Trending away creationism, 7 concluding remarks

[Kuznetzova]

Trending away creationism, 7 concluding remarks



The sun formed naturally. Stars form naturally. The origins of the elements were fusion reactions in dying stars. The solar system is a natural occurrence and so are its planets. The Earth is a rocky inner planet, and it is small and near the sun, just like it should be, if it originated from a primordial accretion disk. Nothing in biology makes sense without the theory of natural selection, and everything in biology falls together neatly with the theory at hand. The theory was introduced by Charles Darwin in a book from 1856. He proposed the theory to address a problem that plagued taxonomy. In 150 years, evidence accumulated has not brought the theory under increased scrutiny, but has supported and reinforced it. Ice cores, geology, rock layers, the fossil record, climatology, oceanography, and the biochemistry of DNA -- all attest support.

This author does not assert the non-existence of a deity. I only attest that as evidence and data from the natural world is accumulated, the case to be made for acts of supernatural creation become smaller and more tenuous. Similarly, cases to be made for design by a Designer are becoming ever more threadbare. This six-part series of articles act to assert a historical trend, which cannot be denied by any literate person. Accumulating data measured from experiments do not lend support to creationist accounts of origins.

The author does not assert absolute knowledge. The author does not assert a factual absence of divine interference in the universe and its development. However, if the cause for the natural world is a Creator, then that Creator has gone through extraordinary lengths to make it appear that He was guessing, rather than outright designing things. The reader is reminded that the number of stars in the sky exceeds the number of grains of sand on all beaches on earth.

Topics regarding the origin of physical laws, origins of energy, causes of the Big Bang, origins of space itself, and the like. (or worse: Why are things the way they are?) These thorny, elaborate topics exceed the scope of this work presented herein. I would suggest that those topics at their very strongest and best presentation, lend support only to a deistic God, in a type of spiritual philosophy now referred to as a Deism.

But once we allow the discussion to "float" itself into varieties of deistic definitions, we can continue to float in any direction our whimsy carries us. Once the intellectual boat has been unanchored from its Creationist Port, it will wander endlessly in a sea of philosophy, where everything is allowed. In that directionless sea of ideas, we must equally address, pantheism, panpsychism, and panentheism on equal footing with each other. Once deism is allowed to be talked about, then so are all the others, including atheism. It should be obvious why that digression was not elaborated on here. This six part series concentrates on creationism exclusively, not on the varieties of agnosticism. For the sake of clarity of mind and for the sake of our collective sanity : we must always differentiate particular claims of creation of physical objects in the world against discussions of the "nature of God". They are not the same topic. They are different claims separated into different spheres of discourse.

If we are in possession of evidence which falsifies a specific claim of creationism, we should enact that falsification, as well as remind everyone present that no claims to absolute knowledge were utilized. If we have in our possession a theory which is corroborated across multiple scientific disciplines, we should be vigilant in demanding an explanation for such suspicious, improbable coincidences. In every case, the scientific theory elegantly explains these coincidences. There may be political, social, or even emotional reasons for dancing down a pathological rabbit hole of doubt and re-doubt in evidence, but there are no rational reasons for doing so.

Young atheists, around the age of 19, will often clumsily rely on arguments that depend on absolute knowledge. They are newcomers to the debate and they are full of piss and vinegar. They may also refer to things in the world which science has no evidence for, then begin referring to them as if they were facts. While such sophomoric tactics produce a superficial air of confidence, they only work to undermine the atheist in the long term. A clever evangelical will eventually troll them into realizing there are certain things which they cannot prove. As this person grows older the shock from their lack of knowledge could be a small opening to bring them back under the yoke of supernatural thinking. This author would prefer that young atheists learn the above techniques, not to be combative or militant, but to keep the debate clear and sane, and keep their opponents honest.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



















.......................................................................................













.

