What is the evidence for creationism?

[nvxplorer]

Please site where you are getting your data.

According to adherents.com this premise is incorrect. The two largest religions are Christinity and Islam. On one hand you have Christianity that permits people to choose Christianity/the God of the Bible vs. Islam where it is required. Islam does not allow other religions in any geographic area under Islamic law.


Adherents.com says:
Buddhism is also very important historically and culturally in other several other Asian countries, but is no longer cited as the preferred religion by at least 50% of the population. In China and North Korea, Buddhism was forcibly suppressed by Communist regimes. Buddhism remains important in these countries, but is no longer claimed as the religious preference by the majority of the population. Taiwan is heavily Buddhist, but the religion is mixed with Taoism and Confucianism, and exists side by side with other religions to such a degree that Buddhism is probably not a majority religion, strictly speaking. In South Korea Christianity has recently made enough gains that Buddhism is no longer the religion of the majority of the population.

Currently, many people in traditionally Buddhist countries such as Korea and China are embracing Christianity in greater numbers, while Buddhism is in turn gaining increasing numbers of converts among Westerners in places such as Europe, Australia, and the United States. There are even organizations and books for "JuBus" (Jews who practice Buddhism).

You can view a map here: http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-religion-map.htm

If you were raised in northern Africa or the Middle East, the chance that you hold a Shinto worldview is very small. If you were raised in Brasil, it is likely that you are Catholic.

I've read several studies on the influence of culture and upbringing on religion, but we needn't dig that deeply. An infant has no worldview, so the first exposure to religion comes from the family. As a child grows, other factors contribute to belief, such as friends, school and pop culture.

If we combine era with geography, we see that the predominant religious views in the New World were vastly different in 1492 than they are today.

As for religious experience, many people, I for one, were not raised with any religious backround. I was not "taught" anything religious in nature. My experience was not determined by any outside influence in regard to my geographical area. It was determined by searching and finding.

The factors I noted are strong, but not absolute. Many come from a religious background, and have come up empty handed in their search.

If Christianity were a purely personal experience, there would be no need for evangelism. The fact is, Christianity (as well as other religions) is an intricate story that must be told. Whether this story is passed on or sought out by the individual, it is a lesson that must be taught and learned.

That the sun provides heat is self-evident. If we take three people from different parts of the world, from different times in history, we will get this same answer regarding heat from the sun. If we ask them what is the source of the sun itself, the answer will differ.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure why you're calling it a deposition, it's not under oath or testimony for a court of law.

Au contraire ---

[bible]Hebrews 9:15-22[/bible]

The Bible [both testsments] has legal status in God's eyes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is God the God of the Bible?

That's a literary way of saying that God is the Author of the Bible, as well as the primary Character on its pages.

 

[Beastt]

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.

 

[SarcasmDispenser]

I assume you are posting to me. I didn't give Scripture for evidence for Creationism. I gave evidence that I feel supports the Creation narrative.

Oh, well since the OP asked for evidence of Creationism I thought you were responding to that...

It is a long story and one which you wouldn't believe nor would I expect you to believe it. I was speaking personally and giving my reasons behind my view.

I was actually a Christian before this, and the only reason that God is the God of the Bible is because the Bible says so.

The Bible [both testsments] has legal status in God's eyes.

So the Bible is evident for itself?

 

[JohnR7]

That's a literary way of saying that God is the Author of the Bible, as well as the primary Character on its pages.

God watches over His word to perform it. If He says it, you can be sure that it will come true. We are very careful about what we say around here because often God will verify our words and what we say.

You are either in our out with God. Those who are not willing to live holy, sanctifed lives are not going to be used by God to represent Him. He will make it clear that they do not represent Him.

 

[MartinM]

In the CWV we are capable of reason due to being created in the image of God. God being intelligent means our intelligence is ingrained in our being. We know that reason is true due to accordance to our reality. We know it is true we exist, we know it is true that it is true.

But that reasoning employs...well, reason, no?

