Anti-creationism is just as arrational as creationism

[DeltaEpsilon]

If a creator exists, he certainly didn't create anything that Creationism would have him creating. Creationists, for instance, predict biological systems that cannot evolve by any conceivable evolutionary pathway. Problem? Every biological system proposed by creationists has turned out to have a possible evolutionary pathway, with ample evidence to establish that was the way it happened.

Evolution delivers the goods. Creationism doesn't. That is the difference, and it is the reason why evolution is more rational than creationism.

What about forms of Creationism such as the Simulation Hypothesis?

[DeltaEpsilon]

DeltaEpsilon ... you are not using "create" in the same way as the other posters.  That is a problem with using a non-technical word, and a bad language like English that muddles concepts.  This happens with "science" when we read "Creationist" literature ... they are using "science" in the Medieval way ... meaning knowledge.  Everyone else is using "science" in the scientific method sense, particularly as it is understood post 1700 CE.

Perhaps we need a separate thread for those few of us who care about metaphysics (the supposed meaning behind the concepts we use).  In my metaphysics for example, it is unnecessary for time to have a beginning, it is also unnecessary for me to have a "theory of everything" in a scientific sense.  Aristotle's "four causes" gives me enough to chew on (it is in his "metaphysics").

Unfortunately, when we use words differently than others, we frequently just get into word definition contests ;-(  "Rational" is one of these bug-bear words too.  There are exact definitions we can use, if you agree to it ... but it might not convey your thought.  In my view, rationality is a tiny part of reality, and relatively not absolutely ... for me reality is irrational (not anti-rational though).  Reality is chaotic, particularly on the human level.  Valid logic is only found in toy situations, like chess or formal math.  The phrase "you are being irrational" is simply rhetoric, same as using "you are an atheist" is rhetorical ... it isn't about establishing truth, it is about dis-establishing reputation.

If the other users are implying that creationism by definition rules out evolutionary theory than I'll happily admit that I was wrong. Although not all forms of creationism contradict evolution, for instance, the Simulation Hypothesis hypothesizes that there is an ultimate creator that has simulated our universe. It would be just as illogical to state that that theory is true (or likely true since I don't see any experiment that could confirm it or provide evidence for it)  than to say it is not true (or likely untrue as it were). That is essentially what I am trying to get at.

Actually, I was trying to probe a conversation about atheism is the lack of belief in god rather than the disbelief in all gods.

[Mike Cl]

Actually, I was trying to probe a conversation about atheism is the lack of belief in god rather than the disbelief in all gods.

For me, I have a hard time using 'belief' in my description of my stance on god.  I don't 'think' god exists.  What is the difference?  Belief does not have to have any evidence to believe that it is accurate or true.  You simply have to believe it.  I can believe that Santa is indeed, real.  I don't need any proof of that, just a belief that it is so.  To think something is implies that reason or evidence was involved in coming to that conclusion.  I don't think god/s exist--there is no evidence for any of them.

[Fickle]

What about forms of Creationism such as the Simulation Hypothesis?

Interesting however I find the reasoning flawed coming full circle back to the we are the center of the universe theory. That somehow something finds you and you alone special and would create an imaginary universe... just for you. This is simply a psychological defect created by the mind otherwise most would probably just commit suicide. I mean what is the point when very few have any real sense purpose in the greater sense of the word. In a word, why?, and "why" make work for us on a superficial level within the context of this skewed little world we have created but not in a universal sense.

I would study psychology first then move on to philosophy because one cannot understand what we think without first determining why we think.

[Baruch]

Interesting however I find the reasoning flawed coming full circle back to the we are the center of the universe theory. That somehow something finds you and you alone special and would create an imaginary universe... just for you. This is simply a psychological defect created by the mind otherwise most would probably just commit suicide. I mean what is the point when very few have any real sense purpose in the greater sense of the word. In a word, why?, and "why" make work for us on a superficial level within the context of this skewed little world we have created but not in a universal sense.

I would study psychology first then move on to philosophy because one cannot understand what we think without first determining why we think.

I agree ... I think that psychology is very important, as is philosophy, and they are inter-related.  The majority of our experience is subjective ... but that is a weak tool dealing with those aspects that are relatively objective or relatively rational.  Some people's word definitions ... people who post here ... would by definition exclude the "simulation universe" or the "brain in a jar" thought experiments.  Word definitions can both include and exclude.  I create two pieces of Spanish goat cheese by cutting one piece into two.  But I didn't create the cheese, the cheese maker did.  And that leads to a potentially infinite regression ... because without the she-goat and all of her ancestors back to the pre-Cambrian period, there would be no cheese to cut.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Great, another teen who thinks they've got life figured out. *yawn*

[Baruch]

Great, another teen who thinks they've got life figured out. *yawn*

We were all there once.  Fortunately after 19, I have never had to think again, because I actually was right ;-)

[Hijiri Byakuren]

We were all there once.

That's why it annoys me. Reminds me too much of... well, me.

[SGOS]

What about forms of Creationism such as the Simulation Hypothesis?

Why would simulation creationism be more probable than creationism?  It's still the same creator type guy, with the twist, "but he did it this way, rather than that way."

[Baruch]

Why would simulation creationism be more probable than creationism?  It's still the same creator type guy, with the twist, "but he did it this way, rather than that way."

It sounds more scientific than some goat herder saying "abracadabra".  Another smore?  Put another stick on the camp fire while you are at it.  Gotta keep the Philistines away ;-)

[SGOS]

If the other users are implying that creationism by definition rules out evolutionary theory than I'll happily admit that I was wrong. Although not all forms of creationism contradict evolution, for instance, the Simulation Hypothesis hypothesizes that there is an ultimate creator that has simulated our universe. It would be just as illogical to state that that theory is true (or likely true since I don't see any experiment that could confirm it or provide evidence for it)  than to say it is not true (or likely untrue as it were). That is essentially what I am trying to get at.

Actually, it's been suggested that a creator god has used evolution as the mechanism that created a variety of species, but that variation of creationism still suffers from it's same original flaw.  There is no evidence to suggest a creator god needs to be added into the theory at any point.  Everything works fine without that additional requirement.

[josephpalazzo]

No. I am not claiming it is reasonable to believe in creationism, it is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in creationism if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.

You're also painting yourself into a corner with this type of reasoning.

Illustration:

1.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in ghosts if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
2.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in unicorns if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
3.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in fairies if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
4.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in gouls if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
5.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in minotaurs if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
6.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in fire-breathing dragons if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
7.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in hydra if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
.
.
.

And so on, one can conjure a million entities for which it would be unreasonable to disbelieve on account of insufficient amount of evidence. Your position, to use your own words, is unreasonable.

[stromboli]

Simulation hypothesis in particular has been debunked.

http://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/BostromReview.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

http://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-you-are-not-living-in-computer.html

We live in the information age. Google it for fucks sake. Any claim made of a Creationist nature I am aware of has been debunked. could we please once and for all get rid of William Lane Craig and the other meatbrains that propose this crap?

And its "arational" not "arrational".

And it still is not science nor does it follow scientific method. Carry on.

[Hydra009]

7.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in hydra if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.

[stromboli]

I believe bro, I believe.