What would refute creationism?

[Subduction Zone]

I have not posted anything about God except that we don't know anything about God.

I am simply pointing out the glaringly obvious: that existence is organized, functional, purposeful, and complex beyond our comprehension.

Fine, we do not know anything about a God. We do not even know if a God is possible. And I disagree with two of your claims. Purposeful is a claim that you need to defend. Or at the very least properly define. As the word is commonly used it does indicate agency. You would have to explain why your definition does not imply agency. Said life is complex. Is it complex beyond our imagination? We do not know that. There are many that would argue against it. Is life fully understood yet? The proper answer is "Not yet."

It appears that you are trying to use an argument from ignorance for God without fully coming out and claiming that. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that 'there is no God" I am saying that we simply do not know yet and may never know if there is a God or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, come on. That's just stupid.

I am neither stupid nor is anything I have posted.

DNA is the design mechanism.

No. It is not. You can't back up this claim with any evidence. It is just your bolded claim based on your personal opinion.

It is literally the physical embodiment of design.

It is a molecule.

Just as gravity is an important existential design mechanism. And heat. And the laws of motion. And all of these design mechanisms exist to fulfill their existential purpose. It's not a "circular argument", it's a self-evident observation.

It is all just your declaration in a circular argument that demands your opinion be embraced as fact.

There is no "mind" to it (that any of us are aware of). DNA developed to fulfill a possibility that was created by the rest of the existential design mechanisms. The same way life forms develop to take advantage of the possibilities that the environment created for them.
But there is plenty of evidence for the existence of a creator God. It's everywhere you look; in the form of existential design, purpose, and complexity. But all it is, is evidence. It is not proof. Which is why if you are going to accept it as proof, you're going to have to do so as an act of faith. And if you are going to choose to presume there is no God, you're going to have to do that as an act of faith, as well. Because evidence is not proof. And neither is the lack of "sufficient" evidence. So what we choose to believe to be true, about God, we are choosing to believe based on faith, not onthe knowledge provided by any evidence or the lack thereof. In spite of the many foolish comments I read to the contrary.

This is all just your opinion that you have not one iota of evidence to support.

I know. I know. Puppies are cute. Sunsets are beautiful. Look at those mountains. Therefore God. What a stunning argument you have concocted.

 

[PureX]

So nothing more than empty declarations.

If you consider observable reality "empty declarations" then there is nothing more I can offer you that you won't ignore or negate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you consider observable reality "empty declarations" then there is nothing more I can offer you that you won't ignore or negate.

Using observable reality is fine. That is a good standard to use. You still need to explain how it supports your beliefs. Otherwise you only have a "Look at the trees!!!" argument. Not too impressive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know. I know. Puppies are cute. Sunsets are beautiful. Look at those mountains. Therefore God. What a stunning argument you have concocted.

Puppies are tasty . . . . oops!!! Wrong thread. I am so sorry

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you consider observable reality "empty declarations" then there is nothing more I can offer you that you won't ignore or negate.

No. I consider the observation of your empty declarations as empty declarations.

Trying to straw man your way out of this is not the answer.

Show me. It is that simple. Not your opinion. Not your deep-seated belief based on your feelings.

Just actual observations and a reasoned explanation of them.

That is one thing I have not observed from you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And once again I will state that we do not know beyond the obvious forces of gravity, heat, motion, and the many atomic and quantum interactions involved in generating these creative forces. Your objection here seems to be that if I am not omniscient, I can't reasonably observe and state the obvious. (Because you don't want to accept the obvious.)
I am not proposing anything. I am simply stating the obvious. That existence is an expression of design everywhere we look. It is organized, functional, and purposeful, and very complex. It's even capable of transcending it's own design limitations. Which is quite amazing! Like a computer becoming sentient.

The problem is that if you and some others here acknowledge this obvious characterization of existence, it implies in your minds that there must be an ultimate "designer" of some sort, and you don't want to acknowledge that implication, AT ALL. So you're fighting tooth and nail to ignore and dispute the obvious. While I am not proposing any ultimate designers. Of any kind. I am just stating the obvious. And letting the mystery of it, be.
There is nothing vague about them. They are as obvious as obvious can be. DNA is the physical embodiment of design. It is literally design written in a molecular form. And it developed to fulfill the very function that it is fulfilling. As is it's ongoing purpose within existence. And it developed because that possibility was available to happen, and the overall design that existence expresses seeks to explore all available possibilities. It's all quite astonishing, really, and is the opposite of some random, accidental vision of existence that some of you here insist on holding to. Which is why some of you are having so much difficulty accepting the obvious. But it is what it is. And it is quite obvious. And I'm sorry if that flies in the face of this delusion some of you hold about a random, accidental existence. That is not the existence you are living in. The existence you are living in is organized, functional, purposeful, very complex, and even transcendent.

