What makes Creationism so hard to believe in, and evolution so easy?

[Biochemist]

...And I am not attached to any belief. ...

I think, objectively, that this statement is delusional, LG.

[paultrr]

"The Letter to the Hebrews," Chapter 9, Verse 1 reads:

 

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the "conviction" of things not seen."

 

That passage states the how and what of faith. "Conviction" here means more than belief. It means trust, so this verse is saying, in part, that faith is trust in things unknown through sense-perception. That is the what of faith. But let's look at the type of belief you have. You admit that science does not at the present have an answer to everything. On this we both agree. Simply put we cannot predict everything exactly. That translates to somethings being beyond pure reason's ability to fully understand weither one likes it or not. We could define such as being somewhat unseen when it comes to absolute determinism since we do not have any system at present that can absolutely predict everything. Without the ability to predict everything one can say we cannot see, know, or understand everything at present with our minds which interpret the information our sences receive. As such you still claim with convection that everything is deterministic. I'd say there is a hope there since you have no absolute proof of the other. I'd call it a hope simply because without absolute evidence it certainly is a trust based upon something not fully and exactly proven out which springs from a trust itself that since everything else seems to fit that world model of your's everything else should. If it's not a trust(faith), I'd at best call that arrogant presumption from one who claims that only direct evidence can be used to judge everything. You yourself mentioned that our ability to predict everything isn't there so I might ask you: how can one learn anything from such a world view which by definition is an as yet fully demonstrated(proven case)?

 

Conciousness is not a physical object but an emergent quality that first has its origins at the quantum level where chaos and randomness cause an effect. From there up the whole biochemical system does become more and more deterministic. But its origin point, since all of biochemistry has its roots in the quantum world, starts in an area that absolute determinism simply does not apply to.

 

You would tend towards the discription of the origin of consciousness as a reaction to external stimuli wherein what we call consciousness is the result of such. In each case you'd find totally predictable causes for that external stimuli. That's generally labeled physical reductionism which is basically reducing a complex phenomenon into simpler components which is something all of science tends to do. But not everyone agrees out there on the reductionism you apply or the interpretation of such. Its not actually that I disagree that everything has a cause. I actually do agree everything does. But I do disagree that we know enough at present to eliminate the idea that we might have the ability to make a decision on our own in spite of all those causes and effects. I'd also suggest I'm in strong company there which includes some of the better minds out there. They certainly follow reductionism. Yet, they do not come to the same strong claims that you do. In short, you're world view in its entire scope is not always the world view that they present and support. Somebody is wrong and I have my doub't its the majority out there Linda. In fact, I suspect the real case probably is more different than we even expect with the limited knowledge we have at the present. At that point I think the general concensus holding to cause and effect being real and absolute determinism not being the case is more sound which tends to be the majority view expressed by major players in the field of physics to varying degrees.

[paultrr]

On consciousness itself, if everything boils down eventually to exactly predictable things, which predictable rather implies logical then why is the human race so prone to being illogical? Don't even try to say we are logical. We're the only known species in this universe that knows full well that atomic war is a loosers game. Yet, we've come damn close a few times to playing that game. We know full well that pollution hurts the planet we live in. But we keep on polluting it anyway. We know full well a lot of things that logic shows us and we keep on doing the opposite of what logic would suggest. This race is not logical. Yet, you would claim that logical reductionism is totally behind everything to do with what we call consciousness. If it is then I would suggest that we are predetermined to not survive as a species since all of the above does have impact on our potential to survive. Yet, somehow we have managed to survive as a species so far.

 

I would go further to suggest if everything about consciousness can be explained by reductionism then consciousness is simply an illusion brought about by external stimulus. If its an illusion or simply some made up by-product then everything developed when it comes to our constructs via our minds are a by-product of an illusion themselves. One reason I reject you're version of reductionism is it attacks the very basis of individuality, self worth, self knowledge since all of those depend upon the existance of a real conscious independent entity capable of thinking, creating, etc on their own.

 

I would not go as far as to say it removes all the mystery in such since even you admit we cannot fully predict and explain everything. But it certainly tends to paint a picture where I, we, the individuals are simply nothing more than a biomechanical machine weither that's the picture you want to paint or not. A machine has never existed that has feeling or can leap beyond logic, which is what you see faith as, and imagine a life after death. A machine is either on or off with no life of its own choice. A machine requires a human to program it and machines where created by the mind of man. They did not evolve on their own. We brought about the evolution of machines from simple gears to modern robots. We evolved through natural process that to my knowledge was not helped along by any outside programmer. We are different than some machine even if we have aspects in common and our bodies do reduce down to biomechanical processes. There is something in humans that sets them to even asking all these questions in the first place. That something can ask the question of who am I and know it does exist even if the reason it knows such stems from its sences. That something can leap beyond what we can see, hear, feel, and taste and think there is something beyond itself. Even if that leap is false and unfounded its still something that sets everyone of us humans apart from a machine.

 

As such I find wonder at the variety man's mind can conceive of and do not see us as just the sum of our parts alone.

[paultrr]

I mentioned before in another thread that randomness and cahos can be a cause. Randomness does not imply that it, itself, has no cause. Every random aspect of nature has a cause itself. Nothing in quantum theory denies that. What it does do is set limits on how far things can be considered as fully predictable.

[niviene]

You are like the person who looks all over for their glasses, when all the time they are on your head.

 

I consider myself to be the person who questions whether or not I actually need the glasses to begin with. ;)

[TeleMad]

Suffice it to say that I think God's priorities are a little bit different than ours, so He weights "bad" defferently.

