Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ikester7579

What Would It Take For A Evolutionist To Consider Creation?

Recommended Posts

It's a simple question. What would it take for a evolutionist to "consider" creation.

 

Consider = not a trap type question.

Believe or convert = a trap type question.

 

One has to ponder or consider something before changing their mind. So what would make a evolutionist ponder or consider creation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, no reply means no one would ever consider it. That must prove a biased crowd, eh?

 

 

 

 

Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/sarcasm on

 

 

NOTHING THE BIBLE IS WRONG BECAUSE IS THE BIBLE THEREFORE IT IS WRONG!!!!!! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

 

/sarcasm off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'm fairly open to creationism although it depends what you mean by it.

If you mean that a god created the whole universe and life as it is today then no i wouldnt be as open to it.

If you mean that a god started the universe and drew up the most basic life then sure.

 

By the way evolution isnt exclusive to creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way evolution isnt exclusive to creation.

72406[/snapback]

I am curious as to why you made this statement. I am usually the one telling darwin supporters that evolution is not exclusive to naturalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'm fairly open to creationism although it depends what you mean by it.

72406[/snapback]

Fair enough; and, in turn, it depends on what you mean by it as well.

 

If you mean that a god created the whole universe and life as it is today then no i wouldnt be as open to it.

72406[/snapback]

Why?

 

If you mean that a god started the universe and drew up the most basic life then sure.

72406[/snapback]

Again… Why?

 

 

By the way evolution isnt exclusive to creation.

72406[/snapback]

Don’t you mean exclusive to naturalism? Because, as the OP suggest, the question is asked of those who normally wouldn’t consider creationism, therefore, unless you’re a theistic evolutionists, you’ll usually not reconcile evolution with creationism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...isnt exclusive to creation.

72406[/snapback]

Depends on how you define creation. Darwin mentioned a creator in his works. But afaik that was limited to the initial creation of life.

Of course one can bend a narrative till it fits. A bigger problem for evolution would be the initial occurence of complex information as in the genome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'm fairly open to creationism although it depends what you mean by it.

If you mean that a god created the whole universe and life as it is today then no i wouldnt be as open to it.

If you mean that a god started the universe and drew up the most basic life then sure.

 

By the way evolution isnt exclusive to creation.

72406[/snapback]

And then if 'a god' could make matter out of nothing, and formed that matter into interlocking elements, and he used those elements to form life on a molecular scale--a cell of some type and RNA or DNA. ANd if he created a planet in a habitable position, and a sun which continuously burns without extinguishing, and make gravity.....

 

Why could not this God form man in his own image, as he is today, and bring a flood on the world like it's written...? Because it seems to me that to make all these things out of nothing takes unlimited power and wisdom.

 

Moreover, why would this 'clockmaker god' you posit not care for something that he put so much work into? Why would he not speak to the creation he created? Why would he do so much, and then just leave us behind wondering about our purpose, and what we are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a simple question. What would it take for a evolutionist to "consider" creation.

 

Consider = not a trap type question.

Believe or convert = a trap type question.

 

One has to ponder or consider something before changing their mind. So what would make a evolutionist ponder or consider creation?

72298[/snapback]

As people have said, this depends a lot of what you define as "creation".

 

There are three possible meanings I can relate to, and I'll treat them separately.

 

1. Creation of the universe. If there were some way to observe anything "before" the Planck time of the Big Bang, then I guess it might give us some clues. I'm agnostic (in the true sense of the word) about the creation of the universe, in that I think we may never be able to answer this question. I don't think either side has any evidence for their position. I do tend to lean towards a Big Bang / Big Crunch cycle however (purely because of 1LOT), but there are some interesting problems with it (like heat death).

 

2. Creation of the first living cell by supernatural means. Probably the one area where I have pondered the possibility of supernatural intervention. The current state of research is a bit of a hodge podge, where some researchers have solved some problems, but there are still a stack of problems to overcome. I don't see any of the problems as theoretically impossible (as many creationists claim). This is a fairly new area of research, so I imagine as the years go by, more of the problems will be solved (or perhaps shown to be actually impossible!) and the pendulum of my "strength of belief" will shift in one direction or the other.

