Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

Wow! Wish I had been around when this thread was in full swing. Great stuff. I believe that your response promptly answers Phat's original assertion with which this thread was begun: Phat is arguing that this forum is lacking open-mindedness on both sides of the equation. While many Creationists are open to the possibility that they do not have all the answers and they may in fact be incorrect, many atheists are not willing to admit the same thing. You have basically confirmed this by making a statement like this: This is a perfect example of an unwillingness to admit the possibility that perhaps you don't hold all the answers. Despite your speech of "embracing ignorance," you do not actually do this. You have presupposed that you are indeed, the correct perspective, and the theist position is fantasy.This is interesting to me because many prolific atheists would actually agree that we do not hold all the answers, and base their argument on the non-existence of God on the assertion that the nature/existence of God cannot be known, and therefore we cannot know that the Judeo-Christian God exists alone, or ITS nature, or whether or not multiple God's exist, etc. Here are a couple examples of atheists debated by Matt Slick, the director of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry: Debate 1
Debate 2In each debate, the gentleman holding the atheist perspective argues that one of the biggest reasons they cannot believe in God is there is no realistic evidence of his/its/their nature/existence.So, in summary, I would argue that the theist position is not dependant on ignorance to survive. The theist position is dependant on claims, demanding faith, corroborated by personal experince. I would say that the theist position actually encourages darkness a little more than the atheistic one. The theist says: "All that I know about God is revealed in Scripture." We walk by faith, not sight. We embrace not knowing everything rather than putting our hopes in what reasoning says is reality. We hope for the reason that hope is brighter than what seems to be dismal reality. But even within brightest hope is darkness in the form of tough questions, tragic moments, and mundane life. I do not have all the answers. I never will. But I think the value is in the journey of it all. - Raph

I do not believe you have presented an accurate comparison, my friend. I understand there may be some satire in your words, but I don't really understand.An accurate comparison would be if ancient writings about this teapot existed, writing about real places and real people, and these writings made claims that the teapot existed. The collections of writings would not have been written by some committee somewhere, or group of people, but a simple collection of letters written by different people claiming to be eye-witnesses to the teapot, all at different times, all corroborating the same story. Not only would these writings make outrageous claims, (like a teapot orbiting jupiter) but there would have to be hundreds of times as many more of these ancient manuscripts describing said teapot as there are describing mainstream, accepted as true historical characters and events. An entire demographic of the world would form an ideology around the testimonies of the teapot, corroborating the ideology with subjective personal experiences. And despite thousands of years of time, the same writings would remain unchanged, claiming the same things, making the same challenges.Then and only then would that be an accurate comparison. Can provide facts to back up my little allegory if needed We're not making it up as we go along . The teapot has appeared. We have seen him, in the words of John (1 John 1:3, John 21:24). It's not conjecture. It's not musings. It's testimony. But despite all of the evidence it is still a matter of faith for me, and I am willing to be 100% incorrect. I have enough faith to be wrong about my faith. The question, then, is do you have enough faith in what reason says is reality to entertain the thought that the gaps in our knowledge are big enough to include God. Not church. Not a building. Or a set of rules. Not a prayer. Not christians, or Jews, or Muslims, but God. - RaphEdited by Raphael, : No reason given.Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.

Hi there hooah212002! The context in which I speak is the one Phat presented earlier. I apologize if I generalized, we're talking about creationists on this forum, not creationists in general. Hope that makes more sense!- Raph

Well gosh. Perhaps I have done battle with a little straw man Let's try this again.When I speak of a GOD, I speak of from the Judeo-Christian perspective.You have stated that the reason religions developed was simply because of ignorance. Perhaps I need some clarification? Within my perspective is the narrative that God inserted Himself into humanity. There was not a man in a cave somewhere who saw lightning and pegged the word "god" on it because he did not understand the natural process that causes lightning. There is a narrative. A narrative claiming there is something (or someone) beyond the natural world. I tend to side with GDR when he says these claims do not negate science or the natural processes we have observed. These claims simply say there is something else. Something not so simple as to be obvious. I would say my perspective has a couple layers to it: 1. The Natural World. This is everything observable, testable, and defined. Hypotheses are formed and corroborated with data. Gravity works. The earth is round. E=mc^2. Language, culture, all of the "ologies" . In other words, reality observed by the human. 2. The Supernatural World. This is something else. We would not know that it exists except for God's inserting Himself into the natural world, which scripture claims. The supernatural world is outside the testable realm, and therefore does not require physical evidence to exist. This sounds dumb, and I'm not trying to pull a "it can't be tested, so it doesn't follow the same rules, ha!" on you- perhaps I can put it in another way. Since the Supernatural World is outside/above the experience of the natural, the existence of natural processes and science in no way discredit or disprove the supernatural. These things simply explain the mediums the supernatural uses to order how the natural world works. Phew. That paragraph was a word labyrinth. Haha. And yet, areas of ignorance do exist. This is fact. So, until humanity has eliminated every area of ignorance, there is still valid reason and room for me to argue that God may, indeed, exist. The believer may depend on gaps in our ignorance, but I would argue that depending on knowledge gaps is just as valid as depending on knowledge, as I believe is your perspective (correct me if I am mistaken).If we knew everything, there wouldn't be a debate. It is as simple as that my friend. Fact is, humanity does not have all the answers. We probably never will. Sure it's presupposed. It is your a priori, something you decided was true before we began this conversation. Anything assumed to be true, without demonstrating its truth in this forum at this time, is most definitely a priori. Now this is not to say that you are not correct. Perhaps you are. But to say something like "Theism is fantasy" is most definitely a presupposition, at least here, now, in this thread. The same could be said for me as well.I disagree with your definition of theism. As I have demonstrated (and GDR was attempting to speak to earlier), theism is not belief contrary to evidence. Evidence simply corroborates how my belief works. God is not the lightning or the big boom that comes afterward. But God did set up the process for lightning to occur. In this way, knowledge informs my belief. But therein lies my a priori. "God exists." I am aware of this Sure. But this isn't all about me. Or theism. It's about all of us. I may not like it, but from a strictly knowledge based perspective there is merit to what you are proposing. You have done a pretty great job of evading my question though . But that's ok. Let's reshape it. Do you have enough faith in what we know, to accept the possibility that there is room for God within what we do not? And for you, you would ignore the gaps in our knowledge in order to sustain the hope that some deity is not there. - Raph

I need to clarify my argument, Ill give you that I do not recall ever saying religious beliefs are founded on ignorance: I said areas of ignorance exist. This is fact. I don't think it is necessary to insert the concept of a God into them. I do, however, believe as a general rule for life that the longer I live (a mere 22 years at this point ) I discover how much I do not know about something I thought I had such an incredible grasp on in the past. Certainties become not-so-certainties. The list of questions grows longer. I think most would attest to this phenomenon. I do not know your story specifically, Straggler. But If I did, or could watch a motion picture of your life, I'm sure I would come across moments when you honestly were not sure about something you previously held to be true. This is where I am currently, and therein lies my argument: I am always willing to go back, reexamine the evidence and my reasons for belief, and then come to a conclusion. Are you willing to do the same thing?That is what this discussion is about, and what I believe Phat was speaking to in his original post. A mutual forgetting of presuppositions and coming together to discover, through the process of the journey, a new truth perhaps? Sure. This is valid. However, do not let the track record of broken humanity determine truth for you, friend. Sure, religion said "God is in the lightning," and when we looked he wasn't there. But sometimes we look for things in the wrong places The real issue here, is not that we have failed to find God in the gaps religion said he was in. The problem lies on my side of the spectrum, with Christians. We have failed to present an accurate representation of Jesus, and for that I am truly sorry.So, in summary, I do not need God to be in the areas of our ignorance. He is easily accessible, and has already revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ. Perhaps not in the way we would like though - RaphEdited by Raphael, : No reason given.

