The Theory Of Creation

Status
Not open for further replies.

champuru

I don't know what I want to put here. Suggestions?
Jan 5, 2008
464
23
Infront of my computer
✟8,230.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
To me YEC is an insecurity problem more that faith. What I see is that they are more afraid of evolution than they have faith in Genesis. They seem to try more to prove to themselves creation over evolution. I say dont limit God... if he wanted things to evolve, who am I to argue with that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gluadys
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
More like a revelation. But anyways, you didn't provide any way to test the Unicorn existance. So again, how would you test it?

So, it is not an invisible pink one. Let's say it is an invisible one.

I would try to study rhino first. And I want to know whether is there any other creature known to have a central horn on the head. What is the biology to have a single horn instead of two horns.

Then I will read historical literatures about unicorn.

How long would it take one to do the above? Once it is done, then I would say the person would either abandon the idea (falsified), or develop the next strategy to test the possibility. If you do not know anything about a unicorn, how could you do any significant test?

-----

This is only an example. The point is that anything could be tested as long as one knows enough about it. This is true in science. It is also true in any other knowledge/idea. So, in order to test the existence of Christian God, one need to know the Bible well and to be acquainted with a few good Christians (as samples).
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
So, it is not an invisible pink one. Let's say it is an invisible one.

I would try to study rhino first. And I want to know whether is there any other creature known to have a central horn on the head. What is the biology to have a single horn instead of two horns.

Then I will read historical literatures about unicorn.

How long would it take one to do the above? Once it is done, then I would say the person would either abandon the idea (falsified), or develop the next strategy to test the possibility. If you do not know anything about a unicorn, how could you do any significant test?
You have not described any test, you merely suggested background reading! Where is your test? How will your test be carried out? What phenomena are you looking for? How will you record your data?

This is only an example. The point is that anything could be tested as long as one knows enough about it. This is true in science.
Don't be daft. You've describe Greek philosophy, not modern science.

It is also true in any other knowledge/idea. So, in order to test the existence of Christian God, one need to know the Bible well and to be acquainted with a few good Christians (as samples).
Unless, of course, the Bible is a mere piece of fiction, and the Christians are deluded, but well-meaning, individuals.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
You have not described any test, you merely suggested background reading! Where is your test? How will your test be carried out? What phenomena are you looking for? How will you record your data?


gluadys said:
This is only an example. The point is that anything could be tested as long as one knows enough about it. This is true in science.

Don't be daft. You've describe Greek philosophy, not modern science.

gluadys said:
It is also true in any other knowledge/idea. So, in order to test the existence of Christian God, one need to know the Bible well and to be acquainted with a few good Christians (as samples).

Unless, of course, the Bible is a mere piece of fiction, and the Christians are deluded, but well-meaning, individuals.


:confused: How come my name is appearing above quotes from juvenissun's post?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You have not described any test, you merely suggested background reading! Where is your test? How will your test be carried out? What phenomena are you looking for? How will you record your data?

To do a test is very very easy. The question is the quality of the test. You do not understand what I have said.

I knows nothing about unicorn. But I can test it. For example, I will read info about unicorn all day and see if I would dream about an unicorn in sleep. If I don't, then unicorn does not exist.

It is a dumb test, but it is a test.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
To do a test is very very easy. The question is the quality of the test. You do not understand what I have said.

I knows nothing about unicorn. But I can test it. For example, I will read info about unicorn all day and see if I would dream about an unicorn in sleep. If I don't, then unicorn does not exist.

It is a dumb test, but it is a test.
I think 'dumb' is an understatement, but I see your point.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oliver

Senior Member
Apr 5, 2002
639
23
51
Visit site
✟15,992.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
If you do not know anything about a unicorn, how could you do any significant test?

You can’t, that’s the point. And it is true of concepts like an omnipotent being (how can you test if a being is really omnipotent?) or Lastthursdayism (which claims that the world was created last Thursday, but with the appearance (including history, memories,… ) of an older world).

Likewise, if you claim the existence of a being which cannot be seen, heard, smelt, and cannot be detected by any (reliable) means, then the existence of such a being, as well as its “properties” (its shape, gender, color, …) cannot be tested, and your claim is unfalsifiable.

So, in order to test the existence of Christian God, one need to know the Bible well and to be acquainted with a few good Christians (as samples).

But this is not enough: if I'm not mistaken, the Bible claims that God is omniscient. how would you test it?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You can’t, that’s the point. And it is true of concepts like an omnipotent being (how can you test if a being is really omnipotent?) or Lastthursdayism (which claims that the world was created last Thursday, but with the appearance (including history, memories,… ) of an older world).

Likewise, if you claim the existence of a being which cannot be seen, heard, smelt, and cannot be detected by any (reliable) means, then the existence of such a being, as well as its “properties” (its shape, gender, color, …) cannot be tested, and your claim is unfalsifiable.



But this is not enough: if I'm not mistaken, the Bible claims that God is omniscient. how would you test it?

How do you know it is not enough? Ask a few good Christians, they WILL tell you it is more than enough.

So, the only way to know if it is enough is to study the Bible well enough on yourself. It is NOT asking too much to do that IF one REALLY wanted to test it. if a scientist wanted to test a new theory, they will devote a significant part of their life to become familiar with the current understanding FIRST. The way they test the scientific theory is NOT FOR EVERYONE TO IMITATE. For example, you may think the speed of light is falsifiable or not falsifiable. Either way, it would take more than a Ph.D. for one to develop any test on that. The existence of God is more profound than the speed of light. Then how much should one prepare in order to test His existence?

