Why I am creationist

This is my first post. I'm not particularly convinced this is a worthwhile endeavor. I tend to argue unlovingly a bit easily (not such a good witness to my faith). Further, my intuition from peeking around the boards is that my opinion isn't particularly welcome. We shall see.Why I am a Creationist...1. FaithFaith is why I am a creationist. Of course, there is much unpacking to be done. The Bible defines faith in an interesting way. Yes, I understand it is not the barometer of some. Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."So we cannot see God and prove He exists with our limited, scientific, human toolbox, but there is something interesting that stems out of a vibrant faith in God as a loving creator. I'll just throw out several verses to illustrate a running theme through the Bible:----------
Mat 9:22 Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well." And instantly the woman was made well.Mat 9:29 Then he touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith be it done to you."Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly.
Mat 21:22 And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith."
----------The point is this: those who have a faith in God as our Creator and Jesus Christ as the Son of God do indeed see His presence. Conversely to God healing and showing miraculous things to those who have faith in Him, the opposite is true for those who do not have faith in Him. Faith is a required element to communion with God. It is to this that true believers in God will all attest.Now, we can go further, I think, and ask whether this is a blind faith or a reasonable one. In some ways, most creationists here are probably really arguing that their faith is not a blind one. And to that I agree. I think it is foolishness to look at this world and mistake it for something random. But, those who do not believe find their science is more convincing otherwise I suppose. The point is this, though, God is real. Those with faith in God KNOW HE IS REAL.The reality is that science doesn't answer everything. Science is something we made up. That is why we have gotten so much science wrong through the ages. But creation is not made up. God made us and defined who we are. We can choose to believe that and magnify Him through the awe that follows from our increased understanding of just how miraculous His creation is. Or, we can use this man-made construct to define a different reality, one which denies God.

My guess is that any argument which let's science alone and uses other means as the thrust for reasoning feels non-threatening to the scientific minded on this board. It is thus "reasonable" because it is not really "arguable."This is just a thought, so do correct me if I'm wrong, that saying "faith is my reason" does not challenge "well science is mine!" http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Moods/mood12.gif

So, the number of people that claim to have experienced God over the documented history of man is not sufficient to claim He exists, while those who claim to not have experienced God can claim His non-existence only by their lack of experiencing Him?Am I misunderstanding you?

hmm...seems your post was already edited. The first was useful I think. Now my response doesn't make much sense. Oh well.

Do you think scientific parameters were defined without experience?

I beg to differ.Repetition of experiment: Have faith in God as Loving Creator
Result: God shows Himself clearly to that personRepeat that several million times and you have a pretty defendable method I'd say.

I am saying that at a basic level this is true.

I think you are simplifying how scientific methods and the very rules themselves for interpreting scientific results came about. My only point is that even the rules we use to distill good science (natural, falsifyible, etc..) are deemed appropriately sufficient because of experience. You know trust that it is the only lens you need to filter scientific truth. You trust that filter because there is enough collective experience to convince you it is a good filter.The same is true for belief in God as Creator. I am not really trying to Scientifize things here, I'm just saying the same ideological things are at work in convincing us.

Knight, I neglected to respond to your comment about several gods.My thoughts on that is that all of these different religions are recognizing that there is a God, and that God created them. I don't want to get too much into other religions here, but I will note that in many of these other religions, they don't claim to "experience God." Buddhism for example is about searching for a light. Christianity on the other hand claims that we have found that light in Jesus Christ. Regardless, let's just keep it at experience of a Creator for now.

quote:

---

why do I need to trust in something that is repeatable and observable?

---

Ok..I'm hearing you. I think I'm not asking you to take a very big step here though. All I'm saying is that you are convinced that whatever you believe is true based on experience. You say because it is "repeatable" and "observable." Observation is not an entirely objective process though!

quote:

---

Millons of Muslims say that their God is the true god. If more people become muslims, surely their collective experiences means that their god is more true that yours

---

Well..I'm trying to avoid the debate turning this way...but there have been more Christians over history than Muslims. Regardless...I'm not tryiing to say that the most followers means that idea is the winner. I'm just saying where our confidence comes from.You have confidence in scientific method based on repeated observation. I have confidence in the God of the Bible based on the testimony of many others and my own. "Experiments" are not inherently more reliable than "experience." They both have elements of subjectivity to them.

I think I swapped my "subjective" and "objective"

quote:

---

So what is it? Your experience of god more valid then that of a muslim?

---

I am not claiming my experience is more valid than anyone else's. I am not playing a sheer numbers game either. I am making a point that your beliefs are based on experience. I would like to continue that debate if you don't yet agree.

quote:

---

Do you propose taking a person's word for whether they have faith in God, and for whether God has revealed himself to them? If so, then this is contrary to normal scientific protocols where the demands of objectivity require eliminating personal beliefs and biases.

---

I admit that I am simplifying the scope of the argument a bit. I think some would claim to know God who do not. That is not something we can't always know, but must use our best guesses to determine.I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) your claim is that science has a rigerous enough and objective enough quality that it is to be more trusted than experience. I don't want to lure you into a trap here, so let me tell you exactly why I ask that...because, if it is a question over the reliability of something, then "trust" is relevent. I felt as if Knight was saying trust was not relevent. I think it is.I might also add that our biases and interests often encourage the kinds of experiments we choose to conduct in the first place. Now a level of subjectivity has already crept into the scientific process.My goal is not to argue the invalidity of scientific method, I am just trying to show that scientists have put their undying trust in their scientific method, but the method itself is not based on some absolutely unblemished process. If you are honest, you can admit that science has a failure rate just like anything.This message has been edited by Maestro232, 12-16-2004 03:41 PM

then why would anyone even entertain the idea of macro-evolution. You can't repeat it.

sure, but an observation still has to be interpreted before you can discern what it implies.