Creationism is willful ignorance

[Greg1234]

@ Greg
Willful ignorance, or refusal to accept, or refusal to acknowledge its potential for further understanding about human development.

Its potential. What is the "its"?

'In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth'. Is it meaning the beginning of time? That sort of implies that the earth is as old as time.

I'm talking about man.

My title is about the willful ignorance of creationists refusing to accept alternate proposals that have more credibility than their own.

You're going to have to present the refuting data.

Creationists are made from something different than materialists?

Citation?

I think it should be similarly with Creationism. You cannot provide proof or englightening evidence for it, so why acknowledge it?

You cannot provide [purely naturalistic] proof or [purely naturalistic] enlightening evidence for it, so why acknowledge it?​

No we can't. I can't give "evidence" for magnetic fields acting on a compass to a visiblist either.

"Where's the refuting data" is answering my statement about cause for validty with another question. As I said, Darwinism is a Theory, just as many other things are theories as they cannot yet be proven.

Ok, so is there a point to this?

The refuting data is that there is no physical proof whatsoever of a divine being.

I'm sorry but you're going to have to do better than that. I already know that you're a materialist.

 

[iambeeman]

I could similarly say that by stating "there definitely is a God" one implies total knowledge of this divine creator.

WI, you could, but you don't need infinite knowledge to confirm the existence of something, do you?

For instance, I could say there is nowhere in the universe two pebbles of equivalent mass. To make this statement I would have to know the mass of all pebbles in the universe.

Alternately I could say the universe contains two pebbles of equivalent mass. To make this statement all I would have to know is the mass of two pebbles of equivalent mass.

Do you see the difference?

I am posting an idea regarding alternate options because creationism doesn't provide any proof as to otherwise.

Science doesn't provide proof of anything, it doesn't even provide evidence of any thing, it simply provides facts, for those facts to be evidence or proof of anything they must be interpreted. I can't speak for anyone else but I've found the interpretation that creation science provides more constant with what I see around me. I'm (as my screen name would indicate) a beekeeper, and the order I see as I do my work is marvelous. It's also inconceivable that such a system would come about purely by naturalistic laws. But I could be wrong.

To be quite honest time+matter+chance falls short of providing proof either. If I have to choose between pure naturalism or a God who is in charge I have to go with God. The fact that there are natural laws at all points to a creator, the way I see it.

 

[theFijian]

Im sorry, but implying the idea that there is a creator without any proof is invalid.

Ok so obviously you're a troll but here goes anyway, what kind of proof is admissible?

 

[Feroc]

Quick question then....

If you believe that energy and mass is the default value, that it transcends being created, why would the belief that there is a God be past your willingness to believe? In other words, why does that make sense but the idea of a transcending God not? I'm not trying to ask a loaded question here, I guess I'm just wanting to understand your viewpoint more.

Because there is a prove, that the universe exists, I can see it all around me, I can feel, smell and see it. So for me it's a fact, that we are here.

An always existing god would be one step above, we would need a more complexe and intelligent thing to create the universe as the universe itself. So I have (roughly) the choice between:

a) Believe that the universe as we know it (or in any other form, compressed, etc.) is the default and was always there.
b) Believe that a god, who created the universe (out of?), always existed.

For me it's just another question, if we add god to this theory, but it doesn't answer the question, it just moves it one step above and adds a lot of more questions.

 

[theFijian]

Because there is a prove, that the universe exists, I can see it all around me, I can feel, smell and see it. So for me it's a fact, that we are here.

An always existing god would be one step above, we would need a more complexe and intelligent thing to create the universe as the universe itself. So I have (roughly) the choice between:

a) Believe that the universe as we know it (or in any other form, compressed, etc.) is the default and was always there.
b) Believe that a god, who created the universe (out of?), always existed.

For me it's just another question, if we add god to this theory, but it doesn't answer the question, it just moves it one step above and adds a lot of more questions.

Actually you've missed out an option. Here:

a) Believe that I exist. This is the default and has always been there
b) Believe that the universe as we know it (or in any other form, compressed, etc.) is the default and was always there.
c) Believe that a god, who created the universe (out of?), always existed.

From your earlier statement "Because there is a prove, that the universe exists, I can see it all around me, I can feel, smell and see it. So for me it's a fact, that we are here." all you can confidently surmise is that you exist.

