense of this world. You can say I'm weak and call that a crutch, but I can't imagine the horror that your life is. The atheist evolutionists can't fret over accidents like this. It is just the way it is. No sense spilling any tears. We are all an accident anyway. None of us should have been here, and it won't matter when we are all gone. On the universe timeline, human existence will be like a micro-second moan. Evolution does guarantee anything, not even the first breath. And it certainly doesn't guarantee anything but the law of the jungle. Under evolution, fitness rules. If you are weak, you will be trampled. It amazes me that the weak and trampled adopt the atheist viewpoint, and that is the only way they can make sense of the lack of acceptance in their lives. It seems like they would gravitate towards knowing that God is there, and that he accepts them regardless of how cruel and evil the other human animals can be.

For some reason, we get pigeon holed into only speaking about Creationism from a scientific standpoint. The philosophical ramifications of evolution are more disturbing. In fact, there are certain principles that necessarily abide under the materialistic worldview. If everything comes from nature, than everything is natural. Even the child molester is only doing what is programmed in his dna. Have a penchant for kidnapping and raping men, then storing their body parts in your fridge?? Somehow natural selection didn't rid us of the genetic defect that motivated you do such a thing. And evil? Forget that. There is no such thing. That is a term those fundies came up with. Smoke meth until you are total freaked and decide your you need to cut off your sons head? All natural. Your decision to smoke meth came from your conscious thought which came from your brain which came from millions of years of tiny changes. http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/9997015-man-cuts-off-sons-head

Two year old daughter pissing you off? Light her on fire and watch her burn. This guy came from nature. His brain malfunction from millions of years of random mutations. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/07/21/20090721mr-grell0721-ON.html

According to evolution, Lady Gaga has it right. We're just born this way. Do we really have a choice? My dna made me do it, that, and millions of years of natural selection. Heck, there are other animals that eat their own, right?

Biological determination (also biologism) is the interpretation of humans and human life from a strictly biological point of view, and it is closely related to genetic determinism. Another definition is that biological determinism is the hypothesis that biological factors such as an organism's individual genes (as opposed to social or environmental factors) completely determine how a system behaves or changes over time.

Consider certain human behaviors, such as having a particular taste in music, committing murder, or writing poetry. A biological determinist would posit that such behaviours, and personality traits in general, are mediated primarily by biological factors, such as genetic makeup. An extreme variant of biological determinism might assert that an organism's behavior is determined entirely by biological factors, and that all of these factors are innate to that organism e.g. DNA. By asserting that biological factors are the primary determinants of behaviour, biological determinism implies of course that non-biological factors, such as social customs, expectations and education, have less or no effect on behaviour. Similarly, a variant of biological determinism might consider non-innate biological factors, such as the biological aspects of an organism's environment, to have a lesser effect on the organism's behaviour than innate biological factors.

I laugh when evolutionist, and particularly, post modern humanists claim that biological determinism isn't valued because society has influences on behavior. I'm not sure where the logic jumps off for them. If evil humans aren't genetically predetermined, then it must be society that causes them to do evil acts. But wait a second, where does society come from? Isn't society made up of humans? Under the materialistic worldview, humans evolved from a common ancestor. Part of the evolutionary process was to evolve into social animals, running in packs or cooperating for the greater good of the tribe. If under materialism, everything comes from matter and random forces, can we really say anything is "evil".

Hollie and Loki, I welcome your non-scientific, philosophical rebuttal to the statement: Under evolution, or materialism, i.e., matter is the only reality, we can not use concepts like evil, because, even though they shock our senses, these so called "evil" acts are purely natural, and shouldn't be so shocking and upsetting to us when they occur.

You see, it not just that life isn't fair, it is that the concept of fairness should not exist in the little cosmic accident we know of as earth, and even more so, the accident of human existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie, I have been taking some heat for my knowledge about your personal life and what motivates your atheism and deep seeded hate of Christianity. If you can please just confirm or deny my statements about your personal life, I promise I will never bring up your fundamentalist Christian parents again. And if I was incorrect, I will apologize for making those statements about your same-sex attraction being the cause of your hatred for your parents.

 

[UltimateReality]

To follow up on the comment in connection with the creationist cosmological argument, I also see appeals to the creaqtionist teleological argument. The fundie looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since the fundie cannot accept that immense time spans and nature can account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

The first error the fundie makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the Designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the classic teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the Designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.

Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above.

If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
Humans are in nature.
Humans have a designer.
Humans design things.
All designers are designed.

This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.

Usually the fundie will reply that God(s), being the Designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates,

Yes!!!

else how can he create the laws in the first place?

No!! The ability to create laws does not necessarily require one to be outside of the intended environment the law is to pertain to and this is where your argument goes fallacious. There is no requirement for a lawmaker to be in or outside the environment he is creating laws for. A US Senator can create laws for the US, in which he resides. A principle can create laws for the third grade classroom, which do not pertain to him.

The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it?

Not sure what this question is all about because it doesn't really make sense. Are you assuming God created the laws of physics? Then when was the last time you saw God? Based on your next example, it would infer that you are saying men created the laws of physics. I would argue that the laws of physics as described by humans are just that... descriptions. They attempt to describe ultimate reality but they are not ultimate reality, only attempted descriptions.

For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature.

Again, your assumption is that the creators of said laws are contained within the environment they created the laws for. This is not the case with the universe. And defintely not the case for created devices of which we are not contained in. For example, I am not subject to the laws of a circuit board. Nor am I subject to the laws of an internal gas combustion engine. I do not require an otto cycle for my motive force. Your argument could state that me, the circuit board, and the engine are all subject to the laws of physics, but the validity of your augment would rest on the claim that I created the laws of physics.

Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.
Imagine now a law of nature or physics -- let's use gravity as the example. Gravity simply is, and we can both see and test its properties in a myriad of ways.

Your point here? Humans are subject to gravity. Humans did not create gravity.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above.

If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
Humans are in nature.
Humans have a designer.
Humans design things.
All designers are designed.

This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.

Oddly, the above is precisely the ebb and flow of your argument.

You don't seem to be able to understand your own argument for gods is one large circular reference.

Usually the fundie will reply that God(s), being the Designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates,

Yes!!!

I think it’s obvious that the entirety of your argument is based upon an irrational precept. You arbitrarily exempt your gods from any rational critique.

Gods have been, like many of the core issues of theism, defined without regard to authority, proofs, or evidence. Effectively, what any single person chooses to say a god is, that god is; the more people agree on some vague referents to the god in question, the more likely that god will be considered the true (sic) god. In essence, the concept of gods relies solely on the irrationality of faith, and far from being the creators of humanity, are actually at the mercy of humanity.

You shield your gods, and thus your argument, in a subjective position of being anything you want them to be. I’m going to limit my response to only a portion of what you’ve written because basically, you build entire armies of strawmen only a single, fallacious principle. I see a way out of the irrationality you blanket humanity with (which proves an underlying point-- it’s not the rationality that makes a mess of things, it’s the irrationality), and at the same time accept the emotional traits of the human being that makes the irrational possible. I speak of a journey of the human being, not where we are right now at this particular moment. I see the human condition as an evolving one; we once burned people as satanic witches because of the irrational. The rational drove that where it belonged: away. We once believed the earth the center of the universe (although, if the universe is infinite, then every point is the center), at least we believed the earth to be the center of the solar system. Reason put that aside. As usual, you are simply fulminating against rationality. I am presenting my side of the issue with empirical data as my support system but you’re lashing out against reason, without serving a viable alternative. You might as well curse the sun for its’ brightness.

 

[LOki]

In whose rulebook??? A logical claim that the Creator exists outside of space, time, matter and energy, and that It predates the Big Bang, does not necessitate that the Creator follow any of the rules in this universe.

I've been asking YOU for a logically valid claim of such a Creator ... you have failed to produce.

However, in you defense, I will say that there can be no rational dispute that an imaginary Creator that "exists outside of space, time, matter and energy,..." is CERTAINLY not obligated by any kind of necessity to "follow any of the rules in this universe."

I have no idea what you posted here.

There's no logically valid argument such a Creator would be subject to such a hierarchy--AND HERE'S THE BONUS YOU GET FOR INVITING ME--If you remove the special-pleading fallacy from the Creationist's cosmological argument, such a Creator would still not be subject to such a hierarchy ... because the existence of such a Creator would not be possible according to this improved Creationist's cosmological argument.

It's not quite fair of you to say this to Hollie, considering how generous she was in ignoring the obvious logical fallacy your entire argument is fatally premised on.

If you ignore the logical fallacy your entire argument is fatally premised on, then an infinite regression of Creators who Created Creators is necessarily concluded--establishing the "hierarchy of creators" that Hollie asserted.

And yes, OF COURSE, an infinite regression of anything is rationally repugnant because they don't explain ANYTHING. But avoiding an infinite regression by asserting (without the support of valid logic and verifiable evidence) a Creator "outside of space, time, matter and energy," who is not subject to "any of the rules in this universe" is just as rationally repugnant for the same reason--it doesn't explain ANYTHING.

This Creator/Designer/God of yours is a null concept.

Loki, I have no hope that Hollie will ever make such an argument so feel free to jump in her if you have some material.

Since I (sort of) agreed with you, I guess it's your lucky day!

Loki, wow! I am actually impressed you took the time to put some thought into this. There are no tricks here.

Thank you. I just have no idea why you'd be impressed now, though--no extra time or thought was required.

I have never pretended my belief in God is a scientific principle. It is not. It is a religious belief.

If you insist that ID is science, and you place an intelligent designer at the foundation of you science, then you are most certainly pretending that your belief in God is a scientific principle--for fuck's sake ... it's the identifying principle of ID "science."

You will never get a logical valid claim for the Creator, as the term refers to my belief in the Judeo-Christian God, that is, until he appears in the clouds and scoops up all the believers.

Don't be so hard on your Judeo-Christian God--you'll never get a logically valid explanation for any other "Creator." It has nothing at all to do with Christianity, and everything to do with the common role that superstition plays in the assertions of this "Designer" your ID "science" posits as necessary.

However, I will assert that ID Theory attempts to propose hypothesis that can be scientifically argued, without asserting their metaphysical connotations.

Well, that just an assertion inconsistent with the obvious reality that ID Theory attempts advance superstition under the color of being science.

2 people observe the same data:

Person A: What an interesting structure!
Person B: What an interesting design!​

One of these two is illicitly assigning an unsubstantiated premise to the data--the other one is a scientist.​

In light of your responses above, could I get your opinion on the multi-verse theory?

It is helpful in selling comic books, and it is frustrating to comic book collectors.

Outside of that, the Multiverse Hypothesis (I'm not aware that it's a scientific theory) is pretty meaningless to me. It seems entirely useless for prediction or explanation. But then again if I looked into it more, I might find something useful.

Would you agree a beginning of anything necessitates a cause?

No. I would say everything that is caused necessarily has a beginning.

Do you believe there was a cause for the Big Bang?

No. Then again I don't believe it wasn't caused either. I simply have no data at all about anything that didn't occur after the "Big-Bang."

Obviously since the cause would have been outside of "nature" as we know it, it would have been supernatural, if you insist on using that word.

It's a good word.

All that word really does for me is make me think of ghosts and halloween though, not God, or multiverses or causes for our universe.

That's why I like the term "superstition." Supernatural gives fairy tales far more credit in nature than fairy tales deserve.

 

[ima]

Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.

Your invisible being is in another dimension not subject to the laws of this universe?

My question is: why is anyone wasting their time with an imbecile of this magnitude? If believing such utter nonsense makes you able to go on in life, good for you, you've found your "opium" so that you don't have to think anymore.
Hollie, move on, there's nothing to debate here. UR is convinced of her invisible superbeing in another dimension for which any size of horseshit pile can explain anything, just adjust the amount.

 

[Hollie]

Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.

Your invisible being is in another dimension not subject to the laws of this universe?

My question is: why is anyone wasting their time with an imbecile of this magnitude? If believing such utter nonsense makes you able to go on in life, good for you, you've found your "opium" so that you don't have to think anymore.
Hollie, move on, there's nothing to debate here. UR is convinced of her invisible superbeing in another dimension for which any size of horseshit pile can explain anything, just adjust the amount.

I can appreciate your thoughts.

It's typical for fundies to insist with 100% certainty (and with 0% facts), as to their particular partisan version of gods being true and inerrant to the exclusion of competing religions/ gods. This is done while making special pleadings for an exemption from any requirement to bring forth even the most basic of proofs for their beliefs. What matters of course and what is rejected by the fundie within his demands for allowances to special pleading is the standards by which belief should be applied. The fundie will demand an exemption from any rational standard of support for, and evidence for his claims because absent the requirement that others must accept supernaturalism as his argument, the claims to gods are simply background noise.

