Creationism Logical or Illogical?

[MagnetMan]

Hmmm... You must be one good businessman... I usually expect a bit more middle ground in a compromise... :hihi:

 

 

I don't agree that the number of people feeling ID is the root of all things to be that high of a percentage.

 

Actually .1% is very generous. I take it (since you have not demurred) that you have accepted the rough time zones that it took human consciousness to evolve to this point in time - and that scientific argument only began properly with Aristotle. (His master, Plato believed in Go(o)d and so did all the other masters previous,) So 100 generations of empirical argument subtracted from 100.000, = .01% QED

You got the better end of the deal.

But thats Okay. You can buy me a beer, :hihi:

[CraigD]

I don’t believe the claim

In all that time, beginning with Stone Age animism, we have agreed 100% that ID is the cause of all things

or even the reduced claim of 99.9%, is supported by evidence.

 

A number of polls over several decades reveal that, world-wide, about 80% of the population agrees with the statement “God exists”. This number is significantly higher in the US, where polls consistently show 90% agreement. More recent polls show that about 66% of the US population agrees with the statement “man was created by an intelligent designer”. Polls in other countries were typically lower – for example, only about 38% of the German population agrees with the statement.

 

Despite claims based on anecdotes by both religionist and secularists, there appears to have been no significant change in the fraction of people agreeing or disagreeing with the statement “God exists” in the roughly 75 years that well-controlled statistical data has been gathered. There are anecdotes indicating that substantial numbers of people were atheists in nearly every period of history.

 

It’s also important to note that, when considering prehistoric human population sizes, that these populations were very small. Estimates of the total number of human beings (H.Sapiens) who have ever lived range from 60 to 120 billion, or 10 to 20 times the number alive now. So, even if belief in God and an intelligent creator of man and the universe was dramatically different in earlier times, the number of human beings who have ever agreed or disagreed with a particular claim cannot overwhelm the number of human beings currently alive who agree or disagree.

 

Without detailed statistical analysis, a precise estimation of the percentage of people who have ever lived can’t be made. A reasonable guess, based on readily obtainable data, is that it is between 40 and 80%.

[InfiniteNow]

I'd go on to say too that if you are truly looking back into evolutionary history (Aristotle and Plato being like an hour ago relative to this scale) that the need for survival was of much greater concern than some need to understand a more omnipotent power. When you are starving and looking for food there's not a lot of energy spent contemplating a creator. Further, anecdotal evidence is often misleading and intentionally presented to draw a specific picture.

 

I'm 99.9% sure I'm right... but the percentage with which you agree with me might be a tad lower. :confused:

[ughaibu]

I've been thinking about this on account of my remark about immutability of creation myths. It seems that Polynesia was settled between 1500-1000 BC, yet there is a body of consistent Polynesian creation myths. The two main possibilities would seem to be: 1) until written, creation myths are mutable 2) creation myths are a recent development. Neither of these possibilities suggest to me that creation myths should be considered to describe a reality. I think the present intelligent design is perhaps a more appropriate presentation of the myth, for christians in technological societies, than is the biblical version. However, this leaves believers with a mutable/immutable paradox.

Here's a collection of a few creation myths: http://www.unc.edu/~akakalio/anth43/origins.html

[MagnetMan]

I'd go on to say too that if you are truly looking back into evolutionary history (Aristotle and Plato being like an hour ago relative to this scale) that the need for survival was of much greater concern than some need to understand a more omnipotent power. When you are starving and looking for food there's not a lot of energy spent contemplating a creator. Further, anecdotal evidence is often misleading and intentionally presented to draw a specific picture.

