creationism/intelligent design is inconsistant with the definition of God

[mattpegher]

No matter what your beliefs regarding the existance of God, the rules of logic apply and designate what is deductively consistant with your premise.

If we start with the premise that God exists (a necessary premise for the any discussion re creationism or ID) then we must define God. (This is not optional in a logical discussion)
The standard definition of the judeochristian god, is Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. The last one not being germain to the discussion we will ignore it. The first three have very strong implications, IE being all powerful, everpresent and all knowing requires that God must know in advance the future events that will occur, the ability to make the starting point anyway he sees fit and was there to start the process.

Therefore, there would be no need to change his process once started. No need to build different creations over time or force the extinction of earlier species. The pool table analogy often works. Creation is the ultimate trick shot. Once the balls are set in motion the outcome at any time is known to the shooter.

Intelligent design requires a god that is not all knowing or not all powerful, as "he" needs to change the process periodically.

Creationism also requires a god that is not omnipotent as "he" does not have the ability to create a system that self regulates and increases in complexity over time.

Often this argument is hung up with two sides, atheist and devout arguing a different question or some argument about the strength of evidence or the specifics of the theories regarding evolution. But like most logical debates, one must start with a mutually accepted premise even if accepted only for the sake of argument.

Unfortunately, some religious believers seem to be able to shut off logical thinking in order to believe the literal translation of text rather than discuss the metaphysical nature of their own beliefs.

 

[Harabec]

A lot of people who believe in those silly ideas have trouble grasping the concept of "omnipotence", despite using it in various ways.

That is the limitation of the human mind, which has trouble coming up with something more complex than it. You resort to "magic" as in "he can do anything he wants" but there is not a lot of thought behind it.

 

[Anarchist420]

I think that all religions are wrong.

I can't say with 100% certainty that there is no deity, but if there exists one, then it is just a supreme being and not necessarily the God of the Abrahamic religions.

I kind of like to think of the universe as god.

 

[Murloc]

a rebuttal would probably be: god's plans are imperscrutable, you're trying to apply logic to something that goes beyond the science of men, something that is beyond our rational ability to understand.
Either that, or a more obscurantist answer: questioning god's plan is blasphemy and you're going to hell.

Imho religion should be all about feeling a sense of being part of something greater and accepting the good and bad in the world. This can be found in all religions in different forms.
All the dogmas, values etc. that are attached to are is just unnecessary. A gaia vision like anarchist's would keep only the good parts of spirituality.

 

[rpsgc]

I kind of like to think of the universe as god.

Ambassador Delenn, is that you?

We believe that the universe itself is conscious in a way that we can never truly understand. It is engaged in a search for meaning. So it breaks itself apart, investing its own consciousness in every form of life. We are the universe trying to understand itself.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You cannot set parameters for the discussion.......

The problem with most people is in order to understand religion or the Christian religion you must have faith that there is a God.....

When you throw the faith card away you have what?

 

[Dendra]

If we start with the premise that God exists (a necessary premise for the any discussion re creationism or ID) then we must define God. ... The standard definition of the judeochristian god, is Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent.

If this is true, how boring it must be to be God. No plans to make, nothing to figure out, no surprises, no challenges... just day after day of waiting for a bunch of adoring lower beings to be taken up into heaven to give him zero challenges. It sounds horrifically boring.

 

[woolfe9998]

a rebuttal would probably be: god's plans are imperscrutable, you're trying to apply logic to something that goes beyond the science of men, something that is beyond our rational ability to understand.
Either that, or a more obscurantist answer: questioning god's plan is blasphemy and you're going to hell.

Imho religion should be all about feeling a sense of being part of something greater and accepting the good and bad in the world. This can be found in all religions in different forms.
All the dogmas, values etc. that are attached to are is just unnecessary. A gaia vision like anarchist's would keep only the good parts of spirituality.

Yes, God's plans can never be known or understood by the human mind, so who are we to question them even when the goings on of the world don't seem to make any sense? Why do species go extinct? Why do bad things happen to good people? It's all part of God's mysterious "plan."

Now, if I want to be fair to this self-serving and convenient (il)logic, I'd say as follows: when scientists speak of the origin of all tings, the ultimate question of why is there something rather than nothing, they concede that we are unable to answer it. So it goes that "before" the Big Bang, the laws of this universe would not apply, so humans cannot comprehend the logic of such an originating "event" (if it can be called that) because our minds are the product of a universe with laws which cannot explain it. Is this really any different than the theist who claims that God has a "plan" which is beyond human comprehension?

Be that as it may, it all comes down to this: there is no credible evidence of the existence of a deity. And "God" solves no scientific nor philosophic conundrum. God is therefore unnecessary even as a supposition, and hence is irrelevant unless or until evidence of "God" becomes apparent.

