Guest shiloh357 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Also, there can be only one "CREATOR", more than one is logical absurdity and incoherent actually I think it was the dynamic trio.... Yes but they are ONE. just as we are one with them..... as per the prayer of Jesus himself. No, not in the same way we are one with them. The oneness of the persons of the Trinity are unique and there is nothing in the human experiece that serves as an adequate point of reference or analogy for their relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think the First Cause Argument is much better for example. The problem with the watchmaker type argument is that indeed we can see a watchmaker. We can only infer for natural wonders because we did not see the Agent and there may be an alternative explanation. I think the Ontological Argument is rather good too, although it's a little rarified for the average Joe or Jane unbeliever. How does the First Cause argument work? I don't think the watchmaker argument needs to depend being able to see the watchmaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 4, 2014 You mean irreducible complexity as per Michael Behe? I can see drawing a surface comparison between sand castles and the human eye, but there are other mechanisms that may give rise to the latter. I believe in a creator too, but I just don't think the Teleological Argument is iron clad. I don't use it when discussing it with atheists. There are better arguments available. No "Irreducible Complexity" is not the same as "Specific Complexity"; however, Irreducible Complexity is a Powerful Argument all on it's own. Nature is incapable of producing "Specific Complexity". For example: How many times have you walked down a beach and said...."WOW, that's amazing....Look @ that Sand Castle. I wonder what "Nature" is going to build tomorrow!!" If you have, hopefully you said it where nobody else could hear it. Moreover, To equivocate Order and Specific Complexity is tantamount to ascribing authorship of War and Peace to the Ink Molecules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthonyjmcgirr Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 194 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 37 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/31/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1984 Share Posted February 4, 2014 ^ from what I understand about the watchmaker argument, you stumble upon a watch in the forest or wherever and you don't automatically assume it was created by natural processes. You know immediately it was created by a man or woman. Except atheists don't really grasp that the bacteria living on the watch is SO much incredibly more complex than the watch it lives on and is an actual living thing and can do things the watch can't, like reproduce, eat, poop, etc. And the bacteria is so small, you can't even see it with your naked eye!! I just can't imagine someone looking at bacteria and cells and their complexity, trying to study them, and still come up with the opinion that they just formed somehow in a primordial soup. I can't fathom it. It takes more faith to believe that than to believe God created it. But atheists use their *logic* as a scape goat to not believe in God because they want to escape their moral obligations, like a child rebelling against their parent who knows what's best for the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Enoch, as I mentioned above, I don't think the design argument proves anything. If it works for you, have at it! Shiloh, first cause is the Cosmological Argument, basically all effects in the Universe have a cause (some physicists may disagree) and there are no infinites in reality and you work backwards. At some point in the dim past there must have been an an uncaused First Cause to complete the succession. If not, we have no way to relate to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Enoch, as I mentioned above, I don't think the design argument proves anything. If it works for you, have at it! Shiloh, first cause is the Cosmological Argument, basically all effects in the Universe have a cause (some physicists may disagree) and there are no infinites in reality and you work backwards. At some point in the dim past there must have been an an uncaused First Cause to complete the succession. If not, we have no way to relate to it. What part of "Specific Complexity" don't you understand? Maybe I can use some different examples....just ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 Tristen, I am fairly sure you missed the point of my OP. The questions that begun it were rhetorical, the sorts of questions I've heard from some believers in response to people engaging into the 'creation debate'. In the body of my post, I was not attempting to make any kind of argument. I was trying to describe my own personal struggle. You said “In the body of my post, I was not attempting to make any kind of argument. I was trying to describe my own personal struggle” I assume when people post that they do so to provoke discussion. Even in the body of your post, the bias I described is evident; describing a tension between what you label “'the science'” (presumably meaning secular scientific interpretations) and life in God. I’m trying to encourage you that the tension only exists due to indoctrinated secular bias. If you strip down the secular position to its fundamental logic, the supreme levels of confidence in secular scientific models simply isn’t justified by the application of the scientific method. Creationist models are equally valid and reconcile the tensions you have described. I think it would be interesting for you to self-analyse why you “have personally been convicted of having less faith while engaging in research”. My experience has always been the opposite; studying science and engaging in research tends to reinforce my faith. Sure, and you are of course welcome to see as you see fit. I can't control how people interpret what I post, what they think is relevant and so on. That being said, i am also attempting to give due credit to your arguments. I admit I have not been able to unravel them for the most part. If you mean that given the evidence the case for a 6000 yr old universe is just as good, I don't think I can agree with this. It is true I suppose, in that I am assuming things in making that judgement such as, the uniformity of nature and so forth. Is that where your objection is? You said “I can't control how people interpret what I post, what they think is relevant and so on” I apologise if I am still missing the point of your post. I’ve offered responses to the preamble and body of your original post. “i am also attempting to give due credit to your arguments. I admit I have not been able to unravel them for the most part” I’m not sure what the difficulty is. Basically, my position is that those of us with any kind of secular upbringing have been, by and large, exclusively conditioned to think that the secular scientific models (Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry) are overwhelmingly supported by science – to the exclusion of all other ideas about the origins of the universe and the diversity of life. This conditioning is to the point where we are initially