What if creationism is true?

[Agnostic75]

If creationism is true, that would not necessarily tell us who God is, and what his agenda are.

 

[SaintAugustine]

agreed, it would not..thus the need for contact with his creation. Wheather it be Krishna or Christ, Buddha or Plato to inform man of some basic owners manual for spiritual living.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If creationism is true, that would not necessarily tell us who God is, and what his agenda are.

Well, that is why you study the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus to be able to determine who God is and what his agendas are. I dont think this is no longer a question of "if" God exists. I think this is a question of "which" God exists. The complexity of DNA, the fined tuned parameters to make human life possible, the second law of thermodynamics, the origin of the universe, and the very high improbability of evolution, all of these things point to Intelligent Design. Once you've established Intelligent Design, then you are on a quest to find out who is this Intelligent Designer. I would argue that Christian Theism has the most evidence supporting it. And on Christian theism, your questions are answered about who God is, and what his agenda is.

 

[Leafar]

Once you've established Intelligent Design, then you are on a quest to find out who is this Intelligent Designer. I would argue that Christian Theism has the most evidence supporting it. And on Christian theism, your questions are answered about who God is, and what his agenda is.

I'm going to ignore the fact that you call evolution improbable and the flaws in argumenting from a fine tuned universe and skip to this part that is on topic.

As you say, if creationism where to be proven true, then we would be on a quest to find out the "God agenda" if there were any. A deistic God (without agenda) would still be possible. I acctually think that a deistic God would be our best guess in that case. The Theodicé problem is still to be answered by all religions claiming their god to be omnipotent, benevolent and omniscient. Not to mention all inconsistencies and contradictions found in the books, claimed to be describing the will (or the agenda) of God.

 

[Iti oj]

I'm going to ignore the fact that you call evolution improbable and the flaws in argumenting from a fine tuned universe and skip to this part that is on topic.

As you say, if creationism where to be proven true, then we would be on a quest to find out the "God agenda" if there were any. A deistic God (without agenda) would still be possible. I acctually think that a deistic God would be our best guess in that case. The Theodicé problem is still to be answered by all religions claiming their god to be omnipotent, benevolent and omniscient. Not to mention all inconsistencies and contradictions found in the books, claimed to be describing the will (or the agenda) of God.

A deist god would be very possible maybe even likely considering what we supposedly know about god. how would one prove creationism?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I'm going to ignore the fact that you call evolution improbable and the flaws in argumenting from a fine tuned universe and skip to this part that is on topic.

To assemble a living cell by using a blind, non-intellectual, and random process is highly improbable.To believe in any evolution is to believe in a highly improbable process. It is so improbable that it didnt happen, thats how improbable it is.

As you say, if creationism where to be proven true, then we would be on a quest to find out the "God agenda" if there were any. A deistic God (without agenda) would still be possible. I acctually think that a deistic God would be our best guess in that case. The Theodicé problem is still to be answered by all religions claiming their god to be omnipotent, benevolent and omniscient. Not to mention all inconsistencies and contradictions found in the books, claimed to be describing the will (or the agenda) of God.

If a deistic God doesn't exist, then there would be no objective morality. So we would be able to live our lives as if there was no God at all. As I said before, I think on Christian theism, the questions that were asked are best answered on this worldview. There are no inconsistencies or contradictions in the bible.

 

[Skwim]

If creationism is true, that would not necessarily tell us who God is, and what his agenda are.

True, but if creationism was somehow shown to be true a whole lot more "Bible stuff" would have to have been reconciled and established first.

 

[Agnostic75]

As far as this thread is concerned, I stand by the opening post. I did not intend for this thread to become a debate about creationism and naturalisim, or about which, if any religion is the most logical choice. I started this thread in order to show that even if creationism is true, that alone does not reasonably prove who God is, and what his agenda are. The vast majority of non-Christians in the world already
believe in Gods, so some kind of creationism is obviously not an issue for those people.

Simply stated, even if creationism is true, there would still be much left to settle. Since over 99% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution, I believe that creationist laymen's time would be much better spent debating the Bible than debating science.

 

[Leafar]

A deist god would be very possible maybe even likely considering what we supposedly know about god. how would one prove creationism?

Good question. There is possibly some things that would strongly indicate an intelligent designer. For example, if evolution where to be proven false and our mathematical truths were to show that something complex couldn't derive from something less complex, then we would have to accept the immense improbability of all of the species of the earth popping up by chance, without some sort of intervention from something much more complex that them. This would of cource not prove an intelligent designer, only point towards one. It would also be impossible to figure out whether it was some sort of God or just (for example) som highly developed, but completley natural life form.

To assemble a living cell by using a blind, non-intellectual, and random process is highly improbable.To believe in any evolution is to believe in a highly improbable process. It is so improbable that it didnt happen, thats how improbable it is.

The process of evolution is not driven by purley random process. The random process, in this case mutation, is only the reason for the diversity of all life forms, not the force behind the process. The force, driving evolution forward, is the natural selection, and that is, like the name suggests, the opposite of random/chance. It's about selection.

If a deistic God doesn't exist, then there would be no objective morality. So we would be able to live our lives as if there was no God at all. As I said before, I think on Christian theism, the questions that were asked are best answered on this worldview. There are no inconsistencies or contradictions in the bible.

I have read the Bible (New testament and some from the old), and yes, it is riddled with contradictions, logical fallacies and inconsistencies. Just as an example:

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

 

[Leafar]

Simply stated, even if creationism is true, there would still be much left to settle. Since over 99% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution, I believe that creationist laymen's time would be much better spent debating the Bible than debating science.

I agree. Excuse my former, not completley on topic, comment.

On topic: If we assume an intelligent creator it would still be very difficult to know anything about him/her/it. It could be anything from a quite powerfull, fully naturalistic being to something completley untouchable by our minds. We would have to give him some sort of founding attributes to be able to conclude others. My guess of a deistic God is just based upon the assumption that he would be omnipotent and omniscient, but not even that could be asserted.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The process of evolution is not driven by purley random process. The random process, in this case mutation, is only the reason for the diversity of all life forms, not the force behind the process. The force, driving evolution forward, is the natural selection, and that is, like the name suggests, the opposite of random/chance. It's about selection.

Before you even begin to talk about natural selection, mutation, speciation, or any other "tion" out there in regards to this topic, you have to give a plausible explanation to how this unguided and blind process ever assembled a living cell. Each cell in our DNA is more complex than a space shuttle. There is no plausible explanation to this kind of complexity without postulating Intelligent Design.

And not only this, no one has ever been able to give a good answer for the "gender problem". How is it that both the male and female' reproductive system just HAPPEN to be compatible with each other? Evolution does not provide a good example of this, in fact, it just COULDNT happen based on this view. The males penis could not have evovled before the females, and vice versa. If that was to happen, there would BE NO REPRODUCTION. If the male had to wait a million years for the female to evovle her compatible vagina, there would be no reproduction. Both the male and the female had to get their respective systems AT THE SAME TIME, or AROUND THE SAME TIME. There could not have been this huge gap in-between that you evolutionists like to tout around. And you not only have to provide a naturalistic answer for just humans, put every living and breating organism from humans to insects. There are just no good scientific answers for neither of the two things. Creationists believe that am Intelligent Designer constructed and created these highly complex cells and chromosomes (DNA), and that God created all living things at or around the same time, making the genders of each "kind" compatible with one another allowing them to reproduce and fill the earth, as the book of Gen indicates. So I think its clear where the evidence and common sense points in regards to this topic.

I have read the Bible (New testament and some from the old), and yes, it is riddled with contradictions, logical fallacies and inconsistencies. Just as an example:

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

First of all, Luke used the word "hegemon" to describe Quirinius' position. That word means "leader". But leader how? Governor? Mayor? King? Emperor? The vast majority of bibles translates the word to "Governor". But that, at best, is a mistake of translation, not a mistake on Lukes part. Maybe Quirinius was a leader or procurator of Judea at the time of the census, and at a later year promoted to governor.

 

[gnostic]

Well, that is why you study the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus to be able to determine who God is and what his agendas are.

Some forms of the afterlife have been around - in written records - as far back as the Old Kingdom Egypt or in the Sumerian civilization from the 3rd millennium BCE. And these civilizations left behind legacies that influenced other cultures - to the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and many others - including the Christians.

There was nothing unique with Jesus or his resurrection or with Christian theology. It just a bunch of borrowed ideas and ideals from other cultures...other religions.

The very idea of having the afterlife in heaven instead of the netherworld was absolutely foreign to the Judaism and bordered upon blasphemy. But it was nothing new to other religions of that time.

The complexity of DNA, the fined tuned parameters to make human life possible, the second law of thermodynamics, the origin of the universe, and the very high improbability of evolution, all of these things point to Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is not even a hypothesis, let alone a scientific theory. Everything about Intelligent Design points towards PSEUDOSCIENCE - fake science - creationism without using the "g" word or "c" word.

Once you've established Intelligent Design, then you are on a quest to find out who is this Intelligent Designer. I would argue that Christian Theism has the most evidence supporting it. And on Christian theism, your questions are answered about who God is, and what his agenda is.

There's no big secrets there: Intelligent Design is just another name for Christian creationism and Christian theism. It is not science. There are no evidences to support Intelligent Designer, Creator or God to being any more real than to the existence of Godzilla.

How is the Judaeo-Christian deity more real than the Sumerian triad of An, Enlil & Enki, or that of the Canaanite-Ugaritic El and Ba'al?

The Yahweh/Elohim deity was largely derived from these older deities of Sumer and Canaan. And much of the Genesis from 1 to 8 is a borrowing of the older Sumerian-Babylonian myths, just show us how not so original the Genesis is.

It is not so much a question about who god is, but who he's not?

 

[fallingblood]

If creationism is true, that would not necessarily tell us who God is, and what his agenda are.

Why would it though? I don't really understand the premise behind such an argument. If creationism is true, it doesn't even tell us what god exists, or if a god exists. As far as we would know, said creator is simply dead.

 

[fallingblood]

First of all, Luke used the word "hegemon" to describe Quirinius' position. That word means "leader". But leader how? Governor? Mayor? King? Emperor? The vast majority of bibles translates the word to "Governor". But that, at best, is a mistake of translation, not a mistake on Lukes part. Maybe Quirinius was a leader or procurator of Judea at the time of the census, and at a later year promoted to governor.

Taken in context, we know it means governor. Why? Because we are told that Quirinius is leading in Syria. That would make him a governor. So really, your argument fails as it is not looking at the context here. Again, it states that he was governor (or leader if you will), of Syria. Syria being key.

 

[Protester]

As a Christian, I already know who the Designer is.:yes: But, while all Christians support intelligent design, not all people who support intelligent design are Christians. What Intelligent Design Offers to Agnostics.

Originally Posted by call of the wild
Well, that is why you study the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus to be able to determine who God is and what his agendas are.
Originally Posted by call of the wild
The complexity of DNA, the fined tuned parameters to make human life possible, the second law of thermodynamics, the origin of the universe, and the very high improbability of evolution, all of these things point to Intelligent Design.
Originally Posted by call of the wild
Once you've established Intelligent Design, then you are on a quest to find out who is this Intelligent Designer. I would argue that Christian Theism has the most evidence supporting it. And on Christian theism, your questions are answered about who God is, and what his agenda is.

Call of the wild it is correct and even a famous agnostic/atheist came to support intelligent design since it was the most logical assumption:

…

the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design--Antony Flew

From Renowned Atheist-Turned-Deist Antony Flew Dies at 87, Christian News

 

[fallingblood]

As a Christian, I already know who the Designer is.:yes: But, while all Christians support intelligent design,

That is untrue. Many Christians do not support intelligent design. Nearly all Christian biologist support evolution. I myself, support evolution, and reject intelligent design.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What do you mean by "Who God is"?

There can only be one Creator God....Creation done ...Job done...
No need for any other "creator Gods"


Are you asking.... which Religion owns the "Creator God"?
Which religion has the right to "Name" him?
Who are the true and only real followers?

God is not concerned with religion...
Religion is the province of man.

The universe was created long before man.
What ever process God used ... either following scientific principles or magic would be no more difficult to him. The time scale and the science suggests he used scientific principals. Our sense of time is simply not relevant to God.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Well, that is why you study the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus to be able to determine who God is and what his agendas are. I dont think this is no longer a question of "if" God exists. I think this is a question of "which" God exists. The complexity of DNA, the fined tuned parameters to make human life possible, the second law of thermodynamics, the origin of the universe, and the very high improbability of evolution, all of these things point to Intelligent Design. Once you've established Intelligent Design, then you are on a quest to find out who is this Intelligent Designer. I would argue that Christian Theism has the most evidence supporting it. And on Christian theism, your questions are answered about who God is, and what his agenda is.

That's presupposing that the Bible is true. What if it's not? What if it's a completely other god that created the earth? What if it was a Hindu god? Or a Greek god? You say that Christian theism has the most evidence supporting it, but I disagree.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

To assemble a living cell by using a blind, non-intellectual, and random process is highly improbable.To believe in any evolution is to believe in a highly improbable process. It is so improbable that it didnt happen, thats how improbable it is.

None of these things describe the Big Bang or evolution.

If a deistic God doesn't exist, then there would be no objective morality. So we would be able to live our lives as if there was no God at all. As I said before, I think on Christian theism, the questions that were asked are best answered on this worldview. There are no inconsistencies or contradictions in the bible.

Why does there have to be objective morality? There's none as far as I can see. All morality is subjective. And as far as there being no contradictions or errors in the Bible, that's completely false.

 

[Me Myself]

If creationism is true, that would not necessarily tell us who God is, and what his agenda are.

I agree. It truly wouldn´t