Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5696 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 29 of 176 (477117)
07-30-2008 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
07-29-2008 9:02 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 07-29-2008 9:02 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Brian, posted 07-30-2008 11:42 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5696 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 31 of 176 (477130)
07-30-2008 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Brian
07-30-2008 11:42 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Brian, posted 07-30-2008 11:42 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Brian, posted 07-30-2008 2:21 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5696 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 46 of 176 (477161)
07-30-2008 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Brian
07-30-2008 2:21 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Brian, posted 07-30-2008 2:21 PM Brian has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5696 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 50 of 176 (477167)
07-30-2008 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by cavediver
07-30-2008 4:43 PM


Re: no sense whatsoever
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2008 4:43 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 4:32 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5696 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 133 of 176 (479021)
08-23-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by cavediver
07-31-2008 4:32 AM


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 realm
Now 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 4:32 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5696 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 136 of 176 (479033)
08-23-2008 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Cold Foreign Object
08-23-2008 1:15 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-23-2008 1:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024