The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Actually, I trusted Jesus for salvation because I have a tendency to accept reasonable evidence, especially when cross-checked by multiple eyewitness accounts and independent verification.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Yes, the Gospels make those claims of Jesus. No other sources. and the earliest of Gospels was written at least a full generation after Jesus's death. John may have been finished after the year 100. The reason that they are reliable is because there are no contemporaneous records of Jesus. There are no other sources that support the claims of the Gospels. At best you have sources that were again written a full generation after he died that barely acknowledged that such a person lived once.

If there were "MANY people" or "MANY witnesses" then why are there no other accounts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, I trusted Jesus for salvation because I have a tendency to accept reasonable evidence, especially when cross-checked by multiple eyewitness accounts and independent verification.

But you do not have just evidence. That is the problem. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Then why are you trying to argue for solipsism? It wouldn’t be to avoid the point, would it?

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

What things would those be? Hearts pump blood.

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

How is an assertion about brain complexity evidence for God?

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

Metaphysics is a philosophical point of view. It’s not evidence.

These are just more assertions without evidence.

What is spirit? Can you demonstrate there is such a thing.

All you’re doing here is compounding more assertions on top of assertions.

· 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."

How did you “put God to the test many times?” Is it something that you can share with others? If not, why do you think I should be convinced by it?

If the supernatural exists, it shouldn’t be that difficult to demonstrate. Pretty much anything else that exists is demonstrable in some way. Or is “supernatural” just a word people use to describe things they can’t understand?

I would go further and say that if a God exists and interacts with the universe in some way, that such a God should also be detectable by such actions.

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.

Then why doesn’t he?

Humans wrote the Bible. So humans claimed that. And now you’re claiming it.

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

All I see here are excuses for the lack of good evidence for this God’s existence.

Back when I considered myself a Christian, I attempted to “got to Him” many times, but I got nothing in terms of “proof of existence.” And I’ve heard all this “Oh you just weren’t sincere enough” stuff and sorry, but I call BS. As I see it, this lack of evidence is the reason faith is brought into the picture in the first place. Because faith doesn’t actually require evidence.

If God does exist and wants me to believe in him, he should know exactly what evidence I would require in order to believe. I’ve never been provided with that. So I guess he doesn’t like me enough to convince me to believe in him, or maybe he’s just not there.

I thank you for finally attempting to provide evidence of your claim, at least. J

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.

So they are convinced by some sort of evidence. That’s great for them and I have to take their word for it. But it does nothing to convince me. For something to be considered self-evident, it should be self-evident for everyone, not just for people who already believe the thing. That’s the problem with your claim.

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 guess you could say your wife’s existence is self-evident and I thank you for demonstrating why that is, and why God’s supposed existence is NOT self-evident.

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.

I still have no idea why you think I’m the solipsist here when you’re the one trying to use the argument.

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

So you think you know what God wants? That’s great, do you have evidence for this new claim you’ve made now?

And again, hearts pump blood. Do you have evidence that they do other things like use logic?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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."

Okay.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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."

And Pastafarians make the same claim for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Both claims are equally valid.

 

[ecco]

scholars agree the documents of the NT were put together by about 90 AD

That's not entirely correct. The earliest may have been written around 70 AD.

https://www.thoughtco.com/when-was-the-bible-assembled-363293Eventually,

Christian church leaders worldwide gathered to answer major questions, including which books should be regarded as "Scripture." These gatherings included the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 and the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381​

But, nevertheless, how did Matthew, 40 years later, know all the 2000+ words of the Sermon on the Mount?

 

[ecco]

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.

Assuming Matthew wrote his gospel in 70 AD. It wasn't published for about 300 years later. By that time there was no one around to say or write:

Hey, wait a minute, I was there. That Jesus fella, he didn't feed no one. Him and a couple of his followers ate, but they sure didn't give us any.
​

In any case, by that time coming out and criticizing scripture likely got ya in big trouble.

