Debate on Creationism

[NoToReligion]

Hello. I am going to challenge Creationists, more specifically Muslim or Christian Creationists, to present their best logical evidence for God. Since this is not science vs. religion, I don't want anything that's trying to pointlessly debunk evolution since it will only extend the argument or anything like that. I'll try to disprove yours logically, and the cycle will continue until one side stops debating.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm a little confused. Is this a discussion about Abrahamic origin mythos or a discussion about Abrahamic god-concepts? In what way are you connecting a presentation of "logical evidence" for the one-god with their origin mythos? They seem like two different topics to me.

 

[NoToReligion]

I'm a little confused. Is this a discussion about Abrahamic origin mythos or a discussion about Abrahamic god-concepts? In what way are you connecting a presentation of "logical evidence" for the one-god with their origin mythos? They seem like two different topics to me.

Because your God can't create the universe if he doesn't exist, so connecting the logical evidence of the God with their "origin mythos" is quite important. And it's about both the God existing and what he did.

 

[Quintessence]

Because your God...

Eh? The Abrahamic one-god is not my god. And I don't have any gods named God in my tradition.

... can't create the universe if he doesn't exist, so connecting the logical evidence of the God with their "origin mythos" is quite important. And it's about both the God existing and what he did.

Usually, discussions about origin mythos in theistic religions begin with the assumption that their gods are a thing. They have to. If we don't do this, the discussion about the creation mythos can never get off the ground in the first place. I'm going to assume you aren't attempting to be disingenuous here, but I gotta say I'm even more confused now than I was before. Discussing Abrahamic origin mythos will never get off the ground if you don't start with the premise that their god is a thing.

 

[NoToReligion]

Eh? The Abrahamic one-god is not my god. And I don't have any gods named God in my tradition.



Usually, discussions about origin mythos in theistic religions begin with the assumption that their gods are a thing. They have to. If we don't do this, the discussion about the creation mythos can never get off the ground in the first place. I'm going to assume you aren't attempting to be disingenuous here, but I gotta say I'm even more confused now than I was before. Discussing Abrahamic origin mythos will never get off the ground if you don't start with the premise that their god is a thing.

You're completely misunderstanding everything I said. First of all, I was speaking of "Your God" in terms of if anyone wants to debate me on God, and second off, they have to prove their God is a thing to me before I say their God exists. That's just how arguments work.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Because extremely complex, interactive information exists

Do you think such information arises by chance?

Empirical science states otherwise.

 

[Earthtank]

to present their best logical evidence

I must say i applaud you on that part of your post. Rarely (if ever) have i seen an Atheist asking for "logical evidence" instead of Empirical. And i really do mean it when i say i applaud you because, personally, i think empirical evidence is the wrong tool for job of proving/disproving God. With that said, i do think that science can be a tool used to validate/verify God but not prove/disprove one.

 

[NoToReligion]

Because extremely complex, interactive information exists

Do you think such information arises by chance?

Empirical science states otherwise.

Define "complex" in this case.

 

[Quintessence]

...second off, they have to prove their God is a thing to me before I say their God exists. That's just how arguments work.

So what you really want to discuss are proofs for the one-god, not origin mythos? Just trying to grasp what the focus of the discussion is supposed to be, because as I said, if we don't grant the premise that their god is a thing we will simply never get to any meaningful discussion about origin mythos.

 

[NoToReligion]

So what you really want to discuss are proofs for the one-god, not origin mythos? Just trying to grasp what the focus of the discussion is supposed to be, because as I said, if we don't grant the premise that their god is a thing we will simply never get to any meaningful discussion about origin mythos.

I hope to have them be nearly the same thing in the debates, since they usually can be/are.

 

[NoToReligion]

I must say i applaud you on that part of your post. Rarely (if ever) have i seen an Atheist asking for "logical evidence" instead of Empirical. And i really do mean it when i say i applaud you because, personally, i think empirical evidence is the wrong tool for job of proving/disproving God. With that said, i do think that science can be a tool used to validate/verify God but not prove/disprove one.

Yeah, Empirical Evidence is quite odd and fuzzy when discussing God or what God has done. I try to stick to logical evidence because that's the only thing that can reasonably debunk God. Also, thank you.

 

[exchemist]

You're completely misunderstanding everything I said. First of all, I was speaking of "Your God" in terms of if anyone wants to debate me on God, and second off, they have to prove their God is a thing to me before I say their God exists. That's just how arguments work.

I can't see what this will achieve, even if a creationist were to take you up on it. I think it has been a fairly standard result for over a century now that there is no "proof" of existence of a god, nor any "disproof" either.

 

[Quintessence]

I hope to have them be nearly the same thing in the debates, since they usually can be/are.

I'll concede you have a point there with respect to the Abrahamic traditions. Some lines of argumentation within the Abrahamic traditions use origin mythos as a way of proving their god-concept (e.g., reality is too complex to exist without their god). It's something I've typically found strange even though I can see the logic in it. To see the logic in it, one has to understand the difference between mythos and logos first, and that religion deals far more with mythos than logos. But as I don't have a horse in this race (not being Abrahamic) I'll probably leave things there.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Define "complex" in this case.

Atomic structure, functioning within the nuclear forces, for one.

The many varieties of cells, for another.

Etc., etc....

I try to stick to logical evidence because that's the only thing that can reasonably debunk God.

How does logic debunk an Intelligence source for the world around us?

 

[NoToReligion]

Atomic structure, functioning within the nuclear forces, for one.

The many varieties of cells, for another.

Etc., etc....



How does logic debunk an Intelligence source for the world around us?

What about the "atomic structure" is complex? What about the "many varieties of cells" is complex?

I didn't say logic does debunk religion, I said it's the only thing that, within reason, can debunk God. It is up to you to decide if logic debunks God, but it is the best tool of all of them to debunk Him.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I didn't say logic does debunk religion

Neither did I.

 

[NoToReligion]

Neither did I.

Of course you didn't, but you acted like I did when you said "How does logic debunk an Intelligent source for the world around us?"

 

[leov]

Hello. I am going to challenge Creationists, more specifically Muslim or Christian Creationists, to present their best logical evidence for God. Since this is not science vs. religion, I don't want anything that's trying to pointlessly debunk evolution since it will only extend the argument or anything like that. I'll try to disprove yours logically, and the cycle will continue until one side stops debating.

What kind of proven science you plan to counter creationism with?

 

[NoToReligion]

What kind of proven science you plan to counter creationism with?

Sorry, I said this isn't science vs. religion. However, if you want me to give you evidence, I can send you messages of evidence.

 

[leov]

Sorry, I said this isn't science vs. religion. However, if you want me to give you evidence, I can send you messages of evidence.

So, it is not physical VS metaphysical? So, what might be that logical argument?