Proofs For Creationism - As Requested

[heavycola]

Faster slaves, faster! What am I paying you people for?

Slaves don't get paid...

And therein lies the joke.
But, because its nearly 10, ill forgive your fuzzy thinking.

Fuzzy fuzzy fuzzy fuzzy fuzzzyy.
I like that word.

Pay meee, I'm not a slavey

God, its not that late...
You shouldnt start becoming mildly delusional for a few hours yet.
Unless, of course, you are drunk...

Why would I drink? It's school tomorrow and my parents are upstairs.

Meowww. I really do like the word fuzzy.

Great, I have created a fuzzy monster...

Which is what god said after he invented Snuffalufagus. Interesting parallels, come to think of it.
Glad this thread is now back on track.

[Skittles!]

Yes, I am fluffy.

Look at all my curly hair and watch it produce fluff.

There are only two possible responses to this statement, to run, or to track you down and kill you in the most inhumne way possible, to spare humanity your infectious insanity.

Guess which option I chose?

The third one, duh.!

[Neutrino]

Which is what god said after he invented Snuffalufagus. Interesting parallels, come to think of it.
Glad this thread is now back on track.

This thread will never go back on track 'till I get some disproofs to disprove!

[Guilty_Biscuit]

[MeDeFe]

Fuzzy, fluffy skittles.

Being hunted down by Neutrino who picked the third option. I guess that's the surprise prise.


Anyway, how late is it? I have to catch a train.

[nagerous]

The first question in any proof giving for creationism (other than defining what creationism is) has to be:
Has God been disproved
or Is it possible there might be a God or Gods (supreme sentient power able to create all we know).

If solid evidence for there being no god ever can be given then the argument about creationism is null and void. Without a creator there can be no creation.

For this discussion to make any sense a first premise must be agreed on by atheists, agnostics and theists alike. That premise is as follows:

There is no empirical proof that god does not exist. Until we have all knowledge about all things and that knowledge covers all time then there is the possibility a god or creator might exist or have existed. This premise makes no claims about a creator(s) other than the creator might have had enough power to create all we currently know. Whether that creator be god, mortal or alien species matters not.

All that matters for this discussion is that there is no emperical evidence that there never was a creator.

Can we agree on this as a first premise? If not then the scientific discussion which might follow would be null, void and a total waste of time.

dude there is also no emperical proof that the great orangutan in the sky that i pray to in the evening doesn't exist

[bob3603]

This thread is useless, you can only prove things in mathematics. You can't even prove things in science.

[Titanic]

So, is that god garbage the only proof? A baboon could come up with a stronger arguament...

[Backglass]

dude there is also no emperical proof that the great orangutan in the sky that i pray to in the evening doesn't exist

ALL HAIL THE GREAT ORANGUTAN!

[Colossus]

I haven't been involved in much of this particular debate in the CC forums because I think it's one of those things where one party will never convince the other of the correctness of his/her arguments. still, nunz is right that without having disproven the existence of God, science itself must acknowledge that God is a viable potential explanation for the origin of everything. bob3603 is also right, however, in that for there to be a 'proof', you need math, thus science isn't about proving; it's about disproving. so the mere statement that nunz will provide 'scientific proofs' is rather silly. the simple fact is that the only 'scientific' evidence for the existence of God is the lack of evidence disproving the existence of God. That kind of logic is totally circular and nonsensical, and there really isn't any other argument supported by actual data to be made. As a scientist AND a believer, myself, I think this kind of effort, nunz, is a waste. Belief in God (or in creation) is just that....BELIEF, so why waste your time trying to convince people that the world was created rather than just happened? People who need firm evidence before they accept something are incapable of belief, period. In the end, does it really matter whether the universe was created by a sentient power or not?

[GustavusAdolphus]

When it comes down to Creationism v. Evolution, people will believe what they want to believe. There are a lot of things about origins that we just don't know, and are not even close to discovering.

That said, the three biggest questions are:
1. Origin of matter and energy
2. Origin of life
3. Origin of consciousness

So unless God reveals himself or scientists can provide definitive proof of how the universe came about, this argument is a stalemate.

[Colossus]

^right on. and it's interesting to note that many of the most significant scientific discoveries of all time (in fact most of them) have come as a result of trying to answer one of those three questions.

[flashleg8]

When it comes down to Creationism v. Evolution, people will believe what they want to believe. There are a lot of things about origins that we just don't know, and are not even close to discovering.

