I am not a creationist.

[Cabal]

What if we see Christian symbols while taking the Rorschach Test, have had happy thoughts about dying, and claim to have resisted the Devil?

Are you seriously still on about this? This was proved wrong to you by gaara about a dozen times. You seem to conveniently forget your agreement to stop bringing up certain points and think people won't notice.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you seriously still on about this? This was proved wrong to you by gaara about a dozen times. You seem to conveniently forget your agreement to stop bringing up certain points and think people won't notice.

Excuse me, but I just heard a message from an evangelist who gave his personal testimony about going to ER and, due to circumstances beyond his control, found himself face to face with a psychiatrist who questioned him for an hour and a half. He remembered the questions:

1. Have you ever thought about dying?
2. Have you ever spoke to the devil?

To make a long story short, he was placed in the psychiatric unit for about a week. He finally got out when the Chaplain came to visit, and he told the Chaplain what had happened, and the Chaplain got a Christian psychiatrist to authorize his release.

 

[Psudopod]

In my personal opinion, a creationist is one who would put the bible (or any other holy text) above the evidence when looking at the world. Ie, they'll something along the lines of civilation cannot be older than 6000 years, or all life cannot come from a common ancestor. It's not just a matter of saying God created, because that's every theist ever, but saying that something must be wrong, based soley on biblical evidence, that something must exist (such as the flood) even when that would be demonstratably impossible.

But, as I said, it's a personal opinion, and I'm not claiming any authority.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Your beliefs can help to clear up some of the misconceptions of what a creationist really is.

If you believe the big bang did it there are some who consider this to be a form of creationism, after all the big bang started as a catholic idea. It was suppose to be the missing link between the creation and God. In other words, God did it with the big bang.

That was the original Catholic idea, but it's not the modern idea. Science restricts itself to what is known, and it is not known that the Big Bang 'did it'.

If you only believe in the big bang part but not in the God part the question still remains: who or what caused/create it? Unless you believe cause and effect can be separated.

I do. Besides, believing in the Big Bang doesn't require me to state the cause. I am quite happy saying "I don't know", because I don't know. I believe the Big Bang is happening, but I see nothing which tells me why it's happening, or what happened before it.

You know I don't drift along with the mainstream big bang, but I don't completely rule out evolution. As for the universe, I believe God did it with electricity, remember. However, I do believe the process would have taken longer than 6000 years as I mentioned in the OP. I don't have a clue how long it took.

So am I a creationist or what?

Depends on what you mean by "God did it with electricity". I know you believe in the 'electric universe' idea, but where exactly does God come in?

 

[lucaspa]

I am not a creationist. I believe in an old earth as well as a new one. So what does that make me?

A creationist. Specifically, an old-earth creationist.

Doveaman, the defining statement of creationism is that God directly created part/parts of the universe instantaneously in its present form.

Let me ask you this: do you believe God directly created human beings? That is, one moment there were no human beings, and the next moment there were. If you believe this then you are a creationist. What then needs to be determined is what specific type of creationist you are: young earth, old earth, ID, day-age, preexisting earth that was wiped out and then a 6 day creation, etc.

In the Genesis theory: Genesis 1:1 begins with a summary of the fact that God did it.

Genesis 1:2 then goes on to describe the conditions at the end of the old earth - Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And Genesis 1:3 then go on to describe the beginning of the new earth – And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Genesis 1:2 speaks of an earth that was formless, empty, dark, and covered in water which existed before the six days of creation week began in Genesis 1:3.

It was from this preexisting ‘old’ earth that the “new” earth we now live on emerged out of its preexisting water – And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so...Gen 1:6-9.

Water was not created during the six days of creation week, nor was the rocks underneath it, they both already existed.

Notice that you are making the same argument that I did about scripture not completely supporting creatio ex nihilo. You are saying there was pre-existing stuff from which God worked.

 

[lucaspa]

If you believe the big bang did it there are some who consider this to be a form of creationism, after all the big bang started as a catholic idea.

No, this puts you in the category of theistic evolutionist. Theistic evolution holds that the processes discovered by science are how God did it. As you put it: "God did it with the big bang."

If you only believe in the big bang part but not in the God part the question still remains: who or what caused/create it? Unless you believe cause and effect can be separated.

1. You don't need to separate cause and effect. You just believe that there is a different cause than deity. Two of the hypotheses about First Cause -- the cause of the Big Bang -- have entities that are not deity. Logical and Mathematical Necessity hypothesizes that the equations that describe the universe have the power to create a universe for them to describe. Ekpyrotic theory has our universe caused by the collision of two 4D 'branes.

