Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you stuck considering the term creation as co-equal with Creationism? Generically, the term refers to the bringing into being. Are you suggesting that nothing we currently experience as reality was "brought into being?"
Are you stuck considering the term creation as co-equal with Creationism? Generically, the term refers to the bringing into being. Are you suggesting that nothing we currently experience as reality was "brought into being?"
No I'm not...Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer in my OP, but I thought that most people would understand that I was referring to religious creationism...Sorry you didn't get it.
I have the benefit of personal experience that you do not have. Absent that . . . I would still be as you are.
Dissecting these sentences in detail, you use the word "benefit". Perhaps just an offhand use, of do you consider that you've had the benefit of something that I haven't? That I've either been "shorted" so far in life, or perhaps ignored something I should have interpreted as a "communication", or that I've rejected something that I should have taken to be significant?
The stories I have seen on C-D about personal experiences are rarely (if ever...) unambiguous. They can be quite convincing, especially if the individual is in the mood to accept, to find and experience, and to then tell others that he too has "had a talk with God".
As you know, I've had experiences you probably haven't (as with all of us), but mine were perhaps unusual and more intense in a particular area than most people might experience. I feel strongly that I could say precisely the same things to you: you have not had the benefit of what I've experienced.
BTW, have you by chance seen the recently aired series on NatGeo TV called "Alone in the Wild", filmed by Ed Wardle or Watle? He actually tried to survive for 3 mo, only made it to 50 days, which was remarkable, in an area about 40 miles from where I, ditto, lived alone for long periods of time. Of course, I had fly-in support, food drop offs, etc.
It afforded me a lot of time to consider, to ask God to talk to me, and to assess things in the wilderness from both the Christian and the secular perspective.
Obviously, the secular side, egged on by my ongoing grad biology studies, won. Experience you didn't have the benefit of!
No I'm not...Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer in my OP, but I thought that most people would understand that I was referring to religious creationism...Sorry you didn't get it.
Sorry you didn't ASK it. Capitalizing it and adding that little "ism" on the end makes a huge difference. To see the problems such distinctions can cause see my discussions with Axis.
Dissecting these sentences in detail, you use the word "benefit". Perhaps just an offhand use, of do you consider that you've had the benefit of something that I haven't? That I've either been "shorted" so far in life, or perhaps ignored something I should have interpreted as a "communication", or that I've rejected something that I should have taken to be significant?
The stories I have seen on C-D about personal experiences are rarely (if ever...) unambiguous. They can be quite convincing, especially if the individual is in the mood to accept, to find and experience, and to then tell others that he too has "had a talk with God".
As you know, I've had experiences you probably haven't (as with all of us), but mine were perhaps unusual and more intense in a particular area than most people might experience. I feel strongly that I could say precisely the same things to you: you have not had the benefit of what I've experienced.
BTW, have you by chance seen the recently aired series on NatGeo TV called "Alone in the Wild", filmed by Ed Wardle or Watle? He actually tried to survive for 3 mo, only made it to 50 days, which was remarkable, in an area about 40 miles from where I, ditto, lived alone for long periods of time. Of course, I had fly-in support, food drop offs, etc.
It afforded me a lot of time to consider, to ask God to talk to me, and to assess things in the wilderness from both the Christian and the secular perspective.
Obviously, the secular side, egged on by my ongoing grad biology studies, won. Experience you didn't have the benefit of!
Have a good one!
Clearly you took my reference to benefit negatively . . . and no such thing was intended. I identify with the strength of the atheist position in the absence of proof (as defined scientifically). I lived it. I probably should have said "I have the certainty of personal experience that you do not have. Absent that . . . I would still be as you are." Sorry for the misundertanding.
there does not need to be proof, you should just believe. No governemnt but gods government.
This is an unsatisfactory answer for those of us whom are more scientifically minded. 'You should just believe' says that creationism/religious belief is more of an authoritarian belief. It means that someone is supposed to abandon their abilities of logic and scepticism in favor of blindly believing whatever someone else tells them to. Truth comes from that which is based on demonstrable evidence. This means that someone is required to provide empirical proof to substantiate their claim in order for others to accept it as true. Reason and scepticism are the most reliable ways of discovering what is and isn't true, therefore truth claims should be based on facts and evidence. The problem with believing in the truth of creationism is that creationists have never been able to provide proof of its truth. On the otherhand, all the evidence points to biological evolution. From the standpoint of an empiricist, this means that evolution is true and creationism is false.
I don't want to distract from the interesting mystic conversation happening but thought I'd throw the following into the mix as well because it's on topic and those familiar with astrophysics (not me) might want to read the article and comment. Here are a few extracts:
Contemporary astrophysics hold the scientific key to prove the existence of God, but unfortunately very few know the scientific facts, said Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, PhD...
The Honolulu-born Jesuit is the past president of Gonzaga University and is also well-known philosopher and physicist who is involved in bringing science and theology together.
Fr. Spitzer is currently engaged in an ambitious project to explain the metaphysical consequences of the latest astrophysical discoveries, mainly, the existence of a Creator.
Fr. Spitzer explained that, since science is based on a empirical model, it can change at any time. Nevertheless, as science develops and the so called “Big Bang” theory of the origin and existence of the universe becomes more refined, “it becomes less and less possible for other explanations (of the universe) to be scientifically viable.”