So, it is NOT ASKING TOO MUCH to have one get a theology degree in order to develop a way to test God. And there ARE many many people who have done that.
 
Upvote 0

Oliver

Senior Member
Apr 5, 2002
639
23
51
Visit site
✟15,992.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
How do you know it is not enough? Ask a few good Christians, they WILL tell you it is more than enough.
So what? The faith of those Christians or the Bible do not qualify as a tests. Remember that we’re talking about being “falsifiable” (does falsifiability exist in English?) in the context of Science. You cannot consider the Bible as a sufficient test of the existence of the Christian God anymore than you can consider ancient Greek writings as valid tests for the existence of Zeus or any other god of the Greek mythology.

So, the only way to know if it is enough is to study the Bible well enough on yourself.
Here I disagree: if by definition God (or at least some of His characteristics) is out of reach of any test we could imagine, then even before reading the Bible you can know that the claim is not falsifiable.

[FONT=&quot]It is NOT asking too much to do that IF one REALLY wanted to test it. if a scientist wanted to test a new theory, they will devote a significant part of their life to become familiar with the current understanding FIRST. The way they test the scientific theory is NOT FOR EVERYONE TO IMITATE. For example, you may think the speed of light is falsifiable or not falsifiable. Either way, it would take more than a Ph.D. for one to develop any test on that. The existence of God is more profound than the speed of light. Then how much should one prepare in order to test His existence?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
:confused:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
No matter how much knowledge you think is required to fully describe God (and if I understand Christians correctly, we humans cannot fully know Him, which in itself is an unfalsifiable claim), my claim is that some of the properties attributed to God (or any other concept for that matter) are by definition untestable. For example, the claim that He is omnipotent and omniscient.
[/FONT]
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So what? The faith of those Christians or the Bible do not qualify as a tests. Remember that we’re talking about being “falsifiable” (does falsifiability exist in English?) in the context of Science. You cannot consider the Bible as a sufficient test of the existence of the Christian God anymore than you can consider ancient Greek writings as valid tests for the existence of Zeus or any other god of the Greek mythology.


Here I disagree: if by definition God (or at least some of His characteristics) is out of reach of any test we could imagine, then even before reading the Bible you can know that the claim is not falsifiable.

[FONT=&quot]
:confused:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
No matter how much knowledge you think is required to fully describe God (and if I understand Christians correctly, we humans cannot fully know Him, which in itself is an unfalsifiable claim), my claim is that some of the properties attributed to God (or any other concept for that matter) are by definition untestable. For example, the claim that He is omnipotent and omniscient.
[/FONT]

God is testable. The simplest case: I pray and then He answered. That is a valid test, even in scientific sense. More sophisticated test only comes from more sophisticated knowledge. This is also true in scientific sense.

Test also comes with a statistical meaning. Out of 100 tests, no matter what is the successful rate, it is a test. So, spiritual matter or scientific matter, both are testable.

You negated the result of any test before you even test it. The bottom line is that those who said that God is not testable is, in fact, not willing to make the test at all.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Here I disagree: if by definition God (or at least some of His characteristics) is out of reach of any test we could imagine, then even before reading the Bible you can know that the claim is not falsifiable.

I just quote two examples of test to God in the Bible. Would you say they are not tests? What is your definition of God?
 
Upvote 0

Oliver

Senior Member
Apr 5, 2002
639
23
51
Visit site
✟15,992.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
You negated the result of any test before you even test it.

No, I did not do this: I said however that some properties of God were not testable, and I asked for example how you would test God's omnipotence or omniscience. You didn't provide any mean of doing this so far.

The bottom line is that those who said that God is not testable is, in fact, not willing to make the test at all.

I gave specific reasons as to why I think the Christian God (as described by Christians) is not testable (by this I mean that some of his alledged characteristics cannot be tested). This has nothing to do with willing to "make the test at all".
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No, I did not do this: I said however that some properties of God were not testable, and I asked for example how you would test God's omnipotence or omniscience. You didn't provide any mean of doing this so far.

There is a type of proof in science (math too?). If you could not prove something is wrong, then that thing is right. The omnipotence of God could be tested that way. And as I said, our legal system also adopted this logic. This is also the type of understanding to the knowledge of light speed, gravity force, etc.

In a positive way, if we see something happened beyond our comprehension (we called it miracle, a lot of them described in the Bible), that also provides ONE or a few positive tests to the omnipotence of God. Even one test could not justify a generalization, but it is a test, and the omnipotence of God can be tested.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oliver

Senior Member
Apr 5, 2002
639
23
51
Visit site
✟15,992.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
There is a type of proof in science (math too?). If you could not prove something is wrong, then that thing is right.

This is not how this works in Science or math. By that logic, I can "prove" faeries exists, the invisible unicorn exist, we really do reincarnate as bouhdist believe (I think?), and so on and so forth. This is certainly not the level of evidence I would accept, and not suitable in science either.

In a positive way, if we see something happened beyond our comprehension (we called it miracle, a lot of them described in the Bible), that also provides ONE or a few positive tests to the omnipotence of God. Even one test could not justify a generalization, but it is a test, and the omnipotence of God can be tested.

I don't have enough time to enter into the details, but I think you misunderstand the impossibility of testing omnipotence: by definition of omnipotence (i.e. God can do everything), you simply cannot test it: whatever the test you can imagine to test its power, an omnipotent being is by definition supposed to be able to do more than what you test him for.

Likewise, it is impossible to test the existence of beings which would not be accessible to any of our senses or measure devices (like Mallon's magic rock which cannot be seen, felt, heard, ...).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.