Concerning Creation

[martin frobisher]

Not sure the point you're trying to make

[Guest shiloh357]

Yes, we're going to go round in circles here I suspect.

Can we learn about creation from observation?

Yes/No?

We are not running around in circles. YOU are simply unable to provide anything from the Bible the directly contradicts what I have said about God, and you are unable to provide any examples to support your assertion that I am contradicting myself. So, now you turn to sweeping those failures under the rug and open a new line of questions.

We can of course learn things about creation from observation. I have always maintained that we can. So the question is superfluous. However, we are able to do that because creation is ordered and uniform. It would be impossible to learn about a creation that was always changing

[Guest shiloh357]

The passage is talking about creation demonstrating the power of God.

The verse states:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead."

If what you said is correct, would not the passage state: "For the power of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, that is even his eternal power and Godhead." ?

Not sure the point you're trying to make

The point she is making is that you are misinterpreting the text.

[nebula]

Not sure the point you're trying to make

Well, at least we can agree on one thing - we can't understand what point each other is trying to make!

Anyway, that's a good enough excuse for me to back out now while I can.

I'll be away for the rest of the week (camping trip).

Chow!

[martin frobisher]

...which is why your approach is flawed.

Since in NT times they couldn't study creation in the same way as we can know, they took it on faith that creation reflected God's glory.

Now we can study God's creation, it will be self-evident as to whether creation is orderly or not. We don't have to surmise as you have that creation must be orderly because God is! It's been clearly posted.

It is you that has brought up the question of contradiction, that was not my line of argument....

so let's try and think clearly here please?

[martin frobisher]

The passage is talking about creation demonstrating the power of God.

The verse states:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead."

If what you said is correct, would not the passage state: "For the power of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, that is even his eternal power and Godhead." ?

Not sure the point you're trying to make

The point she is making is that you are misinterpreting the text.

I think nebula can speak for herself.

[martin frobisher]

Your line of reasoning is very confused. You are essentially saying that the possibility of scientific thought (which by definition tends to exclude the study of supernatural phenomenon that disobey the normal rules) must prove the existence of a creator. It's a non sequitur.

[Guest shiloh357]

I think nebula can speak for herself.

Irrelevant. The fact is, you misinterpreted the text of Romans 1:19-20. Whether she tells you, or I do. It is truth, nonetheless.

which is why your approach is flawed.

Since in NT times they couldn't study creation in the same way as we can know, they took it on faith that creation reflected God's glory.

They might have been able to study creation in terms of the details we can today, but that does not mean that what can be observed would not be reflective of the creator.

Now we can study God's creation, it will be self-evident as to whether creation is orderly or not. We don't have to surmise as you have that creation must be orderly because God is! It's been clearly posted.

Actually what I said is that it is not surprising that creation has the order it does primarily because God is a God of order, and not a God of confusion.

It is you that has brought up the question of contradiction, that was not my line of argument....

No, you have continued to make the oft repeated assertion that I am contradicting myself. I simply asked for you to for you to show me where the contradictions lie in my posts. You have failed to do so. Therefore, your assertion possesses no merit.

Your line of reasoning is very confused.

No, you are trying to manufacture confusion where none exists.

You are essentially saying that the possibility of scientific thought (which by definition tends to exclude the study of supernatural phenomenon that disobey the normal rules) must prove the existence of a creator. It's a non sequitur.

No I am not essentially saying that at all. I never said that the possibility of scientific thought must prove a creator. That is a value you are assigning to me.

What I am saying is that creation is reflective of its creator. What I have said is that science depends on a universe of design and order. Even if scientists choose to reject the designer, they do science as if the universe is designed. Operational science depends on consistency in order to better understand the universe, and this is true in any field of study.

I have never said that any of this "proves" anything, much less proves the existence of a Creator/God. What I am saying is that the order and consistency we can see in the created order agrees with the Bible's declarations that God is reflected in and glorified by what He has made. It makes sense for the Christian that we live in a universe of order and logic due to the fact it was created by God of order and logic.

This gives strong evidence to His existnece ,yes. But I never said that it "proves" His existence.

[BlindSeeker]

Sorry, are we back to the usual rules of having to prove assertions or your rules of having to disprove assertions?

If you are surmising characteristics of creation from the creator as you have done, that is flawed.

I normally enjoy a good point-counterpoint discussion . . . when it addresses the subject.

[traveller]

Martin - stop telling Shiloh what he's saying. He knows better than you what it is that he's saying.

Shiloh - stop defending yourself. Everyone else understands your point.

Now - lets get back to the OP and leave the back and forth stuff off, ok? Contention doesn't belong here.