 

3. Creation of species "after their kind". Well, given that I'm on this forum as an evolutionist, clearly I think the science overwhelmingly supports common descent, so no, I don't allow any room for special creation under this definition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'm fairly open to creationism although it depends what you mean by it.

If you mean that a god created the whole universe and life as it is today then no i wouldnt be as open to it.

If you mean that a god started the universe and drew up the most basic life then sure.

 

By the way evolution isnt exclusive to creation.

72406[/snapback]

I find it ironic that atheist will claim evolution is not religion. But as long as evolution gets to control how God did it, no problem ;) .

 

Also, creation is the "only" logical explanation of the first cause, or where matter came from. Because you guys cannot explain either without halfway invoking something that is not natural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it ironic that atheist will claim evolution is not religion. But as long as evolution gets to control how God did it, no problem  ;) .

 

Also, creation is the "only" logical explanation of the first cause, or where matter came from. Because you guys cannot explain either without halfway invoking something that is not natural.

72515[/snapback]

i have noticed that. i am on another christian forum and if the entire board went to pro evolution these athiest wouldnt post anymore.nobody to discuss or convince on evolution. they arent interested in christ ans they only post on that forum in the science section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As people have said, this depends a lot of what you define as "creation".

 

There are three possible meanings I can relate to, and I'll treat them separately.

 

1. Creation of the universe. If there were some way to observe anything "before" the Planck time of the Big Bang, then I guess it might give us some clues. I'm agnostic (in the true sense of the word) about the creation of the universe, in that I think we may never be able to answer this question. I don't think either side has any evidence for their position. I do tend to lean towards a Big Bang / Big Crunch cycle however (purely because of 1LOT), but there are some interesting problems with it (like heat death).

 

2. Creation of the first living cell by supernatural means. Probably the one area where I have pondered the possibility of supernatural intervention. The current state of research is a bit of a hodge podge, where some researchers have solved some problems, but there are still a stack of problems to overcome. I don't see any of the problems as theoretically impossible (as many creationists claim). This is a fairly new area of research, so I imagine as the years go by, more of the problems will be solved (or perhaps shown to be actually impossible!) and the pendulum of my "strength of belief" will shift in one direction or the other.

 

3. Creation of species "after their kind". Well, given that I'm on this forum as an evolutionist, clearly I think the science overwhelmingly supports common descent, so no, I don't allow any room for special creation under this definition.

72509[/snapback]

You do realize that you joined a YEC forum, correct? If you do not know what YEC is, it's deals with "literal Biblical creation". So what other type would we discuss?

 

So basically, whatever the Bible says, God did.

 

So we don't play a variations game here. We do allow other creation ideas and beliefs from our members. But the mods and admins basically agree with the forum ministry of YEC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have noticed that. i am on another christian forum and if the entire board went to pro evolution these athiest wouldnt post anymore.nobody to discuss or convince on evolution. they arent interested in christ ans they only post on that forum in the science section.

72516[/snapback]

That is how you tell when a atheist-evolutionist is faking his world view (christian-creationist or theistic evolutionist). They will claim such things but "never" post in the Christian sections. Their goal is cloak and dagger evangelism. They get to hide behind being a Christian, while supporting zeros views of it. Only what promotes the agenda of evolution evangelism.

 

What I find ironic as I often catch them here doing this, is that a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence would require so much deception to convince others. To me doing this means they admit to evolution being a untrue because it requires untruthfulness to promote it.

 

So basically it makes me laugh every time they do it. It just reconfirms what already know, and strengthens my faith that I don't have to deceive to convince others on what I believe.

 

Also, there are many parody Christian websites and forum popping up. Which again just proves my point that they know evolution is not true, so they have to use deception to convince people of it.

 

Example: A few weeks ago I went to a parody forum unknowingly. Within the first few posts I realized it as the owner was acting no where near what he was claiming as world view. I left telling him I knew what he was up to. It must of scared him that I figured it out so quickly and him just starting out with that forum. He e-mailed me and apologized and begged me to come back. I told him I was not interested, and that I knew his apology was not sincere. It was the way he wrote the e-mail that I knew he was baiting me appealing to my Christian side. He basically wanted to learn how I found him out so quickly.

