A Question to Evolutionists

[Lord Emsworth]

What would it take to convince you of Creationism (that is, a god or gods created the universe)?

Design?
Fine-tuning?
Evangelical aliens?
The Creator(s) manifesting right in front of you?

Are Creationists right in that we Godless atheists can rationalise away anything they present to us?

I am not entirely sure what you are asking. On one hand you talk about evolution on the other hand it is Godless atheists. You ask about creationism, but then in brackets "clarify" that it is about the creation of the universe.

But let me try to disentangle ...

Question: What would it take to convince you of Creationism?
Answer: Question does not compute.


Question: What would it take to convince you that a god or gods created the universe?
Answer: I am strong atheist/ignostic anyway, and I hold that there is nothing to be convinced about. First there needs to be a proper claim, and only then ... maybe. (Take for instance the fourth item you list, the "creator(s) manifesting right in front of you". You can easily say things like these, but what does it mean, what would I have to imagine, what to be convinced of?)


Question: Are Creationists right in that we Godless atheists can rationalise away anything they present to us?
Answer: No. There is need to rationalize anything away.

 

[Penumbra]

What would it take to convince you of Creationism (that is, a god or gods created the universe)?

Do you mean "Creationism" as in God just kind of formed everything the way it is now pretty much instantaneously a few thousand years ago? It would be virtually impossible to convince me of that short of disproving all of modern science (chemistry, physics, geology, biology, and so forth) and then building an adequate case for it.

Or do you mean convince me that God created the universe through the Big Bang or some other method that is consistent with rational thinking and the evidence we have? I'll answer for the rest of my post as though you meant this option, as this option is worth discussion in my opinion.

Design?

No, too subjective. A snowflake looks designed but it forms from rather basic laws.

Fine-tuning?

No, not convincing enough. If, let's say, our fine-tuned constants have a 1 in 10^30 chance of happening that way, but we exist, then they happened that way. Add in the concept that a possibly infinite number of universes could exist, and fine-tuning becomes somewhat irrelevant in my opinion. If you have 10^30 universes and 1 in 10^30 randomly are tuned for life, then the one universe that has life will see their universe as "fine-tuned".

Evangelical aliens?

I'd love to see how extra terrestrials view religion and cosmology. I wouldn't just take their word on anything, though. If they were advanced enough in technology to come visit us, what they would have to say would definitely at least be worth listening too.

The Creator(s) manifesting right in front of you?

This would be perhaps the most convincing reason.

It would be hard to prove that any being is the creator, though. I mean, if this being could move mountains, vaporize oceans, destroy the moon and instantly re-create it, shut off our sun and start it again, read my mind, demonstrate perfect knowledge of humanity's history, while all the while coming up with reasonable answers to how he exists and how he created the universe and why, then it would be reasonable to believe it. It's possible that it could be an unimaginably advanced alien being (with, say, 2 billion years of additional technology under its belt), but if that's the case, this being is still absolutely worth listening to if it's so advanced and probably will understand the origins of the universe better than we would. And if it's lying, well, what reason would it have to lie to us when we'd be less significant than ants to it? So I'd say this would be the number one reason. I'd want more than just myself to see this being, though, or else there would be a high chance that I'm just loosing it. Schizophrenia isn't all that uncommon.

Other options could include finding a highly detailed message written in many earth languages within our DNA or something neat like that. None of them would be as convincing as an absurdly powerful self-proclaimed creator to me, though.

I would have a million and one questions for a supposed creator, though. If the creation represents the creator, I don't think I'd be all that fond of or impressed by the creator. I mean, did it intend to set up a system where life has to hunt, kill, and consume other life to survive? That's sadistic. Nature is cruel, with the weak dying and the strong surviving. Three year olds randomly get cancer and die. If the purpose of the universe is to support life, then this universe seems fairly bad at it with apparently all the other planets in our system without life (or at least non-microbial life), so much cold, empty space between everything, mass extinctions occurring so often, the existence of viruses, and so forth. If the purpose of the universe has nothing to do with life, then what's it for? To look pretty? Overall I think my assessment of the universe is that if it has a creator, it's probably more of a kid with an ant farm kind of creator.

Are Creationists right in that we Godless atheists can rationalise away anything they present to us?

I don't think so. In fact for years I tried to rationalize away the opposite point of view and failed at it.

-Lyn

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I am not entirely sure what you are asking. On one hand you talk about evolution on the other hand it is Godless atheists. You ask about creationism, but then in brackets "clarify" that it is about the creation of the universe.

