Proofs For Creationism - As Requested

Guilty_Biscuit · Post by **Guilty_Biscuit** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:53 pm

GustavusAdolphus wrote:Another factor to consider is Pascal's wager, which basically says that if there is no God, then those who believe in God have lost nothing because they lived their lives as they wanted, but if there is a God and a hell, the unbeliever has lost everything.

Factor an unlimited amount of potential Gods to Pascals wager and atheists win every time. Score.

luns101 · Post by **luns101** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:53 pm

Nunz,

Your efforts here are commendable but actually a waste of time. Years of postmodern theology taught in public schools or secular colleges cannot be overcome on a RISK website forum. You're only going to get smart-alik remarks. They will not give up their beliefs. It's fun to engage in argument if someone is truly sincere in wanting to know what it is you believe, but nobody here will be convinced of anything. Once again, you usually can't overcome postmodern indoctrination. Instead, you'll be the one accused of being indoctrinated.

Using the scientific method isn't advised. Using the historical/legal method is probably better. However, I think it makes little difference as it is more a matter of someone's will being changed than their intellect being convinced.

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:56 pm

Guilty_Biscuit wrote:
Colossus wrote:science itself must acknowledge that God is a viable potential explanation for the origin of everything
I think you misunderstand the meaning of viable in this context.

I understand the meaning of 'viable' just fine, thanks.

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:07 pm

luns101 wrote:You're only going to get smart-alik remarks. They will not give up their beliefs.

ALL HAIL THE GREAT ORANGUTAN!

flashleg8 · Post by **flashleg8** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:43 pm

We don’t need your pathetic ORANGUTAN. Humans are charge of our own destiny!

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:26 pm

Colossus wrote:interesting point, and physiologically very possible. given all of the evidence for genetic predisposal to so many things, it's likely that different people are more inherently able to feel that sort of special 'religious' experience type of feeling. I have to admit that I've had such experiences. Maybe that's why I believe in God despite being devoted to a career in science. It's very interesting the way they discuss the physiology of religious experience in that book, 'Why God Won't Go Away'. Extensive studies of brain activity of people in the midst of religious experiences shows that the part of their brains that distinguishes self from non-self is intimately involved. Interestingly, the activity in this part of the brain is different depending on the type of religious experience, but the end result is the same. At the height of the religious experience, the self vs. non-self part of the brain either shuts down completely or is completely overloaded with the end result in either case being that it ceases to define self vs. non-self. The book is really fascinating and resists drawing any conclusions whatsoever regarding whether the absence of self/non-self distinction is an imaginary connection to the 'Infinite' or a real one. Seriously a fantastic book for the believer and non-believer alike. very cool stuff. (though perhaps a titch off-topic).

Colossus, I usually don't get involved with the religion debates... Backglass does enough by himself... but I just wanted to commend you on a very reasoned and intellectual approach to the argument. Although they are nowhere near 'winning me over' (as it were) they are infinitely more convincing than the vast majority of the posts by the other theists on this site. You've managed to be in no way patronising, which is a great start (Luns!!!).

Three cheers for reasoned debate! And perhaps you could give some tips to the 'America owns! All you liberals suck dick!' crew in the politics thread

Guilty_Biscuit · Post by **Guilty_Biscuit** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:35 pm

Colossus wrote:I understand the meaning of 'viable' just fine, thanks.

Well what viable reason do you have to use it in this context?

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:00 pm

Scientifically, the definition of a viable explanation is simply one that has yet to be disproven. God has yet to be disproven, thus His action remains a viable explanation. Whether it is the most reasonable explanation or not is a different question. Let's refer back to the example of the lady lifting a car off of someone. It is certainly possible that her ability to do so was the result of divine intervention. It is much more reasonable, based on studies of human ability under stress, to say that the human body is capable of amazing things under extreme stress and that adrenaline can be extremely powerful. The merits of one explanation over another are dependent on a person's perspective.

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:03 pm

oh, and, thanks Guiscard.

Guilty_Biscuit · Post by **Guilty_Biscuit** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:25 pm

Wow Colossus, you do make good arguments. I still think you need to reword your statements regarding viable explinations though:-

Colossus wrote:Scientifically, the definition of a viable explanation is simply one that has yet to be disproven.

Scientifically, a viable explination is known as a 'theory'. A 'theory' is not viable simply becasue it has yet to be disproven.

"In science, a theory is a systematic explanation of observed phenomena. It must be consistent with all natural laws and withstand the scrutiny and inquiry of the scientific community"

Colossus wrote:God has yet to be disproven, thus His action remains a viable explanation. Whether it is the most reasonable explanation or not is a different question. Let's refer back to the example of the lady lifting a car off of someone. It is certainly possible that her ability to do so was the result of divine intervention. It is much more reasonable, based on studies of human ability under stress, to say that the human body is capable of amazing things under extreme stress and that adrenaline can be extremely powerful.

Scienficially, in this example the amazing human body is a viable theory whereas divine intervention is not.

Colossus wrote:The merits of one explanation over another are dependent on a person's perspective.

The merits are quite clear, divine intervention is not a viable theory.

The following illustrates my point:

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:39 pm

You're arguing semantics, man. There is no scientifically accepted definition for the word 'viable,' and calling something viable is certainly not paramount to calling it a theory! In most scientific literature that I read (and I read a fair bit since research is my job) the word 'viable' is either used in place of 'possible/practicable' or to mean 'able to produce offspring.' I was using the word in the former context. If you're just going to argue semantics, then there is no point in discussing anything with you. I made my meaning clear.