2. Cause and effect are separated for most of what happens on the quantum level. Most quantum events have no cause. So 2 of the hypotheses about First Cause do not invoke cause. One is quantum fluctuation, where the universe is the result of quantum events. The other is Hartle-Hawking No Boundary where the universe is finite but unbounded. Basically, the universe just IS and has no cause. There is no singularity of the Big Bang.

So am I a creationist or what? [/quote]

As I said. A creationist. An old earth creationist.

 

[Michael]

Depends on what you mean by "God did it with electricity". I know you believe in the 'electric universe' idea, but where exactly does God come in?

Electrical currents in the structures of our physical brains give rise to 'awareness'. The flow of current through the structures of the physical universe also give rise to awareness on a much larger scale.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Electrical currents in the structures of our physical brains give rise to 'awareness'. The flow of current through the structures of the physical universe also give rise to awareness on a much larger scale.

That's quite a leap. Why isn't the flow of electricity in my computer also yielding a conciousness?

Simply having a charge flux doesn't elicit sentience. Electricity is one of the ways in which our neurones talk to each other, but it is the talking itself which creates the conciousness: there's a difference between white noise and directed chatter.

 

[Michael]

That's quite a leap.

Compared to say 'dark energy' or 'inflation' is no leap at all. Unlike those leaps of faith, electricity and awareness can be shown to exist in nature in controlled experimentation.

Why isn't the flow of electricity in my computer also yielding a conciousness?

Because it is not of organic construction. A single cell animal on the other hand is capable of searching out and eating food.

Simply having a charge flux doesn't elicit sentience.

No, but every being that is sentient experiences current flow.

Electricity is one of the ways in which our neurones talk to each other, but it is the talking itself which creates the conciousness: there's a difference between white noise and directed chatter.

I can't I agree with the 'talking' claim. My children were 'aware' and conscious long before they learned how to talk.

 

[Doveaman]

That was the original Catholic idea, but it's not the modern idea.

So the idea evolved so that the big bang could survive. I get it.

Science restricts itself to what is known,

So why isn't God included? Are you saying He's not known? Or is it that He's not known by scientists?

and it is not known that the Big Bang 'did it'.

Did you say "it is not known that the Big Bang 'did it'". Are you sure?

What makes you so sure that "it is not known that the Big Bang 'did it'"?

I do. Besides, believing in the Big Bang doesn't require me to state the cause.

Okay, so you believe in a cause, you just don't care to know what it is? Why is that?

I am quite happy saying "I don't know", because I don't know.

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Tell me, what do you as a physicist find so enjoyable about being ignorant in this matter.

I believe the Big Bang is happening, but I see nothing which tells me why it's happening, or what happened before it.

But wouldn't you just love to know what was that primordial cause, and what was the cause of that primordial cause? I would. It would certainly explain why space only expands mathematically and not actually.

Depends on what you mean by "God did it with electricity". I know you believe in the 'electric universe' idea, but where exactly does God come in?

Did ya have to ask?

God created the electricity then He used it to bake the universe into existence. In some parts the temperatures were a bit high so planets like mars were over baked, but because of correct temperatures earth was well done.

I think someone was messing around with the thermostat when planets like mars were being baked.

 

[Doveaman]

It doesn’t even matter whether or not religious believers think their God created anything. The mere fact that they believe their unsubstantiated God is real without a shred of sound evidence to support that belief means they are credulous and demonstrates that their perception of reality is not to be trusted.

Well, look at it this way, if they are wrong you and them will end the same way. But if they are right...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So the idea evolved so that the big bang could survive. I get it.

Exactly.

So why isn't God included? Are you saying He's not known? Or is it that He's not known by scientists?

Both. God isn't included because none of our explanations require him: the chemical theory of atoms doesn't use deities in its explanation, but it does use nucleons and electrons. That our theories don't include God doesn't mean science excludes God; rather, it means there's nothing we know of that requires God as part of an explanation.

Gettit?

Did you say "it is not known that the Big Bang 'did it'". Are you sure?

Yes.

What makes you so sure that "it is not known that the Big Bang 'did it'"?

Because I've gone over the evidence, and I've gone over the theory. Neither imply that the Big Bang is the cause of the universe, or the start of time and space, or what have you.

Okay, so you believe in a cause, you just don't care to know what it is? Why is that?

