The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[BilliardsBall]

I have quoted your posts, word for word, in my responses. What is it that you are claiming is self-evident then?

You keep saying Creation is self-evident. What creation? By whom or what? Do you not believe that the specific god you believe in created the universe?


Here you go again claiming that "God is self-evidently Creator." You have a problem where you repeatedly just assert a claim(s) as truth without ever providing any evidence. And when asked for evidence you say it's "self-evident." This was the EXACT point that I used to kick off this discussion between us. If it's so self-evident it should be incredibly easy to demonstrate! And yet you've demonstrated here that it is not easy to demonstrate, or else you would have done so by now. You've had enough opportunities by now.


Maybe you could start by actually addressing the point, for once.

I would reframe your debate stance this way: "You are in denial, so like anything you deny, you avoid the pain of accepting that which is self-evident."

It should be incredibly easy to demonstrate you and I can be self-destructive in human relationships, and that good people build trust rather than tear it down, so why do you do so?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. Is the total sum of matter/mass zero also?

No, but it is included in the calculation for total energy. It appears that you forgot that mass is energy.

2. If the answer to #1 is yes, does that mean you have neither matter nor energy and do not exist? Or will you admit that since there is no energy in the universe, your energy/fighting against inertia is spiritual/metaphysical?

False dichotomy. See above.

3. Do you have answers for apologetics other than the usual "you don't understand X realm of science"? If not, why do you persist on this forum?

What "apologetics"? Most so called apologetics that I have ever seen are people merely lying for Jesus. And why does it bother you so much when people point out your scientific illiteracy? The cure is to learn.

4. Are you saying that if you learn God Created All, you would trust Jesus for salvation?

Sorry, that makes no sense. You probably do not see your error there.

5. Since you have trouble understanding the evidence as revealed, are you saying God didn't Create this universe your way, so God must be wrong?

Now you are simply not being honest.

Try again.

6. Why didn't you address the shortcomings in your view before debating my beliefs?

My shortcomings are microscopic compared to yours. Learn first. Then you can criticize.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would reframe your debate stance this way: "You are in denial, so like anything you deny, you avoid the pain of accepting that which is self-evident."

It should be incredibly easy to demonstrate you and I can be self-destructive in human relationships, and that good people build trust rather than tear it down, so why do you do so?

We have. You keep forgetting that you are in denial.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I suggest instead that we wait for the evidence to give an answer one way or the other.

We know 'creation' isn't a violations of the laws we know...so why do you think it impossible?

A great answer you gave here!

Unfortunately, when applied to God and salvation, some will get "enough" evidence post-death and judgment, IMHO.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, of course it is. It gave no details concerning the applicable laws of physics. It gave no description of the early universe that matches reality. It is as much of a coincidence as the Greek atomists being right about atoms.

Besides, the non-science book *doesn't* describe the creation from nothing. There was already a deity and a 'deep'.

It describes this universe as Created by an outside entity within deep darkness. The singularity of the BB had all the light, right?

Your post puts me in mind of Peter's statement in the NT, hated by scientists for millennia until modern times, when He said Jesus holds this universe together at the sub-elemental level (!) and further, that when God dissolves the elements, there will be tremendous heat and noise (!).

Now, think about the small quantity of atoms needing to be pulled apart for nuclear fission or fusion!

Coincidence? How many coincidences you'll have to tell God about in the judgment, I wonder?! (IMHO).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not in the slightest. You have the burden of proof, since you claim education removes the delusions of theism. Most persons, when looking at facts and logic, reject a flat Earth and hoaxed Moon landings. Yet you make an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence--that the vast, overwhelming majority of persons, I would say over 95% of persons, are in touch with the numinous, even though education should destroy their delusions, making the God Delusion the ONLY delusion that nearly ALL educated persons believe. That's ridiculous on its face.

If the vast majority of people believe in fairies, does that make fairies real?

I'll help you out. The answer is no.

All we've asked for (over and over) is evidence for your claims. That you can't seem to provide any is your failing, not that of the people who are skeptical of the claims.

And further, almost every person I know finds religious skeptics on religious forums excessively useless and annoying with their stubborn perspectives--except their fellow skeptics, IMHO.

You don't like your beliefs being challenged, we get it. Maybe debate forums aren't for you.

I find almost nothing you say "very compelling" as you wrote, because you and the others are incredibly closed-minded. Often, your group comes from a religious home, and you turn past abuse (unfortunate, I'm sorry) or parent-hating issues into Internet trolling. That's awful, and respectfully, I recommend Christian counseling rather than attacking good servants of God like me on forums.

Oh come off it. You're not being attacked. Rather, your ideas are being challenged. And I'm sorry to say, you're not doing a very good job defending them.

Close-minded? We keep telling you that we're open to evidence. Why do you think I keep asking you for it? Let us know when you can bother yourself to present some.

The rest of this is just a bunch of junk some religious-minded people tell themselves when they can't quite seem to figure out why others don't believe exactly the same as they do. Instead of just listening to what the person has to say, you make up these strange claims about skeptics. I was never abused as a child. I love(d) my parents dearly. I just decided to read the Bible front to back and realized that it doesn't make any sense and so I couldn't believe any longer. That's it. Nobody abused me and I don't hate my parents.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would reframe your debate stance this way: "You are in denial, so like anything you deny, you avoid the pain of accepting that which is self-evident."

It should be incredibly easy to demonstrate you and I can be self-destructive in human relationships, and that good people build trust rather than tear it down, so why do you do so?

What?

How about just for once, you respond to things I've actually said and address the actual point. Just once would be great.

I have to ask myself why you're always so evasive when asked to back up your claims. Have you asked yourself that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

A great answer you gave here!

Unfortunately, when applied to God and salvation, some will get "enough" evidence post-death and judgment, IMHO.

And that's their own fault? What is wrong with God that he can't be bothered to give us any actual demonstrable evidence while we're alive?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It describes this universe as Created by an outside entity within deep darkness. The singularity of the BB had all the light, right?

Your post puts me in mind of Peter's statement in the NT, hated by scientists for millennia until modern times, when He said Jesus holds this universe together at the sub-elemental level (!) and further, that when God dissolves the elements, there will be tremendous heat and noise (!).

Now, think about the small quantity of atoms needing to be pulled apart for nuclear fission or fusion!

Coincidence? How many coincidences you'll have to tell God about in the judgment, I wonder?! (IMHO).

Oh, so the Bible actually says "sub-elemental level?" Please share that quote with us.

What "scientists" have hated Peter's statement in the NT for millennia? Modern science didn't emerge until around the 16th Century. Subatomic particles weren't identified until 1897.

And maybe you could explain how your claim is a coincidence of some sort. I'm not seeing it.

 

[Polymath257]

A great answer you gave here!

Unfortunately, when applied to God and salvation, some will get "enough" evidence post-death and judgment, IMHO.

No good reason to suspect this is the case. Your myths don't scare me.

 

[Polymath257]

It describes this universe as Created by an outside entity within deep darkness. The singularity of the BB had all the light, right?

Um, no. The BB was *all of space* at that point...no separation into a 'lit location' and a 'dark location'.

Your post puts me in mind of Peter's statement in the NT, hated by scientists for millennia until modern times, when He said Jesus holds this universe together at the sub-elemental level (!) and further, that when God dissolves the elements, there will be tremendous heat and noise (!).

Now, think about the small quantity of atoms needing to be pulled apart for nuclear fission or fusion!

Coincidence? How many coincidences you'll have to tell God about in the judgment, I wonder?! (IMHO).

It always amazes me when people read stuff into old books that was certainly not the intended meaning. Where, for example, is there *any* mention of a sub-elemental level?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You have the burden of proof, since you claim education removes the delusions of theism.

Where did I claim that?

Yet you make an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence--that the vast, overwhelming majority of persons, I would say over 95% of persons, are in touch with the numinous, even though education should destroy their delusions, making the God Delusion the ONLY delusion that nearly ALL educated persons believe. That's ridiculous on its face.

The people who claim that a deity created something bear the burden of proof.

 

[Audie]

We have. You keep forgetting that you are in denial.

If it were self evident then there'd be no need for faith.
Yet "faith" is such a high virtue in godism.

What gives?

 

[Audie]

Where did I claim that?

You claimed that out in the parallel universe wherein
dwelleth the creationists.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You said that creation was "self-evident" except to "the wicked skeptic", meaning any skeptic who doesn't think creation is "self-evident" (I.E: atheists) are wicked.

NEWS FLASH: The Bible reported millennia ago that skeptics, like everyone else, do wickedness. I'm self-aware of my sin, and acknowledge my need for a Savior.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, but it is included in the calculation for total energy. It appears that you forgot that mass is energy.



False dichotomy. See above.


What "apologetics"? Most so called apologetics that I have ever seen are people merely lying for Jesus. And why does it bother you so much when people point out your scientific illiteracy? The cure is to learn.



Sorry, that makes no sense. You probably do not see your error there.



Now you are simply not being honest.

Try again.



My shortcomings are microscopic compared to yours. Learn first. Then you can criticize.

If mass is energy and the sum total of energy is zero--you have no energy. Indeed, I find your posts lack energy.

**Now you are simply not being honest.**

I do not lie when I post here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If mass is energy and the sum total of energy is zero--you have no energy. Indeed, I find your posts lack energy.

**Now you are simply not being honest.**

I do not lie when I post here.

I seriously doubt your last statement, but let's fix your earlier error. The total energy of the universe is zero and mass is positive energy. How does one make the equation balance? The answer should be obvious. Do you need some help? I even gave a rather heavy hint for you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What?

How about just for once, you respond to things I've actually said and address the actual point. Just once would be great.

I have to ask myself why you're always so evasive when asked to back up your claims. Have you asked yourself that?

Why, whatever do you mean?

 

[BilliardsBall]

And that's their own fault? What is wrong with God that he can't be bothered to give us any actual demonstrable evidence while we're alive?

It's not your fault if you are yet to ever encounter God. What I wish to emphasize is what to do when this occurs--respond in trust.

Also, a lot of people cite the love and cross of Christ as powerful, demonstrative. But if you are yet to get evidence in your life to date--personal experience--don't be bitter, please, because it sounds like you're saying "God didn't appear on my timetable, so God must be wrong."

 

[BilliardsBall]

If the vast majority of people believe in fairies, does that make fairies real?

I'll help you out. The answer is no.

All we've asked for (over and over) is evidence for your claims. That you can't seem to provide any is your failing, not that of the people who are skeptical of the claims.


You don't like your beliefs being challenged, we get it. Maybe debate forums aren't for you.


Oh come off it. You're not being attacked. Rather, your ideas are being challenged. And I'm sorry to say, you're not doing a very good job defending them.

Close-minded? We keep telling you that we're open to evidence. Why do you think I keep asking you for it? Let us know when you can bother yourself to present some.

The rest of this is just a bunch of junk some religious-minded people tell themselves when they can't quite seem to figure out why others don't believe exactly the same as they do. Instead of just listening to what the person has to say, you make up these strange claims about skeptics. I was never abused as a child. I love(d) my parents dearly. I just decided to read the Bible front to back and realized that it doesn't make any sense and so I couldn't believe any longer. That's it. Nobody abused me and I don't hate my parents.

The vast majority of people do not believe in fairies, but do believe in God. That's the issue--I cannot think of a single anything other than the divine where most people believe despite being presented contrary evidence.

Hate and parental abuse lead to a cycle of hate. My concern for you is different, your personal pride and cynicism IMHO. "God didn't do X my way when I read the Bible, so God must be wrong!"