Personal evidence is the cry of every believer in every god and every religion. As such, it seems as unreliable as the evidence shows it to be. Personal evidence was the plea of those who wrote the Bible as it was with the author of Oahspe, the Book of Mormon and the Qur'an. But we need not look simply to cries of spirituality to try to assess the validity of such personal experiences because personal experiences apply to more than just religious beliefs.
Again, the number of people or religions is not indictive of truth or evidence of Christianity being false. All it shows is that due to the differences in religions, they all can not be true.
These are but a few of the experiments which outline the reliability of personal experiences.
Is it? It could be evident of how powerful the mind is in determining our reality and the outcome thereof. You are using this example with only two alternatives as solutions when there could be a multitude of reasons behind the findings.
Which again is subjective and therefore, not subject to demonstration to those outside of the Christian world view. What's more, many within the Christian world view do not subscribe to the same events of creation. As such, it is nothing more than a belief and one for which the evidence speaks clearly to the contrary.
Even those Christians that do not adhere to TE or Creation most believe that God is behind the process; it is how much that is contrary usually.
The world view of the Creationist isn't supported by any matter of credible evidence.
You don't think that the evidence I presented was credible?
That of the non-believer is soundly backed by testable, repeatable and demonstrable evidence. It doesn't rely upon personal subjective opinion and proclamations of "personal experiences".
Not always. The beginning of the universe is not testable, repeatable and nor does it have demonstrable evidence. The non-believer works with the consistant world and claims that they can repeat experiments due to it, yet there is no evidence that tomorrow will be the same as today. There are assumptions that tomorrow will be the same as today due to the past but there is no reason to believe it shall be.
This is not simple assumption. It is what the evidence suggests. And while you may not subscribe to evidence; evidence is still the fundamental element without which science finds no suggestion of anything.
Why would you assume that I do not subscribe to evidence.
Take away the evidence of unicorns and we find no reason to believe that unicorns exist. Take away the evidence of gremlins, and despite what pilots sometimes presented as their "personal experiences", we find no reason to believe that gremlins exist.
How many people say there have experienced unicorns? How many people have experienced gremlins? Your argument is based on a false premise. Your premise, no evidence for God, is faulty. Your premise that because some things are untrue so must be Christianity. That is illogical.
But the story for creationists is substantially worse than for believers in unicorns and gremlins. Not only do they have to contend with a complete lack of credible evidence for their beliefs, but there is also a growing mountain of evidence showing mechanisms which eliminate the supposed need for a creator. So the evidence is not only non-existent in support of their beliefs, but evidence also exists to demonstrate those beliefs to be wrong. So the claim that it is only an assumption that there is no creator is simply a misapplied assertion.
No, the evidence does not show no need for a Creator. What it shows is that the universe has laws and processes that provide a uniform world.
Evidence exists to demonstrate that some interpretations of their beliefs to be wrong.
As long as believers continue to utilize the word "know" or derivatives of the word, we can be assured that their argument is lacking.
Again that is a faulty premise. Believers have the same ability to know as any other person.
Do you know that you exist? Yes. Do you know that your mother exists or existed..yes. You take your own preconceived presuppositional view and claim that mine is lacking; that is subjective calling the other subjective.
One's personal subjective experiences can never properly be referred to as "knowledge", no matter how strongly the individual believes in them. Were anyone to suggest that knowledge can be attained through personal subjective opinion in the absence of corroborating evidence, we would be forced to admit that the believers of each and every god and each and every religion are correct, despite the fact that many of these beliefs contradict one another.
With any subjective experience we must provide to ourselves reason behind those experiences. All reality is based on the subjective experience of the ones experiencing the reality. It is the nature of the subject to discern the reliability of their own experience.
The fact is, these are no examples of "knowledge", concerning creationism, but only of belief. Using the word "knowledge" is an attempt to strengthen an argument which is otherwise devoid of strength.
What I said is that I know that God exists. Thus, God's explanation of the processes of Creation then follow in my view to be accurate. I then look at the evidence and find that some supports my view and that some evidence shows that parts can not be viewed as in evidence or they do not support my view. My basic foundation is that CWV and knowing God; so evidence that doesn't support my view remains a problem as to my understanding what is being proclaimed in the narrative in the Bible.
