Some random thoughts about a Creator

Oh, but it is; they use it to argue against evolution, by misinterpeting it. The define Earth as a closed system, when it’s not, and talk about how order can’t increase in a closed system, while ignoring the fact that it can increase locally; only a global increase is impossible. Even if Earth was closed, which it isn’t. They either ignore the Sun’s contribution, and I’ve seen them try to deny that it “counts” when called on it. To quote a fundie on another forum :

Amusingly, I found this post quoted in yet another forum, in a thread titled “Fundamentalist Christian almost discovers Sun”.

That title and text reads like an Onion article (but it isn’t though, is it?)

Beautifully put. I have a real hard time with an omnimax God that created the universe and then had to continue adding and changing stuff around like sofas in a living room. If it was God who created the universe he must have created it via the Big Bang and the natural evolution that followed. Every minor detail pre-arranged from the one initial creation event.

Please change it to “Gawd” so we can undo the change later on, if needed.

And at the same time, the creationists who say science has no place in faith will continue to try to use science (prayer experiments, etc) to prove that god exists. The mind boggles.

well, just because science has no place in faith that doesn’t mean you can’t have faith in science

How can anyone believe that there is one? If there was one and only one creator of some sort, we would have known about it from day one and would not have invented thousands of different religions to fleece money from one another.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that there is one, and he did the creation thing. Now what’s the situation?

  1. He’s still actively involved. In which case, he ain’t worth praying to because he’s done a piss-poor job of managing his creation.

  2. He started it and walked away (Deism, or the clock-winder theory). In which case, he ain’t worth praying to because he’s done an even more piss-poor job of managing his creation.

  3. He started it and is just watching to see what happens. In which case, he ain’t worth praying to because he’s a fucking sadist.

How would that benefit science though?

Scientist 1: The results of the experimental trials on these new tires show that the tread may come off at high speeds

Scientist 2: Nonsense, God will prevent it from happening.

I’m going to skip all the factual discussion - there are plenty of bright intelligent people here to do that - and ask how you think belief is so easy? Belief is in the heart. You could say I consciously chose to become an agnostic. However, there was no conscious thought in being an atheist. One day, I was particularly in touch with my mind and feelings, and just realized - I have no belief in me for any god. Further, I have no need of it.

Belief IMO cannot be switched on and off.

I think the point John Mace was making is that when you substitute “universe” for “creator” the argument doesn’t change.

Ah, but the universe at its beginning, whatever that means, wasn’t anything like “the world we know.”

The assumption of a separate, uncreated creator for the universe is an act of faith. There is no reason whatever to postulate causes all the way down until an arbitrarty, uncaused creator is assumed.

The owners of The Universe Bar & Grille have settled in small claims court with the Lord Almighty for inadvertently infringing on his trademark.

Just wanted to add that I find it amusing how people (such as the OP) conflate “creator” with “intelligent designer.”

A riff I first heard from a local columnist Eric Zorn posits, even if we find a watch on the beach, why must we assume an intelligent designer? What if is was discarded as an incompetent design? Or the product of malevolent design? Or maybe a flawed preliminary design? …

Just strikes me that affixing the adjective involves a second leap of faith (and no small amount of ego).

Or no small amount of cheerful optimism…

“Do you think the universe was intelligently designed?”
“Well, I sure hope so!”

I think when they say intelligent, they actually mean sentient, rather than clever (although I’m sure the latter is also necessary for those who hold the intelligent designer to be the God of the Bible), but AFAIK, the term Intelligent designer is primarily meant to imply deliberation and consciousness as distinct from something like design process.

They interpret it just fine, thankyouverymuch. In a closed system, gases of various temperature will tend to average out to a mean temperature. Therefore, a loving and omniscient God.

Honestly, do I have to explain everything to you people?

The big bang also created time. It is a space /time continuum. No measuring sticks ,no up no down zippo.

And the next leap is from “intelligent designer” to “Jesus loves me so.” Which is really the point – people that insist on a creator are really looking for proof that they are loved.

Well, then why don’t believers consider the possibility that the universe resulted from the creator’s “bodily functions?” I guess “God farted” might attract fewer followers…

More seriously (but not all that much - as mythology rarely warrants complete sobriety), IME folks who refer to ID most often believe in some “purpose” or directionality of existence. Which to me suggests at least some intention OBO any creator/designer.

Must have been a bitch finding a parking spot.

Plenty of people (but far from everyone).

I seem to recall reading that one of the most common reasons people give for believing in God is that, essentially, they look around at the world, see how intricate and amazing it is, and think “Somebody must have created/designed this; it couldn’t have just happened by accident.”

But this is an emotional argument, not a logical one. And as an emotional argument, it’s not going to convince anyone who doesn’t already feel its force. As a logical argument, it can be countered, as people have already done in this thread.

I suppose it’s conceivable that, with enough scientific sophistication, some sort of case could be made that the universe shows evidence of having been created. This, if I understand correctly, is what the Intelligent Design people are trying to do. But, at least at this point, their conclusions are controversial and almost universally discounted by mainstream science.