​

 

[Skwim]

That's not entirely correct. The earliest may have been written around 70 AD.

https://www.thoughtco.com/when-was-the-bible-assembled-363293Eventually,

Christian church leaders worldwide gathered to answer major questions, including which books should be regarded as "Scripture." These gatherings included the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 and the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381​

But, nevertheless, how did Matthew, 40 years later, know all the 2000+ words of the Sermon on the Mount?

Isn't all the stuff in the Bible suppose to have been at least inspired by god and therefore have come from a fairly knowledgeable source?

.

 

[ecco]

Isn't all the stuff in the Bible suppose to have been at least inspired by god and therefore have come from a fairly knowledgeable source?

.

Sure. I had a client who was born-again. He had a sign in his office that said:

God said it. I believe it. End of story.
​

That's the ultimate cop-out to use when all "evidence" is thoroughly refuted.

Most Christians believe in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost concept. I just came across an article that shows that there was a lot of debate about that concept. Debate among the priests of the early church, and recorded by them.

I doubt most Christians are aware these conflicts ever existed. I doubt most Christians are aware the differences of opinion were settled by mere mortal men.

 

[Cougarbear]

is that it tries to prove its validity by throwing darts at evolution . . . . Oops. Excuse me, "Darwinism." This isn't to say its underlying basis, faith in an ancient book, isn't enough to sink it forthwith, but this little aspect of their argument is assiduously avoided at all costs. Why? Because it lacks the power to convince. So, time and again those who champion evolution are subjected to chest-beating challenges such as, "You weren't there so you can't know," or "If we evolved from apes/monkeys, why are there still apes/monkeys today?" or "abiogenesis is an unproven theory," or my favorite "when you can show me a (name your animal) giving birth to a (name another animal) I'll believe in evolution." Of course, few of us care if the creationist believe us or not--- evolutionists are mainly concerned with their attempt to insinuate creationism into public schools, and, secondarily, with their attempt to pass along misinformation to the unwary.

In short then, the creationist ploy is one of, "I can't prove my side so I'll give it credibility by tearing down evolution," which (1) is hardly a compliment to the intelligence of its audience, (2) falsely assumes that if evolution is wrong, by default creationism must be true.

I know the forgoing is nothing new to most of those who visit the Evolution Vs. Creationism Forum, but I think it needs mentioning now and then to remind the evolutionist of the creationist's pitiful tactics and how futile arguing with them will likely be---entertaining as it may be.


If any creationist disputes my characterization here and finds it offensive I apologize and invite them to post a reasonable response.

Cougarbear- Are you aware that there is scientists who have physical proof for things found in the Bible, especially Genesis? The questions you write in this post are not the things creation science are doing work on. They are doing work with DNA and many geological findings that need explanation in which evolutionists haven't done a good job answering. Let's keep in mind that there could evidence A and the evolutionist and creationist will come to different conclusions based on their starting belief points. It's not so cut and dry as you think it is.

 

[Cougarbear]

Yes, the Gospels make those claims of Jesus. No other sources. and the earliest of Gospels was written at least a full generation after Jesus's death. John may have been finished after the year 100. The reason that they are reliable is because there are no contemporaneous records of Jesus. There are no other sources that support the claims of the Gospels. At best you have sources that were again written a full generation after he died that barely acknowledged that such a person lived once.

If there were "MANY people" or "MANY witnesses" then why are there no other accounts?