You may see, feel and smell the universe but how do you know that these sense perceptions are an accurate reflection of reality? What if they are simply projections of your mind?

It's just another question isn't it? If you add the Universe to this theory "I exist", it just moves it one step above and adds a lot of more questions. So really, you exist and that is all. Adding the universe is just an extra layer of complexity.

 

[Feroc]

You may see, feel and smell the universe but how do you know that these sense perceptions are an accurate reflection of reality? What if they are simply projections of your mind?

I think I will take the risk to stick with a proven universe. I am just a result of the universe. No universe, no Feroc.

 

[theFijian]

I think I will take the risk to stick with a proven universe.

Stick with what? Your unproven assumptions? Please prove that the presuppositions you use to determine the universe exists are correct. Prove that your sense perceptions are in anyway adequate in determinig the nature of reality. How do you know that for Feroc to exist the universe must also exist? Prove that Feroc is just a result of the universe.

Rather, you add the universe and therefore add a layer of complexity. Your stance is therefore inconsistent with your argument against the existence of God. The same reason you believe the universe exists is the same reason people believe that God exists.

I am just a result of the universe. No universe, no Feroc.

The universe is just a result of God. No God, no universe.

 

[Feroc]

Stick with what? Your unproven assumptions? Prove that the presuppositions you use to determine the universe exists are correct? Prove that your sense perceptions are in anyway adequate in determinig the nature of reality.

I stick with my assumption, that the universe really exists.

How do you know that for Feroc to exist the universe must also exist?

There wouldn't be any room for me, if there wouldn't be a universe.

You add the universe and therefore add a layer of complexity. Your stance is therefore inconsistent with your argument against the existence of God. The same reason you believe the universe exists is the same reason people believe that God exists.

The universe is just a result of God. No God, no universe.

Universe -> Feroc: 2 Layers
God -> Universe -> Feroc: 3 Layers

As the universe really exists, I have to add the universe as a layer. So universe (and me) is a given constant. God is a variable which can be null. Filling the god variable makes it more complexe.

 

[theFijian]

I stick with my assumption, that the universe really exists.

Just so that we are clear, you are sticking with an assumption that you cannot prove

There wouldn't be any room for me, if there wouldn't be a universe.

That is your unprovable assumption, just as my unprovable assumption is that there wouldn't be any room for the universe, if there wasn't a God.

Universe -> Feroc: 2 Layers
God -> Universe -> Feroc: 3 Layers

As the universe really exists, I have to add the universe as a layer. So universe (and me) is a given constant. God is a variable which can be null.

Does the universe really exist? I thought this was just your assumption? Therefore the universe is also a variable which can be null, since as you admit, it's existance is an assumption and therefore unprovable.

Filling the god variable makes it more complexe.

If you are allowed to add layers of complexity then so am I.

 

[Feroc]

Just so that we are clear, you are sticking with an assumption that you cannot prove

You're assumpting the same, as you said, that god created the universe. The prove of it is out there, as the universe is all around us. It's actually not my problem, that you are not accepting the obvious existence of something as its prove of existence.

So you have still one layer extra, a layer no one can see, touch, smell or prove in any other way. A layer that has to be more complexe as the universe. If you don't believe in the existence of the universe, then there is no reason for you to believe in the existence of god, because you don't need something to explain the existence of something you don't believe exists.
And you have a layer that is not needed, as the explaination of the source of the layer is the same as the explaination of the source a layer below.

 

[theFijian]

You're assumpting the same, as you said, that god created the universe. The prove of it is out there, as the universe is all around us.

I know, I believe it for the same reasons you believe the universe exists. You can't prove the universe exists so you appeal to personal experience.

It's actually not my problem, that you are not accepting the obvious existence of something as its prove of existence.

Like I said I accept the universe exists, I accept it based on the same unprovable assumptions that you do. I just also happen to think God exists based upon the same kind of unprovable assumption that causes you to believe the universe exists. God is just as obvious as the universe

So you have still one layer extra, a layer no one can see, touch, smell or prove in any other way. A layer that has to be more complexe as the universe.

Again...so what? You add layers just as I add layers, and the justification for me to add layers is the same justification that you add layers.

And you have a layer that is not needed, as the explaination of the source of the layer is the same as the explaination of the source a layer below.

And dont forget the layer below that too! Your 'universe' layer is justified by the same explanation as my 'God' layer. So why should you be allowed to add layers but not I?

The bottom line is this: if God is a superfluous layer that is not needed, then so is the universe. It is an added layer of complexity that is not required, the most you have is that the existance of the universe is 'obvious'. I happen to think God is also obvious

 

[Feroc]

I know, I believe it for the same reasons you believe the universe exists. You can't prove the universe exists so you appeal to personal experience.

Of course I can prove it. I can take parts of it, cut them apart, measure them, take pictures of them, put them under a microscope... what else do you need as a prove?

Like I said I accept the universe exists, I accept it based on the same unprovable assumptions that you do. I just also happen to think God exists based upon the same kind of unprovable assumption that causes you to believe the universe exists. God is just as obvious as the universe

If it's as obvious as the universe, you should be able to do the same things to god that I can do to parts of the universe. Can you measure parts of god?

Again...so what? You add layers just as I add layers, and the justification for me to add layers is the same justification that you add layers.

You add two layers, one is needed and proved. One is not.

So the question is:
You explain god with the same theory as I explain the universe (being the default state). Why would you add a more complex layer on top of the less complex layer, if you can explain the less complex layer with the same theory without adding a more complex layer?

It just makes no sense to add an extra layer...

The bottom line is this: if God is a superfluous layer that is not needed, then so is the universe. It is an added layer of complexity that is not required, the most you have is that the existance of the universe is 'obvious'. I happen to think God is also obvious

The universe is needed to explain our existence. No universe -> no galaxies -> no stars -> no planets -> no place to live.

 

[Smidlee]

The universe is needed to explain our existence. No universe -> no galaxies -> no stars -> no planets -> no place to live.

Is the universe is all that needed? Does the universe know of it's own existence? What is it about life that make it want to live (struggle)? A dead cell is made up of the same amount of atoms as a living one and the universe doesn't seem to care nor can it. Does the universe by itself explains a creature that trying to understand the universe?

This is where your faith comes in .... your god is a cold and lifeless universe without any intelligence yet some how through it's blindness create you who suppose to be a intelligent being which happen to thinks the universe exists. Can a blind and dumb universe really create sight and intelligence?

 

[iambeeman]

Of course I can prove it. I can take parts of it, cut them apart, measure them, take pictures of them, put them under a microscope... what else do you need as a prove?

Does all the investigation actually explain why the parts exist or how they came to exist?

 

[theFijian]

Of course I can prove it. I can take parts of it, cut them apart, measure them, take pictures of them, put them under a microscope... what else do you need as a prove?

But you are avoiding my earlier question, how do you know what you taste, touch, smell and see is actually real and not a projection of your mind? How do you know what you are seeing under that microscope is real and not a construct? Your 'proofs' of the universe do not prove that universe exists, they are part of that same construct. It's just like someone asking me to prove that God exists, and my proofs are prayer, the Holy Spirit etc.

You add two layers, one is needed and proved. One is not.

So the question is:
You explain god with the same theory as I explain the universe (being the default state). Why would you add a more complex layer on top of the less complex layer, if you can explain the less complex layer with the same theory without adding a more complex layer?

It just makes no sense to add an extra layer...

But you are also adding an extra layer, you also adding more complexity. You are adding a layer that is not needed because you believe that for you to exist then the universe must also exist

The universe is needed to explain our existence. No universe -> no galaxies -> no stars -> no planets -> no place to live.

Says who? Who says that you need the universe to exist? Why can't you exist without the universe with all your experiences of what you call 'the universe' being simply a construct of your mind? You add the universe as a layer of complexity which is not required to explain the existance of feroc.

 

[Feroc]

Can a blind and dumb universe really create sight and intelligence?

Universe is just "space".

Does all the investigation actually explain why the parts exist or how they came to exist?

No, but that's not the question.

But you are avoiding my earlier question, how do you know what you taste, touch, smell and see is actually real and not a projection of your mind?

Living in the matrix?
But it's not my part to prove that something does not exist, you have to prove that it exists. Your theory is, that all that we see is not real. So prove it. As long as you can't prove it reality is real. (btw. if everything is just a creation of my mind, then it would make me to god and you only exist because I want someone to discuss with )
Or can you prove me, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist? You can always think of theories, that are not provable.