It is most certainly resting, not only on an unproven premise, but an unprovable one. And again we see a claim of "knowledge" where nothing but "belief" can be properly applied.
This is simply untrue; you deny my knowledge when in fact you have no reason to deny it other than to base your denial on your own subjective experience as well as your own worldview.
If we are to accept the Creationists claims of knowledge then we must also accept the same claims from Muslims, Buddhists and even those such as David Koresh who presented personal experience as their proof of the "knowledge" they proclaimed to hold.
I have lost you here. What knowledge are you referring to? The knowledge of what?
This was explained and sits perfectly within the logic provided. Creationists claim that existence of the universe is evidence of creation. It is their claim that without a creator, the products of creation cannot exist. Thusly, anything which exists is evidence of a creator. But this creates a contradiction for them because they then insist that the creator himself, was not created and has no need for a creator. The argument becomes; "All things must be created and are therefore, evidence of a creator... except the creator." Making an arbitrary exception for the creator is known as "special pleading". And special pleading is a logical fallacy. It demonstrates the lack of validity to the whole assertion.
Non-believers make the assertion that "All things are natural and therefore need no Creator...but this is based on the premise that nature is uniform and cohesive naturally. It is a circular argument. IT must be natural because it is based on nature being natural.
If everything requires a creator then that assertion also applies to the creator. If the creator does not himself require a creator, then the supposed objects of his creation do not require a creator. In short, if a creator can exist without a creator, then so can the universe itself.
The assertion that non-life can become life naturally requires evidence that this is possible. It has never been shown that life can "come about" by non-living elements.
This is incorrect because we can peer into the components of living matter and we find that it is composed, at its base level, of the same elements as are contained in non-living matter. What's more, we can watch as elements of non-living matter are converted into components of living matter. Research has succeeded in assembling a number of non-living, (non-biological), components, and facilitating the spontaneous assembly into cell-like structures which can replicate utilizing outside forces and which engage in Darwinian competition for resources.
The premise that components of living matter equals non-living matter is false. There is a big difference...life. Research in its very nature is intelligence searching or testing or manipulating. It takes an intelligence behind this research in the first place.
This is not clear. To assume that everything became, is to assume a period of nothingness, (aside from the Creationists special exception for their supposed creator). Yet nothingness has never been witnessed and, of course, cannot be witnessed. The mere existence of a witness defeats the concept of nothingness. But to perceive that there must have been a period of nothingness suggests that somehow, nothingness results in a lack of nothingness, and as the mechanism for this, creationists insert a creator. But it is far more logical to note that there is no reason that nothingness is a more likely default state than somethingness. We never see anything created, we only see transformations. And we know the universe is undergoing constant transformation and have evidence of a substantial transformation known as the Big Bang. That doesn't mean the universe didn't exist before that transformation, it simply means it existed in a different form. And while we have substantial evidence to conclude that the universe has always existed in one form or another, we have absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was ever a period or "time", if you will, when it did not exist. And if the universe has always existed, then it requires no creator.
It has been shown that the universe was at one point not in the form we see today. We do not know that it was transformed anymore than we know it was created. We base our determination on our own worldviews.
Your first failed assumption is that there was a period when the universe did not exist.
Did not exist in the form we see today. Which is not a failed assumption , it is in evidence that the universe began from a point which has been speculated to be less than a pinpoint.
"Time" is a component of the universe in its current configuration so utilizing the word "time" becomes confusing.
I stated that there was a time when time did not exist.
You suggest a creator which was not created, then insist that the universe must have had a creator. If your creator does not require a creator, then neither does the universe. Your special pleading exposes the fallacy of your assertions.
Your assertion that there is no need for a Creator is not based on any evidence. You can not show with any certainty that life could be produced by non-living matter.
The key here is the phrase, "as it exists". Certainly the Earth has not always existed as we know it today. But there is zero evidence that the components from which the Earth is formed have not always existed.
There is zero evidence that the components from which the universe was formed have ever existed before. What does this say? Neither view has more to say than the other.
So logically, what you are referring to as "creation" is in fact, only transformation.
You can not know this. You are assuming this to be the case but you have no evidence that the universe was transformed rather than coming from nothingness.
And gravity accounts for the mechanism of that transformation which means there is no need for any unseen, outside force, such as the creator you're attempting to invent.
You have no certainty that gravity was the mechanism that was behind the beginning of our universe.