 

I'm 99.9% sure I'm right... but the percentage with which you agree with me might be a tad lower. :secret:

 

Your idea of our Stone Age and Bronze Age prehsitoric cultures needs serious revision. (No books to refer to. You are 0% right)

 

I have the advantage of having spent some time (40 years ago) with a family group of San Bushmen in the Central Kalahari desert. They survived purely via hunting and gathering. At that time the group I was with was still uncontaminated by Bantu inroads. I therefore had the unique opportunity of seeing human culture as it had to have been throughout the Stone Age. Throughout my study I found it impossible to seperate the hunting instincts of those tiny forebeares of the human race, from their superstitious feelings of natural trespass. They were pure animists and believed implicitly that Mother Nature was as conscious as they were. Upon a rare big kill (gemsbok) the day to day needs of survival were suspended while they feasted on the wealth of meat. (A ninety pound hunter could put away several pounds of meat in one meal - and store the fat in the buttucks) During the feast they would don the horns of the fallen animal, smoke dagaa (cannibis) dance for hours, chanting spiritual prophecies and finally fall into hallucinogenic trances.

 

I also spent time with Bantu tribesmen - both the Pondo and the Zulu. Each soul in their societies believed implicity in shaman mediumship.

 

The separation between Sceince and religion is very recent - just a blip away from our universal belief in ID.

 

Your calculations are based on numbers. I based mine on generations of belief. Ie quality and sheer length of belief - and not the brief interlude of modern quantities.

[Pyrotex]

I don’t believe even the reduced claim of 99.9%...A reasonable guess, based on readily obtainable data, is that it is between 40 and 80%.

Christian Science Monitor had an article several years ago on such a survey. It found that the probability of believing in a god, and even more so, the probability of believing that the Universe was "created" by a god, had an inverse correlation with education. For high school grads and dropouts, belief ran very high, in the 90's%. For PhDs, especially in any of the sciences, it ran very low, in the 20's% and 30's%.

 

Apparently, the ability to understand science and the natural world correlates inversely to tightly held creation-beliefs. It may not be an accident that questor often speaks of "being unable to understand" how a universe could "be" without a creator. The underlying problem here may be just a failure to understand.

[Eclogite]

The underlying problem here may be just a failure to understand.

At the risk of moving slightly off topic, I believe there is an important point here. Rather than a failure to understand, I think controversies often arise because of an unwillingness to accept.

 

I understand very little science. This is for two main reasons: complexity and volume. I have good reason to believe, however, that I could understand most science. This is based upon sucess in understanding any aspect of science I have made an effort to get to solid grips with.

 

Let me expand on this: when I say understand, I mean to the point where I could explain a hypothesis to others, recognise when it was being misapplied, and appreciate, rapidly, the bearing that new discoveries might have upon it.

 

The rest of science that I have any knowledge of I accept the conclusions of others in relation to it. I do this because I have confidence in the scientific method. I recognise that the conclusions are always provisional, always open to change when new evidence or new interpretation arises. If I have reservations, based on a gut feel, I either set them aside, or seek to gain a proper understanding of the area.

 

It is in this regard that the difficulties arise: some individuals are unwilling to accept the conclusions of others, because they run counter to their gut feel, yet they make no move to gain the understanding.

 

I remain puzzled, then, by those who are not prepared to accept the provisional conclusions of those who do understand, yet are not willing to put in the effort to gain such understanding for themselves. Such behaviour seems to me unproductive, self deluding, and somewhat a waste of a brain.

[Pyrotex]

At the risk of moving slightly off topic, I believe there is an important point here. Rather than a failure to understand, I think controversies often arise because of an unwillingness to accept....Such behaviour seems to me unproductive, self deluding, and somewhat a waste of a brain.

Excellent point, rationally thought out, and well expressed.

[InfiniteNow]

Your idea of our Stone Age and Bronze Age prehsitoric cultures needs serious revision. (No books to refer to. You are 0% right)

Thanks, I'll take that under consideration. Who said anything of a Stone or a Bronze age, or their cultures? Are you sure you are responding to my post? Doesn't appear that you are.

[questor]

I'm happy that some of you are still contributing to this thread in your own way. it is interesting to note that the discussions have seguewayed into discussions of God which i said in the initial post..was Not the subject of this thread. it must be that the concept of CREATOR ( 14 billion years old)

cannot be separated from the concept of God (maybe 5000 years old) in your minds. TILT:shrug:

this lack of understanding prevents an intelligent discussion of the possibility of intelligent creation.

