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.
Which. of course, I didn't even insinuate. I'm speaking completely about the value of personal experience, devoid of objective evidence. Putting it bluntly, without corroborating objective evidence, it doesn't have any credible value.
What I was pointing out is that followers of every religion proclaim personal experience, devoid of demonstrable evidence, as their reasons to believe as they do. Christians believe their own "personal experiences" are significant while believing those from all other religions are self-delusion. Muslims of course, believe their "personal experiences" are valid while believing that Christians and all others are self-deluded. And so it goes for the followers of each religion, believing their own subjective experiences to be valid, while dismissing those of every other follower of every other religion. Everyone recognizes self-delusion, placebo-effect, power of suggestion, but they apply it to those of all other religions, but never to themselves.
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.
It is. Hence the reason for the double-blind nature of so many studies on placebo effect. But true to personal belief systems, people are always willing to believe that others are fooled by such personal experiences, but somehow believe they themselves are completely immune.
If you wish to tackle the well documented properties of placebo effect, you have your work more than cut out for you.
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.
But again, we're speaking of the level of evidence here. As the thread title asks; "What is the evidence for creationism?" And whenever we look to religions, we find the same proclamation for evidence -- personal experience. How did David Koresh know God had chosen him to deliver a
message? Personal experience. How did Joseph Smith know God had chosen him to deliver a message? Personal experience. How did John Newbrough know he had been chosen to deliver a message from god? Personal experience. How does a muslim know that Allah is the one true god and not the Christian God? Personal experience. How do people ingesting certain chemicals know they can fly? Personal experience. How do some people know they have green elephants peeking out of the air conditioning vents in their rooms? Personal experience. Yet the average Christian will tell you all of these people's "personal experiences" are delusions, then proudly proclaim personal experience as their evidence of God/Holy Spririt/Salvation/Creationism, etc.
So here's the trick to personal experience; if you don't have objective corroborating evidence to support your "personal experience", it's worth as a form of testimony is exactly zero.
You don't think that the evidence I presented was credible?
To be perfectly frank, I'll go you one better than that. I don't think it even qualifies as evidence. One can't simply point to the existence of the universe and proclaim it as evidence of God anymore than they can point to it and proclaim it as evidence that the universe first formed of Silly Putty and has since diversified into different elements and compounds. "Evidence" is only evidence if a distinct mechanisms and links can be demonstrated between it and that for which it is being declared as evidence.
Not always. The beginning of the universe is not testable, repeatable and nor does it have demonstrable evidence.
Nor is such claimed by most non-believers. I never even suggested the universe had a beginning. In fact, I stated that the evidence strongly suggests just the opposite. I even requested your evidence that the universe hasn't always existed in one form or another. Do not confuse the big bang theory with the beginning of the universe where all matter comes from nothing. That's not the theory at all. Just as matter can exist as either matter or energy in this universe, it is
entirely plausible that the matter and energy in this universe could have existed in another form before the big bang brought it to the form we know today. Again, we never witness any act of creation or even spontaneous creation. We see only transformation and have no evidence that creation has ever actually occurred anywhere at any time.
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.
The evidence indicates that tomorrow will not be exactly like today. Have you ever known of one day being an exact duplicate of the prior day? Each day is different, yet follows in certain properties. And while it is possible that the sun will not be seen to cross the horizon upon tomorrow's dawn, the evidence lies in the consistency of the perceived sunrise and the understood mechanisms behind that event. There is plenty of evidence for this. Everyday in the history of mankind and other evidences beyond that history are evidence. They're linked to the event in demonstrable ways and provide strong reason to reach the conclusion that tomorrow will be similar to today in substantial ways while being dissimilar in some of the details. Claiming there is no evidence that tomorrow will be as today, within certain ranges, is much like saying that the fact that parachutes deliver their cargo safely to the ground over 99% of the time is no evidence that a parachute will work. It's not purely conclusive evidence because sometimes parachutes fail. But it is evidence and speaks very strongly for the likelihood that a parachute will work.
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.
You're proposing two different standards here. For the believer you present a standard of "personal experience", despite the vast and wide-spread demonstrated failures of personal experience to indicate anything more than what the subject of the experiences expects to experience. For the non-believer, you proclaim anything less that 100% conclusive to be other than evidence. If you walk into a room, see a dead body on the floor with what appears to be a bullet hole in the chest, a subject standing next to the body and a smoking gun in the hand of that
subject, do you have 100% conclusive evidence that the subject holding the gun has shot the subject on the floor? No, the evidence speaks strongly but it is not 100% conclusive. It is however, still evidence. If, on the other hand, all one has is a family member of the victim who later
testifies that they have no empirical evidence or knowledge that a particular subject killed their family member, but a "strong feeling of personal experience" that they did, you have no evidence.
Why would you assume that I do not subscribe to evidence.
Because so far, you've demonstrated a lack of understanding as to what does and does not constitute evidence.
How many people say there have experienced unicorns?
