Why I am creationist

Knight, I neglected to respond to your comment about several gods.My thoughts on that is that all of these different religions are recognizing that there is a God, and that God created them. I don't want to get too much into other religions here, but I will note that in many of these other religions, they don't claim to "experience God." Buddhism for example is about searching for a light. Christianity on the other hand claims that we have found that light in Jesus Christ. Regardless, let's just keep it at experience of a Creator for now.

Where did you get this idea? From popular science shows?

quote:

---

My thoughts on that is that all of these different religions are recognizing that there is a God, and that God created them.

---

But some think there are creatorS - Why is your experience more valid?

quote:

---

but I will note that in many of these other religions, they don't claim to "experience God."

---

But what about muslims? they claim the hand of Allah is everwhere ?So what is it? Your experience of god more valid then that of a muslim?

quote:

---

why do I need to trust in something that is repeatable and observable?

---

Ok..I'm hearing you. I think I'm not asking you to take a very big step here though. All I'm saying is that you are convinced that whatever you believe is true based on experience. You say because it is "repeatable" and "observable." Observation is not an entirely objective process though!

quote:

---

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

---

Well..I'm trying to avoid the debate turning this way...but there have been more Christians over history than Muslims. Regardless...I'm not tryiing to say that the most followers means that idea is the winner. I'm just saying where our confidence comes from.You have confidence in scientific method based on repeated observation. I have confidence in the God of the Bible based on the testimony of many others and my own. "Experiments" are not inherently more reliable than "experience." They both have elements of subjectivity to them.

I think I swapped my "subjective" and "objective"

Just don't forget that each and every one everywhere has the right to choose what to believe and what not to believe. It is not the job of any human being to point out what another should believe.You'll be much happier if you can let go of those who criticize, because they have not yet learned that what is good for the goose is good for the duck.I understand your passion, careful where and how you spend it, you will want it to last for a long time.They also mocked Christ......so what? So what!Those who are not meant to see, are like the sand next to the sea. They have their reward, why deny them?

I'd say Oscar Mayer is not alone

quote:

---

So what is it? Your experience of god more valid then that of a muslim?

---

I am not claiming my experience is more valid than anyone else's. I am not playing a sheer numbers game either. I am making a point that your beliefs are based on experience. I would like to continue that debate if you don't yet agree.

Okay, then let's examine the specifics of what you said in Message 86: Do you believe science should be conducted with the same rigour displayed by this experiment, because there are questions that naturally arise from your proposal. Do you propose taking a person's word for whether they have faith in God, and for whether God has revealed himself to them? If so, then this is contrary to normal scientific protocols where the demands of objectivity require eliminating personal beliefs and biases. If you accept that these protocols should be followed in your experiment, then we're in agreement, and I would only ask how you propose objectively establishing a person's faith and whether God has revealed himself to them.But if you're instead proposing that science should accept subjective opinions and feelings as evidence (except, of course, in pschology where subjective realities are the objects of study), then we disagree.--Percy

Thanks. I suppose this is where I should have put my new input pertaining to the topic; "I am a biblical creationist..".In fairness to me, I never said I was an evolutionist.

Slow comp. Double post.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-16-2004 03:24 PM

quote:

---

Do you propose taking a person's word for whether they have faith in God, and for whether God has revealed himself to them? If so, then this is contrary to normal scientific protocols where the demands of objectivity require eliminating personal beliefs and biases.

---

I admit that I am simplifying the scope of the argument a bit. I think some would claim to know God who do not. That is not something we can't always know, but must use our best guesses to determine.I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) your claim is that science has a rigerous enough and objective enough quality that it is to be more trusted than experience. I don't want to lure you into a trap here, so let me tell you exactly why I ask that...because, if it is a question over the reliability of something, then "trust" is relevent. I felt as if Knight was saying trust was not relevent. I think it is.I might also add that our biases and interests often encourage the kinds of experiments we choose to conduct in the first place. Now a level of subjectivity has already crept into the scientific process.My goal is not to argue the invalidity of scientific method, I am just trying to show that scientists have put their undying trust in their scientific method, but the method itself is not based on some absolutely unblemished process. If you are honest, you can admit that science has a failure rate just like anything.This message has been edited by Maestro232, 12-16-2004 03:41 PM

No. What DOES The Big Bang look like, Lam? I thought we could just see the edges...

Of course science has a failure rate. If it did not then it would never advance or have any success. That is the great strength of Science and why in real life it will always lead to more success than religion.And trust is certainly not needed when it comes to science. In fact the scientific method is designed to write trust out of the system The whole purpose and advantage to the scientific method over belief is the absence of trust.An individuals experience is not an issue. It carries no weight or value. Only if it can be replicated or confirmed is it of any value.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

then why would anyone even entertain the idea of macro-evolution. You can't repeat it.