Scientists Deem Creation to Be the Most Rational Explanation of Universe

Nonsense. Since there is no definition of God, the choices he poses- either it exists, or doesn't exist, is a false statement. Besides, he was educated at a Christian school, hardly an objective institution.
 
Christian Apologetics - one of the world's biggest and most powerful propaganda machines.
 
Woody said:
Here's the link.

Enjoy some good reading. Creationism is far from dead in the science community. This article is from a PHD microbiologist.

The Case for The Existence of God, Part 1
Click to expand...

This is silly.

That article's approach to the problem of "creation" can be applied to anything that is currently beyond human comprehension. "Hey, how did that happen?". "I don't know." "Obviously then, it was god.".

That's a piss poor argument.
 
Christian Apologetics - one of the world's biggest and most powerful propaganda machines.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with propaganda as long as it is true!
 
Woody said:
Nothing wrong with propaganda as long as it is true!
Click to expand...

But there is nothing to show that it is besides individual's faith. So it is not the "good kind" of propoganda.
 
But what if she is right?! What if the universe indeed was created by a giant outeruniversal monkey rubbing its' arse?! :eek:
 
Internationalist said:
Let's say that there is a intelligent designer he doesn't have to Christian...ever think about Logos?
Click to expand...

Why not just say "I don't know" when you don't freaking know?
 
wesmorris said:
Why not just say "I don't know" when you don't freaking know?
Click to expand...

I agree with you, I am a evolutionist but I am saying to the xtian fundamentalists, who is to say that this being is your god? Especially since the creatation story is not universalistic considering the Buddhist idea of creation which is non-existent.
 
water: Why not? Because it shows that you don't know something?
I like people who give such an answer, because it shows that they are honest and value truth whatever it might be.
People who don't know and invent in order to appear to know.. well.. they are weak people not able to handle themselves and the reality.
 
water said:
"I don't know" has never been a good answer.
Click to expand...

Of course, and those who are inclined to judge that which they feel strongly about, will do so regardless of whether or not they know. That one thinks they know is far more relevant to their behavior than one really knowing anything. Since each has their own bias and threshold of proof, beliefs are pretty eronious and will be rooted in a personal solution to circumstance.

Example: Fred grows up in a christian family. What is the path of least resistance for Fred regarding spiritual beliefs? Even if he doesn't follow that path, his circumstance is riddled with christianity. He can't escape his circumstance. As such, its role in his life is significant. It will either be part of it or struggle to overcome it.

More times than not, he'll just roll with it because it's easier and he learns to incorporate it into his perspective.

Regardless, the argument in the quoted article is a crock. It merely seeks to justify a presumption that can only be justified if presumed.
 
I disagree.

The core of any belief system is like that. Remember what I mentioned once before? "One can only utilize the essence of baye's theorum: What's the probability of this, if that is true?". A system of logical conclusions regarding knowledge are founded on a system of knowledge gained by faith (presumption). Such is the boundary of logic, it requires something upon which to build. Would you propose that an "intelligent designer" is an irrefutable assumption? That "I am", is an irrefutable assumption because if you are not, the statement itself is moot. If "you aren't" then there is no you to know there is no you and thus the connudrum is resolved painlessly. There is no down side to such a presumption. Assuming however "god is", is not so neatly resolved. That "god is" cannot be shown. That "I am", is demonstrated in the act of the assertion. That "god is"... can only be justified with emotion. Logically, that's quite perilous IMO - depending of course on your intended outcome. If understanding nature is your intended outcome, the presumption of god is as bad as you can do I'd think. If feeling that you understand nature is the intended outcome, then the presumption of god is a pretty decent bet.

The more serious repurcussions of the presumption, the more perilous the assertion.
 
Last edited:
It's not about emotion: it's about ethics. An ethical evaluation of our position in the universe.
 
water said:
It's not about emotion: it's about ethics. An ethical evaluation of our position in the universe.
Click to expand...

What's the difference? How do you get to ethics? Isn't that fundamentally emotional? Is ethics subject to logic or reason?

I have no problem with an ethical evaluation, but when deistic conventions of that evalution are asserted to be actual - there are problems.

The main problem I see is that ethics are anthropomorphic, whereas the universe isn't until we make it that way. In terms of systems, we are a within IT, yet due to our perspective are prone to make IT a product of us. Universal anthropomorphism is the pinnacle of arrogance.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top