 

When a person deals with this on an everyday bases, as I do. Spotting the bad guys becomes instinct more than anything else.

 

PM me the link to that forum and I'll tell you what's going on and if you are wasting your time there. Some forums, because of what they allow to be posted, are a total waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is how you tell when a atheist-evolutionist is faking his world view (christian-creationist or theistic evolutionist). They will claim such things but "never" post in the Christian sections. Their goal is cloak and dagger evangelism. They get to hide behind being a Christian, while supporting zeros views of it. Only what promotes the agenda of evolution evangelism.

 

What I find ironic as I often catch them here doing this, is that a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence would require so much deception to convince others. To me doing this means they admit to evolution being a untrue because it requires untruthfulness to promote it.

 

So basically it makes me laugh every time they do it. It just reconfirms what  already know, and strengthens my faith that I don't have to deceive to convince others on what I believe.

 

Also, there are many parody Christian websites and forum popping up. Which again just proves my point that they know evolution is not true, so they have to use deception to convince people of it.

 

Example: A few weeks ago I went to a parody forum unknowingly. Within the first few posts I realized it as the owner was acting no where near what he was claiming as world view. I left telling him I knew what he was up to. It must of scared him that I figured it out so quickly and him just starting out with that forum. He e-mailed me and apologized and begged me to come back. I told him I was not interested, and that I knew his apology was not sincere. It was the way he wrote the e-mail that I knew he was baiting me appealing to my Christian side. He basically wanted to learn how I found him out so quickly.

 

When a person deals with this on an everyday bases, as I do. Spotting the bad guys becomes instinct more than anything else.

 

PM me the link to that forum and I'll tell you what's going on and if you are wasting your time there. Some forums, because of what they allow to be posted, are a total waste of time.

72520[/snapback]

its a christian forum and i am mod there.like here we allow athiests.

 

they dont hide that fact from us. the users and mods will pick false theology out though that sight isnt strictly a yec type. but most members are that way.

 

you cant acess the science forum as a guest.you can read it but not post when you do join.

 

its here www.christiansforums.net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is how you tell when a atheist-evolutionist is faking his world view (christian-creationist or theistic evolutionist). They will claim such things but "never" post in the Christian sections. Their goal is cloak and dagger evangelism. They get to hide behind being a Christian, while supporting zeros views of it. Only what promotes the agenda of evolution evangelism.

 

What I find ironic as I often catch them here doing this, is that a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence would require so much deception to convince others. To me doing this means they admit to evolution being a untrue because it requires untruthfulness to promote it.

 

So basically it makes me laugh every time they do it. It just reconfirms what  already know, and strengthens my faith that I don't have to deceive to convince others on what I believe.

 

Also, there are many parody Christian websites and forum popping up. Which again just proves my point that they know evolution is not true, so they have to use deception to convince people of it.

 

Example: A few weeks ago I went to a parody forum unknowingly. Within the first few posts I realized it as the owner was acting no where near what he was claiming as world view. I left telling him I knew what he was up to. It must of scared him that I figured it out so quickly and him just starting out with that forum. He e-mailed me and apologized and begged me to come back. I told him I was not interested, and that I knew his apology was not sincere. It was the way he wrote the e-mail that I knew he was baiting me appealing to my Christian side. He basically wanted to learn how I found him out so quickly.

 

When a person deals with this on an everyday bases, as I do. Spotting the bad guys becomes instinct more than anything else.

 

PM me the link to that forum and I'll tell you what's going on and if you are wasting your time there. Some forums, because of what they allow to be posted, are a total waste of time.

72520[/snapback]

I hope this doesn't pertain to me ;) I'm just interested in the science, (since theology used to be the queen of the sciences)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that you joined a YEC forum, correct? If you do not know what YEC is, it's deals with "literal Biblical creation". So what other type would we discuss?

 

So basically, whatever the Bible says, God did.

72517[/snapback]

Ha! Yes. Yes I did realise that ;)

 

So, to answer the clarified question, "What would it take for an evolutionist to consider creation?", then my simple answer would be if that it agreed with the consensus scientific view on things like the age of the earth, and diversity of life forms.