But that's not the claim of God is it? It is important when talking about God we clearly define our concept of God. So great is the ambiguity of "god" in your statements that I am not so sure I believe in the god you propose does not exist. This is why I attempted to state my perspective earlier, in order to define for you my thought process for this "god" you have argued cannot be found in the areas of our ignorance.I have demonstrated in my response to Straggler that my concept of god does not at all rely on the "darkness" or gaps in knowledge. God is clearly defined and revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.Perhaps what you have observed is that "religionists of every theism require the darkness of ignorance to say their god is present," but this isn't really about religionists, from my perspective. It is the "something more" freely offered and easily accessible. God doesn't live in the darkness, friend Though it often seems like He does. As I have asserted, God has no need to hide . If we go back far enough, we might realize this. Perhaps "religion" developed to cope with unanswered questions. But Christ-followers weren't concerned with unanswered questions. The question has been answered. Jesus. I do not need to point to some area of darkness and say "ha! God is there!" because he has clearly and accessibly revealed himself. Here we have a pretty big straw man being flogged. I love science. I see absolutely no problem with increasing in knowledge of how the world works. This increase of knowledge however, has no part in discrediting my faith. It merely informs me how my faith works. So this is pretty unfortunate. As I mentioned, my concept of God simply is not anything like the one you are so adamantly opposing. I am sorry you have made this conclusion. Although from examining your argument one might conclude you had already made this conclusion before this discussion began . Shall we not continue the journey?Regards!- Raph

I appreciate this. I think I have a better understanding of where you are coming from now. Perhaps it would be beneficial to state that my argument is not the common "god of the gaps" one. I believe I have a problem maintaining a train of thought in argument, and I must admit, I am in over my head here. I have allowed you to sidetrack me from my main argument. But that's ok, I find much value in the journey of things A valid point. I admit, I too bring presuppositions and a priori to the conversation. I only mentioned this because that is what we are discussing, really. My argument is still: On this forum (not the world at large) there are "believers," who in general, are fine accepting the authority of science, the importance of knowledge, and the areas in which our faith falls short. The atheists (in general) on this forum tend to be a little less open to the possibilities the other side has to offer. I am not presenting a "god of the gaps" argument. I am arguing that there are gaps between the open-mindedness presented in our population.Intelligent proponents of ID would argue that ID is not a "god of the gaps" argument, it is merely inference based on data. This is not my argument. As I have stated, the "god of the gaps" argument is not what I am debating at this time. In my OP I stated this: You responded with all the reasons why you do not need to have an open mind about this discussion, mainly because you are right, and I am wrong. You gave me the trend you have personally experienced with believers, instead of carefully examining what I had to say:

quote:

---

If they didn't have this infinite roll of labels they could not maintain the fiction. One could not be a theist. There has to be someplace where this god's work was done.

---

quote:

---

Correction. A heavy preponderance of evidence leads to this conclusion. It is hardly "presupposed". Theism is fantasy. The archives of this forum are chuck full of theism's denials of observed facts...- msg 159

---

Is that what I was saying? Was I denying the role of science or saying God is in an unknown box somewhere? I am not trying to be facetious here, you have been respectful and coherent in your responses. I appreciate this But it appears previous experience has created a perception of creationists in your mind. In other words, the past has colored your perception. This is fine. The same is probably true for all of us. But you have also exhibited that my thesis was correct, leaving me with really no foundation to stand on: Since, in your mind, there is no contention, is it really worth it for me to attempt to present a logical argument? I am not trying to slither out of your challenge, friend. Perhaps we can begin a new thread? What I am saying is that at this time my hypothesis has been corroborated.Regards!- Raph