That said, the three biggest questions are:
1. Origin of matter and energy
2. Origin of life
3. Origin of consciousness

So unless God reveals himself or scientists can provide definitive proof of how the universe came about, this argument is a stalemate.

I understand the point previous posters are making about the existence of God being possible and that creationism cannot be ruled out (I also understand the parody other posters are making about the orangutan in the sky!).

When faced with a choice between two ideas like Creationism v. Evolution I use "Occam's Razor". This is a logical principle stating "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." Or: the less assumptions as possible should be made when explaining a phenomenon.
All the three questions the poster correctly lists as the biggest questions in this argument, can be explained using scientifically understandable processes. There is no need to make a logic jump to include the existence of an assumed creator.
An example is Aristotal's Aether, a "fifth element" (the quintessence), that was imagined to exist in the cosmos to explain certain astrophysical phenomenon’s that were not understood until there was greater understanding of electromagnetism. I think the concept of God is similar. It’s a logical construct of man to explain the unexplained, now redundant as the unexplained becomes explainable through more mundane methods.

[Colossus]

All the three questions the poster correctly lists as the biggest questions in this argument, can be explained using scientifically understandable processes.

first off, that's poppycock. secondly, you're gonna have to back that up with some detailed explanation. I read as much as I can get my hands on regarding the origins of consciousness, and I can tell you that the hundreds of researchers studying this (really probably thousands) would almost certainly disagree. they would agree that there should be non-God-based explanations, but we don't know what those explanations are yet.

I follow Occam's razor, too, but whether the existence of God falls under the Occam's razor guidelines or not is entirely dependent on what one considers the scope of assuming a God to be. Occam's razor really applies only to how one fits a model to data, i.e. the model that requires the fewest assumptions to fit the data is the best model. Well, one could always argue that the explanation for everything is 'because God made it that way'. That's ONE assumption for a model that fits all data, from a certain point of view. I'm certainly not advocating that kind of thinking (we'd never learn anything if we thought that way), but rather pointing out how Occam's razor can get one into real trouble where the God argument is concerned. again, I'll say that because mankind lacks a unifying explanation of everything, you can't really apply scientific thinking to issues of faith, like the existence of God.

[GustavusAdolphus]

When it comes down to Creationism v. Evolution, people will believe what they want to believe. There are a lot of things about origins that we just don't know, and are not even close to discovering.

That said, the three biggest questions are:
1. Origin of matter and energy
2. Origin of life
3. Origin of consciousness

So unless God reveals himself or scientists can provide definitive proof of how the universe came about, this argument is a stalemate.

I understand the point previous posters are making about the existence of God being possible and that creationism cannot be ruled out (I also understand the parody other posters are making about the orangutan in the sky!).

When faced with a choice between two ideas like Creationism v. Evolution I use "Occam's Razor". This is a logical principle stating "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." Or: the less assumptions as possible should be made when explaining a phenomenon.
All the three questions the poster correctly lists as the biggest questions in this argument, can be explained using scientifically understandable processes. There is no need to make a logic jump to include the existence of an assumed creator.
An example is Aristotal's Aether, a "fifth element" (the quintessence), that was imagined to exist in the cosmos to explain certain astrophysical phenomenon’s that were not understood until there was greater understanding of electromagnetism. I think the concept of God is similar. It’s a logical construct of man to explain the unexplained, now redundant as the unexplained becomes explainable through more mundane methods.

Well, as long as you're going to use a principle of a Christian Scholastic (William of Ockham), I may as well point out that this argument tends to favior Creationism, as saying "We don't know how this happened, so there must be someone who made this happen" is simpler than imagining multiple complex scenarios that might have been responsible for our universe. Another factor to consider is Pascal's wager, which basically says that if there is no God, then those who believe in God have lost nothing because they lived their lives as they wanted, but if there is a God and a hell, the unbeliever has lost everything.

Kind of funny to bring that up in a Risk forum.

[heavycola]

When it comes down to Creationism v. Evolution, people will believe what they want to believe. There are a lot of things about origins that we just don't know, and are not even close to discovering.

That said, the three biggest questions are:
1. Origin of matter and energy
2. Origin of life
3. Origin of consciousness

So unless God reveals himself or scientists can provide definitive proof of how the universe came about, this argument is a stalemate.

I understand the point previous posters are making about the existence of God being possible and that creationism cannot be ruled out (I also understand the parody other posters are making about the orangutan in the sky!).

