1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Ask a Young Earth Creationist 2

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by classical_hero, Jan 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,103
    Location:
    High above the ice
    You may want to quote Pete's questions so everyone knows what the point is of those articles.

    You also may want to quote relevant sections of those articles. Because I don't see how they are answers.
    I had, and still have no idea what these articles are supposed to be answering.
    No, I don't. I am preaching Atheism in a specific thread I made for that purpose.
    I see.

    You are "NOT "proselytizing" AT ALL!!!" but you are ""proselytizing" RELIGION in general".
     
  2. civ2

    civ2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,650
    Ziggy
    Aha, right.
    Proselytizing means trying to convert somebody to a CERTAIN religion (funny to say but atheism is one of them, dude).
    I just try to clear up misconceptions about God in general.
    And again, as I said, there's no such thing as "somebody's God" in the meaning of BELONGING to a certain religion.
    God is God - just One and for ALL.
    What differs, is OUR understanding and relating to Him.

    I'll edit the link post to make it clearer. :D
     
  3. PiMan

    PiMan Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,983
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    While is easy to argue that all the Abrahamic religions follow the same god in different ways, it is impossible to state the same of all other religions. The gods in the ancient polytheistic religions bare no resemblance to the god known in Christianity; Taoism/Daoism in turn bare no resemblance to either; and since you've identified atheism as a religion, I'll state that it is also completely different from the aforementioned religions.
    This isn't everyone looking at the same thing from different directions, it is everyone starting in the same position (humanity) and looking in opposite directions. To take your air analogy, this isn't one group looking at air as wind and another as oxygen (+nitrogen, CO2 etc.); this is one group looking at air and other at water.

    Furthermore, if you are going to go into solid concepts like Satan, then you are referring explicitly to the Abrahamic religions.
     
  4. civ2

    civ2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,650
    PiMan
    Well, when I say "God" - I am referring to the One Whose NAME is God, not just a term.
    Otherwise I'd say god(s) aka deities of politheistic religions.
    And I've seen too many people mixing both...
    Which actually ALSO leads to misconception.
    Because most ATHEISTIC errors are based on equating God with gods.
    But there's a huge difference in the MEANING.
    GOD is One with no "partners", Infinite, All-Knowing and All-Able, NOT physical etc.
    "god" on the other hand is generally a "nature-bound" "force" which is quite usually depicted in HUMAN-like terms.
    GOD created humans - but humans created gods. Seriously.
     
  5. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,103
    Location:
    High above the ice
    Name an atheistic error.
     
  6. civ2

    civ2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,650
    Ziggy
    I've seen quite many in Communist literature - starting with equating belief in God to belief in ghosts and finishing with cosmonauts "not meeting God out there" - both being based on a politheistic AND/OR physical "god" rather than God.
    (I am from former Soviet Union, if you didn't know.)
     
  7. Plotinus

    Plotinus Philosopher Administrator

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    16,810
    Location:
    Somerset
    To be fair to the fundamentalists (not something I type very often), you're not arguing very coherently there.

    The fundamentalist claim is:

    (1) Childbirth only started to hurt as a result of the Fall.

    You said:

    (2) Childbirth must hurt, for reasons of biology, so (1) must be false.

    The fundamentalist response is:

    (3) It is possible that God miraculously caused childbirth to be painless prior to the Fall, but ceased that miraculous activity in response to it. Therefore, (2) is false, and therefore, (1) is not shown to be false.

    Now (3) is not supposed to be an argument for (1). It is not supposed to be: (3), therefore (1). Rather, (3) is supposed to undermine (2). Rather than being an argument for (1), it is an argument against a supposed demolition of (1), namely (2). So the fundamentalist is not saying "The laws of physics didn't apply then, so we're right" - she's saying "It is possible that the laws of physics didn't apply then, so we're not proven to be wrong" and that is very different.

    And to be honest, I see nothing wrong with this response. There's no reason why God couldn't have miraculously suspended the laws of biology prior to the Fall, or indeed why he couldn't have caused childbirth to be painless prior to the Fall through all sorts of miraculous means. Perhaps he altered the laws of biology as a result of the Fall, and one of the consequences of this was that childbirth began to hurt. With an omnipotent God, anything conceivable is possible, and someone who believes in the literal truth of Genesis is perfectly entitled to appeal to that fact. Why wouldn't they be? Retorting that that is "convenient" is hardly an argument against it.

    It does make sense, it was just convoluted. He was saying that belief in creation is essential to being a Christian, but belief in the literal truth of Genesis is not. Which is pretty much what I said back in #797.

    No, that is not true. I know plenty of arguments for atheism which are predicated upon a classical conception of God as omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, and transcendent. Some of these purport to show that these properties are inconsistent with each other: for example, nothing could be both omnipotent and omniscient, because an omnipotent being would not know what it is like to be weak, while an omniscient being would. In fact there are powerful arguments to the effect that at least some of the properties of the God of classical theism are intrinsically incoherent, e.g. nothing could be omniscient because omniscience is incoherent in itself, because some kinds of knowledge are person-specific, which means that someone else cannot know them; in which case, there cannot be a being which knows everything.

    However, arguments about the nature of God, theism, and atheism, are not relevant to this thread. I'm sure that other threads already exist where these discussions can be taken.
     
  8. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,103
    Location:
    High above the ice
    @civ2
    I don't know many atheists who think not meeting God in space is a valid argument against God. And I have never encountered such sentiment before. Must be something regional.

    The equation of believe in ghosts and God is there, since both don't have scientific evidence in favor of them. So it is quite possible to equate them, this is not a mistake.

    The most heard argument from atheists against the belief in God is lack of scientific evidence for God's existence. That argument does not distinguish between God or gods because it isn't relevant.

    edit: Damnit. I tell someone they're off topic only to go off topic myself :(
     
  9. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    33,143
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Unfortunately, such a creationist stance on Genesis makes it impossible to argue. "Neither physics nor biology nor anything rational as we know it applied then, so you can't prove us wrong!" Yet they continue to say that we are clearly misguided. I like an argument as much as the next man, but clearly unwinnable arguments are pointless.
     
  10. Plotinus

    Plotinus Philosopher Administrator

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    16,810
    Location:
    Somerset
    Well, quite, which is why I gave up arguing with fundamentalists a long time ago. If they're happy believing what they believe, and it's impossible to change what they believe, why not just leave them alone?
     
  11. civ2

    civ2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,650
    Ziggy
    OK, I'll be more "on-topic". :D

    About childbirth.
    As somebody mentioned - it HAPPENS even nowadays that women have children without any pain.
    So it's NOT "biology-bound".
    Though, yeah, God can "turn on and off" "natural laws" by His own desire - and that's perfectly LOGICAL.
    (Think of a forum super-moderator, dude!)

    Plotinus
    The reasons you just mentioned are based on the most COMMON mistake - equating God's "abilities" (including logic) to OURS.
    But that's not true BY DEFINITION.
    As one wise man said: "if I knew God, I would be Him".
    People so often tend to forget that:
    1. God is NOT bound by OUR logic - simply because it's just another creation (same goes to TIME);
    2. God is NOT physical or even spiritual (in the "made of" meaning) - He's able to transcend the idea of finite/infinite;
    3. God is Omni-everything - but it's NOT self-contradicting simply because of #1.
    4. Finally, it's either you agree that God is All-Able (in ALL meanings, see #3) - or we're NOT talking about God but rather some "god".
    And I'm very serious.
     
  12. Plotinus

    Plotinus Philosopher Administrator

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    16,810
    Location:
    Somerset
    By whose definition? Classical theism holds that God's properties may differ from our properties, at least in scope, but they must be at least analogous to them, otherwise the terms would be meaningless. If God's knowledge is nothing like our own, for example, then there would be no point calling it "knowledge" at all - one might as well call it "ignorance". Or if God's goodness is nothing like our own goodness, then one might as well call God evil or indeed wibble. But if God's properties are at least analogous to our own, then we can reason about them in the ways indicated.