These are all great questions, and you are pretty correct. Christianity has placed God within these gaps. This is a limitation. What is interesting, however, is your perception that scripture is an "amalgam of ancient myths and tales..." I am curious to know where you got this idea from?My goal is not to suggest I am right, God exists, scripture is valid, and "how could you be so foolish as to not believe?" My goal is to challenge your perception and presuppositions about Scripture/God/Christ, just as you are challenging my perception and presuppositions about non believers. I believe there is value in that Great question. For the sake of this argument, let's assume God exists. (only assuming since you asked a question about accessing Him)A scientist would look at all of the available data in order to come to a conclusion. Therefore, I would say that when investigating "accessing God" one would turn to scripture, since that is the place he has claimed he has revealed himself.A method I would suggest is finding a Bible somewhere, and read a few chapters in the Book of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. John is my personal favorite . Experiment with reading a 3 chapters a day, for 3 days. You don't need to do anything weird, like "looking within" or expect some strange feeling, or a voice from the heavens. Its pretty mundane, actually . But try and get away from presuppositions and just read the text as it is. Pay attention to the things Jesus says. The way he says them.However, the most important part is to talk to God. I am unfamiliar with your personal life so I don't know if you have any experience with prayer, but it's quick and easy to do (although may feel pretty weird talking to "nothing"). You can be honest with God. Tell him you don't think he exists, and you are only doing this for scientific research. Do whatever you feel comfortable with. It may feel stupid, but I would be interested to read your conclusions. If this part is left out I would conclude that the experiment is incomplete, and would not demonstrate accurate results.For clarity:1. Obtain Bible.
The NKJV, ESV, NRASV, and NIV are all extremely close to the source text and versions I personally like. New Living Version is a good one as well, but is more of a paraphrase.
2. Pray that God would "reveal himself" through this experiment.
3. Read one of the Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke, Or John), 3 chapters a day for 3 days.Perhaps you have already performed this experiment, or have previous experience with christianity or the supernatural, and you have concluded that God has not accessibly revealed himself. In that case, you probably wouldn't need to do this experiment. No pressure - RaphEdited by Raphael, : changing wording

Sure. Christianity has a clear history, and there is ignorance involved. As does American history, british history, and roman history. As you said, Christianity does not exist in a vacuum. The problems and gaps in knowledge experienced are not local to christianity, but in fact are common to man, and history in general. Genesis IS evidence of human ignorance. But point to any document dated to a similar time and they, too, exhibit human ignorance. I think we're a on a little bit of a different page. I do not believe attempting to argue Intelligent Design with science is beneficial. I do not believe arguing the existence of God with science is beneficial. This is clearly exhibited in creationists on this forum (and in general) who are outnumbered, out-smarted, and in general get very frustrated and create a stereotype for other creationists.The reason for this perspective is science cannot test the supernatural. It's not that God is outside the universe, it is that God is simply untestable with science. This is the first thing I learned in Biology. Science examines the natural world and creates hypotheses about how it works. You cannot find any proof for the supernatural, and I cannot demonstrate any, because it is the supernatural. I believe Creationism is 100% a matter of faith based on the claims of scripture. So, in order to determine the legitimacy of creationist claims, one must examine the legitimacy of scripture. There are several reasons I could list here. I'll go with one here.I do believe the cause for the universe is God. I believe being the most important part. For me, creationism is not the central part of my belief. The character Jesus Christ is. Therefore, when deciding whether or not to believe in the validity of creation, I look to the testimonies about the life and teachings of Jesus as my "norm," or standard, and ask a series of questions. Jesus claimed He was God. Is this true? Are the writings about him legitimate? Were there any eyewitnesses? How many? Do the eyewitnesses agree? Are there manuscripts? How many? Dating to as close to antiquity as possible, that exist to which I can point to as sources for the Bible I read today? Is there any discrepancy between these original texts and the current Bible?When these questions are answered I believe I can then look at how Jesus and the New Testament treated the Old Testament. Did Jesus believe in creation? If Jesus existed, and was God as He claimed, would it not then logically follow that if Jesus believed it, Creation happened?These are all the questions I have to ask in order to illustrate my journey to an ID perspective. I don't think I have time to answer them all here, I am still a struggling University student But I would love to create a thread on it in the near future, describing my journey and getting feedback from those who have different perspectives. There are those here, like arach, who are Old Testament scholars and would be incredibly valuable to the discussion. Hope this helps!- RaphEdited by Raphael, : No reason given.