It's just like someone asking me to prove that God exists, and my proofs are prayer, the Holy Spirit etc.

My proves can be seen, measured, etc...

But you are also adding an extra layer, you also adding more complexity. You are adding a layer that is not needed because you believe that for you to exist then the universe must also exist

Is it really so hard to understand? The universe is here, it's a needed layer, it's even the source of the whole question.

Says who? Who says that you need the universe to exist? Why can't you exist without the universe with all your experiences of what you call 'the universe' being simply a construct of your mind? You add the universe as a layer of complexity which is not required to explain the existance of feroc.

Ok, where would you live without universe?

Sorry, just noticed that I am again posting in a forum, where I should not post. So this is the last posting here.

 

[willfullyignorant]

TheFij. I'm not a troll. I realise my argument has flaws, and I bring it here to have those holes picked at. Not trying to incite unrest without answering up
The admissable evidence would be that which can be quantized. If it cannot be quantized then it is not valid. Evidence in any case where it is required, testimonies in court, material evidence etc all are quantized whether by physical proof, visual etc. I realise that these constraints on evidence are socially implied ones, but then again, we need to judge the evidence for both sides based on where it is being presented. (i.e evidence for and against creationism)
If we judge the evidence for both by different parameters then it is not fair.
"How do you know what you are seeing under that microscope is real and not a construct?"

Because those same senses and observations are replicated by other people. Universes comprise of systems and surroundings. If all of the systems observe the same surroundings the universe is constant.
If you want to go majorly philosophical- "I think, therefore I am" being the epitome of scientific revolutionary deductive logic then I guess it would be impossible to prove any existence, because you cannot get inside someone else's brain to identify their 'thinking' and so yes, to an extent the whole universe can be a complete dream/figment of imagination. However, I believe the common perception of the world, linked by individual observations is enough to assuage fears that the world is not as it appears.

"Can a blind and dumb universe really create sight and intelligence?" In the presence of light, sight comes with it, if you observe light waves, absorption/emission spectra etc. Light is just energy so therefore there must be light because there is energy to create this 'universe'. Deductive logic prevails in this case. The universe is not dumb or blind because it is not sentient. It is merely a medium for development and change. A universe can be seen in a glass of iced water. The water is the surroundings, the ice is the system. System+surroundings = universe, and what happens in that universe over time due to changing conditions is what we observe, whether it be on earth, in space, or indeed in a glass of water.
I agree with Feroc that proving that something exists is far easier than proving something does not, it is an absolute negative that another poster previously mentioned regarding one of my comments, for which I am grateful.
"Why can't you exist without the universe with all your experiences of what you call 'the universe' being simply a construct of your mind?"
See above. A 'universe' cannot exist without surroundings and a system. If I am the system and the universe is a mental construct, then there are no surroundings that I can be immersed in to create a universe, thus there would be none.

 

[willfullyignorant]

@ Gregg, sorry for the delay. Things to do.
Perhaps I was a bit vague. 'It's" being the evidence for evolution, the developing fossils, pentadactyl limbs etc. Secondly, God created man on what, day 5? that means out of the total of 7 days, 1,2,3,4 man was not around, 5,6 & 7 he was. Therefore man is what, 43% as old as time?
“You're going to have to present the refuting data.” ? I’m sorry? The simple truth is that there is at least one smidgen of evidence or physical proof for the proposal that man evolved. ONE EXAMPLE =Pentadactyl limbs from the lungfish which emerged as a very effective amphibian. There is no evidentiary proof that there is a ‘God’.
I cite you for “creationists are made from something different than materialists”, you said it in your last post. You said “while Creationists hold that they weren't created by matter” implying that creationists are made of different stuff. Logically, how can this be? When religious denomination is not pre-determined, unless you wish to delve into the ‘soul’ bit where God pre-determines where you will go etc etc.
“You cannot provide [purely naturalistic] proof or [purely naturalistic] enlightening evidence for it, so why acknowledge it?” True, but can still provide some form of physical proof that leads to hypothesis and observational conclusions. I repeat. Evolution is a THEORY. It is not cemented fact. However, Christians present the works of Jesus and the word of God and his existence as a fact. You cannot provide any proof or enlightening evidence, purely naturalistic or not, of His/Her/Its existence.
You can give evidence for effect of magnetic fields on a compass. Stick a magnet next to it. Take a compass to the north/south poles.

