Debate on Creationism

[NoToReligion]

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

Did God create the universe to wait 9 billion years to have earth, then wait 4 billion years for life to evolve into humans, then wait hundreds of thousands of years so he could give his message to one chosen people in one region of the globe on one spec in our galaxy, then, because they "sinned," genocide all of them except for one family and have that specific family reproduce to recreate humanity?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

[Logic is] 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.

“Debunk”?

No; it can only ‘bring into question’ His existence. Not debunk it.

But go ahead...try.

And if you don’t think atomic structure, or cell function, is complex, then where to go from there?

I’d say, “make one”. But then, if you could, that would only show it’s origin requires an intelligent source.

 

[leov]

Did God create the universe to wait 9 billion years to have earth, then wait 4 billion years for life to evolve into humans, then wait hundreds of thousands of years so he could give his message to one chosen people in one region of the globe on one spec in our galaxy, then, because they "sinned," genocide all of them except for one family and have that specific family reproduce to recreate humanity?

Time is a part of physicality. Humanity hardly knows its roots or what happened a few thousand years ago...

 

[NoToReligion]

“Debunk”?

No; it can only ‘bring into question’ His existence. Not debunk it.

But go ahead...try.

And if you don’t think atomic structure, or cell function, is complex, then where to go from there?

I’d say, “make one”. But then, if you could, that would only show it’s origin requires an intelligent source.

You haven't defined "complex" yet, and I am not nature. It would be quite difficult for me to make an atom or cell. However, nature is more than capable of creating things.

 

[NoToReligion]

Time is a part of physicality. Humanity hardly knows its roots or what happened a few thousand years ago...

Archaeology.

 

[tayla]

Usually, discussions about origin mythos in theistic religions begin with the assumption that their gods are a thing.

Good point. If there is no creator God, there is no creationism. I suppose my take is that there *is* no creator God such as claimed by Christianity, and so, as you note, there is no discussion... unless and until it is established that there is such a creator God.

But even so, I think it *is* possible to discuss and refute Christian claims about anything, including creationism. For example, if they claim the earth is less than 12,000 years old, it's possible to assert, "no it isn't".

 

[leov]

Good point. If there is no creator God, there is no creationism. I suppose my take is that there *is* no creator God such as claimed by Christianity, and so, as you note, there is no discussion... unless and until it is established that there is such a creator God.

But even so, I think it *is* possible to discuss and refute Christian claims about anything, including creationism. For example, if they claim the earth is less than 12,000 years old, it's possible to assert, "no it isn't".

Creationism is not about how old may be the Earth but what is behind Existence.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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.

How can you "debunk" something that arises from within a practitioner of religion/spiritual practice?
God is not a man sitting on a throne on the sky and look down at humans.
God is the wisdom of ultimate truth, the truth you experience on earth is conventional truth. but how can you be sure this reality is the only one that exists?

You are not here to look for answer to what God is, from your answers so far, you are only after "debunking" religion because out of your profile name, you do not like religion.

My question is. How many hours a day do you study religious books/scriptures? how many years have you used to be able to claim there is no God?

Where is you own proof that you are correct and religion is not?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Good point. If there is no creator God, there is no creationism. I suppose my take is that there *is* no creator God such as claimed by Christianity, and so, as you note, there is no discussion... unless and until it is established that there is such a creator God.

But even so, I think it *is* possible to discuss and refute Christian claims about anything, including creationism. For example, if they claim the earth is less than 12,000 years old, it's possible to assert, "no it isn't".

Its a different propositional form. The propositional form "Earth is 12,000 years old and therefore must have been created" is different from "There is a God and therefore Earth must have been created." They're separate items. Then you have the one that says "Earth must have been created and therefore there is God." All are separate propositions logically.

 

[tayla]

Because extremely complex, interactive information exists

Do you think such information arises by chance?

Empirical science states otherwise.

Actually, information *does* arise by chance.

For example: as a protein molecule is being manufactured in the cell, it folds into a specific shape. This shape (and the electric forces between particles) determines whether it will be able to do its job as an enzyme, for example.

The physical shape itself and the electric forces operating in it; these contain the embedded information. There is no external agency that has the information that energizes this protein molecule so that it can do its job.