[ughaibu]

Questor: Creation is as much a human concept as is god.

[questor]

there are many concepts of God on the planet, that is what leads to confusion. and they are all based upon man's imagination.

there can only be one creator (or maybe a group) and this creator does not need man's imagination to exist.

can you not grasp the difference?

[Eclogite]

there are many concepts of God on the planet, that is what leads to confusion. and they are all based upon man's imagination.

there can only be one creator (or maybe a group) and this creator does not need man's imagination to exist.

can you not grasp the difference?

1. We do not know if the Universe arose by chance or a deliberate act of creation.

2. If it arose by a deliberate act of creation, then, conventionally, we call the creator God.

3. Through history, and likely pre-history, mankind has attempted to define this hypothetical creator.

4. We do not know if any of mankind's efforts at defining this creator have been successful or not.

5. Your position assumes that they have been unsuccesful, and you choose to call the unsuccessful definitions God. The undefined creator, you wish to call The Creator.

6. In view of Point 4 above, Point 5 is superflous. There is no obvious merit in distinguishing between a God who is undefined (who you would call Creator) or a God who is defined, whom others would call God, or Yaweh, or Allah, etc

 

It is therefore perfectly practical to discuss the possibility of Intelligent Desgin of the Universe, if you will just forego this unnecessary stipulation that we cannot call the designer God. Frankly, any entity who can design and construct this Universe is entitled to be called God, for they clearly are such. What don't you grasp about that?

[ughaibu]

Questor: Anything that exists does so despite human imagination, except for purely imaginary concepts. If there is a god, then there's a god, imagination and belief are irrelevant to that fact. Likewise, if creation occured by intelligent design, it did so regardless of human belief or imagination. You appear to be claiming that one option is more likely than the other, whereas the reality is that both are purely concepts of the human mind and neither has any established truth value.

[questor]

Eclogite, you have a few things correct, but you are an egocentric person, that is, you relate things solely to yourself. let me discuss your points one by

one:

'' 1. We do not know if the Universe arose by chance or a deliberate act of creation.''

this is a correct statement

'' 2. If it arose by a deliberate act of creation, then, conventionally, we call the creator God.''

this is a non-specific statement. who calls the creator God? all the people of the world? what is your description of this God? where does this God reside?

is your God the same as everyone else's God? are all the earth's Gods the same? with the same characteristics?

'' 3. Through history, and likely pre-history, mankind has attempted to define this hypothetical creator.

4. We do not know if any of mankind's efforts at defining this creator have been successful or not.''

#3 and 4 have nothing to do with the question of whether or not the universe was created

''5. Your position assumes that they have been unsuccesful, and you choose to call the unsuccessful definitions God. The undefined creator, you wish to call The Creator.''

this makes no sense at all since #4 and 5 have no pertinence.

''6. In view of Point 4 above, Point 5 is superflous. There is no obvious merit in distinguishing between a God who is undefined (who you would call Creator) or a God who is defined, whom others would call God, or Yaweh, or Allah, etc''

here is where your mind totally defaults to a God based argument, when the

question is: was the universe created or did it occur without a creator?

''It is therefore perfectly practical to discuss the possibility of Intelligent Desgin of the Universe, if you will just forego this unnecessary stipulation that we cannot call the designer God. Frankly, any entity who can design and construct this Universe is entitled to be called God, for they clearly are such. What don't you grasp about that?''

you could call the creator anything you wish,but you insist upon calling it God and imbuing it with the preconceived notions of man's perceptions of their God ( even though you can't describe God).

getting one out of six calls for more thought, wouldn't you say?

