What would it take?

[Sophismata]

What would it take for either side to believe in the other side's argument. As an atheist, to convince me that God existed, all it would take is for him to be testable under Science and to convince me of YEC, a ****load of evidence considering all of the stuff that says universe is 13+ billion years old.

For an average YEC Christian (I know, it's a pleonasm), I'd imagine that to prove to him that God doesn't exist is downright impossible. If one could contrive undeniable proof (even to a YEC) that God didn't exist it would simply be dismissed as "God is beyond <insert fundamental system of thinking here weather it be reason, logic, mathematics, here>". And to prove him that YEC is falsifiable, I don't know what it would take considering the ominous amount of evidence the forum posters alone (non-scientists as far as I can tell) have presented which has basically been ignored.

One of the things that bother me is how some Christians and/or YEC's adhere so astringently to the "Trust the Word of God" dogma when it is not the Word of God they are trusting, but the Word of Man on the Word of God. What is to say that the redactors of the Bible didn't 1. contrive everything out of their asses. 2. Fix up all (or some) of the contradictions of original scripture with things like historical prophecies. So basically you aren't trusting the Word of God you are trusting what "Hank's list" has to say about God.

 

[JohnR7]

One of the things that bother me is how some Christians and/or YEC's adhere so astringently to the "Trust the Word of God" dogma when it is not the Word of God they are trusting, but the Word of Man on the Word of God. What is to say that the redactors of the Bible didn't 1. contrive everything out of their asses. 2. Fix up all (or some) of the contradictions of original scripture with things like historical prophecies. So basically you aren't trusting the Word of God you are trusting what "Hank's list" has to say about God.

You do not know much about Christianity. If your going to try to argue against it, you should learn a little bit about what your trying to falsify.

YEC and creationism is only the first chapter in the Bible. We talk about creation and the flood quite a bit on here. But in comparison to the rest of the Bible, it is a very small part of it.

Even if you were somehow able to falsify YEC and the Flood. That only covers maybe 5% of the Bible, so you still have 95% to go.

No one ever seems to want to discuss the rest of the Bible. So christians stand firm in that 95% of what they believe is never challanged.

A lot of christians don't even care how God created the world. All they know is that God did it and that is all they care about. If people want to argue over how God did it, they really do not want to get involved in that.

 

[Sophismata]

*sigh*, John... the question was simple: what would it take for you to 1. repudiate your GAP theory for Darwinism, and mainstream cosmology.
2. repudiate the Christian God.
As for your rant about Genesis being only a short portion of the bible, it is the one in which most conflicts with our current understanding of the Universe, and is subject to interpretation. By proving it wrong, we don't prove Genesis wrong, we just prove that the literal interpretation is not the correct one. That is also why I seperated them into 2 questions, but let me rephrase:
For YEC Christians: What would it take to (1) repudiate the first 5% of the Bible is not literal and (2) repudiate Christianity itself.

 

[Jase]

*sigh*, John... the question was simple: what would it take for you to 1. repudiate your GAP theory for Darwinism, and mainstream cosmology.
2. repudiate the Christian God.
As for your rant about Genesis being only a short portion of the bible, it is the one in which most conflicts with our current understanding of the Universe, and is subject to interpretation. By proving it wrong, we don't prove Genesis wrong, we just prove that the literal interpretation is not the correct one. That is also why I seperated them into 2 questions, but let me rephrase:
For YEC Christians: What would it take to (1) repudiate the first 5% of the Bible is not literal and (2) repudiate Christianity itself.

Hmm, 1) Go back in time and see the creation of the universe first hand

2) Find the remains of Jesus Christ's body with absolute, 100% certainty ( which is something science is incapable of, so this is basically impossible - not to mention you won't find a body because Jesus was ressurected )

 

[JohnR7]

*sigh*, John... the question was simple: what would it take for you to 1. repudiate your GAP theory for Darwinism, and mainstream cosmology.

In order for me to accept anything that Darwin said, it would have to line up with the Bible. He would have to show the same authority and inspiration that Moses showed us when he wrote Holy Scripture.

2. repudiate the Christian God.

Someone would have to come along with something better. God offers us life, health, healing, miracles, strength, He supplys all we need abundantly above and beyond all that we would ever ask or think.

He offers us love, joy, peace, contentment, satisfaction. He offers us eternal life, paradise. He offers us unity, harmony and agreement. No divisions, no contentions, no strife.

This is just a tiny part of what He has to offer to us. Do you have anything better than this to offer? Can you provide life, health, healing, the miracle of supply and prosperity?

As for your rant about Genesis being only a short portion of the bible, it is the one in which most conflicts with our current understanding of the Universe, and is subject to interpretation. By proving it wrong, we don't prove Genesis wrong, we just prove that the literal interpretation is not the correct one.

