6 days Creation

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Why would use science to test for the existence of God?   No one uses science for that purpose, not even Creationists.

 

2 hours ago, Kevinb said:

There is no way too test or demonstrate God involvement or causation.

So all three of us can agree that we can't use science to prove the existence of God. Where we begin to differ is that Shiloh and I believe that the order, creativity, complexity, beauty, and wonder available for us to observe in nature suggests that there is a Creator behind it. No one will ever be able to supply enough proof of God that one would be left with no alternative other than to admit His existence. In addition to scientific suggestion for a reason for this order and complexity, philosophical questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" are also suggestive of a Creator. But these rational reasons to believe all fall short of proof; ultimately belief in God must be faith-based.

[Kevinb]

6 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

ultimately belief in God must be faith-based.

Agreed totally. 

However.. we problem is now faith isn't pathway to truth. I'll say again as it gets ignored. What mechanism can we use to throw out all other supernatural claims and keep this one. Other faiths think their supernatural is true also and logical. The mechanism of a particular faith seems to be where someone might be born and so indoctrinated into... and when in history they happen to be born. Humanities supernatural claims prior to better understanding are all different and cultural. If faith based we're subject to believe them all unless you've a mechanism to falsify. They can't all be right. They could all be wrong. 

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, Kevinb said:

Additionally...a God you can't prove or test for... what's the difference between a God you can't prove exists and a God that doesn't exist.

Just like there is a difference between the invisible and the imaginary.

Quote

On a claim... what should the default position be?  Especially a claim of supernatural beings with breaking the laws of Nature and physics stuff.. wow big claim ... I'd need something pretty compelling. Can't prove it and real to me assertions isn't compelling.

Actually, the New Testament claims about Jesus are backed up by some pretty compelling evidence.

[one.opinion]

22 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Actually, the New Testament claims about Jesus are backed up by some pretty compelling evidence.

Agreeing with Shiloh again, particularly about the resurrection of Jesus. It is a fantastic claim, far removed from what we see in our day-to-day lives. But thousands of people saw Him afterward and began spreading the word of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection. These followers were under tremendous persecution, and literally staked their lives on what they told others about Jesus. There was no logical reason for them to cling to such teaching unless it was true. I'm not an expert on comparative religion, but I know of no other beliefs that suffered such heavy persecution at their onset.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Kevinb said:

Agreed totally. 

However.. we problem is now faith isn't pathway to truth. I'll say again as it gets ignored. What mechanism can we use to throw out all other supernatural claims and keep this one. Other faiths think their supernatural is true also and logical. The mechanism of a particular faith seems to be where someone might be born and so indoctrinated into... and when in history they happen to be born. Humanities supernatural claims prior to better understanding are all different and cultural. If faith based we're subject to believe them all unless you've a mechanism to falsify. They can't all be right. They could all be wrong. 

So why don't we believe the supernatural claims made by other religions?   That comes from an honest and not superficial examination of the truth claims and the integrity of Bible as compared to that of other religious documents. 

The Bible has internal characteristics set it miles apart from other religious documents like the Koran.  They are not equal in what they claim, nor are the similar in terms of the nature of their claims.

Atheists tend to only point to cosmetic or superficial similarities and assume that both Christianity and say, a religion like Islam, carry the same beliefs and that is a huge mistake.   For example, both Islam and Christianity have a theology of Heaven and Hell, but in Christianity, Jesus bore the penalty of sin so that we can escape Hell.  In Islam, you have to be a good Muslim to go to heaven and evil-doers/infidels and non-Muslims go to Hell.

In Christianity, we don't go to heaven or hell based on what we do, but based on the decision we made for, or against Jesus.   In Islam it's about being "good."  In Christianity, you have to be "righteous"  to go to Heaven, but Jesus supplies the righteousness by virtue of His finished work on the cross.   His righteousness is credited to your account by virtue of trusting in Him. 

In Islam, you have work off your bad deeds with sufficient good deeds to deserve Heaven.   In Christianity, Heaven isn't something we deserve or could ever be good enough to deserve.   Heaven is a gift that is given to us freely by the God the Father solely on the merits of Jesus death and resurrection.  We don't work  for salvation.  It is not a reward we earn or a prize we win.  It is a free gift.

In Islam, even if you are good Muslim for 30 years, if that is not sufficient to offset your sins, you still go to hell because you're just not good enough.  The ONLY exception is dying for Allah as a martyr.  If you die for Allah you can go to Heaven.   But in Christianity, it was God (in the Person of Jesus Christ) who died for us.   Allah demands your death for Him.   In Christianity, Jesus sacrificed His life for you.

[Enoch2021]

7 hours ago, Kevinb said:

Rational and ID is science.  

Yes, it's already been Explained and Illustrated to you, here: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/210558-6-days-creation/?do=findComment&comment=2660977

 

Quote

Well it may be rational if you start by presupposing natural law defying supernatural stuff you can't prove.