[Bernard]

There is a major flaw in your technique in that it only applies as rational application, which is not a flaw scientifically at all but is seriously so philosophically. Few seem to get it that philosophy belongs to much more than rational pursuit. You categorise into oblivion a question which has far more pertinence to most than physical explanations of existence can ever have: the nature of God/energy/life-force/being or whatever you wish to call it. You reject what is the basic question that provides the fuel of any philosophical endeavour.

[Kuznetzova]

You categorise into oblivion a question which has far more pertinence to most than physical explanations of existence can ever have: the nature of God/energy/life-force/being or whatever you wish to call it

If a person rejects one, or several claims of divine creation, he need not jump into a boiling cauldron of atheism. It is the method of trolls and evangelicals to blur these topics, not for clarity's sake, but in order to hoodwink their opponents. These are not tactics of a person who remains honest, but the tactics of a person who is trying to dominate and ultimately control the conversation.

For the sake of clarity of mind and for the sake of our collective sanity : we must always differentiate particular claims of creation of physical objects in the world against discussions of the "nature of God". They are not the same topic. They are different claims separated into different spheres of discourse. Pantheism, panentheism, panpsychism, the idea that the universe is a dream in the mind of the Brahman, et cetera. These are not oblivious topics. They are fine topics for philosophy. They are not investigated in this series. That is not to say they are categorized into oblivion.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



















........................................














.

[tillingborn]

This author does not assert the non-existence of a deity. I only attest that as evidence and data from the natural world is accumulated, the case to be made for acts of supernatural creation become smaller and more tenuous.

Since the time of Thales the changing scientific back drop has not made the slightest dent in believers assertions that all we are doing is discovering how some god or other did it. Some physical claims made by the religious have been shown to be false, but anyone determined to believe in a god soon gets over it.

It may be that one day we have such a comprehensive understanding of science that there remain phenomena which we can only attribute to supernatural beings mucking about, thereby proving that at least one god exists. Such a discovery is not imminent. On the other hand proving that gods, as they are typically held to be, don't exist is a waste of time.

[Bernard]

For the sake of clarity of mind and for the sake of our collective sanity : we must always differentiate particular claims of creation of physical objects in the world against discussions of the "nature of God". They are not the same topic. They are different claims separated into different spheres of discourse. Pantheism, panentheism, panpsychism, the idea that the universe is a dream in the mind of the Brahman, et cetera. These are not oblivious topics. They are fine topics for philosophy. They are not investigated in this series. That is not to say they are categorized into oblivion.

This doesn't bring real clarity of mind, only comfort of mind in that we are able to catagorize deity - even if the catagory label is "Unable Yet to Deal With". By rejecting any enquiry into the nature of God you leave yourself with only two stances: the anti-deist creationist stance AND the deist creationist stance, which you give support to through your attention to it - all be it negative attention. The God of the creationists is a static phenomenon. Do you you know where that phenomenon comes from? From the millenia old human insistence to focus perceptually on physical phenomena to the exclusion to nearly all else. God is merely the total projection of this focus. Furthermore it is projection that accords only with male perceptual rules: the big mirror mirror in the sky that no one recognizes anymore as being just a mirror, nor that we put it there!


True God is flux, which is reflected in physical phenomenon - itself a flux state; its only our perception that is fixed, not matter. God is in evolution not as a an artisan is in his handiwork, but AS evolution.It is not outside of or able to be differentiated from it. You have set up a false duality by separating the nature of God from the nature of physics. .

[SpheresOfBalance]

<snip>...I only attest that as evidence and data from the natural world is accumulated, the case to be made for acts of supernatural creation become smaller and more tenuous...<snip>

Yes, but only if you assume that a creator didn't cause it to unfold as it has. I believe that one has to take into consideration, relativity of both size and time, to understand that from a creator of this universe's perspective, our timeline, sequence of cause and effect, looks oh so differently. I see that your assertions are subservient to the doctrines of the traditional view of creationism, assuming they are correct in their view, while condemning that very view, and without consideration of other possibilities, potentially contained within a creative mind, of such a large scale, relative to us, of course.

