Creationists' theory in detail

[ding]

.


according to your book of forgeries they were born a baby, grew for 30 years and then was crucified but no one knows what the charges were against them ... and you think he is going to come back and save you even though you are a hopeless sinner.

* there is one truth to your scenario - hint, its near the end.

I’m not sure what that had to do with what I wrote but your spam is getting old, hobelim

I can’t wait until the mods ban you.

 

[james bond]

So tell me, who has more evidence and reasoning behind their beliefs? You or me?

Just going by feel, you have more evidence and alang1216 has more and better reasoning. Less is more in his case.

 

[LittleNipper]

The fact that there is GOD is as logical and real as the existence of life that didn't simply spontaneously originate on its own.

 

[Ringtone]

Well actually, natural mechanisms are what we know and actually do account for the existence of everything we know.

What magical / supernatural mechanisms can you identify which account for any element of anything we know?

Hogwash! There is no universal we know or believe in your metaphysical presupposition of materialism and/or naturalism. You don't even grasp the ramifications of what you're saying. As another suggested, folks like you don't even grasp the fact that you're confounding metaphysics--your religion!--with science . . . even worse, as if science itself were the beginning and end of knowledge.

Metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over science! Your babble about how natural mechanisms account for the existence of the material realm of being is meaningless baby talk Either the material realm of being is all that exists or it's not, and as you know, ding,. I and others have forcefully shown that everything we know from mathematically, scientifically viable physics and cosmology, the material realm of being necessarily began to exist in the finite past, and logic dictates that existence cannot arise from nonexistence, indeed, that nonexistence is an absurdity.

Something has existed from eternity, and that thing, speaking generically, is of an immaterial substance, the substance of Mind.

 

[zaangalewa]

... I have no doubt you know more of the engineering than I do. What I doubt is your assertion the universe was created from nothing. It seem more of a leap to say something came from nothing than it does to say the something we see from something in a different form. The later we see all the time, the former we have never seen. Occam's Razor again.

You are wrong. Occam's razor says when something looks like nothing, smells like nothing and you are not able to touch it - so why not to say it is nothing? Why to postulate a "something"?

The universe currently exists.

But nihilists doubt about - and in theory they are also able to be right. Depends how to see the word "exist". God is for example for sure existing in the world of the ideas. If our world is also only a kind of idea - an illusion or delusion - then perhaps we on our own do not exist. Perhaps we are only the manifestation of a holodeck program, while the real world is totally different from our perceptions. I do not believe this, because god is not a liar and so the world is real. From my point of view more and more people start to think we make the world with our own thoughts, because of their belief in science and while most people do not understand what are superpositions in quantum physics.

As far back as we can see it existed.

A problem in this context is: The universe expands - so when we think backward it shrinks. But do we see this process in the right way? A question in this context is for example: Is to think forward in time and backward in time really symetric?

To assume at some point it did not exist but come from nothing is something outside our experience.

Because we are only able to make experiences in the structures of this universe. "Experience" means to remember the energies of the universe = causes and effects all around us. But we are not able to think in timeless structures for example. I guess only in the "spirituality" of mathematics we are able to do so. We can imagine for example universes with different natural laws (but not without natural laws, as far as my "experience" with my own form to think is).

It is easier for me to believe what I have experienced that what I have never seen.

You don't have to believe in your experience. Experience is knowledge. The problem is the interpretation. When you take a look in the bible of your experience then you will find always new details and interpretations - depending on your current situation of life.

 

[zaangalewa]

No one is able to produce or to destroy energy.

Except God? Can anyone explain how?

He created a billion anti-particles and a billion + 1 particles. They destroyed each other and the particle was alone. This made god sad and so he made this more than only 1 time until it were enough particles to solve the puzzle, which you are now. And with the rest of 1 of a billion particles times x he puzzled the universe. ... And "before" he did do so, he made the energy to do so. Keeps only the problem that there was no "before", before he did do so. Augustinus said long centuries ago something like the word of creation, which god spoke, is not like a human word. It is a mighty timeless word. And let me say: no one is able to add a word to the words of god - or to take away a word from the words of god. No one is able to create energy or to destroy energy. That's physics , isn't it?

 

[Ringtone]

I submit that you have never truly considered the possibility that God exists. You can prove me wrong by telling me what your perception of God is. Because that will demonstrate the level of your consideration. Mind you, you should limit your perception to what you can observe through nature and not what any specific religious text tells you. Because I am not asking you what religion thinks God is, I am asking you what you think God is.

