What do people think of Creationism?

[Floor Pie]

I let my posts speak for me, not your characterization of them.

No, you said I made your point for you in post #576.
So you let me speak for you!

 

[darth_timon]

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.



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.

It's child-like to argue for a divine being without any proof. It is not child-like to not accept the existence of a divine being just because we cannot currently answer all the questions about the Big Bang and what may have came before it.

Metaphysics doesn't actually refer to the supernatural (at least, this is not how the dictionary defines the metaphysical), but for the moment, we'll leave that to one side.

The alleged existence of ghosts, 'signs' of angels/demons and so forth (I gather this is what you're getting at?) is far from being verified in any meaningful sense. We have eye-witness accounts but we know the human brain can be easily fooled. The allusion to these things being real, just because they are currently unexplained, is a fallacy. We are supposed to conclude that if the answer is not A (IE, an immediate scientific/rational explanation), then the answer must be B (even if B is not supported by anything other than hearsay, misinterpretations of events or just the words of a book, in this case the Bible).

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?

So far, there are no supernatural ties to the First Cause argument either. There are plenty of vague notions that a divine power must be responsible for it, without any evidence.

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.

The idea that atheists must disprove the existence of a being that has never been demonstrated to exist is a 'prove the negative' question, which by definition is impossible. It is an unreasonable position.

I should put this question to you - prove God exists. Demonstrate, through verifiable means, that a divine power created the universe. Provide evidence such a power is shaping our world and indeed, our very existence. You won't be able to - you are instead, relying on faith, and the idea that supposedly supernatural events lack (and will always lack) a scientific explanation.

"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?

The atheist position doesn't assume God doesn't exist. It looks at the available evidence. It sees no evidence for God's existence. It doesn't make 'leap of faith' judgments about supposedly supernatural events.

Most literal interpretations of the Bible have long since been shown to be false in the wake of verifiable scientific evidence - yet somehow, creationists still make their cases.

 

[tesseract]

No, you said I made your point for you in post #576.
So you let me speak for you!

Your dishonesty is all to transparent in using the words of an unrelated post. Such is showing up how desperately your clinging on.

 

[Riseupaustralia]

Where did I say so?

You never stop.

God
women
etc

you're the font of every fuqing thing.

in your mind.

 

[Floor Pie]

Your dishonesty is all to transparent in using the words of an unrelated post. Such is showing up how desperately your clinging on.

Your dishonesty is all too transparent.
Such is showing up how desperately you're clinging on.


You flip flop like it's going out of fashion!

 

[Floor Pie]

You never stop.

God
women
etc

you're the font of every fuqing thing.

in your mind.

No, he is right.
Because he said so.

Asked and answered!

Go use google, he isn't here to do your research for you!
Just because he made a stupid statement, doesn't mean he needs to back it up!

 

[tesseract]

It's child-like to argue for a divine being without any proof. It is not child-like to not accept the existence of a divine being just because we cannot currently answer all the questions about the Big Bang and what may have came before it.

Metaphysics doesn't actually refer to the supernatural (at least, this is not how the dictionary defines the metaphysical), but for the moment, we'll leave that to one side.

The alleged existence of ghosts, 'signs' of angels/demons and so forth (I gather this is what you're getting at?) is far from being verified in any meaningful sense. We have eye-witness accounts but we know the human brain can be easily fooled. The allusion to these things being real, just because they are currently unexplained, is a fallacy. We are supposed to conclude that if the answer is not A (IE, an immediate scientific/rational explanation), then the answer must be B (even if B is not supported by anything other than hearsay, misinterpretations of events or just the words of a book, in this case the Bible)

Proof of a divine being can't be had. If faith is considered child-like, that's your prerogative to hold that view.

It's child-like reasoning to completely dismiss the possibility of God when definitive proof, one way or the other, can't be had.

Metaphysics does deal with the supernatural. As I've previously stated, the word has more than one use, depending on context.

No, I'm not speaking of ghosts. Angels and demons, though, are mentioned and explained in the bible. I am referring to them. They're far from being verified because science can't measure them. As I've said, belief is partly a matter of faith.

Atheists can take words of books to be true, but just not certain parts of one particular book.

So far, there are no supernatural ties to the First Cause argument either. There are plenty of vague notions that a divine power must be responsible for it, without any evidence.

There's the historical record as written in the bible. But atheists conveniently dismiss such inconvenient writings.

The idea that atheists must disprove the existence of a being that has never been demonstrated to exist is a 'prove the negative' question, which by definition is impossible. It is an unreasonable position.

I should put this question to you - prove God exists. Demonstrate, through verifiable means, that a divine power created the universe. Provide evidence such a power is shaping our world and indeed, our very existence. You won't be able to - you are instead, relying on faith, and the idea that supposedly supernatural events lack (and will always lack) a scientific explanation.

