There is no Creation Debate

[Black Dog]

As I have pointed out to others, my comment was not made in relation to creationism.

Sorry, I read your comments and thought you were saying you weren't talking about your personal beliefs, ie that you personally didn't believe in creationism.

I stand by my comment in regards to any religious worldview that requires belief in an unprovable being.

If claims are being made about unprovable beings, then those claims can also be made about Santa Claus, Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, or any other unprovable being, they are all equivalent.

 

[SteveB28]

This is a little misleading. At the risk of calling down the ire of my fellow Christians, I will say that, in this forum at least, you are often presented with an often incoherent caricature of what I would say is an otherwise perfectly rational worldview - an appropriately nuanced version of orthodox Christianity. I would offer this by way of response to what you have posted: I believe I can describe to you a Christian worldview that completely honours the facts of the world. In short, just because we may not need God to develop a seemingly workable worldview does not mean that other "God-based" worldview models do not equally well explain the facts.

Yes and in order to present such a view, you do so by commencing with your foregone conclusion and then massaging the evidence to fit that conclusion.

I could no doubt manufacture a 'Hindu worldview' that achieved the same result.

But to do so would be lazy and intellectually dishonest.

 

[expos4ever]

Yes and in order to present such a view, you do so by commencing with your foregone conclusion and then massaging the evidence to fit that conclusion.

I could no doubt manufacture a 'Hindu worldview' that achieved the same result.

But to do so would be lazy and intellectually dishonest.

I do not discuss with people who make entirely unsubstantiated assumptions about how I would present an argument. You have precisely zero evidence to support your "prediction" as to how I would make my case. This is my last interaction with you.

 

[SteveB28]

I do not discuss with people who make entirely unsubstantiated assumptions about how I would present an argument. You have precisely zero evidence to support your "prediction" as to how I would make my case. This is my last interaction with you.

Oh, how delightfully precious!

Yes, you've done a lot of promising that you could mount such a case, without actually presenting anything.

Mind that door on your way out.

 

[dad]

Then what?

Then live and love forever.

 

[HitchSlap]

Then live and love forever.

Done and done. Thanks.

 

[dad]

...So what about the many Christians who sought and sought and sought for most of their lives, and gave up because they realized they could not justify their beliefs to themselves?

As Matt Dillahunty, a man who was a bible-believing Christian for most of his life and who was studying to become a minister when he lost his faith, put it:

My only goal was to be the best Christian I could be, and represent this to people who didn't believe. And what I found - because I actually cared about whether or not my beliefs were actually true rather than whether they felt good - was that my beliefs weren't justified. Try as I might and pray as hard as I could. No answer comes. No evidence is forthcoming. And when I talk to people about this, the only answer they ever offer is the one you did, which is 'Well, you just got to have faith.' Well sorry, but I don't. Well I'm not sorry that I don't, I'm sorry for others that think that I should have because faith is not a virtue. Faith is gullibility. It's evidence that determines whether or not your perception of reality is reasonable and in conjunction with the world as it is.​

God loses none. Some go through a little hell on the road to real heaven.

 

[dad]

Done and done. Thanks.

Then you won't be an atheist.

 

[expos4ever]

If claims are being made about unprovable beings, then those claims can also be made about Santa Claus, Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, or any other unprovable being, they are all equivalent.

What do you mean by "provable"?

We observe the world.

We make models of the world for a range of reasons.

Some models contain a "god" agent, some do not.

The question is not whether one can "prove" a "god" agent exists, it is whether the models that incorporate a "god" agent manifest the features of a good model relative to other competing models.

Demanding that I "prove" a god agent exists is as unreasonable as if I were to demand you prove an electron exists. The reason it makes sense to "believe" in the existence of electrons is because they are part of a model of reality that works very well. And I am confident that an appropriately nuanced model of the world that incorporates a god of some sort would also work very well.

I should not have to point out that such a theistic model would not, repeat not, include some the embarrassing features of the theistic models that you get exposed to in this forum. For example, that this god created the world 10,000 years ago when the evidence shows otherwise. Or that this god is in the business of sending trouble-makers into a seething cauldron of fire for eternity.

But I apparently do need to say this since some seem all too eager to assume that I am defending ideas that I have never laid claim to.

 

[dad]

The trick is showing how the Christian model would make different predictions than non-theistic models. What we are ultimately interested in is how we could distinguish between the two models.

Seems to me Scripture abounds in specific different predictions than science! Done deal.

 

[HitchSlap]

Then you won't be an atheist.

God wants me to be atheist. You too!

 

[HitchSlap]

What do you mean by "provable"?

We observe the world.

We make models of the world for a range of reasons.

Some models contain a "god" agent, some do not.