Who's to say they have their own story correct? How many years ago was that? What was man like then? What was his mental capacities then? Did he even know why his own arm was rotting off, right before his very eyes?

The facts of science do not necessarily negate the potential of a creator, rather they might just help clear up the story to reveal the actual course of created events, or not!!

Only time shall tell, whether or not our universe was "created" by an intellect or by chaotic chance from nothingness.

[Kuznetzova]

Yes, but only if you assume that a creator didn't cause it to unfold as it has. I believe that one has to take into consideration, relativity of both size and time, to understand that from a creator of this universe's perspective, our timeline, sequence of cause and effect, looks oh so differently.

I don't see why anyone has to "take this into consideration." I don't see what about this, we must "understand".
You say you "believe" this. Okay, so what?

I see that your assertions are subservient to the doctrines of the traditional view of creationism, assuming they are correct in their view, while condemning that very view, and without consideration of other possibilities, potentially contained within a creative mind, of such a large scale, relative to us, of course.

I carefully explained why consideration of other possibilities were not covered in the series. To rope them in as "other possibilities" is you performing exactly the conflation-trick used by evangelicals and trolls. "I think they are the same subject in my mind, so I assert so." Except they are not.

The facts of science do not necessarily negate the potential of a creator, rather they might just help clear up the story to reveal the actual course of created events, or not!!

I don't deny that there is a source of things, or that we could use "created events" in this abstract sense. There is room for cosmogenesis here. I would say it is rational to conclude there is a creative power at work. To say anything about it's nature (such as asserting that it has a mind) is really a philosophical topic. Normally a defense would be panpsychism, panexperientialism, et cetera.

Only time shall tell, whether or not our universe was "created" by an intellect or by chaotic chance from nothingness.

When you put the word "created" in scare-quotes, I know you are trying to make a distinction. Could you be more explicit about what those scare-quotes are marking off?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yes, but only if you assume that a creator didn't cause it to unfold as it has. I believe that one has to take into consideration, relativity of both size and time, to understand that from a creator of this universe's perspective, our timeline, sequence of cause and effect, looks oh so differently.

I don't see why anyone has to "take this into consideration." I don't see what about this, we must "understand".
You say you "believe" this. Okay, so what?
Sorry, I can see why you'd be confused, as I left off part that I believed was self evident, "One has to, if they be intelligent..."
...and don't want to be trapped by archaic dogmas, as by considering them verbatim, one can often unwittingly/or not, pay the absurd, credence.

I see that your assertions are subservient to the doctrines of the traditional view of creationism, assuming they are correct in their view, while condemning that very view, and without consideration of other possibilities, potentially contained within a creative mind, of such a large scale, relative to us, of course.

I carefully explained why consideration of other possibilities were not covered in the series. To rope them in as "other possibilities" is you performing exactly the conflation-trick used by evangelicals and trolls. "I think they are the same subject in my mind, so I assert so." Except they are not.
You sound like someone that can't think for themselves. And it's pretty unfair of you to try and tie peoples hands, by saying: 'you can only argue with me the way I say you can.' I'll 'never' listen to the likes of that kind of crap. That's how people were dominated by religion in the first place.

The facts of science do not necessarily negate the potential of a creator, rather they might just help clear up the story to reveal the actual course of created events, or not!!

I don't deny that there is a source of things, or that we could use "created events" in this abstract sense. There is room for cosmogenesis here. I would say it is rational to conclude there is a creative power at work. To say anything about it's nature (such as asserting that it has a mind) is really a philosophical topic. Normally a defense would be panpsychism, panexperientialism, et cetera.
I obviously agree, but I say that it's 50/50 intelligence/non-intelligence, which is why I'm an Agnostic.

Only time shall tell, whether or not our universe was "created" by an intellect or by chaotic chance from nothingness.

