McBell
Unbound
This seems to be completely beyond the comprehension of some people.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Allow me to pick this one apart...
There is also the possibility that people were lying ABOUT him, but never mind.
I can work with those alternatives.
Errr... No. He could very well be crazy.
Apart from the Bible we have no evidence of what he said or did.
As I sincerely hope you understand, you cannot use the Bible as evidence that the claims of the Bible is correct.
Also, there is no lack of people willing to follow crazy people who makes ridiculous claims.
Just look at Harold Camping.
By that account Jim Jones was also correct in his beliefs, not to mention any number of suicide bombers.
In other words, the crazy tag still fits rather well.
Both C.S. Lewis and I agree with you on this account.
You notion that happiness is the basis for morality is flawed and I have dealt with the origins of altruism and therefore morals here: Random thoughts about Science and the World - Where Do You Get Your Morals From?
There is also the possibility that people were lying ABOUT him, but never mind.
I can work with those alternatives.
Errr... No. He could very well be crazy.
Apart from the Bible we have no evidence of what he said or did.
As I sincerely hope you understand, you cannot use the Bible as evidence that the claims of the Bible is correct.
Also, there is no lack of people willing to follow crazy people who makes ridiculous claims.
Just look at Harold Camping.
By that account Jim Jones was also correct in his beliefs, not to mention any number of suicide bombers.
In other words, the crazy tag still fits rather well.
Both C.S. Lewis and I agree with you on this account.
You notion that happiness is the basis for morality is flawed and I have dealt with the origins of altruism and therefore morals here: Random thoughts about Science and the World - Where Do You Get Your Morals From?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Then why not, as Carl Sagan put it, save a step and say that the universe has existed forever, in one shape or another.
In its current form, certainly not.
In some other shape or form, perhaps as a singularity, it might very well be possible.
However, we do not know nearly enough about the origins of the universe to make that call yet.
Never forget: "I don't know" is a perfectly valid and honest answer.
The Multiverse concepts is one of several hypotheses and it is nowhere near being an accepted scientific Theory.
However, the basis for it is, while complicated, quite sound, and while we are not currently able to test that hypothesis, we may very well be in the near future. I recommend Michio Kaku's excellent book "Parallel Universes" for a more in depth explanation.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
That he in fact did such a thing is an unsubstantiated claim in and of itself.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Do you know the difference between objective evidence and subjective speculation?
Option four, he never said he was God.
Others did.
They were stories written about a rabbi over 60 years after his death.
Ethics and morality are the result of societal evolution.
And none of what you have presented is objective empirical evidence of creationism or intelligent design.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
You have verifiable objective evidence of this?
(And what has this to do with evidence for Creationism or ID?)
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
That's not the particular question asked in the OP. It may be important here but I think considering this is Evolution vs. Creationism we can skip that question and assume your god does exist. It answers the who (sort of) but not the how.
Because you say so is hardly evidence...but again, your god's "existence" is not really in question here.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
The global flood is a mythic story. There is no geological evidence that supports a global flood happening within the past 6, 10, or 13 thousand years.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Well, this thread really isn't about Yeshua (Jesus). As far as Yeshua as deity, well we have other threads going on that discuss this issue.
If Jesus was God, then he knows all truth. He confirmed creation happened. Again, trying to limit the discussing tightly to evolution vs. creationism/ID makes it impossible for creationists to discuss.
You cannot "prove" the Bible is God's words by appealing to a higher authority, because it must be higher than all else. If I appeal to scientific truth to make the case that the Bible is God's word, I assume that science is higher than God's word.
So here is the claim for the authority of the Bible (and thus on creation). Scripture proves itself. Scripture is God's word because it claims to be so. We believe these claims because scripture is God's word.
Yes, I know it's circular. But here's the point. All arguments for absolute authority have to be circular. If they aren't they appeal to something else, which makes that something else greater.
Other Examples of arguments for authority:
My reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to me to make it so.
Logical consistency is my U. A. because it is logical to make it so.
The finding of human sensory experiences are the ultimate authority for discovering reality (and non-reality) because human senses have never discovered anything else. So human sense experience tells me that my principle is true.
As for claiming to be God, this should suffice for now:
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (if you understand Old Testament, the statement "I AM" was a clear claim to be God.