I honestly do not understand the negative reaction to this from some Christians. I absolutely believe that the Bible is God's inspired word brought to humanity via the Jewish people, the chosen, that Jesus is absolutely the Christ, the Savior, the second person of the Triune God who came to us in the flesh to save us, to redeem us. I know this is true precisely because God, the Everlasting, the Origin of all things good and lovely and beautiful and true and delightful and righteous, is revealed by nature first and foremostly, by nature's logic. Of course nature reflects and informs us about the realities of divinity. Indeed, nature's logic, our logic, is the everlasting, eternal, uncreated logic of God endowed on us Our logic is God's logic--the incontrovertible imperatives of identity, noncontradiction, excluded middle and sufficient cause/reason. It is readily self-evident that God is good, that God is a being of love and liberty, a divinity of free will and mercy and forgiveness for whomever will, that the material realm of existence began to exist in the finite past, that eternal existence is ultimately mind. The Bible clearly tells us most especially in the first chapter of Romans that we should not for a moment reject the natural or general revelation of God as it absolutely screams of his existence as such, that all other declarations of God apart from the Bible are nonsense, the stuff of human delusions.

In short, how do I know the Bible faithfully reveals the God of reality?

Because that which is created tells me it does. Nature!

ding is absolutely right in this!

Romans 1: 19-20:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 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; so that they are without excuse:​

​

 

[zaangalewa]

Your claimed “phacts” are not facts at all. You’re simply reiterating libels that are promoted by your fundie xtian ministries. I notice your usual lack of supporting evidence that accompanies your hysterical claims. While you can’t admit it, creationism is the true bigotry. It is founded on religious bigotry and supremacist.ideology, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.

The only one coming unglued is you. It’s comical that the religious extremists will use the “eugenics” slogan to smear science when eugenics was much more a product of racial bigotry than of anything properly describable as science. Let’s remember it was the good xtians who have a long, lurid history of oppression and human slaughter through the Dark Ages, conquest and promotion of slavery while claiming to act in the will of the gods.

I would tread elsewhere when trying to equate Hitlerian ideology and Nazi ideology. Hitler and Nazism were deeply rooted in christianity with a bit of favoritism to the occult. Did you know the SS wore the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles? Do a search for the translation.

You know very well that the person who founded Eugenics was Darwin's cousin and Darwin even supported it. That's how racist Darwin and his family were. And it followed that Hitler wanted to kill Jews. That would make it difficult for Jesus to save them when he returns.

You obviously don’t know that there was no “founding” of Eugenics. Another of the dishonest tactics of religious extremists is to assign “eugenics” to Darwin when Darwin’s theory of natural selection makes no case for it.

And it followed that Hitler wanted to kill Jews. That would make it difficult for Jesus to save them when he returns

That’s truly sick. Hitler, the good xtian,

No one in Germany saw Christians - specially not Catholics - in the Nazis, except he was an idiot. This idea sarted in the 1960ies when the Catholic Church was critized that they had not excommunicated Hitler and other Nazis. Now they did do so in times of the cold war with the Commies. And the Commie war propaganda made Hitler to a Christian and the Popes to Nazis, who had in the reality even opposed the Nazis, what everyone knew during the time of Hitler.

used hatred and vilification of the Jewish people

Which he used as a substitution for the rich capitalists of the East coast of the USA and a substitution for the poor proletarians and Soviets in Russia, who had defined the Germans after world war 1 to honorless criminals in the eyes of the world, so they were able to press together with other European nations every cent out of Germany, while they had expected the German barbars should be thankful for this benedictions of the "civilized" world.

along with Poles,

Slaws. And Poles are Slaws. Nevertheless lots of Poles got during world war 2 the German citizenship (because Hitler gave the order to maximize the # of Germans in Poland). And lots of Poles - whether they had the German citizenship or not - were extremely dangerous for all Jews, who had lived in Poland. But today the Polish "regime" (to call it any longer "government" is perhaps meanwhile the wrong word) tries to eliminate with lies about the real history the sins and crimes of lots of Polish people during world war 2. The Polish "government" attacks meanwhile even Jews, when they freely speak about the existential problems of the Jews during the times of the Nazis in Poland.

Gypsies and others,

On reason of darwinism. All this ideas came from the English speaking world. The Nazis argued with biology. If they used religion then they had used normally the nordic warrior myths.

to advance his policy of racial / ethnic superiority.

“Gott mit uns". God is with us.

The short formula "God [be] with us" [in victory and defeat] has nothing to do with the Nazis. This was a long time before Nazis had existed written on the belt buckle of all German soldiers. It remembered to be generous in case of victory and not to be despaired in case of defeat.

 

[harmonica]

The fact that there is GOD is as logical and real as the existence of life that didn't simply spontaneously originate on its own.

no, it's not a fact ...there is no god

 

[zaangalewa]

The fact that there is GOD is as logical and real as the existence of life that didn't simply spontaneously originate on its own.

no, it's not a fact ...there is no god

To repeat continously your form of belief in god ("there is no god") makes nothing true or untrue nor create your thoughts facts or reality.