[questor]

UGH, you said:

''If there is a god, then there's a god, imagination and belief are irrelevant to that fact. Likewise, if creation occured by intelligent design, it did so regardless of human belief or imagination.''

i agree with this statement. you then muddy the water with other assumptions that i did not say .

if you read the premise of the thread, i state my reasons for believing the universe was created by intelligent design. i then challenged others who may not believe this to state the reasons for their opinion. this is as simple as i can say it.

i think the average 14 year old could understand this statement, i find it puzzling older people cannot. to answer the question one does not have to use theological discussion.

[Eclogite]

Eclogite, you have a few things correct, but you are an egocentric person, that is, you relate things solely to yourself.

I think you are misreading my post. That is my responsibility for failing to be sufficiently clear.

Eclogite 2. If it arose by a deliberate act of creation, then, conventionally, we call the creator God.''

questor this is a non-specific statement. who calls the creator God? all the people of the world? what is your description of this God? where does this God reside?

The 'we' is, as you correctly deduce, then appear to ignore, the people of the world. Ask a million people, or one hundred million people, from diverse backgrounds, cultures, religious beliefs, if an entity created the world what do you call this entity? The majority will declare that this entity is called 'God'. Do you have some evidence that this is not the case?

Your second two questions here are irrelevant to this point. I am not discussing, at this point what this entity is like, or where it exists.

My statement is specific, apart from the use of the generic 'we', which I concede could have been better defined. I had egocentrically assumed that the application of a little common sense would have made the intention clear.

Eclogite: '' 3. Through history, and likely pre-history, mankind has attempted to define this hypothetical creator.

4. We do not know if any of mankind's efforts at defining this creator have been successful or not.''

questor #3 and 4 have nothing to do with the question of whether or not the universe was created

Of course they don't. They weren't meant to. Why should you think they should? They are part of a sequential argument I constructed for your benefit.

Eclogite: ''5. Your position assumes that they have been unsuccesful, and you choose to call the unsuccessful definitions God. The undefined creator, you wish to call The Creator.''

questor this makes no sense at all since #4 and 5 have no pertinence.

Your dismissal of 4 and 5 was illfounded. You need to read all three together.

Here, I'll try again. Based on half a century of reading peoples views on the subject, discussing it with them, reading about beliefes, etc, etc, my highly individualistic, egocentric understanding, is that most people equate God with Creator. They may have diverse views of what this God is, they may not believe it exists, but they are almost all agreed that if the Universe was created, then its creator should be called God.

The reverse is also true: ask people to define God, and somewhere in that definition, usually in a prominent position, will be a remark that 'He created, or is believed to have created, the Universe.'

The terms God and Creator are all but synonomous in the global lexicon. You clearly feel this should not be so. That is fine as a position to adopt, but please stop pretending it is a conventional position.

Eclogite:

''6. In view of Point 4 above, Point 5 is superflous. There is no obvious merit in distinguishing between a God who is undefined (who you would call Creator) or a God who is defined, whom others would call God, or Yaweh, or Allah, etc''

questorhere is where your mind totally defaults to a God based argument, when the question is: was the universe created or did it occur without a creator?

Which can equally be stated as was the universe created by God, or did it spring into existence without God?

 

In common usage these two questions are identical.

 

Eclogite:''It is therefore perfectly practical to discuss the possibility of Intelligent Desgin of the Universe, if you will just forego this unnecessary stipulation that we cannot call the designer God. Frankly, any entity who can design and construct this Universe is entitled to be called God, for they clearly are such. What don't you grasp about that?''

questor:you could call the creator anything you wish,but you insist upon calling it God and imbuing it with the preconceived notions of man's perceptions of their God ( even though you can't describe God).

getting one out of six calls for more thought, wouldn't you say?

Where have I imbued it with any of the preconceived notions of man's perceptions of God?

Correct. Nowhere.

If this is your issue, I suggest you are investing energy in a rather pointless exercise. I am a devout agnostic: I have no idea what the characteristics of God are (bar one). I have no idea whether or not he exists.

The only thing I know about him (and I use him for conventional convenience, not to impy singularity, or sex) is that, if he exists, then he created the Universe: that's what Gods do.