 

[Beastt]

In the CWV we are capable of reason due to being created in the image of God. God being intelligent means our intelligence is ingrained in our being. We know that reason is true due to accordance to our reality. We know it is true we exist, we know it is true that it is true.

And yet, whenever it is successfully demonstrated that some part of Christianity doesn't follow lines of human reason, the first thing most Christians will tell us is that God's reason is not our reason or that God's logic is not our logic. If it works to claim we think like God, then a Christian will make such a claim. When it doesn't work, the very same Christians are usually the first to proclaim we don't think like God.

I think it's more probable that we simply don't and can't think like the diversity of cultural thought represented in the Bible by the men who wrote it. What we find in the book offers more evidence of being men's thoughs than those of any single entity of any configuration or conceptualization.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet, whenever it is successfully demonstrated that some part of Christianity doesn't follow lines of human reason, the first thing most Christians will tell us is that God's reason is not our reason or that God's logic is not our logic.

[bible]Isaiah 55:9[/bible]

Do you want us to lie? In view of the fact that God said it first, surely you don't think we're making it up?

If it works to claim we think like God, then a Christian will make such a claim. When it doesn't work, the very same Christians are usually the first to proclaim we don't think like God.

Kinda like science, huh?

I think it's more probable that we simply don't and can't think like the diversity of cultural thought represented in the Bible by the men who wrote it.

That's the lazy man's excuse.

• I'm not as wise as Solomon, so why read Proverbs?
• I totally disagree with war, so why venerate David?
• I'm not a fig picker, so why read Amos?
• I'm not a mason, so why bother with Nehemiah?
• etc.

It used to be the Bible was too hard to understand --- now it's "full of contradictions".

Anyone can make up an excuse not to read the Bible, what's sad though, is they actually believe them.

What we find in the book offers more evidence of being men's thoughs than those of any single entity of any configuration or conceptualization.

Man isn't smart enough to write the Bible and make each separate part fit like a jigsaw puzzle.

Written on 3 different continents, by 40 men, in 3 different languages.

No other writing on the face of the earth compares to it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

[/color]
You can view a map here: http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-religion-map.htm

If you were raised in northern Africa or the Middle East, the chance that you hold a Shinto worldview is very small. If you were raised in Brasil, it is likely that you are Catholic.

I've read several studies on the influence of culture and upbringing on religion, but we needn't dig that deeply. An infant has no worldview, so the first exposure to religion comes from the family. As a child grows, other factors contribute to belief, such as friends, school and pop culture.

If we combine era with geography, we see that the predominant religious views in the New World were vastly different in 1492 than they are today.



The factors I noted are strong, but not absolute. Many come from a religious background, and have come up empty handed in their search.

If Christianity were a purely personal experience, there would be no need for evangelism. The fact is, Christianity (as well as other religions) is an intricate story that must be told. Whether this story is passed on or sought out by the individual, it is a lesson that must be taught and learned.

That the sun provides heat is self-evident. If we take three people from different parts of the world, from different times in history, we will get this same answer regarding heat from the sun. If we ask them what is the source of the sun itself, the answer will differ.

It would be held true that the geographical area/environmental/social were instrumental in the dominate religious thought but the fact that people within these areas many times determine another religion or even no-religion as their belief system brings to bear that an individual has the ability to rationally decide with or against the dominate thought of area be it geographical/environmental or social.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh, well since the OP asked for evidence of Creationism I thought you were responding to that...

Which I was. You on the other hand thought I was useing Scripture for evidence which I was not.

I was actually a Christian before this, and the only reason that God is the God of the Bible is because the Bible says so.

In my experience it was God that said so.

So the Bible is evident for itself?

In the Christian worldview, once you know that God is real...exists then yes the Bible is evident in itself as the word of God as He exists.

 

[JohnR7]

• I'm not as wise as Solomon, so why read Proverbs?

We have the Mind of Christ, so we go beyond the wisdom of Solomon.

Matthew 11:11
"Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist;
but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

 

[AV1611VET]

We have the Mind of Christ, so we go beyond the wisdom of Solomon.

