What is the logical basis for Creationism?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Greetings.

Simply put, this topic is an attempt to collect, understand, and highlight as much fact and suggestions as possible on how creationism, in its general form, is possible based on logical statements of the currect state of the world.

Any claims based in religion should be explained as not all of us will understand an otherwise known statement.

Please feel free to give any and all points on how creationism would explain how the world came into being considering what facts can be taken from modern day.

If you wish to argue against such an idea and would rather try to disprove it, please also back up your claims with statements that do not contradict tradiational logic.

This thread does not favor either side, but simply wishes to understand how creationism can be logically conherent, and thus possible and plausible.

If you simply want to flame this into a dark void, you may, but it will only show your ignorance to explain your point of view and highlight the question's validity.




posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Well I have been doing some thinking for myself, and I have finally convinced myself that the Religious acts that take place here on this planet, go without further consideration. It amazes me how people can simply accept the idea of a "god" and go on living telling themselves "Because God wills it or created it."

I myself believe in science and the things that science does for us. Science helps us to understand the full workings of the universe they way they properly work.

I don't know it's just that I have a hard time accepting the fact that a higher being created all that is around us, that is us. So in my conclusion, God isn't real.

I would just like to believe that there is a logical explanation for everything.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Yet another one of these posts - wow.

Logical is the only way for me - we were created. He "wills"it is too simply put. Sure theres more to it than that, put not where we'd understand - we're still stuck in the 3rd dimension. Something, at least, manipulated us into where we are today. There is just no way we evolved into what we are today, the talents, the gifts, the insight, the imagination - just could not come from a metoerite and a bolt of lightning - sorry, thats illogical for me.

And I am not talking from spritual beliefs, I am talking logic, but thats my opinion. I at once thought neutral. Researched, thought and came to my own conclusion.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Think about this. There are millions, possibly billions, maybe even an infinite amount of microscopic THINGS living on YOU! Yes on YOU! Science has proven this but our microscopes can only zoom in soo much. So what if life starts out as small.. maybe as a bacteria form that has grouped together through some means, somehow. Then the small things grow and grow over time and time and eventually keep getting bigger bigger.

Is it possible that we are the top of the growth chain in microscopic sizes or are we just microscopic things living on some THING!? With all this being a case, then where do the first things come from that originally form into life? Life is such a complex thing, I believe only the most advanced and evolved of races can understand how exactly it works. Is it possible that there is a state of perfection in the universe?

Also what is the universe itself. It means litereally one verse. It is like one voice all tied together and constantly spinning together. Is there a data base of information that holds it all together.. almost comparing it to the internet. But if the internet or the microchip is from an alien race of beings as many people claim it actually was found on crashed saucers, is it the perfect comparison for life itself? I know this sounds far fetched but this is somthing I have thought about more than one time.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I've allways considered that give faith in christianity and given a literal reading of the bible, then it follows that one should expect that the natural world around us will have evidence of the things in the bible, whether its the introduction of an invasive population into a territory (the exodus), or fossil evidence that supports spontaneous creation of different kinds of animals, or geological evidence that supports the idea of a global flood.

I mean, given that faith and reading of the bible, its logical to think that there would be evidence. Since faith isn't a rational thing, people with this faith in a literal reading are in something of a quandry. However I don't think that creationism provides an answer even then. The scientific understanding of the history and evolution of the world simply is not based on an misunderstanding or a willful lie, the evidence clearly supports it over a literal biblical reading. That rather simple observation, taken in with an actual literal reading history, creates a problem, it means that God did all these things, but removed the evidence for them, and indeed replaced it with a totally different set of evidence that, upon rational, methodological consideration will lead men to conclude that 'evolution' is the explanation (or at least description, but lets not split hairs on some stuff). This is deceitful. Furthermore, this same god created a universe in which men have rational and logical capabilities, which is just mean spirited, and even worse this world is made up in such a way that rational and logical thought works within it. On top of all that, this same god originally made men such that they didn't know the difference between good and evil, in the garden. He made men such that they wouldn't know that they should listen to the creator god, that it'd be wrong to disobey Him. And the icing on the cake is that he puts in this same garden a particular creation that He's endowed with cunning arguments, indeed he creates it with just precisely the argument that ends up working.
I mean, that all seems pretty evil no? The god of creationism is a devil-god, not the judeo-christian god.

