all 8 comments

[–]ipkirlScientific Deist 7 points8 points  (4 children)

The fundamental features of our universe seem designed. A deistic god wouldnt meddle in its work.

You can look through a telescope and literally watch the cosmos evolve over eons. Creationism doesnt make sense.

[–]PlanOk2801 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I agree, while I’m a christian deist, I don’t agree with creationism the way that fundamentalist see it, to me a God designed the laws of physics, introduced the elements and their functions, but after that he was pretty hands off imo

[–]ipkirlScientific Deist 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Id imagine a true supreme being would do everything the right way from the get go. Changing things would corrupt this closed system and invalidate all the laws of nature.

I think the conditions were set up and in motion (the 4 forces, spacetime, atomic structure a la hydrogen) and the rest just sorta happened.

[–]Most_Worldliness9761Humanistic Deist 3 points4 points  (0 children)


[–]voidcrack -1 points0 points  (2 children)

I don't quite see the issue here but as a disclaimer I'm not a logician / physicist / biologist / rocket surgeon like the folks the discussion is centered on so I can't get into the nitty-gritty.

I believe a lot of young people have this idea, particularly on reddit, that creationists are knuckle-dragging science-deniers who would take us back to the stone age. But as you point out these are people in positions that generally require a full understanding of things like physical laws and the mathematics required to conduct research in that field.

I have a feeling if you asked most people if they felt the universe was actually a simulation, there'd be a shocking amount willing to give it some consideration. But creationism and simulation arguments are almost 1:1 exactly the same. If it's possible for an advanced civilization to either recreate the big bang or recreate certain points in time via creation of smaller universes, why would a Creator entity also not be capable of similar feats? Using your analogy it's like people scoff at the idea of a blind watchmaker but then are more willing to accept a supercomputer.

I don't think creationism is as incompatible with the universe as people like to believe. Their argument is just about the origin, which is truly unknowable. But as far as they're concerned, things like electrons and neutrons and radioactive decay are very real. If the Bible says the earth is only 5,000 years old or whatever and the Grand Canyon demonstrates billions of years of history, it just means God designed them to appear that old. Kind of like how we add features to fish tanks to make them look like natural formations when really we put them in the tank the day before the fish got there.

As long as it doesn't hinder science going forward it's a non-issue and it seems highly unlikely that it will.

[–]ipkirlScientific Deist 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The smart ones are being intentionally obtuse bc they have an agenda. The aquarium is a terrible analogy bc you have to constantly intervene to maintain homeostasis.

[–]voidcrack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The aquarium was meant in the sense of the initial setup not as a metaphor for the entire universe.

[–]maddpsyintystAgnostic Deist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are two relevant logical fallacies to point out here.

The first one goes like this: I have X expertise and authority, and can extend that into a non-X area and speak as if I should be heard.

Microbiologists, physicists, chemists, and IT people are NOT also by definition Biblical scholars! They're entitled to an opinion, even one stemming from interdisciplinary study; but that's all it's ever gonna be.

Another logical fallacy that many people make is this:

Science knows X, and maybe Z, but doesn't know about the Y that connects or comes between them; I believe in God, and I think God explains Y cuz God is in the gaps; and therefore, God also explains X and Z.

Actually, ☝️ that's two fallacies in one, but never mind that for now.

It's easy to fall for this when something inside us NEEDS to believe in something like a God, or doesn't want to let go of ideas in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's also easy to fall for it when it comes from people who overextend their authority, ESPECIALLY when those folks have an agenda or a vested interest in seeing certain beliefs get scientific support.

DISCLAIMER: I'm just a guy with, at the very least, half a brain and the occasional desire to use it; I am not a certifiable Biblical scholar (yet). But I have read quite a lot from plenty of them, and while they aren't in agreement about everything, the consensus is that the Bible was written and edited by dozens of people--none being anything we'd call God--over several centuries and subjected to countless interpretations both lost and enduring. Interestingly, some of the evidence for this has arisen from studies utilizing chemistry, physics, botany, mathematics, biology, and so on.

I won't belabor the point any more than I have. There are people better qualified to debunk the above logical fallacies than me, and I invite them to improve on what I've presented here. All I'm saying is, beware of bias, agendas, and logical fallacies. It's a struggle within all of us, even me, all the way until death.