Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Doctrine of Creation


Forums Forums Science and Technology Doctrine of Creation

This topic contains 38 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by  LoisL 1 month, 4 weeks ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 31 through 39 (of 39 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #302922

    3point14rat
    Participant

    Sherlock:”It disproves your and Lausten’s claims that the proposed origin of something cannot be “more complex” (whatever that means to you) than the thing it explains.”

    Wrong. All it does is show that it is possible for humans to invent an explanation that’s unnecessarily complex… nothing more. How does the mere existence of the idea of a god make the idea equal to scientifically derived ideas? The unnecessary and absurd level of complexity is what demotes it to irrelevant.

    If the unfortunate son were to be told that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, would that be worse than if he were told that your god did it? I fail to see any difference.

    #302997

    Xain
    Participant

    From what I heard, the evidence for the “creation ex nihilo” argument isn’t strong. The prevailing notion now is that it has always been. No creator, no creation, it just is. Something from nothing hasn’t been demonstrated (although some observations in quantum physics “might” suggest that, but that’s at the quantum level). But there is really nothing to suggest a creator or a designer and more than enough to show a series of reactions that behave according to laws and rules that we have seen and observed. In short, shit just happens and there isn’t a “reason” or intelligence behind it that I can see.

    Some mystics and spiritualists would say otherwise, but all they have is their fervent say-so which means nothing.

    As it stands, it would seem that matter has always existed. No creator, no “from”. As hard as that might be to believe.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 4 weeks ago by  Xain.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 4 weeks ago by  Xain.
    #303003

    LoisL
    Participant

    No one intelligent has said humans came from nothing. We developed somehow, we just don’t know exactly how it happened, though we have clues. Is that a reason to make  something up, such as that a god created humans by supernatural magic? What’s wrong with saying we don’t know?

    #303004

    LoisL
    Participant

    socrat44: Big Bang doesn’t explain where matter came from

    Neither does creation.

    No one with at least half a brain has said humans came from nothing. We developed somehow, we just don’t know exactly how it happened, though we do have clues that have nothing to do with creation. Is that a reason to make something up, such as that an unknown, unknowable, unseen god created humans by supernatural magic? What’s wrong with saying we don’t know?

    #303010

    LoisL: “No one with at least half a brain has said humans came from nothing. We developed somehow, we just don’t know exactly how it happened, though we do have clues that have nothing to do with creation. Is that a reason to make something up, such as that an unknown, unknowable, unseen god created humans by supernatural magic? What’s wrong with saying we don’t know?”

    You’re a wise young lady Lois.  If we had smilies I’d blow you a kiss and send some flowers?

    #303013

    Xain
    Participant

    Because saying “I don’t know” is scary.

    #303034

    Doctrine’s are creations of our ever fertile minds.

    Physical creation is something that’s unfolded independently of, and out side of, our ego driven minds.

    Like the song goes: Life is what happens while you’re busy manufacturing doctrines.

    ; –  )

     

    Moral, sometimes it’s best just to watch and absorb and learn.

    #303039

    Advocatus
    Participant

    Sherlock Holmes wrote: “The example does not allow you to conclude that every “thing” exists because of a preceding “more complex thing” it doesn’t lead to that nor did I say that.”

    Yes you did.  I was sitting right here.  You were so eager to prove that Lausten and I were “wrong” about something that rather than simply point out the slight ambiguity in his statement, you jumped in feet first with your computer analogy.  It’s a good analogy.  In another context it might have been spot on.  But I have every right to infer that you meant it to apply to the origin of the universe, because that was the topic we were talking about.  And if it is the “correct answer” to the origin of the universe, then it must also be the “correct answer” to the origin of your non-material “creative force”, plus any other “creative force” which we might imagine.

    Of course if you are really going to sit there and in all innocence claim that you were talking about a completely different topic, then your comment is irrelevant to the point Lausten was originally making.  🙂

    #303043

    LoisL
    Participant

    Citizen’s Challenge:

    You’re a wise young lady Lois.  If we had smilies I’d blow you a kiss and send some flowers?

     

    You got me at “young”.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 4 weeks ago by  LoisL.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 4 weeks ago by  LoisL.
Viewing 9 posts - 31 through 39 (of 39 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.