Why do creationists redefine and/or make up words out-of-context?

[pitabread]

As to creation, the choice appears absolutely binary, either God, or supernatural forces were the agent in creation, or everything created itself. If there is a third option, enlighten me, please.

Pascal's Wager isn't strictly about believing in God though. It's about a perceived reward/punishment system in the afterlife based on Christian theology.

The problem is there are far more possible belief systems than just Christianity. If it turns out that Christianity is wrong and it's really some other belief system we should be following, then using Pascal's Wager as an argument to be a Christian falls flat. You'd be screwed either way.

 

[Clint Edwards]

In such a case, then Occam's Razor would suggest the former is more reasonable than the latter given the former requires less entities.

REALLY ? I don't quite understand. Something creating itself is a simpler explanation than something creating something ? A logic syllogism, nothing cannot create something, something exists, therefore something created everything.

 

[HitchSlap]

REALLY ? I don't quite understand. Something creating itself is a simpler explanation than something creating something ? A logic syllogism, nothing cannot create something, something exists, therefore something created everything.

Then who created god?

 

[pitabread]

The definition I used is this. Information in action can lead to two or more possible reactions, controlled by the information. Information in a cell, as an example, might control the release of a specific protein leading to a specific result, when other specific proteins could be released leading to different results. The specific protein and its result being what is required for the function of the cell at that particular time. The result of the right protein at the right time is the result of information. Without the information controlling the release of the specific protein, any could be released from the possibilities, a random, process killing the organism. Whew, I hope that is semi understandable

I'm still not clear on how you are trying to define information as it relates to DNA. Do you have a source you could cite instead? Perhaps a source with a clearer definition would help, because I get the feeling something might be getting lost in translation.

 

[pitabread]

REALLY ? I don't quite understand. Something creating itself is a simpler explanation than something creating something ? A logic syllogism, nothing cannot create something, something exists, therefore something created everything.

Occam's razor - Wikipedia

Given a situation where you have competing ideas to choose from, all else being equal, the idea with the fewest assumptions is the correct one.

Thus if you are suggesting that there is equal evidence for, say, life (or even the universe) creating itself versus that an external entity did it, then Occam's Razor dictates that you should chose the former. It is the idea with fewer assumptions.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Appealing to a mystery to explain a mystery does not make the first position more tenuous.

Perhaps not, but appealing to evidence that a very structured universe that seems designed to support life as opposed to the logical result of random forces, in a universe that supports life i

Occam's razor - Wikipedia

Given a situation where you have competing ideas to choose from, all else being equal, the idea with the fewest assumptions is the correct one.

Thus if you are suggesting that there is equal evidence for, say, life (or even the universe) creating itself versus that an external entity did it, then Occam's Razor dictates that you should chose the former. It is the idea with fewer assumptions.

Perhaps, but as I have pointed out, that simple explanation is illogical. Unless, of course, you believe nothing can create nothing, then logic ceases to exist

 

[Clint Edwards]

Then who created god?

Sigh, I must have been down this road 200 times. You can never know anything about God, but what he chooses to reveal. Why, Since God created the universe, he is outside the universe, you can never leave the universe. It is expanding so fast, even if you could travel at the fastest possible speed, just below the speed of light, you would never approach the margin of the universe. You are stuck right here. So, your question has absolutely no possible answer.

As an aside, unless you are playing devils advocate, a worthy role, and if so, you are doing a good job, I can't help but wonder why you gravitated to something called "Christian forums". No that I mind, I have relished debating, atheists and all manner of theists for decades, I am just curious.

 

[Speedwell]

As to creation, the choice appears absolutely binary, either God, or supernatural forces were the agent in creation, or everything created itself. If there is a third option, enlighten me, please.

1. It depends on what kind of agency you are attributing to God. You seem anxious to convince us that God routinely expresses His agency on the same level of causality as the natural causes which science investigates. Why is that?
2. I don't think that anybody supposes that the universe created itself out of (ontological) nothing. However, there is a widespread belief that something material has always existed--mass/energy, for instance, or the quantum vacuum. That belief has even been held by many theists, including Christians, in the form of Creatio ex Materia.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, your question has absolutely no possible answer.