I recognize that we may be beating a dead horse at this point, and perhaps a new beginning might be useful.I will also admit that what you have argued right here is probably how my argument appears. What I am saying is that in order for this discussion to move anywhere, we must both be willing to leave behind (as best as possible, as it is not entirely that easy) our presuppositions. I am proposing and encouraging you to leave room for the other side of the spectrum to have value. The truth of it is, any creationist can present any sort of argument they want, but if both sides are not willing to admit that perhaps there is value to the perspective of their inverse, the discussion is worthless.A good example of this is caffeine. You can find any number of articles on the internet about the "10 Benefits of Caffeine" and just as many articles on the "10 Terrible Effects Of Caffeine." If you are the sort of person who drinks coffee, and wants caffeine to be beneficial, of course you will site those articles. But that doesnt make caffeine any better for you.The same is true for those opposing. There are good things about caffeine. This demonstrates that at any point, there are reasonable and valuable reasons why people believe the things they do, and each side can learn from one another. They may not be the things you want to hear, or even things you agree with, but that doesnt matter. I can oppose your viewpoint and still see how it is beneficial for you. Actually, open-mindedness is "receptiveness to new ideas." It is a concept that encourages learning from the perspectives of others, and recognizing the innate value of ideas different from ones own. SourceIt is difficult for me, but I believe I can. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong. I love learning. Perhaps I am only young and inexperienced. I still have much growing to do, but I look forward to continue learning from you, AZPaul3. You have much to offer. - Raph

You are asking great questions. As I said earlier, I would like to create a new thread at some point describing my entire thought process on the matter, but for the sake of discussion Sure. Assumptions are part of the process. Perhaps a better sequence of questions would be more efficient, the way I listed was kind of the bare bones way I think. I started with Jesus because most would probably say he is the most prolific character in Christianity. I am trying to imagine if I were looking at it from the perspective of someone who has not grown up being taught that scripture is true. What would I have heard about Christianity? Jesus is kind of what my mind goes to, as I am interested in things that don't really make sense The time of writing IS important, I'm glad you brought that up. The fact that the gospels are usually dated after Jesus died IS important. Those things are important to establish this position, but in no way does knowing the answers to these questions compromise the line of reasoning, in my opinion. These things are simply stepping stones.The things you have brought up are all important. I'm glad you mentioned these things. They beg questions, when I see them. Since only a few of the books in the NT are written by eye witnesses, do these eye-witnesses agree? To what degree do they deviate? To what degree do the gospels disagree? Do they REALLY disagree? If they do, is there a reason or purpose? What is changed? Which manuscripts don't match up? If there are manuscripts that deviate, why do they deviate?. We can't be lazy in our questioning. We can't be lazy in our exegesis. Everything has a purpose. These are also great questions. I'm so glad this ball got rolling. To what extent CAN we reliably tell Jesus' beliefs? What texts demonstrate these things. Jesus was largely very cryptic and rather odd in his conversations with people. It is difficult to get a grasp on what he believed, as there is no "Here is a list of theological concepts Jesus believed and taught while he was here" chapter anywhere. But what did he teach? Really? And there is the component of translation. How much of a difference would it have made to the meaning of what he said? All valuable questions. You're talking about Matthew 24. Jesus is telling the disciples not to worry about the end, to not look for signs, for nobody can determine the day or the hour of the end. The exact text you quoted was Matt 24:36 -

quote:

---

36 But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father.

---

This demonstrates that there were some limitations to the incarnation. Omniscience appears to be one of them, according to this text. This speaks to the sovereignty of the Father and the sacrifice Christ made to even become human, but doesn't really say much about Jesus' theological positions. Born and raised a Jew, Jesus would definitely have believed in creation--one text that exemplifies this is his comments on the Sabbath:

quote:

---

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath - Mark 2:27]