The question is not whether one can "prove" a "god" agent exists, it is whether the models that incorporate a "god" agent manifest the features of a good model relative to other competing models.

Demanding that I "prove" a god agent exists is as unreasonable as if I were to demand you prove an electron exists. The reason it makes sense to "believe" in the existence of electrons is because they are part of a model of reality that works very well. And I am confident that an appropriately nuanced model of the world that incorporates a god of some sort would also work very well.

I should not have to point out that such a theistic model would not, repeat not, include some the embarrassing features of the theistic models that you get exposed to in this forum. For example, that this god created the world 10,000 years ago when the evidence shows otherwise. Or that this god is in the business of sending trouble-makers into a seething cauldron of fire for eternity.

But I apparently do need to say this since some seem all too eager to assume that I am defending ideas that I have never laid claim to.

Why ascribe a "god agent" to any observable model, at all?

 

[expos4ever]

Why ascribe a "god agent" to any observable model, at all?

What is an "observable" model?

I have not thought about this as much as I would have liked to, but here is one reason to go for a theistic model. And it connects in with your friend Christopher Hitchens. Now I am not sure if this was a faked clip or not, but I recall seeing a youtube of Hitchens (in a cab, I think) telling someone that he conceded that there was at least one argument for "god" that he (Hitchens) conceded had at least some plausibility. And this is the argument about "fine-tuning" that I suspect you are familiar with. In case you are not, the idea is that the experts agree that the value of all the "free variables" of physics (e.g. gravitational constant, mass of electron, etc.) have to be in a very tiny range of possible values in order for the universe to have any structure whatsoever. In other words, if any of these parameters varied from their actual values even a little, the universe would have forever been a structure-less jumble in which life could never have possibly formed. Yet we are here. Now, just in case you are going to patronize me with a lecture about the strong and weak anthropic principles, please save your breath - I believe I know the basics.

Skipping all the to and fro we could, and may yet still, get into about the anthropic principle and multiple universes, I believe that a "god as intelligent setter of parameters" model might be "simpler" than a model without such a designer and that I believe requires the existence of a bazillion parallel universes. Yes, we get added complexity by tossing "god" in, but we save a lot of complexity by not needing all these other universes.

A note about tone: I am trying to be very careful to not talk down to people and / or use insults (hence the "just in case" in front of what otherwise might have been interpreted as me implying you like to patronize people). I am happy to have a respectful dialog about this huge topic. But if you start to insult me - and I believe I know the difference between respectful disagreement and insult - our conversation will have to come to an end.

POSTSCRIPT: On reflection, I confess I have been somewhat insulting to creationists and some other Christians on this site. I apologize to them and will endeavor to dial that back.

 

[dad]

God wants me to be atheist. You too!

Jesus died to say otherwise.

 

[SteveB28]

Jesus died to say otherwise.

Allegedly.

 

[dad]

Allegedly.

No. Certainly.

 

[The Cadet]

Demanding that I "prove" a god agent exists is as unreasonable as if I were to demand you prove an electron exists. The reason it makes sense to "believe" in the existence of electrons is because they are part of a model of reality that works very well. And I am confident that an appropriately nuanced model of the world that incorporates a god of some sort would also work very well.

See, I find this comparison interesting, because I'm curious as to what role "god" would play in this model. In the current model of the atom, electrons explain the detected charges and serve a useful, specific role in the model. We don't also assume they are conscious, or equally responsible for making sure good children have good dreams; we attribute a specific interaction to them and try to simplify as much as possible while still accounting for the evidence. We don't make additional assumptions, and we take the predictions we can take from the model and check to see if they hold up. Above all else, two things remain true here:

1. If the model makes no testable prediction that could possibly show that the model is false, the model is abandoned because it is useless. (After all, if you cannot make a testable prediction based off of it, then there is fundamentally no difference in reality whether or not it actually exists, and Occam's razor can shave it away!)
2. The most simple possible model that fits all the evidence is taken

Is the same true of the model incorporating God?

 

[tiglathpileser]

I thought that dad was right for once. He is right that there is no debate, but that is only because his side lost over 100 years ago. Now all we have is rather foolish denial.

You will have to correct me if I am wrong but I didn't think that atheists believe in absolutes. That being the case, you cannot say we lost over 100 years ago. We lost what may I ask? And these last few weeks I have noticed that the truth of creation is slowly being introduced back into schools again.

 

[tiglathpileser]

.......changing fables of scienctism would I think be more correct. Science properly understood and used is a very strong tool for understanding the universe. Many scientists turn the tool into a 'religion' which amounts to atheism and is all about promoting the 'faith' no matter what.

Well put.

 

[SteveB28]

No. Certainly.

You have no valid evidence that he existed, let alone been executed. And no evidence at all that he defied the laws of nature by resurrecting. All you have is blind faith.