|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why I am creationist | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Maestro232 writes:
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 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."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
hmm...seems your post was already edited. The first was useful I think. Now my response doesn't make much sense. Oh well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminHambre Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4154 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
Do you think scientific parameters were defined without experience?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4154 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
That's not experience (not in the sense that you are using it) that repeptition (or extension/development) of method.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
I beg to differ.
Repetition of experiment: Have faith in God as Loving CreatorResult: God shows Himself clearly to that person Repeat that several million times and you have a pretty defendable method I'd say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Maestro232 writes: Repetition of experiment: Have faith in God as Loving CreatorResult: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4154 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
OK - you have used the term experiment there - how do I falsify that experiment?
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
I am saying that at a basic level this is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4154 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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: 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024