Thread for JohnHeintz to prove Creationism

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

In the Proving Macroevolution To A Creationist thread, JohnHeintz opined that a creator was on a par as a explanation for evolution, with the creator being "in the lead".

In order to hold up a deity as a explanation, you would first have to do the following:

1) Prove that it's possible for any deity to exist;
2) Having proven 1, prove that the deity In which you believe exists to the exclusion of all others;
3) Having proven 1 and 2, prove that said deity has anything to do with Nature;
4) Having proven 1, 2, and 3, prove that said deity has anything to do with the relevant religious ("holy") texts.

Before addressing 1 above, you'd first have to give a coherent definition of a deity.

So, John, if you could define "God", and - yes - you're going to run into the "usual suspects" of challenges to omni-benevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[*SD*]

@JohnHeintz

 

[Sparhafoc]

2) is probably too complex and should be broken into two.

- prove that the deity you believe in exists
- prove that the deities you don't believe in don't exist

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thanks, SD, something else I need to learn to do.

2) is probably too complex and should be broken into two.

- prove that the deity you believe in exists
- prove that the deities you don't believe in don't exist

Spar, I would have thought that, in proving 1, a believer has tacitly proven the possibility of their own deity's existence - the real litmus test is to prove that one's own deity exists to the exclusion of all others.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[*SD*]

Thanks, SD, something else I need to learn to do.

No worries man. To tag someone so they get a notification just type @ and then start typing the persons name, a list of matches will appear and you select the relevant one. Handy feature

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thanks @*SD*.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

Spar, I would have thought that, in proving 1, a believer has tacitly proven the possibility of their own deity's existence - the real litmus test is to prove that one's own deity exists to the exclusion of all others.

I read 1) as proving it's reasonable to believe that such entities could plausibly exist.

So it would be:

1) Prove gods exist
2) Prove YOUR god exists
3) Prove other gods don't exist

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

​

 

[Sparhafoc]

​

And the reality is that if you were to actually somehow physically represent all the numerous forms of evidence for evolution, the size of the picture would be such that you wouldn't even be able to see the chap on the right.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I read 1) as proving it's reasonable to believe that such entities could plausibly exist.

So it would be:

1) Prove gods exist
2) Prove YOUR god exists
3) Prove other gods don't exist

*scrunches up face trying to work it out*

"Why does it all have to be so comp-li-ca-ted!"

My way's simpler, Spar.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

Oh it's your question time - please do feel free to pose them as you will!

 

[JohnHeintz]

Greetings,

In the Proving Macroevolution To A Creationist thread, JohnHeintz opined that a creator was on a par as a explanation for evolution, with the creator being "in the lead".

In order to hold up a deity as a explanation, you would first have to do the following:

1) Prove that it's possible for any deity to exist;
2) Having proven 1, prove that the deity In which you believe exists to the exclusion of all others;
3) Having proven 1 and 2, prove that said deity has anything to do with Nature;
4) Having proven 1, 2, and 3, prove that said deity has anything to do with the relevant religious ("holy") texts.

Before addressing 1 above, you'd first have to give a coherent definition of a deity.

So, John, if you could define "God", and - yes - you're going to run into the "usual suspects" of challenges to omni-benevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.

Kindest regards,

James

Wow. This is a post dedicated to me. Thanks. I'm flattered. Unfortunately this is going to be very short and I believe you are going to be unsatisfied.
As I have stated in the other thread, more than once and to Aron Ra before I joined league of reason........My disbelief in universal common ancestry has nothing to do with religion, gods, religious text or belief. Sorry. But I do not claim a religion.
I believe that a creator or God is possible and/ or plausible. I believe that multiverse is possible. I believe an afterlife is possible. I believe we could have a soul spirit or life force.
I believe that maybe the correct religious text is yet to be written. So sorry. I can't prove any of those things to you

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Then how can you claim that a creator is "in the lead" as a explanation?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

If I don't answer it's because I forgot to. So, evolved or God , on the salt water crocodilian.

At the moment I'd say either is possible, with a "creator" still in the lead.

So how then can you contend - even to yourself - that 'creator is in the lead' when you've got literally nothing at all to offer as any support?

Further, as I pointed out before: why are your requirements for evolution so demanding, so specific, so in need of evidence... if you don't bring anything like that level of scrutiny to your belief that a god created it all?

 

[JohnHeintz]

Greetings,

Then how can you claim that a creator is "in the lead" as a explanation?

Kindest regards,

James

Because I don't think that universal common ancestry is possible and or probable. I don't believe that one living organism became all the others in small increments over vast amounts of time. I don't think that random errors would change an ape like ancestor into a human being. We are too advanced too different.
Sure we are made of the same biological materials. However , chimps and humans allegedly came from this ancestor. One can speak , read, write, drive cars, build cities, perform surgery and explore space. The other is running around the jungle throwing and eating its own feces.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Because I don't think that universal common ancestry is possible and or probable.

But a human-like entity existing outside time and space who literally conjured the universe and all the complexity of life and interwoven webs of nature out of nothing.... seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[Sparhafoc]

However , chimps and humans allegedly came from this ancestor.

Correction: factually.

One can speak , read, write, drive cars, build cities, perform surgery and explore space. The other is running around the jungle throwing and eating its own feces.

Chimps aren't coprophages.

For the majority of human existence, there was no reading, writing, driving cars, performing surgery, or exploring space - didn't make us less human, thus these aren't diagnostic of being human.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Because I don't think that universal common ancestry is possible and or probable. I don't believe that one living organism became all the others in small increments over vast amounts of time. I don't think that random errors would change an ape like ancestor into a human being.

Your ignorance is not an argument.

 

[We are Borg]

But a human-like entity existing outside time and space who literally conjured the universe and all the complexity of life and interwoven webs of nature out of nothing.... seems perfectly reasonable.

They are afraid of death that is why its reasonable in there mind there must be more after death. To be fair i would like to see my mum and dad but i know it will never happen. If God would exist would we not be obligated to kill it what it has done. I have tried to read the Bible but what i have read God should be removed asap because God is being a prick.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The Christian God is a murderous, conceited asshole, but also LOVE!