Proof Creationism Is BS

originally posted by: Dalamax

why must we assume a conscious and intelligent mind is behind the force holding an atom together?

a reply to: cooperton

I cant speak for why Max Planck said that, but for me i suppose because these forces that hold atoms together act according to logical predictability. Logic comes from an intelligent mind.

Not necessarily. It’s logical that a leaf falls to the earth. That’s not determined by an intelligent mind. OR is it!

a reply to: cooperton

originally posted by: Dalamax
Not necessarily. It’s logical that a leaf falls to the earth. That’s not determined by an intelligent mind. OR is it!

a reply to: cooperton

Then we have 'spooky action at a distance' so either we admit there are natural forces out there that we cannot explain or we admit we didn't eat enough from the tree of knowledge and will never be allowed the knowledge of everything.

You need to know creationism wasn't just 7 days, reality occurs as we speak, the creation of creation also knowns as, reality, never stops until it stops.

originally posted by: Dalamax
Not necessarily. It’s logical that a leaf falls to the earth. That’s not determined by an intelligent mind. OR is it!

Even a leaf falls to the ground according to gravitational acceleration minus wind resistance. It's quite beautiful actually, when the leaf dies for the winter it falls to the ground, fertilizing and re-integrating with the tree that gave it life. Everywhere you look there is an intelligible design to a system.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Dalamax
Not necessarily. It’s logical that a leaf falls to the earth. That’s not determined by an intelligent mind. OR is it!

a reply to: cooperton

Then we have 'spooky action at a distance' so either we admit there are natural forces out there that we cannot explain or we admit we didn't eat enough from the tree of knowledge and will never be allowed the knowledge of everything.

Oh there’s definitely something incorrect about the current consensus on science. Absolutely.

To cooperton.

Intelligible yes. Of course it is understandable.

I mean, we’re not talking phrenology here

Being intelligible is not the same as being intelligently designed.

a reply to: Dalamax

So it's rational, and not nonsense. This conclusion is unavoidable. It is logical that a rational world must have come from a rational source.

originally posted by: Dalamax

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Dalamax
Not necessarily. It’s logical that a leaf falls to the earth. That’s not determined by an intelligent mind. OR is it!

a reply to: cooperton

Then we have 'spooky action at a distance' so either we admit there are natural forces out there that we cannot explain or we admit we didn't eat enough from the tree of knowledge and will never be allowed the knowledge of everything.

Oh there’s definitely something incorrect about the current consensus on science. Absolutely.

To cooperton.

Intelligible yes. Of course it is understandable.

I mean, we’re not talking phrenology here

Being intelligible is not the same as being intelligently designed.

What kind of intelligence would design the universe and life to be forced to consume itself (stars) and each other (life)?

Or that our intellect finds it logical.

We are as much a part of the environment as anything else.

a reply to: cooperton

Is it truly consuming? Life is resplendent in it’s diversity, and transforms continually.

Perhaps the universe, through life, is designing an intelligence.

a reply to: quintessentone

originally posted by: Dalamax
Is it truly consuming? Life is resplendent in it’s diversity, and transforms continually.

Perhaps the universe, through life, is designing an intelligence.

a reply to: quintessentone

Where is the love? Being forced to consume other life forms is a violent horror.

It makes no sense to me this reality should be a violent horror if we are to believe God created everything just for us.

I could argue there is love in sacrifice. It’s what JC demonstrated and that violence holds its own kind of beauty. But that would be showing my own aberrance in civilised debate.

a reply to: quintessentone