Time to wake up and smell the 'awesomeness'!

It is interesting to note that "things are obvious" isn't something you can support beyond continually repeating it. Is it your contention that if you say "Bloody Mary" three times, she will appear?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have not posted anything about God except that we don't know anything about God.

I am simply pointing out the glaringly obvious: that existence is organized, functional, purposeful, and complex beyond our comprehension.

Yet, here you are deifying rocks and molecules while declaring that all the evidence of God is obvious. While failing to show me what is so obvious.

Is there going to be any obvious on your obvious tour?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The scientific process is evidence enough. As it could not function without an organized, functional, purposeful, existence to investigate. The fact that you want to argue about this is what's absurd.

Here you go using the purposeful intent and creative intellect of people to support your claims when you previously stated it has nothing to do with what you are claiming.

Where are you going? Which way is up?

I am having a hard time understanding your view where gravity and DNA are cognitive entities that are operating a conspiracy that created the Universe. And I can't forget the rocks. Sure, they just sit there when you are looking at them, but I know they are up to something.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How am I suppose to acknowledge my failures if I have no idea on what comments you are talking about?

What makes you certain the limit is just to one or a few?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet, here you are deifying rocks and molecules while declaring that all the evidence of God is obvious. While failing to show me what is so obvious.

Is there going to be any obvious on your obvious tour?

Here are some rocks. They are worthless and you can stub your toes on them. Therefore God does not exist.

Sadly that is a better argument against God than has been given for God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am a creationist. Yeah, that is the elephant in every room of science I enter. My personal beliefs might not be all that different from other creationists on this thread save for one thing. I am aware that I do not have the objective evidence to demonstrate that my beliefs are correct. I long ago came to the realization that what I can state with any range of certainty is based on acquired knowledge, reason and evidence. I have to live with that. I've been doing all right with it.

How can I claim otherwise without declaring that I know what I see as the unknowable, the mind of my God.

I don't really think I am alone in knowing these things. I really think I am one of the few creationists that has the will to admit it. At least on the internet. There are a few others, but they usually get ostricised for their conclusions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here are some rocks. They are worthless and you can stub your toes on them. Therefore God does not exist.

Sadly that is a better argument against God than has been given for God.

That seems to sum up the logic I have seen applied in many arguments for evidence of deity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am a creationist. Yeah, that is the elephant in every room of science I enter. My personal beliefs might not be all that different from other creationists on this thread save for one thing. I am aware that I do not have the objective evidence to demonstrate that my beliefs are correct. I long ago came to the realization that what I can state with any range of certainty is based on acquired knowledge, reason and evidence. I have to live with that. I've been doing all right with it.

How can I claim otherwise without declaring that I know what I see as the unknowable, the mind of my God.

I don't really think I am alone in knowing these things. I really think I am one of the few creationists that has the will to admit it. At least on the internet. There are a few others, but they usually get ostricised for their conclusions.

Well, as a skeptic, I learned that for the meaning of life and the grounding of knowledge as I do it I have to use faith. Now my God is the same, the unknowable, but also to love in spite of in a sense the existential absurdity, that follows with being a strong universal skeptic.

 

[PureX]

Fine, we do not know anything about a God. We do not even know if a God is possible.

... Mmmm, .... given the level of our ignorance, I think we can presume that anything is possible. Once we step beyond the boundaries of "existence", there are no more boundaries.

And I disagree with two of your claims. Purposeful is a claim that you need to defend.

DNA molecules developed because they could. They could, because that possibility was open. And it was open because there was a potential purpose for it to fulfill: i.e. life.

And existence itself is organized in such a way that it seeks to express as many possibilities as are open within it. "If it can happen it will happen." (But not all things can happen.)

As the word is commonly used it does indicate agency.

Yes, it does imply agency. And intelligent agency at that. But so does everything in existence, because existence is organized, functional, purposeful, and very complex. I can't help you with that. It just is what it is. If there is agency of some sort involved we humans have no idea what that agency is.

You would have to explain why your definition does not imply agency.

Your issue with the implication of agency is your own problem. It's not my responsibility to deal with it, for you. I don't have a problem with it because I can let the mystery of some possible agency stand as it is. I am simply focused on and stating what is obvious regarding the nature of existence from the human perspective.

Said life is complex. Is it complex beyond our imagination? We do not know that. There are many that would argue against it. Is life fully understood yet? The proper answer is "Not yet."

You just answered your own question. Life is not fully understood because life is complex beyond our comprehension (imagination). The universe is not fully understood by us because the universe is complex beyond our comprehension. Existence is not fully understood by us because existence is complex beyond our comprehension. And by now you should be recognizing the foolishness of imposing that "yet" caveat in there. Because implying that these will someday BE fully understood by us is quite the arrogant and unsubstantiated presumption.

It appears that you are trying to use an argument from ignorance for God without fully coming out and claiming that.

