The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[BilliardsBall]

Again, I ask, what statement? Why can you never answer a question?

Again, I ask, where in the Bible does it mention atoms, or a "sub-elemental level?"Can you just provide it? You brought it up and made a claim about it. Therefore, you can provide the quotation you are referring to. It's pretty simple, actually. I don't understand why you are making this so difficult. I really have to wonder. Like seriously, I'm supposed to know exactly what you're talking about and where it is in the Bible? Are you kidding?



P.S.I never said that I "read the Bible and didn't like it." I said I read the Bible and it didn't make sense to me to the point where I could no longer believe.

What makes you think I never answer questions? Did you not know I often answer questions with questions to be Socratic?

Am I your servant, that I have to go as far as saving you the trouble of typing in Google, "Peter, Bible, elements/atoms", when the possibility is dangled in front of you that the most sophisticated mind wrote the Bible for our benefit? Are you kidding?

I know what the Bible says fairly well. The Bible itself teaches that those seeking ultimate truth will adhere to it, enjoy it, relish it. You won't even Google a carrot I dangle to you, so I should do it for you? Really?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm still wondering why you think you're argument from popularity is a valid one. The number of people who believe a thing doesn't at all speak to the truth of that thing.


Not sure what this statement has to do with anything. Strangely though, you've just done the very thing I said you were doing in my last post. That is, telling me what I think or feel about a thing instead of listening to me when I tell you what I think or feel about a thing. I just told you, my parents have never abused me. So, another one of your claims bites the dust.

Again, I didn't say that. I said it didn't make sense and so I could no longer believe it.
Seems like you need to put your listening ears on instead of just hearing what you want to hear.

"The number of people who believe a thing doesn't at all speak to the truth of that thing." - I agree 100%, this would be an ad populum.

Now, deal with the subtlety I added: There is NO other fact in evidence in the world, in history, ever, where the vast majority of people believed DESPITE evidence ANYTHING except the numinous, the divine. Name one such thing and you will have proven I've made an ad populum rather than a unique argument demonstrating man's self-awareness of God.

THEN you can tell ME I don't listen to you.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I think you can judge, but it doesn't mean you are equipped to judge rightly. When I sat on two different juries to judge felonies, I had to sift a lot of information and go carefully, to protect the rights of those involved.

I've read the entire Bible multiple times in multiple versions and fellowship frequently with people trying to live per the Bible. I should assume your judgment is right when you tend to camp out on a few verses only from among tens of thousands of verses and thousands of biblical precepts, practices and commands?

What many of us find distasteful is the dogmatic position that whatever God commands has to be moral, no matter what it is. This can lead to all sorts of evil, as seen throughout history. You don't seem to be the dogmatic type, so don't think that I am criticizing you, and I think you also see the dangers of replacing morality with obedience.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Please cite your evidence here from science or your conjecture/gedanken that "outside" this universe is bright light and not dark "space". You can also reference any light you understand to be along a different dimension or string.

I never made any claims as to what is outside of our universe, and I have no position on what exists outside of our universe. So why ask for evidence?

What we do know is what happened within this universe, and that includes expansion which is still ongoing and well evidenced. We also have tons of evidence for what the universe was like in the past, which was a dense and hot universe. The primary evidence for a hot and dense universe is the cosmic microwave background.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Now, deal with the subtlety I added: There is NO other fact in evidence in the world, in history, ever, where the vast majority of people believed DESPITE evidence ANYTHING except the numinous, the divine. Name one such thing and you will have proven I've made an ad populum rather than a unique argument demonstrating man's self-awareness of God.

That is still an argument from popularity.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Then again, deleting God also eases our moral conscience and excuses all types of moral relativism.

Why would it ease our moral conscience? I find it highly unlikely that the only reason you are a moral person is because you fear retribution from God.

I believe a price is paid for this choice. One price is silence. When people rage, silence is often the wisest option, to deescalate anger. Therefore, skeptics should not be surprised when God is silent before their anger.

