Non-Christians for Creationism

reply to post by dbates

Ironically I belive that things were made perfect, but micro evolutionary changes have made things worse. Every copy of the original perfect copy has flaws. Then when you get copies of the copy you introduce more flaws. If every copy were made from the original it would be different.

Such would be the case if natural selection did not operate.

So let's assume, for the nonce, that it does not, and ask ourselves what, then, is the meaning of Creation.

For it is undeniable that God, if He exists, is both perfect and eternal. Indeed, this was one of St. Thomas Aquinas's 'proofs' of the existence of God: imagine a being that was wholly perfect. To be perfect, it must actually exist; ergo, God exists.

But then He goes and creates the world.

That act nullifies both the eternal nature of God (because what is eternal is changeless, and to act is to change) and His perfection (because in changing, He is no longer perfect; besides, a being that creates an imperfect world is inevitably an imperfect creator).

Therefore God, the perfect Being, could not have created the world.

Originally posted by Astyanax
For it is undeniable that God, if He exists, is both perfect and eternal.

But then He goes and creates the world.

But now you're assuming the creation of the world is the end result and not an intermediate position of the creation. To digress more would mean we would venture into theology. So at that end....In whose opinion could the world have been made better?

Originally posted by WatchNLearn

Originally posted by dbates
Ironically I belive that things were made perfect, but micro evolutionary changes have made things worse.

And yes, ironically you just vindicated my whole theory of evolution - thank you!

Why? Because you believe that every change is always a good change? Or that every bad change results in the termination of that change? That's hardly so and you'd have a difficult time proving or even arguing that position.

EDIT: I was just noting how quickly God was combined with the subject.

Step 1. Work God into the anti-evolution stance

Step 2. Attack God's existance

Step 3. Avoid discussion of Evolution's flaws

[edit on 14-1-2009 by dbates]

1. I completely believe in Creation.
2. I completely believe in Evolution.
3. I am not religious.

You are absolutely on point about taking the 2-year old approach to our origins. If you keep asking "where did that come from?" you'll eventually get to the answer, "I Don't Know."

Science speculates as to how we can to be who we are today, but it does not, it cannot answer the question of how we began, where this all really came from.

I won't talk about what religion claims, because that's all created by man and I don't know of any other men who know the true origins of reality, so how can I trust what they have to say about it?

Originally posted by WatchNLearn

Hocus Pocus

Acknowledging that science does not yet have a clue of our origins prior to our origins prior to our origins is not Hocus Pocus. Its the only rational thing to do. Sporting an air of superiority and arrogance of "origins explained!" as many in seem to want to do it, only masks insecurity.

reply to post by Astyanax

This may come as a surprise to some, but aside from a lively distaste for obscurantism, particularly of the religious variety I don't object to creationism until people try to indoctrinate children in it, presenting it as though it were fact, or at least strongly supported by evidence, which it isn't.

!!!

I suspected as much...

:-)


I don't understand how any reasonable person could disagree with this

I don't have any particularly strong religious views - nothing specific at all

but even if I were devout - I would want education to be about the world - my children would learn about the world from all points of view - not my point of view

teaching about religion should be a part of any schools curriculum - it's a part of the world we live in regardless of what our children, or their parents - or their teachers believe

teaching A belief - or any one part of that belief - especially as fact - crosses the line

Originally posted by Astyanax

Of course the universe, and life, may have originated in acts of creation by some being, possibly one worthy to be called God. But if life originates in the universe, is not the universe the creator of it, or at least its matrix? God may be a null hypothesis, but it does no harm to invoke a null hypothesis - it simply does no good either, at least in terms of getting at the truth of something; still, it might be of some comfort to the invoker.

I think thats fair enough. That bridges the gap between the two ways of thinking. My main issue is with the creation of a contradiction between the two - one that does not really exist - and with the how evolution-theory is presented, worded.

Presenting it as "this explains how things evolve" is valid.

Presenting it as "this explains everything" is...questionable in my opinion.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Astyanax

For it is undeniable that God, if He exists, is both perfect and eternal.

let's just say if he exists

this is the part of any discussion about God that confuses me

why do we (the mortals) insist that he must be perfect?

obviously - advanced - that seems reasonable

but being superior - even if vastly and incomprehensibly superior - doesn't have to be about being perfect

I understand that this is how it's always been seen as far as religion goes - and maybe we're mostly concerned about not hurting his feelings

but if we use the word creator, and we're discussing creation - how could it not be possible that imperfection was created by an imperfect creator?

you know - if

reply to post by Skyfloating

yeah. you gotta love the way some of these richard-dawkins-types live on a tiny, tiny planet in a tiny, tiny body and then start making grandiose claims purporting to know the "origins of life".

I agree wholeheartedly with your thread! It is too bad that there are primarily 2 groups that cannot meet in the center. This is narrow thinking at best.

