The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[SkepticThinker]

I came to Jesus while a Junior in college, I've consistently, constantly, sifted evidence. I will continue to do so. I'm unafraid.


Feel free to post your top three "proofs" here.

Proofs of what?

We're done here. Your claim is refuted by your inability to answer the question.

If you ever do find any evidence for your supposedly self-evident claim, please do let me know. I'd love to hear it.

 

[ecco]

Why does the fact that parts of the Bible cannot taken literally threaten your belief so much? I have found that it is the weak in faith that demand the creation myths be true.

Most people take their religious scriptures and pick and choose what to believe and what to dismiss, for whatever reasons.

I have more respect for those who choose to believe all (or none) is "the Word Of God".

 

[Audie]

Most people take their religious scriptures and pick and choose what to believe and what to dismiss, for whatever reasons.

I have more respect for those who choose to believe all (or none) is "the Word Of God".

Well, there ya go. I may have respect for a person
in general, but I could never respect the self deception of "choosing to believe".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most people take their religious scriptures and pick and choose what to believe and what to dismiss, for whatever reasons.

I have more respect for those who choose to believe all (or none) is "the Word Of God".

I know, but literalists will tend to vehemently deny that they are guilty of the same. They will all have all sorts of excuses when one points out that they do not stone women that were not virgins on their wedding night or other OT excesses, but they can't see that they could and should do the same for Genesis.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then why can't you deal honestly with the topic of evolution? That implies great fear on your part. Why does the fact that parts of the Bible cannot taken literally threaten your belief so much? I have found that it is the weak in faith that demand the creation myths be true.

Clearly, you claim to be dispassionate on the issues while again (and again and again) accusing me of dishonesty. But you must because if I'm honest, it thwarts your worldview. Case in point above:

I AM dealing honesty with evolution. I frequently read papers, articles and more discussing the issues from both sides, not just the Creationists.

Your go to EVERY time lately is I'm dishonest. It never even occurs to you to write, "There is a lot of data that points to evolution being mechanistic. Do you want to discuss it?" as much different than "Everyone is settled on the issue except liars." I would NEVER, EVER, EVER call a pro-choice person or pro gay-marriage person (for which there is far more at stake IMHO than evolution) a LIAR. I respect that they have chosen to interpret some data differently, and the more I listen, the more I hear.

YOU DON'T LISTEN. I've further said at least a dozen times on our threads I believe evolution is real, active, valid. I do not, however, find it credulous that it is responsible for certain, well, godlike powers you ascribe to it.

If you want to talk like an adult about the issues, let's do so. Expect me to be evasive for as long as you use the dishonest word with me. It's just not true.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Proofs of what?

We're done here. Your claim is refuted by your inability to answer the question.

If you ever do find any evidence for your supposedly self-evident claim, please do let me know. I'd love to hear it.

Top three proofs that you exist, or if you prefer, that I exist. Your solipsism is showing.

Why would I need to provide evidence that something is self-evident to me or any other party. It just is--you know--like your own existence, do you disagree? Is there "obvious" evidence that you'd care to present that you or I exist beyond your assertions that it's "obvious".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Clearly, you claim to be dispassionate on the issues while again (and again and again) accusing me of dishonesty. But you must because if I'm honest, it thwarts your worldview. Case in point above:

I AM dealing honesty with evolution. I frequently read papers, articles and more discussing the issues from both sides, not just the Creationists.

Your go to EVERY time lately is I'm dishonest. It never even occurs to you to write, "There is a lot of data that points to evolution being mechanistic. Do you want to discuss it?" as much different than "Everyone is settled on the issue except liars." I would NEVER, EVER, EVER call a pro-choice person or pro gay-marriage person (for which there is far more at stake IMHO than evolution) a LIAR. I respect that they have chosen to interpret some data differently, and the more I listen, the more I hear.

YOU DON'T LISTEN. I've further said at least a dozen times on our threads I believe evolution is real, active, valid. I do not, however, find it credulous that it is responsible for certain, well, godlike powers you ascribe to it.

If you want to talk like an adult about the issues, let's do so. Expect me to be evasive for as long as you use the dishonest word with me. It's just not true.

How ironic. You complain about it when I point out your dishonesty and then you make this statement: "I do not, however, find it credulous that it is responsible for certain, well, godlike powers you ascribe to it."

