'God did it' vs. explaining observations

Demonstrating the difference between claiming that 'God did it' and actually explaining observations by simple analogy.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• creation
• creationism
• science
• theory
• explanatory
• model
• hypothesis
• explanation
• explain

[no1hoopsman]

@XGralgrathor On the problem response; we are all entirely at ease with a creative power or force as an explanation to the Big Bang for example, so the wording is problemmatic from that point of view. If we were to use the word Law instead of Lord for example, this would also create an alternative view; one more readily acceptable, so the discussion is easier then to a degree

[no1hoopsman]

@XGralgrathor On the deisre issue, my view is that we are much more than a bundle of cells and impulses and stardust; there is a spiritual element. For me the fact that we are all uniquely individual points to this as well; there is no one like you and no one like me, so in this creation we are entirely unique.

[MrGralgrathor]

@no1hoopsman

"sharing thoughts"

Of course I'm okay with that. I'm still going to respond in my own fashion.

[XGralgrathor]

@no1hoopsman

"part of the problem"

There is no real problem, until it becomes clear that there is a god that requires a definition.

[XGralgrathor]

@no1hoopsman

"I'm talking much deeper than the carnal desires on the surface"

Which are an elaboration, mediated by our intellectual capacities, on the more basic instincts. Nothing new, just an adaptation of intellect to instinct.

[MrGralgrathor]

@no1hoopsman

"The word to describe God"

It is not strictly necessary to seek words to define a god if it has not been established that there is an existing object to which the characteristics those words describe can be attributed.

[MrGralgrathor]

@no1hoopsman

"call it a desire"

No, the instinctive desire to reproduce is simply a part of the reproductive mechanism.

[MrGralgrathor]

@no1hoopsman

"there is a reason [...] in say procreation"

I'd say that there is a mechanism for procreation. And that there is a particular sequence of events that has lead to procreation being what it is today. I guess that you could call that sequence of events a 'reason'. But the word 'reason' can also be used to denote 'intent', and in this case there is no reason to see intent.

[no1hoopsman]

@MrGralgrathor No,I mean a reason, just as there is a reason, consciously or subconsciously in say procreation ..... for example. This would perhaps be seen as mirroring any creative power by a similiar earthly type of creation. I'm using the analogous route obviously; much the same as yourself

[MrGralgrathor]

@no1hoopsman

"whether there was a reason"

You mean 'intent', don't you?