Creationism is nonsense
Debate Rounds (3)
First, thank you for the opportunity to debate this.
Second, let it be known that I'm not a creationist, nor do I believe anyone should be a creationist.
Third, let us remember what this debate is about. The resolution is, "Creationism is nonsense".
This does not mean, "Creationism is wrong," "Creationism is disagreeable," "Creationism can't be understood," or "Creationism shouldn't be understood." The resolution at hand involves the making of sense.
This is very important because as the teleological proof of God shows, creationism is quintessentially built around making sense. That is the natural innate beauty of the world that is used to define intelligent design directly comes from sensation. People look, hear, smell, taste, and touch the world to derive their impressions of beauty, and it is from those sensations that it is judged that creationism is proper.
Again, to be clear, the resolution is not arguing that creationism is wrong. If it did, then I would agree, understand, and sympathize with pro. However, that is not the resolution, and it is very important to understand the difference between that which is nonsense versus that which is wrong. What's right is not merely derived from our senses.
It's important to understand that you can't simply dismiss someone's argument for being wily. Semantics are important since semantics are how we express ourselves. We can't simply anticipate pragmatic definitions for words since what's pragmatic is subjective even though semantics have objective definitions.
The reason I picked up your debate wasn't to prove creationism either. It was to show you where creationists are coming from and how to properly critique them. If you call a creationist nonsensical and leap to the conclusion that a creationist is wrong, then your critique will be wrong.
To properly critique a creationist, you must refer to rational thought and remind one that just because one is sensationally impressed by the natural beauty of the world does not mean the world was necessarily created.
The person who commented on my resolution knows exactly what I meant by, "Creationism is nonsense" and I presume that an intelligent person like yourself knows what I mean as well. Further, the explanation beneath the resolution explains thoroughly what I mean. So, while I admit the angle of your approach to this debate was indeed wily and dare I say ,"creative," I must say that it fails to hold much ground.
2. Anticipation of the meaning I was going for is unnecessary because I did explain what I meant exactly under the title. Have you ever picked up a newspaper or read a magazine article which read a title that could be interpreted a few different ways? If you have ever picked up a newspaper or magazine you'd know that titles can be interpreted many ways a lot of the times and you must read on to understand what is meant by the title.
3. You continue to use "nonsensical" to mean, "without senses." I have already told you how I'm using it but heres what Webster has to say about it:
'nonsensical - senseless or illogical. The opposite of rational'
Creationism is senseless because there is no good reason for it to exist. Creationism is illogical because it flies in the face of a monumental amount of evidence. Creationism is evidently the opposite of rational because so many rational people end up debating creationists. To me, Creationism is a disease. It is wrong and downright abusive to teach children these lies. There is no way a creationist can contend in the world of scientists. Therefor to teach our children (and I say our children because you must remember this idiocy for the most part is uniquely American) Creationism is to take them out of the global competition early. They will have no chance to compete with reasonable thinkers from China, Japan, Germany, Russia, and all modern developed countries. There is a good reason that evolution truth is not uniquely American or atheist. It's because it's the truth! Because it's the truth, it renders Creationism complete and utter nonsense.
4. Please reread my initial argument! You are responding as if I never said anything I've said in my initial argument. I have presented you with facts and reason based on those facts.
My apologies for misunderstanding your compliment.
That said, just because some other individual intersubjectively agreed with your interpretation doesn't mean you're entitled to claim your interpretation is objectively proper.
Likewise, I shared my anticipation because you shared what you were going after in trying to get a creationist to debate you. You seemed personally interested in motives, so I was being friendly there.
I also agree that the definition you provided is a possible definition of "nonsense", but it is not the only definition of "nonsense". The key to your definition is the presumption of sensation in the definition of justified true beliefs. That is it's presumed that concretely sensational perspective is primarily required for meaning to be judged. However, this isn't necessarily the case. Judgment can also be abstract. People can engage in creative thinking, problem solving, imagination, idealism, vision, and rational thought to derive meaningful conclusions as well. In fact, this is often one of the arguments commonly used by atheists since divinity can be associated with fate. For example, theists often believe in predestined callings such that some people are chosen by God to bring light to the world. An atheist can argue in favor of rational free will instead a la universalist humanism. That is everyone is entitled to be treated equally based around who they are as individuals on the inside that counts. No subset of humanity is entitled to social status.
However, this still doesn't mean "nonsense" has no meaning. The possibility of abstract judgments does not eliminate the possibility of concrete perspectives.
Your claim of "no good reason" jumps to conclusions as well. Again, I agree with you wholeheartedly that creationism is wrong and that it inhibits global competitiveness, but what's nonsense and what's wrong aren't necessarily the same thing. The sensability of creationism comes from the teleological proof where it's derived from the overwhelming abundance of beauty in nature that someone had to create the world. That is it's practically judged from Occam's Razor that it's ridiculous to believe that the functionality of nature just randomly came about. Instead, there must be some purpose behind everything, and that purpose must have been assigned by an assigner.
The problem is this assumes legitimacy in practical judgment as well as Occam's Razor. What's practical is subjective, and Occam's Razor is similarly dependent on the subjectivity of what qualifies as a simple enough model or sufficient explanatory power. In fact, you often encounter this problem when discussing creationism with creationists. They'll give you the excuse of, "Give me a break. Do you really expect everything around us to have just randomly come about without some higher power's artificial input?" That is creationists are engaging in probabilistic reasoning to make an appeal to absurdity. THAT is where creationism is wrong. Probabilities are not necessities, and appeals to absurdity depend on how much people are willing to investigate the world. A creationist is basically too lazy to engage in a deeper scientific method to investigate how the world really works.
Does this mean a creationist's perspective is nonsense? No, but it still means a creationist's judgment is wrong. To properly criticize creationism, you need to distinguish perspective from judgment.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually made more sense over all, Con's distractions did little to demonstrate the conclusion as wrong. Creationism has been clearly demonstrated by Pro and a rational consideration of their evidences as Nonsense in the definition that Pro Provided, Irrational is the part of the definition that gets it every time. Con also called Creationism "wrong", which also can be construed as Nonsense.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.