astonished that any rational person could seriously give any credence to the account of history as taught in the Bible. However, once we arrive at sincere faith in Christ, we soon learn that the Bible is the highest authoritative resource of the Christian faith. We soon thereafter realise that some of the claims in the Bible are inconsistent with what we have been taught our entire lives to be true science. We have a number of choices; many reject the Bible and subsequently their faith, many try to offer imaginative reinterpretations of the Bible in an attempt to conform it to their confidence in the secular models, and some choose to re-evaluate their secular educations; subjecting the secular claims to closer scrutiny – rather than continuing to subscribe to the secular rhetoric regarding their models. As someone who re-evaluated what I had been taught, I soon discovered that there is no valid reason whatsoever, to prefer confidence in secular models over confidence in the Bible; no reason in logic or science to have such a strong preference for one over the other. There are certainly lots of vague claims about how well secular models are supported by “libraries/volumes/mountains” of evidence, and how they have survived so much scientific scrutiny, and how predictably powerful they are, and how elegant they are etc. And lots of rhetoric about how creationists ignore these mountains of evidence and are unscientific etc. But when properly and thoroughly examined, I could find no logically-valid reason to justify considering secular models as superior to the Bible-based models. So I can trust the Bible – all of the Bible – without any legitimate, objective compromise to my scientific integrity. “If you mean that given the evidence the case for a 6000 yr old universe is just as good, I don't think I can agree with this” For starters – we all have the same evidence. And if we creationists can interpret all this very same evidence to be consistent with the Bible-based model, then what is the basis of your disagreement. Have you found some superlative evidential support rendering the secular models beyond scientific question, or are you merely continuing to succumb to the rhetorical backstory pertaining to their ‘overwhelming and exclusive scientific support’? “It is true I suppose, in that I am assuming things in making that judgement such as, the uniformity of nature and so forth. Is that where your objection is?” No. We all necessarily make assumptions. And I don’t technically have an objection. I merely consider trust in the Bible to be of paramount importance to the success of Christian life. I think you need to be aware that a rational argument exists in defence of Biblical creationism that, in every logical respect, has equal scientific validity to the secular models. Your impression of the abject superiority of the secular models is causing you to question the clear teaching of the Bible. But the existence of a rationally defensible creationist position means that you can trust the Bible – all of the Bible – even when it disagrees with popular scientific dogma. Okay Tristen, so if I understand you, your upshot is that you think the evidence can be just as well interpreted by YEC as by the prevailing 'secular' paradigms. From what I have seen so far, I do not think that is true. There is a trivial sense in which you may interpret evidence in light of any model you wish (as some may decide no one has ever landed on the moon, and can think of a way to explain all the evidence that will fit that model), but in terms of best fit, with least ad hoc-ness, and so forth, I don't agree here. One of the reasons I have run into a sense of trouble this round is because I have gone back through some specific evidence for evolution and the case seems very tight to me. I think the issue is the details- that is where things start to become incredibly compelling. I have doubts that looking at creationist scientific accounts will end up being helpful to me. On the other hand, well, what do I do with Genesis in a non stupid way? I am finding there are many facets of this issue for me. I don't think I'm adding anything new here, so it may be we don't have much else to say to each other. Up to you. I do appreciate you taking the time to explain your views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 598 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,129 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,858 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 4, 2014 Also, there can be only one "CREATOR", more than one is logical absurdity and incoherent actually I think it was the dynamic trio.... Yes but they are ONE. just as we are one with them..... as per the prayer of Jesus himself. No, not in the same way we are one with them. The oneness of the persons of the Trinity are unique and there is nothing in the human experiece that serves as an adequate point of reference or analogy for their relationship. John 17:21-23 22 "And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one ; 23 I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me. NASB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted February 4, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted February 4, 2014 The teleological argument originated before the concept of evolution of course, as an alternative explanation. One thing one must consider with the watchmaker scenario is that If there is a designer, then by necessity all surrounding objects are also designed (rocks, grass, earth). Although objects in nature can be awesome, can we really say a magnificent sand dune for example is designed? You're getting confused between "order" and "Specific Complexity" "Order" is or can be: abcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcd. "Sand Dune"......... Nature Construct. "Specific Complexity": The Declaration of Independence. "Sand Castle"....... Intelligent Design Construct. Seti: This search would be pointless and quite Nonsensical if they weren't able to tell the difference in random noises "order" from "NATURE" and "Specific Complex" communication "INTELLIGENT DESIGN". "Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity." L. Orgel PhD Chemistry, The Origins of Life (New York: John Wiley, 1973), p. 189. Do you mean Specified Complexity as described by William Dembski? This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Also, there can be only one "CREATOR", more than one is logical absurdity and incoherent actually I think it was the dynamic trio.... Yes but they are ONE. just as we are one with them..... as per the prayer of Jesus himself. No, not in the same way we are one with them. The oneness of the persons of the Trinity are unique and there is nothing in the human experiece that serves as an adequate point of reference or analogy for their relationship. John 17:21-23 22 "And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one ; 23 I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me. NASB Yes, but your stastement was that we are one with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That verse is talking about the unity of believers with onanother. It is not talking about belivers being one with "dynamic trio" as you called them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts