• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My challenge to creationists

arthwollipot said:
Or maybe, as I pointed out, he recognises it as a strawman and declined to engage with it.

Nah, he probably chickened out.
Click to expand...

Again, it's not a strawman if they're claiming creationism is a legitimate science, given that science is built on observation and testing. I'm simply asking them to put their money where their mouth is.
 
What I said before:

arthwollipot said:
No, it's not a good challenge, because I don't know of any creationists that believe that creation is ongoing. God did all of his creation in the six days of Genesis and that's it. So your challenge is impossible to fulfil.
Click to expand...

What you think creationists should think is not what creationists actually think.
 
In that case, I would ask them for an observable appearance of God, one that can be experimentally replicated. In other words, give me a sign. This God would have to be the same one that they allege created the world, and I would need this God to provide some evidence of that. So it's the same thing, just phrased differently. There's no rule that God can't go out of his way to create something today in order to prove that he originally created the world.
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
In that case, I would ask them for an observable appearance of God, one that can be experimentally replicated. In other words, give me a sign. This God would have to be the same one that they allege created the world, and I would need this God to provide some evidence of that. So it's the same thing, just phrased differently. There's no rule that God can't go out of his way to create something today in order to prove that he originally created the world.
Click to expand...
Uh-huh. Good luck with that. Deuteronomy 6:16, Matthew 4:7, Luke 4:12. You wouldn't recognise such a sign anyway. You need to ask with an open heart. Etc, etc. There are lots of ways to apologetically weasel out of such a challenge. Also, this is now a challenge to Christians, not just Creationists.
 
arthwollipot said:
What you think creationists should think is not what creationists actually think.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think that science is really very important to them (even if they would believe its findings - which they pretty much don't). If you can believe in an all-powerful, supernatural being, then pretty much everything can be believed. At last resort they can just say "well, this all-powerful supernatural being simply faked all the empirical evidence just to fool godless scientists"... etc. We can argue with them about science - and use ID for example as punching bag, but the hard-core believers are I think beyond reason, the very basis of their world view is to be beyond it.
 
arthwollipot said:
Uh-huh. Good luck with that. Deuteronomy 6:16, Matthew 4:7, Luke 4:12. You wouldn't recognise such a sign anyway. You need to ask with an open heart. Etc, etc. There are lots of ways to apologetically weasel out of such a challenge. Also, this is now a challenge to Christians, not just Creationists.
Click to expand...

To which I would reply, if that's the case then they should keep their beliefs to themselves and stop preaching them, since someone like myself would never be receptive to a sign of God in the first place. Seriously, why do they even bother engaging nonbelievers and skeptics, given that they know we're going to demand hard evidence?
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
To which I would reply, if that's the case then they should keep their beliefs to themselves and stop preaching them, since someone like myself would never be receptive to a sign of God in the first place. Seriously, why do they even bother engaging nonbelievers and skeptics, given that they know we're going to demand hard evidence?
Click to expand...
Because they love you, and don't want to see you burning in hell for all eternity. And allow me to point out - we are discussing your challenge to creationists. This was not them preaching to you, this was you challenging them. Why do you think they'd be any more receptive to your preaching than you are to theirs?
 
arthwollipot said:
Because they love you, and don't want to see you burning in hell for all eternity. And allow me to point out - we are discussing your challenge to creationists. This was not them preaching to you, this was you challenging them. Why do you think they'd be any more receptive to your preaching than you are to theirs?
Click to expand...

First, this challenge is mostly for reference, after having been confronted by several creationists already. It's my response to them. I believe I inferred that in the OP.

Second, there's still the inherent contradiction. If it's impossible for someone like me to recognize signs of God, or if God knew what it would take to convince me and refuses to do so himself, then what purpose does proselytizing serve? My argument is, maybe God doesn't want me to believe. Maybe he has his reasons, and who are they to question him?
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
First, this challenge is mostly for reference, after having been confronted by several creationists already. It's my response to them. I believe I inferred that in the OP.

Second, there's still the inherent contradiction. If it's impossible for someone like me to recognize signs of God, or if God knew what it would take to convince me and refuses to do so himself, then what purpose does proselytizing serve? My argument is, maybe God doesn't want me to believe. Maybe he has his reasons, and who are they to question him?
Click to expand...

It's obvious that god must have made you as an object lesson to the believers.
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
Second, there's still the inherent contradiction. If it's impossible for someone like me to recognize signs of God, or if God knew what it would take to convince me and refuses to do so himself, then what purpose does proselytizing serve? My argument is, maybe God doesn't want me to believe. Maybe he has his reasons, and who are they to question him?
Click to expand...

Maybe it isn't impossible, but just hasn't happened yet. Is there some rule that requires God to be efficient?
 
arthwollipot said:
No, it's not a good challenge, because I don't know of any creationists that believe that creation is ongoing. God did all of his creation in the six days of Genesis and that's it. So your challenge is impossible to fulfil.
Click to expand...

That is true of Young Earth creationists but NOT true of Old Earth creationists.

Progressive creationism, Theistic evolution, and Hindu creationism do NOT hold to the creation in the six days of Genesis idea.

In Hindu creationism the universe exists for one day of Brahma (4.32 billion years) and is destroyed as the end of the day. Brahma then rests for a night equal to the length of the day (4.32 billion years) and at the end of the night makes a new universe.

As Carl Sagan commented in his show Cosmos day and night of Brahma is "longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang"


Day-age creationism does hold to creation in the six days of Genesis idea but it uses Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 to argue a day of God is not one of our 24-hour days but longer--in the range of thousands if not millions of years.

Cosmic Time is Day-age creationism on steroids with one "day" being 2.5 billion Earth years and the whole "six days" lasting 15 billion Earth years.

So when talking about creationists remember not all of them are part of the young Earth group.
 
Last edited:
maximara said:
That is true of Young Earth creationists but NOT true of Old Earth creationists.

Progressive creationism, Theistic evolution, and Hindu creationism do NOT hold to the creation in the six days of Genesis idea.

In Hindu creationism the universe exists for one day of Brahma (4.32 billion years) and is destroyed as the end of the day. Brahma then rests for a night equal to the length of the day (4.32 billion years) and at the end of the night makes a new universe.

As Carl Sagan commented in his show Cosmos day and night of Brahma is "longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang"


Day-age creationism does hold to creation in the six days of Genesis idea but it uses Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 to argue a day of God is not one of our 24-hour days but longer--in the range of thousands if not millions of years.

Cosmic Time is Day-age creationism on steroids with one "day" being 2.5 billion Earth years and the whole "six days" lasting 15 billion Earth years.

So when talking about creationists remember not all of them are part of the young Earth group.
Click to expand...
Old Earth Creationists don't believe that God is continuing to create on a day-to-day basis, hence they still fall within the scope of my argument.
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
Second, there's still the inherent contradiction. If it's impossible for someone like me to recognize signs of God, or if God knew what it would take to convince me and refuses to do so himself, then what purpose does proselytizing serve? My argument is, maybe God doesn't want me to believe. Maybe he has his reasons, and who are they to question him?
Click to expand...
God wants you to come to him of your own free will. It's not real obedience and worship if it's coerced.

Of course, you are free to choose an eternity of torture if you really want to. But why would you want to do that? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom