• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evidence for or against a creator?

Just like how scientists have a stereotypical view of a Creationist, a pseudo intellectual who gives up on hard problems, the creationists have a stereotypical view of the scientists.

Just like how we are able to learn about messages conveyed in poems, plays, and music - we are also able to learn messages from another art form of cinema. The reason why I say this, is I understand that the movie that I am going to present is fictional, but that does not mean that absolutely everything presented in this movie can not be incorporated to our everyday life.

I am going to focus on the world of Star Wars. I'm sure we all at some point have seen the whole trilogy. There is so much to learn from this trilogy, but I am going to focus on probably the most famous line ever to be said by Master Yoda.

"Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to The Darkside."

These three sentences, or however you want to organize it, is probably one of the most meaningful and impactful concepts that we can take from cinema. I am going to explain racism using the model Master Yoda presented.

Back in the day when slavery was the norm, slave owners obviously had a hate associated with the slaves that they owned. This could be found by either the awful living conditions to the disciplinary actions performed. According to Yoda, this all takes root on the premise that they are fearful of the slaves that they own. This is true. They know how physically dominant they are, for those are the conditions that they purchase the slaves. They see the strong legs, muscular arms, and packed chest. This created one set of fears associated with physical supremacy. I think they all understood if the slaves were to revolt and were able to get a hold of their weapons, just a fist fight alone would result in their deaths. Another set of fear is associated to what is implied by the religious doctrine at the time. Slavery was justified by some Christian who in society's eyes was credible, took a boat to Africa, and then said that Negros were not of man, but were less of man. This justified treating them as slaves. Actually contemplating what was happening at the time, required someone to question the religious doctrine of the time. Sure, to use with the luxury of hindsight, this is easy. But in a time where if you went up to a Priest and told them they were a sack of ****, they would probably deem you a heretic and kill you in some horribly painful way. This fear, manifested into anger. This outright anger of a slave who insists upon not following directions breeds hate. Now we are at a point, that once that person's skin is seen, their whole life is figured out. This is the blind irrationality of hate. Then slave owners went to the dark side, like that of the Sith. A being whose only purpose is self-interest. The only purpose of human relationships is to get something out of them. The only good thing women provided was between their two legs and the propensity to take care of the house and kids. So on and so forth.

And so, let us go to the debate we have at hand. Scientists who show an anger to the creationist, is just a manifestation of fear. They do not want to deal with the implications of a world that is not only created but controlled by an all powerful being. This fear is so strong, they will do everything in their power to create a reality void of this entity, regardless if it is Truth or not.
 

Fear? Mainly they are met with indifference. There is a difference in finding answers, and finding answers to fit preconceived notions. You do not have to look very far back in human history to find many instances of the latter. The Enlightenment freed us from the confines of religious interpretations and allowed great minds not just to look for answers but to ask the right questions.

You did your research. You reached your conclusion. God did it. Now you can fold up your maps, put away your books and let the heretics continue to come up with new questions.
 
This is what I am saying earlier. You obviously have me all figured out because I believe in a Creator. As I have said in previous posts on this thread, I am not the typical Creationist. Just because I feel I have a personal relationship to our Creator, doesn't void my desire to understand the world around me, and that includes physics.

Why do you think men of The Enlightenment feared the church? They feared it, not from what they were saying ideologically, but from the infamous amounts of torture that was used just to get a confession. Why did the church fear scientists? Because these notions broke the model that was used to justify the brutal torture and deaths of thousands of people.

Sorry, scientists are human too. They fear God.
 

What a load of crap.

First off, if Yoda means that all fear is bad then he is wrong. Fear is usually caused by some type of risk or danger. It is often wise to respect your fear and avoid risk and danger. It certainly can lead to hate, but is more likely to when we try to deny fear or suppress it.

Your silly application to slavery would only work if we ignored most of history. ALL slaves have not been of one type or race. People are not enslaved for fear of their physical dominance. They are enslaved because the slave master fears he will starve without them. Further, most slaves were taken after conquest and were spared death. Yeah, real dominant.

The practice of slavery was not race based until it fell into disrepute. It became accepted that it was morally wrong to force someone into labor. However, it was reasoned that these other races were inferior (not superior) and therefore not due the same sort of respect. The same was true with women.

Your application to science versus creationism is also nonsense. The anger of scientists against creationists is more due to frustration than fear. It is frustration with there blind faith that fails to consider any evidence against their belief. A good scientist seeks the truth, period. But faith is not proof and neither is ignorance.
 
Fear is fear. Rather it is good or bad, doesn't change the fact that fear could lead to anger. It doesn't mean this happens in all situations.

Why do you think African Americans own in pretty much every athletic event that they participate in? I want to hear this one.

I am hoping you do not follow that ideology that races are inferior. There is a book out there called Guns, Germs, and Steel that will shatter that argument federal prison style. It is the narration of an evolutionary biologist on the history of the world.

It has everything to do with fear. Scientists want a reality that they are in control of, not the possibility of putting the control in someone elses hands. Your brain said it was a load of crap because these notions that I am presenting is going against postulates that have been used in countless debates over eons. So, it is understandable.
 

I fear that you are projecting.
 
sookster said:
The question is, is it going to manifest into anger?
Click to expand...

Which? Your fear that I suspect you are projecting, or my fear which is not really fear in the sense of being afraid, but rather a play on words?
 
How could I have known if you didn't elaborate on what you said? The internet does not share tone of voice or nonverbal communication cues. I'm sure you understand that. I couldn't care less if you think I am projecting. You stated no evidence to back up that statement.
 

It is a hunch, the evidence for that hunch is what i have read here in this thread.. what other evidence do I have? I am not privy to your mind other than what is here. The same applies to the broadly generalized category of "scientists" you are claiming have all this fear. Where is your evidence for this? Are you privy to what goes on in their minds, and since you are making sweeping generalizations I suppose that means all of their minds (I will give you a break and let you off the hook with establishing the case for this with just a simple majority though).
 
Last edited:
The evidence is found through the implications I brought forth in this thread. If you either do not have the ability to see it, or refuse to see it, is none of my business.
 

Funny,I made those 2 same points when you accused me of projecting.
 
Funny, how you do not provide evidence of your statements. I'm officially done with this thread. If you refuse to see or acknowledge what I have said, then so be it.
 
Alfons said:
Wrong, there are proofs for existence of God.

Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Existence of God - Proof of God
Click to expand...

Ugh, why read past one. Let's see the claim "The earth is perfect for life because there is life on earth." Well no ****. I guess it couldn't possibly be that life evolved on this planet and adapted to it's environment. As for claims that it is in the correct position from the sun, that is called the Goldilocks Zone. The Kepler has found 54 Goldilocks planets this past couple years and that is only scanning an "extremely" tiny section of our observable space.

A bit of reading on the intertubes and you can answer the points that are actually science based.

Oh man. The Eye is on that list as well.

I highly recommend you do a bit of googling on those items listed.
 

"Hey look... this hole in the ground seems to be perfectly made to fit me." said the puddle of water.
 
sookster said:
It is in my view, since I believe that there is a Creator, that science and religion (this term can include religions that have not been published) should go hand in hand, instead of fist on fist.
Click to expand...

Nothing in science will ever prove or disprove a "creator". It's a different question all together. There is no reason why religion and science cannot work together. Science will never employ a "god" argument, because we're only interested in that which can be measured and gods are defined as immeasurable systems. Science is more about the how, religion/philodophy is more about the why. My PhD advisor is not only a very good scientist, but very religious as well. He's very Catholic and is able to work both his scientific understanding and religious philosophy into a working doctrine. In fact, the physics department has a lot of religious and atheists in there. We have Catholics, and Mormons, Evengelicals, Athiests, etc. There is nothing in science which will ever discount gods or religion. They questions are different.
 
Everything I see around me suggest a creator.

The fact that I'm conscious of the concept suggests that.

There is no proof, other than metaphysical, and that is for each to determine.

But in my mind, I have proven that there is a God.
 
sookster said:
Fear is fear. Rather it is good or bad, doesn't change the fact that fear could lead to anger. It doesn't mean this happens in all situations.
Click to expand...

Here is the quote again...

"Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to The Darkside."

Not....

"Fear sometimes leads to Anger. Anger sometimes leads to Hate. Hate sometimes leads to The Darkside."

Your stated premise, or Yoda's, was that all fear is bad because it leads to the Darkside. Yoda was but an ignorant padawan and I am the true Jedi Master. We must accept our fear and understand it's nature in order to master it. Attempting to suppress it is pointless and counterproductive. Even anger and hate may have good uses but they are more dangerous.

Why do you think African Americans own in pretty much every athletic event that they participate in? I want to hear this one.
Click to expand...

They don't. Sports dominance within a specific population is COMPLETELY explained by the amount of practice devoted to a sport within that population.

Explain why blacks no longer dominate in boxing. Are blacks becoming less superior?


Of course not. You are the one arguing that races are inferior or superior. I only stated that people BELIEVED they were inferior.

Your claim about why people are enslaved is beyond ridiculous. People were/are enslaved after they have been forced to submit. There is no fear of them that causes people to enslave them as they could just as easily kill them. If fear is involved then it is fear of poverty that causes one person to enslave another.

Blacks were enslaved because most people had come to the conclusion that enslaving a white man was morally wrong. Remember, women and children were still treated as property, as well. Blacks were viewed as inferior and so it was okay to continue using them as slaves.


Scientists want to understand reality. My brain said your arguments were a load of crap because they have been refuted in countless debates over eons.

Not one part of your post had any connection with reality.
 
RStringfield said:
They don't. Sports dominance within a specific population is COMPLETELY explained by the amount of practice devoted to a sport within that population.

Explain why blacks no longer dominate in boxing. Are blacks becoming less superior?
Click to expand...

The truth is that many people come to the theory that blacks are physically superior based on racism. That is, they are hard pressed to explain why blacks excel in sports and are unwilling to accept the obvious answer, because they worked harder or smarter at developing those skills. To those people the hard working thinking man's athlete is ALWAYS the white guy. Arguing that blacks are blessed with physical skills allows people to continue in the misguided belief that blacks are stupid and lazy.

This notion should have been dispelled long ago. Frank Robinson knew baseball. Hell, so did Jackie. Both worked hard too. Blacks soon dominated baseball, but not anymore. Maybe, the hispanics are physically superior now because it can't be hard work or knowledge.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Wow, that's funny. Did you actually read that before posting?
Click to expand...

Yes I did.
Your point being?

Marylin Adamsons states in her article(in the very first paragraph)
"Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists".

She's stating her opinions,not providing physical evidence that God exists.

If anyone wishes to believe that the 6 reasons she provides is reasons to believe that God exists, then that is their right.


1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

That's an opinion with no evidence stated to back it up.
The Anthropic Principle and the Multiverse Model are two alternative explanations to the complexity of our planet that also has the same amount of evidence to back it up.
None.

All the examples Marilyn Adamson provides is common knowledge that they are complex.
She offers no evidence or explanation as to how it became those things became complex in the first place other than "God did it"

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?

Marilyn Adamson states in the very last sentence:
"The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter."

Again,common knowledge.

The Cyclic Model of the Universe ( a universe following an eternal series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch; in the interim, the universe would expand for a period of time before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce). is an alternate explanation of how this universe came to be with as much evidence as the ones provided by Marilyn Adamson.

None.

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

The Anthropic Principle and the Multiverse Model are two alternative explanations to why The Laws of Nature are the way they are that also has the same amount of evidence to back it up.

None.

One Dick Feynman quote is not a form of proof.
It is a opinion.

4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

I got to admit,biology is not my strong suit.
All I can do is offer the two examples I've stated above and offer another alternative explanation that is equally plausible and has just as much proof.

An advance civilization from another planet did it.

Let us,for the sake of argument, say this point does prove that a Designer did it.
There is no evidence that a Supreme Being as Portrayed by The Judeo-Christian Bible is the one who did it.
It could have been Vishnu,or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all we know.

5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

Anecdotal evidence.
And a opinion.
That is faith,not fact.

Choosing to believe that God exists is not the same a "Proof that God Exist".

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

Revelation is not Physical Evidence.
And again that's just her opinion.
Opinion is not Proof

In the Bhagavad Gita Lord Khrishna states "I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."
-Bhagavad Gita 10.8

If these 6 examples that Marilyn Adamson provide are indeed "Proof that God Exists" then I say "I have no problem with that.Then I believe Lord Khrishna is God and that Lord Khrisha in the form of Vishnu created the Universe,because the Bhagavad Gita said so.
 
Alfons said:
Wrong, there are proofs for existence of God.

Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Existence of God - Proof of God
Click to expand...

These are all old, bad arguments.

#s 1, 3 and 4 are variations on the old watchmaker argument. I'll limit my comments to pointing out that evidence of complexity does not demonstrate anything regarding the existence of god for essentially the reasons that have been pointed out in various responses to the OP of this thread.

#2 is pure conjecture. No one knows what caused the universe to start, and since it's completely outside of our experiences or conceptions, I bet no one ever will. God is only one of a literally infinite set of possibilities.

#5 sounds a lot like schizophrenia.

#6 is laughably deluded cultural bias.
 
There is no "evidence for a creator".

The frontiers of science are always where people attempt to "stick gods and supernatural things". Oddly, as the frontiers move, so do the arguments. Just avoid them.

The idea to call some phenomenon you don't understand "a creator or supernatural" is a very common, normal human reaction, at least in most human cultures today. Overcoming that tendancy is a test of reason. No need to pass it, I mean, we all die anyway...but it certainly helps to understand reality better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…