Matthew 11:11
"Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist;
but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Good point, John --- also see:

[bible]Luke 11:31[/bible]

Just out of curiosity, do you take the Bible as a whole, or are you strictly New Testament?

 

[JohnR7]

Just out of curiosity, do you take the Bible as a whole, or are you strictly New Testament?

God gave his whole plan of salvation to Moses. The rest of the Bible just helps us to understand it better.

I believe we are to follow ALL of the Bible.
Of couse there is no temple in Jerusalem, so we can not do what God said to do in the temple.
But we are to understand the meaning and the object lesson God has in all of that in our lives today.
I knew a pastor that was really good at explaining the meaning of all the different things in the temple.

My favorite is actually the 119 Psalm.
At least that is the chapter that most changed my life.
I was amazed at the love David had for the law and the commandments of God.

Psalm 119:18
Open my eyes, that I may see
Wondrous things from Your law.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

When speaking about personal experience, it is just that...personal. I don't expect to sway someone's mind due to my experiences. I was making the statement on personal terms only. So you presenting other examples of personal experiences says nothing about mine. Mine says nothing about theirs. It also has nothing to say about yours. I have personal experience that God is real, you have not. My experience tells you nothing about the existence of God and yours says nothing about the non-existence of God either.

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.

It is very difficult to generalize personal experience and most certainly on demonstrable evidence. Evidence does not have to be shared to be evident nor does it have to be shared to be true.

Christians believe their own "personal experiences" are significant while believing those from all other religions are self-delusion.

Christians believe their own experience because they "experience" them. Other religions have people that claim the same. Christians or anyone for that matter can only determine truth within the realm of knowledge and rationale. It is perfectly within the CWV to understand that the people that are having these experiences are actually experiencing them; the difference is that with the CWV we also understand the implications of their experiences.

Muslims of course, believe their "personal experiences" are valid while believing that Christians and all others are self-deluded.

Actually, speaking with Muslims has cleared this misconception up for me. Muslims do not believe in "personal" experience with Allah. Allah is too great to be experienced by mere mortals.

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.

Personal experience is what it is. You have it..I have it and religion is only one area in which personal experience determines what one believes. No one in their right mind will discount personal experience especially when it is very strong and is supported by their knowledge of reality.

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.

Why would I?

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.

You are confusing two comments here. 1. In response to the thread and the OP I presented evidence that I feel supports Creation. 2. This was my response to someone claiming that my knowledge of God was only an assumption. So you can reasonably question my personal experience due to your inability to share it but the supportive evidence I provided for Creation is a different matter.

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.

I would have to agree.

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.

If that was all I was doing I would agree.

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.

What evidence strongly suggest the opposite; and if this is true, it only means it is suggested not considered true.

I even requested your evidence that the universe hasn't always existed in one form or another.

Where was that?

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.

Lets look at your statement here. Entirely plausible is not anything more than a educated guess. Transformation is only your determination on the evidence that you have reviewed; it says nothing about the reality of the universe and what it is or was.

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.

Although this is true, it is not true that we should in anyway be completely sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. If we are in a purely physical world, it is plausible that a purely physical event could cause the sun not to rise. The sun could be hit by an object and obliverated. In the same way, any physical property of the universe may be affected by any number of physical accidents that could jepordize the entire physical arena. There is nothing to assure that this is not the case tomorrow...correct? So why do we assume that tomorrow the sun will arise..because it just does. We have never experienced a day when it did not so we follow that it always will but there is nothing to assure us of that. We rest on the properties or universal consistancy to use Scientific experientation. That is my point.

Because so far, you've demonstrated a lack of understanding as to what does and does not constitute evidence.

No, I haven't. You have demonstrated the lack of understanding of which statement you are responding to.

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.

Regardless, to put forth unicorns or
gremlins in place of God is not logical. Personal experience is only good for testimony...not for evidence and if I was unclear about that I apologize. The fact that so many people have experienced God it is clear that it is a common experience rather than one of unicorns or gremlins.

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?

