Evidence for creationism

[Miles Teg]

We haven't explored enough of it to know one way or another. It is vast enough that there could be millions of earth like worlds out there we and wouldn't know it.

Maybe, but you can't really claim the Universe is perfectly suited for life when there's no evidence that it is.

 

[Murky]

Maybe, but you can't really claim the Universe is fine-tuned for life when there's no evidence that it is.

We could live in it if it didn't allow for life to exist silly.

If the bonds that hold matter together were even just slightly off we wouldn't be here. The laws of physics that have to work just so for us to be here. You think that is just by accident?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

It's still a circular argument.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

We could live in it if it didn't allow for life to exist silly.

If the bonds that hold matter together were even just slightly off we wouldn't be here. The laws of physics that have to work just so for us to be here. You think that is just by accident?

What seriously? It didn't happen by accident. The universe was as it was. Life started and developed to suit the universe that was there.

 

[cardgame]

2+2=4

You think that happened by accident?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Why are we here?

Don't know about you. I'm here in the vain hope that someone will eventually post either evidence for creationism or a well reasoned argument supporting it. Sadly, I have seen neither. The only thing the creationists have are cop-outs, fallacies, and ignorance, as usual.

 

[Akka]

I didn't say that "God did it. "

So far there hasn't been a satisfactory explanation for why the universe exists in the first place and why it's perfectly suited for life.

You realize that it's akin to throwing a stone randomly, drawing a target right where it fell, and then claiming "it hit the target right in the center, it's definitely a very good throw !".

We wouldn't be here to observe the universe if it didn't allow life. Maybe there is untold numbers of other universes in other dimensions that don't allow life, but as they don't, there is no one to say "hey, you see, our universe doesn't allow life, so it means that God didn't create it !".

As an aside : the universe isn't "perfectly suited for life". Life is simply a consequence of the universe's mechanics - it's life that's "perfectly suited for the universe", and that makes just as little sense as saying "why is gravitation so perfectly suited to our universe".
You can wonder why these mechanics exists (and that's outside science domains, which deals with the "how", not the "why" ; also "why" imply a purpose, so it already assumes thought and design, which means it's already biased from the start).

That's where most atheist's arguments fall apart and why I'm not one.

Don't know against which atheists you talked with, but as I said above, your points are just either reversed thinking, or simply completely beside the point of science, so there is simply no argument to make that fall apart when it comes to the subject of the thread.

I prefer to leave the God question as unanswered and the origin of the universe as an unknown.

That's actually exactly the situation for science - it doesn't deal with things that it can't explain.

 

[Miles Teg]

We could live in it if it didn't allow for life to exist silly.

If the bonds that hold matter together were even just slightly off we wouldn't be here. The laws of physics that have to work just so for us to be here. You think that is just by accident?

As noted, if the laws of physics worked differently, we could very well have uncanny, Cthulhuian creatures in a world of strange geometries talking about how the universe was perfectly designed for them, which would prove the existence of Dog.

And again, the same laws that allow humans to exist also permit stars, which seem to be a lot more common than carbon based life. What evidence do we have the God wasn't more interested in them?

 

[Akka]

Don't know about you. I'm here in the vain hope that someone will eventually post either evidence for creationism or a well reasoned argument supporting it. Sadly, I have seen neither. The only thing the creationists have are cop-outs, fallacies, and ignorance, as usual.

You have seen neither because it's simply not possible.
Creationism is the antithesis of science - rather than starting from facts to reach a conclusion, it starts from a conclusion and looks for the facts.
Not only that, but it actually directly contradict the vast majority of knowledge humanity has accumulated, and is proved wrong by about everything we have learned - in other word, for it to work, the universe itself would need to have different laws, and most of everything we interact daily with just couldn't exist.

As such, you simply CAN NOT get any acceptable argument or evidence, as Creationism is flawed both at the conceptual and factual level.

The only scientific worth in Creationism is a proof about the power of selective obliviousness. In this, it serves, ironically, as a very strong evidence against religion.

 

[ParkCungHee]

As noted, if the laws of physics worked differently, we could very well have uncanny, Cthulhuian creatures in a world of strange geometries talking about how the universe was perfectly designed for them, which would prove the existence of Dog.

In such a case, can we count the discovery of Yuggoth in 1930, and "The Bloop" in 1997 as evidence that our world is, indeed, made by horrible unreasoning gods beyond the realms of madness?

 

[Smidlee]

Why are we here?



If the universe was not fine tuned to support life, life could not exist.

Well you are correct for known physical life. Living cells are preforming a balancing act. Living cells are unlike your TV, computer,cars, etc which are very stable. You don't repair these items every single day yet every cell in your body has to make millions of repairs every day. If the cell can't repair fast enough they will die. Just a small change to the forces and law of nature would cause living cell lose the war with time, thus no physical life on the planet.

 

[Akka]

Well you are correct for known physical life. Living cells are preforming a balancing act. Living cells are unlike your TV, computer,cars, etc which are very stable. You don't repair these items every single day yet every cell in your body has to make millions of repairs every day. If the cell can't repair fast enough they will die. Just a small change to the forces and law of nature would cause living cell lose the war with time, thus no physical life on the planet.

You realize that if the laws of the universe were different, then life would be different also ?
Why in hell would life develop the same way in different conditions ?

 

[Tani Coyote]

You do realize we don't believe God created him as Satan right? He chose that for himself. And no, he can't really challenge God, his loss is inevitable.

If I recall, some denominations believe that God made some sort of agreement with Satan to allow him to tempt human beings to sin with his many promises of earthly pleasures, whereas God doesn't do much tempting - apart from maybe burning in Hell but I don't believe in that - but offers heavenly reward to all who stay true to him. This was something akin to Satan ruling the Earth and all things corporeal but God ruling everything eternal and heavenly.

This would make the most sense; the Devil exists solely because God allows him to. It would violate God's omnibenevolence to destroy Satan as he is just as much a child as anyone else.

There's also another take: that Satan isn't the root of evil, but an agent of God, meant to tempt God's children - with God giving the permission to do this, of course - and deal out punishment(Hell) when they fall to those temptations.

There are many takes on the Devil besides the whole "root of evil, pure evil, enemy of God, etc." argument, but you would most certainly be correct in his inability to fully match God. Created by God, and allowed to continue his ways by God. And also serve as a nice way to test the faith of humanity.

Furthermore, God created Lucifer with free will, or the ability to chose. Since I believe according to Milton God created Lucifer before humanity, God made the same mistake again by giving humans free will.

Isn't free will considered God's most precious gift?

And of course he'd make the mistake; as an omnibenevolent being, he wouldn't enslave his own children.

If God knows everything, he must have therefore known what Lucifer would do before he did it, and you would think he would then simply decide to not make him in the first place.

1. Perhaps God's omniscience is of all things past and present, but not future. God can't know the future perfectly, as otherwise free will kind of loses its purpose; he may know all the possible futures via knowing the outcomes of every action, but perhaps not THE future.

2. God's unconditional love would prevent him from punishing Lucifer, especially for crimes he had yet to commit.

---

In terms of creationism, God's love of free will would probably lead him to just send out life force or some such, animating life and then letting it run itself. The first water molecules or whatever come to be, they eventually grow more and more complex... and so on.

And when an intelligent race unveils itself, God decides it's time to try and get them to follow him. But in his belief of free will, he says you need not believe in Him. And in his omnibenevolence, he most certainly won't consider that faith a requirement to get into his kingdom.

 

[Akka]

If I recall, some denominations believe that God made some sort of agreement with Satan to allow him to tempt human beings to sin with his many promises of earthly pleasures, whereas God doesn't do much tempting - apart from maybe burning in Hell but I don't believe in that - but offers heavenly reward to all who stay true to him. This was something akin to Satan ruling the Earth and all things corporeal but God ruling everything eternal and heavenly.

This would make the most sense; the Devil exists solely because God allows him to. It would violate God's omnibenevolence to destroy Satan as he is just as much a child as anyone else.

So, an omnicient God benevolence is so great that he lets some kind of evil figurehead tempts his supposedly beloved children into sin.
That's just so ridiculous on so many levels, I can't even begin to describe all the holes there is in it. Probably more holes than actual matter, even.

And the rest is just up to part - omniscient God that isn't omniscient, perfect being creating/letting create evil, and so on. Wishful thinking at its "best".

 

[bathsheba666]

Is there any correlation (positive or otherwise) between quality of thought processes and belief in Creationism?

I wonder what a deconstruction would yield of the contributions in this thread?

I humbly submit it might be better to have faith in the outcome, than to actually look at the evidence.

 

[Bill3000]

Just a small change to the forces and law of nature would cause living cell lose the war with time, thus no physical life on the planet.

Nah, the weak nuclear force is very much not necessary for the survival of life.

 

[RedRalph]

I once saw Kirk Cameron claim the shape of a banana is evidence that god exists

 

[sophie]

I once saw Kirk Cameron claim the shape of a banana is evidence that god exists

Well it does, fits in the hand, fits in the mouth! The best part? created by humans! The natural occurring analogue is actually rather inferior. So, if this god does in fact exist, I'd say we outdid him.

 

[Souron]

Banana's fit just as well in monkey hands. . .

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Well I've seen this 10 minute youtube video posted before... which is about complexity arising from simple rules


Link to video.

*warning: Coldplay music