So, you think you can do something that no one in 3500 years has ever been able to do. Well, give it your best shot. Many a person has been converted to God, by trying to prove the Bible not to be true. Because they find out the Bible is true, trustworthy and dependable.

 

[WinAce]

Hmm, 1) Go back in time and see the creation of the universe first hand

We don't need to. Past events leave evidence in the present. So, by definition any current state of events offers us a time-machine like glimpse into the past.

2) Find the remains of Jesus Christ's body with absolute, 100% certainty ( which is something science is incapable of, so this is basically impossible - not to mention you won't find a body because Jesus was ressurected )

I see. So you've intentionally set up a state of events which is pretty much impossible to come true. The intellectually honest answer, however, would be "nothing will ever change my mind".

 

[Sophismata]

Someone would have to come along with something better. God offers us life, health, healing, miracles, strength, He supplys all we need abundantly above and beyond all that we would ever ask or think.

Appeal to Emotion
1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2. Therefore, X is true.
as for "Do you have anything better than this to offer?"
I say, Invisible Pink Unicorns offer everything God can offer, plus a free wish! But of course... even though belief in Invisible Pink Unicorns is more rewarding than belief in God, I can't convert you now can I.
What you are basically saying John, is then that it would be impossible to convert you to either atheism, or mainstream science.

So, you think you can do something that no one in 3500 years has ever been able to do. Well, give it your best shot. Many a person has been converted to God, by trying to prove the Bible not to be true. Because they find out the Bible is true, trustworthy and dependable.

I am speaking hypothetically.

 

[pudmuddle]

(As for your rant about Genesis being only a short portion of the bible, it is the one in which most conflicts with our current understanding of the Universe, and is subject to interpretation ----Sophismata )

Really, so the Virgin birth, Jesus' many miracles and his resurrection from the dead do not conflict with your current understanding of the universe?

Does it take more faith to believe in a literal creation ( which non-believers scoff at) or a man being half-man, half-God and dying for the sins of the world? (which is also scoffed at)

BTW, I do believe in all of the above, and also in a literal creation account.

You say you would believe if science could prove there was a God-careful now, one of the most famous Christians ever was an atheist. Keep digging, and you might find something you can't explain away.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

To accept the following:

ID - An actual method to empirically detect design in biological origin that doesn't simply rest on evolution not being able to explain it yet, coupled with an actual mechanism by which a designer could effect design in biological organisms.

Special Creation - Definitive falsifications of current common descent theories (i.e. large numbers of anomalous fossils found completely out of sequence in the fossil record and/or completely independent genetic makeups for related species).

Young Earth & Flood - The systematic overturning of virtually all of modern geology, plus parts of physics, cosmology etc. But since there are huge amounts of science would have to be flat-out wrong, I find it unlikely such a scenario would occur.

 

[Philosoft]

You say you would believe if science could prove there was a God-careful now, one of the most famous Christians ever was an atheist.

{emphasis mine}

Er, what?

Keep digging, and you might find something you can't explain away.

Yeah, like irony.

 

[JohnR7]

Really, so the Virgin birth, Jesus' many miracles and his resurrection from the dead do not conflict with your current understanding of the universe?

There is no conflict for me. We not only believe in miracles, we depend upon them. I see to many people die who do not learn to depend on the miracle power of God. I am here writting this post, because of the Love, Mercy, Grace and the Forgiveness of God. If it were not for God, I would not be here writting this post that your reading. If it were not for His love in me, I would not be here telling you about Him, and How much love He has for you and how much He desires to restore you.

 

[TheBear]

God, a Creator, a Deity - is not exclusive to the Christian God. Other theistic systems believe in some kind of a creation story. The men of the Old Testament weren't even Christians. They were Jews.

So, what is your focal point regarding God? Is it God in general, or is it specifically the Christian God? For when talking specifically about the Christian God, Jesus Christ, the Apostles and the earlly Christian church come into play - not to mention, those factors....even the word 'Christian', do not have any relevance until after Christ was born - several hundred years after the Book of Genesis was written.

So, let's be consistent here. Both Jew and Christian accept the Book of Genesis as an inspired word of God, not just Christians. Also, many other theistic systems also believe that some God created everything.

 

[revolutio]

Two things that astound/scare me:

1. People who still don't think Jesus actually existed.

2. People who have no doubts in there mind.

 

[Sophismata]

Really, so the Virgin birth, Jesus' many miracles and his resurrection from the dead do not conflict with your current understanding of the universe?

Do creationists have an impediment for interpretation of everything non-ecclestical?
let me restate

it is the one in which most conflicts with our current understanding of the Universe

Virgin birth and Jesus are, by definition, miracles and do not conflict with our general understanding of the universe they just lack evidence. The truth of such event wouldn't throw off 75% of mainstream science. YEC's are trying to scientifically explain something that can be nothing else but a miracle which is nothing short of an oxymoron, and nonsensical. Current evidence from completely seperate fields (geology, cosmology, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, biology, et al) falsifies YEC.