Cougarbear- Perhaps at one time there were more accounts written down. But, many of his followers were not literate themselves. His Apostles I'm sure learned to write as they were taught. And, I'm sure they perhaps did write many things down as time went on. Or they had scribes that wrote down their thoughts. At some point, they put all their thoughts together and then discarded others. So? The fact we have the scriptures preserved as well as they are is a miracle in and of itself. Also, Jesus had a small following that grew into many churches all over the land. His influence was great and is still great today.
As far as records, why would the Roman government have had any major records of a Jew? That's a lame reason to say there was no Jesus. Any more than there was no Moses because Egypt has no recollection of Moses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cougarbear- Are you aware that there is scientists who have physical proof for things found in the Bible, especially Genesis? The questions you write in this post are not the things creation science are doing work on. They are doing work with DNA and many geological findings that need explanation in which evolutionists haven't done a good job answering. Let's keep in mind that there could evidence A and the evolutionist and creationist will come to different conclusions based on their starting belief points. It's not so cut and dry as you think it is.

Please give us some examples. Stories from unscientific creationist sites will be laughed at.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cougarbear- Perhaps at one time there were more accounts written down. But, many of his followers were not literate themselves. His Apostles I'm sure learned to write as they were taught. And, I'm sure they perhaps did write many things down as time went on. Or they had scribes that wrote down their thoughts. At some point, they put all their thoughts together and then discarded others. So? The fact we have the scriptures preserved as well as they are is a miracle in and of itself. Also, Jesus had a small following that grew into many churches all over the land. His influence was great and is still great today.
As far as records, why would the Roman government have had any major records of a Jew? That's a lame reason to say there was no Jesus. Any more than there was no Moses because Egypt has no recollection of Moses.

It appears that you are not familiar with the history of your own Bible.

 

[Skwim]

Cougarbear- Are you aware that there is scientists who have physical proof for things found in the Bible, especially Genesis?

Don't know about any of the stuff in Genesis, but sure, there's stuff in the Bible for which there is proof, both scientific and otherwise.

The questions you write in this post are not the things creation science are doing work on.

I only wrote two questions, one of which was rhetorical---note that I answered it myself---and the other was one creationists sometimes ask evolutionists. So I really don't know what you're talking about.

They are doing work with DNA and many geological findings that need explanation in which evolutionists haven't done a good job answering.

In as much as you're familiar with these, and I'm not, how about sharing your knowledge with us?

Let's keep in mind that there could evidence A and the evolutionist and creationist will come to different conclusions based on their starting belief points. It's not so cut and dry as you think it is.

But "could" is a far way from "is," and is hardly a productive road to go down.

.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you aware that there is scientists who have physical proof for things found in the Bible, especially Genesis?

Could you provide examples, please? I'd be very interested to see those.

The questions you write in this post are not the things creation science are doing work on. They are doing work with DNA and many geological findings that need explanation in which evolutionists haven't done a good job answering.

Again, could your provide examples of the kind of work they're doing?

Let's keep in mind that there could evidence A and the evolutionist and creationist will come to different conclusions based on their starting belief points. It's not so cut and dry as you think it is.

The question is how do you determine which interpretation of the evidence is more likely to be correct. Currently, the most reliable method we have of doing that is the scientific method, and currently the scientific method lends far more credibility to evolutionary theory than to creationism.

 

[Audie]

How did you “put God to the test many times?” Is it something that you can share with others? If not, why do you think I should be convinced by it?

King James Bible
And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

"You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah.

Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"

Therefore the people quarreled with Moses and said, "Give us water that we may drink " And Moses said to them, "Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the LORD?

'So now we call the arrogant blessed; not only are the doers of wickedness built up but they also test God and escape.'"

 

[Audie]

Cougarbear- Are you aware that there is scientists who have physical proof for things found in the Bible, especially Genesis? The questions you write in this post are not the things creation science are doing work on. They are doing work with DNA and many geological findings that need explanation in which evolutionists haven't done a good job answering. Let's keep in mind that there could evidence A and the evolutionist and creationist will come to different conclusions based on their starting belief points. It's not so cut and dry as you think it is.

You are awfully vague. WHAT things from genesis are
found by scientists? The moon?

WHAT "geological findings"?
Did you know that geology is done by geologists, not
"evolutionists"?

"conclusions based on their starting belief points"

Good, you have accepted it that "creation scientists"
are always intellectually dishonest.

