• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My challenge to creationists

tsig said:
The conversion experience prooves that humans are capable of emotional upheavals, it says nothing about the existence of god.
Click to expand...

It might. It would certainly explain why they are having that particular emotional upheaval. I suppose it could be that emotional upheavals kind of happen spontaneously though.

We see an effect - the conversion experience. It's natural to ask about the cause. Those who have experienced it say that God (or some variation) is the cause. This is a common enough opinion. Why would we argue with them about it?

Perhaps we argue about it because we don't like the implications?
 
We can't rule an observable creation out. For all we know, God might be busy on a planet a thousand light years away, making all sorts of wonderful creatures.
 
marplots said:
It might. It would certainly explain why they are having that particular emotional upheaval. I suppose it could be that emotional upheavals kind of happen spontaneously though.

We see an effect - the conversion experience. It's natural to ask about the cause. Those who have experienced it say that God (or some variation) is the cause. This is a common enough opinion. Why would we argue with them about it?

Perhaps we argue about it because we don't like the implications?
Click to expand...

Why do you think that the emotional upheaval accompanying conversion would be any different than the one accompanying say falling in or out of love?

Humans experience emotions I see no reason to ascribe god as a cause to any of them.
 
marplots said:
We can't rule an observable creation out. For all we know, God might be busy on a planet a thousand light years away, making all sorts of wonderful creatures.
Click to expand...

Or god could be getting drunk on human blood and feeding on human emotions.

my speculation beats your speculation.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Why do you think that the emotional upheaval accompanying conversion would be any different than the one accompanying say falling in or out of love?

Humans experience emotions I see no reason to ascribe god as a cause to any of them.
Click to expand...

It's a good parallel. I know I am capable of falling in love, but I can't describe the cause at all - it's hidden somewhere inside me, too deep for me to observe. So too might a religious experience be ungrasped by inner observation. It just happens.

I also know I can fall in love (or some variant) with things that are only conceptual. Now I am wondering if the experience creates the object, in the way I may fall in love with some construct I have of a person that doesn't factually match the real person. Can we "fall in ecstasy" and thereby create the object of our desire? Maybe.

It would give us this answer: God is created to explain why I feel this way.

Interesting.
 
marplots said:
It's a good parallel. I know I am capable of falling in love, but I can't describe the cause at all - it's hidden somewhere inside me, too deep for me to observe. So too might a religious experience be ungrasped by inner observation. It just happens.
Click to expand...


Have a look here.


marplots said:
I also know I can fall in love (or some variant) with things that are only conceptual. Now I am wondering if the experience creates the object, in the way I may fall in love with some construct I have of a person that doesn't factually match the real person. Can we "fall in ecstasy" and thereby create the object of our desire? Maybe Definitely .
It would give us this answer: God is created to explain why I feel this way.

Interesting.
Click to expand...


With the little fix you




Also have a look here.
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
Have a look here.

With the little fix you

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/5128253e46f2a2c68d.jpg[/qimg]


Also have a look here.
Click to expand...

Yes, good stuff. But a problem remains. I am not capable of altering my own biological responses, except in a very ham-handed way.

Continuing the parallel then, I can say (based on the links you provided) that my reactions are driven by the mechanisms cited. But I still feel and act a certain way when I'm in love. I will still tell you that this woman is the best version that ever walked the earth. I will not doubt it.

When love and religious experiences are viewed from the outside, we can propose and understand it one way, but from the "inside" this doesn't work at all. It is as if you explained to me that I am constituted of molecules dancing about - while true, I'm still me, constituted as I am and unable to escape. I cannot deny the chemistry, but I also cannot alter it and still be what I am. The knowledge bestows no power to change the landscape.

Putting it in a biological context only tells us, more firmly, how we are built. And if we are built to fall in love or to worship God, then the wise thing might be to acknowledge these facts and incorporate them into our lives, instead of attempting to be other than we are.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
When love and religious experiences are viewed from the outside, we can propose and understand it one way, but from the "inside" this doesn't work at all. It is as if you explained to me that I am constituted of molecules dancing about - while true, I'm still me, constituted as I am and unable to escape. I cannot deny the chemistry, but I also cannot alter it and still be what I am. The knowledge bestows no power to change the landscape.

Putting it in a biological context only tells us, more firmly, how we are built. And if we are built to fall in love or to worship God, then the wise thing might be to acknowledge these facts and incorporate them into our lives, instead of attempting to be other than we are.
Click to expand...