 

There are excellent reasons why the scientific community doesn't take creationism seriously, and it has nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy, satanic influences, etc. It is purely because the facts point elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha! Yes. Yes I did realise that  ;)

 

So, to answer the clarified question, "What would it take for an evolutionist to consider creation?", then my simple answer would be if that it agreed with the consensus scientific view on things like the age of the earth, and diversity of life forms.

 

There are excellent reasons why the scientific community doesn't take creationism seriously, and it has nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy, satanic influences, etc. It is purely because the facts point elsewhere.

72529[/snapback]

Or perhaps it is because their interpretation of the "facts" lead elsewhere...

 

Perception plays a big role in Biology since it isn;t like maths where there is a clear cut, yes / no answer.. Biology is more "fluffy" in that interpretation of evidence is allowed thus leading to bias.

 

If the students of today were taught to critically evaluate ideas as well as the "science" behind evolution, instead of teaching them to blindly follow it, (I am a student, this is what they basically do)... I predict that there would be many less evolutionary scientists in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='zendra' timestamp='1306886258' post='72406']

Personally I'm fairly open to creationism although it depends what you mean by it.

 

Zendra,

 

May I point out that before you can be open to creationism, you must first be open to the existence of a Creator. If your worldview is that no Creator exists, then no evidence would ever persuade you that creatonism is true. Undeniable evidence of a Creator shoves the truth of His existence in one's face and proves him or her wrong. People do not love you when you prove them wrong.

 

 

If you mean that a god created the whole universe and life as it is today then no i wouldnt be as open to it.

If you mean that a god started the universe and drew up the most basic life then sure.

 

Why wouldn't you be open to it? It's becauseof of your worldview. Presently, you are heavily influenced by atheism/evolutionism. So, as I stated above, your worldview will not allow you to be open to it. Any evidnece presented to you will be interpreted through your worldview. Now understand, that as a Christian creationist young-earther, I have a worldview as well. And I will interpret evidence differently than you because our worldviews are different. So it comes down to which worldview is rational, nonarbitrary, consistent.

 

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has given an historical, literal account of how He created. Before you can accept this account, you must first accept God as Creator. But realize that without a Creator God, rational thought, reliability of senses and memory, laws of logic, uniformity of nature and absolute morality would not exist. Laws of logic and rational thought are not part of the physical universe. They are not physical. They can't come from reasonless, lifeless chemicals and molecules. Matter can't give you what it has not got to give.

 

Laws of logic must come from a mind that is logical. Rational thought must come from a rational mind. Absolute morality must come from a moral God. And uniformity of nature (that the physical laws are law-like and will not arbitrarily change) can only be guaranteed by a God who upholds the universe "by the word of His power," and promises uniformity of nature in Gen. 8:22 for example. The Christian creationist has a rational reason to believe these things within his worldview. The atheist evolutionist does not. When the atheist uses laws of logic, he is borrowing from the Christian worldview and is inconsistent, irrational and arbitrary with his worldview. And in doing so, he affirms that crationism is true and evolution false.

 

By the way evolution isnt exclusive to creation.

 

They are exclusive if you believe in a young earth and a global Flood. No old earther can believe in a global Flood. Old earth and global Flood are mutually esclusive. Adding a god to the mix will not resolve the dilemma. God promises uniformity of nature (that the physical laws in the future will be the same as in the past) in Genesis. But the theistic evolutionist does not accept a literal reading of Genesis. So he has no foundation or reason to believe that the future will reflect the past. If you don't have a rational reason to believe something, then your belief is arbitrary and can be true only by accident. I can believe that there are ten little red men inside the sun constantly twinking dials to regulate the heat of the sun. This belief would be arbitrary because i have no rational reason to believe it. Even if future space exploration does indeed prove that these men are in the sun, I had no reason to believe it and I could not know it was true.

 

But the theistic evolutionist will argue: "I believe that some passages in Genesis are to be taken literally." And now he is being inconsistent. Genesis is then "literal" when he needs it to be literal and not literal when he does not need it to be literal. His interpretation of Genesis is then arbitrary and inconsistent and he can't know it's true.

 

Your post was intriging to me and I had to answer it. I hope you will respond so we can dialogue.

 

TeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bible explains the process of creation

 

God formed man out of the soil. The many other details are listed in Genesis 1-2 and all throughout the Bible. What do you mean exactly? I don't think creation was a difficult science experiment God was trying to pull off. It was a simple matter of creating it just the way he wanted to. People who don't believe the Genesis account usually laugh at the idea of God doing it and mock it by saying "God dunnit", but I think in their case, you can just replace God with the word nothing and it sounds even more strange. Absolutely nothing did it, its magic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't seem to edit my post after a certain amount of time. I wanted to apologize for the way I worded my post. You many not believe the Genesis account and still believe God is responsible for creation. Its the people who don't believe in God that I was referring to.

 

I remember a time when I didn't even care about origins and any of this stuff. I didn't care how stuff happened. Evolution could have been true or the small stuff I heard about an Adam guy could have been. It didn't matter to me. Its probably because I was younger. I had never even heard of Jesus Christ. I may have heard the name in passing once or twice, but I knew absolutely nothing of who he was and thought nothing of the Bible. I even watched the whole Passion of the Christ movie with absolutely no idea what was going on. I kept asking my friends, who is this weird foreign guy getting beat up. They didn't even have an answer for me. They just said, "ya know, Jesus." I didn't know Jesus and never found out that day. Its weird how I didn't even care. Goes to show you how helpful that movie is lol. It might be for some people, but it didn't help to explain anything for me.

 

Then one day I started thinking about death as most people do in their life and I got that scared anxious feeling. I was thinking, why would God or the universe make us just to rot away forever. I started looking for answers about God and what was going to happen to me. I had always thought of myself as a great wonderful person who was nicer than all my selfish friends. I would think, God probably thinks I'm the nicest guy in the whole town. Anything wrong I would do, I'd just try to justify it by blaming God for all the unfair circumstances he subjected me to. I didn't get the girl I like or even when I lost in a video game, I'd say some crazy things. I'd cuss at God all the time and say if there is a place called hell, he's the one who deserves to go there. Sometimes I'd say sorry later in the day and think everything was dandy. I had done some really s*xually perverted things in my life too. Weird crap that I'd be embarrassed to talk about. I liked doing them when I did them and never thought about regretting those things.

 

Then when I was searching around the internet for answers to these God and death questions. I came to a list of the ten commandments on a website. I'd maybe heard of these things once, but never read them. I read them all and then they used a good example of how white a sheep looks against the grass. Then they said, imagine that sheep against the snow. It didn't look so white anymore. God's standard is perfection and like the whitest snow. I had always thought of myself like the sheep, so clean and innocent, but I was exposed by the truth of how much smarter and better God really was. I'd always thought God looked at me the way I wanted him to look at me, but he looks at me the way he wants to look at me. I thought about all those things I'd done wrong and how I tried to justify them and I was scared of God for once instead of thinking he was scared of my loud cussing voice. Then at the bottom of the page, it said to imagine your in a courtroom with all these charges against you and God is about to judge you for what you've done and sentence you to death, right as he's about to, some guy you don't even know comes in and pays for all your charges and your free to go. Not only free to go, but God was happy and forgot all about the charges. I thought, man, who on earth is this guy? He must have alot of money lol, but it was Jesus Christ, God's own son, who died for our sins, was buried, and brought back to life three days later, and then I finally got it. One day, were going to live with him and death won't be an issue anymore.

 

This might not have had much to do with creation and evolution, but I felt like sharing it and it shows how I came to know about the Bible and why it can be trusted, not only about Jesus, but about Genesis also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='Czroo' timestamp='1311866642' post='73462']

If the bible explains the process of creation

 

Czroo, I notice you're 25. I'm 76. I once was where you are right now. I went through the Vietnam War as an atheist. If I had not survived, I would now be in Hell awaiting judgment.

 

I must ask. Would you accept His explanation? May I give you some matters to ponder.

 

If God did give a detailed explanation, would we be able to read it in a life-time? Would we be able to understand it? I think not.

 

But we can use our rational minds given to us by God to reasonably conclude a few things:

 

A. The universe could not have created itself from nothing. Nothing can't cause something.

B. The universe could not have always been here. A fire can't burn forever.

C. So, my only conclusion is that a Supernatural Creator outside and prior to the universe created it.

 

The Apostle Paul wrote: "... because what may be known of God is manifest in them [unbelievers], for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being UNDERSTOOD BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE , even His eternal power and Godhead, so that THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE" (Eom. 1:19:20).

 

To read God's explanation of how He did it, you would have to assume a few things. You would have assume that your senses and memory are reliable. You would have to assume that there are laws of logic and that you can reason and reach truth. And you would have to assume that there is absolute morality. (We have a moral obligation to reason logically, Reasoning illogically would not enable us to reach truth.} But laws of logic and reasoning are not physical. They are not part of the physical universe. So in a worldview without a rational/logical Creator God, there is no rational reason to assume that laws of logic and reasoning can exist. Matter can't give you rational thought and laws of logic. Rational thought can't come from lifeless, reasonless chemicals. Most atheist are unaware that they are using God's gift of rational thought and laws of logic to argue against Him. This is tantamount to a man arguing that he does not believe in the existence of air, while breathing in air to make his argument.

 

TeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If God did give a detailed explanation, would we be able to read it in a life-time? Would we be able to understand it? I think not.

 

 

Why not?

 

Also, What would be the origins or reasons of the creator existence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not?

I don't think God gave us a long, complicated, and hard to understand process for his creation, because it wasn't a long, complicated, or hard to understand process at all. It was simple for God to create what he did and he did it just as he describes in Genesis. He created the things he describes by his thoughts and spoken words.

 

Also, What would be the origins or reasons of the creator existence?

Thats one of the best, weirdest, and most incomprehensible parts about God. He had no origins. He never came into existence. He created time itself and the creatures in that reality of time to learn about and experience who he is and how powerful he is, to reveal his love to us and lavish it on us, so that we would in turn love him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='Czroo' timestamp='1312075868' post='73502']

Why not?

 

Because man has been on Planet Earth for over 6,000 years, and we can't figure out just one of God's physical laws--gravity for example. And Scientists are more perplexed over the property fo light.

 

Why did you not respond to my last paragraph? Can you explain just one of the dilemmas I presented: As an atheist, who believes that nothing exists but matter, explain the existence of the laws of logic and rational thought? These things are not physical and are not part of the physical universe.

 

Also, What would be the origins or reasons of the creator existence?

 

Within each man there is rational thought. Rational thought is independent of nature, and not part of nature. Now one must ask: If rational thought is not dependent on nature, then what is it dependent on? Dependence on nature (the non-rational) undermines the credentials of rational thought. Rational thought does not exist on its own. It must have a rational Cause--some other reason for its exisence. We do not have to look far for a cause--our parents. Our parents owe their ability to reason from their parents and so on. Reason comes from reason at each stage. If is only when you are asked to believe in reason coming from non-reason (reasonless matter) that we must stop and ponder if this is possible. If you don't, then rational thought is discredited.

 

If reason can only come from reason, then we can logically conclude that for reasonn to exist, we have to find a Source or Being that is self-existent or exists on its own. What does existence on one's own mean? It means that kind of existence which atheist attribute to matter and creationists attribute to a Creator. What exists on its own must have existed from all eternity; for if anything could make it begin to exist, then it would not exist on its own but because of something else. it must also exist incessantly: that is, it can't cease to exist and then begin again. For having once ceased to be, it obviously could not recall itself to existence, and if anything else recalled it, it would then be a dependent being. Not even God can create Himself from nothing if He did not first exist.

 

So you asked what would be the origin of the Creator. For you and anything to exist, there has to be a Source that always existed. But I also want you to ponder another matter: To doubt the existence of a Creator God, you ASSUMED a few things. You assumed that there are laws of logic, and that you have a rational mind to use logic. You assumed that your ratonal mind could reach truth. You assumed that your senses and memory are reliable. You assumed that there is absolute morality. (Rational thought to reach truth is a moral obligation.) But in your worldview, you have no rational reason to believe that any of these things can exist. You are using God's laws of logic and your rational mind (given to you by God) to argue against God. In doing so, you actually affirm His existence and affirm your worldview to be irrational, arbitrary, and inconsistent.

 

TeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms