Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
371 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 370 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Happy Birthday: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,616 Year: 20,652/19,786 Month: 1,049/2,023 Week: 0/557 Day: 0/101 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Naturalistic God of Creationism
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 294 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 1 of 19 (327381)
06-29-2006 3:20 AM


writes faith in a recent topic:

You add the notion of magic, no creationist does.

i find it curious that (according to faith) no creationist ascribes supernatural powers to their god. in cases like the flood, instead of saying, "evidence be damned; it was a miracle," they attempt to explain away evidence. this is a tendency i've noticed for a while. they try to find naturalistic explanations for things like the flood, or the parting of the red sea, etc, in order to confirm the bible as literally true.

but in the process, they are actually writing god out of the equation. if it's not a miracle, why do we need god in the story? creationists often attack science as a godless alternative mythology -- but then why try to justify their beliefs with science? if belief trumps evidence, why even try to explain the evidence? why not just take the bible's word and call it a miracle, which by definition is something outside the realm of natural explanation?


אָרַח

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by riVeRraT, posted 06-29-2006 6:37 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 06-29-2006 11:13 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 7 by honda33, posted 06-29-2006 1:53 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 06-29-2006 2:08 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 14 by Zucadragon, posted 06-30-2006 6:12 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 19 (327382)
06-29-2006 3:21 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 3 of 19 (327410)
06-29-2006 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by arachnophilia
06-29-2006 3:20 AM


God dunnit
If God wanted to flood the earth without leaving evidence, I can accept that.

It must have supernatural, how else could a dove return with a fresh olive leaf after a big flood like that?

I personally don't think god wants us to find Him by saying, look, we found evidence of a world-wide flood, God must exist!!! That is not what God is about. He exists, and we find Him from Love.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by arachnophilia, posted 06-29-2006 3:20 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by CK, posted 06-29-2006 7:20 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 4 of 19 (327415)
06-29-2006 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by riVeRraT
06-29-2006 6:37 AM


Re: God dunnit
I've often thought that if there was clear evidence of the interaction of God he'd remove it. Otherwise why would you need faith?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by riVeRraT, posted 06-29-2006 6:37 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by ikabod, posted 06-29-2006 8:46 AM CK has not yet responded

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2809 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 5 of 19 (327428)
06-29-2006 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by CK
06-29-2006 7:20 AM


Re: God dunnit
yep the old faith issue does make "knowing" the "truth" a big problem

maybe god should have not have allowed a creation section in the bible ..

or just had a "and god caused the universe to be".. no details , no need to hid evidence , no knowledge vs faith issue ,avoid the whole time line age of the earth issue ..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by CK, posted 06-29-2006 7:20 AM CK has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2227 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 6 of 19 (327471)
06-29-2006 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by arachnophilia
06-29-2006 3:20 AM


Magical Observations
You have to remember also that Faith will call something the equivalent of magic even if it has been pointed out that we can observe it today.

For example, Faith relegates sedimentary geology to the realm of fantasy.

Most YECs claim that "information gain" in the genome is non-existant (therefore magic) even though in any proposed definition of information this can also be observed.

Overall I think it is just important to note that they are not always just calling the processes magic but the facts.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by arachnophilia, posted 06-29-2006 3:20 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
honda33
Member (Idle past 3478 days)
Posts: 51
From: Antigua
Joined: 04-11-2006


Message 7 of 19 (327505)
06-29-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by arachnophilia
06-29-2006 3:20 AM


quote:

i find it curious that (according to faith) no creationist ascribes supernatural powers to their god. in cases like the flood, instead of saying, "evidence be damned; it was a miracle," they attempt to explain away evidence. this is a tendency i've noticed for a while. they try to find naturalistic explanations for things like the flood, or the parting of the red sea, etc, in order to confirm the bible as literally true.

but in the process, they are actually writing god out of the equation. if it's not a miracle, why do we need god in the story? creationists often attack science as a godless alternative mythology -- but then why try to justify their beliefs with science? if belief trumps evidence, why even try to explain the evidence? why not just take the bible's word and call it a miracle, which by definition is something outside the realm of natural explanation?


It's funny that you raised this issue, because the very same question kept running through my mind reading those recent flood threads.
What has become of the supernatural God my mother taught me about?
I guess Creationism killed Him. In their quest to extend their control of ideas beyond the four walls of their churches they inadvertently killed their God. God was the casualty of a power quest by creationists, a sort of collateral damage. One day creationism will be accepted universally as science... we will have a second resurrection then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by arachnophilia, posted 06-29-2006 3:20 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Gary, posted 06-29-2006 11:21 PM honda33 has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33694
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 8 of 19 (327510)
06-29-2006 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by arachnophilia
06-29-2006 3:20 AM


In scripture, when God performs a miracle it is clearly identified as a miracle. It has a specific time and place, context and purpose. It is to demonstrate God's power and sovereignty over the natural world when such a demonstration serves His own end.