---

A reference to creation is not an admonition of believing in creation, but that is where the limits of the text come in. Inference must be used at some points, just like in determining anything else without having all the data on hand. But above all else, this is a faith issue. We look at everything the text gives us, and ask ourselves, why does the text not extrapolate on this? Is it meant to be unclear? Is it important? Why/why not?Regards!- Raph

Science, by definition, is a "systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." SourceIt is reasonable for you to feel this way, and a fair conclusion. But this is a pretty lazy assumption, to be honest, because it pretty much denies the majority of people who claim to have had, and believe in, the supernatural. But consensus doesn't mean truth exactly, so let's ignore that for now.Science, by definition, only tests the natural world. This doesn't mean the supernatural cannot be confirmed, or at the very least, on a faith basis, be shown to exist on a personal basis. Science can be the method by which we test for evidence that may infer the existence of the supernatural, but it's job does not include the ability to analyze god/gods/magic/angels/demons/ghosts/nirvana/whatever else.If we're going to talk about faith, and the supernatural, it doesn't make sense for me to debate on your terms, being judged by your criteria as to whether or not faith is valid. Just like it doesn't make sense for me to evaluate science by using my faith to judge whether or not you are scientifically correct about a specific testable hypothesis. Not at all. Not that evidence cannot be found, it's just that #1, I do not have enough biological education/knowledge to form a valid argument, and #2, it is unnecessary. My entire argument is that creation is a faith based position not a scientific attempt to validate assumptions made by believers. As always, Straggler impresses . What you are doing is literary criticism. This is a valuable tool when looking at scripture.- The fact that the Genesis story is confirmed in an earlier document strengthens rather than hinders the validity of said story. If the story happened it would have been written about before Moses.
- Virgin birth prophesied in Isaiah is not the point of the prophecy, common misconception (see my post, 188) Source
- Christianity definitely borrowed and sold out to paganism during the 3rd and especially 4th centuries.My point, we cannot be lazy in our dealing with the text. There are parallels in history. If there was a story exactly the same as the American Revolution written about a thousand years earlier, the more recent history would by no means be invalided, it would simply be analyzed with just as much literary criticism and value as the previous history. Instead of chalking up similarities in history, a literary critic would ask questions. Why are the stories so similar? Is there a reason the stories seem borrowed? Was there some compromising on the part of the author? Plagiarism? For what purpose? These are great questions. The experience is based on claims. Like:

quote:

---

You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.- Jer. 29:13

---

quote:

---

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. - Matt. 7:7

---

The promise is that when we do the seeking, he is faithful to reveal himselfWhen looking at scriptural claims like this, one must ask some questions. My thought process looks like:- Seriously? If I do the seeking, God will be found. Sounds simple, but is it?
- The text requires me to take God at his word, on faith alone. How do I do that?
-Am I trying to "feel something" or expecting something to happen?If you're going to examine the claims of a document, you need to take it seriously. It does seem dumb. It does not make sense. But it promises something. Seek, and you will find what you're looking for. This is a pretty important question. Those who have experienced searching for God/gods in different places than "the Bible" have just as valid as an experience. But the Bible is kind of unfair. It claims to be the Way and the Truth. Or rather, Jesus does. This also begs questions. No. Usually, He can't. Although sometimes he does. We can examine those times. But. Jesus said the Father is drawing people to himself (John 6:44). He has done his part. We want some sort of easy solution or "sign on the moon" or really any situation in which we don't have to be vulnerable. We want to be right. We want to not feel stupid. But the truth of it is, everything is freely given and accessibly offered , and searching for that is, in fact, easy. It's sort of like a "giving up" of the comfort of believing in facts, and being open to something that cannot be proven. If you're not looking for anything, you won't find anything.Hope this helps!- RaphEdited by Raphael, : changed wording!

