Looking for a debate with creationists (I am an atheist)

[loverofhumanity]

That would be a reasonable statement if by "creating the process of evolution" you mean creating and upholding the laws of physics (because those are what it comes down to, in the end) that enable evolution to operate in the way that it does.

So far as I know there is no explanation for the laws of physics: they are just what is observed. So if one wants them to have a cause, one can speculate.

Yes that is what I mean. An All Intelligent Being created all the laws of physics to work in a certain way. So I’m saying God is the Perfect Scientist not just a religious Figure and that the limited concept of God by some leaves out His scientific attributes.To put into place such complex systems it would require a Supreme Scientist. We know that the laws of physics have no will of their own and cannot deviate from a fixed pattern so the laws of physics are not responsible for their own existence. A far higher intelligence than us is required to formulate and initiate these processes. We may never fully understand this Intelligence to me it is clear that only a Master Mathematician could possibly have the ability to put in place the complex laws of physics, evolution and things like the human body. A lot of people have come to the conclusion that there’s something else out there which is way beyond our intelligence. People call this God but nobody really knows what God is just that there is strong indications that there is a Being out there way beyond our comprehension.

Baha’is are told that God exists but is unknowable to our finite minds. There is just so little we really know. No religionist knows what God is only that He exists because of all these intelligent signs and processes around us that we did not put there.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That doesn't make much sense, actually.
The process isn't something that requires any "creating". It's something that simply happens under certain circumstances. Like "falling" is something that happens when under the influence of gravity.

You wouldn't say that someone created the process of "falling" - or that it even makes sense to talk about "creating" that process, right? It's just what inevitably happens when conditions in an environment are a certain way.

I think a scientist might see it differently that complex mathematical laws and algorithms are involved and that things don’t ‘just happen’.

 

[exchemist]

Being ill-informed isn't foolish, refusing to learn would be. As I said, matter isn't a well defined scientific term, it refers to some subset of particles but which depends on the context. Energy is well defined and conserved but it's wrong to think of it as some kind of "stuff" that could be created or destroyed.

Einstein's famous equation relates mass and energy, not matter and energy. Both mass and energy are properties of stuff, not stuff.

See: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

I notice you avoided the point about a universe created by a god that just happens to exist being every bit as mysterious and unexplained as just a universe that just happens to exist....

Excellent link to Strassler. I've often used his discussion of virtual particles, but not this one. I may use it in future, as the notion that energy is "stuff" is quite prevalent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes that is what I mean. An All Intelligent Being created all the laws of physics to work in a certain way. So I’m saying God is the Perfect Scientist not just a religious Figure and that the limited concept of God by some leaves out His scientific attributes.To put into place such complex systems it would require a Supreme Scientist. We know that the laws of physics have no will of their own and cannot deviate from a fixed pattern so the laws of physics are not responsible for their own existence. A far higher intelligence than us is required to formulate and initiate these processes. We may never fully understand this Intelligence to me it is clear that only a Master Mathematician could possibly have the ability to put in place the complex laws of physics, evolution and things like the human body. A lot of people have come to the conclusion that there’s something else out there which is way beyond our intelligence. People call this God but nobody really knows what God is just that there is strong indications that there is a Being out there way beyond our comprehension.

Baha’is are told that God exists but is unknowable to our finite minds. There is just so little we really know. No religionist knows what God is only that He exists because of all these intelligent signs and processes around us that we did not put there.

This is an old failed argument. If the universe needs a creator then by the same "logic" so does the god that created the universe. And then that creator needs a creator etc. and so on endlessly. In other words the "univert needs a creator" argument fails due to infinite regress.

 

[Windwalker]

If everyone accepts all scientific consensus as 100% true today, then scientific progress will arise from... ?

You did not answer my question.

Why is it a problem for you to accept the established scientific theory of evolution, when other Christians don't have any issues with it conflicting with their faith? Why do you choose to take a denier position instead of an acceptor position? What about accepting evolution, denies God for you, while not for other Christians? Why is your faith challenged, while theirs is not?

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is an old failed argument. If the universe needs a creator then by the same "logic" so does the god that created the universe. And then that creator needs a creator etc. and so on endlessly. In other words the "univert needs a creator" argument fails due to infinite regress.

It’s only because we live in a world of time that we think like this but in the world of eternity God always existed. Eternity means no beginning and no end. So God always was and is when you bring eternity into the equation,

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think he asked for "evidence," not your private definition.

Anyway, i personally hold the belief that Al Gore is an all knowing being who created the process of evolution. My evidence? My gut feelings, obviously.

