What do people think of Creationism?

[Contra Mundum]

Clarifies it a bit: http://www.salon.com/2014/10/28/pop...eory_god_is_not_a_magician_with_a_magic_wand/

 

[Partridge]

Yeah I think the current pope is pretty much on the ball, considering what he has to work with.
I wonder if he's alienated some american idiots.

He's also the PR guy in charge of the biggest pedophile ring in history.

It's actually not new. The Catholic Church has been ok with Evolution for quite a while now.

 

[madmug]

Clarifies it a bit: http://www.salon.com/2014/10/28/pop...eory_god_is_not_a_magician_with_a_magic_wand/

The question now is, without a magic wand, how do miracles happen?

Once the Church demistify the mystery, its all over for them. The hard liners know this.

Thus the 2nd question becomes, when does this Pope go up in a puff of smoke?

 

[Contra Mundum]

The question now is, without a magic wand, how do miracles happen?

Once the Church demistify the mystery, its all over for them. The hard liners know this.

Thus the 2nd question becomes, when does this Pope go up in a puff of smoke?

What do you mean "miracle" - and yes I lead with my chin posting that. I was just meaning to show that Creationism is not a belief that is monolithically held in the mainstream Christian religions

 

[SaintsSeptember]

He's also the PR guy in charge of the biggest pedophile ring in history.

It's actually not new. The Catholic Church has been ok with Evolution for quite a while now.

I don't think that's correct. History has been going a long time now. You might not approve of the practices of the ancient Greeks.
Or more recently if it's religions you want to pick on, I'm not sure that the highly publicized issues of the Catholic's outweigh the practices sanctioned by some Muslim societies.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The question now is, without a magic wand, how do miracles happen?

Once the Church demistify the mystery, its all over for them. The hard liners know this.

Thus the 2nd question becomes, when does this Pope go up in a puff of smoke?

I agree, its almost farcical when they wan't to canonize someone and go searching for miracles.

"and lo in 1987 father bob did catch every green light between dandenong and chadstone. It is clearly a miracle"

 

[HARKER]

We're either growing a brain or getting stupider.
The pattern suggest we're growing a brain, afforded the luxury to make ones own decisions.

Having said that though, we don't really know we're right for sure either. Just the state of play, I guess.

 

[darth_timon]

I've already answered why it's child-like reasoning for concluding that by not being able to see something with your own eyes equates to a lack of existence, especially coming from those professing to be "logical". Logic dictates that if one can not know conclusively as to God's existence, then sitting on the fence and having an open mind on the issue would be the logical play. But, no, atheists draw a definitive conclusion in defiance of logic.

At what point does it become child-like to not believe in the existence of something that's never been conclusively proven? Having an open mind doesn't mean having to believe in something that there is not a shred of evidence for.

There's no point discussing evolution in a creation discussion, for evolution doesn't account for first cause. Btw, the bible doesn't say how long the creative days were. I agree that it would be child-like reasoning to think that the earth was created in 7 literal days or that the earth is only a few thousand years old. I study the bible and well know that the bible not only has the literal, but also 40-odd types of figurative language.

Unfortunately, there are many Young Earth creationists out there who not only believe the earth was created in a matter of days or only a few thousand years old, but would also have these ideas taught as scientific notions, even though they are clearly unscientific.

I'm aware of atheists' certainty. I've already pointed out how atheists put science and empiricism up on high, while ignoring science's limitations wrt the metaphysical.

The fact that science can't explain everything at this point in time isn't relevant. What is relevant in this discussion is: Can science ever measure the metaphysical? No. It's beyond the scope of science. So, while science may bounce and waver with its notions in attempting to explain how things came to be, it can never measure whether God exists. This, in part, makes it illogical for atheists to take a definitive position wrt God's existence, for doing so is presumptive. God very well may exist, but the limited scope of inquiry that atheists put upon themselves means that they're looking for an answer that fits into their preconceived conclusion, rather than having to look through every available angle. Such makes the atheist position dogmatic.

Define 'metaphysical'. Metaphysics is the study of questions of existence and Being, not necessarily whether or not there is a divine being at the heart of all creation. Religious beliefs do not necessarily answer metaphysical questions, or if they do, they answer them only within the scope of that particular religion.

Questions of who we are, what we are for, and what might exist/happen are not the domain of religious beliefs or those without such beliefs. They are questions available to anyone, and they don't have to point to a divine power.