 

[rpsgc]

Epicurus said it best:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

So this God of yours is either weak, a sadistic bastard or no god at all.

Take your pick.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yes, God's plans can never be known or understood by the human mind, so who are we to question them even when the goings on of the world don't seem to make any sense? Why do species go extinct? Why do bad things happen to good people? It's all part of God's mysterious "plan."

Now, if I want to be fair to this self-serving and convenient (il)logic, I'd say as follows: when scientists speak of the origin of all tings, the ultimate question of why is there something rather than nothing, they concede that we are unable to answer it. So it goes that "before" the Big Bang, the laws of this universe would not apply, so humans cannot comprehend the logic of such an originating "event" (if it can be called that) because our minds are the product of a universe with laws which cannot explain it. Is this really any different than the theist who claims that God has a "plan" which is beyond human comprehension?

Be that as it may, it all comes down to this: there is no credible evidence of the existence of a deity. And "God" solves no scientific nor philosophic conundrum. God is therefore unnecessary even as a supposition, and hence is irrelevant unless or until evidence of "God" becomes apparent.

faith...................

 

[Retro Rob]

faith...................

Do you mean: "Have faith in something not understood", and believe it anyway? Sounds more like credulity.

I think this is the worse possible answer to give anyone ... "faith", IMO... if I understand your reasoning.

This can turn people to hatred... just imagine: "why did my child have to die, pastor? Why did God not intervene"?

"It's a part of his plan... we don't understand it, we just go with it and have "faith"".

 

[DaveSimmons]

Predestination vs. free will, eh?

The standard definition of the judeochristian god, is Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent.

Both the definition and those terms themselves are open to interpretation.

Omnipotent: "Can God make a burrito so hot that he can't eat it?". Maybe god is omnipotent in a looser sense, able to do pretty much anything but not create paradoxes like that, or tying into the next term, to know perfectly the consequences of using its power.

Omniscient: perhaps in the more limited sense of knowing everything that is happening rather than everything that will happen. Especially given that he chose to create a university with quantum uncertainty.

Also, creationism and ID only require a powerful being, not an omnipotent and omniscient one.

 

[Paul98]

Predestination vs. free will, eh?



Both the definition and those terms themselves are open to interpretation.

Omnipotent: "Can God make a burrito so hot that he can't eat it?". Maybe god is omnipotent in a looser sense, able to do pretty much anything but not create paradoxes like that, or tying into the next term, to know perfectly the consequences of using its power.

or maybe he can make it so it's both ways at once.

Omniscient: perhaps in the more limited sense of knowing everything that is happening rather than everything that will happen. Especially given that he chose to create a university with quantum uncertainty.

Also, creationism and ID only require a powerful being, not an omnipotent and omniscient one.

Except what is happening right now is not knowable since there isn't one "now".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Your argument hinges on what you say God must do. What if God chooses to do things differently? What if God wishes for contact at some times? In terms of logic you make an argument that God is omnipotent them say he must do as you describe. That does not compute.

Whether ID is true is besides the point. You don't get to tell the all powerful how he must behave. By definition he does that.

 

[Retro Rob]

Your argument hinges on what you say God must do. What if God chooses to do things differently? What if God wishes for contact at some times? In terms of logic you make an argument that God is omnipotent them say he must do as you describe. That does not compute.

Whether ID is true is besides the point. You don't get to tell the all powerful how he must behave. By definition he does that.

True -- and the way I think non-believers (or believers alike in some cases) define the God of the Bible is only philosophically-based and have really nothing Biblically to fall back on.

An easy case of this is in the creation story when folks say: "He must have known what we were going to do before he created everything"...and I'd like to see some evidence of this. Sure, the Bible says he has the ability to foreknow things, but uses it with discretion. The evidence backs free-will -- creating people, laying a command on them to not even touch the tree, and punishing them for not obeying. Doesn't make much sense to create beings, knowing full-well they'd sin...while still laying a specific command on them, knowing they'd break it, and then punishing them for it...and to top it off, you spend an eternity in Hell.

Essentially this is saying in, in short, that God only created people just to send them to a predetermined Hell.

 

[Moonbeam]

No matter what your beliefs regarding the existance of God, the rules of logic apply and designate what is deductively consistant with your premise.

Why?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Do you mean: "Have faith in something not understood", and believe it anyway? Sounds more like credulity.

I think this is the worse possible answer to give anyone ... "faith", IMO... if I understand your reasoning.

This can turn people to hatred... just imagine: "why did my child have to die, pastor? Why did God not intervene"?

"It's a part of his plan... we don't understand it, we just go with it and have "faith"".

The problem is you are trying to apply your definition or your impressions of the word -- "Faith".....

I am talking about the biblical use of the word "faith".

You can define the word "faith" as anything you like.....

Others define the word "faith" as they see fit....

It`s like trying to define the word -- "Fair"......as in that is not fair....

Depending on your outlook and circumstances the word "fair" has many different interpretations....

 

[JEDIYoda]

No matter what your beliefs regarding the existance of God, the rules of logic apply and designate what is deductively consistant with your premise.

so you are telling me that you are the one to decide what rules I have to apply to what I believe?

How so?

 

[Retro Rob]

The problem is you are trying to apply your definition or your impressions of the word -- "Faith".....

I am talking about the biblical use of the word "faith".

You can define the word "faith" as anything you like.....

Others define the word "faith" as they see fit....

It`s like trying to define the word -- "Fair"......as in that is not fair....

Depending on your outlook and circumstances the word "fair" has many different interpretations....

Oh...I understand what the word means, but in a religious context, it is sometimes actually credulity.

I can't count the many times I've heard a religious leader tell people to have "faith" in something they don't understand.

 

[mattpegher]

Again, I would like to limit the discussion to the concepts of ID and Creationism.
Any argument re the existence of god is a separate topic.

As for god being outside the bounds of logic. To date no serious theological debate has contended this, because it renders discussion moot. The philosophical field of Metaphysics contends that existential questions can be discussed rationally only when the rules of logic are applied.

 

[Moonbeam]

The philosophical field of Metaphysics contends that existential questions can be discussed rationally only when the rules of logic are applied.

So a logical discussion has to use logic? But of what value is there to a philosophical field called Metaphysics except as a prison for logicians if none of the real questions of existence can be answered in that way?

This reminds me of the time Mulla Nasrudin walked onto the stage of a public debate among academics debating the meaning of things for the assempled audience. When asked what he was doing there he replied, "I am here to answer the questions that baffle you learned gentlemen."

 

[Onceler]

No matter what your beliefs regarding the existance of God, the rules of logic apply and designate what is deductively consistant with your premise.

If we start with the premise that God exists (a necessary premise for the any discussion re creationism or ID) then we must define God. (This is not optional in a logical discussion)
The standard definition of the judeochristian god, is Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. The last one not being germain to the discussion we will ignore it. The first three have very strong implications, IE being all powerful, everpresent and all knowing requires that God must know in advance the future events that will occur, the ability to make the starting point anyway he sees fit and was there to start the process.

Therefore, there would be no need to change his process once started. No need to build different creations over time or force the extinction of earlier species. The pool table analogy often works. Creation is the ultimate trick shot. Once the balls are set in motion the outcome at any time is known to the shooter.

Intelligent design requires a god that is not all knowing or not all powerful, as "he" needs to change the process periodically.

Creationism also requires a god that is not omnipotent as "he" does not have the ability to create a system that self regulates and increases in complexity over time.

Often this argument is hung up with two sides, atheist and devout arguing a different question or some argument about the strength of evidence or the specifics of the theories regarding evolution. But like most logical debates, one must start with a mutually accepted premise even if accepted only for the sake of argument.

Unfortunately, some religious believers seem to be able to shut off logical thinking in order to believe the literal translation of text rather than discuss the metaphysical nature of their own beliefs.

God makes little changes to suit His purposes. It is difficult for Him to alter the physical that's why He does little changes over time. There is evolution but there is not natural selection as put forth by Darwin.
It is Karma which dictates us evolving into higher and more complex life forms.

 

[Onceler]

Do you mean: "Have faith in something not understood", and believe it anyway? Sounds more like credulity.

I think this is the worse possible answer to give anyone ... "faith", IMO... if I understand your reasoning.

This can turn people to hatred... just imagine: "why did my child have to die, pastor? Why did God not intervene"?

"It's a part of his plan... we don't understand it, we just go with it and have "faith"".

That's BS. Not everything is according to the plan God made. It is not only possible but also very likely that we go against the will of God.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So a logical discussion has to use logic? But of what value is there to a philosophical field called Metaphysics except as a prison for logicians if none of the real questions of existence can be answered in that way?

This reminds me of the time Mulla Nasrudin walked onto the stage of a public debate among academics debating the meaning of things for the assempled audience. When asked what he was doing there he replied, "I am here to answer the questions that baffle you learned gentlemen."

I love that one. I think that an appeal to logic is often done by those who really do not understand what it means.

Are all true things logical?
Are all logical things true?

An exercise in logic

 

[Retro Rob]

That's BS. Not everything is according to the plan God made. It is not only possible but also very likely that we go against the will of God.

??

I didn't say everything was according to God's plan -- I was citing a hypothetical in which a person is told everything is according to God's plan and how silly and credulous such a faith is.