    That is not the standard classical theist view of God. According to the vast majority of theists, God is indeed bound by logic. It is not "our" logic, it is just logic. Thus, God could not (for example) make it the case that 2+2=5.

    Now you may disagree with this. There have been theists who thought that God actually determines what is possible, and is thus not bound by logic at all. Descartes is often cited as thinking this. But it is a very minority position, mainly because it makes God completely irrational, and it makes thinking about God rationally completely impossible. You may not have a problem with that but, traditionally, most theists do.

    Again, though, this isn't relevant to the topic of this thread. If you want to discuss the nature of God and arguments for atheism you should do it in another thread, unless you can show how it's directly relevant to young Earth creationism.
     
  13. Steph

    Steph Multi Many Tasks man Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    18,162
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pont de l'Arn, FRANCE
    To Dominion3000 and other creationist:

    I suppose you deny that man can have evolved from some kind of apes, and consider that Evolution is not possible?

    It's a false theory spread by scientists, whose funding comes from spreading it. So they have to enforce it, or they'd lost their job. Correc?
     
  14. Truronian

    Truronian Quite unfamiliar Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    9,857
    Location:
    Near Cornwall
    If God is not bound by logic, what's to stop him existing and not existing simultaneously?
     
  15. civ2

    civ2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,650
    Plotinus
    Everything is relevant - you can find connections between ideas you'd never think ARE connected.
    READ THIS PLEASE.
    EDIT:
    Truronian
    It's the other way around - WE "exist and not exist" at the same time, since everything is re-created every single moment.
    We just can't feel it.
    God is the only TRUE existance - in the meaning that everything else needs to be "supported" while He does NOT.
    God is the First Cause which doesn't have nor need any "support".
     
  16. gepa

    gepa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4
    everybody have our believes for GOD
    everybody try to prove him.
    we believe in him not because they have told to us to do
    but because we need to believe
    for all this religions i have to say that remainds me the scientists with their theories
    and everybody has his followers
    so is the same with religion, everybody try to prove GOD with what he believes and his
    experiences.
    sorry for my english
     
  17. Plotinus

    Plotinus Philosopher Administrator

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    16,810
    Location:
    Somerset
    It's absurd conclusions like that that make most theists think that God is bound by logic.

    The ideas in that link are the same as you'd find in Thomas Aquinas. Certainly classical theism holds that all of God's knowledge is really knowledge of himself (either knowledge of the possibilities that he contains, which is his knowledge of necessary truths, or knowledge of the decisions that he makes, which is his knowledge of contingent truths). In that respect God's knowledge differs from creaturely knowledge. However, it does not follow that God's knowledge is different in kind from creaturely knowledge, only that it is different in its object. The point still stands that if you think it is different in kind then it's arbitrary to call it "knowledge" at all, and the same goes for the other divine attributes.

    Indeed, Duns Scotus argued extremely powerfully that if you use the same words to refer to divine and human attributes, and if that usage is legitimate, then there must be properties that God and human beings have which are the same. This is because analogous language must be analysable into univocal language, or it is meaningless. See here. If these arguments are correct, then you face a stark choice: either (at least some of) God's properties are the same as ours, or we can't talk intelligibly about him at all. And if that is so then simply asserting that (say) God's knowledge is fundamentally unlike ours is not simply false but actually incoherent.
     
  18. civ2

    civ2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,650
    Plotinus
    Ugh, too LATIN for me. :blush:
    Anyways, there's an answer to what you just said.
    You are again basing it on a LOGICAL assumption that you can't call Divine Logic "logic".
    Who said you can't?
    Actually, all that we have here on the physical plane, has its spiritual roots to begin with.
    Anyways, I'll look for exact articles to provide that there's NO problem with calling Divine attributes the way we do it.

