Creationism

Post Reply New Topic

Says you

Of course.

Tensu: It sounds to me like you really have it together. Just as a personal preference, though, I tend to avoid solipsism altogether. I tend to focus more on simplicity of thought--that in MOST cases the senses are reliable, consistent from perceiver to perceiver, and accurately connect us with the outer physical world. Hence what we see and feel are more than mere interpretations; they really are what they really are, and I don't think everything has to be qualified in strictly scientific terms to understand them.

Further, I think that thoughts, emotions, and so forth are more than mere sparks between neurons. I think the body, including the brain, are servants of the soul and thus not the originator of those kinds of things. The fact that there is an invisible yet observable universe is attested to by such invisible things as emotions, morality, and even logic. Regardless of what flavor of creationism you ascribe to, logic dictates that morality is not an inborn trait but rather something that the elements of which must be communicated in some form or another.

Because we can establish a world of invisible, physically unobservable phenomena, we can at the very least guess about what sort of things occupy that dimension. These things are not observable in a purely physical sense, but we do get physical manifestations of them. The number 1, for example, does not physically exist. We can, however, use it as a descriptor to quantify physical objects: 1 pencil, 1 car, 1 tree. God is by nature spirit, not physical (except in the person of Jesus). God DOES manifest Himself physically in various ways when it is necessary, such as the burning bush, the cloud by day/fire by night, and the physical reality of Jesus. It is these various manifestations within physical reality of spiritual beings that CAN be observed. In my own experience, I was in a horrible auto accident during which I heard a voice--not the driver of the car--tell me to step out of the car. The car was still moving, of course, but I didn't feel I was really in a position to argue about it. So I casually stepped out of the car and got a mouth full of dirt for my trouble. The car was flattened, and neither I nor the driver could really explain how it is we survived.

The voices in the heads of believers don't come from nowhere. I can't explain whether an angel told me to get out of the car, the Holy Spirit, or the voice of God Himself, but what I observed was not merely a product of my imagination. The book of Acts relates a story of when the apostle Peter was about to be executed, he saw a bright light and an angel who broke him out of prison. By this point, Peter was used to having dreams or visions, so he simply went along with it. He didn't understand until after the angel abruptly abandoned him that what happened was real. So even though our thoughts and visions/dreams are not physically observable, they ARE observable because they are things that we have direct experience with.

So saying that "God is an unobserved phenomenon" is stating a truth of, at best, only half the reality of God.

If G-D is unobserved what is the other half and how can any assertion about the other half be tested empirically. If it ain't empirical it is either mathematics or it is nonsense.

ruveyn

Why would an entity of unimaginable scope submit to our empirical investigations? And if such an entity refuses to submit to those investigations, how then can you determine the status of its existence? Are there any aspects of reality that can be ascertained unempirically that cannot be ascertained empirically?

The Bible provides accounts of witnessed phenomena. Believers can also relate their own experiences that cannot be explained in ordinary, purely physical terms. Testimony to the facts ARE observable. By nature, that kind of thing wouldn't hold up in a chemistry lab. However, psychologists cannot deny it. You can SAY that the witness in question is lying, but how do you know? Perhaps scientists with the exception of psychologists are unqualified in the strictest sense to render judgment on God. What scientists CAN say, however, is that certain things are physically IMPOSSIBLE. And because those things are physically impossible, it stands to reason that divine, supernatural intervention had to be involved. Science can help us define what belongs to the physical world and what does not.

Science, though, is not the only facet of existence that demands evidence. The testimony given in the Gospels of Jesus' works by numerous reliable witnesses is certainly conclusive enough to stand in a court of law.

Alright, but from a serious perspective:

Evolution has yielded enough empirical evidence to become a scientific theory.
Creationism has not. There is no theory of Creationism. It really is that simple.

Those "reliable" witnesses are characters in a work of fiction.

You might as well quote the testimony of Aragorn, the King of Gondor.


ruveyn

lies! all lies!
video showing the TRUTH about fossils!
article (with hilarious pictures) explaining what happened to the dinosaurs!

if only those of us who are so foolishly and faithlessly ignorant as to the existence of the devine could accept that we don't know everything and figure out some method of testing our worldview. maybe systematic knowledge of the physical or material world could be gained through observation and experimentation?

if only there were a word for that....

or, since that sounds like a lot of work, we could just ask our parents. they know the truth because someone else told them. i'm sure someone checked whether or not the story was true or made sense at some point. i mean, it's not like we've learned anything new in the last few dozen centuries, right?


if only i could hear voices in my head, surely i would understand the truth.

Yes you're proving the story by citing the story itsself.

But also- this thread isnt even about the new testament. Its about the first book in the old testament.

Who were the "eye witnesses" to creation in Genisis?

After clicking all those links, I take you're agreeing with Ambrose_Rotten and being sarcastic about creationists. That video about the "Satan is a dick" theory of fossilisation is quite funny.

There's not much I can add that hasn't been said before. There is a lot of evidence for evolution and most of the evidence contradicts creationism.

I believe that God was the eyewitness to creation.

How do you verify that if you can't empirically test whether God exists?

So..are you proposing to call God to the witness stand to be cross examined?
Or what?

One what evidence do you come to this conclusion?

ruveyn