Evidence makes no difference to a creo. They are all like
the Christian girl with whom I wqs walking across campus.
She picks up a leaf that fell at our feet.

"Oh", she says," a sign from God, it represents the Trinity"

How come it has five parts.

"Oh, then it is a sign from God, to represent the Pentarch."

See how it works?

Here is a terrif example from a real yec scientist, with
real credentials: Dr K Wise, a PhD paleontologist.

"I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, the Gospels make those claims of Jesus. No other sources. and the earliest of Gospels was written at least a full generation after Jesus's death. John may have been finished after the year 100. The reason that they are reliable is because there are no contemporaneous records of Jesus. There are no other sources that support the claims of the Gospels. At best you have sources that were again written a full generation after he died that barely acknowledged that such a person lived once.

If there were "MANY people" or "MANY witnesses" then why are there no other accounts?

I think you ask a reasonable question. My responses:

1. If all the gospels were written in 90 AD, the difference between 90 and 33 CE is the same as someone today, alive, remembering 1961. There are no counter documents saying the events didn't occur. There was GREAT reason to make counter documents--the Romans and Pharisees were only two of the groups with a big agenda if the historical Jesus was also the Messiah. I date the gospels far earlier, but know many people today alive in 1961 as young adults who could capably write and think now.

2. The sole counter document of any type from the period would be the Talmud, which as it warns Jews to avoid Christianity in the strongest possible terms, actually says Jesus's father wasn't Joseph, Jesus died on a cross at 33 1/2 on Passover, etc.!

3. There were many witnesses, but as a subset, some particular friends and collaborators with Jesus, who dared to write documents that were a death sentence with the Romans and expulsion from Jewish life. 12 different persons or teams of writers wrote documents in the NT. We can reframe your question reasonably to say, "Why did 12 people risk death to promulgate these documents?"

4. That's quite a lot of extant ancient sources for an event(s), 39 documents written by 12 teams, and is more than comparable with any other ancient person--even those who held far more temporal power than Jesus. How many copies of Homer are extant in the oldest copies? How many biographers of Julius Caesar do we have extant from the period?

5. The NT books aren't little birth certificates. They are massive undertakings. I wanted to study Romans better so I memorized it as I studied. In English, Romans is the equivalent of 26-plus Gettysburg addresses! I thanked God I didn't memorize Matthew or even longer books, as friends have done!

6. The extant documents are not only lengthy, detailed, but also, they are highly influential. People have responded to these documents for millennia--and though there is the type of polarization Jesus predicted in the documents, everything up to POTUS and SCOTUS are under scrutiny now for their comparisons to the Bible.

7. Jesus was not Julius, as I wrote. Why should we demand contemporaneous documents of Him? He was a humble "carpenter" who preached then died on a cross. Scholars believe in Bar Kokhba and other "messiahs" readily--and scholars accept the historical Jesus was baptized in water and crucified. Thousands of Jews were baptized and/or crucified, but Jesus is known by name for His documents.

8. As a gedanken, I try to use the hypothesis method, to understand your perspective. I believe you think modern scholars get it now, and ancient people were more gullible regarding the Bible. I disagree because a) we see tremendous skeptics confront Christ in the NT and the prophets in the OT b) life spans were brief in the ANE and life was cheap under the Romans, who could crucify practically on a whim, and would toss out unwanted children and spouses. Do you think the ancients who lived in a bloody Israel would readily say, "SURE, some guy came back from the dead!" They saw people dead and buried far more often than modern westerners are exposed to mortality. Rather, we see a very vigorous skepticism everywhere from the Acropolis to the VERY real statement that when Jesus appeared to 500 followers, some trusted Him for salvation and some doubted (honestly) His resurrection.

I find the Bible credible, honest and reliable.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But you do not have just evidence. That is the problem. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

Please see my detailed reply elsewhere, but did you know some of the NT documents claim to be eyewitness accounts?