How can one be Creationist without proven Creator?

[joinfree]

Human common reaction to a new thing is played in ``Ace Ventura When Nature Calls: There's someone on the wing... some... thing''

There are indeed wonderful things to discover, because Philosophy of Religion must be united with Physics: knowledge of a human is the knowledge, that has his God. If human knows, that his God is omnipresent or omnipotent, then the human must also say, that his God is existent. It means, from dogma of omnipotence (also from omnipresence) comes dogma of Existence: if I do not exist, then I am not in potential to do anything.

The 2019 Wikipedia with references to peer-review sources tells us, that there must be a perfect description of faith, look: ``In the context of religion, one can define faith as confidence or trust in a particular system of religious belief,[1] within which faith may equate to confidence based on some perceived degree of warrant,[2][3] in contrast to a definition of faith as being belief without evidence.[4]'' I suggest, that the perfect description of faith is: Faith is the Faithfullness to Knowledge. I perfectly know, that my God is not satan, not Zeus, but Jesus Christ: John 8:54-55. In the Holy Book are many verses about the crucial importance of mind: ``Love your God with all your mind and heart''.

An omniscient thing must know own existence, so, in Science there is knowledge of existence of Him. It is easy to be omniscient and omnipotent, if you would be omnipresent. Thus, there is omniscient thing out there.

I tell opponent, what I have the proof. Opponent tells, that there is no proof. Thus, I tell him to stop playing God. Indeed, every word of God is true. But why my word is wrong, but opponent's is true?! Because opponent is playing God! He uses God-speech: Genesis 3:5 ``and you will be like God, knowing''.

God of Love, being omnipresent, unites married couple in perfect love: ``in this world we just beginning to understand the miracle of living; maybe I was afraid before, but I am not afraid anymore'' (from Belinda Carlisle's song ``Heaven is the place on Earth'')

 

[xianghua]

Human common reaction to a new thing is played in ``Ace Ventura When Nature Calls: There's someone on the wing... some... thing''

There are indeed wonderful things to discover, because Philosophy of Religion must be united with Physics: An omnipresent thing must exist, and exist everywhere. Thus, there is an omnipresent thing out there. If I do not exist, then I am not in potential to do anything. Therefore, Omnipotent Being must exist. Existence is (main) property, so omnipotence and existence must come together.

The 2019 Wikipedia with references to peer-review sources tells us, that there must be a perfect description of faith, look: ``In the context of religion, one can define faith as confidence or trust in a particular system of religious belief,[1] within which faith may equate to confidence based on some perceived degree of warrant,[2][3] in contrast to a definition of faith as being belief without evidence.[4]'' I suggest, that the perfect description of faith is: Faith is the Faithfullness to Knowledge. I perfectly know, that my God is not satan, not Zeus, but Jesus Christ: John 8:54-55. In the Holy Book are many verses about the crucial importance of mind: ``Love your God with all your mind and heart''.

An omniscient thing must know own existence, so, in Science there is knowledge of existence of Him. It is easy to be omniscient and omnipotent, if you would be omnipresent. Thus, there is omniscient thing out there.

Opponent: ``I can think of my pencil (or superman) becoming omnipresent. But my pencil is not God. So, you are debunked.''

The superman and a pencil are not omnipresent ones in the stories. The omnipresent one is God of the Bible. Now no-one has excuse to go to hell torment: God has invented un-falsifiable and un-troll-able proof.

Opponent: ``We are perfectly capable of thinking about a fictional omnipresent thing.''

Fictional thing does not exist, so you are wrong. I am proving, that there is omnipresent non-fictional thing.

Opponent: ``Again, you presented that as an assertion, not a conclusion. You've not even tried to prove any omnipresent thing exists (other than via a weakly implied circular argument).''

I tell opponent, what I have the proof. Opponent tells, that there is no proof. Thus, I tell him to stop playing God. Indeed, every word of God is true. But why my word is wrong, but opponent's is true?! Because opponent is playing God! He uses God-speech: Genesis 3:5 ``and you will be like God, knowing''. Omnipresent thing can't help but to be existent. Look: existence and non-existence is property. Then, if a thing is omnipresent, then it MUST be existent (non-fictional).

God of Love, being omnipresent, unites married couple in perfect love: ``in this world we just beginning to understand the miracle of living; maybe I was afraid before, but I am not afraid anymore'' (from Belinda Carlisle's song ``Heaven is the place on Earth'')

who said that we cant prove a creator? what about all this evidence?:

(image from https://microbeonline.com/bacterial...ortance-and-examples-of-flagellated-bacteria/)

or this one:

(image from Flagella and Cilia: Structure and Functions (With Diagram))

or this one:

(image from VCAC: Cellular Processes: ATP Synthase: Advanced Look: Synthesis)

or this:

(image from June Newsletter: Kinesin Motor Proteins and Neurodegeneration)

check also my signature link.