Consequently, if that's your best evidence for creationism, then you literally won't have any evidence for creationism.

I believe in both creationism and evolution. They are not contradictory. Basically an All Knowing God put in place the process of evolution. This is very reasonable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe in both creationism and evolution. They are not contradictory. Basically an All Knowing God put in place the process of evolution. This is very reasonable.

For the sake of the forum, the term "creationism" tends to refer specifically to a pseudo-scientific hypothesis that theistic creation is not only scientifically evidenced in nature, but is also in contradiction to evolutionary theory. I assume you're using the broader, classical definition of "creationism" that essentially means the same as "theism".

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s only because we live in a world of time that we think like this but in the world of eternity God always existed. Eternity means no beginning and no end. So God always was and is when you bring eternity into the equation,

Hand waving.

 

[loverofhumanity]

For the sake of the forum, the term "creationism" tends to refer specifically to a pseudo-scientific hypothesis that theistic creation is not only scientifically evidenced in nature, but is also in contradiction to evolutionary theory. I assume you're using the broader, classical definition of "creationism" that essentially means the same as "theism".

Maybe I just understand it differently.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Maybe I just understand it differently.

Eh, it's not really an issue of understanding - the word has multiple meanings, so it can get confusing if you're only familiar with one and people suddenly start talking about it using another. It's just natural.

 

[tas8831]

Okay--explain the ALL that exists, before Planck time... go!

Before Planck time - that is like saying 'run a marathon before 1 kilometer.'

 

[tas8831]

WHAT A FOOL I'VE BEEN!

Agreed.

 

[We Never Know]

This is an old failed argument. If the universe needs a creator then by the same "logic" so does the god that created the universe. And then that creator needs a creator etc. and so on endlessly. In other words the "univert needs a creator" argument fails due to infinite regress.

If someone believes the universe can exist without a creator, why would they believe a god needs a creator? IOW, if the universe can just exist, why couldn't a god?

 

[Polymath257]

Okay--what is the consciousness... go!

The problem is that, like the God concept, people seem to mean very different things when they use the word 'consciousness'. For example, I have seen a philosopher claim that a thermostat might be conscious and others claim we are conscious when asleep. All that means to me is that they are using a *very* different notion than I am.

Without more precision of language, no more discussion seems to be possible.

Okay--explain the ALL that exists, before Planck time... go!

Why do you think it is even meaningful to talk about 'before Planck time'?

 

[Polymath257]

If someone believes the universe can exist without a creator, why would they believe a god needs a creator? IOW, if the universe can just exist, why couldn't a god?

And vice versa. if God can 'just exist', why not the universe?

The point is that if someone thinks the universe needs a creator, then it is logical to think that creator does also. And that creates an infinite regress. It is also logical to think that if a creator doesn't need a creator, then neither would the universe.

Furthermore, if it is possible for the universe to 'just exist', why bring a creator into the discussion at all? it seems like a completely unnecessary addition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If someone believes the universe can exist without a creator, why would they believe a god needs a creator? IOW, if the universe can just exist, why couldn't a god?

A god could exist. A god may exist. I was pointing out the error in the " universe had to have a maker" argument. That is just a case of a special pleading fallacy.

 

[We Never Know]

And vice versa. if God can 'just exist', why not the universe?

The point is that if someone thinks the universe needs a creator, then it is logical to think that creator does also. And that creates an infinite regress. It is also logical to think that if a creator doesn't need a creator, then neither would the universe.

Furthermore, if it is possible for the universe to 'just exist', why bring a creator into the discussion at all? it seems like a completely unnecessary addition.

I agree. However the vise-versa wasn't the subject.
I don't believe in gods but one thing we can't deny is everything we know of that exists or existed, came from something else. Where do we draw the line and say this is "it", this is where everything came from and nothing came before it and can we show it correct with evidence?

 

[We Never Know]

A god could exist. A god may exist. I was pointing out the error in the " universe had to have a maker" argument. That is just a case of a special pleading fallacy.

I actually think both arguments are. One is just a counter for the other.

 

[Polymath257]

I'll go further.

Causality itself seems to be a feature of the spacetime in which we exist. And the modern view of cosmology it to think of the 'universe' being all of spacetime. Hence, the idea of a 'cause' or, even more, of a 'creator' of the universe, seems to be very problematic: it is requiring causality where the whole concept seems to be meaningless.

Because of this, saying the 4-dimensional (or 11-dimensional) spacetime 'simply exists' seems to be quite a reasonable position to take.

No creator, no cause of existence. But existence simply is.