 

No, He doesn't know the difference between good and bad. God gave Satan the thumbs up to kill Job's family, and then also to torture Job with painful sores from head to toe. That's bad. Period.

 

"God is evil this I know, for the Bible tells me so..."

[TeleMad]

Creationism is a theistic point which does make a claim on the natural world, and thus can come into conflict with the scientific method. Many theistic points of view make no such claims.

 

In other words, Creationism sucks and many other theistic points of view are vacuous.

[BEAKER]

"God is evil this I know, for the Bible tells me so...In other words, Creationism sucks and many other theistic points of view are vacuous."

I think someone just got up on the wrong side of bed this morning.;)

[BEAKER]

I consider myself to be the person who questions whether or not I actually need the glasses to begin with. ;)

May your eyes see the Glory of the comming of the Lord, naturally, clearly and without the aid of artificial corrective lenses!;)

[IMAMONKEY!]

ok... thats a wee bit off topic... anyway... i think ive posted in this thread before but im not sure...

 

i think the reason creationism is hard to believe in is because it defies laws of the universe that we thought cant be broken, while evolutionism fits so nicely in those laws. Now those laws may change with the next sophistication phase (see my thread in philosophy and humanity titled "my theory on human understanding" for reference to what im talking about) BUt until those laws change because of some major future event in human history, creationism will always be hard to believe in because of the magic, so to speak, involved. I am not denouncing creationism, i am just giving examples as to why creationism may be hard for some people to believe in.

 

oooooooooooo... antidisestablishmentarianism!

my second favorite word in the dictionary!

IMAMONKEY!

 

the first is a word i picked up in 4th grade although im notsure if this is spelled correctly or is an archaic term: Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis :eek:

45 letters! man i forgot how long it was! :xx:

man im scared! :eek: better have a drink to cool my nerves! :friday: lol

[lindagarrette]

I mentioned before in another thread that randomness and cahos can be a cause. Randomness does not imply that it, itself, has no cause. Every random aspect of nature has a cause itself. Nothing in quantum theory denies that. What it does do is set limits on how far things can be considered as fully predictable.

Quantum theory uses probability to determine the effects of subatomic particle interactions. It has nothing to do with predictability of events in nature. The only limit on predictability is lack of knowledge of all the variables.

 

Nothing in nature is random. Random means uncaused.

[Biochemist]

No, He doesn't know the difference between good and bad.

Hmmm. For a guy that contends God may not exist, it is odd that you know what He thinks.

[Biochemist]

"The Letter to the Hebrews," Chapter 9, Verse 1 reads:

 

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the "conviction" of things not seen."

Good post, Paultrr, but this is Hebrews 11:1.

 

I don't mean to be picky. Apologies if I sound that way.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: No, He doesn't know the difference between good and bad.

 

Biochemist: Hmmm. For a guy that contends God may not exist, it is odd that you know what He thinks.

 

No it's not.

 

I also contend that Santa Claus doesn't exist (with your fanciful imagination and unscientific approach to reality, you probably believe otherwise) yet because of the "Good Book" - The Night Before Christmas - I can tell you what this putative Santa Clause supposedly did and said.

 

Now, I contend that God doesn't exist (with your fanciful imagination and unscientific approach to reality, you probably believe otherwise) yet because of the "Good Book" - the Bible - I can tell you what this putative God supposedly did and said.

 

You know, like give the thumbs up for Satan to slaughter Job's family, and then to also give the thumbs up on Satan's torturing of Job.

 

Everybody sing along...

 

"God is evil this I know

for the Bible tells me so."

[Biochemist]

...One reason I reject you're version of reductionism is it attacks the very basis of individuality, self worth, self knowledge since all of those depend upon the existance of a real conscious independent entity ...There is something in humans that sets them to even asking all these questions in the first place. That something can ask the question of who am I and know it does exist even if the reason it knows such stems from its sences....

Apologies if my excerpts misrepresent your points. Paultrr. I agree with this, and it is an important element in my worldview. I have thought for quite some time that our tendency for introspection is among the more salient human characteristics. I recall the verse in Eccleiastes

He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end

I am not certain what this verse means, but it suggests that God instilled this tendency to ask questions and ponder the future, and further suggests that the job will never be completed. Seems experientially true.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: You know, like [God's giving] the thumbs up for Satan to slaughter Job's family, and then to also give the thumbs up on Satan's torturing of Job.

 

Everybody sing along...

 

"God is evil this I know

for the Bible tells me so."

 

You'll never guess what just happened.

 

I was sitting here and a mass murderer came in and said, "You know, I don't think your brother really loves you, even though he says he does".

 

I used the Bible as a guide for how to live my life and so naturally said, "Tell you what. Go burn my brother's house down and slaughter his whole family. Make sure to tell him I was the one who had you do these things. Then we'll see if he still loves me".

 

Now for some odd reason, after he had done that, the police wanted to arrest me. But what I did was completely righteous since it direclty immitated God's own actions.

 

 

 

PS: For the not so bright, the above did not actually happen. It's just meant to show how evil God is, if we accept what the Bible tells us.

[Biochemist]

You know, like give the thumbs up for Satan to slaughter Job's family, and then to also give the thumbs up on Satan's torturing of Job.

TM- You use this reference quite a bit, and all it shows is you don't know a lot about the book of Job. I am happy to discuss this with you off-line (since it is off topic). But you have not responded in the past to private comunication, I suspect you will not this time either.

 

Please try to maintain civility, TM.