inconsistent Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, hold on, just let me go get my magic sky wand.



I'd wager about six days, personally. I'd probably wanna take a break after that, though.



You can't prove that it DOESN'T happen! HAH! Evolution 1, creationism 0. You just owned, son!



Mate, you wouldn't understand the evidence even if it existed.



lol you mean like simulating an entire planet in order to create life from the ground up?



I honestly cannot figure out why anyone would casually dismiss some ancient book written by a bunch of superstitious, middle-eastern nomads either. How can they NOT believe? The book even SAYS that it was written by God!



I can't speak for everyone here, but my main emotions have been exasperation and, quite frankly, depression.



Nobody blindly accepts what science says. Your problem is that you don't understand the scientific process, or any of the evidence that it uses to draw its conclusions.

Last edited by Shau on 06 Aug 2012, 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

AngelRho: I asked once, I will ask again.

"Why? Which evidence? Which experience?"

No, but science can prove the process which led to the animals' existence, and it does not ressemble the biblical tale.


There! You did it again!



When choosing between Ainulindalë, Genesis and Hellenic cosmogony, it is a matter of subjective opinion.

When choosing between any of those, which are built on imagination and tradition (except for Tolkien's myth, obviously), and the scientific explanation, which is based on empirical evidence, it is not.

From my agnostic point of view, I am ready to accept both atheism and deism as plausible, even though neither are provable (impossible to know). They both make only one claim about supramateriality and have no bearing on reality after the creationary moment. But to accept Christianity, especially when it is meant to include creationism, means accepting a long series of claims which contradict observable reality. Both the "long series of claims" and the "contradict observable reality" would be, alone, sufficient for me to deny it any plausibility.



And, pray tell, what may be the observable difference between both those cases?


No, it absolutely is not like Abe Lincoln's biographer. It is like a book written by his son, or his wife, or his best friend, or his most loyal supporter.

It does not mean they are wrong, just biased. The Gospels are a historical document, an important primary source, and as such should be read only after careful source criticism.

Amin tessa tanya Eru Ilúvatar nosta i' kemen!

With the help of Google, I think I understand what you said, in which case agree with you. And I envy your knowledge of Quenya.

Fun fact: Facebook does not recognize worship of Eru as a legitimate religion.

This is nonsense, I strongly suggest you look into what evidence actually is.

This isn't about MY claims. This is about claims to the contrary.


OK, then. That's all we really needed to know.

Then exactly what are you getting at? No matter how you attempt to excuse it, the reality remains the same.


Describing something as "cruel and wanton" is subjective. Look at the facts: a work of fiction, a collection of religious and historical writings, and myths about gods who can't get their own will straight.

In other words, you won't accept anything if it doesn't have a physical explanation. So if you actually met God vis-a-vis you wouldn't believe.


Dimitri was known to have been dead and lookalikes were known to have been mistaken for him. Jesus was positively identified more than once. No lookalikes were claimed.


OK then. I'm glad you agree.

Yeah, that part is scary.

Imo, he seems to have a decent grasp of it. To give a biological example, genes and their assorted properties are a key piece of evidence in all sides of the gene-centered vs. organism-centered vs. kin-centered debate on natural selection in biology. They can't all be 100% right, but the existence of the gene supports all three sides.

You know, my issue is, if the body of the work itself , were not so inconsistent, nor so exclusionary, then perhaps it would be much easier to approach. The KJV (or any other translation for that matter) is a constant state of contradiction from the aspect of the entire body. To even further this statement, I say this.

As an example, very very few Christians in this world read any of the Gnostics (the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Phillip, Bel and the Dragon, The Gospel of Judas -- yes there is one of those as well), much less understand them. Likewise have any Christian that I have known read the Books of Enoch, The Letter of Baruch, or any other non-standard text related to Christian works. I doubt you have read any of them (Despite Enoch's explicit talk about the war in heaven, which actually is VERY entertaining to read). Any more than any mainstream minister in their right mind get up in front of a congregation and lead a sermon from Leviticus (basically the punishment for every sin pre-Christ, which basically says if you meet anyone that isnt Jewish, an observer of God, or is guilty of any sin in the world, Kill them, and if you dont, Go find a sword and fall on it, for not doing God's work. Of course it also says not sacrificing animals to God is a sin, and yet Christian constantly persecute pagan religions for this very thing, despite being guilty of it themselves.). Well I suppose those Westboro Baptist Church members do.

I certainly challenge you AngelRho, to provide such empirical factual evidence to support your claims. Or do you take the stance, like most Christians do, that says "I dont have to provide such evidence, I have faith."

Er, what claims am I supposedly making? I simply find the Bible credible as a collection of documented evidence of what various people experienced or witnessed.

Also, suppose I do make a claim in favor of God's existence. God by nature is a spiritual being, not a physical being. Think of it this way: I have two pear trees in my yard. Not once have I ever found apples on it.

