Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8994 total)
64 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 62 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,234 Year: 10,982/23,288 Month: 234/1,763 Week: 201/390 Day: 21/69 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Creationism?
Phat
Member
Posts: 14279
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 7 of 88 (808988)
05-15-2017 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
05-15-2017 10:43 AM


Creator by definition
CRR writes:

I couldn't find this discussed specifically as a topic. So tell me what you think Creationism is and what are the core beliefs? You will also need to say what sort of Creationism you are talking about.
Young Earth, Old Earth, Progressive Creation?
Are Deism, Theistic Evolution, and Intelligent Design forms of Creationism and how do they differ from the others?

Creationism presupposes a Creator.

RAZD writes:

To me all objective empirical evidence is evidence of reality and thus evidence of the result of creation.(...)When I first came here I said I was a deist and not a creationist, whereupon I was corrected (by Mr. Jack), that as I believed that god/s created the universe that I was de facto a creationist.

As a Deist, do you believe that the concept of a creator need be a personal One? (The Creator, that is)

Deism Defined writes:

belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

Wheras David Jay Jordan describes a Creator differently:

DJJ writes:

So Solomon seemed to try just about everything, and yet without success. So what then is the solution to Life, what does bring us happiness and fulfillment.? What are we all looking for anyway? Yet centuries later one poet was so brash as to say she had found the solution, that even the wisest man on Earth could not..
AH! SWEET MYSTERY OF LIFE, at last I've found thee; Ah! I know at last the secret of it all; All the longing, striving, seeking, waiting, yearning, The burning hopes, the joys and idle tears that fall! For 'tis LOVE, and love alone, the world is seeking; And it's love, and love alone, that can reply; 'Tis the ANSWER, tis the end and all of living.~Rida Johnson Young

So within the context of Creationism, we have either a personal relational Creator or a hypothetical nonrelational One who is nonetheless part of reality. Perhaps the relational aspect is the essence of our conversations. For some, the action of creative thought is itself evidence of a Creator. Comments?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2017 10:43 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 14279
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 9 of 88 (808991)
05-15-2017 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tangle
05-15-2017 8:20 AM


Which came first? The Mind or the matter?
Tangle writes:

What's wrong with the dictionary?

Creationist: a person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account.


The concept of a Creator need not be limited to an ancient storybook. The concept of creationism presupposes a source of creativity.

One may trace the source back to a primordial soup of chemicals. (Matter)

Or one may believe that the source is Mind. (Mind over matter)

Comments?

Edited by Phat, : fixed broken quote

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tangle, posted 05-15-2017 8:20 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tangle, posted 05-15-2017 12:34 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 14279
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 11 of 88 (808995)
05-15-2017 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
05-15-2017 11:52 AM


Source vs Content
I would say that for a creationist, the Creator supersedes any aspect of reality. At one end of the spectrum, you have creationists who reject reality entirely if it disagrees with their religion. At the other end, you have creationists who accept science but insist that God did it.
Would you thus argue that creative thought is itself no evidence of a Creator apart from yourself?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 05-15-2017 11:52 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 05-15-2017 12:14 PM Phat has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 14279
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 16 of 88 (809002)
05-15-2017 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ringo
05-15-2017 12:14 PM


Re: Source vs Content
Why would creative thought be evidence of a creator any more than any other human trait?
Does a Creator by definition require evidence or can it be a philosophical belief?

I would argue that life itself requires more than cosmological evolution. The argument hinges on the requirement of a supreme mind or nah.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 05-15-2017 12:14 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 05-15-2017 12:45 PM Phat has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 14279
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 59 of 88 (809969)
05-22-2017 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ringo
05-15-2017 12:45 PM


Re: Source vs Content
ringo writes:

A creator practically flies in the face of evidence.


Evidence is not the sole standard. Rational belief counts also.

Wiki writes:

The expression, "God of the Gaps," contains a real truth. It is erroneous if it is taken to mean that God is not immanent in natural law but is only to be observed in mysteries unexplained by law. No significant Christian group has believed this view. It is true, however, if it is taken to emphasize that God is not only immanent in natural law but also is active in the numerous phenomena associated with the supernatural and the spiritual. There are gaps in a physical-chemical explanation of this world, and there always will be. Because science has learned many marvelous secrets of nature, it cannot be concluded that it can explain all phenomena. Meaning, soul, spirits, and life subjects incapable of physical-chemical explanation or formation.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 05-15-2017 12:45 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 05-23-2017 11:36 AM Phat has responded
 Message 73 by dwise1, posted 05-23-2017 11:07 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 14279
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 70 of 88 (810086)
05-23-2017 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
05-23-2017 11:36 AM


Re: Source vs Content
"Rational belief" is an oxymoron.
If you expect every question to eventually be answered by evidence, you will be waiting for an eternity.

The only difference between you and I is that I decided to believe and you decided it was unproductive and unsatisfying.

I believe that science and evidence will not be enough to carry our species, while you evidently think that it is all we have. You have essentially given up on belief.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 05-23-2017 11:36 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 05-23-2017 11:50 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 72 by ringo, posted 05-23-2017 11:55 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 74 by dwise1, posted 05-24-2017 12:25 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 05-26-2017 10:59 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020