Creationists, please provide evidence

[McBell]

1) On naturalism, evolution selected for our cognitive system
2) On evolution, it is what is beneficial for survival that is selected

3) Therefore, our cognitive system was selected for survival
4) What is beneficial for survival is not necessarily what is true (in an objective sense)
5) Therefore, we can’t know (on naturalism) that our cognitive system is truth-seeking
6) If we can’t trust our cognitive system, but we come to the conclusion that naturalism is true, then we can’t trust this conclusion
7) Therefore, naturalism is self-defeating

So you are just making **** up as you go and expecting everyone to just accept it?

 

[Eldameldo]

God is not part of the system. He is super-natural. However, that does not mean he cannot be known through nature as he put his fingerprints all over it.

 

[Eldameldo]

So you are just making **** up as you go and expecting everyone to just accept it?

Actually not. The earlier thing was just a shorter version of this. I thought the rest was obvious, but apparently not. Could you please point out what is wrong with the logic?

 

[McBell]

God is not part of the system. He is super-natural. However, that does not mean he cannot be known through nature as he put his fingerprints all over it.

You did not answer the question:

So where did god come from?
​

Care to try again?

 

[McBell]

Actually not. The earlier thing was just a shorter version of this. I thought the rest was obvious, but apparently not. Could you please point out what is wrong with the logic?

Again you did not answer the questions:

And you base this bold statement on what?
What research supports this claim?

​

Care to try again?

 

[fantome profane]

I am a Creationist! I agree. So far I've seen nothing. When I get the time (hopefully in a couple hours) I'll post a thought or two on here. But just to kick it off, I think what needs to argued isn't necessarily Creationism vs. Evolution. It's Philosophical naturalism vs. supernaturalism. You may gawk at this, but think about it. The way most of you atheists define science completely excludes the supernatural (a creator), thus making the supernatural (God) something which cannot be evidenced scientifically. You automatically reduce religion, God, and the supernatural to personal preference.

I think rather the debate is between methodological naturalism and … well something that is not science (psuedo-science perhaps).

The debate between Philosophical naturalism vs. supernaturalism is a completely different debate. There are many scientists who accept evolution and are philosophically super-naturalists (Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus etc). Every good scientist must follow methodological naturalism when conducting scientific research, but they need not be philosophical naturalists. You don’t need to be a philosophical naturalist to accept evolution. Evolution is the product of methodological naturalism; it is the product of science.

 

[PolyHedral]

1) On naturalism, evolution selected for our cognitive system
2) On evolution, it is what is beneficial for survival that is selected

3) Therefore, our cognitive system was selected for survival
4) What is beneficial for survival is not necessarily what is true (in an objective sense)

Yes it is. Extrapolation from reality in such a way that it matches reality will be more beneficial than doing the same extrapolation and getting it wrong.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I am a Creationist! I agree. So far I've seen nothing. When I get the time (hopefully in a couple hours) I'll post a thought or two on here. But just to kick it off, I think what needs to argued isn't necessarily Creationism vs. Evolution. It's Philosophical naturalism vs. supernaturalism. You may gawk at this, but think about it. The way most of you atheists define science completely excludes the supernatural (a creator), thus making the supernatural (God) something which cannot be evidenced scientifically. You automatically reduce religion, God, and the supernatural to personal preference.

Welcome to the forum as well as the thread.

I think what needs to be argues is established facts vs. Fiction. If you know the history of the people of the area that gave rise to the "Hebrews" you get an understanding how convoluted the stories of the bible are. That creation narrative and the flood narrative are first told in the Sumerian account that predates the bible. Theses stories have been retold and modified thus you have the biblical account basically mimicking its predecessor.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The way you have defined science means that there is no way I can convince you that God exists because any evidence for him you would consider unscientific.

We've tried to do this in various threads so I'll attempt this again. Let's all assume the god of the bible is the creator. Now that we've gotten the "WHO" out of the way let us now focous on the "HOW". The Theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the "origin" of life on this planet rather its attention is focused on the diversification of (existing) life on this planet. The Abrahamic religions can't answer the how.

