How is creationism DISPROVED?

by sabastious 376 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Everything is testable and discoverable that's why it's used to satisfy the burden of proof. The Creator of Things may not be a thing itself.

  Non sequitur.

  Define what a "thing" is.
• 

  Satanus

  Sab

  Are you going pantheist?

  S
• 

  sabastious

  We have something that EXACTLY matches Sab's description of God.

  That's funny, I honestly have never seen an episode. My wife keeps saying we should watch it.

  -Sab
• 

  Knowsnothing

  If you think so you are having faith and you have to call your actions motivated by religious fervor, not Science.

  Sigh... even working within your framework, a creator that needs to use time travel because his own design will end, is not an intelligent being.

  BTW, your musings are not science, they are just that, musings. When you are ready to bring science to the table, and when I am ready to relinquish the concrete for the mythological, then you can attack me for being motivated by 'religious fervor'.
• 

  MrFreeze

  Sab, I was simply pointing out you can't prove a negative. Asking us to disprove creationism is exactly that. That's what the book thing is. It doesn't have anything to do with an argument against creationism, just an argument against trying to prove a negative. Your insistance that just because everything exists means there is a creator, is nothing more than, and I hate to use the old and tired expression, God of the gaps. It is here, God did it, end of story. The whole point is, IT CAN'T BE DISPROVEN! You are asking for something that can't be provided. Trying to get water out of a rock.

  Of course the Zeus stuff is a common atheist argument. Because it makes as much logical sense as the idea of Yahweh or Jesus being the creator. You said these historians who studied Greek religion are prone to errors. So are a lot of Christians. The Greeks recording everything very well. Why do you think we know so much about Greek culture?

  I don't honestly care what you believe. You have as much right to your opinion as I do. If you want to debate, you have to debate on fair terms. You are asking for the burden of proof on somebody is not trying to prove anything.
• 

  sabastious

  Define what a "thing" is.

  I would say that Higgs-like particles are things. So elementary particles is where you start. However this question was probably answered with the atom hundreds of years ago. So we see a progression of thought. Which is why I say this in my Atheism->Deism->Theism thread:

  Often times people will make the jump to theism because of a personal experience which is subject to confirmation bias. This is a dangerous crossroad and it can fling you back into the chaotic ways of before you cleaned your slate in the first place. You can end up back where you started which means that you will be inching toward unbelief yet again which can feel like you are going in circles. That's why upon embarking on a theistic journey you must accept the fact that you are probably going to have to clean the slate once again when new information comes to the table. It's also important to keep in mind that the vast majority of theistic frameworks are based in emotional attachment to doctrine which is what you purposefully directed yourself away from in the first place. That's why it's dangerous because you are exposing yourself to a vulnerability that you know has previously been exploited. In the end theism is a highly volatile theory and requires extreme care, yet in no way is it obsolete, it's just widely misued because in the end we all want to feel good about what we are doing, but such should not be used as a foundation for life choices.

  But even when you clean the slate, you end with the Monotheistic entity again, because the fundamentals are always there. We just take them for granted when the become old. Much like how you say creating water is a simple process. It's only a simple process to YOU in this time period, so what's simple is also subjective, just as belief is.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  Sigh... even working within your framework, a creator that needs to use time travel because his own design will end, is not an intelligent being.

  That's not true. You just have to establish motive. Is this entity for good or for evil? For some reason you believe that an evil God is not intelligent.

  BTW, your musings are not science, they are just that, musings. When you are ready to bring science to the table, and when I am ready to relinquish the concrete for the mythological, then you can attack me for being motivated by 'religious fervor'.

  I don't deny that I am motivated by religious fervor, you do.

  -Sab
• 

  Finkelstein

  Everything is testable and discoverable that's why it's used to satisfy the burden of proof.

  I agree, therefore creationism is a testament toward human imagination and nothing else.

  Once mankind derives to an actual presence of a supernatural being then it will be recognized and accepted as such.
• 

  sabastious

  I don't honestly care what you believe. You have as much right to your opinion as I do. If you want to debate, you have to debate on fair terms. You are asking for the burden of proof on somebody is not trying to prove anything.

  The burden of proof has been satisfied, if you don't agree then we agree to disagree. You have a right to your opinion, but it has been unconvincing to me. I don't think it's stupid at all, and I am happy that it works for you.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  Are you going pantheist?

  I am a trinitarian. The Catholics would love me, but they currently frighten me. I wish them well though.

  -Sab