 

[Hollie]

Well actually, natural mechanisms are what we know and actually do account for the existence of everything we know.

What magical / supernatural mechanisms can you identify which account for any element of anything we know?

Hogwash! There is no universal we know or believe in your metaphysical presupposition of materialism and/or naturalism. You don't even grasp the ramifications of what you're saying. As another suggested, folks like you don't even grasp the fact that you're confounding metaphysics--your religion!--with science . . . even worse, as if science itself were the beginning and end of knowledge.

Metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over science! Your babble about how natural mechanisms account for the existence of the material realm of being is meaningless baby talk Either the material realm of being is all that exists or it's not, and as you know, ding,. I and others have forcefully shown that everything we know from mathematically, scientifically viable physics and cosmology, the material realm of being necessarily began to exist in the finite past, and logic dictates that existence cannot arise from nonexistence, indeed, that nonexistence is an absurdity.

Something has existed from eternity, and that thing, speaking generically, is of an immaterial substance, the substance of Mind.

Actually, I’m afraid your usual pontificating is, as usual, pointless. Fear and superstition borne of ignorance necessarily precedes enlightenment. It’s certainly your right to embrace fear and superstition but I would instead opt for science as a means to an end primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can assess natural realities as empirically supported.

You have only forcefully shown an ignorance and revulsion for knowledge and learning with appeals to magic and supernaturalism as an explanation for existence and life on the planet.

While reason and rationality have not answered every question, (in science and nature alike), these questions do not then leap out of the physical and into the metaphysical / supernatural at any point. Even in analogies where nature doesn't behave quite like we expected it to (quantum mechanics for instance), that doesn’t provide a reason to hold our snakes in the air and screech out “the gawds did it”.

I always find it comical that the religious extremists will pontificate about existence not arising from non existence yet they excuse their various gods from the very standard they insist must be applied to others.

“But, but... but...but...my gawds are excused from......”

 

[Hollie]

I submit that you have never truly considered the possibility that God exists. You can prove me wrong by telling me what your perception of God is. Because that will demonstrate the level of your consideration. Mind you, you should limit your perception to what you can observe through nature and not what any specific religious text tells you. Because I am not asking you what religion thinks God is, I am asking you what you think God is.

I honestly do not understand the negative reaction to this from some Christians. I absolutely believe that the Bible is God's inspired word brought to humanity via the Jewish people, the chosen, that Jesus is absolutely the Christ, the Savior, the second person of the Triune God who came to us in the flesh to save us, to redeem us. I know this is true precisely because God, the Everlasting, the Origin of all things good and lovely and beautiful and true and delightful and righteous, is revealed by nature first and foremostly, by nature's logic. Of course nature reflects and informs us about the realities of divinity. Indeed, nature's logic, our logic, is the everlasting, eternal, uncreated logic of God endowed on us Our logic is God's logic--the incontrovertible imperatives of identity, noncontradiction, excluded middle and sufficient cause/reason. It is readily self-evident that God is good, that God is a being of love and liberty, a divinity of free will and mercy and forgiveness for whomever will, that the material realm of existence began to exist in the finite past, that eternal existence is ultimately mind. The Bible clearly tells us most especially in the first chapter of Romans that we should not for a moment reject the natural or general revelation of God as it absolutely screams of his existence as such, that all other declarations of God apart from the Bible are nonsense, the stuff of human delusions.

In short, how do I know the Bible faithfully reveals the God of reality?

Because that which is created tells me it does. Nature!

ding is absolutely right in this!

Romans 1: 19-20:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 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; so that they are without excuse:​

​

Wow. A bunch of David Koresh, Jim Jones, Jimmy Swaggert wannabes. Add some rural Oklahoma snake handlers and we’d have a party. Somebody tell Jimmy to pull his pants up, please.

 

[LittleNipper]

The fact that there is GOD is as logical and real as the existence of life that didn't simply spontaneously originate on its own.

no, it's not a fact ...there is no god

SO, how did life originate? How could the prophetic message of the Messiah be fulfilled hundreds and thousands of years after being written? Why did Jesus go to the cross? Why did the lives of Christ's disciples change to the point that they accepted death rather than recant? NO ONE CHOOSES TO DIE FOR SOMETHING IN WHICH HE OR SHE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN!

 

[alang1216]

So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described to you was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

I seems to me you've fallen into a semantic pit and made some rash assumptions. You assume "These laws existed before space and time" so there must have been an intelligence planning creation. I don't agree.

1 + 1 = 2 To me, that is a universal truth in any language, on any planet, in any universe. Even animals can grasp the concept. Did someone or something have to create this property of numbers or is it an intrinsic property? No, once you have created a number you have created this property. Poor as this analogy is it illustrates my view on creation. The creation of space-time, created the laws that space-time is governed by.