“Every single Big Bang model shows the existence of what scientists call a ‘singularity,’ and the existence of each singularity demands the existence of an external ‘element’ to the universe.”
“The arguments of Fr. Spitzer are addressed to every honest human being who is trying to reach to God through science,” said Mr. Busch, during the introduction.
I don't want to distract from the interesting mystic conversation happening but thought I'd throw the following into the mix as well because it's on topic and those familiar with astrophysics (not me) might want to read the article and comment. Here are a few extracts:
Contemporary astrophysics hold the scientific key to prove the existence of God, but unfortunately very few know the scientific facts, said Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, PhD...
The Honolulu-born Jesuit is the past president of Gonzaga University and is also well-known philosopher and physicist who is involved in bringing science and theology together.
Fr. Spitzer is currently engaged in an ambitious project to explain the metaphysical consequences of the latest astrophysical discoveries, mainly, the existence of a Creator.
Fr. Spitzer explained that, since science is based on a empirical model, it can change at any time. Nevertheless, as science develops and the so called “Big Bang” theory of the origin and existence of the universe becomes more refined, “it becomes less and less possible for other explanations (of the universe) to be scientifically viable.”
“Every single Big Bang model shows the existence of what scientists call a ‘singularity,’ and the existence of each singularity demands the existence of an external ‘element’ to the universe.”
“The arguments of Fr. Spitzer are addressed to every honest human being who is trying to reach to God through science,” said Mr. Busch, during the introduction.
Doesn't take an astrophysicist to recognize a few simple facts...
1. Science and religion cannot coexist, they are polar opposites to one another.
2. A jesuit preist isn't exactly an unbiased scientist. While, in my personal experience, Jesuits tend to be the most open minded of the lot, they are still going to always and automatically argue for the existance of their deity.
3. His claims are no better, and no more substantiated, than any YECer argument. "It's there so goddunit" is not science.
“Every single Big Bang model shows the existence of what scientists call a ‘singularity,’ and the existence of each singularity demands the existence of an external ‘element’ to the universe.”
I'm no expert, but from what little I've learned on the topic it sounds correct. What I fail to see is how this is evidence for any god. It has the same problem than the cosmological argument:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxolan
Let's assume that the universe has a cause then. What does that have to do with God? The "cause of the universe" thus demonstrated has no known characteristics. God, however, has plenty of assumed characteristics, such as (depending on religions) intelligence, uniqueness, omnipotence/great power, an interest in humanity etc.
It would make more sense if you stopped lumping all believers (or all Christian believers) into one homogenous unacceptable bunch of intellectual losers and stupid idiots . . . and address what each individual you encounter ACTUALLY SAYS.
Whoa whoa buddy. Cool it down.
Is that what you think of other Christians? Because, I've never inferred, implied, or said that Christians are intellectual losers or stupid idiots.
Don't put words of what you believe about others of the same group into my mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Just because YOU see all theists defending the SAME BS . . . doesn't mean we are.
Again, don't try to ascribe thoughts, words, and ideas to me that I have never, said or implied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Critical thinkers focus on the CONTENT of presentations . . . not on WHO is presenting or who they are assumed to be associated with . . . genetic fallacy.
I don't even know where you are going with this anymore. Did I hit a trigger or something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
So what?
So your interpretations aren't any closer to truth or more valid than the claims that justamere or yeshua make. I dismiss your claims of knowing the supernatural just as I dismiss their claims. But, they'd might have a little more validity if Christians in general could agree on your God wants, what the bible means, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Where is this utopia of consensus you inhabit, kb . . . sounds like a great place.
There is no utopia of consensus that I inhabit. I am just making the argument that if Christians could agree on what their God wants, and what his word says, it'd clear up a lot of discrepancies that people of different faith's (or no faith at all) have about it.
Christian's polar opposite views on what God is, etc., actually hurts your claim more than it helps because you guys cannot agree on much of anything.
It affirms the non-belief that your God doesn't exist because if he did, and he did "inspire" people and put "his words into their hearts," you guys would all be saying the same thing.
Really now, is that so hard to fathom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
We have far too much evidence of the effect of absolute power on obedience . . . regardless of individual temperament . . . to accept your assertions. That is the very misunderstanding and problem with the "coercion, fear of God, eternal hell" BS that is promulgated as doctrine by so many religions . . . it is self-defeating.
Actually it is a certainty of absolute power thing . . . no matter what the individuals think. I can see where that has been a workable criterion in human affairs . . . everyone must agree or else. I seek nothing from you and make no claims upon you . . . I'm simply explaining my reality as I experience it. The more we see through other eyes besides our own . . . the more discerning we can be.Hardly . . . but it is supposed to be "in His likeness" . . . i.e., LIKE His . . with the same characteristics . . . except for our human foibles and weaknesses (negative emotions). I suspect your solutions would fail to account for all those foibles and weaknesses.
Yea...you're really not making much of any sense. And the way you p....un......c.....tua.....te... you sentences doesn't help with the fluidity of what you're say either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I seek nothing from you and make no claims upon you . . . I'm simply explaining my reality as I experience it. The more we see through other eyes besides our own . . . the more discerning we can be.Hardly . . . but it is supposed to be "in His likeness" . . . i.e., LIKE His . . with the same characteristics . . . except for our human foibles and weaknesses (negative emotions). I suspect your solutions would fail to account for all those foibles and weaknesses.
