Hieronymus
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2016
- 8,428
- 3,005
- 53
- Country
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
There's little need for anything other than to point at the level of technology which makes life live.You don't know me.
I've combed through more creationist/ID material than most creationists. I've read entire published works from various creationist/ID authors and debated this stuff ad nauseum on forums like this.
What I've found is there really isn't much actually arguing in favor of creationism or ID.
It reduces every human attempt to create something to childs play.
Why should i ascribe it to dead unconscious forces rather than to a capable intelligent entity with a will to create.
Yes, God. God also answers the question: "Why does anything exist at all?"
It's just the better answer. It's more probable, more plausible, has more explanatory power.
Not just about the mechanics of living nature, but to existentional questions in general.
"Incredulity" is to be expected when you preach preposterous ideas for which the evidence is ambiguous at best (because of the gaps and absence of explanation of the reality of things).Rather, most of what creationists/ID advocates argue is a negative argument against evolution (usually based on gaps in knowledge; hence, the arguments from incredulity)
You would have to be delusional to believe such a thing.
I'm just saying, when you can't convince someone, it's not necessarily due to the incredulence of that person.
I don't think that's relevant.and then assuming intelligent creation as a default position.
Actually, many people become creationists or doubt the ToE from a position of assuming the ToE is true.
On the other hand, historically creation is the default position if you had to chose between creation and 'chance'.
I think the true default position is not knowing what to think of it.
But then again, when we want to adhere a purpose to our existence and existence in general, it's a logical step to suspect there is a God of some sorts.
Real science, as in the natural sciences, can not say anything about anything beyond their natural paradigm.And that's fine for a theological basis, but real science doesn't work like that.
This does not change the plain logic that the natural most likely has a super natural origin, for things do not create themselves (that would be a logical fallacy).
Upvote
0