 

[Eldameldo]

Dirty Penguin, what do you mean the How? God created everything out of nothing according to its kind.

 

[Eldameldo]

Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause.

 

[Eldameldo]

Re: Where did God come from?

Honestly I have a hard time understanding this question. He has existed from eternity past, even before you can call it "time", because time depends on the existence of matter.

 

[Eldameldo]

Dirty Penguin, check out the tablet theory sometime. Also, cultures on North America also knew about the flood. How did that happen? Either the flood was in the memory of the people there oooooorrr aliens told them?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause.

Whatever began to exist has a cause.
God began to exist.
Therefore god has a cause.

See, we can play this nonsensical game too.
Oh, wait. I think I know what you're about to say: But god has existed forever.
Alright, so what stops the universe from always existing in one shape or another?
Sure, we know that the universe AS WE KNOW IT started with the Big Bang and Inflation, but who is to say that the singularity it popped out of did not exist forever.

Re: Where did God come from?

Honestly I have a hard time understanding this question. He has existed from eternity past, even before you can call it "time", because time depends on the existence of matter.

See above.
Time ceases to have any meaning in a singularity.
And yes, time is relative.
Would you like to learn about it?

 

[Eldameldo]

EVIDENCE:
For now, I'll mention two pieces of evidence. The moderators may throw this out, but I think it relates directly to this.
One:
I put forth Jesus as evidence of the supernatural. He claimed to be God.
So you've got three choices:
he was God
he was lying
he was crazy
If you read the gopsel accounts, it's absolutely impossible to say he was crazy. The things he said, did, and the way the people around him responded do not allow for a crazy man. If Jesus were a liar, why would he die for his claim, when he could easily have avoided such a cruel death with a few choice words? (By the way, this rules out the option of his just being a "good man" or "good teacher". If he's lying, he's not a good teacher, otherwise he's God or crazy)


The other piece of evidence involves morals/ethics. I refer you to my post in that section for this: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/ethics-morals/116963-chief-good-glory-god-ethical-approach.html

 

[Eldameldo]

Also on Jesus, he rose from the dead which validated his claims.

 

[Eldameldo]

jarofthoughts:
Oh, wait. I think I know what you're about to say: But god has existed forever.
--Yes, God existed forever.

Alright, so what stops the universe from always existing in one shape or another?
--The evidence does not allow for an ever existing universe. Honestly, the idea of multiverse or whatever you want to call it sounds like an excuse. Honestly this begins to sound like a religion. He can you test the multiverse theory?

 

[McBell]

EVIDENCE:
For now, I'll mention two pieces of evidence. The moderators may throw this out, but I think it relates directly to this.
One:
I put forth Jesus as evidence of the supernatural. He claimed to be God.
So you've got three choices:
he was God
he was lying
he was crazy
If you read the gopsel accounts, it's absolutely impossible to say he was crazy. The things he said, did, and the way the people around him responded do not allow for a crazy man. If Jesus were a liar, why would he die for his claim, when he could easily have avoided such a cruel death with a few choice words? (By the way, this rules out the option of his just being a "good man" or "good teacher". If he's lying, he's not a good teacher, otherwise he's God or crazy)


The other piece of evidence involves morals/ethics. I refer you to my post in that section for this: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/ethics-morals/116963-chief-good-glory-god-ethical-approach.html

Still waiting for the evidence.

All you presented thus far is justifications for your belief.

 

[McBell]

jarofthoughts:
Oh, wait. I think I know what you're about to say: But god has existed forever.
--Yes, God existed forever.

Alright, so what stops the universe from always existing in one shape or another?
--The evidence does not allow for an ever existing universe. Honestly, the idea of multiverse or whatever you want to call it sounds like an excuse. Honestly this begins to sound like a religion. He can you test the multiverse theory?

You keep talking evidence but have not presented anything but justifications.

When are you going to start with evidence?

 

[McBell]

Also on Jesus, he rose from the dead which validated his claims.

IF the CLAIM he rose from the dead is actually true...

Supporting claims with even more claims does nothing for your argument.