 

[BondiHarry]

Willful ignorance of evidence that proves otherswise. I'm sorry, but the idea that God created the world in 7 days, regardless of whether or not you interpret 1 year as 1000 years as Harold Camping does -.- it is physically impossible within the laws of physics and chemistry to create a landmass the size of the earth out of nothing. It defies all laws of science, matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Whilst we do not know where this energy came from to create bonds between chemicals and atoms to create matter. Whilst the Big bang has flaws, there is scientific evidence to back up the formation of matter, and The big bang theory is just that. A theory. It is not accepted as fact and scientists continue to try and prove its occurence in order to explain the origin of matter.
Willful ignorance in the belief that there is an almighty being that has to create this on the other hand is simple stupid and can almost be considered insane. I don't know whether or not you draw some kind of satisfaction that there is a 'greater being' that guides your lives because you are worried about what happens in the 'afterlife', but belief in something that has absolutely NO basis in fact is.....well....it defies explanation. The idea that you have to believe in a tolerant, benign, loving god to gain entrance into heaven completely contradicts the idea of that same benevolent God! If he is so loving and Jesus died for our sins, then he will allow you entrance to heaven regardless of whether you have atoned or not!
I do not deny that there is a historical figure called Jesus, but the idea that he is a divine being is a bit too far. Belief in God lacks proof and is simply a way of providing comfort that you do not simply die. Hate to break it to you.....but that's what happens. These spiritual visions people have when they die and come back to life cannot be explained by science because we simply do not know enough about the nervous system and how the brain works. Whether it is the lack of bloodflow to the brain, lack of oxygen, nerve systems playing tricks, we don't know and we do not SURMISE. We simply leave it as an unexplained occurance. But attributing them to a divine being because you 'believe God was with you' is simply arguing a case without any evidence!
When writing a thesis for a university degree, an essay for school or another work, you always need to provide evidence for your arguments. You cannot simply state something and have it unanimously accepted without proof. You cannot state it in the first place!
Im sorry, but implying the idea that there is a creator without any proof is invalid.

Can you prove that our senses and intelligence are all that is needed for us to understand all that reality has to offer? If a man has no sense of taste the flavors in a Julia Child dish, although there, will escape him. If a man has no sight the beauty of a Malibu sunset will escape him. As Donald Rumsfeld has put it "there are things we know we know, there are things we know we don't know and there are things we don't know we don't know" and it is this last thing empiricists should take into consideration.

The human imagination is capable of dreaming up all kinds of things that have no basis in reality (like a nation can tax and spend itself into prosperity for example) but just because we can't prove something doesn't mean it isn't true. It utterly defies man's understanding of reality that three men can be cast into a super hot furnace and not be harmed while those who tossed them into the furnace perish from the heat, the same goes for a man walking on water, a man being raised from the dead etc. and so although there were witnesses to each of these events they are dismissed as fantasy because our understanding of reality says they are impossible and that any such witnesses are either invented or lying.

You dismiss God because you cannot fathom that He is real yet He has impacted the lives of millions, has baffled doctors and nurses when He has chosen to heal the sick when the doctors and nurses could not, has turned the lives of people mired deep into personally destructive sin (alcoholism, drug addiction, anger, greed, lust) around so that they are no longer destroying themselves, has inspired men like our founding fathers to create a charter for government that largely freed men from the oppressive desires of their fellow man with the result being the freest and most prosperous nation in man's history yet you still deny that He is. God tells us to walk by faith and not by sight for a reason, our reason and senses give us only a very distorted view of the reality around us.

 

[willfullyignorant]

Harry, I see the sense in your comment and I agree that there are of course things we do not know, and perhaps cannot??
What I would like to question is why would God choose to save some people afflicted by alcoholism, drug addiction etc if he is all loving? Surely then, this benevolent God should not pick and choose between those who are sick or needing of care? Perhaps you would argue that those who he does not cure are non-believers? Yet still that rejects the idea that he is all loving to his creations, and Jesus died to repent for our sins as a sacrifice. I think there is a very high probability that there are sick and afflicted creationists/Christians. Maybe there is a grand scheme that we cannot grasp, and that god in his infinite wisdom has chosen a select few to spare. that defies the whole idea of that same god.