If you objectively observe the comparisons between reason and rationality vs. fear and superstition, you will see that fundies will consistently reject the natural explanations in favor of the supernatural assertions (they are hardly explanations), and they will always apply special pleadings when doing so. It's done consistently by the fundies in this thread. Despite clear evidence of various religions building themselves upon fraudulent terms and predefined suppositions, the fundies will to continue to insist upon such circular reasoning as:

"My gods are true and inerrant"

and how do we know this?

"This is what I was told the bible says"

and how do we know the bible is true?

"Because I believe it is true."

and why do you believe the bible is true?

"Because I was told the bible is true"

Despite clear examples of such chicanery with people who are promoting such fraud who are doing it and culling the gullible, fundies exempt their particular beliefs from charges of fraud. They will, of course, reject such fraudulent claims from those who offer the same circular arguments for competing religious belief.

Fundies do this because they have a deep seated desire to "believe" and will not apply the strictures of reason, rationality and true knowledge to their claims. So every piece of evidence that comes along that truly dismantles the belief system, they must reject and escape into the special pleading loophole. In discussions like this I've had with fundies, there is a consistent pattern of self inflicted ignorance typically bolstered by such comments as "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' in it".

 

[Youwerecreated]

If man was created on purpose by someone, then the creator must be one stupid, messed up douchesack. So maybe my beef is with whomever created our creator?

No one created the creator. Who created the evolver ? God gave man freewill and thaty is why many scumbags are here but their time grows shorter.

False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?

We are finite beings trying to find out how an infinte being created everything. What God is,is beyond our comprehension. His universe and biological creations to are beyond our comprehension.

He who creates is far superior to the object created.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The fundie giraffe conspiracy has been debunked earlier.

Your silly explanation of blood pressure was addressed by link that debunked a boilerplate creationist claim.

How embarrassing for you.

This post shows a fundie and that you lack the ability to reason.

A nonintelligent process would think to develop this valve or this sponge in the brain. Yeah right it was debunked

Faulty implied premise = existence of said valve is necessarily contingent upon being thought of.

Your "debunking" = debunked.

You really do believe in fairytales.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No one created the creator. Who created the evolver ? God gave man freewill and thaty is why many scumbags are here but their time grows shorter.

False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?

How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?

That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.

Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

In whose rulebook??? A logical claim that the Creator exists outside of space, time, matter and energy, and that It predates the Big Bang, does not necessitate that the Creator follow any of the rules in this universe. How can something that is infinite in both directions on our understanding of the timelien REQUIRE a beginning? If the Creator has no beginning, please explain logically why It would be subject to such a hierarchy?

Hollie, you can't just make statements like that and not back them up. Please present a logical argument as the basis of this claim.

Loki, I have no hope that Hollie will ever make such an argument so feel free to jump in her if you have some material.

I'm fascinated by you insisting you're making a logical claim regarding a supernatural, supermagical entity.

Do tell us how you came to such irrationality.

You first.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It wasn't so terribly amazing when you posted this before, why is it now?

Where you had no rebuttal got ya.

I didn't have to ... as I pointed out, you pretty much rebutted yourself.

You are wrong loki.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I never said any of that!!! You can't replace the coded information and have it mean the same thing!! Just like you can't alter 0's and 1's in a computer program and get the same outcome. Why is this so hard for you to figure out? Your the special needs buffoon that insists on building caricatures and then accusing everyone else of doing it.

I won't waste my time with you anymore. Seriously, it reminds me of trying to argue with a drunk when I was a cop. Pointless!!!!!

What I really find so hard to believe is they can actually believe an undirected and a nonintelligent process would think to develop a place where life could thrive.

Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe "... a nonintelligent process would think."

That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.

Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe that a non-intelligent process that thinks "would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence."

That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.

What they really hate is they can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature ...

Non-Sequitur.

Evolutionists don't really hate that they "can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature."

Creationists hate that they can't produce ANY logically valid verifiable evidence for this "Creator" they posit--let alone "proof." "[Creationists] can't explain this ... it's inexplicable!"

... while denying this precision in nature.

Naw. We just don't accept your "Texas Sharpshooting" as any kind of valid argument for the "precision in nature" you keep peddling.

You don't accept logical thinking is what you meant.

 

[Youwerecreated]

False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?

How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?

He's not that sophisticated. Someone else made it up for him ... he just believes.

We all form our opinions from what we learned in the past is that not correct loki ?

I can think for myself how bout you loki ?