Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why I am creationist
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 210 (168924)
12-16-2004 1:23 PM


My guess is that any argument which let's science alone and uses other means as the thrust for reasoning feels non-threatening to the scientific minded on this board. It is thus "reasonable" because it is not really "arguable."
This is just a thought, so do correct me if I'm wrong, that saying "faith is my reason" does not challenge "well science is mine!" http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Moods/mood12.gif

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 12-16-2004 1:35 PM Maestro232 has not replied
 Message 80 by AdminNosy, posted 12-16-2004 1:51 PM Maestro232 has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 77 of 210 (168929)
12-16-2004 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Maestro232
12-16-2004 1:23 PM


Faith is an absolute to a Believer.
Maestro232 writes:
My guess is that any argument which let's science alone and uses other means as the thrust for reasoning feels non-threatening to the scientific minded on this board. It is thus "reasonable" because it is not really "arguable."
Welcome to EvC, Maestro! It is true that science uses tangible forms of evidence and measureable verification for their conclusions. Occasionally, science speculates(What the Big Bang "looks like", for example.) I am a believer in a literal, personal, and supernatural God
in the Christian monotheistic definition, but I am NOT a strict Creationist based on literal scriptural interpretation.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 12-16-2004 01:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 1:23 PM Maestro232 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by coffee_addict, posted 12-16-2004 2:44 PM Phat has replied

  
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 210 (168934)
12-16-2004 1:42 PM


So, the number of people that claim to have experienced God over the documented history of man is not sufficient to claim He exists, while those who claim to not have experienced God can claim His non-existence only by their lack of experiencing Him?
Am I misunderstanding you?

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by CK, posted 12-16-2004 2:14 PM Maestro232 has replied

  
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 210 (168935)
12-16-2004 1:43 PM


hmm...seems your post was already edited. The first was useful I think. Now my response doesn't make much sense. Oh well.

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by AdminHambre, posted 12-16-2004 1:53 PM Maestro232 has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 80 of 210 (168938)
12-16-2004 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Maestro232
12-16-2004 1:23 PM


W e l c o m e !
Welcome aboard, Maestro and Happy Holidays.
Could you use the LLRB (little red reply button) at the bottom of the post you are replying to. (it is the mmm 3rd from the left with little red arrow) This allows the conversation to be followed and sends and email to the original poster if they have that turned on.
Thanks.
(the 4th button over, blue one, will allow you to see the raw text that someone entered. If you want to know how they achieved a specific affect).
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 12-16-2004 01:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 1:23 PM Maestro232 has not replied

  
AdminHambre
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 210 (168940)
12-16-2004 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Maestro232
12-16-2004 1:43 PM


Maestro232,
Just a suggestion.
When you want to reply to a specific message, you should hit the "Reply" button at the bottom of that message instead of the generic "Post Reply" at the bottom of the page. This makes it clear at the bottom of your reply the name/number of the poster/post you're responding to.
Thanks!
Adminssimo Hambre
Edited to add:
Sorry, Ned! Right behind ya!
This message has been edited by AdminHambre, 12-16-2004 01:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 1:43 PM Maestro232 has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 82 of 210 (168950)
12-16-2004 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Maestro232
12-16-2004 1:42 PM


Nope it's not - Experience is a terrible guide. It's quite easy to get people to recall events differently than actually occured or indeed recall figures who were not even present.
Therefore experience of a entity that has no physical presence is a bit of a non-starter.
quote:
So, the number of people that claim to have experienced God over the documented history of man is not sufficient to claim He exists,
You start with the wrong question - it's more like "the number of people who claim to have experienced gods". Because if we say that Personal experience equals truth then Allah must be the true god..or maybe the jewish one. Maybe it's buddah? or Zeus? Is it sheer numbers that makes your god more true? maybe the experience of brighter people should count double? What about drug-users - maybe that should count for half an experience?
quote:
while those who claim to not have experienced God can claim His non-existence only by their lack of experiencing Him?
Nothing to do with experience - all to do with evidence - I don't see any - and it's not like science can test for Gods.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 12-16-2004 02:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 1:42 PM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 2:18 PM CK has replied
 Message 91 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 2:44 PM CK has replied

  
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 210 (168951)
12-16-2004 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by CK
12-16-2004 2:14 PM


Do you think scientific parameters were defined without experience?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by CK, posted 12-16-2004 2:14 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by CK, posted 12-16-2004 2:21 PM Maestro232 has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 84 of 210 (168953)
12-16-2004 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Maestro232
12-16-2004 2:18 PM


That's not experience (not in the sense that you are using it) that repeptition (or extension/development) of method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 2:18 PM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 2:24 PM CK has replied

  
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 210 (168954)
12-16-2004 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by CK
12-16-2004 2:21 PM


I beg to differ.
Repetition of experiment: Have faith in God as Loving Creator
Result: God shows Himself clearly to that person
Repeat that several million times and you have a pretty defendable method I'd say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by CK, posted 12-16-2004 2:21 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 12-16-2004 2:26 PM Maestro232 has replied
 Message 87 by CK, posted 12-16-2004 2:26 PM Maestro232 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 86 of 210 (168955)
12-16-2004 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Maestro232
12-16-2004 2:24 PM


Maestro232 writes:
Repetition of experiment: Have faith in God as Loving Creator
Result: God shows Himself clearly to that person
Repeat that several million times and you have a pretty defendable method I'd say.
Sounds good to me, unless you're proposing that science work the same way.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 2:24 PM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 2:29 PM Percy has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 87 of 210 (168956)
12-16-2004 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Maestro232
12-16-2004 2:24 PM


OK - you have used the term experiment there - how do I falsify that experiment?
quote:
Repeat that several million times and you have a pretty defendable method I'd say.
Ok - outline the steps of that experiment for me? I'll do the same:
1) take ball - roll off flat level table.
2) What is the result? What happens when you repeat the experiment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 2:24 PM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 2:33 PM CK has replied

  
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 210 (168959)
12-16-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Percy
12-16-2004 2:26 PM


I am saying that at a basic level this is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 12-16-2004 2:26 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 12-16-2004 3:21 PM Maestro232 has replied

  
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 210 (168963)
12-16-2004 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by CK
12-16-2004 2:26 PM


I think you are simplifying how scientific methods and the very rules themselves for interpreting scientific results came about. My only point is that even the rules we use to distill good science (natural, falsifyible, etc..) are deemed appropriately sufficient because of experience. You know trust that it is the only lens you need to filter scientific truth. You trust that filter because there is enough collective experience to convince you it is a good filter.
The same is true for belief in God as Creator. I am not really trying to Scientifize things here, I'm just saying the same ideological things are at work in convincing us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by CK, posted 12-16-2004 2:26 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by CK, posted 12-16-2004 2:41 PM Maestro232 has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 90 of 210 (168969)
12-16-2004 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Maestro232
12-16-2004 2:33 PM


Sorry if I am simplifying this two far but if we want to go further into the epsitomology of science - I'm quite happy to do that.
quote:
You know trust that it is the only lens you need to filter scientific truth.
That's actually wrong - why do I need to trust in something that is repeatable and observable?
Millons of Muslims say that their God is the true god. If more people become muslims, surely their collective experiences means that their god is more true that yours?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 2:33 PM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Maestro232, posted 12-16-2004 2:52 PM CK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024