But this shape is not designed; rather, it arises merely from the nature of the electric force itself and the quantum mechanics framework underlying matter (I simplify greatly). If this protein didn't have the characteristics to do its job, this protein would not be doing that job.

 

[LuisDantas]

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 don't think so.

It seems to me that for a true discussion to happen, some effort must be made to establish a common ground first. To clarify what the goals are, and what premises if any are being taken for granted for the purposes of that discussion.

Also, establishing a common language (being wary of words that may be interpreted in significantly divergent ways) and if at all possible also common levels of depth, respect and aggressiveness.

That does not happen often, but it is necessary for a fruitful discussion.

 

[tayla]

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.

You raise an important point. All of the understanding of reality, and of truth and knowledge and science; this is all part of philosophy. Depending on the kind of data you have, you can prove things with more or less certainty.

For example, with science, the experiments provide empirical evidence. As a result, the claims of science are very trustworthy.

But even certain religious claims can be debunked this way. Archaeology, as well as historical and documentary analysis; these are not as clear as scientific experiments, but in certain cases the results are sufficient. For example, when an abundance of likely archaeological evidence contradicts the accounts of these events in the Bible, it is reasonable to conclude that these accounts are fiction (myth). And ditto for historical analysis, and for documentary analysis.

If a Christian wants to claim that their religion is based on myths, then that's alright with me.

 

[tayla]

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.

I think it is fair to say that there is no evidence that any godlike agency has had anything whatsoever to do with the functioning and operation of the universe.

If there is a God, he/she doesn't care about whether conscious creatures suffer, or whether evolution "creates" awesomely designed organisms. Why are there viruses and deadly bacteria and parasites that kill their host?

 

[tayla]

reality is too complex to exist without their god

Seems to me, there is no need to assume that God explains this any better than by merely noticing that the universe is weird, awesome, complex, and mysterious. Why is God needed to affirm these facts?

 

[stvdv]

With that said, i do think that science can be a tool used to validate/verify God but not prove/disprove one

Some declare that "knowledge of God is beyond words (thoughts, deeds)". If that is true, science might have a hard time to validate/verify God I think.

 

[tayla]

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

I think these are all complex; incredibly complex.

Now I shall let my thoughts ramble...

None of this says anything about God. Face it, the universe is extremely complex with its trillions upon trillions upon trillions of,... and the weirdness of quantum fields and the standard model,... and the existence of energy, entropy, force, time, information,...

How does any of this prove there is a God? And how simple and dull would the universe have to be for there to clearly be no God?

 

[tayla]

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

Easy. Archaeology, historical analysis, documentary analysis, the observation that miracles don't exist, scientific explanations of what would occur were the earth to stop rotating, the side effects of 3+ million people wandering around a barren desert for 40 years with no manna for the animals, the conflicts with the biblical accounts of the age of the earth and with the first humans 200,000 years ago, comparison with biblical accounts with more trustworthy accounts of other contemporaneous cultures and the artifacts and writings they left behind, the side effects of biblical teachings about women and slavery and sex slaves based on modern psychology, the fact that even Jesus didn't save the people from disease caused by germs by suggesting they wash their hands.

 

[tayla]

Time is a part of physicality. Humanity hardly knows its roots or what happened a few thousand years ago...

Analysis of DNA shows the origin of homo sapiens to be 200,000 years ago. Analysis of the light received from out there in the sky shows the universe is expanding and, extrapolating backwards, would have been tiny about 14 or 15 billion years ago or so. Analyzing geological structures shows the earth to be very old, and that there was no global flood. Analyzing the fossil record indicates that something like evolution surely occurred. And analysis of the microbiology of organisms shows that evolution surely did occur. Maybe we don't know of certain human events, but there is lots of evidence about all kinds of things.

What kind of evidence do you want?

 

[tayla]

Creationism is not about how old may be the Earth but what is behind Existence.

I think you are referring to metaphysics or ontology, not creationism.

 

[tayla]

Some declare that "knowledge of God is beyond words (thoughts, deeds)". If that is true, science might have a hard time to validate/verify God I think.

If knowledge of God is beyond human comprehension, why think about God at all. It is as if, practically speaking, there is no God at all.