Furthermore, the faith of the ardent creationist is weak. Job gets angry with god because god did things that job didn't like, or at least removed his 'protection'. This readiness to curse god is not a virtue, faith that is unmoved is considered a virtue. A creationist is saying that their faith is in fact dependant upon nature, that there must be naturalistic-materialistic support for their faith, and that without that support the faith is meaningless, 'jesus's sacrifice means nothing if we came from monkeys' and the like. They're modern day Jobs, in a strong sense.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I guess the problem with many presentations of creationism is that if it is taught to children without much argument, kids get confused and think it is ok to 'stop thinking' when solving problems. So it is not that great that some want to teach creationism in the schools. It could in this way confuse the kids.

I've been wondering what the creation myths really mean. Sometimes I think that they refer to a time period when man was in some other dimension. Some alien creatures and supernatural beings operate in different dimensions, so it is not that unfamiliar to think about this. After all, the 'tower of Babel' talks about 'confused speech', as though finally people stopped using mental telepathy to talk to each other and started developing different languages. Also, the flood story sounds dreamlike. How could it have been possible for the animals to actually somehow agree to walk 'two by two' onto the ark? It sounds like some sort of dream. Whatever was happening here, it sounds like a supernatural event that we in modern times have difficulty understanding.

As far as the actual creation is concerned, it could be that the act of creation was actually the point in time in which the human mind came into awareness of itself, became alert. Everything that exists is somehow in the human mind. So the start of human consiousness is the creation of the world. That is why, in the first day, only a few things entered consiousness, then more on the next day, until finally man became aware of himself and became fully alert (and in this sense was 'created'). THis concept of the creation is not incompatible with the idea of evolution. Instead, it just talks about things from a different perspective.

Also there are some problems with the idea of evolution. If animals evolved, then that means they adapted to their surroundings after a stressor appeared. But if they passively adapt this way, they are more likely to become extinct from the stressor than if they actively had a vital force that anticipated events somehow. Animals have a high degree of sensation. With that kind of power, they might be able to do things this way, rather than with passive adaptation. IN other words, the giraffe would stretch its neck BEFORE it started running out of food with its neck short, so that it wouldn't have a chance to become extinct.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by missingperson
after a stressor appeared.

It doesn't require a 'stressor' per se, like as in a drought or a new noxious chemical or something like that. Rather all that is required is selection pressure. It doesn't have to be something challenging their existence. Indeed, in most instances that one thinks of its not a matter of having to overcome some new strange challenge in order to survive, but rather simply adapting to the environment around one's self.



IN other words, the giraffe would stretch its neck BEFORE it started running out of food with its neck short, so that it wouldn't have a chance to become extinct.

Rather there were some members of the pre-giraffes that tended to have longer necks, and this presented an advantage for them, rather than the ones without the somewhat longer necks started to die from lack of food or anything like that. The new characteristic presents an advantaqe that permits the individual that has it to produce more offspring that the others in their population that don't have it.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The god of creationism is a devil-god, not the judeo-christian god.


Well, from my limited understanding, the original view of the god of Abraham was a god that was responsible for all the bad stuff in the world, as well as all the good. Satan was only bought into the picture later to explain all the evil that is committed. Lets remember that this was a god that told that self same Abraham to sacrifice his child and then at the last minute went: "Nah, hold up, I was only kidding. He's a cute kid don't stick that knife in him."

Though a god that created a world 6,000 years ago but for some reason contrived to make it look much older, and even left copious traces of animals that had never existed buried in rocks, would seem to be a joker-god rather than a devil-god. I believe Bill Hicks did rather a funny riff on this.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
He was the only one who could put the Periodic Table of Elements together, or make the respiratory, immune, reproductive, and blood circulatory systems work.

And He was the only one who knew how to make the Solar System and Universe.

bc
.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
On this website, a lot of people describe experiences with aliens, who are often not friendly, but people also have supernatural experiences with angels, and sometimes with the virgin Mary or even God. It's not happy to only have experiences with the dangerous ones. If you surf the web, lots of people describe experiences with more benevolent beings, which gives them confidence in the power of good in the world. It's not always a strange spacecraft that people see. People also experience the more benevolent supernatural beings. I wonder why some scientists focus only on the unfriendly supernatural types. There are a lot of testimonials for the other stuff.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
So, have we found any logical basis for creationism?

Most of what was said must be taken on faith.

We also have conflicting theories of which creationist theory is correct.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I posted this under another thread that I came across, had not realized that this topic was here until later. Please forgive me for any redundancy.