I am reading Dawkins: "The God Delusion." It is ironic for someone who preaches against religion (and so do I) that he promotes in essence his own!

"My dream is that this book may help people come out...the easier it will be for others to join them. There may be a critical mass for the initiation of a chain reaction." Pg. 4 of the Preface....

"If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." - Pg. 5 - Richard Dawkins

Interesting eh? He indeed brings up many valid points but loses it to the inability to reason abstractly on a philosophical level. In this even his friends and critics know he has stepped beyond his abilities.

In this: he did not challenge me in the least, in letting go of a Creator. But I learned valuable aspects of natural selection,etc. in his book and recommend it as a reference book. But follow his lead?In becoming an atheist...Why?

His arguments are about as deep as a Christian! NOT!

IMO the more broadminded and intelligent a person is: the less one will want to gravitate to any group, but will use their own minds, and not just follow the dictates of a guru.

I too, think that evolution and creationism are both possible at the same time! Why not?

reply to post by Astyanax

But then He goes and creates the world.

That act nullifies both the eternal nature of God (because what is eternal is changeless, and to act is to change) and His perfection (because in changing, He is no longer perfect; besides, a being that creates an imperfect world is inevitably an imperfect creator).

Therefore God, the perfect Being, could not have created the world.

I follow your reasoning and is one used often on ATS amongst its many members.

Of course, there are other avenues to reason on. This is not the end - all of reasoning relating to God/Creator/ID, etc. Just the one that makes the most sense to YOU.

If there were an entirely different agenda that you are not privy to or cannot grasp, that does not negate its existence.

I feel that we are an experiment, and creating an imperfect scenario as with so-called Adam & Eve would open up different thought along with different realities.

As imperfect humans, it is the comfort of most to; categorize most things under: either/or thinking. This is too black and white and is hence, not working for abstract thinkers. Those who want to think outside the boxes.

IMO we make a mistake by not teaching our children many avenues of thought. It becomes like religion to exclude God out of schools. They exclude any thinking that may not agree with theirs.

Evolutionists make the same mistake. To me it leads to Communism in that; we are all to "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil." We then become Borgish in our thinking and patterns.

To teach either/or thinking is detrimental to society and has caused innumerable problems in history.

I believe God intended it differently. Hence, allowing for imperfection and indeed even creating it, or at least setting mankind up for it. It has created tremendous variety and not borg mentality. And has offered man CHOICES!

reply to post by Skyfloating

Who benefits from all the confusion being sowed on our origins?

Who does not want humanity to find out about their origins?

to me this is the most interesting part of this discussion

what are your thoughts?

reply to post by MatrixProphet


I read Dawkins half way and got bored...oh well

The C vs. E Debate is like two ants getting all worked up about "who's right". One ant believes they fell from a tree, the other ant believes the came from across the hill.

I see no basis for this fiercely fought drama at all.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

to me this is the most interesting part of this discussion

what are your thoughts?

Well, if we pretend for a moment that we`re actually in some kind of ET-Lab with our ET-Creators playing us without wanting to get revealed, I'd say they try to keep us focussed on small and insignificant aspects of our origins.

Or, we've staged some incarnational game for ourselves in which we forget our origins in order to be able to concentrate on the gameboard.

Or 100000000000000000000000+ other options and possibilities beyond the lame C vs. E discussion.

reply to post by Skyfloating

Well, if we pretend for a moment that we`re actually in some kind of ET-Lab with our ET-Creators playing us without wanting to get revealed, I'd say they try to keep us focussed on small and insignificant aspects of our origins.

:-)

or - it's just not the right time

a huge part of the problem is the assumptions made before the advent of archaeology and several science discoveries. today, many argue with the aide of materials that have long since been proven inaccurate or totally incorrect by physical evidence to the contrary. the biggest cover up in history is the fable label that has been pinned on the ancient texts of our ancestors.

reply to post by Skyfloating

I read Dawkins half way and got bored...oh well

The C vs. E Debate is like two ants getting all worked up about "who's right". One ant believes they fell from a tree, the other ant believes the came from across the hill.

I see no basis for this fiercely fought drama at all.

It seems awfully narrow to me also.

I have a few atheist friends on ATS and I appreciate their brilliance. But what I don't understand and it perplexes me, is why they refuse to bring in the philosophical aspects?

They are very black and white, but philosophy and imagination - EXIST! They are a huge component in understanding life, a crucial aspect.

What I find, is that; it goes beyond their comfort zones to discuss. It may be too abstract, and that threatens them? Black and white thinking provides boundaries and security, not free floating anxiety that unlimited thinking can create.

Dawkins is very biased and I might add: fearful. He even says that the idea of God makes him hostlile!! Whoa, that doesn't sound logical or scientific!

Would you say that he has unresolved issues towards God? Hehehe.

