-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Does this statement completely bankrupt Creationism?
- Thread starter No1Mensan
- Start date
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
I think that is because you are no putting in in the context that "there is a God" is a given in his mind set.
JustBusiness17
New Member
Here is the operative portion of his statements:
They say it twice so it must be true! :roll:
.
Some Creationist said:
They say it twice so it must be true! :roll:
.
Creationist said:
It seems that this person is arguing a hypothetical situation here, so for now let's disregard the question of whether a god does or does not exist in this reality. This person doesn't believe that an omnipotent being is limited by natural laws. Isn't this the very definition of omnipotence? Basically, "I think that an omnipotent being is omnipotent". Am I missing something? This is about the most useless statement I've ever heard. What is this evidence for again?
Netheralian
New Member
Despite being a crap argument against evolution, it is at least internally consistent. Most creationists want to insist that the evidence is there for God creating everything magically or flooding the world etc. At least this guy doesn't need to do the mental gymnastics required to hold this position. No flood evidence? It doesn't matter, God magiced it into place and magiced it away again. I'm always somewhat surprised when discussing stuff with creationists that they don't just use this argument rather than trying to twist evidence to say something that it most clearly doesn't.
Of course he would still need to explain why God is so deceitful by allowing evidence of something else...
Of course he would still need to explain why God is so deceitful by allowing evidence of something else...
He's perfectly correct though. A supernatural being shouldn't need to go through the tedious process of rearranging all these cumbersome natural laws just to get shit shit done. He should be able to just snap his metaphysical fingers, utter some suitably badass latin phrase and presto chango, everything is as it's should be.
The very fact that there are physical laws is evidence enough that the world was no created from any kind of all powerful intellect. It doesn't by it's self rule out the idea of it being created by a being of limited power, but why worship something of limited power? Surely the goal then should be to attain, even surpass that being.
The very fact that there are physical laws is evidence enough that the world was no created from any kind of all powerful intellect. It doesn't by it's self rule out the idea of it being created by a being of limited power, but why worship something of limited power? Surely the goal then should be to attain, even surpass that being.
I suppose I am making a distinction here between suggesting "It is possible that a hypothetical God could do this" (which seems obvious by the definition of omnipotence), and "In reality, God actually did this". If the person is actually arguing that God is deceitfully doing everything by magic even though it appears otherwise, then you have a problem of falsifiability. I would suggest that it was in fact the FSM, who is known for his mischievous ways. Because both of these assertions have no testable predictions, and thus no way to be falsified, they are on equal footing (In reality, I of course reject both of these explanations because they are unfalsifiable). You then also have a huge conflict between the idea that this God is all loving, and the reality that he is intentionally deceiving people.
Commander Eagle
New Member
There's one huge problem with arguing against creationists. Their entire argument is, essentially, "A wizard did it."
There isn't much you can do against that. Everything in the universe can be explained in the context of a wizard doing it.
"Well, what about DNA evidence?"
"Magic."
"Observed speciation?"
"He's a wizard, and he used magic."
"But what abou-"
"MAGIC!"
There isn't much you can do against that. Everything in the universe can be explained in the context of a wizard doing it.
"Well, what about DNA evidence?"
"Magic."
"Observed speciation?"
"He's a wizard, and he used magic."
"But what abou-"
"MAGIC!"
No1Mensan said:
they will never be bankrupt, because the followers will eagerly give their money, the got billions in reserve.
its basically the crocoduck argument, but different.
it just shows how much bullshit they will use to sell their snake-oil, though this could easily be countered with something like tis.
perhaps a supernatural being wouldn't need to use the evolutionary process to fill the earth with living creatures. however, the way people describe this supernatural being.. it has such an ego problem that he wants the world to know that it had done it, it's strange that this piece of evidence is completely lacking, not just here on planet earth but also the whole universe. such a being, if truely omniimpotent, would have the power to make the small adjustments needed to proof it's existance.
the only conclusion of it's total absense to which it leads, it that this supernatural being doesn't exist today or even in the past.
Ok my point is that Creationism seems to be a quest to find natural evidence for the Bibical account. My point is why try and explain where the water for the flood came from and where it went and how Noah fitted those animals on the Ark, why not just say he did it by magic. I thought that statement proved my point.
To anyone who thinks I'm a Creationist, I can assure you that I'm not. My opinion of Creationists is as high as the skirting boards in a basement, if you still have doubts click on my channel page.
To anyone who thinks I'm a Creationist, I can assure you that I'm not. My opinion of Creationists is as high as the skirting boards in a basement, if you still have doubts click on my channel page.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
The quoted argument against evolution/for Creationism is somewhat similar to the idea that prevailed during the Middle Ages concerning cosmology - or, more particularly, Ptolemy's cosmology.
It seemed easiest for people to accept that God could have - in effect - upside-down, transparent bowls which corresponded with the orbits of the heavenly bodies along with a black bowl with holes through which the Light of Heaven shone (stars), with a flat Earth supported on four pillars, supported by a turtle ... supported by God's Hand.
This, rather than the idea of the planets "floating" in space, supported by nothing, in elliptical orbits around the sun - with the stars being distant suns.
In both this example and the quoted argument, the problem lies with Man's inability to accept complicated solutions which defy our understanding, given the contemporaneous level of knowledge.
The fact is that, whether one accepts the possibility of a Creator or not, the evidence for evolution implies that - if a Creator exists - He did "use a natural process to create".
Kindest regards,
James
The quoted argument against evolution/for Creationism is somewhat similar to the idea that prevailed during the Middle Ages concerning cosmology - or, more particularly, Ptolemy's cosmology.
It seemed easiest for people to accept that God could have - in effect - upside-down, transparent bowls which corresponded with the orbits of the heavenly bodies along with a black bowl with holes through which the Light of Heaven shone (stars), with a flat Earth supported on four pillars, supported by a turtle ... supported by God's Hand.
This, rather than the idea of the planets "floating" in space, supported by nothing, in elliptical orbits around the sun - with the stars being distant suns.
In both this example and the quoted argument, the problem lies with Man's inability to accept complicated solutions which defy our understanding, given the contemporaneous level of knowledge.
The fact is that, whether one accepts the possibility of a Creator or not, the evidence for evolution implies that - if a Creator exists - He did "use a natural process to create".
Kindest regards,
James