I only talk about Creationism, and the brackets serve to qualify what I mean by 'Creationism'.

But let me try to disentangle ...

Question: What would it take to convince you of Creationism?
Answer: Question does not compute.

Creationism is a series of claims. What, if anything, would convince you of the validity of those claims?

Question: What would it take to convince you that a god or gods created the universe?
Answer: I am strong atheist/ignostic anyway, and I hold that there is nothing to be convinced about. First there needs to be a proper claim, and only then ... maybe. (Take for instance the fourth item you list, the "creator(s) manifesting right in front of you". You can easily say things like these, but what does it mean, what would I have to imagine, what to be convinced of?)

Presumably, the Creator exists regardless of whether you believe in it or not. Thus, if it had the ability to do so, it could manifest before you in some body or fashion. Is there such a way for it to do this that would convince you that it is indeed the Creator? The question in the OP is for you to answer, my Lord .

Question: Are Creationists right in that we Godless atheists can rationalise away anything they present to us?
Answer: No. There is need to rationalize anything away.

True, but if we reject even the possibility of a 'supernatural' (e.g., divine) explanation of events, are we not arbitrarily limiting ourselves? What if God really does exist, and he really is the explanation for this, that, or the other? I prefer to keep my options open, on the off-chance.

And the "Godless atheists" part is more a stab at common Creationist sophistry than anything serious.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Direct evidence supporting the Genesis account of things would go a long way towards convincing me that Creationism is correct.

Failing that, some sort of direct communication from the Creator would help, and no, I don't mean the Bible, I mean DIRECT communication, or some other form of unarguably ethereal communication, like correct prescient and specific predictions, linked contextually to Creationism.

To convince me of ID, without necessarily implying the Genesis account is correct, a genuine example of irreducible complexity, or some direct communication or trademark from the designer, whoever that may be. A working explanation of how the IDer achieved his designs, and further, why so many designs appear so slipshod would go a long way too.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do you mean "Creationism" as in God just kind of formed everything the way it is now pretty much instantaneously a few thousand years ago? It would be virtually impossible to convince me of that short of disproving all of modern science (chemistry, physics, geology, biology, and so forth) and then building an adequate case for it.

But that would convince you of it, yes? A well-evidenced, scientific theory demonstrating and explaining that everything popped into existence as is ~6000 years ago, would convince you of the existence of a divine Creator(s)?

Or do you mean convince me that God created the universe through the Big Bang or some other method that is consistent with rational thinking and the evidence we have? I'll answer for the rest of my post as though you meant this option, as this option is worth discussion in my opinion.

I tried to leave my OP as general as possible, if only to see how people would tackle the vagueness in the term.

No, not convincing enough. If, let's say, our fine-tuned constants have a 1 in 10^30 chance of happening that way, but we exist, then they happened that way. Add in the concept that a possibly infinite number of universes could exist, and fine-tuning becomes somewhat irrelevant in my opinion. If you have 10^30 universes and 1 in 10^30 randomly are tuned for life, then the one universe that has life will see their universe as "fine-tuned".

But this presupposes the existence of a) variable constants (an oxymoron if ever there was one), and b) an infinite number of universes. Is this more plausible than, say, "Goddidit"?

I'd love to see how extra terrestrials view religion and cosmology. I wouldn't just take their word on anything, though. If they were advanced enough in technology to come visit us, what they would have to say would definitely at least be worth listening too.

I think the fact that they have a terrestrial religion is proof enough. What are the odds that aliens coming to Earth are themselves Zoroastrian?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I think the fact that they have a terrestrial religion is proof enough. What are the odds that aliens coming to Earth are themselves Zoroastrian?

Interesting theoretical question... I think aliens, especially if they had never had contact with Earth previously, turned out to share any of our religious beliefs and theology, that would be a pretty significant boost to that religion in the evidence stakes.

 

[Muad Dib]

Irreducible complexity

It would at least convince me that the theory of evolution needs a fundamental overhaul, that followed by an alien that said their race discovered evolution, then found out that it was faulty and was replaced by theory based on creation would settle the matter.

If the "creator" appeared in front of me in a flash of light, logically I would then go to a psychiatrist because I must be mad.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

To convince me of ID, without necessarily implying the Genesis account is correct, a genuine example of irreducible complexity, or some direct communication or trademark from the designer, whoever that may be. A working explanation of how the IDer achieved his designs, and further, why so many designs appear so slipshod would go a long way too.

Irreducible complexity

It would at least convince me that the theory of evolution needs a fundamental overhaul, that followed by an alien that said their race discovered evolution, then found out that it was faulty and was replaced by theory based on creation would settle the matter.