And not all things are empirical in nature. Suppose I challenge you to provide empirical evidence for "logic."

It isn't nonsense. I know what evidence is.

Two examinations here, on the credible source of spiritual material. (Which by the way, in more than a few cases was not divinely motivated, King James -- Mary Queen of Scots son, may have been divinely motivated by translate the bible, but he still layed with the Duke of Buckingham at night).

The Bible is a humantistic endeavour to attempt to explain something, that buy Christianity's own admission, that involves a being that has accomplished a vareity of things.

1. Is the Creator of everything (seen and unseen, heard and unheard, known and unknown).
2. Is Omniscient (Knowing of everything that will, can, does, and possibly could happen).
3. Is Perfect (Incapable of flaw, error, or mistake)
4. Is Purely Good (by all rationales embodies Good in every way possible).
5. is Infinite and limitless (which bugs me because Christians call God , Him. Defining the infinite and limitless with a gender, tends to NOT make them limitless and infinite anymore).

Yet

By statement 1 and 2, God knowingly creates abject evil (God's own antithesis). Or did not the Infinite and limitless create Ha-Satan (book of Job) or Lucifer (the morning star), which by the way, arent the same entity. God is therefore responsible for rape, hatred, digust, murder, killing, and every other evil thing that any entity in such a created universe can do. Following statement 3, this was done purely by design, and cannot be considered a mistake (much like Adam and even, using the same rationale, because an Omscient being cannot by fact deny that such a being was not aware of the actions of its own creations).

Yet , also

There happens in said "textbook", a major paradigm shift. In that shift (Christians refer to this as New vs Old) , God stops commanding the Arch-Angels (Gabriel, Uriel, Michael, Raziel, Samael, and many others) to outwardly kill people (Soddom, Gammorah, The Great Flood). God also stops telling people to outwardly kill others (Moses, Elisha, David, and many others), instead in favour of sending the physical embodiment of Gods own self upon the earth to die for ALL mans sins (not just the ones you selectively pick here and there), and to instruct man to love his father (Yahweh, Elohimm, whatever), and that in so doing they will be saved from 1000s of years of torment in a place called Hell (that really isnt described biblically as a place of fire but rather a place where those who are there can no longer see God, nor God see them. Its not until the book of Revelations that people assume when John talks about the Lake of Fire, that he naturally means Hell, though that connection is never made.). And that all men should be tolerant of other men, regardless of their faults.

So in the Old Testament , tick off the Almighty, and get killed (Either by the Allmighty's Hand, or by someone else commanded to do so by The Allmighty). In the New Testament, just repent for your sins and love your fellow man, and you might not get spanked so hard. So is the paradigm shift in the treatment of man by God considered a change in management? That might have to be considered a mistake, despite insistence to the otherwise.

Seems like, a perfect being incapable of flaw should know and understand how to manage its own creation, rather than depending on others to do it for them. Ergo, Creationism is a crock.

No. Arguing in favour of creationism is a claim. It is not true by default. You need to back it up.

Why should the biblical myth be closer to reality *than any other story? [EDIT : I forgot to finish the sentence, as seen in ruveyn's quote.]


My position is that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven [DON'T YOU EVEN DARE CUT MY POST HERE!], but that this is not the case of Christianity as whole, because it makes many other claims. While some of them cannot be disproven as well, a) they are not necessary to explain the world as it is, b) they are very numerous, and when looking for a working hypothesis, it is bad form to admit the most complex possibility before all the others, and c) there is absolutely no reason why these claims are more solid than any other series of claims.

You seem to think that because technically, metaphysical claims are generally impossible to settle, you are motivated in accepting scores of them, including some which are actually not metaphysical but very physical, such as creationism, and which contradict empirical evidence.


I don't think I said that. I can certainly say that when trying to understand the physical, one should should observe the physical.

There are many problems with meeting God. 1) How am I to know it is actually God? 2) Does the supreme being actually exist after the creationary moment? and if so, why? 3) Can this supreme being interfere in worldly affairs after the creationary moment? and if so, why? 4) Does or can the supreme being show itself when interfering? (All the "why?" are not necessary, but would offer insight. God could be absurd, as he already is in the Bible.)



Or we don't know about them. The only (extant) source on the events described were written years after the fact by people who have very particular interests. To be precise, the various Dmitris were also different, and those tasked with recognizing them also had very particular interests and biases, which were the opposite of those of the people who wrote down the Gospels.


This is the worst you have done so far at disfiguring one of my statements.

First, you should know that I read history at college, and as such, I have been exposed to historical documents. My so far incomplete training has already given me intellectual tools for their analysis. As such, I would say that no such document is "wrong", because it is not the point, but reveals certain elements about the past which have to be careful decrypted. This is true of the Gospels, this is true of the Bible as a whole, this is true of the Gesta abbatum Trudonensis, this is true of the false Donation of Constantine, this is true of archeological records, of the Declaration of Independence, of Churchill's war speeches, of notarial documents from medieval Siena, of everything the historian can find to feed his studies.

