Fewer Americans Than Ever Hold Creationist Views

[Mike Cl]

The simpler explanation is nature did it. Nature caused it self to exist (or always existed) and eventually turned into a universe that had the right conditions to cause intelligent life. No knowledge needed, no engineering degree required just luck and happenstance. Why would anyone be skeptical of that claim? And we do know nature exists all you have to do is look around and see what nature did.

Actually, you are correct.  Nature is the simple explanation--in fact it is the only explanation.  If one could see god(s), we would all be able to point to it; but we can't because god is simply an abstract fiction.  I'm glad to see that you finally figured it out.

[Hakurei Reimu]

The simpler explanation is nature did it. Nature caused it self to exist (or always existed) and eventually turned into a universe that had the right conditions to cause intelligent life. No knowledge needed, no engineering degree required just luck and happenstance. Why would anyone be skeptical of that claim? And we do know nature exists all you have to do is look around and see what nature did.

If nature needs an explanation and knowledge and an engineering degree of some god to exist, then why doesn't the god that supposedly make it (which supposedly have this knowledge and engineering degree) not need an explanation, knowledge and an engineering degree of some other being to exist? This is the obvious elephant in the room for the god question. It's not even a new objection to the god hypothesis. Carl Sagan articulated this a lot more eloquently than I ever could over a quarter century ago:

The way god is proposed leaves him with exactly the same philosophical holes that it seeks to plug in the origin of the universe, does not solve any mysteries it seeks to answer, and thus unnecessary as an explanation. This is what makes him silly as a hypothesis â€" as an explanation, it fails and hard, and you people don't seem to realize or acknowledge the fact.

PS, I'm still waiting for a response in the Goddidit vs Naturedidit thread.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The point of view of theists that we owe our existence to a Creator isn't a silly belief.

Believing some magic dude decided you're the center of the Universe isn't silly, it's just stupid.

[Baruch]

Believing some magic dude decided you're the center of the Universe isn't silly, it's just stupid.

Ape men do, what ape men gotta do.  Got doo doo?

[aitm]

Believing some magic dude decided you're the center of the Universe isn't silly, it's just stupid.

It is the epitome of arrogance, brought on by fear of the dark, spearheaded by the feelings of insecurity once ones parents die.

[Drew_2017]

Yeah, but what could be simpler than "God did it?"  Of course you still have to have some credible evidence to support that one.  Or maybe from Drew's perspective, if God did it, no evidence at all is actually necessary because, you know, God did it, and that God exists is a universal truth available to anyone willing to open their heart, and that he did it is self evident because you just have to look around and see what he did.

The irony is the same evidence you point to and say "Naturedidit' (the universe, stars, galaxies, planets, life, intelligent life, the laws of physics) I point to and say Goddidit. Which explanation explains best is in the eyes of the beholder. We know that naturalistic forces exist, we know that matter exists and the universe exists. We know the universe was configured in a manner that allows human life to exist and caused intelligent human life to exist. We are scarcely any further along in knowing why these things exist.

What would shock you the most if it turned out we owed our existence to a Creator?

I wrote in the previous post...

No one knows (for sure) how this universe came about. No one knows what proceeded this universe if anything. No one knows why there is time, why we exist in 3 dimensions, why mindless naturalistic forces without any plan or intent caused the conditions to allow life or why there are laws of physics. No one even knows why or how naturalistic forces came into existence.

I didn't hear a single person dispute this. No one said no Drew you're wrong again we know how the universe came about. No one said nope, we know why there is time. False! We know why we live in three dimensions. We know why there are laws of physics and why they allowed and caused life to exist. You don't know shit....either do I. What I don't get is how you can be so positive your claim is true. You guys are supposed to be skeptics...start with the beliefs you hold the nearest and dearest and work your way outwards. Barring anyone knowing the answer to the aforementioned questions we should be equally skeptical of either answer and certain of no answer.

[Mike Cl]

No one knows (for sure) how this universe came about. No one knows what proceeded this universe if anything. No one knows why there is time, why we exist in 3 dimensions, why mindless naturalistic forces without any plan or intent caused the conditions to allow life or why there are laws of physics. No one even knows why or how naturalistic forces came into existence.

I didn't hear a single person dispute this.

And I won't dispute it.  But I will say--so what?  Why would 'I don't know.' lead to god or a creator?  The above sentence only leads to 'I don't know.'  It does not lead to a creator.  I have not seen a single piece of proof that would lead to a creator.  I guess one could posit a creator who mindfully created all we see and experience, but chooses to remain forever invisible.  So what?  If that is so, then it is still up to humankind to create the societies humans want.  That invisible god left no marks whatsoever, and therefore no guidance. Humans would have to guide themselves.  But I have not seen any proof even for an invisible creator.  There is simply no evidence whatsoever for a god/creator.  There is abundant proof that nature exists, for that is what we experience every second of every day.  It is evident that nature exists.  There is no evidence at all that a creator exists.

[Drew_2017]

And I won't dispute it.  But I will say--so what?  Why would 'I don't know.' lead to god or a creator?  The above sentence only leads to 'I don't know.'  It does not lead to a creator.  I have not seen a single piece of proof that would lead to a creator.  I guess one could posit a creator who mindfully created all we see and experience, but chooses to remain forever invisible.  So what?  If that is so, then it is still up to humankind to create the societies humans want.  That invisible god left no marks whatsoever, and therefore no guidance. Humans would have to guide themselves.  But I have not seen any proof even for an invisible creator.  There is simply no evidence whatsoever for a god/creator.  There is abundant proof that nature exists, for that is what we experience every second of every day.  It is evident that nature exists.  There is no evidence at all that a creator exists.

No one is asking or inquiring if nature exists. Its the fact of its existence that leads us to ask why does it exist? Did nature cause nature to exist? Did nature always exist? Do we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that didn't care if they or we existed? The fact that the universe exists, has laws of physics that caused stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets and ultimately intelligent life are the facts (evidence) that leads many to conclude there is more than just the forces of nature and a Creator may have been necessary. You can say in your opinion the facts I cited don't convince you of a Creator and you believe naturalistic forces alone suffice but its just sloganeering to say there is no evidence of a Creator unless you actually know naturalistic forces alone suffice and you can prove it.   

[Hakurei Reimu]

The fact that the universe exists, has laws of physics that caused stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets and ultimately intelligent life are the facts (evidence) that leads many to conclude there is more than just the forces of nature and a Creator may have been necessary.

Why are these "many" correct in this assessment? Are any of them cosmologists â€" people who make it their life's work to study universal origins? Why do you think that the opinions of these "many" should be considered even of comparable worth to the assessments of the best minds in the field with access to the best data in the field? Why are they forwarding an idea that has failed to explain every other phenomenon it was put to task of explaining, and why they think that this old idea will work this time, with this subject matter?

I've been trying to pry answers to these questions and related ones out of you for a good two months now. However, I've never gotten anything for my trouble but the runaround and accusations of close mindedness. Apparently, I should take seriously an argument involving probabilities when the presenter doesn't even produce a single probability in support of themselves. While Lee Strobel was hopelessly wrong in his own assessment of the fine-tuning of a single universal constant, G, he at least had the guts to present a figure.

As always, what you believe is not as important as why you believe it. I have no idea why you would believe in a creator, even to the point where you think it a possibility in any way comparable to the alternative.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No one is asking or inquiring if nature exists. Its the fact of its existence that leads us to ask why does it exist? Did nature cause nature to exist? Did nature always exist? Do we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that didn't care if they or we existed? The fact that the universe exists, has laws of physics that caused stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets and ultimately intelligent life are the facts (evidence) that leads many to conclude there is more than just the forces of nature and a Creator may have been necessary. You can say in your opinion the facts I cited don't convince you of a Creator and you believe naturalistic forces alone suffice but its just sloganeering to say there is no evidence of a Creator unless you actually know naturalistic forces alone suffice and you can prove it.   

You're making the positive claim, that there is a "creator". Prove it.

[Cavebear]

Sometimes, I think that the cause of all modern religion (as opposed to the nature-forces fears of our far ancestors) is that "I don't understand the world, it is too complicated, I screwed up this life, I HAVE to hope for a better life after I die". 

Sad as that is, many people seem to think that way.  They failed this one, they want a 2nd chance.  And if they win at THAT one, they are good for eternity.

Millennia past (pre-religion), when you failed, you just died a failure.  Today, they want a 2nd go at the game.  And their game is "if I follow the rituals and believe hard enough, I'll win". 

If believing hard was the way to go, we would all be knee-deep in debris in caves.

[Baruch]

The Millennials grew up of video games.  All young gamers I met, wanted cheat codes to get additional lives, if the game itself didn't directly provide them.  I don't think Millennials will be any less into magical thinking than their predecessors.  Recent events on college campuses tend to confirm this.

[trdsf]

Sometimes, I think that the cause of all modern religion (as opposed to the nature-forces fears of our far ancestors) is that "I don't understand the world, it is too complicated, I screwed up this life, I HAVE to hope for a better life after I die". 

Sad as that is, many people seem to think that way.  They failed this one, they want a 2nd chance.  And if they win at THAT one, they are good for eternity.

Millennia past (pre-religion), when you failed, you just died a failure.  Today, they want a 2nd go at the game.  And their game is "if I follow the rituals and believe hard enough, I'll win". 

If believing hard was the way to go, we would all be knee-deep in debris in caves.

That's an angle I hadn't thought about -- my usual analysis is that it developed out of a need for social control as we evolved from mobile hunter-gatherers to stationary farmers.  And also it's useful for a local leader to have a retainer who isn't afraid to promise a better second life to cushion the blow of this life sucking -- at least sucking for everyone who's not the leader and his favored few (almost inevitably including the religious leader, fancy that).  But this does rather play into human competitiveness -- and we are a competitive species.  Who wouldn't want a do-over?

Well, other than me.  Even when I was a believer, the last kind of eternity I wanted was the alabaster city in the clouds forever singing hosannahs.  I wanted to cruise the universe unfettered by Einstein's laws and see what all was out there.

[Unbeliever]

Sometimes, I think that the cause of all modern religion (as opposed to the nature-forces fears of our far ancestors) is that "I don't understand the world, it is too complicated, I screwed up this life, I HAVE to hope for a better life after I die". 

Sad as that is, many people seem to think that way.  They failed this one, they want a 2nd chance.  And if they win at THAT one, they are good for eternity.

Millennia past (pre-religion), when you failed, you just died a failure.  Today, they want a 2nd go at the game.  And their game is "if I follow the rituals and believe hard enough, I'll win". 

Yeah, I don't understand why people believe that life is about passing and failing. There is no pass or fail, their is only live and die. There's no graduation ceremony at death from which we move on to a higher plane of life. I get that the power-mongers know how to use fear and/or hope of an afterlife to continue filling their bank accounts. I just don't get the mind set that allows them to keep doing it.

[Unbeliever]

  I wanted to cruise the universe unfettered by Einstein's laws and see what all was out there.

I think I've found a soul-mate! I idolize Baron Munchhausen:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0p9W47frhI


That's my idea how to spend an afterlife!