Here it is, I will post links in the future.

I just stumbled across this thread, found it interesting.
If you don't mind, I would like to share my observations and ask some questions.

The difficulty I am having is with the "information". It seems to be tainted by presupposition, definition, and perspective.

From the Creationists, I wonder if your chosen path, or however you wish to describe it, alters your perspective? Perhaps if both sides were to provide a list of definitions that both would agree is accurate, then both sides could come to an agreement of some kind.

From the Scientists, same question about perspective. The Creationist offerred several "evidence in fact" as presented by the Scientists (or should I go ahead here for the sake of argument and say "Evolutionists") where your response was "we don't know yet". How can you then present your case as stronger than the Creationist?

When one side offers "proof", the other changes the definition, or makes an assumption, and it is obvious that presupposition skews the conclusion.

I have observed oversimplification in order to avoid a direct answer, so let's try that. At least we can view the flaws in this type of argument.

If a magnet, in near proximity to an attracted element, will add that material to itself. is that life? It is adding material, isn't it? Well, technically no, if you define self on the basis of molecular sharing. But wait, over time, under observation, it will come to share a common bond of material. Yes, but not in a vacuum. I thought we defined vacuum as not truly being complete emptiness, only to the point that we can observe the emptiness, or nothingness if you prefer that term.

Do you see where this gets confusing?

What about logic? Doesn't logic depend on presupposition? Ok, we have addressed at least one element of disagreement, so we can get closer.

I will address the evolutionists side first, and only because they appear to be in the majority here. Am I allowed to use the term "Naturalism", so as to avoid definition problems with the Creationists?

Naturalism holds that only the physical world exists and physical laws determine all events. This would include all mental events. However, anyone who argues that something physical determines our thoughts suggests determinism (by way of causal determinism, is it agreed that this is scientific?). Here we will need to address direct observation, but can we ignore,then, the presupposition of free will or reason? It is not an observation of all life, only of "some life". Is that a true statement?
The logic?
(1) A determinist insists that both determinists and non-determinists are determined to believe what they believe.
(2) Determinists believe non-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view.
(3) The inclusion of "ought to change' implies they are free to change, which is contrary to determinism.
(4) Naturalistic, complete determinism is irrational (merely by definition)
(5) For determinism to be true there would have to be a rational basis for their thought.
(6) If determinism is true, then there is no rational basis for thought, since all is determined by non-rational forces.
(7) If determinism claims to be true then it must be false.

A logical statment based on the presupposition and standards of modality and contingency.
Now, let's flip to the other side. As I structure the logic based on these premises, I will now admit that the logic is pulling me towards "something else". I thought I should add that, so that it may be considered as a possilble presupposition. But then, presupposition is the case for our logic. That wouldn't be a paradox or conflict, would you agree?

Now, to the Creationist. I am going to use the term "necessary being" , as opposed to contingent beings, if we can agree on definition.
Is this a true statement?
(1) The proposition that there is a unique necessary being who brought about the existence of everything other than itself by willing that the other beings should exist, would, if true, explain why there are contingent beings.
(2) There is a possible explanation of the fact that there are contingent beings.
(3) There is no proposition consistent with the claim that there are only contingent beings which, if true, would explain why there are contingent beings.
(4) Any possible explanation of the fact that there are contingent beings entails that there is a necessary being.
Therefore
(5): It is reasonable to believe that there is a necessary being.

It holds up to the contingent facts, and the modal logic follows traditional lines of logic, so definition is the only thing left, but I tried to cover that.

Now, I expect to hear responses addressing defintion, so please supply the definition in question, and I will attempt to restructure.

I had no intention of being this long winded, so please forgive me.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Groupies:

Presumably one of the logical starting points for Creationist Thinking is like Newton's: Where there is evident order, there must have been SomeThing that put it in order: or Where there is a Clock, there must have been a ClockMaker...

Ye Olde Evidence from Design theory.

However this has nothing to do at all whatsoever with the clan god of the Jews who wants to exterminate all the Amalekites and who wants to genocide the Gigu#es because they were in the socalled Promised Land first and were...umm..in the way of the socalled Chosen People that we find in legendary mythological documents like "the Bible" who were written by persons who believed in a Flat Earth at the Center of a Domed Universe (remember the Dome (Heb. "Raqia'q" in Genesis chapter 1:3 which the King James Crew called the "Firmament"? Well, it doesn't exist any more than the Cheese on the Moon.

