The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[viole]

What you are saying is that Aesop's Fables don't hold any wisdom because animals don't talk. You are saying that the scientific inaccuracies of Aesop's Fables proves them wrong.

Are we talking of wisdom or of God’s authorsip? The first does not entail the second, even assuming that the bible contains any wisdom at all.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Are we talking of wisdom or of God’s authorsip? The first does not entail the second, even assuming that the bible contains any wisdom at all.

What I am saying is that wisdom can be independent of scientific accuracy.

 

[viole]

What I am saying is that wisdom can be independent of scientific accuracy.

Yes, I never contested that. But that does not entail that the same applies to god’s authorship.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yes, I never contested that. But that does not entail that the same applies to god’s authorship.

Then I guess I never really learned anything from the book "Animal Farm" because it was clearly not scientifically accurate.

 

[Audie]

Do you expect scientific accuracy from a Star Trek episode?

I've never watched star barf.

And I dont think the bible has anything
other than human input.

However, if there is more to it than that,
its a bit peculiar that so much of it is such bs.

 

[viole]

Then I guess I never really learned anything from the book "Animal Farm" because it was clearly not scientifically accurate.

Does it claim it has been inspired by god?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

What you are saying is that Aesop's Fables don't hold any wisdom because animals don't talk. You are saying that the scientific inaccuracies of Aesop's Fables proves them wrong.

Well, yes. The Hume style test has an obvious answer.

What is more likely: that God has an alien mind that we cannot possibly understand, or that the Bible has been written by clueless people in the bronze age?

Ciao

- viole

Clueless? No, it looks to me like the accumulated folk
tales, myths, wisdom and aspirations of a people.
With a bunch of "winner write the history" and magic
realism tossed in.

Read "Animal Farm" for what it is, read the "Bible" for what
it is.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Does it claim it has been inspired by god?

Ciao

- viole

Does something inspired by god have to be scientifically accurate?

 

[viole]

Does something inspired by god have to be scientifically accurate?

When describing things of nature? Yes.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

When describing things of nature? Yes.

Then you would have to show that the purpose of those writings was to accurately describe nature.

 

[John53]

I gave several. And then he said they were all false. Then I gave him a link to google search with tons of articles on conspiracy theories turning out to be true. Why should I have any conversation with him at all if it turns into "I know you are what am I" type arguments. It's stupid. I really don't care what you or other people believe. Governments do really evil stuff. You can be pollyanna about your government as much as you like.

I think you're confusing Government cover-ups with conspiracy theories. Govt cover-ups are the best evidence against conspiracy theories, people aren't very good at keeping secrets.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then you would have to show that the purpose of those writings was to accurately describe nature.

The Baha'i scripture considers science as the accurate physical description of nature.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is not a demonstration of your assertion. All you've done is double down and re-assert your assertion and in doing so, you've managed to completely avoid responding to my post. Oh, and you've made a logical fallacy as well (appeal to popularity). Also, not a demonstration of the truth of a claim.


So I'm forced just to repeat myself.


That's not an argument, it's an assertion.

Why should anyone take seriously what Romans 1 has to say about it?

If "the act of creation" is so evident, why are we still waiting for someone to demonstrate that some creator (in this case, the exact creator you believe in and worship) created it that way after all this time? Why has nobody ever been able to actually show that, and instead have to resort to quoting some old book as an authority on the subject? Shouldn't that be really, really easy?

I'm not "still waiting". You are. At Issue (IMO) you do not communicate with the Creator and are missing something here. But why didn't you address the shortcomings in your view before debating my beliefs? You've already stated that you and I don't know details prior to the Big Bang, so it sounds now like you are excluding possibilities, for example, you feel you have no evidence for God in this universe, but are assuming there is no God in a multiverse, from which (possibly) this universe sprung.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So your best argument is just to say "It's self evident"? That doesn't seem like a very convincing argument.

It's hardly my best apologetic/argument, but the fact of it STILL being a near-universal to accept creation worldwide, both shows the Bible's prescience again and makes the line of argumentation against creation all but moot!

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is a matter faith, and not relying on objective verifiable evidence, which is neutral to the theological/philosophical question. Here you are appealing to your faith and scripture.

Respectfully, I disagree, no faith at all is required to see obvious problems of infinite regression and the necessity for string action or a multiverse to make matter and energy despite laws of conversation. Secular authorities on cosmology agree that the laws were suspended and that there was nothing then everything!

Therefore, I often meet agnostics who appeal to some kind of force or divinity, "I don't believe in God, but something must have made everything."

You can appeal to faith, and I pray your faith and mine grows, but logic indicates the universe is personal, designed, orderly, resistant to entropy, self-sustaining/self-generating and much more, as well as defying all our physics knowledge in its rapid expansion and so on.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's hardly my best apologetic/argument, but the fact of it STILL being a near-universal to accept creation worldwide, both shows the Bible's prescience again and makes the line of argumentation against creation all but moot!

How? The majority of those people don't believe the Bible is the direct word of God, and throughout the majority of human civilization the most widely accepted beliefs were belief systems (such as Greco-Roman and Egyptian) that are now almost universally dismissed.

It doesn't matter if every human being on the planet proclaims God to be absolutely factual. It lends not a single shred of credibility to the claim in lieu of actual facts, argumentation and good evidence. If you can understand why the popularity of the Egyptian Gods throughout Egypt was erroneous, you should understand this perfectly well.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It's hardly my best apologetic/argument, but the fact of it STILL being a near-universal to accept creation worldwide, both shows the Bible's prescience again and makes the line of argumentation against creation all but moot!

That is an argument from popularity, which is a logical fallacy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not "still waiting". You are. At Issue (IMO) you do not communicate with the Creator and are missing something here. But why didn't you address the shortcomings in your view before debating my beliefs? You've already stated that you and I don't know details prior to the Big Bang, so it sounds now like you are excluding possibilities, for example, you feel you have no evidence for God in this universe, but are assuming there is no God in a multiverse, from which (possibly) this universe sprung.

I asked you a simple question. One that you appear to be unable to answer. Which is fine. But you should just say so.
Apparently it's not so obvious and self-evident that the God you worship is the creator of the universe and everything in it. It's a claim that you have not demonstrated. And instead, you've tried to go off on a tangent.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's hardly my best apologetic/argument, but the fact of it STILL being a near-universal to accept creation worldwide, both shows the Bible's prescience again and makes the line of argumentation against creation all but moot!

Why wouldn't you offer your best argument or demonstration of your claim? Did you start with your worst one?

 

[Audie]

Why wouldn't you offer your best argument or demonstration of your claim? Did you start with your worst one?

Best. worst, and all between may be the same thing.