Best evidence for Creation

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 domainSo 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.

No, I have direct evidence that freedom is real, in the creationist sense, in my own experience. There's also some experimental scientific evidence that establishes it viz the hyperion of Mercury, and a harmonic oscillator or something.

Your objection to creationism expressed elsewhere, that you should believe by faith, not scientific evidence, is dealt with in the doctrine of creatio-ex-nihilo. That things come from nothing ensures that there is no possible evidence for God, or a science of good and bad. Except there is ofcourse subjective evidence, by reasonable judgement for instance.Yes common sense tells us that everything has to have been created, that is engrained in common knowledge, and you must philosophize very hard to escape that obvious fact, which is what you are doing with the bloody finger story.

You forget that nothing makes easy sense in math by the zero. And that is where they have calculated decisions come from, from nothing, and from nowhere.

BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT | BCS
2. Anticipation is Nowhere and its Logic is Nothing
(Michael A. Heather & B. Nick Rossiter)
"However anticipation seems to assume a more fundamental form of nothing. Before both mathematics and physics lies logic. There is the logic of nothing."So there's a few things you need to understand for creationism, which are not understood in regular science.- freedom
- the future, the present
- decision
- real time as distinguished from relative time
- nothing
- the spiritual realmNow obviously the main objection of atheists is with the spiritual realm, but that is a logical neccesity following from freedom. The spiritual realm is simply a name for what does the deciding. It is a logical construct that works. We can only know this spiritual realm by decision, so it is neccesarily subjective what is in there. Is it love, or hate, is it the devil or God? The question can only be answered with a decision.Creationism is the right way to do science, because otherwise you will end up with an "objective" pseudoscience of good and evil.So when you say you object to faith in God because of lack of evidence, you are equally saying good and evil are matters of scientific fact, not of faith.

You have to make clear how your creatio-ex-materia is not a science of good and evil. I don't see how you can avoid it, with your proof of God. The proof seems to inevitably lead to hard scientific knowledge of good and evil, which is forbidden knowledge.There seems to be little point in objecting to (social) darwinism, replacing it with a theory which also posits a science of good and evil.