How can one be Creationist without proven Creator?

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

No. Rather:

If A, then B.
Fact: Not B.
Conclusion: Not A.

There is no "C" here........... Not in a relevant way to A and B, in any case.
It's really simple... If A, then B. A is the thing we seek validation of. B is what would provide that validation. After investigation, we discover that there is no B. B is false. Therefor, NOT A. A is now disproven.

If still do not understand, read #22.​

I already addressed that in the post right above yours, in #27


You seem to not really comprehend the difference between claims, evidence and conclusions.​

 

[danbuter]

How did you conclude that answer?

Basic logic.

 

[Hieronymus]

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.

That only moves the question to: WHY would someone believe there is a Creator or at least believe that there WAS one.

The answer is still quite simple i.m.o.
Possibility, plausibility, probability.
Explanatory power.

 

[Hieronymus]

Nore that there is one.

It's a two-way street...

Untrue.
Let's look at the Bible and the evidence corroborating the Biblical history.
It's not proof, but it's definitely evidence.
It is proof that people have believed in God for a LOOONG time already.
In the Bible there is evidence that God interacted with his people.

There is no evidence that God does not exist.
But then again, there's never evidence for something that does not exist or never occurred.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That only moves the question to: WHY would someone believe there is a Creator or at least believe that there WAS one.

The answer is still quite simple i.m.o.
Possibility, plausibility, probability.
Explanatory power.

The explanatory power of "god did it" is exactly zero.

 

[Hieronymus]

The explanatory power of "god did it" is exactly zero.

When you encounter overwhelming complexity, purposefulness and genius in something you analyse, you automatically assume there's intelligence behind it.

 

[KyleSpringer]

The claim that Big Bang origin is probable is preposterous. Everything (speaking of matter) that now exists was present within moments of the Big Bang. Yet nothing like the big bang has ever been seen since, and we see the same thing with evolution. It’s contrary to very laws of nature. And even the laws of nature had to be in play at the moment of creation or the universe would have collapsed on itself, and would have never maintain stability. Order from chaos is only possible with a Creator that guides creation into a state of unity.
The scientific community has butchered specific terms to bits and created its own self aggrandizing definitions with which they shun and pervert the reality of knowledge itself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When you encounter overwhelming complexity

Complexity isn't evidence of design or engineering.
To say otherwise, is an argument of incredulity.

purposefulness and genius in something you analyse, you automatically assume there's intelligence behind it. Unless of course you have been brainwashed.

Let's counter with an example:

Artificial design was inferred.
Before purpose, complexity and geniusnous was established.

Clearly, the criteria you listed, are not the criteria used to differentiate artificial design from natural occurance.

So...which criteria WERE used to infer that this object wasn't natural, do you think?

 

[Albion]

That only moves the question to: WHY would someone believe there is a Creator or at least believe that there WAS one.

If you want to move it there, I have no objection. What I did was answer the question of the thread. All that is necessary for a person to be classified as a Creationist is to believe in a Creator. That's it.

The following is a different issue, of course, but it is like being classified as a Cessationist. For the term to fit, all that is necessary is to believe that X ceased; there is no accompanying obligation for the person to explain any of the hows and whys that people will ask about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The claim that Big Bang origin is probable is preposterous. Everything (speaking of matter) that now exists was present within moments of the Big Bang. Yet nothing like the big bang has ever been seen since, and we see the same thing with evolution. It’s contrary to very laws of nature. And even the laws of nature had to be in play at the moment of creation or the universe would have collapsed on itself, and would have never maintain stability. Order from chaos is only possible with a Creator that guides creation into a state of unity.
The scientific community has butchered specific terms to bits and created its own self aggrandizing definitions with which they shun and pervert the reality of knowledge itself.

What about big bang or evolution theory, exactly, is violating the laws of nature?



ps: did you know that Big Bang Theory was developed by a physicist who was also a christian priest?

 

[danbuter]

No one can explain how the universe was created (or even why). We are not omniscient. There must be an original source, and I have faith that the source is God.

If you don't believe God created the universe, how can you call yourself a Christian?

 

[Speedwell]

No one can explain how the universe was created (or even why). We are not omniscient. There must be an original source, and I have faith that the source is God.

So you actually agree with Tagliatelli that "God did it" is not an explanation of "How."

If you don't believe God created the universe, how can you call yourself a Christian?

Of course I think God created the universe. But that's not what this discussion is about. As I said, it's about obvious pseudoscientific trash churned out by biblical creationists trying to defend an eccentric interpretation of Scripture. It's nothing to do with faith in Christ, in fact I think it is harmful to Christianity in the long run.

 

[Speedwell]

<Removed post>

The case for Christ is not under discussion here.

 

[KyleSpringer]

The case for Christ is not under discussion here.

Correct. But the evidence for a Creator is, and as such we must consider all things, not only our preferred worldviews, true? Now if God were the Creator, and He really wanted us to know it were true, He would have intervened at some point in time, which is why we look at the claims of ALL those who claimed to be from God. Jesus of Nazareth has overwhelmingly convinced me that He and God are one, and that before the foundations of the world were laid, He was.

The issue is not whether there is evidence, but whether the cold society that has continuously slandered and bolstered theories that aggressively counter said claims will ever open their eyes and pursue truth, not just accepting whatever scientific community and the board of education shoves in your face as “fact”.

 

[Speedwell]

Correct. But the evidence for a Creator is, and as such we must consider all things, not only our preferred worldviews, true? Now if God were the Creator, and He really wanted us to know it were true, He would have intervened at some point in time, which is why we look at the claims of ALL those who claimed to be from God. Jesus of Nazareth has overwhelmingly convinced me that He and God are one, and that before the foundations of the world were laid, He was.

The issue is not whether there is evidence, but whether the cold society that has continuously slandered and bolstered theories that aggressively counter said claims will ever open their eyes and pursue truth, not just accepting whatever scientific community and the board of education shoves in your face as “fact”.

But the theory of evolution, nor any part of science, does not even attempt to counter those claims.

 

[KyleSpringer]

But the theory of evolution, nor any part of science, does not even attempt to counter those claims.

No. These only contends the fact of whether there is a God at all, or in essence, questioning the need for God. And also propagates that faith and science are not cohesive, as if believing in the One who created the human mind, handwrote the human genome, and knows the stars all by name is some sort of intellectual suicide.

 

[Speedwell]

No. These only contends the fact of whether there is a God at all, or in essence, questioning the need for God. And also propagates that faith and science are not cohesive, as if believing in the One who created the human mind, handwrote the human genome, and knows the stars all by name is some sort of intellectual suicide.

Science does not question the need for a God. Science does not address the question of God's existence. Science only casts doubt on the interpretation of a biblical book favored by a particular minority Protestant sect. Trying to spin it into a theist versus atheist conflict only makes you look silly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No one can explain how the universe was created (or even why). We are not omniscient. There must be an original source, and I have faith that the source is God.

If you don't believe God created the universe, how can you call yourself a Christian?

That's not the point being discussed.
Believe what you want. Speedwell fundamentally believes it to. But Speedwell also understands that such a claim has no explanatory power.

 

[Speedwell]

Nothing is being spun. The silly part is that it is exactly what it has become.

Only in the mind of creationists. There are too many Christians and other kinds of theists working in evolutionary biology for it to be true in real life.

 

[KyleSpringer]

Only in the mind of creationists. There are too many Christians and other kinds of theists working in evolutionary biology for it to be true in real life.

I’m not saying that there cannot be middle ground, but there is an overarching attitude towards those who accept an intelligent design standpoint.