Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism Documentary
- Thread starter CouldntBeMeTho
- Start date
First of all, there are different definitions of god to different people. Asking Clinton what his definition of god is, might be different from someone else's. Really, the person claiming that a god exists (or existed) should be the one explaining what god is, and what justification they have to believe in it.
Second, he was making an analogy. He wasn't saying God is like a really smart human, but cavemen would liken us to gods. They would be making the same mistake that theists do. You don't understand how something works, so you attribute it to some type of supernatural cause. We don't know if that's true. I know quantum mechanics seems like magic to us laymen, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Wize fool keeps saying that you can't prove something supernatural with physical evidence. My question is, do you have ANY evidence, physical or not, of this god hypothesis -- other than "we exist"? Let's examine what spiritual evidence of God there is.
First of all, there are different definitions of god to different people. Asking Clinton what his definition of god is, might be different from someone else's. Really, the person claiming that a god exists (or existed) should be the one explaining what god is, and what justification they have to believe in it.
Second, he was making an analogy. He wasn't saying God is like a really smart human, but cavemen would liken us to gods. They would be making the same mistake that theists do. You don't understand how something works, so you attribute it to some type of supernatural cause. We don't know if that's true. I know quantum mechanics seems like magic to us laymen, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Wize fool keeps saying that you can't prove something supernatural with physical evidence. My question is, do you have ANY evidence, physical or not, of this god hypothesis -- other than "we exist"? Let's examine what spiritual evidence of God there is.
My point exactly. Which is why I asked his definition to illustrate we're not talking about the same thing here.
"Do you have any other evidence other than the evidence you provided..."
You existence is a pretty big deal. Yet you conveniently sweep it under the rug as if it's some small thing. "Yeah we exist, but what else do you have?"
Your existence is the very thing we're talking about. Let's deal with that first and foremost. You exist. That's definitely more evidence toward there being a creator than not. If we didn't exist, then we wouldn't be here to say we exist and thus the argument could be made there is no creator but we wouldn't exist to make that argument. Since we do exist, arguing against a creator now seems illogical. If no creator, how do we exist?
I'm sorry but I can't let that off the hook so easily. You need to first explain your existence if not for your creator.
If you are unsure of what I mean when I say The Creator I would be happy to elaborate for you upon request, since you're right, my definition is important if it is my definition you are rejecting.
Wize you've contradicted yourself. You've claimed there is no physical evidence of your God, but when asked what evidence you do have, you say you ARE evidence. Clearly you're a physical being somewhere posting in this forum, so which is it? Does physical evidence exist or not?
Second, what is the reason you think your creator is supernatural? I have a creator, two in fact. Their names are Margaret and Kenneth. But I get it, we're talking about life in general, and not just us two. So again, what reason do you have to believe something exists beyond the natural realm?
Second, what is the reason you think your creator is supernatural? I have a creator, two in fact. Their names are Margaret and Kenneth. But I get it, we're talking about life in general, and not just us two. So again, what reason do you have to believe something exists beyond the natural realm?
Nice attempt. Very shrewd, I'll give you that. But you rejected that evidence on the grounds it's not 100% clear cut, and I agree. It does, however, create a sense of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. While you won't see God outright like so many demand, there are plenty of signs that would indicate the existence of your creator, starting with your very existence. That is logical evidence spawned from your physical existence.
The natural realm was created.
You said your parents "created" you. Well first of all, I'll say I am a parent myself and I didn't create life. Even of the things man has created, he uses materials already found in the creation. Man cannot create from nothing. If your parents created you, then someone/something created them as well and that answer still neglects every other thing, living or non living in the universe. "Your parents" will not suffice in filling that role.
Who created your parents? And their parents? And their parents? Etc. That would be a lot of creators. I'm referring to The Creator of all.
nice breakdown breh. your the fukkin mani gave you the example of religious people tossing aside the theory of evolution, humans and apes having a common ancestor, because it goes against their laughable "truth" that god snapped his fingers and created adam and eve. and this is what you want me to prove to you?
it didnt call for an in depth analysis in the first place
Last edited by a moderator:
i gave you the example of religious people tossing aside the theory of evolution, humans and apes having a common ancestor, because it goes against their laughable "truth" that god snapped his fingers and created adam and eve. and this is what you want me to prove to you?
How would evolution disprove the existence of God?
thats what creationists are obviously so afraid of; they think (maybe know in the back of their heads) that this real, physical evidence we are finding makes their stories less believable, and less and less suitable for the 21st century
personally, i dont believe that evolution disproves the existence of god, because i dont know if theres a god or not. but if i had to choose between the two i choose to throw in with the scientists that make everything in my world work, as opposed to some
books of storiesthats what creationists are obviously so afraid of; they think (maybe know in the back of their heads) that this real, physical evidence we are finding makes their stories less believable, and less and less suitable for the 21st century
personally, i dont believe that evolution disproves the existence of god, because i dont know if theres a god or not. but if i had to choose between the two i choose to throw in with the scientists that make everything in my world work, as opposed to some
Scientists make everything in your world work? That's what you said right?
Interesting.
I would have to ask you where scientists get their materials to "make everything in your world work"?
And what "stories" does science make less believable? I don't know of any scripture that even attempts to scientifically explain the origins of the universe so what exactly is being debunked?
You're the one making these claims and every time I ask you for an example to support your position you fail. I hope you come up with something this time.
My point exactly. Which is why I asked his definition to illustrate we're not talking about the same thing here.
"Do you have any other evidence other than the evidence you provided..."
You existence is a pretty big deal. Yet you conveniently sweep it under the rug as if it's some small thing. "Yeah we exist, but what else do you have?"
Your existence is the very thing we're talking about. Let's deal with that first and foremost. You exist. That's definitely more evidence toward there being a creator than not. If we didn't exist, then we wouldn't be here to say we exist and thus the argument could be made there is no creator but we wouldn't exist to make that argument. Since we do exist, arguing against a creator now seems illogical. If no creator, how do we exist?
I'm sorry but I can't let that off the hook so easily. You need to first explain your existence if not for your creator.
If you are unsure of what I mean when I say The Creator I would be happy to elaborate for you upon request, since you're right, my definition is important if it is my definition you are rejecting.
Okay, so basically your claim is existence is physical evidence for Allah. You realize this is a logical fallacy; Just because we don't know how or why something is here, doesn't mean X is automatically the cause. How do you come to the conclusion that your idea of god is the cause?
But at the same time ... the idea that there isn't an intelligent creator behind the universe seeming illogical to you makes no difference on it's validity. Atomic theory, where everything is composed of tiny atoms of the various elements, might have seemed illogical to people centuries ago ... that doesn't invalidate the truth of it (and yes it's a theory, and also fact
). Our personal interpretation of the world around us, and what "seems likely" doesn't make it so. Which is why we've developed a process to determine what's (likely) true, and what is not (likely to be) true. Now, you say you have a hypothesis that is beyond our best process of finding truth. Why would you question someone who is skeptical of your guesses about the origins of the universe? Do you not think disbelief is reasonable towards something that is claimed to be beyond scientific tests? A lot of pseudo-science makes that same claim, and skeptics rightfully reject those -- I'm sure you reject a lot of them as well.
I feel I've gone on too long, so I'm going to stop here.
"allah put them there" is hardly a worthy answer imo, for anything
as to ur second question
jonah living in a whale
angels levitating around, stopping knives from going into sons
moses parting the sea
heres a question for you: do you know allah created the earth? or do you believe it?