|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,818 Year: 4,075/9,624 Month: 946/974 Week: 273/286 Day: 34/46 Hour: 6/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Best evidence for Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
Creation. Self-evident. Welcome to the fray, jamison. Unfortunately that's a very poor start, even for a three-word post. That the Universe was created is not self-evident; you simply assume it to be so. And unfortunately, personal credulity proves absolutely nothing. How would you differentiate between a Created Unvierse and a non-Created Universe? What would be the properties that distinguish one from the other, and why? If you cannot answer that question and a Created Unvierse is identical in every way to a non-Created Universe, you have nothing more than a base assumption. (and to pre-empt the question of why it's okay to "assume" a non-Created Unvierse but not a Created one, well...we have evidence that the universe exists. We're part of it. We do not have evidence of the existence of a Creator) To propose an analogy, let's take an image:
Is this art, the work of an intelligent designer? Or is this simply spilled paint, random chance and chaos? The probability of the paint landing in exactly the pattern seen is astronomically small...but then, it had to land in some configuration, didn't it? How would you distinguish simple spilled paint from an abstract masterpiece? How would one distinguish a Created Universe from a non-Created one? We have an advantage with art - we have multiple examples of both accidents and actual art, while we have only one Universe to study, with no other Universes to compare it to and contrast their properties. We also have artists who are more than willing to take credit for their work, while any deities seem fairly silent - the only claims of their existence come from their followers, who both can never objectively substantiate their claims and are so disparate that it seems every culture has their own proposed Creator, each with a completely different methodology and personality, and sometimes not even just one. Sure, we have ancient texts like the Bible, but we also have thousands of other texts from ancient religions around the world. Given the same objective amount of evidence, you embrace one but would scoff at, say, the Egyptian religion, or the Norse gods. So clearly, the mere existence of the Universe is not self-evident support for a Creator, any more than paint necessarily provides evidence for a painter - particularly with no additional examples to compare with. Your claim that a Creator exists leaves a lot to be desired.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Rahvin writes: How would you differentiate between a Created Unvierse and a non-Created Universe? What would be the properties that distinguish one from the other, and why? One exists and one doesn't. Look around.. if you see anything that resembles a universe thenthe chances are it was created. The non-created one doesn't exist because it hasn't been created. Edited by LucyTheApe, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
LucyThePhilosophicalApe writes: One exists and one doesn't. Look around.. if you see anything that resembles a universe thenthe chances are it was created. The non-created one doesn't exist because it hasn't been created. Sounds like a good argument for the non-existence of a non-created creator. Look around.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Sounds like a good argument for the non-existence of a non-created creator. Look around..... ~(~(Creator)) = Creator! Thanks bluegenes finally you agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
LucyTheApe writes: Thanks bluegenes finally you agree. Your formula doesn't fit my words. A non-created creator not existing does not mean that a creator exists. There's no double negative there. As soon as you imply that the existence of something requires a creator, you automatically imply that the existent creator requires a creator, and you hit the road towards infinite regression (while blaspheming your God). Careful, Lucy. Remember the eternal fires of your cruel and sadistic deity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
I introduced another fossil a while back which is seen by evolutionists as a transitional from lizard to snake, but could surely be presented by creationists as evidence as well.