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:41 pm

Although I do agree that divine intervention is not a viable theory, it IS a viable explanation. Your (or anyone else's) refusal to believe that it is possible does not make it impossible.

Guilty_Biscuit · Post by **Guilty_Biscuit** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:07 pm

Thank you Colossus, although I think you have missed the point - your use of the word viable was important in the context of your post.

Colossus wrote:without having disproven the existence of God, science itself must acknowledge that God is a viable potential explanation for the origin of everything.

Using your own definition the sentance above carries no meaning other than science has not disproven God.

Colossus wrote:the simple fact is that the only 'scientific' evidence for the existence of God is the lack of evidence disproving the existence of God. That kind of logic is totally circular and nonsensical, and there really isn't any other argument supported by actual data to be made.?

The above sentance? Science can not disprove God

So you defend the belief in Creationism by saying Science has not and can not disprove God so Creationism is an acceptable belief. This is not the case because there is a lot of evidence backing an alternate theory called Evolution, hence, in the absence of evidence for Creationism one is compelled to accept Evolution. To disregard the evidence and instead will yourself to believe in the Creator is possible but it is not a defendable position.

I do not 'just argue semantics' for the sake of it.

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:23 pm

Biscuit, I am in no way defending Creationism or the imaginary 'science' of intelligent design here. All of my comments have been related to the question of God's existence and his potential role in the shaping of the world. I personally subscribe to the Big Bang theory and to Evolution (the last lab I worked in was an evolutionary biology lab). But these theories do not preclude the existence or the potential role of a God. This is the trouble with arguments absolutely one way or the other. The two ideas are simply NOT mutually exclusive. I think the people that believe that the Earth was created in six days are patently wrong because that idea has been disproven by a preponderance of evidence. However, all cosmological theories fail to connect all of the dots between the 'beginning' and now. Therefore there remains room for a reasonable person be believe in the existence, presence, and roll of God. That's what I'm saying, is it clear now?

Guilty_Biscuit · Post by **Guilty_Biscuit** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:44 pm

Colossus wrote:Biscuit, I am in no way defending Creationism or the imaginary 'science' of intelligent design here.?

If that was not your intention then I misunderstood - the post I replied to was you defending Quote: God(or creation) and you posted it in a thead on creationism.

Colossus wrote:However, all cosmological theories fail to connect all of the dots between the 'beginning' and now. Therefore there remains room for a reasonable person be believe in the existence, presence, and roll of God. That's what I'm saying, is it clear now?

I will accept that both sides have no evidence to connect these dots, however - and this should continue outside this creationism thread - now that the room for belief in God has shrunk so much, should a reasonable person make such a leap of faith and belive in one?

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:46 pm

my quote said ' God (or creation)', not 'or Creationism'. HUGE difference. We can certainly continue this elsewhere.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:57 pm

Proof of evolution

Colossus · Post by **Colossus** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:08 pm

Again, I think it's important to distinguish between proof of evolution and disproof of strict Creationism. While this is all excellent evidence in support of evolution, it is not proof. It IS disproof of strict Creationism.

Guilty_Biscuit · Post by **Guilty_Biscuit** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:10 pm

yes unriggable, it is evidence of evolution, not proof of evolution.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:11 pm

Guilty_Biscuit wrote:yes unriggable, it is evidence of evolution, not proof of evolution.

How much evidence does it take...

Kugelblitz22 · Post by **Kugelblitz22** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:21 pm

luns101 wrote:Nunz,
Using the scientific method isn't advised.

That's an understatement.

But seriously, trying to prove something that doesn't make sense using a tool designed to uncover logical truth is probably ill advised.

There are two types of science.

1. The science that put us on the moon.

2. The science that will prevent your kids from getting a good job when you home school them.

Real science has been used to cure disease, put men in the air with the birds and grow stronger crops.

Real science made America great.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:27 pm

Kugelblitz22 wrote:Real science made America great.

Yet still not very good

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... 29204.html

Kugelblitz22 · Post by **Kugelblitz22** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:30 pm

I'm moving to Iceland.

So since the thread title made it sound like the proofs had already arrived...I'm guessing any minute now?

nunz · Post by **nunz** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:42 am

Kugelblitz22 wrote:I'm moving to Iceland.

So since the thread title made it sound like the proofs had already arrived...I'm guessing any minute now?

Like I said in the other thread, it will not be fast as I am a busy man with three very young children, my own business and a wife to keep happy so do bare with me... err should that be bear? beer ... bier?

My first post ... drew five pages of mostly crap (

) , but thankfully some of it got back on line.

So Premise 1. A god / creator cannot be ruled out as a possible start to life, the universe and everything. I think we generally agree this is the case. Either that or some one here is themselves god as they would have to know everything

For the rest of this discussion I am going to skip the word god in favor of the word creator or creative force, just to ensure we knock out most of the anti-Christian rants invoked by the use of the personal noun -, 'God'.

Next step ... looking at scientific evidence that there is a possibility that we might be created rather than a random accident.

BTW - I agree with others that there is more legal and philosophical proof for God than scientific but still, looking at evidence in other lights is always fun.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:15 am

Yes, there is a possibility that we were created by some kind of being(s) or force in the universe. it is equally possible that we were came out of eons of slow genetic mutation and adaptation.

A possibility among an infinite number of others is no cause for building dogma.

Proofs For Creationism - As Requested

The wrong standard

Re: The wrong standard

Re: The wrong standard

Re: The wrong standard

Premise 1. God cannot be ruled out as a possible start...