For the record, Clint, we say that one of God's natural attributes is that He is self-existent.

 

[Clint Edwards]

For the record, Clint, we say that one of God's natural attributes is that He is self-existent.

Of course. The point being the curious atheist mind has no possibility of answering his question on his atheist terms.

 

[Speedwell]

Sigh, I must have been down this road 200 times. You can never know anything about God, but what he chooses to reveal. Why, Since God created the universe, he is outside the universe, you can never leave the universe. It is expanding so fast, even if you could travel at the fastest possible speed, just below the speed of light, you would never approach the margin of the universe. You are stuck right here. So, your question has absolutely no possible answer.

As an aside, unless you are playing devils advocate, a worthy role, and if so, you are doing a good job, I can't help but wonder why you gravitated to something called "Christian forums". No that I mind, I have relished debating, atheists and all manner of theists for decades, I am just curious.

Basically because of the political angle. Too many of your coreligionists want creationism taught in place of science in the public schools, along with sectarian prayer and Bible study. Too many of you want pride of place among the denominations of Christianity and other religions in the public sphere in other ways as well.

Let me draw you a parallel: Seventh-Day Adventists don't eat meat. They think the Bible tells them not to. And you know what? Nobody else cares. Certainly there are not many forums like this where Seventh-Day Adventists argue with atheists about vegetarianism.

But what do you suppose would happen if they started agitating to have meat dishes removed from public school cafeterias, and Seventh-Day Adventist inspired prayed and Bible study installed in the curriculum? Don't you think they would start to feel some serious heat about it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course. The point being the curious atheist mind has no possibility of answering his question on his atheist terms.

The atheist mindset has a major stumbling block to finding God: the atheist mindset.

Another stumbling block is the scientific method.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Pascal's Wager isn't strictly about believing in God though. It's about a perceived reward/punishment system in the afterlife based on Christian theology.

The problem is there are far more possible belief systems than just Christianity. If it turns out that Christianity is wrong and it's really some other belief system we should be following, then using Pascal's Wager as an argument to be a Christian falls flat. You'd be screwed either way.

...has anyone here ever read Pascal's Pensees in full?

Occam's razor - Wikipedia

Given a situation where you have competing ideas to choose from, all else being equal, the idea with the fewest assumptions is the correct one.

Thus if you are suggesting that there is equal evidence for, say, life (or even the universe) creating itself versus that an external entity did it, then Occam's Razor dictates that you should chose the former. It is the idea with fewer assumptions.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Science, Ockham’s Razor & God | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now

 

[HitchSlap]

Sigh, I must have been down this road 200 times. You can never know anything about God, but what he chooses to reveal. Why, Since God created the universe, he is outside the universe, you can never leave the universe. It is expanding so fast, even if you could travel at the fastest possible speed, just below the speed of light, you would never approach the margin of the universe. You are stuck right here. So, your question has absolutely no possible answer.

As an aside, unless you are playing devils advocate, a worthy role, and if so, you are doing a good job, I can't help but wonder why you gravitated to something called "Christian forums". No that I mind, I have relished debating, atheists and all manner of theists for decades, I am just curious.

This is special pleading. You can’t have it both ways.

As for CF, I joined in ‘04, when I was a Christian.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is special pleading. You can’t have it both ways.

As for CF, I joined in ‘04, when I was a Christian.

 

[Chinchilla]

Then who created god?

That question is invalid you assume that he had to be created in first place .
It's the "when did you stop beating your wife " question , you can't answer that because of assumptions .

God is not created that's why he is God , he is outside of this physicall universe , Bible states in genesis that beginning was when God created , there was no time or matter before . If you are trying to find non-physicall being by doing physicall stuff then guess what you are right you can't , but don't take that for argument because you can't find him therefore he does not exist because it's silly .

