1. There is no credible scientific evidence that a creator was not or could not have been responsible for the beginning of the universe 2. We are therefore at least entitled to postulate the existence of such a being 3. Therefore Christianity and all the claims thereof (including the Bible) are true.
> 1. There is no credible scientific evidence that a creator was not or > could not have been responsible for the beginning of the universe > 2. We are therefore at least entitled to postulate the existence of such a > being > 3. Therefore Christianity and all the claims thereof (including the Bible) > are true.
On Jul 20, 9:56 pm, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 1. There is no credible scientific evidence that a creator was not or could
> not have been responsible for the beginning of the universe
> 2. We are therefore at least entitled to postulate the existence of such a
> being
> 3. Therefore Christianity and all the claims thereof (including the Bible)
> are true.
> On Jul 20, 7:50 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/20/08, Phillip Montgomery <phillipm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 1. There is no credible scientific evidence that a creator was not or > > > could not have been responsible for the beginning of the universe
> >Keith: I agree, and there is a great deal of evidence that some form of > intelligent > > design is a fact.
> > 2. We are therefore at least entitled to postulate the existence of > such a
> > > being
> > Keith: Or, by practicing a religious faith we may form a meaningful > relationship > > with the Creator.
> > 3. Therefore Christianity and all the claims thereof (including the > > Bible) are true.
> > What's wrong with this picture?
> > Keith: Conceivably containing truths is how I would put it.
> Fortunately sane people don't do that.
> Harry K
Keith: I think it is more reasonable to put it the way I did than to say the Bible is all literally true to the last crossed dotted "i," and crossed "t."
If you're trying to think of a way to explain what is wrong with this
to someone who doesn't immediately understand, I think it might prove
difficult.
Perhaps your best bet is just tossing out obviously fallacious
examples like:
1. There is no credible scientific evidence that a creator was not or
could
not have been responsible for the beginning of the universe
2. We are therefore at least entitled to postulate the existence of
such a
being
3. Therefore Islam and all the claims thereof (including the Koran)
are true.
On Jul 20, 6:56 pm, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 1. There is no credible scientific evidence that a creator was not or could
> not have been responsible for the beginning of the universe
> 2. We are therefore at least entitled to postulate the existence of such a
> being
> 3. Therefore Christianity and all the claims thereof (including the Bible)
> are true.
Dag Yo: I agree. I started this thread in an attempt to put more explicitly the way I suspect many of us already feel concerning ideas like intelligent design or young earth creationism in general. Put another way, there seems to be an implicit assumption among young earth creationists and ID aficionados that undermining an atheistic understanding of scientific theories like the evolution of species or the big bang they will somehow open the door for the validity of their particular religious view.
I would be more inclined to suspect that what the young earth creationist is actually doing is undermining atheistic understandings of science in order to remove some of the pressure they feel when they believe in Christianity, Islam, etc. in the face of scientific progress.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you're trying to think of a way to explain what is wrong with this > to someone who doesn't immediately understand, I think it might prove > difficult.
> Perhaps your best bet is just tossing out obviously fallacious > examples like:
> 1. There is no credible scientific evidence that a creator was not or > could > not have been responsible for the beginning of the universe > 2. We are therefore at least entitled to postulate the existence of > such a > being > 3. Therefore Islam and all the claims thereof (including the Koran) > are true.
> On Jul 20, 6:56 pm, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 1. There is no credible scientific evidence that a creator was not or > could > > not have been responsible for the beginning of the universe > > 2. We are therefore at least entitled to postulate the existence of such > a > > being > > 3. Therefore Christianity and all the claims thereof (including the > Bible) > > are true.
(1) The arguer jumps from a postulation to a truth. I can postulate
many things, but that doesn't make them true.
(2) The arguer jumps from the existence of a creator to Christianity
exclusively. By his argumentation, he could have equally have said
muslim, judaism, or any other religion which claims a creator.
(3) There is evidence in terms of negative evidence that would make a
creator most improbable. Therefore, it (arguably) becomes beyond
reasonable doubt that there was not a creator.
On Jul 21, 1:56 pm, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 1. There is no credible scientific evidence that a creator was not or could
> not have been responsible for the beginning of the universe
> 2. We are therefore at least entitled to postulate the existence of such a
> being
> 3. Therefore Christianity and all the claims thereof (including the Bible)
> are true.
On Jul 20, 8:56 pm, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 1. There is no credible scientific evidence that a creator was not or could
> not have been responsible for the beginning of the universe
> 2. We are therefore at least entitled to postulate the existence of such a
> being
> 3. Therefore Christianity and all the claims thereof (including the Bible)
> are true.
> What's wrong with this picture?
Here's what's wrong:
A) 1 and 2 describe an agnostic stance toward deism. Fine. I think
everyone here will be willing to concede agnosticism in deism as a not-
totally-insane stance.
B) Going from "deism" to "A three-in-one creator deity made a magic
garden with a talking snake and some people ate some fruit so they had
to leave, and then killed everyone on earth in a big flood so that
they all had to fuck their siblings to procreate, and then sent
himself down to be born of a virgin to sacrifice himself to himself to
spare his own creation from his own wrath" is not, in fact, supported.