And the Creationist myths in Genesis (yes, there are at least TWO if you compare Gen 1:1 to 2:4a to Gen 2:4b through end of chapter 4, which by the way, DON'T MATCH EACH OTHER) are not Science in the modern sense but poetical imagery, probably of a liturgical nature like the ones (see Psalm 29) at the Fertility New Year Festivals in Canaan celebrating the 7 Peals of Baal creating the earth and the sky.

I mean, since when does VEGETATION come before the STARS the SUN and the MOON? Only in Genesis, it seems !!

But the idea of a Creator Mind to all the MultiVerses does not necessarily mean we have to drag the myths of the Jews into the discussion, just because Christians are unaware of other creation myths (more than 5000 of them) and alternate ways to explain what we see (or even remotely detect) around us.

To say that all the Multiverses (e.g. in String Theory) in existence were created out of a single Divine Mind Energy (like a big Bang etc.) is still logical enough----- just be careful not to confuse that idea with the two Hebrew Myths of Creation set forth by semi nomadic priestly groups who had a theological agenda to support and had to steal (or more politely, "borrow") their alphabet from the Phoenecians because they had no written language of their own....



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   
This appears to be more of an attack on religion than a logical basis for/against creationism.
Please show me where your logic is above?
What is the difference between these two statements?

All people should not die, but have a life of eternal paradise.
Now take out the words "not" and "but have a life of eternal paradise".

All people should die.

Is this the same thing? Would it be an intelligent statement to say that it was? Would it be logical to say that it is?
It is my understanding that this topic is to address a position from an application of pure logic. Opinion, by it's very definition, negates logic.

Thank you.


edit, removed quote of previous post

[edit on 1-11-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I was wondering when NEOAMADEUS was going to show up to this forum!

Nygdan, your perspective regarding "modern day Jobs" is quite insightful. I enjoyed that.

This thread turned out to be much better than I expected, given the tried topic.

Zip



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Member NobodyReally, you are on global ignore, your posts are invisible. You need to check your u2u messages. The below image is telling you that you have some unread:



And this is the button to click to read them:




[edit on 27-9-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Groupies:

Presumably one of the logical starting points for Creationist Thinking is like Newton's: Where there is evident order, there must have been SomeThing that put it in order: or Where there is a Clock, there must have been a ClockMaker...

Ye Olde Evidence from Design theory.

However this has nothing to do at all whatsoever with the clan god of the Jews who wants to exterminate all the Amalekites and who wants to genocide the Gigu#es because they were in the socalled Promised Land first and were...umm..in the way of the socalled Chosen People that we find in legendary mythological documents like "the Bible" who were written by persons who believed in a Flat Earth at the Center of a Domed Universe (remember the Dome (Heb. "Raqia'q" in Genesis chapter 1:3 which the King James Crew called the "Firmament"? Well, it doesn't exist any more than the Cheese on the Moon.

And the Creationist myths in Genesis (yes, there are at least TWO if you compare Gen 1:1 to 2:4a to Gen 2:4b through end of chapter 4, which by the way, DON'T MATCH EACH OTHER) are not Science in the modern sense but poetical imagery, probably of a liturgical nature like the ones (see Psalm 29) at the Fertility New Year Festivals in Canaan celebrating the 7 Peals of Baal creating the earth and the sky.

I mean, since when does VEGETATION come before the STARS the SUN and the MOON? Only in Genesis, it seems !!

But the idea of a Creator Mind to all the MultiVerses does not necessarily mean we have to drag the myths of the Jews into the discussion, just because Christians are unaware of other creation myths (more than 5000 of them) and alternate ways to explain what we see (or even remotely detect) around us.

To say that all the Multiverses (e.g. in String Theory) in existence were created out of a single Divine Mind Energy (like a big Bang etc.) is still logical enough----- just be careful not to confuse that idea with the two Hebrew Myths of Creation set forth by semi nomadic priestly groups who had a theological agenda to support and had to steal (or more politely, "borrow") their alphabet from the Phoenecians because they had no written language of their own....


Now THIS post I like!!


I have no problem with the existence of a Supreme Being; it almost seems foolish not to. HOWEVER, the 2 creation stories in the Bible just flat out don't make sense.


And furthermore, remember when Cain is banished from Eden? He says he's afraid that people will kill him because of his crime. Question; who are these people and where did they come from???
Only answer I ever got was that they were also created by God at the same time as Adam and Eve, but were omitted in the text.






new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join