It's beginning to dawn on me that there are certain trigger words that one should avoid at all costs as they evidently set in motion a sort of reflex response that seems to be more or less independent of the actual content of one's remarks. For the record, the use of the term "creationism" in the title of the post was intended purely in a spirit of light-hearted irony. The burden of the post, as I would have hoped was clear from what I actually wrote, was the appearance of creativity and what might possibly lie behind it.
David On 6 Apr 2017 3:58 a.m., "spudboy100 via Everything List" < [email protected]> wrote: > I tend to sympathize with a sort of Religious Humanism myself, since we > are the beings with the dendrites. You atheists are way too harsh on > religious peeps-not that you don't have a point, but, not everything that > works for you, works for everyone else. Yes, religious massacres, God, yes, > atheist massacres, 20th century, and so forth...yadda yadda... > > On this point-Not necessarily Creationism, I bought Yuval Harari's book on > the future, and 2/3rd's of the way through his book, all he is doing is > writing about atheism and humanism and... His youtube lectures seem far > better or less obsessive than his book! I am holding out for some fearless > forecast on the Singularity, but am almost at the point of saying, screw > it, I will read Kurzweil, or Goertzel, or Prisco, Hanson..etc. Less > anti-religious jabber, Harari, and more, happy, dancing, robot friends, in > your next book! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Nyman <[email protected]> > To: everything-list <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Apr 5, 2017 9:37 pm > Subject: Re: A little Philosophising about Creationism > > John > > I'm afraid the point, such as there was, of my post seems to have escaped > you since you have chosen to comment only on the preamble, which was > intended simply to sketch an introduction before moving on to the burden of > the argument. Unfortunately you don't appear to have addressed yourself to > the latter in any way. It may help you if I emphasise that nothing in my > remarks has anything whatever to do with religion or god in any sense other > than the metaphorical. If you care to read the remainder and find you still > wish to make any comment or pose any question I will do my best to > accommodate you. > > David > > On 6 Apr 2017 2:07 a.m., "John Clark" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 7:47 AM, David Nyman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > If Darwinism may be said to have shown how the illusion of design may > exist without need of a designer, we have still perhaps lacked an > equivalently powerful form of explication that might show how the illusion > of creativity could exist without need of invoking a creator. > > > > Please explain > > how the illusion of creativity could exist > > *WITH* > ** > a creator. > > Saying "God did it" doesn't explain anything, it just makes the problem > more difficult > because > > now > not only do you have to explain HOW God did it you also have to explain > why > > God > exists > rather > than God doesn't exist. > > > > > It has been claimed in some quarters that QM might provide such an > explanation in that it purportedly allows for "something" to appear where > there had previously been "nothing". > > > Science can't explain how something came from nothing, but it can > explain how a lot came from very little, which is one hell of a lot more > than religion has ever been able to do. And science has only been working > on this for a few hundred years, religion has been around for over 10 times > that long. > > > > > > This view is however open to criticism on the grounds of quibbling about > the meaning of the terms employed. > > > At one time not very long ago "nothing" meant empty space, but when it > started to look like science might be able to explain how something could > come from that the religious changed the meaning of "nothing" to a state > that doesn't even have the potential of ever becoming something. But what > they don't seem to realize is that even God can't create something from > that sort of nothing, if He did then by definition it wasn't "nothing". > And if God does exist He's asking Himself "why have I always existed rather > than always not existed?". And God has no answer. > > John K Clark > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
