1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured A Question for Creationists

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Hubert Farnsworth, Nov 28, 2017.

  1. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,852
    Ratings:
    +6,405
    Religion:
    None
    So if a scientist classifies humans as apes, it's just "classification preference" that proves nothing except "willing ignorance", but if you classify man separately, it's somehow something different.

    Still with the proof thing? Scientists don't require or care about proof, which is seldom possible. They require compelling evidence, and their degree of belief is commensurate with the quality and quantity of supporting evidence.

    Why do faith based thinkers, who generally lack even evidence for their beliefs, speak of proof to the rest of us?

    Why do you offer arguments that you would not accept yourselves? Where is your proof of a god? I'm guessing that such proof is not necessary for you to believe. Is that honers? Is that good faith argumentation or special pleading?

    Now we know why you use that word. The baggage of a designer that you realize is attached to it. In that case, I'll call it patterns. I prefer a less tendentious term.

    Really? Maybe you'd better read your other posts.
     
    #141 It Aint Necessarily So, Dec 3, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  2. DavidFirth

    DavidFirth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Christian
    Still with the proof thing? Scientists don't require or care about proof, which is seldom possible.

    Good to see you've realized scientists have faith, too. It's to bad they put their faith in each other's guessing games.
     
  3. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    35,954
    Ratings:
    +21,252
    Religion:
    Atheist

    They don't have faith. You are making false statements about others, a clear violation of the Ninth Commandment and as a Christian you should know better. They have massive amounts of evidence. I have yet to meet a creationist that understands the nature of evidence. Would you care to learn?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,129
    Ratings:
    +5,455
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    I actually have heard this argument quite a bit, but there is a major aspect of it that I have never been able to get a straight answer on. Maybe you can help me out with one.

    Where do you get the idea that the parameters had to be "put in place" rather than merely being a description of how matter behaves in our universe? It seems like you are assuming that these parameters are rules that were created, but where are you getting that from?

    For example, one parameter is that water freezes at 32 degrees fahrenheit. Are you suggesting that is a rule created by some entity? Why wouldn't it just be an observation of how water molecules behave at certain temperatures?

    When I look at these parameters, I see no logical reason to believe they were created by anyone or anything. They are merely a way of describing how matter behaves in certain conditions. There is no reason to have some designer when parameters can be completely natural descriptions/observations.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,129
    Ratings:
    +5,455
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    Just to simplify, can you provide an example of one of these parameters that you believe couldn't have come about without some designer?
     
  6. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,129
    Ratings:
    +5,455
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    Nope, wrong again. The term "great ape" is a man-made term describing a certain taxonomic family of primates, of which we are included. It is a classification based on nearly insurmountable evidence. Beyond mere preference and you opinion about intelligence somehow contradicting the idea that we are primates, do you have any evidence that shows conclusively that we are not primates or part of the great ape family?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,129
    Ratings:
    +5,455
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    Yet you cannot come up with any verifiable, empirical evidence that shows a creator is necessary?
     
  8. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    5,945
    Ratings:
    +4,759
    It seems to me that your framework is rather circular in that it assumes its conclusion.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    5,945
    Ratings:
    +4,759
    He's exhibiting the sort of simplistic binary thinking that is typical of fundamentalists. He can only envision two possibilities.....something is either 100% proven, or it's just a belief that requires faith.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,129
    Ratings:
    +5,455
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    Where do you get the idea that existence is an expression of design? That is a very large leap, so what evidence are you basing this on?
     
  11. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,557
    Ratings:
    +7,507
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Matter is a complex expression of energy. The elemental quantum 'particles' that create matter are basically differentiated energy phenomena. What we don't know is why energy expresses itself through these differentiated phenomena, and not through any other. Something within, or innate to the "energy" (whatever that is, as we really have no idea) is dictating how it can and cannot express itself, and under what conditions. And these limitations are providing the "design parameters" for everything that exists as we recognize and experience existence.

    The origin of all this 'energy', and of the limitations through which this energy is able, and unable, to express itself, is the 'first cause' of everything that is. It is the elemental "design" from which all other natural design originates.
    It is the elemental question of origin. Existential design, itself, begs us to ask that question.
    Water molecules behave as they do for a reason. And that reason is because they were 'designed' to behave that way by the elemental energy forces that generate them. Which begs the question, how did those forces originate? Ignoring the question doesn't make it irrelevant, or make it go away. Because we humans were 'designed' to ask it. And ask it, we do.
    Our 'ignorance' does not define reality, though. So what we don't see or don't understand does not make it cease to exist. Or to have an effect on us just the same.
    Like it or not, the fact that existence exists, and exists as it does, begs the question of how, and why. Closing your eyes and ears and mind to these questions won't make them go away. We humans were created to ask just such questions as these.
     
  12. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,557
    Ratings:
    +7,507
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    No, we humans do not know what they are, or what is causing (enforcing) them. String theory postulates that 'energy' is made up of vibrating 'strings'. The rate of 'vibration' then determining how each of these strings manifests, phenomenally. An up-quark being the phenomena manifested by a string vibrating at a specific frequency, a down-quark being the phenomena manifested by a string vibrating at another frequency, and so on. But it's just a theory. We really have no idea what energy is, or why it manifests as the elemental 'particles' (phenomena) that it does.

    To understand this is presumed to be the "Holy Grail" of quantum physics: the T.O.E (theory of everything). The scientific theory that finally explains all other existential phenomena.
     
  13. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,557
    Ratings:
    +7,507
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Design implies the result to be the intent. Yes. But this is not my logic. It's just the way it is, viewed logically.

    It is my experience that the closer we get to the truth of what is, the more paradoxical it appears to us. And that's due to a weakness in the way we humans cognate our experience of reality. Not to any flaw in reality, itself.
     
  14. FearGod

    FearGod Freedom Of Mind

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    15,702
    Ratings:
    +2,054
    Religion:
    Human
    DNA similarities doesn't prove anything, it doesn't prove a designer or accidental events, but still
    a designer is much closer to be the case.
     
  15. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,557
    Ratings:
    +7,507
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Where do you get the idea that it's not. If existence was not an expression of design, it could not generate any result but chaos.
     
  16. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,129
    Ratings:
    +5,455
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    You ARE assuming that existence is an expression of design. That is why your argument seems to be circular. Can you prove that, or is it just speculation?
     
  17. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,557
    Ratings:
    +7,507
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    It's self-evident. You're just refusing to see it. That's why you think it's a circular tautology. But there's no point is debating it with you.
     
  18. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,129
    Ratings:
    +5,455
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    I'm asking for your reasoning. If it is self-evident, it should be very easy for you to prove it is true. It's not like "self-evident" means that you aren't able to explain something.
     
  19. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,129
    Ratings:
    +5,455
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    Btw, I would appreciate it if you did not speak for me, make assumptions about me, or accuse me of refusing to see anything. I am politely and respectfully asking you to support your claim that "existence is an expression of design". If you can provide one, please do so. If you are unable to, please be honest and admit that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    5,945
    Ratings:
    +4,759
    Thanks for your time.
     
Loading...