No one has claimed that evolution has godlike powers. That is again an example of either dishonesty or ignorance. You claim to "sift the evidence" yet you do not appear to have a proper method of even understanding the evidence.

When it comes to interpreting scientific data there is a correct method for doing so. One follows the scientific method. Creationists do not tend to do that. In fact most creationist sites make their workers sign an oath not to do so. How can you give them any credibility at all when they do that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Top three proofs that you exist, or if you prefer, that I exist. Your solipsism is showing.

Why would I need to provide evidence that something is self-evident to me or any other party. It just is--you know--like your own existence, do you disagree? Is there "obvious" evidence that you'd care to present that you or I exist beyond your assertions that it's "obvious".

You keep making the same error when it comes to attacking others by calling them solipsists. Though it may not be possible to "prove" that someone one is conversing with on line is real, though I don't think computer simulations are not quite up to that potential, one can and does react with people in person and that can logically be extended to those that we meet online. If anyone appears to be a victim of solipsism here it is you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How ironic. You complain about it when I point out your dishonesty and then you make this statement: "I do not, however, find it credulous that it is responsible for certain, well, godlike powers you ascribe to it."

No one has claimed that evolution has godlike powers. That is again an example of either dishonesty or ignorance. You claim to "sift the evidence" yet you do not appear to have a proper method of even understanding the evidence.

When it comes to interpreting scientific data there is a correct method for doing so. One follows the scientific method. Creationists do not tend to do that. In fact most creationist sites make their workers sign an oath not to do so. How can you give them any credibility at all when they do that?

I'm sincerely curious about this oath, since I try to follow the hypothesis method, never discounting a claim, including any of yours, but accepting it as true, then testing via logic and research. Please tell me more.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You keep making the same error when it comes to attacking others by calling them solipsists. Though it may not be possible to "prove" that someone one is conversing with on line is real, though I don't think computer simulations are not quite up to that potential, one can and does react with people in person and that can logically be extended to those that we meet online. If anyone appears to be a victim of solipsism here it is you.

I'm not talking about your online avatar--I'm asking what your proof is that you exist, since most atheists trust in documents for which they were not present/sentient (birth certificates) and reliable eyewitnesses for which they were not present/sentient (parents) and then despite Christians for trusting in documents written by eyewitnesses--or else atheists tend to admit they feel it is self-evident to them that they exist, then disdain Christians for claiming God is self-evident to them.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not talking about your online avatar--I'm asking what your proof is that you exist, since most atheists trust in documents for which they were not present/sentient (birth certificates) and reliable eyewitnesses for which they were not present/sentient (parents) and then despite Christians for trusting in documents written by eyewitnesses--or else atheists tend to admit they feel it is self-evident to them that they exist, then disdain Christians for claiming God is self-evident to them.

Except the Christians *don't* rely on documents from eyewitnesses. They rely on documents created well after the events that were *attributed*, mostly falsely, to eyewitnesses. They ignore the fact that many false documents were common in the first centuries of Christianity and that the documents collected in the Bible were collected for mainly political reasons hundreds of years after the events, often with competing documents giving very different descriptions. The provenance of most of the writings is much more in doubt that that of, say, Ceasar's descriptions of his campaigns in Gaul.

And let's face it, different types of claims are very different in the default willingness to be unskeptical: everyone has parents, so the default is to believe what people say about their parents. But, by the very nature of miracles, there *should* be a lot of skepticism towards claims of such. Much more substance should be required to show a violation of the laws of physics than is required to say that someone had a father.

Also, it isn't reliability of the witness as much as reliability of the witness to report *what* was witnessed. Someone claiming to know what God thinks should be met with far more skepticism than someone reporting what their father thought. To be reliable on the latter is easy. To be reliable on the former would be very unlikely. Even an eyewitness claiming a miracle occurred should be met with a lot of skepticism because we *know* people can be fooled easily.

As for self-evident, we all start out with our senses. We find it evident that the chair in the room actually exists. But once we go beyond immediate perception, there is more difficulty. That is why there is a requirement that ideas be tested and that they be required to make non-trivial predictions of new observations.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Top three proofs that you exist, or if you prefer, that I exist. Your solipsism is showing.

MY solipsism? Sorry, is that a projection?

You're talking to me right now. How's that for proof I exist? And like I pointed out when you challenged my husband's existence; I can provide documentation (driver's licence, birth certificate, health insurance card, social insurance card) and photographs of him. I could show you his old report cards from his school days. I can produce his parents and friends who will all attest to the fact that he exists. I could give you a blood sample, and most obviously and importantly, I could just present him to you. Can you present God to me in a way that comes anywhere close to that?

