Is a creationist a creationist because they feel it makes sense?

[Merlin]

There is simplification, and then there is a catagorically false statement. Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles of a given population. Show me where, in that definition, you got the notion of lightning, ponds, n-pedal locomotion, etc.

Show me yours and I'll show you mine
Where did the organic material come from?
Where did the protiens come from?

Why? Occams Razor tells us that the simpler explanation is to be preferred (i.e., is more likely to be true). So what's simpler: "a few acids in a pool of chemicals", or "a few acids in a pool of chemicals and a deity"?

For me, God is the simpler choice:
"a few acids in a pool of chemicals", or " a deity"

Consider the OP:
Is a creationist a creationist because they feel it makes sense?

Are you a creationist?
If not, why do you answer for us on what 'they feel'?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Either you have to believe that matter always existed, or there was nothing and some instability caused an explosion which created all matter.

Or you can believe that a singularity outside of spacetime expanded. 'Explode' imples internal high pressure rapidly equalising with external low pressure.

Either way, it is easier for me to believe (and simpler) that God created the universe to begin with.

Where did God come from?
As I said before, Occams Razor tells us to favour the simpler solution. Since the solution without God is simpler than the solution with God, the Razor tells us to favour the former. Of course, the latter may be possible, but it is as probable as my atoms spontaneously existing in South Africa.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Show me yours and I'll show you mine
Where did the organic material come from?
Where did the protiens come from?

I personally believe that they both came from conditions akin to those in the Miller-Urey experiments, but what does this have to do with Evolution? You equated it to the abiogenesis event; why?

For me, God is the simpler choice:
"a few acids in a pool of chemicals", or " a deity"

Consider the OP:
Is a creationist a creationist because they feel it makes sense?

Are you a creationist?
If not, why do you answer for us on what 'they feel'?

Because I object to you misrepresenting what Evolution is; at the very best, you are accidentally spreading misinformation.

 

[atomweaver]

In a purely evolutionary world view you can't rely on what your brain tells you is true, what does truth mean to a purely naturalistic viewpoint?

Non-sequitur. His viewpoint is atheistic, not evolutionary. An "evolutionary world view" is the creation of modern creationists...

The Bible makes sense when you realize that God is real. It is very easy to dismiss it as mythical and fictional when you have no reason to believe that God exists. When you find that God is real then the Bible takes on a whole new emphasis.

...So does the Rig Veda, and the Diamond Sutra, and the Q'uran, and the Tao De Ching, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Gospel of Judas, and the... and the... etc. You do realize here that you are arguing as much for all religions, as you are your own? Thus began my own path to agnosticism; realization that God, if He truly is omnibenevolent, would give each Soul an equal chance at coming to know Him, results in the rejection of all of the worldly instances of religions asserting "One Trueness".
If you accept that the precepts of US Creationism are a necessary element of belief (let be generous, and say that 25% of the US holds this to be true) your odds of being born into a life which has even an inklnig of a chance at resulting in savlation are

300 million *0.25/4.5 billion = 1.6%

Omnibenevolence? Nope



There is evidence but you choose to dismiss it. It is a choice and you have made that choice. You come up with other reasons for the evidence that is available.


So on the other hand when someone says that they are unable to think any other way because it doesn't make sense you claim they are deluding themselves. What if you are deluding yourself?[/quote]

 

[Mavros]

Being an atheist doesn't make sense at all. There is a possibility that God exists no matter how small you feel that is, you can't know that there is no God. So reasonably you could be an agnostic, which then is a somewhat more reasonable stance.

There is possibility that pink unicorn exists no matter how small you feel that is, you cant know that there is no pink unicorns. But is it smart actually believe pink unicorns exists?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Non-sequitur. His viewpoint is atheistic, not evolutionary. An "evolutionary world view" is the creation of modern creationists...

Well noted, although I do know what view the op has on origins of life due to other posts so I was referring to his view on that rather than on the op itself; but I should have of course said that so that it was clear. Thanks for bringing that to the forefront for clarity.

...So does the Rig Veda, and the Diamond Sutra, and the Q'uran, and the Tao De Ching, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Gospel of Judas, and the... and the... etc. You do realize here that you are arguing as much for all religions, as you are your own?

If I were discussing the Bible as being the only requirement for my position then yes you could say that but I am arguing from an entirely Christian world view.

Thus began my own path to agnosticism; realization that God, if He truly is omnibenevolent, would give each Soul an equal chance at coming to know Him, results in the rejection of all of the worldly instances of religions asserting "One Trueness".

That would be true if the Gospel and the Bible were unaccessible to the world, which is not the case.

If you accept that the precepts of US Creationism are a necessary element of belief (let be generous, and say that 25% of the US holds this to be true) your odds of being born into a life which has even an inklnig of a chance at resulting in savlation are

300 million *0.25/4.5 billion = 1.6%

Creationism is not a necessary element of Christianity. The whole position of Christianity as far as salvation goes is that one accepts Christ as their Savior, believes He is the Son of God who died on the Cross for the sins of every man, women and child in the world.

Omnibenevolence? Nope

Do you have all the knowledge of the universe? Do you know everything there is to know about the universe and everything in it? If not who are you to tell God who in the Christian world view does that He is or is not?