When faced with a choice between two ideas like Creationism v. Evolution I use "Occam's Razor". This is a logical principle stating "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." Or: the less assumptions as possible should be made when explaining a phenomenon.
All the three questions the poster correctly lists as the biggest questions in this argument, can be explained using scientifically understandable processes. There is no need to make a logic jump to include the existence of an assumed creator.
An example is Aristotal's Aether, a "fifth element" (the quintessence), that was imagined to exist in the cosmos to explain certain astrophysical phenomenon’s that were not understood until there was greater understanding of electromagnetism. I think the concept of God is similar. It’s a logical construct of man to explain the unexplained, now redundant as the unexplained becomes explainable through more mundane methods.

Well, as long as you're going to use a principle of a Christian Scholastic (William of Ockham), I may as well point out that this argument tends to favior Creationism, as saying "We don't know how this happened, so there must be someone who made this happen" is simpler than imagining multiple complex scenarios that might have been responsible for our universe. Another factor to consider is Pascal's wager, which basically says that if there is no God, then those who believe in God have lost nothing because they lived their lives as they wanted, but if there is a God and a hell, the unbeliever has lost everything.

Kind of funny to bring that up in a Risk forum.

I think as soon as anyone brings up pascal's wager in a religious debate it should be immediately awarded to the other team. Yay us.

Also - hundreds of researchers disagree about the origin of consciousness? Just because we cannot yet state exactly what consciousness is, does not mean it did not evolve, just like legs and eyes and spleens. Our level of consciousness - foresight, really, as in are we the only animals that know we are going to die? - is what separates us from the other beasts. It is why we have been such a successful species. I don;t knwo any scientist that is going to argue that consciousness just mysteriously appeared.
read 'Dragons of Eden' by Carl Sagan. It will blow your mind.

[max is gr8]

So your proof is theres no disproof apart from the fossils there which show evolution and the minor drawback of christianity also claiming god started the big bang

which for some is

http://www.orionfdn.org/papers/arxiv-9.htm

right above this

And your other proof is theres no disproof of god

[Backglass]

Another factor to consider is Pascal's wager, which basically says that if there is no God, then those who believe in God have lost nothing because they lived their lives as they wanted, but if there is a God and a hell, the unbeliever has lost everything.

Pascal's Wager has several flaws.

Firstly, it does not indicate which religion/god to follow. After all, there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion's version of hell.

Even if we assume that there's a god, that doesn't imply that there's one unique god. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow?

Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in god and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're believing in the wrong god -- the true god might punish you for your foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in favor of prayer.

Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption that the two possibilities are equally likely -- or at least, that they are of comparable likelihood. If, in fact, the possibility of there being a god is close to zero, the argument becomes much less persuasive. So the argument is only likely to convince those who believe already.

Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis.

Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:

1. One does not know whether god(s) exists.
2. Not believing in god(s) is bad for one's eternal soul if god(s) do exist.
3. Believing in god(s) is of no consequence if god(s) do not exist.
4. Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in god(s).

There are two approaches to the argument. The first is to view Statement 1 as an assumption, and Statement 2 as a consequence of it. The problem is that there's really no way to arrive at Statement 2 from Statement 1 via simple logical inference. The statements just don't follow on from each other.

The alternative approach is to claim that Statements 1 and 2 are both assumptions. The problem with this is that Statement 2 is then basically an assumption which states the christian position, and only a christian will agree with that assumption. The argument thus collapses to "If you are a christian, it is in your interests to believe in god" -- a rather vacuous tautology, and not the way Pascal intended the argument to be viewed.

Also, if we don't even know that god exists, why should we take Statement 2 over some similar assumption? Isn't it just as likely that god would be angry at people who chose to believe for personal gain? If god is omniscient, he will certainly know who really believes and who believes as a wager. He will spurn the latter... assuming he actually cares at all whether people truly believe in him.

In addition, this hypothetical god may require more than simple belief; almost all christians believe that the christian god requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose nothing.

Finally, if this god is a fair and just god, surely he will judge people on their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him.

In essence...a god who sends good and kind people to hell is not one most atheists would be prepared to consider worshipping.

[Colossus]

You just made my point, heavycola. The fact that we can imagine a non-God explanation for something doesn't mean that the God explanation is wrong. There is no way to disprove that a God has a hand in things unless there is a clear physical explanation for a process at every level of its complexity, from the macroscopic down to the subnuclear. There is currently absolutely no single phenomenon that scientific theory can completely explain at every level. So the existence or non-existence of God is not a scientifically approachable thing. Your statement that just because we can't explain the origins of consciousness doesn't mean it didn't evolve is absolutely correct. But it also means we can't conclude that it did evolve without the influence of a God.