Thread here. BBC article here. This is a fossilized snake with two legs, which could surely be Serpentus Erectus, the species before the unfortunate fruit eating incident and the fall. It is a fossil that illustrates Genesis directly:
quote: It's not yet clear if the fossil shows evidence of vocal chords. Combined with Adam's foot print mentioned further up the thread, I'd say that the creationist case is looking pretty strong. What young earth paleontologists are looking for now (in their oxymoronic way) is evidence of the third famous inhabitant of the Garden. A discreet (post-fall) fig leaf with the Hebrew letter "E" embroidered on it would be a great find, for example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4482 days) Posts: 128 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
When I do read a evo/creo thread, or discuss the topic with 'street-preachers', what they consider to be their best argument is that 'evolution is only a theory', or they might mention 'missing links'. However, this is not the kind of 'evidence' I am looking for, I would like to see evidence FOR creation, and not just evidence against evolution because IF evolution is incorrect this doesn't mean that creation is true. Thank you for saying that, Brian. It's a very good point. I think Answers made good comments in Message 9. Everything can be seen as consistent with belief in creationism. It's mostly unfalsifiable, and thus scientifically useless. Doesn't mean there isn't a Creator, just that there's no means for scientifically proving one way or the other.I really think faith has to be invoked for one to fully embrace any specific theistic religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
bluegenes writes: As soon as you imply that the existence of something requires a creator, you automatically imply that the existent creator requires a creator, No: Existence requires a Creator doesn't mean that a Creator requiresexistence; it means that you can't have existence without a Creator. You can't argue that a Creator exists, you can only try and argue thathe doesn't. Existence is an axiom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Look around.. if you see anything that resembles a universe then the chances are it was created. The non-created one doesn't exist because it hasn't been created. How does that follow? Aren't you just assuming your answer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
LucyTheRatherConfusedApe writes: No: Existence requires a Creator doesn't mean that a Creator requiresexistence; it means that you can't have existence without a Creator. It means that a creator requires a creator in order to exist, and so the infinite regression, which itself (the regression) requires a creator etc.
LucyTheApeBrain writes: You can't argue that a Creator exists, you can only try and argue that he doesn't. You can try and argue anything you want.
LucyTheLawmaker writes: Existence is an axiom. No it isn't. Existence is the default position for things we can observe either directly or indirectly. It is a possibility for things we can hypothesise the existence of with some evidence, and an improbability for speculative suggestions for which we have no evidence. Which category does your creator God fit into is sort of the topic of the thread. Have you any evidence for creationism? So far, bluegenes is the only one to attempt a presentation of hard evidence from the fossil record. Simian level philosophy is not evidence, LucyTheSimian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Why do threads with an OP like this one always do this?
I strongly suspect that I know that answer, but just for giggles, Comrade Evilutionists, let's all stand back a bit and see if one our creationist friends will rise to the challenge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi,
If it was self evident I wouldn't have asked the question. If it is self evident to you then fine. Is the identity of the creator also self evident?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I really think faith has to be invoked for one to fully embrace any specific theistic religion. That's an excellent point and I firmly believe that creationists who present 'evidence' for creation have a WEAK faith. I think the people who look for things such as Noah's Ark, and other biblical artefacts, have a very weak faith. Religions require that adherents have faith that what that religion promotes and teaches is true. Looking for evidence to support what a religion claims suggests that the person who takes this approach doesn't have that much faith in their religion. Remember the hullabaloo over the Ossuary of James the Brother of Jesus? Although ultimately it was a fake, I really don't see what difference it should make to someone's faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour if it was somehow confirmed that the contents did contain the remains of Jesus' bro.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Well, freedom is established to be real, by various studies, most notably Dubois' strong anticipation theory. But the best evidence for creation is not that much in science or religion, the best evidence is still in common sense, and common knowledge.
Basicly common knowledge, strong anticipation theory, and "common" religion posit 3 general creationist principles: - that decisions occur throughout the universe- that creation comes from nothing, creatio ex nihilo - that what creates lays in the spiritual domain So for best evidence I refer to common sense, or otherwise Dubois' strong anticpation theory. On the meaning of the last principle; the spiritual domain is simply the category of knowledge that we know by decision. So for instance the knowledge about who loves who, is already knowledge about the spiritual domain. This knowledge is not based on objective fact, or so to say passing on information we find in the universe, this information is created by ourselves. So we know who loves who by a decision in our heart. Since we can trace back history far in time with only a few universal laws, to the beginning of the universe almost, it's therefore true that big decisions at the beginning of the universe created much of what we see now. For if on the other hand we couldn't trace back to the beginning of the universe, then there would als not be big decisions at the beginning of the universe, but then there would only be small decisions and we wouldn't be able to come close to the beginning. Or so to say, you can't for instance trace back history with only a few principles, if very many unique decisions were made in that history. Then you would have to find all those unique decisions, to trace back the history. So you see just by using common sense, you can get the best evidence for creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
So you would say that the best evidence for creation is a philosophical argument?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024