When you put the word "created" in scare-quotes, I know you are trying to make a distinction. Could you be more explicit about what those scare-quotes are marking off?
All I meant is that is was 'created,' either way you go, either intelligently or not.

[Wootah]

Trending away creationism, 7 concluding remarks



The sun formed naturally. Stars form naturally. The origins of the elements were fusion reactions in dying stars. The solar system is a natural occurrence and so are its planets. The Earth is a rocky inner planet, and it is small and near the sun, just like it should be, if it originated from a primordial accretion disk. Nothing in biology makes sense without the theory of natural selection, and everything in biology falls together neatly with the theory at hand. The theory was introduced by Charles Darwin in a book from 1856. He proposed the theory to address a problem that plagued taxonomy. In 150 years, evidence accumulated has not brought the theory under increased scrutiny, but has supported and reinforced it. Ice cores, geology, rock layers, the fossil record, climatology, oceanography, and the biochemistry of DNA -- all attest support.

This author does not assert the non-existence of a deity. I only attest that as evidence and data from the natural world is accumulated, the case to be made for acts of supernatural creation become smaller and more tenuous. Similarly, cases to be made for design by a Designer are becoming ever more threadbare. This six-part series of articles act to assert a historical trend, which cannot be denied by any literate person. Accumulating data measured from experiments do not lend support to creationist accounts of origins.

The author does not assert absolute knowledge. The author does not assert a factual absence of divine interference in the universe and its development. However, if the cause for the natural world is a Creator, then that Creator has gone through extraordinary lengths to make it appear that He was guessing, rather than outright designing things. The reader is reminded that the number of stars in the sky exceeds the number of grains of sand on all beaches on earth.

Topics regarding the origin of physical laws, origins of energy, causes of the Big Bang, origins of space itself, and the like. (or worse: Why are things the way they are?) These thorny, elaborate topics exceed the scope of this work presented herein. I would suggest that those topics at their very strongest and best presentation, lend support only to a deistic God, in a type of spiritual philosophy now referred to as a Deism.

But once we allow the discussion to "float" itself into varieties of deistic definitions, we can continue to float in any direction our whimsy carries us. Once the intellectual boat has been unanchored from its Creationist Port, it will wander endlessly in a sea of philosophy, where everything is allowed. In that directionless sea of ideas, we must equally address, pantheism, panpsychism, and panentheism on equal footing with each other. Once deism is allowed to be talked about, then so are all the others, including atheism. It should be obvious why that digression was not elaborated on here. This six part series concentrates on creationism exclusively, not on the varieties of agnosticism. For the sake of clarity of mind and for the sake of our collective sanity : we must always differentiate particular claims of creation of physical objects in the world against discussions of the "nature of God". They are not the same topic. They are different claims separated into different spheres of discourse.

If we are in possession of evidence which falsifies a specific claim of creationism, we should enact that falsification, as well as remind everyone present that no claims to absolute knowledge were utilized. If we have in our possession a theory which is corroborated across multiple scientific disciplines, we should be vigilant in demanding an explanation for such suspicious, improbable coincidences. In every case, the scientific theory elegantly explains these coincidences. There may be political, social, or even emotional reasons for dancing down a pathological rabbit hole of doubt and re-doubt in evidence, but there are no rational reasons for doing so.

Young atheists, around the age of 19, will often clumsily rely on arguments that depend on absolute knowledge. They are newcomers to the debate and they are full of piss and vinegar. They may also refer to things in the world which science has no evidence for, then begin referring to them as if they were facts. While such sophomoric tactics produce a superficial air of confidence, they only work to undermine the atheist in the long term. A clever evangelical will eventually troll them into realizing there are certain things which they cannot prove. As this person grows older the shock from their lack of knowledge could be a small opening to bring them back under the yoke of supernatural thinking. This author would prefer that young atheists learn the above techniques, not to be combative or militant, but to keep the debate clear and sane, and keep their opponents honest.

Amen?