Last edited by enrico_dandolo on 06 Aug 2012, 7:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

It isn't. On the basis of facts alone, the bible is seen to be fiction with a ":moral".

ruveyn

Because it's not a myth. I mean, even Genesis is told through the point of view of eyewitnesses. There are no superhuman heroes in the OT. I mean, sure, Samson possessed great strength, but he was still only a man with human weaknesses and moral failings. God is just, well, God. The entire narrative is historical, not a hyper-stylized, overblown epic fictional work.


Ok, I'll cut it a word later. The plain fact is you cannot deny THIS fact if you wish to remain consistent. Everything else that follows is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. You're just making up excuses as to why despite this established fact by your own admission, I should just choose not to believe. And that makes no sense. If it's really 50/50 pro/con God, why can't I just call Pascal on it and be done with it? After all, it only means if YOU don't believe, you're just falling back on whatever excuses you have so you can just go on your merry way not believing. That's bias, and not very scientific, I might add...


What empirical evidence, exactly? I mean, think about it. Genesis says God created the heavens and the earth, right? If this is true, then the heavens and the earth are EMPIRICAL evidence that God exists. So if we already believe that God created the heavens and the earth, but you put your faith in the idea that God DIDN'T, how exactly are you going to prove your extraordinary claim that God did not create the heavens and the earth? What empirical evidence are you going to provide that will kill God in the minds of believers and force us to think otherwise?

OK...then it follows that when trying to understand the non-physical or supernatural, one should observe the supernatural. If physical means do not suffice, then other means of human perception are to be employed.

There are many problems with meeting anybody. If you met me on the street, how would you really know it's me? Would you take my word for it? Would you ask for confirming documentation? All that could be faked, you know. It's entirely possible I could get friends to say it's me when it's not me.

I can't compel you to take my word for it, accept positive photo ID, or believe people who have also known me.

And neither WILL a God compel you to take His word for it, accept that the universe and even mankind is a reflection of and identifier for who God is, or even trust written accounts of those who were in God's presence.

Another claim that requires evidence.


I'm afraid I can't continue in this particular line about the Dmitris. I mean, I'm just taking your word for it in a hypothetical kind of way. You got a wikipedia article on that somewhere? All I have to go on is that Dmitri was dead and had 3 posers standing in for him. Assuming this is true, the trouble is you actually do have attestation to the fact that there was one dead Dmitri and three fakes. With Jesus, you have multiple attestation the fact that Jesus DIED, was buried in a guarded and sealed tomb, multiple witnesses attested to the fact the tomb was empty, and that Jesus appeared alive to multiple witnesses who could positively identify Him.

Excellent. Then you are aware that the Greek NT is the best attested historical document of the ancient world.

There, we are getting somewhere. Finally.

Why should I accept it as something else than a myth?


Read my damn post. You have not yet understood it.


I can't provide evidence that a hypothetical supreme being does not exist. You should have noticed, it's the bit you don't cut from my quote. I don't mean to kill God, because I can't, but the process which led from "chaos", to planet Earth as we know it, to animals as we know them and to humans as we are can be explained with empirical evidence, a lot of which is scattered about in this thread.


That is invalid logic.



The problem is that are no means for humans to go beyond physicality.



Okay, life story time. I made two stays in psychiatric hospitals, for a total of seven weeks. There, I crossed paths one person who said that the Virgin Mary was talking through him, and another who seems to believe he was some kind of Messiah.

How can I know that they are wrong and that Jesus was right?


Yes and no. Any claim requires evidence. In this case, the evidence would be litterary evidence, namely the fact that, in the Bible, God seems to exist only because he does (I repeat, he does in the Bible, strictly). That is what I call absurd existence.



Wikpedia article here.

The basic story, as I remember it (I'm too lazy to read Wikipedia), is that Dmitri was the czar son and heir, and was assassinated, and various people claimed to have been him. It was during a troubled time in Russia history, namely the Time of Troubles (...). The first one was widely recognized and became czar, and probably did interesting which I can't recall thing until he died. The second one was backed by the Poles, but was also recognized by the first False Dmitri's wife. Since he was only a puppet czar, he was less appreciated. The third one was not widely recognized (I guess people were starting to catch on), but had some support anyway.

This would be a fuller interpreation: Judea was living a "Time of Troubles" of its own because of the recent Roman conquest, and Jesus was a figure of hope for some people. When he was executed, someone bribed or eluded the guards, hid the body, claimed that he actually was Jesus back from the dead (which was credible since Jesus claimed divine ancestry), was believed from at least some of the people for whom Jesus, as as symbol (not as a person), represented hope. Obviously I cannot [do not cut] prove [do not cut] this [do not cut], but [do not cut] neither [do not cut] can you prove that he was the son of God without circular reasonning.


What do you mean by that?