Evidence for God....my evidence for God in some ways can be supported and in other ways cannot. But because something can or can not be in evidence does not make it true or false. Evidence is only as good as the knowledge behind it.

But that's not my premise. My premise is firstly that there is no credible evidence for God.

What would be credible evidence for God in your mind? Is there anything that you would consider evidence?

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?

Well you are asking two separate things here, or at least assuming that all gods are the same. We know rationally that if God exists in any form it must be that form, it can't be anything but. We know that the gods spoken of in different religions have differences that make it possible to distinquish between them. If it can be shown that all gods are not the same we must assume that if a God does exist that it is not a god that all religions worship. It is then up to the person in search of truth to look at all possible avenues to determine truth. I think as with any arena of knowledge it takes research and logic to make that determination.

Never has there been a credibly documented case of any god, let alone the Christian God, demonstrating his existence in a credible way.

That is not true. There are many documented cases in the Bible.

All gods are invisible, silent and inactive because they are the inventions of man's imagination.

Where is your evidence that all gods are invisible...when logically if they were invisible you could not have them in evidence by sight; if they were silent then you could not have them in evidence by hearing them and if they are man's imagination why do we understand the differences of the pictures in our mind and God. We know when we are imagining. Your argument is nonsensical.

There really is no logical reason for any god to keep himself hidden from us.

What evidence do you site for this determination? Can you possibly know that there is no logical reason for God to remain hidden as you say? Can you know first of all, the mind of God and secondly can you know all logical arguments in support of a hidden God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Continued:

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.

I can only claim what I hold as within the CWV and that explains why; God says that all men know that God exists but deny His existence. I can not know this as fact, but God says that He can.
Now I understand that this is meaningless to you because obviously if it is true, you would be unable to accept it as true due to denying its truth...quite a paradox don't you think? So your denying God is just what believers expect of non-believers and it supports our worldveiw.

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.

Well let us go in the opposite direction shall we? Tell me how a naturalistic/physicalistic worldview explains knowledge or knowing and how we know that this knowledge or knowing is true. Then after you explain this we will have a more exact format in which to discuss my evidence against yours.

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.

This is entirely speculation and holds no evidence to support your worldview. Where is the evidence to support your view.

Evidence exists to clearly and definitively demonstrate that the global flood of the Bible never occurred.

I can not in anyway determine this true or false without looking at all the evidence for and against that view. I have not done so (I really should but it just hasn't grabbed my curiousity at this point).

Evidence exists to show that the Earth was not formed covered in water but devoid of an atmosphere.

Really? Is it not true that there was a period of over a billion years for which we have little or no direct geological information left on Earth. So how would we actually be certain that this was the case?

Is it not true that the indication that gasses from modern volcanoes release gases as magma and these gasses give us an indication of the composition of the Earth's earliest atmosphere which were:
water vapor, CO2, CO, N2, H2, and hydrogen chloride. Water vapor then would have rained down and covered the earth in water.

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.

What evidence?

Evidence exists to cleary and definitively show that plants cannot grow on Earth without the sun.

That is false, I gave an article in support of this premise.

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.

Did I say there was?

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.

I disagree.

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.

On what authority do you base this assumption? How do you show that I am using the wrong terminology to strenthen my claim? Where is the evidence of your claim that I am doing this? I know the difference between belief and knowing. There is a difference and I am stating that difference because of that knowledge. I also understand the usage of each word.

Theism is a belief. Atheism is a belief. Neither can be conclusively demonstrated to be true or untrue.

That is a false statement. It can be conclusively demonstrated to be true; it may not be able to be conclusively demonstrated to be true by all at the same time but it can be conclusive to me and others which means your statement is false.

Therefore, no one can accurately proclaim "knowledge" of either the existence of God or the non-existence of God.

I can. I may not be able to share that knowledge but that does not mean that it is false. There are many things in the world that are true that can not be proven to be so...but they remain true just the same.

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.

So you are saying that knowledge must be demonstrably factual; how does one demonstrate facts to be true?

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.