Our level of consciousness is also a subject of debate! Foresight is almost certainly not something unique to humans. Appreciation of death is also likely not a uniquely human thing (see examples of elephant burial grounds and mourning periods and behaviors of other mammals). There is a lot of evidence from animal behavioral studies that other animals have 'feelings,' but we can't really determine whether those feelings are intellecutalized like ours are. I would argue that our success as a species has a lot more to do with our ability to communicate with one another through language than it has to do with our supposedly higher level of consciousness.

One of the things that always bothers me about people who argue against the existence of God in favor of scientific explanations is that they are really just choosing to believe in science instead of believing in an all-powerful conscious supreme being. Many people simply choose to believe what 'science' has to tell them because the explanations are fancier, not because they really know that the explanation is real. Every current scientific explanation for anything requires assumptions at some point, so science provides no full explanations. In that sense it offers no more than religion does when it comes to giving the populace a handle on their existence. There is so much faith in the power of science these days that the average John Q. Public has WAY, WAY, WAY too much faith in science's ability to explain things or solve problems.

[Backglass]

Every current scientific explanation for anything requires assumptions at some point, so science provides no full explanations. In that sense it offers no more than religion does when it comes to giving the populace a handle on their existence.

Surely you can't be serious. Science has not fully proven anything?

One of the things that always bothers me about people who argue against the existence of God in favor of scientific explanations is that they are really just choosing to believe in science instead of believing in an all-powerful conscious supreme being.

One of the things that always bothers me about people who argue for the existence of god(s) as opposed to scientific explanation is that they are really just choosing to believe in superstition, fear, myth and legend instead of being realistic and reasoning like adults.

[Colossus]

give me an example of something that science has fully proven.


just a note, I am a molecular biophysicist. I've devoted my life to investigating the physical reasons that life does its thing. So I'm not arguing against the incredible value of science here.

[Colossus]

Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis.

This is an excellent point, but the trouble is that for many believers, the evidence is a so-called 'religious' experience of some kind. At the University of Pennsylvania (where I do my crazy research), there has been a lot of fantastic research into the phenomenon of religious experience, and there is a great deal of evidence that it is a very real thing. See a fantastic book called 'Why God Won't Go Away' by Andrew Newburg

[Backglass]

This is an excellent point, but the trouble is that for many believers, the evidence is a so-called 'religious' experience of some kind. At the University of Pennsylvania (where I do my crazy research), there has been a lot of fantastic research into the phenomenon of religious experience, and there is a great deal of evidence that it is a very real thing.

This fascinates me as well. I do believe that, for those having such experiences (jay's TV healing for example), it's 100% real and without question. Of course that doesnt mean it's divinely inspired.

It is this belief that anything out of the ordinary MUST be supernatural that baffles me. You hear the odd story of a woman lifting a car off a toddler in an accident and some think it's a god helping out, others believe in physics and adrenalin. I believe that some people are "pre-disposed" to being very religious and others are not, so when these life experiences happen it triggers a "miracle response" in the first group.

[Colossus]

interesting point, and physiologically very possible. given all of the evidence for genetic predisposal to so many things, it's likely that different people are more inherently able to feel that sort of special 'religious' experience type of feeling. I have to admit that I've had such experiences. Maybe that's why I believe in God despite being devoted to a career in science. It's very interesting the way they discuss the physiology of religious experience in that book, 'Why God Won't Go Away'. Extensive studies of brain activity of people in the midst of religious experiences shows that the part of their brains that distinguishes self from non-self is intimately involved. Interestingly, the activity in this part of the brain is different depending on the type of religious experience, but the end result is the same. At the height of the religious experience, the self vs. non-self part of the brain either shuts down completely or is completely overloaded with the end result in either case being that it ceases to define self vs. non-self. The book is really fascinating and resists drawing any conclusions whatsoever regarding whether the absence of self/non-self distinction is an imaginary connection to the 'Infinite' or a real one. Seriously a fantastic book for the believer and non-believer alike. very cool stuff. (though perhaps a titch off-topic).

[Guilty_Biscuit]

science itself must acknowledge that God is a viable potential explanation for the origin of everything

I think you misunderstand the meaning of viable in this context.