Why do people laugh at creationists?

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Look up infinite in the dictionary. Infinite is everything. Therefor if we didn't exist (ie God created us), then he would not have been infinite. He contradicts himself being infinite in creating something.

To quote Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy,

"In the beginning, God made the universe. This was considered by many to be a bad idea."

Crack up!

Originally posted by AshleyD
Ok I have a response typed out all the way up to the love vs. infinite issue but then I had to stop because I actually have a question for you. Do you believe teleological arguments are valid evidence for the existence of God? Why or why not.

It's not evidence at all. It's assumption.
You say that our universe is too ordered to not have a creator.
However, God is supposedly infinite and omnipotent, therefor it is infinitely more probable that our Universe came into existence than God did. God is infinitely more complex than our Universe, so even if you try to use this argument, it's actually in favor of atheism

reply to post by TruthParadox


LOL. So human logic can be flawed, eh? Something to think about when we try to use our fallible logic to also discount His existence.

That just saved me a lot of time. Now I can go to a different thread. lol

Just ponder that.

[edit on 9/25/2008 by AshleyD]

I Think that its also important to know that these kind of discussions are to rationalise the belief in (the christian)God.

reply to post by Good Wolf


Interesting perspective. Looks like all the arguments presented and that I have been answering were actually trying to rationalize His non-existence.

If telelogical arguments are 'bad evidence' for God's existence, then logical arguments are also prone to error when used to argue His non existence.

Ok, I'm done. Just ponder those things everyone.

Originally posted by AshleyD
LOL. So human logic can be flawed, eh? Something to think about when we try to use our fallible logic to also discount His existence.

That just saved me a lot of time. Now I can go to a different thread. lol

Just ponder that.

Umm...
Was my logic too hard to follow?
I'm confused. Are you dodging my response? It made perfect sense.
If you say that things that are complex can not come into existence on their own then let's use number shall we?

Let's say we can capture the complexity of things as a number

The Universe complexity: 109824
God's complexity: infinite

So why in God's name would you think it more logical that God came into existence than to think that Earth came into existence?



Explain yourself and don't just say: "oh you are wrong, you just proved it."
If you can disprove my logic then do so now with logic.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

However, God is supposedly infinite and omnipotent, therefor it is infinitely more probable that our Universe came into existence than God did. God is infinitely more complex than our Universe, so even if you try to use this argument, it's actually in favor of atheism

You just stated a logical contradiction. You state "God is supposedly infinite and omnipotent". You should realize that infinite means he is eternal. To describe that which initiated space time - the best logical inference is that the cause is outside of time or timeless (eternal).

Then you proceed to contradict yourself by saying "it is infinitely more probable that our Universe came into existence than God did."

Something eternal -God- does not come into existence. Thus your statement is logically incoherent. Further evidence that atheism is based purely on logical fallacy.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
You just stated a logical contradiction. You state "God is supposedly infinite and omnipotent". You should realize that infinite means he is eternal. To describe that which initiated space time - the best logical inference is that the cause is outside of time or timeless (eternal).

My logic did not require any belief in time... Where is the contradiction? I believe that our Universe is a bubble of an infinite universe. I didn't contradict myself, you simply don't understand what I'm saying.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Then you proceed to contradict yourself by saying "it is infinitely more probable that our Universe came into existence than God did."

Something eternal -God- does not come into existence. Thus your statement is logically incoherent. Further evidence that atheism is based purely on logical fallacy.

Again, I stated nothing about time. You from a human perspective percieved that I was talking about a timeline. There is no time if something is infinite, that's not in the argument I presented. If God simply 'exists' then there is more probability that the Earth simply 'exists' due to what I stated before.

Originally posted by AshleyD
If telelogical arguments are 'bad evidence' for God's existence, then logical arguments are also prone to error when used to argue His non existence.

Ok then, let's just say for 1 second that telelogical arguments are evidence for a creator. Well great you've narrowed it down. Now which creator? There are thousands. It's not evidence of anything...

sigh...

