What do you think -
Where do things come from?
Where does the knowledge on how to create things come from?
How come evolution started? How come evolution continues?
Rational Creationism
- Thread starter synthesizer-patel
- Start date
What do you think -
Where do things come from?
Where does the knowledge on how to create things come from?
How come evolution started? How come evolution continues?
You know I think I understand why creationists believe in design. Its because they have never deigned andything in their lives, let alone built something.
Designs don't just magicly appear. They are made by a designer. Designers don't magically appear either. They are part of a culture. They have to learn design and design itself must be invented and refined. But design is just the tip of the iceberg. After being designed, it must be built. Then it needs to be tested, refined, rebuilt. Eventually it is produced and destributed.
A watch for example is the product of thousands of inventers and hundreds of thousands of industrial people not to mention auxilieries like universities, governments and even the end consumer who creates the demand.
None of that is evident in your fantasy big daddy designer. He just pops into existence fully formed like Minerva and designs stuff by magic.
Your entire positions is "Ooo, its so hard to understand therefore god must have done it even though there is no evidence for god and lots of evidence for evolution. Let's explane everything by saying an infinately improbable being, in an unknown location, that we know nothing about, did it by means we can't understand."
That is soooo much better that actually finding out the real reasons for life.
You can think this if you want but if you want to argue it successfully you will have a difficult time ahead of you
agreed
so your argument is basically "god doesn't exist because he doesn't learn things the way that we learn"?
and does the argument extend to "god doesn't exist because god doesn't build things like we do"?
Your argument is continually boiling down to a requirement that god display a mode of existence remarkably similar to our (conditioned) human experience.
Actually the requirements you are talking about are not requirements for design.
They are requirements for (conditioned) human experience.
You don't see serious problems with an entity that is claimed to be the cause of all causes, the reservoir of all opulences/qualities etc being required to design something through the equivalent of a government agency?
Actually my argument is that there is no (empirical) evidence for the wider claims of evolution, so borrowing from the credibility of empiricism to establish them is fallacious.
This is part of a wider argument that empiricism does not have the monopoly on all claims of knowledge (the wider claims of evolution, clearly attest to this on a basic level).
This is perhaps related to another argument about the means and ways for understanding god. I wasn't aware that we had approached that third argument in this thread .....
actually that explanation sounds remarkably familiar to what is claimed in the name of science in quite a few fields.
Let's explain everything by the infintely improbable , in an unknown location, that we know nothing about, does it by means we can't understand.
Once again, I have no problem with the real reasons. Nothing wrong with empiricism ... except when you call upon it to justify claims that don't meet its methodology.
(BTW - I received a sci warning for flaming (particularly to the reference to intelligence) from a mod due to my last post ...... I am sure you disagree with the argument etc, ... but is it just me or is that over the top? Does it read as something else other than a reference to application of the idea of "intelligence" )
Which things?
Knowledge is worked out by people using their own understanding and the knowledge accumulated by their culture.
Evolution is just what happens in an environment were living things exist.
It continues because life continues.
So if you have designed and built something did it happen by magic or did it require working? Did you just spring from the womb and start cranking out cars? Could you build a car without all the other people who make the stuff you need to make something?
What god?
I'm saying the only beings we know of who engage on design even approaching the ability to design components of life had to be living first and develope an extensive culture first and work out very suffisticated sciences first. You don't start just designing things. First you must exist and exist at a pretty sophisticated level, then you can design things.
If we design life at some point, it will still be the result of our having evolved first.
Hypothesizing that "god" just sprang into existence fully formed and full of knowledge is rediculous. Never mind that you can't explane how he would design anything or how he would impliment any design, particularly on a universal scale. 100,000,000,000 galaxies with 100,000,000,000 stars at last estiment. Of course at this point you wave you hands about and say gods ways aren't are ways...
Your position is absurd. You can't actually support any aspect of it.
I see plenty of problems with empty hyperbole pretending to be substance.
You say that, but its fallicious.
All 'things' - houses, roads, computers, rivers, trees ...
But how did evolution start, and why?
lightgigantic said:
To reiterate, your arguments, swarm, seems to be:
'If God is not like humans (ie. needing to learn, needing to develop, needing support from other humans, needing relatively good natural conditions, needing time etc.),
then God does not exist.'
and
'The only way design can take place is that it takes place the way humans design (ie. needing to learn, needing to develop, needing support from other humans, needing relatively good natural conditions, needing time etc.).'
swarm
So if your question is "would you expect god to behave like a conditioned human being" the answer is "no"
thats why theists commonly subscribe to the idea that god is eternal
you'lll have to forgive me if I don't believe you for 100 000 000 years ....
I'm not sure how this argument relates to your assertion that creationists/intelligent designers have never designed anything in their lives ... but as regards to this new argument, you are not talking about requirements about design but rather, requirements for (conditioned) human existence.
So if your question is "would you expect god to behave like a conditioned human being" the answer is "no"
and this notable point about conditioned life establishes bears what relationship to issues of design (particularly the role god is determined in relation to design)?
hence we are not in the running for it
I agree
thats why theists commonly subscribe to the idea that god is eternal
Actually there are technical descriptions there, but like all technical descriptions, its pointless to begin discussing them without a certain amount of theoretical knowledge to get around the terminology
perhaps for one who's scriptural research goes no further than pop up books
On the contrary, you don't appear to be inclined to exert the necessary intellectual stamina to understand the position
that's ok , but I don't see why that gives you a license to reduce all arguments of god to something on the same level of your own personal existence
well feel free to empirically show an aquatic develop into a land dweller
you'lll have to forgive me if I don't believe you for 100 000 000 years ....
All things, in that context, don't come from anywhere. They are right here and have always been right here.
Evolution "started" because some forms of life interact more successfully with a particular environment better than others.
You are mistaken.
I'm discussing the nature of design and what is necessary to actually design something.
Both of you have yet to show any actual god. You have yet to show you have any actual knowledge of any actual god. So "god" is entirely hypothetical.
There is no point in trying to discuss your wild fantasies about "god" in any detail since you just make up powers willy nilly and pretend away any objections with magic.
Pretending god exists, pretending he has magic powers, pretending he just springs into existence, pretending he magically designs things whole cloth is a pretty good example of the foolishness of creationists, but other than a perfect example of how design doesn't work what point is there to any of that?
Oh don't play stupid. You are caliming it is possible for a being to pop into existence fully formed and just start creating life and universes without any known location, any education, any known means of creating, any tools, any culture or any compatriots. Just poof there's god. Poof he creates a universe. Poof he designs life.
Your position is the biggest laod of undeluted crap one can possible imagine. I hope you were on some serious drugs.
However, IF we assume that happened, then "design" is definatley not an applicable word because your god didn't actually go through the process of designing anything. He just poofed it into being. Design is what you do when you have to FIGURE SOMETHING OUT. If you can just poof things, there is no design.
Theists talk a lot of absolute crap about god, but that is all it is.
go through the fossil record and look at the animals and plants which are currently going one way or the other. There are a number of fish and amphibians in particular in intermediate stages.
you're the one calling the shots
:shrug:
and you're claiming that its sufficient to determine the potency of god by an examination of the potency of humans
:shrug:
On the contrary, you are on a serious ego trip when you start to subjugate the universe to human potency
:shrug:
where did you get the idea that god "poofs"?
From the pop up books you have been reading on the subject?
Strangely enough even many atheists, in their philosophical analysis of the world, have requirements for some sort of eternal value (it just happens not to be god .... which isn't a big surprise, I guess ....)
Thats fine
Its only when you start extrapolating beyond empirical findings that the problems ensue ...
Incorrect
All you have been talking about are the requirement of potency. If an entity has a greater potency than humans, there is no requirement for them to design things through a government agency or whatever.
duh
So in the meantime, its ok for you to have a license to redefine the proposition of what is god's nature for the purpose of logical discussion, eh?
There is no point answering a question of logic with a person who jumps boat to a question of truth midway
Pretending answering a question of WHY by sidelining issues of WHAT can be fruitful is even more nutso ....
:shrug:
So if they 'are right here and have always been right here', then they have not developed, have not evolved, have not been designed ...?
Why the " " around 'started'?
You are talking about what a particular human or particular group of humans would need to actually design something.
You seem to think that an activity has objective principles that are independent of the performer of the activity and also independent of the purpose and result of said activity.
I do not see how such a stance could possibly be supported.
Good point. I've started a discussion awhile back with other theists on here about magic and God. After considering what we discussed on that thread, I am still inclined to believe that if God exists, he is paranormal/magical, and utilitizes magic and not the design process. An important part, by definition of design, is to figure it out.
If you believe in God, you must believe in magic and the paranormal. Likewise, the opposite must be true.
[/QUOTE]
You need a reference on this. The last I checked the record (1999), there was no definitive fossils that existed of any organism in intermediate stages. There are, however, a lot of elaborate hoaxes from the more fanatical atheists and scientists. The fossil record is not very interesting concerning evolutionary theory anyhow and should remain the last bit of evidence to support it. There is much more convincing evidence in other sciences.
I did a quick sweep on the NET and reaffirmed my understanding of the fossil record at
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence15.htm
It states that We would also expect that we would not find fossils showing intermediate characteristics between organisms that are not closely related. For example, we would not expect to see fossils that appear to be intermediates between birds and mammals or between fish and mammals. Again, the record is consistent.
And also
There are gaps in the fossil record and some unusual occurances, such as what is commonly called the Cambrian explosion, but the overall impression one gets from the fossil record is one of incremental development.
You are just talking out your ass. You have no evidence that is the least bit true.
You don't know any entities with "greater potency than humans" nor do you know their requirements for designing anything.
You just pretend and make shit up.
Some have developed and evolved. Some even have gotten designed into various forms once we evolved and could design them.
The normal usage of start assumes a discrete beginning.
Life, its environment and how it interects with its envioronment (evolution) are not seperable and don't have a discrete beginning.
Humans are the best example we currently have of purposeful design, but they are not the only example. We could discuss chips and their development of nut cracking technology.
What other desingers do you have knowledge of such that you can discuss their methods?
Care to rephrase that?