John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”
John 17:5 “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.”
Mark 14:61 Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.”
As for the claim that people made up Jesus's words, if that were true, critics (and he had LOTS of them) would have pointed them out. Both the Romans and the Jewish leaders would have countered false claims to what he said. They wanted him dead after all.
You cannot "prove" the Bible is God's words by appealing to a higher authority, because it must be higher than all else. If I appeal to scientific truth to make the case that the Bible is God's word, I assume that science is higher than God's word.
So here is the claim for the authority of the Bible (and thus on creation). Scripture proves itself. Scripture is God's word because it claims to be so. We believe these claims because scripture is God's word.
Yes, I know it's circular. But here's the point. All arguments for absolute authority have to be circular. If they aren't they appeal to something else, which makes that something else greater.
Other Examples of arguments for authority:
My reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to me to make it so.
Logical consistency is my U. A. because it is logical to make it so.
The finding of human sensory experiences are the ultimate authority for discovering reality (and non-reality) because human senses have never discovered anything else. So human sense experience tells me that my principle is true.
As for claiming to be God, this should suffice for now:
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (if you understand Old Testament, the statement "I AM" was a clear claim to be God.
John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”
John 17:5 “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.”
Mark 14:61 Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.”
As for the claim that people made up Jesus's words, if that were true, critics (and he had LOTS of them) would have pointed them out. Both the Romans and the Jewish leaders would have countered false claims to what he said. They wanted him dead after all.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Again, not the thread for this topic. There are one or more ongoing threads dealing with this.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Honestly the idea of "God", whatever you call it, sounds like an excuse. How can you test the god hypothesis?
Do you see how this works...?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
So, your argument basically boils down to: "I think X is true, therefore X has to be true!"
Come on!
Is that it? :sarcastic
Depends on the method of dating the geological evidence.
That is not at all what I said. Read again carefully.
Actually the same applies to "scientific" "inquiry". It takes a whole lot of faith in the scientific method.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
I'm not aware of any dating method that indicates a worldwide flood in the last few thousand years. Care to enlighten us?
Ok. You all have been asking for evidence/proof. My turn. How can you prove these two statements?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
When you say that "scripture proves itself" you are doing exactly that.
It would be like me claiming that my claim that an invisible blue goblin lives under my kitchen sink is true because I claim it it true.
Do you see how this cannot possibly work?
Not even a little.
The scientific method is the singular most powerful idea we humans have come up with and we know it works.
How do we know?
Because you and I are right now communicating using technology that is the direct result of the scientific method.
Science works.
The end.
Personally, I think God could be anything, from a cell to a force to a white man with a beard...
Though self experience isn't proof to everyone, I'd say meditating (the type where you clear your mind and forget yourself) made me believe in a God. Just the feeling I get from it.
Anything else? Well, it depends on the definition of God. If you consider God as a creator being, wouldn't whatever caused the universe's expansion be able to be considered as God, even though it is not supernatural, has lots of powers, wants worship, and is amazing... So there is one God proven, though it may not be a good God, it proves the God under the definition of Creator. If that's not the God you are refering to, please describe.
Though self experience isn't proof to everyone, I'd say meditating (the type where you clear your mind and forget yourself) made me believe in a God. Just the feeling I get from it.
Anything else? Well, it depends on the definition of God. If you consider God as a creator being, wouldn't whatever caused the universe's expansion be able to be considered as God, even though it is not supernatural, has lots of powers, wants worship, and is amazing... So there is one God proven, though it may not be a good God, it proves the God under the definition of Creator. If that's not the God you are refering to, please describe.
If you are going to take this seriously and don't just want a simple short piece of evidence to argue over on the forum, check out the stuff by Berrry Settefield. I must go ahead and say I do not understand all of this by far.
This goes through the evidence for the first 11 chapters of Genesis. (Covers creation, flood, tower of babel, etc.)
Weekly_Studies 1
But specifically about the dating stuff. If you want to get really technical, look at Implications of a Non-Constant Velocity of Light. Especially of interest is his answer to the question that begins "Has anyone done the calculations, based on your theory of changing speed of light, to see if the radiometric dating..." Hopefully you can use the find tool to get to this. The questions aren't labeled clearly.
This may also be of interest:
Bibleandgeology