When is God not silent?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I think you need to take a deep breath with me. Burden of proof applies to many types of established theory or conjecture within this universe, but not to the universe entire, apart from solipsism.

The burden of proof applies to claims that people make. I am not making a claim as to the origin of the universe. You are.

The entire universe is, it exists. It is natural, normative (and biblical) to say that the ALL is created. It is natural, normative, etc. to see every other thing that is a given subset inside this universe that also contains "complexity" as designed. The universe as a totality is so complex, we cannot understand it all at this time.

Where is the evidence that the universe was created by God, as you claim?

 

[Audie]

Why would it ease our moral conscience? I find it highly unlikely that the only reason you are a moral person is because you fear retribution from God.



When is God not silent?

That thing about easing moral conscience by
nor believing in god is just something they say
to make themselves morally superior, in their
eyes.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

That thing about easing moral conscience by
nor believing in god is just something they say
to make themselves morally superior, in their
eyes.

It actually makes them appear morally inferior. They are saying that they can't control themselves, and that they need the threat of eternally hellfire to help keep themselves in line.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is never a problem or an existential crisis regarding infinite regression once there is no God, and we therefore mentally unburden ourselves from reconciling the fact of existence, and of self-awareness.

Why do you think you don't have to explain where God(s) came from? You suffer from the same "infinite regression" problem that you think others are stuck with.

Then again, deleting God also eases our moral conscience and excuses all types of moral relativism. I believe a price is paid for this choice. One price is silence. When people rage, silence is often the wisest option, to deescalate anger. Therefore, skeptics should not be surprised when God is silent before their anger.

Why do you think this? Based on what? Certainly not reality.

IMHO you are missing out on so much in life and existence because you have lost touch with the Creator. I feel badly.

Like what? Because I think people who follow what I consider silly rules in order to gain some kind of eternal life are missing all the beauty and preciousness of the only life we know we get for sure.

 

[Audie]

It actually makes them appear morally inferior. They are saying that they can't control themselves, and that they need the threat of eternally hellfire to help keep themselves in line.

Well, maybe they are. like that. Too bad for them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What makes you think I never answer questions?

Well, let's see. It's because you never answer questions. You can take this post as yet another example of that.

Did you not know I often answer questions with questions to be Socratic?

You never manage to address the point. So maybe you're doing it wrong.

Am I your servant, that I have to go as far as saving you the trouble of typing in Google, "Peter, Bible, elements/atoms", when the possibility is dangled in front of you that the most sophisticated mind wrote the Bible for our benefit? Are you kidding?

You're the one telling me that the Bible says a very specific thing. It is your responsibility to share what it is you are talking about. How am I supposed to know what's inside your brain?
This is getting ridiculous. This is a debate forum. You make a claim, you back it up. It's not up to other people to somehow magically know what you're talking about.

I know what the Bible says fairly well. The Bible itself teaches that those seeking ultimate truth will adhere to it, enjoy it, relish it. You won't even Google a carrot I dangle to you, so I should do it for you? Really?

This is comical. Now you want to turn your inability to back up your own claim onto me? LOL

And here we've gone 'round and 'round again, and you have still not responded to the POINT nor have you answered a single question I have posed in regards to that point. Sheesh.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"The number of people who believe a thing doesn't at all speak to the truth of that thing." - I agree 100%, this would be an ad populum.

Okay, then you agree that your argument doesn't work.

Now, deal with the subtlety I added: There is NO other fact in evidence in the world, in history, ever, where the vast majority of people believed DESPITE evidence ANYTHING except the numinous, the divine. Name one such thing and you will have proven I've made an ad populum rather than a unique argument demonstrating man's self-awareness of God.

[/quote]

The vast majority of people do not believe in the God you worship. As I already pointed out.
You've already agreed that you are making the logically fallacious argument from popularity.

So I guess I'm stuck asking again, if it's so self-evident that God exists and created the universe, why is it so hard to demonstrate that?