    EDIT:
    I actually tried to read into your article.
    You know, it gave me an idea how to remove the problem.
    Look, when we say "knowledge", we generally talking about obtaining information.
    Now, in our cyber-age, I can bring two examples of a "cyber-knowledge":
    1. Copy from an EXTERNAL holder.
    2. Copy from one part of the SAME holder to another, even making "Copy of FILE" in the same folder.
    BOTH would ADD some bits of information on that disc - but the second example would not add NEW information.
    And in the third case of OVERWRITING - there's no new AMOUNT ADDED at all.
    But the process was done - the information was transported!
    You DO call all three "copying" even though they SO MUCH differ in their RESULTS.
    So, regarding OUR "knowledge" it's mostly #1 and sometimes #2 - but for God it's always overwrite.
    Still, the process is pretty much the same - so why shouldn't we CALL it the same? :D
     
  19. Eran of Arcadia

    Eran of Arcadia Stormin' Mormon Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Messages:
    23,090
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Sunshine and Lettuce Capital of the World
    I agree with what Plotinus said about the pointlessness of trying to convince YECers that YECism isn't valid - but I do think it is important to demonstrate that it is a completely unscientific viewpoint and thus should not determine how actual science is taught. Otherwise you end up with people like my wife - I love her dearly, of course, but if she had gotten a more thorough science education she wouldn't be so convinced that evolution is "wrong" (she has no religious reasons for this, after all).
     
  20. Cheetah

    Cheetah Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,904
    Location:
    the relative oasis of CFC
    I think you're being unfair here Ziggy. The quoted text did in fact answer several of Pete's questions. At least the first one does.

    Mainly:
    About two and a half question I would say - civ2 never said whether or not any of this is in the Bible, or where it may be though. But coming from a Jewish angle, that is to be accepted.

    It's kinda silly to bold large amounts of a text though... I think it's completely reasonable to post that entire text.

    The second text was less meaningful to answer Pete's question though.

    However, it was quite interesting to read the text after first noting that it states:
    This leads to two simple postulates:
    So with that in mind, let me rephrase the text:
    Reads better, no? :)

    Atheism is a religion in the same way baldness is a hair colour.

    I quite like that statement. It's so easy everyone can understand it, and it gets the exact point across. :)

    I'll disagree. There certainly is something as "somebody's God/god(s)", as a god is an imaginary being existing in each individual's mind. In fact, I think it can be argued that two friends, who live in the same community and listen to the same priest, may have a different god in their heads: Even though they would agree that they believe in the same god, questioning them to describe their god in details would most likely bring up at least some minor difference.

    If you want to argue that there is only one absolutely supreme being in the whole reality, and that Christians call that being God, that Jews call it Yahweh, that Hindus call it Brahman, etc., then fair enough. If something like one absolutely supreme being exists, then it could logically be argued.

    Since we have no reason to assume it exists however, there remains no reason to consider that it exists, and as such all god(s) are individual, and there are at least one god per believer.

    For in humans all gods were created, and without humans there would be no gods.

    But isn't it simply an extension of what you are saying?

    You say "God exists." or "God is". That means that that God exists is true, and that God does not exist is false. In logic something can not be true and false at the same time. Thus God follows logic at least to some extent. Agreed?

    If not, will you then accept that God is some state of between true and false? :confused:
    Then you can't actually say he exists, by the meaning of the words as we use them. Thus you would have to agree that God does, in fact, not exist.

    I'm sure you agree that the first possibility is the correct one, and thus that God does in fact follow logic at least to some extent.

    I think I can see what you are saying, but it amuses me to note that you chose to say that God can overwrite something - as that would mean God can bring out of existence something that did exist (at least in his knowledge), and which would then not be part of God's knowledge and thus out of his power to recreate. ;)

    Btw, your second example would add the new knowledge about a second copy to the disc. And in the third example, old information is replaced with new information, thus God creates something that before did not exist even for God (he is omniscient after all), and God destroys something that will never exist again even for God (which, being omniscient, he should be able to know of).

    Thus, we should conclude that God can never do an overwrite of his knowledge. In fact, he can never delete anything, and not create anything there either, except for copies of things that are already there (since everything is already there).

    And you also forgot example 0: To create something that wasn't there. Humans do this all the time. Let's put it into your analogy as making a file and writing something to it...

    If you feel I'm becoming incoherent right now, I think it is because I actually didn't understand what you were saying after all.

    Would you mind rephrasing the analogy?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page