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

[Subduction Zone]

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

You do not appear to be following the arguments. I did not use that to refute god. I only used that argument to refute the "there had to be a god" claim.

 

[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.

"The point is that if someone thinks the universe needs a creator, then it is logical to think that creator does also."
If we become successful in creating life in a lab, we then become the creator. Does that then mean we have a creator or simply just we became a creator?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The point is that if someone thinks the universe needs a creator, then it is logical to think that creator does also."
If we become successful in creating life in a lab, we then become the creator. Does that then mean we have a creator or simply just we became a creator?

No. You misunderstand how scientists are trying to create life in the lab. They are replicating aspects of early Earth environments to see if life could arise naturally. If they succeed they will have shown that nature could have been the creator.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Well, there are several possible options:

1. Infinite regress: there is a string of causes going infinitely back in time. many people seem to dislike this option, but there is no logical reason it can't be the case. There are variants of this where there is an infinite regress in a finite amount of time.

2. There are uncaused causes: because of quantum effects, this seems to be the case. In fact, there are probably many uncaused causes (even within the universe). Many deists want to limit there to be only one uncaused cause, without proof.

3. The concept of causality loses its meaning: when applied to the whole of spacetime, this seems to be the case: causality only makes sense *within* spacetime.

The problem is that we simply don't know, at this point, whether it is even meaningful to talk about 'before the Big Bang'. it may well be that time simply cannot be extended past that point and the word 'before' is nonsense at that point (sort of like 'north' at the North pole).

Even if it is possible for time to make sense prior to the Big Bang, it is far from clear what sort of causal properties (laws of physics) would apply. And, even if there are such laws, it is far from clear there isn't simply an infinite regress.

Why adding a creator solves any of these problems is beyond me.

 

[Polymath257]

"The point is that if someone thinks the universe needs a creator, then it is logical to think that creator does also."
If we become successful in creating life in a lab, we then become the creator. Does that then mean we have a creator or simply just we became a creator?

Key word: "needs". If life *needs* intervention of intelligence to form, then it would be reasonable to assume that life began through intelligent intervention. If it does NOT *need* such intervention, then not.

 

[We Never Know]

No. You misunderstand how scientists are trying to create life in the lab. They are replicating aspects of early Earth environments to see if life could arise naturally. If they succeed they will have shown that nature could have been the creator.

"Scientists are trying to create" kind of refutes your own statement. "Replicate" would be a better word.
On another note, building a synthetic cell is not quite letting nature do it.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Actually, the vice-versa was *precisely* the point. If you think that universe *requires* a creator, then it is perfectly reasonable to think that creator would require one also. And that leads to an infinite regress.

One way out allow for the creator to 'just exist', but then brings up whether the universe can 'just exist'.

Either way, postulating a creator doesn't solve the basic problem of existence.

 

[We Never Know]

Actually, the vice-versa was *precisely* the point. If you think that universe *requires* a creator, then it is perfectly reasonable to think that creator would require one also. And that leads to an infinite regress.

One way out allow for the creator to 'just exist', but then brings up whether the universe can 'just exist'.

Either way, postulating a creator doesn't solve the basic problem of existence.

Not really. In a sense we are a creator without a creator. We've created many things, yet we don't have a creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Scientists are trying to create" kind of refutes your own statement. "Replicate" would be a better word.
On another note, building a synthetic cell is not quite letting nature do it.

No, it doesn't. Quoting out of context is almost always dishonest. The post was clear enough. Did you seriously not understand it or were you only trying not to understand it?

It is beginning to look as if you are merely trolling here.

 

[We Never Know]

No, it doesn't. Quoting out of context is almost always dishonest. The post was clear enough. Did you seriously not understand it or were you only trying not to understand it?

It is beginning to look as if you are merely trolling here.

"Scientists are trying to create" was your forerunner and was not quote mining.

 

[We Never Know]

No. You misunderstand how scientists are trying to create life in the lab. They are replicating aspects of early Earth environments to see if life could arise naturally. If they succeed they will have shown that nature could have been the creator.

"If they succeed they will have shown that nature could have been the creator."

And if they don't succeed does that show a god could have been the creator?

Of course not. It just shows what we can and cannot create.

 

[We Never Know]

No, it doesn't. Quoting out of context is almost always dishonest. The post was clear enough. Did you seriously not understand it or were you only trying not to understand it?

It is beginning to look as if you are merely trolling here.

I'm not fond of you falsely accusing me of being a troll. Isn't there a rule about that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Scientists are trying to create" was your forerunner and was not quote mining.

Obviously it was. You tried to change the meaning of the post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not fond of you falsely accusing me of being a troll. Isn't there a rule about that?

No false accusation, I said what it looked like. You may be sincere, but that raises other questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"If they succeed they will have shown that nature could have been the creator."

And if they don't succeed does that show a god could have been the creator?

Of course not. It just shows what we can and cannot create.

Oh my, basic logic fail. No if they do not succeed it only would show that they do not know the likely path of abiogenesis, assuming that is how life began. If one wants to say "a god could have done it" that is true. A god could have created the universe last Thursday. So what? That does not lead to increased knowledge. When people say "god did it" it is usually because they ran into a dead end mentally. They could not answer the question given to them and they jump to an unjustified conclusion. It is always better to simply say "we don't know yet".

 

[Polymath257]

"Scientists are trying to create" kind of refutes your own statement. "Replicate" would be a better word.

Perhaps. But wording is often suboptimal.

On another note, building a synthetic cell is not quite letting nature do it.

Who said that it is? There are several lines of investigation into the origins of life, including the minimal conditions to form life. Building a synthetic cell helps us to learn those minimal conditions. Perhaps those conditions require intelligent intervention and perhaps not. But working on a synthesis with intervention helps to understand both possible scenarios.

 

[Polymath257]

Not really. In a sense we are a creator without a creator. We've created many things, yet we don't have a creator.

The whole basis of the argument is that *everything* comes from something hence the universe requires a creator. But if *everything* comes from something, then that creator also needs a creator. Hence, the infinite regress in this case. Which is a possibility, but not very helpful for explanations.

The obvious answer is that *some* things don't 'come from' anything else. In that case, it isn't unreasonable that the universe itself is such a thing.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Creationists, give me your best evidence for creationism, and i'll try to refute it, and vice versa

So basically, you're gonna troll people and call them stupid.

This would be like me going into a mosque and saying, "Prove Allah is real, and I'll tell you why you're an idiot." (For the record, I don't even like Islam, and I still know this is not done).

Should I explain how incredibly rude and condescending this is, or does someone else what to take a crack at it?

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

Basically I believe that God is All Knowing, All Intelligent and the Perfect Scientist and that He put in place the laws of physics that govern all existence. Now these laws such as physics are all highly scientific and complex mathematical algorithms but I’m saying that God has such scientific abilities and is not just the religious Figurehead that people make Him out to be. The signs of His Handiwork can be seen in nature, the human body and throughout the entire universe. Every atom proclaims the existence of God.

 

[Sean1843]

YOU! You exist, no one can account for your consciousness. The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy cannot account for your physical existence.

Then how did god come into existence? You could say he just always was, but then couldn't I use that argument also?