 

[Speedwell]

who said that we cant prove a creator? what about all this evidence?:

(image from https://microbeonline.com/bacterial...ortance-and-examples-of-flagellated-bacteria/)

or this one:

(image from Flagella and Cilia: Structure and Functions (With Diagram))

or this one:

(image from VCAC: Cellular Processes: ATP Synthase: Advanced Look: Synthesis)

or this:

(image from June Newsletter: Kinesin Motor Proteins and Neurodegeneration)

check also my signature link.

Those are just the cartoons again; they don't prove anything.

 

[joinfree]

Those are just the cartoons again; they don't prove anything.

Please reread. Text is corrected.

 

[juvenissun]

Human common reaction to a new thing is played in ``Ace Ventura When Nature Calls: There's someone on the wing... some... thing''

Creationists ARE proof that there is a Creator.

 

[Speedwell]

What is your evidence that there is no God?

There isn't any. The existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition. There can be no evidence that there is no God.

 

[Albion]

The title of the thread asks this question: "How can one be Creationist without proven Creator?"

Here is the answer: All that is necessary for one to be a Creationist is to believe that there is a Creator. It is not necessary to prove anything.

What you probably meant to ask was why would anyone be a Creationist in the absence of solid, scientific proof of the existence of a Creator. However, there are all sorts of things that all of us believe which cannot absolutely be proven; what there is, though, is evidence and logic sufficient to persuade.

 

[juvenissun]

There isn't any. The existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition. There can be no evidence that there is no God.

I am not asking you to prove it. I am asking evidence. Everything could have one or more evidences, which, in a understandable term, is "hint".

 

[Speedwell]

I am not asking you to prove it. I am asking evidence. Everything could have one or more evidences, which, in a understandable term, is "hint".

Listen to what I am telling you: in principle there can be no empirical evidence which will disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. No evidence which science has discovered already or possibly could discover in future can be evidence against the existence of God.

 

[juvenissun]

Listen to what I am telling you: in principle there can be no empirical evidence which will disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. No evidence which science has discovered already or possibly could discover in future can be evidence against the existence of God.

You are wrong in basic scientific understanding. Evidences does NOT prove. They only suggest.

 

[Speedwell]

You are wrong in basic scientific understanding. Evidences does NOT prove. They only suggest.

But evidence can disprove. That is the nature of discourses like science which are based on inductive logic.

 

[juvenissun]

But evidence can disprove. That is the nature of discourses like science which are based on inductive logic.

No. Evidence can not disprove either. When the situation took place, it is called a "fact". A fact can disprove.

 

[Speedwell]

No. Evidence can not disprove either. When the situation took place, it is called a "fact". A fact can disprove.

What's the difference between "fact" and "evidence?" Scientifically, evidence is an entity or phenomenon which can be observed and tested, observations and tests which can be independently confirmed by other scientists. How is that phenomenon not a "fact?"

 

[juvenissun]

What's the difference between "fact" and "evidence?" Scientifically, evidence is an entity or phenomenon which can be observed and tested, observations and tests which can be independently confirmed by other scientists. How is that phenomenon not a "fact?"

An evidence directly or indirectly points toward a fact.

 

[danbuter]

From nothing came the universe. What started it? If it was the big bang, what started that?

The answer is God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There isn't any. The existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition. There can be no evidence that there is no God.

Nore that there is one.

It's a two-way street...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. Evidence can not disprove either.

False.

Example claim: there was a cataclysmic event 4000 years ago that reduced all populations of all species to less then 8 individuals per species.

Scientific predictions: if this is true, then all species should share an extremely severe genetic bottleneck which can be traced back to the time period of that event.

Sampling data then shows that no such universal genetic bottleneck exists.

The claim is now disproven by mere evidence.

When the situation took place, it is called a "fact". A fact can disprove.

What do you think evidence consists of, if not facts / observations?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From nothing came the universe. What started it? If it was the big bang, what started that?

The answer is God.

How did you conclude that answer?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He committed this crime: a fact.

That's not a fact. That's a claim.

He seems committed this crime (because of another fact): an evidence.

That's not evidence. That's something that is suggested by evidence.
That evidence would be whatever facts investigators gathered... photographs, phone taps, DNA at the crime scene, bloodstains of the victim on the clothes of the accused,....

 

[juvenissun]

False.

Example claim: there was a cataclysmic event 4000 years ago that reduced all populations of all species to less then 8 individuals per species.

Scientific predictions: if this is true, then all species should share an extremely severe genetic bottleneck which can be traced back to the time period of that event.

Sampling data then shows that no such universal genetic bottleneck exists.

The claim is now disproven by mere evidence.

Your example is valid (assume the data is true).
If A, then B.
Fact: Not A, so not B.
Evidence: C, so not B.

If still do not understand, read #22.