There is evidence but you choose to dismiss it. It is a choice and you have made that choice. You come up with other reasons for the evidence that is available.


So on the other hand when someone says that they are unable to think any other way because it doesn't make sense you claim they are deluding themselves. What if you are deluding yourself?

[/QUOTE]

Sorry but that was my point. If automan says we are deluding ourselves what makes him so sure he isn't deluding himself. Of course it works both ways. You must go to the next point to make any sense of the argument. Does my viewpoint have consistency, does his....making sense is the point and how one arrives at that determination.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is possibility that pink unicorn exists no matter how small you feel that is, you cant know that there is no pink unicorns. But is it smart actually believe pink unicorns exists?

The pink unicorn argument is really becoming boring, I wish that someone would at least come up with a better analogy.

1. Does anyone claim that pink unicorns exist?
2. Does anyone claim that pink is the only color that unicorns come in?
3. Does anyone really believe that pink unicorns exist?

So while it is true that we can not know for sure whether or not pink unicorns exist, we do know that for most of the world pink unicorns are not considered real.

 

[Mavros]

The pink unicorn argument is really becoming boring, I wish that someone would at least come up with a better analogy.

1. Does anyone claim that pink unicorns exist?
2. Does anyone claim that pink is the only color that unicorns come in?
3. Does anyone really believe that pink unicorns exist?

How you dear denie their existence??

1. I once read book that claimed pink unicorns exist
2. Some heretics think they are actually blue
3. Why not?

So while it is true that we can not know for sure whether or not pink unicorns exist, we do know that for most of the world pink unicorns are not considered real.

We can same about god as nobody have any evidence he exists

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The pink unicorn argument is really becoming boring, I wish that someone would at least come up with a better analogy.

1. Does anyone claim that pink unicorns exist?
2. Does anyone claim that pink is the only color that unicorns come in?
3. Does anyone really believe that pink unicorns exist?

So while it is true that we can not know for sure whether or not pink unicorns exist, we do know that for most of the world pink unicorns are not considered real.

1) The Bible does.
2) The Bible does not specify colour. But God told me they are pink.
3) I do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How you dear denie their existence??

1. I once read book that claimed pink unicorns exist
2. Some heretics think they are actually blue
3. Why not?

1. Source please.
2. Again source please.
3. Pink unicorns (or any other color) have not revealed their existence to the world.

We can same about god as nobody have any evidence he exists

That is simply false. I have evidence He exists. There are millions of others that have evidence for His existence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1) The Bible does.

That is right, I remember someone told me that but I don't remember where. Please give me the chapter and verse.

2) The Bible does not specify colour. But God told me they are pink.

Then you have more information that I do.

3) I do.

Ok, then could you give me the reasons why you do?

 

[Merlin]

1) The Bible does.
2) The Bible does not specify colour. But God told me they are pink.
3) I do.

Do you have a problem with that belief?
I don't.
Why should it matter to me what you believe

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do you have a problem with that belief?
I don't.
Why should it matter to me what you believe

It shouldn't. Though I was replying to OnceDecieved.

 

[lemmings]

Ok, then could you give me the reasons why you do?

You can not disprove the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, therefore you might as well believe that they exist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is right, I remember someone told me that but I don't remember where. Please give me the chapter and verse.

Job 39:9-12, Psalms 29:6, Numbers 24:8, for starters.

Then you have more information that I do.

I'm sure your god could reveal it to you as well. While we worship different deities, they are still both deities, are they not?

Ok, then could you give me the reasons why you do?

My god told me they exist.

 

[automan]

I have evidence He exists. There are millions of others that have evidence for His existence.

No, you don't have evidence God exists, you and millions of others believe God exists,
and you all want God to exist, you all need God to exist, you all hope desperately that a God exists,
but there is a difference between evidence and belief.

If you had evidence I would also believe, and believe me, if you had evidence everyone would believe,
if you had evidence we would be fools not to believe.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, you don't have evidence God exists, you and millions of others believe God exists,
and you all want God to exist, you all need God to exist, you all hope desperately that a God exists,
but there is a difference between evidence and belief.

Perhaps it would be more productive, and not to mention polite, to ask her what evidence she has? Imagine if a Creationist came up to you and declared that you have no evidence for one of your beliefs.

 

[FishFace]

300 million *0.25/4.5 billion = 1.6%

World population is more like 6.5 billion, so the chances are nearer 1.15%. (assuming your 25% is correct)

 

[Oncedeceived]

You can not disprove the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, therefore you might as well believe that they exist.

I think I must remain neutral then.

 

[FishFace]

The pink unicorn argument is really becoming boring, I wish that someone would at least come up with a better analogy.

1. Does anyone claim that pink unicorns exist?
2. Does anyone claim that pink is the only color that unicorns come in?
3. Does anyone really believe that pink unicorns exist?

So while it is true that we can not know for sure whether or not pink unicorns exist, we do know that for most of the world pink unicorns are not considered real.

So the best you could come up with for the differences between your religion and IPUism - that is, the first reasons why we should consider your religion over the IPU is that more people think your religion is correct?

Excellent.