THEN you can tell ME I don't listen to you.

 

[Audie]

Why do you think you don't have to explain where God(s) came from? You suffer from the same "infinite regression" problem that you think others are stuck with.


Why do you think this? Based on what? Certainly not reality.


Like what? Because I think people who follow what I consider silly rules in order to gain some kind of eternal life are missing all the beauty and preciousness of the only life we know we get for sure.

Are you familiar with "cargo cult"?

For those not, it generally refers to natives of like
Borneo, WW2, who were startled by the arrival of
white people,who built airstrips and called down
these airplanes which then delivered all manner
of amazing cargo.

The GIs would share some of it.

Imagine a steel machete after using stone tools!

BUT-just as suddenly,they left.

The locals had gotten used to cargo, and wanted
more.

They'd hack out crude airstrips. put up a control tower.
bamboo antenna, and try to call down airplanes.

When it didnt work, they tried to improve their magic.

Cargo cult is a good way to refer to going through
magic or otherwise meaningless means to try to obtain
some end.

Alchemy was cargo cult science.

Our Christians think that with the right chants
and so forth, they can be lifted into a paradise
of eternal life.

 

[Audie]

Okay, then you agree that your argument doesn't work.

The vast majority of people do not believe in the God you worship. As I already pointed out.
You've already agreed that you are making the logically fallacious argument from popularity.

So I guess I'm stuck asking again, if it's so self-evident that God exists and created the universe, why is it so hard to demonstrate that?[/QUOTE]

Similarly, if "creation" were true,, why does all the
available evidence in the universe point away from it?

You'd think with god, angels, bible, and all of reality
going for it, there'd be at least one datum point
to support it. Somewhere?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why would it ease our moral conscience? I find it highly unlikely that the only reason you are a moral person is because you fear retribution from God.



When is God not silent?

When people are not raging at Him.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The burden of proof applies to claims that people make. I am not making a claim as to the origin of the universe. You are.



Where is the evidence that the universe was created by God, as you claim?

Where is the evidence that it was not created by God? This is your claim and it looks like a universal negative you are trying to prove.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Okay, then you agree that your argument doesn't work.

The vast majority of people do not believe in the God you worship. As I already pointed out.
You've already agreed that you are making the logically fallacious argument from popularity.

So I guess I'm stuck asking again, if it's so self-evident that God exists and created the universe, why is it so hard to demonstrate that?[/QUOTE]

Of course you're stuck, since I say there is tremendous evidence while you are asserting a universal negative. You give me 1 piece of evidence from science (or anywhere you choose, really) that God did not create the universe--I'd think you have those in stock as a skeptic who perpetually argues here at a religious forum, and as a thinking person who realizes most people believe in creation despite the evidence you clearly own--and I'll give you my best 200 pieces of evidence that God created the universe. Deal?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is the evidence that it was not created by God? This is your claim and it looks like a universal negative you are trying to prove.

You do realize that all of the evidence out there points to evolution, don't you? That means if the creation myths were true that God had to go back and plant false evidence, in the fossil record, in our genetic record, in fact just about everywhere. Why would you worship a lying God? Do you not see the problems that that causes for you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course you're stuck, since I say there is tremendous evidence while you are asserting a universal negative. You give me 1 piece of evidence from science (or anywhere you choose, really) that God did not create the universe--I'd think you have those in stock as a skeptic who perpetually argues here at a religious forum, and as a thinking person who realizes most people believe in creation despite the evidence you clearly own--and I'll give you my best 200 pieces of evidence that God created the universe. Deal?

What "universal negative" are you nattering about? The only universal thing that we notice is a lack of evidence for your God even when that evidence should exist. You do not seem to realize that the reason that there is no evidence that God did not create the universe because non-existent beings do not tend to leave evidence behind. It is like asking someone to prove that an invisible pink unicorn did not tip toe through your room five minutes ago. Try making a proper demand.