The original Creation must be called a miracle, of course, but what God created was a universe ordered by laws. Nevertheless a believer knows that God is working at every moment to bring about His purposes, including through the operation of those laws. A miracle would be His suspending the normal operation of those laws to demonstrate that He is God who can do so. But He also works through them at all times.

When it comes to the Flood, there is no hint in the Bible that anything miraculous took place. God said a great flood was coming, Noah preached it and built an ark out of faith that God was telling the truth. It took him over a hundred years to build. These are pretty mundane facts. When the rains began, this was a new thing on earth, but there is no hint it was anything other than the working out of conditions and laws already in place.

Science itself depends upon a lawful orderly universe, the kind of universe God made. There is absolutely nothing that exists that does not depend upon God and that certainly includes science. But surely it is obvious that we say evolution denies God because it denies what He tells us in His written revelation about the creation of humanity and about the flood. Nothing mysterious about this.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : changed "operates" to "works" in a couple of places


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by arachnophilia, posted 06-29-2006 3:20 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 06-29-2006 6:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 294 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 9 of 19 (327564)
06-29-2006 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
06-29-2006 2:08 PM


A miracle would be His suspending the normal operation of those laws to demonstrate that He is God who can do so.

then why should we expect naturalistic evidence to back up such a miracle?

When it comes to the Flood, there is no hint in the Bible that anything miraculous took place.

i'm forced to disagree.

When the rains began, this was a new thing on earth, but there is no hint it was anything other than the working out of conditions and laws already in place.

except that there are certain things that are quite problematic from a scientific viewpoint. many of them were covered in the thread this spun off from. i don't want to get into them a whole lot, because that's not really the topic, but rather old questions of "where did the water come form?" and "where did the water go?"

the bible reports that the water comes from beneath the earth, and above the sky. whether or not you think it's being used colloquially, it still reflects a very, very old cosmology, one where the earth was something like an inside-out snowdome, with water all around the outside. the water that god lets in through the windows of heaven and the fountains of the deep are the waters of creation, the primordial chaos from which everything else was formed. god is, in effect, un-creating.

in a modern context, looking for the source and eventual destination of the water is about like looking for where the fish and loaves came from. yes, they were real, tangible results. but so was creation. and a world-wide flood is downright impossible with the way this planet works.

the question isn't "how to make it possible" but "why are creationists trying?" if it's just working out of laws already set in motion, why are there no more world-wide floods? why is it set on by god's anger and regret over humanity? the point i'm trying to make here is this:

if the flood was a natural occurance, like you say, where does god fit into the picture? and why do we need god?

Science itself depends upon a lawful orderly universe, the kind of universe God made. There is absolutely nothing that exists that does not depend upon God and that certainly includes science.

on the contrary, the laws negate a dependence on god. if the universe is lawful and ordered, it doesn't need a good to direct its every action. the only "need" for god would be to interrupt those laws, in the cases of miracles.

But surely it is obvious that we say evolution denies God because it denies what He tells us in His written revelation about the creation of humanity and about the flood. Nothing mysterious about this.

i don't want to get off topic on this, but as demonstrated in other threads, "evolution" here seems to mean quite a bit more than biological variation. what i'm suggesting is, in ineffect, by attempting to reconcile god with naturalism at all, you are destroying the meaning of the word "god."


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 06-29-2006 2:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 19 (327647)
06-29-2006 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by honda33
06-29-2006 1:53 PM


I don't see how science could ever accept creationism. Science only accepts concepts that are based on the scientific method. Even if all scientists accepted it, creationism would still be no more than the religious beliefs of those scientists.

Creationists seem to be trying to find evidence for something that people once accepted without question. If they find no evidence, they will have faith to fall back on. If they find evidence, it wouldn't kill God, it would only kill faith, the significance of which would be altered greatly. The best non-creationists can do is attempt to show that the events in the Bible are implausible, and in some cases find evidence that goes against what the Bible says, such as evidence supporting evolution rather than a six-day creation.

Creationists will begin to think scientifically when they find that they can mold their own beliefs to fit the evidence, rather than forcing themselves to do things the other way around. I wonder if such people could still be called creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by honda33, posted 06-29-2006 1:53 PM honda33 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 06-30-2006 9:55 AM Gary has not yet responded
 Message 12 by honda33, posted 06-30-2006 12:00 PM Gary has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31643
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 11 of 19 (327725)
06-30-2006 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Gary
06-29-2006 11:21 PM


Is it a matter of acceptance?
I don't see how science could ever accept creationism.