If I understand it correctly, then even an instance of irreducible complexity wouldn't disprove evolution: life is so versatile that it can, in fact, evolve irreducibly complex systems.

The bacterial flagellum is a good example. You cannot remove any part of collection of parts and still retain its function, thus it is indeed irreducibly complex. However, you can split it into two pieces that each have other functions (namely, protein gates and a kind of syringe), so it could indeed have evolved.

If the "creator" appeared in front of me in a flash of light, logically I would then go to a psychiatrist because I must be mad.

Even if everyone else saw it too?

 

[blook]

What would it take to convince you of Creationism (that is, a god or gods created the universe)?

Design?
Fine-tuning?
Evangelical aliens?

No, no, no.

The Creator(s) manifesting right in front of you?

That would be nice, but wouldn't be necessary.

I'd be somewhat convinced if, when we would ever find another civilization on another planet, they would have the same bible/quran/torah as we have. Ofcourse the bible wouldn't be right anymore if we'd find other intelligent life in the universe, but you get the idea.

I'll always leave the option open for the possibility there is a 'God'. No evidence has yet been presented to me, however.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'd be somewhat convinced if, when we would ever find another civilization on another planet, they would have the same bible/quran/torah as we have. Ofcourse the bible wouldn't be right anymore if we'd find other intelligent life in the universe, but you get the idea.

That's kinda what I meant by 'evangelical aliens' .

I'll always leave the option open for the possibility there is a 'God'. No evidence has yet been presented to me, however.

But what evidence would be sufficient? What datum constitutes evidence of God?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

If I understand it correctly, then even an instance of irreducible complexity wouldn't disprove evolution: life is so versatile that it can, in fact, evolve irreducibly complex systems.

The bacterial flagellum is a good example. You cannot remove any part of collection of parts and still retain its function, thus it is indeed irreducibly complex. However, you can split it into two pieces that each have other functions (namely, protein gates and a kind of syringe), so it could indeed have evolved.

This is true. As long as you allow for functional shifts or multi-function, which happens all the time in biology, you can evolve irreducible complex biological forms.

 

[Chesterton]

What would it take to convince you of Creationism (that is, a god or gods created the universe)?

This may not be a trick question, but it is a tricky question, because the parenthetical clause does not define the sentence's subject. I'm not necessarily a Creationist, but I still believe God created the universe.

Fine-tuning?

Fine-tuning is an absolute fact. The question is whether the universe is fine-tuned to us, or we are fine-tuned to the universe.

 

[Muad Dib]

If I understand it correctly, then even an instance of irreducible complexity wouldn't disprove evolution: life is so versatile that it can, in fact, evolve irreducibly complex systems.

The bacterial flagellum is a good example. You cannot remove any part of collection of parts and still retain its function, thus it is indeed irreducibly complex. However, you can split it into two pieces that each have other functions (namely, protein gates and a kind of syringe), so it could indeed have evolved.

Ok , not irreducible complexity, then perhaps a completely unnecessary
organ in an animal than has the scripture of a religion written in proteins on the inside of it.

Maybe a fully functioning fusion generator in a toad, with each part irreducibly complex, not multi functional or any of that shenanigans. And with "Jesus Power" written in proteins all over it.

Even if everyone else saw it too?

Hmm, dunno, I would probably listen to it, but isn't the likelihood of me hallucinating a god and hallucinating other people seeing it higher than the likelihood of a real god. Or actually the likelihood of 8 billion people going mad together higher than the likelihood of a real god?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I only talk about Creationism, and the brackets serve to qualify what I mean by 'Creationism'.

The brackets may be intended to clarify, but they don't. "Creationism" is a much more precise term than that by which you sought to clarify it. It is like, for instance, asking what would convince someone of "pangalactic gargleblasters" and then to go ahead and clarify that by that you mean alcoholic beverages.

Creationism is a series of claims. What, if anything, would convince you of the validity of those claims?

Yes, exacty. "Creationism" is a series diverse, and mostly whacky claims. And if there weren't a certain whackyness to the bulk of the claims, I'd probably not think of it as creationism to begin with.

Presumably, the Creator exists regardless of whether you believe in it or not. Thus, if it had the ability to do so, it could manifest before you in some body or fashion. Is there such a way for it to do this that would convince you that it is indeed the Creator? The question in the OP is for you to answer, my Lord .

Sure something exists regardless of whether you believe in it. However, in order to believe or give credence to a proposition you need a proposition first. Absent such ... it'll all be meaningless talk.