I'm done playing this silly game with you. I can't believe you're being this evasive with a claim you think is so obviously self-evident, that you have to resort to a form of solipsism to avoid answering.

If you want to obfuscate the discussion and go down this hole, nobody can even prove that we weren't all poofed into existence two minutes ago or that we're not brains in a vat. But how practical is that? As far as I am concerned, I am talking to somebody right now and whether you actually exist or not, I have to navigate the world I live in as though you and everyone else I come into contact with, do actually exist. Because that is the only reality I know. And it's the only reality I can test.

Why would I need to provide evidence that something is self-evident to me or any other party. It just is--you know--like your own existence, do you disagree? Is there "obvious" evidence that you'd care to present that you or I exist beyond your assertions that it's "obvious".

If something is self-evident, then providing evidence should be the easiest thing in the world.You're not proving anything to yourself, given that you already believe. You're on a debate forum making claims to other human beings that are asking for evidence of the claims that you say are self-evident.

No, it's not like my own existence. A God claim is an extraordinary claim. The claim that human beings exist, is not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not talking about your online avatar--I'm asking what your proof is that you exist, since most atheists trust in documents for which they were not present/sentient (birth certificates) and reliable eyewitnesses for which they were not present/sentient (parents) and then despite Christians for trusting in documents written by eyewitnesses--or else atheists tend to admit they feel it is self-evident to them that they exist, then disdain Christians for claiming God is self-evident to them.

Again, you don't have any eyewitness documents that the God you worship is the Creator of the universe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Except the Christians *don't* rely on documents from eyewitnesses. They rely on documents created well after the events that were *attributed*, mostly falsely, to eyewitnesses. They ignore the fact that many false documents were common in the first centuries of Christianity and that the documents collected in the Bible were collected for mainly political reasons hundreds of years after the events, often with competing documents giving very different descriptions. The provenance of most of the writings is much more in doubt that that of, say, Ceasar's descriptions of his campaigns in Gaul.

And let's face it, different types of claims are very different in the default willingness to be unskeptical: everyone has parents, so the default is to believe what people say about their parents. But, by the very nature of miracles, there *should* be a lot of skepticism towards claims of such. Much more substance should be required to show a violation of the laws of physics than is required to say that someone had a father.

Also, it isn't reliability of the witness as much as reliability of the witness to report *what* was witnessed. Someone claiming to know what God thinks should be met with far more skepticism than someone reporting what their father thought. To be reliable on the latter is easy. To be reliable on the former would be very unlikely. Even an eyewitness claiming a miracle occurred should be met with a lot of skepticism because we *know* people can be fooled easily.

As for self-evident, we all start out with our senses. We find it evident that the chair in the room actually exists. But once we go beyond immediate perception, there is more difficulty. That is why there is a requirement that ideas be tested and that they be required to make non-trivial predictions of new observations.

This ^^^^^
This is so well put then I almost want to delete my own post and just go with yours. You addressed what I was getting at so much more succinctly than I did.

 

[Audie]

Except the Christians *don't* rely on documents from eyewitnesses. They rely on documents created well after the events that were *attributed*, mostly falsely, to eyewitnesses. They ignore the fact that many false documents were common in the first centuries of Christianity and that the documents collected in the Bible were collected for mainly political reasons hundreds of years after the events, often with competing documents giving very different descriptions. The provenance of most of the writings is much more in doubt that that of, say, Ceasar's descriptions of his campaigns in Gaul.

And let's face it, different types of claims are very different in the default willingness to be unskeptical: everyone has parents, so the default is to believe what people say about their parents. But, by the very nature of miracles, there *should* be a lot of skepticism towards claims of such. Much more substance should be required to show a violation of the laws of physics than is required to say that someone had a father.

Also, it isn't reliability of the witness as much as reliability of the witness to report *what* was witnessed. Someone claiming to know what God thinks should be met with far more skepticism than someone reporting what their father thought. To be reliable on the latter is easy. To be reliable on the former would be very unlikely. Even an eyewitness claiming a miracle occurred should be met with a lot of skepticism because we *know* people can be fooled easily.

As for self-evident, we all start out with our senses. We find it evident that the chair in the room actually exists. But once we go beyond immediate perception, there is more difficulty. That is why there is a requirement that ideas be tested and that they be required to make non-trivial predictions of new observations.