Very good and intelligent way of putting this argument! But we seem also to have an inner drive for intelligence, analysis and awareness. While it's difficult to shape or change the outcomes of our (rather unchanging) biological impulses, we still do it collectively at least in local cultures and why not even within individuals. And even you reason and argument in the process.
 
llwyd said:
Very good and intelligent way of putting this argument! But we seem also to have an inner drive for intelligence, analysis and awareness. While it's difficult to shape or change the outcomes of our (rather unchanging) biological impulses, we still do it collectively at least in local cultures and why not even within individuals. And even you reason and argument in the process.
Click to expand...

What you say is reasonable, because we can follow the current trends toward more understanding (and hence power to modify) of our own biology. But then another factor arises.

Suppose I have the ability to redesign myself (or my progeny). How, if not by way of my current constitutional limits, am I to decide what modifications to make? After the "easy" choices of living longer, being smarter, and enhancing my athletic abilities, I am stumped by what other "improvements" I'd want. More empathetic or less emotional? Kinder or more rational? I propose the advances in human psychology have not been as dramatic as in biology, and present us with many quite difficult questions.

But maybe I demand too much. Perhaps I should take it on faith that progress on the easy stuff is enough and we should mark the rest as "TBD."
 
Chernobyl X1 said:
Not to hijack the thread but wouldn't it be easier to challenge a creationist to give one piece of evidence that falsifies evolution? Since creationists feel evolution requires a "belief", and is not based on facts, they have every opportunity to put this theory in the trash bin.

I had a conversation once with a woman who said "I'm not a creationist. I just believe God started the process and the rest happened by itself" :rolleyes: I just couldn't find it within me to correct her.
Click to expand...

Technically, abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Evolution is about how new life forms from old life, not about how life began in the first place. The above is exactly the official position of the RCC: God kickstarted life, and evolution did the rest.
 
arthwollipot said:
No, it's not a good challenge, because I don't know of any creationists that believe that creation is ongoing. God did all of his creation in the six days of Genesis and that's it. So your challenge is impossible to fulfil.
Click to expand...

Frozenwolf150 said:
Oh come now. Even creationists have had to admit that life still demonstrates minor changes and adaptations, long after the initial creation was completed. After all, we can directly observe these changes. However, they say this only constitutes "microevolution" not "macroevolution" and therefore doesn't count. If a creationist really does believe that life today is static, then they are beyond help.
Click to expand...
Indeed, all the species in the world simply won't fit on Noah's Ark. So creationists invent this mythical notion of "kind", and Noah took one pair of each kind with him. After the Flood, the "horse kind" diversified into zebras, horses and donkeys, etc. (I have no idea if this is actually an accepted kind in creationist circles, but you get the picture).
 
ddt said:
Indeed, all the species in the world simply won't fit on Noah's Ark. So creationists invent this mythical notion of "kind", and Noah took one pair of each kind with him. After the Flood, the "horse kind" diversified into zebras, horses and donkeys, etc. (I have no idea if this is actually an accepted kind in creationist circles, but you get the picture).
Click to expand...
Baraminology. It's a thing. Really.
 
ddt said:
Technically, abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Evolution is about how new life forms from old life, not about how life began in the first place. The above is exactly the official position of the RCC: God kickstarted life, and evolution did the rest.
Click to expand...
Quite true. But I think the difference between life and non-life is going to be difficult to define. In fact, it will come down to some definition by science, not some obvious difference between the two states.
 
ddt said:
Technically, abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Evolution is about how new life forms from old life, not about how life began in the first place. The above is exactly the official position of the RCC: God kickstarted life, and evolution did the rest.
Click to expand...

The two are certainly strongly linked. I don't see a bright line between evolution and abiogenesis, especially when discussing creation myths. Would anyone accept an argument for creation from someone claiming God "came before creation" and shouldn't be part of the discussion?

Evolution depends on abiogenesis happening. It might be convenient to do so, but separating out evolution from it makes as much sense as separating out chemistry or biology. Understanding all those topics changes our understanding of evolution.
 
arthwollipot said:
Baraminology. It's a thing. Really.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Frozenwolf150 said:
Interesting. And just as one might suspect, it's not based on anything in the Bible OR in science.
Click to expand...
Of course. Theology is about making up more stuff in order to make more or less sense of an ancient fairy tale.

Frozenwolf150 said:
BTW I got to issue my challenge to one creationist on this forum so far, namely Paul Bethke. He either didn't see it or chickened out.
Click to expand...
I guess he "just knows creation is true", just like with the Exodus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom