Evidence for creationism

[GhostWriter16]

I don't believe in any sort of millennial teachings. Jesus left his footprints behind on the hill where he departed and he is highly unlikely to be coming back.

Do you even believe he rose again?

And, he said he was coming back, so if he wasn't then he lied.

 

[Arakhor]

As the Christ, he was capable of healing the sick, cleansing lepers, casting out demons and even raising the dead; I have no trouble in accepting that he also rose from the dead.

However, he spoke in parables and constantly berated his disciples for not understanding him. He was probably talking about the Christ-spirit, which descended upon the disciples at the Pentecostal feast and allowed them to carry out their missionary work unimpeded.

 

[GhostWriter16]

As the Christ, he was capable of healing the sick, cleansing lepers, casting out demons and even raising the dead; I have no trouble in accepting that he also rose from the dead.

Well that's certainly a good thing

Otherwise we worship a dead man

However, he spoke in parables and constantly berated his disciples for not understanding him. He was probably talking about the Christ-spirit, which descended upon the disciples at the Pentecostal feast and allowed them to carry out their missionary work unimpeded.

How do you know that though? Why do you think his return could not be a literal event?

Also, it wasn't Christ at all, it was the Holy Spirit that came.

 

[Arakhor]

I don't know that at all. I'm just speculating based on what I was taught in church. I see no reason at all that he would ever return, not least because of all the horrifying things carried out in his name. If I believed in Satan, I might well be convinced that the Devil has usurped God's place and is whispering poison, dressed up as scripture, to various allegedly Christian groups.

In Christian Science, we keep a strict boundary between physical impressions of mortality and error and the spiritual manifestation of God and his children. Hence, the Christ-spirit could easily have returned and blessed the disciples, without Jesus ever returning in the flesh.

(I say 'we', but as PS noted, I lapsed over 10 years ago.)

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't know that at all. I'm just speculating based on what I was taught in church. I see no reason at all that he would ever return, not least because of all the horrifying things carried out in his name. If I believed in Satan, I might well be convinced that the Devil has usurped God's place and is whispering poison, dressed up as scripture, to various allegedly Christian groups.

Why don't you believe in Satan?

In Christian Science, we keep a strict boundary between physical impressions of mortality and error and the spiritual manifestation of God and his children. Hence, the Christ-spirit could easily have returned and blessed the disciples, without Jesus ever returning in the flesh.

Not really sure what Christian Science is. From what I've heard (Though I don't know much about it) its actually a cult and not a Christian denomination.

 

[Ajidica]

Not really sure what Christian Science is. From what I've heard (Though I don't know much about it) its actually a cult and not a Christian denomination.

What makes a cult different from an actual denomination?

 

[Arakhor]

Don't be rude, Domination. It's like saying, "I don't know who you are, Dommy, but I've heard you're a moron." How about actually doing some research before posting next time?

I don't believe in Satan, because the existence of a powerful, malignant entity able to challenge God is completely incompatible with my belief that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and infinitely forgiving.

But comparative theology is not answering the thread title - evidence for creation. Please provide some.

 

[Murky]

Why don't you believe in Satan?

Why not? Cheney is still alive isn't he?

 

[Ajidica]

It is quite obvious there isn't. Any evidence for creationism is only found because they are looking for something to support their preconcieved viewpoint rather than through an empirical study.

 

[Murky]

About the only reasonable argument for creationism is that the universe exists and there had to be something that created it. That doesn't imply it was the God of the Bible, Thor or Zeus or anything else invented by man to explain it. It is an unknown and will likely remain a mystery for a long time.

 

[warpus]

About the only reasonable argument for creationism is that the universe exists and there had to be something that created it. That doesn't imply it was the God of the Bible, Thor or Zeus or anything else invented by man to explain it. It is an unknown and will likely remain a mystery for a long time.

But how reasonable is such an argument when it doesn't attempt to explain how the supposed creator was created?

 

[Miles Teg]

About the only reasonable argument for creationism is that the universe exists and there had to be something that created it. That doesn't imply it was the God of the Bible, Thor or Zeus or anything else invented by man to explain it. It is an unknown and will likely remain a mystery for a long time.

But that's not Creationism, or at least that's not the Yong Earth Creationist "All science textbooks are wrong and Jesus rode a dinosaur to the rodeo" level of idiocy generally associated with the C word.

 

[Murky]

But how reasonable is such an argument when it doesn't attempt to explain how the supposed creator was created?

It's an infinity of unknowns. We do know the matter cannot be created by anything we can do within the universe so something had to of existed outside of it that created it. We have no way of knowing what that is so it remains an unknown. It could be a non-intelligent accident of metaphysics for all we know.

 

[Murky]

But that's not Creationism, or at least that's not the Yong Earth Creationist "All science textbooks are wrong and Jesus rode a dinosaur to the rodeo" level of idiocy generally associated with the C word.

You have to separate Biblical creationism(and other mythology) from the type that is derived from facts and logical reasoning.

 

[Miles Teg]

You have to separate Biblical creationism(and other mythology) from the type that is derived from facts and logical reasoning.

I don't think such a thing really exists (That's why I'm an atheist). I mean, if you believe in God because you don't understand how life could have formed without a designer, or don't understand how the Universe could be anything other than created by some intelligence, you're just begging to have your faith knocked down in twenty or thirty years by scientific advances. That intellectual posture is called the "God of Gaps" for good reason, because if your answer to every big, mysterious fact of life that you don't understand is "God did it", God keeps getting smaller every year. Perhaps 300 years ago we needed God to explain where lightning came from and why the seasons changed, but we've moved past that point.

 

[warpus]

It's an infinity of unknowns. We do know the matter cannot be created by anything we can do within the universe so something had to of existed outside of it that created it.

That doesn't follow. You're assuming too much.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't think such a thing really exists (That's why I'm an atheist). I mean, if you believe in God because you don't understand how life could have formed without a designer, or don't understand how the Universe could be anything other than created by some intelligence, you're just begging to have your faith knocked down in twenty or thirty years by scientific advances. That intellectual posture is called the "God of Gaps" for good reason, because if your answer to every big, mysterious fact of life that you don't understand is "God did it", God keeps getting smaller every year. Perhaps 300 years ago we needed God to explain where lightning came from and why the seasons changed, but we've moved past that point.

No, we don't need God to explain those things, but we have to explain where the SCIENCE that ALLOWS lightning came from in the first place. Even if you believe in evolution, you should still believe in God because those concepts had to have been created by God.

 

[Ajidica]

So then God is simply another name for natural and scientific law?

 

[emzie]

So then God is simply another name for natural and scientific law?

Praying to the electromagnetic force for your personal problems doesn't sound like it'd bring much comfort.

 

[Haseri]

But why the Abrahamic god? The Hindu gods are much older. Or what about the various gods around the fertile cresent? They would have been the first ones proper. Or whatever early homo sapiens believed in (we know they believed in something, because we have found proper burials in Israel)?

What makes you so right?