As I'm sure Wortfish will tell you, we just don't know -- it's a mystery! Humans spent thousands upon thousands of years trying to unlock this mystery, but then they discovered science and actually figured out how shit worked. Unfortunately science hasn't described absolutely everything to the level of detail that Wortfish requires, so we should really just pack up and go back to reading tea leaves and praising our creator for being so good at appearing to not be there.

Well if that's his answer I'd argue that if creationism can't explain how the universe was created, not even in a general sense, then the whole idea falls apart.

SafeAsMilk wrote:As I'm sure Wortfish will tell you, we just don't know -- it's a mystery! Humans spent thousands upon thousands of years trying to unlock this mystery, but then they discovered science and actually figured out how shit worked. Unfortunately science hasn't described absolutely everything to the level of detail that Wortfish requires, so we should really just pack up and go back to reading tea leaves and praising our creator for being so good at appearing to not be there.

You're not the only one who regards the mindset on display as pathetic and infantile, I assure you.

There really is something just so sad, about wanting a limited, parochial mythological entity to be real, to the point of preferring the masturbation fantasies of piss-stained nomads, who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, over centuries of diligent, honest inquiry that has bestowed so many treasures of real, substantive knowledge upon us. It's the mentality of a Trump-level nappy shitter writ large.

Plus, if you have to lie to yourself and others, to the pathological extent observable in the world of corporate creationism (let's be under no illusions here, creationism in America is a corporate scam, erected to bilk the ignorant in order to fund lavish lifestyles for the professional liars for doctrine), and you end up being compelled to peddle those manifest lies to an embarrassing extent on globally accessible public media, then the condition involved is a florid clinical disease.

Wortfish wrote:

Blackadder wrote:
Oh, not the old, threadbare god of the gaps argument again. Really? Aren't you embarrassed to post such intellectually vacant rubbish?

No. I am just saying that 300 years of science has not provided an explanation to replace the ancient belief in the divine generation of thunderbolts. Maybe it is time to admit that there may be more than just electrons behind the phenomenon.

God's and magic are the stupidest excuses to explain anything, and they don't. In fact, it could be argued that reality simply too complex to be made by anthropomorphic gods. All you're is a story, not an explanation. You need provide some sort of mechanism no how God could do these things.

Wortfish wrote:
'Brute fact' arguments don't explain the finely tuned constants of physics.

Which are nothing more than descriptions of what we observe. They are not real things, they are descriptions.

Calilasseia wrote:
Plus, if you have to lie to yourself and others, to the pathological extent observable in the world of corporate creationism (let's be under no illusions here, creationism in America is a corporate scam, erected to bilk the ignorant in order to fund lavish lifestyles for the professional liars for doctrine), and you end up being compelled to peddle those manifest lies to an embarrassing extent on globally accessible public media, then the condition involved is a florid clinical disease.

Or believe in oddball nonsensical carp to make you feel like you have some power of your life more than you already do (not like Creationism does that too, its more or less a compliment). Trust me, I've seen it first hand:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-chat/two-christians-i-know-and-what-one-in-particular-believes-t55422.html

SafeAsMilk wrote:Unfortunately science hasn't described absolutely everything to the level of detail that Wortfish requires

Which would include his need for teleological thinking. Much like creationists reiterate the bullscotty that "we have never seen a dog produce a non-dog", these types of standards are solely created to never be met by what he describes. This is basically to make sure that creationists can never admit when they are wrong. All of this is just moving the goalposts at the end of the day.

Wortty should watch the "Sky at Night" on the Beeb. Might open his mind. This rock of ours really is nothing special.
A brilliant programme last night about SOPHIA. A deep infra-rood telescope built into a 747. They are studying how stars and planets are created.