What you have is the word "creator" on one hand, and an observation, i.e. the manifestation of something in the outside world on the other hand, correct? Now what there needs to be is that the "creator" is not just a word, but expresses a meaningful, coherent idea. And only then I could contemplate whether that idea reflects reality with a sufficient degree of accuracy. For instance, whether some observation or other, backs up that idea or not.

True, but if we reject even the possibility of a 'supernatural' (e.g., divine) explanation of events, are we not arbitrarily limiting ourselves?

What are you rejecting? The concept of supernatural will break down ultimately. The statement 'supernatural explanation' references, to my mind, ideas which inherently exclude each other (if something is explained it by definition lacks that certain element of mystery that is needed for something to be thought of as supernatural).

What if God really does exist, and he really is the explanation for this, that, or the other? I prefer to keep my options open, on the off-chance.

We can always call stuff names. Why not just define "the explanation for this, that, or the other" as "God"?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This may not be a trick question, but it is a tricky question, because the parenthetical clause does not define the sentence's subject. I'm not necessarily a Creationist, but I still believe God created the universe.

That qualifies you as a Creationist. It doesn't matter if you believe in deistic or pantheistic Creationism, YEC or OEC, Cosmic Egg or Divine Mother; Creationism is, as defined by my OP, the belief that the universe was created by a deity.

Fine-tuning is an absolute fact. The question is whether the universe is fine-tuned to us, or we are fine-tuned to the universe.

Heh, indeed. But fine-tuning usually refers to the universe being fine-tuning for us, not the other way around.

 

[jpcedotal]

Wow, I really liked this thread.

I won't go any further, but I sincerely appreciate the honesty found here.

 

[Penumbra]

But that would convince you of it, yes? A well-evidenced, scientific theory demonstrating and explaining that everything popped into existence as is ~6000 years ago, would convince you of the existence of a divine Creator(s)?

Well, yes. It would be radical switch, though, as several fields of science would have to be completely overturned.

But this presupposes the existence of a) variable constants (an oxymoron if ever there was one), and b) an infinite number of universes. Is this more plausible than, say, "Goddidit"?

Neither more nor less plausible, in my opinion. And that is why the existence of fine-tuned constants does not convince me, because neither concept is any more plausible than the other.

I think the fact that they have a terrestrial religion is proof enough. What are the odds that aliens coming to Earth are themselves Zoroastrian?

I didn't know you meant that the aliens have the same exact religion(s). I would imagine that aliens would have some sort of religion/spirituality, or at least some of them. If it were to turn out that a visiting alien had the same exact religion as a group of people on earth, that would be pretty shocking and convincing. It would have to be demonstrated that neither party observed and copied off of the other, though. For instance, if the Buddha was really an alien from a planet full of Buddhists, and so the religion still comes from a single source instead of showing up independently on two worlds, that would not count.

-Lyn

 

[Freodin]

I always considered the "fine tuning" argument to be a little beside the point.

After all, it states that all the natural constants have to be the way they are in order for us / the universe to exist / be stable at all.

But that presupposes the natural laws in existence. The constants are "fine tuned" so that they work with the "given" laws.

Yet an omnipotent / supernatural creator - especially one beyond logic / natural laws - could create and support any universe it wants... there is no need for anything to "fit".

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If I understand it correctly, then even an instance of irreducible complexity wouldn't disprove evolution: life is so versatile that it can, in fact, evolve irreducibly complex systems.

The bacterial flagellum is a good example. You cannot remove any part of collection of parts and still retain its function, thus it is indeed irreducibly complex. However, you can split it into two pieces that each have other functions (namely, protein gates and a kind of syringe), so it could indeed have evolved.

Um... my understanding is that the bacterial flagellum isn't actually "irreducibly complex", since, as you say, it CAN be split into functional lesser components. When I use it as an example of something that would prove evolution false, I mean an example of a complex system that cannot be reduced in anyway, that could not possibly have evolved from lesser systems, including from co-option, like the bacterial flagellum.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Um... my understanding is that the bacterial flagellum isn't actually "irreducibly complex", since, as you say, it CAN be split into functional lesser components. When I use it as an example of something that would prove evolution false, I mean an example of a complex system that cannot be reduced in anyway, that could not possibly have evolved from lesser systems, including from co-option, like the bacterial flagellum.

I'm just pointing out the fallacy of irreducible complexity, as defined by ID crackpots:

A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function.

They seem to ignore the fact that evolution can co-opt one system to perform another function.