Ah I see. Yours is a valuable viewpoint to the discussion then! I am interested in how you see things. There is validity here. But to say that none of the NT books were written by eyewitnesses of Christ is a little much. While it is not believed the books of Mark and Luke were written by eyewitnesses of Christ, the books of Matthew and John are pretty confidently thought to have been written by the respective apostles, who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' life. But there is only so accurate one can get with these things. We can infer, based on what we know. Sure. There are variances. There are differences. But we cannot assume that since there are differences the text is invalidated. It would be like saying since you and your friend saw a fire, and then wrote about it years later, because you disagree on some detail in the story the fire did not occur. The writers were human.What you're talking about is called the "Synoptic Problem." Despite their position in the canon, Mark is thought to have been written first, and it is known that both Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark. You could say they used Mark as sort of a skeleton document or an outline to base their gospels. This does not invalidate the text, it is only an example that outlines are helpful. Luke and Matthew also seem to both quote from an unknown source, commonly called the "Q" source. (From the German word, "Quelle" meaning Source"). It is thought to be a collection of sayings of Jesus, being distributed even before Mark was written, but this is not confirmed.I write all this to assert that differences in the text do not necessarily discredit the story. Everything has a purpose I would be interested to see some research in this area. Would that mean then that both christian and non christian historians have done this research and come to conclusions based on their presuppositions? Or that they both come to the same conclusion? Great point. Jesus' comments on the Sabbath are not conclusive. But Jesus claimed to "come from the Father." He makes statements in John like:

quote:

---

Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. - John 8:42

---

Further, John makes the assertion:

quote:

---

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. - John 1:1

---

So apparently, Jesus knows He is from God. He knows he is God. He claims to be all the time. Not only does He know he is God, John claims that He was with God in the beginning. If Jesus is God, he was there at creation. He did the creating. Making sense? What all this leads to is a model of authenticating Jesus before coming to a conclusion about Creationism. If Jesus existed, and was who he said he was, creation is validated in my mind. This is a very bare bones model of my thought process, and as I stated earlier I would like to flesh it out and present it in its entirety at some point.Regards!- Raph

Bleh. My bad, thanks for calling me out Taq. I didn't realize I tried to define science twice and ended up contradicting myself. Let's try this again Let's say science can test the supernatural. In fact, sure, it can. What sorts of methods would you use to test the claims of God? Or the supernatural? What kind of experiment would you propose? Would you invoke the power of Zeus? Call upon Aphrodite by intercourse with designated prostitutes? Summon Ba'al or Molech by sacrificing an infant? These are some examples I can think of for ancient/near ancient times. I am honestly curious to see what kind of experiment you propose I was a little forceful. All I'm saying is if we are going to examine my perspective on creation, let's examine the norm I use as my basis for concluding creationism. My argument is that creation is a faith based position based on the claims of scripture. Therefore, if you are wishing to examine my reasoning, we must examine scripture in order to determine the validity of my position.In this quest, we can, and must use science. I look forward to it. - RaphEdited by Raphael, : added a line while eating pb&j sandwich

I would agree with you, the source perhaps is a little biased At the same time, I believe we are coming to the same conclusion. There is not certainty, but we can infer, and there is general consensus. And that begs the question, "why is Luke's version a little different?" We can't just throw it out because it's different, everything has a purpose. Did Matthew forget? Or did he leave it out on purpose because there is a specific point he is trying to convey? Each writer was trying to convey a specific message to a specific audience. For Matthew, it was originally thought he was writing to Jews, but as he relies heavily on the septuagint, those who could read Greek are his audience. Luke is writing to Gentiles. There was a reason they each include different things, to emphasize different things and make specific points. So to say that the message of both is invalidated because there are discrepancies doesn't make sense in my mind. There is purpose Ah, this makes sense. Valid point . But if we're reading scripture, we have a accept it as it is, and the claims it makes. The books claim their authors were inspired and led by God in writing. I don't see this as a cop out; this is where faith comes in. I don't think so at all. I see where you're coming from, seeing where Jesus mentions creation can definitely be part of concluding in creationism, but if we're accepting that Jesus existed, and He was who He said He was, namely, God, we have to accept that He was there at the beginning. Even if John hadn't stated this, it would be inferred.

quote:

---

58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am. - John 8:58

---

Regards!- Raph