Here's another poor analogy. Imagine I was able to create a computer system where individual programs, each with slightly different properties, competed against each other to perform a task. At the end of each run then I copied the best performing programs and removed the worst competitors and reran the system. Under my selective pressure the programs would 'evolve' and become more and more efficient. I don't have to create the laws of evolution in my computer program, they are a by-product of the system.

 

[Hollie]

33 pages in this thread and still no General Theory of Supernatural Creation.

But, that’s like every other thread claiming proof of the gods and supernatural mechanisms.

 

[alang1216]

what does it tell us about God? That God is beyond energy and matter, that God is no thing, that the best we say about the nature of God is that God is more like consciousness without form, that God is love, that God is truth, that God is existence and the material world is a contingent reality.

Your God is what you wish him to be. You have any evidence of consciousness or love or 'truth'? Neither Google nor I know what a 'contingent reality' is.

The reality is that it is you who wished there to be no God. I have evidence and reason for my beliefs. God isn't what I want God to be. God is. I just used reason to discover him.

The only argument you have for your belief is when you were 12 years old you noticed that there was more than one religion so you concluded there could be no God which is the preposterous argument of a child.

So tell me, who has more evidence and reasoning behind their beliefs? You or me?

Sorry but I stand behind my 12-year-old logic but your are misapplying it. It refers only to the God of the Bible and what I was told about Him:

• Why would one God have many conflicting messages?
• God will eventually judge us yet every religion has different rules for what is acceptable, which do we follow?
• Many people lived and died before Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, how can they be judged?
• Many babies and children die, how can they be judged?

 

[alang1216]

Romans 1: 19-20:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 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; so that they are without excuse:​

If this were true I'd expect every religion to be, if not the same, at least similar. The religions of the Americas before Columbus don't seem to have much theology in common with Paul.

 

[Ringtone]

Wow. A bunch of David Koresh, Jim Jones, Jimmy Swaggert wannabes. Add some rural Oklahoma snake handlers and we’d have a party. Somebody tell Jimmy to pull his pants up, please.

Wow . . . a stream of baby talk that doesn't even begin to address the profundancy of my observations.

 

[alang1216]

The fact that there is GOD is as logical and real as the existence of life that didn't simply spontaneously originate on its own.

no, it's not a fact ...there is no god

SO, how did life originate? How could the prophetic message of the Messiah be fulfilled hundreds and thousands of years after being written? Why did Jesus go to the cross? Why did the lives of Christ's disciples change to the point that they accepted death rather than recant? NO ONE CHOOSES TO DIE FOR SOMETHING IN WHICH HE OR SHE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN!

My $0.02:
SO, how did life originate? Natural processes
How could the prophetic message of the Messiah be fulfilled hundreds and thousands of years after being written? They were not, in part because they were documented decades after Jesus by his followers attempting to show Jesus was the Messiah.
Why did Jesus go to the cross? The Romans perceived he posed a threat to Roman rule during the Jerusalem Passover celebration where riots had occured in previous years.
Why did the lives of Christ's disciples change to the point that they accepted death rather than recant? NO ONE CHOOSES TO DIE FOR SOMETHING IN WHICH HE OR SHE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN! Each had his own reason: they were devout, believed in the message of an afterlife, believed they lived in the end times, etc.

 

[BreezeWood]

Well actually, natural mechanisms are what we know and actually do account for the existence of everything we know.

What magical / supernatural mechanisms can you identify which account for any element of anything we know?

Hogwash! There is no universal we know or believe in your metaphysical presupposition of materialism and/or naturalism. You don't even grasp the ramifications of what you're saying. As another suggested, folks like you don't even grasp the fact that you're confounding metaphysics--your religion!--with science . . . even worse, as if science itself were the beginning and end of knowledge.

Metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over science! Your babble about how natural mechanisms account for the existence of the material realm of being is meaningless baby talk Either the material realm of being is all that exists or it's not, and as you know, ding,. I and others have forcefully shown that everything we know from mathematically, scientifically viable physics and cosmology, the material realm of being necessarily began to exist in the finite past, and logic dictates that existence cannot arise from nonexistence, indeed, that nonexistence is an absurdity.

Something has existed from eternity, and that thing, speaking generically, is of an immaterial substance, the substance of Mind.

.

Something has existed from eternity, and that thing, speaking generically, is of an immaterial substance, the substance of Mind.

that thing in of itself would not have necessarily been complete for all existence and may have formed over time to be become what we now sense it to be and to free our own spirit from the material constraint placed on it by our physiology requires certain parameters that must be accomplished in order to do so - and were instructed to triumph over evil to be granted admission - it is the desert religions that have wandered from the true path especially that of stagnate, misleading self serving publications that have become nothing more than an opiate for their adherents.