Let's go with something easier than God . How can your physicall brain produce some non physicall though like for example justice ? Justice is not material it's truth . Same goes for moral values , how can atoms in your brain produce moral values which are not physicall enlighten me please .

 

[HitchSlap]

That question is invalid you assume that he had to be created in first place .
It's the "when did you stop beating your wife " question , you can't answer that because of assumptions .

God is not created that's why he is God , he is outside of this physicall universe , Bible states in genesis that beginning was when God created , there was no time or matter before . If you are trying to find non-physicall being by doing physicall stuff then guess what you are right you can't , but don't take that for argument because you can't find him therefore he does not exist because it's silly .

Let's go with something easier than God . How can your physicall brain produce some non physicall though like for example justice ? Justice is not material it's truth . Same goes for moral values , how can atoms in your brain produce moral values which are not physicall enlighten me please .

Sounds like you’re suggesting god only exists in your mind.

Otherwise special pleading.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And if your only objection is my (insert your personal interpretation of your favorite holy book here) says different, then you don’t get a seat at this table. Only those who add to our body of knowledge have a voice (and I don’t mean dentists who chirp about creationism here).

Sorry, but you only have two options here:

1. Accept the theory as understood by those who publish in their respective fields. Or...

2. Obtain the education necessary to contribute to a specific field.

That’s it, there’s no other option for ID/creos. Arguments from incredulity are absurd, and don’t deserve acknowledgement. And considering the abject lack of ethics from which ID was born, it’s an embarrassment for anyone who uses it.

Religion has nothing to do with my disbelief in the ToE. I held that view long before I "got religion".

 

[Dave-W]

What is the point of this? Having a (proper) conversation generally means using words as they apply to a specific context. Using incorrect contextual meanings and even worse, adopting private definitions of terms doesn't lead to meaningful discussion. And I've never understood the point of fighting over a definition, as I've seen more than a few times. Especially given either the contextual usage of a word or when there exists other words/terms that more accurately describe an idea.

I also wonder what other contexts this behavior occurs in. I imagine this must also come up with political discussions as well.

Blind post here, No time to read 8 pages of posts.

Yes, that happens in almost any topic of discussion or common communication. I even heard a few years ago NPR reporters (who are supposed to be literate) use the phrase "5 month anniversary." Anni- from anno = year. And then they started using "5 year anniversary."

Another one that gets redefined is "religion." Rather than using a dictionary definition of a belief system in the supernatural, or even the biblical usage which is taking care of widows and orphans; they come up with a meaning that it is a man made set of rules to get to God. (or some variant of that) Anything to make them "not religious."

I share your frustration.

 

[Clint Edwards]

1. It depends on what kind of agency you are attributing to God. You seem anxious to convince us that God routinely expresses His agency on the same level of causality as the natural causes which science investigates. Why is that?
2. I don't think that anybody supposes that the universe created itself out of (ontological) nothing. However, there is a widespread belief that something material has always existed--mass/energy, for instance, or the quantum vacuum. That belief has even been held by many theists, including Christians, in the form of Creatio ex Materia.

Why do extrapolate motives with an immediate YOU statement. I am not anxious nor am I trying to convince you of anything. I am , from the language of logic, positing propositions, for discussion. I couldn't care less if you accept or reject any position I hold, by stating them and discussing them I re examine my own positions, refine them, and sometimes, modify them.

Yes, there is the belief, which in some ways is related to the steady state universe, eternal existence.

The idea of the steady state universe and the closed universe have pretty much gone by the boards.

The idea of eternal mass/energy certainly is interesting, but apparently not provable.

Of course anyone is welcome to believe what they choose. There are old earth creationists, and new earth creationists, evolutionists who believe God created the precursor organism, atheists who believe random chemicals from rocks and the atmosphere and rain created life. It's all good.

I simply am presenting my idea's for consideration, period.

If this were a specific theological discussion with someone TRULY interested in exploring Christianity, it would be different.