Since this has come up numerous times in several other threads in the past, I thought I'd save time by posing the challenge here, officially, once and for all.
Many a creationist has alleged proof for the existence of God, whether as a challenge to evolution, or as a vindication of their belief in scripture. God is the creator, they say. God intelligently designed everything we see, they say. The proof is immanent, just look around you.
To which I would say, show me a single observable or testable instance of God in the act of creating or designing something.
I have asked this numerous times, but to no avail. I will not accept a quote from scripture. This is using the Bible to prove the Bible is true, which is circular logic. I will not accept an alleged logical proof of the existence of God. These are not predicated on any observation or empirical evidence, and are riddled with logical fallacies. I will only accept something that can be seen or tested experimentally.
As a reminder, attempting to find flaws in the theories of evolution, abiogenesis, or the Big Bang does not establish the validity of creationism by default. This means that arguments from incredulity are out, and a false dichotomy does not prove creationism. Evolution could be completely false. That does not mean God exists, or creationism is real. Creationism must be able to stand on its own, with its own evidence.
So, creationists, what have you got? I'm waiting.
Many a creationist has alleged proof for the existence of God, whether as a challenge to evolution, or as a vindication of their belief in scripture. God is the creator, they say. God intelligently designed everything we see, they say. The proof is immanent, just look around you.
To which I would say, show me a single observable or testable instance of God in the act of creating or designing something.
I have asked this numerous times, but to no avail. I will not accept a quote from scripture. This is using the Bible to prove the Bible is true, which is circular logic. I will not accept an alleged logical proof of the existence of God. These are not predicated on any observation or empirical evidence, and are riddled with logical fallacies. I will only accept something that can be seen or tested experimentally.
As a reminder, attempting to find flaws in the theories of evolution, abiogenesis, or the Big Bang does not establish the validity of creationism by default. This means that arguments from incredulity are out, and a false dichotomy does not prove creationism. Evolution could be completely false. That does not mean God exists, or creationism is real. Creationism must be able to stand on its own, with its own evidence.
So, creationists, what have you got? I'm waiting.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/XmPgib
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire