Am I a creationist or ID believer?

[The Grim Squeaker]

Having recently been mulling over my beliefs in the basis of reality I realised that in many ways I could be classified as a believer in intelligent design.
Not being sure of this I felt that the best way to check if I am indeed in some way a traitor to rational thought, scientific principles and logic then I should find out in a place full of debunkers and despisers of theocracies- but then I became impatient and decided to post my thoughts in this forum

First of all I believe that the universe was created in the big bang or in any other way according to scientific principles (about 11-14 billion years ago) and the earth was later formed according to scientific findings/principles (2-4 billion years ago, and was not created from a division of water and sky).

I also maintain a conviction in evolution as a process that happens naturally and results in the most able and capable creature gaining dominance over any specific environment.

However I also believe that the big bang was either caused by g-d or that g-d is the universe itself, and that this omnipotent being had a plan for creation and life and that we are all part of this plan including our evolution from amoebas (here comes my fear of being a believer of intelligent design).

I think that this omnipotent being ensured the creation of various forms of life on various planets by keeping the chances of life occurring probable (for a wild example: the universal constant of gravity not being so high that any life would be squished).

I then hypothosize that g-d allowed life to evolve naturally throughout the universe due to the logical fact that If I was an omnipotent being then I'd make sure that life and existence wouldn't need my intervention.

Another reason for avoiding any need for intervention would be that any direct interaction between a infinite being and a finite one would probably result in the destruction of the finite object or being [earth for example].
Although logically if it wanted to it could possibly manipulate quantum probability due to that being part of the beings "composition".

Therefore evolution is logical as a tool to make sure life can exist by itself and evolve (not necessarily for intelligence).

Therefore I believe in a omnipotent being that was responsible for existence and the existence of life in any form, which would not interfere with our existence (and indeed couldn'tt), as well as believing the the truth of evolution, science & logic.

[Darth Wong]

Your believe in an omnipotent being is irrational and unscientific. It might arguably not interfere with your ability to comprehend science (unlike Biblical literalism, which simply cannot be reconciled with science), but it is an irrational belief.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Castration for you. Your poll question isn't worded well.

[Ace Pace]

I think he understands that, however, unless I'm misunderstanding the question, hes asking if he fits the mold of an ID or Creationist.

[Darth Wong]

I think he understands that, however, unless I'm misunderstanding the question, hes asking if he fits the mold of an ID or Creationist.

Obviously, he'd be a theistic evolutionist. IDers think that evolution is false. They dress up their idiocy in voluminous bullfuckery, but the basic argument is identical to that of creationists: they believe evolution theory does not work. They just don't bother to name the invisible man in the sky who created the biosystem through unnamed, untestable, and indescribable mechanisms.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

You're technically a Deist, who apparently believes that a supernatural entity kicked off the universe right at the start, established all the natural framework and operating principles, and then had nothing to do with it after that.

While it is the most scientific-leaning of the theist positions, it is still every bit as irrational, as it begs some interesting philosophical questions about this god, its operating principles, and its motivations.

[Ghost Rider]

Fits neither, but it's illogical stance, since you attribute that in the beginning there is God and or God is the universe.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I've kidn of often wondered if i were a creationist or IDer or what myself. I was never sure.

I dont believe in biblical literalism, i'm not a fundimentalist. I believe in evolution, the big bang, but i just feel that there is some outside force that is somehow guiding this. God, Christ, Alah, whatever you want to call it.

Not 'made' the universe. I think, more, it was part of the universe or whatever came before the universe as we understand it. Like, i mean it is the big bang, actually physically is the universe. And in that sense, time, space, evolution and such is all part of it and in some way controlled by it. But i think it doesnt interact with us, like Bookworm said, because if it did, being such a vast being, it would surely destroy such tiny fragile creatures.

I do believe it has 'seconds', intermediaries that it can interact with us through. That's what i think Jesus was, to get bliblical here for a minuet, not exactly the 'son' of God, as it couldnt have a 'child' in the biological sense we could, but it's physical, mortal manifestation. I should say i alway believe in angels, which i think are in a way a self-away manifestation.

I think i'm an Intelligent Designer, but on the other hand i do not, in any way, dispute that evolution is indeed a correct theory, nor do i despute that the big bang did happen. The Earth is billions of years old, not tens of thousands, all that, i dont pretend these proven facts dont exist so now i dont know.

I guess i'm a theistic evolutionist, but i just dont know really.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Obviously, he'd be a theistic evolutionist. IDers think that evolution is false. They dress up their idiocy in voluminous bullfuckery, but the basic argument is identical to that of creationists: they believe evolution theory does not work. They just don't bother to name the invisible man in the sky who created the biosystem through unnamed, untestable, and indescribable mechanisms.

I'm not sure I understand what a theistic evo' means but if it's believing that g-d guided the course of evolution then it's not me.

You're technically a Deist, who apparently believes that a supernatural entity kicked off the universe right at the start, established all the natural framework and operating principles, and then had nothing to do with it after that.

Why technically?
Also what are the contradictions of a all powerful being setting the framework of reality then letting it run along without any interference?

[Magnetic]

I'm still consider myself in the Christian 'religion'. But since I've recently decided that I can no longer be a fundie, I now consider myself in the ranks of theistic evolutionist/adaptionist. I personally prefer the word 'adaptionist' as I think it is a more correct way of how I see it.

Irrational, sure, but that's a definition one could give to spiritual matters.

[Darth Wong]

A theistic evolutionist believes that God is somehow guiding the natural process of evolution, but he won't explain how. A deist believes that God made the universe but since then, he hasn't done jack shit and doesn't care.

[The Grim Squeaker]

A deist believes that God made the universe but since then, he hasn't done jack shit and doesn't care.

Does this includes G-d being the universe?

Still it's nice to find a definition for my gut instinct no thought beliefs-

It is a bit of a pity though that it sounds like someone who believes in all gods or being in a mind of a god etc...

[18-Till-I-Die]

A theistic evolutionist believes that God is somehow guiding the natural process of evolution, but he won't explain how.

Yes that sounds, pretty much how i feel. I guess then i am a theistic evolutionist.

I knew i wasnt a creationist/IDer when DW said they dont believe evolution is a correct theory, which i most certainly do.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Ghetto edit: i was never a Creationist except for a very short period as a child, as i grew older and started reading it became clear that most of Genesis was hyperbolic statements from a human trying to explain something they lacked the scientific ability and technology to fully understand.

[anybody_mcc]

Fits neither, but it's illogical stance, since you attribute that in the beginning there is God and or God is the universe.

Why is it illogical ?

You are probably deist and evolutionist. I don't see why is deistic view so irrational as many stated above. Why i am not deist , or agnostic for that matter , is that even for most philosophical questions ( not only scientific ) i use scientific method , in this case Occam's Razor.
Btw there is nice argument for being deist : If there is possibility to create artificial world ( in computer , in reality , ... ) quite easily at some point in technological evolution ,then the probability that we are in one of these created worlds is quite big since many civilizations would create them , and probably in these worlds it is possible to make new artificial worlds and so on ... )

[Rye]

Why is it illogical ?

You are probably deist and evolutionist. I don't see why is deistic view so irrational as many stated above.

Because there's no logical link between the universe and any gods being involved. It's a complete leap based on ignorance, emotion or incredulity.

Why i am not deist , or agnostic for that matter , is that even for most philosophical questions ( not only scientific ) i use scientific method , in this case Occam's Razor.
Btw there is nice argument for being deist : If there is possibility to create artificial world ( in computer , in reality , ... ) quite easily at some point in technological evolution ,then the probability that we are in one of these created worlds is quite big since many civilizations would create them , and probably in these worlds it is possible to make new artificial worlds and so on ... )

That's more meta wanking, rather than logical. It's an unfalsifiable unexplanatory assertion, a "what if" not a logical extrapolation from what is known.

.303 sounds like a deist going on pantheist, to me. Pantheism = god is the universe, deist = God made the universe and does not intervene in its workings, no revelation, etc. As has already been noted, thinking there are intelligences thinking and creating without corroborating evidence is illogical, so yeah, you have to take those things on faith.

[Zero]

There is actually one semi-logical reason for the universe having supernatural influences, although it's extremely exhagerated by the opposition. We know that the universe isn't infinitely old, because if it were, then we would have reached the heat death of the universe already. It appears that the universe is around 14 billiion years old. We also know that we haven't ever seen a spontaneous event the likes of which began this universe ever in human history. Never has a substantial portion of mass been observed to spontaneously start existing.

Many would refer to virtual particles as a possibility, but they only occur in the vacuum, IIRC.

Many will say that there's quite simply no reason for the universe to have an origin at all, but that seems like the most blatent evasion one could construct. It's also entirely possible that my chair has no reason for holding me up, but that isn't likely, as chairs have a tendency to hold things up, just as events have a tendency to have a cause.

Of course, this says nothing of the nature of the spontaneous beginning of the universe, really. To me, the only reason that it must be supernatural is because it's technically the beginning of natural laws anyways, and thus, not explainable from our interpretation of the universe.

But don't think that this means I believe in any god. I simply mean that the event which sparked existance isn't something that will be repeated, and isn't likely something we'll ever have the true ability to understand or explain. How else would supernatural be defined?

[Ghost Rider]

There is actually one semi-logical reason for the universe having supernatural influences, although it's extremely exhagerated by the opposition. We know that the universe isn't infinitely old, because if it were, then we would have reached the heat death of the universe already. It appears that the universe is around 14 billiion years old. We also know that we haven't ever seen a spontaneous event the likes of which began this universe ever in human history. Never has a substantial portion of mass been observed to spontaneously start existing.

Many would refer to virtual particles as a possibility, but they only occur in the vacuum, IIRC.

Many will say that there's quite simply no reason for the universe to have an origin at all, but that seems like the most blatent evasion one could construct. It's also entirely possible that my chair has no reason for holding me up, but that isn't likely, as chairs have a tendency to hold things up, just as events have a tendency to have a cause.

Of course, this says nothing of the nature of the spontaneous beginning of the universe, really. To me, the only reason that it must be supernatural is because it's technically the beginning of natural laws anyways, and thus, not explainable from our interpretation of the universe.

But don't think that this means I believe in any god. I simply mean that the event which sparked existance isn't something that will be repeated, and isn't likely something we'll ever have the true ability to understand or explain. How else would supernatural be defined?

So explain this. How can something start up existence?

If you can answer that you understand how saying something, supernatural or otherwise is silly in the extreme.

[Zero]

I don't know, and in reality, that is my point. I'm saying that such a logical absurdity is necessary to this universe's existance, as it does have a definite age, but that the nature of such an action will always be beyond our understanding, and thus, supernatural.

[Ghost Rider]

I don't know, and in reality, that is my point. I'm saying that such a logical absurdity is necessary to this universe's existance, as it does have a definite age, but that the nature of such an action will always be beyond our understanding, and thus, supernatural.

So you're saying that for order the universe to exist, something completely unknown had to give it energy, but this thing cannot be measured in any shape or form, thus will always be unknown, but for you this is what must've started the universe?



Why not just out and out say "It was _____ that started the universe, because it exists out of the space and time and exists in higher dimension!!!!"

[wolveraptor]

That's stupid. As you said yourself, matter, energy or space-time has never been observed being created. Therefore, the universe, which is nothing but that, should not need creation. It fits perfectly with the observations.

The universe isn't an event, as events occur within a timeline. The beginning of the timeline itself is not an event. It can start with an event, but that doesn't make it one. Thus, your comparison to chairs and events is irrelavent.

[Zero]

Because I don't know what it was, nor do I claim to. Can you prove instead that the universe is infinitely old, or perhaps offer a possible way that whatever event set this whole crazy thing off actually operates within the laws of nature that apply to us, or that we can even ever be familiar with? All I'm saying is that I don't know, and that you don't either.

What methods could the universe have begun on that we know of? Do you actually have any reason or explanation for the beginning of the universe that somehow involves this beginning being governed by the same laws that it essentially must have created?

Your last sentince isn't an argument, either. At best, it's tbe old 'guilty by association' trick. You can't tell me I'm a fundy just because I assert that we won't ever understand the nature of the beginning of the universe. At best, you can call me an agnostic, and if you knew me at all, realistically, you'd call me an atheist.

[Zero]

That's stupid. As you said yourself, matter, energy or space-time has never been observed being created. Therefore, the universe, which is nothing but that, should not need creation. It fits perfectly with the observations.

The universe isn't an event, as events occur within a timeline. The beginning of the timeline itself is not an event. It can start with an event, but that doesn't make it one. Thus, your comparison to chairs and events is irrelavent.

It doesn't fit everything. We know that the universe runs (as far as it can be said to run) primarily off of fusion reactions in stars, and there's still an abundance of the lighter elements, which means that the universe's beginning not something that's infinitely far back. These fusion reactions haven't been happening forever; if they had, we'd have run out of light elements long ago, and since faced the heat death.

If it hasn't always been there, then the universe did start at some point, and I don't see any way that we can quantify how or why. This event, by its nature, puts it outside of all conventional laws of the universe.

[Ghost Rider]

Because I don't know what it was, nor do I claim to. Can you prove instead that the universe is infinitely old, or perhaps offer a possible way that whatever event set this whole crazy thing off actually operates within the laws of nature that apply to us, or that we can even ever be familiar with? All I'm saying is that I don't know, and that you don't either.

Ah, yes...when it comes down to it, bitch and whine at which you cannot grasp because lack of education.

Literally your illogical spew is that there was an outside agency interacting with time-space.

So how does something interact when nothing is there?

Oh wait, God/cheese/space kitty/supernatural being.

What methods could the universe have begun on that we know of? Do you actually have any reason or explanation for the beginning of the universe that somehow involves this beginning being governed by the same laws that it essentially must have created?

Your last sentince isn't an argument, either. At best, it's tbe old 'guilty by association' trick. You can't tell me I'm a fundy just because I assert that we won't ever understand the nature of the beginning of the universe. At best, you can call me an agnostic, and if you knew me at all, realistically, you'd call me an atheist.

No, you bloody fucking idiot, what you are doing is showing a lack of any logical intent in that the universe had to have some INTERFERENCE.

You do grasp that is the stupid part?

You do not ask how the universe starts or what may actually allow that energy came into be, but instead use an inane claim that you believe the start of existence was by an outside agency that cannot be measureed thus is as valid if I said "Uber Chicken laid the cosmic egg."?

No of course not, because you're too busy bitching and whining.

And it's funny that you bring up religon when I never called you anything of the sort. Glad to know you lie as well.

[Noble Ire]

What methods could the universe have begun on that we know of? Do you actually have any reason or explanation for the beginning of the universe that somehow involves this beginning being governed by the same laws that it essentially must have created?

Undoubtedly, the precise circumstance of the beginning of the universe is unknown, other than at some point, nothing existed. This has always been one of the things that I never got about a god-created universe, if God created something from nothing, what created god (cliched, isnt it)? Now, you can give me the bullshit awnser that God is not bound by such rules of science and logic, but such a creator's very existance is simply impossible nonetheless. Even if a God-like being that could create a whole universe did exist, he could not conjour himself up out of the nothing that invariably preceeded him, simply because he did not exist at that point.

I hope that this made at least some sense.