Again, I haven't asked you to prove a negative; I've merely implied that atheists shouldn't make a definitive call wrt God when they can't possibly know for certain.

Proving God exists by empirical means can't be done. I've already established this in this thread. That's why belief is done partly on account of faith in the bible.

The atheist position doesn't assume God doesn't exist. It looks at the available evidence. It sees no evidence for God's existence. It doesn't make 'leap of faith' judgments about supposedly supernatural events.

Most literal interpretations of the Bible have long since been shown to be false in the wake of verifiable scientific evidence - yet somehow, creationists still make their cases.

As established earlier in this thread, you said "To an atheist though, they ARE certain". Now you're saying that "The atheist position doesn't assume God doesn't exist." It can't be both given the inability to empirically measure and thus know for certain if God does or does not exist.

The leap of faith that atheists have is in their definitive call of God doesn't exist, combined with their inability to know for sure.

As I've stated a few times now, the bible has literal as well as 40-odd types of figurative language. I wouldn't agree with those who took the whole bible completely literally, given my studies of the bible.

 

[tesseract]

Your dishonesty is all too transparent.
Such is showing up how desperately you're clinging on.


You flip flop like it's going out of fashion!

If I've been dishonest and flip-flopped in this thread, it certainly hasn't been shown up by you.

 

[Floor Pie]

Atheists can take words of books to be true, but just not certain parts of one particular book.

So disingenuous!

 

[tesseract]

You never stop.

God
women
etc

you're the font of every fuqing thing.

in your mind.

So, when I ask you "Where did I say so?", you come up with this deflection. Well done, Bushie, ol' chap.

 

[tesseract]

So disingenuous!

Speaking for me now! How presumptuous!

 

[Floor Pie]

Speaking for me now! How presumptuous!

You said that I do speak for you!


You try to speak for atheists. How pompous!

 

[Riseupaustralia]

So, when I ask you "Where did I say so?", you come up with this deflection. Well done, Bushie, ol' chap.

A statement of fact is not a deflection.

This is also a statement of fact...

You're an insufferable old windbag and an incredulously demented fool.

 

[tesseract]

You said that I do speak for you!

You try to speak for atheists. How pompous!

Your dishonesty is showing itself again.

Please quote it so I can shown your deliberate use of quoting how you've used an unrelated post to make your invalid claim.

 

[Floor Pie]

Your dishonesty is showing itself again.

Please quote it so I can shown your deliberate use of quoting how you've used an unrelated post to make your invalid claim.

I'm not going to do your work for you.

 

[Floor Pie]

A statement of fact is not a deflection.

This is also a statement of fact...

You're an insufferable old windbag and an incredulously demented fool.

He isn't old. Late teens, early 20s.
Definite virgin.
Hates women.

 

[tesseract]

A statement of fact is not a deflection.

This is also a statement of fact...

You're an insufferable old windbag and an incredulously demented fool.

Your statement in response to a question asking you to back up your claim is deflection.

 

[tesseract]

I'm not going to do your work for you.

You don't need to, for I've already made my point about your dishonest use of quoting a little earlier.

 

[Floor Pie]

You don't need to, for I've already made my point about your dishonest use of quoting a little earlier.

Wrong again.
And I already proved you were wrong a little earlier.

 

[tesseract]

Wrong again.
And I already proved you were wrong a little earlier.

If you say so, toots. Whatever helps you believe you've saved face.

 

[Floor Pie]

If you say so, toots. Whatever helps you believe you've saved face.

I do say so tessa. And I say you agree with me!
And it's a fact, because I can speak for you, but you can't speak for atheists!

 

[tesseract]

I do say so tessa. And I say you agree with me!
And it's a fact, because I can speak for you, but you can't speak for atheists!

Ah! Mr Presumptuous speaking me again.

Please explain how you can speak for me and how I can't speak for atheists?

 

[Floor Pie]

Ah! Mr Presumptuous speaking me again.

Please explain how you can speak for me and how I can't speak for atheists?

How can you speak for atheists?

And you said I speak for you!

Ready. I speak for you! See, because I speak for you, I've just shown the evidence, by speaking for you!

 

[Floor Pie]

Good thing that I pay heed to biblical counsel on non-violence.

Yes, lucky there is a female who has you under thumb!

Most people don't need religion to stop them from that kind of thing... But I'm glad it's stopping you!

 

[tesseract]

How can you speak for atheists?

And you said I speak for you!

Ready. I speak for you! See, because I speak for you, I've just shown the evidence, by speaking for you!

I can speak for atheists lack of belief in God due to atheists as a group having their view defined in the dictionary.