Can He not manage this task? Do you know for certain He can not manage this? That is not what the Bible says and if that is the Word of God which is what you are claiming is false how does that prove He can't do so? On one hand you say He can't show Himself, yet He does so in the Bible and you deny the Bible is the Word of God. So you deny what He has done to show His existence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But that reasoning employs...well, reason, no?

Most certainly.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And yet, whenever it is successfully demonstrated that some part of Christianity doesn't follow lines of human reason, the first thing most Christians will tell us is that God's reason is not our reason or that God's logic is not our logic. If it works to claim we think like God, then a Christian will make such a claim. When it doesn't work, the very same Christians are usually the first to proclaim we don't think like God.

It is totally within the CWV that God's thoughts are higher than ours. Our thoughts are not on the same level as God's or we would be well....gods. We get our intelligence and ability to know from God. This veiw is totally consistent with the CWV.

I think it's more probable that we simply don't and can't think like the diversity of cultural thought represented in the Bible by the men who wrote it. What we find in the book offers more evidence of being men's thoughs than those of any single entity of any configuration or conceptualization.

In your opinion, what do you have to support that opinion?

 

[keyarch]

I see many threads in C&E discussing evolution. Creationists seem to spend a lot of time explaining why the theory of evolution doesn't work, but I don't see much information here explaining the evidence for creationism or how it works.

Evidence is sort of like a jigsaw puzzle, if you can find enough pieces that fit together, eventually you can start to see a comprehensive explanation of what you're trying to figure out, even with some pieces missing here and there.

So, I'm asking creationists to stop debunking evolution for a moment and explain to me why the theory of creationism works. Walk me through it step by step in layman's terms, explaining what the evidence is and how it fits together to form a comprehensive explanation of an omnipotent being creating everything.

In layman’s terms:

• We all have the same “evidence” available to us. So, it’s a matter of how one interprets that evidence.
• Since one time events of history cannot be “proven” as a repeatable experiment, a certain amount of “faith” is involved on where that evidence leads. Like with the Grand Canyon, we all know the result of the canyons, but some may theorize is was carved by the river over millions of years, and others that it was a rapid catastrophic event soon after a global flood.
• One may look at other geology and see different things depending on the lenses their looking thru. Before knowing all the facts you might tend to lean one way or the other, and in the process of uncovering certain evidences adjust your “faith” accordingly.
• One might look at all the plants and animals that are on earth with all its complexity, beauty and harmony and start with the “faith’ that it was all created and part of some plan. Or, for some reason one might have “faith" that it all came about randomly.

So I think theories start with some sort of opinion or “faith” about what the answer is, and then work backwards as to what you would expect to find if that were true. If you find things that “fit” with the theory (even thought it may not be the absolute truth) it helps bolster it. And, if things don’t “fit” then the theory is weakened.

If I may speak for other creationist, I think for various reasons we were brought to the “faith” that we were created by a supreme being, and that the creator provided us with an account of how and when it was done. So we use that as our “theory” and work into the evidences from that framework. I think “naturalist” work in a similar manner.

Now for many, it’s a black or white issue. Either we were created or everything came about naturally. So, if you’re a creationist and you see things that don’t fit with a naturalistic explanation, it stays in the creationist column, and if it does fit, stays natural as long as it fits Biblically, otherwise goes into the unknown. As for a naturalist, everything would start in their column, and if it’s unknown would stay unknown but not given over to anything supernatural.

In summary, a theory (A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment) is not fact or it is no longer a theory. The Bible outlines the theory of creationism. Why it works is based on ones faith of the evidence (and how it’s viewed) that tends to support it. The thing about the two versions of origins is this:

• Evolution can take a big hit and the theory is adjusted and it keeps on ticking.
• If creation took a big hit (such as there is evidence of man from 20,000 years ago), then the “theory” based on the Biblical account is totally bankrupt and none of it is to be taken seriously.
• A naturalist has to have “faith” that life came from non-life. If there’s no way for that to happen, then it shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Undoubtedly, that leaves many in a black hole.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Most certainly.

You can't assume that reason is valid in order to show why reason is valid.