It appears to me that you and some others here are so paranoid that there might actually BE an argument to be made for the existence of God that you are freaked out by my pointing out that the possibility does exist ... along with an infinite number of other possibilities.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that 'there is no God" I am saying that we simply do not know yet and may never know if there is a God or not.

Why is it that when I say that no one here can seem to grasp it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, as a skeptic, I learned that for the meaning of life and the grounding of knowledge as I do it I have to use faith. Now my God is the same, the unknowable, but also to love in spite of in a sense the existential absurdity, that follows with being a strong universal skeptic.

There are things worth believing in even when you cannot demonstrate them. But in the end, what I am left with is a combination of faith in what I believe and a recognition of the facts of my functional existence. Recognizing this doesn't seem that extraordinary to me, but admitting that seems so difficult for so many.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How does any creationist here kn

There are things worth believing in even when you cannot demonstrate them. But in the end, what I am left with is a combination of faith in what I believe and a recognition of the facts of my functional existence. Recognizing this doesn't seem that extraordinary to me, but admitting that seems so difficult for so many.

As a skeptic I used to try to use objective reason, logic and evidence as the norm is scientific skepticism, but I kept coming up short for the positive worth. So I made the switch and became religious. That works for me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And once again I will state that we do not know beyond the obvious forces of gravity, heat, motion, and the many atomic and quantum interactions involved in generating these creative forces. Your objection here seems to be that if I am not omniscient, I can't reasonably observe and state the obvious. (Because you don't want to accept the obvious.)
I am not proposing anything. I am simply stating the obvious. That existence is an expression of design everywhere we look. It is organized, functional, and purposeful, and very complex. It's even capable of transcending it's own design limitations. Which is quite amazing! Like a computer becoming sentient.

The problem is that if you and some others here acknowledge this obvious characterization of existence, it implies in your minds that there must be an ultimate "designer" of some sort, and you don't want to acknowledge that implication, AT ALL. So you're fighting tooth and nail to ignore and dispute the obvious. While I am not proposing any ultimate designers. Of any kind. I am just stating the obvious. And letting the mystery of it, be.
There is nothing vague about them. They are as obvious as obvious can be. DNA is the physical embodiment of design. It is literally design written in a molecular form. And it developed to fulfill the very function that it is fulfilling. As is it's ongoing purpose within existence. And it developed because that possibility was available to happen, and the overall design that existence expresses seeks to explore all available possibilities. It's all quite astonishing, really, and is the opposite of some random, accidental vision of existence that some of you here insist on holding to. Which is why some of you are having so much difficulty accepting the obvious. But it is what it is. And it is quite obvious. And I'm sorry if that flies in the face of this delusion some of you hold about a random, accidental existence. That is not the existence you are living in. The existence you are living in is organized, functional, purposeful, very complex, and even transcendent.

Time to wake up and smell the 'awesomeness'!

Are you putting my avatar name on posts that were never written by me?

That was @gnostic. Not me. Here..What would refute creationism?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As a skeptic I used to try to use objective reason, logic and evidence as the norm is scientific skepticism, but I kept coming up short for the positive worth. So I made the switch and became religious. That works for me.

We all have to make the choices in our personal views that fit the best with ourselves.

I came from a religious background and have arrived at where I am through my own attempts at objective reason, logic and evidence.

I suppose it is a pet peeve of mine to see people declaring that they are the way, the truth and the light with such certainty when they cannot demonstrate that even to themselves.

 

[PureX]

I am a creationist. Yeah, that is the elephant in every room of science I enter. My personal beliefs might not be all that different from other creationists on this thread save for one thing. I am aware that I do not have the objective evidence to demonstrate that my beliefs are correct. I long ago came to the realization that what I can state with any range of certainty is based on acquired knowledge, reason and evidence. I have to live with that. I've been doing all right with it.

How can I claim otherwise without declaring that I know what I see as the unknowable, the mind of my God.

I don't really think I am alone in knowing these things. I really think I am one of the few creationists that has the will to admit it. At least on the internet. There are a few others, but they usually get ostricised for their conclusions.

The real creationism vs science argument is about 'magic'. If you think God created and controls the universe using 'god-magic', that is one thing. If you believe God created and controls the universe using physics, that's another. Most of the people that argue against creationism are really just arguing against the assertion/presumption of 'god-magic'. There are plenty of scientists that believe God created the universe, they just don't believe God used magic to do it. (Unless perhaps to initiate the 'Big Bang'.)

All of these threads where creationists debate endlessly and pointlessly with the "scientism" crowd are really arguments for and against 'god-magic'. And on that subject I come down on the side of those who choose to believe that physics creates, defines, and controls the universe. And that if any 'god-magic' was/is involved, it was in setting it up and switching it 'on'. But that's all a matter of faith, for me. Not knowledge, nor "belief".