The thing is, it's not even evidence of that. I'll use the same argument against you.

God is infinitely complex. So how could he exist on his own? He must of had a creator.

Don't you see the fallicy in that thinking?

sigh...

Originally posted by AshleyD
If telelogical arguments are 'bad evidence' for God's existence, then logical arguments are also prone to error when used to argue His non existence.

Who says that they are evidence for or against God (apart from you)?

I said they are only good for rationalising belief.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Ah its like a breath of fresh noxious gas to have some narcissistic anti-atheism in here.

Still misrepresenting people for your own purpose are we?

[edit on 9/25/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Umm...
Was my logic too hard to follow?

No. Was mine? Apparently. If you think logic is fallible for providing evidence for God's existence (and you do by the opinion you mentioned about complexity in nature) then it makes no logical sense to consider logic as being a valid tool to use against God's existence.

I'm confused. Are you dodging my response?

No. I just finally realized what was going on. I noticed several incorrect premises and assumed conclusions in the posts I was replying to your post one point at a time but saw several flaws concerning the logical connections you were making due to those false assumptions. Then I realized instead of finishing up a breakdown to every single point you made- which would almost all be reduced to logic-based, I felt the easiest way to get off the merry go round was to make the general observation about logic being allowed to be used against God but not in the defense of God.

I'm trying to get you to take a step back and see that contradiction.

I hope it works.

reply to post by TruthParadox


LOL No. I just answered that very question like three times on the same thread just this week. I swear I need to make a directory thread or something with links to where this has all been answered.

See, I go away for a couple of hours to eat dinner, and the thread gets hijacked again! Not one single post the answer the question of 'Why do people laugh at creationists?' Come on, People! Stay on topic!


*The preceding was dripping with sarcasm, for those of you who cannot detect such things!*

The concept of God, by it's very nature, cannot be logically dissected because we will never understand the big cheese very well. We can use logic to dissect the perception and belief of God (ether real or not). You need to get away from this "Logic can't disprove God" cos we know that already.

Get back to the debate.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


We need to to babysit us! It all falls apart when you go.

Ok seriously. Again, I think a massive brainwashing is going on. 'Scientism' (Yes, a real word and concept- Wiki it) and a conspiracy against spirituality. I was just watching a video yesterday that had clips of a scientist who actually claimed science was the answer to everything and that it was either omnipotent or omniscient (I can't remember which one he said). I'll find it if anyone wants to see how he goes on about how science is the only way. This is so wrong because there are so many things science is absolutely incapable of explaining and always will be incapable of explaining. Science is not the only path to truth and it certainly isn't the path to all truth- but we are being programmed to believe it is.

Think about this. This sounds like some twisted NWO agenda. It replaces man's fellowship with God, man's relationship with God, and man's faith and trust in God and leads us to believe and walk in the knowledge of other men.

For instance, if there is no God and no spirituality, then these trivial and temporary things are the pinnacle. Politicians and government (submit to them- they are your ultimate authority). Work and consume (because materialism is all that matters). Don't listen to God- listen to 'us.'

Yes, I see some serious programming going on. It's scary stuff. There is a conspiracy against spirituality going on. Science is not the only answer.

So why are creationists laughed at? We're being programmed to laugh at them. And I am not talking about the 'the dinosaur fossils were put into the strata by Satan' creationists but ALL creationists. As in, anyone who believes we are here by the actions of a creator.

The Bible warned this would happen in the last days. Since the beginning of recorded time, man has believed some sort of creation story. Pretty much all civilizations had some sort of creation story. This era is the first where a creator is being pushed out of the equation at all costs- so is the denial of a world wide flood. We are seeing hundreds of end time warnings being fulfilled in our life time- the fact the last generation would deny the creator and we are seeing it happen now along with all the other fulfillments is no coincidence.

We were warned it would happen. Yet, now anyone who believes there is more to our origins than naturalistic explanation is ridiculed, laughed at, labeled ignorant, etc. Think about it. That's all I ask.

[edit on 9/25/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Think about this. This sounds like some twisted NWO agenda. It replaces man's fellowship with God, man's relationship with God, and man's faith and trust in God and leads us to believe and walk in the knowledge of other men.

Eh....

On the flipside, it's waking people up from the delusion of God.

What you said is an opinion, that sounds more like a fear response.

You said that the bible was a closed case for you. Why don't you try something new, why not adopt an atheist view point for a week and understand how you look from the outside and you opinions.

See if you can manage.

reply to post by AshleyD


I think what it boils down to is this. Science explains the physical world. Metaphysics and Philosophy deal with spirituality, and can be debated, but cannot be proven. Apples and Oranges. Oh, I get to get back on topic! Whoopee!!!!!!! The reason people laugh at creationists who, like in the video, try to use science to prove they are right, are using apples to explain oranges. Actually, the idiot kid in most of the videos is trying to use just the seeds of the apple, and not the whole apple itself, but you get my point. Of course, in the case of literal creationists, the belief itself is just pretty damn funny, considering the evidence to the contrary. I would also say the same of Aethiests, like Richard Dawkins, who try to use science to disprove spirituality. Apples do not prove or disprove the existance of oranges.

ED. As to the NWO, they are depending on people following religion blindly, as it is much easier to flock sheeple than free thinking people, but that's a whole other debate!

[edit on 25-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]

reply to post by Good Wolf


LOL Why are you trying to convert me?

Psst. I just said on the preceding pages I used to be an atheist and have been very honest about being an ex-atheist on ATS on many occasions. Therefore I've already seen the other side.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


I totally agree with you when you say what is used to explain what and to what lengths. Absolutely. But I do see what is also happening when they say science is the only field that truly matters and the rest is just 'bunk,' in essence.

reply to post by AshleyD


Total left brain only thinking! Science is for what is in the physical world, Philosophy and Metaphysics is for what is in the non physical world. Spirituality falls into the latter category. That is why the Bible is such a hot topic, because the writers did not even know about the concept of science. That came much later. Science cannot explain emotion. Philosophy cannot explain a rock. But back then, they were one and the same. The key is to look for the meaning behind the text while bearing in mind the mindset of those who wrote it.

Originally posted by AshleyD
No. Was mine? Apparently.

If you think logic is fallible for providing evidence for God's existence (and you do by the opinion you mentioned about complexity in nature) then it makes no logical sense to consider logic as being a valid tool to use against God's existence.

But there is no evidence. My point is that even IF you use the 'logic' of that argument, it actually supports atheism more than Creationism.
God is so complex he could not have existed on his own. He must of had a creator.
And on and on the insanity goes.
Why can't you see the obvious...

And then I can act like you and say "why do you ignore the logic I just presented and yet claim that logic supports God? Obviously logic is flawed so there's no way you could support God with logic".

Originally posted by AshleyD
Then I realized instead of finishing up a breakdown to every single point you made- which would almost all be reduced to logic-based, I felt the easiest way to get off the merry go round was to make the general observation about logic being allowed to be used against God but not in the defense of God.

I'm trying to get you to take a step back and see that contradiction.

But I just used the logic of that argument AGAINST God.
The reason why you think that I think that logic can not be used to support God is because of the plain and simple fact that there is no evidence to base the logic on. However, I can base logic on the words of the Bible and prove them fallible as I have already done. There are contradictions in the Bible, because words are in black and white and do not require assuming things which creationists are known to do.

I think you're also confusing logic with assumption. The contradictions I stated about God are more than assumption, because I tell you exactly why it contradicts itself. So now defend your assumption that teleological arguments are 'evidence'.
It's an assumption and proves nothing.
As stated above, even IF it did prove a creator, it still would not prove God.

Sorry, there's no way out. I've thought of every contingency.

lalalalalallalala