They ignore the fact that many false documents were common in the first centuries of Christianity

I doubt that many have any awareness of how the
bible came to be. I dont know much if any more than what you wrote there.

It did bring up a couple of thoughts for me tho.

Like, who wrote those? Why? How do they know
they are false? How did they (decide) others are
legit?

We see things about how god helped make sure the
accounts were correct,

About how people were willing to die for the truth,
etc.

False gospels tho. That could prove to be an
interesting topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not talking about your online avatar--I'm asking what your proof is that you exist, since most atheists trust in documents for which they were not present/sentient (birth certificates) and reliable eyewitnesses for which they were not present/sentient (parents) and then despite Christians for trusting in documents written by eyewitnesses--or else atheists tend to admit they feel it is self-evident to them that they exist, then disdain Christians for claiming God is self-evident to them.

One problem is that you have a tendency to reject evidence. For example I could offer to make a YouTube video responding to any reasonable demand. For example you could request that I write a specific message on a piece of paper for you. That would be almost impossible to reproduce . We could even conceivably Skype, if I felt a need to prove my existence.

You on the other hand do not have eyewitnesses. I am surprised that you are that ignorant of the Bible. None of it was written by eyewitnesses. The closest you have is the writing of Paul who had a vision, also known as a delusion, that he saw Jesus. That is not very reliable as far as evidence goes.

 

[Polymath257]

They ignore the fact that many false documents were common in the first centuries of Christianity

I doubt that many have any awareness of how the
bible came to be. I dont know much if any more than what you wrote there.

It did bring up a couple of thoughts for me tho.

Like, who wrote those? Why? How do they know
they are false? How did they (decide) others are
legit?

We know that many documents were created in the first few centuries of the Christian era and attributed to the Apostles because even Christian sources talk about such being a problem. Also, a number of these apocrypha still exist and we can read how they differ from the canonical texts.

Some wrote these as a matter of religious devotion: it was fairly common to write a 'revelation' and attribute it to a apostle or other person to get the popularity and have it read.

The decision on which documents to include in the Bible and which to exclude has a long history. For example, the book of Revelation almost didn't get voted into the Bible. There were other branches of early Christianity that used other texts for their canon, including Arians, various Gnostics, etc. Such movements are, of course, considered to be heretical for modern Christians, but that is largely because they lost the fights over which dogma should be adopted.

We see things about how god helped make sure the
accounts were correct,

Always a good propaganda ploy.

About how people were willing to die for the truth,
etc.

This is tempered by the fact that martyrdom in bulk didn't happen until rather late, long after any eyewitnesses would have been around. There was also a concern about the 'cult' of martyrdom that had originated in the persecutions, with even Christian bishops saying that too many were too willing to undergo martyrdom.

False gospels tho. That could prove to be an
interesting topic.

Plenty of stuff out there, usually labeled apocrypha.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Except the Christians *don't* rely on documents from eyewitnesses. They rely on documents created well after the events that were *attributed*, mostly falsely, to eyewitnesses. They ignore the fact that many false documents were common in the first centuries of Christianity and that the documents collected in the Bible were collected for mainly political reasons hundreds of years after the events, often with competing documents giving very different descriptions. The provenance of most of the writings is much more in doubt that that of, say, Ceasar's descriptions of his campaigns in Gaul.

And let's face it, different types of claims are very different in the default willingness to be unskeptical: everyone has parents, so the default is to believe what people say about their parents. But, by the very nature of miracles, there *should* be a lot of skepticism towards claims of such. Much more substance should be required to show a violation of the laws of physics than is required to say that someone had a father.

Also, it isn't reliability of the witness as much as reliability of the witness to report *what* was witnessed. Someone claiming to know what God thinks should be met with far more skepticism than someone reporting what their father thought. To be reliable on the latter is easy. To be reliable on the former would be very unlikely. Even an eyewitness claiming a miracle occurred should be met with a lot of skepticism because we *know* people can be fooled easily.

As for self-evident, we all start out with our senses. We find it evident that the chair in the room actually exists. But once we go beyond immediate perception, there is more difficulty. That is why there is a requirement that ideas be tested and that they be required to make non-trivial predictions of new observations.