Originally posted by Astyanax
For it is undeniable that God, if He exists, is both perfect and eternal. Indeed, this was one of St. Thomas Aquinas's 'proofs' of the existence of God: imagine a being that was wholly perfect. To be perfect, it must actually exist; ergo, God exists.

Bugger Aquinas. The god I know is neither perfect nor imperfect.
These are human concepts, both implying restriction.
God is beyond these concepts of ours.

But then He goes and creates the world.

That act nullifies both the eternal nature of God (because what is eternal is changeless, and to act is to change) and His perfection (because in changing, He is no longer perfect; besides, a being that creates an imperfect world is inevitably an imperfect creator).

Bah.
Atheists have this habit of making a box for god, finding he doesn't fit in it, and deciding he can't be god because he's not the right size/shape.

There just may be a perfect reason for having an imperfect world.
Perhaps perfection got boring and god wanted to have experiences you can only have as one of multiple entities in an imperfect world.

If you were bored, and wanted a book to read for entertainment, would you want one in which everyone lived idyllic lives from start to finish?
I see this world as god's library. We are each part of him, each a tentacle of that spaghetti monster I've read about; each of our lives one of his books.

Therefore God, the perfect Being, could not have created the world.

False assumptions lead to wasted semantics.
I could theorise that spaghetti doesn't exist too, or I could sit down and eat it.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

this is the part of any discussion about God that confuses me

why do we (the mortals) insist that he must be perfect?

Perfection is an attribute of God in Christian theology. It has Biblical support.

Deut. 32:4: He is the Rock, his work is perfect

2 Samuel 22:31 and Psalm 18:30 (the same words in both verses): As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.

Psalm 19:7: The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Romans 12:2: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

2 Corinthians 13:9: For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong: and this also we wish, even your perfection.

Still, the Christian concept of the New Covenant strongly suggests that the above is just His PR office working overtime. Clearly he makes mistakes and even makes amends. And indeed, other parts of the Bible state plainly that God sometimes rues His own actions:

Genesis 6:6: And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

1 Samuel 15:35: The LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

This, of course, is typical of the Bible, which rarely says the same thing for two pages straight. Believers must read very selectively if they hope to retain their faith.

All the same, St. Thomas Aquinas, whose writings specify the Christian philosophical viewpoint in detail (at least for Christians on the Western side of the Great Schism), was in no doubt:

All created perfections are in God. Hence He is spoken of as universally perfect, because He lacks not (says the Commentator, Metaph. v) any excellence which may be found in any genus.

Summa Theologica Part One, Question 4

An imperfect God would explain a lot. As someone pointed out earlier, it is the key premise of most Gnostic doctrine, according to which the creator and lord of our universe is an imperfect being, a stupid, selfish, venal demiurge who makes illegitimate use of creative powers derived from the true God, who is too remote from creation to interfere with it in any way. Gnosticism makes better sense than orthodox Christianity because it perfectly explains the problem of evil; however, it is a comfortless and nihilistic doctrine. Gnostics are wanderers in a wicked and doomed world, with no god to turn to for protection and moral guidance.

Even so, Gnosticism can be fascinating. If you're interested, you'll find more information at the Gnosis Web site. Wikipedia provides a useful starting-point for anyone coming to Gnosticism for the first time.

reply to post by Kailassa


Ditto!! Really good, I starred you!

If you were bored, and wanted a book to read for entertainment, would you want one in which everyone lived idyllic lives from start to finish?
I see this world as god's library. We are each part of him, each a tentacle of that spaghetti monster I've read about; each of our lives one of his books.


Therefore God, the perfect Being, could not have created the world.

False assumptions lead to wasted semantics.
I could theorise that spaghetti doesn't exist too, or I could sit down and eat it.

When will we stop relating God to our feeble reasoning? Totally agree with you.

Rather than attempting to rationalize God to our thinking, why not try to understand who he may be? Let go of the filters and search? He will be made known to someone who cares enough.

reply to post by Kailassa

Bah.
Atheists have this habit of making a box for god, finding he doesn't fit in it, and deciding he can't be god because he's not the right size/shape.

Bah indeed, my friend. As you will see from my previous post, it is not atheists who made this particular box, but scripture-writers and theologians.

If you're serious about thinking your own thoughts and devising your own ideas in metaphysics and theology, at least study the work of those that have gone before you and learn what the implications and ramifications of your intended 'faith choices' really are. You'll find that religious doctrine is not some buffet from which you can just pick what you like and leave the rest, nor is it a Lego set of components that will allow you to assemble a belief system that suits you. What a consumerist approach to religion!

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Remember, the Bible is not written or founded on any original texts, but just very faulty copies. If we keep visible this: "elephant in the room" in our spiritual eyesight, we will not be duped, or trapped.

Both atheists and Christians have traps.