I don't think that acceptance is necessary. If the idea of a Creator is a personal belief, then Science is but showing How God Did It. There really is no conflict there.

On the otherhand, trying to shoehorn the evidence into some Biblical Creation Myth, whether it is one of the two Christian Myths or any other creation myth, doesn't work.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Gary, posted 06-29-2006 11:21 PM Gary has not yet responded

  
honda33
Member (Idle past 3478 days)
Posts: 51
From: Antigua
Joined: 04-11-2006


Message 12 of 19 (327754)
06-30-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Gary
06-29-2006 11:21 PM



I don't see how science could ever accept creationism. Science only accepts concepts that are based on the scientific method. Even if all scientists accepted it, creationism would still be no more than the religious beliefs of those scientists.

Creationists seem to be trying to find evidence for something that people once accepted without question.

But the question is why....
It's about power. Throughout history religion has had a monopoly on truth. Any edict by a religious leader was deemed to be unchallengeable. Science is antithesis to religious dogma because it requires that you "show the sidework". Science is a major component of modern societies and it is a domain where religion does not have dominion. So do creationists reject science? Obviously not.. but they do not just want to accept it , they want to control it , they want to make sure is doesn't conradict any of their beliefs. Have you noticed that creationists are only interested in science that contradicts their interpretation of the Bible?


If they find no evidence, they will have faith to fall back on. If they find evidence, it wouldn't kill God, it would only kill faith, the significance of which would be altered greatly.

But if you kill faith, you have effective kill God( atleast the supernatural variant). Can God exist without faith?

Edited by honda33, : No reason given.

Edited by honda33, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Gary, posted 06-29-2006 11:21 PM Gary has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 06-30-2006 5:28 PM honda33 has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 294 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 19 (327850)
06-30-2006 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by honda33
06-30-2006 12:00 PM


Have you noticed that creationists are only interested in science that contradicts their interpretation of the Bible?

which, as pointed out in the topic of another thread, is quite a hefty protion of science.

i feel i should point out, as per the topic of this thread, that creationism not just a compromise of science, but a compromise of faith too. they have to make the text believable, by modern standards. for instance, nobody today thinks of the world as flat, and covered by a solid metal dome that keeps out the chaotic waters of heaven. (well, ALMOST nobody. props to the flat-earthers, keep the faith alive, guys)

the point is that we don't seem to care what the text actually says, the implications of it, and the worldview in which it was written. we just care about making it easily palatable, believable, and not contradicting with our basic worldview. and the extent to which creationism goes actually damages faith in god.

[added by edit]i will be the first to commend the creationist that says "all of science is wrong, my faith is stronger and more important than my touch with reality" and accepts the bible absolutely literally, with all of its implications regarding the ancient hebrew worldview. i have never, ever seen a single person willing to do this. they all argue about how the world is really round, etc.[/edit]

Can God exist without faith?

yes. why wouldn't he? an all-powerful being who needs us to believe he exists?

Edited by arachnophilia, : added edit


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by honda33, posted 06-30-2006 12:00 PM honda33 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 06-30-2006 6:35 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Zucadragon
Member (Idle past 1872 days)
Posts: 61
From: Netherlands
Joined: 06-28-2006


Message 14 of 19 (327863)
06-30-2006 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by arachnophilia
06-29-2006 3:20 AM


In perspective, if you look at the whole picture, then everything is created by god, from the flood to the laws of the universe.. If through these laws and facts we come by an explenation of what happened with the flood, that it might not have been god "directly" in charge of it, but an accumulation of events.. Then dont worry, because the basis behind those events were still created by god.. Which means that the totallity is still gods doing :P.. Perhaps even purposely so..

I find it a lot more refreshing to have something I can observe and understand then to just assume it is something I will never understand ^^

So in perspective, your not taking god out of the picture.. Your just putting him in the bigger picture :P.. He made the machine, eventhough we can slowly figure out how it works, the machine itself says "made by god" on the front :).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by arachnophilia, posted 06-29-2006 3:20 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 07-03-2006 9:22 PM Zucadragon has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17538
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 15 of 19 (327876)
06-30-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by arachnophilia
06-30-2006 5:28 PM


arachnophilia writes:

an all-powerful being who needs us to believe he exists?

When the last believer stops believing, God disappears in a puff of smoke. :D

Sounds like a variation on The Nine Billion Names of God.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 06-30-2006 5:28 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by MangyTiger, posted 06-30-2006 6:48 PM ringo has not yet responded
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 07-03-2006 9:52 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019