Who said I believe in a cause? And even if I did, who says I have to know what it is? The evidence could quite easily point to the existence of a cause, but not to the nature of the cause (as a very rough analogy, my phone points to the existence of a phone maker, but it doesn't say whether that maker was male or female).

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Tell me, what do you as a physicist find so enjoyable about being ignorant in this matter.

I enjoy the fact that there is more to learn. Obviously, I'd rather I wasn't ignorant, I'd rather I knew all the facts. But I don't, and I'd be an idiot to claim otherwise.

But wouldn't you just love to know what was that primordial cause, and what was the cause of that primordial cause? I would.

Of course.

Did ya have to ask?

God created the electricity then He used it to bake the universe into existence. In some parts the temperatures were a bit high so planets like mars were over baked, but because of correct temperatures earth was well done.

I think someone was messing around with the thermostat when planets like mars were being baked.

...

Planets were baked?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, look at it this way, if they are wrong you and them will end the same way. But if they are right...

This is called Pascal's wager, and it's essentially one big false dichotomy: it presumes that either Christianity is true (Christians go to Heaven, the rest go to Hell), or 'atheism' is true (everyone ceases to exist upon death).

It completely ignores the fact that there are more religions than just Christianity. It the Christians are wrong, that doesn't automatically make the atheists right: it could be the Muslims are right, or the Hindus, or the Buddhists, ad nauseam.

 

[Doveaman]

Who said I believe in a cause? And even if I did, who says I have to know what it is? The evidence could quite easily point to the existence of a cause,

The evidence does quite easily point to the existence of a cause: order from ORDER, life from LIFE, intelligence from INTELLIGENCE, etc. etc. etc.

but not to the nature of the cause (as a very rough analogy, my phone points to the existence of a phone maker, but it doesn't say whether that maker was male or female).

But it does say that the MAKER is intelligent, thoughtful, considerate, caring, etc. etc. etc. From this we can deduce that the MAKER is a wise PERSON.

Planets were baked?

Well, taking into consideration that stars give birth to planets through an electrical process, then I would say they are baked.

Novas are the visible result of this electrical process.

 

[Doveaman]

This is called Pascal's wager, and it's essentially one big false dichotomy: it presumes that either Christianity is true (Christians go to Heaven, the rest go to Hell), or 'atheism' is true (everyone ceases to exist upon death).

It completely ignores the fact that there are more religions than just Christianity. It the Christians are wrong, that doesn't automatically make the atheists right: it could be the Muslims are right, or the Hindus, or the Buddhists, ad nauseam.

That's a very good observation.

But Christians are right, and no other religion is.

I know that sounds like an arrogant statement, but what can I say. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's a very good observation.

But Christians are right, and no other religion is.

I know that sounds like an arrogant statement, but what can I say. The evidence is overwhelming.

No, there are no evidence, thats why its called faith.

 

[Doveaman]

No, there are no evidence, thats why its called faith.

Why do you consider 'faith' and 'evidence' a contradiction?

Isn't faith based on evidence?

I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow because I have evidence that is what it does everyday.

I also have faith the Son will rise tomorrow because I have evidence that is what He does everyday.

 

[Cabal]

Why do you consider 'faith' and 'evidence' a contradiction?

Isn't faith based on evidence?

I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow because I have evidence that is what it does everyday.

I also have faith the Son will rise tomorrow because I have evidence that is what He does everyday.

No.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

This combined with the verses about not putting God to the test show why it's ridiculous to expect God to be provable.

Besides, anything that requires you to believe in it first before you can see it is not scientific or empirical.

 

[Doveaman]

No.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

This verse actually supports my position.

This combined with the verses about not putting God to the test show why it's ridiculous to expect God to be provable.

God was indeed put to the test, and was proven.

"As I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD — because all these men...have seen My glory...and have put Me to the test now these ten times...Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and prove Me now in this," says the LORD Almighty...Num 14:21-22, Mal 3:10.

Besides, anything that requires you to believe in it first before you can see it is not scientific or empirical.

The Son was seen to rise before we believed. We believe because He rose, not the other way around.

 

[Cabal]

This verse actually supports my position.

Oh sure, why not....despite the fact what it describes clearly isn't the same as empirical evidence.

God was indeed put to the test, and was proven.
"As I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD — because all these men...have seen My glory...and have put Me to the test now these ten times...Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and prove Me now in this," says the LORD AlmightyNum 14:21-22.

The Son was seen to rise before we believed. We believe because He rose, not the other way around.

Then do explain why the Bible also contains verse in direct contradiction to all of this.