 

[pudmuddle]

You say you would believe if science could prove there was a God-careful now, one of the most famous Christians ever was an atheist. --pudmuddle


{emphasis mine}

Er, what?---Philosoft


Let me restate the obvious-He was a staunch atheist before his conversion. Most disbelievers are actually agnostic.

 

[DGB454]

What would it take for me to not believe in God?
I think you already stated the obvious answer.
It aint gonna happen.
There is a basic problem for me that even science is still not clear on.
Plus, what do I do with the relationship I have with Christ? I know to an athiest it's just a relationship with an imaginary friend but to a Christian athiest are more imaginary than Christ is.

IMHO.

Later

 

[lucaspa]

What would it take for either side to believe in the other side's argument. As an atheist, to convince me that God existed, all it would take is for him to be testable under Science

Why did you leave out the evidence that you live most of your life under: your own personal experience, whether it's science or not?

Science is a very limited form of knowing and scientists know perfectly well it doesn't cover most of their lives. Also, the problem is that science CAN NOT test God. So you are biasing your criteria by picking a method that can't give you the evidence you claim you have to have. It's like saying that you need natural selection to give evidence of the first cell.

I suspect that, like Thomas Aquinas and CS Lewis, that a sufficient personal experience would convince you no matter what science said.

One of the things that bother me is how some Christians and/or YEC's adhere so astringently to the "Trust the Word of God" dogma when it is not the Word of God they are trusting, but the Word of Man on the Word of God.

That is true. It bothers everyone, Christians and atheists alike.

What is to say that the redactors of the Bible didn't 1. contrive everything out of their asses. 2. Fix up all (or some) of the contradictions of original scripture with things like historical prophecies. So basically you aren't trusting the Word of God you are trusting what "Hank's list" has to say about God.

1. It may all be contrived. That's what you believe, right? You HAVE to believe that in order to be an atheist. If you didn't, you couldn't be an atheist.

2. They may indeed have fixed up some contradictions. I personally think Genesis 1 was constructed to give 6 days for justification of the Sabbath and then Exodus 20:11 was inserted to retrodict that justification into an earlier work.

However, you acknowledge that contradictions remain. If ALL the contradictions were removed, then I really would suspect that #1 is true. Humans NEVER experience traumatic events the same. Why should experience of deity be any different? Therefore I EXPECT contradictions as each person (and the Bible is a compilation of personal experience) experiences deity differently and interprets the experience differently.

In the end, I side with Darwin and Huxley and think atheism is not intellectually tenable. For the same reason you don't think YEC is tenable: you have to deny evidence. ANY position that exists ONLY by denial of large amounts of evidence is not intellectually tenable.

 

[Philosoft]

Let me restate the obvious-He was a staunch atheist before his conversion. Most disbelievers are actually agnostic.

What's obvious is that you don't appear to know what these terms mean when we use them to describe ourselves, instead preferring to ascribe to them meaning that makes your anecdote more emotionally powerful.

 

[lucaspa]

YEC's are trying to scientifically explain something that can be nothing else but a miracle which is nothing short of an oxymoron, and nonsensical. Current evidence from completely seperate fields (geology, cosmology, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, biology, et al) falsifies YEC.

YEC is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. You are, unfortunately, equating it in the atheism vs theism debate. You did that in the OP. It doesn't belong there. I know that, to atheists, equating YEC with Christianity is a great debate tactic because it is the only version of Christianity you can falsify, but that doesn't make it valid.

So now, instead of two separate questions:
1. Does deity in general or Yahweh in particular exist?
2. Did deity create by creationISM?

You have made the logical error of creationists and have implied that if deity didn't create by creationism, then deity does not exist. IOW, you are playing on the exact fears of creationists. Not nice. And not true.

Now, it does appear you are trying to dig yourself out of this hole by noting that virgin birth and resurrection are data and would falsify current theories.

The point is that, in the 1700s, YEC was THE reigning scientific theory. It was undergoing falsification from 1780-1820 and the coffin was sealed in 1831.

YEC is a HOW of creation.

Evolution is ALSO a HOW of creation.

So the argument between evolution and creationism among theists is an argument of HOW God created. Not whether God created. But how.

 

[pudmuddle]

(What's obvious is that you don't appear to know what these terms mean when we use them to describe ourselves, instead preferring to ascribe to them meaning that makes your anecdote more emotionally powerful.)

Nope, I don't know what you mean when you describe yourself with whatever name you use, only you know. I had a friend who would occasionally call himself an atheist, but most of the time agreed with me that he was an agnostic. A very intelligent, but nevertheless confused and lost individual.
Uh, so what do you call yourself? A rose by any other name....

As for me, if you acknowledge that there might be a God, I'll call you agnostic, if you say, no way, I'll call you atheist. Let's keep things nice and tidy.