1.. Well there are ONLY 2 Choices...explained and Illustrated to you, here: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/210558-6-days-creation/?do=findComment&comment=2662266

2.  If I stop a ball rolling down a hill did I just defy the Laws of Motion?

3.  Supernatural ...

Prefix "Super": over and above. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/super 
Nature -- the physical world and everything in it. 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature
Natural = Physical Material World.
Supernatural = above/beyond the Material Physical World or Universe.

Therefore it logically follows, that the "Supernatural" is Immaterial ... completely lacking Matter/Energy, Right ?? ...

Well, Do these Exist... TRUTH, Logic, INFORMATION, Time, THOUGHTS, Math ...?  These are... Immaterial/ "Supernatural" by definition. Unless you can post, the: Chemical Formula/Structure, Charge, Mass, Momentum, Spin, OR... Kcals/Joules/meV FOR EACH of the above...?

If not, your appeal is Inane.

 

Quote

this is also why it's not science and won't ever be till you can demonstrate God involvement

It is "SCIENCE", how many times do we have to show you?

 

Quote

You don't get to start by asserting God

Ergo...you don't get to start by asserting "Nature".

 

Quote

you must demonstrate his causational links. 

AGAIN...

1.  The Universe had a Beginning.
2.  The Universe is made of Matter.
3.  Matter is The Consequent, "A Knower" is the Necessary Antecedent.
(SEE: Quantum Mechanics)
4.  Therefore:  "A CREATOR".
ps.  Philosophical Naturalism/Realism aka: atheism is PUMMELED.

Your only other choice is "Matter" Pre-Existed before it Existed then Poofed itself into Existence. (before that... it Poofed itself from Nothing into Pre-Existence.)

 

Quote

Yes and to think that I must start by presupposing a God that can't be proven.

1.  Yes (AGAIN), HE'S one of your Two Choices...Explained and Illustrated to you here:  https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/210558-6-days-creation/?do=findComment&comment=2662266

2.  HIS Existence is PROVEN,  SEE Everything after: "1.  The Universe had a Beginning."  just above; and the roughly 30 other PROOFS Explained and Illustrated to you PERSONALLY throughout this Forum

 

Quote

Then I must pick a certain notion of a God... based upon where I happened to be born..

What on Earth?

 

Quote

what religion I happened to be indoctrinated into

Yes, the Scientifically Falsified: Philosophical Naturalism/Realism aka: athesim Religion.

 

Quote

and when in history I happened to be born.

And don't forget your Favorite Color.

 

Quote

Mmm not too compelling for me.

So you're gonna roll with this then...

a.  Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blue-Prints.
b.  Something can come from Nothing, "Naturally".
c.  Giraffes come from Bacteria...if given enough time.
d.  Can't even explain "THE" in word or thought without contradicting your Fairytale Scientifically Falsified 'Religion' ... Philosophical Naturalism/Realism aka: atheism.
e. Lives on a Spinning-Ball hurling through space at 670,568,000 miles per hour in several different directions, simultaneously!

These ^^^^^ ... are Compelling for Ya?? 

 

regards

[Amazing Horse]

If earth was millions of years old then evolution must be true .

If this statement above is true we would have equilibrium C14 in our amosphere after around 30 000 - 50 000 years .

We know that we don't have equilibrium C14 in our atmosphere , so either earth is not millions of years old or earth lost atmosphere and gained it multiple times.

If earth is not millions of years old then earth is young and there was 6 days creation.

If earth lost atmosphere and gained it multiple times then evolution can't be true because all life would die multiple times and there is no time for evolving so earth must be young and there was 6 day creation.

 

You can't escape that , i see evolutionist's tears dropping now from thier eyes because they can't escape the truth and i feed on these tears .

Edited September 14, 2017 by Amazing Horse

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Amazing Horse said:

If earth was millions of years old then evolution must be true .

If this statement above is true we would have equilibrium C14 in our amosphere after around 30 000 - 50 000 years .

We know that we don't have equilibrium C14 in our atmosphere , so either earth is not millions of years old or earth lost atmosphere and gained it multiple times.

If earth is not millions of years old then earth is young and there was 6 days creation.

If earth lost atmosphere and gained it multiple times then evolution can't be true because all life would die multiple times and there is no time for evolving so earth must be young and there was 6 day creation.

 

You can't escape that , i see evolutionist's tears dropping now from thier eyes because they can't escape the truth and i feed on these tears .

Take a look at the following article, it might explain a bit more:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

[Amazing Horse]

5 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Take a look at the following article, it might explain a bit more:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

If C14 is not constant then you can't date any fossils with it and it disproves evolution aswell , can't escape it im sorry .

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Amazing Horse said:

If C14 is not constant then you can't date any fossils with it and it disproves evolution aswell , can't escape it im sorry

The fluctuation in atmospheric carbon-14 explains why an equilibrium has not been reached. It does not nullify the validity of the technique. Carbon-14 dating on old tree samples is consistent with the tree-dating technique of counting growth rings. Yes, the fluctuation can affect dating, but the effect has been in the trend of making samples appear younger than they really are, not older.

I should probably add that the theory of evolution is in no way dependent on carbon-14 dating. Other isotopes are used for fossil dating. It erroneous to suggest that problems with carbon-14 dating are problems with the theory of evolution.

Edited September 14, 2017 by one.opinion