Atheists need not prove a negative; they merely need not dogmatically rule out that which can not be measured by their chosen measuring stick - science.
Given atheists' penchant for wanting to be known as logical, it doesn't make sense to prematurely dismiss the idea of God's existence when such can not be measured (according to atheists). To dismiss the possibility of God's existence as atheists do spits in the face of open-mindedness and free thinking. Such leads atheist thought to be seen as if trapped in a box with nowhere to go, nowhere to expand outside its own preconceived conclusions and self-inflicted limited frame of reference. The very definition of 'atheist' points to dogmatism, given science's inability to measure the metaphysical. Hardly what I'd call "logical" or "free thinking". Rather, the term 'atheist' implies closed-mindedness, as it definitively rules out something that can not logically be ruled out.

Being asked to prove God does not exist IS to be asked to prove a negative. There is no evidence, through any field of study, that suggests God or gods exist. Physics, biology, geology, chemistry - none of these fields, which continue to yield new information every day, have so far pointed to the existence of a god. It is not therefore close-minded to not believe - it is a decision based on the available facts - ergo, a logical position based on the available data.

The irony here, is that you speak of a 'limited frame of reference'. I think this has been a serious problem, at least for creationists and religious fundamentalists, for centuries. The refusal to give up on literal interpretations of ancient texts has had a negative impact on civilisation at large.

 

[tesseract]

At what point does it become child-like to not believe in the existence of something that's never been conclusively proven? Having an open mind doesn't mean having to believe in something that there is not a shred of evidence for.

Given what you've just stated, it's child-like reasoning to believe in the big bang being the first cause, as well as other unsubstantiated yet believed-to-be-true scientific theories.

Having an open mind, in this instance, means being open to the possibility of God's existence due to science being unable to measure the metaphysical.

Define 'metaphysical'. Metaphysics is the study of questions of existence and Being, not necessarily whether or not there is a divine being at the heart of all creation. Religious beliefs do not necessarily answer metaphysical questions, or if they do, they answer them only within the scope of that particular religion.

In the context of this discussion, "metaphysical" relates to the supernatural, incorporeal, immaterial. The term 'metaphysical' has more than one use and meaning.

Not all religious beliefs answer the question of God's existence, but the bible answers such a question in no uncertain terms. Science can not do this, for answering questions pertaining to metaphysical beings and happenings is beyond its scope. Most, if not all, christian denominations hold up the bible as the answer to such questions.

Questions of who we are, what we are for, and what might exist/happen are not the domain of religious beliefs or those without such beliefs. They are questions available to anyone, and they don't have to point to a divine power.

I agree that the questions you pose are open to all to inquire about. It's human nature to be curious.

Theoretically, yes, these questions don't have to point to a divine power. Though, I very much doubt science will ever be able to nail down first cause with indisputable fact. While science can not answer definitively as to a metaphysical divine power, why then do atheists, who hold science up on high, draw definitive conclusions as to a divine power/God?

Being asked to prove God does not exist IS to be asked to prove a negative. There is no evidence, through any field of study, that suggests God or gods exist. Physics, biology, geology, chemistry - none of these fields, which continue to yield new information every day, have so far pointed to the existence of a god. It is not therefore close-minded to not believe - it is a decision based on the available facts - ergo, a logical position based on the available data.

The irony here, is that you speak of a 'limited frame of reference'. I think this has been a serious problem, at least for creationists and religious fundamentalists, for centuries. The refusal to give up on literal interpretations of ancient texts has had a negative impact on civilisation at large.

I haven't asked you to prove a negative. This supposed "negative" is assumed by atheists. It is such because atheists sole use of science can not come to know for certain, one way or the other, as for God's existence, for science can not answer that question for them. Hence atheists drawing upon an element of faith to reach their conclusion.

All those lines of study you've named are scientific inquiries. As already stated, it's beyond science to measure the metaphysical.

"Thus far" is an interesting choice of words. Given your use of "thus far", would it not be prudent to keep an open mind rather than definitively ruling out the possibility of a supernatural being being the first cause, especially in light of science's inability to measure such?

The atheist position is close-minded because it automatically assumes God doesn't exist and won't even allow for such a possibility. That in itself is proof of close-mindedness. Being open-minded but still unbelieving would be the agnostic position, for they believe they can't know as to God's existence, but leave open the possibility.

If the bible merely posed the likelihood of God being the first cause, then there may be some irony for those relying only on the bible alone; but the bible doesn't do that, it answers conclusively the question of first cause that science still seeks.

"The refusal to give up on literal interpretations of ancient texts has had a negative impact on civilisation at large" is your subjective point of view. Is it that literal interpretations of the bible doesn't fit the atheist mould of how they believe things to be?

 

[Long Live HFC]

I haven't asked you to prove a negative. This supposed "negative" is assumed by atheists. It is such because atheists sole use of science can not come to know for certain, one way or the other, as for God's existence, for science can not answer that question for them. Hence atheists drawing upon an element of faith to reach their conclusion.

Yep, dummies often make that argument. There is of course a pretty simple response.

The assertion of unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions, and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.

 

[tesseract]

Yep, dummies often make that argument. There is of course a pretty simple response.

That response is simple because it's lacking. Unproven doesn't mean the possibility should be dogmatically discarded. Such highlights the close-mindedness of the atheist. Atheists choosing to not give the possibility of God equal weight is based on their own dogmatic view that God definitively does not exist.

 

[Floor Pie]

That response is simple because it's lacking. Unproven doesn't mean the possibility should be dogmatically discarded. Such highlights the close-mindedness of the atheist. Atheists choosing to not give the possibility of God equal weight is based on their own dogmatic view that God definitively does not exist.

But you believe in god? That god definitely exists, and that atheists are definitively wrong?

And that Obama plays poker with the devil?

 

[Long Live HFC]

Um yeah. it’s “dogmatically discarded” in the same way we dismiss the idea that there’s a teapot orbiting Jupiter. Just because it’s possible that there is a teapot rounding Jupiter, does not mean there are any good reasons to believe one exists, without evidence. Again, since you clearly didn’t get the quoted portion:

unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions.

that’s called reason.

 

[tesseract]

Um yeah. it’s “dogmatically discarded” in the same way we dismiss the idea that there’s a teapot orbiting Jupiter. Just because it’s possible that there is a teapot rounding Jupiter, does not mean there are any good reasons to believe one exists, without evidence. Again, since you clearly didn’t get the quoted portion:

that’s called reason.

Now you're just being unnecessarily silly.

Given that science has no proven conclusions as to first cause, atheists' premature dismissing of the mere possibility of God as first cause is in defiance of logic. Of course "unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven suppositions" is considered a reason. That doesn't necessarily make such a reason a logical reason. Your chosen reason, as well as atheists premature dismissing of something they can't measure, shows atheists' to be in firm hold of a dogmatic view.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Given that science has no proven conclusions as to first cause

they have a mathematical proof, which is more than any religion has provided, ever.

Of course "unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven suppositions" is considered a reason. That doesn't necessarily make such a reason a logical reason. Your chosen reason, as well as atheists premature dismissing of something they can't measure, shows atheists' to be in firm hold of a dogmatic view.

hahahahahaha. not "a reason" you buffoon. "reason", rofl.

 

[tesseract]

But you believe in god? That god definitely exists, and that atheists are definitively wrong?

Believers admit to having a faith-based belief.

And that Obama plays poker with the devil?

1 John 5:19 states: "We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one."

That evil one is Satan. The whole world includes the governmental, economic and religious systems in place. Hence my comment wrt Obama. He's part of the system being overseen and directed by Satan.

 

[tesseract]

they have a mathematical proof, which is more than any religion has provided, ever.

Science may well have a mathematical proof, but mathematical proofs can be/are based on assumptions. A mathematical proof isn't the same as conclusive proof that invalidates the God being the creator.

hahahahahaha. not "a reason" you buffoon. "reason", rofl.

It is "a reason", for atheists dismissed the possibility of another reason I've spoken of. Hence it's "a reason".

 

[Long Live HFC]

oh ok. you're just dumb. carry on.

 

[Riseupaustralia]

Like peas in a pod

and you actually expect people to take you seriously tesseract

Massive LOL.

 

[tesseract]

Like peas in a pod

and you actually expect people to take you seriously tesseract

Massive LOL.

You're easily amused. A simple amusement for a simple mind, it seems. Good for you.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Believers admit to having a faith-based belief.



1 John 5:19 states: "We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one."

That evil one is Satan. The whole world includes the governmental, economic and religious systems in place. Hence my comment wrt Obama. He's part of the system being overseen and directed by Satan.

You need to read more Job brother - I admire your faith. I think you are flying pretty close to the Arian Heresy there. All of creation cannot be evil otherwise God would not have been incarnate

 

[Riseupaustralia]

You're easily amused. A simple amusement for a simple mind, it seems. Good for you.

I'm not the one who willingly swallows this s**t tessy...

 

[Contra Mundum]

Now you're just being unnecessarily silly.

Given that science has no proven conclusions as to first cause, atheists' premature dismissing of the mere possibility of God as first cause is in defiance of logic. Of course "unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven suppositions" is considered a reason. That doesn't necessarily make such a reason a logical reason. Your chosen reason, as well as atheists premature dismissing of something they can't measure, shows atheists' to be in firm hold of a dogmatic view.

That is based on the supposition that there was a first cause - why does there have to be one?

 

[tesseract]

You need to read more Job brother

Got a specific point to make? If so, make it.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Got a specific point to make? If so, make it.

\
You overestimate the power of the Devil and you underestimate the love God showed for the His creation by incarnating in Jesus. She can't hate the world that much if her Son is one of us!