I agree that there is a HUGE amount of skepticism one should apply to ANY supernatural or God claims, including those of the Bible. YES. However:

* scholars agree the documents of the NT were put together by about 90 AD, with Jesus crucified in 33 AD, that would be like those today who remember 1961. The gospels alone say Jesus did MANY miracles on MANY people in front of MANY witnesses--there are no counter-documents saying Jesus and those who came after didn't do all the things that were claimed.

* likewise, you are saying these documents are unreliable, yet you have no counter documents--for every person who says, "Why didn't the Romans also record X", X being recorded by 12 NT writers, I note, "Why didn't those with a strong AGENDA, Roman and Jewish leaders, record documents, "We were there in '61 and none of this happened!!!!"?

It is as self-evident to me that Jesus exists as that the chair I sit in exists, since Jesus and I have interacted as often as I've sat in chairs. I'm sorry you are missing out on such interaction.

 

[BilliardsBall]

MY solipsism? Sorry, is that a projection?

You're talking to me right now. How's that for proof I exist? And like I pointed out when you challenged my husband's existence; I can provide documentation (driver's licence, birth certificate, health insurance card, social insurance card) and photographs of him. I could show you his old report cards from his school days. I can produce his parents and friends who will all attest to the fact that he exists. I could give you a blood sample, and most obviously and importantly, I could just present him to you. Can you present God to me in a way that comes anywhere close to that?

I'm done playing this silly game with you. I can't believe you're being this evasive with a claim you think is so obviously self-evident, that you have to resort to a form of solipsism to avoid answering.

If you want to obfuscate the discussion and go down this hole, nobody can even prove that we weren't all poofed into existence two minutes ago or that we're not brains in a vat. But how practical is that? As far as I am concerned, I am talking to somebody right now and whether you actually exist or not, I have to navigate the world I live in as though you and everyone else I come into contact with, do actually exist. Because that is the only reality I know. And it's the only reality I can test.



If something is self-evident, then providing evidence should be the easiest thing in the world.You're not proving anything to yourself, given that you already believe. You're on a debate forum making claims to other human beings that are asking for evidence of the claims that you say are self-evident.

No, it's not like my own existence. A God claim is an extraordinary claim. The claim that human beings exist, is not.

I'm aware that this is the sole reality we can know and test. The Bible offers you an opportunity to use many types of tests to fact-check God Himself, very gracious of God, I think.

* Some things in this reality are perceived with the heart, not just logic and the mind.

* The mind itself does not retrieve information like a computer, is unique, metaphysical and extraordinary.

* Metaphysics in this, our only reality, include math, logic, jurisprudence, love, anger, salvation, our minds, and God and us as Spirit

* I'm very aware of my own cognitive biases and also that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, however, I've put God to the test many times, my witness to you--also, everything you wrote above can be summed as "in this reality, I test documents, eyewitness accounts and my self-evident feelings and experiences under a certain grid--the supernatural, if it exists, would be hard to prove."

Well, my God can do a lot of things, including prove His existence--He claims in the Bible to do so to open-minded persons. Therefore, the problem I perceive above is that you asked me, "Can you present God to me in a way that comes anywhere close to [certain proofs of certain things I accept as a rationalist]"?

The answer, of course, is no, based on my understanding from the Bible that:

* God hides Himself from people unless they go to Him, not intermediates, for proof of existence

* God has powers to prove Himself I can barely fathom

* God claims 100% success in proving Himself to open persons and hiding Himself from closed persons

And in my life, EVERY born again I've met has told me they've gone straight to the horse's mouth, saw, were converted. I've NEVER met a born again who didn't tell me God was not PRESENT in their lives, had not offered proof they were comfortable banking on, even risking their life upon, and who denied God is self-evident in their hearts, minds and lives.

When my wife is with me physically, I enjoy her presence, her pheromones, her appearance I see with my eyes, you know, all that "here and now" stuff we accept without extraordinary evidence, because she's there.

When my wife is NOT with me--and you know what I mean--she is with me--and any memory or awareness from her is METAphysical.

I'm NOT saying the only proof I've had from God personally is metaphysical. But I am saying to you solipsism is foolish because you and I have FEELING, EMOTIONS, and MINDS.

GOD wants to contact people in their MIND and engaging their logic via evidence AND their hearts.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again, you don't have any eyewitness documents that the God you worship is the Creator of the universe.

We should redact this to "No eyewitness humans were present at the inception of this universe, but Christians claim the Bible is the Creator telling people how it all went down back then."