It would take only one. And as you and I have both heard of unicorns, certainly someone somewhere has proclaimed such a beast or a likelihood of such a beast.
How many people have experienced gremlins?
None. Just as none have actually experienced God in any manner which can be demonstrated. But just as many proclaim experiences of God, many pilots have proclaimed experiencing the work of gremlins. That's very much the whole point.
Your argument is based on a false premise. Your premise, no evidence for God, is faulty.
Then, keeping in mind that personal experience is the same "evidence" given for green elephants in the cooling system and six foot talking rabbits, what is your evidence for God?
Your premise that because some things are untrue so must be Christianity. That is illogical.
But that's not my premise. My premise is firstly that there is no credible evidence for God. I have to wonder if Christians ever really stop to think about that. You're supposing an all-powerful entity who wants all men to know of his love for them and the gift of his love, yet he remains hidden from them. Do you ever have trouble convincing anyone that you exist? Are you anywhere close to all-powerful? Why is something so completely simple for you to do so completely impossible for a omnipotent entity? Why is it that all gods, no matter what the belief from which they arrive, are always invisible, always untestable and always proclaimed only by men? Never has there been a credibly documented case of any god, let alone the Christian God, demonstrating his existence in a credible way. All gods are invisible, silent and inactive because they are the inventions of man's imagination. There really is no logical reason for any god to keep himself hidden from us. You claim that it's illogical to see all of the failures of the Bible and conclude that it cannot be of a perfect all-powerful entity and I conclude that it is illogical to believe that any sentient, omnipotent, benevolent God who wanted his existence known would ever be doubted by anyone.
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.
You keep repeating this claim but provide nothing to substantiate it. I could simply sit here an insist that God doesn't exist by repeating the phrase, "God doesn't exist", but such a practice is patently devoid of compelling quality. If you want to insist that the laws and processes of the universe demonstrate the need for a creator, then support the statement. Tell us what would be expected of a universe without such processes and laws. Would such a universe be even temporarily stable? Certainly it could not be. Could it have existed? I know of no reason why it couldn't have. But, as already stated, such a universe could not attain stability. So it would quickly collapse. That doesn't mean the base components of the universe would vanish. In fact, there is no reason of which I'm aware that the components could not, or would not, coagulate again, into a somewhat different form. This process could continue indefinitely until the universe generated was one which reached stability through a set of properties and laws which represented a balance. And not so oddly, that is precisely what we have.
Evidence exists to demonstrate that some interpretations of their beliefs to be wrong.
Evidence exists to clearly and definitively demonstrate that the global flood of the Bible never occurred. Evidence exists to show that the Earth was not formed covered in water but devoid of an atmosphere. Evidence exists to show that if the sun didn't form until after there was water on the Earth, the water would not have been liquid as it is stated to be in Genesis 1:9. Evidence exists to cleary and definitively show that plants cannot grow on Earth without the sun. Evidence exists to conclusively prove that the sun, moon and stars exist well outside of the Earth's atmosphere. Evidence exists to conclusively demonstrate that ritualistic practices of dripping bird blood on people, even if done by a priest, will not cure them of disease.
This is but a small sampling and already we have shown Genesis 1:2, Genesis 1:6, Genesis 1:9, Genesis 1:11, Genesis 1:14-16 and Leviticus 14:1-9 to be completely fallacious. Genesis is the story of creation and yet it is shown to be clearly and demonstrably wrong on five counts on the very first page. And yet you proclaim creation to be true, based upon the Bible.
Again that is a faulty premise. Believers have the same ability to know as any other person.
I never stated believers can't know things or that they can't know things as well as anyone else. What I'm saying is that when a believer states that they "know" God exists, they're utilizing the wrong terminology in order to attempt to strengthen their claim. Theism is a
belief. Atheism is a
belief. Neither can be conclusively demonstrated to be true or untrue. Therefore, no one can accurately proclaim "knowledge" of either the existence of God or the non-existence of God. When one utilizes the words "know" or "knowledge" in such a manner, they leave no means by which to distinguish self-delusion or belief devoid of doubt from actual knowledge. In order for anything to be accurately considered knowledge, it must be demonstrably factual. And in that, both theism and atheism fail because they are beliefs, not knowledge.
Do you know that you exist? Yes. Do you know that your mother exists or existed..yes.
These are very good examples. I'm glad you presented them. My mother isn't omnipotent. You're not omnipotent and I'm not omnipotent. Yet we have no doubt of each others existence. I've never even seen you and yet I'm left with multiple forms of empirical evidence that you exist. My mother most certainly does exist as do I. And none of us has the slightest trouble convincing the other that we exist. Yet this all-powerful God who wants us all to know of his existence can't seem to manage this simple task. It seems very clear that if he does exist, he does not desire to have all men recognize his existence. And if he doesn't want us to know of his existence, then he can have no reasonable expectation that we would or could know of his existence. And as I have demonstrated, no one actually "knows" of God's existence, even though some may believe without doubt.
As this is growing rather lengthy, I'll address the rest of your post at a later time.